BioShock 2: PS4 vs Xbox One vs PC Original Analysis and Frame-Rate Test
- Thread starter LelouchZero
- Start date
Nachtfalke
Member
Are alpha effects bounded with the CPU or why are there such drops when these effects are on screen? As mentioned in the video, it really should run better with this old engine.
MrOogieBoogie
BioShock Infinite is like playing some homeless guy's vivid imagination
Tried to watch but I actually got anxiety listening to the narrator's voice. Guy sounds so tired and sleepy that it made it difficult for me to concentrate on what was being said. lol
SENPAIatLARGE
Banned
Best Bioshock gets best port. Coincidence? I think not.
brandonh83
Banned
thatsbait.gif
I actually like the original Bioshock the least, but it's still a 9/10. 2 and Infinite were better stories and gameplay experiences for me.
Forever Changes
Banned
Yea definitely my least favourite of the DF guys.
Oh do hush.
hear heer
TRUTH BE SPOKEN HERE
I uninstalled Bioshock 1 remastered, and reinstalled the old version. I'll keep Bioshock 2 remastered installed though, because it doesn't crash every 2 hours.
Dictator93
Member
SGSSAA still works in Bioshock 2 even though it is DX11
3840X2160 with 8XSGSSAA (checkout that VRAM usage and framerate on a Titan X.. in BIOSHOCK 2)
1920X1080 with 8XSGSSAA
3840X2160 with 8XSGSSAA (checkout that VRAM usage and framerate on a Titan X.. in BIOSHOCK 2)
1920X1080 with 8XSGSSAA
Barrow Roll
Member
Which compatibility bits are you using?
Dictator93
Member
Default DX1x bits: 0x80000F71 (BioShock, BioShock 2)
Not everyone has access. There's nothing wrong with putting out a game that was 9 years old on current platforms (though, I wish they could have done a bit of a better job).
Dictator93
Member
I would open these all up in separate tabs to compare best.
Default ingame FXAA @ 1920X1080:
Default ingame FXAA @ 3840X2160 linear Downsample to 1920X1080:
Default ingame FXAA @ 1920X1080 w/ 8XSGSSAA:
SGSSAA provides the smoothest image with the least amount of jittering and flicker when walking around, 3840X2016 downsampled is definitely sharper at 0% gaussian smoothness with DSR settings, but actually still has some pixels dancing around here or there (water surfaces especially). It also has a knock-on effect with the bloom where halos around light sources tighten and get smaller. The default ingame FXAA @ 1920X1080 is just terrible looking in comparison.
edit: Bonus Round
Default ingame FXAA @ 3840X2160 w/ 8XSGSSAA linear Downsample to 1920X1080 aka "where are the pixels?":
Default ingame FXAA @ 1920X1080:
Default ingame FXAA @ 3840X2160 linear Downsample to 1920X1080:
Default ingame FXAA @ 1920X1080 w/ 8XSGSSAA:
SGSSAA provides the smoothest image with the least amount of jittering and flicker when walking around, 3840X2016 downsampled is definitely sharper at 0% gaussian smoothness with DSR settings, but actually still has some pixels dancing around here or there (water surfaces especially). It also has a knock-on effect with the bloom where halos around light sources tighten and get smaller. The default ingame FXAA @ 1920X1080 is just terrible looking in comparison.
edit: Bonus Round
Default ingame FXAA @ 3840X2160 w/ 8XSGSSAA linear Downsample to 1920X1080 aka "where are the pixels?":
Def best bioshock, but the port is unplayable for me until the crashes are fixed. Had 2 so bad that they forced a reboot.
Barrow Roll
Member
Interesting, I wonder if SGSSAA works with Bioshock Remastered as well.
Barrow Roll
Member
Finally got a chance to watch the video. He mentions the lack of specular highlights in the remaster but I didn't really see any shots in the video that shows it. Can anyone with both games installed do a comparison?
Also, no word on the audio? The Steamworks patch introduced issues with the audio balance, is that fixed in the remaster?
Also, no word on the audio? The Steamworks patch introduced issues with the audio balance, is that fixed in the remaster?
He actually did show it. But I'll show you a comparison of my own that I posted in the other thread:
Original
Remaster
The specular effect that gives the appearance of wetness is entirely missing in the remaster. Also, the remasters only feature stereo audio, though this can apparently be fixed in the ini files (haven't tested it myself).
In my opinion, people are looking at these "remasters" in the wrong context. The fact is, the original creators of this property have moved on. 2K retains the rights, and much like what Konami is doing with the Metal Gear series, they can't just let one of their largest properties sit there; they have to make money off of it. As such, these "remasters" aren't done out of love of the originals, but are cash-ins contracted out to a company who has basically done a glorified texture mod. The ancient Unreal 2.5 engine remains unchanged, as do the sound issues, mouse acceleration issues, lack of FoV slider, etc. As for the so called "improvements," the new texture work is revisionist at best, and the specular effects (arguably along with some of the original water effects) appear to be entirely missing. The only real reason to play the remasters over the original PC versions is the physics tick rate fix (which can also be fixed in the original Bioshock, by the way) and the slight poly-count increase.
Barrow Roll
Member
Your comparison is for Bioshock 1, which John did a great job at highlighting in his analysis for that game. Their Bioshock 2 analysis video, I think could have gone a little more in-depth. They mention it again in the written article they published today, but no screenshots to compare.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-bioshock-collection-face-off
If you have a comparison of Bioshock 2 specular highlights I'd love to see it since it's the game I'm actually looking forward to replaying the most.
Bioshock 2 never got the physics mod, which appears to be fixed in the remaster. The Steamworks patch for Bioshock 2 also really messed up the audio mix, which required a mod to fix. This has also apparently been fixed in the remaster according to some users in the OT. The murkier visuals during the underwater segments are a clear win in favor of the original, but some of the other improvement actually look pretty nice, such as the addition of POM.
Alpha effects are generally not CPU limited at all. They are significant drains on GPU bandwidth, and often rendered at low resolution for that reason.
Correct. I don't currently have any Bioshock 2 original/remaster comparison screens. Nor do almost any outlets, strangely. After beginning the Bioshock 1 remaster, and then shortly opting to play through the original again instead, I lost interest in doing comparisons for the second game.
In fact, for my first ever playthrough of Bioshock 2, I also opted for the original over the remaster, with the fixes you mentioned implemented. Though I must say I am curious about what improvements, if any, were made in its remaster. I may go back and do a few comparison shots, and will post them here if I do.
Barrow Roll
Member
Cool, well at least check out the video in the OP and the article they published, it details some of the differences for Bioshock 2 in the remaster. The addition of POM and the improved model and textures on the rivet gun look pretty nice.
Alright, I just made a few comparisons between Bioshock 2 original/remaster in the beginning area. First off, both versions are set to equivalent maximum settings. Neither have FoV options, so the default is being displayed in both (I had the original at 90 via an ini tweak, but reverted it for these comparisons). And unlike Bioshock 1, the remaster's surround sound options remain intact.
Sad to say, while the remaster can look better, it more often looks worse, or at best, different. Blind Squirrel took massive liberties with texture design, and instead of recreating the original textures in a higher resolution, they flat out changed them; many of which look arguably inferior to the originals. Also, to answer your question, it appears both versions of Bioshock 2 don't feature the exact specular effect seen in the original Bioshock.
Positives of the remaster? The physics tick rate seems to scale with the refresh rate (mine's 144hz, and it looks perfect in motion), along with the slight poly-count increase. Some water and lighting effects could also be considered superior to the original, but in most instances, to me, end up looking different, not better or worse. And would it have killed them to add a simple AO solution?
That said, I'm going to continue my playthrough with the original version; for me, the (often drastic) new texture design sullies the game's original art direction.
Original
Remaster
Original
Remaster
Original
Remaster
Original
Remaster
Original
Remaster
Original
Remaster
Original
Remaster
Original
Remaster
Original
Remaster
Barrow Roll
Member
jorimt, you're a champion for doing that! Fantastic comparison. After thoroughly looking over each screenshot, I gotta say, I think Bioshock 2 Remastered holds up a lot better compared to the original than their work on the first Bioshock. The texture work is often not a direct recreation at a higher resolution, but I think for the most part the spirit of the original scene is retained. For me it goes back and forth, some shots of the original looks better, some shots in the remastered look better. I also noticed that the model on the left hand and the rivet gun are different. I think the rivet gun in the remaster looks A LOT better.
Did you happen to notice any differences in the audio mix? Are any of the audio issues that DF noted in Bioshock 1 present here?
At this point I'm most interested in this patch they're working on, and if the FOV slider they add is good. I remember when I played Bioshock 2 I actually opted not to use the FOV ini tweak because it would constantly get reset by various things, mostly zooming in with a weapon. Having to constantly press a key to set my FOV was not worth the trouble.
Just bind it to W man >.>
Barrow Roll
Member
Try zooming in then walking, all of a sudden your zoom is reset to your bound FOV, which defeats the purpose of zooming in. I know this because that's exactly what I bound it to.
Glad my comparisons were useful to you. And again, I personally don't find the texture changes welcome, but to each his own. As you say, the difference between the two versions more often end up looking different, as opposed to better or worse, which can be said for most remasters, I think.
As for the sound, I'm afraid I'm more of a videophile than audiophile. Though again, I did note that unlike the Bioshock remaster, the Bioshock 2 remaster retains the reverb/surround options from the original. I haven't tested the remaster long enough to say, but neither version has amazing channel separation, even with the original's sound levels fix in place.
Finally, I have the FoV option mapped to the W key, and I'm pretty sure that the FoV value saves at checkpoints. But yes, it does get reset when you aim down sights. PC Gaming Wiki (EDIT: scratch that, I saw it on this old steam thread: http://forums.steampowered.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1142694) has a work around that is suppose to remedy this (mapping the FoV to both the "W" and "ADS" key), but it hasn't worked for me, for whatever reason.
EDIT #2: Forgot to add, Flawless Widescreen allows for an adjustable FoV that won't reset on you under any circumstance. You can download it here: https://www.flawlesswidescreen.org/#Download.
EDIT #3: Eh shoot, just tested, the Flawless Widescreen fix only works with the original Bioshock 2. Figures.