Im still looking forward to it

I miss when PC elitism was about defending convoluted obtuse game mechanics and not justifying how much you overpaid for your videocard.

the demo sucked... don't worry about it mate.

The very fist shot on the demo...ugrh those damn textures on Isaac's face.

Wonder if the default v-sync is still locked at 30 frames lol.

weird Dead Space 2 had a great PC port.

There's another of my favorite franchises murdered thanks to EA... First Mass Effect,and now this. :_;

I'm pretty sure all the Dead Space games have been console ports the past games always ran super smooth for me with no problems really hope DS3 is good.

Ouch, I was hoping DS3 would be a nice showcase for when I get my new video card.

Oh well. The first two games weren't exactly super-customizable either, and they still look really good.

@Pop said:

weird Dead Space 2 had a great PC port.

Dead Space 2 was the same kind of port that 3 will be.

I have a great PC and I would still get this game on the 360 because when I am done with it completely, I want to resell it as it is mainly single player only.

What makes this even worse is the attitude of the developer about this:

"The fact that we're allowing you to control the game with a mouse and keyboard immediately makes the game feel different," Papoutsis said, adding "We seem a little bit discredited for the amount of effort that goes into it, quite honestly."
Read more at http://www.destructoid.com/dead-space-3-pc-lacks-visual-options-for-consistency-243420.phtml#1ADqvdfOm57OvwAr.99

This is beyond arrogance, EA has always shown this level of arrogance but it seems this si shared by the developer as well. SAD!

well they do challenge everything. its kinda there motto

Meh thats ok. I do enjoy the luxury if a pretty powerful pc but this doesn't upset me. If anything, 60 frames is a good enough incentive for pc. However, I've both the previous games on ps3 so chances are Ill play this one on their too just for consistency.

@Godlyawesomeguy said:

@xSeanZx said:

I want to resell it as it is mainly single player only.

Talk about being part of the problem.

You're kidding me right?

@Sackmanjones said:

Meh thats ok. I do enjoy the luxury if a pretty powerful pc but this doesn't upset me. If anything, 60 frames is a good enough incentive for pc. However, I've both the previous games on ps3 so chances are Ill play this one on their too just for consistency.

Except it won't be 60, if it's like the last game it will be capped at 30.

Who ever is responsible for the PR at Visceral needs to be out of a job very soon. They have done a terrible job at marketing this game, all they have done is basically attack the gaming public, and try and convince us that both money grabbing microtransactions and terrible PC ports are 'in the gamers interest'

Fuck off lol

@Ekpyroticuniverse said:

@Baillie:

Either you are being woefully ignorant to my point or you simply don’t get it. I do not want to buy the game. It does not appeal to me. It is lacking features I look for in a product of this nature and features I can find in its counterparts. Look would you buy a 360 game that lacked features of a PS3 for no good reason other than that the developer had not taken the effort to include them? Would you buy food you once liked but now dislike because the makers had changed the taste? I doubt it on both accounts. All I am saying is you are right, EA don’t owe us anything but I also don’t have to buy a game I know I will be dissatisfied with. They can choose to not implement features I look for and I can choose to not buy the game. It really is that simply and I don’t understand why someone clearly cognitively able to use a keyboard is unable to grasp such a simple thing.

While I respect your point of view that you don't wish to purchase the game, your example doesn't really make that much sense. Of course I wouldn't want to buy a game that had less features than it's counterpart on another console. This is not what is happening here though. You are purchasing a game on the PC that will have all the same features as the console versions. You won't be getting anything less, and in fact will be getting a few things more than those versions. You will be getting less options than OTHER pc ports of different games. Using your analogy it's like going into a McDonalds and complaining that your Big Mac doesn't have as many toppings as a Burger King Whopper. The McDonalds didn't cheat you, the BigMac in this establishment still has as many ingrediants as in any other McDonalds, no one changed the taste - you're upset that its not as good as a competing chain.

So you are right that it lacks features found in other PC port counterparts, but it is not missing anything that you would get on the console version which will still be a very good version of the game given Viscerals track record of past installments. You are of course welcome to take your business elsewhere, I just thought the analogy was horribly flawed.

@Humanity: I'd say it's more akin to them refusing to make the 360 and PS3 version HD, because they also want to release it on the Wii.

This was the case with Dead Space 2, so I don't understand why so many people are complaining.

It was functional and performed no better or worse than its console counter-parts.

@WinterSnowblind: But it is HD.

Nothing new here..it's EA what did u expect

Well that one knocked me right out of my seat. Also, SimCity is pretty good.

@Humanity: But there's no Wii version. If there was, would it be fine for the 360 and PS3 versions to be straight up ports, with no HD upgrade, advanced textures or anything?

I'm pretty sure people would be making a much bigger fuss if that was the case and it's no different from what's happening here.

With quality ports on PC lately this seems really lazy, throwing in an option for higher resolution textures at least isn't a lot of extra work. This really boils down to EA thinking that DS3 won't be a big seller on PC.

I for one most likely won't be getting any version of DS3. Nothing they have shown of it so far interests me, in fact some of the stuff (like the continued mini transaction milking) make me want to rather spend my money elsewhere.

EA really started this generation with a bang, but now I don't know... shame really.

I bet if i downsample the shit out of this with some nice MSAA itll look ok.

Just like DS1 and DS2.

On the note of lazy ports though, i agree that how hard would it be to atleast give the PC folks some better textures?

I mean really?

@dekkadekkadekka said:

@TooWalrus said:

@dekkadekkadekka said:

EA have killed two franchises recently that I fucking ADORED: SimCity and now Dead Space 3.

Thanks EA.

ThEA.

I thought SimCity fans were hyped for the new game. What changed?

I obviously can't speak for all fans, but for me, the bullshit surrounding SimCity has drowned out any good that that game had to bring. The DRM, the complete lack of a single player experience, the inevitable rise of DLC, lack of modding etc. And I really did love SimCity, I spent all day Sunday working on a Megapolis on the SNES version (30k short, woo/boo.)

I'm sure the game as it is will be fine, and I'll probably get it when it's a LOT cheaper, but right now I want nothing to do with it.

Wow you're right they're really fucking up Simcity.

People are still complaining about DRM? Isn't it time people accepted that if we want publishers to continue to work on PC versions we have to live with DRM? And 99% of the time the DRM is hardly noticeable except for maybe having to press an extra button to launch the game?

Lack of single player experience? The entire game is a single player experience. How does it change your experience if they decide that the pollution is rolling in because the random numbers decided it or because someone else's city is producing it. If it really hampers your experience that much turn it off. BAM problem solved.

The series is ruined because they may decide to have DLC? When DLC is treated right it does nothing but make a game better but you're ready to shit all over the game because they'll probably include DLC?

If they opened it up and welcomed modding it would be better for us but it's not going to ruin the game by not having it.

If you're going to skip all games with DRM, DLC and no mod support you probably wont be playing many games again in the future.

@Hunkulese: All of those points are specific to this SimCity, but hey, thanks for assuming I think that about all games. I'm far from the only person who has/had the same concerns about this game. Check the RockPaperShotgun or PCGamer comment threads on any SimCity related post.

Also check my post history, I've come around on SimCity since I posted this. But don't let that get in the way of your pointless ire about my opinion about a video game from a company that doesn't care about you. Way to go.

I love the contradiction from the Executive Producer in a statement he made. First off he says that, "The PC is a different platform," then later on a little further down he says, "The PC is not a significantly different platform." Which is it?

It's fine for a game to be better on a different platform when that platform itself is inherently better. This shit is so frustrating. On one hand I want to play Dead Space 3 but on the other I'm probably not going to buy it because of this. I spent 2000 dollars on hardware for my PC, far as I'm concerned if you cannot provide me with a proper experience tailored to my hardware while still maintaining standards for other hardware then you're lazy and not worth my money. This is all about piracy (trying to limit losses on the PC version so they're peddling out a below average port) and yet again legitimate customers get treated like criminals. No wonder people pirate shit.

Then there's the whole micro-transaction thing that they're doing. EA is hell bent on ruining good franchises and studios with their fucking stupidity.

As long as I can choose 1920x1080, it's going to look/run way better on my PC than on my 360 or PS3.

It was the same for the first two installments, and they still look incredible on the PC. I'm not concerned.

@Godlyawesomeguy said:

@xSeanZx said:

I want to resell it as it is mainly single player only.

Talk about being part of the problem.

I had this couch once, a really nice couch, but then my wife wanted a new couch, so we bought a new one, and I sold the old couch on Craigslist.

Where's the outrage for reselling couches on Craigslist when it takes money out of the pockets of couch makers?

@Zella said:

@Huey2k2 said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

so there's parity across all three versions (something Dead Space is known for) and suddenly the game is shit and nobody wants anything to do with it?

Christ you PC guys are difficult.

This is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read.

The PS3 and 360 are relatively close to each other when it comes to power, also they are CONSOLES. Every single 360 and every single PS3 is exactly the same. PC's are all over the board, some people have far more powerful ones, some have far less powerful ones. Not giving PC gamers the options to utilize their more powerful systems is absolutely lazy from a developer standpoint. Just because you don't have a powerful PC doesn't mean we should be punishing those people who do.

I really don't get the beef as long as the port is completely functional. Yeah it won't have some extra graphical perks on PC, as long as it runs as well or better than the console versions is it really that much of an issue? I wouldn't call it lazy either, the game they designed was designed for consoles so DX11 and High Res textures weren't part of the design process. Adding in extra stuff for what will probably be a minority of their audience just doesn't make sense. Complain all you want if it's poorly optimized and is difficult to run on most systems but complaining that it doesn't have extra stuff is just being greedy. It's a trend that many PC gamers follow, of feeling entitled to more than the consoles cause they have a more powerful system. If you want to utilize your powerful PC then play games that were made with powerful PC's in mind not consoles that are running nearly 6 year old hardware. A PC exclusive game, or multiplat that was designed for PC as a priority, should have DX11 and high res textures but expecting them from something that was never designed to utilize those components is just foolish.

I can't see the logic in calling the game a bad PC port if it doesn't include extra features yet runs equal or better than it's console counterparts.

Let's put this into perspective. By the numbers the Wii was the largest selling console of this generation (even though the software attach rate was woefully low). Imagine a world in which every single game was developed first and for most for Wii and then ported to the Xbox and PS3. Not only are these games ported from a less capable and subsequently more restrictive platform, but the raw mechanics of the game were built for a completely different control scheme. Rather than spending time investing in making sure that the game can be all that it can be on the bigger and better Xbox/PS3 platforms developers simply run the games through a a different compiler, clumsily map your thumb sticks to the motion controls in such way where it mostly works but never feels "right" and do nothing to enhance the presentation beyond telling the game to run at 720p.

Now every game on average looks and runs like the Silent Hill HD collection or Perfect Dark Zero and never feel responsive or bespoke for the platform.

Would we honestly be having this same argument if this were the world we were living in?

@Zella said:

I really don't get the beef as long as the port is completely functional. Yeah it won't have some extra graphical perks on PC, as long as it runs as well or better than the console versions is it really that much of an issue? I wouldn't call it lazy either, the game they designed was designed for consoles so DX11 and High Res textures weren't part of the design process. Adding in extra stuff for what will probably be a minority of their audience just doesn't make sense. Complain all you want if it's poorly optimized and is difficult to run on most systems but complaining that it doesn't have extra stuff is just being greedy. It's a trend that many PC gamers follow, of feeling entitled to more than the consoles cause they have a more powerful system. If you want to utilize your powerful PC then play games that were made with powerful PC's in mind not consoles that are running nearly 6 year old hardware. A PC exclusive game, or multiplat that was designed for PC as a priority, should have DX11 and high res textures but expecting them from something that was never designed to utilize those components is just foolish.

I can't see the logic in calling the game a bad PC port if it doesn't include extra features yet runs equal or better than it's console counterparts.

I bolded the part that is completely wrong. The DX11 part might be right, but the High Res textures should be in there by default. There's no design process about it. You DOWNSCALE things for the hardware, you shouldn't be starting at 800x600 or whatever and then moving up. Games in the past that have had shit textures on the PC, most recent being Darksiders II, have been found to have high resolution assets by default but have been gimped down because of "parity". There's nothing extra about it, as you so ignorantly put it. That should be a standard feature, as should adjustable FOV. People can get sick playing games when the FOV is to low. Is that an extra? No. It should be a fucking requirement. Extras are things like the ability to make and run mods, not the ability to avoid a goddamn headache.

Here's an analogy. Blurays. Do they make them with the DVD in mind and then upscale to 1080p? No. They downscale. Some upscale, and those are the ones that look like shit and get criticism. But generally there is a standard in place. It's blatant ignorance and penny pinching because of the fear of piracy to avoid further monetary loss. But in reality all this does is piss people off and drive more people to piracy.

@Godlyawesomeguy said:

@Krakn3Dfx said:

@Godlyawesomeguy said:

@xSeanZx said:

I want to resell it as it is mainly single player only.

Talk about being part of the problem.

I had this couch once, a really nice couch, but then my wife wanted a new couch, so we bought a new one, and I sold the old couch on Craigslist.

Where's the outrage for reselling couches on Craigslist when it takes money out of the pockets of couch makers?

My problem is that people, en masse, aren't returning a specific type couch thus leading to the extinction of that particular type of couch. People do return video games that are single player only thus leading to the extinction of single player only games, which are my favorite, thus leading to my distaste of people doing that.

Actually, I do agree about that. I currently have over 130 disc based PS3 games because I almost never trade anything in.

My wife just says I'm a hoarder though.

@Korwin The thing is that the only thing setting apart the PC from the console versions is graphics(one of the least significant parts of a game in my opinion). When it comes to controls the game is designed to be played with a gamepad, which nowadays the majority of PC gamers own, and even if you don't have one it has mouse and keyboard support. So far there has been no signal that the controls will be any less responsive on the PC, hell it could be terrible but at the point in time I haven't seen anything suggesting otherwise. The actual game itself seems to be no worse than the console versions, if it's anything like Deadspace 2 on PC it will do more than just "mostly work" and run very well on PC with good controls. I don't think all games should be made for the platform with the largest consumer base but in this case the majority is certainly going to be console gamers, thus focusing on the console version is completely logical, if the game were say Witcher 2 I would be pissed if it wasn't made to meet my gaming PC's potential.

@AiurFlux I see your point about HD textures. I understand what you mean about adjustable FOV, though I've never had an issue with a game's preset FOV, though it's mostly an issue in first person games right? So while I get your point it's not really relevant to Deadspace.

I still stand by my point that the PC version of Deadspace 3 doesn't seem to be a bad port at all, it should be like it's predecessor where it was pretty much the same as its console counterparts except for higher fps cause it's running on a more advanced system. I understand how lack of attention can sometimes lead to shitty PC ports but in my opinion it's almost always because of bad optimization so it is impossible to run well or poor control mapping, not a superficial aspect like graphics.

@Oldirtybearon said:

@Huey2k2 said:

@Oldirtybearon said:

so there's parity across all three versions (something Dead Space is known for) and suddenly the game is shit and nobody wants anything to do with it?

Christ you PC guys are difficult.

This is one of the most ignorant things I have ever read.

The PS3 and 360 are relatively close to each other when it comes to power, also they are CONSOLES. Every single 360 and every single PS3 is exactly the same. PC's are all over the board, some people have far more powerful ones, some have far less powerful ones. Not giving PC gamers the options to utilize their more powerful systems is absolutely lazy from a developer standpoint. Just because you don't have a powerful PC doesn't mean we should be punishing those people who do.

Except for the part where you think the developer owes you DirectX 11 features and hi-res textures and a bunch of other bells and whistles that they should've been hard at work on just for a small segment of their user base. I fail to see how having all three versions run at the same quality (which, for Dead Space, is excellent for the record) is somehow a bad thing. Sure they won't have hi-res textures or a bunch of DX11 features out of the box, but does that really mean the developers were somehow lazy and that they deserve derision because boohoo you can't max out uberdupersupersampling on this one game?

It's not a big deal and does not impact the quality of the game one fucking iota.

this ^^^^ its still a good looking game and i play mainly on the PC

it just makes sense that they wouldnt...

@Oldirtybearon said:

Except for the part where you think the developer owes you DirectX 11 features and hi-res textures and a bunch of other bells and whistles that they should've been hard at work on just for a small segment of their user base. I fail to see how having all three versions run at the same quality (which, for Dead Space, is excellent for the record) is somehow a bad thing. Sure they won't have hi-res textures or a bunch of DX11 features out of the box, but does that really mean the developers were somehow lazy and that they deserve derision because boohoo you can't max out uberdupersupersampling on this one game?

It's not a big deal and does not impact the quality of the game one fucking iota.

PC gamers are used to better value for their money. Better versions of games for the same, or usually significantly cheaper prices. Faster price reductions, huge sales, digital downloads, automatic patching, etc. No developer owes a consumer anything, but consumers absolutely have the right to expect a higher level of support before handing over their money. Most devs since 2011 are putting tons of effort into their PC versions due to the huge resurgence in PC gaming. DS3 is a rare exception. PC gamers can vote with their wallets if they want to. Consoles don't have the same options. Games are $60 no matter what, and you get what you get.

I played Dead Space 1 on Xbox, Dead Space 2 on PS3 (since it had the Move game packed in) and I'll get Dead Space 3 for PC because that's just where we are in the cycle. To each his own.

It's sad that people have already decided to skip this game because it might not look nice enough. Dead Space 3 could turn out to be a fantastic game.

@Zella said:

@Korwin The thing is that the only thing setting apart the PC from the console versions is graphics(one of the least significant parts of a game in my opinion). When it comes to controls the game is designed to be played with a gamepad, which nowadays the majority of PC gamers own, and even if you don't have one it has mouse and keyboard support. So far there has been no signal that the controls will be any less responsive on the PC, hell it could be terrible but at the point in time I haven't seen anything suggesting otherwise. The actual game itself seems to be no worse than the console versions, if it's anything like Deadspace 2 on PC it will do more than just "mostly work" and run very well on PC with good controls. I don't think all games should be made for the platform with the largest consumer base but in this case the majority is certainly going to be console gamers, thus focusing on the console version is completely logical, if the game were say Witcher 2 I would be pissed if it wasn't made to meet my gaming PC's potential.

@AiurFlux I see your point about HD textures. I understand what you mean about adjustable FOV, though I've never had an issue with a game's preset FOV, though it's mostly an issue in first person games right? So while I get your point it's not really relevant to Deadspace.

I still stand by my point that the PC version of Deadspace 3 doesn't seem to be a bad port at all, it should be like it's predecessor where it was pretty much the same as its console counterparts except for higher fps cause it's running on a more advanced system. I understand how lack of attention can sometimes lead to shitty PC ports but in my opinion it's almost always because of bad optimization so it is impossible to run well or poor control mapping, not a superficial aspect like graphics.

It's not just purely a matter of graphical fidelity, it's also a matter of things like the size of a world or the complexity of a simulation (there is a reason why you don't see a lot of MMO's and RTS games coming to console). With regards to the control scheme yes the gamepad inputs can be mapped to a mouse and keyboard, but that usually doesn't work out terribly well. Nine times out of ten when that happens you end up with horrific things like forced/undefeatable mouse acceleration and smoothing which makes using a mouse a down right horrid and laggy experience (previous Dead Space games were in fact guilty of this). You can put up with it, but it never feels sharp or direct like proper mouse input should. You also have problems where menu layouts are clearly built around the concept of game pad navigation which often makes them much more fiddly to use with a KB and mouse setup.

I'm not going to suggest that Visceral should have gone balls to the wall on the PC port, but even if they put the same level of effort that Ninja Theory recently put into DmC that would have been acceptable to most people. As it stands they've put almost no effort in and then thrown out a flimsy excuse about "ensuring that no one has a superior experience".

http://www.shacknews.com/article/77584/dead-space-3s-pc-port-defended-by-its-executive-producer

"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."

@deox said:

How is this a surprise to anyone? I seem to remember Dead Space 1 & 2 being straight ports as well... weren't they both locked at 30fps by default? I'll still be picking it up for PC, either way. I love this series.

This and other posts like it. I found it (dead Space 2) looked beautiful on the pc. Even when you take away all the bell and whistles, I still think it is (potentially) the best platform. Despite that register the game and me noise.Unless it get so bad and lazy it's borderland 1 w/out the patches(I understand) or GTA4. I can't emphasise how seamless and if I remember right at a higher res. how awesome some parts of Dead Space 2 looked on my gaming PC Monitor...

Having said that, my original Dead Space I think was on the PS3...that looked alright! My swing point here is I will prob. be using my 56" 1080 TV, and not my Diamond pro monitor. A debated trade off. If I ever had a woman move into this house and claim the tv, I would gladly switch computers back between rooms, and go back to my old CRT monitor. Only 20 inches diagonal but with such clarity!

@AiurFlux said:

I love the contradiction from the Executive Producer in a statement he made. First off he says that, "The PC is a different platform," then later on a little further down he says, "The PC is not a significantly different platform." Which is it?

It's different, but not significantly different.

It's still one screen. It's still a fairly similar control device (Mouse is "right stick", keyboard is "left stick", unlike say... touch screen). It's not portable.

And it's a much harder platform to develop for, as sometimes it's hardware is greatly superior. Sometimes it's inferior.

I'm sure I could keep going.

Me? As long as the user experience in the PC version is on par with Dead Space 2, I don't care.

It must suck to be some of these people in this thread who will miss out on a good game because they didn't get special treatment. I'll play DS3 on my crappy xbox360 or PC, not sure which yet, and I will enjoy the shit out of it.

@gorndonfredoman said:

I miss when PC elitism was about defending convoluted obtuse game mechanics and not justifying how much you overpaid for your videocard.

@WinterSnowblind said:

@Humanity: But there's no Wii version. If there was, would it be fine for the 360 and PS3 versions to be straight up ports, with no HD upgrade, advanced textures or anything?

I'm pretty sure people would be making a much bigger fuss if that was the case and it's no different from what's happening here.

Except PC ports almost always have the ability to change the resolution to 1920x1080 while on the Wii you would be locked to 480p without the ability to change that - the difference in good ports and straightforward ports is the ability to tweak a lot of side options such as AA, AF, draw distance, shadow complexity, ambient occlusion etc which enhance the gameplay by quite a bit but it's not the dramatic shift between playing at 480p and 720p.

I think the biggest issue for me right now is not about the game being ported to the PC, if its anything like DS 2 it will be fine. My biggest issue is if the Dev is going to support the PC version or not and provide all DLC that is made available to the console versions. Previous DS games PC gamers have been screwed out of most or all DLC that console gamers got to enjoy. DS2 at least included DLC suits for the PC after so long but we still never got the DLC titled Severed. This leaves me nervous about buying the PC version for fear of missing out on DLC again. The easiest solution would be to buy the console version but after playing it on PC it's really hard to go back to playing on the console. I wish EA or Visceral would let us know their plans going forward on this.

I'm just gonna take a deep breath and not let my disgust with this game ruin my whole day.