Console ports are fine!

[Arachnotronic]

Has anyone noticed that while everyone complains about "console ports", the only fundamental difference between a "console port" and a "PC exclusive" game is that the min-spec target has, ironically enough, been raised compared to what a typical min spec PC target would be?

The consoles are a *good* thing for PC gaming! The minimum spec as a 360 or a PS3 is much better than what min spec would be otherwise. This ultimately leads to higher quality graphics (which is what I assume you all complain about) right out of the gate, and a solid target platform for many, many years.

Also, because the consoles are constrained so much, it forces clever algorithmic optimization and program structure, which DOES translate over to performing well on the PCs. Ever notice how "pure PC" games nowadays run like crap, don't use more than 2 cores, etc., but the "console ports" do?

PC gaming is better than ever but it won't stay that way -- with our improved visuals, better control scheme -- if all people ever do is find stuff to complain about.

 

[Vdubchaos]

I say mandatory drug test with Anandtech registration!!!

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

... I take it you haven't actually played any games and just looked at required specs? Just about any console port generally has a ton of flaws either from lack of testing or laziness in changing features to fit the medium.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

This is completely bass ackwards...

One of the massive benefits of PC games is that they cater for a wide range of graphical hardware, so you can spend as much or as little on a PC as you like and you can generally get a playable experience you just have to tweak the game settings to match your hardware.

With consoles on the scene everything is developed for 1 narrow specification of hardware and nothing above or below, which means that all the graphics advances the PC offers high end gaming enthusiasts are completely gone.

Optimization for the consoles does not directly translate to the PC, the consoles are unique pieces of hardware and very easy to optimize for when you make certain assumptions, these do not translate to the PC, people like John Carkmack have spoken about this at length in video interviews saying that console optimization causes problems for the PC builds.

PC gaming is at an all time relative low, if you compare the games we have to the capabilities of the hardware, and compare modern games to the last 5 years or so, the advancement we've had is minor at best, which is unusual, we'd expect to see large improvements in technology in this time but it's just not happened, the hardware is there but the games don't make use for it, they're held back by 6 year old consoles which are now a factor of 10x slower than high end PC parts.

 

[Zenoth]

Can anyone post the "Not sure if serious or joking" picture?

It's the only thing I can think of right now after reading that. I'd rather not wall-of-text my way into something that has been beaten beyond death by now.

"PC gaming is better than ever..." I nearly got blinded by that.

 

[gorcorps]

This is completely bass ackwards...

One of the massive benefits of PC games is that they cater for a wide range of graphical hardware, so you can spend as much or as little on a PC as you like and you can generally get a playable experience you just have to tweak the game settings to match your hardware.

With consoles on the scene everything is developed for 1 narrow specification of hardware and nothing above or below, which means that all the graphics advances the PC offers high end gaming enthusiasts are completely gone.

Optimization for the consoles does not directly translate to the PC, the consoles are unique pieces of hardware and very easy to optimize for when you make certain assumptions, these do not translate to the PC, people like John Carkmack have spoken about this at length in video interviews saying that console optimization causes problems for the PC builds.

PC gaming is at an all time relative low, if you compare the games we have to the capabilities of the hardware, and compare modern games to the last 5 years or so, the advancement we've had is minor at best, which is unusual, we'd expect to see large improvements in technology in this time but it's just not happened, the hardware is there but the games don't make use for it, they're held back by 6 year old consoles which are now a factor of 10x slower than high end PC parts.

I disagree with the last paragraph regarding hardware. In order to run even the latest "ports" well at high resolutions, one needs some pretty good hardware. Much more than the consoles offer that's for sure. I don't think the hardware that's out today is truly that under utilized. Especially if you have a larger monitor (greater than 1080p). Consoles haven't helped much advancement, but IMO they haven't hindered it nearly as much as people claim. Seems to me like even the true PC games that utilize DX11 and new hardware don't really run as well as you'd expect, and from what I've played don't look all that much better.

 

[frozentundra123456]

I have a low end system (E4500, 9800GT), so at least I can still play most games at moderate settings at 1440x900.
Where I think consoles have had the most negative effect is not so much in the graphics area (although they have held it back), but in the gameplay area. Graphics are "good enough" for me. I am more interested in gameplay and storyline. Just look at the follow up games that have been coming out lately:

Supreme Commander 2 vs the first game
Dungeon Seige 3 vs DS 2
Dragon Age 2 vs Dragon Age Origins
Modern Warfare 2 vs Call of Duty for PC or even CoD 4, Modern Warfare the first game

Actually, I cant think of any sequel that has come out recently that was even comparable to the first game. And there is a dearth of RTS games which used to be my favorite. Everyone just wants to make an online shooter with an afterthought of a single player campaign.

My only hope for good games going ahead are for Mass Effect 3 (please Bioware, make an epic conclusion that finishes the story and doesnt drag it on for another sequel or MMO), Skyrym, and maybe Diablo 3 (very displeased about the auction house and online requirements though).

And no, I have no interest at all in Battlefield 3. I am terrible at online shooters and especially at vehicle combat, so that game is out for me.

 

[JTsyo]

Console ports are not good but if it's done well it's playable. If not done well it's a waste of money. Who ants to play games where you have to hit spacebar as fast as you can to "wrestle" a boss? How about button sequences w, Lmouse, spacebar, Rmouse etc.? Tutorials that haven't been changed from console button config. There's a pretty long list of valid complaints.

 

[Vdubchaos]

Consoles is EXACTLY what has stalled the Graphics improvements past 4-5 years.

Not much has really changed or improved. Very minor differences.

 

[KaOTiK]

Has anyone noticed that while everyone complains about "console ports", the only fundamental difference between a "console port" and a "PC exclusive" game is that the min-spec target has, ironically enough, been raised compared to what a typical min spec PC target would be?

The consoles are a *good* thing for PC gaming! The minimum spec as a 360 or a PS3 is much better than what min spec would be otherwise. This ultimately leads to higher quality graphics (which is what I assume you all complain about) right out of the gate, and a solid target platform for many, many years.

Also, because the consoles are constrained so much, it forces clever algorithmic optimization and program structure, which DOES translate over to performing well on the PCs. Ever notice how "pure PC" games nowadays run like crap, don't use more than 2 cores, etc., but the "console ports" do?

PC gaming is better than ever but it won't stay that way -- with our improved visuals, better control scheme -- if all people ever do is find stuff to complain about.

 

[Arg Clin]

I have a low end system (E4500, 9800GT), so at least I can still play most games at moderate settings at 1440x900.
Where I think consoles have had the most negative effect is not so much in the graphics area (although they have held it back), but in the gameplay area. Graphics are "good enough" for me. I am more interested in gameplay and storyline. Just look at the follow up games that have been coming out lately:

Supreme Commander 2 vs the first game
Dungeon Seige 3 vs DS 2
Dragon Age 2 vs Dragon Age Origins
Modern Warfare 2 vs Call of Duty for PC or even CoD 4, Modern Warfare the first game (snip)

I absolutely agree, however the consoles are no so much to blame as the users. If consoles didn't exist they'd just demand/accept dumbed down games for PC instead. There's a good and bad side to gaming becomming mainstream - the good is that larger volume allows for more ressources supposedly enabling higher quality productions. The flipside of the coin is that the large masses seems to favuor meaningless action and gore over storylines and gameplay.

The rest of us accept it because we have no other option - and we're solidly planted in a setting of catering to lowest common denominator.

 

[darkewaffle]

"Consolization" is blown way out of proportion and little more than a buzzword for people to bitch about. It doesn't actually mean anything, because just bandied about to describe just about any/every trivial issue a game can possibly have.

People are fooling themselves if they think a lousy multi-platform game would have turned out significantly differently if it was PC exclusive. Or if a PC gamer is so much different than a console gamer lol, which I think is a big part of the 'movement'.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I disagree with the last paragraph regarding hardware. In order to run even the latest "ports" well at high resolutions, one needs some pretty good hardware. Much more than the consoles offer that's for sure. I don't think the hardware that's out today is truly that under utilized. Especially if you have a larger monitor (greater than 1080p). Consoles haven't helped much advancement, but IMO they haven't hindered it nearly as much as people claim. Seems to me like even the true PC games that utilize DX11 and new hardware don't really run as well as you'd expect, and from what I've played don't look all that much better.

Well hardware nearly doubles in speed every 18 months, in the last 6 years since the console release we've seen a good 3 true generations of GPUs thats 2x2x2 = 8x the speed increase, if you look at something like the memory bandwidth of the GPUs inside the 360/PS3 and compare them to a high end part like the 6990 or 590 you're looking at easily 8x the speed.

Yet MW3 looks like MW2 which looks like MW1, we have 3 generation of the same game with the same technical limits because it's a multi-platform title.

There is only a handful of titles that are pushing the boundaries, and most of them are begrudgingly doing it, like having DX11 support tacked on after launch, it's certainly an afterthought in an attempt to save face with the PC crowd and largely failing.

I run 2560x1600 and all games with only 1-2 exceptions run absolutely fine on a 5970 which is nearly 2 generations old now.

 

[darkewaffle]

Well hardware nearly doubles in speed every 18 months, in the last 6 years since the console release we've seen a good 3 true generations of GPUs thats 2x2x2 = 8x the speed increase, if you look at something like the memory bandwidth of the GPUs inside the 360/PS3 and compare them to a high end part like the 6990 or 590 you're looking at easily 8x the speed.

Yet MW3 looks like MW2 which looks like MW1, we have 3 generation of the same game with the same technical limits because it's a multi-platform title.

There is only a handful of titles that are pushing the boundaries, and most of them are begrudgingly doing it, like having DX11 support tacked on after launch, it's certainly an afterthought in an attempt to save face with the PC crowd and largely failing.

I run 2560x1600 and all games with only 1-2 exceptions run absolutely fine on a 5970 which is nearly 2 generations old now.

So you would be happier if you spent $700 on a video card and it couldn't run every game smoothly?

Even by PC-only standards a 5970/6990/GTX590 or SLI/Xfire are still exorbitantly powerful and far, far above what's in the average game player's setup. If consoles had never existed, developers would still focus on mainstream performance first; and even today that would mean the GTX 8800s, 9800s, GS 9600s, 5770s. The Steam Hardware survey is not exactly a great measure, since a Steam user is more likely to be at least somewhat 'adept' I would say, but even then 4/5 top five cards are relatively value-segment or lower. Of the top 10, only 3 are less than two generations old. Of the top 10, only two would generally be considered performance cards these days.

I would say if you consider the aggregate PC gaming entity, not just the Steam PC gaming entity, these figures would skew even more heavily towards the value segment.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

So you would be happier if you spent $700 on a video card and it couldn't run every game smoothly?

Even by PC-only standards a 5970/6990/GTX590 or SLI/Xfire are still exorbitantly powerful and far, far above what's in the average game player's setup. If consoles had never existed, developers would still focus on mainstream performance first; and even today that would mean the GTX 8800s, 9800s, GS 9600s, 5770s. The Steam Hardware survey is not exactly a great measure, since a Steam user is more likely to be at least somewhat 'adept' I would say, but even then 4/5 top five cards are relatively value-segment or lower. Of the top 10, only 3 are less than two generations old. Of the top 10, only two would generally be considered performance cards these days.

I would say if you consider the aggregate PC gaming entity, not just the Steam PC gaming entity, these figures would skew even more heavily towards the value segment.

That depends why the card can't run every game smoothly, if it's because of lack of optimisation in the game then sure, if it's because the games graphics are ahead of its time, for example the situation we had with Crysis, then absolutely!

I don't buy video cards to run "max settings", I buy video cards to get a good looking graphics, just because there is graphics available that i cannot yet run does not de-value what I'm running now. I blogged about this effect in the mind of gamers, I called it the "Fabled Max Settings" - http://pcgamingstandards.com/Blog.aspx?blogid=3

By PC standards the 5970 despite being 2 years old now is still a decent card, mainly because Nvidia had a bad round with disappointing improvements and AMD are yet to release their next gen, however it is powering a 2560x1600 screen which requires about 2x more GPU power to run than something like 1080p

Have you considered that a lot of the people in the steam survey have the hardware they have because there's simply no reason to upgrade? There is only 1-2 games which actually push the graphical limits, we have massive AAA games like MW3 and BF3 coming out which run extremely well on 3+ year old hardware.

People need killer app games to justify new purchases, I've been literally right on top of every generation of video card ever since the Geforce 4 (Voodoo 2, Voodoo5, GF 4600, FX5900, GF6800, GF 7950GX2, GF 8800GTX, HD4870 crossfire, HD5970) every single generation I've gone all out on a GPU and last generation I didn't bother upgrading because there's simply no point.

 

[blackened23]

Has anyone noticed that while everyone complains about "console ports", the only fundamental difference between a "console port" and a "PC exclusive" game is that the min-spec target has, ironically enough, been raised compared to what a typical min spec PC target would be?

The consoles are a *good* thing for PC gaming! The minimum spec as a 360 or a PS3 is much better than what min spec would be otherwise. This ultimately leads to higher quality graphics (which is what I assume you all complain about) right out of the gate, and a solid target platform for many, many years.

Also, because the consoles are constrained so much, it forces clever algorithmic optimization and program structure, which DOES translate over to performing well on the PCs. Ever notice how "pure PC" games nowadays run like crap, don't use more than 2 cores, etc., but the "console ports" do?

PC gaming is better than ever but it won't stay that way -- with our improved visuals, better control scheme -- if all people ever do is find stuff to complain about.

Wow. WOW. Is this guy serious or what?

Yeah, console ports that don't take advantage of modern PC hardware.

UI's with retardedly large fonts because of kiddies playing on big screens.

UI's that require you to press enter repeatedly, with fonts so large that an inventory in a RPG has 3 lines per screen. (HELLO FALLOUT 3)

An action game that I can bind my keys to, yeah I have 101 keys on my keyboard I shouldn't have to press 1 to fire my weapon if I don't want to. I have 100+ keys here but I can't rebind my actions? Thats awesome, Console ports.

Games with no anti aliasing due to being console ports, because hey you don't need AA on big screen TV's.

Ugly low resolution textures because of console port-itiis.

Jesus. I want to hurt you. Just kidding but this has to be the monster troll of the year. If you're serious you have some serious issues my friend, 10 years ago PC gaming was at a relative high when PC games actually took advantage of modern PC hardware, had Original IP's and various games that TOOK ADVANTAGE of the perks a PC can offer. You're either incredibly young and naive or just clueless.

I just can't tell if you're ****** or if you're just monster trolling everyone.

 

[Arachnotronic]

I've never seen the point in "trolling". Anyway, I guess I'm just not sure why people think that consoles hold us back hardware wise. Again, take a look at the STEAM survey for hardware, or just take a look at your "less hardcore" friends.

Until I stepped in and built all of my friends new PCs, they were playing games on junk laptops with Intel IGP or very low end NVIDIA/AMD stuff. You're fooling yourself if you think that the majority of people who buy PC games and play them have anywhere near the proper system requirements (at least in the graphics department).

Hell, I can't even tell you HOW MANY TIMES, people have bought laptops with "NVIDIA GRAPHICS!!", had lousy framerates and low quality settings, and then went ahead and wished they had a game console and/or screamed "UNOPTIMIZED CONSOLE PORT" or complained that you needed a $2,000 PC to
play PC games.

Yes, at AT, we all basically know what we're doing and we know how to optimally allocate our PC funds to maximize gaming performance. But the average Joe who picks up a PC game probably doesn't even have the minimum requirements. So if it weren't consoles hamstringing PC graphics innovation, it would simply be shitty IGPs.

However, with the new Llano stuff, AMD might change the baseline...but too bad Intel gets the majority of the IGP market share

ALSO, I've been around as a PC gamer since I was four, when my dad built me an i386 so I would stop hogging his PC to play DOOM. Since then, I have NEVER owned a game console and have always built my own PCs to game. I remember the heyday of PC gaming being "on top" and "the focus", and I miss it just as much as anybody, since it was VERY strange to see what happened in 2005/2006. But we still get tons of good games, and with things like STEAM, we get 'em for cheap.

I know the PC will never be the lead platform again, and I know things will just get worse for us in that respect, but I will enjoy the games that do come out. I can't make a difference in what the developers choose to do, but I do arm everyone I know with a damn good gaming PC. That's all I can do.

 

[AstroManLuca]

I don't normally have a problem with console ports but a lot of them do have major issues. A lot of them have very limited options for adjusting your graphics settings, sometimes they have really bad controls or messed up mouse acceleration that basically requires you to use a gamepad to control the game well, and a lot of them ONLY support the Xbox 360 controller on top of that.

Assuming a game doesn't do any of those things, I'm generally okay with it, although I don't like how consoles are holding back graphical improvements for PCs that can handle it. If people want to try gaming on a $400 Dell laptop, that's their own fault and they should have done a little more research first. That would be like buying an SUV and then complaining that it gets bad gas mileage.

 

[DeathReborn]

Some of the issues I have with console ports are:

Limited Graphics/Audio Options - Quite often you get resolution & a few others but not a comprehensive list.
Auto-Aim - Quite often left in games to help 360 controller users but not needed for Mouse+KB, unless you are hopeless.
Menus - Designed for console controllers, not changed for Mouse+KB controls.
Limited Controller support - They'll either only support the 360 controller or the 360 controller & select others (often highly priced & hard to find ones).

Possibly the biggest problem I have with ports is they are on the most part extremely formulaic, limited choice & poor storyline games or just carbon sequels (CoD etc) with little to no effort to actually improve the product (again, CoD...).

The golden age where you'd get 10-15 good/great games coming out a year is over. Now we're lucky if we even get one game that isn't broken or is poorly designed/made. I actually place most of the blame for this decline on Microsoft as it was after the Xbox that PC games started to slip into this coma like state.

 

[JackSpadesSI]

I think people are completely missing the point here (and on the other billion threads with the same, or reverse premise).

Console ports aren't the problem. The problem is lazy developers and greedy publishers. With lazy developers, not enough time is spent to ensure good quality control. With greedy publishers, not enough time is allowed to ensure good quality control.

A console port can suck or be good. A PC-exclusive can also suck or be good.

I'm not denying that ported games usually suffer from terrible quality, but I think people are blaming porting as the cause, not as the effect. My guess for why ported games tend toward garbage is that it is typically the lazy developers/greedy publishers which embark on porting a console game because they see it as a quick and easy project.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Assuming a game doesn't do any of those things, I'm generally okay with it, although I don't like how consoles are holding back graphical improvements for PCs that can handle it. If people want to try gaming on a $400 Dell laptop, that's their own fault and they should have done a little more research first. That would be like buying an SUV and then complaining that it gets bad gas mileage.

Most consumers are not informed. At all. For a recent PC I built for someone for gaming, I had the following specs (he wanted the whole rig in under $260, mind you):

- Phenom I 9600
- 4GB DDR2-800
- Radeon 4850 512MB
- etc.

And he asked me, "How many GHz is the CPU?"

I told him "2.3"

And then he replies with, "well, then shouldn't my MacBook Pro be better for games since it has higher GHz?"

I then tried to explain to him that the main thing for gaming is the GPU. He still didn't believe me until he actually fired up a game and it smoked his MBP.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Most consumers are not informed. At all. For a recent PC I built for someone for gaming, I had the following specs (he wanted the whole rig in under $260, mind you):

- Phenom I 9600
- 4GB DDR2-800
- Radeon 4850 512MB
- etc.

And he asked me, "How many GHz is the CPU?"

I told him "2.3"

And then he replies with, "well, then shouldn't my MacBook Pro be better for games since it has higher GHz?"

I then tried to explain to him that the main thing for gaming is the GPU. He still didn't believe me until he actually fired up a game and it smoked his MBP.

Like I said, that's his own fault. Glad you were able to educate him, although something tells me that knowledge won't stick.

 

[zerogear]

This one?

 

[Gunslinger08]

Generally, I'm not bothered by console ports really. Especially not graphically - just about every new AA or AAA game that comes out looks "good enough" for me. The big issue (that I still work around) is typically controls. Mouse acceleration, weird vsync/mouse issues, and stupid interfaces (ex. I can't scroll with my mouse wheel through blobs of text, "push any button" doesn't respond to a mouse click, can't remap keys, etc.) all detract from my immersion in the game. It's annoying when a company only does the bare minimum to support a KB+M interface when it probably wouldn't take much longer to implement some basic PC gaming interface/control concepts from the 90s.

That said, it really isn't that big of a deal. I can usually find a way to make the mouse feel mostly normal and live with the interface oddities.

 

[McWatt]

Agreed about controls. Mouse lag and acceleration make a lot of games, or sometimes just their menus, unusable. Speaking of menus, it seems like the majority of them in ports don't support point and click - it's all about using arrow keys to select a choice.

On the subject of mouse acceleration, this has been going on for so long that most of the posts around the internet complaining about it are written by people who are actually thinking of overly high mouse sensitivity, which is a separate problem entirely. Somehow people don't even know what mouse acceleration is. I always check for it with by starting with my mouse against my keyboard, pulling it to the right 4" at a very slow speed, then moving it back against the keyboard with a rapid slide to the left. If the cursor ends where it began, acceleration is off.