Bioshock - PC Review @ IGN

Dhruin

SasqWatch
Joined
August 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
IGN has released their PC review 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.
 
Joined
Aug 30, 2006
Messages
11,842
Location
Sydney, Australia
How does one review a game that has not been released yet?

Temporal rift?
 
Joined
Nov 28, 2006
Messages
339
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!
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
758
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.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
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.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,346
Location
Florida, US
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.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,772
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.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
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.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,346
Location
Florida, US
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).
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
8,540
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.
 
Joined
Oct 19, 2006
Messages
5,215
Location
The Uncanny Valley
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.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
3,160
Location
Europa Universalis
" 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.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
2,772
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.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,346
Location
Florida, US
" 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.
 
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,346
Location
Florida, US
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.
 
Joined
Nov 23, 2006
Messages
246
Location
In the Sky
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). 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...
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
3,201
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.
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2006
Messages
758
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.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 21, 2006
Messages
39,346
Location
Florida, US
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 !
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
21,955
Location
Old Europe
Back
Top Bottom