[pc] Bioshock

Surprised to see a lack of any Bioshock threads since it was released... anyone got it? bought it? how do you like it?

I actually bought it, decided that i would actually buy Bioshock and Crysis (wen it comes out). Only played about an hour of Bioshock but the graphics are awesome, especially the water effects which are amazing. Getting a 320mb 8800gts in less than a month so i'll be able to see how it looks with the dx10 textures enabled and with AA on.

Although i bought it, i'm using an activation-skipping crack that i got online cos 2k's security feature only lets you use the same serial like 5 times... they said they will be removing it in the near future but before then i want to keep my serial so its in working condition.

Any thoughts on the game?

bioshock is soo last week HALO 3 is this week and probly for the next three months till super smash bros and i thought id see more metroid prime 3 corruption on the site and all i see is someones sig

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ImaMoFoThief

bioshock is soo last week HALO 3 is this week and probly for the next three months till super smash bros and i thought id see more metroid prime 3 corruption on the site and all i see is someones sig

---

Of all the games you named, only 1 fits the PC tag which this thread has.
Get a clue then return.

im just saying that i expected to see more mp3c and bioshock is dwarved by halo 3 maybe in 4 months people will talk about bioshock but me personally i would really like to try this game

It's "different" and has a original feeling about it. I hated all the hype it got but it wasn't a bad game. IMO the story helped the game a lot though & the twists/plot development was just right. The scenery was really quite well done and it made a positive difference than walking through an office complex or some space station.

Other than that it's definitely worth getting and playing through to the end.

ImaMoFoThief, would you kindly stop posting non-topic related things?

Yes it was hyped, but it deserved it, for example everyone's screaming Halo 3, i got it pre-ordered, i definetly want the game, but let's not pretend it's the most amazing game ever, because it's not.

Bioshock ain't that either imo, however it's definetly 1 of the best games i ever played, the only things that would have made this game better if it was longer, and if there was a multiplayer, and while those are 2 major things, the fact is that the gameplay, physics and the amazing graphics make up for it bigtime.

Anyway i obviously own the game, i ordered the collectors edition but the fucking shop promised me i would get one multiple times, but in the end didn't have 1 for me... jackasses... bought the tin box version later.

Played the demo and it was fun. Probably get the X360 version next month when my wifes gets back over here. As she wants to the game first.

NoPeace - out

Hey i got bioshock! and updated to vista just to get dx10... i saw no difference at all lol so went back to good old xp. (got sick of the damn ALLOW and DENY)

But its a great game! I advise everyone to buy it and crysis when it comes out :):)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingBlair

Hey i got bioshock! and updated to vista just to get dx10... i saw no difference at all lol so went back to good old xp. (got sick of the damn ALLOW and DENY)

But its a great game! I advise everyone to buy it and crysis when it comes out :):)

---

There isn't much difference because they took the approach of making it perform better with DX10.

Though there are some major things that are different between the DX9 and DX10 version.

1) The shadow detail is greater
2) Water ripples are more realistic
3) Soft particle smoke (which makes it look real and no lines in it)

NoPeace - out

I might get it because the games looks amazing, I'm not sure thought i am also waiting for portal!

Lack of Bioshock threads? Pretty sure theres been two. One by me. Anyway I beat the game for my 360 and gonna go again this time trying to get all the achievements. I would've gotten it for my PC as it'd go nicely with System Shock 2 and 1 right next to it, but alas my graphics card would explode. Sucks about the limited serial code usage thing tho. Hope they change that for you PC guys soon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoPeace

There isn't much difference because they took the approach of making it perform better with DX10.

Though there are some major things that are different between the DX9 and DX10 version.

1) The shadow detail is greater
2) Water ripples are more realistic
3) Soft particle smoke (which makes it look real and no lines in it)

NoPeace - out

---

Perform better with DX10?
It performes better with DX9. more frames

I rent it from a friend. Great game :D. I have Geforce 8600GTS and I have everything on max :D (dx9). I like the research camera thing :).

What do you guys? Rescue or Harvest the Little Sisters? (I rescue :P)

I got it for my 360, great game except that it lacks multiplayer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zmiffy

I got it for my 360, great game except that it lacks multiplayer.

---

If you were near me right now i'd punch you. Anyone else complains about multi player and they get punched too. its not a necessity

I'd say multiplayer is ALWAYS necessary unless you havn't got any friends.

(prepares for a punch)

False. Lot of multiplayer games are addicted and have a complete different play style. Some game developers want their games to have a certain playstyle. I mean, you want it to be one of those thousends online shooters out there? Zapping eachother with plasmids? That would kinda ruin the gameplay.

For games like CoD or BF it should really have MP. But Simcity (lol) or Bioshock is just designed for SP.

Dont get me wrong, MP has great fun, but SP sometimes too ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Konrow

If you were near me right now i'd punch you. Anyone else complains about multi player and they get punched too. its not a necessity

---

I disagree, you get more for your money with the multiplayer feature. Singleplayer games you just complete and then they just collect dust.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KingBlair

Perform better with DX10?
It performes better with DX9. more frames

---

I'm talking about under Vista only.

Test the game on both DX9 and DX10 in vista and you'll see on average the same FPS. At times the DX10 version will be a head by a single FPS. So you do get a slight performance increase in DX10 which also comes with better shadows, particle effects and other shader based changes.

Of course from XP to Vista you'll get a lot of performance drop but that's due to lower driver quality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daevius

I rent it from a friend. Great game :D. I have Geforce 8600GTS and I have everything on max :D (dx9). I like the research camera thing :).

What do you guys? Rescue or Harvest the Little Sisters? (I rescue :P)

---

Now then... What resolution you have it at? What is your AA settings? And what is your AF settings?

Don't say you have it on max unless you are running it at native resolution with 4xAA and at least 8xAF (16x preferably).

Now that'll be max settings in a way. Though still not max as your card can do 8xAA and 16xAF. Then and only then you can truely say you have max settings but normally it's just a min of 4xAA and 8xAF.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linklink88

I'd say multiplayer is ALWAYS necessary unless you havn't got any friends.

(prepares for a punch)

---

I beg to differ.

Ever played Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto, Final Fantasy, and Mario?

All of them are rated the best gaming franchises and non of them have true multiplayer.

Not just that but "god games" don't have it either. Look at the Sims based games. They are not online. Don't even know how you'd play SimCity online. O.O

NoPeace - out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoPeace

I beg to differ.

Ever played Metal Gear Solid, Grand Theft Auto, Final Fantasy, and Mario?

All of them are rated the best gaming franchises and non of them have true multiplayer.

Not just that but "god games" don't have it either. Look at the Sims based games. They are not online. Don't even know how you'd play SimCity online. O.O

NoPeace - out

---

Okey my mistake. I meant basicly fps games and games you "shoot" your way through :P But you're right. Alot of good games havn't got multiplayer support because they are made to be played single. Zelda is my favorite btw.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by linklink88

Okey my mistake. I meant basicly fps games and games you "shoot" your way through :P But you're right. Alot of good games havn't got multiplayer support because they are made to be played single. Zelda is my favorite btw.

---

I can name quite a lot of games that you shoot your way though that doesn't have multiplayer.

Oh wait I named too. :1:

There are tons of games out there that are story focused. And a lot of them do have mutliplayer. Though for the most part the multiplayer sucks. Remember Doom 3 anyone? An amazing 4 player online experience! /sarcasm

NoPeace - out

alas. I downloaded the demo but noo...my ATI Radeon 9550 256MB AGP8x only has Shadow 2.0 or somethin like that.

Anyways it looked...like floating fire and water ripples yeah...Made no sense so I gave up. lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyle

alas. I downloaded the demo but noo...my ATI Radeon 9550 256MB AGP8x only has Shadow 2.0 or somethin like that.

Anyways it looked...like floating fire and water ripples yeah...Made no sense so I gave up. lol.

---

:punch: Same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoPeace

Now then... What resolution you have it at? What is your AA settings? And what is your AF settings?

Don't say you have it on max unless you are running it at native resolution with 4xAA and at least 8xAF (16x preferably).

Now that'll be max settings in a way. Though still not max as your card can do 8xAA and 16xAF. Then and only then you can truely say you have max settings but normally it's just a min of 4xAA and 8xAF.

---

I run it at 1280x1024, and in the graphics menu I have everything at max. My NVidia control panel says that AA and AF are application controlled, so I guess everything is at max. Anyways 4x AA is really nice, 8x has only a tiny bit of change and 16x is just a waste of time for the GPU.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kyle

alas. I downloaded the demo but noo...my ATI Radeon 9550 256MB AGP8x only has Shadow 2.0 or somethin like that.

Anyways it looked...like floating fire and water ripples yeah...Made no sense so I gave up. lol.

---

Shadermodel 2, you need Shadermodel 3 which you get from the Geforce 6600's (i believe it starts there anyway, could be a little lower aswell) and up, and the ATI X1600 (or was it 1300?) and higher.

There is a mod that allows you to run it on Shadermodel 2 cards, but even then your card will be to poor to run it, the mod is only useful for those with ATI X800 cards or near that.

oo ooo oooo ive got bioshock :D

Tis a damn good game!

Bought an 8600GTS (512mb gddr3 one) for it (that and crysis etc). The visuals are stunning! Still havent finished it but i know im damn near the end.

Top quality stuff!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daevius

I run it at 1280x1024, and in the graphics menu I have everything at max. My NVidia control panel says that AA and AF are application controlled, so I guess everything is at max. Anyways 4x AA is really nice, 8x has only a tiny bit of change and 16x is just a waste of time for the GPU.

---

4x AA still leaves jaggies on lines. Then when you go into 8x most of it is gone. Then with 16x you have virtually none.

So there is a difference between them. And a major one from 4x to 8x with any resolution below 19x12.

Further more games do no use AA by default and have very low AF. You'll need to force that stuff in your drivers to use them.

Once you enable AA with your weak card, you'll get to unplayable states at that resolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GohanSSJ

Shadermodel 2, you need Shadermodel 3 which you get from the Geforce 6600's (i believe it starts there anyway, could be a little lower aswell) and up, and the ATI X1600 (or was it 1300?) and higher.

There is a mod that allows you to run it on Shadermodel 2 cards, but even then your card will be to poor to run it, the mod is only useful for those with ATI X800 cards or near that.

---

nVidia started SM3 with the 6800 and ATI started it with the x1300s.

And yes the SM2 mod is geared for the x800 series cards as anything lower is just to weak.

NoPeace - out

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoPeace

nVidia started SM3 with the 6800 and ATI started it with the x1300s.

---

The 6600 does support SM3.
Performance

8600GTS, just new, you call that weak? :P I just dont want to pay like 600€ for the newest 8800GTX which will be half price in half a year :/

I've got the game. But I'm afraid to install it since I'm sitting on a 9800 PRO lol.

I played the demo on my 360 i thought it was sexy i like the whole idea so ill prolly pick it up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GohanSSJ

The 6600 does support SM3.
Performance

---

I didn't know that. I've only heard of the 6800 having it.

Though I would hate to see SM3 on a 6600. 6800s struggle with it and they completely over power the 6600.

It'll be like the x1300 with it. Supports it but not powerful enough to actually use it.

And like the x1600 with AA+HDR. It supports it but it'll never be able to do it. :icon6:

[QUOTE=Daevius;2639621]8600GTS, just new, you call that weak? :P I just dont want to pay like 600

Yup, I saw that the 7900 serie is pretty good. But they didn't sold any at the local shop, so I did the 8600GTS...

VGA Charts 2007 | Tom's Hardware

Perhaps I can put 2 video cards in my pc? that would be fast wouldnt it?

Video Adapter
Name RADEON Radeon X300/X550/X1050 Series
Video Processor ATI Radeon Graphics Processor (0x5B60)
Manufactory ATI Technologies Inc.
Video Architecture VGA
DAC Type Internal DAC(400MHz)
Memory Size 256MB
Memory Type Unknown
Video Mode 1024 x 768 x 4294967296 kleuren
Current Refresh Rate 60Hz
Driver Version 6.14.10.6715
Driver Date 28-7-2007 3:30:27

CPU Name AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3400+

Ain't good for Bio, no?

That ain't good indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NoPeace

I didn't know that. I've only heard of the 6800 having it.

Though I would hate to see SM3 on a 6600. 6800s struggle with it and they completely over power the 6600.

It'll be like the x1300 with it. Supports it but not powerful enough to actually use it.

And like the x1600 with AA+HDR. It supports it but it'll never be able to do it. :icon6:



8600 series cards are a joke.

8600GT =~ 7600GT
8600GTS =~ 7900GS

Normally the next gen mid range cards are as powerful as the low end of the last gen high end cards.

Which in this case they are only as fast as the last gen and in some case slower.

That is why I say it's weak. Because the card that it competes against in DX9 is weak.

Not to mention you could have gotten a faster DX9 card for less money. As the 8600 series along with the AMD 2600 series are just to weak to even run DX10 games.

That money could have gotten a 7900GTO or a x1900XT. Which are far superior cards in terms of DX9 performance. Though they can't support DX10 but that doesn't matter when the mid range DX10 cards can't even run DX10 with good settings (which causes loss of IQ).

NoPeace - out

---

The 6800 can run properly with SM3, i got a eVGA 6800GT with 256mb DDR3 (there is also a DDR2 version) and it's pretty damn fast (considering the age of it), you can compare it to a 7600GT, this card can run Bioshock on a little over the medium settings, so not that bad.
But yeah the 6600's probably can't pull most of it, and same goes for the low ATI's like you said, it's just a selling point, but it's worth absolutely nothing. 8600's are indeed a joke, i checked the specs, and it's even worse at points then mine, which is a absolute joke, i mean how can a supposed mid range card have parts that are worse then a card from like 5 years ago, that's just sick.
And i completely agree with the rest aswell, those mid range cards will never be able to use DX10, they can't even max the DX9 features, so the DX10 features simply won't be used, which makes the whole DX10 point useless, and then it's smarter to buy a high end DX9 card as they're much cheaper in comparison.

By all means, the 8600 ain't a bad card, but compared to other choices within that range it's pretty damn bad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daevius

Yup, I saw that the 7900 serie is pretty good. But they didn't sold any at the local shop, so I did the 8600GTS...

VGA Charts 2007 | Tom's Hardware

Perhaps I can put 2 video cards in my pc? that would be fast wouldnt it?

---

It would make it faster though you must have an SLI ready motherboard. Even then it would be a waist of money. Would have been better to have bought an 8800.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Genryu

Video Adapter
Name RADEON Radeon X300/X550/X1050 Series
Video Processor ATI Radeon Graphics Processor (0x5B60)
Manufactory ATI Technologies Inc.
Video Architecture VGA
DAC Type Internal DAC(400MHz)
Memory Size 256MB
Memory Type Unknown
Video Mode 1024 x 768 x 4294967296 kleuren
Current Refresh Rate 60Hz
Driver Version 6.14.10.6715
Driver Date 28-7-2007 3:30:27

CPU Name AMD Athlon(tm) 64 Processor 3400+

Ain't good for Bio, no?

---

You got that right. That isn't good enough for that game.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GohanSSJ

That ain't good indeed.

The 6800 can run properly with SM3, i got a eVGA 6800GT with 256mb DDR3 (there is also a DDR2 version) and it's pretty damn fast (considering the age of it), you can compare it to a 7600GT, this card can run Bioshock on a little over the medium settings, so not that bad.

---

Yeah they are fast. But the problem with them is when you turn on HDR the card is just dead. Like wise with some other high end shader features.

Still given the fact that the card is from 4 years ago it's still pretty damn powerful. The 6800s where monsters back then just as the 8800s are now.

What ever happened with the damn 7800/7900s.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GohanSSJ

But yeah the 6600's probably can't pull most of it, and same goes for the low ATI's like you said, it's just a selling point, but it's worth absolutely nothing. 8600's are indeed a joke, i checked the specs, and it's even worse at points then mine, which is a absolute joke, i mean how can a supposed mid range card have parts that are worse then a card from like 5 years ago, that's just sick.
And i completely agree with the rest aswell, those mid range cards will never be able to use DX10, they can't even max the DX9 features, so the DX10 features simply won't be used, which makes the whole DX10 point useless, and then it's smarter to buy a high end DX9 card as they're much cheaper in comparison.

By all means, the 8600 ain't a bad card, but compared to other choices within that range it's pretty damn bad.

---

Yeah it just makes no since why AMD and nVidia made them so damn weak and so damn overpriced. They support features that it will never be able to run.

The only possible reason why I could ever see getting a mid-range DX10 card over a high end DX9 card is the fact they can be used as a GPGPU (general purpose GPU). Then and only then will they be of any real use as a 8600 has more FP power then a QX6800. So you'll get some nice folding@home scores from a cheap card.

NoPeace - out