Has anyone else played Dead Space for the PC?

The absolute shittiest port I've ever seen.

Game breaking glitch on the very first enemy encounter. No saves at this point so I have to re-do the first damn 15 minutes of the game every time to try and get past this...

Not to mention these controls are terrible and there are tons of graphical glitches and screen tearing...

Is DS2 better than this?

dunno sorry

HOLY SHIT SOMEBODY MAKE A POST

well, by the rules of etiquette I was going to stay away since I don't know this, but as per your wish Sym:


not a clue

I just want to see some activity

But actually Chewy I heard that DS was a terrible port.

It is really really bad so far. I don't think I'm going to be able to even play it because of this glitch unless I can score a save file from someone.

It is apparent that they didn't even play a minute of this game to test it. I mean it looks nice when it isn't bugging out, but keyboard and mouse controls are a joke.

And then there's also other QC fuckups like this:

They can't even spell their own damn name right.

I mean this stuff would be almost acceptable at release I guess, but the game has been out for 4 years.

So yeah, if anyone was thinking about getting this for PC, don't. Avoid it like the plague.

Thankfully with current gaming trends, we'll be seeing less and less of this. More games are being ported to consoles recently than the other way around.

Are we all in agreement that porting games is a bit of a dick move towards gamers?

Porting games is unnecessary

But inferior PC ports are unacceptable given the given tech and more.

Pariah wrote:Are we all in agreement that porting games is a bit of a dick move towards gamers?

Well, no. It's completely necessary, it would be a little bit much to ask them to re-do a game from the ground up when releasing it for multiple platforms.

It's just shitty ports with zero quality control and support that are dick moves. They just sorta assumed it would all work with PC, and never decided to come back and check on it.

Ante wrote:Thankfully with current gaming trends, we'll be seeing less and less of this. More games are being ported to consoles recently than the other way around.

Hopefully that's true, but it's definitely not the case for every dev.

Take Rockstar for example. The PC version of GTA V is probably not even going to be released until at least a half year after the console versions. If we're lucky.

But whatever, I give up on this shit for now. I'm gonna go get drunk and eat chicken fingers.

any inferior port is ridiculous. the PS3 and XBox can handle pretty high level stuff still, and slacking on any of the consoles is just insulting really.

Chewy, I don;t think it's really too much to ask for a game that works how it's supposed to. Porting parts of it, fine, that's all good. But stuff like this is just stupid, and frankly it's pretty damn cheap to just port and say "welp I'm done, time to laugh evilly"

They can't handle too much really, I mean low settings should do the trick for the most part, but the 360 and PS3 are extremely outdated. I still don't understand how the 360 works with only a half gig of RAM...

The funny thing here is that this glitch can actually be caused on too high of a framerate. It causes the physics engine to bug out. And the in-game vsync makes you have to move the mouse about a mile just to turn 90 degrees.

Cheap PC ports are bullshit IMO

Chewy wrote:They can't handle too much really, I mean low settings should do the trick for the most part, but the 360 and PS3 are extremely outdated. I still don't understand how the 360 works with only a half gig of RAM...

The funny thing here is that this glitch can actually be caused on too high of a framerate. It causes the physics engine to bug out. And the in-game vsync makes you have to move the mouse about a mile just to turn 90 degrees.

The consoles are currently holding back the industry due to the inferior tech

I'm interested in the next level of gaming consoles but tbh...

I don't see that much of a difference. My PC has an excellent video card, and 8 gigs of ram. I can play most anything on it. Likewise, I never have problems playing games for my xbox. I really see no difference in essence.

And yes, I know framerates and all that slag, but still.

Whats your video card?

geforce 9800 gt. that and I used to run a Radeon HD 6570.

Not to sound rude, but a 9800 gt is not an excellent video card.

Thats a fairly outdated card, man.

Ante wrote:Not to sound rude, but a 9800 gt is not an excellent video card.

fair point, that's not rude. I overspoke for that.


How about "decent", would that work?

Pariah wrote:

Ante wrote:Not to sound rude, but a 9800 gt is not an excellent video card.

fair point, that's not rude. I overspoke for that.


How about "decent", would that work?

Yeah. It's definitely still passable for most PC gaming.

Ante wrote:

Pariah wrote:

Ante wrote:Not to sound rude, but a 9800 gt is not an excellent video card.

fair point, that's not rude. I overspoke for that.


How about "decent", would that work?

Yeah. It's definitely still passable for most PC gaming.

ok, how about a rephrasing then.

I have an average video card and 8 gigs of ram, I can play most any game on my PC. I don't max our Crysis 2, but I can for a lot of games. I have the same feeling on that as I do on my xbox.

Dude Crysis 2 isnt even that good looking anymore

MANY PC games have surpasses the fidelity

A high end GPU is a huge difference over consoles, dont be mistaken.

Sym wrote:Dude Crysis 2 isnt even that good looking anymore

MANY PC games have surpasses the fidelity

A high end GPU is a huge difference over consoles, dont be mistaken.

when it came out, it was pretty much insanity, so I still use it somewhat as a benchmark.

the thing is though, a truly high-end GPU could easily cost more than a console.

Crysis 2 actually pissed a lot of people off just because it wasn't a very demanding game.



GPUs are fucking expensive though... pretty much one of the main reasons consoles will always be a step behind. People already see $500 as a ridiculous amount to spend on a console.

Damn, I want a killer PC too. Not even for gaming...

Sym wrote:

Chewy wrote:They can't handle too much really, I mean low settings should do the trick for the most part, but the 360 and PS3 are extremely outdated. I still don't understand how the 360 works with only a half gig of RAM...

The funny thing here is that this glitch can actually be caused on too high of a framerate. It causes the physics engine to bug out. And the in-game vsync makes you have to move the mouse about a mile just to turn 90 degrees.

The consoles are currently holding back the industry due to the inferior tech

Ehhh.....this comment always bugs me...

I guess it's a matter of perspective - what do you consider to be the industry moving forward? A technical arms race, or actual gameplay innovation?

On the technical side, sure, consoles have been left behind. It's unfortunate, but the delay between gens this time round is unprecedented.

But realistically, all that's been demonstrated to be 'lacking' so far is visual fidelity and maybe player counts online.

Games have never been completely defined by the tech that runs them - that's why games like Mario Bros. still play so well today.

The pc version of BF3 might be the definitive one, but it's not an innovative game. For the most part, we're just playing the same games over, they just keep getting prettier.

That's not a bad thing, I'm all for that - once the new gen consoles drop, I imagine I'll be onboard.

But you don't need hardware to create new, innovative and exciting games. It's not like the difference between 2D and 3D - the 360 and PS3 are perfectly capable of rendering vast worlds with decent visuals, detail, physics, ai etc. etc.

Maybe the textures would be lower res to keep the frame rate up - but that's not innovation. That's not moving the industry forward, it's moving it sideways.

That extra graphical grunt you can squeeze out of a pc is not bringing any new genre or other innovation that couldn't be recreated elsewhere.

If you want to talk about how the industry is being held back, lets talk about consumer trends and demands, and the financial risk to developers who can't afford to put out something that doesn't have a bankable guarantee attached to it.

At least the indie scene has seen somewhat of a resurgence these days - and that's where the innovation seems to be really happening, that's where the ideas are coming from that will move the industry forwards. And it's not hardware spec dependant.

Right, I'll just climb down off my soapbox now. Peace out

PS - on topic, DS2 is an amazing game. It's a shame the port has been badly handled, but don't let that sully your opinion of it. If you're able to sort the issues with the pc version, or have a console to play that version on, then I would definitely recommend it

MADEWITHROBOTS wrote:/snip

look at Minecraft on PC and compare it to the 360 version. look at Planetside 2 and ask yourself if the consoles could have a hope in hell of running that.

i agree that graphics are not everything, but you reach a point where a PC game ported to Xbox is going to suffer so, so much from a gameplay standpoint (ala Minecraft) or be completely unplayable (Planetside 2).

as much as i understand where you are coming from, saying games are not hardware dependant is only half-true. while Skyrim on PC with a gamepad and Skyrim on 360 have pretty much the same core gameplay and the only difference is graphical, Minecraft on the PC and Minecraft on the 360 have different gameplay simply because the 360 hardware cannot run a world as large as the PC can.

when a huge sandbox is a fundamental part of a game, having it limited to 1000x1000 blocks (compared to 64million x 64millon iirc) is going to make the gameplay suffer a lot.

and games like planetside 2... no chance. the 360 could never run planetside 2 simply because of the player count, there is a reason why most console games have low player counts and that is because having to calculate positions for players, damage, movement, etc is incredibly stressful on the CPU. the current gen consoles simply do not have the power for large player counts.

while powerful hardware is not required to make a fun game, as seen by Mario, Pokemon, various indies like FTL, etc, if you want to make a really really ambitious game like Planetside 2 or a similar MMO, you need to have a level of hardware that consoles cannot currently produce.

you either need a surge in technology (PC-driven GPU and CPU advancements) or better consoles (next-gen) to be able to make these ambitious projects. PC pushes the boundaries of what gaming can do and consoles try to do they best they can to match it. sometimes this works and sometimes it doesn't. sometimes it is just not possible, so if devs want to make a multi-plat game they have to hold back on the PC version so that the console version can actually run it respectably compared to the PC version. if Minecraft was originally intended as a multiplat, the world size for PC would be MUCH smaller.

and that is exactly why we need a new console generation.
more power = more graphics, yes. but more importantly more power = more opportunity to push the limits of what we can make a game do. both console and PC players get awesome new games, everyone is happy.

Adli, I kind of feel like you missed the point of my post.

Let's get one thing out the door straight away - I am in no way suggesting that technology, and pcs, are not important to gaming. As far as I'm concerned, you NEED that guy at the front, who's pushing things forward. Technology is a great enabler - bigger worlds, higher player counts, better graphics etc. etc.

My point is that no great innovation is coming of this - at least not so far. It's just the same things at bigger, prettier scales. Like I said, I have no problem with this, but it's equally untrue to say that lesser hardware is holding back the industry - like I said, I suppose it depends on what you consider 'moving the industry forward' to be.

To take your examples - Minecraft.....I had the pc version a year or so ago, and now have the 360 version as well. I'm not going to call you 'wrong' per se, but let's just say that I disagree with you - the moment to moment gameplay on both versions is borderline identical (not sure if you know, but creative mode is on 360 now, along with many other updates).

Yes, the pc version allows you to create on a grander scale. But this doesn't change the core gameplay. That core experience is perfectly do-able on 'lesser hardware'.

Again, with Planetside 2 - here's a game that I think looks and sounds fantastic. But again, it's a similar experience to what has been and gone before - just on a much bigger scale.

Now, I also think that's fantastic - I think it's important, and I think it's great that it's possible. But, again, I suppose it depends what you consider to be innovation - and how important you believe that is to 'moving the industry forward'.

Off the top of my head, two titles from recent memory that have done much more to innovate in the multiplayer space (in my opinion), are Journey and Dark Souls. These are not just a case of more, bigger, better etc. etc.

I hope you can see where I'm coming from. Like I said, I'm not trying to suggest that the tech drive is not important - and I do wholly embrace it - but to write the current gen consoles off as holding back the industry is just false, it's just not that black and white. Again, like I said, I suppose it just depends on what you consider the 'industry moving forward' to be.

However, in my opinion building bigger, prettier games is not the answer to an industry creating largely identikit experiences year on year.

Putting a bottleneck around power is limiting innovation though. People can have great ideas of what to do with a game, only to find out that they can't do them because the system isn't able to handle them.

There are just things you can't do with console games. You have to lower the amounts of everything, that means enemies, players in games, map sizes, everything. Not just textures.

For example, Garry's mod is potentially one of the most stressful games out there on a system. It has an engine made in 2004, which the 360 is normally capable of running. But seeing as you can have as much spawned on the screen as you want, this game will have absolutely no problem dragging a GTX 690 to 5FPS.

If this game were to be released on consoles you could play around with a single plank of wood or something. It would be pointless.

Sure, you can make fun games without the power, but you're really closing the box around the possibilities if you're bottle-necked by it.

But there is no bottleneck of power, because pc's do, and always have, existed.

I've already reiterated that the tech is important, that it's a great enabler, but that doesn't change the fact that the innovation that is possible largely just DOES NOT HAPPEN.

This isn't 'consoles fault', which was the whole point of my original post.

It's to do with consumer demand, and the cost of development, more than anything else. If those barriers weren't in place, everyone could go crazy building new and exciting experiences on every platform - instead of feeling compelled to play it safe to ensure they get the necessary sales to keep their studio alive. I fully appreciate and understand those motivations, but it's stifling the industry.

Is it true that games tech has evolved beyond what the home consoles are currently capable of? Yes, absolutely - some time ago.

Is it true that any of those tech advancements have brought about any specific examples of experiences that are wholly unique and cannot be replicated on weaker systems? No, I do not believe it is.

Is it true that home consoles are 'holding back the industry'? No, I do not believe it is.

Why do you think so many studios produce identikit fps games, or pump out largely throwaway apps and touchscreen games? Because that's what consumers are asking for. With the current financial climate now more than perhaps ever before, make a game that's new and 'different' - no-one buys it, studio closes.

In my opinion, that is what is holding back the industry.

Furthermore - the advent of 3D moved the industry forward and allowed for games that were fundamentally different from those that had gone before.

Fast forward to now and.....what's next? I'm not even beginning to suggest that this is an easy question to answer, but pouring on more power at this point is not going to bring about some kind of videogame renaissance in anything like the same way.

I feel like everyone is completely missing the point of my original post.

MADEWITHROBOTS wrote:But there is no bottleneck of power, because pc's do, and always have, existed.

I've already reiterated that the tech is important, that it's a great enabler, but that doesn't change the fact that the innovation that is possible largely just DOES NOT HAPPEN.

This isn't 'consoles fault', which was the whole point of my original post.

It's to do with consumer demand, and the cost of development, more than anything else. If those barriers weren't in place, everyone could go crazy building new and exciting experiences on every platform - instead of feeling compelled to play it safe to ensure they get the necessary sales to keep their studio alive. I fully appreciate and understand those motivations, but it's stifling the industry.

Is it true that games tech has evolved beyond what the home consoles are currently capable of? Yes, absolutely - some time ago.

Is it true that any of those tech advancements have brought about any specific examples of experiences that are wholly unique and cannot be replicated on weaker systems? No, I do not believe it is.

Is it true that home consoles are 'holding back the industry'? No, I do not believe it is.

Why do you think so many studios produce identikit fps games, or pump out largely throwaway apps and touchscreen games? Because that's what consumers are asking for. With the current financial climate now more than perhaps ever before, make a game that's new and 'different' - no-one buys it, studio closes.

In my opinion, that is what is holding back the industry.

Furthermore - the advent of 3D moved the industry forward and allowed for games that were fundamentally different from those that had gone before.

Fast forward to now and.....what's next? I'm not even beginning to suggest that this is an easy question to answer, but pouring on more power at this point is not going to bring about some kind of videogame renaissance in anything like the same way.

I feel like everyone is completely missing the point of my original post.

I get the point of your posts, but I'm not trying to say that power is the only thing holding back the industry. But it is holding it back, it is a variable that is in play. Not the main one, no, at least not in most cases, but it is still holding certain things back.

I agree that consumer demand and development cost is really the root cause, but that doesn't change the fact that the lack of power is still holding it back in certain ways. Making cross-platform games is seen as a necessity in most bigger budget studios, and while yes this is a result of consumer demand, they would be capable of doing more with their games if the systems were all of equal power.

It's true that bigger and shinier by itself may not equal innovation, but certain ideas would not be able to play out without the capabilities to make a world to a certain scale. The ideas can still be there, but if you can only execute 1/4 of your idea due to limitations it's going to fall flat. Or just never happen in the first place.

Well I finally got past the invisible door. Downloaded fraps and it turns out that vsync wasn't actually reducing the FPS due to Virtu MVP's crazy non-fps reducing vsync.

Yeah I heard the DS1 port was pretty crappy....but DS2 was actually done good from what I've seen.

I'm amazed too what they can pump out with the console's 512mb of ram as well >___>

and yeah,$500 is ALOT of money to many many millions of people,even billions lol, so....I don't see the consoles going anywhere anytime soon, but, hell yea we need the new gen,hopefully it comes out next year. Xbox 720 was supposed to come out fall 2013 but something about their damn chip factory slowed down or something so it's pushed supposedly to holiday 2013 now. As for the PS4, who the fuck knows I guess haha I've heard soooo little about it.

even as a pure console gamer, I can tell it's really watered down stuff compared to pc. Yeah the game still plays the same 99.9% of the time,but, I'd like better graphics haha

WOW that was a book

Fact is consoles are WAYYYY behind in tech

Games are gimped in order to run on them

PC is capable of so much more than what we are seeing right now

This is why I laughed that Star Wars 1313 is going to be on console. They tech will not be able to respectfully handle the source.

I agree....it's kinda like.....star wars the forced unleashed on xbox 360 vs it's version on the PS2 >____> ,totally gimped experience.

I'm actually saving up for a good pc....maybe I'll have it in a few months.I guess the upside is the parts should be cheaper haha....I'm thinking the i5 cpu,and gtx 660,or whatever is cheap and decent by that time.

I actually own DS1 on PC and it plays fine for me. Just had to force vsync and some AA through the nvidia control panel. Granted I play almost all third person games with a 360 controller so I do not know if the mouse and keyboard controls are bad.

Tom wrote:I actually own DS1 on PC and it plays fine for me. Just had to force vsync and some AA through the nvidia control panel. Granted I play almost all third person games with a 360 controller so I do not know if the mouse and keyboard controls are bad.

man, i forced AA in Minecraft and it made white meshes around every block, including air. it was funny

I have to force Vsync on in the CP or else my games will go over 60 fps and burn up my GPU


Its annoying and slightly worrisome

damn 0__o. Yeah, I heard about that looking up awhile back when getting morrowind on pc,they mentioned that your computer can be too good for games and the fps will go way too unnecessarily high thus burning out the chips

Sym wrote:I have to force Vsync on in the CP or else my games will go over 60 fps and burn up my GPU


Its annoying and slightly worrisome

Say what?

You don't have to worry about that burning up your GPU any more than just playing a demanding game on it. Still good to have vsync on at any rate.

Chewy wrote:

Sym wrote:I have to force Vsync on in the CP or else my games will go over 60 fps and burn up my GPU


Its annoying and slightly worrisome

Say what?

You don't have to worry about that burning up your GPU any more than just playing a demanding game on it. Still good to have vsync on at any rate.

Yes I do.

In SOME games where Vsync does not work, I have to enable it in the control panel. IF I DONT, my GPU usage will be at a constant 99% usage during the entire time IM playing. This bumps my temps up into the 90's.

Enable VSYNC in CP games caps at 60, gpu usage is about 70% games runs in the 70's. This has happened more than once on this rig.

BF3 on max only pushes my GPU to like 80% usage. The higher the gpu usage the higher the temps.

Sym wrote:This is why I laughed that Star Wars 1313 is going to be on console. They tech will not be able to respectfully handle the source.

And yet, gameplay wise, it just looks exactly like a bunch of games I've already played. More of the same, in a prettier coat.

I don't mind that - it sure is purdy, after all. But my opinion and stance hasn't changed.

As for your other comments, I basically already agreed with them all, to a greater or lesser extent.

Sym wrote:

Chewy wrote:

Sym wrote:I have to force Vsync on in the CP or else my games will go over 60 fps and burn up my GPU


Its annoying and slightly worrisome

Say what?

You don't have to worry about that burning up your GPU any more than just playing a demanding game on it. Still good to have vsync on at any rate.

Yes I do.

In SOME games where Vsync does not work, I have to enable it in the control panel. IF I DONT, my GPU usage will be at a constant 99% usage during the entire time IM playing. This bumps my temps up into the 90's.

Enable VSYNC in CP games caps at 60, gpu usage is about 70% games runs in the 70's. This has happened more than once on this rig.

BF3 on max only pushes my GPU to like 80% usage. The higher the gpu usage the higher the temps.

BF3 maxed out without any vsync runs 80%?

90's is pretty hot though yeah.

MADEWITHROBOTS wrote:

Sym wrote:This is why I laughed that Star Wars 1313 is going to be on console. They tech will not be able to respectfully handle the source.

And yet, gameplay wise, it just looks exactly like a bunch of games I've already played. More of the same, in a prettier coat.

I don't mind that - it sure is purdy, after all. But my opinion and stance hasn't changed.

As for your other comments, I basically already agreed with them all, to a greater or lesser extent.

Fair enough

Chewy wrote:

Sym wrote:

Chewy wrote:

Sym wrote:I have to force Vsync on in the CP or else my games will go over 60 fps and burn up my GPU


Its annoying and slightly worrisome

Say what?

You don't have to worry about that burning up your GPU any more than just playing a demanding game on it. Still good to have vsync on at any rate.

Yes I do.

In SOME games where Vsync does not work, I have to enable it in the control panel. IF I DONT, my GPU usage will be at a constant 99% usage during the entire time IM playing. This bumps my temps up into the 90's.

Enable VSYNC in CP games caps at 60, gpu usage is about 70% games runs in the 70's. This has happened more than once on this rig.

BF3 on max only pushes my GPU to like 80% usage. The higher the gpu usage the higher the temps.

BF3 maxed out without any vsync runs 80%?

90's is pretty hot though yeah.

No I turn Vsync on in every game due to my monitor only being 60 hz

If I turn on Vsync my temps run OKish

With Vsync off my temps and gpu usage skyrocket

War of the Roses is the most recent culprit

If there is no performance issue, vsync would be fine, but if you do have some performance issue, FPS Limit would be a better choice.

If you are using nVIDIA card, you would need either an in-game option or a third party program that enables you to dive deeper into the driver, such as nVIDIA Inspector.

Adaptive vsync is good, but I just cannot find any way to enable it in games that I play in windowed mode, which is most games these days.

I dont think you guys are understanding what Im saying......

FPS Limiter limits the frames at a set amount of fps.

It has same functions as what you are seeking from vsync, limiting the GPU usage so it only uses necessary power but not render useless frames that gets wasted and not displayed on screen.

The difference is that vsync actually eliminates the screen tearing, but FPS limiting does not (but also, fps limiting has no input lag that vsync introduces).

Word thanks for that

nVIDIA Inspector is the most well known third party software that can be used for this, if you have trouble figuring out how to set up the FPS limit, I can help you with it.