IS it me or does BioShock 2 look worse then the 1st game, or is it just GFWL

[hiyaitsmereuben]

Didnt like BioShock 2 as much as the first, for some really odd reason the game manage to look worse then the original, on high graphics options, eving if my pc isnt vert good it should at least still look better then the first right

[16 Corgpower]

Dunno whats you talking about. Animations is far better, so as models. Maybe some minor improvements on lightning and textures. All other stuff are basically the same. You can tweak some graphic settings manually in the bioshock2.ini like set DoF and AF and some other stuff. http://www.teamsao.com/forum/general-discussion/12135-bioshock-2-config-tweaks http://pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/BioShock_2#Field_of_view_.28FOV.29

[Emperor's Fist]

Can I ask what sort of gpu do you have? AMD or NVIDIA?

[hiyaitsmereuben]

i have a nvidia gpu

[Karma]

Originally posted by Joh Mahmah:

The textures and lighting in Bioshock 2 are of noticeably lesser quality than Bioshock 1.

agreed. I remember when i fired up B2 the 1st time i thought the same thing. Yes, the models and animations are better, but overall Rapture itself didn't seem as beautiful (and NOT because it's far more in ruins).

[UselessFoetus]

Originally posted by Joh Mahmah:

The textures and lighting in Bioshock 2 are of noticeably lesser quality than Bioshock 1.

Glad to see i'm not the only one that noticed that.

[Pocket]

You might suffer from texture pop-in on some setups, but I'm not aware of the textures actually being lower quality. The multiplayer is definitely cheap-looking, with everything looking like it was sprayed down with Vaseline, but the single player levels seemed fine to me, even on an HD screen.

[Karma]

Originally posted by the ghost of Gordon Frohman:

You might suffer from texture pop-in on some setups, but I'm not aware of the textures actually being lower quality. The multiplayer is definitely cheap-looking, with everything looking like it was sprayed down with Vaseline, but the single player levels seemed fine to me, even on an HD screen.

Funny you say that because i thought everything in MP looked like it did in B1...like it had gloss on everything.

[Yorutamashi]

the 1st one was a master piece in it's history more than anything, the 2nd one is great, and has a lot of gameplay improvements, but the history is not that good... amazing game anyway :) i enjoyed it a lot

[Umarell]

Yes! The first level of B2 looks great, but by the time you get to Ryan's Amusements, it's really budget quality. Not only are the textures and the lighting horrible, but the story becomes kind of a parody of itself (with the amusement park attractions spelling the philosophy out in a really boring way), and even the voice acting seems worse. Also, upgraded rivet is one headshot instakill on splicers and there's too much resources on hard. Kind of disappointed with this after the greatness and difficulty of the first game.

[Eat3n]

I think B2 looks better and i overall enjoyed the game more than B1.

[hiyaitsmereuben]

^^ I will always perfer the first, the only part in the 2nd game i enjoyed was been a little sister

[Pocket]

Originally posted by AngelGraves13:

BioShock 2 was made to cash-in on the franchise, and it wasn't even made by Irrational Games, then called 2K Boston.

I don't know what sort of point you're trying to make. Follow-up games made by other people (Half-Life expansions, anyone?) have been decent, and Irrational is hardly the only good developer in the world. If the game was bad, it was because it was bad; no need to make generalizations.

[Frosty]

The Enviromental Textures seemed to take a backseat to the improved Object and Model Textures. Even DX10 (when its not crashing) is not as impressive as I would expect a successor to BioShock's Art Deco Rapture should be. Some of the areas of Rapture felt flat under a cursory inspection. I don't know if it was a limitation of development for Consoles, a focus more heavily based on in game models and objects and thus Enviromental Textures ended up getting the least amount of attention, or some other weird reason.

I woudl note that some instances of Bioshock Infinite look a little flat sometimes i.e. in trying to wrangle the open end enviroment of Columbia to PS3 and XBox 360 obvious conccessions were made, namely the background buildings of Columbia floating about vary from very nicely detailed buildings similar to what the player interacts with (closest to the player), to buildings that are rough 3D Geometric outlines (somewhat further, but not seemingly far enough), to 2D blurry cardboard sillouettes that you almost feel have to be "flying" by strings (these are not far away enough in some aspects of the game to negate their poor textures.)

While I understand the design purpose of the degrading quality of background buildings, the last level of 2D cut-outs are too close in game in some aspects (earlier sections as you make your way to Monument Island as well as later sections in BattleShip Bay to name a few) and make Columbia's Skyscape seem half-baked sometimes. Just play the game and focus on the background as you play some of the areas, the furthest buildings out just seem out of place.

[16 Corgpower]

Originally posted by AngelGraves13:

BioShock 2 was made to cash-in on the franchise, and it wasn't even made by Irrational Games, then called 2K Boston.

Don't like Bio2? That's fine, but that crap about cash-in is just ridiculous. Bio2 is a very solid game, with good touching story, fantastic writing as in the first game, beautiful soundtrack, and in some aspects its even better than Bioshock 1 (gameplaywise it's far more complex than it's precessor). 2K Martin did a great job with second Bioshock and they surely don't deserve that attitude you are giving them.