Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Alan Wake Coming to PC

135

Comments

  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,030 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    ScumLord wrote: »
    It was a problem with the game so of course it's going to come up. I paid a lot of money for my PC and I'll be damned if games are going to play in anything other than the maximum. To be honest I noticed no difference between the two settings, it was more of a niggling problem that wasn't really a problem.

    Yes, fair enough, but even now there are a handful of people still posting about issues like 'a slight jutter when saving' and I still haven't a clue what they actually think about the game! Yes, it's the pretentious critic in me talking, but honestly I couldn't give a rat's ass how it runs on someone else's computer, but I'm genuinely interested in hearing whether they, you know, like the game :pac: To me that's slightly healthier, more interesting discourse!


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    In fairness, while optimal settings are certainly a nice bonus, there are plenty of people guilty of overobsessing with tweaking. Looking at the Batman Arkham City thread, there's at least a few posters who have posted about various DX11 settings or whatever several times while barely mentioning the game itself. It's great if you can get a game running nicely, but there comes a point when you have to step back and just play the ****ing thing.

    It's kind of like arguing that you should never watch a DVD because the quality is lower than it would be in the cinema. The best is nicest if at all possible, but ultimately the content will be pretty much identical either way. It's only when one version is crippled - whether it be Dead Space on PC, or the crappily ported Oshima films on DVD - that it's worth getting a little worked up over. But it's not a personal insult - just business.

    Of course it is about playing the game, but all the sam providing such an option is literally a matter of developing a menu with a few sliders that changes numbers in a configuration file, it is not a difficult to provide.

    Because no two PCs are the same advanced setting are just as important for finding the optimal quality / performance balance on mid range PCs, not just for extracting the maximum quality out of monster rigs.

    Just taking Skyrim as a recent example, I can play it with everything on ultra once I turn shadows down to medium, because that hits the CPU hard. If there were only four presets and nothing else could be changed individually I would have to settle for the default high settings as ultra shadows are unplayable for me. Which would means settling for roughly 2/3s the draw distance and almost everything else lowered by a similar factor (actor/item fade in etc).


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,030 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    I'm not denying any of that - the more options the better! If they can do it, there's no excuse not to.

    But say I'm a developer. What's a better use of my limited resources? Optimising for a console where millions of customers are going to be using the exact same setup (with the - increasingly less relevant - distinction of SD and HD displays being the only major concern)? Or painstakingly optimise a game for the much smaller core PC group with vastly varying technology? And a majority of said customers are just going to pirate the thing anyway?

    PC gamers getting hard done by is not merely a case of developer apathy. It's the fault of the publishers, tight deadlines, the market, simple economic concerns and increasingly the PC gamer him or herself. Fair or optimal the situation most certainly is not. Strangely logical it most certainly is!


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,700 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    Yes but as said there's really no excuse for not having those options. It's not that hard to impliment on todays game engines at all. It's really just changing a line in a cfg file and all the different levels of detail are in the game already, it's just a matter of changing when or if the next level of detail appears. It's the height of laziness to not code a simple menu to do these things. It's not even that hard to optimise for PC either with Direct X making things standardised and the 360 running Direct X API's as well.

    Now not including Direct X11 options or art assets above the console versions is fair enough, and I salute the developers that do go out of there way to include these, but some ports really are just knocked together.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,030 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    Now I'm far from an expert on PC programming, but I imagine the process is vastly more complicated process than the mere changing of a file! Perhaps for some things, but there are so many variables when it comes to PC gaming that it clearly isn't black and white. How many examples have there been where the simple ATI / NIVIDIA distinction has caused countless problems. Add to that the huge variety of other variables - from RAM to CPUs - and you have what surely isn't a day or two's work on your hands. If it was as simple as changing a file, there would surely be absolutely no shoddy ports! These people are, after all, slightly more able to throw this things out than we are. The more complex the game is, the more complex the port.

    Again, the simplest excuse is the easiest: money. If the resources and market was there for PC gaming, then you can rest assured there'd be no chance the situation is as unfortunate as it is.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    I'm not denying any of that - the more options the better! If they can do it, there's no excuse not to.

    But say I'm a developer. What's a better use of my limited resources? Optimising for a console where millions of customers are going to be using the exact same setup (with the - increasingly less relevant - distinction of SD and HD displays being the only major concern)? Or painstakingly optimise a game for the much smaller core PC group with vastly varying technology? And a majority of said customers are just going to pirate the thing anyway?

    PC gamers getting hard done by is not merely a case of developer apathy. It's the fault of the publishers, tight deadlines, the market, simple economic concerns and increasingly the PC gamer him or herself. Fair or optimal the situation most certainly is not. Strangely logical it most certainly is!

    I understand the business aspect but I am talking about the about the basics that any PC game should have, ie that the game runs well, has a decent level of customisation option and the UI is K/M friendly. Otherwise why bother at all?

    I there is a firm distinction between for example demanding Bioware rebuild their game engine to support DX 11 in between Mass Effect 2 and Mass Effect 3, and asking for Crytek to provide a few more options than below in the PC version of a game released on their brand new engine.

    crysis-2-20110302052021263-000.jpg

    Now I'm far from an expert on PC programming, but I imagine the process is vastly more complicated process than the mere changing of a file! Perhaps for some things, but there are so many variables when it comes to PC gaming that it clearly isn't black and white. How many examples have there been where the simple ATI / NIVIDIA distinction has caused countless problems. Add to that the huge variety of other variables - from RAM to CPUs - and you have what surely isn't a day or two's work on your hands. If it was as simple as changing a file, there would surely be absolutely no shoddy ports! These people are, after all, slightly more able to throw this things out than we are. The more complex the game is, the more complex the port.

    Again, the simplest excuse is the easiest: money. If the resources and market was there for PC gaming, then you can rest assured there'd be no chance the situation is as unfortunate as it is.

    If you are soley talking about graphics options then it is that simple. Because going back to Crysos 2 many people had to go and do it by hand accomplish such things as setting a field of view suitable for their resolution, or turning of motion blur if it was causeing nausea of headaches (which it does for some people), or turning off mouse acceleration because it is extremely annoying for most PC gamers. It not doing the little simple things like that that piss so many people off.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,700 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    Now I'm far from an expert on PC programming, but I imagine the process is vastly more complicated process than the mere changing of a file!

    Getting the game to run on PC does of course requires some rejigging of code, but not as much as usual since most of the engines are designed to run on multiple platforms and the consoles are pretty much PC based.

    However changing graphical parameters really is just a case of changing a few lines in a cfg file. If you know where to look you can open up the cfg file that controls it in wrodpad and change it yourself, something a lot of people do when the low, medium and high settings are stupidly set up. Most engines these days like Unreal are pretty user friendly, it's really not that hard to offer these options.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,030 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    marco_polo wrote: »
    Otherwise why bother at all?

    The same reason shoddy ports of games have existed ever since the birth of multiple formats: quick cash. All but the most passionately indie of PC games aren't made as a glorious ode to the joys of hardware. They are a product, plain & simple. If it happens to be a well-optimised game in the process, that's a happy coincidence. And hey, it's not like us predominantly console gamers haven't endured a ****ty port or two in recent years :pac:


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,700 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    I reckon publishers should look at the long term benefit of having a PC version of the game. On a console you get big sales in the first few weeks and then the game is forgotten. On a platform like steam the game will be on sale forever and you can get bigger sale numbers by having a sale and it will continue to bringing in sales for years to come. I mean, I bought knights of the old republic recently on steam and spent about 70 euros on the GoG sale.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    The same reason shoddy ports of games have existed ever since the birth of multiple formats: quick cash. All but the most passionately indie of PC games aren't made as a glorious ode to the joys of hardware. They are a product, plain & simple. If it happens to be a well-optimised game in the process, that's a happy coincidence. And hey, it's not like us predominantly console gamers haven't endured a ****ty port or two in recent years :pac:

    I am going to retrospectively claim it was a rhetorical question. :p


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭ gizmo


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Getting the game to run on PC does of course requires some rejigging of code, but not as much as usual since most of the engines are designed to run on multiple platforms and the consoles are pretty much PC based.

    However changing graphical parameters really is just a case of changing a few lines in a cfg file. If you know where to look you can open up the cfg file that controls it in wrodpad and change it yourself, something a lot of people do when the low, medium and high settings are stupidly set up.
    I was going to reply to your earlier post about it not being hard to optimise for the PC but I'll go for this one since it's slightly more sane. Yes, it's a lot easier to go from PC to 360 and vice versa in the sense that it'll run but optimising the result is a totally different experience. Even though the 360 uses an API which is similar to the PC variant it is not the same and behaves quite differently in many applications.

    That being said, I definitely agree with the latter point. Limiting the graphics options to a simple dropdown is incredibly frustrating when you've spent a great deal on your machine or if you're just trying to squeeze the most out of your mid range rig. In terms of why they've done it, well I'd imagine it cuts down on the testing costs dramatically so I wouldn't put it down to laziness or ineptitude, simply expenditure vs gains.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    but there are so many variables when it comes to PC gaming that it clearly isn't black and white. How many examples have there been where the simple ATI / NIVIDIA distinction has caused countless problems. Add to that the huge variety of other variables - from RAM to CPUs - and you have what surely isn't a day or two's work on your hands.
    Not really, the PC is standardised for the most part. The only variables we really need is the ability to turn on or off graphical features or change the resolution.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,700 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    gizmo wrote: »
    I was going to reply to your earlier post about it not being hard to optimise for the PC but I'll go for this one since it's slightly more sane. Yes, it's a lot easier to go from PC to 360 and vice versa in the sense that it'll run but optimising the result is a totally different experience. Even though the 360 uses an API which is similar to the PC variant it is not the same and behaves quite differently in many applications.

    Oh I know but what I meant was it's still not as hard as it used to be trying to get something like PS2 code to run on the PC. Don't most engines now have compilers to create a rough and ready version of the code for any of the 3 platforms that is then optimised? (serious question)


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Computer Games Moderators, Entertainment Moderators Posts: 29,030 CMod ✭✭✭✭johnny_ultimate


    It's when you get away from mere graphics and hardware that even more complications arise, though. If the Dead Space example proves everything it's that a simple thing like a new control scheme can fundamentally break the game, and cannot be fixed without fundmamentally rebuilding the core mechanics. Dragon Age is another example where an entirely new UI had to be developed, or Battlefield 3 (a rare true PC blockbuster, although sadly an exception rather than a rule) where the game had to be scaled back to fit consoles. It's not coincidental that more and more PC games are best played with a 360 controller!

    These things don't come cheap, and ultimately to optimise the game fully is a tricky process. Call it 'consolitis' if you must, but it's more the game developers are designing a game to try and reach the widest audience they can. Ultimately, if the main concern is to design the best game they can so that it reaches the say three million customers on 360, and another three million on PS3, can you truly blame the developers for not spending vast amounts of time rejigging the UI, controls, graphics and all that other stuff just for the 500,000 who might buy it on PC? I'm not condoning shoddy PC ports for a second, or even countering any of the claims rightly made above. Just trying to play devil's advocate and try and understand the unfair but logical process behind this situation.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,700 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    I think Dragon Age Origins was made as a PC game first because it was a dog to play on console by comparison.

    The Dead Space thing wasn't a new control scheme breaking the game either, it was pure laziness that they couldn't be arsed to change the movement speed of the mouse and instead kept it slow like it would be for an analogue stick again all it required was a cfg file change or even just a mouse sensitivity slider. Easier aiming wouldn't have broken the game, and didn't when it was fixed. It was just an excuse by the developer.

    Agree with everything else though.


  • Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    I think one of the major contributing factors to the difference between consoles and PCs today is the age of the consoles, they're years behind the PC which is annoying for PC users. We know our PC is capable of so much more if only people would develop for it. When the new consoles come there won't be so much of a gap making things easier hopefully.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8,405 ✭✭✭ gizmo


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    Oh I know but what I meant was it's still not as hard as it used to be trying to get something like PS2 code to run on the PC. Don't most engines now have compilers to create a rough and ready version of the code for any of the 3 platforms that is then optimised? (serious question)
    Oh most definitely, Sony have never made it particularly easy with their hardware. Even with the PS3, as I'm sure you're aware, there's quite a bit of work to do in order to get a port running efficiently.

    Yep, most major multiplatform engines will let you generate platform specific builds for "free" at the touch of a button. As I said, they'll work, but are nowhere near ready to be shipped.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,700 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    From looking at Digital Foundry I actually don't really see that big of a gap between PC and consoles anymore. There's not a whole lot of difference between Battlefield 3 on PC or console, not like when the PS1 or PS2 were around and the PC was massively more powerful. I think the GFX card industry is really slowing down. MS aren't really interested so aren't really pushing new direct X features and the GFX companies aren't pushing as much money into it as can be seen in some really poor driver updates. It's why I'm really not looking forward to a new generation when it comes along because it will inevitably be based on current hardware and I can't see it being a generational leap like previous generations were.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    Playing games and not wasting time fiddling with settings for a few more frames a second, is what I'd rather spend my time doing.
    Astounding, I know.
    Not that it'd make the slightest bit of difference in how the game plays if I did spend all that time toggling settings.

    Anything that increases framerate, improves the gameplay. Makes it more fluid, more enjoyable, less distracting etc. Some pc games are terribly optimised, & this is an unfortunate necessity. Granted some folks enjoy this kind of thing, but more often than not, five mins optimising settings can make a drastic improvement to the game. Why is this an issue for you, & whats wrong with those that choose to do it?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    Retr0gamer wrote: »
    I'm not a sheep, I don't believe the PR BS that the companies give to the press and expect to be presented as news verbatim. I'd rather come to my own conclusions and theories. I think it's a but of healthy skepticism is healthier and I'm pretty sure you've no better explanation how such a glaring design flaw got through QA.

    You have no bloody clue what you're talking about, you are, literally, making this up. Stop pretending and trying to pass of your half-arsed theories as fact.


    EnterNow wrote: »
    Anything that increases framerate, improves the gameplay. Makes it more fluid, more enjoyable, less distracting etc. Some pc games are terribly optimised, & this is an unfortunate necessity. Granted some folks enjoy this kind of thing, but more often than not, five mins optimising settings can make a drastic improvement to the game. Why is this an issue for you, & whats wrong with those that choose to do it?

    But once you've hit a solid 25-30FPS what's the point in tweaking it further? It's not going to make the game any better - I think that's what I was getting from the default options for games like FarCry 2, Just cause 2 and like I said, that was just how I liked it.
    It was install game, play game, not install game, fuck around with options for ages, eventually play game.

    I've no real problem with people spending their time if they want to, but I'm not convinced that these options are absolutely essential and that their absence is the worst thing ever.
    The "low-med-high" and auto-detect options in games have served me well and I'm certain i'm not alone. But I guess this also an internet thing anyway. If you like a game - you'll tell your friends, if you don't you'll complain on the internet, it'll give a distorted picture of customers responses and reactions.


    And no, I don't have some kind of massively powerful machine, before anyone starts off complaining.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,700 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    You have no bloody clue what you're talking about, you are, literally, making this up. Stop pretending and trying to pass of your half-arsed theories as fact.

    Right, so the developer was trying to make the game better by deliberately making the mouse controls unplayable? That doesn't make any sense.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 33,733 ✭✭✭✭Myrddin


    But once you've hit a solid 25-30FPS what's the point in tweaking it further?

    It's not always as simple as that though, sometimes you just have to fiddle about with settings to ensure a consistent 30fps. This is normally down to optimistation though, as opposed to the number crunching power of your pc.
    It's not going to make the game any better

    It will, if the standard settings arn't working out for you & the faults become a constant distraction. Your right in that it won't change the game by any stretch, & all this is either to compensate for bad optimisation or else just make the game more shiny.

    I think that's what I was getting from the default options for games like FarCry 2, Just cause 2 and like I said, that was just how I liked it.
    It was install game, play game, not install game, fuck around with options for ages, eventually play game.

    I find most pc games work well this way. As you mentioned there are an anal group out there who think modified tectures & quadlinear filtering will add to the game. If it does for them, then well & good, but we all know thats just an ego massage for them.
    I've no real problem with people spending their time if they want to, but I'm not convinced that these options are absolutely essential and that their absence is the worst thing ever.

    Agreed, I think the whole reason such optimisation options exist in the first place though is to cater for the vastly differing hardware that exists from pc to pc. You might have an intel/nvidia machine, then an ATI/Radeon setup, WinXP, Win 7, 32bit, 64bit etc. Sometimes things don't work right out of the box, & you might have to count your blessings that such variety in game setup exists.

    Of course, there are people that take it too far & like to throw it in console users faces, that's just sad though.
    The "low-med-high" and auto-detect options in games have served me well and I'm certain i'm not alone. But I guess this also an internet thing anyway. If you like a game - you'll tell your friends, if you don't you'll complain on the internet, it'll give a distorted picture of customers responses and reactions.


    And no, I don't have some kind of massively powerful machine, before anyone starts off complaining.

    Nope your not alone, I use the pc the same way mostly. I couldn't be arsed faffing about three layers deep in the advanced visuals menu, unless its really necessary. & if its necessary, then I'm glad such options are there because that usually means I have a problem.

    All in all, gameplay wise, there's going to be no difference in most games whether they're played on a 360, or a high end gaming pc. It might look better, but the game itself will remain the same.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,732 ✭✭✭Magill


    I've just ordered a new PC today... after 2 years of console gaming i seriously CANT wait to see some graphical settings in the option menus !

    OFFTOPIC.. but any PC exclusives that i've missed in the last 2/3 years ? Witcher 2 is first on my list.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,700 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    Not a lot of exclusives that aren't indie games. I suggest picking up the humble bundle. There's also starcraft 2. The steam sale should be starting soon as well.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 23,556 ✭✭✭✭Sir Digby Chicken Caesar


    Magill wrote: »
    I've just ordered a new PC today... after 2 years of console gaming i seriously CANT wait to see some graphical settings in the option menus !

    OFFTOPIC.. but any PC exclusives that i've missed in the last 2/3 years ? Witcher 2 is first on my list.

    play witcher 1 before witcher 2, it's only 5 dollars now from gog.com

    also have you played the stalker games? chernobyl and pripyat are just amazing. clear sky is good but too many bugs even after patching to be considered as good as the other two.

    the first of the series stalker - shadow of chernobyl is 10 euro on steam


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Computer Games Moderators Posts: 50,700 CMod ✭✭✭✭Retr0gamer


    I wholeheartily second the stalker games.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,901 ✭✭✭Twilightning


    KILLING FLOOR. DOSH.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,732 ✭✭✭Magill


    ohhhh starcraft 2... forgot about that !

    I've played the the first witcher game, second one looks awesome and is very cheap !

    And yeah keep seeing people loving on the stalker games, never played them but i'll have a look at them for sure.

    Also... is steam + g2play.net the best places to buy PC games these days (I'd rather use steam/steamcodes than actual hard copies anyway).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,983 ✭✭✭✭tuxy


    Magill wrote: »
    Also... is steam + g2play.net the best places to buy PC games these days (I'd rather use steam/steamcodes than actual hard copies anyway).

    Gamestop.ie is often much cheaper than steam if it's a recent release. Makes no sense that a hard copy is cheaper


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Not forgetting strategy games like Shogun 2 and Warhammer 40,000: Dawn of War II.

    Also Civilization V and the soon to arrive Diablo 3 and worth a mention.


Advertisement