**The one and only Official BioShock Thread**- now with added **SPOILERS**

Tom|Nbk said:
You have just made this threads first Epic Failure. Leave, leave now.
TickleLoop.gif
 
Hmm

The PC version definitely outclasses the Xbox 360, mostly because of the ability to crank the resolution to 1920 x 1200. If you've got a Vista rig with a DX10 card, you can expect some heightened particle effects, crisper real-time shadows, and more dynamic water, but the game looks gorgeous regardless. On our gaming PC running a Core 2 Quad processor with a GeForce 8800 GTX, and 4 GB of RAM, it ran very well, with only a few occasions of seemingly random framerate hitches. We also couldn't find an option to switch between DX10 and DX9 modes, the game just seems to default to what's in your system, unlike Lost Planet.

http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/813/813641p3.html

Hmm not exactly the "zomg it ran smooth on a dual core athlon at maxed settings" quote taken from another place. :confused:
 
Gerard said:
Hmm



http://uk.pc.ign.com/articles/813/813641p3.html

Hmm not exactly the "zomg it ran smooth on a dual core athlon at maxed settings" quote taken from another place. :confused:


You mean PC GAMER? PCG played it on an x2 5000+ and 320mb 8800GTS and they stated exactly the above. It's not a quad core developed game so the performance benefits will be almost nothing - it's a game that uses dx10 so the greater benefits are using a dx10 gfx card not a better cpu...
 
mrk said:
You mean PC GAMER? PCG played it on an x2 5000+ and 320mb 8800GTS and they stated exactly the above. It's not a quad core developed game so the performance benefits will be almost nothing - it's a game that uses dx10 so the greater benefits are using a dx10 gfx card not a better cpu...


Well how exactly did they get better performance on a lower end machine?

A gtx easily outclasses a gts yet nothing was mentioned about frame rates being choppy at points, just that it was smooth and nothing more.
 
Legless said:
This game is SO OVER HYPED, its a FPS for gods sake, its gonna be like all the rest of em... People have been shooting their load over the gfx etc, but when are ya gonna learn that NEXT GEN GFX don't mean its gonna be the best game in the world? :mad:

This is gonna be a generic FPS... get over it, there is nothing new here, its gonna suck... Stop jumping on the hype wagon... Enjoy it for what it is, a FPS... Freeform my ass, its gonna be as linier as ya grandma's breasts, and as much fun to play with... :(

Don't get me wrong, its gonna be a cool game, but stop creaming ya pants over it... This is just another generic FPS with loads of marketing propoganda and hype... :rolleyes:
...


How did you enjoy the demo ?, also I don't see how you can say that it's "Marketing propoganda" because tbh as games releases go I really don't think this game had that much advertising (up until very recently) compared to other high profile games releases, I myself was'nt really bothered about this game at all until I played the demo, If anyones hyped this game up it is'nt the marketing gurus, it's been me because I enjoyed the demo so much, also I wish people would'nt keep classing all fps's under the same brush it really annoys me, I'll say what I said in the 'The Official Bioshock is overrated thread', and that is it should'nt make a difference what perspective the game is in, a game is a game end of the day, the fact that it's in first person is just a part of the evolutionary process of games looking more realistic and becoming more immersive, you can't judge the game straight off the bat just because it is in first person, that is just plain silly, forget what perspective the game is in and judge it on it's story/content etc.
 
Last edited:
Gerard said:
Well how exactly did they get better performance on a lower end machine?

A gtx easily outclasses a gts yet nothing was mentioned about frame rates being choppy at points, just that it was smooth and nothing more.

We don't really need to know anything extra other than it ran well at high resolution with x hardware.

IGN didn't state any fps figures either and theirs ran well too but at an even higher resolution.

I fail to see the issue here.
 
Gerard said:
A gtx easily outclasses a gts yet nothing was mentioned about frame rates being choppy at points, just that it was smooth and nothing more.
PC Gamer ran it maxed in Dx9 at a lower res though, who knows what other settings they used, IGN ran it at 1920x1200 they may have used more AA but they did use Dx10 which could give a slight performance loss maybe.

Nothing to worry about here.
 
It seems this game has been heavily influenced by Fritz Lang's Metropolis (a silent movie made in 1927) , the film is about an under ground city kind of like rapture. It also has various striking similarities.

metrop3m.jpg


This is the underground city you see in a flyby near the start of the movie (A striking resemblence to the fly by of rapture at the start of the game)

Take a look at the poster very art deco as as such in the movie

Metropolisposter.jpg


Very good movie I only watched it recently after a few recomendations. I like the references to the "G-Bank" in Metropolis. This is also featured in BioShocks rapture as a "Gene Bank". You can easily tell Ken ripped a ton of stuff from this movie.
 
Pc zone gave it 96%. They also said if you just rush through like a shooter you won't enjoy it to the full. Theres a lot of little things to see and do. FPS's are good becuase they put you into the role of the person. Its like saying life sucks becuase its a FPS. Damnit I see the world through my eyes :confused: I wish i could see myself from an invisible floating camera just 5 feet behind and 2 feet above my head. then i could see round corners when Im not even near them.
 
So will this game run better on eg.

quadcore @ 3 Ghz
or
dualcore @ 4 Ghz

As it looks like a lot of people are now going quad & I dont undrestand why 64bit hasn't taken off as most people probably have 64bit CPU's.
 
juno_first said:
So will this game run better on eg.

quadcore @ 3 Ghz
or
dualcore @ 4 Ghz

As it looks like a lot of people are now going quad & I dont undrestand why 64bit hasn't taken off as most people probably have 64bit CPU's.


It's not going to run better or worse by any large degree because it's a highly optimised game and not CPU bound game but more GPU bound like the ajority of newer games.
 
Just been onto direct2drive to check availability. US price $49.95, UK price £34.95... once again, UK buyers ripped off.

Can someone explain to me why digital content costs more for us than US customers? It's a £10 quid difference...

Am I the onlt one that thinks downloaded content should be cheaper than buying retail version in a shop?
 
ffallic said:
Just been onto direct2drive to check availability. US price $49.95, UK price £34.95... once again, UK buyers ripped off.

Can someone explain to me why digital content costs more for us than US customers? It's a £10 quid difference...

Am I the onlt one that thinks downloaded content should be cheaper than buying retail version in a shop?

Also just an update for you all... I contacted Direct2Drive and they confirmed that UK customers aren't able to buy the US version to play it a few days earlier :p
 
Folks a quick query on system specs regarding my system. I haven't played a lot of recent games & I'm pretty clueless about various graphics cards etc..
It's a year or 2 old, just wondering if it's worth getting the game for my PC or just purchasing a console as I'd be toying with the idea anyhow. I know it's above minimum requirements but I don't want it to run like a dog either.

Athlon64 3700+
Nvidia 7800GT
Dell 2007
X-Fi Extreme Music or something
 
juno_first said:
So will this game run better on eg.

quadcore @ 3 Ghz
or
dualcore @ 4 Ghz

As it looks like a lot of people are now going quad & I dont undrestand why 64bit hasn't taken off as most people probably have 64bit CPU's.
Dual Core will be better at lower resolutions but at higher resolutions you'll be at the same FPS as every other Core2Duo out there probably.

In a Guru3D review of the 8800GTX games like Stalker, Fear, BF2...etc had between 5-15 FPS difference at 1280x1024, then at like 1600x1200 they had the same FPS for 4 different processors, a 1.8 Ghz C2D was at the same FPS as a Quad @ 2.8 Ghz.

I really doubt Quad is gonna kick off until next year for games tbh, for now every game is GPU limited apart from SupCom.
 
Legless said:
This game is SO OVER HYPED, its a FPS for gods sake, its gonna be like all the rest of em... People have been shooting their load over the gfx etc, but when are ya gonna learn that NEXT GEN GFX don't mean its gonna be the best game in the world? :mad:

This is gonna be a generic FPS... get over it, there is nothing new here, its gonna suck... Stop jumping on the hype wagon... Enjoy it for what it is, a FPS... Freeform my ass, its gonna be as linier as ya grandma's breasts, and as much fun to play with... :(

Don't get me wrong, its gonna be a cool game, but stop creaming ya pants over it... This is just another generic FPS with loads of marketing propoganda and hype... :rolleyes:
...

i agree, crysis seems far more open ended than bioshock.
 
Tachyon said:
Folks a quick query on system specs regarding my system. I haven't played a lot of recent games & I'm pretty clueless about various graphics cards etc..
It's a year or 2 old, just wondering if it's worth getting the game for my PC or just purchasing a console as I'd be toying with the idea anyhow. I know it's above minimum requirements but I don't want it to run like a dog either.

Athlon64 3700+
Nvidia 7800GT
Dell 2007
X-Fi Extreme Music or something

try playing rainbow 6 vegas. see hwo that runs, then you 'may' expect it to run better. but it should not be any worse.
 
:rolleyes: it's going to run a heck of a lot better than Vegas, how many times has it been now you've constantly questioned Bioshock then later posted how you're still looking forward to it and that it would be a cool game...

- Vegas is a shoddy port = fact
- Vegas has performance issues for loads of people = fact
- Vegas implements UE3 poorly = fact
- Vegas has no dx10 implementation = fact
- Vegas is not regarded as a benchmark fps game and its PC reviews reflect that fact.

Cyber-Mav said:
i agree, crysis seems far more open ended than bioshock.

I would guess this is down to the fact that Crysis spans vast outdoor environments and has the open area explorable environment whereas Bioshock is confined within Rapture much like how Doom 3 was confined within the Mars research station.

Just a guess, like....ya know because the two simply cannot be compared.
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
:rolleyes: it's going to run a heck of a lot better than Vegas, how many times has it been now you've constantly questioned Bioshock then later posted how you're still looking forward to it and that it would be a cool game...

- Vegas is a shoddy port = fact
- Vegas has performance issues for loads of people = fact
- Vegas implements UE3 poorly = fact
- Vegas has no dx10 implementation = fact
- Vegas is not regarded as a benchmark fps game and its PC reviews reflect that fact.



I would guess this is down to the fact that Crysis spans vast outdoor environments and has the open area explorable environment whereas Bioshock is confined within Rapture much like how Doom 3 was confined within the Mars research station.

Just a guess, like....ya know because the two simply cannot be compared.


although i knock back rainbow 6 vegas on the performance side i still play the game cuz its fun. as with bioshock i will play that too even if i have to use the lew settings i use in rainbow 6 vegas.
although, new hardware like the gtx can run vegas at high resolutions without much issues. and bioshock reviews say the same that the game runs good on a GTX. if they tsted using a 7900gt then it would be more ideal.

like you mention doom 3 thats hoe think bioshock is going to be. linear gameplay. can;t really compare to stuff like farcry with its vast out door areas.
 
Back
Top Bottom