BioShock: Gameplay, Graphics & Performance - bit-tech.net Forums

Tim S · 30th Aug 2007, 12:40

http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/..._performance/1

Following on from our BioShock review, we dive deep into Rapture for a look at the gameplay differences between the PC and X360 versions. We then look at the game's graphics under DX9 and DX10 before evaluating performance on a range of graphics cards and CPUs.

Jamie · 30th Aug 2007, 12:48

Really gutted that the xbox 360 version is dx9, the water sounds like it looks much better in dx10

DougEdey · 30th Aug 2007, 12:50

Agree with Jamie. /me is upset.

But they did completely redesign the water engine from the ground up, I can see why!

wuyanxu · 30th Aug 2007, 13:26

PC gaming cheesecake!

nice to see you didn't get tricked by Bioshock's Vista Dx10-but-Dx10-is-diabled Dx9 mode

Ramble · 30th Aug 2007, 13:27

What sort of frames do you get with mid range stuff on HQ?

Tim S · 30th Aug 2007, 13:31

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 Aug 2007, 13:32

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 Aug 2007, 13:39

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 Aug 2007, 13:40

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 Aug 2007, 14:03

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 Aug 2007, 14:17

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 Aug 2007, 14:20

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 Aug 2007, 14:21

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 Aug 2007, 14:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bindibadgi

/strokes ex-looking glass employees.

NO! *slaps bindi*

THEY'RE MINE!

Bindibadgi · 30th Aug 2007, 14:35

Oi! Respect your elders!

/bundles them into a bag and takes them home.

xion · 30th Aug 2007, 14:43

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 Aug 2007, 14:47

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

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 Aug 2007, 14:53

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 Aug 2007, 14:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bindibadgi

Oi! Respect your elders!

/bundles them into a bag and takes them home.

NOOOOOOOOOOOoooooo!

Seraphim Works · 30th Aug 2007, 14:56

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)?

30th Aug 2007, 12:40	#1
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	BioShock: Gameplay, Graphics & Performance http://www.bit-tech.net/gaming/2007/..._performance/1 Following on from our BioShock review, we dive deep into Rapture for a look at the gameplay differences between the PC and X360 versions. We then look at the game's graphics under DX9 and DX10 before evaluating performance on a range of graphics cards and CPUs. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

30th Aug 2007, 12:48	#2
Jamie bit-tech Staff Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Oxford, UK Posts: 7,620	Really gutted that the xbox 360 version is dx9, the water sounds like it looks much better in dx10 __________________ bit-tech hosted by tsohost.co.uk twitter \| flickr \| xbox live \| last.fm \| moot

30th Aug 2007, 12:50	#3
DougEdey I pwn all your storage Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Southampton Posts: 13,933	Agree with Jamie. /me is upset. But they did completely redesign the water engine from the ground up, I can see why! __________________ Burnout: Paradise Stats!XBL: DougEdey Bindi PSN ID: DougEdey Twitter

30th Aug 2007, 13:27	#5
Ramble Ginger Nut Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Exeter, Devon/Wantage, Oxfordshire Posts: 5,235	What sort of frames do you get with mid range stuff on HQ? __________________ Kirk, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky are beaming down to the planet. Guess who's not coming back.

30th Aug 2007, 13:40	#9
Tim S Pewlius Caesar bit-tech Staff Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ascot, Berks Posts: 18,021	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. __________________ Tim on Twitter \| Tim's Blog \| Tim's Flickr The bit-tech Blog \| bit-tech on Twitter \| Join the bit-tech & Custom PC folding team (#35947)

30th Aug 2007, 13:26	#4
wuyanxu quad fuelled, GTX200 powered Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: in a room near Soton Uni. UK Posts: 3,943	PC gaming cheesecake! nice to see you didn't get tricked by Bioshock's Vista Dx10-but-Dx10-is-diabled Dx9 mode

30th Aug 2007, 13:32	#7
TomD22 Modder Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 63	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

30th Aug 2007, 14:03	#10
GamingHobo Minimodder Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Bracknell Posts: 36	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. __________________ Andy Vandervell - Senior Staff Writer @ TrustedReviews

30th Aug 2007, 14:21	#13
kenco_uk I feel your presents. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Bourne, Lincolnshire, UK Posts: 6,303	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? __________________ MSI X58M - i7 920 4Ghz - 6GB Corsair - GTX260 648/2520 ::: Vote for bit-tech T - theevilelephant - "it sounded like bouncing around on a pogo stick, screaming in chinese while occasionally throwing a cat at a door."

30th Aug 2007, 14:35	#15
Bindibadgi Richard Swinburne bit-tech Staff Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Omnipwntent Posts: 28,269	Oi! Respect your elders! /bundles them into a bag and takes them home. __________________ Made you look, made you stare, made you clicked this in your underwear! Den of Geek!

30th Aug 2007, 14:43	#16
xion Multimodder Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: West Mids Posts: 160	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 __________________ "No keyboard found: Press F1 to continue..."

30th Aug 2007, 14:56	#20
Seraphim Works Multimodder Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Wirral / Coventry, UK Posts: 164	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)? __________________ From a 4.0Ghz P4 to a 3.3Ghz Q6600, thank god for price wars...