Bioshock looks dreadful on PS3

RoachycaL said:
http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/BioShock/BioShockDemo_01_360.png

http://yoda.dip.jp/Game/BioShock/BioShockDemo_01_PS3.png

I'm sorry but anyone who thinks the 360 version is just sharper needs their eyes testing - the textures look a lot better imo. And there's also the jaggies...
Click to expand...

There is next to no difference in the textures. The blur on the PS3 version gives the illusion of less detailed textures. Take a screenshot on your PC and blur is slightly in photoshop and you will see the same effect. Also due to the blur there appears to be less jaggies on the PS3 version. Note that neither version uses AA and both render at 1280x720.

Here is something interesting too - http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=351413&postcount=93
 
Last edited:
Looks the same difference as GTA4 on the 360 and the PS3. On my TV running at 720p the 360 version looks way sharper. What causes this?
 
Last edited:
I would say the difference is less-so than GTAIV. But there is a small difference.

That downed big daddy looks so terrible it's clearly a mistake, there is no way the PS3 is so short on ram it would have to utilize textures that belong in the PS1 era of gaming. I hope it is limited to the demo only (the devs don't mention if its a demo problem or a full game problem?) or it really is evidence of a terrible porting process. How could they miss textures THAT poor?
 
I played it on my PC on max settings and in higher res with DX10, so i WIN :p
Seriously not sure the point of random multiplatform game looks better on X debates, some seem to use it as X console is more powerful than X cause this multiplatform game looks better type of bull. If you have to sit an inch away from your 50" TV to see some random texture difference then sorry i dont think your playing the game right :). I tried the demo on the PS3 it wasnt super smooth at all times but nothing game breaking at all and it didnt affect the playabiltiy of it so its a non issue for me. Just the same old websites trying to generate hits by making fanboy articles, last gen we didnt have them doing this as far as i recall, maybe far to many people are concerned with fanboy wars than actually playing games. This is not a go at the OP or anyone else in the thread but a general observation.:)
 
Can't say that would bother me if I owned a PS3. In those photos in a strange way the softening improves the looks.

Dreadful feels too strong a word to use here.
 
dbmzk1 said:
There is next to no difference in the textures. The blur on the PS3 version gives the illusion of less detailed textures. Take a screenshot on your PC and blur is slightly in photoshop and you will see the same effect. Also due to the blur there appears to be less jaggies on the PS3 version. Note that neither version uses AA and both render at 1280x720.

Here is something interesting too - http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=351413&postcount=93
Click to expand...

So basically the 360 screenshots are from a PC? So PS3 version does not look as good as the PC version? I don't even know how you could prove that one way or the other (that they are PC not 360 screenshots)


rp2000
 
Johnnytoxic said:
These pictures say it all. Lacking the sharpness of the 360 version.

http://d.hatena.ne.jp/yoda-dip-jp/20081004#1223141168
Click to expand...

Looks to me that the PS3 version is being run at a lower screen resolution and then scaled. This often happens when the devs have problems getting the game to run at a decent FPS. In some PS3 games they reduce the screen res and while it makes the game run better it still doesnt run as fast as the 360 version.
 
Its a conversion, what do you expect, this is always the case when something is converted from its primary platform, Its not like they are going to go back and completely re write it for cell architecture. The PS3 is a powerfull console but its not powerfull enough to brute force its way through a platform conversion thats not perfectly optimised due to time/cost constraints.(I have both consoles)
 
WILD9 said:
(I have both consoles)
Click to expand...

I do wish people would stop saying this. It doesn't validate anything. Either you're in a position to make an informed post or you're not, in which case don't press submit reply - I know 99% of CGH is intelligent enough to recognize this and act accordingly.

Conversely, and I've said this many times before, stating ownership of consoles doesn't give you a free pass to troll them either. This isn't aimed at that post at all, but I'm seeing a marked increase in pre-emptive attempts at defense or validation in posts. It's not necessary at all...
 
Buzza said:
Looks to me that the PS3 version is being run at a lower screen resolution and then scaled. This often happens when the devs have problems getting the game to run at a decent FPS. In some PS3 games they reduce the screen res and while it makes the game run better it still doesnt run as fast as the 360 version.
Click to expand...

Both the 360 and PS3 versions of the game run at 720p, devs have stated this.

The whole lower resolution in a port matter is beginning to sound like the old photoshop one 'i can tell it's shopped due to the pixels and having seen many shops in my time'.
 
KNiVES said:
Conversely, and I've said this many times before, stating ownership of consoles doesn't give you a free pass to troll them either. This isn't aimed at that post at all, but I'm seeing a marked increase in pre-emptive attempts at defense or validation in posts. It's not necessary at all...
Click to expand...

Um, owning the console gives him the right to state his opinion because he has had first hand experience - as he HAS one of the consoles he can see for himself that the graphics aren't as good. I don't believe that's trolling at all.

Id say he's making more of an informed decision than most - because he has both consoles, he can see for himself
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom