Deus Ex 3 A PC Exclusive? Unlikely.

By John Walker on November 26th, 2009 at 12:01 am.

I'm beginning to suspect a 2010 release is unlikely.

Update: This all seems to be a matter of crossed wires. So far DX3 has only been announced for PC, but there’s no confirmation of exclusivity.

Rumours are circulating that Eidos’s Deus Ex 3 is to be a PC exclusive. This originates from a story on Bit-Tech today in which they (no longer – Ed) comment,

“It has been confirmed that the game is a cyberpunk prequel to the first game though and that it won’t be getting a console release due to the complexity of the game.”

However, they don’t state where this was confirmed, and the peeps on the Eidos forums seem equally surprised. “Only the PC version has been announced so far,” notes ‘René’, one Eidos Montreal’s community types, continuing, “The magazine coverage we had last year were all PC… I dunno where that website is getting its info from!” (Thanks to Phill for the nudge.)

__________________

« | »

, , .

130 Comments »

  1. H4NNiB4L says:

    Fingers Crossed.

    • tapanister says:

      What he said. I was just in the pub discussing why Dragon Age is so sort and non-complex (supposedly being the grandkid of Baldur’s Gate and all) and we agreed it was because it was also targeted at consoles.

      PC exclusive = a real game.

    • Psychopomp says:

      Yes, as we all know, Okami, Viewtiful Joe, Ico, Shadow of the Collosus, Uncharted, Legacy of Kain, Ace Combat, Fire Emblem, Mario, Metroid, and Ikaruga are not real games.

      I’m not even going to touch your argument that the PC version of Dragon Age was “short” and “non-complex” alltogether

    • tapanister says:

      Ok hold on. While my comment is badly phrased, it’s not entirely false. What I meant to say is, that a game that’s an FPS/RPG -which, truth be told are computer genres- would be more robust if created only for the PC.

      Now, while you can play both FPS and RPGs on consoles they don’t offer the same experience. Case in point. Baldur’s Gate 2. In my opinion and for my own taste in games, the greatest videogame ever created.

      You can’t create a game as complex and with as much content and small details as BG2 for console gamers and that’s a fact. While it is mostly a controls issue, console gamers also don’t like overly complicated games as a whole. Plus, complicated games tend to be buggy and while computer gamers find it normal to wait for a game to be patched, this shit doesn’t work with consoles.

      Also, the difference between JRPGs (glorified interactive movies) and CRPGS (aka the genre that spawned the greatest game of all time) is night and day. The JRPG is a streamlined and linear game with a well presented story and a lot of cutscenes/video. The CRPG on the other hand, can look terrible, have a storyline you can’t give two shits about, but still give you such a degree of freedom of action that, in my mind, makes for a better game.

      As for Dragon Age, while it’s still a great game, its “cities” and map are very small, very un-interactive and isn’t really the “spiritual successor” to any bioware game. OK story, good graphics (for an RPG), constricted world and game mechanics. I realize you probably disagree, and by all means, you are welcome to call me an elitist twat or whatever, but I stand by the notion that it would have been better (and sold much less) if it was designed with the PC-only crowd.

    • HexagonalBolts says:

      You make good points tapanister, but a little bit of diplomacy would go a long way.

    • Gorgeras says:

      Diplomacy gets you nowhere worm! It just sends out signals to the crypto-marxist islamo-feminazi envirocommunists that you are WEAK.

    • JKjoker says:

      pfff, try the King’s bounty – armored princess demo and then try to say the Dragon age has a speck of complexity, it just has crappy feedback, shitty descriptions, obfuscated item/quest descriptions coupled with unbalanced skills and unresponsive commands, that is because of crappy design, not complexity, once you find the right skill set up the game is pretty much on rails just a reload here and there when your characters run away on their own with their nwn2 crappy ai syndrome getting killed and causing the rest of the party to get killed

    • oddshrub says:

      I don’t think you’re an elitist jerk tapanister, but I do think you’re someone who shines up his memories. Baldurs Gate 2 was a whole lot easier and less complex in it’s function than Dragon Age was originally on the PC. Heck they even had to release a PC patch to make Dragon Age easier and less complex. ^^

      Baldurs Gate 2 was bigger, sure, but it’s technology was pretty old. Baldurs Gate was a massive game, who doesn’t remember those 5 dvds and having to delete everything to make room? Baldurs Gate 2 on the other hand was an easy install. Dragon Age isn’t build on old technology, and I think a lot of PC players would’ve had a lot of trouble both running and installing it if they’ve made it prettier and larger.

      The PC market is a much more divided place today because alot of people havn’t upgraded their computers for a while. It’s not uncommon that people still consider 8800 graphic cards to be awesome and most people live on relative small harddrives too.

      On top of that they’ve made two very different versions of the game. The PC version is pretty much as hard and complex as a computer RPG gets today and the console version allows people to just dive in and be dirty.

      All in all I think Dragon Age makes for a very poor example of a game that’s been dumped down because it also released on consoles, and this is largely because Bioware actually took the different platforms seriously. It’s limitations on the PC, are, in my eye, the cause of clever marketing research. There is a good reason to why games capable of running on your toaster will sell a hundred times more than the games which utilize the latest technology and requires the latest hardware to run decently.

      Now I don’t disagree with you completely.

      FPS games is a genre largely influenced by consoles. Every modern FPS is flat, and it’s flat because it would be next to impossible to play it with a console controler if it wasn’t.

      Of course if you look on sales there isn’t much hope for you. MW2 did sell a gazillion copies after all and it’s probably the flattest one yet. ^^

      DEUS EX wasn’t flat though, and hopefully this one won’t be either. Not that I have much hopes for it after DEUS EX 2. ^^

    • JKjoker says:

      @oddshrub: im not sure you understand what the word “complex” means, its not about graphics and (most of the time) not about difficulty either, its about viable gameplay options, not only BG2 beats DAO on that, but every single d&d game using that engine plus both nwn, toee, the 2 darksun games, the fallout games, hell even the whole elder scrolls serie and so on, and all those games will run in your “toaster”

    • Saul says:

      Dragon Age is far too long, in my opinion, as was BG2, which I got very bored of towards the end. I don’t remember the same being true of BG1, so it stands in my mind as by far the best of the three. But it’s still in the shadow of Torment, of course.

    • JKjoker says:

      i can agree with that alto i think it feels long because of all the repetitive combat and generic story

      i dont remember bg1 feeling “long” but it did have an awful lot of empty forest space, a lot of ppl complained about that, thats why in bg2 every step you take you find 10 side missions

    • tapanister says:

      BG1 was way short, BG2 has just the right amount of playtime, some of which is running aruond but most is full of stuff to do. DAO has not enough skills, spells, big cities (I mean there’s like 7-8 houses and 5-6 shops in teh whole game) and way too much polish. I don’t mind a rough around the edges RPG (Fallout 2, BG2, hell, even Risen) than something perfectly polished but short in context.

    • tapanister says:

      Last word was meant to be “content”, not “context”.

    • Psychopomp says:

      90% of spells in DnD are baisc xDy of damage, and BG2 had no skills. Not even feats. This is second edition DnD we’re talking about. If you’re not a spellcaster, you get to swing your sword every round. That’s it.

    • TotalBiscuit says:

      Platform warriors are why we can’t have nice things.

    • Bhazor says:

      Oh good. It’s been at least a day since we had a format flame war.

    • Lilliput King says:

      My first playthrough of Dragon Age took about 80 hours. I can’t remember how many hours my first playthrough of BG2 took, but the latest took about 100. 80 hours isn’t short. I’m also not sure where you’re coming from when you claim it’s less complex.

      BG2 was fantastic, so fantastic that I literally seem to play it through again every 2 years or so, but you’re being ridiculously unfair to Dragon Age. It was clearly designed primarily for the PC, with pretty much no concessions to the console audience. You’d be an idiot to say otherwise – everything from the interface to the camera controls is designed with us in mind.

      I don’t call you an elitist because you dislike the fact that a whole bunch of our games are shoddy ports. I call you an elitist because you fail to recognise /when they aren’t/, and reject them on the premise that they may be.

      “im not sure you understand what the word “complex” means”
      “the whole elder scrolls serie”

      Not sure you do either, goodness me.

    • Chaz says:

      Lots of generalizations about types of gamers here, of the sort that I read every where. Nearly every gamer I know, myself included, owns a games PC AND one of the current consoles. My taste in games doesn’t change whether I’m playing on a console or PC. You know what, I bet a well crafted complex RPG would do quite well on the consoles, were it but for this ridiculous assumption that console gamers sit there with drool hanging out of their mouths, “Make it simple stupid, durrh!”, dribble.

      Lets face it, the main reason for any “dumbing down” on console, is to make the product appeal to a broader audience, and therefore put more cash in the pockets of devs and publishers. Not because console users are on the whole, dribbling imbeciles. The reason PC only stuff tends to be more niche, is due to the fact that hard core PC gamers are such a narrow audience by comparison. Lets face it hard core PC gamers make up a tiny fraction of the over all games market.

    • oddshrub says:

      @JKjoker
      I think I made it very clear that I saw complexity and technical aspects as two seperate issues, neither of which I think are being “brought down” in DAO because of it’s console versions.

      Complexity are two things in my eyes. One is how you’re capable of leaving your mark on the narrative, the other is how much tactical effort you need to put into the various encounters. Neither are overly important in BG, BG2, NWN or DAO. The side quests of BG2 were more involving than they are in DAO but ultimately the writers would make damn sure you ended up exactly where they wanted you to be leaving little but a feign illussion of having had any real choices.

      Fallout is a tad different as it’s a sandbox game. In Fallout you had real choices and consequences. If you killed children you were going to be hunted by do-good’ers. If you wanted to play a homicidal bastard who killed every single NPC in the game, well, you could. Of course you could also be the hero who helped everyone. I don’t think Bioware is ever going to make a game like that considering their history of treating morals and the morbid with children’s eyes – but this was true in BG1&2 as much as it is in DAO.

      Your argument about AD&D being nifty is right. I personally loved how it made the classes very different from each other, I mean, they didn’t even share the same experience tables. But again, it’s not exactly the console versions fault DAO isn’t fielding a system like AD&D. If DAO were build on D&D it would’ve been build on the 4th edition, and that one has been dumped down so much it frankly wouldn’t have made a terribly difference.

      I’m not attacking BG though, I simply don’t think DAO would’ve been a different game if there hadn’t been a console version.

    • Psychopomp says:

      “If DAO were build on D&D it would’ve been build on the 4th edition, and that one has been dumped down so much it frankly wouldn’t have made a terribly difference.”

      Must…resist…urge…to start…edition war…

    • JKjoker says:

      The thing is that in D&D there is more than combat, so characters have other roles, rogues are definitely NOT fighters for example, DAO doesnt want to be anything than a combat game so rogues are fighters with a slightly different 1/3 of the skill set

      and BG2, while it didnt have perks, it had waaaaay more magic items, plus just by the little difference that characters were much more responsive to commands the combat felt completely different than DAO plus there is a LOT more variation in monsters and characters, mages can actually use tactics and have an ai that doesnt get them to rush into melee combat (i just cant understand why my mage does that)

      and then there one very important point, multiclass, it let you make similar characters that worked completely different (it was even better in the 3°ed), no such thing in dao

    • PHeMoX says:

      “There is a good reason to why games capable of running on your toaster will sell a hundred times more than the games which utilize the latest technology and requires the latest hardware to run decently.”

      Uhm, if only that were true, but it’s not. They could sell better (too), but they usually just get pirated a whole lot more.

    • Lilliput King says:

      @JKjoker
      Not to be rude, but those are some of the most awful criticisms I’ve ever read.

      “The thing is that in D&D there is more than combat, so characters have other roles, rogues are definitely NOT fighters for example”
      Difficult to represent in a game, really – but how did thieves/bards embody this in BG? They could use wands, could backstab, could lay traps, could pick pockets, could hide in the shadows, and can attack from the shadows. In Dragon Age rogues can make and use poisons, can make and use traps, can backstab, can pick pockets, can hide in the shadows, and can attack from the shadows for an instant crit. If anything, Dragon Age represents rogues better.

      “DAO doesnt want to be anything than a combat game so rogues are fighters with a slightly different 1/3 of the skill set”
      Kind of like saying Sagat is Ryu with a couple of different moves – It’s the other things I just mentioned that make them different, in combination with the slightly different skill set. They also get access to more skills than anyone else.

      “and BG2 had waaaaay more magic items”
      The game universes aren’t interchangeable, and the decision to reduce the number of fizzbang magic items in Dragon Age was, I believe, calculated, as it represents the world you’re in much better. It does reduce the available tactical complexity, but then, Warriors and Rogues now have talents/feats, which adds more than the lack of magic items takes away, wouldn’t you say?

      “plus just by the little difference that characters were much more responsive to commands the combat felt completely different than DAO”
      As I’ve said before, talents/feats (for warriors/rogues) have a casting time, like spells. If you use Pommel Bash, the opponent doesn’t fall over instantly but rather when the talent has been used. It makes sense, but to be fair, I can understand if you don’t like it.

      “plus there is a LOT more variation in monsters and characters, mages can actually use tactics and have an ai that doesnt get them to rush into melee combat (i just cant understand why my mage does that)”
      I agree to an extent with the monster criticism. Would’ve liked a couple of creatures like Beholders or Mind Flayers that needed a completely different tactic to take on.

      About the AI, well, sorry, but the BG AI was total pants. I just turned the whole thing off, and controlled them all myself, as I did with Dragon Age. How can you criticise the complexity of the combat in the game if you don’t do the same…? If all you do is play your main character and let the AI handle the rest, the combat plays like KoTOR, which is to say, complete suck. Play it on hard with the dex fix, controlling all your characters yourself, and there’s a lot to say for it. And Mages are a qualified improvement on BG2′s, I’d say. They’re more useful, the spells do more interesting things, and it’s possible to make each individual mage unique. The spell combinations and crowd control spells make mages tactical, and more interesting to use. The one thing BG has is vastly more spells, which would’ve been nice.

      “and then there one very important point, multiclass, it let you make similar characters that worked completely different (it was even better in the 3°ed), no such thing in dao”
      If that’s what you’re into. I always thought multi/dual classing was a fairly naff system, intended for people who couldn’t accept that their character wasn’t capable of doing absolutely everything. It was balanced pretty awfully, too. A Kensai/Mage can run BG2 solo on core rules. I actually prefer DAO’s system – the specializations allow you to make a fairly original class which can sometimes cross the boundaries between classes, without being quite so ridiculous. Look up Arcane Warrior if you’re really missing your mage-warrior.

      Anyway, erm, point being Dragon Age isn’t dumbed down for consoles.

    • Bhazor says:

      JKjoker
      Your just making stuff up now. Each character class has 4 specialties of which you can pick two and each of which can dramatically change your character (functionally the same as dual classing), mage staffs are ranged weapons (so they can’t go into melee unless you’ve really screwed up in equipment), DA:O has a whole new crafting system including bombs potions and coatings (dramatically upping the number of magic items) , the AI can be told to do exactly what you want using a Final Fantasy 12 style gambit system (making them much more autonomous than in BG2 and allowing more tactics).

      Honestly I’m a big fan of BG2 but you and I seem to be thinking about two different games.

    • JKjoker says:

      you guys are really going to compare 4 crappy skills (of which in most cases youll use 1 because they cant be used at the same time) to d&d prestige classes and the option to multiclass ?

      the bombs are all the same with a different element, same goes for the poison it just adds a +something to damage, and potions other than health ones are kind of pointless, The Witcher did poison and potions a lot better

    • DMJ says:

      The term “consoletards” should be correctly applied to publishers who believe console gamers don’t like “smart stuff”. It’s not the console gamer’s fault if the sinister masters who control his console’s release schedules limit his gaming diet to stuff they think will please the lowest common denominator.

      Actually, I don’t know why Microsoft doesn’t release a mouse-like FPS controller for the 360… That would instantly make me buy a 360.

    • Lilliput King says:

      “The Witcher did poison and potions a lot better”

      They were pretty much the point of the Witcher.

      The later potions/poisons do more than add damage, and the traps are an interesting mechanic.

      But eh, whatever. You don’t really have to have actually played the game to be justified when you tell me you don’t like it.

    • Psychopomp says:

      Joker, I don’t know what you’ve done, but you’ve managed to make the worst set of tactics ever. If your mages are running into melee *you fucked up.*

    • oddshrub says:

      @JKjoker
      Rogues aren’t rogues in their traditional AD&D sense anymore, not even in D&D. Today they’re about DPS first and various dirty fighting second. DAO does that pretty well I think and they function very differently from how fighters function since you’ve got to be much more aware of where you are on the battlefield to maximize your DPS.

      Personally I like the change mainly because video game RPGs, are, about fighting. I’ve been to entire weekend long pnp sessions where we didn’t fight but just amused ourselves with RP. Going an hour without fighting is pretty rare in any video game RPG I’ve ever played.

      As for having more magic items. Heh. I don’t think I’ll ever understand the obsession people have with loot, or achievements for that matter. I never collected stamps, bottle caps or whatever so why would I collect their virtual version? :p Not that I’m blind, I see the horde of people who want moar itamz – but I think it’s pretty rabid amongst console gamers aswell.

      Customized characters is a different story though. I think a lot of people would’ve liked to be able to mix the talents and spells a little, for example to make a paladin. I also think this applies to anyone regardless of what platform version of the game they own.

  2. subedii says:

    Colour me skeptical. I’m extremely doubtful this would ever be a PC only release.

    • moyogo says:

      I agree, especially if they have a decent sized budge I can’t see game companies passing up the option to port it to consoles. Hopefully it will be developed on the PC first then ported out.

    • whalleywhat says:

      PC exclusive would be pretty much the only thing pointing to this game being [i]good[/i]. But if it is good, I don’t care if it’s PC exclusive. But it won’t be good.

    • PHeMoX says:

      Didn’t Deus Ex 2: Invisible War sell pretty well on the Xbox console? I think DX3 is going to be anything but PC-only.

  3. DMcCool says:

    Its funny how good a thing this would be. Normally I’m one for wanting games to be experianced by as many as possible, but this is one example where exclusivity would benefit a game so much.
    Other than those who, well, can’t afford a good enough PC and want to try the game, is there really anyone who wouldn’t welcome this?

  4. kyrieee says:

    This is sensaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaational
    (no one will get the reference :P)

  5. cr101 says:

    Sorry I messed up:
    1 – Shacknews mentioned in 2008 their interpretation by which Deus Ex 3 may be PC exclusive:
    http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/55483
    2 – Shacknews mentioned this old article yesterday:
    http://www.shacknews.com/onearticle.x/61366
    3 – Bit-Tech read this and you’ve got today’s article:
    http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2009/11/25/deus-ex-3-is-eidos-and-square-enix-joint-ef/1
    Phew.

  6. golden_worm says:

    Humm. my initial enthusiasm has ebbed slightly and I now worry this was just a ploy to gauge the demand for the “not currently in development” console versions. I can imagine they are watching the 360 and ps3 forums for any interest. It can be dismissed as being a strongly held wish being made manifest as a piece of “News”.

  7. ZIGS says:

    As much as I want to believe this, I just don’t see it happening :(

  8. Sceptrum says:

    PC Exclusive?
    “Adjusting” it for console usually means not-so-good PC game in return for increased console profits.

  9. Pags says:

    What a shame…?

  10. dorianGREY says:

    tapanister does realise dragon age had two separate dev teams? one for console and one for pc. The I find that pretty good commitment to pc gamers. It wasnt 3 million years long like baldurs gate, but i sunk a good fifty hours into it and still didnt do everything i wanted to.

    as for this being released only on pc, i think it would be great to have a pc only release on such a major title. but if it does go to console, you can expect the developers to know where their loyalties lay in this series. I expect by porting to console they would only be expanding their fan base.

  11. Hyoscine says:

    I guess I don’t understand why exclusivity here (or anywhere) is a good thing. That console people could play slightly less good versions of The Orange Box, L4D, GTA, CoD and so on, really didn’t diminish my experience of those games. If a dev team can make extra cash on different builds of a game they’ve already made, and if PS3 and XBox gamers are happy with those builds, surely that’s a plus for everybody?

    • Phill Cameron says:

      It’s more about a money/time commitment. If a company is focusing on just one platform they can a) build towards that platform’s strengths and audience, which, in the case of PC, can vary drastically from its console neighbours. b) if you’re only developing for one platform, it means you don’t have to spend the money and time on porting it to others, not to mention jumping through all the hoops the different controlling companies want you to go through. Especially on PC, they’re free to make the game they want to.

      It’s only good for PC gamers, but at the same time, we’re PC gamers. If it weren’t for the fact that people would miss out on them, I’d love if all games were exclusives. They often turn out much better.

    • Pantsman says:

      It’s not non-exclusivity itself that’s the problem, it’s what that entails – usually a greater focus on console versions than the PC version, resulting in reduced complexity (ie. “dumbing down”) and reduced quality on PC.

    • Hyoscine says:

      I see what you’re saying, and as a Wii owner, I’ve come across some horrible shoehorn jobs.The multiformat stuff that’s out there and really works though (Bioshock, for example, would be my counter to what tapanister is saying about FPS/RPGs), is enough to convince me that porting isn’t an inately detrimental thing. Sure, there’s increased costs and development times, but in an ideal world, the increased sales would more than cover that. I guess my (probably a bit naive) take on this is that compromised multiformat games are more to do with fatigued or disinterested developers rather than an inevitably rubbish process.

    • Pantsman says:

      I agree that it’s not always detrimental to the game. There are certainly examples of games that haven’t lost “PC-ness” due to their being cross-platform (though, personally, I’d point to Bioshock as a good example of what can go wrong). The losses that do seem to usually occur are not, I think, due to a lack of enthusiasm on the developer’s part, but rather a different attitude that comes with console development. There seems to be an idea amongst developers that a game with complex mechanics will not sell well on consoles, so games are simplified to make them more appealing.

  12. subversus says:

    I hope this one go multiplat because then they’ll be able to return investments in such high-profile project. I miss good old days of PC-exclusives but nowadays you can’t recoup costs of AAA-gameif you go PC-only. If interface really sucks for KBM I just pick up X360 controller, no problem with that since my PC is connected to TV.

    • moyogo says:

      But maybe we can recoup cost of a good AA game?

      I haven’t seen much to draw me to ‘AAA’ games for years now anyways… although DA:O has caught my eye.

  13. Evo says:

    Contrary to what seems to be popular belief, there are PC exclusives that are extremely profitable and are not Warcraft or The Sims. However, taking into account what we’ve heard about the gameplay changes in DX3, it seems unlikely that they’re trying to appeal primarily to a PC audience. Because of the new gameplay elements, DX3 probably won’t generate enough interest among PC gamers for a PC only release to be commercially viable.

    • subversus says:

      What exclusives, can you name them? Witcher cost 5 mill $ as far as I know. But I think DX3 will be much more expensive.

    • Markus says:

      Crysis was 20 million Euros.

    • Gorgeras says:

      I was put off DX 3 right away when I heard it used ‘cover-based stealth’(“*GROAN* It’s Metal Gears of War Solid 3″) and has standardised console-action game health regeneration.

      Now, there’s hope. Don’t spoil it. Perhaps this might be the development risk that shows people again that the PC can do things a console never can.

    • Psychopomp says:

      There are good regenerating health systems. Riddick, for example.

      I’ve yet to have someone explain why cover based stealth is bad. I wasn’t even aware that Deus Ex took shadows into consideration, despite my 5+ playthroughs.

    • diebroken says:

      Next you’ll be saying that shdaows in Dark Forces don’t do anything either…

    • Psychopomp says:

      …they do?

    • diebroken says:

      “10.c. Crouching or staying in dark areas when your enemy is in light can throw off their aim. Bear in mind that keeping your head light on eliminates your darkness advantage.”

      As if it wasn’t hard enough for Storm Troopers to hit on target most of the time! =]

  14. Markus says:

    I’m surprised that a publisher nowadays is even considering to make a big budget PC exclusive title. From what I understand the only big PC markets left are Germany and South Korea, with the later one mainly focused on MMOs. I don’t see a “PC exclusiveness” happening – the market is too small.

  15. Pantsman says:

    By Deus, that would be fantastic.

  16. ZIGS says:

    Sad truth is: the age of PC-exclusive AAA titles is over

    • Promii says:

      Starcraft 2…

    • redrain85 says:

      S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat . . .

    • H4NNiB4L says:

      Command and Conquer 4 …
      Diablo 4 …
      Silent Hunter V …

    • H4NNiB4L says:

      *Diablo III, of course. Not 4th.

    • Jim Rossignol says:

      I don’t think you can really argue Call Of Pripyat or Silent Hunter V to be AAA games. They’re exciting games, yes, but I think they’re necessarily second-tier, both in terms of appeal and production. The Old Republic, Starcraft II, Diablo III – those are the only AAA PC titles I can think of. There’s a bunch of others that could turn out to be top-grade, but they’re mostly MMOs.

      Arguably, it’s the non-mainsteam, non-AAA arena in which the PC is most interesting now. The consoles simply can’t support games that don’t sell millions of copies, and so anything with a modicum of niche appeal to it has a home only on PC.

      All that said, I don’t think the PC *suffers* from console ports. Without the risk-reducing net of multiformat releases, most of these games wouldn’t get made at all. Frankly I’d rather have Borderlands with problems than no Borderlands at all.

    • Neut says:

      Jim: But would you rather have Deus Ex 3 with problems than no Deus Ex 3 at all? ;)

    • Taillefer says:

      I still don’t even know what AAA means.

    • redrain85 says:

      Well, that’s just it. What exactly constitutes the definition of a AAA game title?

      Most people consider it to mean big a budget, high production value title with a large team working on it. Others consider it to be a title that sells multiple millions of copies. Still others consider it simply to mean it’s a very good game, in terms of polish and gameplay.

      I feel Call of Pripyat is going to have at least a couple of these qualities, which is why I mentioned it. Shadow of Chernobyl sold more than 2 million copies so it too, at least, fits one definition of a AAA title. YMMV.

  17. GRIMDARK says:

    Don’t worry… they’ll find a way to dumb it down.

  18. Buemba says:

    I doubt it’ll never get a console port (Nor do I think that would be a bad thing). However, the news that the PC is the lead version is encouraging.

    I actually liked Deus Ex 2 a bunch, but there’s no denying that it felt neutered compared to the first one.

    • redrain85 says:

      I can’t see it being PC exclusive either. Maybe DX3 will be released on PC first, but there will be the inevitable console versions down the line.

      However, it would be nice if – just for once – a developer other than Valve made their game for the PC first and foremost as the lead SKU, with the console versions being the ports. Deus Ex is probably one of the titles most commonly cited as an example of what makes a great PC game. It would be a tragedy if it ended up following up in the footsteps of Invisible War instead.

  19. Spliter says:

    can’t wait :]
    at least it won’t be a damned console port where they forget we’ve got a keyboard with over 120 keys and a mouse with which we can AIM.
    however I can bet they’ll probably gonna try to port this to a console just for the money. PC is for the people that love games but it’s not as profitable as consoles…

  20. bhlaab says:

    I recall them saying the same thing about far cry 2

    “It’s for PC only!”
    became
    “It’s for consoles too, but it’s definitely PC first consoles second!”
    became
    …well, the game that was released.

    • bhlaab says:

      “them” being anybody who is an object of my disdain FYI I know farcry 2 was made by ubisoft

    • Buemba says:

      The PC version of Far Cry 2 was definitely the best one (The ability to save anywhere went a long way toward making that game *much* more enjoyable). I have no complains about it.

      People may complain it had a few conventions usually associated with console FPS, but frankly it’s time to accept them as full-on genre conventions by now.

    • Psychopomp says:

      WAIT
      WAIT
      WAIT
      BACK THE FUN BUS THE FUCK UP

      I could have saved anywhere in Far Cry 2?

    • bhlaab says:

      He means save your progress, not save the design

    • Subject 706 says:

      Since when are bad game mechanics and a sterile world full-on genre conventions? FC2 PC might have been the best version, which simply means the best version of a very poor game.

  21. luphisto says:

    i was wondering is there a game that was designed for pc and then badly ported to consols?

    • Gorgeras says:

      Half-Life, Supreme Commander and some Command & Conquer games…they just didn’t work.

    • Psychopomp says:

      The Half Life 1 PS2 port was great, what’re you talking about? They even added a sort of lock on feature, to help you aim at the smaller enemies.

  22. Pantsman says:

    Heck, I’m not worried about that. Deus Ex 1 got a PS2 port eventually!

  23. WJonathan says:

    Shenanigans. Makes absolutely no sense to cut themselves out of all that yummy console money.

  24. NuDimon says:

    Would be nice if it sold like hell. :D
    The console to PC ports are starting to annoy me. :<
    But porting the PC version to 360 should surely not be that hard?
    I just hope it wont get pirated like crazy…
    We need an exclusive with nice sales numbers to get the industry to take us more seriously imho.

  25. NegativeZero says:

    There are only two reasons I can think of why, in this age, a game like this would be thought to be PC exclusive:

    1. The PC is the lead SKU and the job of porting to 360 / PS3 is being handled by a separate team, possibly based in another studio entirely.

    2. It is secretly a MMO.

    While an MMO in the Deus Ex setting wouldn’t be a terrible idea, I hope to god that the answer to this is #1. It seems far more likely to me that porting duties have gone to another studio, especially when you start looking at how many different games the Eidos Montreal team is supposed to be working on.

  26. Wulf says:

    I see arguments for both sides of the argument, here.

    Why a console focus can be good for PC games:

    Accessibility, it’s nice to actually have a game that doesn’t require Windows Magnifier to read. As it seems that developers who concentrate purely on the PC believe we all have 20/20 sight and don’t care to allow us to mod that, whereas games that are for consoles as well tend to have nice, clear fonts.

    There are exceptions to this rule, where the game is modifiable or the developer realises that large fonts might be helpful to short-sighted people (the former happens rarely, the latter happens once in a blue moon).

    Examples:

    - Borderlands has a console focus and big, clear fonts at all resolutions. No eye-strain here!
    - Fallout 3 had a console focus and all the fonts were big enough to be comfortably read at any res.
    - Morrowind had a PC focus and I have great difficulty reading the text in that game.
    - Dragon Age: Origins has a PC focus and I can only play it in windowed mode with Windows Magnifier at hand, if I even try to read anything in the game without it I’ll go blind.
    - Torchlight is an exception to the rule, and features nice, big fonts and is modifiable.
    - Neverwinter Nights 2 is another exception, but only because its fonts could be modified.

    Why a console focus can be bad for PC games:

    It ignores the strengths of the PC and the understanding that the PC is a vastly different platform with features that consoles can’t, at this time, easily hope to have. The PC is easily modified, for example, and any game that runs on a modifiable engine should support mods. The PC is also capable of dedicated servers, which work far, far better than console online multiplayer, which is often plagued by no end of problems. Penny-Arcade tells me this, along with PC games which are direct console ports.

    Examples:

    - Borderlands is a straight console port, and despite using UE3 it’s not moddable (it really should be).
    - Borderlnads, again, has peer-to-peer play only which is plagued with problems, which I have seen and others on this blog have complained about. Dedicated servers would have solved this issue.
    - Modern Warfare 2 is a console port and suffers with peer-to-peer play, which apparently causes people problems (I don’t know, I don’t own the bally thing).
    - There are other recent console ports which suffer with peer-to-peer play.

    The best of all Worlds:

    Valve.

    Who didn’t see that coming?

    Examples:

    Left 4 Dead 2 has…

    - Nice, large, clear visual indicators for visually disabled people.
    - Character outlines, again, for accessibility.
    - Spoken alerts for all text warnings; equipment, zombie attacks, friendly fire, and so on.
    - Full closed captions for those who are deaf or hard of hearing.
    - Audio/Visual alerts for low health, grunting, flashing borders, and so on.
    - The game is as fully modifiable as a Source game can be, via the Source SDK.
    - Whether online on the 360 or the PC, online play is as smooth as silk thanks to Steamworks and (in the 360′s case, where it’s relevant) Valve’s proper adherence to the Live API.

    The moral of the story:

    If you have a specific focus in mind and preconceived notions as o what a console/PC game is supposed dto be then it’s probably going to end up shit. If you just try to make the best game you can for each platform you support, like Valve does, then you’re going to do a good job of it. The consoles and the PC all have their own strengths, apply these strengths wherever you are able.

    If Deus Ex 3 is going to be full of tiny text that I can’t read just because it lives up to the notion of being a ‘PC game’, then bugger that! The same is true if a game is just a straight port of a console game, with no modding tools and shit online play, bugger that just a much!

    • HexagonalBolts says:

      Wulf, the benefits you cite for console-focused-PC games seem to mostly involve your bad eyesight. Surely it would be better for you to wear glasses than for developers to use huge fonts? (although editable font sizes is something than does sound like a good idea in this customiseable day and age)

      However, you do touch upon an important point: Accessibility. With a console there’s no messing around with files or seeing the mysterious coded end of things. It’s nice to have your hand held every once in a while and be guided to where you’re meant to be – but sometimes this cuts down on customisation and flexibility. See COD:MW2 for details.

    • Wulf says:

      @HexagonalBolts

      “Wulf, the benefits you cite for console-focused-PC games seem to mostly involve your bad eyesight.”

      That, and accessibility concerns in general.

      The average console developer understands that by playing up to accessibility in an egalitarian way, they widen their demographic. The archaic PC developer does not realise this and therefore loses sales (bloody pirates!). The modern PC developer is catching on (Runic, and they’ve seen a great deal of success with Torchlight’s sales).

      There is nothing inherently wrong with making a game more accessible, is there? And it can make gaming a viable past-time to those who might not otherwise be able to enjoy it.

      Valve realise this and that’s why their games handle various accessibility concerns with a level of grace and panache that more old-fashioned developers could learn from, and clearly some developers have taken Valve’s lessons to heart (again, Runic, with full voice-overs and clear text subtitles, large text in tooltips, and so on).

      “Surely it would be better for you to wear glasses than for developers to use huge fonts?”

      This is a common misconception for a healthy person to have, but I’m sorry to say that as a misconception it’s also completely wrong.

      Surely it’d be better for a person to use a hearing aid instead of developers having to work in closed caption subtitles for both sound effects and dialogue? Except, errr… what if the person is completely deaf? A deaf person can play Left 4 Dead 2, and that’s the glory of it, isn’t it?

      The idea that people with accessibility concerns should just be left to fend for themselves (as presented in your opinion) isn’t one supported by today’s society. We install ramps for people in wheelchairs, we use symbol-based signs for those with poor sight, and the dinosaur entertainment industry is lumbering along and slowly catching up with the rest of the world.

      From a personal standpoint, I suffer with one of a large number of genetic ocular defects that glasses could never help with, and if not for Windows Magnifier (bless you, Windows 7) I’d probably have been totally screwed with Dragon Age.

      You’re not the first to tell me to get specs, but I’m afraid biology just isn’t that simple and whilst such common solutions do exist, they don’t fit everyone.

      “(although editable font sizes is something than does sound like a good idea in this customiseable day and age)”

      Customisation, full stop, is always a holy grail. In a perfect world, every game would have its innards completely exposed. I’m not talking about open source here, I’m just talking about creating a game where all of the game’s assets are exposed and can be changed by anyone with a modicum of talent for doing so.

      I’m not callous towards game developers, if you don’t have the time and/or resources to offer accessibility options, then I understand, but there’s no excuse for not laying the guts of a game bare, so I can’t make the fonts big myself, or make whatever other kinds of changes I wish to.

      For me, something like Overgrowth is the holy grail of computer gaming. If all games were like that, we’d finally have something to be proud of when it comes to the PC again. Personally, I’m pleased at how exposed Torchlight is, and it’s far, far more exposed than we modders ever realised. They’re a crafty bunch, Runic, and someone’s figured out that via hooking into the game’s engine a certain way, they can expose the game’s functions. This could lead to unimaginably brilliant and complexx mods.

      And have you seen the mods that’re being worked on for Torchlight without that? Have you seen the playable Steampunk Construct class?!

      <3 Runic.

      "However, you do touch upon an important point: Accessibility [Errrr...]. With a console there’s no messing around with files or seeing the mysterious coded end of things. It’s nice to have your hand held every once in a while and be guided to where you’re meant to be [...]"

      You're mixing up Accessibility with Usability or (ease of use). And by the tone of the argument, I'll have to assume that you're doing so wittingly.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessibility
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usability

      Wikipedia is accessible for me because of Firefox's page zoom, which allows me to browse any site at a comfortable size for reading. Wikipedia is easy to use because one can simply to there and search for terms and often hit upon the topic they're looking for, which is covered in a literate and easy to comprehend way.

      Accessibility is, indeed, to access and it deals with allowing access to a person who would not normally be able to access a game. If a game requires one to hear spoken dialogue in order to play it, it’s not accessible to a deaf person, and this has nothing to do with ease of use. Just like an untranslated Japanese game is not accessible to someone who can’t read/understand Japanese, it’s translated to make it accessible.

      What you’re talking about, in mildly patronising tones by mentioning hand-holding, is ease of use, wherein something is made as simple as possible to use, so much so as to be transparent to the user, this has to do with how intuitive something is, and usability would more likely imply how pick up and play a game is, which, again, is what you’re talking about. User-friendliness, per se.

      You went off on this tangent with the purpose of diverting and misleading, and in the process you’ve created a straw man, because you’re not arguing any point I’ve made, instead, you’ve tossed aside my concerns about accessibility and substituted them with usability, and that’s exactly what a straw man is, where you disregard your opponent’s argument and then substitute a weaker point and argue that instead to make your opponent’s position look weaker too, hoping that your audience won’t twig on.

      Your straw man is centred around usability, a topic I never invoked nor is it a topic I care to argue about or even discuss. So anything about user-friendliness is something you’ve invoked. My only argument, and indeed, my concerns, is purely about accessibility tools for the disabled. Tools that PC-focused developers don’t always supply. Consoles might have a higher-degree of user-friendliness, they might not, but whilst accessibility can provide for greater usability, accessibility and usability are not mutually inclusive.

      “[...] – but sometimes this cuts down on customisation and flexibility. See COD:MW2 for details.”

      Again, straw man. You’re saying that the usability of MW2 cuts down on customisation options, and whilst that might be true, I’d point out how incredibly flawed this is. I don’t care about the usability of X, Y, or Z, but I will point out to you that Left 4 Dead 2 covers accessibility and is completely modifiable. This makes any argument you’re positing here completely and utterly redundant.

      If you’re unconvinced…

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strawman

      “A straw man is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic.”

      That’s what you did by substituting my accessibility argument with a usability argument that has absolutely no relevance.

      …oy vey, I’ve spent too much of my life on the NationStates forums, and it’s beginning to show.

    • Spliter says:

      actually all of valve’s games are made for PC and then ported to consoles, but as their engine is highly moddable, and they made it thinking of ports, they usually end up on the consoles almost as good as the PC versions.

    • Gutter says:

      Valve might be the best of both world, but the PC crowd complains so much that they look as bad as the next guy.

    • PHeMoX says:

      “actually all of valve’s games are made for PC and then ported to consoles, but as their engine is highly moddable, and they made it thinking of ports, they usually end up on the consoles almost as good as the PC versions. ”

      That’s just biased bs.

      The moddability of their engine has nothing to do with being able to deliver acceptable ports. Which to be honest, is all they did with the Orange Box for Xbox, acceptable but nothing stellar. The Xbox also is a whole lot more like the Windows platform than many people seem to realize.

      If you want to judge Valve’s porting ability, you should play the PS3 version, which is really NOT that great when compared directly to the PC version. If you want the best experience, you will have to grab it for PC.

      There aren’t that many devs that know how to successfully port games on to multiple platforms. There’s usually no such thing as an identical experience.

    • Newblade says:

      An external studio ported the Orange Box for the ps3.

    • Urthman says:

      Wulf, I strongly support the idea that games should have adjustable font sizes to cater to people with differing visual abilities.

      But strongly oppose the idea that PC game makers should just use huge fonts like consoles do.

      Oblivion’s default huge UI was a joke. You could only see maybe 6 things in your inventory at a time. I’m so grateful modders created a better, more Morrowind-sized UI before I got around to playing it. The health bars and compass obscured a ridiculous amount of the screen.

      Torchlight’s font is way too big. In some battles the huge damage numbers completely obscure the action. I wish the font was adjustable so you could keep it the way you like it and I could make it about half the size it is.

  27. Javier-de-Ass says:

    no way in hell it’s a pc exclusive. and even being a huge pc guy (seriously I’ve got a hitler to jew relationship to pc/consoles) I can’t really see WHY it would be a pc exclusive. there’s no type of complexity they could throw at a deus ex style game to make it not possible on consoles. except if they went overboard with specs and ram style stuff, but that would also be possible to chop down and package onto a crapbox. there is no gameplay mechanic type complexity that could make this pc exclusive. unless it’s nothing like the previous games at all. the slower style of fps gameplay is really well suited for consoles. check out the ps2 port for dx1, it works really well.

  28. mordac says:

    @ kyrieee

    walle on de_train

  29. Soobe says:

    Truth is it’s more about audience expectations and budgets than hardware.

    Bottom line, I just don’t see how games like The Witcher or S.T.A.L.K.E.R. would have been any better had they also been targeted for consoles. Sure they might have been more polished, but I don’t know–their’s almost a charm in some of the quirkiness of those games.

    A prime example would be ARMA2. It took me forever to get into that game, but once I did I simply couldn’t stop. Contrast that with Operation Flash point 2, a game I played for about 5 hours and haven’t touched since. Flashpoint is loads more polished, but that’s all it’s got. Underneath all that chrome is an empty shell. It’s sad actually.

    Of course their are and have been some really creative console titles, Shadow of the Colossus as already mentioned, Little Big Planet and so on, so it’s not totally one-sided.

    But in the end it’s my opinion that games developed without the “console” influence are simply more interesting. I expect much of that has to do with the developers not giving as big a shit what the expectations of the masses are. Who knows. Maybe developers are more prone to experiment on the PC because it cost less, or perhaps they are more resistant to design by comity when it comes to removing things they think don’t work, but end up becoming truly great features.

    Anyway, stories like this are nice and all, but what I would really love would be to put my money where my mouth is. I don’t care if the game is a long ways off, if it really were a PC exclusive I would be happy to pre-order right here and now.

    • gary says:

      @Soobe
      Agreed, Arma2 and OFPDR form a really good case study of what could happen with a development process of essentially the same idea (both spawning from OFP) made for different markets.

    • bhlaab says:

      I’m going to bring up FarCry 2 again. The potential is there, but it’s just so superficial, sterile, and over-designed compared to the PC games it takes inspiration from (namely, Stalker and Crysis)

      I just can’t imagine Deus Ex 3 or Thief 4 will be any different. Even if they are PC exclusive (which they won’t be, I mean cmon) we’re living in a console world now. Only members of the former soviet bloc can get away with things like unpredictability and trust in the player to understand basic concepts without a giant glowing PRESS A icon highlighting every interactable object.

    • Taillefer says:

      The games cited as being the most creative and imaginative seem to be ones that are exclusive to either console or PC. It seems we get better games when devs are focussed, but goes wrong when the game is being developed multi-platform. So as we blame consoles for ruining our games, perhaps they could equally blame us for ruining theirs.

      Perhaps.

    • Soobe says:

      @ gary – Agreed as well.

      You know what though…I’m willing to bet that on paper both games (had they not been attached to any brand name, just simply a set of concepts) Flashpoint would have sounded just as good as ARMA2, if not better. (In fact they did sound equally good on paper, if we’re talking previews on game sites)

      But no–in reality with ARMA 2′s development their was CLEARLY a whole mess of “eh, good enough” going around, and while the extra complexity and lower production values threw me off at first, in the end it won me over precisely because I had to invest more time to master the game. Again, same with S.T.A.L.K.E.R. and The Witcher.

      Their is simply too much polish expected in most console games, and so only the ones that have enough talent on the dev staff where they can go back again and again to implement “just one more feature” yet stay on or close to budget do we get something that turns out interesting (Batman AA and Metal Gear et al).

      Lest I pigeon holed though, the Manhunt PC port was one of my favorite games of last year : )

  30. Alaphic says:

    If this is PC exclusive, I will buy it if for only that reason.

  31. Triangulon says:

    “We install ramps for people in wheelchairs, we use symbol-based signs for those with poor sight, and the dinosaur entertainment industry is lumbering along and slowly catching up with the rest of the world.”

    Wait, they’re making dinosaur entertainment more accessible? Sweet!!

  32. Choca says:

    No chance in hell.

  33. Dismiss says:

    Well, there are games I wouldn’t touch on console and there are games I wouldn’t touch on PC. Still, there’s a point to be made about exclusivity. Just look at Crysis, Uncharted 2, the new Star Wars Online thingy, Little Big Planet or Forza Motorsport.

  34. teo says:

    I had the same reaction, but then I played Rainbow 6 Vegas 2. That game, while nothing like the previous R6 games (I played them), is just a bucket of fun. I have way too many unfinished games on my Steam games list, but I still keep replaying that one. The cover mechanic that game uses works really well and is a lot of fun

  35. Joe Martin says:

    My bad – sorry everybody!

    :blush:

  36. dreamhunk says:

    Deus Ex 2 flop hard on consoles not alot of people bought the game

  37. Gutter says:

    PC fanboys like to complain don’t they…

    When it’s not about how this developer didn’t wait long enough to release a sequel, or how that other developer made the FOV in their game 10 degrees too small, they complain about every single game that made it to both PC and consoles.

    And then they wonder why big dev houses are tired of supporting (is all the sense of the term) this.

    • kyrieee says:

      Dude, FoV is a big issue with a lot of games

    • Nickosha says:

      I love playing Xbox Live. I don’t feel alone, because everyone is a 12 year old with a high pitched voice!

    • redrain85 says:

      @Gutter:

      PC fanboys like to complain don’t they…

      And console fanboys don’t?

      I’ve seen just as much whinging from their camp. I remember when Capcom announced the Versus DLC would cost money for Resident Evil 5. It was $5, which wasn’t exactly highway robbery. But no, call the waahmbulance, stat!

      I’m tired of people somehow trying to make it sound like it’s just PC gamers that like to complain. All platforms provide equal opportunity for whiners.

  38. cullnean says:

    i forgive my child.

    mostly because i dont care about format exclusives.

  39. Bronte says:

    I hope the third iteration is closer to the first than the second. The second one was a massive disappointment.

  40. Bib Fortuna says:

    “It has been confirmed that the game is a cyberpunk prequel to the first game though and that it won’t be getting a console release due to the complexity of the game.”

    Oh MY GOD YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEES! Let’s go to the river and pray brothers!

  41. Monkeybreadman says:

    PC Exclusive? When flying pigs freeze over

    As much as i loved the original (and i really really did) my older cynical self is preparing the rest of my soul for dissappointment.

  42. Pantsman says:

    So it was all a big misunderstanding then? Ah well. As long as PC is still the lead platform, it should be fine.

  43. We Fly Spitfires says:

    I loved the original Deus Ex and I think the 3rd one could be a lot of fun. Not fussed if it’s a PC exclusive… not sure why anyone cares, to be honest :)

  44. Derf says:

    PC exclusive? Pfff, please. Since when does business prefer quality over profit?

  45. name says:

    O PLEASE TELL ME THIS IS EXCLUSIVE TO THE PC PPPPLLLLLLLLEEEEEAAAASSSSEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    the PC needs all the exclusives it can get, im sick and tired of getting cheap crappy console ports.
    i just bought a 3K PC the beginning of this year hoping to try out some seriously teched out games, but was extremley severely disappointed.
    crysis is the best the platform has to offer.
    a 2006 game.
    both the ps3 and 360 HELL EVEN THE WII have evolved since then.
    how the hell can a 2007 game have better graphics than a bloody 2009 game, seriously that is seriously sad!
    i really want to put my PC to the test, and i cant wait till the end of next year when crysis 2 or RAGE come out.
    what happened to the good old days where PCs were leaps and bounds above consoles.
    why buy a new video card, or new CPU when there is no application there that is required for it?
    i built a PC with a asus P7 deluxe, 1 Nvidia 9800GTX+ intell I7 920 and 4GBs DDR3 RAM.
    hardly the highest tech out there, more like high medium and it can run anything on max settings.
    if a I7 920 and a Nvidia 9800GTX+ can run anything on max settings, than what is the point of buying anything higher like a 280GTX or a intell I7 980 think its called.
    why?
    whats the point?
    why buy the new cards ATI have released, or the cards Nvidia are about to release when a card what 3 years old? will do the same job.
    whats the point?
    whats the point of having all of this new tech with nothing to take advantage of it?
    sounds like EXTREME! overkill to me.
    its like hiring a crane to life a box of tissues.

  46. hoff says:

    Year-old comment by Rene is old.

    This is just a way of calming PC-fanboys (like… 90% of the Deus Ex fanbase) by saying “We promise that there will be a PC port of our XBox 360 game. We’re not sure whether we’ll port it to the PS3 or Wii yet.”

    Clever.

  47. David Macphail says:

    Further proof that PC gaming is dead, devs can’t afford to make exclusive games for such a shoddy, half – baked gaming device anymore so they decide to give it to REAL (Console) gamers. It’s no wonder, really. Console versions of games ALWAYS sell better than PC versions so this benefits everyone. Now the Deus Ex franchise won’t be swamped in mediocrity anymore. Console game = real game.

  48. Petërkopf says:

    Grrrrrreat, another Invisible War.

    I think it’s high time developers stopped jerking us around for a fistful of dollars. I’m tired of imagining what a game like Operation Flashpoint: DR (to pick one among a thousand) would be like if it hadn’t made all those concessions to the console audience.

    I’m on the brink of throwing something rash out there, like: “First person shooters are shit on consoles”. It wouldn’t be fair or enlightened, but as a first person shooter fan, I’ve never had an experience, save for maybe Halo with all of it’s specialized controls and benign aiming system, on a console. Certainly not one where I didn’t feel majorly encumbered by the fact that the standard console, still going on the basic designs of it’s ancestry, just wasn’t built for a game like that.

    Even Bioshock felt weird and bothersome on my ‘Box, for all it’s steampunky, everspawning glory.

    Saying that FPS is strictly PC would be ignorant though. It can be done (Halo and such). But you can’t make a PC FPS work on a console, or a console FPS work on PC, without that uncomfortable uncanny valley feel to it. It’s just wrong.

    I guess it’s just a case of petty greed ruining games that should have been grand works. When did the games industry start working like the (douchy) music industry?

Comment on this story

XHTML: Allowed code: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>