When is a port A.O.K?

[pulse2]

I've noticed that gamers seem to have a disdain for ports of any kind, its fine if its released at the same time, but if it isn't, uh oh, not acceptable.

Maybe would argue that the death of handheld devices like PSP for example is ports, but is a port okay if it changes a couple of things, adds some things, improves some things? Is it okay if it's a HD remake of something old?

Or do you just hate ports in general? Why?

 

[Supernova1138]

I don't have a problem with ports as long as they are not horribly done. If the port is a horribly buggy mess with broken features and poor performance (Batman Arkham City, Grand Theft Auto IV on PC), or has very limited graphical scalability options on PC (RAGE, and many, many other titles) that is a problem. Is it really too much to ask that the ported games actually work on day 1, and that game breaking bugs are actually fixed?

 

[Weaver]

I don't know if you PC game, but the game is delayed by months to "port it" and we get a barely functional version that won't work with a mouse and keyboard, won't let you rebind keys and has insane framerate issues.

I mean I've literally seen games ported where, let's say my action button is the E key. It will say "PRESS THE

BUTTON", even when a controller isn't plugged in.

My keyboard does not have that button. Imagine playing a game on the PS3 that had that in it. Would that be an acceptable port?

Not all ports are like this. The batman ports were really good, for instance.
Capcom actually makes good ports as well (though you need a controller).

 

[Aris Khandr]

The HD Final Fantasy X remake. Port it to PC! Take my money! I want it so bad, but I don't own a Vita or PS3, and don't see the point in getting a console for one game.