Mirrors edge for PC...anyone waiting for this?

[Mozgus]

Is it just me or has the PC been getting more console ports in recent years...?

No, it's just that the PC ports are getting more attention, though usually negative attention, in the ways of later release, tons of bugs, and "who would play that on a keyboard?" despite all games having gamepad support.

[Pulsar_t]

DLC = downloadable content, in the case of Mirror's Edge that means extra levels.

Is it just me or has the PC been getting more console ports in recent years...?

It's more that all games are designed around both PC and console. Capcom in particular develops all its games for PCs first, then ports to consoles, finding it an easier method than developing for a particular console and porting to the other platforms. The PC version is released a few months after the console release for various optimisation reasons, and possibly fears of piracy.

DMC3 and Resi4 for the PC were absolutely terrible. I haven't been able to test DMC4 (a. not interested and b. my cpu lacks sse2) but I heard it's a nice port. Resi5 will probably be a decent effort as well.

As for the PC vs console ports debate, publishers are finding it increasingly harder to justify an exclusive PC market. Most fps, rts and wrpg titles are making appearances on consoles and vice versa. ie Publishers like Capcom and Konami and few other console developers are keenly interested in distribution for the PC, but they keep a fair share of franchises console exclusives. Mainly JRPGs and party games. As for quality I think more publishers are learning from the mistakes of the likes of Midway and Ubisoft (most of their PC ports performed terribly) thanks to widespread complaints.

[Mozgus]

As for the PC vs console ports debate, publishers are finding it increasingly harder to justify an exclusive PC market. Most fps, rts and wrpg titles are making appearances on consoles and vice versa. ie Publishers like Capcom and Konami and few other console developers are keenly interested in distribution for the PC, but they keep a fair share of franchises console exclusives. Mainly JRPGs and party games. As for quality I think more publishers are learning from the mistakes of the likes of Midway and Ubisoft (most of their PC ports performed terribly) thanks to widespread complaints.

RE4 PC was fine. Present evidence, or shut up.

http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/Mozgus ... 0310.phtml

[Pulsar_t]

Are you always this fired up?
Anyway, here's an example. I realise Capcom didn't port the game but their quality standards weren't quite high at the time. I patched the Asian build myself and used many of the community fixes, but in the end I played through the PS2 version. And before you jump me for saying this, why rely on modders when publishers rush their products to the market?

[Spoiler Duck]

RE4 PC was fine. Present evidence, or shut up.

http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/Mozgus ... 0310.phtml

From what I read, the main gripe people had with it was not that it had flaws, but more that it didn't do anything really right either. The textures were still really low resolution, the cutscenes were still (really noticably compressed) FMVs etc. basically the game did nothing to take advantage of the platform it was ported to. RE4 looked stunning on Gamecube because it was being view through a SD TV and being played on relatively unimpressive hardware.

So there was nothing wrong with the port as such, it just was lazy. Thus it wasn't held to be good. Which is understandable.

EDIT - quickly reading around, turns out it was really badly optimised, as well. Often a problem with console developers porting to PC - they're used to having to deal with only one set-in-stone specification, and thus can code much more efficiently, creating results on modest hardware comparable to more powerful PC stuff (hence why the visual difference between 360 and PC games is getting harder to tell apart these days). Of course, that all goes out the window once they realise they have to optimise their game for multiple theoretical specifications.

[Mozgus]

Are you always this fired up?
Anyway, here's an example. I realise Capcom didn't port the game but their quality standards weren't quite high at the time. I patched the Asian build myself and used many of the community fixes, but in the end I played through the PS2 version. And before you jump me for saying this, why rely on modders when publishers rush their products to the market?

Educate yourself. The USA release didn't have the issues. But since everyone pirated the fuck out of the Asian release, and it was crap, they never bothered to even look into the later versions. Do you live in Asia? I doubt it. Then what business do you have with the Asian version? It's not valid.

From what I read, the main gripe people had with it was not that it had flaws, but more that it didn't do anything really right either. The textures were still really low resolution, the cutscenes were still (really noticably compressed) FMVs etc. basically the game did nothing to take advantage of the platform it was ported to. RE4 looked stunning on Gamecube because it was being view through a SD TV and being played on relatively unimpressive hardware.

So there was nothing wrong with the port as such, it just was lazy. Thus it wasn't held to be good. Which is understandable.

They're not required to do jack shit. I don't know why people expect ports to always be upgraded.

My main beef is how the PC version is 100% IDENTICAL to the PS2 version, but the PS2 version is heralded as some fucking masterpiece, and is nearly top of the charts at metacritic. But when you factor in the fan-made patches, the PC version leaves it in the dust, as countless comparison shots have proven.

Edit: Badly optimized? Says who? I ran it on a meager 7600GT with maxed out AA and AF from the nvidia control panel at 1650x1080. The frame rate never dipped below max.

[holaback]

Holy thread hi-jack!

[Spoiler Duck]

My main beef is how the PC version is 100% IDENTICAL to the PS2 version, but the PS2 version is heralded as some fucking masterpiece, and is nearly top of the charts at metacritic. But when you factor in the fan-made patches, the PC version leaves it in the dust, as countless comparison shots have proven.

Well, the graphical and gameplay design standards for PS2 games were even back then a lot lower than PC titles. The quality bar for PC games has been and shall always be higher. The PS2 version was heralded as a masterpiece because for the console it looked stunning and played amazingly. By PC standards, not so much.

A good comparison is Goldeneye for the N64. That received huge amounts of critical praise from N64 critics and owners for being the first viable FPS for a console, its platform-defining multiplayer modes and for being visually stunning. Most PC gamers picking it up were left wondering why everyone was getting excited over a third-rate shooter with poorly designed levels, barebones multiplayer and really awful graphics.

Edit: Badly optimized? Says who? I ran it on a meager 7600GT with maxed out AA and AF from the nvidia control panel at 1650x1080. The frame rate never dipped below max.

A lot of people apparently. I never played it so I can't speak for them! Reviews mentioned it at the time as well. I was one of those people who could magically get GTA 3 running at 60fps with a Geforce 2 at the time of its release when everyone else was declaring the game unplayable due to its performance issues, so I understand your viewpoint.

[Mozgus]

A lot of people apparently. I never played it so I can't speak for them! Reviews mentioned it at the time as well. I was one of those people who could magically get GTA 3 running at 60fps with a Geforce 2 at the time of its release when everyone else was declaring the game unplayable due to its performance issues, so I understand your viewpoint.

These people were probably using the word "optimized" in place of "graphically enhanced".

[Spoiler Duck]

That is entirely possible. As I said, having not played it I can't judge. The fact reviews made mention of it leads me to believe that the claimed bad optimisation really was poor performance, and not just gripes over a port not receiving the standard set of enhancements PC users have come to expect, but such is life.

I'm quite happy with my Wii copy, which is the first time I've actually run through the game. At 480p it does look nice, but I can imagine if the same thing was rendered at a higher resolution on the PC without any graphical enhancements it would look quite dire in comparison to most other games. My only complaints come from its design issues more than its graphical fidelity, and it looks like those issues might have been addressed in RE5, so that's cool.