Console to PC Ports Can Be Great

Some can. Batman, Bioshock, Dead Space are all pretty great. Would be better in DX11 which tho.
 
I certainly believe it CAN be done right....we are just going to have to wait and see if it IS done right ;)
 
Ports can be done badly both ways. Last time I played the console version of a PC game on the start menu it said "press enter to continue" and on the save menu it told me not to turn off my PC or exit to windows. I was SO pissed off as it ruined the experience for me completely. :p
 
I'm ready to see all the tin foil hat wearers out in this thread.

Good game is good game
Bad game is bad game

Whether it was ported or not. Quit scapegoating.
 
Lionhead Studios is Peter Molyneux. Why would anyone believe anything he says? Remember Fable?
 
DeathPrincess said:
Ports can be done badly both ways. Last time I played the console version of a PC game on the start menu it said "press enter to continue" and on the save menu it told me not to turn off my PC or exit to windows. I was SO pissed off as it ruined the experience for me completely. :p
Click to expand...

Yeah, I was so mad too. Especially since it had 70+ hours of gameplay. Forget that! I want to finish my games in 5!
 
I think the worst port from console to PC I have seen would have to be Red Faction 2.

They kept all of the wonderful low resolution PS2 art assets and it was just chock full of suck in the programming bugs department.
 
Gym Rat said:
Some can. Batman, Bioshock, Dead Space are all pretty great. Would be better in DX11 which tho.
Click to expand...
No it wouldn't. Graphics are not a vital part of the game. They just make it look prettier.

The people now whining about graphics being held back by consoles were the same people preaching graphics don't mean the game is good 5 years ago.
 
phide said:
He said they'd be better if the graphics were better. You genuinely disagree with this?
Click to expand...
I genuinely do. More advanced engines allow developers to do more complicated things and, in turn, fulfill their vision as best they can. But a DX11 render path on a completed game won't make it any better. It'll be the same thing, with a couple more shaders and faster execution. Woopie, the game is the same.
 
L0s7 4 Lyf3 said:
No it wouldn't. Graphics are not a vital part of the game. They just make it look prettier.

The people now whining about graphics being held back by consoles were the same people preaching graphics don't mean the game is good 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

To be fair, I don't know of anyone who has a multi-monitor setup specifically to only play games from 2004. :D

In all seriousness, I understand the graphic point of view. It's 2011, DX11 is out, new hardware capable of amazing things is also out. You should try to at least throw a bone to the guys who willingly dump more than $100 on a video card.

Me? I'm on a 4890. I'm happy if I can run 1920x1200 at full eyecandy. Anything else is just icing on the cake.
 
When was the last time Lionhead Studios made a grandiose claim and delivered on it? Oh that's right, never.
 
I would also just like to add that porting a game from console to PC is more than graphics and controls. It is also the core gameplay which requires almost a complete rewrite of the game. The biggest thing that pisses me off about console ports is when a franchise gets dumbed down to stupid levels (EX: Rainbow Six) because of the average console player and the default input method they have. Rainbow Six Vegas can have stellar input and good UI for KB&M but if the game is a shadow of what it once was it is still a horrible console port with the only way to fix it being a complete rewrite of the game.
 
Well as for what they are doing over at Lionshead I think shows they listen to the feedback that bothers most PC gamers when they get a title ported over from a console. If other devs wernt so lazy and did what these guys are doing, upgrading graphics, new UI and redoing control interface from scratch then i think there would be much less raging between consoles and PC. Its too bad though cutting corners and laziness are more commonly found in most studios because greed instead of having respect and pride for the market they are selling to.

Props to Lionshead for taking the right steps.
 
L0s7 4 Lyf3 said:
It'll be the same thing, with a couple more shaders and faster execution. Woopie, the [strike=1]game[/s] gameplay is the same.
Click to expand...
You're confusing "game" and "gameplay". A game is the sum of many parts, including the visuals, sound, input and gameplay (interaction). Gameplay is the mechanical response to actions you take within the context of the game — the action (input) and reaction (event).

If you increase the fidelity of the graphics, the gameplay stays the same. The game itself is different, either subjectively better or subjectively worse.
 
L0s7 4 Lyf3 said:
No it wouldn't. Graphics are not a vital part of the game. They just make it look prettier.

The people now whining about graphics being held back by consoles were the same people preaching graphics don't mean the game is good 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

Graphics don't matter, but other things do. More ram means more larger environments to explore. More processing power means more physics. I mean real physics, like how Half Life 2 used it, and not just a way to see people die in a cool way.

The PC would take away restrictions on developers, and allow them to explore, and be creative. Then again, graphics is what people wanna see.
 
phide said:
You're confusing "game" and "gameplay". A game is the sum of many parts, including the visuals, sound, input and gameplay (interaction). Gameplay is the mechanical response to actions you take within the context of the game — the action (input) and reaction (event).

If you increase the fidelity of the graphics, the gameplay stays the same. The game itself is different, either subjectively better or subjectively worse.
Click to expand...
Correct. I'm saying gameplay (the game is still pretty much the same). Go play WoW on highest graphics, then turn them down as low as possible and drop the renderpath down. It's the same gameplay, looks 80% the same just without the fancy texturing and spell effects. It doesn't take fun away from the game, just adds eye candy.

Games wouldn't magically all become Half Lifes, Bioshocks, or Grim Fandangos if consoles dropped out of existence. That caliber of game requires talented and imaginative developers. And just like any other industry, the really good stuff (or creators) is/are going to be a minority. It has very little to do with consoles. Or graphics.
 
L0s7 4 Lyf3 said:
Games wouldn't magically all become Half Lifes, Bioshocks, or Grim Fandangos if consoles dropped out of existence. That caliber of game requires talented and imaginative developers. And just like any other industry, the really good stuff (or creators) is/are going to be a minority. It has very little to do with consoles. Or graphics.
Click to expand...

I disagree with you there because a person imagining things or trying to create something cool/unique/new for gaming has much more red tape in consoles than pc development. Newest tech and features bring new ways of telling a story and the newest tech and features will always be the lastest on a PC.
 
Gym Rat said:
Some can. Batman, Bioshock, Dead Space are all pretty great. Would be better in DX11 which tho.
Click to expand...

Exactly. These games were all pretty clearly console ports, but Batman Arkham Asylum was simply fantastic on the PC. Whether you used a mouse and keyboard, or a game pad the game just worked and was executed perfectly on both platforms. Dead Space was also quite excellent. Though some people criticized the controls though I didn't have any issues with a mouse and keyboard. However both games were setup to take advantage of the extra power the PC has to offer. Both games handled Eyefinity / NV Surround resolutions OK, and both offered AA support. Hell Transformers War for Cybertron was excellent as well, but it failed on the Eyefinity / Control remapping front. Dead Space had that problem too, but the default controls worked fine for me.

So while not necessarily perfect, these games were ported better than many games in the past have and most of the important bases were covered. I can think of a lot of worse ports like Need For Speed Hot Pursuit which is horrendous and totally broken for many people.
 
L0s7 4 Lyf3 said:
The people now whining about graphics being held back by consoles were the same people preaching graphics don't mean the game is good 5 years ago.
Click to expand...

So I guess this means that when the next gen console is released 3-4 years from now, and it so happens it provides much better graphics than current consoles (graphics maybe as good as what's available for the PC right now)--that you won't be buying that next-gen console 'cause you really don't care if the game graphics look like pixellated dog droppings--as long as the "game play" is top notch you're happy. Is this an accurate summation of your thinking on this matter?

If so, then I can only remind you that a great game doesn't have to have below-average graphics in order to be great, and if a great game also happens to offer state-of-the-art graphics then that just makes that great game even better. I don't think it's possible to argue against that statement. I think it is rather foolish, myself, to think that sub-par graphics go hand-in-hand with great games. Rather, I think it is much more factual to state that great graphics are very often an integral component of great games. And that's just one reason, among many more, that I have never owned a console and never will--going second-rate has never appealed to me.
 
Consoles or not, developers STILL have to cater to the lowest denominator among PCs because most people do not have the enthusiest high-end or even close to it. It has always been that way. That doesn't just go for graphics but for game environments and AI also. It is just exacerbated now by consoles because of their proliferation.
 
IMO they should go back go making the Black and White games. Now that was a series that really delivered. Where did it go? :(
 
I tried Fable on PC and gave up on it because the control scheme was so consolified it was useless. I'm not buying any other console ports Lionhead puts out.
 
WaltC said:
So I guess this means that when the next gen console is released 3-4 years from now, and it so happens it provides much better graphics than current consoles (graphics maybe as good as what's available for the PC right now)--that you won't be buying that next-gen console 'cause you really don't care if the game graphics look like pixellated dog droppings--as long as the "game play" is top notch you're happy. Is this an accurate summation of your thinking on this matter?

If so, then I can only remind you that a great game doesn't have to have below-average graphics in order to be great, and if a great game also happens to offer state-of-the-art graphics then that just makes that great game even better. I don't think it's possible to argue against that statement. I think it is rather foolish, myself, to think that sub-par graphics go hand-in-hand with great games. Rather, I think it is much more factual to state that great graphics are very often an integral component of great games. And that's just one reason, among many more, that I have never owned a console and never will--going second-rate has never appealed to me.
Click to expand...
Not what I'm saying at all. Bad graphics won't ruin a great game. Enjoyable is enjoyable whether the graphics are 1998 or 2015.

I'm just tired of hearing whining about games are horrible because graphics aren't advancing anymore. They are. ME2 looks better than ME1. Portal 2 looks a hell of a lot better than Portal 1, hell it looks better than Metro 2033 IMO because the art direction is better. Portal 2 may not have DX11 tech but it has fantastic art and modeling. DX11 isn't better than DX9 if the DX11 stuff was drawn by your high school art class (exaggeration). All the newest gizmos in the world won't do much good if the art guys can't put it to good use.

If you remade HL1 EXACTLY the same as it is, except with the newest source engine... It wouldn't be any more fun. So I could care less if it's in Source v15.4. Goldsource is fine. Though I do appreciate the shinies, I'm just talking objectively here about the game (or gameplay for you anal sticklers) not being better because of shinies.
 
KleeziE said:
I disagree with you there because a person imagining things or trying to create something cool/unique/new for gaming has much more red tape in consoles than pc development. Newest tech and features bring new ways of telling a story and the newest tech and features will always be the lastest on a PC.
Click to expand...
You think the people trying to create games all have visions of grand games that they can create if only they have the technology? You think a 360 or PS3 can't create another Half Life? Half Life was on PS2. Orange Box was on 360. You think the creative bottleneck is the technology, NOT the people creating it?
 
I think any limitation to the creative process defeats the end goal of making a great game. You bring up Half Life as an example of a new technology game that was made first on the PC not console which adds to my point.
 
KleeziE said:
I think any limitation to the creative process defeats the end goal of making a great game. You bring up Half Life as an example of a new technology game that was made first on the PC not console which adds to my point.
Click to expand...
I mentioned Orange Box which was released on the 360. Portal 2, Ep2 both fantastic games that were not held back by consoles.

Someone certainly can create great games on consoles, and they do. Metal Gear Solid. Mass Effect. Think of more examples yourself. Just requires a group talented people, which are rare. Lots of people are capable of making Generic Shooter 15, few people can come up with and execute the great stuff.
 
I feel the controls and depth of gameplay define a PC game more than the graphics.
 
after having to wait 3 years since it was released on the PC you get it on the 360 and ps3. Kinda a long time for the console market to catch up in technology/gaming world
 
Eisenblut said:
Consoles or not, developers STILL have to cater to the lowest denominator among PCs because most people do not have the enthusiest high-end or even close to it. It has always been that way. That doesn't just go for graphics but for game environments and AI also. It is just exacerbated now by consoles because of their proliferation.
Click to expand...

This is true. But the question becomes, what is the lowest common denominator? It's developer defined. Heck, if they wanted too, they could make the lowest common denominator an i7 990 extreme with 2 AMD 6990's and 24 GB RAM. Or they could make it a 486 33Mhz with 2 MB of RAM and Windows 3.1. Generally though, you want to look at market saturation.

Regardless, as other people have stated, there's more to a PC's capabilities than just the graphics and controls. Even with the same quality video card and using a gamepad, you can make the game grander and more seamless due to more RAM and having an actual hard drive rather than running off a slow access disc.

And catering to the lcd does not stop you from adding features that can be exploited by people with better hardware.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top