Its a personal thing i guess but i rather the PC version because mouse and keyboard rocks in FPS games. Although they are the same in gfx terms anyway.
I started Bioshock on the PS3, enjoyed it but only played the first couple of levels. Got it cheap on Steam for the PC and it plays soo much better with a keyboard/mouse combo (easier to deal with the weapon/plasmid changes).
As long as you've got a beefy gaming PC, it will look every bit as good and be quicker to load.
No honestly, I think you should take the PS3 version. I had a the PC version of BioShock and it was horridly buggy and crashed at the most unexpected times. The console versions are far more stable and as far as graphics go, you really don't need it to look any prettier than what they already are on the console.
It`s a hard call to make 360 or PC ? well to be honest I don`t really think it matters with Bioshock, it is still a bunch of CARP either way. Save your money to buy some Nolan sisters CDs.
At least a PC dont RROD on you then you have to send it back to microshaft. As for being buggy there is something called patches .... oh yeah thats right they do that for the consoles dont they when they lol
This isn't a thread about console vs PC's so I'm going to refrain from taking the bait. ;)
My points about BioShock are from personal experience. I own both a PC (gift from someone) version and a console version. I've had zero problems getting the console version to run, but I've been plagued with something or the other trying to run the PC version. After I'd installed the patches, it solved some problems but created new ones too - "unexpected crashes" being one. IF you've had good experience with the PC version, fair play. I didn't and I'm going to call it like I see it. :)
Also, doesn't the PS3 version have extra content that isn't available on the PC and the Xbox 360? So that's one more reason for going the console route IMO.
For what it's worth, I've not played the PC or PS3 versions, but I've played the 360 version all the way through, and there's no bugs or flaws (that I noticed, anyway). It looks great, and plays very smooth. On the other hand, the PC version probably has a lot of fan made mods (don't quote me on this, check up first if it's going to influence your decision) which will make the game last longer to you.
Two very big considerations are (a) can your PC run it well, and (b) do you prefer joypad or keyboard + mouse controls?
Come to think of it, doesn't the PS3 version has extra content that isn't in the 360 version (I think I heard that it does)? If so, then does the PC version have this?
Morcar, patches can be great, and can really add to a PC game with extra content, user requested options, etc, but it's a fact that many PC games patches only exist to correct problems that should not exist in the first place, becuase the games are rushed out to the shelves before they are ready, safe in the knowledge that the customers will serve as unpaid beta testers (actually, payING beta testers!). What's worse is that it's not unknown (or even infrequent) for the patch(es) to not only fail to fix serious problems but also to increase them or even introduce new ones.
Since consoles, up until the last but one generation*, could not support game patches, the manufacturer of those games had to have stricter quality checks on their games, to the benefit of the games' players.
* The XBox (1, not 360) was the first console I know of where you could apply a patch to a game - there was a patch available on XBox Live! for Unreal Championship (the first XBox Live! compatible game, by the way, and reputed to have been rushed out so that it was the first) that fixed some game flaws and gave four new gaming levels (arenas). As far as I know the fixed only affected on-line games of UC, so if you played offline then you didn't need the patch, and the patch, or at least the four game levels, was released on a magazine coverdisc too. A fair few other patches appeared for Xbox games over the years, sometimes fixes, sometimes extra levels, sometimes both, but almost none seem to have appeared on cover discs, that I could find.
Dingbat, do you really not like Bioshock? Do you normally like FPSs? What didn't you like about it? I thought it was extremely atmospheric, fun, and sometimes a little disturbing, but very memorable and very well done.
Not getting involved in the PC Vs. Console argument. The one I bought over Steam was perfectly fine - I'm assuming since it was all patched up already when downloaded - and it's simply easier to control that sort of game with the Keyboard/mouse combo.
Dingbat, do you really not like Bioshock? Do you normally like FPSs? What didn't you like about it? I thought it was extremely atmospheric, fun, and sometimes a little disturbing, but very memorable and very well done.
I thought that the gameplay was flat and tedious, I love FPSs and normally this type of game in general, people rave about being able to look outside at the fish, well I am normally too busy playing the game to worry about the dressings. I thought it lacked imagination in general, mostly played on 360, but have test played for a while on Pc. They set it up so that you will play it twice to see the effects of your game choices on the outcome, I doubt if the second time will come for me, a waste of hard earned money in my opinion.
At least a PC dont RROD on you then you have to send it back to microshaft. As for being buggy there is something called patches .... oh yeah thats right they do that for the consoles dont they when they lol
yeah PC's never break. :p
never had any bug issues with my copy of bioshock, i suppose if you are fannying around with patches maybe you need to buy a console. :p
im with dingbat on bioshock, awful game, no idea what all the hype was about.
Not getting involved in the PC Vs. Console argument. The one I bought over Steam was perfectly fine - I'm assuming since it was all patched up already when downloaded - and it's simply easier to control that sort of game with the Keyboard/mouse combo.
I did have problems with Bioshock downloaded from Steam onto one mate's PC - there was no sound after the opening scene where you drop underwater. Turns out this problem is well known and is caused by using a certain sound card (can't remember which one, this was weeks ago) and Vista with Bioshock. I cured it by using XP compatibility mode for the game, but this means that the DirectX 10 enhancements provided by Vista wouldn't appear in the game. Fortunately my mate was OK with that, so I didn't have to go looking for another, Vista/DirectX 10 compaible, cure.
PCs are great when they work, but when they don't they can be real gits for anyone who isn't well up on how they can be trouble-shooted. And at times it's really annoying for me, being the PC expert (well, so so) amongst my family and friends. I certainly don't mind helping out with PCs for people I like, but sometimes I just don't want to see a PC or Windows at all...
Played the demo on the 360 and it was okay, but i'm not a huge fan of gamepads for anything other than shoot-em ups, platforms and racing games. Bought the PC version and it rocked - looks great with my nVidia 3D Vision gizmo too :)
Played the demo on the 360 and it was okay, but i'm not a huge fan of gamepads for anything other than shoot-em ups, platforms and racing games. Bought the PC version and it rocked - looks great with my nVidia 3D Vision gizmo too :)
Are you running Vista or 7, so you get the extra visual goodness? :)
Got both PS3 and PC versions. PC wins hands down IMO - it's smoother, more detailed and obviously plays better with a keyboard/mouse. There's an option in the PS3 version to maintain the framerate and I recommend that you turn it on as it will chug in places - and that's very frustrating when targeting an enemy in a game that frustrates in it's gunplay anyway.
I have to admit I'm not a huge fan of the game. Stylistically it's fantastic but the gunplay to me feels weightless and the enemies zip around at a ridiculous pace. It's a good game, much like I think COD 4 is a good game (when you actually get to shoot someone ahead of your team mates), but in comparison to the great FPS's - Half-Life's, COD 1, Quake 2, Far Cry, Crysis, etc - I think they've been overrated.
I thought that the gameplay was flat and tedious, I love FPSs and normally this type of game in general, people rave about being able to look outside at the fish, well I am normally too busy playing the game to worry about the dressings. I thought it lacked imagination in general, mostly played on 360, but have test played for a while on Pc. They set it up so that you will play it twice to see the effects of your game choices on the outcome, I doubt if the second time will come for me, a waste of hard earned money in my opinion.
I wouldn't have said that the gameplay was in anyway flat or tedious, no more than in any other FPS. All down to opinion, of course, but my opinion of it was that it's gameplay was good and enjoyable. It's far from being the best FPS I've ever played, but I still really enjoyed it. It's true that you could rely maybe too much on a small number of weapons, but that's true for any FPS, and you were free to experiment with different weapons and upgrades.
And surely having two different endings (actually three, I thought?) was an advantage rather than otherwise? You make it sound like playing it was a chore, which isn't what I found at all. Actually the multiple ending bit was a cop out, as it didn't go nearly far enough to provide the user with a feeling of different game experiences (according to whether he was good or evil), but then no FPS (with or without RPG elements) has ever got that part right, at least not the games I've played.
And I really can't see how you can say it lacked imagination - the world of Rapture was very well imagined and realised indeed.
To me, the only real failings of Bioshock were that it was too easy, too short and, it's biggest failing by far, it lacked replay value. But what a fantastic journey when you first play through it. It's definately one of those games that will stay in my memory, not least of all because of the emotions it managed to stir up in me, such as pity and horror for the tragic inhabitants, both dead and still alive, of Rapture. And how many other action games can inspire genuine emotions over their characters?
Still, each to his own. Loads of my mates love guitar games, which leave me cold. I do wish I could learn to like RPGs, but I can't seem to get interested in them at all.
Bioshock has been the best FPS game I've played since Half Life 2. Very atmospheric with a fantastic storyline.
I think that Deus Ex is still the best game of it's type (first person shooter with RPG elements) on the PC (or on any machine), with the only areas it's beaten by Bioshock being graphically and atmospherically. No game has ever drawn me in as much as Bioshock, but regarding replayability and open-endedness, Deus Ex beats Bioshock effortlessly. But the atmosphere of Bioshock was amazing.
I could bang on here about how dissapointing Deus Ex 2 (Invisible War) was, but I'll spare you...
Er, Ok. To me, real boredom is holding a fake guitar (that doesn't even look or feel too real) and pressing the red, green, yellow or blue buttons, according to the descending coloured squares on the TV screen, yet *lots* of people feel very differently. And that's fine.
No doubt some people wouldn't like playing Skooldaze. Wierdos ;)
Regarding that page, I can't answer the PC performance/flaws comments, but whilst the author there is right about Bioshock being unrealistic both in it's abundency of weapon dispensers and the fact that weapons would be available in an underwater city at all (where one misplaced bullet or explosion could break a (glass) wall and flood the place killing people with the fatal water pressure), well yes, but it's suspension of disbelief, like in most games. Bioshock is guilty of breaking the laws of physics and common sense all over the place, but so is every first person shooter ever.
I mean, if you can still stand up in a game after losing 90% of your health, and still aim just as accurately when you're running as when you are stood still, if you can run backwards and sideways as fast as you can forwards, if you can never fall over, even when running backwards or sideways downstairs, if you can carry a ton of different weapons and ammo, and still jump or swim or whatever, if you can run for miles and never get tired or slow down, and if you can pick up a weapon or ammo just by touching it with your foot then the game can hardly claim to be aiming for realism, can it? Yet almost every FPS includes all of these "reality flaws", and I can't thing of even one FPS that's free of half of them. The closest is probably Breakdown on the XBox, that does try for realism in some areas (you can fall down, you have to stop to aim properly, you move slower when moving sideways or backwards, etc, and as a bonus you even see your feet when you look down, and you have to put away your weapon when you climb a ladder, unlike most FPS where you can climb a ladder no handed and even turn around 360 degrees whilst on the ladder to shoot enemies that are behind you).
Realism should only be in games when it enhances the gameplay, but all too frequently realism in games just adds frustration. There was a "realism" mod for the original Unreal Tournament that added things like bleeding (if you got shot you had to find a first aid box and bandage yourself, or you kept on bleeding and got weaker and weaker, etc) and the fact that you could only run for short distances, then you had to stop and rest. And I found the mod to be soooo boring. To be fair, maybe other people liked it, but not me.
I really enjoyed Bioshock. I did find that it dragged a little bit in places though, but overall, it was a great game. I have it for the Xbox360, but I can't say that I'll give the PC version a try as games are just far too unstable on my PC even though it's reasonably powerful
Comments
Just trespassing. But you can always send me an email...
As long as you've got a beefy gaming PC, it will look every bit as good and be quicker to load.
:D
No honestly, I think you should take the PS3 version. I had a the PC version of BioShock and it was horridly buggy and crashed at the most unexpected times. The console versions are far more stable and as far as graphics go, you really don't need it to look any prettier than what they already are on the console.
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
My points about BioShock are from personal experience. I own both a PC (gift from someone) version and a console version. I've had zero problems getting the console version to run, but I've been plagued with something or the other trying to run the PC version. After I'd installed the patches, it solved some problems but created new ones too - "unexpected crashes" being one. IF you've had good experience with the PC version, fair play. I didn't and I'm going to call it like I see it. :)
Also, doesn't the PS3 version have extra content that isn't available on the PC and the Xbox 360? So that's one more reason for going the console route IMO.
Bytes:Chuntey - Spectrum tech blog.
For what it's worth, I've not played the PC or PS3 versions, but I've played the 360 version all the way through, and there's no bugs or flaws (that I noticed, anyway). It looks great, and plays very smooth. On the other hand, the PC version probably has a lot of fan made mods (don't quote me on this, check up first if it's going to influence your decision) which will make the game last longer to you.
Two very big considerations are (a) can your PC run it well, and (b) do you prefer joypad or keyboard + mouse controls?
Come to think of it, doesn't the PS3 version has extra content that isn't in the 360 version (I think I heard that it does)? If so, then does the PC version have this?
Morcar, patches can be great, and can really add to a PC game with extra content, user requested options, etc, but it's a fact that many PC games patches only exist to correct problems that should not exist in the first place, becuase the games are rushed out to the shelves before they are ready, safe in the knowledge that the customers will serve as unpaid beta testers (actually, payING beta testers!). What's worse is that it's not unknown (or even infrequent) for the patch(es) to not only fail to fix serious problems but also to increase them or even introduce new ones.
Since consoles, up until the last but one generation*, could not support game patches, the manufacturer of those games had to have stricter quality checks on their games, to the benefit of the games' players.
* The XBox (1, not 360) was the first console I know of where you could apply a patch to a game - there was a patch available on XBox Live! for Unreal Championship (the first XBox Live! compatible game, by the way, and reputed to have been rushed out so that it was the first) that fixed some game flaws and gave four new gaming levels (arenas). As far as I know the fixed only affected on-line games of UC, so if you played offline then you didn't need the patch, and the patch, or at least the four game levels, was released on a magazine coverdisc too. A fair few other patches appeared for Xbox games over the years, sometimes fixes, sometimes extra levels, sometimes both, but almost none seem to have appeared on cover discs, that I could find.
Dingbat, do you really not like Bioshock? Do you normally like FPSs? What didn't you like about it? I thought it was extremely atmospheric, fun, and sometimes a little disturbing, but very memorable and very well done.
I thought that the gameplay was flat and tedious, I love FPSs and normally this type of game in general, people rave about being able to look outside at the fish, well I am normally too busy playing the game to worry about the dressings. I thought it lacked imagination in general, mostly played on 360, but have test played for a while on Pc. They set it up so that you will play it twice to see the effects of your game choices on the outcome, I doubt if the second time will come for me, a waste of hard earned money in my opinion.
yeah PC's never break. :p
never had any bug issues with my copy of bioshock, i suppose if you are fannying around with patches maybe you need to buy a console. :p
im with dingbat on bioshock, awful game, no idea what all the hype was about.
... hm, i was bored to death.
I did have problems with Bioshock downloaded from Steam onto one mate's PC - there was no sound after the opening scene where you drop underwater. Turns out this problem is well known and is caused by using a certain sound card (can't remember which one, this was weeks ago) and Vista with Bioshock. I cured it by using XP compatibility mode for the game, but this means that the DirectX 10 enhancements provided by Vista wouldn't appear in the game. Fortunately my mate was OK with that, so I didn't have to go looking for another, Vista/DirectX 10 compaible, cure.
PCs are great when they work, but when they don't they can be real gits for anyone who isn't well up on how they can be trouble-shooted. And at times it's really annoying for me, being the PC expert (well, so so) amongst my family and friends. I certainly don't mind helping out with PCs for people I like, but sometimes I just don't want to see a PC or Windows at all...
Are you running Vista or 7, so you get the extra visual goodness? :)
I found Bioshock to be absolutely fucking brilliant. Loved every minute, have played it over and over, and can't wait for Bioshock 2!
As SG says, best FPS since HL2. Although it looks like Dark Mod is about to take that title :)
D.
It's a great game and I think that tormenting the Big Daddies is fun on whatever platform.
I have to admit I'm not a huge fan of the game. Stylistically it's fantastic but the gunplay to me feels weightless and the enemies zip around at a ridiculous pace. It's a good game, much like I think COD 4 is a good game (when you actually get to shoot someone ahead of your team mates), but in comparison to the great FPS's - Half-Life's, COD 1, Quake 2, Far Cry, Crysis, etc - I think they've been overrated.
I wouldn't have said that the gameplay was in anyway flat or tedious, no more than in any other FPS. All down to opinion, of course, but my opinion of it was that it's gameplay was good and enjoyable. It's far from being the best FPS I've ever played, but I still really enjoyed it. It's true that you could rely maybe too much on a small number of weapons, but that's true for any FPS, and you were free to experiment with different weapons and upgrades.
And surely having two different endings (actually three, I thought?) was an advantage rather than otherwise? You make it sound like playing it was a chore, which isn't what I found at all. Actually the multiple ending bit was a cop out, as it didn't go nearly far enough to provide the user with a feeling of different game experiences (according to whether he was good or evil), but then no FPS (with or without RPG elements) has ever got that part right, at least not the games I've played.
And I really can't see how you can say it lacked imagination - the world of Rapture was very well imagined and realised indeed.
To me, the only real failings of Bioshock were that it was too easy, too short and, it's biggest failing by far, it lacked replay value. But what a fantastic journey when you first play through it. It's definately one of those games that will stay in my memory, not least of all because of the emotions it managed to stir up in me, such as pity and horror for the tragic inhabitants, both dead and still alive, of Rapture. And how many other action games can inspire genuine emotions over their characters?
Still, each to his own. Loads of my mates love guitar games, which leave me cold. I do wish I could learn to like RPGs, but I can't seem to get interested in them at all.
I think that Deus Ex is still the best game of it's type (first person shooter with RPG elements) on the PC (or on any machine), with the only areas it's beaten by Bioshock being graphically and atmospherically. No game has ever drawn me in as much as Bioshock, but regarding replayability and open-endedness, Deus Ex beats Bioshock effortlessly. But the atmosphere of Bioshock was amazing.
I could bang on here about how dissapointing Deus Ex 2 (Invisible War) was, but I'll spare you...
I never played System Shock 1, but SS2 was very good indeed.
Er, Ok. To me, real boredom is holding a fake guitar (that doesn't even look or feel too real) and pressing the red, green, yellow or blue buttons, according to the descending coloured squares on the TV screen, yet *lots* of people feel very differently. And that's fine.
No doubt some people wouldn't like playing Skooldaze. Wierdos ;)
Regarding that page, I can't answer the PC performance/flaws comments, but whilst the author there is right about Bioshock being unrealistic both in it's abundency of weapon dispensers and the fact that weapons would be available in an underwater city at all (where one misplaced bullet or explosion could break a (glass) wall and flood the place killing people with the fatal water pressure), well yes, but it's suspension of disbelief, like in most games. Bioshock is guilty of breaking the laws of physics and common sense all over the place, but so is every first person shooter ever.
I mean, if you can still stand up in a game after losing 90% of your health, and still aim just as accurately when you're running as when you are stood still, if you can run backwards and sideways as fast as you can forwards, if you can never fall over, even when running backwards or sideways downstairs, if you can carry a ton of different weapons and ammo, and still jump or swim or whatever, if you can run for miles and never get tired or slow down, and if you can pick up a weapon or ammo just by touching it with your foot then the game can hardly claim to be aiming for realism, can it? Yet almost every FPS includes all of these "reality flaws", and I can't thing of even one FPS that's free of half of them. The closest is probably Breakdown on the XBox, that does try for realism in some areas (you can fall down, you have to stop to aim properly, you move slower when moving sideways or backwards, etc, and as a bonus you even see your feet when you look down, and you have to put away your weapon when you climb a ladder, unlike most FPS where you can climb a ladder no handed and even turn around 360 degrees whilst on the ladder to shoot enemies that are behind you).
Realism should only be in games when it enhances the gameplay, but all too frequently realism in games just adds frustration. There was a "realism" mod for the original Unreal Tournament that added things like bleeding (if you got shot you had to find a first aid box and bandage yourself, or you kept on bleeding and got weaker and weaker, etc) and the fact that you could only run for short distances, then you had to stop and rest. And I found the mod to be soooo boring. To be fair, maybe other people liked it, but not me.
Vista at the moment though from 22nd it'll be running 7 Pro (?40 student discount for upgrade version)