Jimquisition: Shaming PC Ports Because Why Not?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Stop it right there. I knew he would go after Dark Souls but I just have to say this because it's really irritating me: Dark Souls for PC is NOT broken, or shitty, or buggy. In fact it plays perfectly, more so than the majority of PC games out there. I played that game longer than any other game in the past 8 years and still it never crashed ONCE, I never experienced one "bug" and I certainly don't think the game is "shitty" in anyway.

The PC gaming community was experiencing a classic nerd-rage moment. simply because the game didn't allow for 60 fps and more control on the visual output of the game, something that's not entirely uncommon in many Steam games I own, yet this game due to popularity attracted a lot of hate for it.

Look, I agree they were missing some basic features that have become common for 3D PC games but those features are extra, they are not required to play or complete the game and enjoy the experience the entire time, LIKE I DID. I eventually did get the all-mighty mod every one seems to think "fixes the game" but in reality, i think most people saying that no nothing about what the mod really does. The mod is sloppy as you would expect from something made in less than 24 hours. Many of the mods features will freeze the game or cause graphical glitches, decreased performance and choppy frame rates. It barely makes it look any better and despite how powerful your PC maybe, the game was not optimized for 60 fps and all those increased visual effects, the game will run poorly and you will experience real bugs caused from an unofficial modification of the game.

So all i want, and i know this is asking too much, is for people to be reasonable, to understand the difference between missing features you want and being broken. this game, in it's original state plays perfectly more than almost any other 3D Steam game I have. it's a shame it's being seen as "one of the worst ports" all because it lacked a graphics feature, i can think of a shit load more games that perform way worse and actually does contain many bugs and crashes often.

Also i refuse to believe GFWL plays any part in the hate, sure people hate it because they're stupid but anyone whose played the game knows you won't be noticing it after the first 5 seconds of launching the game and with auto-login you'll barely even notice the logo. after launching the game for the first time, i completely forgot it existed. it is by no means the end of the gaming world and it isn't the only online game that requires you to LOG IN before playing, hell i've played Single Player games that require me to log in before playing.

EDIT: watching more of the video... i'm getting the feeling Jim is trying to make these games sound way worse then they really are. Perhaps simply to rage on companies and developers, i'm thinking he might just be redirecting his rage from something else onto this, or he really does want to jump at every chance to get the PC gaming community behind him as he points out the next "enemy of gaming". This video is not quality like many other of Jim's in the past, this video really is nothing but a baseless rant.

Newhouse:
I really don't get the extent of the flack against Bethesda. Perhaps because I've just been blessed with few issues. I've played Oblivion, Fallout 3, and Skyrim (Can't really count New Vegas by the way Jim it was made by Obsidian and published by Bethesda). The only game I've only had slight trouble with is Fallout 3 and if I remember, it was quite a while ago, it was because I was mucking about for the first time with mods ( IE. CTD-ing instead of the rare autoclip or droid rocketing across the sky).

I won't say I haven't encountered bugs or glitchs, I have autoclipped through the ground before and there's a bird permanently stuck in a tree just outside of Riverwood in Skyrim but, the only time I've CTD is running a ton of mods or in New Vegas which ya, putting that in the hands of Obsidian and Bethesda I'm surprised the game ran at all at launch.

Bethesda has admitted they even leave some bugs in because they're funny and I agree when I see robots just fly across the sky in Fallout 3 it's pretty fun. Now is this really a good excuse? Maybe not but, it doesn't break the game or ruin my enjoyment so I can deal with something like that.

Does this give Bethesda a free pass not to fix there games? Far from it but, I don't know personally I don't remember really having any trouble with their games to an extent that I'd say they weren't doing there job. However, I've played all of these for PC so I don't know what it's like for the console people (At launch too by the way, so maybe I do forget the launch state of the games but, if I can't remember anything it couldn't have been that bad or I've succeeded in supressing the nightmares :p *Upon editing I do remember it took them forever to get Operation Anchorage in a working state and it being delayed due to the bugs at launch but, that's about it)

Maybe I just have good luck with their games

Well I'm guessing the answer is that you haven't been playing their games on consoles lately. Their issue in my mind is the exact opposite of the subject, they release very sub-par efforts to the consoles. Their biggest crime is throwing three or four games on the PS3 with the exact same game-breaking issues and never fixing them. Even with Skyrim, which supposedly has a new upgraded engine, some of the very same issues plagued it on PS3. Basically no one buys their games on a Sony console because they're apparently too incompetent to make their games run on 7 year old hardware after FOUR attempts.

That is Grade A bullshit development no matter how much goodwill you have with the PC crowd.

You know, Jim can be a smug little shit sometimes, but he's usually pretty spot on with his commentary. It's unacceptable for the first 3 weeks of a game's release to be essentially a beta test while everyone (devs for consoles, modders for PC ports) try to get everything functional. It should be functional on day 1. If Goldeneye randomly erased your save file or had enemies clipping through walls, it wouldnt've sold nearly as well.

Norrdicus:

redknightalex:
The biggest problem I had with the video is how Jim rather degraded those who made those mods/tweaks to get a PC port to work. Don't remember the exact words but I believe he was calling them plain and your average guy sort of thing. That bothers me to an extent, namely because not only do these average "guys" love to mod and change a game (for the most part) but also because there have been at least 3 success stories of modders being so popular that the land a job at Bethesda or Bungie. I wouldn't call them average at all; I'd call them better. They know what they're doing and even if the PC community needs to "fix" certain parts of a game, they are, for the most part, incredibly helpful. In a way, I almost prefer Elder Scrolls/Fallout games to suck because modders will be so much better at it and even teach you how to do it yourself.

You took Jim's words completely the wrong way. He did call Durante stuff like "layman" and "average joe" because by strict professional standards that's what he is. Doesn't matter how good he is, compared to the people making and porting these games, Peter "Durante" Thomann is a but a dedicated hobbyist as far as we know, despite his Ph.D. in computer science.

Not really, a Professional from a work perspective simply requires the knowledge and/or training for that profession. Since Peter Thorman has a Ph.D and co-authored several research papers I would say he fits the bill.

Either way the words layman, Average Joe and amateur don't apply because this guy is none of those things. Sure he doesn't work as a Games Developer, but the stuff he's doing is so far beyond that it's incredible.

Personally I would not feel ashamed if someone like this was fixing my code.

Looking at this thread, I'm happy that I'm not the only one in the universe who thinks that Skyrim was an absolute shitfest when it came to being functional. When I played it, it would always crash, after about a half hour of playing, like clockwork, every time. And sometimes the textures for trees would suddenly just not be there, at which point it would then crash. And that's not even getting into how I think about the actual game. I'm convinced all the "quality" testing went into the 360 version, because I've never heard any complaints about that one.

deathzero021:
this video really is nothing but a baseless rant.

Well, to be fair, he admitted as much at the start.

The real kick in the teeth is not many people buy these non-functional products and instead of going "Whoops, we made a non-functional product" publishers use it as an excuse to say the PC space doesn't matter and justify not porting to that system for games in the same genre. Or, worse, they make some half arsed attempt to blame gamers for the game being shit saying they couldn't invest because of 'piracy' or people 'not supporting it enough'.

Personally i think Raw console ports show up just how much compromise it takes to make a game run on a console. 720p is a lowwww resolution in 2013, a decent monitor just shows up how low it is.

FYI I Am Some Guy:
Looking at this thread, I'm happy that I'm not the only one in the universe who thinks that Skyrim was an absolute shitfest when it came to being functional. When I played it, it would always crash, after about a half hour of playing, like clockwork, every time. And sometimes the textures for trees would suddenly just not be there, at which point it would then crash. And that's not even getting into how I think about the actual game. I'm convinced all the "quality" testing went into the 360 version, because I've never heard any complaints about that one.

deathzero021:
this video really is nothing but a baseless rant.

Well, to be fair, he admitted as much at the start.

bethesda are an x-box publisher in all but name these days. they make the vast majority of their profits from it in the first few weeks and its where they obviously develop for first and foremost with the other ports being a secondary consideration. its why their later games have allowed the player to basically lead every guild, master as many skills as possible, because its aimed at an audience who will play the game for a week or so with a single play through and then trade it in.

while they may get most of their initial profits from those first few weeks they seem to of forgotten or simply dont care that its the pc community that keeps their games popular and sold 10 or 15 years later

Twenty Ninjas:

PG:

Twenty Ninjas:
But wasn't the PC version of Dark Souls priced less than the console versions?

Almost all PC games cost less but not by much, certainly not enough to excuse shoddy work. If you buy a washing machine where the door isn't fitted to the frame properly you wouldn't buy it for a 10 discount.

That's a shitty analogy. The Dark Souls port was both functional and had more content for free. And assuming you played it with a controller, you had about the same thing as the console version.

Not to mention From only did it because of the petition.

it's functional in that if you have a gamepad, it works okay, cause it's a console game

god forbid you actually attempt to use a keyboard and mouse though, as if that was ever a consideration for the port. i mean, even the input logos are still xbox button pictures. if they don't bother to do that, we shouldn't expect the actual mouse input to work beyond acting as if somebody just sort of pasted that function into the code and didn't actually test it, even once

if somebody ported an RTS to a console, and that port had terrible gamepad controls (this has actually happened before, though), would it be entirely acceptable if they had an exception that it worked perfectly fine if you purchased a 30-40 dollar keyboard and mouse that worked with the console?

deathzero021:
Stop it right there. I knew he would go after Dark Souls but I just have to say this because it's really irritating me: Dark Souls for PC is NOT broken, or shitty, or buggy. In fact it plays perfectly, more so than the majority of PC games out there. I played that game longer than any other game in the past 8 years and still it never crashed ONCE, I never experienced one "bug" and I certainly don't think the game is "shitty" in anyway.

So all i want, and i know this is asking too much, is for people to be reasonable, to understand the difference between missing features you want and being broken. this game, in it's original state plays perfectly more than almost any other 3D Steam game I have. it's a shame it's being seen as "one of the worst ports" all because it lacked a graphics feature, i can think of a shit load more games that perform way worse and actually does contain many bugs and crashes often.

I've only played the 'vanilla' Dark Souls on the PC and it was smooth sailing the whole way through.

With ports, it's more about managing expectations. Being able to tweak graphics, remap the control scheme, and other customization are standard for PC games, but I don't mind if ports of those games aren't held to the same standard. It wouldn't bother me if a PC game was ported to the 3DS without 3D capabilities, so I can't in good faith get riled up about ports to the PC.

People are going about this the wrong way. Modding is used to make a game play better or add content for specific types. Of course a game ,tailor-made to suit you, is going to blow the original out of the water. No one can compete with that, so it doesn't make sense to condemn the game because 'Mods did it better'. If the mods did't make the game better then the player messed up.

The only argument that I found damning was the need for a game-pad, because it inflates the price of the game. I do think that a port needs to have decent controls. I already had a game-pad, so that didn't factor in.

My thoughts on the Dark Souls PC port was that it wasn't shitty. It was just below average. All I cared about was that it never crashed on me once, which puts it leagues ahead of other games that aren't even considered ports.

This didn't make it into the video but I'm going to shout about it anyway because it deserves to be mentioned:

BULLETSTORM

Fuck you EA, Epic Games, and People Can Fly for releasing a game where I need to download a special text editor that bypasses the encryption you put on the INI files just so I can disable the goddamn mouse acceleration. And then there's the piss-poor keybinding and the launch issues where if you weren't running at a handfull of select resolutions, the game ran like this (this is the only thing they actually bothered fixing).

Trishbot:
Look, I acknowledge that Bethesda can make some pretty good games...

... But at the same time, most of their games are released in a VERY unfinished, buggy, even broken state before the mod communities can fix the issues themselves.

I just have a weird feeling seeing an otherwise good game like Skyrim win several Game of the Year awards, when at that very moment entire versions of it were completely unplayable (especially on PS3).

I mean, if we literally reward them with the highest honors we can give a game, while their games are in a broken state, and they expect the fans and communities to fix their mess for them, what incentive do they have to actually ever release a polished, working game to market?

And this is also why it pisses me off that GTA V won GOTY at the VGX award thing and is going to win it from more places as time goes on. As a game, yes, GTA V is fun. As a product though, GTA V was (at launch) an unpolished and unfinished piece of shit. What was the point of the delay from spring when the game still released in such a sorry state? Obviously the big one was no online at launch and when it did finally get patched in it was broken (I'll talk more about that in a minute), but not even single player worked properly. What the hell were they doing all spring and all summer, because I can tell you what they weren't doing: testing the game properly. There's just simply no way any competent team would have missed a bug that makes cars you spend your money on disappear from your garage.

And then online. Not only did you delay the game but then you delayed online past the launch of the rest of the game. So that's two delays for the online portion and it was still broken when it came out. And I've thought about it a while and I'm not accepting of their pre-release statements about the game probably not working at launch as an excuse for hte game not working at launch anymore. There's this thing you can hold called a beta that would have given you a chance to iron out some of these issues before people paid money for your product. You didn't have one. You didn't put in the effort to make sure your game would work, so why should I accept a lazy "it's probably not going to work" excuse as justification?

And even though it's somewhat stable now (playing with friends and staying with them without randoms getting in is still far more a pain in the ass than it ever should be), it's still not finished. We're only just getting the mission creator we were promised this week, and the heists aren't coming until 2014. So it won't be until sometime next year that you can buy a copy of GTA V off the shelf and actually get the complete product they were advertising to everyone before it launched. We should not be giving this GOTY awards. We should be giving this "one of the biggest disappointments of 2013" or "one of the most poorly handled launches of 2013" titles instead so Rockstar and other developers can see that we aren't happy putting down $60 to beta test their unfinished products.

Same goes with Battlefield 4, it had no business being on the VGX's list of Best Shooters of 2013 considering it's so broken that EA actually had to pause work on DLC to focus on making sure the game works. Usually EA just lets their broken games stay broken (see the above mention of Bulletstorm for just one example), so for them to actually come out and say "right, we're going to stop making DLC until we fix the base game" just shows what an utterly bad state that game released in. It's so bad that they can't ignore it like they usually do. There should be boycotts and lawsuits for this kind of behavior, not "Best Shooter of 2013" nominations.

But sadly none of this is going to happen as long as gamers refuse to separate the game being fun from the product being terrible, and use that distinction to start calling developers and publishers on their bullshit instead of defending them because they liked the game. Like I said earlier, GTA V was fun to play (at least the parts of it it actually came with and worked). It was still a terrible product though and one I wish I hadn't given Rockstar money for on day one, because they damn well didn't deserve money for what it was back in September.

And to anyone who wants to reply to my rant in defense of Rockstar, just save yourself some time and watch these again instead because one of them is sure to answer whatever tired, generic defense you have for bad business practices:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6098-I-Hate-Videogames-Because-I-Love-Them
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/5653-Better-Does-Not-Mean-Good
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/jimquisition/6814-Companies-Exist-To-Make-Money

gigastar:

Mcoffey:

gigastar:
Well why shouldnt an inexperienced crew try to port thier works to PC?

How can they learn to do a good job of it if they do not make the mistakes?

I don't want to pay money to be someone's guinea pig. That's what beta testing and QA is for.

Agreed, but if nobody buys into the first crash landing then why should the devs consider coming back for a second go?

if they devs don't consider actually getting help from people with experience (like, for instance, the modding communities which create their own day one patches) or consider just hiring/contracting people with experience, they should stop trying to develop this kind of thing on their own anyway if they intend to ship before they can actually manage something that works, or stop charging full price for their halfassed experiments

they knew that they couldn't provide what fans wanted, but they went ahead anyway because i guess they were willing to accept those consequences? we'll never know if it was actually about getting the money, but they still gave up a part of their reputation out of some odd sentimentality over actual reason. it's great that they have feelings, but i guess that shouldn't get in the way of decision making.

addendum: decision making is about making the judgment calls between reason and feeling, so while reason would have been the better option this time, feeling is by no means diminished in importance, it's just that this case would have been clearly improved given their situation at the time, with the acknowledgement that their resources were not suited for a port at all, and it would have better served to focus on their sequel's development

At least PC ports are made in the first place for most games. One big exception that makes me sad is GTA V. There is still no sign of a PC port anytime soon, and I don't want to be simply satisfied with a 30-FPS sub-1080p game with multiplayer requiring a significant fee - on Xbox 360, a console that I am rarely using. I'm not buying a PS3 for GTA V either, because it will soon become just a memory for developers.

It also bugs me that I would have to buy the linear single player game with mediocre characters to get GTA Online, even though the name "GTA Online" sounds like an MMO and in truth is close enough to such a community experience. Yet again, a GTA game with scattered jarring problems becomes GOTY, but GTA IV's campaign and GTA III's horrible controls have stained my opinion of the series.

wulf3n:

Not really, a Professional from a work perspective simply requires the knowledge and/or training for that profession. Since Peter Thorman has a Ph.D and co-authored several research papers I would say he fits the bill.

Either way the words layman, Average Joe and amateur don't apply because this guy is none of those things. Sure he doesn't work as a Games Developer, but the stuff he's doing is so far beyond that it's incredible.

Personally I would not feel ashamed if someone like this was fixing my code.

But would your feel ashamed if you released a game that was only playable after he fixed it?

Well said Jim! I can only hope the right people pay attention to you.

A fully patched and modded Skyrim on the PC is a wonderful game.

An unpatched and unmodded Skyrim is an absolute disgrace and I can't believe they charged anyone money for it.

Just another reason not to ever buy games near release. Wait 6 months for Steam to have it at half off with a full slate of unofficial mods and fixes.

qeinar:
I get kinda mad at the developers when a spokesperson for the game says some simple feature was impossible to implement, and then have that same feature implemented within a week by the community.

Like, say, Sim City offline mode.

Technically speaking, Dark Souls without DSFix is exactly the same quality as the console version. That means it doesn't have the things that the console version doesn't have, like 60fps or anti aliasing or KB+M controls worth a damn. The same thing can be said for most if not all "bad" console ports. They aren't WORSE than their console counterparts, almost all of them are better in at least one way, but they are still shit by any logical standard which I guess just stresses how shit consoles themselves are.

My guess: Game devs are given a timeframe by the publisher to finish a game. This timeframe is usually too short. The game is subsequently released with bugs. Then, some portion of the team is moved onto the next game, DLC, something, and some portion sticks around to release patches. The thing with company patches vs. Basement Dude patches: Companies usually release patches based off of some procedure to ensure quality (i.e. coding is done, then it moves into QA. Since this process can take a long time, multiple fixes/features are added to the patch). Basement Dude does not have to worry about this--he just has to get a patch that works on his system. If that patch doesn't work elsewhere, who cares? He's not getting paid for it, it's unofficial, everyone installs it at their own risk. Basement Dude won't have the same ramifications as the company would, so he can turn over a fix faster.

The question here then becomes: Should we be releasing games (even ports of games that have been out for ages) that are pretty much a beta version? Indie titles are already selling beta versions of their games via Kickstarter and Early Access. I mean, I got Skyrim day 1. I then spent the first few hours playing it saving constantly and avoiding looking at certain things, because these actions would crash my game. Every 5 minutes. If they gave Skyrim another two months to iron out more bugs, would it have been that horrible? If you're going to invest in a PC port, shouldn't you be giving it the attention it deserves?

As for the community's reactions: I think people just want the damn thing to function, and don't believe the people making up the development schedules actually care about anything other than the initial purchase. I've seen a lot of "Well, they already have your money," so I think most gaming communities just take it upon themselves to do what the publishers "don't care about" (who actually knows what they're really thinking? Not just conjecture?) and game devs "can't do anything about" to save a good idea from buggy obscurity.

Tl;dr: if you don't think anyone loves you, do you spend time agonizing over their apathy, or do you just move on with life?

Thanatos2k:
A fully patched and modded Skyrim on the PC is a wonderful game.

An unpatched and unmodded Skyrim is an absolute disgrace and I can't believe they charged anyone money for it.

Just another reason not to ever buy games near release. Wait 6 months for Steam to have it at half off with a full slate of unofficial mods and fixes.

Skyrim has many, many flaws and poorly thought out systems that are broken beyond repair. A fully modded skyrim is BETTER than an unmodded skyrim, but beyond repair is still beyond repair and no amount of mods is ever going to fix that game.

Well all I can really add to this discussion is that at least you PC players get the mod help and community support fixes. Console games don't come to us in a much better state and most of the things that are broken are going to stay broken in all likelihood. Hell, I'm converting to the PC player group as soon as financially possible simply because I am aware that the modding community fixes and adds to games I enjoy already on the console (in their comparatively diminished state). So... yeah, shame on publishers for not being more awesome to begin with when they ought to be (and when I say that, I really mean to blame the money controllers at publishing institutions, because in reality it's probably their call, not the artists or programers or what have you in the trenches) and equally Thanks and Yay to the people who make up for those gaps that wouldn't be there in an ideal world.

Twenty Ninjas:
But wasn't the PC version of Dark Souls priced less than the console versions?

Actually no. It came out at less than the game cost when it was brand new on consoles, but didn't release on PC until much later and as such it was priced for it's age. However, at the time of release on PC it cost $10 more than it did to buy a new copy at Gamestop or on Amazon for console. So we did not get it cheaper for when it released, and the extra content was not "free". So people who bought copies of Dark Souls on PC at release basically got gypped.

Why do developers keep doing it and not feeling ashamed? Because gamers keep buying it.

I no longer blame the developers and the publishers for things like this. The fault, in my opinion, is squarely and entirely on the shoulders of the gamers, because they just keep buying it, like electronic-crack addicts. Because gamers keep buying it, there's no incentive to make better quality games and no disincentive from making shitty games. Publishers and developers know that all they have to do is slap some hi-res, hi-fidelity graphics on the game and, viola, watch the money come rolling in.

Comic Sans:

Twenty Ninjas:
But wasn't the PC version of Dark Souls priced less than the console versions?

Actually no. It came out at less than the game cost when it was brand new on consoles, but didn't release on PC until much later and as such it was priced for it's age. However, at the time of release on PC it cost $10 more than it did to buy a new copy at Gamestop or on Amazon for console. So we did not get it cheaper for when it released, and the extra content was not "free". So people who bought copies of Dark Souls on PC at release basically got gypped.

So then considering the console DLC was 15 dollars and only came out a few months after the PC version got released, we can say that the PC version was in fact ~5-10$ cheaper than the game+DLC bundle on consoles.

THANK YOU!!!!

I've been saying this about Bethesda for years now, there's no excuse for a dev that's worked on PC for so long the continually release game that or so horrendously buggy and broken. None. They should know better by now. And while yes, I am more forgiving of buggy games from devs that aren't used to making PC ports, I fucking expect them to improve and do better the next time, like any sane person would when confronted with failure.

I'm surprised the computer version of Borderlands 1 doesn't come up more often in these discussions, since it would totally fit. Was so bad they had to write a love letter to fans talking about improvements for the sequel in regards to the UI.

Granted, the sequel's UI isn't perfect... if I had a nickel every time the inventory UI glitched out, I could bankroll Psychonauts 2.

Never explicitly thought about it, but it IS an issue. PC gamers have ALWAYS known that they are really the BETA testers, if they buy a game at launch. As often, however, I prefer the PC version simply because mods provide more value then the nickel and diming that console versions provide (often with inferior results). It's sad, but sometimes it's worse than others.

My fave examples of this...

- Elder Scrolls/Fallout (as noted by Jim)

- Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines (and Redemption, to a certain extent)

- Dragon Age: Origins (I actually posted the fix for a bug with the DLC content, but there were a lot of unofficial patches which went unrecognized)

- KOTOR 2 (primarily the restored content mod)

- Hellgate London (although I imagine Hellgate Tokyo fixed a lot of this)

To be fair, however, I think Bethesda and Bioware got a pass on their snafus due to the release of their toolkits (although Jim's point about patches/etc within the 1st week still put the developers "on notice," as it were).

This also applies to unfinished games that originate or even are exclusive to PC. This is why Sub simulator fans got pissed at Ubisoft for Silent Hunter 5, that and the always online drm they had (but later got rid of) for it.

Hopefully From Software put their money where their mouths are with Dark Souls 2 (considering they apparently stated that the PC release is going to be the main release, with the console versions as the ports, and that they claim they're making DS2 a proper PC release).

I love this episode and I agree entirely. God bless GOG for shipping their games pre patched to work and links to mods to improve it should you so chose

Twenty Ninjas:
In Dark Souls' case, the main problem was that the port was too barebones and didn't fit common PC-specific standards. The port didn't have anything *less* than the PS3 version, it just didn't have *enough* to make it a proper PC port.

But that's contrary to Jim's argument. He said he wasn't looking for MORE, but that this was somehow offering less than a PC port. And, I mean, I brought up Jim specifically for a reason. Jim said he wasn't looking for more, he said he just wasn't looking for less. You appear to be agreeing that this was in fact a straight port. And if that's all he wanted....

Ulquiorra4sama:
Up front, yeah. When people started screaming for a port From just came out and were like "But, what, we don't even... Fuck, we don't even know how to do that. How do you..? What is a PC? What even is a PC?" And then people kept on crying and From just caved and put one out there then people started crying again because the port was shit. Should've seen it coming if you ask me.

Oh, absolutely. The writing was on the wall. Actually, the writing was in 40 foot high letters and people were complaining for it anyway and then they got it and they complained that it was basically as advertised.

It's hard not to look at the overall PC gaming community as spoiled, all things considered.

I get complaints about shitty ports (though I maintain we are often enablers to just this sort of behaviour), but when it's something like Dark Souls, it's hard to see the demands as reasonable.

SirCannonFodder:

$40 IIRC, but then it also came with a lot of physical extras (hardcover artbook, soundtrack CD, "Making Of" DVD, poster, art cards).

You may well be right. I only looked at digital editions which didn't have things like hardcover anything.

Seracen:
Never explicitly thought about it, but it IS an issue. PC gamers have ALWAYS known that they are really the BETA testers, if they buy a game at launch. As often, however, I prefer the PC version simply because mods provide more value then the nickel and diming that console versions provide (often with inferior results). It's sad, but sometimes it's worse than others.

My fave examples of this...

- Elder Scrolls/Fallout (as noted by Jim)

- Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines (and Redemption, to a certain extent)

- Dragon Age: Origins (I actually posted the fix for a bug with the DLC content, but there were a lot of unofficial patches which went unrecognized)

- KOTOR 2 (primarily the restored content mod)

- Hellgate London (although I imagine Hellgate Tokyo fixed a lot of this)

To be fair, however, I think Bethesda and Bioware got a pass on their snafus due to the release of their toolkits (although Jim's point about patches/etc within the 1st week still put the developers "on notice," as it were).

But isn't that also kind of the point? Some of the most popular games are among the most broken. Giving out a toolkit and saying "fix this shit for us" is basically the issue at hand, and ravenously supporting some of the biggest examples only means there will be more of them.

Wouldn't it be a better use of modders' time to make actual mods, rather than trying to patch up crappy code?

Nice new avatar Jim.

2c:

I'm not a Dark Souls guy, but I thought there was a lot of bruhaha before they put that out on PC where 'the community' got some giant petition going asking them to do it, and the dev's said something to the tune of 'we don't know shit about PCs so this could well be shit'. And then it was. So that seems pretty fair to me, if they acknowledge beforehand that it could be bad but the core player-base wants it anyway. Complaining after that seems kind of redundant. To top it off I think it came out of the gate at something like $40 for PC (ie less than full price, and less than it cost on console).

And Bethesda. I'm inclined to give them a pass because none of their games have had the notorious glitches in my experience. Aside from a few gravity defying mammoths and Deathclaws as well as a few IDCLIP scorpions their games have gone off without a hitch on my pc. They design their games with a lower base texture resolution so lower end pcs can play them. I remember being ecstatic that my laptop, already 3 years old at the time, could play Skyrim on release with no issues. I will note however that their gigantic 'High Resolution Texture Pack' for Skyrim crippled my framerate without adding any noticeable graphical shine. The free community stuff on Nexus however does make the game look a lot better with much less impact.

Jimothy Sterling:
-SNIP-

I will say in defense of the developers soing the porting:-

These games are originally made for console, yes? You're developing for 360 and PS3, which are themselves different from themselves and from PC. Once you've been developing for one platform specifically then you're going to forget how to develop for other platforms if you haven't developed it for a while. These people who provide fixes will be people who know how PC development works (seriously, you can just look it up and learn it, you don't need to have 1st class PhD or whatever, currently the majority of developers in the industry don't have degrees), so they'll be able to provide these fixes. The time taken to develop the fix will differ depending on the issue, and if you look at Durante's blog the original fix was fairly small and took a while to get to version 1.0. Often times these fixes can be quick, simply changing a few numbers (game development is all about manipulation of lots and lots of numbers); or can take a while, changing a lot of numbers.

lord.jeff:

wulf3n:

Not really, a Professional from a work perspective simply requires the knowledge and/or training for that profession. Since Peter Thorman has a Ph.D and co-authored several research papers I would say he fits the bill.

Either way the words layman, Average Joe and amateur don't apply because this guy is none of those things. Sure he doesn't work as a Games Developer, but the stuff he's doing is so far beyond that it's incredible.

Personally I would not feel ashamed if someone like this was fixing my code.

But would your feel ashamed if you released a game that was only playable after he fixed it?

It would depend on the cause of the bugs. Something simple or predictable yes, but something unexpected not so much.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here