Face-Off: BioShock 2
Released a year after the Xbox 360 version, shorn of some of its visual magnificence, afflicted with an ugly blur and featuring exclusive DLC you actually had to pay for despite the long wait, it's fair to say that PlayStation 3 owners didn't fare too well at the hands of 2K Games when it came to the belated release of the original BioShock.
All the game content was there, and enough of the raw BioShock DNA was there to make it a worthwhile experience in its own right, but compared to the original Xbox 360 version of the game it was a disappointment. This time 2K has made efforts to get it right. There's no year-long delay between versions, and on first impressions it seems the development team has done well in replicating the look of the game across both platforms.
So let's kick off by pointing you gently towards a triple-format screenshot gallery, before continuing on to the console comparison vid:
2K has got a lot of the fundamentals right. Texture quality, texture filtering and lighting are all even between PS3 and Xbox 360. There's a somewhat pronounced gamma difference between the two console games, but while it looks like the 360 version has the deeper, richer palette it comes at the expense of some black crush. Resolution is native 720p, with what seems to be an extremely subtle edge blur of some description in effect on both console versions.
Onto the frame-rate tests and what we see is a fairly conclusive win for the Xbox 360 version of BioShock 2. There are three different tests in the following video: the first face-off with a Big Sister, including its introductory cut-scene, then two fairly intensive combat sessions from Pauper's Drop and the beginning of Siren Alley. The idea here is test a number of different scenarios that should put some strain on the modified Unreal Engine 2K is using for the game.Frame-rate comparison from three sections of BioShock 2 gameplay shows that 360 is remarkable in maintaining 30FPS with minimal screen-tear, while the v-synced PS3 version can struggle.
The good news for Xbox 360 owners is the frame-rate is remarkably steady at the standard 30FPS. The game operates with what you might call a "soft" v-sync, whereby the console caps frame-rate at 30 for a consistent image, but then drops v-sync if frame-rate drops in order to maintain fluid movement. In the above tests just 1.5 per cent of the console's output were torn frames. When they appear, you do notice them, but it is hardly an issue. Think Resident Evil 5 but with less tearing for some idea of how this works.
PlayStation 3 on the other hand operates in a very different way, and again Resi 5 is the closest comparison: it is entirely v-synced, and triple-buffered to boot. The result is that in the default "locked frame-rate mode" you will never see it tear, ever. The downside is that frame-rate can and will dip frequently, especially in intense combat. Being triple-buffered, general controller latency is ever-so-slightly more muted than on Xbox 360, but response feels considerably worse when frames are being dropped. Again, this element of the performance profile feels very similar to Resident Evil 5.
What is interesting is that the options screen of BioShock 2 - again, just like its predecessor - has a feature that allows you to disengage the frame-rate cap. And here's where things go utterly bananas for 360 owners.
The Microsoft console turns off v-sync and goes all out to render as many frames as possible. The result is virtually ever-present tearing: a mammoth 61 per cent of the console's 60Hz output consists of torn frames in these tests, and controller response varies dramatically depending on frame-rate.
PlayStation 3 is very bizarre indeed. For the most part it is still v-synced (a virtually unnoticeable 0.1 per cent of torn frames here, all of them lurking near the bottom of the screen, almost impossible to see), but the massive variation in the frame-rate introduces some horrible judder and a quite off-putting variance in controller response.
It's difficult to recommend the unlocked frame-rate on either console. The games are designed around 30FPS, and the impact to image quality on both systems is considerable. However, at least it feels as though there is some advantage to using it on Xbox 360 - controller response overall feels crisper, even if the tearing is truly horrific.
Moving back to the prescribed locked frame-rate modes, initially it seems that we're looking at a like-for-like experience. Lessons have clearly been learned from the lamentable PS3 rendition of the original BioShock, which was considerably inferior to the 360 build by just about all measurable technical criteria.
For starters, the sub-HD resolution of PS3 BioShock is gone: both versions are running at native 720p, and both feature no anti-aliasing. The blur filter added to PS3 BioShock (and removed in a subsequent patch) thankfully does not return. And, as we've seen, while frame-rate isn't spectacular, it feels more refined than the last game.
The big visual differentiator between the two games comes down to the handling of transparent "alpha" textures. These eat up bandwidth and fill-rate on the consoles, and as regular Digital Foundry readers will know, the 10MB dedicated RAM attached directly to the Xbox 360's Xenos GPU can give the Microsoft console a very real advantage here.
A very common solution on PS3 is to reduce the resolution of these textures: Killzone 2 for example scales them up from a quarter-resolution buffer, but adds multi-sampling anti-aliasing to smooth off the edges. For effects that are on-screen for a split second (for example, explosions) it's very hard for the human eye to notice much difference: it's a massive bandwidth-saver, with little impact on overall image quality.
BioShock 2 employs the same trick with its transparencies (without the MSAA). A massive amount of the game's alpha textures are rendered with a quarter-resolution buffer, which is fine, except for one problem: these aren't on-screen for a split second, they are there a lot of the time. All of the water, particles and fire effects in BioShock 2 are rendered in this way, meaning that depending on the scene, some or even all of the screen is being generated at quarter-HD resolutions.
Even some of the neon decals have a quarter-res effect on them that stays constant no matter how far you are away from them - the upshot being that, weirdly, the further away you move from the texture, the more obvious it becomes. To some extent or another, the sub-HD elements are with you for much of the game. After all, Rapture is an undersea city springing a hell of a lot of leaks: water is everywhere. It's as much a part of the BioShock 2's signature look as the art deco architectural style. Even transparent items such as EVE hypos exhibit the effect.
What's odd is that this can result in some very weird and unattractive effects that I'm not sure are artifacts of this decision, or simply bugs in the game: the final shot of the vanquished Big Sister reminds me somewhat of the low-res texture bug with the Big Daddies in the PS3 version of the first BioShock. Not pretty, and it's difficult to understand why it's happening.
Quarter-resolution transparent effects are found throughout the PS3 version of the game, with varying impact on overall image quality...
In terms of loading, not much has changed between BioShock and its sequel. Assets appear to be streamed during the level, but as you transition from one stage to the next there's a very lengthy pause while the new map is loaded. PlayStation 3 kicks off with a 10-minute mandatory installation, occupying around 4.5GB of space on the HDD - again, very similar to the first game.
Unfortunately this does not translate into any real gain in terms of those mammoth loading times when put up against the Xbox 360 version running from DVD. In four loading tests, the two versions each emerged with a brace of victories each but in all cases there wasn't much in it at all. It seems that the 4.5GB installation on PS3 merely serves to bring about some semblance of platform parity in terms of both streaming and between-level loading.
| Level | Xbox 360 | PlayStation 3 |
|---|---|---|
| The Atlantic Express | 55.2 seconds | 54.7 seconds |
| Ryan Amusements | 67.2 seconds | 73.6 seconds |
| Pauper's Drop | 67 seconds | 65.8 seconds |
| Siren Alley | 76 seconds | 74.4 seconds |
It's fair to say that when you're looking at loading times around a minute in length, the odd second difference here and there isn't really much of an issue. Thankfully, just as in the first BioShock, the amount of game you get for that extended loading time is very significant, so think of it as a necessary, but not so intrusive evil.
The focus thus far has mostly been on the console builds of BioShock 2, but it's worth noting that I spent some quality time with the PC version, running with ASUS/NVIDIA hardware on a Core i7 system. The game gave console-beating performance on all of our test boards. It ran very smoothly at 720p and 1280x1024 on all of the test GPUs from the relatively lowly GTS250 through to the GTX260, GTX275 and the behemoth GTX295. All of these cards can run BioShock 2 well at 1080p/1920x1200 too on max settings, though frame-rates will vary depending on the budget.
In terms of how the game looks stacked up against the console builds, here's a re-run of the initial Face-Off movie, with the PC version up against the Xbox 360 game. If you'd prefer to watch the video with the PS3 version as the point of the comparison, the appropriate version is on Eurogamer TV.
In terms of differences and improvements, there's not a huge amount to distinguish BioShock 2 from the Xbox 360 version. Running everything at maximum we see a game that has the occasional improvement in terms of texture quality, but on the whole the PC game is extremely similar.
The slight blur seen on the console builds in lieu of anti-aliasing has gone, and the lighting scheme is subtly different. There is the suggestion that the PC build runs with a higher-precision framebuffer as reflections on water surfaces are brighter and bloom effects are not so hazy with less colour bleed.
In short, the PC version is as good as we would expect from a title powered by Unreal Engine. The tech works fine on a dual-core CPU, offering console-beating performance with any kind of enthusiast-level graphics card. Even a venerable 8800GT will blitz the console versions with ease, and while there's little here to make ultra-high-end PC enthusiasts feel as though they're getting Crysis-style value from their very expensive GPUs, it's still a great-looking game that looks beautiful at higher resolutions. If you can get your graphics card's control panel to wangle hardware anti-aliasing, so much the better.
In terms of purchasing decisions for those who own both HD consoles, it's fairly self-evident that the Xbox 360 version of BioShock 2 is the one to have: graphics are undoubtedly superior with four times the resolution on transparencies, the frame-rate is undoubtedly smoother, there's no HDD-sapping mandatory installation and control varies from slightly crisper to considerably more responsive, depending on the status of the PS3's frame-rate at any given point.
This is not to say that the PS3 version of the game shouldn't be considered if you don't own an Xbox 360. The quality of the conversion is measurably better than the original BioShock, and while frame-rate drops can be irritating - coming when you really need the visual and controller feedback the most - it's still eminently playable and enjoyable.
The low-quality, quarter-resolution transparencies are the biggest issue here, since water and neon-bloom are so integral to the visual make-up of Rapture. In that respect, the impact to visual quality in what is such a beautifully designed world is somewhat disappointing, but won't detract too much from the overall gameplay experience.
Check out our BioShock 2 review to find out why it's worth heading back toRapture.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-bioshock2-face-off-article
