With very simple questions as simple as "Will Dead Space 3's PC port be optimized for the PC?"
http://www.shacknews.com/article/77584/ ... e-producer

The guy seriously needs to turn on the PR filter. It's one thing to be confused, but it's another to be openly confused and and evasive during an interview, in a way that makes you look like you might have just learned what a PC is twelve minutes ago.

And before you get excited, this is NOT a "consoles suck" post. And it's not even a "PC is better" post. But the fact is the two platform types are very different, and should be approached accordingly. To do otherwise is naiive and shortsighted.

He talks a lot about making sure the experience is the same across all platforms, and about how he doesn't want anyone to feel like other versions are better. Which is fine. But it's entirely irrelevant. What if I applied that logic to Call of Duty? What if Activision held CoD back to Wii standards so no one would feel left out? IT WOULDN'T MATTER. And it doesn't matter with the PC, either. Because while the PS3 and 360 are direct competitors, the PC is off in mythical "expensive beige box" land and the Wii is hooked up to someone's grandma's 15'' SD CRT.

And the fact is this: PCs are WAY more powerful than the PS3 or 360 right now. Both consoles are nearing the end of their market lifespan (even though I don't see a need for replacement personally...but I do have a gaming PC, so my opinion may not be valid). My videocard alone would make an entire PS3 cry itself to sleep. So why would developers NOT be eager to take advantage of this? Higher resolution textures (again, my video card alone has as much RAM than a PS3 and an Xbox 360 combined--and it's only a mid-range card!), greater draw distance, more advanced effects, anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering with better frame buffering and higher framerates (meaning slowdown is less noticeable). Why would you NOT want to take advantage of these features? And more than that, why would you be CONFUSED that your customers who are able to take advantage of those benefits would WANT to do so? It's like GM saying "I don't understand why anyone would want a supercharger on their Corvette. Malibus don't come with superchargers. We can't have nice things." It's so nonsensical it almost feels like trolling.

My favorite line is this one:
"At our studio, we've always made console games"
Soooo...you're a one-trick pony and can't do anything else? You refuse to explore other possibilities? What the Hell does it matter that you've "always made console games"????? Hyundai "always made s*** rustbuckets" until they didn't! Try PUSHING YOURSELVES. Try doing exploring what you're capable of. Instead of staying in comfort-land where you've always been. For smeg sake, if Valve can release games for the PS3 (OPTIMIZED for the PS3, which special integration of online features, not just some sloppy port!) and benefit from it, why can't an a talented team of console developers (Dead Space 1 was great, and 2 was excellent!) do the same in the other direction?

A stupid mindset, but even more stupid is admitting it aloud.

Dead Space 3

• No DX11
  The game that will cost you full AAA title price and will include micro transactions for allowing you to beat the game more easily.
  And it will essentially look like what it looks like on the consoles.

Seriously? Do they not know how to properly monetize their games? F*ck I hate it when things like this happen; it's always the pressure from the people in suits who decide that devs must sh*t on their customers for the extra buck. Do these people know how survival horror works? Imagine playing Amnesia with micro transactions. You can play the game OR pay more and get armor and weapons. This breaks the game, doesn't add anything, and it just gives you access to stuff that is already in game. Sure it's only a single player game so it doesn't hurt any one but as devs this feature has to sting because all that time and energy spent making certain parts play a certain way will be shattered as soon as someone buys "god" mode.

Also this logic about the experience is suck F'in bull. What happens when the new consoles come out and DS 4 is released on both the new and old consoles? Will they tell the Xbox 720/PS4 guys that Dead Space 4 will look the same on 360/PS3 because they don't want one group of people to have a better experience than the other groups? You bet your a*s they won't dare pull a move like that. So why crap on the PC users? It's not because you don't want to let some people have better experience, it's because you're lazy and you don't want to make a proper port of the game. Maybe it's because they feel that it doesn't justify spending the time and money making a proper port because not enough PC users will buy the game to justify the money spent on the port. But as a PC gamer, I'm not going to buy the game if I will end up getting the same experience from 7+ year old hardware. People on PC expect a better experience because they pay a bit more for their experience. It's so frustrating that this is the mind-set that so many have. I have never played Dead Space so I don't care about the series, I just hope other people don't follow this example.

MinisterofDOOM wrote:Try PUSHING YOURSELVES. Try doing exploring what you're capable of. Instead of staying in comfort-land where you've always been.

Because doing that is risky and shareholders like high ROIs and low risk. If your investment plans on being more risky then it better turn a higher ROI, historically PC has higher piracy rates than consoles so it's a scary place to venture.

I have no hope for Dead Space 3. The Microtransactions were what pushed me over the edge. But the coop (which I normally embrace with open arms, but here just feels wrong) and the "I wish I was Lost Planet" gameplay in the trailers helped carry me up to it.

It really seems like EA looked at Dead Space 3 just threw a whole bunch of unrelated, incompatible ideas into the blender, while asserting in a defensive voice that "All of these ideas have worked for other games!" as though that matters. It's trying to be everything at once, and that NEVER works, even when the developer and publisher know EXACTLY what they're doing when they attempt it. And I get a pretty strong impression that no one involved with Dead Space 3 really knows what they're doing, even if they believe otherwise.

I REALLY liked Dead Space 2. The port was pretty decent. DS1's port was sloppy and terrible, with major issues like mouse sensitivity being different between menus and gameplay (and remember this is a game with the menus integrated INTO the gameplay) but was still pretty fun and showed promise. Dead Space 3 looks like a mess.

I will not be buying it if ONLY to show that I do not support microtransactions in AAA-priced games. And if it is only available on Origin, that's one more reason for me to stay the Hell away.

Well Dead Space 3 is out and it's a good game; the Single player is good and so is the Co-op. The game looks beautiful.

It's less survival horror and more action horror. The crafting is cool and enjoyable. Unlike the Dead Space 3's executive producer's claims for a non-optimized port, the port is actually quite complete. Tons of options PC gamers expect, and I'm not sure if it uses DX11 but it doesn't matter because it looks great.

It's too bad they kept the micro-transactions. Killed it for me.

Good to hear. Maybe I'll pick it up in a year or so when there's a GOTY or Complete edition with all the microtransaction BS included.