Rylee Fox said:
Graphics: Sometimes I see people say that the PC port is bad because you can run it on the highest settings and it won't make your computer explode. I say is that such a big deal? Graphics aren't everything and I enjoy games just fine that don't push my (admittedly crappy) laptop to its limits. I run Skyrim on medium graphics, although I can run on ultra I just get a crapload of slowdown but its actually still reasonably playable. A game doesn't need amazing graphics to be good.
Yes and no. I'll put this down partly to still being used to console graphics, and not having a great PC, but if a game looks like it does on a console it hurts my eyes to play it. It looks ugly. I don't care about fancy expensive shader effects [Though they are nice], what I do care about is texture quality and shadow resolution - and full screen resolution.
Texture quality in console games is like a pen drawing that you fold in half and put in your bag to take and show some friends. You pull it out of the bag and its smudged over itself and is blurry and whilst it still resembles what it was, its a muddy and unclear image. That's console sized textures, which sadly are usually ported to PC without being redone. Modded textures in games like Skyrim look amazing, and whilst still slightly murky compared to the real thing, high res textures on smaller items makes them at least look crystal clear, which is amazing to look at.
Shadow resolution is another one. I hated Darksiders 2 for this. My shadows should not be made out of LEGO blocks. They should be smooth. I don't ask for semi-transparent shadows rendered at 8192*8192, but I do ask for it not to be blocky as all hell.
Its not game breaking, but it does make it a lot more enjoyable. I won't call it a bad port if it doesn't come with extra graphics options, but if it locks things down [Like Dark Souls...] with screen resolution and FPS then yeah, it kinda is IMO. More effort has been put into making the game look bad. Well, maybe not since its a late port, but it wouldn't have been hard to make the game look at least 4X better by removing those caps.
With Dark Souls this was an issue for people. From memory it was locked at 720p. For some people with old machines, that's fine. Even people with 1080p monitors wouldn't have missed out too much. My monitor is 4X 720p resolution [2560*1440]. It would either be a tiny window on my screen, or upscaled to be so blurry its not funny. Not pretty to look at.
Controls: I see people say that if keyboard/mouse controls aren't perfect the port is bad, or if a controller is better suited to the game the port is bad. I don't see how. If a controller would work better, just use it. I've beaten Super Meat Boy and used a controller to do that, though when playing through XCOM: Enemy Unknown I haven't even ever thought of using my controller. In some games, like Borderlands, I've used both. I say, is the game still playable? If yes, move on.
Something to think on: Not everybody owns a controller, and not everybody wants to buy one. If consoles started allowing KB+M controls, and games released with control schemes that were a pain to use without a KB+M would it be a well-made console game?
I think not. The majority of console gamers wouldn't use, or want to use, a KB+M, and if the game is designed around that with no other option, that's just not good enough.
Same applies to PC. The advantage of the PC is its adaptability, and the games should also reflect this. Playable with a controller or KB+M dependent on what you want. And really, most games with crappy KB+M controls can be fixed via changing the control scheme too - unless the dev doesn't allow this. This is a crime in PC gaming IMO. You're control scheme MUST be customisable. You are not the almighty god of everything that knows how everyone will prefer to play your game, so don't force people to play in a way they don't want.
I ask you, what do you say makes a PC port bad? Feel free to tell me I'm wrong as long as you tell me why and have a good reason. (I love a good debate)
Really its an add up of lots of little things that makes a bad port.
Poor graphics on their own don't ruin things.
A lack of the usual PC extras like having a hotkey to open your journal, map, inventory - ect. and customisable controls on its own don't ruin things.
A poor but usable interface on its own doesn't ruin things.
Combine them? A game that looks mediocre, has bad controls, and you can't fix the controls in any way? That's a bad port. I can deal with things individually, as soon as you make mistake after mistake though I'm not going to be on your side.
Then there's the obvious ones like lack of optimisation for the PC so the game runs like ass even on high end machines, or loading screens that still say "Press the Triangle Button to do [x]", even though you're playing with KB+M, but otherwise yeah, you need a series of things to make it a bad port.
Oh also I'm planning to start my 4th playthrough of XCOM: Enemy Unknown (I really love that game). I have finished it on normal twice (I'm not happy to admit I used a lot of save scumming for that, feel free to hate me.
) Though I just did a runthrough on classic without save scumming and finished while only losing a total of 8 soldiers. Think I could run a successful ironman impossible?
Wait, does save scumming even work in enemy unknown?
Last I'd heard they had a fixed seed save so that every time you loaded the exact same series of events would play out from each location [Moving somewhere else would net different results, but trying the same thing over and over and relying on 'probability' to eventually get you through {I.E: Save scumming} would not]. Could be wrong, but that's how I remember it.
