PS3 BioShittiness Not Limited to Big Daddies

by Dan Landis on October 5, 2008 at 2:31 pm

You may have read recently that there are some… issues with the PS3 version of BioShock, which at first seemed to only apply to textures on the Big Daddies (if not, it’s the very next story). 2K officially responded and owned up to the error, which is cool of them, but it now seems that the PS3 version’s overall graphical quality doesn’t quite match up to the 360 version, as evidenced by the included screenshots.

Click images for a larger view:

At first glance, the images above don’t appear to be all that different. There wouldn’t be a problem at all if people played their PS3 games on a 10-inch television. Unfortunately, clicking the images and viewing them a little closer makes it obvious that graphics whores with their 50-inch HDTV’s will not be happy.

The PS3’s visuals overall appear to be a bit blurry when compared to the 360 counterpart. This, of course, doesn’t mean BioShock is going to be any less of a compelling game on the PS3, it will just be a not-quite-as-good-looking-as-it-could-be-but-still-compelling game on the PS3.

These screengrabs were taken from a Japanese site, and while the fact that it’s Japanese has no bearing on my opinion, the person that posted the images may very well be a 360 fanboy and is only trying to sabotage the game. Honestly, though, I don’t think that’s very likely considering there’s only 3 people in Japan that own an Xbox 360.

We also must take into account that this was only the demo. The visuals may have been compressed to make a smaller download file, and it also may not be the final build of the game. Then again, just to play devil’s advocate, maybe it’s just because the PS3 sucks.

Share This:

Tags: 2K, BioShit, BioShitty, Bioshock, comparison, console wars, graphics whores, screenshot

Related Posts:

Comments »

Patrick Steen
on October 5, 2008 3:07 pm

They look the same, apart from a blur used on the PS3 version to create a faux anti-aliasing. Both have 0xAA - but some previews, such as IGN, note that the PS3 version has smoother edges.

From these images, only Big Daddy has a much lower texture resolution (apparently a bug with texture streaming in the demo) whereas the rest has the same texture resolution with this blur over the top. I don’t know why they do it - most seem to think it makes things look worse. If you can’t do real AA, just don’t do it at all.
Spriggs
on October 5, 2008 3:09 pm

So you say, hey, it could be a number of factors like an old build, compression, but the title? Come on now. Just stop it. I hope when you get a 360 demo early in the future that you say the 360 version sucks. The standard here being set really puts you in a stupid position in the future to post pretty much anything from a demo that looks sub par. Sucks to be you with that responsibility now. LOL
Patrick Steen
on October 5, 2008 3:18 pm

In fact, looking at all these images. The only difference seems to be that slight blur - as I said, no texture difference. And what’s worse - even the HUD is blurred on the PS3 shots. So either there is global blurring in this PS3 demo of Bioshock, or it’s a poor photoshop.
Dan Landis
on October 5, 2008 3:19 pm

I wish I knew what the fuck Spriggs was trying to say…
Dan Landis
on October 5, 2008 3:22 pm

I also wish I knew what the fuck Patrick was trying to say…
John Kershaw
on October 5, 2008 3:32 pm

I just replayed the demo to see what the fuss is about and tbh, can’t see it. The PS3 version does have a blur-type effect over it. I assume to help with anti-aliasing? Or it could be a sub-HD to HD scaling (though I’m playing on SD so it’s near impossible to see)

There is also the single BigDaddy corpse. The first (animated) BigDaddy you see looks perfectly fine.
Patrick Steen
on October 5, 2008 3:32 pm

There is blur over the PS3 images which also blurs the HUD…your health, how many bullets. It would be extremely unlikely that a visual effect would be applied to the HUD to make the HUD blurry - meaning that the PS3 images could very well be photoshopped.

BioShock PS3 is not Sub-HD. It does appear to be there to improve AA.
Limanima
on October 5, 2008 3:57 pm

I own a PS3 and I can confirm that the PS3 version corresponds to the shots. It is infact blured. As for the XBox version I don’t know because I’ve never seen it.
But this smells like another bad game port. Unreal Ungine 3 sucks on the PS3.
Officer Jack Mehoff
on October 5, 2008 5:39 pm

I’m not seeing it guys, sorry. Aside from the Big Daddy, it looks the same. Maybe I’m blind. They say that happens when you do that too often.
Justin
on October 5, 2008 6:56 pm

Sub-par graphics or no, I’ll probably pick it up anyway for the new difficulty rating and challenge rooms.

BTW I want to mail 2K roadkill for not giving this new content PC or 360 owners.

Dead possum son, dead possum.
tbonedakilla
on October 5, 2008 6:57 pm

looks like the same pictures, just ps3 version of the 360 screen shot has a blur effect put on it. So its fake or somebody is really good and standing in the exact same spot. ITS FAKE and you all are stupid assholes for believing it.
Dan Landis
on October 5, 2008 8:18 pm

Who says we believe it? Either way, the pictures are not the same, and anyone that knows what they are looking at (which apparently isn’t you) can see that. I certainly have my doubts, as expressed in the article, but I wouldn’t be surprised if this were true either.
3sicasity
on October 5, 2008 8:40 pm

the pictures look like same images edited to look different. how come the screen grabs are identical for both systems?
Justin
on October 5, 2008 9:03 pm

Sweet, merciful, baby Jeebus. God forbid anyone, anywhere, at any time makes a statement or criticizes the 360 or PS3.

Wait… dear Lord… did I just put the 360 before the PS3 in that statement? Oh God… I meant PS3 or 360. You know what happens when Sony “fanbois” see that kind of faux pas. C-A-S-T-R-A-T-I-O-N.

But what about the 360? If Bill Gates finds out that we put his console second-fiddle to Sony’s, then he’ll unleash a torrent of exocet missiles from his “mother ship hovering over Seattle.”

Please help. Either I offend the hordes of slavering PS3 mutants or Bill Gates will turn my flat into a smoking crater.
pixelsword
on October 5, 2008 9:10 pm

I fail to see the point; “blurry” doesn’t mean bad in this case, playing the PS3 version looks very smooth. Sorry, it just does.
JAJA
on October 5, 2008 10:34 pm

only fanboys would see the difference besides the blurring effect. stupid rumors to begin with. the game still plays as good. since when did graphics define a game? crysis looks good but plays like sh!t.
Meresin
on October 5, 2008 11:19 pm

Who cares? R2 looks vastly better anyway, and the separate coop campaign sounds really awesome. :P

Gee, pay $60 for a port of a year-old game, or pay $60 for a superior game with not only a good single-player campaign, but also a good coop campaign, and full multiplayer. *ponders real hard*
Sam Naylor
on October 5, 2008 11:43 pm

Either way, there’s barely any difference. Only videophiles are worried about this sort of tiny difference.
DavidGX
on October 6, 2008 1:31 am

You know I think they should ONLY creature exclusives for PS3, no multiplatform games. Because everytime this happens is just makes the PS3 look bad. If I were to buy a PS3 (which I hoped to do for FF13 until that was announced for 360) I’d have no reason to buy any multiplatform games for it.
DavidGX
on October 6, 2008 1:32 am

Creature… it… this is what I get for posting anything at 3 AM.
Blah
on October 6, 2008 1:33 am

It wouldn’t suprise me if some lame Xbox fanboy did this on purpose, remember the GameTrailers videos of Grid where both versions were 360 but one made to look worse?
Patrick Steen
on October 6, 2008 3:01 am

There’s no doubt that PS3 Bioshock demo is slightly “blurrier.” Question is why they’d do this (I suspect AA) and whether the images are legitimate.
mananimalX
on October 6, 2008 3:20 am

Its not just the “blur” ..its the lighting in the 360 that the ps3 does not have, the 360 will always have a better graphical lighting engine than what the ps3 can produce…the darks and lights are far superior on 360 games, hence the blur look..
Nuno
on October 6, 2008 4:39 am

Hmmm…

Gotta buy me some glasses… Heck, I think the PS3 version is better. “Softer”, therefore, prettier.

I don’t see missing lights.

Alas, played the demo, looked great: no screen tear, great atmosphere, good graphics.

Shittiness? Only in this article.
Abaddon
on October 6, 2008 4:44 am

“the 360 will always have a better graphical lighting engine than what the ps3 can produce…the darks and lights are far superior on 360 games, hence the blur look..”

In your mind.
you fail to make sense.
DavidGX
on October 6, 2008 4:57 am

@ Blah

Conspiracy theories won’t exactly make you look like YOU aren’t a “lame fanboy” either.

@ Patrick

If both versions have 0xAA then I wonder why they felt the need to blur the PS3 version. The 360 version looked just fine without it so.. what are they trying to accomplish here? I can’t imagine the tiny bit of pseudo-AA would be worth the blurriness (and from the look of the screens.. it’s not) So.. why?
Patrick Steen
on October 6, 2008 5:37 am

Mananimal: There’s no difference in lighting. Any difference you might want to see is upped contrast on the 360 version - this is something you do on your TV. The actual lighting engine is no different, plus on a side note Nvidea graphics cards can produce a wider light range, being 24bit in comparison to ATI’s 16bit. of course there’s a memory penalty to use all that 24bits.

David: Well I don’t think people would disagree that Bioshock would look better with AA. 2xAA should be a standard this generation. But yes, I agree - I don’t really know why they do it. The only time you’re really going to notice it is side by side, and many people (including devs) hate the sight of jaggies. For exmaple, for them to accomplish the temporal blur in DMC4 it costs more than if they weren’t to do it, but it costs less than doing 2xAA. So devs must see a reason for it.

Plus many are saying it doesn’t look as bad as it does here - which makes me wonder about the blurred HUD in the pictures - why blur the HUD also? Usually the HUD is sharp. I suggest we forward to question to the developers.
Mykul
on October 6, 2008 6:13 am

I do see a “blur” on the PS3 screenshots, but who know the truth behind the screenshots? I own a PS3 but wont be playing this on PS3.
I played this on PC ages ago now, where it looks and plays like a dream.

FPS’s should be played on a PC.

Fanboys make me laugh, the PS3 and 360 suck compared to a good PC. (go on fanboys… give me shit for this comment)

PEACE OUT!! :)
kAATOSade
on October 6, 2008 6:59 am

How player has almost same position and the same amount of health and eve, even amount of hypos match exactly. Looks like fraud to me.

But i don’t really care since demo looked great on my PS3.
kAATOSade
on October 6, 2008 7:06 am

“How player has almost same position and the same amount of health and eve”

Well i should have looked pictures more with more precision :S I was wrong.
Dan Landis
on October 6, 2008 6:57 pm

That’s big of you to admit that, kAATOSade. I commend you.
acetpg
on October 6, 2008 8:34 pm

to be honest, it ain’t that really “bioshittiness”
probably the guy who wrote this is a ps3 hater dunno….but it aint that bad looking. i think the graphics are a bit more detailed then the x360…but what do i know huh ???
Dan Landis
on October 6, 2008 8:53 pm

Apparently not much. Maybe you need some more practice with reading comprehension. An excerpt:

“This, of course, doesn’t mean BioShock is going to be any less of a compelling game on the PS3, it will just be a not-quite-as-good-looking-as-it-could-be-but-still-compelling game on the PS3.”

Yeah, total PS3 hate.
acetpg
on October 6, 2008 10:04 pm

yeah sorry, i only read the first 2 or 3 paragraphs…the article got kinda boring afterwards ;P
Dan Landis
on October 6, 2008 10:55 pm

You mean like when you were looking at the pictures?
Chad Lakkis
on October 6, 2008 10:56 pm

Sorry Ace, I keep telling Dan to write on a 4th grade level, but he insists on using big words that often put astute readers like yourself to sleep. Sad really.
Soulja Merc
on October 8, 2008 3:47 am

its not the same picrure just being blurred by someone check the 9th picture the xbox 360 version has the light off and the ps3 one has the light on
Stuart Hamilton
on October 8, 2008 7:53 am

Hiya guys. Anyone feeling put off by this webpage do not fear, i’ve played the PS3 demo and it’s exactly the same as the 360 version that i played on my 360 on the same tv i’m using with my PS3. Why the switchover? Red ring of death! 360 fanboys are making crap like this all over the web (because they lost Bioshock as an exclusive) they’ve taken 2 pics of the 360 version, Photoshopped one of em (blurred and so on) and said it’s the PS3 version. Imagine this; how blurred and rubbish would Metal Gear Solid 4’s 50gb of game have to look to work on a 360. Lots.
Tim
on October 8, 2008 9:01 am

I’ve seen both version, on HDTVs, and they look the same.
mookins
on October 8, 2008 11:30 am

There’s not a damn thing wrong with the game on the PS3. I played the demo and the graphics were pretty good. Yes, the 360 and PC versions are probably better because *gasp* they came out first and they’re on the Unreal Engine!

It’s obvious that Unreal Engine doesn’t always work with the PS3.
Dan Landis
on October 8, 2008 12:39 pm

Hilarious… You PS3 fanboys need to have a meeting and decide what your official stance is. Does it look the same, are the images fake, or is it actually blurry but not their fault because Unreal Engine 3 just sucks?

People claiming these are the exact same images are fucking idiots. There are tons of differences, but for the most obvious example, look at the last pic and tell me the LS icon is the same on both. Morons…

I’ve never said the PS3 version is bad, it just doesn’t look as good. Deal with it.
Mantiz
on October 8, 2008 4:53 pm

Looks the same any fucktard who says otherwise is obviously blind. Yes the ps3 version has some blur effects which make edges look smoother, great, this whole thing is a one texture issue drummed up by owners oh an inferior conseole thats on the downhill slope.
Dan Landis
on October 8, 2008 6:47 pm

Mantiz, do you realize you just called yourself a blind fucktard?
andy
on October 13, 2008 6:42 pm

You are comparing a DEMO with the final version people. Now as far as the demo goes, it looked great and ran smoothly on my 1080p tv. I had no issues with it and thought it looked great, having previously played bioshock on my (high specced widescreen) pc.

As far as I can see, the differences between 360/ps3 are very small. This is a storm in a teacup. Maybe its just me, but I actually kinda prefer the ps3 shots. They seem a little warmer and less jaggy.
andy
on October 13, 2008 6:47 pm

p.s. Dan Landis, you are being kind of a dick. You seem quite aggressive for someone responding to comments on his own article. Infact you seem more fanboyish than the fanboys you are attacking.
Dan Landis
on October 13, 2008 7:03 pm

Andy, thank you for your comments and interest in this article. You are right, I am being kind of a dick — that’s just who I am. I don’t think calling a fanboy an idiot makes me a fanboy, however, and the only reason I am acting aggressive is because stupid people make me angry.

I can certainly understand people preferring a “clean” image over an crisp, jaggy one, but I can’t help but point out the lack of logic in some people’s comments in a not-so-nice way. People are entitled to their opinions, and I respect that, but being a moron on the Internet (especially in the comments section of Ripten) is asking for a verbal smackdown. I hope you can appreciate our honesty.

Thanks for reading, and have a good day.
andy
on October 13, 2008 7:22 pm

:) ok that wasnt an aggressive response and i called you a dick and everything.

i do think there is a little too much emphasis being placed on a demo here. until we get the final version and see what options there are (maybe the blur effect can be turned off or down?) and how i compares to the full 360 version we cant know for sure. my immediate impression when i played it was that it was really good. some side-by-side comparisons showing very minor differences arent going to make me enjoy it any less. so i think there is some bombast here. the differences are being vastly exaggerated by fanboy wars.

All that said, there were some things that did concern me (such as a couple of texture glitches and people reporting white bars) but they have responded that these are bugs that got through QA on the demo, so those should hopefully be dealt with.
Dan Landis
on October 13, 2008 9:36 pm

Andy,

2K responded to these screenshot comparisons and confirmed that the blur effect will be in the full retail release of the PS3 version. They claimed that because the PS3 is so different to code for, they just did everything they could to achieve the same level of performance at minimal cost to the visuals, and that required using this blur effect. You can read their full response here: http://www.ripten.com/2008/10/08/2k-responds-again-to-ps3-bioshock-complaints/
Paul
on October 20, 2008 10:09 am

This looks FAKE, sorry to doubt.

But, how in the hell tou guys managed to took screenshots of the sample places, same PERFECTLY THE SAME angle and finally ans most STRANGE…THE SAME ENERGY LEVEL on both versions ???
It looks like a edited screenshot from the same source…
I have the PC and Ps3 version, and ALL the versions looks VERY NICE, and Ps3 version looks AMAZING like others. The edges looks very good and smooth (incredible to know that’s not AA envolved)…
Cinderwolf
on October 20, 2008 9:45 pm

I’ve read through everyone’s responses after looking at all of the comparisons. Everybody that has a gripe here needs to understand a few things.

Fact: This is a demo build. There IS a possibility things were compressed as somebody mentioned earlier.

Fact: Both the 360 and PS3 are both FULL HD consoles

Fact: The PS3 GPU is alot better than that which MS used in the 360 - there’s no contest or complaint.

In looking at these images, yes, I see that it’s plain as day that the PS3 shots are blurred. Photoshop? Possibly. I doubt it though simply as so many people say they see it in the demo.

Now - what caught my eye is that someone up above said they don’t see what all the fuss is about.
Has anybody actually seen the comparison between a Blu-Ray disc and anything but? The entire point of HD anything is for extremely crisp and clear visuals. For any game on a console such as the PS3 which sports the graphics capabilities that it does is to certainly say “Sub-quality visuals - but still a great freaking game despite the fact.”

I personally will wait and read reviews before purchasing. I already own it for the 360, but will also pick it up for the PS3 if the visuals are better.

Please note that I’m not biased towards/against any console and I’m quite neutral towards both systems/manufacturers. (Hey, I have to be in order to give an honest and proper review to anything).
WBVB
on October 21, 2008 3:08 pm

It’s fucking fake. Even the Gametrailers review says that 2K took advantage of the blu-ray to add in better textures in the majority of the rooms! (every now and then you’ll see a texture that 2K overlooked) go, watch the review. now
kizurazgubi
on October 23, 2008 11:07 pm

I think what a lot of people are seeing as “blur” is really fog. The PS3 is far better at simulating vapor and particle effects because of its more advanced physics processing ability. Take a look in the second group of images at how much wispier, thicker, and more realistic the steam around the bathysphere looks. It spreads out a lot more because it’s following simulated air currents; it’s not just some pre-rendered bullshit following the patterns of a dedicated semi-randomizing subroutine. This kind of thing is what makes the PS3 interesting; its ability to simulate realism goes beyond graphics into the more subconsciously-acknowledged realms of physics to create more reactive and interactive environments that respond to all possible player-generated stimuli.

Landis, you’re nothing but a crazed fanboy who needs to read a book on game development… or game ANYTHING for that matter. Do us all a favor and, before you say anything else to make yourself seem like more of an idiot, go read something that will expand that little narrow hallway of tunnel vision you so ignorantly call a consciousness. If that doesn’t work out for you, please find a way to prevent yourself from breeding before you manage to further taint the human gene pool with your substandard, subhuman, wannabe-reporter genes. Suicide is always an option too, and if you’re too mentally limited to figure out how, I will gladly give you some pointers.

People seriously need to stop with this maniacal anti-PS3 hate speech, especially when they don’t have a damn clue what they’re talking about. It is quite literally driving me insane
Ludacris
on October 27, 2008 12:36 am

WELL, the way i see it is that i can play it on the ps3 with out having the red ring of death =(
andy
on October 28, 2008 7:13 pm

Hi kids! Just wanted to post back here to say I have the full version and indeed it is blurry… but only when running in 1080p. Just like the 360 version, it runs at 720p and upscales to 1080 if the hardware supports it. unfortunately, the upscaling got messed up in the port. if you set your ps3 at 720p on a 1080p tv, you will see much clearer results. the blur is gone and everything is crisp.

if you arent on a 1080p tv i doont think you will see the blurriness at all.
Patrick Steen
on November 7, 2008 11:55 am

Bioshock PS3 runs at 680p native.
I
on November 26, 2008 7:12 am

I’ve only played the demo on PS3 but the graphics were not so blurry!! It was far better looking.

RSS feed for comments on this post.