Login | Signup

Visceral Defend No-Frills Dead Space 3 PC Port

Author:
Matt Gardner
Category:
News
Tags:
Dead Space 3, EA Games, PC games, Ports, Visceral Games

Visceral Defend No-Frills Dead Space 3 PC Port

Visceral Games have come under a little bit of fire for deciding not to optimise Dead Space 3 for PC, leaving out the high-res textures and visual trickery that would have been made possible by even everyday PCs' power advantages over the ageing home consoles. However, the backlash has surprised executive producer Steve Papoutsis.

"It's confusing to me that this question even comes up," Papoutsis told Shack News. "It's by no means any less important to us; it gets a lot of attention. The PC is a very different platform. As developers, you want to deliver an experience that's as similar as possible on different platforms.

"In Dead Space 2, I felt we made some great strides in terms of controls, responsiveness and even the visual improvements we got into it. We continue to evolve our games as we develop them, but we certainly don't target PC as something that's going to be significantly different. We aren't trying to create disparity in the experience that our gamers enjoy; we want to make sure everyone's having that same experience."

Papoutsis noted that Visceral's always been a more console-oriented studio, and that the main thing is ensuring a standardised experience across the board.

"At our studio, we've always made console games," he continued. "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 fact that we're allowing you to control the game with a mouse and keyboard immediately makes the game feel different. Working with the community, we found some people wanted to map the controls a little differently because of disabilities and we supported that [in Dead Space 2]. It's a confusing question and I hope my answer brings a little bit of light to it. We seem a little bit discredited for the amount of effort that goes into it, quite honestly.

"We want it to be great on all systems, that's our approach."

A satisfactory response, PC gamers? Or something of a cop-out?

Add a comment7 comments
DrTrouserPlank  Jan. 29, 2013 at 12:33

What more could he say? The PC version is a console port and that's pretty indefensible.

The idea that they "want to make sure everyone's having that same experience" and that tailoring the experience to the lowest common denominator in some way makes the experience better across the board is nonsense. If that was the case then everybody would have the same graphics card in their PC's and those graphics cards would be no more powerful than the PS3's or 360's GFX unit. Variation in PC hardware exists so that people who pay up can get more bells-and-whistles and performance when they play games, not so that they can sit there with a GPU that is only being 20% utilised.

Last edited by DrTrouserPlank, Jan. 29, 2013 at 12:33
kristian77  Jan. 29, 2013 at 13:39

If the company in question doesn't want to put extra resources into making the PC version superior than the console ones then surely that is entirely up to them? PC users could always opt to actually not buy the game.

The fact is is that until the new generation of consoles become available this is going to happen more and more. Back when the PS3/360 was in its infancy the specs across consoles and PCs were relatively similar. Now the gap is so wide it would be more of a case of making a game for consoles, and then making the game almost from the ground up for PCs. Its simply not currently worth it for developers.

bggriffiths  Jan. 29, 2013 at 15:10

They may also be looking at past format sales for the series. If the console sales significantly outweigh the PC ones, then EA are hardly likely to want to spend more on development.

Mancuianway  Jan. 29, 2013 at 15:17

PC needs a few things as standard imo.

To make it consistant with the Console versions there has to be a change in pace and response to account for mouse/keyboards or else the experience suffers, badly.
Customisable controls
Latest DX
Better resolutions
Ability to save at any point
Dedicated server option for multiplayer if mp available.

Otherwise dont bother making a port, we feel cheated by getting charged £40 for a straight port when most of the costs incurred were to develop the game for a console with the PC version as an afterthought to get some extra $ in.

Personally will not be pre-ordering it for PC based on this, will probably pick it up in a sale on console after a major price drop if the reviews are good.

GetsugaTenshoS  Jan. 29, 2013 at 16:46

PC needs a few things as standard imo.

To make it consistant with the Console versions there has to be a change in pace and response to account for mouse/keyboards or else the experience suffers, badly.
Customisable controls
Latest DX
Better resolutions
Ability to save at any point
Dedicated server option for multiplayer if mp available.

Otherwise dont bother making a port, we feel cheated by getting charged £40 for a straight port when most of the costs incurred were to develop the game for a console with the PC version as an afterthought to get some extra $ in.

Personally will not be pre-ordering it for PC based on this, will probably pick it up in a sale on console after a major price drop if the reviews are good.



A lot of PC gamers are fine with something like this. Allow us to rebind the controls as we wish and support higher resolutions even if the textures are the same and it'll keep many happy. Dedicated servers seems like a bit of a waste for a 2 player co-op game, saving at any point isn't suited for every game and latest DX isn't worth it for all devs considering the amount of resources that'd have to go into supporting it.

So long as the game runs finally, PC gamers really have now reason to complain. I've got quite a number of games on PC and we really do have enough that small things like this aren't a big deal. It'll be cheaper than the console versions on launch and it'll most likely be pretty cheap in a sale a few weeks after release as most PC games are.

googleberry  Jan. 29, 2013 at 21:28

If I were a developer wanting to survive in what seems to be a very volatile industry, I muight make the same decison.

Adding development time to optimise for the PC exclusively might not make sense if the PC has been a less profitable platform than consoles for this game based on past sales data.

As a PC owner it is a bit disappointing that my shiny hardware won't be used fully in this game (which I love to bits), but I'd much rather the development team remains employed and are well rewarded for a well designed game.

As for eye-candy, games from Crytek, CD Projekt Red, UbiSoft Reflections, Bethseda, Avalanche Studios and DICE will surely test PC hardware to the max.

imdurc  Jan. 30, 2013 at 03:39

Are high-resolution textures too much to ask for DS3? Sleeping Dogs has a Hi-res graphics pack. Crysis 2 had an HD graphics pack for the PC version.

That one addition makes a huge difference to how I feel about both of those games. And the gaming experience can be enhanced beyond consoles due to those packs. Oh, sorry, this would change the experience across the board.....

I understand what the guy means (on a few levels) about the decision to make a straight port. And I don't challenge them. But, being a PC gamer, I can see a good amount of studios changing their thinking on the PC these days. I've certainly noticed the articles on various gaming sites proclaiming that PC gaming is growing. And last year's long awaited PC release of Alan Wake, showed it can be profitable, too.

Oh well, guess this game will be sought out in a steam sale for a minimum cost near Christmas. I can't complain there, I guess :P

Email Address:

You don't need an account to comment. Just enter your email address. We'll keep it private.