Bioshock PS3*

I think he was pointing out that the PS3 owners who will buy this game have never had the chance to play it before. They skipped the X360 entirely (thus "migrating directly from the PS2") and don't have a PC that can push it. So yes, it will look fantastic to them, because they have no frame of reference with the other versions of the game. That game in particular, not games in general.

 

No can do alas The problem is that I have 6 hdmi devices and they don't make tv's with 6 hdmi inputs, so all my devices go into a Sony 5300 a/v receiver (which has 6 hdmi inputs), then from it, one hdmi cable the tv. That means I'm more limited on how I calibrate the tv. Not ideal, but it hasn't been much of an issue so far. I calibrated it for a good look on HD movies and for that I find the PS3 looks great, similar to DirectTV HD and Expressvu HD (macroblocking issues aside). I never calibrated for games, it just happened that I thought the 360 looked really good on games with my movie calibration setting, so I left it at that.

That partly explains why Bioshock looked so much worse to me on PS3 compared to what you saw. The muted colors combined with the blur just killed it for me. The 'rgb full' test along with Bioshocks start up brightness config at least let me confirm that the two can indeed look 'similar' color wise, for those that can apply different settings per input. The leaves me out alas, at least not until they make a tv with a descent amount of inputs, so my movie calibration will have to do.

This still does seem to affect some games more than others, but maybe because there is nothing to compare them to. Like Uncharted, it looks very colorful to me on 'limited rgb'. It's also possible that I might not have noticed the Bioshock differences so easily if it wasn't for the blur and it's art style. The color for example on each version of Pure is indeed a bit different, but it didn't bug me at all on that game, they come off as effectively the same. On Bioshock though, totally different story.

Thanks, you saved me some typing

 

np. i actually didn't know you misunderstood me until Shifty pointed it out.

 

You didn't understand my point.

These PS3 owners, play PS3 games, so Bioshock has to look fantastic in comparison to current PS3 titles, in order to be percieved by fantastic by PS3 users.

Get it?

Where they come from, is irrelevant, if they owned a PS2 or what not, irrelevant. The only thing that decides how PS3 owners will consider Bioshock graphically, is how good it looks compared to what else is out on the PS3.

Just because they dont have a PC or X360 doesn't mean that Bioshock automatically looks fantastic to them.

 

Graphics are only a part of a game and even then, Bioshock's visual presentation isn't lousy with its art deco style, it's still a strong selling point for the game even if it might not push as many technical wells and bhistles as Resistance 2 etc.
Bioshock has to stand favorably as a game against other PS3 games, not as a techdemo against other PS3 techdemos.

please don't read too much into the last sentence - I'm not questioning Resistance 2's etc. value as a game!

 

R2 beta was closed. When it's open I expect it to be a much newer build.

 

I think Bioshock looks pretty great even in comparison to Uncharted and MGS4. It's one of the better looking multi-platform games. I don't think anyones disappointed except the nitpickers.

 

I have two points about Bioshock and about Bioshock for PS3.

1) As for the PC version I was able to run and play the game at 1024x768 @60Hz 21" HP monitor using a single core 32bit only AMD Athlon XP 3200+, 1.5GB DDR, AsRock dual channel NForce1 mobo, Nvidia BFG GeForce 6800GT OC stock clock at 370Mhz GPU core and the December 2007 WHQL drivers to run the game at high quality with no AA enabled on WinXP Pro SP2.

My personal opinion at the time was that it looked superior to the XBox 360 version despite running on weaker hardware and when I mentioned this in other forum boards noone wanted to believe me because they seemed to think that a 6800GT should just not be capable or should just be a slide show which of course it was not and was very smooth and playable to the end even in heavy action.

2) Playstation Official Magazine, I read the review today and they scored it five stars out of five and Editor's Choice with comments on the port being that it was very good and to some other people who saw the game and played the 360 version saying that the PS3 version looked "better"

Now I am going to wait for more reviews obviously and I would like to try the game out as well, I personally do not believe that Bioshock is this system killing game some people are making it out to be and if the port is subpar its because of lack of focused effort imho, not really because of weak hardware since Epic has already finalized UE3 for both 360 and PS3 since last year.

 

It may look better (subjectively)

Whats for certain though is some people are making their minds up on a demo that is probably a number of months older than the full retail release, and comparing the PS3 demo to the final 360 game (with any updates there may or may not have been).

 

It looks good, but I think MGS4 and Uncharted graphics are one notch above.

Bioshock's strengths are its atmosphere, unique art style and gameplay. In any case, the devs can patch the bad textures easily if necessary. I wouldn't worry too much about it.

You mean tech showcases. No one buy tech demoes.... except for those $2-3 PSN non-games (e.g., Aquavista).
Tech showcases can be great games too. Tech demoes are just... well... demoes.

 

Oh of course - both those games are orders of magnitudes above - but it certianly doesn't look bad.

 

Do people think then, that when playing Bioshock (and most other games except the likes of GT Prologue and Wipeout HD) that I would be better unticking the '1080p' box in display settings, and just have the game displayed at 720p, and let my tv upscale the game if there is a 1080p rendering option?

 

Normally, the games default to what's closest to their native res. For example (even with 1080i and 1080p picked), Drakes Fortune defaults to 720p if you have it checked.

Hopefully, this is just an oversight in the demo, and the retail game will do the same.

 

I doubt it, I seem to recall in another thread they were making a point of getting it to work at 1080p. this is the only game I've played on my PS3 that defaults to 1080p when it's just upscaled from 720p and I hope it's the last.

I'm not fussed though as the demo confirmed that I really do not like this game anyway.

 

Ninja Gaiden Sigma also defaults to 1080p, and incidently happens to look worse in 1080p.

 

A message from the team

http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23044

 

I still don't get how a blur filter can help performance. Why don't they give the option to remove it since it's hideous?

 

+1. i don't see how a blur filter would improve performance, maybe they just think it looks better?

 

I think it is just to reduce the appearance of edges (since the 360 had no AA either). There should be an option to remove it, if not then I would guess the resolution has been lowered.

We'll see, there seems to be more info coming soon.

In motion I think the blur helps personally, in screens it usually looks really bad though.

 

A person that works at 2k said that what we are seeing isnt exactly a blur filter. When asked she said that it is something else that resulted to that bluriness though she couldnt specify because she is not a programmer. Is it the same thing we have seen in DMC4?

I checked the game again and again on my PS3 and the blur is not noticeable. In the screens it is much more apparent. I tried the PC version to compare and still the game seems very crisp and clear to me even when I compare it with the PC version