Try our new beta! Click here
Submitted by Zack1 979d ago | video

Bioshock Infinite PS3 vs PC HD Comparison

Check out a video comparison between the PS3 and PC versions of Bioshock Infinite. (BioShock: Infinite, PC, PS3)

Attached Video
« 1 2 3 »
BiggCMan  +   979d ago
This doesn't make a whole lot of sense o.O Clearly the PC version will have better everything, this is no surprise. Either way though, this game is gorgeous and I can't wait to get it. Just makes more sense to compare the 360 version to PS3 instead of the PC version.
decrypt  +   979d ago | Well said
Personally i dont think its a matter of which one is better any more. Everyone knows even low end PCs have been stomping consoles for years now(500usd PCs from 3 years back have been running circles around current consoles), hence thats not even a debate any more. Hell 600 usd PCs of today are already rivaling next gen console specs. Hence PC vs current gen console isnt even a question any more hasnt been for a while.

Point is you buy a copy on the PC today, its yours to keep. Console.. well you wont be able to play it on the PS4 hence you will always have to make sure your PS3 is around to play anything you buy now. Hence it will become bit of a hassle maintaining multiple machines just to play your older games.

Its for this reason id say PC version easily wins, not just the graphics or the frame rate.


No need getting offended over facts:

Uncharted - ill agree with you on that one, but not for the graphics, for the artistic side yes i will agree.

Killzone, Gow really? One is filled with blurry textures, the other is a fixed view game with low res textures every where.

From a graphical perspective all of those games will get mauled by a game like BF3, Witcher 2, Metro 2033, Shogun 2 running on a 500usd PC.

As for the BC, hardware inevitably fails. Nothing lasts forever and even then good luck having multiple machines and their accessories hanging around a TV, IMO thats just a mess.
#1.1 (Edited 979d ago ) | Agree(64) | Disagree(128) | Report | Reply
IcyEyes  +   979d ago
Even the low end pc stomp console ?

I love you PC fanboy looks like you live in another world ... looks like they never saw games like Uncharted, Killzone, GoW, etc ...

And the point about "you will not play over the Ps4" ... I mean ... even my 4 yo old niche are able to understand NO ONE will come to your house and destroy your Ps3/X360 ...

So you are able to play forever that game on console (I can still continue to play the original Mario on nintendo...).

So, please, change you opinion, because its heavily flawed.
T900  +   979d ago
"Even the low end pc stomp console ?"

Wake up, yes they do. As of today anything with a 80-100usd GPU will beat current consoles. Id go one step further and say integrated GPUs present on Intel CPUs would give current consoles a run for their money. Thats the lowest hardware on the GPU food chain.


Read decrypts post again. He never was claiming graphics superiority since that is a moot point at this moment, everyone knows that.

However the BC is a valid point. I would personally like all my games to be at one place. Instead of having to switch between system back and forth. I already have over 200 games on Steam and i think its amazing i dont have to worry about not being able to play them once the next gen is out.
#1.1.2 (Edited 979d ago ) | Agree(47) | Disagree(64) | Report
Thefreeman012  +   979d ago
And what about those of us who have friends that want to do co op or something in the same room. Crapping up around a computer monster instead of my living room tv doesn't sound appealing...
IcyEyes  +   979d ago

you need to wake up ... because you dont really understand the meaning of that post.

Remeber .. raw power ... "high numbers" and benchmark dont make your games better.

Thats why we can still amaze when we see games like The Last of us running over a a 7yo console ... that will ring a bell!

Edit : Its not the point talk about power of PC .. the point is an old gen hardware like a ps3/x360 still hold pretty well ... thats all!
#1.1.4 (Edited 979d ago ) | Agree(35) | Disagree(31) | Report
cayleee  +   979d ago

No point being biased. Yes all of us like some of the Sony exclusives and Sony has done a good job with that old hardware.

However its true PC just is way ahead of current consoles, even the low end hardware is ahead only a blind fanboy will deny these facts.
IcyEyes  +   979d ago

Its pretty obvious the pc hardware is a LOT ahead over the console hardware, no body can deny that!

I want to point to the fact that a so old hardware still holding great !
Nothing more ... and I dont like comment likes Decrypt do because taliking about the power is really nothing.

You cannot really say a 600$ rig can still fight over a PS4 because I really, really will shut up when I will see a 600$ rig running even a game like Killzone 3.

My PC spec is (that one I use for gaming and work) are over-the-top and I still cannot have a game that make Uncharted blush.

I talk about what i see over my monitor and not under the hood.

We are not talking anymore Ps2 vs Pc, were the gap in few years was "embarrassing".

The day the difference between ps3/x360 and Pc are not just a resolution or a couple of lights, well, we can say PC stomps consoles.

PS the jcornish's comment is a good point and I agree ...
#1.1.6 (Edited 979d ago ) | Agree(12) | Disagree(25) | Report
SweetIvy  +   979d ago
decrypt wrote : "From a graphical perspective all of those games [Uncharted, Killzone, GoW] will get mauled by a game like BF3, Witcher 2, Metro 2033, Shogun 2 running on a 500usd PC. "

And thats why you lose your credibility.
Because thats not true at all, unless you set everything on low setting and geeez ... why I will play a game that looks so bad over a 500$ pc ?

No way, you really say a not so smart thing.
#1.1.7 (Edited 979d ago ) | Agree(19) | Disagree(23) | Report
HeavenlySnipes  +   979d ago
Why would you buy a game for the PS3 to play it on another system?

If you want to play PS3 games so bad keep your PS3 games and play them :/
T900  +   979d ago

"And thats why you lose your credibility.
Because thats not true at all, unless you set everything on low setting"

Its true 500usd PCs will run most games and they will do it maxed out specially games running Unreal 3 engines.

Heres a link to one:

this ones 500usd and is capable of running BF3 @ 1080p at 55fps with 4x AA ultra settings. Games like bioshock should be a cake walk for this machine.

Below is a link to the BF3 benchmark:
#1.1.9 (Edited 979d ago ) | Agree(18) | Disagree(10) | Report
Murad  +   979d ago
Uh before you spurt out information that you don't understand or know, I own a PC that cost about 545 bucks, and guess what, it's not 3 years old. It's runs everything at the highest setting besides BF3, and even then for the price that's an amazing PC.
aquamala  +   979d ago
the video is not even in 1080P

I have a gaming PC and consoles hook up to the same TV, I see a big difference in drawing distance, texture quality etc. If you want to argue current consoles looks good for the money, I agree with you. But still with a mid range PC games looks significantly better.
#1.1.11 (Edited 979d ago ) | Agree(22) | Disagree(2) | Report
GABRIEL1030  +   978d ago
Are you serious ..........Uncharted and Killzone have better graphics that a lot of PC games and in a machine with only 512Mb of RAM and seven years in the market.

Bioshock is almost identical in PC and PS3. The same happens with Dead Space 3, Tomb Raider and Crysis 3

500 USD PC ? only a decent graphic card cost almost 250 USD and windows licence almost 50. You like PC is Ok, but don't insult the PS3
torchic  +   978d ago
T900 & decrypt are the same person.
AnyaShroud  +   978d ago

PC and PS3 versions of Crysis 3 and Tomb Raider are almost identical? lol. Digital Foundry would like a word with you.

"Crysis 3 on PC effectively offers a "next-gen now" experience - a preview of the level of technical prowess we should expect in the years to come from the new wave of consoles"

On the PC ... a more refined looking game, one that is a clear step above the console releases - especially if your PC can pull off a sustained 1080p60 or better
BlackTar187  +   978d ago

that is not true i played Bioshock 1 on PC first and it was amazing. I played it later on ps3 for trophies and for fun loved the game and the lighting the detail in the water the guys were all way way way better on PC. This was back when it released too. I don't care to argue pc vs console but don't lie. Bioshock 1 on pC due to graphics set a way way better opening atmosphere.
inveni0  +   978d ago
Actually, I think the PS3 version looks pretty dang nice.
MaxXAttaxX  +   978d ago
Looks the same...
Still not a major difference in a lot of multiplatform games.
Jack Meahoffer  +   978d ago
Give it up guys you could compile links to newegg for all the components, run benchmarks, show side by side screen shots and they'd still disagree with you.

The level of cognitive dissonance is amazing. Uncharted etc. look great therefore cheap PC can't do it. No it can't. I said no no no. La la la can't hear you. Haha
vulcanproject  +   978d ago
According to the technical director of the developer itself, Medium on PC is about the same as console settings, but even that is slightly better....

Unreal Engine 3+ runs easily on pretty modest hardware on PC.

On the same link the same Technical director explains the difference in anything higher the difference is enormous, high, very high, ultra etc

Unfortunately the video above is not exceptionally good quality so I won't take it as much use. Thats always a problem here, you need high bitrate high resolution to see such a gap which is usually extremely noticeable when you actually have games running side by side as I have many many times.

You might see it better in the inevitable digital foundry comparison.
#1.1.19 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(10) | Disagree(0) | Report
gedapeleda  +   978d ago
My pc from long time ago with a gt220 runs multiplats way better.
FlyingFoxy  +   978d ago
A low end PC will NOT run games better than a console, you need mid end at least. In 2004 my 6800 Ultra could not run HL2 or Doom 3 at a constant 60fps on high settings, it had parts that dropped as low as 20, i dread to think how bad it would've run on a lower end card.

Left 4 Dead and Killing Floor lagged on 1 8800 GT, keeping in mind thats at or above recommended specs for those games or way over minimum at least. With 2 8800 GT's the framerate was much better. Then i moved toa 5870 which currently runs what i want fine at 1080P.

Basically though if you want good framerates, you always need above recommended specs of a game. Except when we get poor games like Crysis, they run like crap on even high end comps on release.

When i do a full upgrade i usually spend near £1k or over, because it lasts years, i still have a first gen i7 920 and its still pretty beast, just need to upgrade my graphics card and im set for another while again.
Irishguy95  +   978d ago
L4D lagged on a 8800GT? Haha, there's something wrong with your PC. Your graphics card smashes the two games you mention. Know how I know? Because I have a 8800GTX and mine obliterates them. lowly GPU which is only a bit better than the 8800GT completely destroys L4D.
Zhipp  +   978d ago
It all depends on your PC setup. You may have it in a room where gathering around the monitor will be perfectly comfortable. Also, more are more PC gamers these days seem to be using their PC's with TV's instead of monitors, anyway. Certain cases do look great underneath the TV stand.
0ut1awed  +   978d ago
I hope people that are judging these pc games get to see them in person and not just by videos online.

Video codecs used on sites like youtube and the one above just don't do the justice they should in supposed "1080p hd" for pc games.

When I watch these videos on the same rig I play them on, the difference is amazing. I would say videos on the net, such as the "pc" version above look much more like their console counterparts than pc ones at this point. They just lack the general sharpness I guess.

Not to mention getting over 60 fps in games on a 120hz monitor is just the shiznip. You won't get anywhere near that experience with youtubes capped 30fps output.
#1.1.24 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(0) | Report
fr0sty  +   978d ago
A PC good enough to run this game better than a
PS3 is going to cost you a lot more than a PS3... and the PC version in this comparison doesn't look anywhere near good enough to justify that extra cost in my eyes.
T900  +   978d ago

500usd Pcs are playing BF3 at ultra settings 4x aa near 60 fps. Thats not a whole lot expensive than a PS3. Its about next gen console price, so will you abadon next Playstation too because it cost more than a PS3?
ps3 stomps pc in games.

The pc version looks the way it does because of the ps3 version. PC games can look way better than this though.
#1.1.27 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(9) | Report
RumbleFish  +   978d ago
I love N4G these days. N4G has become so simple to use. I just have to look if a comment has more Agrees or more Disagrees and I click the one that has less clicks and my opinion is well represented.
It's just the opposite of the early PS3 years. :D
nm97  +   978d ago

You do realize you can hook your PC up to just about any HDTV right? mine is hooked up to a samsung tv right now. also i play on ps3, pc, and xbox.


i mostly play games on my pc now, but u r def. right about those great exclusives on ps3. But please stop saying that damn word fanboy. really its just so annoying when people fight over pointless sht. how about we think of the gaming industry as a whole?
Ritsujun  +   978d ago
You clowns never fail to amaze me with these pointless arguments on the internet.
kikizoo  +   978d ago
"that is not true i played Bioshock 1 on PC first and it was amazing. I played it later on ps3 for trophies and for fun loved the game and the lighting the detail in the water the guys were all way way way better on PC. "

Not at all ! i was playing at that time with a top quad core + 8800gt, and bioshock or dead space was not on par with best ps3 exclusives...never (and ps3 was already 2 years old)
SilentNegotiator  +   978d ago
"low end PCs have been stomping consoles for years now(500usd PCs from 3 years back have been running circles around current consoles"

$500 PCs 3 years ago "running circles around current consoles"? $400 of PC hardware (you're not getting away with pretending like Windows is free because you can steal it, nor pretending like consoles can never be found cheaper than MSRP 'unlike' Pc components) in 2009 "running circles" around the 360 and Ps3? Bulllllllls**t. Better, sure, but not anywhere near "running circles around"
#1.1.32 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(4) | Report
DatNJDom81  +   978d ago
Why are PS3 and PC versions are compared you ask? Because as of now those are the only gaming devices that matter. Until PS4 comes out. Then it will be PS4, PS Vita and PC. :)
LAWSON72  +   978d ago
The only low end pc that outperform consoles are custom built ones, maybe its just me but every cheap pc i have ever seen has integrated graphics and consoles are better than integrated graphics.
bunfighterii  +   978d ago
PS3 costs $299 RRP in the US. No $299 PC would play Shogun 2 on any settings above high, and most likely would only go to medium or even low. Have you played Shogun 2 on high settings? My computer only plays it on high as the max and current gen consoles look better, generally. Textures etc on high are all very low res, lots of pop in. PS3 has been $299 for 3 years or more now. A PC that cost $299 in March 2010 would struggle to run GTAIV on settings comparable to what consoles do at a playable frame rate.

It comes down to comparing a static hardware model to an ever evolving hardware. It's impossible and redundant. Cheap PC's may have caught up to consoles by now but frankly nobody is surprised. Why its a source of so much debate in the gaming community I have no idea. Consoles are a different experience to PCs. The interaction is completely different. PC gamers need not feel threatened by consoles. They are gaming machines in a different form. Why the fuss?
DigitalSmoke  +   979d ago
The difference isn't all that spectacular from these video's.
Ju  +   979d ago
I think that's the point. It amazes me how the PS3 can still hold up. Quite impressive, IMO. (yeah, yeah, you PC creeps keep disagreeing).

It's impressive how much more devs can squeeze out of that box 5 years after launch. It's a little bit of a mixed bag, though. Feature wise (image fidelity, etc) it's all there. But with the price of the frame rate, no doubt. Visuals like that tax the PS3 quite a bit and tearing is all over the place. I'd need to play this myself to see if it makes it unplayable, but I am rather in awe of those visuals, tbh. Makes you think why we need a new console ;)

Attack to my wallet is getting a little be bad, this time around, though. This, Tomb Raider and more coming will do some damage, me thinks
reynod  +   979d ago
"I think that's the point. It amazes me how the PS3 can still hold up. Quite impressive, IMO."

Hell yea its pretty amazing how it has managed to hang up with low end PCs.

Try playing Farcry 3, Crysis(any in the series), Skyrim, Dragon age, BF3 and then tell us how well its held up lol.
#1.2.2 (Edited 979d ago ) | Agree(20) | Disagree(20) | Report
guitarded77  +   979d ago
Not visually, but the screen tearing and frame rate are pretty obvious, and I'm usually blind to those things. I have a feeling this game will make its way to the PS4 since it would be a pretty simple port, so I'd be interested to see a PS4 and PC comparison.
GrandTheftZamboni  +   978d ago

7 agrees. 3 more and that's all of PC gamers with high-end PCs.
#1.2.4 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(4) | Disagree(11) | Report
0ut1awed  +   978d ago
I hope people that are judging these pc games get to see them in person and not just by videos online.

Video codecs used on sites like youtube and the one above just don't do the justice they should in supposed "1080p hd" for pc games.

When I watch these videos on the same rig I play them on, the difference is amazing. I would say videos on the net, such as the "pc" version above look much more like their console counterparts than pc ones at this point. They just lack the general sharpness. I am not exaggerating when I say they are much closer to the console versions than the pc in overall quality...

Not to mention getting over 60 fps in games on a 120hz monitor is just the shiznip. You won't get anywhere near that experience with youtubes capped 30fps output.
#1.2.5 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report
nm97  +   978d ago
Well its not that much of a difference, but when compared side by side, u will notice faster frame rates and its much clearer on pc. but the ps3 version still looks pretty good.
Morpheuzpr  +   978d ago
Why don't you try running them with 512mb of ram (not to mention it't 256 of vram) at 30fps?
SatanSki  +   978d ago
Yeah, becouse the game doesnt look spectaculat even on PC
Raven77  +   979d ago
How does it not make sense???

You do realize that some people have PS3, 360 AND a PC?

I for one wanted to see this because I am debating if the differences are big enough to grant getting it on PC.

I know, mind blowing...
Anon1974  +   978d ago
Really? Your really need a comparison video to tell you if the PC version is going to look better than the PS3 version? Ok then...

The main flaw I see in your logic for using these videos to help you make a buying decision is while every PS3 owners is going to enjoy the same experience, unless you know the specs of the test system and have the exact same specs, or something you know to be similar, how on earth is this video indicative of the results you might see on YOUR PC? Depending on your setup, you're PC version might look far different than what we see in the video, or what I might see on my PC.

Personally, I think these comparisons are just a pissing contest for insecure pixel counters. The game looks like it's amazing on every platform.
#1.3.1 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(9) | Disagree(4) | Report
Omni-Tool  +   978d ago
Take the PS3 specs and build a pc with the same or similar specs with 5 yr old tech. I'll give you some lee way on the CPU and allow a current 3 yr old quad core.

Now try playing this game on this extremely poor budget, thrift store PC and get better frame rates and visual graphics than the PS3. Then the consoles would "be on even ground" with PCs.
Ju  +   978d ago
^^ Don't bother arguing. Is useless.

I have a Notebook from 2008, it was quite state of the art back then. Dual Core T8300 @ 2.4GHz, 4GB DDR866, QuadroFx 570 256MB (!!!). Yeah, you can laugh at it today, but the Fx570 is 2 generations after the RSX, 4GB is a lot more memory and well, the T8300 isn't that fast, but anyhow, you't think it would at least play games on console level; having a faster GPU and is 2 years younger. Not a chance. Even with lowest settings and 720p it stalls left and right. But useless arguing. Because you could simply throw a $1000 at it and get a quad i7 Notebook, I get it.
#1.3.3 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(6) | Report
cayleee  +   978d ago

Notebooks or laptops arent ment for gaming. The ones that are, are luxury items and will cost quite a bit.

Specially the ones you are refering to isnt even ment for gaming. Its ment for graphics designing.

Also for reference Mobile versions of GPUs are much much weaker than their desktop counterparts. Hence it would take a GPU 3-4 generations later in mobile terms to even catch up with a desktop part.

You should instead be comparing RSX to something like this:

Its 89usd and will completely wipe the floor with the RSX.
#1.3.4 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(8) | Disagree(2) | Report
LightofDarkness  +   978d ago
@ju: the QuadroFX 570 is only based on silicon one generation ahead of the RSX (although not necessarily comparable), and it's also a professional grade GPU that it NOT meant for gaming, and a mobile part. That chip wouldn't compete with even the RSX for gaming. The Quadro part would be better than the RSX for rendering a static 3D scene as all the stream processors have algorithms suited perfectly for that kind of work, but they are not suited for fast paced rendering or Direct X.
nm97  +   978d ago
Well if u have a high end pc, y wouldnt u just get it on there? it would be a much better experience.
Sony360  +   978d ago
"omg why do this?"

-textbook frustrated reply from console fans in every comparison that involves a PC. Always seems to have a display image of some Ps3 exclusive character too. Wonder why.

Some of us own all 3 platforms, that's why. What is so hard to understand about that?

If a game is a poor port to the PC instead of become properly developed for it (or "using its full potential" as Ps3 try-hards always seem to say), we'll want to know.

Don't get all bent out of shape just because your favourite console keeps being out-performed. When it comes down to 360 vs Ps3, 90% of the time you only ever really get a slight difference between both anyway.
#1.4 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(4) | Report | Reply
Omni-Tool  +   978d ago
Games are designed for the device with the lowest specifications which makes it easier to port over.
Dee_91  +   978d ago
It doesnt make sense to compare the 2 because cant set your graphics on a console like a pc you play with what they give you.& 2. 9times out of 10 a pc version of a multiplat will look better than its console version.
But eh what ever makes the elitist feel better.Its like bragging about having a airplane in a car and bike club :p
quite annoying reading the same comments over and over.
#1.4.2 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(3) | Report
theoneb  +   978d ago
Looks like whoever did the comparison forgot to click the full range HDMI function on the PS3 yet again
bigfish  +   978d ago
personally PS3 looks better, PC looks cartoony and lacks warmth in the colour pallet
TheMailman  +   978d ago
The usual.. Better textures and deep of field for PC.. Nothing new or spectacular..

If someone show me a PC game that match this we then talk...
SonyPS4  +   978d ago
I get what you mean but sometimes with PC versions of a game you get the odd port that lack a significant leap in visual quality from a console version. But nonetheless, the game looks great on both platforms. If you have a PC that can run this game at decent settings you'd probably buy the PC version otherwise just get the game on whatever console you own or prefer...
PwnerifficOne  +   978d ago
This is necessary because many PS4 fanboys like to think that the PS4 surpasses PC graphics, when it's obvious that Sony still has a long way to go.
GiantFriendlyCrab  +   979d ago
ps3 did pretty well
jcornish  +   979d ago
why compare console to PC? it makes no sense, PC are so much more capable of handling better graphics, should compre to the PS3 instead.

However neither of them will come close to PC.
Ju  +   979d ago
Why? Looks pretty awesome, IMO. And is quite close to the PC. That's why this is interesting. What's the point of comparing two platforms which are basically the same?
GrandTheftZamboni  +   978d ago
I agree. It's pretty much identical except for lower contrast and maybe higher brightness in PS3 footage which can be easily adjusted.
jcornish  +   978d ago
A PS3 has no chance of standing up to a pc with a high end graphics card, the PC would eat the PS3 for FPS, Resolution, and just all round quality of the image, however i do find that some games are better played with a controller (far cry 3 is one) but take battlefield 3 for example, to me its so much easier to play on a PC rather that a contoller with a console.
Raven77  +   979d ago
AGAIN, How does it not make sense???

You do realize that some people have PS3, 360 AND a PC?

I for one wanted to see this because I am debating if the differences are big enough to grant getting it on PC.

I know, mind blowing...
Tei777  +   978d ago
Why are people so sensitive about these comparisons. I don't even own a PC but would still like to see what I'm missing out on.

The only pointless comparisons are the ps3/360 ones where you need a microscope to see the differences.
EbeneezerGoode  +   979d ago
Looks like a cartoon on either format. About time they made the graphics/physics/gameplay match the level of their plots.
dgonza40  +   979d ago
I'd rather they focus on the story of the game than the way it looks. And it seems like they did just that.
Parapraxis  +   979d ago
The game looks absolutely beautiful, and the graphics/physics/gameplay all look great.
Realism =/= better
Pozzle  +   979d ago
I like the graphics style, tbh. It has an almost "story book" quality to it.
Tei777  +   978d ago
Its called art style.
EbeneezerGoode  +   978d ago
It's called not being able to reign in the colour pot. there is not a person here who truly hand on heart wouldn't prefer this game if it looked more 'real' - art direction be damned. You can have art direction without making the characters look like oversized head munchkins, without everything having a bloom/glow, without grass looking neon - it's obvious from the care they put into the detailing that they want us to believe this is a fully formed world, but their texture artists/model makers suck - they also sucked in bioshock 1. Someone has a great concept but they send in inept monkeys to execute the concept. from badly handling gunplay mechanics, to stuttery/pre-canned/dated animation of characters.

One thing they DO do well is go all out to fill in the little details most games forget about, and I think it's a shame they can't give that detail the justice it deserves, make it look more 'surreal film' like (if you want your fantasy art direction) and less cartoon pop up theatre play. Would improve these games greatly.

Good graphics and good story don't have to be mutually exclusive, a good story is cool, great graphics are cool but gameplay is the foundation and I found all Bioshocks to put gameplay LAST not first as some are hinting in reply to me! You seriously think the guns etc handle well in this game vs any number of generic FPS games that just 'get it right'?

Bioshock(s) have always had clunky controls whether on PC or console, I partly blame the '2 handed' thing (weapons/powers) most games with two hands like that tend to feel off to me. The camera (the walking player) is STIL too low FOV!!! They did NOT learn.

Tell ME how many times you'll be walking around looking at the rose bushes only having to BACK OFF constantly to get it not to give you a head ache or seem 'zoomed in'? They got it wrong - again! It's clunky. When you run the FOV goes higher - that FOV should be the default fov, why the do that change I don't know - ill considered and... oh oh - CLUNKY.

I find Irrational piss poor at polishing the ergonomics on their games, sorry, they may have great ideas and interesting environments but they just don't polish the ergonomics enough, nor the graphics on a texturing/lighting level. However, they know the 'showy' story will please the masses so they have no need to get all areas right eh? and why should a discerning gamer hope for great gameplay and great graphics on TOP of a great story??

I felt bioshock 1/ rapture was a missed opportunity and I hope one day a better able team can reboot bioshock and do it how it was originally intended and with slick controls and total immersion, not cartoon dated graphics and CLUNKY gameplay.

Look at the instanced meshes (people) with the same gaudy faces repeated throughout the games first levels, it's like something 2005!

Now imagine rapture and columbia done PROPERLY without garish over saturated kid's colours ruining the illusion. I'm not talking gritty realism or drab grey, I'm a fan of colourful/fun environments but someone at irrational has real trouble restraining themselves when it comes to the art direction (and the selection of colours available). Garish is being kind. A game supposedly as 'high brow' as this deserves better, a simple fact, doesn't ruin this game but how I wish the irrational conceptulists/story writers could joing a better technical team (and dump UE3 and build a PROPER modern engine!) THis done in Cryengine 3? Now we are talking - mind blowing immersion, serving the game concept and it's gameplay. Simple stuff but fanboys will always attack this POV and call people 'graphic's whores' simply for striving for much better than a dated looking cartoon game.
#4.4.1 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(16) | Report
ThreshStar  +   978d ago


Go away please and troll somewhere else.
LightofDarkness  +   978d ago
Ebeneezer: are you trying to tell us you're dead inside?

Seriously though, I am hand-on-heart telling you that I prefer Bioshock's aesthetic to a gritty or realistic palette and style. It's surrealist visages and unrestricted, over-zealous use of colour help only to enhance the immersion in this case, it practically forces you to accept this new reality by causing you to fixate on it and its uncanny environs. It's like a Pixar movie; they can almost (and most times do) convey more emotion and realism than a real human actor can, simply by presenting you with a simplified means of visual communication, where there is no ambiguity of language or emotion because the artist(s) now controls its conveyance.
Christopher  +   978d ago
***there is not a person here who truly hand on heart wouldn't prefer this game if it looked more 'real'***

Yeah, there are. I prefer art over reality in my video games when it comes to graphics. I'd love to see more games like Borderlands and BioShock: Infinite than Crysis or Metro.
Pozzle  +   977d ago
Have you even played the game EbeneezerGoode? Those first moments in Columbia, where you are able to freely walk around and take-in the beautiful city-scape, are absolutely gorgeous. The colors really pop out at you and look absolutely stunning. There's nothing "garish" about it.

Dare I say it, it's one of the most beautifully designed worlds I have ever seen in a game.
mixelon  +   978d ago
"there is not a person here who truly hand on heart wouldn't prefer this game if it looked more 'real' - art direction be damned. "

What a load of crap. I LOVE the art style. The more real they make it the more generic it would look and the worse it would age.

I'm seriously glad you had no part in developing this, and other games. As are a lot of other people based on the amount of disagrees you're getting. Oh.. And the critical response to Infinite jars with yours somewhat!
Aggesan  +   979d ago
I don't mind the comparison. I have a PC and a PS3 but I prefer my PS3, so I want to see just how much better the PC version is to see if it warrants a purchase.
Heavenly King  +   979d ago
I dont see much difference in that video really. The most noticeable thing is the different color contrast, but that's it.
ufo8mycat  +   979d ago
Yet another PC Port it seems.

Firstly, yes there is a difference, but far out, CONSIDERING the hardware differences of the PS3 compared to a high-end PC, the difference isn't that big at all.

This happens time and time again with multiplatform games where the difference just isnt THAT big considering the hardware differences (except BF3 and Crysis 3).

Me personally, I am not that sensitive at all to things like graphics and framerate, hence why my gaming is solely done on console, and play PC exclusives on my gaming PC, but this really isnt fair for PC only gamers who buy the top end hardware for a reason and then 99% of the games don't take full advantage of.

This really isn't fair for PC only gamers at all. Surely it doesn't cost that much extra $$ to take full advantage of high-end PC hardware.
cayleee  +   979d ago
You dont need to run the game on a high end PC. Low end will do just about the same.

The game is running on a outdated U3 engine. Any PC with a decent GPU from 4-5 years back will be maxing this out.

Agreed this isnt fair on PC gamers with high end hardware and it is bad for the GPU business. However there are other games to get that fill:

Tombraider, Hitman, Farcry 3 just to name afew from recent months.
#7.1 (Edited 979d ago ) | Agree(7) | Disagree(3) | Report | Reply
jmc8888  +   978d ago
We also don't know what specs he was using to run that game or what settings it was playing at.

Also maybe it was the internet video (likely), but there was some pretty big jaggies there. So either the internet video is holding back (likely) or they weren't running it on max settings.

It's also perhaps both.
o-Sunny-o  +   979d ago
Like comparing a Mac to a Big Mac....
Parapraxis  +   979d ago
sandman224  +   979d ago
Okay PC looks better than ps3 but its not as big of a difference as crysis 3 PC vs ps3. All I noticed was more color saturation and less screen tear. Ps3 owners have nothing to worry about. It seems like mr Levine wants bios hock to look the same on all platforms to keep sales equal so no one will boycot the console versions. I'm sure the game will be amazing!

Ps wow I got a disagree already. Grow up children!
#9 (Edited 979d ago ) | Agree(1) | Disagree(5) | Report | Reply
ZeroX9876  +   979d ago
how about making a fair comparison?
build a PC for 250$, just like the cost of a PS3 in store and compare them.
kayoss  +   978d ago
This is something i would like to see. Lets compare price to price. Take what Zerox9876 said, $250 PC vs a $250 PS3 and compare the same game.
When the PS4 comes out, Compare the PS4 to a PC that cost the same as the PS4.

I use to game on PC, but these blind PC fanboys just dont get it. Of course a $1000 PC will run better than a PS3 or PS4. If your $1000 PC cant run a game better then a PS3 or PS4 then you just wasted your money.
#10.1 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(9) | Report | Reply
jmc8888  +   978d ago
Actually a $200 card has the same raw power of the PS4, and that will be a generation old as the the GTX 700 series will launch before the PS4 does.

As for the 720, this card is faster than a 720, and again the 700 series will be out before the 720 hits.

The 8 core CPU is weaker than a 4 year old i7 920 (which only cost $279 at launch back then) and that's at stock speed. (i.e. the 920 trounces the PS4, yet you can also easily overclock the 920 by 30-50 percent). Actually now that I think about it, I think it launched at $229 but was so good they upped the price.

If people bought Best Buy PC's like lemmings they wasted their money. Any fool can throw their money away or buy an Alienware. Some people don't mind to take an hour to put together a PC.

Also how did they 'waste' their money if they've been enjoying much better than PS3/360 visuals for years?

As is a midrange PC from 4 years ago with an updated 200 dollar graphics card beats a PS4 in raw power.

That same midrange PC no doubt could put in a GTX 700 or Maxwell 800 series GPU for 200-400 instead of buying a PS4 and trounce it big time.

As is, uber PC's are 3x stronger than a midrange PC, which should be about 2.5-3x stronger than a PS4, which will be 50 percent faster than a 720, which will be 100 percent faster than a Wii U.

Personally I'll own an i7 920@4ghz and GTX 670, 360, PS3, Wii U (already own all these), and preorder a PS4 and 720.

I see the value in doing that. But what you said it pretty much false. Because my system is 3 years old (the original i7 920 C0 stepping is 4 1/2 years old, I have the D0), except the GFX card which is just about 45 days from being a year old.

People have had PS4's or better in their home for years now. YEARS. With those PC's they can upgrade the videocard (takes about 30 seconds) in a year or three and have something that trounces it hard. That's what they get for their money. They enjoyed it before, have better during its arrival, and trounce it after the PS4 is a year or two old.

Again I see the value in all systems, but you simply don't describe reality.
#10.1.1 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(2) | Report
kayoss  +   978d ago
You not read my comment? I said if your $1000 pc don't out perform the ps3 or ps4 then you wasted your money. You would been better off buying a ps3 or ps4. How is my statement wrong? If you spend $1000 on a pc to play tomb raider and it can't output better performance when compared to a ps3 or ps4 then you wasted $1000. Why not spend that money on a ps3 and have money left over.

We all know a pc is more then for gaming but when you compare a pc to a game console, you must leave out all other aspect of the pc. If you don't, then what's the point of comparing. If you look at what a pc need to play only games and nothing else. there is no way a $250 pc can play tomb raider with performances compared to a ps3. Can you honestly tell me that you can find a pc with 512mb of ram that will play tomb raider?

I'm not disregarding pc abilitties to have better performance then ps3 or ps4. But if you going to compare the two. You need to give it a fair comparison. What's the point of comparing a $1000 machine to a $250 console? With $1000 I can get a very good gaming pc but why would I spend that much when the ps3 or ps4 cost less and give similar performances?
#10.1.2 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(1) | Report
TechnicianTed  +   978d ago

The thing is, when you buy a gaming pc you won't need to buy the whole thing again, you can just upgrade certain parts. I've spent about the same money that a ps3 would have cost me on launch, since the ps3 launched, and I have a pc that is far and away more powerful than a ps3.

Once you have the basis for your pc the costs in upgrading are about level with the cost of a new console. And you also spend a lot less on your games, that fact alone saves a load of money.

If someone wants to spend top dollar for everything then obviously they will spend more money, but waiting for components to come down in price keeps the cost much lower. I bought a gtx570 last year for just over £100, which is in line with the graphics card the ps4 will have.
ExCest  +   978d ago

A PC is not just a gaming machine, it's also a PC. THAT is why the price is always higher.

You can use comparison based on GPU price but even then, it'll stomp a PS3.
AnyaShroud  +   978d ago
how's that a fair comparison? the biggest downside of console gaming for me is that I can't spend money to make the games look better. you just took away the biggest advantage of PC gaming.
SonyPS4  +   978d ago
PC costs more because the platform itself is multipurpose and the hardware is built for a plethora of applications besides gaming, including rendering graphics/videos and developing games, while a PS3 is for living room gaming first and digital entertainment second. The browser in a PS3 is abysmal and you would NEED a PC for that anyway. A $600 gaming rig can run most games on med-high settings and crappy home desktop PCs with no graphics card at Best Buy cost about that much, and I am guessing most people that post here have one of those at home.
Hufandpuf  +   978d ago
gaming is digital entertainment
DJ  +   979d ago
Not too big of a difference.
SlavisH2  +   979d ago
I would love to see a ps360 version compared to a wii U version,... oh wait! DAMN!
BattleTorn  +   979d ago
For a CONSOLE VS PC comparison artivle, they submit a GAME VS COSPLAY photo!!

Pozzle  +   979d ago
That thumbnail is ridiculously misleading.
GABRIEL1030  +   979d ago
Wow ¡ there is not much difference¡ incredible job made by the programmers with only 512 Mb of RAM for PS3, the game looks amazing. In comparison with PC with a very superior hardware with expensive graphic cards. The game looks amazing, these guys are magicians and the PS3 showed that's a great machine..:)
4lc4pon3  +   978d ago
they ported it to the PC making each platform look the same so people would not just boycott a single platform. They wanted even sales.

Tho the PS3 is a great machine and I love mine to death I do own a high end gaming PC running SLI GTX 680s that no console will touch. IF they would stop giving us PC users shithole ports and actually use our hardware to its fullest I would shit myself.
n1ko_117  +   978d ago
SLI GTX 680s? Lucky son of a....haha.
4lc4pon3  +   978d ago
not luck i have a great job.
Auron  +   978d ago
so true all these games are mere console ports.who knows how awesome pc games can really look if the developers didnt care about a console port.
GABRIEL1030  +   978d ago
SLI GTX 680 for .... $ 477 insane...
chukamachine  +   978d ago

Strange all the games you mention are open world games that need large amounts of texture ram compared to the 512mb ram.

Do you really think open world games are just better, crisis original was just an overhyped tech demo. The 3rd and hopefully last game in the series is the best one.

As for skyrim, just as boring as oblivion.

Another boring game metro 2033, the drone of the mans voice, a corridor shooter. While some outside parts that actually don't look very good.

Art direction does go along way, but it still needs shaders. There are no better shaders in crysis then there are in uncharted 1,2,3.

You mention BF3, but on PC, it only looks good in places, where your fighting etc, stray out of those bounds it and looks like a ps2 game. Some tree's are not even planted in the ground, buildings outside of the main fighting zone are a mess in gulf of oman. They are not actually that big.

Skyrim, has okish water, decent textures in places, npc's look like crap, and the dragon's have no normal mapping, just a plain basic texture.

I can rip the shit out of PC games all day long.

I can rip the shit out of any console game as well.

It's quite easy.

Take GT5.

Best lighting in a racing game - FACT.
one of the best car shader models in a game, even on pc/
Okish textures in places.
Awful textures in others.
Poor Shadows
excellent aa x4
good rez for a console game.

I hope you elitist PC gamers take some knowledge from what I say because when the PS4 hits. Regardless of TITAN. There will be no game that looks better on PC then it does on PS4.

Triggytrolls  +   978d ago
You have to admit tho, BF3 on PC/Ultra looks 100x better then what it does on console.

I own all three, PS3, 360 and a PC, I will admit that KZ3 has to be one of the prettiest games I've played to date. (Bare in mind I've not played a massive collection of games on PC) I spend most of my time playing ARMA 2 :P Best of all worlds tbh. I will probably get a PS4 too if I can afford one.
#16.1 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(6) | Disagree(0) | Report | Reply
AnyaShroud  +   978d ago
that's just not happening. I can believe multi plat games on PS4 would be equivalent to "high" setting on PC at launch, but 2-3 years from now (when the average PCs will have the likes of GDDR6, DDR4, PCIE 4.0), the gap will get bigger and bigger.
reynod  +   978d ago

Maybe you think Skyrim is boring because you played it on a locked down platform with no mods.

As for the graphics check this out:

Skyrim modded looks better than any PS3 exclusive ;-)
supermanes  +   978d ago

'I hope you elitist PC gamers take some knowledge from what I say because when the PS4 hits. Regardless of TITAN. There will be no game that looks better on PC then it does on PS4.'

Really??!! I play equally on my consoles and pc but this statement is just ridiculous. I can't wait for the PS4 to come out but even my two year old pc will be able to match the PS4 from what I've seen and read about it's specs. And the only thing that will hold the Titan back will be the lack of games developed that can utilize it's true potential(that and the $1000 price tag).
You label pc users as 'elitist' but your illogical ranting just screams Sony elitist. Pot, meet kettle.
#16.4 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
SonyPS4  +   978d ago
Wow so much PC hate in this post it's disturbing...
Holeran  +   978d ago
Actually surprised at how well the PS3 holds up in the comparison. The contrast needs changed but it still looks great.
Zha1tan  +   978d ago
I really hate these comparison articles, the uneducated and unemployed festering slime that is know as fanboys creep out of the woodwork.

Shut up and enjoy your respective systems.

Here are some facts

- The games look close because it had to be optimised to run on all systems.

- If it were exclusively PC and only had to optimise for PC hardware the graphics would be better no doubt, yes we get it PC elitists, PCs are more powerful.

- The reason it looks "so close" and why you are "impressed" by the playstation 3 version is because the game was optimised clearly to be able to run on console hardware and PC was not given any special treatment like it was with the likes of BF3. It is for lack of better term "a console port" (despite the fact that is impossible and technically incorrect.)

- The "cartoon" graphics.....that is called art style and it does more justice to games appearance than super duper photo level graphics.
#18 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
ferelinstincts  +   978d ago
I love that the audio is German because since I can't understand what they're saying, I don't have to worry about any kind of spoilers, lol. :P
pkb79  +   978d ago
Best thing about PC version is that I don't have to pay for it. ;)
ziggurcat  +   978d ago
it's good that you think stealing is okay... bravo.

*slow clap*
4lc4pon3  +   978d ago
its not stealing its borrowing. I borrowed it off a torrent to play it then deleted it thus returning the product :)
#20.1.1 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(2) | Disagree(10) | Report
Bladesfist  +   978d ago
Technically it is not stealing but don't get me wrong I am not defending him. Buy your games!
kayoss  +   978d ago
When have "deleting" equal to returning it? Deleting means you throwing it into the recycle bin on your desktop. It's the same as going to best buy and stealing the game and dumping it in you garbage can after you're done with it. How is it the same as borrowing and returning?
megamanX2  +   978d ago
lol comparison? there is no comparison next to the pc.

"Best thing about PC version is that I don't have to pay for it. ;)"

i agree that makes it even more superior, and how can you steal something that doesn't physically exist?....dumb ass
#21 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report | Reply
isyourhouseonfire  +   978d ago
While the hot chick makes the game worth playing, it's still just more of the same and gamers may want to stick with the latest Gears of War installment.
Godmars290  +   978d ago
Where's the 360 in all this?

Why is it when there's a difference between the PS3 and 360 versions, and the 360 is better, do we get tons of articles saying as much?
Lolrus  +   978d ago
PS3 looks better because of the cell
D3athc3ll  +   978d ago
Wow i'm amazed how well the ps3 version looks. Yeah the pc version is superior, but for a console that old to make a game look like that? Pretty amazing i'd say.

Oh and try running that on a pc with 512mb ram and you wont even load the menu! Anyways gdc 2013 just around the corner. Can't wait to see new mgs in action. Ps - mgs on the ps4 will blow any pc game to date out of the water in terms of graphics! Can't wait to see what Naughty Dog will be able to do with PS4

Sorry but Ps4 gona own pc's world for the next 2 years or untill Crytek brings out Crysis 4 which no pc can max lol!
TemplarDante  +   978d ago
What an unfair comparison.
Should we rather compare apples and apples PS3 and 360?
PC fanboys, cant go a day without a "mine is bigger than yours contest"
landog  +   978d ago
this doesnt even begin to show the the pc in 1200p....vs the 600p of the console, max everything

why do they always use dirty 720p, don't know a pc gamer that was using 720p even in 2004

pc games are a generation beyond ps4 games, why compare them to ps3 games anyway

a crappy netbook could run cirlcles around that old dusty ass, screen tearing ps3

also, the comparissons are crap because youtube is incapable of showing how good pc games cannot even begin to show you, yet it makes crappy looking, jaggie covered console games look better. more so because 90% of people forget to watch in FULLSCREEN
#27 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(3) | Disagree(10) | Report | Reply
kayoss  +   978d ago
Please give me a link to a net book that can play bio shock infinite under $250. Thanks
landog  +   978d ago
please give me a link to a console that runs office, works, sony vegas, adobe pro, that can send emails with huge attachments, tele-confrerence, trasnlate languages, create resumes, apply for jobs, order pizza, book a flight, write a novel

thats has mods and graphics that don't look 9 years old

ohhh wait...there ISN"T one

but theres a NETBBOOK, playing BF3 on high in 768p (ps3 only does 704p in all low)

and it does all the above, it literally DESTROYS the ps3, it plays games smoother too at
WAY higher res
mahmoods26  +   978d ago
You can tell the PC version looks better than the PS3 one but its still impressive that a 7 year old console can pull off those visuals.

For now it looks like the PC version has better textures, better lighting effects, better particle effects.

It does look a step above the original Bioshock though, definitely.
leogets  +   978d ago
I don't think slightly higher textures on PC justify the price comparison from a ps3 to a high end PC to be fair.. but that's just me xD
Bladesfist  +   978d ago
ps3 to a low end PC*
The game is running at 720p, who buys a high end PC and can't play at 1080p?
chasedagreat  +   978d ago
bah bah bah bottom line the consoles version will smash the pc version in sales.
#30 (Edited 978d ago ) | Agree(5) | Disagree(2) | Report | Reply
« 1 2 3 »

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
New stories

Kritika – Nobleria goes critical with several destructive weapons

1h ago - Announced a few weeks ago, Kritika will be getting a new character known as Nobleria next month i... | PC

A 'Dead Space' LEGO Replica to Make Us Whole -

1h ago - A 'Dead Space' LEGO Replica to Make Us Whole | Culture

See What TV Series Premiers this Month

Now - Check for a complete overview of season premiers this November. | Promoted post

C9 Rush Gets a 1v5 Pentakill

1h ago - Hardcore Gamer: Cloud 9's newest player gets an unlikely penta kill. | PC

Désiré - Prologue: Walkthrough Guide

1h ago - Appunwrapper writes: "This is a complete step-by-step walkthrough for the iOS and Android point-a... | iPhone

Blaze Proves the Commodore Amiga Was Capable of Sonic the Hedgehog

1h ago - Carl Williams writes, "While Sega never supported the Commodore Amiga with any games, they did la... | Retro