By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Digital Foundry Face-Off: BioShock Infinite

Tagged games:

starcraft on 01 April 2013
ethomaz said:
foodfather said:
For 360 owners, install the game. No framerate issues at all. Its best best version on consoles.

Not when the PS3 have the most responsive controls during intense fire fights where quick reactions count.

That is the DF conclusion "The more responsive PS3 game gets the nod for delivering a more consistent, flowing gameplay experience. The addition of tearing isn't particularly attractive, but the extra controller response is preferable during intense combat scenes."

Actually, did anyone see if DF installed it on Xbox 360?

Because as I just said, the smoothness of my experience was virtually uninterrupted across upwards of 20 hours.  And there was simply no screen tearing.

Can you install the whole game on PS3?  Would that help?



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network
ethomaz on 01 April 2013

starcraft said:

Actually, did anyone see if DF installed it on Xbox 360?

Because as I just said, the smoothness of my experience was virtually uninterrupted across upwards of 20 hours.  And there was simply no screen tearing.

Can you install the whole game on PS3?  Would that help?

No. You can't install in PS3... did you played the PS3 version?

DF said the 360 version had no screen tearing too but the controllers are less responsible and there are more slowdowns... the gameply experience is better on PS3 even with screen tearing.



Captain_Tom on 01 April 2013
adriane23 said:
Slightly off topic. What are the system requirements to run this on max settings? I've been thinking about getting this or Tomb Raider for PC, but if I can't run either at max settings, I might as well get them both for PS3.


Why do you have to max it out to make it better than PS3?  It only requires Intel HD 3000, and I would imagine a 6570 would look a tad better than PS3.

 

To max it out completely at 30 FPS... I would say a 7770-7850 could in 1080p.  Some of those settings don't even need to be turned on...



Captain_Tom on 01 April 2013
CGI-Quality said:
Euphoria14 said:
trasharmdsister12 said:

Euphoria14 said:

 I used to be in the that boat, where I looked at screen shots and thought "Ah, that's not a big difference".

Now that I finally (After like 5 years!) got a new computer with some decent specs I can easily see the difference once everything is in motion and running crisp.

Oh, I can see the differences on a technical level. And I can even lay them out here in technical terms. I just wish not to get into a discussion/argument with people here as a) I don't have the time to spend on debating such things when I barely have time to play and b) most here aren't interested in learning as much as they are finding analyses, opinions, and members that support their stance in order to create group-think and popular opinion and to propagate it as fact.

I know there's a fair difference between the PC and console versions on a static technical level, but it's the dynamic side that makes the PC version pop with life to me personally.

I notice that with the lighting in many PC games now. Especially when I put some mods on Skyrim.

The first advantage that was instant, for me, was rez. Then, the individual advantages likfe textures (ex. fill rate, mip-mapping), use(s) of anti-aliasing, and FPS, and this is all before you get to the NVIDIA Control Panel (for GeForce users) or mods. 

Whole other world that I was finally able to afford. :P

Edit: I see your edit about the controller. Since you're gaming on a laptop, it makes sense, but when you become a full desktop PC gamer, I can't stress enough how much the kb+m combo will make you re-think how you play games, in general! So intuitive and precise.


I actually play most games with a controller too.  The ones I don't are bethesda games, Valve games, and RTS.  Hell I even play BF3 online with a controller and I am usually in the top 25% of every game with a good K/D.

 

On a side note:  Aim assist should exist on PC  (No not COD aim assist!).  If they would just add the amount of aim assist MAG or Killzone 2/3 has, it would be 100% fair for controller and mouse players...



starcraft on 01 April 2013
ethomaz said:

starcraft said:

Actually, did anyone see if DF installed it on Xbox 360?

Because as I just said, the smoothness of my experience was virtually uninterrupted across upwards of 20 hours.  And there was simply no screen tearing.

Can you install the whole game on PS3?  Would that help?

No. You can't install in PS3... did you played the PS3 version?

DF said the 360 version had no screen tearing too but the controllers are less responsible and there are more slowdowns... the gameply experience is better on PS3 even with screen tearing.

No I played the Xbox 360 version, also bought the PC version I will play soon.  I dont know if I will get it for PS3, I love the game but buying it three times is a bit much.

My point is that the slowdown they refer too, and therefore the related lack of responsiveness, just didnt happen, because I installed the game on the Xbox 360s HDD.  I suspect DF didnt install the game for Xbox.  Whilst that is understandable (they have to test for everyone), my point is that the Xbox is capable of producing a far more fluid experience than they indicated, without any real slowdown or screen tearing.



starcraft - Playing Games = FUN, Talking about Games = SERIOUS

Around the Network
VGKing on 01 April 2013

So PS3 wins this one. And people say all multiplats were better on 360...
The bonus is that you get the original Bioshock free on PS3. There isn't any multiplayer in this game so for multi-console owners, the choice should be obvious.



VGKing on 01 April 2013
Captain_Tom said:
CGI-Quality said:
Euphoria14 said:
trasharmdsister12 said:

Euphoria14 said:

 I used to be in the that boat, where I looked at screen shots and thought "Ah, that's not a big difference".

Now that I finally (After like 5 years!) got a new computer with some decent specs I can easily see the difference once everything is in motion and running crisp.

Oh, I can see the differences on a technical level. And I can even lay them out here in technical terms. I just wish not to get into a discussion/argument with people here as a) I don't have the time to spend on debating such things when I barely have time to play and b) most here aren't interested in learning as much as they are finding analyses, opinions, and members that support their stance in order to create group-think and popular opinion and to propagate it as fact.

I know there's a fair difference between the PC and console versions on a static technical level, but it's the dynamic side that makes the PC version pop with life to me personally.

I notice that with the lighting in many PC games now. Especially when I put some mods on Skyrim.

The first advantage that was instant, for me, was rez. Then, the individual advantages likfe textures (ex. fill rate, mip-mapping), use(s) of anti-aliasing, and FPS, and this is all before you get to the NVIDIA Control Panel (for GeForce users) or mods. 

Whole other world that I was finally able to afford. :P

Edit: I see your edit about the controller. Since you're gaming on a laptop, it makes sense, but when you become a full desktop PC gamer, I can't stress enough how much the kb+m combo will make you re-think how you play games, in general! So intuitive and precise.


I actually play most games with a controller too.  The ones I don't are bethesda games, Valve games, and RTS.  Hell I even play BF3 online with a controller and I am usually in the top 25% of every game with a good K/D.

 

On a side note:  Aim assist should exist on PC  (No not COD aim assist!).  If they would just add the amount of aim assist MAG or Killzone 2/3 has, it would be 100% fair for controller and mouse players...

What kind of aim assists does COD have?



adriane23 on 01 April 2013
Captain_Tom said:
adriane23 said:
Slightly off topic. What are the system requirements to run this on max settings? I've been thinking about getting this or Tomb Raider for PC, but if I can't run either at max settings, I might as well get them both for PS3.


Why do you have to max it out to make it better than PS3?  It only requires Intel HD 3000, and I would imagine a 6570 would look a tad better than PS3.

 

To max it out completely at 30 FPS... I would say a 7770-7850 could in 1080p.  Some of those settings don't even need to be turned on...


When did I say that?



I am the Playstation Avenger.

   

walsufnir on 02 April 2013
VGKing said:
So PS3 wins this one. And people say all multiplats were better on 360...
The bonus is that you get the original Bioshock free on PS3. There isn't any multiplayer in this game so for multi-console owners, the choice should be obvious.


Who says "all"? There were games before that were better on PS3 but that doesn't change the fact that most multi-plats are better on 360. People read what they want to.



bucky1965 on 02 April 2013

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/515/screenshot281142.png/

Bioshock Infinite screenshots. Better than that Digital Foundry garbage.