Bioshock PS3 Has Graphical Issues

[bean]

VE3D (http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/41965/BioShock-PS3-Demo-Graphics-All-Kinds-of-Broken) published the response of 2K games testing department to some troubling comparison pictures (http://d.hatena.ne.jp/yoda-dip-jp/20081004#1223141168) between the Xbox 360 and PS3 demo versions of the game. In response to this Big Daddy closeup comparion (http://forum.beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1223727&postcount=153) the 2K games testing department issued this response:
First, I want to thank you for the acute attention to detail and the Spartan level of expectation our most devoted BioShock fans hold us to, and how excited you are and attentive to the BioShock PS3 demo. When we saw a post asking about issues found in the demo, we jumped on it immediately. And you know what, you're right. The texture in the PS3 demo of the downed Big Daddy does not match our level of quality either. This slipped by. We admit it. However, I want to assure you that this is an exception, and not a rule, and while I regret this oversight, we put a lot of love into making this game look amazing for the PS3 and I'm sure that when you play the rest of the demo you will agree that the textures are not all like this one instance.

While it is not news that games run on the Unreal 3 engine tend to look slightly less clear on the PS3, how much of this is due to farming out the port to another developer? Valve was similarly surprised when the PS3 version of the Orange box compared poorly (http://www.gametrailers.com/player/29113.html) to the Xbox 360 version and it was developed using Valve's Source engine.

Another theory, if you do not wish to blame this on the Unreal 3 engine or a secondary developer handling the port, is that any game made primarily for one console and then ported to the other will not look as good; however, there are many multiplatform games that are much closer in visual acuity than these two examples.

Finally, does this matter at all? With the exception of the highly pixelated Big Daddy's back, these comparisons both show really good visuals and these games will be fun to play no matter what console or platform on which they are played. They are far closer comparisons than what we saw in last generation consoles.

[Shadowstorm]

That's quite a graphical difference.

[bean]

P.S. - This is a news submission.

[Rogue_hunter]

That Big Daddy was just one instance. I played the demo, and the game looks amazing. People who have to nitpick just to prove one console is better need to get over it.

[jeffbax]

That'd be a huge difference. While I don't think Unreal 3 not being well done on PS3 is news, I've also heard that the demo isn't from the final build either.

Hopefully we'll see the final version soon enough. I gotta give the demo a run through to see for myself, after beating it 3x on the 360.

[bean]

That Big Daddy was just one instance. I played the demo, and the game looks amazing. People who have to nitpick just to prove one console is better need to get over it.
There are more comparisons linked in the story. It isn't usually that big a difference. It's more like the Orange Box comparison video also linked in the story.

Read the last paragraph too. They look to close to the same aside from that one pic for it to matter (to me).

[grimmjow]

Damn

I guess I can say the lighting on the hand surrounded in lighting is great :lol

but I played the demo, overall it's great!

[Telefrog]

That Big Daddy was just one instance. I played the demo, and the game looks amazing. People who have to nitpick just to prove one console is better need to get over it.

I don't think it's proof of either console being better than the other. It isn't nitpicking, however. That's a huge difference in detail. On the most prominent character in the game, no less!

[violent]

Who cares? Bitch if it's in the final version. Complaining about a demo is like complaining about the picture of your food in a menu. Be patient and judge for yourself.

[Troggles]

If I'm not mistaken, most people loved this game for it's gameplay, right? I haven't heard any differences there.

[Deadend]

PS3 is doomed?

[Uniqueusername]

The Big Daddy texture has got to be a bug.

While the other PS3 comparison screenshots do seem a little more blurry, they are nothing even remotely like that.

I'm certain the PS3 version is very close to the 360 one.

[cp#]

It looks fucking blurry. They should fix it.

[digitalErich]

It looks fucking blurry. They should fix it.
Yeah, I'm calling shenanigans...even the hud elements look blurry in those PS3 shots. Is that really the PS3 or some artifact in how it was captured from the PS3? I'm not convinced either way, yet.

[Gorvi]

Those comparison shots are all kinds of messed up. I've played both, and couldn't tell the difference. They were both sharp as hell.

[National Kato]

I can't possibly buy three versions of a single game, can I?

[QueQueg]

I'll have to go back through the demo again. I will say this: the game-play was so much fun, I wasn't focusing much on individual textures.

Still, if there's a texture issue, hopefully it can be patched shortly after release.

[KingGorilla]

Sounds to me like a textbook case of a rough version demo-ad. I would not be surprised if this was a year or more old.

[bean]

I'll have to go back through the demo again. I will say this: the game-play was so much fun, I wasn't focusing much on individual textures.

I don't think you'll find any differences just playing it. Did you see the Orange Box 2 comparison video? It is in HD and has the comparisons side-by-side. An Xbox 360 advantage is clearly visible, but they both look really good. . . so good that I would probably not be able to tell the difference if the comparisons were not side-by-side.

[BlackPete]

I have the 360 version of Bioshock, but I have to say that I like the softer look in the PS3 version better. The 360 version looked a bit too plasticky and shiny in those screenshots.

[TheEpicOfTyler]

I cannot imagine that the Big Daddy looks like that in the PS3 version. That is PS1 quality texturing. I would guess that this was an instance where the texture did not load properly for some reason.

[Crowe]

It doesn't really matter that it looks a little worse, the game is fantastic and a graphical difference is not going to change that. If people were worried about not getting everything out of the game graphics wise they would be buying a top of the line PC Rig with a 1080p High Def LCD.

But this is the console arena, where there has be an increasing focus on graphics and physics. This may have to do with increased competition and more titles going Multi-Platform which has forced some gamers out there to go over every game with a magnifying glass to see which console copped a beating with the ugly stick (Because a slight loss in texture quality matters :S).

But the question I have been asking lately, is why developers are concentrating so much on Graphics and Physics (And also Gimmicks, Like bullet time.). Interviews, Demo's, Videos, so much of it focused on what the graphics are going to be like in the game and how awesome the day/night cycles are, or the physics. I feel like games have been suffering as a result, sure they look awesome and you can do some wicked stuff in them but why would I buy something that only last 6 hours. Assassin's Creed as one example, looks and played well but was short lived and didn't have much meat to it, and they still asked full price.

[BlackPete]

But the question I have been asking lately, is why developers are concentrating so much on Graphics and Physics (And also Gimmicks, Like bullet time.). Interviews, Demo's, Videos, so much of it focused on what the graphics are going to be like in the game and how awesome the day/night cycles are, or the physics. I feel like games have been suffering as a result, sure they look awesome and you can do some wicked stuff in them but why would I buy something that only last 6 hours. Assassin's Creed as one example, looks and played well but was short lived and didn't have much meat to it, and they still asked full price.

It's like sex. It sells.

[Tayaya]

Words words words... I think the burnout paradise team got this one right. They made a kickass game, made sure it all worked and was fun as hell. AFTER that, they've been adding all the little "fluff" things to make it even better and give us a reason to keep playing this far past launch. That doesn't work for all genres of games though, but for Paradise it sure did.

On the subject of Bioshock... I haven't played the demo, but I seriously doubt those textures are the norm. I may give it a download just to see if it's a bad port or not with my own eyes, but I know I'm not buying it on the PS3. I still own the 360 version and have yet to finish it (something else came out that while not as good was a priority to me, and Bioshock got put aside, sadly). I do hope it manages to sell well though...hoping there are some PS3 owners out there that don't have 360s that will get to experience a truly must-play game.

[bean]

But the question I have been asking lately, is why developers are concentrating so much on Graphics and Physics (And also Gimmicks, Like bullet time.). Interviews, Demo's, Videos, so much of it focused on what the graphics are going to be like in the game and how awesome the day/night cycles are, or the physics. I feel like games have been suffering as a result, sure they look awesome and you can do some wicked stuff in them but why would I buy something that only last 6 hours. Assassin's Creed as one example, looks and played well but was short lived and didn't have much meat to it, and they still asked full price.

I don't think they are. . . look at Bioshock. Here is a game that has good physics and visuals, but I would say the game's key selling points are it's narrative (that I won't spoil for the few who have not played) and interesting intrinsic gameplay elements (electricity into water, fire melts ice, etc.)

Plus, bullet time isn't a gimmic. It was an awesome feature when first introduced in Max Payne because it changed the way you played an FPS. In F.E.A.R. it makes the spectacular daisy grenade visuals and awesome physics (especially for it's release date) look incredible.

Now there are games that miss the mark or that are all flash and no substance, but there will always be bad games. I think we are starting to see a trend in AAA games in that they are trying to do everything well. . . like Hollywood blockbusters, they want to do it all. Visuals and physics are important, but I'm also seeing better and better narratives in the best games coming out while also seeing innovation in gameplay mechanics.

Are you saying that game designers are plumbing the same wells too often? For instance, reactive button presses were great in God of War, but too often they have become the "instant fail" sequences in games that aren't as forgiving as God of War when you die. Most games actually steal this mechanic well Tomb Raider, Mercenaries 2, & Devil May Cry are all forgiving enough that they enhance gameplay instead of making it crap.

Interesting innovations in games just this year:

Tales of Vesparia battle system - If you play long enough, the combat system is unfolded to you and you get all kinds of abilities that can link together to deal awesome damage as well as finishers for when you pull of sick combos and special skills that reward you for doing these well. It's a great game that I highly recommend to RPG fans.

Left 4 Dead - Not out yet, so the jury is still out, but a team-based frantic zombie game with dynamic spawns that adjust to your team's ability? That's pretty cool.

Warhammer Online Public Quests - Run into an area to do a quest and you may find that it is a public quest area. In addition to your quest, you'll find that other players are working to meet the public quest's goal and you can immediately help to work towards it. Beating the public quest earns you a chance to win some victory loot, but you also earn influence for that chapter of the game that will definitely result in excellent gear. It's like raiding, but no waiting for groups to form, and everyone wins at least the influence.

Hinterland - Village building sim/RPG - You work to build up a village in the hinterlands of a kingdom. Fight off monsters around the village to earn gold and fame that allow you to entice new people to move into your village. You can even take them along with you to adventure. It isn't perfect in execution, but it is an outstanding new cross-genre game that could be made amazing in a sequel that creates more diversity in fighting styles, multiple areas to take over, and more directions to build your town in to create different specialties and styles of play. Still, the basic idea is extremely innovative, and a game design I wrote up years ago and was so happy to see manifested in a real game.

Fable 2 - Will the dog pet be as cool and interesting as Peter Molyneux has promised? I don't know, and I'm not willing to bet, but I'm willing to hope.

I can go on about some other ones coming out too. . . but honestly, I think it is a great time to be gaming.

[Variable Gear]

Interesting innovations in games just this year:

Tales of Vesparia battle system...
Tales of Vesperia's battle system shouldn't count as an innovation. Namco has been crawling to this point for more than a decade, and there have been many little additions along the way. Nothing revolutionary was added in Vesperia, so it shouldn't be celebrated as a game-changer for other action-focused JRPGs.
I can go on about some other ones coming out too. . . but honestly, I think it is a great time to be gaming.
I would argue that there's not enough innovation in the industry, but you can believe whatever you want. It's a great time to be gaming, but not many game creators are trying as hard as they should be.

[bean]

I would argue that there's not enough innovation in the industry, but you can believe whatever you want. It's a great time to be gaming, but not many game creators are trying as hard as they should be.
So what have you found to be innovative in another art-form or craft lately? Have movies had as many innovations this year? Dramatic new painter or sculpter?

Innovation in art, craft, and industry are coming fast and furious because gaming is such a broad multi-discipline genre as well as being relatively young. Sometimes these changes aren't huge, but relatively small changes (as well as dramatic ones) are a big deal in other art forms.

Have you read anything about modernists? There is actually a lot of interesting things about the maturation of art and innovation as a species that may be tracked and understood by using them as a focal point. We are living in an age of inventors and innovators that really exploded with them.

But I digress. . . the point of this is that innovation is not something that happens quickly.

[Johan]

So ugly, so ugly! A game that ugly cannot possibly be fun! ;)

Besides; everyone knows that older games are no longer fun, anyways!

*goes back to playing older/cheaper games*

[bean]

So ugly, so ugly! A game that ugly cannot possibly be fun! ;)
You must not have read all of the OP or the many replies that tend to agree with this sentiment.

Is there anyone here who a) only had a PS3 or didn't buy this for their Xbox 360 and/or PC but will buy it for their PS3 and b) has an issue with the graphics being slightly less crisp on the PS3?

With the exception of the Big Daddy comparison that was highly pixelated and may have occurred during the capture process or while many other things were happening just off screen (but still in the console's memory), the comparisons would not be evident to me without the comparison screenshots.

It's still an interesting story, in my opinion, because of the various reasons why it may have happened (and thus the focus on this in the OP), but the actual difference in clarity is not large enough to maatter (again, in my opinion).

[biosc1]

I have the 360 version of Bioshock, but I have to say that I like the softer look in the PS3 version better. The 360 version looked a bit too plasticky and shiny in those screenshots.

Yah, I noticed that as well. Seems like there is more AA and more "glow" going on in the PS3 version.

[Tayaya]

I grabbed the demo to see how awful this game looks with my own eyes... and I am happy to say that it looked FINE. There was a very annoying white border along the bottom and right of the screen during the opening scene, but that left as soon as the control was handed over to me.

Everything else was fine, and the game looked like Bioshock to me through and through. I think they cranked up the bloom a bit on the PS3 one, and there were a few things that were complaint-worthy, like some choppy movement on the security drones when they move fast, making them hard to target, but other than that the game looked just as good, and in some areas better than the 360 version as I remember it (but I admit I don't remember it super vividly, but do plan on starting it over soon). It does look a little softer, but the colors seem a little more vivid and the lighting a lot more bloomy, which is one of those subjective things... some like it, some won't.

Personally I prefer the 360 one based on that I played, but the PS3 one is not one of those "horrible ports" the OP's article would lead one to believe it is.

[Purple Santa]

I can't possibly buy three versions of a single game, can I?

You can. You will. Why not? The game is that good...tell yourself it's an early xmas present :p