This has been broken for weeks for me. Why did they have to change this site to make it much slower, and break everything?!

Currently finding that clicking on a user review from the initial list of "top 3" just reloads the same page. So there's no way to view the full review from any user. This happens in Chrome and Firefox on OSX.

Please fix, as it's currently pretty useless.

Seriously, what sort of reply do you expect in the Bioshock game forum?I'm guessing you're attention whoring, but meh...

Anyway, just check out the reviews all over the place. It's an awsome game - best thing I've played since hte last Deux Ex (FC3 was utter crap in my opinion, Saints Row was OK, DMC was good, but none were even close to this). I love the steampunk style anyway, but the storytelling, combat style and incredible visuals are easily worth the price (I played it on a gaming PC across 3 monitors and it looked absolutely epic!)

If you have the money, and like story-driven FPS games, you'd be stupid to miss this. I can't see anything on the horizon that'll beat this for a long time.

One thing though - DON'T read anything about what happens before playing it - it's 1000x better when you discover the surprises for yourself!

Bit late replying I know, but personally I wouldn't bother. I got bored before I'd even got my first weapon and uninstalled it. Just the same old trite dialogue as 100 other games, along with mediocre graphics. I recently replayed Doom 3 BFG, and even the graphics in that (ancient) game are more detailed and interesting I think.

Personally recommend Devil May Cry, Batman Arkham City, Saints Row the Third, or Dishonoured over this. Even Deus Ex HR if you haven't played that. All of those have far better gameplay and graphics in my opinion. Well, Saints Row may not have better graphics, but it's so over the top ridiculous that it's fun as hell to play!

Of course, you're asking if it's a good game in the FC3 forum, so you're going to get overwhelmingly biased opinions, as almost everyone here has played it and cares enough to post here. I'm guessing you just wanted to reinforce your own opinion about buying it anyway :)

That's my opinion though. Others are free to theirs; I just didn't think it was any good.

Meh, wasn't impressed with this. Only played about 20 mins after skipping the "sneaking" bit. Nothing I haven't seen in 20 other games, to be honest. Gone back to replaying Deus Ex HR - looks and plays 10 times better than this crap, with a much better storyline!

Think I've spent a total of around £5000 (ukp) on my gaming rig including monitors and peripherals - hard to tell exactly as it's been a gradual process. The pair of 690's alone were around £2000 though. To be honest you really don't need this for any current game, even running across 3 displays. A single 680 can do it, although you won't run max settings on BF3 at 6000+ x 1200 on a single 680.

I would say stay WELL away from AMD though - their CPUs are nowhere near Intel's for performance, and I consider their gfx cards to be total crap for gaming. I tried a 7970 when they came out and it was nothing but problems - crashes, disappearing cursor etc. Never had those problems with NVidia. The 7970 is now in my headless server (needed a gfx card in it to boot, as it's based on an old X58 motherboard with no onboard VGA), it runs 80x25 text mode under linux now - that's about all it's good for ;-))

I do have a pair of AMD gfx cards in my work PC, but I don't play any games on that, and rarely use anything that needs 3D, so they manage ok for basic Windows office work.

Just used a trainer in the end so I could skip past that crap ;-) I like the fun bits, not following some guy's ass through a level for 10 minutes with no weapons!

Are you referring to my post? I can assure you I do have that setup. Did you think it's impossible for someone to have something you do not? That PC is used exclusively for gaming - I could have listed all the other peripherals, but I stuck mostly with the parts related to gaming performance.

I work mostly from home, and my work PC is almost as powerful (24GB RAM, 2 x AMD 7870's running 6 monitors, 2 x 512GB SSDs + 3 3TB data drives on a raid controller card - and more emphasis has been placed on keeping it quieter as it's used all day long, mostly for video editing and rendering work ).

P9X79 Deluxe MB

Intel 3820 (Socket 2011) @ 4.2ghz (could overclock it a lot more, but no point to be honest)

32GB quad channel RAM @ 2400

4 x 120GB Vertex 4 SSDs in RAID0

2 x GTX690's in SLI (slightly factory overclocked, but I haven't OC'd them; again, no point)

1200W PSU

All watercooled, in NZXT case

3 x 1920x1200 monitors for gameplay, + 1 x 1920x1080 touchscreen mounted above

As expected, runs with everything maxed at 6014x1200 (using bezel adjustment). Haven't found a game yet that slows it down, so I'd be surprised if FC3 did it ;-))

One thing I will say though is that loading times are a bit annoying. This is the first game where I've had to wait more than a second or so for a level to load. With e.g. Skyrim, I don't get time so really see the graphic+text they use as a level loads. It's there, then it's gone! FC3 seems to need a good 8-10 seconds to start a level for some reason.

Hi, just got this game, getting bored with the "sneaking out of camp" **** at the start. Is there a god mode to be invisible or whatever to skip this?