For the sequel, 2K wanted to avoid any similar blemishes, hoping to achieve parity across all three platforms. This process was a tricky one, though, said BioShock 2 Lead Environment Artist Hogarth De La Plante.
Meaning, damn anyone for owning the inferior Ps3.
All consoles have their strengths and weakness, something you can do on one console might not work the same on another.
And this is why the best multiplatform games will never look as good as the best exclusive titles on any platform.
This is complete and utter crap IMO and really says a lot about a developer as far as I'm concerned. Your ultimate goal as a game developer should be to develop the best possible gaming experience regardless of whether the player is pushing X/Square/Triangle/Circle, W/A/S/D, or X/Y/A/B. Why should folks who bought a superior console be penalized because a particular manufacturer decided to go the "cheap and lazy" route? Similarly, those who spend the extra cash for a superior gaming rig should be rewarded and not held back because of console limitations. Each game should be developed to it's maximum potential and the gamer should have the final choice. Making compromises IS showing favoritism because you're admitting that a particular platform is weaker than it's competitors and requires a leg up to remain competitive.
"And this is why the best multiplatform games will never look as good as the best exclusive titles on any platform." So you're saying that because Bioshock was clearly inferior on the PS3, then it is clear that the 360 version of Biochock 2 will not look as good as it would have been, had it been exclusive due to the PS3 holding Bioshock 2 back from achieving exclusive like quality on the 360? Remember, Bioshock looked great on the 360, a year later it came out on the PS3 and was inferior. Had it stayed exclusive, then we wouldn't have known how it would have been on the PS3. So using that rational...you could say that we don't know if exclusives on either 360 or PS3 would look good or better on the competitions console. So would MGS4 had better textures on the 360? Would KZ2 looked sharper on the 360? Would Uncharted 2 been brighter and sharper on the 360? We will never know, but this article does give us an idea of what the outcome could have been had they were released on the 360.... So going by this article and comments made by 2K, which console is holding back which console....
No, it really doesn't. BioShock was built for 360 with no consideration for PS3, then a year later ported over and cheaply and as quickly as possible. Look at a game like Ninja Gaiden Sigma II, ported with care and attention and blew the 360 version away.
blew it away? Don`t know about you but I prefer the Adult version, not the Kid version.
Ah, yes, gore = adult in XBox land. I prefer the version that runs better, looks better and has more content.
you forget the only reason ninja gaiden looked better on ps3 was cause it was a full year later... more time to work on it, besides that ... they cut away all the detail violence... ps3 version of ninja gaiden has no violence in it!.. no limps .. blood all over... not saying ps3 couldnt do it, but they were missn a lot so its definently not the better version... im sure there are better examples for your argument then ninja gaiden.
Stuff like this is something I don't understand this gen. Last gen, dev's had no problem making games look better on the xbox. They didn't dumb them down so they looked the same as the ps2 version, so why did they start this gen? If one of the consoles can push more polys than the other why hold it back?
NG3 is going to be around the corner some time. don't worry, sooner or later we'll see who can run that sigma engine better fare and square through a simultaneous release. :)
Pfft, if they just gave the PS3 more consideration, there's no way they would have to make compromises. The game renders mostly small rooms. There's no reason the PS3 couldn't render it in 720p without all those screwed up textures (SOME of them were fixed in a patch, that they took a freaking week or so to release). You xbox fanboys can pretend that it's not the developer's fault, but we all know it is.
Oh you mean like Final Fantasy 13? Good then we should have a better game........../s
@Pirate Don't care about Maxx/Mart from xboxkings, he is just like that: 'multiplatforms runs better on 360!' *he is proved wrong* 'runing better is determined by the features I pick' He just don't know when to quit. @MGSR the HD Version Not necessarily. The thing with NG was that Tecmo make each version the better they could (we assume, no one really can tell except Tecmo insiders) since they were 'exclusives' and have time to dedicate to each one. Now that Itagaki is out and NG will be multiplat day one Tecmo can also play the lazy and just release both versions when they are 'good enough', not really trying to push any console. They can also have separate teams working in each version, applying for the best they can make out of those consoles and release both day and date. But that just isn't money efficient enough for publishers, hence it's not usual to see multiplats developed like that.
"Ah, yes, gore = adult in XBox land. I prefer the version that runs better, looks better and has more content. " BWAHAHAHA Pirate pwned him to The Maxx
Brings a tear to my eye Yet more "dumbing down" for consoles of a once great franchise. RIP system shock 2..... Some of us still remember your brilliance
No, apparently games with beauty and actual color palettes means that its made for kids. "Halo is too bright and colorful its like a crayon box for kids! It should be dark and brown and gray like Killzone 2 then its for adults!" I love it.
That sucks, id rather they try get the best out of each system, this would make all version better overall, so we would all win. I blame the console "war" (how pathetic lol) for this.
Thanks PC for gimping the game for console owners... :-/
yea cause its a PC's fault that consoles have tech thats over 4 years old. Its not a PC's fault that Crysis(2007) still has better graphics than Killzone 2(2009)
Funny sh1t, Thom.
thank you 360 for making bioshock 2 as good as it cud be
Right because limiting it to a DVD and no standard hard drive is definitely upping the bar.
No, people who purchased the "superior console" shouldn't be rewarded with superior multiplatform games. You're already being rewarded with exclusives. Multiplatform games are supposed to look and perform the same across all platforms. Otherwise, people will say that it was a shoddy port or lazy development. The people who assume they bought the more powerful console are just idiots. I didn't buy any of the consoles thinking that one was more powerful than the other. I bought both because they had games that interested me. The fanboys are snobs. They don't deserve anything.
When I bought my PS3 for $400, I very much assumed I was buying the "more powerful" console, just as those who bought it for $600 at launch I sure assumed the same. And for the record... We were all right.
If they force PC to have some limited graphics, or low res or something them, WHAT THE HELL. They should be trying to make it look as good as possible on each platform. If that means 360 gets sharper textures, and PS3 gets better lighting then fine, but don't lower both to keep people happy :(
And this is why I own a PS3. Sony has dedicated developers pushing their system and creating amazing experiences not available anywhere else. And I can still play multiplatform titles that are built for parity across their intended platforms. Third party have already shown that this generation they are not willing to take advantage of the PS3's advantages like the cell processor, Blu-ray and guaranteed hard drive in each console. I really don't expect things to change. Last gen, developers took advantage of the Xbox's guaranteed hard drive in each console and extra overall console power but apparently developers don't want to do that this gen. Sony was smart to concentrate on first party developers this gen because if they would have depended on Third parties to show that the PS3 has more power they would have been in big trouble and worse off than they currently are.
pc version support DX10 like the first game I believe and has both controller and mouse+keyboard control. Overall it has the most features.
all i can say is this.After testing Bioshock against Bioshock 2 on the 360 i can tell you guys that Bioshock 1 look better than Bioshock 2 so its been gimping!Plasmatic effects dont look so good,textures are worst and 2K even uses excessive lightning effects to hide the low textures!All you need is to play the first level,watch the excessive lightning that hides the textures,and for the plasmatic effects try to use lightning bolt plasmatic against the water!Than try the same on the first Bioshock!
you know as soon as they said that theres gonna be some diffrences in the game quality.
PC being held back? fff
...I'm getting tired of looking at games that "look" beautiful, but play like sh*t because console companies over-sold their hardware to developers. I remember with the advent of the PS2 and Xbox, we had games that not only looked good for their time, they almost always ran at 60fps, or if it was 30fps things like screen tearing were never an issue. Honestly, even if they just released beefed up models of the PS3 and 360, maybe packed with some more RAM and an updated, yet compatible, GPU, I would be a happy camper if it just meant that these games could run at 1080p, 60fps, with AA and AF on. Hell, for half the current-gen library, it would be like playing a whole new game
Hmmm, you know, there is such a console, it's called PC.
'We dont wanna reward anyone for owning a particular platform' I spent good money on a PC to have exactly the opposite you just said sir. I want to be rewarded with the best version of this thing, I want the best control options and the best graphics. Go stand in the corner
Here's an idea. Stop using the Unreal Engine.
I agree with you! Like the Genesis and SNES days... each platform had what was possible to do... Everybody played...and thats allright! PS: I am sorry for some problems with my english... it´s because I am a brazilian gamer , and my english it´s a little rusty.
As equal as possible across all three platforms, PC, PS3, and 360. Even though PC and PS3 can handle much more detail and rendering quality, they can't risk alienating platforms just for being technologically inferior. But thankfully, there are a few developers who say "Screw Platform Parity" and actually take advantage of the PS3's incredible horsepower (or simply the blu-ray storage advantage).
Well, they will alienate PC players if they make their games look as "good" as the console versions. Simply no one will buy the PC versions. But this might be their goal anyway, to slowly but certainly shoo the PC players in the direction of a console. It certainly is the goal of M$.
From IGN: Rapture's halls aren't quite the visual spectacle they were when we saw them back in 2007 I wonder why?
"I wonder why?" Because it's Three years later and it still looks the same?
I found the first Bioshock to be considerably overrated,a good game but not a 'virtual work of art'. Tell me more of these 'compromises' and be HONEST.I may get this or perhaps my assurance of a purchase is now compromised,being honest. What compromises exactly are we talking about?...in relevance to 'parity' of course...
Actually, it was a virtual work of art, but the gameplay was not what it was hyped to be.
I now just wish I didn't preordered it for PC (nor any plateform). Thanks for holding us back 2K, I'll see what all this is all about in a few days
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.