This is the year 2007, and you're trying to sell me a game that DOESN'T let me enable AA? Sorry, the game would look 10x better with AA, but the way it is now is horribly jaggy, and I will not be buying the game.
This is the year 2007, and you're trying to sell me a game that DOESN'T let me enable AA? Sorry, the game would look 10x better with AA, but the way it is now is horribly jaggy, and I will not be buying the game.
You can't even notice it really and I think your post is really immature. Grow up.
The worst thing is that you can't enable AA through drivers either.
You can if you play in 800x600. So shut it.Originally Posted by Unstoppable
Which is exactly why I play on consoles. A lot less crap to worry about.
That's pretty immature focusing on the games graphics but not gameplay. Graphics shouldn't matter at all, it only makes things slightly better, gameplay is what matters. BioShock delievers gameplay so that's why i'm buying it.
When i'm fighting multiple splicers I don't have time to see if they have "jaggies" around their arms. Seriously the game looks awesome. Stop denying that you're not going to get it. You know you will be lining up tommorow morning biatch.
I enabled AA through NVIDIA Panel...
The AA is pretty much the same on 360.
Anyway I'm in the same position atm, if AA doesn't end up working I'm just gonna cancel my PC CE and get a 360 Elite and BioShock for an extra 10 pounds.
No it's not. Graphics matter also, they make the whole experience a whole lot better.
@schoolboytim - what resolution you runing at? Jaggies are a lot worse at lower res of course and I normally don't bother with AA on the higher res I run at these days (and I too detest jaggies). So, basically was it a low res?
@Kasmoke - nice sentiment, gameplay matters foremost for sure, but graphics DO matter or we would never have progressed technically since the Atari VCS (Which used to hold my imagination wonderfully over 25 years ago but couldn't convince me to spend even ten seconds with it now).
The perfect balance is graphics AND gameplay, they are not mutually exclusive and it's this that devs must strive for not always excusing poor gameplay with 'stunning graphics' or (slightly less bad) very poor gfx with great gameplay.
NO AA and AA really don't make much of a difference on bioshock...you have to SQUINT to see the jagged edges.
Even without he AA, Bioshock is still one of the greatest game ... Grow up a little, even Fallout 2 that doesn't have any smallest graphical option is one of the best RPG games.
Of course, for such a recent game, AA would have been a normal thing, but high AA = Ouch ! Framerate ... And Bioshock would be deadly without a lot of frames/second
Yes that's why AA should be optional, no need to punish people with high end cards who can handle the performance hit of enabling AA.
I just hope for a patch later for the AA
but honestly
I don't really notice
If you really think this game doesn't look good enough for you, you have some serious problems with your standards... As others have said, the graphics are not the main focus of a game (at least they shouldn't be). Maybe you should take your complaining somewhere else, because Irrational is not going to change the game just for you and I don't think most forumgoers here really care that you are foolishly depriving yourself of what looks to be a fantastic title.
What a freaking loser you are.
Leave, and don't come back.
Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out.
I finished Alone In The Dark 1, 2, almost finished first System Shock, and played the first Elder Scrolls: Arena 2 years ago, and I didn't care at all about graphics, and still these games remain highly playable.
Lots of fanboy lovin' in this thread .. lol
and I don't know what the fuss is about the 360 being 'smoother' by default (maybe in bioshock, I haven't tried it) I know R6 vegas looked awful on my 360 (that WAS jaggies to the max) but on the PC version it's "ok" (nothing special mind).
Gears looked lots better but a lot of the times it comes down to more than just techincal stuff (ie, on or off) art direction, color choices and polygons/modeling play a big part and a lot of clever devs can use this to their advantage thus removing MOST of the need for anti aliasing.
I haven't played the Bioshock PC demo yet so I will reserve judgement on jaggies but I know if I run it below 1280 it's prob gonna look as aliased as any other game without AA ('cept maybe Doom3 engined games which do great with out AA).
oh and i've got an 8800gtx + e6850 C2D @ 3.6ghz so hopefully running it at 1440x900 won't show too much aliasing... if it does then I will wait till I can force AA on in the drivers rather than complain to the devs who have obv made the best use yet of UE3.
AA has always been a publicity stunt. Nothing more. The performance hit has been equal to going one res up which gives similar improvement in the picture. Oh - you wanna know a secret - on resolutions higher than 1280x1024 it is very very hard to notice jagged artifacts, because this resolution is higher than the native resolution of the human eye. On 1400x900 there were no artifacts at all and my card is not the high end - Asus EN7900GS.
I noticed you're constantly talking about inhuman resolutions in this thread...
I honestly can't believe people put the ☺☺☺☺ing GIMMICK that AA is over anything else and threaten to cancel their orders of the game.
As i said in another thread, if you want really fast AA without any Performance Hit - take off your glasses.
You haven't got a ☺☺☺☺ing clue, please shut up.
Since when the native resolution of the flat screens is inhuman?
And by the way - on LCD monitor if you play on lower res than the native you get AA for free due to the way lower res are emulated on them.
Just for the record graphics do matter. So does gameplay but I don't spend a crap load of cash on PC parts so I can play games that look bad but have awesome gameplay.
BIOSHOCK looks amazing even if it doesn't have AA. I also loved RB6:Vegas and that game doesn't use AA either. Awesome game though!
Aliasing comes from many different areas and not just polygon edges (textures and other issues cause 'aliasing like' symptons) they all equal the same to the end user = a distracting effect that gets in the way of immersion. If someone sees this as dissapointing I can fully understand, all they can do is buy better hardware to allow higher resolutions to mostly bypass the aliasing effect.
If someone has a 15" LCD monitor @1024x768 that can't physically go higher and they notice jaggies, even with their 8800gtx ultra there is nothing they can do if there is no "choice" to enable AA (which would effectively be 'free' at such a resolution and on such a powerful card). (Of course they should have a bigger monitor with such a card to take advantage of it). This is not irrational/2Kbostons "fault" though, it's just we are a transitional point in technology and the ubiquitous unreal engine 3 chose a certain path to take for DX9... it seems DX10 will sort this (If the DX10 + AA thing is true)
Meh I run Bioshock at 1920 X 1200
with everything on max
jaggies don't bug me
Dunno if you were addressing that to me or the other guy but yes, 1440 x 900 is the common native (read: best looking) resolution on 19" widescreen LCDS which are quite common these days. 1680x1050 is the 22" (and 20") native res. Anyone who understands about LCD panels will always want to run it at it's native res rather than have scaling artifacts by running it lower which is why those 2 (and 1280 x 1024 for non widescreen LCDs) are mentioned a lot.
ON a CRT it doesn't matter - I can go from 800x600 upto 1600x1200 (on my old CRT) without hassle and everything looks smooth but times have changed and LCD's native resolutions are the areas of interest to a lot of 'hardcore' gamers.
You registered just to post this? You're wasting server space.
Hey no problem, don't buy it, aint gonna affect me. Yet another pointless thread!!
Yeah.. that is a cool res and would certainly NOT require AA at all. However at MAX SETTINGS??? Wow, what card you got? My single 880gtx would struggle no doubt, at that res, so are you SLI? Ultra?
lol
intel core 2 duo 6700 2.66 ghz
2 gig ram
radeon 1950XTX
Ok beceause of the AA dont buy the game? Ok... Go play on XBox with a TV, no mods.
both correct. I tried to explain why the Unreal Engine 3 doesn't support AA in Dx9 here.
So if you're interested you can read that. If you're not interested in the reasons why, here's the quick summary:
I highly doubt there will be AA in Bioshock under Dx9, don't know for sure about Dx10, but as it is possible there I think the Dx10+AA thing probably is true.
If any resolution bigger than 1024x768 you should consider getting a new screen and / or a new graphics card anyway. This resolution will always look crappy, no matter if you have AA or not. While AA helps a bit, it doesn't do wonders.
PS: this forum is getting really slow... took an eternity to put this reply up.
Yeah, AA is kind of overrated. It's also the biggest performance hog of any graphics setting, in C&C 3, with AA even at level 1, I get serious slow down. Soon as I turn it off, the frame rate nearly doubles. I can then force an override in nvidia's control panel, or with nHancer at x2, or even x4, and it runs about the same, only with noticeably improved AA. But actually, when it comes down to it, I would gladly turn AA off on any game if it meant I could turn most other settings all the way up
...........
AA is not that needed. If you are playing at low resolution there is no reason to have strong AA anyway.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote