Opinions on BioShock Created 17 years ago2007-08-23 15:26:22 UTC by srry

Just as good graphics, and controls that once you get used to them are fine.

Consoles are cheap too. PC gaming is expensive, way more expensive than it should be.

Dude, the graphics are NOT the same.
I saw how Quake 4 looked on a console.. shit!

Consoles are cheap? The PS3 costs like ?500 and the games for it ?70 or more. Ridiculous.

Hmmm let's compare:

PC Gaming

+ Is a Windows capable computer: web browsing, typing, able to use mods, able to make mods, VoIP, IM

• Is a Windows capable computer: system maintenance, performance is wild, crashes, drivers problems, glitches, bugs, Steam, etc. One needs to sit down at desk, connect to plasma (burn-in!) TV, or deal with slow laptop GPU/ short battery life.

+ Exclusive PC games

• Exclusive console games (Halo 2 counts here, that Vista port is nothing worth playing)

+ Mouse is excellent for FPS games

• EXPENSIVE!!! (If you want a good experience. Budget machines that cost more than a Xbox 360 means 800x600, low settings, and lag - not my idea of a good time).
• Free online play

+ Games are capable of the best graphics if you have a very fast machine two years after a new console generation is released. A Core 2 Duo E6600, 2GB of DDR2-800, and a 8600GT trounces the Xbox 360 in performance now (1280x720, 4xAA, etc)

Xbox 360

+ Runs only games, that means very few technical difficulties and all your computing
+ Simple

• Loading times are like that of a low-end PC
• Pay to play online
• $60 dollar games that get their price lowered slower than PC games
• Controllers. Hate them or love them, I still think $1500 is worth the lack of a mouse controls and letter keys. I heard UT3 will support them though.

+ Your machine is guaranteed to last 5 years, none of this "Shader Model 3 support was not detected" crap.
+ Price. $350 and some accessories are still a whole lot cheaper than a comparable computer plus the cost of upgrades. In order to be able to play the latest games enjoyably for 5 years, it's about $1500 up front, and then maybe two $200 upgrades down the line. Computers use more power as well.
+ Exclusive console games

• Exclusive PC games

I have a 720p/1080i capable HDTV. The expenses of being a PC gamer are completely out of control, mainly due to this graphics over gameplay rat race (Doom 3 anyone?)

Oh hi, these aren't opinions on BioShock. :

Dave said something that wasn't a lie!

Is "Prey" a 2003 game? First news I hear about it.
It looked really good on my computer, and I don't understand why I'm not able to run the BioShock demo on at least graphics "as old" as those. Which proves these new engines are designed to keep the market moving. Up to now, shaders and gadgets have mostly been optional. I have a friend who played HL2 on a Radeon 7500. Water did not reflect anything at all, but the game was fun and the framerate acceptable (and he bought his computer a full three years before HL2 came out, with no upgrades). See where I'm going?

Kasperg, it all go's faster nowadays, upgrading to a new GPU every year isnt a bad idea really, i just got a 8800, and its already old, the new 9 cards are coming out soon. Heck, im already thinking about buying a second one.

Back on the topic of BioShock, i'm about 3 and a half hours in, and have pretty much been through a shitstorm of Big Daddies and Splicers. I'm not even bored of the enemy-types either, they keep amping up the threat level as you aquire new plasmids and upgrades (which also vary the battles as you go). I've seen at least 4 different types of Splicers, and two different types of Big Daddies and i'm definately not bored of duking it out with them.

The introduction of new weapons is well timed too, always appearing around about the time you need them. Also, the Little Sister/Big Daddy mechanics work great, I won't spoil anything but a degree of balance and decision making is involved that really adds to the gameplay. Basically, the game is great fun despite it's minor problems that people have picked up on. The physics for one thing are ocassionally pretty bad, but they aren't all that important.

upgrading to a new GPU every year isnt a bad idea really

If you have the money, of course.
I will probably enjoy Hl2:Episode2 without a single upgrade, and I won't be able to even play BioShock on low settings, because those settings just don't exist. That's where the problem is. I played FEAR with a bad framerate (badly optimized game + geforce4 ti 4200) but I was actually able to play.

Well, you should expect a last gen game to work on old hardware. And, it seems that the CPU is also taking a bigger part in how good a game will play, as easily seen in FSX.

I have been playing bioshock lately (PC). I think it's a great game, I am enjoying it more than I enjoyed HL2. I kinda laughed when I looked at some wood panel walls and they were as reflective as mirrors, but it's kinda cool I guess. It's a great story also but I won't get into that (you just want opinions right?). I guess I am lucky enough to be able to play this game the way it was intended (full graphics with out lagging at all) keep in mind that affects the way I see the game. If you have a good computer and weren't to buy this game, I would think you are putting it to waste.

It's ridiculous how hardware and software sales drive each other. Nvidia and AMD could have so many more users if they brought the price of a good GPU to $200, not this $550 (new dell laptop) crap. I guess it's like Segways: pwny experience for the few who can afford to waste money. For the rest of us who have bills to pay or just common sense, lag.

It took quite a bit of fiddling (and buying a new CPU, and overclocking my GPU), but I managed to get Bioshock working in maximum detail on my system, with smoothly-playable framerates.

I don't know how far into the game I am yet really, because I really like to take my time and explore every little thing. I've been playing for two nights and a day solid though. I just got out of Fort Frolic.

My only complaint -- I wanted a general inventory!! There isn't quite as much micromanagement in Bioshock as there was in System Shock. And I really like that sort of thing.

But it's still a truly great game. The water! Oh my god, the WATER!!!!!

I haven't been able to bring myself to kill a little sister. I keep rescuing them...still, some woman keeps leaving me presents for doing it. Which is nice...

i've rescued two little sisters and the next one is going down!!!! mwahaha!

I've killed a bunch because i'm an evil bastard. That and the rescued girls are still freaky looking. I got the first gift from Tenenbaun, nothing since.

I've watched loads of trailers and read loads of stuff. But I don't get it.
What do you DO?
What's the style of gameplay?
Is it true that you can do ANYTHING?
Can you go anywhere you want?

Please, you guys who have it and have played it, explain without spoiling if possible.

I can't play it either, but I know the story and the gameplay from reading forums and watching trailers.

My Radeon 9800 Pro is too old.

I'll wait for Team Fortress 2 and Portal, which won't disappoint.

Madcow, it's quite simple. Your plane crashes in the Atlantic and you find a manmade island of sorts with a submarine that takes you down into the underwater city called "Rapture", which happens to be falling to pieces and filled with hideous monsters. You pick up a radio very early on, and you're mostly guided through listening to the guy on the other end. He basically gives you missions.

That's a very short description of what you're doing, and goes into no detail whatsoever about the specifics.

To go on to your other questions, the gameplay is usually kind of slow paced (except maybe when you're fighting Big Daddies), though you can speed through it if you like, it just makes it harder. No, you can't do anything (this isn't GTA here), but you are given ample freedom to explore all the areas, and I believe you can travel back and forth between areas you've already been to.

Yep, you're not given total freedom, but you're given a pretty decent choice about how you want to approach each area. The people who explore more and put in the extra effort get better rewarded for it.

I finished it last night.

Too short!!!!

Bloody marvellous though. I have to play it again now, because it seemed like the story would be much different if I had acted differently.

I saved all of the sisters, and I won't spoil it, but lets just say that I don't think the ending (or indeed the last 20% of the game) would have happened the same way AT ALL if I had killed them.

Played the demo yesterday. Got to admit it has quite a lot of pretty, especially the water... i had a watergasm. the plasmids are a fun idea with manipulating enemies and environment to kill, but its not turbo-advanced with gameplay and all that. It'll shine for the moment like Halo and then fade out. If it has multiplayer, it'll last a little longer than that.

but its not turbo-advanced with gameplay and all that

Indeed. Most of the 'original' gameplay features, which are the basis for a lot of the hype, are old but often under-reported news. System Shock 2 had everything Bioshock has in terms of gameplay -- and more. Bioshock feels cut down and simplified next to SS2. And it's shorter.

But damn, it's still a lot of fun. And I don't see any other games doing it this way.

Sephiroth haxored your game.

SM2 card? Probably not.
But yeah, that DOES look like the fire Sephiroth scene.

I got the bioshock demo and let me tell you, the best part that I saw was the "starting Bioshock" part that happened right before i got an error that shuts down the game and wants to send data to MS.

Send data to MS is due to Window's dumb "error reporting" feature you should turn off.

Delete. Nevermind

That's funny Nickelplate, because you were the one who taught me how to turn lame error reporting messages off.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/zeropunctuation/1394-Zero-Punctuation-BioShock

Hehe I think this has some good points but I'm still gonna get it eventually.