Dead Space 3 PC Won't Be Different From Console

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

Oh look the shitty game I am not buying just got shittier.

Glad I am not wasting my money on this crap.

"Well we added Keyboard and Mouse support, that should make them happy!" hahaha tool.

Ha ha, translation: "the PC version of this game will be a thoughtless, crappy port". Never mind, looks like it will be hovering over the space shark anyway given the level cash invested, concommitant ROI requirements and the general lack of sneaky horror. Shame we always get dragged down to the lowest level though, bloody eight year old kit holding everyone back.

Nieroshai:
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.

Silly sausage! Desiring graphical fidelity isn't corrosive to some perceived reason for gaming because there is no "ultimate gaming truth". You don't have some sort of special understanding of ludic nature because you don't find graphics to be an important facet of your experience. I have played games for quite some time and I love new games that stretch by PC's card until it melts, melts damn you and I am force to buy another! (I think a lot of this comes from playing on a 286 in CGA when I was a kid, if you are playing games in "four colours", two of which are magenta and cyan and the other two are black and white you really want some decent graphics and it stays with you. In fact the 90s and early 00s were basically a head long rush toward photo realism and it was fun!) It's all good, we just two opinions, that have clear evolved from different formative experiences.

Anyway, this is statement is annoying because it hints at a poorly optimised console port with no resolution options or basic graphics control. Personally can't see why these can't be added, can't take that much effort. Nowt more annoying that the bloody controlled button still being Xbox pad prompts!

Burst6:
Some graphics cards work differently than others (Especially if you have an ATI card. Consoles use Nvidia cards)

Uh no they don't. Xbox 360, Wii and the Wii U all use ATI, only the PS3 uses Nvidia (even then, Nvidia only helped make it, Sony did the rest).

PC gamers have different expectations, at least graphics-wise. Ports can still run well and even look great as long as its not a straight up laziness port. Hopefully the next console generation means better quality ports and hopefully less division between PC and console gamers. Its not that we're entitled, it's just that PC gamers have their own set of wants and needs and are grateful when developers take these into consideration. A good example is when Gearbox made BL2 the best game it could be on PC so not to have a repeat of the awful BL1 port.

When I spend $2000 on my gaming PC I at least want to know most devs will at least try to give me a decent game on my platform.

Wow escapist. You're like the gaming version of a bunch of gossipy, judgemental old grandmothers. Only you can turn "We're going to make sure the game works as well on PC as on consoles and give the same experience using a keyboard and mouse as with a controller but we won't be taking advantage of a modern gaming rig's extra juice" to "We are going to shit in your mouth and murder your mother and probably rape your dog."

A shitty port is laggy, has wonky control and movements and just generally works like a piece of crap. Not having extra graphical goodies doesn't mean it's a shitty port. DS2 was far from one and I see no reason to expect DS3 to be. You get the same game and experience for the same price. Fair is fair.

This forums needs to adopt a mental exercise. Every time you want to rage about a story involving EA (or any other company you dislike), imagine it was about Valve (or any other company you are fond of). If you wouldn't rage then don't rage at all.

No.
You don't want to deliver the same experience to all platforms. You're supposed to deliver the best possible experience to all platforms. But what do I know, I'm just the guy buying this shit.

MercurySteam:

Burst6:
Some graphics cards work differently than others (Especially if you have an ATI card. Consoles use Nvidia cards)

Uh no they don't. Xbox 360, Wii and the Wii U all use ATI, only the PS3 uses Nvidia (even then, Nvidia only helped make it, Sony did the rest).

Whoops my mistake. I'll fix that in my original post.

Denamic:
No.
You don't want to deliver the same experience to all platforms. You're supposed to deliver the best possible experience to all platforms. But what do I know, I'm just the guy buying this shit.

Ahh just imagine if every developer thought this way!

Skyrim would have massive memory issues on all the platforms instead of just one! :P

And god help us from all the Wii bastardizations of cross over games...

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

You'd bitch if a developer had said the 360/PS3 versions of a game wouldn't be set to the standard of other productions because it was also being released on the Wii, or at least I hope you would, because it's a dick move. What you expect from a developer is for them to optimise for each platform - especially when they're bumping the price up, as they are with DS3. (Not that it really matters in this day and digital age, but still.)

Nieroshai:
snip

A recent mid-range machine should easily be able to tackle Crysis on High. Besides which, I'd say porting concerns more often revolve around controls, graphical options (not the graphics themselves) and stuff like FOV.

OT: The idea is that you make your product appealing, chaps. Shocking news for EA's marketing department, I know.

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.

I'm just going to throw this out there, I wasn't gonna get Dead Space 3 anyway.

Okay cool, now that we've dealt with that, No it isn't getting screwed over but why would someone with a new PC want devs to be releasing games that are geared towards the old and shitty xbox360? I own an xbox360 btw before some fanboy's head explodes but the simple fact is that it is dated, and my PC is not. And I'd like to look at pretty things on my PC, because it is not dated. What the devs are doing is being lazy, or rushing to meet a deadline. Which is a real shame.

It upsets PC users because once again, the potential for games is being held back by out of date consoles.

And as for the guy you quoted, the way he wrote that to me sounds like he is talking to PC gamers as if it is something we were born into. Like "Oh the king lost his throne? Guess you'll have to be a peasant. Boo hoo." Well no, because it is not a birth right. Anyone can have a gaming PC for a similar price you'd pay for a console. So really if you make the choice to buy a console, and I make the choice to buy a PC, why should I be held back by your out of date hardware?

I just want it to run well on my system. I don't mind having the same graphics as the console versions.

Now please just take a chill pill and lie down for a bit, it will all be fine. And if you really can't handle it just don't buy it. There is no point in getting worked up about something you can't change.

I just expect it to be like 2, which was fine for a port.

GamerMage:

VanQQisH:
"Let's make the PC version shitter than it has potential to be so that people on consoles don't have to feel like they're missing out."

Yeah, fuck you. Any developer that doesn't want their product to be the absolute best it can possibly be has their priorities seriously wrong. I love the Dead Space franchise but there are just too many things about this game that turn me off. This is the final, stupid straw. You have lost my money, Dead Space 3.

I call it "Pulling a SquareEnix".

That's weird because Square Enix have been publishing surprisingly high-quality PC ports for a while now; Just Cause 2, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Sleeping Dogs and Hitman: Absolution all looked and played great...

Ehhh.... I'm somewhat dubious on this. One one hand, P.C. gamers can't just grab publishers by the neck and demand games with DX 11 Hi-Res texture pacts in 1600p with an unlimited frame limit just because they paid more for their hardware. I mean, c'mon. Asking for optimisation and good controls is perfectly reasonable, but jumping up and down screeching "I HAVE A SHINY! I PAID MORE! I PAID MOOOREE THAN THE OTHER KIDS FOR MY SHINY!! I'M SPECIAL!!" just isn't.

Having said all that, it'd be nice if they did. They don't have to, but it'd be nice if they did. It'd be an attractive little package for P.C. gamers to draw them in, an apology for the horror that is Origin, if you will. Giving people who want more than 30 FPS is a nice little hook for them, as is giving greater fancier graphics for those with the hardware to manage it and modding support for those interested. Y'know, you don't have to, but it'd be nice.

*Tilts head and flutters eyelids coquettishly*

Oh who the fuck am I kidding? It's E.A.. They're going to milk everyone for all the can and be done with it. I don't even know why I bothered.

TheKasp:

Nieroshai:

Those of you who buy for graphics are missing the point of gaming altogether;

Oh shut up if you want to pull shit out of your ass. You throw baseless assumptions withouit even reading the posts you quoted and add a moronic picture to that.

You are just the typical example of someone who has no fucking clue what people are talking about and try to be smug about it. There is nothing to be proud of in your post.

woo! right on!

my concern here isnt about graphics, its about the game being able to run on a range of systms..less options means less optimizing

Gethsemani:
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.

Let me just count the options Skyrim had for one;
-Resolution
-Antialiasing
-Anisotrophic Filtering
-Texture Quality [NOT including HD texture patch]
-Radial Blur Quality
-Shadow Detail
-Decal Quantity
-FXAA
-Reflections in Water
-View Distances
-Detail on Distant Objects

Arkham City had;
-Antialiasing
-DX11
-DX11 Tessellation
-Detail Level
-Dynamic Shadows
-Motion Blur
-Distortion
-Lens Flare
-Light Shafts
-Reflections
-Ambient Occlusion
-PhysX

Haven't played the other games, so I can't comment on them.
However, those two at least do look different on PC compared to console. You might not agree, because its not PS2 vs PS3 level graphics difference, but the difference is there, and is quite noticeable to those who are used to the higher detail and extra shader effects and such. It kinda hurts to play something like Arkham City on a console because it does look very different to me, and is noticeably lower res, even on the same screen resolution, compared to the PC version.

As for multiplatform games with PC settings, you're really not trying too hard. MOST games offer options on the PC, and they're usually better than the console version because its really not that much effort to just shove in the original textures you downscaled to run on a console and label them "Ultra" in a texture setting, or to add in a FoV slider so that you can change a 1 integer variable in a config file somewhere. Examples recently; Sleeping Dogs, Battlefield 3, Farcry 3, TW2 and doubtless others that I haven't played because the 2012 lineup of games was decidedly average.
Its the reason why there is generally a big deal made out of these things; Its not rare for games to offer graphical options, its rare for them NOT to, and it is very easy to tell when they don't.
Granted, some games look alright either way, like the Mass Effect games, but you get things like Dark Souls or Darksiders, and they just look terrible. The textures end up upscaled from 720p [Because few console games actually render at 1080p, and a lot render even slightly below 720p just to get out that extra bit of performance] to either 1080p, 1440p or 1600p - dependent on what screen given person has - and that is the biggest noticeable difference IMO outside of shadows, which in a number of games are noticably blockier than Minecraft rather than smooth like a normal game.

Now, is it that big a deal... Maybe. It depends on how the game ends up looking anyway, and whether things really are locked down to a stupid extent where you almost have to go to more effort to lock them down like they were in Dark Souls, though I guess they get the excuse that they made the console version first which has to be locked down, and CBF unlocking when developing the PC version they never intended to make.

Anyway, I'm not thinking this is going to be a good PC port. Chance of no graphics options, certainly none that make it look better than it does on a console [Hopefully excluding Resolution and FPS. If they are locked down F*** you devs], possibility of low performance, likely bad control port seeing as their opinion towards it is a very casual "Well, yeah, we'll give you KB+M controls. That's enough right?", and likely no effort put into it at all. We'll see though. Could turn out decent.

Okay. That's weird.

I mean, it wouldn't stop me from playing DS3 (if I was going to play DS3, which I'm not for other reasons.) I played Silent Hill 4 on the PC, and it was in sharp competition with Saints Row 2 for "game in which the devs tried hardest to demonstrate they didn't give a rat's ass about making this port". But I was still glad to get a chance to play both games, and in this era when so many AAA titles never make it to the PC at all (especially because one or the other of the consoles got it as a frakking "exclusive"), occasionally I recognize that financial considerations are key and the platform likely to sell the least isn't going to get the most development time/money thrown at it.

A 1080p present-day console experience isn't bad; it's just not all a 4-6 core modern PC with video card(s) that came out in the last year or two is capable of. And that's what I find a little baffling. We're seeing plenty of developers gritting their teeth and moaning loudly about how this generation of console hardware is shattering their dreams and constraining their abilities to reach for the dynamically lit, photorealistic stars, by god. On the cusp of the next generation (and the unspoken auditions to be the providers of content for said generation), why would you actually make a public statement that amounts to, "Meh, good enough. We give up"? A marketer would say it's a sign of the total confidence they developer has in the product knocking our socks off, but I find that notion a little hard to swallow. Maybe Visceral is quietly coming to the conclusion that five million units isn't going to happen?

Atrocious Joystick:
"We're going to make sure the game works as well on PC as on consoles and give the same experience using a keyboard and mouse as with a controller but we won't be taking advantage of a modern gaming rig's extra juice"

But he didn't say any of those things. He said that them allowing us to use different control peripherals (or to be precise, the most common control peripherals for this platform) should be enough for it to feel different.

Them allowing us. To use M&K... Sorry but since when should a dev be so fucking smug about using the main control peripherals of a platform? Should I really accept that shit from developer who state:

"Working with the community, we found some people wanted to map the controls a little differently because of disabilities and we supported that"

Wow... So you managed to deliver something that should always be there?

It is already reported that the port is going to be lackluster. With this I am sure the PC version is going to be on the shit side of quality.

Vault101:
woo! right on!

my concern here isnt about graphics, its about the game being able to run on a range of systms..less options means less optimizing

Sometimes I am just sick of it, the assumptions that just because I want graphic options and good optimisation I have to be a graphics whore... I especially hate when those kind of peeps bug in discussions they know jack shit of. Well, it was worth the warning to get this crap of my chest.

I got DmC yesterday. Started it, opened the options menu and looked over. Everything important is there and some things I don't even consider important. Seperate checkboxes for HD textures, HD water and HD shadows. It runs great on my machine and the options allowed me to tweak it to my liking. Tomb Raider, from all I've gathered is going to be a good port as well. Why is it that hard to deliver a decent port?

TheKasp:

Sometimes I am just sick of it, the assumptions that just because I want graphic options and good optimisation I have to be a graphics whore... I especially hate when those kind of peeps bug in discussions they know jack shit of. Well, it was worth the warning to get this crap of my chest.

hey man..you should be GRATEFUL they are giving us the option to use a mouse and keyboard! I mean most devs would expect us to but a controller to-
...oh wait

Callate:
and in this era when so many AAA titles never make it to the PC at all

I wouldnt even go that far...

the other day a friend asked me what exclusives the PS3 had (her boyfreind wanted to play a certain game on the console) I stopped and actually thourght about games that werent on PC worth playing and I could only think of Infamous (PS3 exclusive) and Red dead not enough to justify a console purchase

Vault101:

TheKasp:

Sometimes I am just sick of it, the assumptions that just because I want graphic options and good optimisation I have to be a graphics whore... I especially hate when those kind of peeps bug in discussions they know jack shit of. Well, it was worth the warning to get this crap of my chest.

hey man..you should be GRATEFUL they are giving us the option to use a mouse and keyboard! I mean most devs would expect us to but a controller to-
...oh wait

Callate:
and in this era when so many AAA titles never make it to the PC at all

I wouldnt even go that far...

the other day a friend asked me what exclusives the PS3 had (her boyfreind wanted to play a certain game on the console) I stopped and actually thourght about games that werent on PC worth playing and I could only think of Infamous (PS3 exclusive) and Red dead not enough to justify a console purchase

I am still quite annoyed that Rockstar was stupid enough not to put Red Dead on PC.

That woulda sold extremely well, but nope, they decided to go full retard on that one.

Vault101:
snip

Vault101:

TheKasp:

Sometimes I am just sick of it, the assumptions that just because I want graphic options and good optimisation I have to be a graphics whore... I especially hate when those kind of peeps bug in discussions they know jack shit of. Well, it was worth the warning to get this crap of my chest.

hey man..you should be GRATEFUL they are giving us the option to use a mouse and keyboard! I mean most devs would expect us to but a controller to-
...oh wait

Callate:
and in this era when so many AAA titles never make it to the PC at all

I wouldnt even go that far...

the other day a friend asked me what exclusives the PS3 had (her boyfreind wanted to play a certain game on the console) I stopped and actually thourght about games that werent on PC worth playing and I could only think of Infamous (PS3 exclusive) and Red dead not enough to justify a console purchase

Huh, I don't have a problem if a game performs better on a controller. This is the actual strength of the PC: I can modify my experience to my liking and this includes the freedom to choose my control peripherals. To expect a game to be played with a controller on the PC is not a problem if we get decent M&K support (sensivity, mapping, options for smoothness and all that bullcrap I deactivate or put to low as possible). I chose a platform where I have to upgrade it every few years, buying extra hardware is hardwired in my brain and something I don't have a problem with.

And to your list... Ratchet and Clank??? How could you not include the only PS3 exclusive I played through!

FelixG:

I am still quite annoyed that Rockstar was stupid enough not to put Red Dead on PC.

That woulda sold extremely well, but nope, they decided to go full retard on that one.

Imagine Red Dead with graphical improvments-yeeeeees

imagine Red Dead with Mod graphical improvments- YEEEEEEEEESS!!!!

gp v9yu8

Mr.Tea:

GamerMage:

VanQQisH:
"Let's make the 360 version shitter than it has potential to be so that people on the PS3 don't have to feel like they're missing out."

Yeah, fuck you. Any developer that doesn't want their product to be the absolute best it can possibly be has their priorities seriously wrong. I love the Dead Space franchise but there are just too many things about this game that turn me off. This is the final, stupid straw. You have lost my money, Dead Space 3.

I call it "Pulling a SquareEnix".

That's weird because Square Enix have been publishing surprisingly high-quality PC ports for a while now; Just Cause 2, Deus Ex: Human Revolution, Sleeping Dogs and Hitman: Absolution all looked and played great...

I meant the FF Series.Any developer that doesn't want their product to be the absolute best(Final Fantasy 13), it can possibly be has their priorities seriously wrong. I mean,just look at Capcom.

Oh good, yet another reason to not buy it. Like I needed one.

Are they just going out and admitting that they want to do as little work as possible in order to maximise profit at the expense of their reputation? Because that's certainly what it looks like here.

Easton Dark:
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?

Awesome video, I love TB's channel so much =D

Jim Sterling may want to watch this one.

Once again a potentially great game is bogged down in several aspects by the limitations of 7 year old consoles. Good thing I care the most about gameplay, then sounds and atmosphere, the story, and graphics come last. Hopefully DS3 can still deliver.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

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
Registered for a free account here