Bioshock PS3*

[joker454]

One lesson that should be learned about this port is that single-console oriented sites should never ever be trusted in their statements regarding competing consoles. PSU.com's quote from the first page of the thread looks totally absurd now.

People that believe single console websites deserve what they get. Basic rules of thumb:

1) single console sites spread fud, they have to because their jobs depend on it
2) don't trust screen shots, they are always bullshots
3) viewing screen grabs on the net does not tell the full tale
4) even the best review websites sometimes have an agenda (I've experienced this one first hand from a well known review site that I no longer trust)

Same old mantra, the only way is to see both versions on your own tv, anything else is a waste of time. I even tried taking pictures of the two Bioshock versions because the differences on my tv are dramatic. But somehow the difference just never came out in the photos, aside from the blurriness. The loss of the overall art deco look, muted colors, aliasing, etc, just don't come out properly in pictures. In person though, even my wife who could care less about image quality noted that the PS3 build "looked crappy" when I did an a/b sanity check with her, just to make sure I'm not insane.

Regarding forcing 1080p, at this point Sony needs to do one of two things. First, start failing products that insist on upscaling to 1080p when 720p is available. It does nothing but ruin the image and affect frame rate, it's never worth it and is only making Sony look bad especially with so many people enabling 1080p for blu-ray movie playback purposes. Or secondly, add separate settings for display output in the XMB, one for movies and one for games. That way people can set games at 720p if they can and that's that. There's no way I'm going to fiddle with resolutions every time I want to play games or play a movie. But with separate display output settings I can do it once and forget about it. Seems like a simple solution to this problem. Or, their 3rd choice is to do nothing and continue to have PS3 games look like ass compared to their competitor. It boggles my mind why they are letting this go on when it's so simple to resolve.

 

[djskribbles]

with all due respect joker454, i'm really starting to think that your PS3 input needs some serious calibration. now clearly the ps3 version is inferior, but you always seem to make things sound a lot worse than what most people see.

 

[scificube]

with all due respect joker454, i'm really starting to think that your PS3 input needs some serious calibration. now clearly the ps3 version is inferior, but you always seem to make things sound a lot worse than what most people see.

Joker is entitled to his opinion. It would be bad if B3D members began to "calibrate" others postings. Leave it to the mods.

Anyhow, I am now seeing how demos and betas are becoming an ever more dangerous venture. The public does not understand the context in which these materials are being released. Demos have to be quite polished or they have a dampening affect. No one believes in improvement before release anymore I fear.

 

[deepbrown]

Joker is entitled to his opinion. It would be bad if B3D members began to "calibrate" others postings. Leave it to the mods.

Anyhow, I am now seeing how demos and betas and becoming an ever more dangerous venture. The public does not understand the context in which these materials are being released. Demos have to be quite polished or they have a dampening affect. No one believes in improvement before release anymore I fear.

I don't think the "public" can see any difference between the demos. Plus, if someone of the public owns Bioshock on the 360, they won't give a damn about the PS3 demo. So people playing the PS3 demo are seeing Bioshock for the first time - and they won't have any issues with it either. It's polished, it's impressive, it's atmospheric - if they like the gameplay, they will buy it.

 

[joker454]

with all due respect joker454, i'm really starting to think that your PS3 input needs some serious calibration. now clearly the ps3 version is inferior, but you always seem to make things sound a lot worse than what most people see.

Nah it's not calibration, Blu-ray movies and Uncharted look fantastic, and the Pure demo was basically just about equivalent on both versions.

Fracture and Bioshock are the most recent titles I've a/b'd, and they definitely fall short. It hits Bioshock much more because art style and feel are where the game mostly makes it's impact. When the difference is this dramatic, I always sanity check by doing the same a/b comparo at home with people who don't care about such things, to make sure my view isn't skewed.

Understand that I'm always curious about what people graphically respond to, since it's in my field of interest. I saw that PSU quote that aselto recently mentioned, so I wanted to see what changes were made that made them respond so favorably. The confusion sets in when I fire it up and notice that it looks worse than the 360 version which I haven't played for over a year. Hence....download the 360 demo again, do an a/b check, sanity check the results, re-read PSU and other peoples comments...and here I am, confused yet again

I don't think the "public" can see any difference between the demos. Plus, if someone of the public owns Bioshock on the 360, they won't give a damn about the PS3 demo. So people playing the PS3 demo are seeing Bioshock for the first time - and they won't have any issues with it either. It's polished, it's impressive, it's atmospheric - if they like the gameplay, they will buy it.

You are right, it largely won't matter at all. Most PS3 folk have migrated from the PS2 so it will look fantastic to them, and it's still a game worth playing. But I'm still left curious wondering how those that have seen both versions actually feel they are graphically the same, or feel it's actually improved over the older version.

 

[scificube]

I don't think the "public" can see any difference between the demos. Plus, if someone of the public owns Bioshock on the 360, they won't give a damn about the PS3 demo. So people playing the PS3 demo are seeing Bioshock for the first time - and they won't have any issues with it either. It's polished, it's impressive, it's atmospheric - if they like the gameplay, they will buy it.

Off topic but can you say the same about R2 as well? Although I find some of the perceptions about R2 unfathomable they are there and real.

Demos and betas are dangerous business. One has to know what they're doing by putting them out there.

Don't get me wrong...LBP definitely demonstrates that the reward can be worth the risk.

 

[djskribbles]

Well clearly it's blurrier, but texture resolution, rendering resolution and colors look the same to me. The only difference I see is the PS3 version is blurrier, and if I didn't A-B the screen grabs, i would have thought the PS3 version was perfectly fine (at 720p) meaning it didn't look that blurry to me when I played it. From what I got out of your earlier post was, that the weak visuals completely changed the 'feel of the game' and I don't see how a blurrier image could have such a significant effect on a game. But to each his own I guess.

 

[patsu]

I just finished the demo. Frankly, I think people are just nitpicking. The game is still atmospheric regardless of the 360 version. The water looked good, the lighting focused my senses. The game is indeed as great as people say.

About the rough Big Daddy texture, the reason the developers missed it is probably because it is not in the obvious/common path. I missed it in the demo too.

The toilet scene TapIn posted is near the beginning, so I found it easily. Still, it looked natural and seamless in the environment. I didn't find anything jarring or blurred. In fact, I was more interested in the conversation in the background while I searched for first aid kits in the toilet.

The geometry and animation is lesser than other games I played (e.g., The limbs flattened when bent), but even that is no big deal because everything is rather stylized. I think the strength of its graphics is in the visual effects, not animation or polygons.

Off topic but can you say the same about R2 as well? Although I find some of the perceptions about R2 unfathomable they are there and real.

R2 public beta has not started. They have just completed the private beta.

Demos and betas are dangerous business. One has to know what they're doing by putting them out there.

Don't get me wrong...LBP definitely demonstrates that the reward can be worth the risk.

Yes, demo is risky business. I thought i saw somewhere that demoes do not necessarily increase sales. Still, the Bioshock demo is fine. I didn't find the frame rate problematic. Then again, I am not in this line ^_^

 

[scificube]

Just referring to comments from NeoGaf on R2 patsu. I "ass"umed they originated from being in a beta. My bad.

 

[Nesh]

Man MazingerDUDE's images have spread all over the internet.

The sad thing is that although the devs admitted that the pixelated big daddy in the demo "does not match their level of quality" people are still using that as example that the whole game is pixelated like this.

Actually the textures seem to be intact. The only biggest problem seems to be the filter.

Also someone at their forums claimed that the image comparisons were from the PC vs the PS3 and not 360 vs the PS3. I am not sure if this is true but here are HIS supposed 360 vs PC comparisons and he claims that both the PS3 and 360 present a similar effect.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=351413&postcount=93

I think that people took the matter to irrational proportions. The game STILL looks good.

 

[patsu]

If I were to b*tch, I would complain about the flattened limbs. The enemies were flinging their arms and legs right in front of my eyes. I had to examine the corpses for a good few seconds to confirm what I just killed, Pinocchio or human. The corpses still looked like dummies (The 360 and PC versions are probably the same). I finally decided that they were human based on the narrative. I thought it was kinda important to make sure I used the right weapon subsequently.

In any case, the game is clearly made with careful thought and love. So it's a confirmed purchase for me.

 

[joker454]

Well clearly it's blurrier, but texture resolution, rendering resolution and colors look the same to me.

I finally found out why I was seeing the colors differently! This was driving me crazy because they clearly looked different between versions, and they were. But this was because I had very recently swapped PS3's, the one upstairs came down, the one downstairs went up. Not a big deal normally...except that now the one set to "limited rgb range" was downstairs on the main tv So, 'my bad' as the kids say nowadays. I set it back to full range, re-ran, and the colors do look punchier now. Still not quite as punchy as the 360's, but fairly close. This helped a lot because this game is so much about color and contrast, the reds need to look blood red, and the blues need to look icy cold. So my previous comments related to washed out PS3 colors are fud.

For resolution, I think I'll just have to remain confused. For example, I read this preview on the PS3 version:

http://brutalgamer.com/2008/10/bioshock-ps3-hands-on-first-impressions/

...where he comments: "this game looks a lot more high res. It looks a lot cleaner. ". I really have no clue how someone can see it as more high res and cleaner than the 360 version...but somehow he does. I would love to know what makes him see it that way though.

 

[djskribbles]

well actually, Limited is the correct setting for most HDTV owners. RGB Full is PC levels (0-255) where 0 is black and Limited is Video levels (16-235) where 16 is black. Most HDTV's expect Video levels through HDMI, therefore if you use RGB Full, you may be clipping black detail. there are rare cases (usually TV's that have a DVI port) expect PC levels, probably because it was meant to be used for a PC input.

A lot of people think RGB Full makes games look better because the most noticeable change you will see when switching to Full from Limited, is the brightness (black level) appears lower so colors pop more. but you should be able to achieve the same picture with RGB Limited simply by adjusting the brightness setting on your TV. This is especially important if you plan on watching blu-ray movies on your PS3 and you wish to use the same TV settings for both games and movies. reason being, the preferred output for BR/DVD movies is YCbCr which natively outputs to the 16-235 color space, and as you probably know (since you're a developer ) games and XMB output to RGB. so in order to use the same TV settings for both BR and PS3 games, you will want them to be outputting to the same color space (16-235).

so the recommended PS3 settings for most HDTV owners are:
BR/DVD Output - YCbCr
YCbCr super-white - enabled (this allows the PS3 to pass the blacker-than-black test)
RGB Limited

i highly recommend you get a basic calibration disc. for the ps3. a good free one is the AVS 709 AVCHD disc that can be found here. or other good ones that aren't free, are DVE (Digital Video Essentials) or AVIA. i would at least do the basic calibrations like brightness, contrast etc., and the directions on how to adjust for the test patterns is explained in that thread. just burn it to a DVD and it should play in your PS3 (i got the AVCHD one). play it in your PS3 with YCbCr output, and those settings should apply to games as well using RGB mode. I have my PS3 set to Limited and BioShock doesn't have muted colors at all.

the 360 and ps3 seem to output totally different brightness levels with the ps3 being a lot brighter, so if you were to connect a PS3 and 360 to an HDTV without calibration for either, the 360 version will naturally look better (better colors, blacker blacks etc.). even on a calibrated TV, some games seem brighter than the 360 version (some more than others), but BioShock is definitely not one of them. thats why in a lot of videos on the net, the ps3 version usually has grayish blacks and muted colors and its usually far from what i see on my ps3.

hope that helps.

 

[patsu]

For resolution, I think I'll just have to remain confused. For example, I read this preview on the PS3 version:

http://brutalgamer.com/2008/10/bioshock-ps3-hands-on-first-impressions/

...where he comments: "this game looks a lot more high res. It looks a lot cleaner. ". I really have no clue how someone can see it as more high res and cleaner than the 360 version...but somehow he does. I would love to know what makes him see it that way though.

You could ask him about his setup since you have his URL.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Joker is entitled to his opinion. It would be bad if B3D members began to "calibrate" others postings. Leave it to the mods.

In think you misinterpretted.

...with all due respect joker454, i'm really starting to think that your PS3 input needs some serious calibration...

Inpout has two translations - 1) Contributions to the forum, or 2) Input into the TV. I think djskribbles meant 2 and you read 1, which I read it as first of all before applying my 'net translation filter

Anyhow, I am now seeing how demos and betas are becoming an ever more dangerous venture. The public does not understand the context in which these materials are being released. Demos have to be quite polished or they have a dampening affect. No one believes in improvement before release anymore I fear.

I don't think human beings in general have any eye for potential, and can't see anything as going-to-be-better-than-it-currently-is. I can't understand the willingness of publishers to throw out naffy demos; it's like they want to reduce their sales.

 

[djskribbles]

^ you're right.

 

[RDK]

Also someone at their forums claimed that the image comparisons were from the PC vs the PS3 and not 360 vs the PS3. I am not sure if this is true but here are HIS supposed 360 vs PC comparisons and he claims that both the PS3 and 360 present a similar effect.

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=351413&postcount=93

nope ... 360 vs PS3 ... my off-screen shots

more here

 

[Nesh]

nope ... 360 vs PS3 ... my off-screen shots

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x204/RDK333/P1000755.jpg

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x204/RDK333/P1000757.jpg

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x204/RDK333/P1000761.jpg

http://i180.photobucket.com/albums/x204/RDK333/P1000762.jpg

more here

Uhm no. Read the forum more carefully. I already posted comments about my observation for Big Daddy and so have many others in here and this model is an exception and a result of an error in the demo. So no big daddy is irrelevant. Also see the quote from the devs


I was referring to everything else and more specifically the blurry filter. The detail seems to be intact with the blurry filter hiding the detail.

 

[scificube]

In think you misinterpretted.
Inpout has two translations - 1) Contributions to the forum, or 2) Input into the TV. I think djskribbles meant 2 and you read 1, which I read it as first of all before applying my 'net translation filter

I don't think human beings in general have any eye for potential, and can't see anything as going-to-be-better-than-it-currently-is. I can't understand the willingness of publishers to throw out naffy demos; it's like they want to reduce their sales.

I see. Yes I misinterpreted quite badly. My apologies djskribbles.

I think companies do wish to increase sales with demos however they are not factoring in that many people only believe what they see...which isn't entirely unhealthy. Potential customers are not as readily making the connection that things will improve and a demo is a sample of better things to come as one would hope. This is also understandable because in a number of cases...things do not improve. There is too much detective work being left up to the end user. It is a much better practice to stop, plan, and put your best foot forward or wait until you can.

 

[Cheezdoodles]

You are right, it largely won't matter at all. Most PS3 folk have migrated from the PS2 so it will look fantastic to them, and it's still a game worth playing. But I'm still left curious wondering how those that have seen both versions actually feel they are graphically the same, or feel it's actually improved over the older version.

So are you saying that the PS3 owners dont own any games on their PS3?

Because migrating from PS2 is unimportant there, PS3 owners own PS3 games, so the graphics have to look comparable to what games they have on their PS3 system.

Dunno if you get my point, but my point is that its completely irrelevant if they have migrated from the PS2. The graphical impression of bioshock will not get any better because of that. PS3 owners play PS3 games! Thus, if bioshock PS3 doesn't look particularly good compared to current PS3 games, nobody is going to be impressed, even if they had a PS2 before, they aren't going to have visual expectations of seing PS2 level graphics, they expect PS3 graphics.