Not, obviously, the vast majority of Mac users... which is what makes this good news on a Mac-related site
Certainly no product announcement is of much interest to anyone who already bought the product.
Now THAT'S what I call a good time!
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Bioshock coming for Mac
- Thread starter Foop
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not, obviously, the vast majority of Mac users... which is what makes this good news on a Mac-related site
Certainly no product announcement is of much interest to anyone who already bought the product.
Now THAT'S what I call a good time!
Hell, the Mac game industry is dead as a doornail now, so "struggling" is an improvement we can look forward to. All we have are Windows games with Cider wrappers as it is, and us few remaining PPC stragglers (yes, I'm poor) are relegated to Doom 3 and...uh...let's see, Bejeweled 2.
Damn, I wonder if they'll come out with a Bejeweled 3...or perhaps it'll be a Windows-only release?I'm really not sure of the benefit of this decision - as several people have already pointed out, Bioshock has been going for dirt cheap prices on the PC side, and a Mac port is likely to have to cost at least $40. Now, I'm always willing to pay extra for a Mac version of a game (both so I don't have to reboot and also to support Mac game porters), but even if the Mac port was already available, convincing me to spend $40 for a game that I can get for one-eighth the price on the Windows side is a tough sell.
Lol, if you compare 2 bad things to 1 half-good thing then it will be something special
If you compare Bioshock to Half Life 2 or Fallout 3 then it's nothing special.
That said I do like Bioshock but I don't see it as being anything than a bog standard FPS in a nice setting with buckets of cliches thrown at you from every angle.
Is it scary? I wouldn't say so. It's got a slightly haunting atmosphere but if you've played through HL2's Ravenholm or L4D then it's like watching the Teletubbies.
Somewhat OT, but will someone explain to me what everybody thinks is so scary about Ravenholm? I went into it expecting to crap myself every 5 minutes but finished it in a single sitting without ever getting really freaked out. And this isn't coming from a "nothing scares me" perspective - I was quite freaked out by Doom 3 (the first half, at least), and the dark garage parts of Episode 1 were pretty well-done as well. I think that I've found that scariness is in large part derived from enemies that don't make much noise, which is the main reason why I haven't found Bioshock scary so far - all the enemies are constantly whistling, singing, or otherwise making themselves known before they're actually a threat.
The first level is a bit creepy and there is another spot I can think of that made me jump but overall it is not intent of scaring the snot out of you like doom or RE4.
This was my favorite game of '07. A true gem.
+1 If being older makes something worse, why do people still listen to music done by Mozart & Bach?
Agreed!
Bioshock would be a very welcome addition to native Mac game choices. But once again, we see the Mac lagging behind practically EVERY other platform.
There's already talk of a Bioshock sequel in the works. By the time Feral gets this released, Bioshock 2 will probably be out for PC and the gaming consoles!
Didn't I just read where Aspyr laid off like 20% of their workforce? I just don't get it! The obvious problem with Mac game development is not enough manpower to get a release finished in a timely manner. With enough developers working for one of these firms, you'd think they could start releasing twice as many titles per year, greatly increasing their profits?
I really don't mind the Mac not getting big game releases FIRST.... There are certain advantages that come with them being able to "wait and see" which games are worth the effort to port, and which turn out to be a flop. I rather like how the Mac generally only offers the "cream of the crop" game titles (because they won't bother working on the ones that might not be good sellers). I just expect much faster turn-around than 1 or 2 year delays! By then, you've usually played the whole game on someone's console system or PC -- and the game is in the "bargain bin" at retail stores.
Bioshock would be a very welcome addition to native Mac game choices. But once again, we see the Mac lagging behind practically EVERY other platform.
There's already talk of a Bioshock sequel in the works. By the time Feral gets this released, Bioshock 2 will probably be out for PC and the gaming consoles!
Didn't I just read where Aspyr laid off like 20% of their workforce? I just don't get it! The obvious problem with Mac game development is not enough manpower to get a release finished in a timely manner. With enough developers working for one of these firms, you'd think they could start releasing twice as many titles per year, greatly increasing their profits?
I really don't mind the Mac not getting big game releases FIRST.... There are certain advantages that come with them being able to "wait and see" which games are worth the effort to port, and which turn out to be a flop. I rather like how the Mac generally only offers the "cream of the crop" game titles (because they won't bother working on the ones that might not be good sellers). I just expect much faster turn-around than 1 or 2 year delays! By then, you've usually played the whole game on someone's console system or PC -- and the game is in the "bargain bin" at retail stores.
Not, obviously, the vast majority of Mac users... which is what makes this good news on a Mac-related site
Certainly no product announcement is of much interest to anyone who already bought the product.
Are you insinuating that the vast majority of Mac owners don't also own a videogame console or a PC? I know a lot of Mac owners, all of which have other ways to play games.
I LOVE BIOSHOCK. I really enjoyed all the visuals and just walking around and looking at all the cool stuff -- plus the amazing story line. Very good game.
I wouldn't buy it for Mac though, cause I already have it for my 360.
I wouldn't buy it for Mac though, cause I already have it for my 360.
I remember it being more oppressive and claustrophobic than scary. The first couple encounters are shocking, but after that, it's more just the atmosphere of decay and a feeling that the whole thing is going to implode around you that makes the atmosphere so compelling.
It has been a couple of years, though, so I could be mis-remembering.
Those of you saying that it doesn't matter that the game is 2 years old don't understand how 3d games work.
unless the game has such a high artistic concept or distinctly intentional "look" that utlilizes the limitations of current-gen graphics, the dated graphics will make the game less fun in just a couple years. Graphics aren't an issue for a game where they are used effectively for their purpose...where the art direction wouldn't have needed any greater graphical power at all to get their vision across. Some examples:
Super Mario World
Zelda: Ocarina of Time
StarCraft
Ico
Katamari Damacy
With games like this (there are lots of them), the graphics aren't limited by the hardware so much as they are limited by design. Yes, higher-resolution would help starcraft in particular, but other than the resolution, the graphics aren't dated.
Look at FPS games from just 3-4 years ago, though, and they look AWFUL because you've seen current-day FPS games. If your end goal is to look as realistic as possible, then until the graphics are so good that you cannot distinguish them from reality, then they will be distracting at some point in the future. Expectations rise. Go check out the original Unreal. It was AMAZING in the day, but now it looks super dumb. I really, really enjoyed that game a decade or so ago, but now I can't even play it because it's outdated graphics are distracting.
BioShock was pretty good, visually, but now it's starting to look dated, no matter how powerful your rig is or what resolution you run it at...
HL2 looked GREAT for over 2 years, but now the character animations have been surpassed, and they're distracting to watch.
I'm just saying. Why go to all the trouble of releasing this native for Mac at this point?
It has been a couple of years, though, so I could be mis-remembering.
Those of you saying that it doesn't matter that the game is 2 years old don't understand how 3d games work.
unless the game has such a high artistic concept or distinctly intentional "look" that utlilizes the limitations of current-gen graphics, the dated graphics will make the game less fun in just a couple years. Graphics aren't an issue for a game where they are used effectively for their purpose...where the art direction wouldn't have needed any greater graphical power at all to get their vision across. Some examples:
Super Mario World
Zelda: Ocarina of Time
StarCraft
Ico
Katamari Damacy
With games like this (there are lots of them), the graphics aren't limited by the hardware so much as they are limited by design. Yes, higher-resolution would help starcraft in particular, but other than the resolution, the graphics aren't dated.
Look at FPS games from just 3-4 years ago, though, and they look AWFUL because you've seen current-day FPS games. If your end goal is to look as realistic as possible, then until the graphics are so good that you cannot distinguish them from reality, then they will be distracting at some point in the future. Expectations rise. Go check out the original Unreal. It was AMAZING in the day, but now it looks super dumb. I really, really enjoyed that game a decade or so ago, but now I can't even play it because it's outdated graphics are distracting.
BioShock was pretty good, visually, but now it's starting to look dated, no matter how powerful your rig is or what resolution you run it at...
HL2 looked GREAT for over 2 years, but now the character animations have been surpassed, and they're distracting to watch.
I'm just saying. Why go to all the trouble of releasing this native for Mac at this point?
Marathon was pretty linear too - as long as the story is captivating enough I don't really mind somewhat linear gameplay, as experiencing the world is neat enough.
There are a couple more "choices" than just whether to kill little sisters, but not a great deal more - I thought it was a fun game.
It was a bit rough on a 8x2.8ghz machine with 6 gigs of ram (3 in xp) and a geforce 8800 - with DX10 stuff turned off. I hope they will optimize it a bit better, because that would be the same machine I'd play it on again
EVIL!!!
If I hadn't enjoyed the previous Shocks so much, I would have been happy with this accessible Shock offshoot.
If I hadn't enjoyed the previous Shocks so much, I would have been happy with this accessible Shock offshoot.
Lol, if you compare 2 bad things to 1 half-good thing then it will be something special
If you compare Bioshock to Half Life 2 or Fallout 3 then it's nothing special.
That said I do like Bioshock but I don't see it as being anything than a bog standard FPS in a nice setting with buckets of cliches thrown at you from every angle.
Is it scary? I wouldn't say so. It's got a slightly haunting atmosphere but if you've played through HL2's Ravenholm or L4D then it's like watching the Teletubbies.
O.K., then I compare it to two other so called 'great games':
Gears of War -> I'll never get, what people love about the game other than the chainsaw attack. And it's not even close in atmosphere.
Halo 3 -> Yeah, may be me, as I'm more into the darker fantastic games and not into Sci-Fi.
I'm very limited in time, but I must say BioShock was quite addictive compared to those two games. And due to my little time, I never use online multiplayer.
Fallout 3 - yeah, still on my list to play. But you can't compare those two, as Fallout has much more RPG-elements. It's like comparing BioShock and MassEffect.
L4D - I personally think it sucks. Tried the XBOX-Demo and found it to be stupid. A zombie slasher without real self-irony. I'd rather play Dead Rising for the 10th time than getting my hand on L4D again.
But BOT: I just wonder who should buy the Mac version, when everyone can use BootCamp to use the Win version (and by the time the upcoming BioShock 2). I heavily doubt you will see a port for PPC machines.
And also BOT: I think the BioShock plot was great in the beginning but had a real horrible ending. And Raptures history remained so goddamn flat unfortunately.
Great Game, I have it on my xbox.
but meh, the mac gets games way to late,in australia the ps3 version costs $110 while the xbox is $70 so no doubt the mac version will be overpriced, i already passed it about 3 times and unlocked 90% of the achievements.
I strongly recommend anyone that hasn't played this game before to get it.
but meh, the mac gets games way to late,in australia the ps3 version costs $110 while the xbox is $70 so no doubt the mac version will be overpriced, i already passed it about 3 times and unlocked 90% of the achievements.
I strongly recommend anyone that hasn't played this game before to get it.
Again you're picking bad games, both are fairly no-brainer shooters with no depth like Bioshock. It'd be like comparing Fallout 3 to Biosho... wait a minute!
Doesn't sound like you've played it at all.
I've put 12 hours into L4D since I got it 6 days ago. Everything but the gameplay is a joke. It's utterly cliched and self-ironic, simply toying with the zombie genre. Haven't you seen the ingame loading posters, seen the realtime cutscenes?
rofl if you can take FEAR than you can take this but
if your the kind of person who cant take re4
your gonna have a heart attack with this game.
and im still going to get this game for mac even though i have the pc version just to support the mac gaming world. Why? because the more people buy mac games the more that will come out in the future.
Plus its a great game : )
Chalk me down as another who was a little disappointed by Bioshock.
The idea sounded great, playing the start of the game really built up the anticipation, the environment really added to the atmosphere.. The art direction was excellent..
But I felt it just never went anywhere. Until a certain event late in the game (you know what I'm talking about) I felt you were just playing through a fairly linear sequence of similar levels with similar gameplay. No great variety, no major choices, no change in the pacing of the game.
At least Halo, while very linear, gave you large 'playground' areas where you could take multiple paths, use ground or air vehicles or none at all, engage one or other enemies, or neither; plus facing a larger number of adversaries made the gameplay more varied based on their type. And, Bungie is very good at 'pacing' their games. You never are in the middle of a fight the whole way through, the battles are broken up between periods of calm and smaller fights.
p.s. scariest game ever - not sure. But Shalebridge Cradle in Thief: Deadly Shadows must be the scariest level. Only time I ever leapt up and turned a console off with fright.
The idea sounded great, playing the start of the game really built up the anticipation, the environment really added to the atmosphere.. The art direction was excellent..
But I felt it just never went anywhere. Until a certain event late in the game (you know what I'm talking about) I felt you were just playing through a fairly linear sequence of similar levels with similar gameplay. No great variety, no major choices, no change in the pacing of the game.
At least Halo, while very linear, gave you large 'playground' areas where you could take multiple paths, use ground or air vehicles or none at all, engage one or other enemies, or neither; plus facing a larger number of adversaries made the gameplay more varied based on their type. And, Bungie is very good at 'pacing' their games. You never are in the middle of a fight the whole way through, the battles are broken up between periods of calm and smaller fights.
p.s. scariest game ever - not sure. But Shalebridge Cradle in Thief: Deadly Shadows must be the scariest level. Only time I ever leapt up and turned a console off with fright.
I've never turned off a console out of fear, nor a PC, but I have ripped my cartridges out and chewed on my controllers out of frustration.
System Shock scared the living crap out of me -- to the point my heart was racing and I had to hide in an elevator just to calm down. System Shock 2 had a few freaky moments and was able to keep me on edge, but nothing else has ever come close that I've played. Bio... was not scary at all. Even Dead Space with its cheap scares was a step above Bio... and even though Dead Space is such a cliche of so many previous games, it still turned out to be a much better game than Bio... IMO.
I read a while back that Bio... had started out like previous Shock games, so heavy on RPG elements, but then they had a brilliant idea to use focus groups(probably full of vagabonds, monkeys, and Halo fans), which in turn provided mind numbing feedback, because the game was too hard, it made them think. This led to this PlaySkool edition of Shock. They stripped out so much just to make it "accessible" to the masses.
To be really redundant, BioShock's environment was trifle when compare to previous shocks, because it didn't feel real at all. System Shock through use of an engaging story and sound made its environment believable. System Shock 2 wasn't as successfully as the first Shock at achieving this, but it was still more successful than BioSkool.
System Shock scared the living crap out of me -- to the point my heart was racing and I had to hide in an elevator just to calm down. System Shock 2 had a few freaky moments and was able to keep me on edge, but nothing else has ever come close that I've played. Bio... was not scary at all. Even Dead Space with its cheap scares was a step above Bio... and even though Dead Space is such a cliche of so many previous games, it still turned out to be a much better game than Bio... IMO.
I read a while back that Bio... had started out like previous Shock games, so heavy on RPG elements, but then they had a brilliant idea to use focus groups(probably full of vagabonds, monkeys, and Halo fans), which in turn provided mind numbing feedback, because the game was too hard, it made them think. This led to this PlaySkool edition of Shock. They stripped out so much just to make it "accessible" to the masses.
To be really redundant, BioShock's environment was trifle when compare to previous shocks, because it didn't feel real at all. System Shock through use of an engaging story and sound made its environment believable. System Shock 2 wasn't as successfully as the first Shock at achieving this, but it was still more successful than BioSkool.