Bioshock PS3 vs X360 comparisons by Hatena

The Japanese analyst Hatena has done the comparison between the 2 versions of Bioshock. See the screenshots to see how the 2 versions fare against each other.

Read Full Story >>
Final_Rpg5738d ago

hmm... was that other site lying?

KobeT245738d ago

oh wow. its obvious the 360 version looks better, I mean just look at the textures in the second pictures with the water. on the ps3 version the ground is blurry while the 360 version is clear.

you must be an extreamly dedicated ps3 fanboy to not admit the truth.

xhi45738d ago

i've played through the 360 version twice now, trust me it looks a ton better.

but seriously......who cares?

its a fantasticly terrific game, now you can get it on any platform you want, so get it on whatever platform you want. Its all goood. Smile and be happy =D

Panthers5738d ago

lol only fanboy geeks would even notice the difference. i dont really see much difference there.

PoSTedUP5738d ago (Edited 5738d ago )

yea these minor differences aint gunna take nothing from the game or the experience, just play the damn game and be happy, whos gunna buy both games for both systems and have two HIdeff tv's side by side the whole time wile they play? yall gunna do that? and criticize every little difference??? cmon : /

GUNS N SWORDS5738d ago (Edited 5738d ago )

different rendering methods.

the game was developed on 360, from what i see in THESE pics is that the ps3 version is lacking a little in sharpness, that's about it.



i like to see both versions in motion at 720p, before i can say anything more.

gambare5738d ago

and they are hot right now, just check the full posts


Proxy5738d ago

Everyone seems to be forgeting that the ground textures are what made this GOTY.

FrankenLife5738d ago

Ground textures did not make this GOTY. The great story and gameplay did.

It isn't that the textures are bad on the PS3. It is that they used a filter to make up for aliasing issues in porting. They didn't build the game from the ground up again on the PS3, It is a rushed port. The game still looks great, just less shiny.

It really is too good of a game to get caught up in graphic comparisons of a PORT.

5738d ago
pumpkinpunker5738d ago (Edited 5738d ago )

whatever you say, bud.

The fact that the 2007 game of the year took a year longer to end up on the PS3 and still looks considerably better on the X360 doesn't matter. Heck, 2K should have just pooped on a piece of tissue paper, called it Bioshock, put a PS3 label on it, and all would be good and wholesome in Sony nation.

Sony defense force stay strong!!! TEH CELL HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

Mister_Dawg5738d ago

@ 1.8

How is this a rushed port?
It was in development on the ps3 alongside the 360 from the start, but got shelved while the 360 version was being finished (some cash from MS probably helped there ;-) ).
And remember the 360 version has been out for a long time now, so they've had lots of time to sort any issues out. I agree the different architectures don't lend to quick and easy porting of code, but come on, they've had loads of time and again the PS3 is showing how its not dev friendly. Its only kind to devs who use the PS3 as their lead platform or are exclusive to the PS3.
Nuff said.

Mister_Dawg5738d ago

@ 1.9
Are you like f**king 5 year old?

Eat your sweets and get a life.

+ Show (9) more repliesLast reply 5738d ago
Silogon5738d ago

I see washed out Ps2 quality textures and a comparable color pallet. That's what I see. Sony's system just isn't made to game on, guys. Face it. All the games you want should be played on more capable hardware. All there is to it. Ps3 is good at things like folding, blu-ray watching and listening to music while not in game. Basically other household items you have rolled into 1.

light5738d ago (Edited 5738d ago )

You are dead wrong there.
what about exclusive games ?? or cod 4 or oblivion.
You are judging from multiplat game(s).

Why MSG4 is still the best or Uncharted graphic ?? PS3 is for gaming or not but it has best games graphically. Gameplay wise, its opinion of players.
Those Screenshots are miles better on 360 though.

edit : Not sure those screenshots are real th. 'coz both compared shots are same angle with right on spot, not even 1 mm difference. More like photoshop work.

Aclay5738d ago (Edited 5738d ago )

Silogon, you are a joke "Sony's system just isn't made to game on". If the PS3 wasn't meant to game on then it wouldn't be getting other FPS games like Resistance 2 and Killzone 2 now would it? The PS3 wouldn't be getting Final Fantasy XIII, White Knight Chronicles, Heavy Rain, God of War 3, Infamous, or Uncharted 2 if the PS3 wasn't meant to game on now would it? The PS3 wouldn't be getting nearly the EXACT same multiplaform games that are on the 360 if it wasn't meant to game on now would it? Shut up Silogon.

A 360 port to the PS3 that doesn't end up looking good has nothing to do with the PS3's hardware or the PS3's incapabilities. If anyone should be blamed, it's the developers themselves not the PS3's hardware.

poopsack5738d ago

my library begs to differ, but then stops begging because your not worth it.

gambare5738d ago

no silogon, it's like trying to ride an elephant when you only learned how to ride a pony. Of course you will look worse on the elephant.

GameDev5738d ago


will you STFU you ignoramus. Its not the Ps3, its the devs and their understanding of the hardware.

Sergeant Osiris5738d ago

pays attention to this kids posts, he flops back and forth more than a comb over on a windy day.

Mister_Dawg5738d ago

I can't agree with your post about the PS3 not being made for gaming.
I don't own a PS3, mainly because I got a 360 from launch and the games are fecking great plus the cost of a PS3 is still ridiculous. I'm sure I'll get a PS3 sometime down the line when prices come down (maybe they will) and then enjoy the large back catalogue of games for that system. I wouldn't get multiplatform simply because the 360 versions always seem to be better looking, and sometimes by a noticeable margin.
One of my good friends has a PS3 and I've had a number of gaming sessions on the system and have been fairly impressed with what I've seen and played (but not with that strange feeling controller). However the posts after this have likened games such as MGS4 to be the best examples of graphics on PS3 and 360, well I don't think so my friend. Its very easy to say comments like this when wearing rose tinted glasses. My mate agreed with me that the game was way over-hyped in terms of graphical glory, gameplay great, but the visuals were good but certainly not stunning. And this was running on his fecking brand new state of the art Sammy tv! Uncharted was a very good showcase for the PS3 but come on, its not head and shoulders above 360 games.
And as for PS3 owners blaming lazy devs, shut up! If Sony wanted their machine to be well recieved amongst the development community they shouldn't have made it so bloody difficult to work with. Saying devs are lazy is a damned insult to those hard working people. Its like a car company designing a car with square wheels and forcing people to find the best way to drive it and then calling them lazy when the public say f**k you and they go and buy a car with 'easy' round wheels.
Finally for the PS3 owners who continually say the games that are coming out soon will show the true power of our system, you really need to question why you bothered to buy the PS3 in the first place.
Did you get it out of pure blind loyalty to Sony? Most likely. Or did you buy it to enjoy games? Maybe. You can have a go at MS about buying up loads of games for the 360 and hence being ported to the PS3 all you like. Personally I'm glad they have done this because it's forcing Sony to get off their arse and step up to the plate again, like they did with PS1. The games coming out next year and the year after that will NOT continue to be massive leaps in graphical glory. The simple fact is that both the PS3 and 360 are memory limited. 512MB of RAM is nowhere near enough to produce games on par with PC's output. I'm a PC gamer at heart and I know you need lots of RAM to hold bigger and more detailed textures and then to preload many of them to keep a decent frame rate. In the memory stakes the PS3 is worse off than the 360 because of the splitting of the 512MB of RAM.

But hey when it all comes down it, and I've completely went off my original point, the PS3 can game and it can game very well. Ports of 360 games will never show the PS3 in its true light. PS3 will only show its strengths with exclusive or lead platform titles but even then they are not head and shoulders above the 360. 360 games are really good looking, especially the Unreal 3 powered games (Gears etc) and PS3 owners having digs at EPIC saying their engine is sh*t because of its relatively poor showing on their system, really need to understand that devs will create middleware that requires minimal development time and cost to produce the best possible results on the majority of systems. What PS3 owners should be doing is questionning Sony as to why devs are finding it difficult to produce consistently good games on their system, even after 2 years or so!

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 5738d ago
fufotrufo5738d ago

PS3 Bioshock textures are non existent :O

also it look kinda blurry .. that's about it

zimbo0075738d ago (Edited 5738d ago )

PS3 version looks better here:-



PS3 version sports better colour depth here but has some aliasing issues below :-




why disagree?

the screenshots are right up there for u with FULL RGB setting

fufotrufo5738d ago


zimbo0075738d ago (Edited 5738d ago )



sucks to be a BOT

please note that BIOSHOCK has been ported to PS3 from x360

It runs on Unreal engine 3 which doesnt run well on PS3 too


thats the name . everything is washed ou

also another take


"Don’t get me wrong here, in my opinion the game looks better than the Xbox 360 version no doubt, and on par with the higher end PC visuals, but for some reason it detracts from it."