Tried Bioshock on a 7300GT to compare and...

[contoursvt]

And I have to say I feel sorry for anyone with this card and wants to play this game. Not sure how much better the ATI 1600 series is but anyway I took screenshots at 1280x1024 at full detail, then medium, then at 640x480 at full detail and then at medium. I built my father a PC with a Core2 E6600 and it had a 7300GT 256MB so I figured I'll see what all the fuss is about on these forums about Bioshock and the lower video cards....

I play on a 7950GT 512MB and I think that would be comparable to the X1900 series in the Macpro (at least for the people that went with this card) and that would probably be fantastic. I'd say my framerates at 1600x1200 on high would be comparable to the 7300GT at 640x480 on high. I'd imagine the X1900 to be about the same.


At 1280x1024 with full detail, it was a slideshow. I'd say it would be unplayable.
http://powerthings.com/pics/slideshow.jpg

At 1280x1024 on medium, it got about 25% better but it would be on the verge of what I'd call playable - not playable for me but playable for anyone who doesnt expect smooth movements and is ok with that.
http://powerthings.com/pics/almostslideshow.jpg

At 640x480 on full detail, it was close to what I'd call playable. I'd play it but still find it jerky but at least I'd be able to shoot something. The jagged edges at this low res could cut down a tree but hey at least its not the worst thing I've ever seen. Note that I've resized these to 1280x960.
http://powerthings.com/pics/almostfullyplayable.jpg

At 640x480 on medium detail, this is now what I'd call fluid and fully playable but its now truely the worst thing I've ever seen. Again as above, its resized.
http://powerthings.com/pics/fullyplayable.jpg

Try downloading the pics and then play them back at full resolution one after the other so you can easily see the differences if you were to play each mode while filling an average 19" 4:3 monitor to full view.....

 

[GFLPraxis]

1024x768 @ full detail but without antialiasing (and maybe without HDR) would be what I'd shoot for. Could an iMac handle that?

 

[Chone]

1024x768 @ full detail but without antialiasing (and maybe without HDR) would be what I'd shoot for. Could an iMac handle that?

A new iMac with a HD 2600? Definitely.

I tried the game on my MBP (the first gen Core Duo one), its quite playable at 1024x768 if you disable post processing (HDR), if you enable it though you need to play at 800x600 or even 640x480.

The only option I'd never even consider turning off is High Detail Shaders and High Textures, dynamic lighting and shadow is what I'd enable next if you have the performance to spare. Post processing, distortion and real time reflections are all expendable. Actor detail makes no difference that I see, might as well turn it all the way to low if you are looking for a few frames but like I said, I haven't noticed a difference in neither graphical quality or performance.

 

[GFLPraxis]

Then why are people whining so much?

Oh, wait, that's right, if it can't play the latest game with all settings maxed out then it sucks.

 

[contoursvt]

You look at the 640x480 medium detail compared to the 'maxed' out one at 1024 and tell me if it even looks like the same game. Why even play a game when its lost a lot of what gives it its atmosphere. How much more $$ would apple have had to spend to give a bit more GPU power? All of maybe $50? Heck bump the price up by $80 and then sell it to the public with a stronger GPU. Its not like the video is even upgradable so make it strong enough to begin with.

Then why are people whining so much?

Oh, wait, that's right, if it can't play the latest game with all settings maxed out then it sucks.

 

[Chone]

You look at the 640x480 medium detail compared to the 'maxed' out one at 1024 and tell me if it even looks like the same game. Why even play a game when its lost a lot of what gives it its atmosphere. How much more $$ would apple have had to spend to give a bit more GPU power? All of maybe $50? Heck bump the price up by $80 and then sell it to the public with a stronger GPU. Its not like the video is even upgradable so make it strong enough to begin with.

On the Mac Pro its upgradeable and on ANY MBP or iMac (sans the GMA950 model) the game can be played at 1024x768 (some people in even higher resolutions) so really I don't see the problem. The GPUs in the new iMacs might have been a bad decision for Apple but they still play Bioshock fine, its not like it has revolutionary graphics anyway.

 

[contoursvt]

Well the Macpro is not really made for the masses as its a pretty expensive machine even in base configuration. I mean its a fantastic box but not within reach of most who'd buy a mac for non pro uses and those are the ones likely that might want to play games so I'm thinking the imac and maybe the macbooks and pro versions would be the ones most will be using.

So yes the game will run but I can definitly tell you that at least the 7300GT will not cut it with any eye candy enabled unless you're willing to live with 640x480 or at best 800x600 if you can deal with some lower framerates. Maybe the newer 2400 and 2600 series ATI will deal with it better so thats good but the game does have fantastic graphics. I'm not sure what you expect as far as revolutionary graphics. I can say Oblivion is nothing special or any other game for that fact - once you turn their graphics down a few notches.

I've seen this game in DX10 mode on an 8800GTS and let me tell you that it is very impressive. I play on a windows box in DX9 mode with the 7950GT and after seeing it in DX10 mode, its making me want another video card. Its really nice looking.

Anyway games like Oblivion, Fear, Bioshock, Stalker, Crysis (when it comes out) and any other Unreal3 engine based games will look stunning will all the eye candy turned up. Heck even Doom3 at 1600x1200 with AA is something to behold

On the Mac Pro its upgradeable and on ANY MBP or iMac (sans the GMA950 model) the game can be played at 1024x768 (some people in even higher resolutions) so really I don't see the problem. The GPUs in the new iMacs might have been a bad decision for Apple but they still play Bioshock fine, its not like it has revolutionary graphics anyway.

 

[Readma]

What it comes down to is that the majority of macs are not built to play the latest and best games. If you want to play the latest and best games buy a PC so that you can upgrade it when it becomes outdated. If you don't want to do this then suck it up, you have no reason to complain.

 

[overcast]

A new iMac with a HD 2600? Definitely.

I tried the game on my MBP (the first gen Core Duo one), its quite playable at 1024x768 if you disable post processing (HDR), if you enable it though you need to play at 800x600 or even 640x480.

The only option I'd never even consider turning off is High Detail Shaders and High Textures, dynamic lighting and shadow is what I'd enable next if you have the performance to spare. Post processing, distortion and real time reflections are all expendable. Actor detail makes no difference that I see, might as well turn it all the way to low if you are looking for a few frames but like I said, I haven't noticed a difference in neither graphical quality or performance.

You haven't noticed a difference in graphical quality because you haven't played at anything but the crappiest graphics settings. I assure you, turning off the shaders, textures, dynamic lighting and shadows is TURNING OFF ALL OF THE GAME ATMOSPHERE. This game is meant to be played with everything turned on. Disabling all of that looks bland and boring. ESPECIALLY the dynamic lighting and shadows.

 

[Green Lantern]

I have a new 24" iMac and have been playing Bioshock on it for a few days, I have the res, and all details set to max. It looks amazing. The only time it seems to skip a frame or two, is when I get into it with a Big Daddy. Even then it is only for a few frames and then its good. No complaints on my end.

 

[Chone]

You haven't noticed a difference in graphical quality because you haven't played at anything but the crappiest graphics settings. I assure you, turning off the shaders, textures, dynamic lighting and shadows is TURNING OFF ALL OF THE GAME ATMOSPHERE. This game is meant to be played with everything turned on. Disabling all of that looks bland and boring. ESPECIALLY the dynamic lighting and shadows.

For your information, I HAVE played in the highest settings. What I was referring to was "actor detail", I haven't noticed any changes (in IQ or performance) with that slider. Brush up on your reading comprehension skills will ya?

And Bioshock can still be enjoyed on low/medium (not lowest) settings, and this is coming from a guy who has played the game on highest settings, just as long as your textures are set to high (and "high detail shaders" is on but even THAT option could be turned off) and your resolution isn't too low you'll still enjoy the Bioshock experience. Heck, I bet even at 640x480 all low one can still enjoy the game.

Get off your high horse and realize not everyone can run games at the highest settings and they don't need to either because games can still look great at medium settings and if the game is good enough, it will be enjoyable even on low.

BTW, lighting and shadows are not such an important part of Bioshock as they are say for a game like Doom 3 or F.E.A.R., all of Bioshock atmosphere and setting comes from "resource friendly" assets

 

[Lycanthrope]

I tried it out on maxed setings on my Pro with the stock 7300 card - the scene in the water after the plane crash looked amazing but it must have been 10 fps or something awful, it was unplayable.

Now I'm wondering where to get a suitable card from as I have a bit of cash lying around.

I'm not a regular gamer but I just liked the look and atmosphere of Bioshock so I bought it anyway...