• Deus Ex 3 PC Being Co-Developed By Nixxes
    51 replies, posted
[QUOTE=thisispain;28775908]yeah but the trend with people is that they seem to think a game would be better if it wasn't made on or for consoles which is absolutely not true[/QUOTE] I'd say it probably is true. To use your earlier reference, Bioshock had a predecessor that was much better from a gameplay standpoint: System shock 2. RTS games are universally shitty to a hilarious degree on consoles, but I'd imagine most wouldn't disagree there. They have ruined the entire command & conquer series and turned it into a giant game of rock paper scissors. FPS games in particular suffer by being much easier or more simplistic. Quake 3 is an example of something you won't see come from a console. The original rainbow six, if you will recall, was actually a VERY tactical game. The majority of your time was spent planning a breach using blueprints. Morrowind was designed originally with the PC in mind. Oblvion was designed with the console in mind. The differences are generally subtle, but the effects are drastic. This isn't to say that being designed for the console is necessarily going to make it worse, but the concessions that must be made for the UI on the console and the larger, and generally less intelligent, console audience are pretty serious ones.
[QUOTE=RockPaperShotgun;28774192]But Eidos are very keen to emphasise that this is a shared development, rather than just outsourcing the whole thing.[/QUOTE] They're outsourcing the whole thing.
[QUOTE=GunFox;28776016]I'd say it probably is true. To use your earlier reference, Bioshock had a predecessor that was much better from a gameplay standpoint: System shock 2. RTS games are universally shitty to a hilarious degree on consoles, but I'd imagine most wouldn't disagree there. They have ruined the entire command & conquer series and turned it into a giant game of rock paper scissors. FPS games in particular suffer by being much easier or more simplistic. Quake 3 is an example of something you won't see come from a console. The original rainbow six, if you will recall, was actually a VERY tactical game. The majority of your time was spent planning a breach using blueprints. Morrowind was designed originally with the PC in mind. Oblvion was designed with the console in mind. The differences are generally subtle, but the effects are drastic. This isn't to say that being designed for the console is necessarily going to make it worse, but the concessions that must be made for the UI on the console and the larger, and generally less intelligent, console audience are pretty serious ones.[/QUOTE] pff there's a difference between marketing and the actual console audience. most console gamers are statistically also pc gamers because most console gamers are in the age of 25-35. rts games were released on the consoles and even the earlier cnc games were actually quite fun on the consoles. i have a copy of CNC for the playstation. quite fun, even if it is watered down. and Quake 3 was released on both dreamcast and PS2, with practically no concessions. in fact they actually had extra features the PC version never got. this idea that the console players are less intelligent is an awful marketing trick designed to fight two groups against each other. every time one developer makes some comment about PC's being better everyone goes DAMN RIGHT and suddenly that dev attained a piece of the PC gaming marketing share for every bad PC-Console game there's another amazing PC-Console game, and nostalgia is usually the driving feeling because consoles were MUCH more popular when you were younger, you just don't remember it
[QUOTE=OutOfExile2;28774589]From my experience out-of-house ports are absolutely horrible but as long as Eidos isn't lying about it being a partnership then it should be fine.[/QUOTE] But you can also get perfect ports like mass effect 1, so not all hope lost.
[QUOTE=thisispain;28776182] for every bad PC-Console game there's another amazing PC-Console game, and nostalgia is usually the driving feeling because consoles were MUCH more popular when you were younger, you just don't remember it[/QUOTE] When I was younger, there was no XBOX. Console games played to their strengths (Nintendo vs Playstation vs Sega) and PC games played to their strengths. Occasionally they get ported over, but PC games were still almost universally made with PC in mind. The compatibility between the Xbox and the PC is when this shit began. PC gamers knew it then too and loathed the damn xbox for the coming problems. The Xbox almost died multiple times, but Microsoft kept throwing ungodly sums of money at it until it stuck.
GunFox's argument: Microsoft and shitty developers have forced the dumb console stereotype on themselves and continue to reinforce it. thisispain's argument: There is no inherent features of console to be dumb shit. Both opinions can coincide. Although strictly speaking i'm with thisispain. You can make a shit or good game for anything. Technically I think a pc is better, but I don't like pc stereotypes either. I subscribe to the theory that a ui in an immersive game is a major design failure. Anyways the point is that both stereotypes are bullshit. There's more than enough pc games that went too far in pandering tragically complex uis. (<- Is this grammatically correct? I just derped out)
[QUOTE=GunFox;28776016]I'd say it probably is true. To use your earlier reference, Bioshock had a predecessor that was much better from a gameplay standpoint: System shock 2. RTS games are universally shitty to a hilarious degree on consoles, but I'd imagine most wouldn't disagree there. They have ruined the entire command & conquer series and turned it into a giant game of rock paper scissors. FPS games in particular suffer by being much easier or more simplistic. Quake 3 is an example of something you won't see come from a console. The original rainbow six, if you will recall, was actually a VERY tactical game. The majority of your time was spent planning a breach using blueprints. Morrowind was designed originally with the PC in mind. Oblvion was designed with the console in mind. The differences are generally subtle, but the effects are drastic. This isn't to say that being designed for the console is necessarily going to make it worse, but the concessions that must be made for the UI on the console and the larger, and generally less intelligent, console audience are pretty serious ones.[/QUOTE] A good example of this is Dwarf Fortress, which was designed for the PC.
[QUOTE=Pandamobile;28775057]IIRC, wasn't the PC version of DX3 announced before the console versions? I thought I remembered hearing all this stuff about DX3 as a PC game, then it was later revealed to be multi-platform.[/QUOTE] Yeah, just like Alan Wake. I hope to god they don't fuck this up. Deus Ex is one of the few beacons we have left on the PC.
[QUOTE=Alex_DeLarge;28775010]I always hear people bitch about the Red Faction port and I found it to run just fine given that you have a quad-core for the physics.[/QUOTE] pretty much, yet there are those with dual-cores who write the game off as being shit just because it doesn't run so nicely for them [editline]23rd March 2011[/editline] it's a similar boat for a lot of intensive games. given what's presented, it'll run great. but since it doesn't run as smoothly as something which presents far less, it gets dismissed.
[QUOTE=GunFox;28775135]The company seems to be a professional porter of games. That is like...all they do. All reports indicate that their ports are solid and without complaints. [editline]23rd March 2011[/editline] One thing that I should point out is the presence of a grid inventory. Unlike invisible war, they have gone back to the original grid inventory design, which is really rare for a console game. It sounds like such a stupid thing, but grid inventories are a strong indicator of a game being non-"consolized."[/QUOTE] Really? I hadn't seen that. Fucking incredible. I enjoyed Invisible War because it had some clever ideas, but it just wasn't on par with the original. I've really had a lot of faith in them for this project and from what I have seen, they have yet to disappoint. Really, the only thing I've had any real concern over yet is from that video about a week ago, where the only melee shown was the takedowns. I have to have my stun baton. There is no other option. I doubt they'd remove melee though. It was always a big part of the previous ones. [editline]23rd March 2011[/editline] See, I think that we're starting to see a decline in the appeal of consoles. A lot of developers are starting to focus on the PC again, and it seems like a lot of gamers are turning against consoles for various reasons. Consoles allow a quick, easy, simple experience, but they lack the depth and breadth of functionality offered by a PC. Really, in this time, PC gaming is a more advanced level of gaming. Consoles allow people to get in to it easily and see how dedicated they are to gaming. From there, they move up to PC gaming on simple systems, prebuilt kinds of things, then slowly work their way in to the high end stuff.
[QUOTE=Zeddy;28777787]Really? I hadn't seen that. Fucking incredible. I enjoyed Invisible War because it had some clever ideas, but it just wasn't on par with the original. I've really had a lot of faith in them for this project and from what I have seen, they have yet to disappoint. Really, the only thing I've had any real concern over yet is from that video about a week ago, where the only melee shown was the takedowns. I have to have my stun baton. There is no other option. I doubt they'd remove melee though. It was always a big part of the previous ones. [editline]23rd March 2011[/editline] See, I think that we're starting to see a decline in the appeal of consoles. A lot of developers are starting to focus on the PC again, and it seems like a lot of gamers are turning against consoles for various reasons. Consoles allow a quick, easy, simple experience, but they lack the depth and breadth of functionality offered by a PC. Really, in this time, PC gaming is a more advanced level of gaming. Consoles allow people to get in to it easily and see how dedicated they are to gaming. From there, they move up to PC gaming on simple systems, prebuilt kinds of things, then slowly work their way in to the high end stuff.[/QUOTE] There's no melee system.
I've played Tomb Raider Underworld a few times and it never felt like it was a console port. I think Nixxes is one of those studios that knows what it's doing. You can view all the projects they worked on here: [url]http://www.nixxes.com/nixxes/projects[/url]
The porting company did Kane and Lynch 2: Dog Days for PC. As much as you may think of the game, the port was pretty good.
[QUOTE=Zeddy;28777787]Really? I hadn't seen that. Fucking incredible. I enjoyed Invisible War because it had some clever ideas, but it just wasn't on par with the original. I've really had a lot of faith in them for this project and from what I have seen, they have yet to disappoint. Really, the only thing I've had any real concern over yet is from that video about a week ago, where the only melee shown was the takedowns. I have to have my stun baton. There is no other option. I doubt they'd remove melee though. It was always a big part of the previous ones. [editline]23rd March 2011[/editline] See, I think that we're starting to see a decline in the appeal of consoles. A lot of developers are starting to focus on the PC again, and it seems like a lot of gamers are turning against consoles for various reasons. Consoles allow a quick, easy, simple experience, but they lack the depth and breadth of functionality offered by a PC. Really, in this time, PC gaming is a more advanced level of gaming. Consoles allow people to get in to it easily and see how dedicated they are to gaming. From there, they move up to PC gaming on simple systems, prebuilt kinds of things, then slowly work their way in to the high end stuff.[/QUOTE] Provided you can still go non-lethal (which you can), I can forgive them for removing the majority of melee weapons. Not because I didn't enjoy the stun baton, as the stun baton was a source of endless entertainment, but because the main character has two arms that are specifically designed to be weapons themselves. Why bother with a stun baton when you can probably upgrade your hands to do exactly the same thing? :P
[QUOTE=Juggernog;28782628]The porting company did Kane and Lynch 2: Dog Days for PC. As much as you may think of the game, the port was pretty good.[/QUOTE] I guess so, didn't try multiplayer but as for Singleplayer, there isn't a wealth of content for things to go wrong. I love Deus Ex, played Invisible War on Xbox and thought it was fantastic, bought both the original and IW on Steam and god damn, IW was a shit port.
Well then if this port sucks I'll have the choice of playing it on a console or not play it at all. I think that I'll pass on the game if the PC version sucks.
[QUOTE=zombojoe;28774664]I have feeling its gonna be a console port.[/QUOTE] I already had that feeling when they first announced the game.
This game is starting to become disappointing
[QUOTE=GunFox;28776435]When I was younger, there was no XBOX. Console games played to their strengths (Nintendo vs Playstation vs Sega) and PC games played to their strengths. Occasionally they get ported over, but PC games were still almost universally made with PC in mind. The compatibility between the Xbox and the PC is when this shit began. PC gamers knew it then too and loathed the damn xbox for the coming problems. The Xbox almost died multiple times, but Microsoft kept throwing ungodly sums of money at it until it stuck.[/QUOTE] which reminds me that essentially all the problem of DX:IW had to with it being a console game as well :( Usually during the times of the PS2 you could easily recognise games that were on both the PC and the PS2 by a certain well - low resolution of their textures up close. It was an almost universal rule. I remember reading that it was essentially games saying oh hey I'm a Ps2 game as well. Basically as IW is concerned - I thoroughly enjoyed it (in part because I played it before DX1) but the fact that it was an xbox game as well was visible everywhere. The character meshes, and levels most of all. This changed when the original xbox came. The memory of that was miniscule and it seriously hampered most games to being contrained to tiny levels, low amounts of detail and well just general suckage. A number of potentially great titles suffered due to that. Hell the consoles make pc games look worse still holds true today. Mass effect 1 was apparently with the PC in mind somewhere in the back, and most of the textures are 1024x1024 - since the PC has no problems handling those. From what I heard the xbox version suffered. Cue mass effect 2 and you'll find that all textures went down to 512x512 and the quality shift is quite apparent.
[QUOTE=wraithcat;28785085]which reminds me that essentially all the problem of DX:IW had to with it being a console game as well :( Usually during the times of the PS2 you could easily recognise games that were on both the PC and the PS2 by a certain well - low resolution of their textures up close. It was an almost universal rule. I remember reading that it was essentially games saying oh hey I'm a Ps2 game as well. Basically as IW is concerned - I thoroughly enjoyed it (in part because I played it before DX1) but the fact that it was an xbox game as well was visible everywhere. The character meshes, and levels most of all. This changed when the original xbox came. The memory of that was miniscule and it seriously hampered most games to being contrained to tiny levels, low amounts of detail and well just general suckage. A number of potentially great titles suffered due to that. Hell the consoles make pc games look worse still holds true today. Mass effect 1 was apparently with the PC in mind somewhere in the back, and most of the textures are 1024x1024 - since the PC has no problems handling those. From what I heard the xbox version suffered. Cue mass effect 2 and you'll find that all textures went down to 512x512 and the quality shift is quite apparent.[/QUOTE] Yeah the same engine was used for the Thief: Deadly Shadows. Both of them suffered immensely as a result of the RAM limitations. What is really funny/sad is that the engine was so shit that if you go back today and play, you STILL have long load times. I wanted to play invisible war again and figured that a modern machine would make the load times nearly instant. NOPE! I spent several days tinkering to try and make it run faster before finally giving up. Invisible war and Deadly Shadows aren't horrible games, but EVERYTHING that was implemented as a result of being made for the consoles made them substantially worse than their predecessors. (Deadly shadows suffers less from the load screen limitations as it was made later and the engine was optimized better, but they are still both long and frequent.)
If I remember correctly I think those loading times were actually hardcoded in to make it seem as if the pc and xbox version loaded just as quickly. Though not sure about that one at the moment.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.