What is Digg?72 Comments
- LiamIsOnFire, on 10/10/2007, -3/+42http://www.bit-tech.net/content_images/2007/08/bioshock_gameplay_graphics_and_performance/3l.jpg
Did anybody else think the lights on the back of this gun looked like they said "lol"? - Roger, on 10/10/2007, -1/+14FYI you can play BioShock almost perfectly on pre SM 3.0 (i.e. old) video cards with an unofficial hack: http://kimpix.net/2007/08/22/bioshock-can-run-on-old-graphics-cards/
- michaelaranda, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10It was my understanding from reading the game manual that 'global lighting' would take away from the visual experience of the game. The manual reads:
"Global Lighting
This enables a one-pass inaccurate lighting method for dynamic objects, characters and dynamic lights. This will also mean that characters and dynamic objects won't receive shadows (although they can still cast shadows if shadow maps are enabled). This is most observable on characters. As they walk around the level light influences will pop on/off when approach/leave lights."
Yet, in this article, they say:
"The high preset curiously isn't maximum quality as global lighting is set to "off" when you set the graphics slider to "high". Additionally, the low setting isn't the minimum settings either – this time global lighting is enabled (rather bizarrely)..."
So, I'm pretty sure someone is mixed up, as this article has the setting enabled for its "maximum" graphics setting. - s1mph0ny, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10ATI is owned by AMD.
- shredswithpiks, on 10/10/2007, -0/+9it is.
- Bara, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10I think Tweakguide's Bioshock guide is vastly superior to this. At least they got what Global Lighting meant: http://www.tweakguides.com/Bioshock_1.html
- BrutusCirrus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8I couldn't stop staring at it :P
- totorototoro, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10Amazingly indepth article...nice pics too.
The one thing I would quibble with is his argument about the copy protection-while he respects people's opinions on boycotting games that employ such measures, he basically says the game is so good, that its worth overlooking in this case. I would argue that its EXACTLY the great games that need to be brought forth as an example, and that shouldn't be given a free pass. - scabbers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7I call ***** on his explanation. It makes it look worse, and if he thinks otherwise his whole article is suspect.
- MikeSobe, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I noticed this as well. Global Lighting does in fact make the lightning not as realistic. It might look better to some people but it is not as realistic.
Check out the bottom of the Tweakguide page and you can see the difference.
http://www.tweakguides.com/Bioshock_5.html - cybernetic798, on 10/10/2007, -2/+8One problem that all the articles on Bioshock PC version fail to mention though are the absolutely insane number of bugs it has. No, I am not talking about the Widescreen issue, the lack of anti-aliasing, the annoying mouse acceleration, or Securom. I'm talking about real bugs that cause the game to crash...randomly and all the time, or cause sound to not function at all, or cause black boxes to appear in the screen, etc.
In fact, 2K has a Sticky thread in their Bioshock Technical Support forum for Oustanding PC Problems that are not the above issues I mentioned. IT IS 129 PAGES LONG! And it grows by about 10-15 pages a day! http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6642&page=129 After all this, we've still had no word on whether they will look into it, or anything like that. It is absolutely unacceptable for a tier-1 game to be so broken, especially when many of these people pre-ordered the game. - ElRayQuieres, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Yeah, global lighting disables shadows, or some shadows anyway.
- modifiedbears, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8I noticed you didn't mention the screen size of the PC monitor. I'm guessing it was in the 20"-30" range, maybe even smaller than that. Regardless it doesn't take a genius to figure out a lower resolution on a bigger screen isn't going to look as good as a higher resolution on a small screen. This whole PC versus console argument is so tired. Just play whatever the ***** you can afford and/or makes you happy.
- Firehed, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Go to ati.com and see where you end up. He meant AMD.
- scabbers, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5"The light reflections on the character's hand are also a little less washed out with global lighting enabled. "
Hm? I thought enabling global lighting was a lower quality option? - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -5/+9I have played this game on the PC and seen it played on the 360 on a 52 inch TV. I have to say that the PC version does look better. The 360 version has a bit of tearing and aliasing issues but looks good otherwise.
- Stonedonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4"In fact, the gameplay was so much quicker that areas of the game that had previously taken us twenty minutes on the Xbox 360 version were now zipping past in half the time."
I think this actually has a lot to do with the PC version's default movement speed. You're either running or you're standing still, while the 360 version offers a fine degree of control in that department. Still, the mouse/KB combo is best for aiming at the beasties, which is important when you're limited on ammo -- and you will be when you play on the highest difficulty. - FutureGuy, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4humm, that is true if you plan to use user HD"TV" only to play games.
- Namco, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4It's not broken for me. Haven't had one black box or crash. I'd say that a handful out of millions ain't bad.
- chris9902, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4I want to go 150mph.
- Stonedonkey, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4Yeah, I had a problem where changing the resolution caused the game to crash to the desktop every time, and I would lose all my settings -- and I was using the recommended drivers. I snagged a copy of the 360 version and never looked back.
- Ramble, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4£200 for the Xbox360 + 600 for a HDTV.
You could build a PC for that easily. - jseres, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I love bit tech =)
- kiddcode, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Am I the only person who doesn't see any difference between the DirectX 9 screenshots and the DirectX 10 ones? I put them in tabs side by side, rapidly clicked back and forth, and I see nothing different except aliasing effects -- which should have nothing to do with whether you're using 9 or 10. The only pics where I see differences at all are the water ones.
- Dotdotdot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2AMD bought and owns ATI, or something like that.
- DarkLeon, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2This game has very high requirements, but I've played it at a friend, and i got to say. The gameplay and graphics are brilliant! Only thing that annoyed me was the lack of Anti Aliasing.
- matrox212, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3The Xbox 360 doesn't require an HDTV. You can play it on a monitor. I'm talking about the core system, not displays.
- geartype2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have to agree, I strained pretty hard to see the difference for the particle effects(smoke clouds) and couldn't see it. Water made a huge difference, although, I have dx9 and I remember my water looking like the dx10 water... maybe it's just my imagination.
Oh well, I'm sure the benefits of dx10 be more obvious in the near future, for now this is only a small taste. - orph3us, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1the differences might be small, but what dx9 cards run this well with all settings up? my 7800gt runs like crap at 1280x1024. And without the high quality shaders and bloom lighting, the game loses a lot of atmosphere and thats what this game is really about.
- Wytefang, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In this case, you'd be wrong then. ;)
- goldfenix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Well don't I feel like an ass for not keeping up with tech news. And to think I used to own AMD stock even.
/me whaps himself on the back of the head - Epik, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1DIY PC is cheaper than Xbox 360 for the same amount of money but not the PS3.
- Wytefang, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's totally subjective - there's no real way to know what the percentages are of people facing bug issues (or at least serious bug issues). Also, you have to take into account the whole 'vocal minority' syndrome that's so prevalent in gaming these days. (e.g. one small crowd of vociferous anti-fans or disgruntled whiners make ANY problem seem far larger than it really is in the hopes that their griping will cause some kind of immediate fix to be issued, when frequently most of these issues are based entirely on the fact that these bozos haven't updated their drivers in 2 years or they tried to run the game on a system FAR below minimum specs out of desperation OR (the lamest situation of this bunch) they're running a million programs in the background or have viruses or spyware on their system but instead they've decided to blame the developers. If you fall into any of these categories, please turn in your PC, keyboard, mouse, and monitor - you're too stupid to be involved in PC gaming in the first place. Go try a nice console. Thanks. ;)
- n0c0ntr0l, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Just want to mention the fact that single core processors will see a vast bottleneck in performance regardless of whether they have a good card or no. I have a 8800GTX with a 377 and get 60fps max.
- xSEED, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2no major difference between dx9 and dx10
- n0c0ntr0l, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Hehe.... the moment i close bioshock, having finished it, this is what I see.
- Wytefang, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1And you could just as easily refute that comment by saying the same for PCs - they're not just for games either. Regardless of what you use the HDTV for, which is not at all the point here, it'll still cost you more than console players frequently claim to play on consoles. That's why the whole "PCs are more expensive!" argument fails to hold water entirely. It's simply untrue.
- Dotdotdot, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1This is one of the most interesting articles about BioShock I have seen in a while.
And the water in DX10 looks really, really good in their screenshots. - dutchdude15, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1lol
- hollismb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yeah, I'm really sensative to tearing in 360 games, and don't notice any with the default 'lock framerate' settings, which keeps V-sync turned on. I turned it off for about five seconds and it looked like crap.
- nonymous666, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The particle effects differences don't come across very well in screenshots. Much better in game when things are moving.
- krazykor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Honestly, i dont find that to be true; i was worried about running out of ammo on harder difficulties so i've been using the wrench a lot more. If you just use the tonics that increase wrench power and time your swings right you can take out thugs and spiders without taking damage. Leadheads - telekinesis.
- Vryz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Decent comparison except for the slip up on global lighting. It is indeed a lower quality option. See the difference here:
http://www.tweakguides.com/Bioshock_5.html - Dan050, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I liked the review but the comparison between DX9 and DX10 is and will be for a long time, maybe the most stupid thing I have ever read. The comparison itself is good, but for the cost of Vista and a new Graphics card the differences are so small you can bearly see them. The particle effects look almost 100% the same to me and the water reflections only slightly change. If this is all the difference bettween the two I don't feel bad about sticking to DX9 for now.
- hollismb, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I almost never even fire a shot on Medium difficulty. I only use weapons against the Big Daddies, and maybe the occasional camera that I can't hack because it's up too high. It's pretty much Electro Bolt + Wrench, almost all the time. Add in a little Incendiary and Telekinesis, and that's pretty much all I use.
- Wytefang, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ah but it does if you're going to tout its ability to try and compare graphically (in a positive way) with a high-end PC. If you're going to throw out there that you don't really need the HDTV, thus making the cost of a console system cheaper, then you really can't tout how it provides the same graphics for less money. Can't have your cake and eat it too, sorry dude.
- nonymous666, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1They've got a couple screenshots at gamespot that show with / without global lighting. Global lighting is DEFINITELY worse.
- dukeochutney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1not really sure why we're debating the tech aspect of Bio Shock. it started out on PC and what a surprise its a first person shooter thats better on PC. i read 1 paragraph that was whining about the difficulty. sorry its so hard to get head shots on consoles hence fps are superior on PC. buried for spam
- MatttK, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I still haven't been able to advance to level 2 cause I have the crash on medical pavillion load bug. :(
- orph3us, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I have seen some pretty big (still not big to most people) differences in particle and shadows. With particles, its not shown in this article very well, but they blend in a lot better with the environment. I saw one article where a tuft of smoke comes out of a couch after shooting it. In DX9 the smoke is cut off where the couch goes up and it doesn't look natural. In DX10 it looks smooth all the way across rising with the couch and being smooth all around. Small detail, but along with anti aliasing (which also only works with deferred lighting with DX10 cards, although not DX10 itself yet) it adds to the overall atmosphere. As for shadows, they are a lot crisper, appearing more realistic. Small differences, but they change the immersiveness of the game.. Its not as big as Microsoft might want you to believe, but it's just as big of a difference as DX8 to DX9. Time will tell if developers can squeeze any more out of DX10. Personally, I'm running a geforce 7800gt and my framerate is horrible with settings turned up, but I'm not sure if I am ready to plunk down the money on an 8800, so I'm gonna wait til November/December and get an 8800 at reduced price or the next gen series of cards (hopefully AMD/ATI puts something better than the 2900 by then). my 2 c
-
Show 51 - 70 of 70 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 