BioShock
User Rating:
  Log in to rate this game!
ESRB:
Blood and Gore,Drug Reference,Intense Violence,Sexual Themes,Strong Language
Publisher: 2K Games Genre(s): Shooting Home Page: http://www.2kgames.com/bioshock/
New technology can't prevent silly decisionsIn the area of technical acumen, the game isn't above criticism. The Havok physics API logo is stamped on the BioShock box, but the often-cramped surroundings leave little room for Newtonian experimentation. Even with a Telekinesis Plasmid that shares the properties of Half-Life 2's Gravity Gun, I was left underwhelmed by yet another demonstration of exaggerated ragdoll physics. Some objectives do require moving objects or otherwise interacting with the environment, but these tasks seem a formality, as if to say, "See, we're using that Havok license we paid for." When running on Windows Vista (and with the appropriate hardware) the engine can make use of the DirectX 10 API. More specifically, Direct3D 10 shaders are used to enhance water and particle effects, and to soften the edges of shadows. In practice, however, there's an imperceptible difference in quality between the DirectX 9- and DirectX 10-based rendering. The sole perceivable image quality delta comes with particle effects, such as smoke and explosions. Direct3D 10 shaders are capable of far more realistic volumetric effects, as opposed to the unconvincing sprite-based effects with the DirectX 9 rendering. The difference is unmistakable and clearly a win for the DirectX 10-based rendering.
If quality is only marginally better under DirectX10, then what about speed – the almighty frames per second? After some informal runs through the opening levels of the game (using a shared save game in all tests), I found no measurable difference in speed between DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 rendering. If anything, my unscientific testing on an Windows Vista users with hardware from NVIDIA will have to make do without antialiasing. It is possible to enable AA using the handy nHancer utility with NVIDIA cards, but only by running the game in DirectX 9 mode and by forcing the NVIDIA drivers to use the Oblivion game profile. Though this solution has worked for some, I found forcing DirectX 9 rendering under Vista to be unstable, marred by frequent crashed to the desktop. While the lack of AA under Vista (with both DirectX 9 and DirectX 10 games) is sometimes an issue with an engine's rendering pipeline, that's clearly not the case here, as AA works fine under Windows XP. NVIDIA needs to get moving on a driver which enables AA in games under Vista which otherwise have functional AA under XP.
More controversial than the lack of AA under Vista is BioShock's widescreen field-of-view. Immediately following the game's release, publisher 2K Games' forums erupted with claims of broken widescreen support. It is true that BioShock has a closed-in horizontal FOV relative to most contemporary shooters, but the negative uproar is misplaced. Call me a company man, but I'm buying the official line that the game was developed with widescreen in mind. By limiting the horizontal FOV, a sense of anxiety is introduced to the game. That non-widescreen resolutions display more of the scene vertically than widescreen resolutions is a result of the decision to not force standard aspect ratio displays to letterbox (black bars on top and bottom) the view. I'm just not seeing the conspiracy or willing to point the finger at shoddy development practices. With that said, there is a third-party hack which enables horizontal and vertical FOV tweaking, and as of this writing the tool now works with DirectX 9 and DirectX 10. 
Strung up as an example. I'm sure there's an an analogy that could be made regarding the game's copy protection system, but we won't stoop that low.
One issues that I refuse to give Irrational Studios and 2K Games a pass on is the anger-inducing SecureROM activation system. 2K Games' forums are on fire with complaints about this copy protection travesty. While I'm not completely sold that SecureROM is a malicious rootkit (despite being identified as such by Microsoft's own SysInternals Rootkit Revealer), I am peeved at any activation mechanism which phones home. Entering a CD key is fine, but after doing so SecureROM communicates with its activation servers to authenticate the install. This is listed on the game's box, but the fact that a customer is limited to two installs ever is not. To make matters worse, there's currently no way to revoke an install (though 2K Games promises a revoke tool will be released shortly). In light of the deluge of complaints, the install cap was raised from 2 to 5 (note that this limitation also exists for copies obtained via Steam - Ed). Though I was able to install the game four separate times, there's no need for such draconian copy protection measures. PC games can be easy to pirate – that's no secret. However, any copy protection measure which has the potential to treat a significant percentage of paying customers as thieves is inappropriate. Shame on 2K Games for forcing this protection system on the game. If 2K Games that concerned about piracy on the PC, then by all means – they should discontinue publishing PC titles. It should be noted that Ken Levine, lead designer at Irrational Games, personally responded to many of the concerns raised by customers. By following through with his promises to find a tenable solution to the activation woes, he can right the situation. Here's hoping they don't make the same mistake with future products.
Related Stuff Games: BioShock
Tags |
 
 
See if your PC can handle the latest games:
 
 |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
Intel Core 2 Duo E6600
