bit-gamer.net

BioShock: Graphics & Performance

Comments 1 to 25 of 58

Reply
Jamie 30th August 2007, 12:48 Quote
Really gutted that the xbox 360 version is dx9, the water sounds like it looks much better in dx10
DougEdey 30th August 2007, 12:50 Quote
Agree with Jamie. /me is upset.

But they did completely redesign the water engine from the ground up, I can see why!
wuyanxu 30th August 2007, 13:26 Quote
PC gaming FTW!

nice to see you didn't get tricked by Bioshock's Vista Dx10-but-Dx10-is-diabled Dx9 mode
Ramble 30th August 2007, 13:27 Quote
What sort of frames do you get with mid range stuff on HQ?
Tim S 30th August 2007, 13:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramble
What sort of frames do you get with mid range stuff on HQ?

I recall the 8600 GTS was getting around 25-30fps (and was pretty choppy) at 1280x1024 with DX10. :)
TomD22 30th August 2007, 13:32 Quote
I wonder if you could provide a little detail on the effects of "force global lighting"?

I've had it off since I read at some point (I forget where, possibly the widescreengamers forum) that this actually reduces the lighting quality - forces static global lights as opposed to having dynamic lights, which would make sense actually seeing as it's disabled by default even if you choose the highest graphics quality settings. But your review suggests that it's better to turn it on. Just curious who's right, and whether you investigated the difference in-game between the two :)
Ramble 30th August 2007, 13:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by TomD22
I wonder if you could provide a little detail on the effects of "force global lighting"?

I've had it off since I read at some point (I forget where, possibly the widescreengamers forum) that this actually reduces the lighting quality - forces static global lights as opposed to having dynamic lights, which would make sense actually seeing as it's disabled by default even if you choose the highest graphics quality settings. But your review suggests that it's better to turn it on. Just curious who's right, and whether you investigated the difference in-game between the two :)

That's correct, global lighting makes the game look worse, but it does improve performance.
Tim S 30th August 2007, 13:40 Quote
I actually felt the game looked better with it turned on and I saw lower performance with it turned on too. :)

Image quality is all subjective of course, but during the bits I tested, it was more intensive with it on than off.
GamingHobo 30th August 2007, 14:03 Quote
Frankly I'm more than happy to sacrifice a few water effects for the 360 version. I still think it's the definitive version of the game, i.e. the way the game was designed to be played - as evidenced by the balance of difficulty. Moreover, if the original FOV was the one the developers decided on then that's the one I want to use, not the one decided upon by some widescreen zealots who got themselves in a tizzy because it's not what *they* wanted.
CardJoe 30th August 2007, 14:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GamingHobo
Frankly I'm more than happy to sacrifice a few water effects for the 360 version. I still think it's the definitive version of the game, i.e. the way the game was designed to be played - as evidenced by the balance of difficulty. Moreover, if the original FOV was the one the developers decided on then that's the one I want to use, not the one decided upon by some widescreen zealots who got themselves in a tizzy because it's not what *they* wanted.

"The way it was meant to be played?" Don't get me started on this arguement again, mr Nvidia :P

FPS games naturally lend themselves to a PC, it is what the ex-looking glass team has experience in, it's what previous games they have done have been on (like System Shock 2, which was very similar to BioShock).

However, given that there are optimisations for the game under different platforms and that the game is still enjoyable under both, I'd take it that BioShock didn't really have an intended primary platform. It was made for both. Saying it was made for the 360 only implies that the PC version was an afterthought for the developers and that it gives a lesser experience to the PC version, which is blatantly not true.

Don't make me come over there...(really, I just had lunch and I can't be arsed to walk around my desk right now...)
Bindibadgi 30th August 2007, 14:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CardJoe
the ex-looking glass team (System Shock 2, which was very similar to BioShock).

/strokes ex-looking glass employees.
kenco_uk 30th August 2007, 14:21 Quote
Last para - page 6 - "does a good job of creating the a realistic-looking shadow" - omit 'a'.

Nice review :) I wonder if there'll be a re-release of the game without securom in the near future?
CardJoe 30th August 2007, 14:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
/strokes ex-looking glass employees.

NO! *slaps bindi*

THEY'RE MINE!
Bindibadgi 30th August 2007, 14:35 Quote
Oi! Respect your elders!

/bundles them into a bag and takes them home.
xion 30th August 2007, 14:43 Quote
I agree that the world detail is pretty damn good, But there seem to be some pretty big oversights... Anyone else think the NPC's ("Actors") seem, well, rough... for want of a better word, the detail is really lacking there, and the ragdoll dead NPC's twitch like there're leaves in the wind. The distortion effect of the water/window barrier is so in your face false it takes the shine off the obvious effort used throughout the rest of the levels. Dont get me wrong i think the concept is great, and will be playing this for some time, it just didn't feel polished.

Perhaps it was all the hype, but i was expecting my lowly e6400/2gb/x1950pro to run home crying instead of playing at max with decent FPS. (hey not complaining!) although not all of us have a 30" tft to play it on... 1280*1024 will have to do me 'till funds allow ::P
Tim S 30th August 2007, 14:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by kenco_uk
Last para - page 6 - "does a good job of creating the a realistic-looking shadow" - omit 'a'.

Thanks for picking that one up... one we missed :o
Quote:
Nice review :) I wonder if there'll be a re-release of the game without securom in the near future?

I dunno, we can only hope I guess :)
Ramble 30th August 2007, 14:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by xion
The distortion effect of the water/window barrier is so in your face false it takes the shine off the obvious effort used throughout the rest of the levels. Dont get me wrong i think the concept is great, and will be playing this for some time, it just didn't feel polished.

I wouldn't say in your face but I can't recall water every actually behaving like that.
CardJoe 30th August 2007, 14:55 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bindibadgi
Oi! Respect your elders!

/bundles them into a bag and takes them home.

NOOOOOOOOOOOoooooo! :'(
Seraphim Works 30th August 2007, 14:56 Quote
Curiosity and lack of desire to download an enormous demo on a 0.5mb connection means I'm forced to ask this.
Has anyone got any idea how this will play with the following at 1680 x 1050?

x1950pro
2gb
*mutters something about a p4 at 3.2ghz and scurries away*

Is it worth my while, or should I just wait until I finally get hold of a new mobo and a q6600 (Finally, CAD rendering won't be a mission)?
Awoken 30th August 2007, 15:45 Quote
I have a similar setup and it plays okay (a little choppy in places) with everything turned up to high. If you're willing to sacrifice a few effects it would speed things up.
Awoken 30th August 2007, 15:47 Quote
A 8800GTS 320mb would be a better upgrade than a Q6600 for gaming. The CPU upgrade won't boost things by much (8-14fps).
Seraphim Works 30th August 2007, 16:04 Quote
I'll agree, for gaming I'd drop the money on possibly even an 8800gtx, rather than the mobo and the Q6600. In an instant.

However, I'm doing more and more CAD work with software rendering, as well as transcoding dvds, music etc. Dropping money on a new graphics card leaves me on a mobo with no upgrade path other than a pentium D, which isn't going to happen.

In terms of Bioshock, I'll wait a few weeks, and grab the demo at uni to try out. JANET all the way!
Carbon_Arc 30th August 2007, 16:43 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seraphim Works
Curiosity and lack of desire to download an enormous demo on a 0.5mb connection means I'm forced to ask this.
Has anyone got any idea how this will play with the following at 1680 x 1050?

x1950pro
2gb
*mutters something about a p4 at 3.2ghz and scurries away*

Is it worth my while, or should I just wait until I finally get hold of a new mobo and a q6600 (Finally, CAD rendering won't be a mission)?

I have the same setup (albeit with an AMD X2 4400). It defaulted to everything on high, and at 1680x1050 it's ok, little slow at times, but generally playable. I knocked it down to 1440x900 (Use the ATI CCC to set 1:1 pixel scaling to give you native res with 1" ish black borders) and it runs super-super smooth.

Not sure how much the dual core is helping though....
steveo_mcg 30th August 2007, 16:51 Quote
I was actually surprised how well the demo ran on mine, a 939 x2 4*00 (cant remember) but then my little 19" wide is less than a match for my 8800. I guess most games these days are gfx limited, well apart from supcom the killer of systems.
DarkLord7854 30th August 2007, 17:38 Quote
There was only one DX9 card tested.. kinda lame =\
I don't think more then 50% of members have DX10 cards, why not include some tests with like a 7900 and some of the ATI cards as well which are DX9 only but still fairly recent
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums