Mass Effect vs. Mass Effect 2 and Bioshock vs. Bioshock 2 - Graphics compared

ia_studio - 139 days 23 hours ago

I don't see the big improvement in Mass Effect, but I do see the character models in bioshock have improved a lot.

Agree(0) | Disagree(8) | Report

Shbzshar - 140 days 2 hours ago

yes the lighting is one of the major noticible improvements in unreal 3 ... this was really clear while playing gears 2 .... even the water physics were amazing ... the water waves react to your movements very well in the current unreal build... and it is something(water) we can expect to see a lot of in bioshock 2...

Agree(5) | Disagree(1) | Report

STONEY4 - 140 days ago

I thought Bioshock ran on a heavily modified Unreal Engine 2.5?

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

mistajeff - 140 days ago

A lot of those ME1 shots are from the PC version, which looks a lot better than the 360 version, so it's not exactly a fair comparison. Though I'll admit that the ME2 shots look better, and since they're from the 360 build, I can only imagine how good it'll look on PC.

Yeah, Bioshock ran on a heavily modified Unreal 2.5, dunno about the sequel though. In OXM Hudson said that ME2 isn't using 100% Unreal 3 this time, and explains that that's how they were able to iron out the framerate and texture issues. They said it was really easy to fix the issues once they made the switch.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

TheIneffableBob - 139 days 22 hours ago

BioShock 2 is still using UE2.5.

Agree(1) | Disagree(1) | Report

Mr Marbles - 140 days 1 hour ago

disagree with this? He didn't say THE two best games of this gen, he said two of the best games this gen.

and that they diffenately are.

Agree(4) | Disagree(6) | Report

sjaakiejj - 140 days 1 hour ago

Mass Effect, Definitely one of the best games this gen. Bioshock however bored the hell out of me :/ The story was boring, the gameplay felt slow.. Overal the only good thing about it was the atmosphere

Agree(7) | Disagree(5) | Report

PirateThom - 140 days ago

Yeah, I agree with Mass Effect. Easily one of my favourite games this gen... BioShock? Not so much, I didn't get it, either a physically copy or gameplay wise.

Agree(2) | Disagree(4) | Report

Shbzshar - 140 days ago

i always felt the shooting in bioshock was terrible ... and the non existant ai... granted the story and plot were all solid ... you never really felt those machine gun kills... although the wrench kills were satisfactory ...

Agree(3) | Disagree(1) | Report

mistajeff - 140 days ago

I really enjoyed the narrative in Bioshock. I'm not gonna claim that it's groundbreaking like so many people do, because it's not (System Shock???), but it's a good example of the path that 1st person narrative should take in games, where the protagonist really is YOU, you don't see him react because his reactions are your own. Like Gordan Freeman in Half Life. More games need to be doing this, there's way too many FPS games that sacrifice effective narrative by essentially being a 3rd person game that slips in to first-person view when the gameplay starts.

And Mass Effect was just balls awesome.

Agree(2) | Disagree(0) | Report

Mr Marbles - 140 days 1 hour ago

what games can you name that are better this gen? Killzone? LOL

I don't think so.

Agree(8) | Disagree(10) | Report

thewhoopimen - 140 days 1 hour ago

What's so great about BioShock2? Me2 I can agree with but Bio2? I think there are plenty of games this gen that have surpassed Bioshock and even hit par with ME1 (MGS4's linear story is superlative even). Besides nobody is missing anything, not even ps3 players considering EVERYONE has a PC.

Agree(2) | Disagree(4) | Report

vega75 - 140 days ago

That has to be one of the dumbest comments I heard. Yes everyone may have a PC. But not everyone PC is able to run games like bioshock2 or ME2. Have you ever tried to upgrade a personal PC so it could run new games. It's not worth it. Sometimes(depending on the spec's) the game runs choppy or the quality is sh1t. And not everyone has a gaming rig.

Agree(4) | Disagree(0) | Report

mistajeff - 139 days 23 hours ago

My gaming rig cost me $300, minus the monitor which I already had. It runs games like Bioshock and ME infinitely better than my 360 does. It's not hard to make a gaming rig, you just need to take 30 minutes and research it. There's even video tutorials for how to put PCs together, it takes 15 minutes, you just have to put some effort into it. Consoles may be easier, but it's not that hard to get a gaming PC that'll run games a lot prettier for a comparable price.

Here's a useful tutorial I saw recently:
http://www.teckh.com/?p=690

You certainly don't need to upgrade your graphics card every year like people say, even to stay ahead of the console curve.

And even if your computer right now runs current PC games like complete @$$, whenever you get your new computer in however many years, you'll ultimately be playing a better looking game than the console versions. Like right now, for example, I could play the Xbox version of KOTOR, or the superior looking and playing PC version. It may have been easier back then to get the console version, but in the long run, the PC version is a better choice. My computer back then couldn't have run it better than the Xbox, but my computer now can, and I'm glad I made the choice to get it on PC despite playing it at a crappier quality back then.

Now that I've wasted a noticeable portion of father's day typing this comment, I think I'll go downstairs and do something more worthwhile than ranting for no reason.

Agree(2) | Disagree(2) | Report

Tony P - 139 days 23 hours ago

vega is right in that regard. Just because everyone has a PC doesn't mean they can play the latest games on it. Mainstream PC users can't even find Firefox on the web, let alone build/upgrade a PC for gaming.

It is definitely worth it imo to have a gaming rig. I'm not disagreeing about the value at all. If you know what you're doing or can follow directions, you will often reap richer rewards with better visuals and overall quality than the console version of a game.

But enthusiasts build PCs. Everyone else buys consoles so they don't have to.

Agree(3) | Disagree(0) | Report

thewhoopimen - 139 days 18 hours ago

What kind of PC today CAN'T run an Unreal engine game? WTF? What, are you pre-teens or something ... seriously? The engine is designed to run everything from a celeron with shared memory up to current processors. Even an iMac can run gears of war. I am shaking my head at some of the rebuttals above.

Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report

Tony P - 139 days 13 hours ago

Yeah, but running a game and running this 'superior' (or sometimes even comparable) version everyone brags about are two very different things. You don't often run a better version of the game from a factory card or an integrated gpu. Maybe on minimum or medium with low detail? These $500-$600 multimedia PCs most people buy aren't gaming rigs.

Agree(1) | Disagree(0) | Report

thewhoopimen - 140 days 1 hour ago

Everyone has their own opinions I have mine. I am surprised right now how good Infamous is. I think Uncharted 2 will probably kick Bioshock's ass if not ME2 (I care about deep story). To me Bioshock2 looks more like its made capitalize on a sequel than to actually present a "real" story like the first one. Valkyria Chronicles is a very very good game and I suspect Demon Souls will be, once its out. For casual, Castle Crashers is one of the best I've played and I love the coop/pvp elements.

Agree(3) | Disagree(3) | Report

KionicWarlord222 - 139 days 21 hours ago

Bioshock and mass effect story were deep. Not many gamers got the meaning to the story`s.

Agree(3) | Disagree(2) | Report

DragonWarrior_4 - 140 days ago

I didnt compare games out now to games that haven't been released yet. BTW, I can name DS games that are better then ME and Bioshock. Chinatown Wars, Zone of the Enders, Dragon Quest 4 and 5. Cmon man, give credit where its due.

Agree(1) | Disagree(3) | Report