FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
www.co30.com

Bioshock
Goto page 1, 2  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forums.co30.com Forum Index -> Other Games
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
birch
is a Veteran Poster


Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 311
Location: Canada, Eh !

PostPosted: Sat Aug 25, 2007 3:04 pm GMT    Post subject: Bioshock Reply with quote

So I read the minimum system requirements after I download 1.85Gb and install the game demo. Me thinks I'm a generation of hardware shy .... CRAP !! Crying or Very sad The ole ATI9800 Pro let me down on the Shader Support "BioShock requires support for Pixel Shader 3.0 or higher to run."...



What's the game start supposed to look like ? Sounds like it's a worthy purchase from all the reviews and such. Ah well maybe time to start the upgrade cycle .... after I finish replacing the tub and tiling the bathroom. The money saved by doing it myself should buy a pretty damn nice system.
Back to top
Groove{hLk}
is a Nali Poster


Joined: 30 Nov 2005
Posts: 94
Location: sebring florida

PostPosted: Sun Aug 26, 2007 9:37 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

hehehe... yeah man that card is getting pretty old. And what you are supposed to be seeing is water, its a place crash lol .. The game game ok, story line kind of sucks. But it is cool to see the new unreal engine at work
Back to top
Zoe
is a Veteran Poster


Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 363
Location: Maryland

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 4:04 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here's what it's supposed to look like.


_________________
I've got your back

Back to top
birch
is a Veteran Poster


Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 311
Location: Canada, Eh !

PostPosted: Tue Aug 28, 2007 7:30 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Very nice. I tried swimming around in the void to see if the next level would yield any better video but couldn't find the right direction or portal. Any tips on getting to the next "scene"? Swim towards the red light ? Swim downward ? Swim into the fire ?
Back to top
Zoe
is a Veteran Poster


Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 363
Location: Maryland

PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 6:32 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

In my picture you want to swim towards the gap in the fire. The flames will spread towards you, but still leave a significant gap. After swimming through the flames, bear right and hopefully you'll see a lighthouse looking thing in front of you. Swim towards that and go up the steps. There'll be a door at the top of the steps. Go through that and follow the obvious path. Lights will turn on as you wind your way down interior steps, and you'll come to a diving bell. Go into the diving bell and activate the lever. The doors will shut, and you'll dive down to Rapture.

I think you'll be missing out on much of the eye candy. Your first entry into Rapture is stunning, but the game uses many water effects that I think you'll be missing. I hope this helps though to see some of it.

Edit:
I forgot to mention that you start this scene under water. You don't have control at this point. Your character will automatically swim up. When you hear him gasping air you'll know you're at the surface, and hopefully you'll see something that at least approximates my screen shot. Then follow the directions I gave above.
_________________
I've got your back

Back to top
birch
is a Veteran Poster


Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 311
Location: Canada, Eh !

PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 7:50 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks Z that helped to find the what i think was land ? Laughing LOL Laughing i could only tell it was land by the sound of climbing out of the water ! Really i cant's see anything it's all black ..... i gave up Crying or Very sad shame they can't make some of these things render in software. Would be slow as hell but would give you a taste of the game. Ah well maybe for Christmas Wink
Back to top
Zoe
is a Veteran Poster


Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 363
Location: Maryland

PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 8:45 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

birch wrote:
Thanks Z that helped to find the what i think was land ? Laughing LOL Laughing i could only tell it was land by the sound of climbing out of the water ! Really i cant's see anything it's all black ..... i gave up Crying or Very sad shame they can't make some of these things render in software. Would be slow as hell but would give you a taste of the game. Ah well maybe for Christmas Wink


Check this out:

Playing on a Shader Model 2.0 Card

Many people who own graphics cards which only support Shader Model 2.0 have been upset by BioShock's minimum requirement for a Shader Model 3.0 graphics card, i.e. a GeForce 6600 or ATI X1300 graphics card or higher. This is understandable, however it is going to become an ever-more-common occurrence given the way games developers are trying to push the boundaries in terms of game graphics.

However all is not lost, there is one way you can run BioShock with an SM2.0 card, and that's by trying the SM2.0 Project. This is a work in progress, and there are plenty of graphical glitches, so it is obviously only for the die-hard BioShock fans who can't upgrade their graphics cards. Still, it's worth a go and is the only option available for SM2.0 card owners unless 2K releases a patch to make BioShock run on non-SM3.0 cards. More details, and the latest versions, are on the Official ShaderShock Forums. http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5680

This was taken from tweakguides.com http://www.tweakguides.com/Bioshock_1.html

I don't know how well it'll work, but you may be able to get something going by fiddling with that.
_________________
I've got your back

Back to top
birch
is a Veteran Poster


Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 311
Location: Canada, Eh !

PostPosted: Wed Aug 29, 2007 9:49 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for the links.

I'd uninstalled the game demo but thankfully still have the DL file ! I give a try and post back. Reinstalling ....
Back to top
tehswift(Co30)
is a Veteran Poster


Joined: 24 Feb 2005
Posts: 100
Location: Nashville, TN

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:33 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

man the water in that game looks amazing.
Back to top
birch
is a Veteran Poster


Joined: 29 Oct 2003
Posts: 311
Location: Canada, Eh !

PostPosted: Thu Aug 30, 2007 9:37 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I tried 2 of three "fixes" I found in that link. I got bored and won't be trying #3. These fixes seems to re-render the textures at the start of each scene change. It take 8-10 minutes to do so. zzzzzz Then half the textures a screwed anyway. I'll pass on Bioshock unless 2K games comes out with an official patch. Shame 2K games decided not to support shader2. I'm sure they could of sold a lot more games. Bad decision imo.
Back to top
Zoe
is a Veteran Poster


Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 363
Location: Maryland

PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 4:05 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

birch wrote:
Well I tried 2 of three "fixes" I found in that link. I got bored and won't be trying #3. These fixes seems to re-render the textures at the start of each scene change. It take 8-10 minutes to do so. zzzzzz Then half the textures a screwed anyway. I'll pass on Bioshock unless 2K games comes out with an official patch. Shame 2K games decided not to support shader2. I'm sure they could of sold a lot more games. Bad decision imo.


I'm sorry to hear that birch Crying or Very sad I'm not sure about it being a good idea in include shader 2 support. I honestly don't know how hard that would be to implement. I'd be willing to pay a couple more dollars for the game to sponsor legacy support, but it could be a time issue also. It may take significantly longer to work with 2 shader models.

I think all of this brings a larger question to the table. What's the place for pc gaming? Pc gaming has increasingly become an elitist hobby, but I don't know that that's necessarily a bad thing. High end upgradeable hardware, and a keyboard and mouse are what separates a pc from a console. I think the keyboard and mouse issue will soon be addressed, so that leaves the high end hardware. I'm personally willing to pay the price to have the best of the best as far as graphics go. I like the fact that my games will always look great as long as I add new hardware. If you buy a console you're stuck with one setup for 3-5 years. They look great at first(still not as good as pc though), but they start to look more dated as time goes on.

With development costs going through the roof, I don't think it's feasible to expect legacy support, and keep the standard that's expected of pc gaming. Games are already plagued with time and cost over runs. Adding legacy support will only make that worse. It's kind of the same issue with Vista. You need the latest and greatest hardware to run Vista, but if you have that, Vista really flies. I think that was a good choice on MSs part. They generally try too hard to maintain backwards compatibility, and that affects what they can do to fully utilize modern hardware.

I guess where I stand on the issue is that you need to pay the price to game on pc. Epic made some choices with UT2k4 that I don't agree with. The biggest was to enable turning off foliage and weather effects to increase performance. I don't think those options should have been configurable. It amounts to a hack to gain advantage on certain maps. Imo the maps should be viewed, and played as the author intended. If you can't run them on your hardware, then you need to buy new hardware. Pc gaming isn't that expensive as far as hobbies go. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone to shell out $300 for a new graphics card to take advantage of the newest features. Hell, you can easily spend over $100 just to go to a pro sports game for a night, and have nothing to show for it when it's over. For 60% more you can have a graphics card that'll give you enjoyment for a year or more. That's not bad...
_________________
I've got your back

Back to top
feldrewCo30
has Posting Diarrhea


Joined: 09 Jun 2002
Posts: 545
Location: Zoo Jersey

PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 6:23 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

Zoe wrote:


I guess where I stand on the issue is that you need to pay the price to game on pc. Epic made some choices with UT2k4 that I don't agree with. The biggest was to enable turning off foliage and weather effects to increase performance. I don't think those options should have been configurable. It amounts to a hack to gain advantage on certain maps. Imo the maps should be viewed, and played as the author intended. If you can't run them on your hardware, then you need to buy new hardware. Pc gaming isn't that expensive as far as hobbies go. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect someone to shell out $300 for a new graphics card to take advantage of the newest features. Hell, you can easily spend over $100 just to go to a pro sports game for a night, and have nothing to show for it when it's over. For 60% more you can have a graphics card that'll give you enjoyment for a year or more. That's not bad...


My problem with your premise is two-fold:

First, if the software actually gets ahead of what resides in the average users home, then indeed it will become an elitist endeavor for those who wish to PC game - and this may preclude the growth of the pc-gamer base (e.g. "oh, I can't play that on my machine") and drive up costs of games since the user base is diminishing as the development costs rise. This would likely translate to fewer games and more expensive games.

Second, software scaling enables those (like this pathetic soul) to at least step into the world of more advanced gaming experiences, which will hopefully expand the pc gamer base, increase pc game sales profits, encourage the development of new games to address the larger user-base, and encourage sales of new hardware so that those who have experienced the software-enabled gaming experience can step up to a more satisfying experience.

When i bought this pc in 02', it was the best Dell had to offer and I spent a shitload on it, over 3 grand. Having gamed a bit on my old Gateway 98', I was determined to get something that could handle contemporary gaming at the time (which meant a ti4600). When I upgraded this dinosaur last summer - 6800 GS, more RAM - it was to continue to enjoy the latest gaming, as I could NOT afford to do a complete upgrade.

Once I get a decent rig that could be upgraded every year or so, I will be able to enjoy things as much of you folk do - but then I will move from the majority of people to the "I can upgrade this rig myself" minority, e.g. the more dedicated gamers. Not that I buy into the MS "Games For Windows" philosophy, but the more pc gamers, the better, and many of those will have to be people who never actually open their case to upgrade gpu's and the like.
_________________
Oooosssss!!!!

Back to top
Zoe
is a Veteran Poster


Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 363
Location: Maryland

PostPosted: Fri Aug 31, 2007 3:30 pm GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I know what you're saying, but I'm not sure I agree. Where do you draw the line for a newly released game? An ATI 9800 is about 4 years old now. If you develop for that level of hardware, you'll probably be compromising your artistic integrity by cutting features that you want in your game. Gamers are one of the few groups pushing the envelope for computer hardware.

If everybody only ran Word on their pcs, we wouldn't see the developments in hardware that have occurred over the last 10 years or so. Think about it, Your computer is probably good enough for everything you do Drew, I know my first modern IBM pc was. If it weren't for games I'd still have my P4 2.4, and GF4 mx420. That machine worked fine for most uses, I even ran UT2k3 at 1024*768. I wouldn't be running Bioshock on it now though. If you scaled down the graphics on Bioshock to run on that pc, it wouldn't be the same game. That's like commissioning Michaelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel, but only allowing him 5 colors total, no mixing either Wink It just wouldn't be the same.

It's definitely a balancing act, creating more realistic games, and realistically expecting people to be able to play them. I think lines do need to be drawn though. If you support old hardware forever, then gaming gets stagnant. People complain that games aren't as innovative as they used to be, but really, what's left? I think most of the concepts have been played out. The only thing left is realism, and game changes that can only be realized by pushing hardware to the max.
_________________
I've got your back

Back to top
feldrewCo30
has Posting Diarrhea


Joined: 09 Jun 2002
Posts: 545
Location: Zoo Jersey

PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 7:21 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

valid points zoe and I don't disagree that there needs to be a line drawn at some point. It brings about a valid question - just what is the useable life cycle of the pc today, both for gamers and non-gamers? True, if not for gaming, this pc I'm using would probably be fine for another 4 or 5 years (which is why I'd LOVE to pawn it off on the wife and build my own rig! Of course, I don't think I'd like try running Vista on it, bringing up another issue, which is the impact of OS development on said life cycle).

Somewhat of a tangent - when the average parent goes out now and buys their kid a computer from someone like Dell, many of those will have on-mobo graphics rather than a separate card. I'm wondering if there is any chance that those rigs would be able to run bioshock e.g. how good, if at all, are the present generation on-board graphics chips vs a dedicated ati or nvidia card? If not, then games such as bioshock and upcoming dx10 games are still beyond the playable scope of a large # of computers hitting the user market. Yes, pc gamers know to get a dedicated card - but the salesman pushing pc's out the door at Best Buy just wants to get them sold, they are not highly motivated to up-sell a graphics card.
_________________
Oooosssss!!!!

Back to top
Zoe
is a Veteran Poster


Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 363
Location: Maryland

PostPosted: Sat Sep 01, 2007 8:11 am GMT    Post subject: Reply with quote

I told you all about that P3 laptop I was working on. That was perfectly acceptable for most of what I use a computer for. A ram upgrade, a 5400rpm hd and it would have been a very nice computer, and that was released in 99 or so. I think at this point no one should feel they need to upgrade their computers. I don't see why a modern machine can't last 10 years or more for standard home user tasks.

For gaming I think 2 years max on the gfx card, and maybe 4 years max on the rest of the hardware is what can be expected. That's assuming you want to play at a decent detail setting. I honestly don't think that's a bad value for entertainment. Lets say you need to spend $1,500 for computer upgrades every 2 years. That's $.49 a day to have the latest greatest hardware, and you can then play games at near max detail settings. That's cheaper than smoking, or other stupid things people spend money on. It's just more noticeable because your dumping all of the money in at one time.

As to the other thought on lower end oem computers. I highly doubt Bioshock would play on integrated gfx. Maybe if you slammed everything down to the lowest level, but then I wouldn't consider that the true game experience. Consumers have to be educated to get into pc gaming. The industry is very un-friendly to newbs. Intel Extreme Graphics...LoL, it sure sounds hot doesn't it? It'll play the new Vista Solitaire nicely, but I wouldn't expect too much else. I'd like to see public education in the retail stores telling people what they should look for in a computer to do the tasks required. Also less bs from the manufacturers on the capabilities of their hardware. There's nothing wrong with a $400 computer for your secretary, but it's highly inappropriate for someone who wants to play modern games. In store videos of the computers in action would drive the point home very well. Run the Bioshock demo on a $400 machine, then next to it show it running on a $2,000 machine. People will then see what the extra money is buying. As it is now, cost is the only factor most consumers look at, and don't understand the differences in hardware. All of the computers look the same on the outside, so I don't think people realize how much of a difference high end hardware can make. Anybody can look at a Porsche and say that car's fast, but what if you put a Corolla body on a Porsche chassis? People wouldn't be able to tell the difference, and they'd think you were on crack asking $50,000 for the car. It's kind of the same thing with computers.

My computer isn't too bad, but my 7900gs is struggling a bit with Bioshock. I had to keyhole my monitor to play at 1280*1024, and keep my detail settings maxed. I find that an acceptable solution. I'm viewing a little bit more than a 17" monitor, but I wouldn't want to go any smaller than that. I'm holding off buying a new gfx card for the time being. Nvidia's 9x series is supposed to come out this November, and I'm hoping the 8x will fall in price when that happens. I may even get a 9x card if it seems like the best thing to do at that time.
_________________
I've got your back

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    forums.co30.com Forum Index -> Other Games All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group