Port Of Shame

[chutia]

Hi guys,

 

Just having some fun and getting everyones experiences on bad pc ports and listing them here so people who plan to buy these games check to make sure the can run then properly before wasting their money and to highlight bad pc ports in general so developers are forced to pay more attention to pc ports in the future.

 

The ones that come to mind are:

 

-Watch dogs

-The evil Within

-Rising Dead 3

-Dying Light

 

-Batman Arkham Knight

[TheKDub]

Another one: AC:Unity

 

 

Hopefully GTA V doesn't end up on this list.

[TheSLSAMG]

GTA IV

 

I can max it at ~50FPS at 1080p. Good job developers.

[wyattzx]

Sonic Adventure DX. Locked to 720p Windowed Mode, you cannot save, you cannot re-do your keybindings. No gamepad support, it runs horribly and glitches out a lot, and they're overcharging for it. 

[Imabigmac]

Is dying light really that bad, or is just a case of people unwilling to accept that if you want a good looking semi open adventure map game to run at ultra you need a lot more power. 

[handymanshandle]

AC:Unity

Okay so Ubisoft put some sort of limit to FPS on PC, does it matter even if it is smooth at the max FPS? Of course I know that having a higher FPS is better, but is it really worth giving Ubisoft crap?

[chutia]

Is dying light really that bad, or is just a case of people unwilling to accept that if you want a good looking semi open adventure map game to run at ultra you need a lot more power. 

 

Good question, I havnt actually played it but from what I have heard and sounds bad to me after watching this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDqVv5xQ5eo

 

@wcreek

Check out the steam reviews to see how bad people think this game is, pretty glitchy too

http://store.steampowered.com/app/289650/?snr=1_7_7_151_150_1

[handymanshandle]

Good question, I havnt actually played it but from what I have heard and sounds bad to me after watching this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDqVv5xQ5eo

 

@wcreek

Check out the steam reviews to see how bad people think this game is, pretty glitchy too

http://store.steampowered.com/app/289650/?snr=1_7_7_151_150_1

 Okay so it glitches I mean I guess that sucks.

From a perspective of the game itself rather than the nit picky parts it's a decent game. There are only 30 more negative reviews than positive reviews.

I guess I'm more so of a Look for the Good before the bad, and let the better things of something outshine the bad, I also suppose I sort of like Ubisoft because they're French.

[chutia]

Oh ya just remembered, great game though!

 

-Dark Souls 1

[IhazHedont]

Since the new patch (that cames out 1 day after the launch) Dying light is an excellent port.

 

The menu is designed for PC, only the weapon switch seems to come directly from the console version; the 100% core #1 CPU has been fixed; the coop part is very solid (I don't know if it this good on consoles); however, they are still dealing with the multi gpu problem (stutter and so on).

 

But you need a good rig to get it on ultra.

[Remilia]

Oh ya just remembered, great game though!

 

-Dark Souls 1

 

Parts of that game runned bad even on the consoles, mostly the swampfuckdarkdamncan'tseefuckshit part.

[Albatross]

Dark Souls.

 

Absolutely unplayable in my opinion. The worst port in history.

[That Norwegian Guy]

Is dying light really that bad, or is just a case of people unwilling to accept that if you want a good looking semi open adventure map game to run at ultra you need a lot more power. 

 

It's not, Dying Light runs as expected* given the detail, people are just mindless sheep regurgitating the drivel spouted by the most incompetent YouTube muppets.

 

*There was a bug that won't load all threads until you manually unassign affinity for Core 0 manually in task manager, then re-enable it after 10 seconds. But the GPU-side optimization is as good as it can be given the massive shadow map on high and certain textures being 8192p.

 

My example: I run Dying Light without film grain, chromatic abberation, (had to mod them out) motion blur, and with medium shadow map (which means 2048p which is still considered high) and on an overclocked 3570K, 16GB of RAM and GTX 760 I run it at well above 60 FPS at all times. Max view distance and foliage too.

 

 

Since the new patch (that cames out 1 day after the launch) Dying light is an excellent port.

 

The menu is designed for PC, only the weapon switch seems to come directly from the console version; the 100% core #1 CPU has been fixed; the coop part is very solid (I don't know if it this good on consoles); however, they are still dealing with the multi gpu problem (stutter and so on).

 

But you need a good rig to get it on ultra.

 

 

There's also a mod (Dying Light Manager) that can send reflection rendering to the CPU instead of the GPU, (godsend for my 4.8Ghz 3570K) and disable some of the ugly effects. Look it up on the Steam Community.

[MoDtEc]

Okay so Ubisoft put some sort of limit to FPS on PC, does it matter even if it is smooth at the max FPS? Of course I know that having a higher FPS is better, but is it really worth giving Ubisoft crap?

it was buggy as hell and it looks like shit for the recources its eating up

bad optimization but we had this talk before i think

[SkilledRebuilds]

260x plays Dying Light just fine with 35-55fps Textures at High, rest on low (view distance turned down)

I see ZERO issues performance wise considering what I'm using....

 

So I threw my 270x in this machine, also runs flawless at those settings (and I can now enable their AA) and keep the same FPS pretty much... with lesser dips than the 260x.

 

I didn't check the CPU stats, but never had any stutter or issues as far as my eyes could tell in-game.

 

Dying Light is one of the better ports to have come out... (cept the view distance performance hog)

 

Wouldn't call it a port of shame..

[That Norwegian Guy]

Dying Light is one of the better ports to have come out... (cept the view distance performance hog)

 

More RAM helps with view distance. Because view distance is directly proportional to how much AI, geometry and animation data is loaded, hence Dying Light is capable of using more than 8GB of RAM. Probably the first game that can, to my knowledge.

[SkilledRebuilds]

More RAM helps with view distance. Because view distance is directly proportional to how much AI, geometry and animation data is loaded, hence Dying Light is capable of using more than 8GB of RAM. Probably the first game that can, to my knowledge.

I didn't even look...funny cos it's on my MSI OSD... I should have noticed it...

Will do next time I open it... (Running 8GB at the moment)

[chutia]

@That Norwegian Guy

With enough tweaking you can make any game run well but the point is people shouldnt have to spend hours playing around with settings and patchs to make the game they payed $80 for to run as it should. You also wont get the image quality you expect from your hardware like you do in most other games.

 

You know the devs havn't spent enough time debugging and testing when they start releasing day one patchs to fix performance issue!

 

Its even sadder when users have to release tools they developed themselves to help fix problems with the port like Dying Light Management Tool!

[PerfectTemplar]

Dying Light is a great port. It has some CPU optimisation problems but runs pretty damned well regardless. So stupid to think it's a bad port.

[NeverNude]

I think there is a Steam curator thingy that does this. Has a whole shit ton of games on it already

[Raphael_123]

Dying light

 

Because the game is demanding does not mean its a bad port

[SkilledRebuilds]

Demanding...?

It runs flawless on my 260x @ 1080p with 35-55fps.

 

 

A 260X!!!!!

/Not indicative of performance on all cards... but you don't need a powerhouse GPU to play it at all.

[That Norwegian Guy]

@That Norwegian Guy

With enough tweaking you can make any game run well but the point is people shouldnt have to spend hours playing around with settings and patchs to make the game they payed $80 for to run as it should. You also wont get the image quality you expect from your hardware like you do in most other games.

 

You know the devs havn't spent enough time debugging and testing when they start releasing day one patchs to fix performance issue!

 

Its even sadder when users have to release tools they developed themselves to help fix problems with the port like Dying Light Management Tool!

 

Dying Light runs well, but with tweaks you can get it to run above and beyond well. It is not a bad port. (Though I heard AMD cards still have issues) And the PC version is virtually doubled in shadows and textures and overall better graphically than the consoles.

 

I agree with the latter though. Awful rendering techniques like film grain and chromatic abberation needs to have toggles in the graphics menu, and if you don't, you're a failure of a game developer and nothing but an eye rapist.

[DarkRift5]

Is dying light really that bad, or is just a case of people unwilling to accept that if you want a good looking semi open adventure map game to run at ultra you need a lot more power. 

Dying Light isn't bad, it's just... weird. Most settings have no impact whatsoever on the FPS except textures and view distance. You'll need a really good card to play it well, but it works fine otherwise. Even lower-end cards can do alright if you lower textures/distance and are OK with 30-40fps. See, the game runs like I expect it to run on my machine- 60fps with some dips to 50 or a little lower on a 980 at 1440p.

 

And then there's AC Unity. I'm so glad I got it for free from Nvidia so I don't have to think about wasting money on that garbage. It's playable... sort of.... now. Worst launch I've seen, at least you could play some parts of the BF4 disaster.

 

Dark Souls was a pretty lazy port, too.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

FF13 & FF13-2 

 

No graphics options on launch day

Locked 720p on launch day

Locked Fps

No optimization (some people couldn't get 60fps in 720p but could get 60fps in 4K with gtx 780s)

FF13-2 still not optimized