Which of the latest pc games were mere console ports?

francky said:
Inevitably fail?......in your OPINION yes maybe, but then other people may think the opposite, as the respective games are about an individuals tastes.

Plus this isnt a willy waving contest about Consoles vs PC's.
Click to expand...

please don't reply to the incredibly obvious troll
 
Not too sure he's trolling, people have opinions. a lot of people think Half Life is overrated for example, some even think it's a bad game and that doesn't make them trolls for stating an opinion.
 
Developers concentrate on consoles because; wait for it... it makes loads of money. Quite shocking really. Console player base is much larger due to ease of access so the potential is massive. Grandma and little Johnny aren't ever going to have a gaming PC but there's a good chance they might have a PS3 or would get one with little persuasion. Exclusives only escalate this.

Big publishers/developers like EA and Activision are always going to go where the low risk money is and the console is fruitful ground for them. Small developers though are kind of stuck on the PC because it's far cheaper to developer for. However it comes with added benefits of being able to take more risk and innovation is more likely to come from here. Take Minecraft for example. Started out as a small Java base game being developed by one guy and is now bigger than ever. It's been tried, tested and is found to be successful. It's now low risk so it's time to release it on a console and watch the dollars roll in. This is when companies like EA get interested and may try to acquire said IP.
 
Omaeka said:
Not too sure he's trolling, people have opinions. a lot of people think Half Life is overrated for example, some even think it's a bad game and that doesn't make them trolls for stating an opinion.
Click to expand...

He is either trolling or a complete idiot, or both.

PC is the platform of choice for exclusive RTS games and obviously also MMORPG's, with some titles from those genres having massive fanbases. I myself am more a fan of the sort of games that tend to appear across all platforms, but if this clown 'Poobrain' prefers to sit and play BF3, Farcry 3, Crysis 3 etc etc on a console other than on a good gaming PC, then all the best to him.

'Lame console port' isn't just an attention seeking web forum cry, but also a valid accusation against some titles. Games like Crysis 3, BF3, FarCry3 etc, cannot be labelled as 'console ports' as a means of accusation against the game devs, as although these games offer essentially the same mechanics on the console as they do the PC version, the PC versions offer full control customisation and a level of graphical quality an magnitude of several order higher than what is on offer on the console versions.

However, a game like Rage could be called accused of being a lame console port, because the performance of that game is damn ugly and practically no effort has been made to up the graphical quality of the PC version. Then there are games like Skyrim. A big hit on the PC (I personally thought it sucked) and whilst offering much better graphical quality and performance, offered PC gamers a control system designed only with gamepad users in mind.
 
MeMeMeMe said:
Crysis was a PC exclusive, released in 2007. It wasn't till 2011 that a version was released for consoles.
Click to expand...

And the console versions proved that the consoles were more or less able to keep up and put out a game like that. It wasn't a PC exclusive because it was exclusive, it was PC exclusive because Crytek's optimisation was god awful for that version of CryEngine.
 
Ksanti said:
And the console versions proved that the consoles were more or less able to keep up and put out a game like that. It wasn't a PC exclusive because it was exclusive, it was PC exclusive because Crytek's optimisation was god awful for that version of CryEngine.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's a fair criticism. Crysis was a new engine, pushing the boundaries of gaming graphics. It has been beaten since, but it took other companies another few years to manage it.

It's just like the xbox360/PS3 generation: now, developers can get a lot oiut of those machines, thanks to all the tricks and techniques that have been learned over years. But when they were first developed, they were much more poorly optimised and capable than they are now.

Just like GCN: AMD's drivers massively improved performance in a bunc of games, once they figured out how to get the best out of GCN, a process that took many months.

Even so, I was just rereading a comparison of Crytek's console release of crysis and the pc version shows it still isn't clearcut: the new engine has some cool lighting tricks, the old one has some shoddy texture, but still the console version needed to be run at a cut down level.

Crysis was not a shoddily optimised game: it was a game that used new technologies and demanded powerful hardware to run at its best. The developers have learned ways to improve its performance, but also hardware in PCs has massively improved since then: try running crysis 2 on hardware that was around at the time of crysis release - I expect some of those optimisations they've developed will make it scale a little better to low end hardware, but in doing so, it won't look as good as crysis.
 
Fenris said:
They all are to varying degrees, it is also nothing new, which makes the crying of "CONSOLE PORT WAAAAH" even less worthy of consideration.

It is one of the recent fads I wish people would just drop, even when games run brilliantly and look excellent on PC there is always a very vocal minority of douche bags ready to hop out of the woodwork whining about porting and "optimization", another god awful word used by people who have no idea what they are talking about.
Click to expand...

Oh lawd, finally someone else that gets it. There's way too many people that love to whinge and moan about stuff they don't understand. All this crying and claims of console ports are just mind numbing.

The things people are using as reasons to claim something is a console port is getting much worse as well. It's at the point where any issues with the PC version of a multi platform game are because of "console ports".
 
agnes said:
Now, please name 15 exclusives per console that were big hits...
Click to expand...

Resistance
Uncharted
Gran Turismo
Killzone
Little Big Planet
God of War
Heavy Rain
Infamous
MAG
MGS4
Motorstorm
Ratchet and Clank
Singstar
Warhawk
ICO/Shadow of the Colossus

While I don't fully believe consoles are 100% better than PCs, I feel they have a much better set of exclusives. (Although PC has FM :/)
 
The Resident Evil 6 game is definitely a console port. Dx9 graphics and amazingly poor environment textures, compared to Resident Evil 5 which could use Dx10 and had better texturing all round. The only redeeming factor is the length of the game which is truly long. Played 16 hours so far and I've done 2 1/2 of the 4 campaigns.
 
Whilst consoles have a lot of excellent exclusives and gaming on them is quite a unique experience, I feel that PC games appeal to me a lot more. Perhaps it's due to the fact that I grew up playing strategy games

Nowadays, I feel that the strongest arguments for PC gaming lie in:

  • The diversity of the genres (anything from casual indie games that could be played on a mobile phone to hardcore Excel-like simulators), with a number of smaller budget titles filling in various niches;
  • Freedom of choice when it comes to hardware (and peripherals in general);
  • Superior graphics and capabilities - especially when it comes to games that were made with PCs in mind (The Witcher 2, Crysis for example) or multiplayer games (any fps that increases the artificial limit on the map size or number of players, dedicated servers, autoaim, servers customisation);
  • PC specific games - MMORPGs (probably the biggest PC market at the moment), strategies (turn-based, RTS, tycoons, 4x, Total War, or any other mix you can think of), RPGs (please don't mention any jRPGs on consoles that make me watch underage girls, with unnaturally large eyes and wearing skimpy skirts, with in-game cutscenes longer than the actual game itself and complexity suitable for a pre-teen gamer), large-scale FPS (Planetside 2, ARMA 3), survival games (DayZ, Don't Starve, Amnesia), cross-genres (Warband), sandbox (Garry's Mod, Starbound, Terraria), space simulators/free-roam (X-series) and actual simulators (FSX, DCS games, iRacing), indie or niche titles (like ETS2), simulations (The Sims, SimCity, Theme Hospital), competitve games (Counter Strike, StarCraft, DOTA 2), god games (Populous, Black & White), football managers;
  • Game modifications (Mods) - for me it's possibly a number one or two on the list, really, as I've spent countless hours playing mods that would be never possible without the community effort;
  • Customisation - this refers to pretty much everything that you can do with the game, starting with advanced graphical settings (in-game or forced through the driver or third party software), through multi-monitor setups, 3D gaming, TrackIR, Virtual Reality headsets, or turning your PC into a real simulator with a number of similar perphierals;
  • Community patches and bugfixes;
  • Cost - it's a simple matter of fact that buying games in sales or Humble Bundles can save you hundreds of pounds over a couple of years, which you could invest in PC upgrades. I know that not everyone will agree with this, because you can resell/rent most titles on consoles, but PC gaming is usually cheaper once you have hardware capable of playing the games.
  • Alpha/beta testing;
  • Crowdfunded projects.

Most games I'm interested in playing make it to PC, so for me it's always a clear choice when it comes to buying games. With that said, I don't mind owning a console or two for that occasional title I might play on it. Especially since the current and next generation consoles are aiming to become a hub for home entertainment, which is a good enough reason for me to consider owning one of them.

I'm glad the new consoles will sport a similar architecture to PCs, since that will warrant more and better console ports, and there's never enough of those on my beloved platform. ;)

I don't like linking to IGN, but here is a list of just 50 PC exclusives coming out this year:

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/18/50-pc-exclusive-games-in-2013

Most of them warrant at least a second look.

I think some people don't realise how huge PC gaming really is (again, sorry about linking to Wikipedia, but it has the sources in reference list):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_PC_video_games
 
Last edited:
Games are scalable. Then it depends if it's a bottom-up process, or top-down. Usually bottom up, with the consoles a priority market, and also because it's easier. If a game works on consoles, it'll work on a PC.
 
What about all the great games like Call of Duty and Battlefield that start out on PC and end up being rolled out every year on consoles. e.g. COD 15 war fighter or something :rolleyes:

COD (call of duty 1 & 2 which were by far the best)
Doom
Quake
Medal of Honour
Need for Speed
Grand theft auto
Crysis

Just to name a few. All that have been converted to console and feel very similar

PC developers used to create new games, which would be bought out by big companies or small companies would expand and become greedy and suck in other developers. Electronic arts used to be fantastic company.

Need for Speed 2 - what a cracking game
 
PooBrain said:
A lot of crap exclusives which is why the PC platform has (for the last 3 decades) and always will be behind the home consoles.
Click to expand...

you sir, have a brain made of poo. (see above games list)

....Oh, Half Life and Starcraft. No-one has heard of these have they? Apart from Starcraft being a national sport of Korea that is
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom