The ultimate bioshock comparison 1 and 2 vanilla and remaster

[*D4rKsKy*]

I think the Remastered version looks more washed out. On my system, the original looks better in every area, except the cutscenes. And if you turn on subtitles, the Remaster has a clearer font.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D5TU9I5aHY

[Frocobo]

Originally posted by Nick:

Are you looking at the same image here? Because the one on the right is far clearer than the one on the left... The colors are richer, textures sharper, and the overall image is better in the remastered version.

You sir.. are blind.

[Coldhands]

I keep seeing these comparison videos being posted as proof the original games look better than the remasters ... but every in one of these videos the remasters actually do look better.

[Mortius]

Originally posted by Coldhands:

I keep seeing these comparison videos being posted as proof the original games look better than the remasters ... but every in one of these videos the remasters actually do look better.

I don't see it. Can you explain how the remastered version looks better?

[Frocobo]

Originally posted by Coldhands:

I keep seeing these comparison videos being posted as proof the original games look better than the remasters ... but every in one of these videos the remasters actually do look better.

[Coldhands]

Originally posted by The Lost Chin:

Originally posted by Coldhands:

I keep seeing these comparison videos being posted as proof the original games look better than the remasters ... but every in one of these videos the remasters actually do look better.

I don't see it. Can you explain how the remastered version looks better?

I'm not going to point out specifics frame by frame, but in general the remaster just has more detail in the textures and better lighting. I guess, since we're talking about visuals, "better" is a subjective term, and maybe you just like the look for the originals more. But the remasters really do have more detailed textures (especially close up) and more natural looking lighting.

I mean, if I hadn't just watched or played the original BioShock, and then you showed me a screen shot and asked me to determine if it came from 2007 or 2016 ... I probably couldn't say for sure, but seeing them running side by side, I can see the added details and the better lighting (and, of course, the increased FoV).

[Mortius]

Originally posted by Coldhands:

Originally posted by The Lost Chin:

I don't see it. Can you explain how the remastered version looks better?

I'm not going to point out specifics frame by frame, but in general the remaster just has more detail in the textures and better lighting. I guess, since we're talking about visuals, "better" is a subjective term, and maybe you just like the look for the originals more. But the remasters really do have more detailed textures (especially close up) and more natural looking lighting.

I mean, if I hadn't just watched or played the original BioShock, and then you showed me a screen shot and asked me to determine if it came from 2007 or 2016 ... I probably couldn't say for sure, but seeing them running side by side, I can see the added details and the better lighting (and, of course, the increased FoV).

But textures no longer look as wet, seems they dumbed down the specular lighting which is what made the game look ahead of its time.

[Lister of Smeg ︻デ =ー]

Originally posted by The Lost Chin:

So this is what they are charging money for? LOL!

Ignore this child, he'll be in bed soon.

[Prince Vegeta]

Who cares? We got it for free.
Entitled millenials, entitled millenials everywhere.

[Coldhands]

Originally posted by The Lost Chin:

But textures no longer look as wet, seems they dumbed down the specular lighting which is what made the game look ahead of its time.

To me, it looks like not EVERYTHING is wet anymore, which I think looks better. In the original, most hard surface had that wet sheen on it, and while Rapture IS underwater, not all parts of it are soggy. The specular shine is a look I think games in the past have over used.

[KMFDMvsEnya]

The remaster generally retains specular shine to things that require it but there instances where it seems it should be there but not applied. Look at the the floor in front of the Vita Chamber right after the Theater intro for the Big Daddy. Inside really shows the stylized specular sheen and then stepping out and the VC has specular highlights but not applied to the floor where it would make sense to do so.

The Light House stair case certainlly looks dry but for the rest of the game I prefer not having everything looking so darn plasticy or shiny. Overall from what I have seen so far the Remaster is looking better to me with greater precision and subtlety, except for the inconsistencies.

[Deez Nuts]

Whoever recorded those videos was biased. You can see the terrible compression on the RM side. Game is improved. End of story. Yes there are bugs, just like there are bugs in literally every PC game released today. If you don't like it return it. Oh wait, you didn't buy it? It was a FREE upgrade? Nevermind then.

[miklkit]

Didn't watch the video but as I see it the remaster has a lot of fog. Waaay too much fog as it makes it hard to see in some sections and generally makes the game blurry. Every object has a halo around it.
This is with no changes to the .ini.

[NewMoonShadow]

Originally posted by The Lost Chin:

Originally posted by Coldhands:

I'm not going to point out specifics frame by frame, but in general the remaster just has more detail in the textures and better lighting. I guess, since we're talking about visuals, "better" is a subjective term, and maybe you just like the look for the originals more. But the remasters really do have more detailed textures (especially close up) and more natural looking lighting.

I mean, if I hadn't just watched or played the original BioShock, and then you showed me a screen shot and asked me to determine if it came from 2007 or 2016 ... I probably couldn't say for sure, but seeing them running side by side, I can see the added details and the better lighting (and, of course, the increased FoV).

But textures no longer look as wet, seems they dumbed down the specular lighting which is what made the game look ahead of its time.

The shiny particles in the original took the place of actual fine texture details. Quite simply, the new version doesn't NEED to lean on coating everything with oil to cover the screen in detail because the textures can actually be used to portray fine details on their own.

[Summer of '69]

i play first Bioshock consecutive original then remaster (same level) Remastered version looks WAY better, they removed this disgusting "plastic" graphic and new HD textures are great. But remastered version now has several terrible graphic bugs include incorrect spaced lighting sources. but when they FIX this i will prefer remastered version over original every time.

[Flappy Pannus]

Originally posted by *D4rKy*:

I think the Remastered version looks more washed out. On my system, the original looks better in every area, except the cutscenes. And if you turn on subtitles, the Remaster has a clearer font.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8D5TU9I5aHY

For pete's sake, the majority of the Bioshock2 comparison is the opening pre-rendered cinematic, which of course will not change. Idiotic.