Jump to navigation

Face-Off Extra: BioShock frame analysis Comments by Eurogamer staff

4 November, 2008

100 like-for-like frames compared.

Read entire article.

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

first 50 | Comments: 51-74 of 74 in total

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
Transcendent
04/11/08 @ 17:48
#51
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I wouldn't play Bioshock in under 60 fps. I guess console tards only care about the bloom, and not the performance.
doragor
04/11/08 @ 17:54
#52
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
umm.

way over my head. not that I have a problem with these kind of, umm, articles.
I hope PS3 owners enjoy it as much as I did. I'm sure they will.
doragor
04/11/08 @ 17:56
#53
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@ Transcendent

'console tards'?
oh dear. you pinhead.
SeesThroughAll
04/11/08 @ 17:57
#54
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
This is sick. Obsession. Pure and simple.

Now that I'm getting thrown so much FUD at my face, I'm really gonna buy the technically inferior PS3 version.

I'm starting to consider removing eurogamer from my bookmarks.
Ryze
04/11/08 @ 17:57
#55
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
@phAge

"That's quite a lot of anger and ill-suppressed rage from a bunch of frustrated, £425 spending, Hazelol owning P$£ owners."

Fixed.
aliki
04/11/08 @ 18:05
#56
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I've always viewed EG as a Brit version of IGN, Gamespot et al. This only solidifies the opinion.

There is a reason why I use adblock.
Scimarad
04/11/08 @ 18:06
#57
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
This article is quite simple terrifying - Honestly who would care that much? I'm starting to think this is some sort of obscure revenge after being fooled in that 'real next gen' article all that time ago...
dward1976
04/11/08 @ 18:06
#58
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I wonder what goes through the writers minds sometimes when they come up with crap like this.

Just throw a few comparison shots up...this is for Beyond3Ds forum.
IneptPercy
04/11/08 @ 18:57
#59
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I get more frames than that at 1080p on my PC... rubbish consoles...
betahoven
04/11/08 @ 19:05
#60
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Did EG just jump the shark? I'm sure they used to have some credibility, but even Gamespot would balk at posting crap like this.
Bremenacht
04/11/08 @ 19:29
#61
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Nice to see a face-off article that didn't make 100+ comments.

More lists of numbers please.
hahayou
04/11/08 @ 19:46
#62
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Objectivity and attention to detail is an excellent thing. Didn't really need the raw output.

Plus, this analysis has no guarantee that the results apply across the entire game.
m0thr4
04/11/08 @ 19:50
#63
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
the results of his BioShock frame-rate analysis - 100 like-for-like frames compared

100 like-for-like frames of what? A cut scene? Surely not actual gameplay (the bit any sane person is interested in), as it would be near impossible to get an identical comparison.
p00ntang
05/11/08 @ 02:48
#64
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
nyerds
DocTep
05/11/08 @ 03:58
#65
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"EG: Putting the anal in analysis!"

Print the t-shirts guys - with this article the time has finally arrived. ;o)
AusFreelancer
05/11/08 @ 06:58
#66
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Sorry EG, but you have completely LOST it. Did you get a fat wad of cash for this crap? Either way, I think i'll make Arstechnica my new home page after this debacle.....at least when they they get techy...its understandable, and worthwhile.

After all is said and done, congrats to the 360, kickin' arse in the graphics race, despite having a headstart. (I own a PS3, and I have my reasons RESPECT it). Can we please MOVE on for the love of God.
Transcendent
05/11/08 @ 07:20
#67
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Fanboys: The 360 version is 50% faster. Just because you made the choice of buying a console for over twice the price doesn't mean that Eurogamer should stop informing people with both consoles that they should pick the 360 version out of the bargain bin instead.
3william56
05/11/08 @ 07:49
#68
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Wow. That was a riviting read. I was the edge of my seat, and have emailed a copy to all of my friends...

For f**k's sake... review some games, why don't you?
GamesConnoisseur
05/11/08 @ 08:43
#69
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Oh! A lot of angry rants!

Yes it would be quite excessive and I hope EG doesnt feel the need to repeat this kind of techy article as the audience here is different sort. HOWEVER, there had been a lots of accusation of EG being so biased and in pocket of MS etc, that the site is unprofessional.

This article proves that EG adopts very techicial and sciencific approach, and the angers would perhaps be more to do with the readers not happy to see the facts being rubbed into their faces regarding PS3 not actually a superior console and not wanting to believe it.

I however second that this is a mite excessive!
mazzl
05/11/08 @ 08:59
#70
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
these numbers are just boring. just interview MS and SONY show them the comparisons articles before and get an explanaition from sony why their console performs so poorly.
congrats MS on their great console and urge them to fix the noise problem.

xbox360 kicks ps2 (oops i mean ps3) yet again :):)

ps. i wasn't really smiling. i don't really care..... that's strange isn't it EG?

i do like the comparison articles but this frame rate number fetish shizzle goes to far!

cthulhu_steev
05/11/08 @ 09:01
#71
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Transcendent: Fanboys: The 360 version is 50% faster.

If you think a higher FPS count = Faster graphics! then you really out to stay away from technical articles.
Bremenacht
05/11/08 @ 18:09
#72
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
How many eggs can you balance on a Wii Fit board? That's what I need to know. Article please.
m0thr4
05/11/08 @ 20:35
#73
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Fanboys: The 360 version is 50% faster.

Sorry to split hairs, but you're way off. If you read the article properly:

The Xbox 360 sample contained 49 unique frames out of 100 which gives an average framerate of 29.4 fps. The PS3 sample contained 38 unique frames out of 100 which gives an average framerate of 22.8fps.

That's a difference of 6.6 fps, which means the Xbox 360 version is 28.9% faster.


m0thr4
05/11/08 @ 20:42
#74
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
monsieur_flange:
If anyone is at all curious to find out which console to buy, they'd have realised a long time ago the PS3 and 360 are virtually identical, but the Ps3 costs considerably more for no better graphics, a bundled Blu-ray player, free online gaming, a web browser, built-in WiFi, built-in Bluetooth, Compact Flash/SD/MS slots, the ability to play PS1 PS2 games the ability to load your own AVI/DivX videos onto the hard drive, the ability to install your own operating system and dual boot it as a proper computer and the ability to upgrade to a 350GB hard drive for only £60.

Fixed.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 05/11/08 @ 20:43

first 50 | Comments: 51-74 of 74 in total

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Advertisement

X View gallery