BioShock's PS3 graphics identical to Xbox 360

by Alexander Sliwinski { Jul 22nd 2008 at 12:30PM }

For those out there who thought BioShock on the PS3 was going to exploit the full strength of Cell processors and Blu-rays, 2K Games' senior producer Melissa Miller, tells VideoGamer that the PS3 version "looks no different from the 360 version." It looks so similar, in fact, that when we saw it at E3, it never even crossed our minds to do an impressions post on the game. We just reported on the new DLC content and moved on. From what we've seen of it, BioShock on PS3 is the same as it ever was on Xbox 360. There, we've written our impressions post now.

Tags: 2k, 2k-games, 2k-marin, bioshock, BioShock-PS3, graphics

Related From Joystiq

Live in the Past, It's Cheaper (2009 Edition)
6 days ago
Xbox's Aaron Greenberg talks 'best-ever November in Xbox 360 history'
18 days ago
November NPD: Modern Warfare 2 sells 6 million, DS dominates hardware
18 days ago

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 3)

Wiinterfang @ Jul 22nd 2008 12:33PM

Duh

nealbailey @ Jul 22nd 2008 4:40PM

So then the Bioshock senior programmer must have been lying on XPlay last night when he stated clearly that the team was able to include extremely high-res textures that couldn't fit on the 360 and that the PS3 version looked significantly better on the PS3 thanks to "the power of Blu-Ray"

arrrgh @ Jul 22nd 2008 5:06PM

it's called "BLOWING SMOKE UP YOUR ASS"

that's what he does to fanboys. it makes him money

Dan @ Jul 22nd 2008 11:17PM

Why would cell help the graphics... that's the job of the GRAPHICS PROCESSING UNIT

Deric Lee @ Jul 22nd 2008 12:35PM

Oh noez!!

Sony Defense force ACTIVATE!!

The graphics ARE better because...

Maverick Saturn @ Jul 22nd 2008 1:52PM

...its on PS3

Vegeta (aka Ska Oreo) @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:07PM

TEH BLOO-RAYS!!!

TrojanGuy @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:32PM

trofees!

LameDuck @ Jul 22nd 2008 4:49PM

4D!!!! FOUR DEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!

Vidikron (FU) @ Jul 22nd 2008 12:36PM

OK

/thread

Roto13 @ Jul 22nd 2008 1:43PM

What thread?

koehler83 @ Jul 22nd 2008 12:38PM

Every bit worth the year long delay.

Vol @ Jul 22nd 2008 12:38PM

Ok, before I get voted down.. I own both the 360 & PS3.

Let me state that I think that the graphical capabilities of the PS3 & 360 are identical. I have played all the big titles for both consoles.

This doesn't surprise me.

Dr. Stabbingworth @ Jul 22nd 2008 12:50PM

Fanboys are the new audiophiles. Seeing things that aren't there.

xFenixKnightx @ Jul 22nd 2008 12:54PM

Problem is, Sony overpromised and underdelivered. PS3fanboys genuinely believe they are going to get Crysis graphics eventually. Its not. 360 and PS3 are very diff in architecture but really have the same limitations. PS3 has its advantages and 360 also has its advantages.

There is no game on PS3 that can't be on 360 even with all this junk Sony execs feed the sheep about "all games in 1080P and bluray" or "only possible on PS3" Case in point, FFXIII. MGS4 could be on 360 as well. Don't wanna flame or whatever but the truth is the truth.

Duke @ Jul 22nd 2008 12:57PM

I agree with Dr. Stabbingworth. Fanboys want to believe that their console of choice outperforms the main competition, whether the facts show it or not. Its annoying.

Vol @ Jul 22nd 2008 1:02PM

Oh yeah, I forgot I had a Wii too. Ooops.

Corbo @ Jul 22nd 2008 1:07PM

After all the other identical comparisons, I don't think it truly surprises anyone. It just really annoys a lot of them for some reason.

Dave @ Jul 22nd 2008 1:23PM

"Oh yeah, I forgot I had a Wii too. Ooops."

A lot of people forget they have a Wii.

Neebs @ Jul 22nd 2008 1:27PM

Problem is Stabbingworth, is that we audiophiles really do hear things others don't. I have friends that can't tell the difference between 128K vs. 320K. But to me the difference is huge.

Obie @ Jul 22nd 2008 1:28PM

I know, can you believe there were some that paid $599 for the thing? I will buy a PS3 when it hits $299 ( which I feel will be this holiday season).

DangerMouse @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:06PM

The fact that they're identical has nothing to do with the hardware. It's because the developers start out with basic groundwork to make sure that both games run efficiently on both platforms to make their large investment pay off when the game is released.

One is better than the other. But we'll never really know since it's in the developer's hands.

Haggard @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:07PM

I'm a PS3 owner but the stupidity of all console owners never ceases to amaze me. People keep throwing up the Cell and Blu-Ray as reasons why the PS3 is a billion times better than the 360, but the graphics of the system is determined by the GPU and both systems are quite closely matched on that; in that my PC is better than both :D

arrrgh @ Jul 22nd 2008 5:09PM

well if you're going to start talking money, when it all boils down to it, ps3 is still a damn cheap, well performing blu ray player that also plays games.

I did the future shop lcdtv+stereo bundle and got them to throw in a ps3 instead of the lousy stereo...

in the end i got a 40gb PS3 for $50. Not bad for a blu ray player

considering i paid 400 for my 360 and 275 for my wii

McWeen @ Jul 22nd 2008 12:38PM

It is a great game anyway. If you haven't played it you need to. No other reason for people to get the PS3 version besides they don't have a 360.

MC Double Def DP @ Jul 22nd 2008 12:40PM

Would you kindly wait 7 minutes for installation of Bioshock?

xFenixKnightx @ Jul 22nd 2008 12:43PM

Oh thats low, that one hurt.

:P

Danny F. @ Jul 22nd 2008 1:18PM

Could be worse.... could be 20 minutes..

Devil May Cry.... )-;

crackp1pe @ Jul 22nd 2008 1:46PM

To play it on a console that doesn't have a DVD drive so loud you can hardly stand it and with load times that are better? Yes, yes I do have 7 minutes (and 2 LOUD 360 consoles)

Vcize @ Jul 22nd 2008 1:53PM

As hilarious as that is, they really SHOULD put that on the install screen.

Kizzle @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:20PM

crackp1pe - don't worry, in 2 or 3 months the 360 will have quicker installs than the PS3, so people can *choose* which superior 360 method they wish to use to play it.

Sinister Rouge @ Jul 22nd 2008 5:25PM

I think I just learned the definition of "lol".

Wise Guy @ Jul 22nd 2008 12:43PM

Way to start a flame blog! :-(

LJ @ Jul 22nd 2008 12:52PM

Installs? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

w/e

required @ Jul 22nd 2008 12:52PM

I've said this before but I think since bluray has the extra storage space that developers should use it. For example in Grand Theft Auto 4 each time I leave the gun shop I shouldn't have to hear the same couple of lines. I doubt it's insanely cost preventive to give us bit more dialogue than "so long shooter" and that it's because it would anger the XBox users, but hell... I feel a lot of games are being held back by the shortcomings of the XBox.

Vcize @ Jul 22nd 2008 1:55PM

No one is going to base their decision on whether or not to purchase the game based on the guy sometimes saying "see ya fella" instead of "so long shooter", so they're not going to put the time/cost into doing something that generates zero extra dollars.

required @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:12PM

I know a lot of reviewers that complained about the lack of variation on the sound effects in GTA4 and I believe they cut back to fit it on XBox.

Marty @ Jul 22nd 2008 2:19PM

Ah, but you can't do stuff like that when you've got half as much RAM at your disposal.

TomCo @ Jul 22nd 2008 4:32PM

Developers are under no obligation (and rightly so) to completely fill a blu-ray disc with content just "because its there".

Thats fucking retarded beyond belief.

LameDuck @ Jul 22nd 2008 5:05PM

Yea... It's all the 360's fault. It has nothing to do with having to pay for voice talent to add all that extra content. Nooooooo... It's all the 360's fault.

required @ Jul 22nd 2008 5:36PM

LameDuck, a lot of bands would have paid to be included in the soundtrack

Dave @ Jul 22nd 2008 9:40PM

That is weird. They SHOULD have put extra sound in the PS3 version since they have use of a Blu-Ray disc. Also, instead of lowering the resolution on the PS3 version, they should have put extra pixels on the disc.

why not the LS2LS7? @ Jul 22nd 2008 12:54PM

Haven't I read this somewhere before?

http://www.joystiq.com/2008/05/28/first-screens-of-bioshock-on-ps3/

Protip:
Ports are ports. They are don't for low cost, almost never would the graphics be changed. It'd just take too much effort. This was glaringly obvious on the ports to (for example) the 360 at launch. The Tiger Woods game ended up looking worse than the regular Xbox version (and costing more!).

If the game is going to exploit the capabilities of BluRay, it'll be by including some movie on the disk, like a making-of or something. Something like that is cheap to produce (is likely already on hand) and all you have to do is put a menu item in to access it.

ill trooper @ Jul 22nd 2008 12:56PM

Still a valid release, as many people who just joined the latest/"next" generation of machines with a PS3 purchase might not have been involved when BioShock originally melted brains on the 360.

A lot of people will likely post about how funny it is that the PS3 finally gets games like BioShock and Oblivion a year late, but that logic can be flipped too: These PS3 releases muster even less interest to buy a 360 in some people's eyes.