Tech Comparison: Dead Rising 2 PC

This time it's personal computer.

Yesterday's release of Dead Rising 2 on PC presents us with an interesting example of all that is good and bad about mainstream gaming releases on the computer platform. By default it is the best version of Capcom's zombie sequel, and if you shop around it is by far the cheapest. However, it also highlights quite dramatically just how much PC gaming technology is being held back by the technical limitations of the current generation of HD consoles.

It didn't used to be like this. It wasn't so long ago that we could look to the PC version of any multi-platform launch as the "master platform" from which the console releases would be converted from. Artwork and polygon levels would be pared back to accommodate the limited RAM, slower CPUs and older graphics chips that were built into the consoles.

Nowadays, thanks to a combination of focusing on getting as much performance from console as possible combined with a frankly enormous PC piracy problem, plus the spiralling costs of creating game art, things have changed. Consoles are now the focus, to the point where the incredible rendering technology being developed by NVIDIA and AMD is simply being used to generate fairly simplistic visuals compared to what the raw hardware is physically capable of delivering.

Dead Rising 2 is the perfect example of this, and it's born out in the comparison assets. First up, we've updated the Face-Off comparison gallery to factor in the PC version of the game. Next, here's our usual comparison movie, featuring the 360 and PC games (with an alternative PS3/PC Face-Off vid also available).

Dead Rising 2: Xbox 360 vs. PC.

Dead Rising 2 is obviously developed with the consoles first and foremost in the developers' minds. The challenge was daunting: to create a game that manages to cram as many zombies as possible into large environments with an insane draw distance. On 360, developer Blue Castle Games managed to achieve this at full 720p resolution with 2x multi-sampling anti-aliasing, with a decent stab at maintaining a v-synced 30FPS update. The PS3 conversion doesn't fare quite so well, but is still a perfectly playable and enjoyable release.

On PC, the amount of graphical tweakables you have available is fairly limited - nowhere near as threadbare as Capcom's Bionic Commando but still fairly light. There's the mandatory ability to switch resolution. You can also increase both anti-aliasing and anisotropic filtering levels significantly and turn blur on and off. But that's about it really - aside from a 3D Vision mode that some enthusiasts are saying breaks game performance.

Obviously, the ability to increase these settings to well beyond the limitations of the consoles is significant, but the bottom line is that the raw assets for the game were designed to be seen at 720p resolution. Even then, the requirement of running so many zombies on-screen meant that compromises had to be made - geometry levels and textures can be pretty simplistic, and lighting is fairly basic. On a PC this translates to a game capable of operating at supremely high resolutions, but still featuring rather bland artwork in places: all those extra pixels count for little if the base artwork is of a fairly low resolution.

While artwork quality is essentially a match, there are areas where the PC version shows definite improvements. For example, in the shots above, comparing the 360 version running via 1080p upscaling to the PC version running at the same resolution, we see that the texture quality is definitely improved on the computer version. Chances are that some elements of the art are identical while others such as normal maps and specular are running at a higher resolution.

Other elements we would expect to see improved significantly don't really see much change. Shadowmap filtering is improved (as is usually the case with PC conversions of console titles) but the game still operates with cascades - the further you go into the difference, the lower the overall shadow resolution. The transition points in the cascade remain the same between 360 and PC, which is a bit surprising.

Where moving up to a higher resolution should make a difference is in terms of draw distance. It stands to reason really - with more definition there are physically more pixels available to render the faraway elements of the scene, and you would hope that the LODs - the detail level, in effect - of the zombies and environment would be increased in order to favour the higher resolution available. Aside from natural increase in texture detail via the normal process of mip-mapping, we don't really tend to see much improvement. However it does seem that the accomplished depth of field effect the developer uses is pulled back on the PC version, giving the impression of a clearer view at long distances.

Comments (33) Latest comment 1 year ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • Der_tolle_Emil #1 1 year ago

    One of the games that look incredibly bad when not in motion. At least there is a PC version. The consoles are getting really weak compared to (reasonably priced) PCs these days and it will take more and more effort to make the PC version look 'good' by PC standards.

    Again though, as with the PS3 comparison, the DLC is the real reason why to get this on the 360. It's a shame that others have to miss out on one of the best DLC concept in recent years.

  • Tiel #2 1 year ago

    This could be good for pc games. REad it like this.
    You don't have to be part of the pc arms race, or spend much money, to be able to buy console games that run at faster framerate, higher resolution, and with some additional tweaks such as better AA.
    These games will be available much cheaper than console versions, are playable with a 360 pad if that is the best input method, or mouse and keyboard if that works for you.
    Additionally you will open up the massive world of cheap and innovative indie games available via multiple online retailers.
    Webistes like GOG will allow you access to the cream de la cream of older gaming, such as beyond good and evil, completely DRM free, and compatible with a new pc.
    The only downside is that you shouldn't think of buying any UBI games until they get rid of their ridiculous DRM. I'm waiting until they patch it out of AC2, Silent Hunter and Settlers 7 before I buy. Failing that I will buy AC2 for ps3 and buy the others when they are a fiver on some budget label.
    I have a good graphics card, and like to see it used--but I don't like the aspect of pc gaming that makes me feel like if I paid out for a new card each year my games would run better. For now the improvements I mentioned over console versions, and the certaintity they will run silky smooth, is enough for me.
    Cheers.
  • photoboy #3 1 year ago

    Somewhat surprisingly this doesn't run very well on my 11" gaming laptop. It's very small so it only has a low voltage Core 2 Duo CPU that runs at 1.2GHz. In most console conversions (Mass Effect 2, DMC4, Ghostbusters, Mirror's Edge, SFIV, Bionic Commando, Aliens vs Predator, etc) the laptop easily outperforms the Xbox and PS3, but with DR2 it's a sluggish mess. Clearly the majority of the game's process load is dedicated to keeping the several dozen zombies on-screen animated, so unlike most PC conversions it's CPU rather than GPU where most of the processing is going on.
  • apoc_reg #4 1 year ago

    Not gonna mention that currently half the people with a wireless 360 pad can't play it because DR2 doesn't recognize it?

    How are we to get Capcom to patch these problems if it's not mentioned in mainstream tech comparisons!
  • ChrisOTR #5 1 year ago

    As Tiel suggested above, there is a big upside to this. My personal case is exactly as he describes - my laptop has an nVidia 9600M GT chipset. I'm realising that, more through luck than judgement, it's almost exactly suitable for running games ported from 360 - meaning that I can buy pretty much any recent PC game without wondering whether it will run well - and because the 360 is a fixed platform, I can rely on pretty much all PC games running nicely on my PC until the end of life of the 360, which will be a while! :)

    However if you have a BEAST of a PC, I can see how you'd be frustrated by being held back... But there will always be devs who are willing to push further and let your PC shine... (as with Crytek pre-Crysis 2)
    Edited by 2 at 02/10/10 @ 10:53
  • Der_tolle_Emil #6 1 year ago

    I also think it's great that you don't have to buy a high end PC to enjoy those games. Especially when it comes to PC gaming there are many enthusiasts out there who really want to get everything out of their hardware and won't touch games that aren't cutting edge - I just hope that this won't affect future PC releases should publishers decide that their product is technically not advanced enough to be even released on the PC platform.

    I don't think this will happen anytime soon but you'll never know.

  • Nephirion #7 1 year ago

    Unspirsingly the PC port is a straight port with no texture optimisations for higher resolutions blah blah blah can't really see the need for a PC verison in all honesty as the game is pretty mediocre.
  • Bagpuss #8 1 year ago

    "and there will be no new rendering paradigms while the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 are still the dominant forces in the market."


    Which is why today, i wouldnt spend more than £450 building a gaming Pc, until these two pieces of Fisher Price Toy shit, are replaced.

    Up until 2004-2005, i wouldnt think twice about buying a £1200 Pc every 18mths or so to be able to play the latest and greatest (Far Cry, Doom 3, HL2)....but since the Fisher Prices moved in, no more.

    Until new consoles arrive, using the DirectX 11 (or higher) feature set arrive, £400 will buy you all the power you need to run any console port at a minimum 1680x1050 with 4xAA, with double the frame rate.....

    Edited by 1 at 02/10/10 @ 11:26
  • orangpelupa #9 1 year ago

    PC games held back by console games?

    i think its good :D

    because PC gamer no need to upgrade their vga/cpu often :D
    like my 2 years old 300USD PC, still able to play console games on high @ 1440x900 :D :D

    when i still a kid long time ago, the PC is crazy. Maybe every 6months need to upgrade VGA if you buy mid-end vga card. That time Really eat too much money for PC.
  • Der_tolle_Emil #10 1 year ago

    Which is why today, i wouldnt spend more than £450 building a gaming Pc, until these two pieces of Fisher Price Toy shit, are replaced.

    Anger issues?
  • Raznilof #11 1 year ago

    Good article, as always, thanks Richard!

    Although the price to upgrade PC hardware has stayed a relative same or lower, as going from my 8800 card to a 275 was a huge improvement in graphics and the price was much lower, the sheer amount of on-screen content has sky-rocketed. More people are needed to create this and it is a simple analogy that the amount of people needed to build a village as opposed to an entire city is vastly greater.

    It is mentioned as one of the main reasons for the current state of affairs and I agree, it's generally speaking cheaper to create content for a console than it is for a PC, if the aim is to make the most of each platform. Just like it's cheaper to produce a game for iPhone than it is to do the same for iPad.

    Piracy is a problem but I don't think it is more or less a problem than it was ten years or twenty years ago. However, what makes it a more noticeable problem now, is that to make the best of the hardware, production cost has gone up. The amount of people buying (generally) cheaper priced games on PC hasn't been able to keep up with this increase in cost so in order to survive, companies had to do something. Converting pirates by taking away ease of availability is one (albeit controversial) avenue. What steamworks does is another (in my view fantastic) way of doing things, stuff works when you buy it from Valve. Creating your games for console however is the most obvious and "rewarding" avenue.

    Companies have been able to survive THANKS to console gaming and although the speed of graphical improvement may not be as steep as it was ten years ago, there is still improvement. Look at what Halo:Reach or God of War do with 5 year old hardware, look at where Rage and Crysis will take it and that's a batch of games build in a way that WILL prefer the PC platform. PC gaming's relationship is literally one of love and hate and companies are finding better ways, tools and better middle ware to approach each platforms strength at an overall lower cost. Big games can't be made without the console audience to help fund them for the PC audience to play the "elite" version; that is a reality. But it does result in games that don't make the most of PC hardware, that's also a reality.

    So easy to dismiss the console, you have to be very careful (as we Dutch say) not to throw away the baby with the bathing water. Perhaps that saying like conversions to PC, doesn't survive the translation that well ; )

    For clarity sake I will add that I gradually stepped out of the PC arms race when I got into console gaming and spend what seems like an eternity of time perfecting the use of a controller. I have a fantastic amount of fun with Reach, Uncharted, Bad Company 2, Angry Birds and Torchlight at the moment.

    And like others wrote before here, I too got a bit sick of looking at screen shots, and seemingly never having the hardware to make it look anywhere near that good no matter if I had spend a lot of money (far more than a console costs) the year before or even several months before. Let alone two years later when games would ask me to again spend far more than a console costs, just to make them run decently. I'd rather spend that money on the games themselves and support developers I really like to create more games.
  • jamesworkshop #12 1 year ago

    This is about what I was expecting, as technology platforms the consoles are dated 5 years is a massive amount of time in the semiconductor industry and optimisations can only go so far, no matter how good you are you simply could never get a PS2 to out perform the PS3.

    Holding the steady advance back has been a good thing but it's also the newer graphics cards that are pushing the prices down
    your demand on firepower and the price required to gain such firepower have both been massivly reduced.

    Its not just PC games that get held back the storage of bluray is massivley wasted since about 90% of all games cover the multiplatform bridge between the 360 and PS3 and still stick to sizes between 6 to 7 Gigabytes roughly only a quarter of blurays full storage capacity on a Single layer disc to remain the parity due to the lower storage capacity on the DVD's used by the 360
  • dave-on #13 1 year ago

    It's a shame the devs still clinging to GFWL seem to be ignoring the fact most people buy games from steam and don't want Microsofts crappy DRM.
  • dingo75 #14 1 year ago

    The only downside is that you shouldn't think of buying any UBI games until they get rid of their ridiculous DRM. I'm waiting until they patch it out of AC2, Silent Hunter and Settlers 7 before I buy.

    There are patches out there to fix all of them but they don't come from Ubi.
  • Lord_Gremlin #15 1 year ago

    GFWL = automatic no-buy for PC, even for $2.
  • orangpelupa #16 1 year ago

    Why all the hate about GFWL?

    for me GFWL is completely a big NO. Dirt 2 really give bad taste of GFWL because my country is not supported by GFWL but supported by Steam.

    so, if your country is supported, what make hate gfwl? (im pure question, i really dont know the good/bad sides of gfwl because my country not supported)
    Edited by 1 at 02/10/10 @ 14:58
  • DoctorFouad #17 1 year ago

    just imagine what next gen consoles with directx 11+ hardware could achieve.......
  • dloob #18 1 year ago

    GFWL makes me more likely to buy a game as it links in with my xbox live profile.
    I've had no issues at all with it.
  • scifikr #19 1 year ago

    Being seen as an extension of Xbox Live is part of the problem of GFWL. On the console is your only way of having multiplayer support, etc. but on PC there's competition (Steam..) and it highlights the lack of features and the annoying interface (for mouse & keyboard) of GFWL (or Games for Xbox Gamers on PC)
  • IneptPercy #20 1 year ago

    I too am having a problem with the wireless 360 controller so can't play it.

    To be honest GFWL doesn't both me in the slightest and I quite like it. As for games being held back that doesn't bother me much, the lack of tearing and higher res/filtering works for me while other games push it harder.
  • orangpelupa #21 1 year ago

    btw i got negged just because asking about GFWL.... ouch...

    @dl, sc, in
    thanks the replies :D
  • ZizouFC #22 1 year ago

    Just the way it is.
  • Buran #23 1 year ago

    As often the PC version runs at 2560 x 1600 or better at more than 60 fps and better filters win single card configurations. Nothing new here, most of the console games in this gen barely "reach" 720p x 30 fps, and fall far away from the superlative resolutions and framerrates available in PC.

    This game seems a direct port, but in a PC gaming landscape with titles as Metro 2033, ArmA II & Arrowhead, Shattered Horizon or Crysis & Warhead pushing constantly the technical limits the role of Dead Rising 2 seems pretty minor.
  • neems #24 1 year ago

    @orangpelupa - supposedly it is possible to use GFWL in unsupported countries - I think you can sign up for an account of a different nationality. Apparently Dirt 2 is quite popular in Russia.
  • Luk333 #25 1 year ago

    It's been more than a year since I noticed this stagnation in regards to the graphics. There are no upcoming games that are technologically groundbreaking or that will make you say "that's impossible". The last two waves were represented for me by Far Cry 1/Half-Life 2/ Doom 3 and then by Unreal Engine 3 games/Crysis. Until the next console cycle probably not much will change. Going a little bit further and considering that most games use DirectX, I think Microsoft is not interested yet in bringing something unseen exclusively for the PC, as long as they have the X-Box 360.

    You may remember those times when people were complaining about the constant war between games graphics, hoping that the fight to have the best looking game will end and then the producers will finally be able to focus on new revolutionary gameplay and game genres. The fight has reduced, but the revolution is not here. Innovation still occurs, but at the same pace as before, meaning that there's even less to be excited about upcoming games.

    Of course, one of the upsides is that the complaint that you need to upgrade so often your computer to play the newest games is disappearing. The only reason I'll soon ditch my Geforce 9600GT for a GTX 460 is because I went from a 17" to a 24 " screen. :)) I wasn't even dreaming a few years ago that I'll be able to play almost everything on high in this resolution with a $200 video card. I guess I should thank Sony and Microsoft.
  • jamesworkshop #26 1 year ago

    @retrend

    I don't think you read the article properly

    "lazily done console port still looks infinitely better on pc"

    lazily done console port looks damm near identical on a system with measurably faster hardware, what gives?

  • MrMud #27 1 year ago

    I think it should be mentioned that currently this game does not support an xbox 360 wireless controller despite it being a GFWL game. Although the issue has been raised and Capcom are aware of it.
  • Adi-C #28 1 year ago

    To me, the biggest difference on a pc is the ability to DISABLE blur. I dunno if it's possible on a console, but on pc- it's a plus. Disabling it leaves the cutscenes depth of field effect intact, it only removes the ingame distant background blurring, which... leaves like half of zombies blurred. That's a point of opinon but to me blur is unnecesary, and it makes this particular game look worse.
    With blur on you can't really see far because... everything in the background is so blurred! Like 70% of zombies are blurred and you don't even think about them as a danger, because they seem to be so far away.
    Disabling it (i think it's off by default) helps, the image is crisp and clean, you can see lots of zombies in their, uh, HD glory. You now see each and every zombie on the screen as you should.
    Now i can't even stand looking at the game with blur enabled. It's like seeing only half of the game.
    Edited by 2 at 03/10/10 @ 11:04
  • Rack #29 1 year ago

    If whoever had written this had actually played the PC version they could have commented on the performance and mentioned that controller support doesn't work, you have to wait for a patch that probably will never happen. Instead we get 2 pages of vague generic splatter about PC gaming in general. Not terribly written but horribly mislabelled.
  • jamesworkshop #30 1 year ago

    @retrend

    I know it's like the xbox version is Farcry 1 and PC is Crysis Warhead

    [link url=http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/ar ticles//a/1/2/7/7/0/7/2/PC_000.jpg.jpg
    ]http://im ages.eurogamer.net/assets/artic...[/link]
    [link url=http://images.eurogamer.net/assets/a rticles//a/1/2/7/7/0/7/2/360_000.jpg.jpg
    ]http://im ages.eurogamer.net/assets/artic...[/link]

    "Consoles are now the focus, to the point where the incredible rendering technology being developed by NVIDIA and AMD is simply being used to generate fairly simplistic visuals compared to what the raw hardware is physically capable of delivering."

    "On a PC this translates to a game capable of operating at supremely high resolutions, but still featuring rather bland artwork in places: all those extra pixels count for little if the base artwork is of a fairly low resolution."

    "Aside from natural increase in texture detail via the normal process of mip-mapping, we don't really tend to see much improvement"

    "A lot of the texture artwork can look pretty low resolution on the 720p Xbox 360 version, looking even more incongruous running at much higher resolutions on PC."

    "Dead Rising 2 features impressive draw distance on console and while there are some changes for the better on PC when running at higher resolutions, the overall improvement level is fairly subtle."
  • apoc_reg #31 1 year ago

    I was initially a bit annoyed i brought the steam one not the 360 one.

    But then i realised that i can still play the case zero and case west on my xbox and i don't have to put up with the xbox load times (judging by case west, ouch!) on PC. Level transitions are about 5 seconds on my PC maxed a 1920x1200...

    Now if capcom could just fix the damn pad support for x64 win7 machines!

    edit: and living in the western world GFWL is absolutely fine. great even (if you have an xbox too). No problems on nearing 15 GFWL games i've got
    Edited by 1 at 04/10/10 @ 15:56
  • Garfy #32 1 year ago

    >the forthcoming Case West add-on - which sees Frank West (and his camera) returning to Dead Rising

    He's covered wars you know! (Someone had to :)
  • flanker22 #33 1 year ago