Dead Space 3 for PC to be a sloppy port

[Ack]

What's the problem? Basically they just said they're going for parity on all platforms. So what? What's everyone upset about?

Oh wait, this is just another one of those stuck up, entitled PC gamers having a tantrum things right? God forbid you have the same experience as those lowly console gamers

Ah, so if a game came out for the Wii/360/PS3 and was developed for the Wii's spec levels and 480P only, then ported to the other more powerful consoles with no allowances for higher resolution, no higher quality textures, and just used 2 or 3 buttons on the controller, that'd be all cool, right?

No that would be stupid, cause frankly Wii games are designed specifically for that console and its user interface. They wouldn't port that to the 360/PS3 in the first place making this a moot point. That's a really weak argument. You don't see Sin and Punishment 2 on any other console do you?

Not if a developer thinks they can make money off of their game. I don't think that would be stupid at all. But for the record, Sin & Punishment 2 was published by Nintendo, so I really doubt it would end up on a competitor's console anyway. Dead Space 3 is being published by Electronic Arts, and EA loves their money, so they put it out on other formats, including PC. Only, as has been the case with the series, they skip out on spending money to make sure it actually works. That's the rub. Essentially the developer is saying, "We want to make money off of you, but we don't care to make sure it works."

How about the fact that if your game has any form of menu in it that it needs to be redone for it to not feel like complete shit on a PC? Menu UIs that are great for a controller are terrible for mouse, and visa versa.

First of all, you don't know that that will be the case. Second of all, why the hell would you play a Dead Space game with a mouse and keyboard? You know damn well it's not designed for that. It's a console style game that PC gamers are LUCKY to get on PC. It's not like there aren't tons of options for using a controller on PC anyway. Again, weak argument. You guys are reaching.

So why would anyone want to play a first person shooter on a console, or any first person game for that matter? Analog sticks on console controllers have such low sensitivity, they're obviously not damn well designed for that kind of experience. If you think that's a terrible counterargument...well, it is. But then again, complaining that someone should be happy because they got a version at all doesn't really make a good argument. I like Pit-Fighter. But the SNES port of it is atrocious. Should I consider myself lucky I got it at all?

And also, should I have to buy a peripheral merely to play using a controller when I have a perfectly functional keyboard and mouse setup to begin with? How would you feel if a fighting game came out that required a joystick and was entirely unplayable on a typical pad? Sure, a lot of folks have them, but I don't. I want to play with my controller, and if a developer doesn't want to accommodate for what my console came with, then what was the point in them making the game and why should I feel lucky they released a product likely backed by a half-assed design decision?

It's not entitled to want a product that you payed money for to work properly.

To me, that means bug free, runs well (this shit shouldn't need a high end PC to run at this point), and utilizes the controls properly (no mouse acceleration, rebindable keys).

Again, nothing I read in that article indicates that the game won't run properly. It just sounds to me like the real reason PC gamers are bitching is because they're not getting a version of the game that blows away the console version in graphics. If I'm wrong, then fine, but it seems the pattern I see in the PC crowd. There seems to be this sense of entitlement that makes PC gamers get offended if they are not granted the best possible version of a game. I simply don't see any reason to get angry over a developer saying that the PC version of a game will be just like the console version. It just seems such an extreme reaction to the comments in that article.

First of all, PC gamers who have the capability to play their games have spent a lot of money on their rigs and would like the supposed AAA titles coming their way to actually be worth the cost. Would you have purchased a console knowing that while it offered many features, the major titles weren't using them?

But since you'll likely argue that this is irrelevant and PC gamers shouldn't spend so much money and then complain, how about we wonder why a port isn't being built to a system's strengths? If a game is coming out across all platforms, wouldn't you like whichever one you favor to have a version which can build upon what your platform choice offers?

And on top of things, if the PC port is exactly the same, then will gamers be able to make edits within the console to tweak settings based on how they play? Part of the reason people use PCs is because of the level of personal control. So in many PC games, if you dislike the field of vision, the mouse sensitivity and acceleration rate, the quality of the textures, you can change those. But if all things are the same across all platforms, then even the barebones options aren't available. So lowering the graphics settings to improve performance isn't an option, nor is raising them for a better quality picture. Consoles don't give the option to turn off shadows or water reflections, yet I might want that in my game because it helps improve the framerate because I haven't dropped a lot of money into my PC.

=========================================================

Anyway, I think the whole issue can be summed up by one statement made in the article:

"At our studio, we've always made console games," he pointed out.

So if anything, I figure it's that they just don't think about it. It's console guys looking at the PC and not being aware of what its strengths and weaknesses are, just as if a PC developer looked at a console without any idea of what it can handle. If they get better over time in adapting to the PC market, great. If not, oh well.

But now to get to the real crux of the problem with Dead Space 3: Phil Collins music in the trailer? Really?

[MrPopo]

But now to get to the real crux of the problem with Dead Space 3: Phil Collins music in the trailer? Really?

Chance for saving throw: is it the cool drum part from "In the Air Tonight"?

[J T]

Phil Collins

Pure horror. Stuff of nightmares.

[Gamerforlife]

Only, as has been the case with the series, they skip out on spending money to make sure it actually works. That's the rub. Essentially the developer is saying, "We want to make money off of you, but we don't care to make sure it works."

Again, we're assuming it won't run right. And you may be entirely right, but nothing in the article states that will be the case. You guys are talking about a different article than what's actually there and ignoring statements like, "The biggest thing is we want to make sure the quality of the experience is consistent across all platforms so we don't have one userbase saying it's better on their system." The Darksiders games are bare bones ports, and they run just fine on my PC. I get it though, this sounds more like a distrust of EA. Am I to assume that no EA game has ever run properly on PC? If that's the case, then I guess the cynicism is justified. Otherwise, it's not IMO.

So why would anyone want to play a first person shooter on a console, or any first person game for that matter? Analog sticks on console controllers have such low sensitivity, they're obviously not damn well designed for that kind of experience. If you think that's a terrible counterargument...well, it is. But then again, complaining that someone should be happy because they got a version at all doesn't really make a good argument. I like Pit-Fighter. But the SNES port of it is atrocious. Should I consider myself lucky I got it at all?

And also, should I have to buy a peripheral merely to play using a controller when I have a perfectly functional keyboard and mouse setup to begin with? How would you feel if a fighting game came out that required a joystick and was entirely unplayable on a typical pad? Sure, a lot of folks have them, but I don't. I want to play with my controller, and if a developer doesn't want to accommodate for what my console came with, then what was the point in them making the game and why should I feel lucky they released a product likely backed by a half-assed design decision?

First of all the whole analog isn't well designed for shooters is BS and you ALL KNOW THAT. The genre has flourished on console for years now. Does mouse and keyboard provide faster aiming and more accuracy. Sure, I can attest to that from personal experience as I have been playing Borderlands 2 on PC recently. Does it matter in most games (including Borderlands 2)? Hell no, because few shooters are so ridiculously hard that the advantage of mouse even matters, and you know Dead Space 3 won't be because it's being designed for consoles. I'm tired of the cliche shooters suck with controllers crap argument because it's BS. Mouse use only really matters in multi-player games because it's necessary to have an even playing field with other players. That's a fact. Frankly, I hate using keyboard controls with games on PC, which sort of negates the advantage of the mouse for me. So I don't agree with the whole mouse/keyboard blows away controllers argument. Using wasd to move is not as comfortable and intuitive as analog and it's much easier to hit certain buttons on a controller than trying to hit the matching keys on a keyboard.

As for having to buy a periphal to play a game on PC. No you shouldn't have to, it's a fair point. However, it's stupid to think that a light gun game is going to work as well with a controller as it would with an optional light gun periphal, as is expecting a Wii game designed around motion control to provide as good an experience just using regular controls. Dead Space is a console series and everyone knows that. It's unnecessary for them to totally cater to the mouse/keyboard crowd as far as I'm concerned, especially when controllers are so easily available and the fact that that's common knowledge. Most people can just take their 360 controller and plug it right into their PC, or even their PS3 controller by just using a free program. I don't think they are obligated to cater to mouse users at all frankly. The fact that they are according to the article is a courtesy. See my previous comments about PC gamers and their entitlement issues. If you want to play with mouse/keyboard, fine. The game allows that, but I don't think they should have to completely rearrange everything in the game to cater to that personally.

As for your fighting game example, I would NOT be pissed at all if one was released that only worked with joysticks, because everybody has the ability to go buy one for their system. The POINT of releasing the game on that console as you put it, is so that people who only have that console can play it, versus not playing it all without having to go buy a different console. Buying a controller is a drop in the bucket compared to having to buy another console. Hell, aren't there games on the Xbox that you need kinect to play? You want to play it, you buy a kinect. Otherwise, don't buy the game

First of all, PC gamers who have the capability to play their games have spent a lot of money on their rigs and would like the supposed AAA titles coming their way to actually be worth the cost. Would you have purchased a console knowing that while it offered many features, the major titles weren't using them?

Frankly, I don't think developers should give a shit about how much you payed for your rig. Many PC owners have modest setups and would be more than happy to have a game play as well as its console counterparts. The fact that some games have loads of extra settings is generous as far as I'm concerned. You don't DESERVE to have them in every game, you're just lucky when a company is nice enough to give them to you. Do I think every single title that comes out should make use of every single feature my console has? No. I just expect the game to run properly (i.e. no annoying bugs, glitches, etc.) and to be fun to play. I also expect to get all the content and not be screwed by DLC unlock code bullshit, but that's another topic for another day. Again, you're sound like an entitled PC gamer. There are plenty of awesome games on PC and console that don't make use of every feature their respective platform has to offer and are still awesome and fun to play. If a game comes out that uses every single feature my system has and pushes the hardware to max, well I certainly appreciate it, but don't feel that I DESERVE it.

But since you'll likely argue that this is irrelevant and PC gamers shouldn't spend so much money and then complain, how about we wonder why a port isn't being built to a system's strengths? If a game is coming out across all platforms, wouldn't you like whichever one you favor to have a version which can build upon what your platform choice offers?

No, I wouldn't. Frankly, I think multi-plat games should be exactly the same on all platforms. I frankly hate the hassle of researching multi-platform games to find out which is the better version to buy and would love it if all games had platform parity and I never had to worry about it. In fact, if I made a game I'd want everyone who played it to have the same experience. I don't want someone playing my game to be having a lesser experience than anyone else. This is a big difference between how I view things and how most players do. On a slightly related note, I also hate when a port comes out on a certain console months after its original release on a different platform and players expect extra modes and features. Why should you get more stuff than the people who bought the original version and actually supported the game at its most critical time, which is its original release? Because you waited six months to play it? So what? If you wanted to play it that bad you should have bought the console it first came out on. Multi-platform games should ALWAYS be the same on ALL platforms as far as I'm concerned.

And on top of things, if the PC port is exactly the same, then will gamers be able to make edits within the console to tweak settings based on how they play? Part of the reason people use PCs is because of the level of personal control. So in many PC games, if you dislike the field of vision, the mouse sensitivity and acceleration rate, the quality of the textures, you can change those. But if all things are the same across all platforms, then even the barebones options aren't available. So lowering the graphics settings to improve performance isn't an option, nor is raising them for a better quality picture. Consoles don't give the option to turn off shadows or water reflections, yet I might want that in my game because it helps improve the framerate because I haven't dropped a lot of money into my PC.

So research the requirements of the game before you buy it. They put that info on the boxes for a reason. That's on you, not the developer. If your system can't handle it, tough shit. Those tweaks and extra settings that other PC games offer, again, it's generous. I don't view it as an obligation.

[Erik_Twice]

You sound incredibly entitled for someone complaining about entitlement.

Yes, most EA game runs horribly on PC, as do most ports because companies don't care about releasing a quality product. They tend to run slow, are buggy and in the rare case they let you configure your controls they don't bother to take out the PS2 controller in the background and replace it with a picture of a keyboard because that would be too much work.

There's no entitlement in asking for a quality product.

Nobody is asking to coat the PC in gold, just the bare minimun of care would greatly exceed any demands PC gamers have.

[feamatar]

Dead Space 1 has a lot of problems on PC ...

I disagree. I played it on my 5 year old notebook and my 4 year old PC.
It worked flawlessly on both machine, except the controller support(though I did not use the official MS gamepad).

I was amazed how well optimized was for my weak hardware, and how good it looked despite of that.

The problem is that game sales are the tenth of the console game sales in most cases. Even if PC games are much cheaper. Most game sales happen in the 2 first months after release. I bought my Dead Space copy for about 20 bucks one year after release.

If you don't buy new games, you don't support the platform.

[fvgazi]

Dead Space 1 has a lot of problems on PC ...

I disagree. I played it on my 5 year old notebook and my 4 year old PC.
It worked flawlessly on both machine, except the controller support(though I did not use the official MS gamepad).

Granted you may have had great success, there are a lot of people who have problems with out of the box PC games. When EA released BF3 I couldn't play it at all for a week because their Origin service was completely messed up. Nothing like waiting in online help chatrooms for 2 hours just to try and boot up a game (also experienced by hundreds of users).

Now I know people have had problems on consoles as well, but this is definitely more frequent for PC users. I had the same stuff happen when I got RAGE with all the display problems and poor hardware support.

In the end, I know its difficult for PC developers to account for the large combinations of hardware interactions, but it still would be nice for a product to just work. Overall I think more than half of my PC titles have been trouble free, and rarely any problems with my consoles.

[CRTGAMER]

I think the controller arguments are moot. Wii Sin and Punishment for example can be played with a Classic Controller or even a Digital Arcade Stick so it could be translated to other consoles or the PC. The pointer of the Wiimote also could be transposed to the PC Mouse. Since all three consoles now have a pointer control (Wiimote-Move-Kinect) this might be comparable or even an advantage over the mouse, depending on the preference?

The PC entitlement is not the issue, the company can do whatever they want. Its just pointing out that a game should utilize the best features of each system. The consoles should be utilized the best they are capable of since they are set in video cards and internal memory. The PC is more powerful due to continual upgrades, so why not use the expanded capabilities of it? There has to be a limit on the minimum setup, depending on what the current majority of owners have in their PC.

[MrPopo]

Frankly, I think multi-plat games should be exactly the same on all platforms. I frankly hate the hassle of researching multi-platform games to find out which is the better version to buy and would love it if all games had platform parity and I never had to worry about it. In fact, if I made a game I'd want everyone who played it to have the same experience. I don't want someone playing my game to be having a lesser experience than anyone else. This is a big difference between how I view things and how most players do.

I understand the sentiment of not wanting to screw over a portion of your customer base in the hypothetical game you made. But from a consumer perspective if the game is the same across all platforms... then why are there different platforms? The whole purpose of having multiple platforms is that each has their strengths and weaknesses and those strengths should be catered to by the software on them.

[flex wood]

Wait what? Someone actually likes Pit Fighter? I always thought no one liked that game.