It's common sense that most games can have better graphics and even better gameplay on PC because of the advantages of the PC environment, since easily upgradable hardware to mods and unofficial bug fixes.

However, there are some multiplatform games which are better playable on consoles, even recent games, since their PC ports may have been poorly developed or PC is not the primary platform they were developed for or even because of censorship. An example is the critically acclaimed Child of Light, which had multiplatform versions that were better than the PC version, which was heavily criticized due to a lot of bugs that were not present in other versions.

What games do you think they are better playable on consoles and why? And what console version is the best one for that game?

2 months ago*

Comment has been collapsed.

I played Child of Light on PC and didnt notice any bugs myself. So I guess I was lucky. Dont have any examples of bad PC ports. But I think its pretty funny when they remake games and are suppose to make it better for PC, and then its just worse and get shit tons of negative reviews. Like for example Bioshock 1 and 2 remastered.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Didn't encounter any issues with Child of Light on PC either. Not a single bug, not a single gameplay issue.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I didn't notice about bugs, either, as for Child of Light. :/ But, well... now, I already consider the Uplay Launcher + Steam forced link system as an annoying flaw.

( But not as worst as the one from FF7 on Pc, which nearly make this game unplayable. )

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Slight issue with the hair not renderng a few times on the old Nvidia GPU, but that was quickly fixed by selecting the right GPU by default on my old laptop - also no issues otherwise.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I didn't encounter any bugs either. Dunno what he is talking about.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Funny thing about this, Bioshock 1/2 had issues on PC for me, rendering the games unplayable - However the Remastered worked perfectly well, allowing me the opportunity to play the games which I couldn't before.

I've seen so much negativity towards the remasters, that sometimes I feel I'm the only one who had a great experience with it and am grateful for the developers who provided it. :P

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yep, same.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Resident Evil Revelations 1 on PS4/Switch. More content, somewhat better UI, and a much larger player base for Raid players.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That's a good one.
I remember that the big issue I had with RER1 on PC was that the dodge controls just didn't seem to 'fit' a controller, and that they may have worked far more reliably (or felt better in general) on the original portable console. I actually struggled to get out of the mini tutorial room that introduced the dodge as a result, and afterwards I largely ignored that function because I could never reliably pull it off. Last boss ended up being horrible as a result, haha.

Good game though. And its follow-up.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

What extra content? Also i was going to say REV 2 since even on my high end pc there is a slowdown/lagg when you load a game. My friend with his shitty old ass pc has the same issue as me and i did not matter if it was lowest or highest settings.
Seems to be an PC only issue and noticable when you have a save near/during combat and raid mode.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It has a second Ghost Ship, the Chaos edition, which is the only stage to drop a brand new weapon and part category that is even rarer and stronger than Illegal ones. Also, its trinity bonus has the new versions of the BSAA, STARS, or FCO parts, and they are simply amazing (STARS 2 gives infinite magazine size and reduces recoil to almost nothing).

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Dark Souls 1 was better on the consoles.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Howso?

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The game had slightly better performance (ironic), the glitches were fewer thanks to the new ones popping up on release and the playerbase was way bigger on consoles.

Not to even account for the simple fact of expectation vs. reality being different on PCs and consoles.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It wasn't. It was a bad PC port because it was barebones (and mouse/kb controls were bad, but consoles don't have mouse/kb support at all), but still better than on consoles (at least on PC it can maintain 30 fps, on consoles it drops to 15 fps in certain zones).

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

(at least on PC it can maintain 30 fps, on consoles it drops to 15 fps in certain zones).

Did you play on release? Did you even hear of Blighttown?
Dark Souls also lacked most controller support. Only official 1st party ones. Plus, more glitches thanks to the game misusing cores on release.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Blighttown is just the zone I was thinking about. On PC I had constant 30 fps there.

By that time I had a Logitech controller and it worked without issues.

I didn't play on release, but this thread is not about how games where at release day.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

but this thread is not about how games where at release day.

Hmm, I guess I missed that part. Only read the text 4 times to see where you've come to that conclusion though, so maybe I've just missed it :P

Blighttown is just the zone I was thinking about. On PC I had constant 30 fps there. By that time I had a Logitech controller and it worked without issues.

Glad to hear, but not everyone was as fortunate. System requirements weren't accurate estimations for a huge portion of the playerbase and if you've got any experience with third party controllers, then you know that basically each gamepad is its own beast with nearly random odds of working.

I'll take it you didn't use DSFix either?

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The PC port was crap. Everyone knows it. I literally don't know one person who got through Blighttown in the original version w/o issues. Myself included. Plus GFWL.

I'm surprised someone is arguing this point with you. They must have used DSFix.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Lol, completely forgot about the abortion that was GFWL.
The positive comments took me back a bit and made me look up original threads about the game to make sure I wasn't just misremembering something, but lo and behold the issues were common. With these comments, I wouldn't have been surprised if they had just also added "the game ran at a nice 60fps for me!" :D

Though, I think Dark Souls is a franchise that just has staunch defenders for whatever they do. Like when I glitched out during the Taurus Demon fight and couldn't roll without issues, I was just told that I don't know what I'm talking about and that I'm just really bad at Dark Souls. :D

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Yeah. There is a high level of fanaticism with Soulsborne games. I feel it myself a little when thinking about Bloodborne. But not to the point of suggesting someone else is wrong when they encounter a bug. I'd rather know about it and always appreciated a heads up from someone who already encountered it.

But yeah, that original DS PC release had so many issues that it could make you feel like the worst gamer ever lol. Plus, FromSoft admitted they rushed the PC port and acknowledged the various issues. I feel it pretty much kills any arguments to the contrary when the company who made the game says it has issues.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The positive comments took me back a bit and made me look up original threads

Again with the same stuff: "original threads". We're talking about how the port is now, not how it was at release. Give me a PS3 and a copy of DS1, and I'd still play the PC port, even without DSFix.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Look, go ahead.

But you pretend like we're talking about games in current states (we're not explicitly). You pretend like the port's better now (it's barely better).
In the end, it doesn't matter. This specific discussion is definitely now based on opinion, not fact. You do you, boo. It's just a comment about Dark Souls.

EDIT: Just to add. It's you who relies on your personal opinion. I'm not. Robilar even added more issues to it. Reminded us of the fact that FromSoft literally said the port was bad. Reminded us of GFWL. But all you keep parroting is "nah, not now. I like it more! I like it more. I like it more."
I'm glad you like it. Kinda frustrating to see you try and peddle it off as fact though.

2 months ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Maybe you don't remember how badly the game runs on consoles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ha6K5KtW3W8

I played it with an Radeon HD 6950, which was already 1.5 years old by the time the PC port released, and still got 30 fps on that zone (with DSFix, which means improved graphics: 1080p, SSAO, better DoF and AA...). A 4870 should be able to get 30 or close to 30 fps at 720p and SSAO disabled (so, console quality). The CPU in the min specs is worse than what both consoles had, so I can see people with that CPU having worse performance (it was already a 5 years old CPU back then).

The game was definitively badly optimized, on all platforms.

How is this subjective? FPS numbers are not subjective. And without DSFix, the PC version just looks exactly the same as on console (including resolution being capped at 720p, so not worse, just... not better).

The PC version requires an XInput compatible controller, the same way that the PS3 version requires a PS3 compatible controller and the XBox360 version requires an XBox360 compatible controller. This doesn't make the PC version inferior to the console versions (it requires a specific kind of controller, like the consoles). At least on PC you can use any controller with x360ce. If you want to blame someone, blame Microsoft for phasing out DInput and not implementing a DInput->XInput compatibility layer in the OS.

FromSoft literally said the port was bad.

Of course it's a bad port. Because people expect the game to be much better than on consoles. It doesn't mean it's worse. Well, except for GFWL, I had forgotten it was plagued with it. Thankfully it got patched out.

2 months ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

(with DSFix, which means improved graphics: 1080p, SSAO, better DoF and AA...)

Modded game. Not the actual game. Ports aren't mods and mods aren't ports.

I played it with an Radeon HD 6950, which was already 1.5 years old by the time the PC port released, and still got 30 fps on that zone

Yeah and at the same time a game with 8x less RAM and a GPU that's around 500% less powerful ran the game almost as well.
You needed mods, a mid-end graphics card and more time. Do you see how this comparison's unfair as fuck right now?

If we go this route, then literally everything's better on the PC because technically you can just spend £700 on an RTX 2080Ti, wait until mods come in and wait an extra amount of time and then say "Hmm, runs a bit better on this than a machine that's 2000% weaker... HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM, a truly fascinating conclusion, I must say.

If you need to modify the game, get way better hardware, only to have slightly better performance, then this should already hammer it in that perhaps the PC got the short end of the stick with that port.

But nah, it ran perfectly. Just needed 4 years of hardware development (2006 v 2010), an unofficial modification in the game and a shitload more power. Congrats, you reached 30 fps, while a machine that had 256MB ran the game almost as well as you. I hope you feel like a winner now since you basically just won the special olympics' track running competition with your helicopter. Good one, mate.

The PC version requires an XInput compatible controller, the same way that the PS3 version requires a PS3 compatible controller and the XBox360 version requires an XBox360 compatible controller.

Haha, well this again. Xinput is a 3rd party tool since the game just didn't have proper support. Oh, also, a controller's not a core tool with PCs. Mouse and keyboard take that role. After all, laptops have keyboards attached, not two analog sticks and 12 buttons. Default control schemes don't match up with your points, but alright. Congrats on the win. PCs won! Technically every PC is better since in 20 years you can emulate everything that's been released today. Fair comparisons are for morons anyways. Sorry for being one :P

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Modded game. Not the actual game. Ports aren't mods and mods aren't po

You completely missed the point. The mod only improves visual fidelity, at the cost of performance. The point is that even with the improved visual fidelity the game run fine. Without DSFix you can maintain 30 fps on worse hardware.

Yeah and at the same time a game with 8x less RAM and a GPU that's around 500% less powerful ran the game almost as well.
You needed mods, a mid-end graphics card and more time. Do you see how this comparison's unfair as fuck right now?

Drops to 12 fps, with notably worse visual fidelity, is "almost as well"? The increase from 720p to 1080p alone requires 2x more performance, and SSAO was very demanding for these GPUs (with my GPU I had to turn off SSAO in most games). I didn't need mods to run the game, I needed mods to make the game look better. Console hardware and PC hardware can't be compared, even less in a gen where console and PC architectures were vastly different. You always need a PC more powerful than the console to run a game with the same performance and visual quality, it's not a specific problem with DS. Unlike this gen, where consoles where already weak at launch, PS3 and XBox360 where very powerful machines.

Here's the game running on a 9600 GT, which is under specs since it's slower than the 8800 GT:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7afbs3leZn4

Xinput is a 3rd party tool

What? XInput is not a 3rd party tool. XInput is the official Windows API for controllers. DInput last version is from DirectX 8 and Microsoft started recommending using XInput instead of DInput in 2011. So blame Microsoft for that.

Oh, also, a controller's not a core tool with PCs. Mouse and keyboard take that role.

But that's not the point of this conversation. Having poor keyboard/mouse makes the port bad, but it doesn't make the game worse to play than on a console (which is what OP is asking about).

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You completely missed the point. The mod only improves visual fidelity, at the cost of performance. The point is that even with the improved visual fidelity the game run fine. Without DSFix you can maintain 30 fps on worse hardware.

https://www.nexusmods.com/darksouls/mods/19
https://gamefaqs.gamespot.com/boards/667257-dark-souls-prepare-to-die-edition/66783655

Here's the game running on a 9600 GT, which is under specs since it's slower than the 8800 GT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7afbs3leZn4

Ah, is that why his CPU is 5x better and he has 1600% more RAM at tw? Because it's the same. Of course, don't forget that the **8800GT is LITERALLY 980% MORE POWERFUL than the 7800GT.. (also 200% more VRAM, but that's just whatever. Only double)
Oh, of course, let's not mention that. One requires way smaller specs, while the other requires 4-7 years of extra hardware development, depending on the part. Epic.

The increase from 720p to 1080p alone requires 2x more performance

Ah, I guess that's why games usually lower 20% in performance when switching between the two. Because 2x=20%. Classic.

The difference you probably meant to point out was the difference between 720p vs 1440p, which actually does usually reduce the performance by 40-70% easily. But since PCs aren't just GPUs and visual performances, then it just flat out can't be applied to 720p vs 1080p comparisons.

What? XInput is not a 3rd party tool. XInput is the official Windows API for controllers. DInput last version is from DirectX 8 and Microsoft started recommending using XInput instead of DInput in 2011. So blame Microsoft for that.

Ah right... that's why the game had it attached to it through the Redist files, right! You know, Dark Souls, the Microsoft game. Alright.

But that's not the point of this conversation. Having poor keyboard/mouse makes the port bad, but it doesn't make the game worse to play than on a console (which is what OP is asking about).

If you say so.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Can you stop comparing hardware that has vastly different architecture? Because it doesn't work. There's another video running the game with a core2 duo at 2.6 GHz (this CPU is worse than even the one of the XBox360), but a faster GPU (so you would have complained that the GPU is 100x faster). You want me to show you every single video on the Internet? Maybe, just maybe, you could do a bit of the research yourself, instead of having me doing it all.

I don't know why you compare it to a 7800GT. The PS3 GPU is based on a 7900 chip ("based on", very important keyword), but has important changes (it's done on a smaller node, and clocked higher (it's faster than a 7800 GT) it's capable of some operations a normal 7900 can't; and how it's connected to the rest of the system, which allows it to perform operations directly on system RAM, and the CPU can do operations directly on VRAM, something not possible on PC. This allows for both decreased VRAM/RAM usage (on PC you need to copy data between RAM and VRAM since this direct access doesn't exist) and much better performance for certain effects: the CPU can do certain operations on data stored in VRAM that the GPU can't do as efficiently and vice-versa). But I'm not here to teach you how hardware works, you should have done the research yourself. The GPU is also weirdly interconnected with the Cell CPU, allowing to free the GPU from some work as the Cell CPU is quite efficient at doing operations that are typically done by a GPU, but I haven't really gotten into much detail on how it works. It basically means that PS3 graphics power doesn't come exclusively from the GPU, the Cell processor also does a good amount of graphics work.

Comparing system RAM and VRAM of a console and a PC is a moot point. A PC is running a lot more stuff on the background, so it needs more RAM (and VRAM). Amount of RAM doesn't improve performance, though, so I don't get what's your point. As long as you have enough to run the game you're set. Does DS use more than 256 MB on Windows? Most probably, because the game needs to load a lot of middleware Windows libraries because software on PC does't talk directly to the hardware like in consoles, and because textures stored in VRAM need to be in RAM too (or alt-tabbing is going to fuck up... oh yeah, another thing consoles don't have to worry about).

*8800GT is LITERALLY 980% MORE POWERFUL than the 7800GT

Where the hell did you get that from? Can you even believe it yourself? The difference in performance between one generation and the next being 10x? That's never happened. In the best times the difference could be 2x. Someone used a modern bench to test 2 old GPUs? That's the only explanation I can think of if you really read that somewhere (because of course you don't show any sources). I had an 8800 GT, and PS3/XBox360 ports would put that GPU to its limits (@1024x768, which is not much lower than 720p).

edit: The 8800 GT seems to have roughly 2x the performance of the 7800 GT. nVidia claimed back in the day the PS3 GPU is faster than a 7800 GT. So it seems to fit. The 8800GT has 2x the performance of the PS3 GPU, and runs at 30 fps on places the PS3 runs at 12 fps. Considering the architectural advantages of consoles, I'd say the PS3 version is the black sheep here (XBox360 at least doesn't have as many fps drops, it has a more powerful GPU, too, although in theory the PS3 has more graphical power (Cell + GPU)).

Ah, I guess that's why games usually lower 20% in performance when switching between the two. Because 2x=20%. Classic.

If the difference is only 20% you're CPU bottlenecked at 720p (not a rare thing with today's GPUs at such low resolution). In modern GPUs and games the difference is not going to be as high, anyway, because of how render techniques work today (not everything is rendered at screen resolution: a lot of render passes are done at lower fixed resolutions (SSAO being the most obvious), so the framebuffer resolution doesn't affect performance as much), and also memory bandwidth is not a big limitation at 1080p. Back then performance used to scale pretty much linearly with the amount of pixels on screen (and 720p has less than half the pixels of 1080p). Maybe it's not really 2x in a lot of games, but certainly quite close.

But that's not the point of this conversation. Having poor keyboard/mouse makes the port bad, but it doesn't make the game worse to play than on a console (which is what OP is asking about).
If you say so.

Can you elaborate? How is it worse playing a game with gamepad on PC than playing it with gamepad on console? You want to play with keyb/mouse? Well, playing it on console is not going it solve that, either. So, what's your logic?

Let's say I have a Ps3 and an XBox360 here, already connected to my monitor. Give me a reason why I should play the PS3 or XBox360 version instead of the PC version (without DSFix).

2 months ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Can you elaborate? How is it worse playing a game with gamepad on PC than playing it with gamepad on console? You want to play with keyb/mouse? Well, playing it on console is not going it solve that, either. So, what's your logic?

Default control schemes. Or are you going to pretend that controllers are default due to Windows supporting them? I'll take it the TOBII Eye Tracker's a default control scheme then too?

I hope we both agree that the rest should be dropped now since it's just a time-wasting tug-of-war where one half says one, the other says the other and at best, maybe a couple figures increase or decrease towards the other half and it'll just be a waste of time.

Regardless, if you have no more questions, then it was fun chatting to ya. Had a lot of fun. Always interesting talking to people who disagree with you since it helps develop critical thinking and challenges viewpoints. I appreciate you taking the time!

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Always interesting talking to people who disagree with you since it helps develop critical thinking and challenges viewpoints. I appreciate you taking the time!

That's something I can definitively agree with you :) Thanks to you too.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The PC version requires an XInput compatible controller, the same way that the PS3 version requires a PS3 compatible controller and the XBox360 version requires an XBox360 compatible controller. This doesn't make the PC version inferior to the console versions (it requires a specific kind of controller, like the consoles).

The console version require the controller that comes with the console and that every console gamer has. This is not an argument for or against the version. It's a given. The PC version has to take into account that players have different hardware. If they fail to meet the standards that PC gamers are used to, this is a negative criterium and therefore it is a bad port.

I mean, what if DS had only supported nVidia cards? Would you then have argued that the PS3 version also only supported the PS3 GPU, and that somehow makes it ok for a PC port to only support a certain graphics card brand? PC is a different platform with different requirements. Not every aspect can be judged the same as on consoles.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

XInput is the standard for controllers in Windows for ~8 years now.

And OP is not asking about bad ports, he's asking about games that are just worse on PC.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

And OP is not asking about bad ports, he's asking about games that are just worse on PC.

Do you really think a comparison like that makes sense? If we ignore all PC-specific aspects, just because they are not relevant on console - what does that even say about the game then? So if a game runs only on nvidia cards, in this discussion it's still equal and not worse to the console version? What If it only runs well on a GTX 2080 or above? Sure, on that graphics card it's equal to the console version then. But isn't the fact that it runs worse for a lot of people relevant at all? PC has different hardware configurations, and devs have to address that. If they don't, I think it's fair to call the PC version inferior to the console version, because it is for some or even a lot of people. Just getting a similar experience on certain hardware is not enough to call it even in my opinion. Or let's say the comparison is not worth a lot if we completely ignore all PC-specific stuff.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

"Which games available for PC are better on consoles?"
It's pretty clear to me with the use of "are" multiple times in the title and post that the OP is talking in present tense, not past.
The only time he uses past tense is giving an example of Child of Light.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Ah, okay, well you poisoned your own argument with petty semantics and technicalities now. Congrats on birthing this following trainwreck of a mental gymnastics session you're going to witness. It'll accompany your nitpick very well.

"Which games available for PC are better on consoles?" - No one asked which PC, so now every game was worse since a Voodoo Rush chipset GPU couldn't run all of them on max settings at 60fps.

The only time he uses past tense is giving an example of Child of Light.

Funny how you point out how nitpicking won't work here, yet you still try and hammer it in, hoping that the nail fits.

View attached image.
2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Present tense means now. How's that a technicality? Or you add "now" in every sentence when you speak to make it clear you're talking about now, even if you're already using the present tense?

2 months ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

o.O semantics and technicality? Tenses are not technicality. They are kinda important to the language as they provide relevant context. Majority of English native speakers would look at that post and come to the same conclusion I did. I posted that in good faith trying to clear up the confusion by showing you exactly what the OP was talking about. You don't even believe your own argument. You are just arguing for the sake of arguing. If you wanna be an ass about it, then be my guest. No skin off my teeth.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You yourself said it.

It's pretty clear to me with the use of "are" multiple times in the title and post that the OP is talking in present tense, not past.

That points to it being right now, like you said.

The only time he uses past tense is giving an example of Child of Light.

That points to it also being in the past.

If half the thread says one thing and the other says another, then you can't really just say that one thing's the definitive one and the other just doesn't matter when they both exemplify the presented topic. One through the request, the other through an example.
"Which games available for PC are better on consoles? An example is the critically acclaimed Child of Light, which had multiplatform versions that were better than the PC version, which was heavily criticized due to a lot of bugs that were not present in other versions.".

You claim to care about tenses. Yet here we are. An ambiguity in tenses means that there's no clear way of knowing the time, even if accounting for the context. As an English teacher in uni at the moment (having graded dozens of essays for practice), I can tell you that this would be a mistake in the essay due to that very simple issue.

You don't even believe your own argument.

Yeah, call me an ass, but also make random assumptions about me and ignore what you yourself said. I'm being snarky, but a pot calling a kettle black is worse than actually being guilty of what you're accusing someone else of being.

The reason I was snarky was because you ignored the other half to present the first one as fact. That's all. If you think being snarky is being an ass, then there's nothing more I can really do here. I tend to personally follow the rule of not assuming bad intentions from someone until I can actually 100% say so, which is why I've accused people only 3 times on this site in my 4 years of being here.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Once again... context. When someone draws from their experience it's always in the past. If I played a game years ago, I will refer to it in the past. That is very typical for past examples. Unless of course you think he is saying that the game is fine now, but was bad in the past, which is why he had to use the past tense?

And yes.. I do call someone being snarky to a polite post as "being an ass". Even if you disagree, there are plenty of ways to convey that while being polite.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Dude, you're not an ass and I'm not one either. But I guess if you're going to be thinking that I'm an ass towards you then I will too. Of course I won't. That's the real way to be rude imo :D

Regardless, critical reception has nothing to do with his personal experience.

But whatever. It is what it is. He's the critic and whatever.

Thanks for the discussion! :)

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It's worst without mods.

Sadly, it's not an excuse. Mods and modders shouldn't be the solution. Devs were lazy and/or incompetent.

DS1 was a complete mess on PC.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It's the main reason FromSoftware had to bow down and apologize. Also the main reason why the Remastered version exists. :D

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

If I "reverse" the question, I personally find out that most j-rpg were better to play on Switch.
( But this don't mean that actual j-rpg are not worthy at all to be played on Pc, either. )

Otherwise : Yoku's Island Express is actually slightly better on Switch, than on Pc.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I imagine the main divide would be between PC / handheld. Most of the issues between PC and major console can be resolved by using a controller, though sometimes the ports are sloppy (though I've never really had any issues with a bad port that wasn't quickly patched out by the respective communities). Though when the game was designed for portable consoles there may be a missing spark that you can't get even with a solid port.

I liked the Danganronpa series despite how it could drag on sometimes, but I get the impression I may have enjoyed it more if I wasn't tied to my computer desk and able to use it to burn away hours during travel with a crisp backlit screen, y'know? Sadly I only have currency to keep one gaming system afloat, and PCs can be pretty hungry for it.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't generally play a game again if I played it on console or pc, but normally the "Crappiness" of a port comes down to controller support (or support for inputs other than controller) and optimisation. I can't think of too many ports that I've played on PS, because I notice porting happening more the other direction.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Basically any game by SquareEnix. They don't give a shit about the quality of their PC ports.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

unluckily this is really true.. =\

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Probably true, especially Final Fantasy games

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I agree, ports by Nixxes software usually are pretty bad.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Really?All of their games are incredibly well optimized.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sleeping Dogs was fantastic on PC, and included a free high-res mod that made it look spectacular.

The FF ports, on the other hand, are... not very good.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sleeping Dogs is a bit of a weird one. Seemed fine a release then they came out with the "Definitive Edition" with different lighting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2u_1wjWJUqY

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I played the original. I think the Definitive Edition was a re-release for consoles, but I think on PC it just incorporated the high resolution mod. Could be they tweaked the lighting a bit - wouldn't be the first re-release that did so.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Titles made by their Western studios they've bought vs. their own studios in Japan are night and day in the quality of ports.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

You may be entirely correct about that. :)

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

+1, they did not even patch nier automata, its more platinum fault as developer, but whatever.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Consoles are better only in exclusives the pc gamers are so much powerfull more than any console.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Power can't really help you when the port is terrible though. You might have a rig that could run the game at 120 FPS, had it been optimized properly, but the game might still struggle to keep a solid 30. And let's not mention other issues that often pop up, like bad control input, FOV that makes the game headache inducing (if you're sitting further away from the screen, you generally want a more narrow FoV, while if you sit close, you want a wider one. Hence why FoV is generally at its best in the 60-70 region for console games, while on PC you want an FoV of around 100 on a single monitor setup)

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

What's hilarious is when the opposite happens, I played through Prototype 2 a few years back and my PC was running the game at 600 fps , and because of this the game was lagging so so badly, the engine it was made in couldn't handle it XD so I had to cap it at 60 fps as anything above that would cause the engine to make it look like it lagging.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

At least the original PC release of RE4 was awful on PC. Don't know about the current version. RE5 is also a bit questionable on PC.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for PC is literally unbeatable. They made a change in that game that makes a jump impossible to do.

The PC versions of most Final Fantasy games are quite bad. Don't know about XV, but XIII & XIII-2 were pretty darn busted. FF III, IV & V are also bad ports, and in the case of III & IV they are DS games ported to mobile then ported to PC, and with every step of the process they made things worse...

Dark Souls of course had a notoriously terrible PC port.

I think they might have fixed things now, but Saint's Row 2 used to have its in-game speed be dependent on the speed of your processor. If your processor did not match its expected speed (Xbox 360) the game would run too fast. This was extra fun in co-op if both players had different computers (which most do), as the person with the faster computer would move faster, shoot faster, and all timers would go faster for them than the person with the slower computer, and this could be significant. During my run of the game, before we spent way too much time fixing the issue, we had a timed mission where I had over a min left on the timer when my friend's timer ran out. It was that bad (and it was like a 4 or 5 min timer).

Batman: Arkham Knight. At least for some the game is still completely unplayable. It's better than it was at launch, but as soon as I get to the batmobile section, the game drops into single digit FPS, and sometimes not even that (it becomes SPF))

2 months ago*
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Well, it didn't feel like it was sped up unnaturally, so I guess they've fixed that one particular issue with Saints Row 2 now. Don't worry- they left a ton of other bugs in. :D

Most noticeably the fact that characters and objects in cutscenes seem to be rendered separately and seem to run on different FPS or something, so I had a hilarious cutscene where the main character is fighting off some guys trying to point guns at them while inside a moving car and the characters, the guns and the car all seem to be moving at different pace in the relation to the environment so everyone and everything immediately flies trough the back of the car (then gets reset the moment a cut in the scene happens, only to fly off again). It's actually very funny. XD
(Less funny is the random lag and all the crashes... particularly in the mall area. <.< )

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The current Steam HD release is still the best version of RE4. Assuming you are not one of the unlucky ones to get the guaranteed door crash after Mike dies in Episode 5.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I think they might have fixed things now, but Saint's Row 2 used to have its in-game speed be dependent on the speed of your processor.

I seem to recall this being the case with Bastion as well. I remember that if your rig couldn't consistently keep the game at 60fps then the in-game speed would actually run slow and not just skip frames. Don't know if they ever fixed it.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The good thing about the original RE4 port was that it run well with my potato PC of that time. Then they patched it, and the game finally had shadows, and lightning, and the performance of course dropped. So I went back to the unpatched game XD. Yeah, it looked horrible, but it was playable.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The HD version of RE4 works pretty well, although some button mashing QTEs are brutal if you're playing at 60 FPS (had to drop the game to 30 for one of the missions because it was way to hard to get through a section) thanks to the logic being linked to the framerate at least to some extent.
My experience playing Bartman Arkham Knight like 2 years after its release was mostly bug free and the drops in FPS never got as bad as some people say (I don't think the game ever dipped below 20 and it usually only lasted a few seconds) even tho I ran the game in what at the time was already an aging PC.
Dark Souls indeed needs the fan fix to be played, no point in beating around the bush.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles for PC is literally unbeatable. They made a change in that game that makes a jump impossible to do.

This was fixed in a revision that was later released at retail in Europe, but it was already too late for the North American release and there never was a recall or patch available.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Came here to say this. I remember RE4 original version on PC (or first version or whatever) pretty bland.

AK is playable now and quite well optimised... But at launch...

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I only remember the Batman shitshow, which was horribly optimized for PC.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Today it is completely fine though :)
Played through the whole game last year and I never got any frame drops

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It's fine for most, but there are still issues in the game for some that were never resolved. The patch fixed things for I would estimate 80% of people, but the last 20% still have very similar issues to what it had on launch. Batmobile makes the framerate tank.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Off the top of my mind, GTA IV and Saints Row 2.

Journey so you didn't need to wait years just to put up with effin' Epic :P

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Definitely Saints Row 2, even with mods that improve it it still runs like absolute trash on PC :(

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I've played GTA IV on console,still was utter trash. It didn't crashed the console all the time and you didn't needed to deal with GFWL+rockstar's bullshit but you still could only dream of a stable and decent framerate...

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I waited years. And I'm pretty happy with Epic for finally putting the game in my hands.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Just a note, it's more like "Epic finally stealing it for themselves, because it would be on PC even without them".
Source: Flower - the other game from thatgamecompany - isn't Epic exclusive because pretty-much-nobody knows such game even exist, so Epic didn't want to pay for exclusivity.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I don't really care. A game I've been waiting for years to come to PC finally came to PC. I bought it from the company that sold it to me, and I have good feelings about that.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It seems pretty common, and kind of makes sense. Console is pretty straightforward I would think for development. There aren't a million different system specs to deal with like on PC.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

My immediate thought is back to how sad cross-platform games were back in the DOS era (ironic given my name, I know). Don't get me wrong, there were a ton of great games but any cross-platform games like Mega Man, Ghosts 'n Goblins, TMNT and Contra come to mind. Sometimes the graphics were better but the sound was always worse.

I'm sure that's not what you were looking for but I'm old ;)

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

And back then, if a game has an Amiga version it was likely better than the DOS one.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sadly, Chrono Trigger and other classic Squenix ports seemed to be haphazardly done in a rush to make some $$. In particular, the graphics are most at fault.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Triple Town was abandoned on PC because it didn't sell enough.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Basically any COD game because online is always nearly DOA on PC.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Prototype 2.
PC version is a shitport that doesn't play nice with AMD drivers past a certain grossly outdated version (insane memory leaks show up that tank your framerate and will outright crash the game in a few minutes), it doesn't handle CPUs with more than 2 cores well (one of the tutorial missions will just crap out over that by failing to register the objectives, making it incompletable.), and even if you manage to work around that it isn't terribly stable.

Saint's Row 2
When CD Project ported this to PC, they were not yet the quality outfit that they are today. Not by a longshot. The result is a port so broken that they couldn't even publish the DLC packs on the platform. So on top of a ton of glitches, weirdness and bad controls, you also lose out on a bunch of Ultor-focussed plot, and with that you end up with a few loose ends in 3 and Gat out of Hell as well.

Final Fantasy 5 and 6.
Seriously, why the <bleep> would you port a shoddy mobile port of your game back to PC, including absolutely garbage new spritework that's not just blurry and ugly but also severely clashes with the unchanged pixelwork backgrounds ?

But still, in terms of absolute shitporting, there aren't many games that can beat the ZX Spectrum port of Konami's Salamander/Life Force. The problems with that version start with stages being cut, move up to stage layout and bosses being cut after that, and goes all the way up to the first boss shooting invisible bullets, so defeating it is moslty luck-based. Oh, and it has massive borders around a pitiful playing field for some reason, and you do not want to play it with the sound on. I could keep ranting about it for a few pages, or you could just watch it here

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

That is what happens when you pick AMD:AlwaysMonthlyDelays to game on.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Nah. It worked fine on AMD before AMD updated their drivers a few months later, and Activision never bothered to fix things on their end afterwards.
Because that's what Activision did and still does. It's how they also fucked up the original port of Marvel Ultimate Alliance and the remastered version, along with most other things. At best their PC ports rank as "decently playable".

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I played prototype 2 and yeah that multiple cores bug is super annoying had to set affinity to just the one core to complete it. After that though i dont remember having any real issues, but seeing how they still sell it at such a high price they really shouldn't get away with not patching it or something.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

In my opinion, console is better than pc in these games:

Xbox 360 console: Battlefield 3, gears of war, street fighter 4, skullgirls, red faction (guerrila and armageddon).

Playstation 2: devil may cry (1 & 2), gta (san andreas (yellow version), vice city, 3 ), bully.

Playstaton 1 : Disney: hercules.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Battlefield 3 better on xbox 360 than PC? that thing was like 20fps maximum (Kinda worse if u downloaded the "HD" texture packs) on every online map and on super mega low graphics (Even with the hd pack)

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

I prefer the controls on xbox version this is the cause that i put the game on the list, hahaha,

PC graphics is a little similar and better but the FPS: YES, PC is 1000x better.

The game without the HD texture dlc is not good.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

every games are better on PC, if you have a controller for fighting and sports games .

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Casual AAA multiplayer games, like Battlefront 2, that actually have a decently sized playerbase on consoles.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

A rule of thumb is to find a game which has problems on PC (terrible port, bad controls with K&M). These games usually tend to be made by japanese devs, but not always.
Many people consider that games by Square Enix and Koei Tecmo are better be played on consoles.
FromSoftware also made a terrible job with porting Dark Souls 1, but since Dark Soul 3 they've been making good quality ports so far. Also recent Capcom ports have been good, so you won't see bad ports like RE4 anymore, RE:2's port was great imho.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

In addition to the ones already mentioned, Nier Automata still does not play well with all graphics cards, even with the fan patch.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Oh, that's slightly concerning, I was thinking of gifting a friend this game if an opportunity came up( on Steam PC ofc).

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

It seems to play better with Nvidia cards than AMD cards. There are lots of happy users of both cards (that downloaded the fan mod, anyway), but also some people who are still haven't issues, and the publisher has never bothered to patch it since release. It's honestly a shame as it's a really good game, and deserved a better port.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Aw, I thought they fixed this. I played it on PC at a friend's and it was gruelling D:

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

The publisher never issued a fix. The only fix came from the fan patch, and there's only so much it can do.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

;-; That's disappointing.

My friend was using an AMD card, too, so that might not have been any help.

1 month ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Anything with Denuvo.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

This probably isn't the answer you're looking for, but a lot of games PC games released in the mid to late 1990s can be difficult to run on modern computers either because they're 16-bit programs, which don't natively run in 64-bit Windows, or they require other weird workarounds. So if for some strange reason you feel like playing Magic the Gathering: Battlemage, you are better off getting the PS1 version than the Windows one.

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Marvel Ultimate Alliance 1 & 2 from PS2...their PC ports were complete sh*te!

2 months ago
Permalink

Comment has been collapsed.

Sign in through Steam to add a comment.