Console ports are fine!

[AstroManLuca]

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.

Come to think of it, I think people tend to describe ANY sort of unconventional mouse movement as "mouse acceleration." But it's different for every game. Just Cause 2 feels like it has mouse lag to me - the mouse movements aren't instant. I used the controller for this game. Meanwhile, a game I've started playing recently, Alpha Protocol, seems to have actual mouse acceleration coupled with a too-low sensitivity setting. I haven't played around much with the in-game sensitivity setting though since I've just been playing it with a controller. And then there are other Unreal Engine 3 games that have perfectly fine mouse tracking like Batman Arkham Asylum and the Mass Effect games.

I really wish developers would just not mess with the mouse sensitivity at all. Leave it at whatever the OS default is. That's what people are used to. I don't think there's been a single case in recorded history of someone saying "hey, I'm really glad the developers decided to override the native mouse tracking curve and replace it with a different one."

 

[gorcorps]

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.

Same thing applies to people and cameras. I shudder all the time when somebody at work heads out to take pictures of something that really needs some detail or optical zoom. I'll offer my work camera, which isn't fancy but a higher end P&S with decent zoom, but they decline. "My phone has 8 megapixels, and a flash! I'll be okay."

The pics they email out are disgusting (and at full 8mp size too). Half the time you can't see anything and it was a worthless trip.

 

[Fallen Kell]

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.

The following is how it holds us back. AMD and Nvidia are companies that are for profit. Their cards have a set development cost and an associated manufacturing cost. The relative price of the cards are based on its current performance vs other cards on the market. They see their best profits when they can keep their development costs low. Thus profit is maximized by keeping existing cards on the market for as long as they can. Since games are what drives the need to really replace existing cards, if there are no games exceeding the capability of their current card line-up, the only reason to introduce new cards would be if that new generation of cards can give better profit margins than the previous cards. Something that is hard to do without major shrinks in GPU manufacturing processes, a new design that uses less silicon wafer size, or increases manufacturing yield.

That first and third optimization (die shrink, and manufacturing yield) have pretty much been mutually exclusive over the last few generations of cards. Which simply leaves a design which can do the same thing with less transistor counts. But that costs a lot in terms of development costs, so the development costs may very well out-weight manufacturing profit increases on a per part basis, thus actually decreasing profit. So, how do you maximize profit? You sit on your current cards until there is a reason to introduce the new ones, all the while keeping the same price of the cards (or slight decreases) once you have made back the development investment that was needed for creating the card. And that is exactly what is currently happening. AMD and Nvidia have simply been pushing back their release cycles because there is no demand for faster GPU's other than the small market segment of the "I need the fastest card out in existence for bragging rights" people. AMD even states as much when they delayed their next cards "next-generation Radeon HD 7000 graphics cores to early 2012 due to high demand for the HD 6000 series". Why put out something new, when the existing stuff is still selling strong?

I havn't replaced my video card in 3 years, longer than I have ever gone in my entire 3D PC gaming life (from when the first Voodoo 3D co-graphics cards came out, up until when the Nvidia GTX260 came out). I pretty much faithfully upgraded cards once a year as games demanded the capabilities of the newer cards.

 

[Aikouka]

You are right in a way. The consoles aren't really the source of the problem, but are essentially a catalyst. One of the problems is that it's much more common to see multi-platform engines being used across all the major gaming platforms (360, PS3 and PC), and why would someone spend a lot of time reworking a working product just to make it slightly better for the PC crowd? That makes no sense logistically.

It's kind of a gross simplification, but essentially... things like Unreal Engine 3 allow developers to create a single solution for their product and distribute it among the different platforms. I call the consoles a catalyst, because without them there wouldn't be much need for a multi-platform engine.

 

[The Boston Dangler]

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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0

 

[AstroManLuca]

I havn't replaced my video card in 3 years, longer than I have ever gone in my entire 3D PC gaming life (from when the first Voodoo 3D co-graphics cards came out, up until when the Nvidia GTX260 came out). I pretty much faithfully upgraded cards once a year as games demanded the capabilities of the newer cards.

I haven't been building PCs for very long, but in the ~4 years since I started, I've only owned two video cards - a Radeon 3850 bought in early 2008, and a Radeon 4870 I got a year and a half later. Going from the 3850 to the 4870 was a fairly nice jump, but I haven't felt the need to upgrade since then. I will if I want to run BF3 but that's about it, the vast majority of games I play do just fine with the 4870. So I've got over two years on my current card and probably won't upgrade for another year.

 

[Munky]

Consoles are holding games back, with the most annoying thing being that I'm stuck with a dumbed-down, over-sized UI designed for just 8 buttons and sitting 10 feet away from the screen.

And the stupid save system that only saves your progress at predetermined check-points.

And the lack of in-game AA

 

[HeXen]

Just wait for the next gen of Consoles, the improvements for them will help PC games in turn. always has

 

[Raduque]

PC Gamers.

/facepalm

Actually, apply it to both sides.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Just wait for the next gen of Consoles, the improvements for them will help PC games in turn. always has

Since when? Before the last generation (Xbox/PS2/GameCube), there weren't even very many games available for both PCs and consoles. I don't think the Xbox really pushed PC gaming forward, and the current generation certainly hasn't as graphics have stagnated.

But hey at least it's saved me money since I haven't had to upgrade my video card as quickly.

 

[HeXen]

Since when? Before the last generation (Xbox/PS2/GameCube), there weren't even very many games available for both PCs and consoles. I don't think the Xbox really pushed PC gaming forward, and the current generation certainly hasn't as graphics have stagnated.

But hey at least it's saved me money since I haven't had to upgrade my video card as quickly.

what? did you not see how Dreamcast pushed polygons and textures compared to PC titles? Soon PC games started looking better, before that it was a little stagnant for a while.
Then the PS2, once again devs pushed graphics for it and it translated to better graphiics on PC and soon after beyond.

THen you say there weren't even very many game available for both PC and consoles?...how old are you? Theres been tons of games for both sinc the late 80's at least.

but yes, developers will push graphics on new console hardware which translates over to the PC games as well. Graphical prowess among consoles is what helps sell new consoles upon launch. PS3 and 360 didn't get the huge noticable difference, but textures on PC games improved quickly after as a result...Condemned at the time had some nice detailed textures that wern't pushed as hard on PC yet.

console ports are nothing new,(porting is actually a loosly used term) but developers pushing console hardware is always a benefit when they make multi plat title.

 

[AstroManLuca]

what? did you not see how Dreamcast pushed polygons and textures compared to PC titles? Soon PC games started looking better, before that it was a little stagnant for a while.
Then the PS2, once again devs pushed graphics for it and it translated to better graphiics on PC and soon after beyond.

THen you say there weren't even very many game available for both PC and consoles?...how old are you? Theres been tons of games for both sinc the late 80's at least.

but yes, developers will push graphics on new console hardware which translates over to the PC games as well. Graphical prowess among consoles is what helps sell new consoles upon launch. PS3 and 360 didn't get the huge noticable difference, but textures on PC games improved quickly after as a result...Condemned at the time had some nice detailed textures that wern't pushed as hard on PC yet.

console ports are nothing new,(porting is actually a loosly used term) but developers pushing console hardware is always a benefit when they make multi plat title.

I'm 27. Wasn't a console gamer for most of my life though. So I don't know as much about past consoles as many people. Maybe the reason I thought there weren't as many cross platform games in the past was because the best-remembered games for a platform are the exclusives. Nowadays everyone's so focused on AAA titles that it doesn't make sense to exclude anyone from being able to play a game, so practically everything is cross platform.

Anyway, my point wasn't that consoles have always held back PC graphics... rather, the opposite. Until the current (and long) console generation, PC and console graphics advanced separately, on their own. But this generation is different in that graphics really haven't advanced much in the past three or four years.

 

[PrayForDeath]

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.

That's because the games are horribly optimized and aren't using the hardware efficiently.

 

[BD231]

Its definitely a postive thing there's a trend towards one standard in gaming, so that all platforms can enjoy the same titles.

The issue is the business model and coding.

Consoles are meant to make money on games, while PC hardware developers are bent on making their coin on new hardware. They are polar opposites in this regard and this is why there's such a huge gap between console hardware and computer hardware. Also, the Direct Code To Hardware nature of consoles vs API for PC's shows PC's are *NOT* the ideal solution, as all that untapped power you speak of goes to waste handling the massive overhead Direct X creates.

You really can't compare the two, because the PC has no choice but to be faster in order to do the same things consoles do due to lack of optimization for specific GPU's. PC's will never reach their full gaming potential as long as they are tied to Graphics API's, but it sure would be nice to see console hardware progress a little faster.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

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.

Lets take a step back here for a second.

Do you actually acknowledge that before the latest generation of consoles (and during their earily years) we had games which constantly pushed the boundaries of graphics, like Crysis, Oblivion and alike. These games were not running smoothly with all of the features cranked up until a few years after their release when appropriately quick hardware was available.

And that since then we've seen almost no improvement in graphical fidelity in the industry, Crysis 2 launched looking worse than Crysis in a lot of places and we had to wait for DX11 updates, games like MW have not improved significantly at all, it's the same engine, same low res textures, same limitations.

It's absolutely crystal clear what is happening, games are built as 1 glove fits all and that means bringing the restrictions of consoles to the PC, I call this lowest common denominator development, I've blogged about this as well. - http://www.pcgamingstandards.com/Blog.aspx?blogid=12

Not only does the quality go down but we also suffer some very specific changes which are not suitable for the PC platform, these include.

Lower FOVs
Forced Mouse acceleration
Lack of graphics options
Dumbed down HUD and Menu systems

People think you're trolling because what you're saying is just so fundamentally wrong, consoles have completely gimped the last 5-6 years of PC gaming.

 

[blackened23]

Lets take a step back here for a second.

Do you actually acknowledge that before the latest generation of consoles (and during their earily years) we had games which constantly pushed the boundaries of graphics, like Crysis, Oblivion and alike. These games were not running smoothly with all of the features cranked up until a few years after their release when appropriately quick hardware was available.

And that since then we've seen almost no improvement in graphical fidelity in the industry, Crysis 2 launched looking worse than Crysis in a lot of places and we had to wait for DX11 updates, games like MW have not improved significantly at all, it's the same engine, same low res textures, same limitations.

It's absolutely crystal clear what is happening, games are built as 1 glove fits all and that means bringing the restrictions of consoles to the PC, I call this lowest common denominator development, I've blogged about this as well. - http://www.pcgamingstandards.com/Blog.aspx?blogid=12

Not only does the quality go down but we also suffer some very specific changes which are not suitable for the PC platform, these include. A nice bonus this year was rage being released, and being such a graphicaly joke that that it doesn't force my GTX 580 to use more than 40% gpu while being capped at 60 fps, and rage having textures worse than doom 3 up close (with doom 3 hd pack + 1080p).

Lower FOVs
Forced Mouse acceleration
Lack of graphics options
Dumbed down HUD and Menu systems

People think you're trolling because what you're saying is just so fundamentally wrong, consoles have completely gimped the last 5-6 years of PC gaming.

The worst is that so many console port games have horrible console ui's. I'm sure anyone that played fallout 3 at release knows, having an inventory with 3 items per page (with 30 items) and size 70 fonts is utterly STUPID.

Oh and the best thing is games where you can't scroll with mouse wheel, and games that you HAVE to press enter to acknowledge a dialog. Hey its not like I have 100+ keys at my disposal. Even better: Rage being released this year and the first id software game that doesn't push graphical boundaries, my own GTX 580 and 6970 xfire systems use about 40% GPU to cap it at 60 fps. And even more hilarious! Many textures in rage up close are WORSE than doom 3 which was released in 2004. (using hd textures + 1080p in doom3)

I'm convinced that the OP did the ultimate hit and run troll

 

[frozentundra123456]

Consoles are holding games back, with the most annoying thing being that I'm stuck with a dumbed-down, over-sized UI designed for just 8 buttons and sitting 10 feet away from the screen.

And the stupid save system that only saves your progress at predetermined check-points.

And the lack of in-game AA

Yea, checkpoint only save systems drive me nuts. I mean I have hundreds of gigabytes of free space on my hard drive. How hard would it be to include a "save anywhere" command. Almost all PC exclusive games back in the day had this.

 

[darkewaffle]

I'm convinced that people will complain about anything as much as they can. And that many of the same people complaining about under utilized hardware and lousy interfaces are the same people who will fall in love with "independent" "pc exclusive" games with shitty graphics and shitty interfaces (Minecraft, Terraria) in spite of it.

Now whether that's because they just have a raging hardon for "PURE PC GAMING" or if they can actually look past those flaws to an enjoyable game is debatable

 

[Slammy1]

Not everyone is sold on graphics, DW, just look at WoW. In the before time, consoles had better graphics and PC gaming was a unique experience (based on massive storage, the keyboard, and internet). As consoles became more specialized PCs the equation changed, and people like me all but stopped PC gaming. I do try.

Thing is, this is an old topic. When BG2 came out was around the time that it became apparent to me. I'm sure age, commitments, etc have played a role in this. The only console I have is my N64.

 

[JAG87]

"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'.

I've been playing games since 1995, and the only memorable FPS titles that I recall have been PC only games.

I wonder why.

 

[darkewaffle]

I've been playing games since 1995, and the only memorable FPS titles that I recall have been PC only games.

I wonder why.

Like Goldeneye? And Perfect Dark? And Halo? And Jet Force Gemini? Oddworld Stranger's Wrath? FPS used to have very little presence on consoles due to the inputs being poorly suited for it. The dawn of the joystick and multiplayer helped immensely, hence the presence of it on the N64, and it's proliferated since then.

More recently Bioshock and Borderlands come to mind, though they were not platform exclusive, as I recall it was the 360 that really got Bioshock attention. And I first saw Borderlands on a console as well.

Not to mention most sports, racing, fighting, and many 3rd person style action/rpg games simply play better on a controller.

 

[thespyder]

"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.

Um, yeah. About that. Can we have the picture asking if Trolling or merely stupid again?

Understand that “Consolization” isn’t only about graphics quality. It is also about over all system resource availability, disk space, access speed, etc… All of which are superior in todays PC market than on the current generation of consoles. And POTENTIAL is also lost due to these limitations inflicted by the Console. Absolutely Graphical limitations is in there and probably closer to the top than the bottom, but not the sole and exclusive reason.

Take DA2 as an example. One main reason why the development team used the same maps and tiles over and over and OVER again was to reduce development time. This was not the only reason. The other reason is that it allowed for an easier Console port. The fewer maps/textures the less space and resources necessary to support the game (i.e. consolized). The same can be said for the “Wave Theory” of ninja mobs. This was done mostly so that the console could handle larger volumes of creatures attacking, volumes that a PC could handle all in one go. And it all but totally ruined the combat. In other words, two of the main reasons why DA2 was so critically panned was because it was shunted down and dumbed down just to fit in a console.

If you want proof, check out DA:O Console vs PC. WORLDS of difference. A fact that was commented on and lambasted by the reviewers to such a degree that the DEVs made absolutely sure they didn’t make that mistake again. So they dumbed down DA2 so that it would “Fit” onto a Console without significant and fundamental changes to the gameplay.

I think the OP was only at fault in that they are probably a Console Gamer to begin with who recently forayed into PC gaming, but only in as far as Console games ported to PC goes. They assume that all of the functionality of the Console games is all there is. And so they only perceive the difference being graphical. Alternately, they don’t realize that most PC games today are made with consolization in mind so don’t understand what the DEVS COULD HAVE DONE had they not had that restriction.

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'.

And no one is saying that every “lousy multi-platform” game would have turned out significantly different if it was PC exclusive. Some of them would indeed have been lousy no matter what. But people are saying that because Console gaming is 90% of the market these days, developers are not even trying to make things that fully realize the PC potential. DX11 is totally underutilized. Significant RAM capabilities are Hugely underutilized. Multi-threading and Quad core processing is largely underutilized. Either because the games coming out are intend to multi-platform it or because since they are competing against “lousy multi-platform” games, they don’t need to push the boundaries to make a sale. In short, there isn't anywhere near as much money to be made in PC only games as there is in Console or multi-platform games.

 

[AstroManLuca]

Like Goldeneye? And Perfect Dark? And Halo? And Jet Force Gemini? Oddworld Stranger's Wrath? FPS used to have very little presence on consoles due to the inputs being poorly suited for it. The dawn of the joystick and multiplayer helped immensely, hence the presence of it on the N64, and it's proliferated since then.

Those last two aren't FPSs.

 

[Pia]

Yea, checkpoint only save systems drive me nuts. I mean I have hundreds of gigabytes of free space on my hard drive. How hard would it be to include a "save anywhere" command. Almost all PC exclusive games back in the day had this.

It's a design choice, has nothing to do with the abilities of current-gen consoles.
Personally I'd like to see more game designers spend actual thought on the game's save system instead of giving the player god mode and calling it a day.

 

[thespyder]

It's a design choice, has nothing to do with the abilities of current-gen consoles.
Personally I'd like to see more game designers spend actual thought on the game's save system instead of giving the player god mode and calling it a day.

Actually, not 100%. Console HD space is a premium (or at least has been historicall) and so there is some thinking that goes into that decision which is driven BECAUSE it is a console, particularly with the older consoles. Admittedly it is legacy thinking, but the origins come from actual limitations on hardware.