What's with all these personal attacks? Your comments are hitting too close to each other's homes/life styles.
I don't really mind, I'm comfortable with my existence and if some 'tards on the Internet want to have EPIC RAGE
over my disposable income, I'll just enjoy the lulz.
Not exactly on topic but... when I first moved out I was paying bills, utilities, insurance and everything on my own and still had money for computer parts and games, and I made $6.60 an hour back then. Not everybody pays $600 or $700 for rent.
It helps not drinking and not smoking, too. Or drugs. Videogames last longer.
Sorry. I don't have a 42" TV. I have a 24" 1080p LCD monitor and I prefer games on it 100x over a TV.
This is my favorite thing to say whenever someone tries to give me the tired old "consoles are like twenty times cheaper than PCs!!!!!1!!!11!!!!one!!!!" line. Maybe spending two grand on a low-quality
high-def TV is cheaper then building...I dunno, Maximum PC's dream machine, but for that price I could re-build my rig, plus my monitor, which gives out a higher-quality picture than an expensive
I think unrealistically fast is better than unrealistically slow. Either way, playability takes precedence over all other considerations and from what I've read thus far, Dead Space is not very playable with mouse and keyboard.
Yes, "I think." Or rather, you
think. Not everyone thinks like you think, and getting all blah blah blah whine whine whiiiiiiine isn't going to alter reality to please your particular demographic when something isn't what you want it to be.
And let's move on to...
As a PC game, this is unacceptable. It's like porting a PC RTS to a console without modifying the control scheme at all.
It's not a PC game, it's a PC port.
Go rage about PCs not getting enough exclusive titles and how it should be made for the PC first, I'll wait.
Done? Anyway, this comparison is ridiculous. They're the same medium, but they're also completely different genres. You just don't want to accept the fact that controllers for the PC exist,
it seems, even though a controller has no problem handling a game like this. It's not like the controller hasn't been around for twenty years, it's not a teenage illegal immigrant from mexico hiding in a bush for born-in-America Mouse to slide by while it whispers to its friend, "Look, an American! Let's steal his job!" It may excel at some things and falter where the Mouse excels, but it knows what its doing.
Left Analog Stick: Moves pointer
Right Analog Stick: Moves pointer slower for more precision
Right Analog Stick (Click): "Select" button
D-Pad: Moves camera
Left Analog Stuck (Move while clicking): Change camera angle
L2 & R2 / Triggers: Zoom
R2 & R1 / Bumpers: Camera rotation
RTS games don't exactly have complex controls. They have complex GUIs.
Now, a related point is this:
To me, their response sounds like they just couldnt be bothered spending time to balance to game so that it still played well with a mouse (Epic did it with gears for the PC, they made the weapons less accurate and have more kick so that mouse users couldnt just waltz through the game)
And we see how well Gears was received for the effort.
Anyway, the solution in Gears was fairly simple, since it was straight-up action. Not that I've played Dead Space yet, but it's supposed to have a higher emphasis on resource conservation etc etc. This certainly isn't the tamest expression of this sentiment, either, with plenty going as far to say the AI and core gameplay should be re-designed for the mouse/keyboard.
Here's the problem with that: games cost money to make. Today, this is quite possibly the most understated fact in entertainment. Budgets have not increased in a precise match for how much more effort it really
takes to develop for the current hardware then the last generation of consoles and the PC hardware at the time. Even so-called big-name, "big budget" titles don't have many dollars to spare, if any. Building a game with fundamental differences for one platform compared to the other two it will sell better on (and you know it will sell better, even in the "good old days" of PC gaming that doomsayers about the platform love to talk about, console games outsold PC games pretty much as a rule,) isn't a little side project you spend an hour of the workday on for two weeks, tops. These things take a lot of work, not the game itself, but even these seemingly minor "considerations." And a lot of work means a lot more money.
They're already doing it by having the game on the PS3 as well as the 360 anyway, but here, the effort is worthwhile because the assumed return is massive.
With Gears, you're basically changing a few numerical values. To make fundamental changes means adding more playtesting to see if your new mechanics even work (and then more playtesting if they don't.) Also, more bug-fixing, because the inevitable alterations in the programming (especially if you think changing the AI is going to be, at all, simple) certainly isn't going to be perfect. Suddenly, the budget for multiple aspects of the development process has to double.
And the idea of making changes late in development, certainly at the distance from release when things like this always hit the news and we wank over it, is just ridiculous. It's like finishing a house, stopping before you complete it by putting on the last doorknob, and then sending a wrecking-ball through it so you can re-build the foundation.
NOT THE BEES! NOT THE BEES THEY'RE IN MY EYES