Dead Space 3 Catch-All

Huh. Cool.

Yeah, I liked the original aiming effect because it meshed with the rest of the visuals, as something that actually exists in the game world rather than a HUD for the player.

Surprised no one brought this up yet. Good thing I was looking forward to other AAA games this year.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013...

Wow, that's disappointing and surprising. I was under the impression that devs had learned their lesson on port quality (and, as RPS notes in the second article down from that link, many of them have).

I'd really love to be a fly on the wall in the EA marketing department when that producer is running his mouth bad-mouthing one of the platforms they're releasing on.

I'm not expecting them to make a herculean effort for just one part of a multiplatform release, but it really shouldn't be too much to ask to make a port actually work well on the platform you're porting it to. Just present the game you've made in the best possible light on each platform. If that's "entitled", if that's calling the developer "lazy", then so be it.

cyrax wrote:

Surprised no one brought this up yet. Good thing I was looking forward to other AAA games this year.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013...

As a PC gamer, I don't really see the big deal here.

Me neither.

Quintin_Stone wrote:
cyrax wrote:

Surprised no one brought this up yet. Good thing I was looking forward to other AAA games this year.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013...

As a PC gamer, I don't really see the big deal here.

We just have different standards. No big deal.

cyrax wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
cyrax wrote:

Surprised no one brought this up yet. Good thing I was looking forward to other AAA games this year.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013...

As a PC gamer, I don't really see the big deal here.

We just have different standards. No big deal.

Is it really news that Stone has really, really low standards? I mean come on, you've seen my mom.

All I read was "We're angry because the PC version should be special somehow".

And here I thought it was going to be "Dead Space 3 port God awful because EA doesn't give a damn". You get to play the same game on your desired platform as everyone else.

Boo hoo?

I am soooo sick of the bitching about microtransactions. Don't like them? Don't microtransact. BOOM.

I don't think you understand. EA should want to spend the extra time and resources for the PC version because it's the PC version.

cyrax wrote:
Quintin_Stone wrote:
cyrax wrote:

Surprised no one brought this up yet. Good thing I was looking forward to other AAA games this year.

http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2013...

As a PC gamer, I don't really see the big deal here.

We just have different standards. No big deal.

From the original interview article:

On PC, Dead Space and Dead Space 2 could easily hit 50 and 60 frames per second, and featured advanced rendering options for better shadows and anti-aliasing. While we don't expect that to change for Dead Space 3, the decision to not make a fully optimized PC version nonetheless sticks out.

Sounds like the DS3 port will be on the same level as the DS2 port. I'm fine with that. I played DS2 and had no complaints.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Sounds like the DS3 port will be on the same level as the DS2 port. I'm fine with that. I played DS2 and had no complaints.

If that is the case, then why is this guy running his mouth? I just don't see how a representative of the game, that I assume he's trying to sell more copies of by giving the interview, why is he making it sound worse than the previous games? Maybe it's bad phrasing, but if so why didn't the EA PR babysitter jump on top of that grenade and straighten it out?

I'd also say that I can't really remember the last EA game I played that really felt great on PC, I generally associate them now with minimum effort ports, but that's kind of a separate matter.

I really enjoy it when people quote a cynical, PC-centric article that ignores the widely recognized jump in quality of the PC versions between DS1 and DS2.

Not to mention he cherry picks the original interview and takes quotes out of context to support his opinion.

Steve Papoutsis (executive producer) wrote:

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

Sounds more like folks are pissed because Visceral is taking pains to remove bragging rights.

Let's also ignore all the special PC customizations that they made to DS2 to accommodate handicapped gamers.

I'm not sure control remapping is such a great example. Wouldn't that be a good thing on all platforms? Just a sign of a well made game?

I seem to recall they only did it after a stink was made about the situation (which reminds me of...) with excluding a disabled gamer being a PR nightmare, rather than just being a standard feature that was there in the base version of the game.

Yeah, not comprehending the complaints at all. You'll be able to run the game in resolutions above 720p so it's automatically going to look much better than the console versions. As usual, PC gamers get uppity about everything, so rather than being happy about the impressive turn of fortune involving amazing PC ports over the past few years, instead they feel like DX11 shadows and HD Texture Packs are now mandatory features.

I really don't understand why people praise RPS so much. That site occasionally has good writing but just way more often reaches a Kotaku-level of lazy articles and whiny opinion pieces.

Well I think they suck because they didn't make the game playable with one finger on all platforms.

Oh yeah, well I think they suck because they don't care about gamers with no fingers.

Oh yeah, well I think they suck because controllers discriminate against people with tentacles.

F. F. S. Are we just looking for anything to be angry about? Is there anything they can do that won't cause an outrage?

kuddles wrote:

As usual, PC gamers get uppity about everything, so rather than being happy about the impressive turn of fortune involving amazing PC ports over the past few years, instead they feel like DX11 shadows and HD Texture Packs are now mandatory features.

You know, you're probably the first one in the thread to mention DX11 and high res textures. I was damn impressed by DS2 and what they did with it, and I'd much prefer a well done DX9 game (*) than a poorly done DX11 renderer that's just there to tick a box. How often is it the art style and implementation that is praised in a game rather than playing technology buzzword bingo?

But lets get this straight, there's nothing wrong with DX9, and concentrating on a common tech level between platforms strengthens them both rather than split development resources. There's more than a few poorly done DX10/11 renderers that just aren't as well performing as their 'inferior' DX9 renderers and some games where they've taken out the clearly experimental feature because they weren't prepared to support it, and the game is better for it. DX11 is cleaner, has more features, and is more efficient allowing for more performance, but it's not a 'needed' feature yet.

There's a reason DX9 has stuck around so long, and it's not just because it's a common platform, but because it's well known the expertise is there to do it well.

Some details on the DLC pricing, courtesy of the Playstation Store Update:

Bot Capacity Upgrade $4.99
Bot Personality Pack $4.99
First Contact Pack Free
Marauder Pack $4.99
Sharpshooter Pack $4.99
Tundra Recon Pack $4.99
Witness the Truth Pack $4.99
Bot Accelerator $4.99
Epic Weapon & Resource Pack $2.99
Online Pass $9.99
Ultra Weapon & Resource Pack $1.99
Resource Pack $0.99

So, online pass confirmed. This stuff is only available for purchase in-game and since the game isn't out yet, there's no way to see exactly what most of this means. Given the controversy over the mere existence of the paid DLC in the first place, they are not doing themselves any favors.

LobsterMobster wrote:

Some details on the DLC pricing, courtesy of the Playstation Store Update:

Bot Capacity Upgrade $4.99
Bot Personality Pack $4.99
First Contact Pack Free
Marauder Pack $4.99
Sharpshooter Pack $4.99
Tundra Recon Pack $4.99
Witness the Truth Pack $4.99
Bot Accelerator $4.99
Epic Weapon & Resource Pack $2.99
Online Pass $9.99
Ultra Weapon & Resource Pack $1.99
Resource Pack $0.99

So, online pass confirmed. This stuff is only available for purchase in-game and since the game isn't out yet, there's no way to see exactly what most of this means. Given the controversy over the mere existence of the paid DLC in the first place, they are not doing themselves any favors.

Yeah, saw this. They've also announced Single Player "Disturbing" additional story that will be coming in a few weeks. Like I said before, I really hate to see gaming head this way. Day one DLC, announced content weeks after games released. Blah.

I still don't find day-one DLC all that offensive unless it's already on the disk. During the final stages of development, the people who produce the content have nothing to do. If they put their energy into making DLC and that DLC is ready on launch day, isn't that a good thing?

I'll also point out that between Steam sales and sites like Green Man Gaming, PC gaming is getting way cheaper. At GMG, I got a pre-order of the Dead Space 3 Limited Edition for $39. I could buy $21 worth of DLC before getting back to the retail price.

LobsterMobster wrote:

I still don't find day-one DLC all that offensive unless it's already on the disk. During the final stages of development, the people who produce the content have nothing to do. If they put their energy into making DLC and that DLC is ready on launch day, isn't that a good thing?

I'll also point out that between Steam sales and sites like Green Man Gaming, PC gaming is getting way cheaper. At GMG, I got a pre-order of the Dead Space 3 Limited Edition for $39. I could buy $21 worth of DLC before getting back to the retail price.

The thing is, I just to buy it anymore. Developers are constantly stating that all DLC is worked on AFTER the game has gone gold. But you would have to drag me down to the facility and keep me around the final few months of development before I would believe that anymore. I think pubs and devs have picked up on the fact that people will still pay money for content on the first day, and intentionally withhold that content from the disk to milk the consumer. Then again that's just my opinion and unlike many I intend to let my money speak for me. I never purchase games that implement this tactic until they are used or $19 bucks or less. If I have to wait a few years, so be it.

Why does it matter either way? Seems a strange thing to get worked up about.

I'm not getting worked up hah. I'm simply stating my view on the situation. But since you asked, for those of us who choose not to be frivolous with our money, it matters.

It is cool either way, but I just don't understand how it is being frivolous with your money. You lose absolutely nothing by *not* buying the packs. Nothing, zip, nada. If you do - you get to cut to the front of the line, but you still get the same lunch as everyone else.

Seems pretty much a non-event.

Man, I'm so on the fence with this one.

Loved DS 1 & 2, but I just have so much on my plate at the moment.

I'd be fine holding off until my schedule frees up a bit, but Amazon is offering $20 store credit with pre-orders, a practice I'm seeing them do less and less these days.

Wonder when the review embargos end. I'm only in it for the single-player and want to be sure that is fully fleshed out.

SallyNasty wrote:

You lose absolutely nothing by *not* buying the packs. Nothing, zip, nada.

Careful making blanket statements, I think it depends. For me it depends on what's "core" to the game and what's an optional expansion onto that core. Depending how you define it, you could say EA have previous form for cutting stuff out that really should have been in the core game and selling it separately.

Y'know what? I don't think I've bought ANY day one DLC, and the "most offensive" would be the Bioware pack-ins that often include extra characters and quests. But I also beat Dragon Age Origins before I even put the code in to download that content, and the game felt complete and whole without it.

People keep worrying about this becoming more common, but it doesn't seem like anyone outside of EA really does much more than weapon packs. Is it really that worrisome?

ccesarano wrote:

Y'know what? I don't think I've bought ANY day one DLC, and the "most offensive" would be the Bioware pack-ins that often include extra characters and quests. But I also beat Dragon Age Origins before I even put the code in to download that content, and the game felt complete and whole without it.

People keep worrying about this becoming more common, but it doesn't seem like anyone outside of EA really does much more than weapon packs. Is it really that worrisome?

Careful making blanket statements. Obviously in principle, microtransactions are the most egregious assault on gamers since Duke Nukem Forever.

I don't know what you're implying Sally, Duke Nukem Forever is a national treasure.