PC Port - the merits of a direct port, and how it should be done | Forums

[Willful Murder]

First off, the 360 version looks absolutely fantastic, so i personally have no gripes with a direct console to pc port. I want to play that game.

HOWEVER, and here is the massive caveat:

It needs to be a GOOD port that actually shows a degree of respect for the pc community, rather than scraps from the table of the more profitable and larger console market.

Splinter Cell Double Agent for pc was a direct slap in the face for everyone who plays pc games and had supported the company. It was disdainful.

It came off as an indifferent attempt to milk a little more money out of the franchise with no thought whatsoever to the pc consumers, who ended up with a crappy looking, buggy port with shameless performance on systems whose video cards alone cost more than a 360. They would have been better off, in my opion, just cancelling the pc version.

So my real worry, and i would be eternally grateful for some validation or statements to the contrary from a Ubisoft representative, my worry is that R6 Vegas will be the same thing. As others have said, the writing is on the wall; no news updates, from the amount of information released it is clear the pc market is the redheaded stepchild here, unexplained delays, etc.

Please, ubisoft make this one work, optimized and give this game the release it should have on the pc.

Please to all who will buy this version, if they show this market segment the same amount of respect they did with Double Agent, join me in never purchasing another product from ubisoft.

[deosl]

Hence you should always test out the freakin' demo before purchasing.

And the cries for a "ubi representative" is futile, what do you expect? Of course that person will raise your hopes up and say what ever you want to hear. It's their job to sell the product.
Like the PC community here has learned with Lockdown, WAIT and see what the other poor souls that we're foolish enough to buy has to say.

Just do what I do, always be sceptical to a Ubisoft title on the PC. Ask all the critical questions about the product, and if they don't respond like they do here, you know how the product will end up...

Their primary goal is max profits & according to Ubisoft consoles are the way to go. They'll be back when the technology has leaped many steps over the current-generation with Dx10 & what not.

But will we still be here is the question....<div class="ev_tpc_signature">

<span class="ev_code_BLUE">Rainbow Six Aggression</span>

[RaP7oR.pT]

I hope you're all wrong (even though I think you're right) :S

[braiog]

Well, yeah, if a Port meant you retained all the quality in graphics and gameplay but then altered it accordingly for PC's unique stances on game mechanics and control, then a port wouldn't be so bad a thing.

But XB360 has set hardware vs the "mutt" system of PC (this is why I'm SO PISSED that graphics software/hardware does not code to a standard, and our only choice is the level of performance)

As we saw with the XB360 2 PC port of SCDA, not only were these issues not addressed, game stability itself was ignored. It's that aspect of a PORT that I think most players are fearful of. And Ubi has a very poor track record of fixing what it breaks.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Death by Lethal Injection?

PC does NOT mean a Ported Console version.

[bullgoose311]

I believe with both of you a hundred percent and am furious that more people havn't responded to this topic.

I joined the ubisoft community today just so I could reply and say that I WILL NOT buy another ubisoft product (even though I would love to buy R6 Vegas) until they prove to me they can make a descent port over to the PC which I'll know whether or not they did a couple months after the game is released and I've read the reviews. ]

Isn't the PC where they got their start in the first place with the original R6 and Splinter Cell? Anyways SCDA is the biggest waste of $50 I've ever spent and as a software engineer myself, I think Ubisoft should be ashamed. The game should have never been released.

I'm happy to find there's some people out there who share the same feelings and I hope I didn't sound like an idiot with my first forum post ever.

[Willful Murder]

Actually the demo was the reason i decided not to buy Double Agent. Unfortunately as the demo was released after the game, many such poor souls did pick it up and ended up with "the shaft" instead of a pc game, as they had hoped. Unfortunately for them anyway, but i was kind of looking forward to that game myself.

Point is you are correct in that Ubisoft, as a business, will go where the money is. I'm just holding on to the naive assumption that they actually care about their consumer base, even the minority that represents PC owners, or whatever. Probably not.

As for DX10, i am skeptical that it represents the leap forward everyone says. The better shinier shadier graphics mentality is part of the problem i think. Games today are sold more on feature lists and screenshots than actual playability and the ever-elusive "fun".

I'll continue to play pc games, just because i prefer the control setup and the sort of games that are generally released for pc. Will i continue to buy ubisoft games if they continue to be little more than slapshod ****? Probably not.

[Willful Murder]

Anyways SCDA is the biggest waste of $50 I've ever spent and as a software engineer myself, I think Ubisoft should be ashamed. The game should have never been released.

Indeed, Bullgoose, and the worst part is the game continues to be inexplicably delayed, and once it is finally out we'll likely have to wait 2 weeks or so longer before the reviews start trickling in, because sadly the pc being viewed as "oh yeah, and there are those people too i guess" mentality carries over to the big game reviewers, IGN, Gamespot and so forth.

We are on the wrong side of gaming...

[KungFu_CIA]

This is one of those multifaceted issues that I could write a dissertation on, but I will spare everyone this and just emphasize one point:

Regardless of whether it is a console game, or a PC game... It all comes down to the developers and those above them and how they choose to design and execute a game from the very beginning more than whether or not it is a port, or even, how good (or bad) that port is in a lot of respects.

I believe this aspect is what bothers most R6 fans more than it being just a port in the sense if the game designed for the console was something closer to the original R6 PC games than most people wouldn't be as upset as they are now. They are upset, but this is more because the game itself has changed dramatically and gone too far in the mundane, arcade shoot'em up direction regardless if it appears on the console first before the PC.

I also believe there is no reason developers could not make a Rogue Spear, Raven Shield-type game for the console given the current console specs compared to the last generation. Hell, even last-gen consoles could have easily handled a game like RS (multiple teams; open-ended maps; operative customization; planning) because not only did the N64 do it, but because the original PC games didn't require that much hardware to run from the start... Yet had literally a ton of more features than any game to date save for Raven Shield which is the last iteration of the old Tom Clancy, Red Storm Entertainment games.

Again, IMO, it all comes down to the developers and creative directors above them who have arbitrarily decided "stupid sells" meaning games with dumbed down and simplistic game play is what they are going to deliver, regardless if this is actually what the consumer wants on any platform...

Because it always surprise people when I tell them even the Rainbow Six console players want more in-depth and tactical games than Vegas, and Lockdown because a majority of console players are not the stereotypical 12-18-year olds the industry thinks plays consoles. This is false data and needs to be updated to reflect who really is playing the console, let alone the PC because the PC has always been for the more mature, experienced gamer due to the high level of PC knowledge one must have to game on a PC compared to the console (this is why I believe there is no such thing as a "casual" PC gamer).

It is just a lack of vision and being able to take any risks (financially and artistically) if you are a mainstream developer/publisher because of how competitive the industry is right now.

[Willful Murder]

KungFu_CIA (and by the way, it always feels hilarious to address someone on a forum), thats a great point, and even though i do not agree entirely, i see what you mean. I agree in the sense that games, due to console popularity, have undergone a shift towards the mundane and arcade oriented, and in some even more pathetic examples have attempted to refashion great franchises into "X-Treme" or "Hard Qore!" for the thick-necked frat crowd, see the prince of persia sequel, or in fact the previous two rainbow six console games.

On the other hand, i think the new system present in R6 Vegas shows a lot of promise for deep and tactical gameplay, even if more action oriented. I guess i just see it as a different sort of game than the originals, which i enjoyed each one of.

This may be a stupid question, but have you played GRAW on the PC? That is the closest i've seen to the original Rainbow six games out there.

[braiog]

720 is merely 1280x720 and 1080 is 1920x1080, both of which are graphics playable by PC's higher video cards TODAY, with multiple AA and AF and settings set to HIGH/ENABLED.

If anything, PC is at 90% of the power of next-gen consoles. But, as with all PC tech, in 1-2 years time, cards like the 7950GX2 will be going for $200 and have NOTHING on the out-then DX10 cards that will be along the lines of 800-1Ghz GPU, 2-2.5Ghz Memory Clocks, PCIx16 (or the next slot type down the line), probably capable of outputting 2-3x the power the consoles can.

And consoles will have to wait 4-5 years til the next console comes out to catch up.

For me, it isn't the fact that you game on console or PC. Developers code for consoles MERELY because it's easy to test performance and quality on them. With a PC, we've no standards, and in as much, what works well on one rig could fail miserably on another. There is a lot of overheard that developers have to eat through to in order to get the expected performance.

I don't see it as a question of PC vs. Console. PC gamers are just looking to get support. And maybe we shouldn't be mad (or, AS mad) at developers for software as much as we should be upset with nVidia and ATI (and others) for not working with DirectX and OpenGL to a level of standards.

A level where if you MEET those standards, outside the hardware failing, the game WILL run with the specified features at the card's performance. It may be the very war ATI and nVidia have with each other that's hurting the PC community.<div class="ev_tpc_signature">


Death by Lethal Injection?

PC does NOT mean a Ported Console version.