Bioshock - PC Review @ IGN

[Dhruin]

IGN has released their PC review (http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/813/813641p1.html) of Bioshock - one of the first, since most of the others are based on the X360 version. The article appears to be a slight reworking of their X360 one, with just a couple of extra paragraphs (9.7/10):
The visuals too will constantly amaze, from finely detailed industrial structures to the weapon models, the choices of which areas to light and which to leave in the dark, and plasmid effects. And then there's the water. It's so gorgeous, rippling and gurgling through every one of Rapture's hallways, tumbling from ceilings and, of course, encasing the city itself. You get lots of little details to enjoy as well, like the welts on your hand when you boot up the insect swarm plasmid, the steam jets that hiss from Big Daddies after they've taken damage, fish in tanks and in the ocean that dart away as you approach, and the flickering billboards and tattered posters that remain from Rapture's glory days. 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.
More information. (http://www.rpgwatch.com/show/newsbit?newsbit=6044)

[Reyla]

How does one review a game that has not been released yet?

Temporal rift?

[JDR13]

The magazines are presented with review copies by the publisher before public release.

[Ionstormsucks]

A Core 2 Quad processor with a GeForce 8800 GTX, and 4 GB of RAM is, of course, something that everyone of us has as home... except me, I guess. You know what? I'll buy one just to play Bioshock!

[Prime Junta]

Do I detect a hint of envy here...?

Seriously -- Bioshock's system requirements are surprisingly reasonable. I'd expect it to run fine (and look pretty good) on any gaming-oriented computer that isn't completely stone-age.

[JDR13]

Do I detect a hint of envy here...?

Seriously -- Bioshock's system requirements are surprisingly reasonable. I'd expect it to run fine (and look pretty good) on any gaming-oriented computer that isn't completely stone-age.

Huh? I have to disagree with you on that one.

BioShock Download Recommended System Requirements
- Windows XP (SP 2) or Windows Vista
- 3.0 GHz dual core processor
- 2.0 GB RAM
- Pixel Shader 3.0 compliant video card with 512 MB RAM (NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT or better)
- 100% DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card
- 7.0 GB free hard disk space
- DirectX 9.0c or DirectX 10

I know those aren't the minimum requirements, but that's still pretty ridiculous.

[Acleacius]

This is the state of the art Unreal 3 engine and at least in the past Unreal has had a very scaleable engine, so I would think this one would be scaleable as well.

[Prime Junta]

I know those aren't the minimum requirements, but that's still pretty ridiculous.

It's only ridiculous if it doesn't run well near the minimum requirements. Recommended requirements tell you roughly where the point of diminishing returns is, not that it runs poorly below them.

On the contrary, it would be ridiculous if it didn't take full advantage of the high-end hardware available nowadays.

[JDR13]

It's only ridiculous if it doesn't run well near the minimum requirements. Recommended requirements tell you roughly where the point of diminishing returns is, not that it runs poorly below them.

On the contrary, it would be ridiculous if it didn't take full advantage of the high-end hardware available nowadays.

That's the problem though, most games do run poorly on anything less then the recommended requirements. Unless you're disabling some of the graphical options.

Many games released recently even run poorly with the recommended requirements. STALKER, Gothic 3, Dark Messiah, NWN 2 just to name a few.

[Prime Junta]

That's the problem though, most games do run poorly on anything less then the recommended requirements. Unless you're disabling some of the graphical options.

Well duh. The higher graphical options are there precisely in order to take advantage of higher-end gear, so it's pretty bleedin' obvious that they have to be disabled to get the game to run on lower-end gear.

But that doesn't necessarily mean the game will look bad nor run poorly. In fact, usually it doesn't.

Many games released recently even run poorly with the recommended requirements. STALKER, Gothic 3, Dark Messiah, NWN 2 just to name a few.

And it's possible to get all of these games to run splendidly (and look great) on such systems.

I agree, though, that it's pretty damn lame that the first thing you have to do after buying the game is spend a few hours tweaking the settings (or try to find an .ini file on the Net where someone has done the work for you).

[Lucky Day]

512mb RAM video card? Ouch!

Even the 8800GTS is only 320mb. We're at a place now where the Hardware needs to catch up with the Software again. It always shifts back and forth like that.

This is why I won't play nwn2 - not until I have a system where I can run it at max settings. Obsidian themselves said there wasn't even a video card out there at the time of release that takes advantage of what it was capable of.

I guess I'll check Bioshock out and shelve it a few years for when I can play it.

[zakhal]

A Core 2 Quad processor with a GeForce 8800 GTX, and 4 GB of RAM is, of course, something that everyone of us has as home... except me, I guess. You know what? I'll buy one just to play Bioshock!

Not just the machine but expensive buggy OS. And even then you will have random framerate hitches. Makes me feel dirty to do all that just for little extra eyecandy.


This is why I won't play nwn2 - not until I have a system where I can run it at max settings. Obsidian themselves said there wasn't even a video card out there at the time of release that takes advantage of what it was capable of.

I guess I'll check Bioshock out and shelve it a few years for when I can play it.

FYI thats the way I do it too nowadays. It started with oblivion which I decided to skip until the next pc update. Infact its much more than that. I dont play any game until I have pc to run it on max graphics (or near it), max patches and max mods (if its moddable). I just bought Vampire - bloodline yesterday. I hope its finally patched/modded to near max.

There are so many other older games to play now with "max" that its just waste to play the unfinished new ones. Yes max is my little friend.

[Acleacius]

" Many games released recently even run poorly with the recommended requirements. STALKER, Gothic 3, Dark Messiah, NWN 2 just to name a few."

It's funny since all those games are not a good measure of a standard since they were all rushed out early, that says more about the publishers trying to get the game out for the holidays.
At least in my case, Gothic 3 and Stalker were the worst offenders of the four you listed.

[JDR13]

Well duh. The higher graphical options are there precisely in order to take advantage of higher-end gear, so it's pretty bleedin' obvious that they have to be disabled to get the game to run on lower-end gear.

But that doesn't necessarily mean the game will look bad nor run poorly. In fact, usually it doesn't.
.

No it's not bleedin obvious friend. Not to the average person who is seeing these incredible looking screenshots on the box and doesn't realize that it's not going to look that way for him/her because thay have to turn off so many options to get it to run smooth.

I guess we all have different views on what is acceptable, I may just be spoiled because I refuse to play a game with any options turned off.

[JDR13]

" Many games released recently even run poorly with the recommended requirements. STALKER, Gothic 3, Dark Messiah, NWN 2 just to name a few."

It's funny since all those games are not a good measure of a standard since they were all rushed out early, that says more about the publishers trying to get the game out for the holidays.
At least in my case, Gothic 3 and Stalker were the worst offenders of the four you listed.

Except for Gothic 3, I don't recall hearing anything about those games being rushed. STALKER in particular was in development for what seemed like forever. Not saying you're wrong though.

[northreign]

Huh? I have to disagree with you on that one.

BioShock Download Recommended System Requirements
- Windows XP (SP 2) or Windows Vista
- 3.0 GHz dual core processor
- 2.0 GB RAM
- Pixel Shader 3.0 compliant video card with 512 MB RAM (NVIDIA GeForce 7900 GT or better)
- 100% DirectX 9.0c compatible sound card
- 7.0 GB free hard disk space
- DirectX 9.0c or DirectX 10

I know those aren't the minimum requirements, but that's still pretty ridiculous.

uh... you can buy that for just several hundred cause that isn't even anything anymore. There's plenty of cheap 512mb video cards too. They've been around for a while now. Quad core cpu's are pretty cheap too.

[Moriendor]

I wish they would be more precise with the CPU requirement. Do they mean a Pentium 4 dual core 3GHz or a Core 2 Duo or an AMD? To just say a "3.0GHz dual core processor" is required is totally useless. A Pentium D 940 Presler dual core 3.2GHz CPU is about as fast as a Core 2 Duo E2140 with 1.6GHz or an AMD X2 3600+ EE with 1.9GHz (in 3Mark06 CPU score according to this chart (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html)). So we have two CPUs here at 1.6 and 1.9GHz that perform pretty much exactly the same in games as a P4 dual core CPU with a "real" 3Ghz clock. Which 3.0GHz dual core CPU did they base their estimates on? This relatively slow and old P4 model or the screaming fast Core 2 Duo E6850? If they were playing it safe and smart hopefully the former...

[Ionstormsucks]

Do I detect a hint of envy here...?

Seriously -- Bioshock's system requirements are surprisingly reasonable. I'd expect it to run fine (and look pretty good) on any gaming-oriented computer that isn't completely stone-age.

Not really... you know, if "journalists" stopped testing games on hilarious systems that maybe 10% of all gamers have at home (if not less) and would use average systems, they might not be constantly blinded by the eye-candy that nowadays games offer.

[JDR13]

uh... you can buy that for just several hundred cause that isn't even anything anymore. There's plenty of cheap 512mb video cards too. They've been around for a while now. Quad core cpu's are pretty cheap too.

I'm not sure where you live but where I am a 3.0 GHz dual core processor all by itself cost several hundred.

*edit* Assuming you mean a good dual core, not one of those old Pentium D processors.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Not really... you know, if "journalists" stopped testing games on hilarious systems that maybe 10% of all gamers have at home (if not less) and would use average systems, they might not be constantly blinded by the eye-candy that nowadays games offer.

A few years ago I developed the theory (have I written it down in "Alrik's different angle" or not ?) that editors and testers are in fact kind of overfed because they are able to use the "crßéme de la créme" in gaming systems.

To use a picture, it's like a king living in a totally luxury environment with only the finest cloth and furniture, complete with gold applications.

From that point of view, their point of view is rather kind of distorted - because they can use the exquisiteness of what gaming systems are able to deliver.

In my theory, this is one of the points why they favour graphics over content (especially over story) and the story of a game - the content - in effect - comes out of focus.

You just don't know how it looks like for an average gamer and in the worst cases they can't test it anymore for them, because they simply don't have any weak machines anymore !

That's why I read system recommendations ofn packages like 1 GHz, although I've managed to run TOEE and Keepsake with my 800 Mhz machine in fact, which has a GeForce 2GTS with 32 MB and 384 MB system RAM !

They just write this, because they - so I suspect - simply don't have weaker machines anymore to test things out.

And what's more, editors are totally content with extremely high system recommendations, because they have it. They are even able to play games in their full glory an average gamer might not be able to !

[Prime Junta]

I guess we all have different views on what is acceptable, I may just be spoiled because I refuse to play a game with any options turned off.

Not spoiled, just a bit silly. Game engines have future scalability built-in; many won't run at "maximum settings" on *any* hardware available now. The advantage is that they'll have a longer shelf life -- a game made with the Id Tech 5 or Unreal 3 will look better on iron made five years from now than on iron in use now. In my book, that's a good thing.

[JDR13]

What can I say? I have high standards. :lol:

[northreign]

I'm not sure where you live but where I am a 3.0 GHz dual core processor all by itself cost several hundred.

*edit* Assuming you mean a good dual core, not one of those old Pentium D processors.

Check out Newegg.com. You can get a brand new intel quad core retail with free game for under 300 with free shipping. How about that =)

[JDR13]

Check out Newegg.com. You can get a brand new intel quad core retail with free game for under 300 with free shipping. How about that =)

That's is indeed good. Close to $300 is still considered "several" hundred though.

[northreign]

That's is indeed good. Close to $300 is still considered "several" hundred though.

...after all the amd/intel price battles the dual cores are mad cheap. Really, it isn't much to build a computer than can run this. Its almost a throw away with 8 core cpu's in the near future. That's the sad part :-\

But I want that 8 core. 2 cores to 8 cores will be one nice jump.

[Prime Junta]

What can I say? I have high standards. :lol:

Oookay, I guess. Hope you don't mind me asking but, um, do you actually ever, you know, get to play anything?

[Prime Junta]

...after all the amd/intel price battles the dual cores are mad cheap. Really, it isn't much to build a computer than can run this. Its almost a throw away with 8 core cpu's in the near future. That's the sad part :-\

But I want that 8 core. 2 cores to 8 cores will be one nice jump.

It's unlikely you'll notice anything at all unless you run some very specialized software that's really well optimized for multithreading, or you run lots and lots of things at the same time. (I'm not talking about servers here; if you're running a bunch of virtual machines in one box, it'll make a huge difference.)

Single-core to dual-core is a significant jump, also in practice; dual-core to quad-core is much smaller; quad-core to 8-core... well, we'll see. Perhaps software taking advantage of it will be more common by then.

[northreign]

It's unlikely you'll notice anything at all unless you run some very specialized software that's really well optimized for multithreading, or you run lots and lots of things at the same time. (I'm not talking about servers here; if you're running a bunch of virtual machines in one box, it'll make a huge difference.)

Single-core to dual-core is a significant jump, also in practice; dual-core to quad-core is much smaller; quad-core to 8-core... well, we'll see. Perhaps software taking advantage of it will be more common by then.

Seeing as how some programs are already working on 4 cores it won't take much to use 8 - if you use those programs.

Too, its always nice to have extra power waiting for when you need it.

[Alrik Fassbauer]

Too, its always nice to have extra power waiting for when you need it.

Well, about "power" ... These multi-cores are also "power" ... read: current-hungry ...

[Prime Junta]

Seeing as how some programs are already working on 4 cores it won't take much to use 8 - if you use those programs.

Too, its always nice to have extra power waiting for when you need it.

Yup, those would be the "highly specialized" programs I mentioned. Specifically, there's some image processing software that is very nicely parallelized, but most games aren't.

Second, buying capacity before you need it is a poor economic decision, because capacity gets cheaper all the time. Buy enough to last you for 12-24 months, tops; otherwise you're overpaying big-time.

Practical example: I built my current rig about 18 months ago. At the time, the top-of-the line CPU was the Athlon x64 X2 4800+. It cost a bit over 1,000 euros. So I bought the X2 3800+ instead, for about 200 euros.

I have not been CPU-constrained during these 18 months.

If it turned out that, say, Bioshock was CPU-bottlenecked on my rig, I could get an X2 6000+ for under 200 euros. I would have to change my motherboard as well, since the socket has changed. That would add another 100 euros or so to the bill.

So, to tally up:

Mobo: 100 €
3800+: 200 €
New mobo: 100 €
6000+: 175 €
Total: 575 €
Sell old mobo+CPU: -100 €
Final total: 475€

Had I bought the 4800+ 18 months ago, I would have paid about 1,200 € total, and I would have a slower CPU.

Lesson learned: whether you're buying disk capacity, CPU capacity, or GPU capacity, buy just enough to get rid of the bottleneck for the next 12-24 months, no more. Otherwise you'll just be paying through the nose for something that will be overtaken buy cheap low-end stuff about halfway through the projected lifetime of your box.

(Incidentally, my CPU runs current games just fine, so I don't even need to upgrade any time soon. Which means that I probably overinvested when I bought it... but only by 100 euros or so, tops.)

[txa1265]

This discussion is wonderful ... but makes you understand why consoles are so popular ... a system that can run Doom 3 or Half-Life 2 on full resolution and detail would need an upgrade that would cost more than a PS3 to get reasonable results for these new games.

I'm just happy to know I've got about another year on my laptop ... and laptops are much worse in terms of the cycle of obsolescence.

[JDR13]

Oookay, I guess. Hope you don't mind me asking but, um, do you actually ever, you know, get to play anything?

Um, yes indeed I do. With the rig I have I can play just about any game with everything maxed out for the time being.