-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD has console gaming in its pocket, but can it squeeze out Nvidia on the PC?
- Thread starter LtMatt
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,424
It's impossible to blame a game without putting the guilt on the ones who build it. When you say "that game is a bad port" it means a lot of things: poor optimization, limited and dated game mechanics, poor interface, lack of options in the menus, weak controls, bad concepts and so on, all driven from the limited hardware and "casual gamers" that buy them nevertheless.
Of course there are PC only games or the ones that have a strong root in PC gaming, that perform like cr*p or are lacking in some departments.
So, what's the difference then between "a bad port" and "a bad PC game"? None perhaps, but some PC games "may" get the benefit of a doubt - "at least they've tried". Crysis felt like a PC game, Crysis 2 not so much. BF 2 felt like a PC game, BF 3 not so much. DE 1 was a PC game, DX 2 not so much, HR a step in the right direction... HL 1 and 2 felt like a PC game, HL 3... we shall see.
Last edited:
The issue though is that because "porting" typically never happens, why bother labelling bad games as ports?
Consoles do not hold back games, developers do. Consoles are not to blame for much at all despite getting a lot of blame.
Game engines are very scalable, which is why you can have Crysis 3 looking the way it does, whilst also having it on consoles.
All the issues people have with bad PC builds of games are not to do with limited console hardware.
Lacking options have nothing to do with limited console power, as I said, game engines are very scalable.
Weak controls, again, nothing to do with a console, it's weak and lazy development.
Bad concepts? Wut?
So you acknowledge bad PC exclusives, they are bad for exactly the same reasons multi-platform ones are bad, yet multiplatform ones are blamed on the console versions.
It's encouraging ignorance and that's not a good thing.
Consoles do not hold back games, developers do. Consoles are not to blame for much at all despite getting a lot of blame.
Game engines are very scalable, which is why you can have Crysis 3 looking the way it does, whilst also having it on consoles.
All the issues people have with bad PC builds of games are not to do with limited console hardware.
Lacking options have nothing to do with limited console power, as I said, game engines are very scalable.
Weak controls, again, nothing to do with a console, it's weak and lazy development.
Bad concepts? Wut?
So you acknowledge bad PC exclusives, they are bad for exactly the same reasons multi-platform ones are bad, yet multiplatform ones are blamed on the console versions.
It's encouraging ignorance and that's not a good thing.
We all understand what 'console port' implies, even if it isn't accurate.
We could call it 'lowest common denominator development', but that doesn't roll off the tongue so easily
Anyway, I don't tend to agree with the attitude that 'console ports' are ruining PC gaming.
The thing is though, the alternative "lazy development" is apt, and exactly what the issue is.
Yet people insist it's because "porting". The reason why "because console port" has even become a "thing" is because of ignorance.
People tend to think a game is developed for consoles until completion, and then the finished console version is "ported" to PC.
People also tend to think it happens between consoles too, it's bizarre.
It just makes zero sense to call it porting when it isn't and there's an easy way to describe it that is straight to the point.
Yet people insist it's because "porting". The reason why "because console port" has even become a "thing" is because of ignorance.
People tend to think a game is developed for consoles until completion, and then the finished console version is "ported" to PC.
People also tend to think it happens between consoles too, it's bizarre.
It just makes zero sense to call it porting when it isn't and there's an easy way to describe it that is straight to the point.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,424
You can only play with the limited amount of Lego pieces until there isn't really a new model that can be made. HW limits the number of characters on screen, the size of the world, the complexity of the gameplay and so on - BF 3 and BC2 only 24players for consoles, no Planetside 2, no ArmA, no sims, etc. So yes, in my opinion, current gen consoles did limit the evolution of games and gaming in general.
Like I said, Stalker and ArmA, even Gothic 3 although full with bugs, are still accepted in the community due to the fact that at least they've tried and actually brought something new and unique to games. Crysis 1 did that, Crysis 2 didn't. "Laziness" is one of the reasons why a game get labeled "bad port", just one side of it.
There is one thing to write a code that will take full use of PC medium-high end system and another to make it work on something weaker.
Something similar happen with Alan Wake. DX10 PC version was canceled and in the end we received a version derived from the consoles.
Like I said, Stalker and ArmA, even Gothic 3 although full with bugs, are still accepted in the community due to the fact that at least they've tried and actually brought something new and unique to games. Crysis 1 did that, Crysis 2 didn't. "Laziness" is one of the reasons why a game get labeled "bad port", just one side of it.
There is one thing to write a code that will take full use of PC medium-high end system and another to make it work on something weaker.
Something similar happen with Alan Wake. DX10 PC version was canceled and in the end we received a version derived from the consoles.
Last edited:
I'm well aware of the limitations of consoles, but that doesn't have to translate over to PCs.
You even said it yourself. BF3 only 24 players, but it's 64 on PC. Scalable.
The bottom line though is that they're not ports, and PC exclusives suffer from the same issues as "ports" do.
Whinging about "console ports" is part of the "master race" mentality people have when it comes to PC games.
The insistence of "ports" being an actual common thing is completely borne from ignorance.
You even said it yourself. BF3 only 24 players, but it's 64 on PC. Scalable.
The bottom line though is that they're not ports, and PC exclusives suffer from the same issues as "ports" do.
Whinging about "console ports" is part of the "master race" mentality people have when it comes to PC games.
The insistence of "ports" being an actual common thing is completely borne from ignorance.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,424
Incorrect. Maps had become full with bottlenecks, centered around zones of interest for infantry or other modes that take advantage of the CQC. They are design to work both for PCs and consoles at the same time, with weaker hardware in mind.
Direct X versions are quite meaningless, and the release of Alan Wake wasn't "derived" from consoles.
It's a PC game made specifically for PC (the PC version) the way any other PC games are made.
I wouldn't let it bother you too much. If people want to feel smug about their choice of gaming platform, who cares?
And besides, I'd wager a lot of PC gamers have consoles anyhow. The actual number of fabled 'PC elitists' is probably laughably small.
Because of a choice that developers have made. They didn't have to use the exact same maps, they chose to.
I agree with this, and it doesn't really bother me as such, I feel sorry for people who feel the need to feel smug about being PC gamers.
Those sort of people tend to know very little about the history of games and the highly probability that PC games would be very much behind where they are now due to consoles pushing video games in to the "acceptable" mainstream.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,424
Lol, and why is that? Why did they choose to use the same maps? Not because it was not enough time to allocate resources on all platforms? You choose a path considering what there is at your disposal and that path is chosen considering the weakest link.
I very much doubt that.
I very much doubt that.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Feb 2010
- Posts
- 5,230
- Location
- North East England
Nothing to do with master race mentality, its (or i thought) an accepted fact that old gen consoles have held back gaming development. Its the developers fault as they have found that they get away with offering less than they should with little enhancements over the console versions but nothing like what we should be getting. BF1942 ends this argument.
We should have had so much more
That's irrelevant when people are blaming consoles for causing it, when it's because developers CHOOSE to develop in that way.
That's the bottom line, anything wrong with a multiplatform PC version of a game is very often blamed on consoles, and the "if consoles didn't exist" thing tends to get wheeled out.
That's the bottom line, anything wrong with a multiplatform PC version of a game is very often blamed on consoles, and the "if consoles didn't exist" thing tends to get wheeled out.
Trouble with gaming as well is that there is no clearly defined standard for what a game should be. If I do and buy a toaster or a TV, take it home and it refuses to work then I can take it back for a refund.
If a game doesn't work, then the developer rolls out a nice big "**** you until IF we can be bothered to fix it".
It really shouldn't be allowed - companies should be made to fix large problems in good time or face fines. After all, they were quick enough to take money off the consumer.
If a game doesn't work, then the developer rolls out a nice big "**** you until IF we can be bothered to fix it".
It really shouldn't be allowed - companies should be made to fix large problems in good time or face fines. After all, they were quick enough to take money off the consumer.
Don't MS charge for patching?
When your building a game with a campaign spanning 2 dozen or so maps it becomes impractical to have radically different maps between different platforms - a lot of titles of late have been poor on the PC due to relatively flat and 2 dimensional map layouts designed to cater to console controls and memory limitations (areas for loading/swapping data) likewise a lot of games have ended up worse due to memory limitations be it RAM/buffers or storage resulting in far shorter and less content rich games than if they were designed for PC.
On Windows? I don't see how, generally a patch is released, downloaded, and executed?