PC gamers are second class gamers

[typographie]

13 hours ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Regarding PC ports, sure, there are some bad ports here and there, but at the same time, what makes a bad port a bad port? I've seen games that play perfectly fine but are labeled a "bad port" because you don't get all the fancy pants graphics options and the game doesn't run at 60FPS or has frame rate lock. Also GTAV is a great port, but I'd give Metal Gear Solid V or DOOM the gold standard for mulitplatform games.

I usually avoid calling a game a "bad port," per se, unless it does one or more of the following: sub-60 FPS framerate cap, locked render resolution, and/or missing field of view adjustment in a first-person game.

 

Of the games you listed, the only one I consider even a questionable port is MGSV, because of the rather silly way the menus work if you're using a keyboard and mouse. But it's hardly a mortal sin. Aside from the OP, I thought most GTA V considered a great port, and I don't think I've ever heard anyone complain about Doom's port before.

[Mira Yurizaki]

55 minutes ago, typographie said:

I usually avoid calling a game a "bad port," per se, unless it does one or more of the following: sub-60 FPS framerate cap, locked render resolution, and/or missing field of view adjustment in a first-person game.

I don't even care about that. If I get the same experience on the PC as I do on the console, they did their job. It's a C grade at best. But if you want to ask "why didn't you just get the console version?" Because maybe I didn't have the console? Maybe they mapped the controls to KBM just fine and the genre I feel better playing with that? If I had an Xbox or PlayStation, you may as well ask me why I bought a game available for both platforms on one or the other.

 

Now if the PC version was riddled with more app-breaking bugs or had a gross negligence somewhere, like a KBM mapping that somehow requires three hands, then that's when I consider it a failure.

[typographie]

1 hour ago, M.Yurizaki said:

I don't even care about that. If I get the same experience on the PC as I do on the console, they did their job. It's a C grade at best. But if you want to ask "why didn't you just get the console version?" Because maybe I didn't have the console? Maybe they mapped the controls to KBM just fine and the genre I feel better playing with that? If I had an Xbox or PlayStation, you may as well ask me why I bought a game available for both platforms on one or the other.

 

Now if the PC version was riddled with more app-breaking bugs or had a gross negligence somewhere, like a KBM mapping that somehow requires three hands, then that's when I consider it a failure.

Fear not, I wouldn't try to make the argument that you should just play on console instead. Even if every game was just a direct port from a console version, I'd still agree a PC has advantages and options beyond what the console offers.

 

I do completely disagree that porting a game directly from console to PC is the developers "doing their jobs," though. It's not unreasonable to expect a game developer to tailor their product to the differences of the platforms they're bothering to release on. To do otherwise would be contrary to their own competitive interests. That's especially true these days, when most PC games are what I'd consider adequate ports and we have seemingly endless alternatives. It makes sense to have a locked-down, pre-determined gaming experience on consoles where there's usually one hardware configuration at one price per generation. That does not make any sense whatsoever on PC. PC gamers expect something else, and will seek that out.

 

Field of view adjustment is a little different, because for some it is a physiological requirement rather than a preference. I know I can handle about 30–60 minutes in first-person at less than 80° horizontal at a typical monitor viewing distance, at which point I will reliably start developing a headache that will continue increasing in severity until I stop playing. The specifics can vary a little depending on how often and how quickly I need to swing the camera around. In those cases I either find a working unofficial fix, or I return the game. I know not everyone responds to it the same way, or even at all, but I don't think I'm even close to being alone on this issue.

[Mira Yurizaki]

3 minutes ago, typographie said:

PC gamers expect something else, and will seek that out.

And this is where I divide on the topic. I don't consider myself a PC gamer. I don't consider myself a console gamer. I just consider myself a "gamer." Trying to go beyond that is, to me, being haughty and unproductive. The game's only job is to provide me with entertainment. If the game does not do that, it failed at is job regardless of what platform it was on.

[typographie]

47 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

And this is where I divide on the topic. I don't consider myself a PC gamer. I don't consider myself a console gamer. I just consider myself a "gamer." Trying to go beyond that is, to me, being haughty and unproductive. The game's only job is to provide me with entertainment. If the game does not do that, it failed at is job regardless of what platform it was on.

Are we really at the point where "PC gamer" needs to be tip-toed around as a loaded term? I meant "the people who play games on PC," and I intended no judgement or sense of superiority to be derived from its use. I could just as easily point out that Xbox or Switch or smartphone gamers have their own sets of expectations relevant to the unique properties of their platform, because they do.