Dead Space 3 PC Won't Be Different From Console

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Well so far as I know, the console 'Certification process', or whatever it's called takes a couple maybe 3 months, so there's an opportunity to make sure it's a decent PC version, which in the last couple years I think developers are starting to realise + work on, which is always appreciated. Granted, I probably won't be buying it, not just because of the whole Origin thing, but Dead Space as an IP's never really interested me, but still, the effort's appreciated, Visceral, especially as has been proven, the release'll get a lot of ire for reasons they can't control.

I can't believe there are people here saying this is an acceptable practice. Let alone the ones defending it. Have we really become content with a developer being lazy as fuck and then telling us to be grateful they're even giving us a product they take our money for?

"we want to make sure everyone's having that same experience." "As developers, you want to deliver an experience that's as similar as possible on different platforms." "The last thing Visceral wants is for one user base to be crowing that the other platforms just don't have what theirs has."


Contradiction?

Gethsemani:

Burst6:
[quote="Gethsemani" post="7.399645.16397063"]
I'm detailing a possible way to fail. From what i read it sounds like they said that adding mouse control is hard and should be enough. A lot of multi-platform releases give PC players good graphical options. Higher resolutions, better textures, higher framerates, DX11 etc. These guys don't seem to be aiming for that. I'm doubting they're going to optimize it properly.

Really, a lot of multi-platform releases do that? Name me a few, because I am honestly drawing blanks here. The one I can think off is Dragon Age II which had a completely broken DX11-option (it took my, then, brand new gaming rig down to single digit frame rates). When it comes to games like CoD, Skyrim (did get a HD texture pack post-release though), Borderlands 2, GTA IV, Saints Row 3, Arkham City etc. there really doesn't seem to be many extra options for getting that extra bit of awesome out of the graphics. Most seem content to sit on the same level as their console counter-parts graphics wise.

I can confirm Saints Row 3 has extra graphical options. Arkham city offers some pretty awesome DX11 support and graphical sliders that make a huge impact ( I believe Cod has basic DX11 support) and Skrim has pretty scalable graphics, even on vanilla it is steps above the console version. With mods its giant leaps better looking. Cant speak for sure about borderlands 2 but i remember a quicklook on Giantbomb stating the PC version the way to go due to enhanced graphical features and you guessed it, DX11 support

Some poor examples there. Developers should (like the above) inlude extra graphical features for the PC platform. Its laziness not utilize the more powerful hardware. Nothing more

Frostbite3789:
It's funny, because I feel like this is going to get more vitriol than Bethesda releasing broken products for the PS3.

Because EA.

Oh it will, however, being popular has ALWAYS let people get away with nearly everything.

As for the EA quote, we'll add it to the pile of stupid quotes from an EA dev that they didn't need to say, because it's just gonna add to the amount of disdain people already have for them.

Obviously, "the same experience" means lazy console port, but they didn't need to say it.

...So what does that actually mean? Does it mean that we won't be getting extra content? Or does it mean that the PC port will have the same options as the game on consoles? Visceral should really clarify what they're trying to say here.

V8 Ninja:
...So what does that actually mean? Does it mean that we won't be getting extra content? Or does it mean that the PC port will have the same options as the game on consoles? Visceral should really clarify what they're trying to say here.

"PC port isn't going to be optimized differently from its console cousins, and that means that graphical fidelity will remain broadly the same across the board." It means that we wont get any graphics options, other than probably changing your screen resolution.

FoolKiller:
Wow. There are a lot of fucking illiterate people here. The PC elitism is full of shit. There is nothing wrong with the game. It's not inferior. It's not bad. They just want everyone to have the same experience. The console experience is excellent so I don't get why the moronic hatred. And he never said they wouldn't optimize it for PC, rather they weren't going to make the game prettier on PC. It will still be gorgeous at 1080p. Sheesh.

The bigger issues will be the micro-transaction nonsense, the requirement of ORIGIN, and such.

I don't know what thread you are looking into but I don't see elitism here. But I'd rather guess that you have no clue what elitism is to begin with.

It is not elitism when I expect a product on a platform to perform in a manner that is related to the platforms capabilities. What may be a fine experience on consoles turn to a lacking one on PC for various reasons (be it poor optimisation, lack of control [that we need because every PC is different] or simply shitty usage of control peripherals). If I expect a game to be PC quality than I don't look at the gameplay but performance because that is the key. My hardware requires certain setting for a game to run smooth - I need to have the possibility to work with the game to get the best possible result. You don't have to do it on consoles - thus the console experience is different.

It is elitism if I would regard you as inferior or imply that your taste in gaming is wrong without any logic or valid reasons (like implying that consoleros are dirty peasants who hold gaming back because they don't play on PC - this would be elitism). This does not keep happening in this thread.

Also, you should work on your reading skills. If you glance over the original statement you may get the idea that they really aim for equal experience. But if you actually do read it you find that the statements support a lacking PC port due to lazyness - as well as the implication that I should be gratefull to get a shitty port to begin with.

So once again the Escapist shows it has more than its fair share of non PC gamers who do not understand the platform at all. Being told that on the PC you are getting the same game(fine) but with keyboard and mouse and that is it that is not ok for a PC game. The comment makes it sound like they are doing a lazy port with no graphics scaling except for high, medium and low with static keyboard controls. All I want from a port is to be stable, at least of equal quality, properly optimised and to customise my graphics to suit my PC rather than have static options which never do.

And when the 360 gets another month long stretch of hoarding all the DLC to itself?

Im both a PC and a Console gamer. But 90% of my time is spent on the PC, and ive put far more money into it than consoles over my lifetime. But i still say, "Get over it".

If you want something better than what the console is getting, play a game designed for pc. Dont be angry a company isnt sinking time and money it making your game look slightly better because you feel like anything less than 60fps is terrible.

"It's confusing to me that this question even comes up," says Visceral's Steve Papoutsis. "It's by no means any less important to us; it gets a lot of attention. The PC is a very different platform. As developers, you want to deliver an experience that's as similar as possible on different platforms."

Then you're fools who don't know how to make decent products. Only mass market, lowest common denominator shit.

"We want it to be great on all systems, that's our approach."

Well it can't be. What this says is that the game has been developed for the weakest platform and the studio CBAd to optimise it for the others. So instead of being great everywhere, it will suck equally, particularly on PC which has more memory and graphics processing power than 5 each of all current gen consoles combined.

DVS BSTrD:
Poor PC gamers, now you have to play the same game as everyone else. My heart bleeds.

Fuck it, I'll bite.

Try to imagine it in reverse. Game made for PC would get ported to consoles with same requirements as modern PC. Lags would be such that game would be barely playable. Sure, there is difference between graphic downgrade and unplayable lags but the point is, if you are making a game for some platform, you should optimize it for that platform otherwise why do you even bother?

Uh...just try to release it without the bugs Dead Space 2 had on PC and everyone should be happy, and your forums wont be spammed with bitching.

Anyway im still buying it for my PS3 like all the others in the series.

Soviet Heavy:
And when the 360 gets another month long stretch of hoarding all the DLC to itself?

Wrong thread?

This new info could make Total Biscuit's WTF video of Dead Space 3 a little more interesting.

Ed130:

Soviet Heavy:
And when the 360 gets another month long stretch of hoarding all the DLC to itself?

Wrong thread?

This new info could make Total Biscuit's WTF video of Dead Space 3 a little more interesting.

"It'll be no different from any of the consoles, until of course the 360 gets first dibs on the DLC, which is then delayed for several months on PC and PS3."

Eh, kb/mouse support for superior controls is all that really matters. I have no clue why there is such angst because PC gamers have to use the same graphics.

In fact, if anything console gamers should be mad that the game doesn't support kb/mouse on their consoles.

Soviet Heavy:
And when the 360 gets another month long stretch of hoarding all the DLC to itself?

And this... has anyone in the history of ever actually bought a 360 just because it gets SOME DLC a little early? To me it seems like M$ is pissing away money just to make people angry.

...I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the problem here. If you're getting exactly the same as what console players are getting, what's the issue? Is it poor controls? Because this series has fairly good controls regardless of platform from what I've seen. Is it tech restrictions? Because I'm no PC nerd, but theoretically, any PC with roughly the same specs as a console could handle the game, right? Or is it not being able to mod stuff and acsess the command console? Well, that's not part of the actual game as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, hacks and mods are the main draws of the PC versions of games, but they're not part of the actual product, are they? I'm not trying to scilence anyone,[1] I'm just trying to understand why this is getting so much hate.

[1] unless they're the kinda person that honestly belives all that "glorious PC gaming master race" crap

Gearhead mk2:
...I'm sorry, I'm not seeing the problem here. If you're getting exactly the same as what console players are getting, what's the issue? Is it poor controls? Because this series has fairly good controls regardless of platform from what I've seen. Is it tech restrictions? Because I'm no PC nerd, but theoretically, any PC with roughly the same specs as a console could handle the game, right? Or is it not being able to mod stuff and acsess the command console? Well, that's not part of the actual game as far as I'm concerned. Yeah, hacks and mods are the main draws of the PC versions of games, but they're not part of the actual product, are they? I'm not trying to scilence anyone,[1] I'm just trying to understand why this is getting so much hate.

First of all a good PC port is becoming a new standard. A lot of companies are putting a good amount of work into adding the extra graphical options for PC's and most modern AAA ports are very customize able. They're not only being incredibly lazy and making a shoddy port, but they're making the worst excuse i have ever heard coming out of a developer.

Second, PC's are weird. Some graphics cards work differently than others, people have different processors, and the game needs to be properly optimized. If it isn't, bad things start to happen. A badly optimized game can horribly lag a game on even low settings with a decent rig. Not everyone has a really powerful PC either so the option to turn the graphics down lower than the console version is really useful. People need to be able to customize the graphics to properly suit their computer.

[1] unless they're the kinda person that honestly belives all that "glorious PC gaming master race" crap

Soviet Heavy:

Ed130:

Soviet Heavy:
And when the 360 gets another month long stretch of hoarding all the DLC to itself?

Wrong thread?

This new info could make Total Biscuit's WTF video of Dead Space 3 a little more interesting.

"It'll be no different from any of the consoles, until of course the 360 gets first dibs on the DLC, which is then delayed for several months on PC and PS3."

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up!

You changed your avatar back already?

Ed130:

Soviet Heavy:

Ed130:

Wrong thread?

This new info could make Total Biscuit's WTF video of Dead Space 3 a little more interesting.

"It'll be no different from any of the consoles, until of course the 360 gets first dibs on the DLC, which is then delayed for several months on PC and PS3."

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up!

You changed your avatar back already?

I have to protect my image! How else will people get their daily dosage of headdesks?


image

So sad that in the end, all we really care about is graphical detail. When I buy a PC game, I buy it because
A) it's PC exclusive
or
B) it was on sale on Steam.
Those of you who buy for graphics are missing the point of gaming altogether; good graphics don't make a good game and midrange graphics (by what standard I'll never know, modern consoles have great graphics) don't make a bad game. Try whining about gameplay, immersion, and story; you might sound more credible. For the record, on my machine (a gaming rig, mind you) I haven't even noticed enough of a graphical difference to say games are in any way made better by it. Unless we're talking Crysis, that is, and there we're talking made-for-next-gen material that no one runs on full anyway because they can't. (or rather couldn't when the game came out, I know I must specify for those who would think I don't check release dates. My rig still can't run HIGH setting on the FIRST installment without bad lag.)

Hi Totalbiscuit,

Ooo, Dead Space 3 twice in one episode.

Like he said, there's no reason to do this. They have the better looking game, but wont let people have it. Why?

And suddenly my non existent boner for EA that hasn't moved since the ending of Mass Effect 3 suddenly twitches. Don't get me wrong I'm not going to play the game because I've already played Resident Evil 4 but any game company that can piss off PC gamers may be less evil than I originally thought.

Not really a big deal if they are referring solely to graphical fidelity...It would be kind of shitty if things like FPS and resolution were locked into console standards for some arbitrary reason.

Regardless, any self-respecting gamer, with a pc or a console, should probably give this one a miss due to all this micro-transaction garbage. Really poor form to include such a system in a full price game. At least, wait a few months until you can find a used copy with a 50% off price in the bargain bin or something. We have a duty as consumers to ensure that such business practices crash and burn.

Vhite:

DVS BSTrD:
Poor PC gamers, now you have to play the same game as everyone else. My heart bleeds.

Fuck it, I'll bite.

Try to imagine it in reverse. Game made for PC would get ported to consoles with same requirements as modern PC. Lags would be such that game would be barely playable. Sure, there is difference between graphic downgrade and unplayable lags but the point is, if you are making a game for some platform, you should optimize it for that platform otherwise why do you even bother?

Well that analogy would only work if the PC version had lower requirements then the consol version, like 20fps and pixelated resolution. And it would be bad if the consol version was as broken as PC gamers seem to think it is. News Flash PC gamers: Us consol tards aren't as miserable as you seem to think we are. Yes consols can't run a game
as well or as complex as a computer, but the thing is: they're still fun! I know it's a hard to accept an user interface menu that has less options than a fast food chain, but you're only limiting yourselves here.

And you damn well why they're releasing it on an extra platform without spending extra time and money to optimize it. The same reason EA set the benchmark of 3 million units. At the end of the day, this IS still a business.

Legion:

DVS BSTrD:
Poor PC gamers, now you have to play the same game as everyone else. My heart bleeds.

Assuming the sarcasm is directed at the people up in arms about it, I agree. I don't see how having the same game as other platforms for a cheaper price is a bad thing. The only downside is the requirement of Origin, which would be needed regardless of the quality of the game.

Getting the same game is hardly being "screwed over" as people seem to be suggesting.

First person to see reason on here and on reddit, I applaud you good sir.

People are getting their Jimmies rustled over nothing.

Burst6:
they're making the worst excuse i have ever heard coming out of a developer.

Second, PC's are weird. Some graphics cards work differently than others (Especially if you have an ATI card. Consoles use Nvidia cards), people have different processors, and the game needs to be properly optimized. If it isn't, bad things start to happen. A badly optimized game can horribly lag a game on even low settings with a decent rig. Not everyone has a really powerful PC either so the option to turn the graphics down lower than the console version is really useful. People need to be able to customize the graphics to properly suit their computer.

What?

You talk about optimisation and how different cards run things differently despite the benchmarks... then go ahead and say a game will conclusively run like crap regardless? How do you know the game isn't optimised, and why have you played the game before release you filthy pirate?

Really people, I'm beginning to remember why I quit reading posts by 'PC Elitists' who have the same line of thinking as the apartheid (not invoking Godwin's law yet!) that somehow one is better than the rest and that they should be treated as above the other gaming platforms.

I own every device that plays whatever games I like to play, and couldn't care less on what perceived 'injustices' may be inflicted on me (despite owning a pretty good hardware-wise PC) and making a lot of asinine assumptions all over the place. Getting annoyed because your version doesn't have DX11 when the others don't either is so elitist it's not funny.

Play the damn game and decide whether you like it or not instead of this arbitrary BS.

Ultimately, I don't care about having better graphics. If it plays identically well to previous PC Dead Space games it will still be a great experience I'm looking forward to. That said, his reasoning is idiotic. Why would anyone make that statement that we are not even going to try to cater an experience to a more powerful much more capable platform. Just the act of saying it is... well it's stupid. Lets look at textures. They make Hi Fidelity textures and then compress them to fit the hardware... just don't give us the compressed ones and the game will look far far far superior. I'm still looking forward to the game, but wow.

Legion:

DVS BSTrD:
Poor PC gamers, now you have to play the same game as everyone else. My heart bleeds.

Assuming the sarcasm is directed at the people up in arms about it, I agree. I don't see how having the same game as other platforms for a cheaper price is a bad thing. The only downside is the requirement of Origin, which would be needed regardless of the quality of the game.

Getting the same game is hardly being "screwed over" as people seem to be suggesting.

Origin: Fuck the police, get a crack.

Lack of a quality port: A bad console port isn't just unfulfilled graphics, but also bad controls. Really bad controls. Like, "So bad I literally can't play Dead Space 1 anymore because of the fucked up mouse smoothing" bad. Also, it is evidence that the developer cares only about making money as opposed to delivering the best experience possible for any possible player. Also, given the recent trends in the game market, I'm pretty sure most AAA developers (EA included) are charging $60 USD for their PC versions.

DrunkOnEstus:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember Dead Space 1 and 2 looking much better at all on PC, even when forcing things through the driver control panel. And the first one had fucked up mouse aiming issues related to Vsync.

Indeed. And no patch only fan sourced work arounds. I gave up on the series (and developer) then and there. If a developer can't be bothered getting the basic functions right why the hell should I give them any money at all. Same with Saints Row 2 and the half wits who ported that steaming pile of dogshit (to be fair the game handles only slightly less than broken on console). Fuck them and the horse they rode in on when they can't even deliver basic gameplay on a premium priced game (that can't be refunded or returned).

What I read between the lines is: We are lazy and we don't give a fuck about PC.

That is fine I won't buy their crap. It really helps that I think their game (Dead Space that is what little I played of it) is dull.

Visceral Games' Dead Space 3 PC port

you see, that IS the problem. its a port, therefore it will be inferior whatever you do. and if you update it enough to not be different, its no longer a port.

The different control scheme - mouse and keyboard as opposed to controller - Papoutsis felt, would be enough to make the PC version feel different.

Yes, mosue and keyboard would make experience better. stop ruining it.\

Capcha: my dear watson.
well thank you.

Guessing this means we PC gamers will get the DLC this time? Or are we not equal enough. Will we be excluded because you were gracious enough to give us mouse controls? Will I be able to use my mic to inform the game of commands, like with Kinect? Will the PS3? No? Ok, thought not. Seems equal enough to me...... [Sarcasm]WOW![/Sarcasm]

Legion:
I don't see how having the same game as other platforms for a cheaper price is a bad thing. The only downside is the requirement of Origin, which would be needed regardless of the quality of the game.

Getting the same game is hardly being "screwed over" as people seem to be suggesting.

I would like you to take a look at the price for DS3, and tell me if we're getting it cheaper: Amazon: Dead Space 3 for PC
As for Origin, I'm less likely to hate on it for Origin than the extra $10 we pay than we should (Wikipedia Reference: Console Tax). Also, he says the same experience on all platforms, but they couldn't even bother to sell PC gamers DLC armors for DS2. When they announced they were not going to, they wouldn't even just unlock the stupid things in a patch for free. They willfully made PC a worse choice. I am not asking for super High-Rez graphics, but if he says same experience, I'll hold him to it. DLC, and patches, and yes, I want video options in the menu. Not the same if it's not tweakable for the system, and laggy for it. (WARNING: Joke incomming) I also want puppies! Cute ones, this time. I wanna be able to cuddle them in area transitions. What? Why am I getting that look?

Nieroshai:


image

So sad that in the end, all we really care about is graphical detail. When I buy a PC game, I buy it because
A) it's PC exclusive
or
B) it was on sale on Steam.
Those of you who buy for graphics are missing the point of gaming altogether; good graphics don't make a good game and midrange graphics (by what standard I'll never know, modern consoles have great graphics) don't make a bad game. Try whining about gameplay, immersion, and story; you might sound more credible. For the record, on my machine (a gaming rig, mind you) I haven't even noticed enough of a graphical difference to say games are in any way made better by it. Unless we're talking Crysis, that is, and there we're talking made-for-next-gen material that no one runs on full anyway because they can't. (or rather couldn't when the game came out, I know I must specify for those who would think I don't check release dates. My rig still can't run HIGH setting on the FIRST installment without bad lag.)

Could you kindly point out what is being butt hurt about wanting a stable port that has rebind-able controls, of equal quality to consoles, properly optimised and being able to change graphics to turn off crap like shadows.

So yeah the main problem is not that it won't have superior graphical detail.

As a PC Gamer I don't give two shits if it looks nicer. Just make sure it works properly and has adjustable graphics options.

I'm not worried, the first two games were fine in this regard. Although I hear a lot of people had issues with the mouse aiming in Dead Space 1.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here