Are PC developers/ports getting lazy

[Blaster395]

And by lazy, I mean lazy in optimising the game to run fast. Graphics have not realy improved in the last 2 years or so, but system requirements still go up, and it is often because its not optimised, has memory leaks, or other bugs.
For example, Black ops runs slower than Modern warfare 1, even though they have about the same graphics.
Are they just getting lazy because they no longer have to bother with optimising since PCs are still getting more powerful?

 

[Skelebob124156]

And by lazy, I mean lazy in optimising the game to run fast. Graphics have not realy improved in the last 2 years or so, but system requirements still go up, and it is often because its not optimised, has memory leaks, or other bugs.
For example, Black ops runs slower than Modern warfare 1, even though they have about the same graphics.
Are they just getting lazy because they no longer have to bother with optimising since PCs are still getting more powerful?

Black Ops runs slow beacuse of a bug with DirectX, patches have improved the speed but not made it perfect.

 

[Irridium]

I'd say yes. Ports seem to be less optimized for the PC, and don't take advantage of the PC's strengths.

For truly awful ports, see GTAIV and Saints Row 2.

 

[SovietSecrets]

Yes. The past few ports have shown this. Though I haven't played GTA 4 and Saints Row 2, Black Ops was a travesty when it first came out.

 

[BritishWeather]

Nearly every PC game looks better than it's console counterpart.

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

For example, Black ops runs slower than Modern warfare 1, even though they have about the same graphics.

There are some terrible ports out there, and I haven't played either of those two specifically to be able to compare, but other than the complete disasters where they didn't even bother trying (or weren't given enough time to by the publisher), most stuff still seems ok-ish to me, whether it's from the past year or a few years ago. Just Cause 2, The Last Remnant, Burnout Paradise, Ghostbusters, The Force Unleashed, Prince of Persia, Assassin's Creed, Borderlands, BioShock, Overlord, Mass Effect, MW2...all seem to run about equally well on my computer. I think that covers the last few years reasonably well, although I guess there aren't too many really, really recent releases in there. Haven't gotten around to installing Darksiders yet, so I can't say first-hand, but that's supposed to be a pretty decent port, too.

So I guess my final answer is no, at least not any lazier than they've always been. Some ports are good, and some are crap, just like usual.

 

[BritishWeather]

Nearly every PC game looks better than it's console counterpart.

Im not exactly sure what the point of your statement is. A few games have already been mentioned here in this thread and I can easily think of a dozen others that actually play far better on a consoles, ie the pc version runs like crap. Nobody really gives a flying fuck if a game looks better but runs like complete shit.

The point is devs aren't getting lazy it's just idiots who can't use a pc. All my pc games run fine, if you encounter an error you use a simple thing called "google"

 

[Monshroud]

I think it has to do with keeping the game experience more in check with the console counterparts. Since PC's have the ability to render in true 1080 where most games on the consoles are faked using a form of interlacing or if running progressive they do it at 720p. Companies would have to really re-work their graphics and models and then you have a PC version that looks WAY better and console people would complain.

Also you have to remember that not everyone has a top end gaming rig with a GeForce 4 Series in it. There are DirectX compatibility issues to contend with and needing the game to have a certain look even on lower end systems. Companies just can't afford the time to code for every variation of graphics card.

So if a game support a GeForce 9800, then the overall look will probably be lower than say if the minimum required a GeForce 2 Series. Granted while it would look awesome it would sell poorly since the vast majority of people aren't running current or sometimes previous gen video cards. Not to mention processors.

 

[Weaver]

There are some damn, damn lazy ports out there. Ones that even keep the memory restrictions of their ported console on them because they're hardwired into the game.

 

[Woodsey]

I think it has to do with keeping the game experience more in check with the console counterparts. Since PC's have the ability to render in true 1080 where most games on the consoles are faked using a form of interlacing or if running progressive they do it at 720p. Companies would have to really re-work their graphics and models and then you have a PC version that looks WAY better and console people would complain.

You know, I don't think they would - the sort of people who think that consoles hold more power than PCs tend to be the few people who don't even know you can play games on a PC.

And GeForce 4 series? I had one of those in my first PC!

OT: It goes in ebbs and flows.

I haven't noticed that many bad ports recently, and some seem to have fallen particularly in our favour; Mafia 2 and Metro 2033 come to mind.

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

Ones that even keep the memory restrictions of their ported console on them because they're hardwired into the game.

You mean like every UE3 game ever? I swear that engine was specifically designed to dump textures out of the cache as early and often as possible instead of actually using the gigs of free RAM just sitting there instead of doing something useful like preventing texture pop-in every time you turn around and go through a transition back to an area you just left 15 seconds ago. Yeah, I get that consoles have basically no RAM to work with compared to a decent PC and have to stream in textures to make up for it, but it could be a bit less braindead about how it handles it...

 

[Chibz]

Frankly it's not really worth the money spent to properly port a game to PC. Gotta look at it from the developers & publisher's standpoint. If it's not financially viable to do, they won't do it.

Some ports PC gamers are lucky to get AT ALL. Half-assed port or not.

It's like me, as a former-hardcore arcade denizen... Having a new arcade open but complaining that the selection of games is a little less than optimal. I should be grateful for the arcade in the first place.

 

[Tzekelkan]

And by lazy, I mean lazy in optimising the game to run fast. Graphics have not realy improved in the last 2 years or so, but system requirements still go up, and it is often because its not optimised, has memory leaks, or other bugs.
For example, Black ops runs slower than Modern warfare 1, even though they have about the same graphics.
Are they just getting lazy because they no longer have to bother with optimising since PCs are still getting more powerful?

I know exactly what you mean, dude. I have a modest laptop but can run Starcraft 2 at a high framerate on nearly the lowest settings and it still looks amazing. I was also able to run Modern Warfare 1 & 2 on average settings with a good framerate, and they also looked incredible. However, World at War and Black Ops ran like ass, even on the lowest settings.

See also GTA IV: crap on a stick. Bully: for a game from 2006 (2008 on the PC, but the graphics still look more like San Andreas than GTA IV) it lags terribly if I dare turn the shadows on. It's really annoying, but I'm doing the best of it.

Graphics aren't that big a deal for me and I can live with low settings, but what really ticks me off is that console ports tend to have very, very few graphics customizability. Would it kill developers to add more settings in their games? I got Mass Effect 2, turned everything down to minimum everything I could and it still ran really poorly. A few Google searches and config file editings later and the experience improved greatly. Why exactly couldn't they add the settings in the options menu in-game instead of forcing me to muck with the code?

 

[Chibz]

And by lazy, I mean lazy in optimising the game to run fast. Graphics have not realy improved in the last 2 years or so, but system requirements still go up, and it is often because its not optimised, has memory leaks, or other bugs.
For example, Black ops runs slower than Modern warfare 1, even though they have about the same graphics.
Are they just getting lazy because they no longer have to bother with optimising since PCs are still getting more powerful?

I know exactly what you mean, dude. I have a modest laptop but can run Starcraft 2 at a high framerate on nearly the lowest settings and it still looks amazing. I was also able to run Modern Warfare 1 & 2 on average settings with a good framerate, and they also looked incredible. However, World at War and Black Ops ran like ass, even on the lowest settings.

See also GTA IV: crap on a stick. Bully: for a game from 2006 (2008 on the PC, but the graphics still look more like San Andreas than GTA IV) it lags terribly if I dare turn the shadows on. It's really annoying, but I'm doing the best of it.

Graphics aren't that big a deal for me and I can live with low settings, but what really ticks me off is that console ports tend to have very, very few graphics customizability. Would it kill developers to add more settings in their games? I got Mass Effect 2, turned everything down to minimum everything I could and it still ran really poorly. A few Google searches and config file editings later and the experience improved greatly. Why exactly couldn't they add the settings in the options menu in-game instead of forcing me to muck with the code?

This really comes back to my previous post. It's simply not worth it to spend the extra few bucks on the PC port. Hell, it's funny you brought up Bully. Bully is, hands down, the reason why Rock* isn't bringing RDR to PC. The PC port of Bully actually cost them sales due to an overwhelming wave of piracy. It's funny & sad at the same time.

 

[Wolfram23]

I think it has to do with keeping the game experience more in check with the console counterparts. Since PC's have the ability to render in true 1080 where most games on the consoles are faked using a form of interlacing or if running progressive they do it at 720p. Companies would have to really re-work their graphics and models and then you have a PC version that looks WAY better and console people would complain.

Also you have to remember that not everyone has a top end gaming rig with a GeForce 4 Series in it. There are DirectX compatibility issues to contend with and needing the game to have a certain look even on lower end systems. Companies just can't afford the time to code for every variation of graphics card.

So if a game support a GeForce 9800, then the overall look will probably be lower than say if the minimum required a GeForce 2 Series. Granted while it would look awesome it would sell poorly since the vast majority of people aren't running current or sometimes previous gen video cards. Not to mention processors.

Here's the thing, to me. They optimize the graphics for the console right? They know the resolution and they set the parameters like AA (none) and lighting effects, that sort of thing. Then on PC games, you're allowed to select any resolution you want and generally all the visiual settings as well. What's the difference? The use of a config file vs the use of hard coded effects? Well that seems like a pretty easy adjustment to make...

PC developers don't really make the games to run on specific cards. They might make the minimum run on whatever card and after that you as the user can fine tune the visuals. Everything from Bloom, SSAO, AA/MSAA, AF, texture size and resolution, screen resolution, DX version - if 11, tesslation on/off, whether the game will make sun rays or not, often how far you can see, how far objects become visible, how much grass there is, etc. So there's not really more work for the developer beyond having a config file to draw the settings from, and also maybe an extra menu to adjust them on PCs. No matter what the game is made for, all these parameters are being set at some point. PC games usually (and they SHOULD) make these settings adjustable.

 

[Andrew_Waltfeld]

Probably a unpopular view, but I think Piracy has the reason to do it. So often games get pirated that the developers simply don't care about their product as much anymore. The ones that do, do it for the console games. Personally see those that pirate as leeches on society and a reason why we can't have nice things. Also might have to do with the fact that I want to be a part of the game industry and that's my wage/hard work people are stealing.

 

[The Lunatic]

Yeah, I think they have.

The suits know what sells well, and the developers seem unwilling or unable to do anything to stop that.

 

[Tzekelkan]

And by lazy, I mean lazy in optimising the game to run fast. Graphics have not realy improved in the last 2 years or so, but system requirements still go up, and it is often because its not optimised, has memory leaks, or other bugs.
For example, Black ops runs slower than Modern warfare 1, even though they have about the same graphics.
Are they just getting lazy because they no longer have to bother with optimising since PCs are still getting more powerful?

I know exactly what you mean, dude. I have a modest laptop but can run Starcraft 2 at a high framerate on nearly the lowest settings and it still looks amazing. I was also able to run Modern Warfare 1 & 2 on average settings with a good framerate, and they also looked incredible. However, World at War and Black Ops ran like ass, even on the lowest settings.

See also GTA IV: crap on a stick. Bully: for a game from 2006 (2008 on the PC, but the graphics still look more like San Andreas than GTA IV) it lags terribly if I dare turn the shadows on. It's really annoying, but I'm doing the best of it.

Graphics aren't that big a deal for me and I can live with low settings, but what really ticks me off is that console ports tend to have very, very few graphics customizability. Would it kill developers to add more settings in their games? I got Mass Effect 2, turned everything down to minimum everything I could and it still ran really poorly. A few Google searches and config file editings later and the experience improved greatly. Why exactly couldn't they add the settings in the options menu in-game instead of forcing me to muck with the code?

This really comes back to my previous post. It's simply not worth it to spend the extra few bucks on the PC port. Hell, it's funny you brought up Bully. Bully is, hands down, the reason why Rock* isn't bringing RDR to PC. The PC port of Bully actually cost them sales due to an overwhelming wave of piracy. It's funny & sad at the same time.

From what I heard Bully was a pretty buggy port initially, with lots of issues with textures and sound. Personally, I don't play these sorts of games as I'm sure many people with an informed opinion don't either (or they pirate them). While I'm not saying if they fixed the game's bugs nobody would have pirated it, but if they released a more stable version more people would have bought it. As is, I only paid 2,50? for it during the Steam sales.

Would it have killed them to make an option to remove their horrible framerate-killing bloom? Bully is also a game without a modifiable config file. My laptop can handle PS2 era graphics with no problem whatsoever (the models and textures were definitely dated in 2008) but since they put in that unremovable bloom effect, I had to play it on the lowest graphical settings.