Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What am I missing...Bioshock runs too well!

Last response: in Systems
Share
August 21, 2007 1:44:20 PM

Well I downloaded the BioShock demo from Steam and was checking it out this morning. I've been wondering what kind of upgrades I'd have to do to really appreciate how well this game is supposed to look. To my surprise, the game looked amazing and it ran beautifully. I had the detail up all of the way and the resolution at 1440x900. The only button that wasn't checked was the DX10 option, since my card is DX9+ compatible.

I built my system almost a year ago (specs below). Shouldn't BioShock demand more than my system can offer? I was expecting to have to upgrade. Would a DX10 card even look that much better?

Opinions please.

Thanks!

More about : missing bioshock runs

August 21, 2007 2:33:29 PM

Just think about this for a second: Who would buy a game that seems to hog their systems when the try out the Demo?! (I'm talking of Mr. everybody that doesn't upgrade their computers each time a new game comes out). Also remind yourself that this game is available on the Xbox 360. Anyhow wait for the game to come out and try the retail version to really see what the game engine is capable of doing to you PC.

My 2c.
August 21, 2007 2:51:04 PM

Well, I suspect that some gamers out there expect a game that's been hyped up this much to demand a lot. Usually, it seems that only the systems that are the best-of-the-best can run the "revolutionary" games at the highest resolution and detail.

My system is not top end, as you can tell. I'm not the type to upgrade just for a game. Since, I was very pleased with my system when I was able to run F.E.A.R., DOOM 3, Black and White 2, Half Life 2, etc at max detail and resolution, I wondered how it would stand up to BioShock. I was a pleasantly surprised at how well it looked!

So, I am basically curious as to how much better it would look with a DX10 card, or if BioShock is not meant to be one of the titles that demand the perfect system.

Good point, though. Let's see wait and see what the full game requires.

Related resources
August 21, 2007 3:29:07 PM

I own the retail game and have played it in both Direct X10 and Direct X9 on my 8800GTX, and can honestly say that I didn't notice any difference, and I'm normally a picky graphics whore. If you're able to run it fine on Direct X9, DO NOT waste your money to play it on Vista with Direct X10. Hell, the game even crashed on me in Vista as soon as I got the electric plasmid and the plane crashed through the tunnel. :( 
August 21, 2007 3:45:00 PM

Yeah this game seems like it is coded a lot better than people were suspecting. My system was set at defaualt at 1024 and all high details with an AMD 4000+ and a 6800 GT and 1gb of ram. It didn't play as smoothly as I would have liked, but I'm sure I could get it to run smooth with a little bit of tweaking.
August 21, 2007 3:48:49 PM

Just read this line from theinquirer: "The engine is based on the Unreal Engine 3, which has been modified pretty heavily, and is coded to use DX10 graphics cards for extra pizazz."

Don't know much about video game engines, but it might work on older hardware since it's an older engine. Picking up the game soon but now I'm worried about it crashing on my Vista & 8800gts rig.
August 21, 2007 4:26:46 PM

i played @ 1680x1050 with highest settings in dx10 no aa/af. lowest fps was 25. there is like no/little difference between dx9/dx10 in both fps and graphics.

rig/ e6420@ 2.8 8800gts640, 2gb ram, 163.44beta driver
August 21, 2007 4:30:22 PM

My systems runs the game maxed out perfectly at 1280*1200 and its around 2 years old so im happy with that

my system

amd 4000+ 1gig ram x1800xt
!