• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Visceral defends barebones Dead Space 3 PC port "We don't want it to feel different"

I just dont get the hate, he just saying that they arent doing anything extra, not that port will be awful.

They didn't do anything extra in the first game either, and that port was in fact really awful. And their reason for not making any effort on the PC version is fucking ludicrous.
 
Do you play games, or do you play tech specs? Your decision to play Dead Space 3 shouldn't be based on whether Dead Space 3 has rendering features and textures on par with some other random PC game. Your decision should be based on whether you want to play Dead Space 3. If you do, do you want to play the best version? The PC version is still objectively the best one.

They are offering the same content as they are on consoles, at the same price, with better resolution and frame rate. If you are actually interested in DS3 as a game and not as a technical showpiece, then what's the problem?


Because by supporting it I am sending them the message that it is okay for them not to live up to the platforms standards. I want to play the game, so I will, when it's deeply discounted. When they want all my monies, they can put forth some effort.
 

RionaaM

Unconfirmed Member
But based on what Visceral and Papoutsis are saying, adding the extra bells and whistle into the PC version means that us dirty little console folk wont get to experience the game the way it was meant to be seen. Personally I'm inclined to believe Papoutsis, he seems like a straight shooter. Him and Visceral feel that making a bare bones port means that no one we'll have "a better version" meaning that everyone will get to see the game the way it was meant to be seen, and I see nothing wrong with this.
Then why did they only release Dead Space Extraction on Wii? They should have released all the main games there, and make the other consoles' versions (and the PC port) look and play just like that one. That way everyone would have had the same experience.

Oh, and PS3 got an HD version of Extraction? That's not the same experience as that of someone who played it on 480p on Nintendo's console.
 

KKRT00

Member

scitek

Member
No, they dont sell games digitally on any other service than Steam.

BTW Dead Space 3 is on gmg, but Portal 2 isnt or any other Valve game in fact.

Right, that's my mistake. I totally forgot they do sell their games at places like Amazon. I bought Syndicate and Most Wanted from them, actually. I don't agree with the whole decision to no longer sell anything new on Steam, though. And Valve should sell digitally at more places, as well.
 
So Dead Space 2 wasnt released in meantime? Gotcha...
Nice way to skip facts, btw,

The point that obviously went over your head was that there is demonstrable proof that when they don't give a fuck about the PC version, we get absolutely terrible PC ports.
 
They didn't do anything extra in the first game either, and that port was in fact really awful. And their reason for not making any effort on the PC version is fucking ludicrous.

I'm not sure how you could describe the first game's port as "really awful." It ran great at 1200p60, controlled fine if you turned off VSync or used a controller, and looked way better than the console versions. Extra features would have been gravy, yes, but the experience of playing though it certainly wasn't a bad one.
 

hey_it's_that_dog

benevolent sexism
Because by supporting it I am sending them the message that it is okay for them not to live up to the platforms standards. I want to play the game, so I will, when it's deeply discounted. When they want all my monies, they can put forth some effort.

If your platform standards are more important than playing the game right away, that is indeed your choice to make. I question whether that's a reasonable way to judge console ports, given that most of them don't add extra features. That's why I still think evaluating them as games is more rational than evaluating them as showpieces for the platform. Better textures aren't going to make the game any better. It's either good or it's not, and if it is good, the PC still has the best version.
 

RionaaM

Unconfirmed Member
Do you play games, or do you play tech specs? Your decision to play Dead Space 3 shouldn't be based on whether Dead Space 3 has rendering features and textures on par with some other random PC game. Your decision should be based on whether you want to play Dead Space 3. If you do, do you want to play the best version? The PC version is still objectively the best one.

They are offering the same content as they are on consoles, at the same price, with better resolution and frame rate. If you are actually interested in DS3 as a game and not as a technical showpiece, then what's the problem?
I play games that I feel are appropriate for the platform I game on, at the price I think they are worth. That's why for a lot of time I refused to buy games that contained SecuROM, until last year I finally caved in and got a couple of them (BioShock 1&2 and Batman: Arkham Asylum GOTY) when they were cheap enough that the benefits outweighted the cons.

I haven't played any of the Dead Space games, and want to do so. That said, I wouldn't pay even $30 for a game that isn't on par with the average PC ports in the technical aspect, despite how badly I want to play it, unless there's a community patch as soon as the game launches (like with Durante's fix for Dark Souls, which made me fork over the 30 bucks it was sold at on day 3). The game may be good, but the whole product (which takes into account the platform it's being played on, the price it's been sold at, the DRM measures it has and the DLC plans for it) isn't.
 
I'm not sure how you could describe the first game's port as "really awful." It ran great at 1200p60, controlled fine if you turned off VSync or used a controller, and looked way better than the console versions. Extra features would have been gravy, yes, but the experience of playing though it certainly wasn't a bad one.

The mouse controls were pretty terrible even after turning off Vsync (a bug which Visceral chose not to fix because fuck PC gamers right?). Let's be very clear about one thing... competent mouse+kb controls is not asking for too much in a PC game. Especially not in a shooter. And if the game has bad controls, then yes, it does qualify as an awful port.
 

charsace

Member
Gamefly has just about all of their titles for digital download as do Gamestop. Not seeing many other places though.

I would imagine that they have to put their games on their if they want gamestop to sell boxed versions of any of their games.
 

RedSwirl

Junior Member
He's confused why PC gamers expect standard features relative to their platform?

What standard features do Dead Space 1 and 2 not have? Maybe I should install the former again just to check but I remember there being basic graphics options. Let's put this into perspective here -- this is nowhere near the vanilla Dark Souls PC port. Outside of the vsync issue I thought DS1 attained the bare minimum of what PC audiences expect. Of course there's also Visceral not releasing the "Severed" DLC for DS2 on PC.

Furthermore, we souldn't expect every PC port to look like Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3. It'd be great if they did put more effort or at least put in lossless assets like Max Payne 3 and Call of Duty do. I might be mad if this game was running on the Frostbite engine though.

Keeping it bare bones allows for the PC version to be more accessible to people with lower end computers while at the same time providing a visual experience that is equally matched no matter what kind of hardware its running on. Judging by the system requirements for DS3, any computer built within the last five/six years should be able to max the game out just fine and dandy.

This honestly sounds like a much better bullshit answer despite being possibly just as bullshit.
 

LiquidMetal14

hide your water-based mammals
This feels like the decline in anticipation that I had with Modern Warfare to MW2. They are handling it all wrong.
 

KKRT00

Member
The point that obviously went over your head was that there is demonstrable proof that when they don't give a fuck about the PC version, we get absolutely terrible PC ports.

You mean terrible port that had a little bugged v-sync that affected some mouse smoothness, but other than that it was perfectly functional and run great?

And i was talking about skipping Dead Space with was sequel, were they fixed issues from DS 1? So how can You compare DS 1 development to DS 3, when DS 2 exists and showed that can fix problems and still maintain perfectly optimized game?
In what world they would make a worse port than they last entry that You compared to DS 1? Can You explain it to me? How Your logic function?

---
It still won't work without Steam. (Which is what I think he meant.)
Not really, i'm surprised that You can buy Valve games in other places now, because some time ago i've checked and couldnt find any other sources than Steam.
Client requirements is topic for other thread though :), for me personally it would be better if EADM stayed EADM and kept selling DRM free games, it so great back then ;\
 
This is the same logic that will hinder the WiiU's third-party support. No one wants to support "different" whether it's due to a lack of funding, time, or creativity/interest.
 
What standard features do Dead Space 1 and 2 not have? Maybe I should install the former again just to check but I remember there being basic graphics options. Let's put this into perspective here -- this is nowhere near the vanilla Dark Souls PC port. Outside of the vsync issue I thought DS1 attained the bare minimum of what PC audiences expect. Of course there's also Visceral not releasing the "Severed" DLC for DS2 on PC.

Furthermore, we souldn't expect every PC port to look like Crysis 2 and Battlefield 3. It'd be great if they did put more effort or at least put in lossless assets like Max Payne 3 and Call of Duty do. I might be mad if this game was running on the Frostbite engine though.

Just looked it up. You're right. I thought they meant there wouldn't be shit for options outside of resolution and vsync. It's not as bad as I thought, here's the options from part one:

EdtYe6C.jpg


Not great, but yeah, I think you're right, they at least meet the minimum standards.
 

TrutaS

Member
"We don't want PC players to be any happier than their console fellows... Imagine the envy and shame console owners would have to endure" - People excusing greed for creative decisions.
 
Thanks for allowing mouse controls!

I'll skip picking this up though. It was already looking to be an unknown proposition anyway, I think I would get more enjoyment out of another game.
 
There better be dynamic resolutions less than and up to 720p and slowdown present in Dead Space 3. Otherwise, PC gamers like myself are being deprived of an authentic console experience.
 

RoKKeR

Member
so...does that mean I need to read that downsampling thread for some AA?

Pretty much. Dead Space 1/2 only had an "On/Off" option for AA, so externally forcing it was the way to go. Even then downsampling is the most effective.
 

Massa

Member
The backlash over the PC version of Dead Space 3 being a better PC port than most other console ports is absolutely mind boggling.
 

antitrop

Member
The backlash over the PC version of Dead Space 3 being a better PC port than most other console ports is absolutely mind boggling.
Which is why saying nothing at all would have been better.

All this dev statement has done is lead some people to believe that the PC port will be bad, instead of average (which is what is being implied). Average is fine.
 

The Crimson Kid

what are you waiting for
It's too bad that they aren't putting any effort into the PC version, because judging from the 360 demo, DS3 could really use some higher quality assets, moreso than 1 or 2 did. Those games took place in small environments so the devs had plenty of memory for quality textures and effects, but the texture quality appeared to me to have taken quite a hit from the previous games, which is probably due to having larger environments and coop.

Dead Space 2 looked fine on PC when I got it for $15, but as long as the PC version has the same texture resolution of the console versions, it won't look all that good. Hopefully the PC version of 3 doesn't launch with the vsync or mouse lag or other issues that plagued the first two games on PC.

Funny thing I just realized: I bought Dead Space 1 at full price, bought Dead Space 2 at $15, and will probably pay even less for 3, if I get it at all. great job EA.
 

JDSN

Banned
Its great to see Visceral joining in the groundbreaking efforts started by the likes of Microsoft, Namco and Ea to fucking destroy PC gaming from within by essentially turning their PC catalogs into the lowest common denominator in all ways.

Ill bring my laughs in the comming months when Dead Space 3, Army of Two and Fuse fail miserably at the charts.
 

Slavik81

Member
Goddammit. I just bought DS1. Is the PC port that bad?
It adds the directories "Electrontic Arts" and "Electronic Arts" to your My Documents folder.

And, IIRC, there was something like a quarter-second of mouse lag in the main menu. It was embarrassing.

Admittedly, it runs ok. But everything about it screams "we don't care about this game".
 
In what world they would make a worse port than they last entry that You compared to DS 1? Can You explain it to me?

In the world where they go out of their way to point out how they won't pay any attention to the PC port and defend that decision by saying that PC gamers should only get the same experience as playing on 7 year old hardware and nothing more than that.
 

Corto

Member
Dead Space 2 visual settings were already comprehensive enough for myself:

This is the barebones setting where the player can choose from different presets.


If the custom option is enabled then it opens new options.

There's another option in that last screenshot that is shadow quality.

This is more clumsy PR than a really barebones PC port.
 

vidcons

Banned
okay EA, Visceral, i'll restate myself, i am available for work

now you all seem to be busy fucking up your communications, and that's just not going to wokr. you know that's not working.

but me? i can bring something more to the table.i can probably pitch you some great ideas for making money too.

just send me a pm. i'll save all of your face and still bring in the duckets. i don't want to reveal my all of my secrets but it's going to involve convenience fees. ex: let players buy optional checkpoints. yeah, i know, fucking brilliant. and to win the pc crowd over, advanced settings options.

again, just send me a PM and we can work out a deal where i make you millions and you pay me above minimum wage.
 

luxarific

Nork unification denier
Does anyone think it's likely that someone will put out a FOV mod? I made the mistake of preordering the PC version at GMG and they don't give refunds. :(
 

Ein Bear

Member
Half of you are acting like the PC port is going to be worse than the console versions. It's still going to run at much higher resolutions and framerates, I really don't understand the problem here.
 
Why would they need to defend that anymore than Valve has to defend their Steam only games?

Because Steam is good and Valve isn't evil.

I'm really not completely anit-Origin. They just need to make it better. Showing me PS3/360 games when I'm searching for shit is real annoying. Also hunting down DLC is dumb. Why can't I just find Mass Effect 3 DLC on the store?
 
Top Bottom