Are PC developers/ports getting lazy

[octafish]

*Snip*
Australian Indy games - you find me one, I'll retract any statements that "down under" has no coding skills.

No. You're feeding off a Brit import who has kudos, nothing else. *snip*

I'm pretty sure Farbs was born in Canberra. So Captain Forever and its sequels, ROM CHECK FAIL, and Fishy Fishy would count as Australian Indie games, plus they are fun.

OT. GTA IV plays ok on my beasty PC now, but when it was released I had an ATI card, massive fail for Rockstar there. Gameplay is ok even if it is taxing on my machine and it does look good. Saints Row 2 still gets poor framerates, looks like poo, and controls horribly. I think it is a poor implentation of the PC controls that makes a poor port. I don't expect every game to look great but when they don't look good and control like shit that is unforgivable.

Look I don't like the direction games are going, I feel they are shallower than in the past and much too short. But I feel that is more market driven than hardware driven.

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

'getting'? Got.

 

[Nexoram]

And by lazy, I mean lazy in optimising the game to run fast. Graphics have not realy improved in the last 2 years or so, but system requirements still go up, and it is often because its not optimised, has memory leaks, or other bugs.
For example, Black ops runs slower than Modern warfare 1, even though they have about the same graphics.
Are they just getting lazy because they no longer have to bother with optimising since PCs are still getting more powerful?

I know exactly what you mean, dude. I have a modest laptop but can run Starcraft 2 at a high framerate on nearly the lowest settings and it still looks amazing. I was also able to run Modern Warfare 1 & 2 on average settings with a good framerate, and they also looked incredible. However, World at War and Black Ops ran like ass, even on the lowest settings.

See also GTA IV: crap on a stick. Bully: for a game from 2006 (2008 on the PC, but the graphics still look more like San Andreas than GTA IV) it lags terribly if I dare turn the shadows on. It's really annoying, but I'm doing the best of it.

Graphics aren't that big a deal for me and I can live with low settings, but what really ticks me off is that console ports tend to have very, very few graphics customizability. Would it kill developers to add more settings in their games? I got Mass Effect 2, turned everything down to minimum everything I could and it still ran really poorly. A few Google searches and config file editings later and the experience improved greatly. Why exactly couldn't they add the settings in the options menu in-game instead of forcing me to muck with the code?

This really comes back to my previous post. It's simply not worth it to spend the extra few bucks on the PC port. Hell, it's funny you brought up Bully. Bully is, hands down, the reason why Rock* isn't bringing RDR to PC. The PC port of Bully actually cost them sales due to an overwhelming wave of piracy. It's funny & sad at the same time.

Yeah, it's a shame. I'd have wanted to play Red Dead Redemption. Nowadays there aren't really any more "exclusive" PC developers apart from (top of my head) Valve and indies. And Black Ops? God, It says I've played 33 hours but the reality is that 29 of those hours were from combat training. The multiplayer is just THAT laggy.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Yeah I can see why you would be insulted when someone think's you are lazy, when you work 72 hours a week, but you must also understand that most people (including me) don't really know much about what is going on behind the developers doors, the community only really see's the finished product and sometimes people get the impression that the developers dind't put very much work into it, which is silly maybe, but it is very easy to be bitter when you are disappointed...

Mouldy might have come out swinging a bit hard but there is a trend online where the many people who have some glamourous, idealised notion (and that's all it is, a notion) of what game development entails go into Rabid Attack Dog mode anytime someone says something that might indicate dev work as something much more mundane and job-like.

I've known people in the industry who simply refuse to let it be known that they do because they just can't be arsed dealing with the bullshit that it brings online.

 

[Heart of Darkness]

Well, this is a silly claim. How do you know code is poorly optimized if you only ever see the end result? There are other factors that go into determining how fast programs run--shaders, texture loaders, lighting and weather effects, subroutines running in the background, number of objects currently being drawn and updated, dynamic environments, how many players are currently connected to the game/how much the server has to compensate for lag...these are all things that you need to take into account along with graphics.

Besides, there's also another point to consider: the cost of optimizing working code to make it run faster is not worth it if the end result is a barely noticeable increase in improvement.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

Look I don't like the direction games are going, I feel they are shallower than in the past and much too short. But I feel that is more market driven than hardware driven.

That's not really the fault of the devs, though. In most cases they only develope what they're paid to develope or what they can develope on time and/or budget.

Developers are essentially hemmed in by publisher demands/expectations/limits, budget (time and financial), public expectations, and what is realistically possible. All 6 form a fucked up little box and the space inside is where game development happens and the size and shape of the box is not only variable but can also vary during the development process.

 

[Mouldy Oldy]

Hmm.

There's been some rather disingenous editing going on here - I posted a reply with 100% Australian Indy talent, and mentions of them, because of course Australia has Indy talent - and I've worked with them This was my obvious counter-point to silly claims that it takes British talent to get Australia noticed - I was hoping that the counter-spume of "OMG, look at this studio" would be higher.

"Maybe" I forgot to press "post", but I doubt it.

I'll try this again - given we had a direct link to GSB, I don't think this breaks rules:

http://euotopia.com/

Max Breedon - been deving a free U5 / MMO base for many years now - if you're oldschool, and look beyond the 2D, you'll find Rogue like mechanics honed to perfection.

There's a lot more, but there we go - he's based in Syndey & there's a lot of other talent around.

 

[LightOfDarkness]

Developers aren't. Ports are.
I.e. People who actually make PC games are (usually) good at optimization. People who make console games then port them to PC are getting lazy and just modifying game code to run PC hardware, but not changing the rendering magic to work for PC hardware.

 

[Oxford The Cat]

I'll semi-necro this thread from page three because I missed it during prime time, and because of how disgusted and outraged I am that Dead Rising 2 required me to map my mouse and keyboard keys by hand in notepad.

For Christ's sake, have the intern do the coding for the in-game menu, it's not that hard to do.

Lazy port.

 

[Skelebob124156]

And by lazy, I mean lazy in optimising the game to run fast. Graphics have not realy improved in the last 2 years or so, but system requirements still go up, and it is often because its not optimised, has memory leaks, or other bugs.
For example, Black ops runs slower than Modern warfare 1, even though they have about the same graphics.
Are they just getting lazy because they no longer have to bother with optimising since PCs are still getting more powerful?

Wow, this game made me think that my Graphics Crad was dying.

Fallout: New Vegas has the same sort of problem on PC with DirectX but that has improved since patches also.
It's definetly not my graphics card or PC since I am running the game at 1024 x 768 I can (even with most modern games) place the graphics at very high quality running at least a smooth 35 - 40 FPS.

 

[Cyberjester]

/partial rant

lolol. Read what you said. "Are PC developers/ports getting lazy".

Ports. Are. Lazy.

By default it's a port, not made for PC so it's going to suck. For example, compare Battlefield 2 to Battlefield Bad Company 2. One is made for PC and it shows, one is made for console and all of a sudden your quick command menu is down to one button and console players are still complaining about it. Before, say you were in a tank and could see a rocket coming, a few key taps and your character shouts Bail! In BF: BC2.. Voice as a rule doesn't work, the "socialise" button is a fail. So it's watch everyone die.

Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind, made for PC. Obvlivion, made for console. And again, it shows. Console = stupid. I dunno, it's as if they think you have a lower IQ on a console than on a PC.

Some ports don't even change the control scheme from the original controller, that's always fun.

PC devs have unfortunately fallen into the CoD4 trap, in which gamers will rush to buy a cheap, repetitive game on the console. So they naturally conclude that PC games are a fail since they can make more money on a console. And for people who don't use a console they'll get one of their sub-sub-sub studios to knock up a quick port. Great game Modern Warfare 1 was, but it singlehandedly cheapened the entire FPS genre. -.-

Now you get a console for FPS gaming since all of the games work better on there, and keep a PC for the odd RTS.

/end rant

Nearly every PC game looks better than it's console counterpart.

Im not exactly sure what the point of your statement is. A few games have already been mentioned here in this thread and I can easily think of a dozen others that actually play far better on a consoles, ie the pc version runs like crap. Nobody really gives a flying fuck if a game looks better but runs like complete shit.

The point is devs aren't getting lazy it's just idiots who can't use a pc. All my pc games run fine, if you encounter an error you use a simple thing called "google"

Oh? Play King Arthur: The Roleplaying Wargame.

Great game, most fun I've had in an RTS in a while, but daaaamn. The bugs.. THE BUGS!! Google doesn't help if the game just sucks.

Devs for PC are getting lazy though, the only people who don't think that are console gamers.

 

[DSK-]

I still remember the days when games used to actually work and the only issues there were would be having incorrect video or sound drivers.

Too many times have I seen PC games released unfinished, only to be 'fixed' by patches months later (Yes, Epic I am looking at you. Fuck you guys).

To my mind, the answer is a resounding Yes.

 

[derelict]

Haha, win.

Seriously, Mouldy Oldy. Your communication skills are lacking even for an internet forum. It is often hard to read your posts the way you structure it. The condescending nature only makes it harder to try and be receptive. I have a hard time believing anyone could be considered 'professional' and sound like that. It would be nice if something constructive was added by you if the experience you claim is true.

I dunno. Personally, I believe in the ladder of stupidity, the dumber someone is, the higher up the chain they go, till you get to the CEO's that lock themselves in their offices all day and have tard conventions. It quite conveniently describes some of the...well, bad decisions that come from the top on many occasions. So he could very well be some sort of executive somewhere.

...He could also be picking paint chips off the wall, right now mind you, and eating them.

OT: Truthfully, PC gaming is in a lull. It's hard to argue with a console you need only buy once getting free OS upgrades and generally having internet connectivity, playing blu-rays or DVDs and having its own sort of built in gamer Facebook. All that attached to a TV so big it may as well be a wall.

PCs tend to need graphics upgrades as the envelope seems to be pushed on the PC first then made to work on the consoles. Downside is, you need hardware updates (that are getting mighty expensive, me being of PC folk) around yearly to keep up with any new game you might fancy.

In the interest of a gaming platform, the consoles are both much more focused, less liable to be ruined by adware, and provide a better experience for the gamer at a reduced cost. PC gaming isn't 'dead', by any means, it's just that different things are coming out for the PC.

 

[Shirokurou]

PC gaming in the eyes of a company is basically MMOs only now.
So for any other game, they prefer consoles.

But that doesn't give them an excuse for sloppy ports. Sure you concentrate on 1 platform, but you can't have the port be so horrendous. I'm looking at you, PS3 Bayonetta.

 

[EHKOS]

To me a port is the definition of lazy, so yes.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I think some people need to look up the difference between multiplatform development and software porting.

Go, do it now.

 

[Slaanax]

I wonder how much of it is effected by the non standard set-up of a computer so many different manufactures of PCs and PC parts that it must be a pain in the butt to code for all of that detail.

 

[RhombusHatesYou]

I wonder how much of it is effected by the non standard set-up of a computer so many different manufactures of PCs and PC parts that it must be a pain in the butt to code for all of that detail.

Not really because despite all the different manufacturers for parts the important parts, where gaming is concerned anyway, are based on a very limited range of chipsets and the number of manufacturers/designers for said chipsets are even more limited so PCs are a lot closer to being standardised than many people think.