Jimquisition: Shaming PC Ports Because Why Not?

[Habballah]

So Jim, are you expecting someone in the community to release a patch for your script? XD

Oh my God can I ^^?

 

[Neopopulas]

Imagine paying 100(ish) bucks in Australia for terrible console ports.

 

[JambalayaBob]

I played the unpatched version of dark souls on my years-old PC that barely met the system requirements.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I had zero problems with it.

It was exactly the same as the console version, except not laggy.
I never expected them to do anything special with the port, considering it was a years-after-the-fact release.
Honestly, yeah, it was a bad port to PC because people expect to be able to change settings and shit, but if it was a port to another console, nobody would have batted an eye.

 

[Vicioussama]

Been gone sooo time to respond

EDIT:

I disagree that Dark Souls was a "shitty port." Mediocre port? Yes. Shitty? No. It was playable without ANY fix.

That's humorous. I certainly remember my copy (and many others) immediately crashing to desktop or coming up with a fatal error on start up.

Really? Gonna say it's humorous eh? You claim your copy immediately crashed eh? Why? Did you look into it? Maybe it was your computer? you claim many others, but what percentage? If it's under the average amount considered fair for scientific error? Then you're kinda not in the right here. Which is actually upwards of 10%. But even then, it's usually around 5% most consider acceptable. Let's look at the people complaining about bricked PS4s or XBones ya? Well reports show that the failure rate of the consoles so far is about less 1% for each. That means the consoles are, for the most part, a great success. With Dark Souls PC version, the failure rates, as far as I could find, is far less than the acceptable percentage. Something like 3% iirc. It sucks if you had those issues, I know people did, but did it later get patched? or did you later fix it by fixing your computer? I highly doubt it was just the "DSFix" (especially on Day 1 when it was FAR less than what it is now) that did it.

My point can be found in this other person's quote below.

I played the unpatched version of dark souls on my years-old PC that barely met the system requirements.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I had zero problems with it.

It was exactly the same as the console version, except not laggy.
I never expected them to do anything special with the port, considering it was a years-after-the-fact release.
Honestly, yeah, it was a bad port to PC because people expect to be able to change settings and shit, but if it was a port to another console, nobody would have batted an eye.

Basically this. It was not a "bad port" it was a mediocre port. It worked, it worked better than consoles. But it didn't work with the native control scheme of the PC nor did it work to the average PC gamer's full computer's power capacities. However, FROM Soft was ENTIRELY fair and open with the fact it would work about the same (moderately better) than consoles and really best work with a controller.

Basically, people hating on it are way to unrealistic/unfair with their standards and ignore information given to them prior to purchase or they are just jumping on the bandwagon.

 

[mohit9206]

Well i disagree with one point that Jim made that PC ports should be the same quality as console version.I would say it MUST be better,a good port is one which plays to the strengths of the platform adding and optimizing the game for PC.Every PC port of a console game must have improved graphics,extensive audio and video options,unlocked frame rate and high resolution support among other things.Good video though.