Whats an example of a bad port that dosen't work period? Trying to run a game made for windows 2000 on windows 7 doesn't count remember. The simple fact that the game technically will start isn't a feature, it's expected. Even from shit games.The only time i've ever bought a PC game that wouldn't run was Mortal Kombat Trilogy, and that was because it requires windows 95/98/ME to work.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Force Unleashed: Ultimate Sith Edition
- Thread starter polonyc2
- Start date
Whats an example of a bad port that dosen't work period? Trying to run a game made for windows 2000 on windows 7 doesn't count remember. The simple fact that the game technically will start isn't a feature, it's expected. Even from shit games.The only time i've ever bought a PC game that wouldn't run was Mortal Kombat Trilogy, and that was because it requires windows 95/98/ME to work.
So because they did a poor job at compression its a bad port? Get used to big games dude, they're only getting bigger.
Maybe "not work period" was a harsh statement, but there have been ports with game killing bugs that were never fixed. Can't think of specific examples off the top of my head though.
+1. Games are getting bigger. That doesn't make it a bad port.
However, a 30 FPS cap in a PC game makes it a "lazy" port to me. Should be unlockable like Saints Row 2 then I would be more than happy with it.
I enjoy it now but really the cap is killing me.
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 17,091
I feel the complete opposite. THERE IS NO REASON, that a game that fits on ONE DVD (there's no way the 2nd is completely full of music) on the console should take up 28 gigs ANYWHERE. I mean, max, even if both DVD's on the console were full, that's only ~18gigs. There's no excuse, AT ALL for a 36% difference.
As for the frame cap, I can understand that it is a limitation of the physics engine. I don't have to like it, but considering it's the first of its kind, I may not like it, but I won't fault them for the technological limitations.
Higher resolution textures, more resolutions (many on the PC versus one on the consoles), less compression, and so on. You can't directly compare consoles and PCs when it comes to game sizes. It has never worked before and it doesn't work now. However, they probably could have done a better job with making it smaller.
I can think of one specific fail game bug. Bubble Bobble revolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_Bobble_Revolution It was the first Bubble Bobble on DS so I picked it up excitedly as I had always wanted a portable version of the game as I am a long time fan of the series. Basically there's a bug where you can't get past level 30 no matter what you do which renders 70% of the game unreachable.....Unless you have a gameshark to start the game at lvl 31. But still.... lame!
gravityparade
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 28, 2009
- Messages
- 308
There's no justifiable reason that every game would need to be nearly 30 gigs. If it were, TB hard drives would be too small.
No, but that alone doesn't make it a bad port. Games will eventually be that big, large game sizes are something we have to get used to. Some games are going to be huge, like in the CD era where some games were one CD and some were five it all depends on the game itself. Not saying they couldn't have done a better job on compression, but that isn't a reason to call it a bad port.
- Joined
- May 24, 2006
- Messages
- 17,091
It's one reason among several that it's a bad port.
Again, i can see there being an increase in size for things like higher res textures, but almost a 40% increase? no way. Add to that no graphics settings for AA, AF, Vsync etc, and it's just not a great port in any respect. It might play well, but it in no way is a PC game.
I don't know why you're making such leaps away from basic logic to make a heap of laughable excuses for what's clearly a horrible port of a game you just happen to like. More power to you for that, but c'mon.
Metal Gear 4 could come to the PC (I wish it would) off a Blu-Ray disc and it wouldn't be any friggin 28 gigs. Or Uncharted 2 or some of of the other big titles that are on Blu-Ray discs, now let's get real here, please?
Last edited:
gravityparade
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- May 28, 2009
- Messages
- 308
It's a bad port for a multitude of reasons. First and foremost because it has virtually nothing for graphic adjust settings. Aside from being a bad port, it's just a bad game in general. The 30 fps frame lock is just a laughable design problem, that just shows how inept these developers are. They should not have used this engine if the engine will not allow a variable framerate, or at least 60FPS or higher.
Didn't they add a few options in the patch?
You want them to completely redesign the engine for a port that isn't likely to even break a few hundred thousand sales? The frame-rate lock sucks, but LucasArts never intended to put it on the PC until recently. It was clearly designed solely for consoles.
As I said earlier in the thread I'd consider it kind of a meh port. Not good, not terrible, just there. I mean the game works, it has no game-breaking bugs, it looks a bit better than the console counter parts, the controls work. The game is fun in a brainless kind of way. The story explores areas of the Star Wars fiction not yet explored and does so in a way that makes sense and fits. I see a lot of the problems as relatively minor. I've played ports that are a lot worse. I've owned ports that are worse. It really seems to me like people expected too much out of the port. Its Aspyr, people should adjust their expectations to fit the people doing the port. I expected the port to be a completely unplayable mess filled with game breaking bugs and simply not work. I also expected Aspyr to toss it out and then ignore it, never bothering to issue a single patch. The issued one so far which I believe added a few graphics options and fixed some bugs with controllers.
A
akotlar
Guest
Yes, yes I do. Maybe my dollar is worth more than yours. The real question is, why are you defending a sub par product? Does the big snuggly company tuck you in at night? Is it your friend? It's asking you to pay for a low class product at a full product price. Why the fuck would you ask for fewer features. People like you scare me...
How is the "never intended to port it to the pc" a justification? That sounds pretty irrelevant because they DID release it for the pc. If I punched you in the face, and said that I hadn't intended to, would it make it hurt any less? Dunno...
Im confused, how can it be 28gb if its a direct console port? Isnt the max size for a game on the 360 ~8gb, a dual layer dvd?
I do not buy games with no multiplayer unless they are really cheap, or really good & long so no issue for me
Just curious about the size thing
I do not buy games with no multiplayer unless they are really cheap, or really good & long so no issue for me
Just curious about the size thingAgain, I'm not saying its a good port. I had incredibly low expectations and amusingly it managed to be better than that. Unlike most people I know what to expect from Aspyr and went in with that knowledge. You are the one with high expectations. When it comes to games I just want them to be fun, I don't give a shit beyond that. If I was bothering to take the time to write a review on it I'd care more, but I'm not. I'm playing it for fun and it hits that.
Not using it as a justification, just pointing out what it was designed the way it was.
Ditto. Fun on the PS3 but just upset by the fact it's not downloadable content there. Instead they have to make those that purchased the game before re-buy it in a different flavor.
Most console games are designed to run at 30FPS. It works very well for the game on consoles.
Haha 28 gigs, what a joke. Do they just sell the thing completely uncompressed? My brother had it for the 360 and it completely underwhelmed to begin with. The only reason anyone would try and justify that type of file size is because they are secretly in love with George Lucas.
Low frame rates do indeed look bad on console games, but also the TV screens themselves can't handle as high of refresh rates as many monitors can. It also depends what your used to. For a very long time I held onto my crt monitor - a 19 inch dell trinitron that can do 1280x1024 at 100 frames per second 100 frames per second. It's smooth as butter and wicked as hell to have such smoothness in counterstrike. If I popped in a new star wars game like the force unleashed (I adore past star wars pc games) on my sweet 100 hertz monitor and saw I was capped back to only 30 hertz, wow! talk about under utilizing my equipment. After playing Jedi Outcast for hours at 100fps, trying to play the force unleashed at 30 fps would be migraine inducing. (try it and you'll see what i mean) Also, I think you forget that almost all console games that depend on precise aiming and pointing have an auto aim function, so even if your playing 4 player perfect dark on high res mode at 15 frames per second, you can just aim in the general direction of your enemy, fire, and still probably shoot them down to the ground dispite not having much precision. (and frame updates)
I just don't feel I have control over the character at 30 fps, there isn't any lag but I feel disconnected. And the 30+ combo moves don't make it any easier. Maybe a cap like that might work in a RTS... but it can't in an action game.
Also, if you change the default key bindings the game will continue to display the old ones.
Luckily 120Hz LCD monitors are starting to pop up, and are close to CRT performance. After I get one, I'll sure as hell not play any other 30fps games.
Also, if you change the default key bindings the game will continue to display the old ones.
Luckily 120Hz LCD monitors are starting to pop up, and are close to CRT performance. After I get one, I'll sure as hell not play any other 30fps games.
Why does the exe need to be renamed?
Because the ATI drivers have special profiles for specific games which are enabled when the drivers detect an .exe file with a specific name being opened. You can trick the drivers into enabling the profiles for other games by renaming the .exe files.
Is there a list of these "profiles" somewhere?
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2008
- Messages
- 6,195
I was so unimpressed with this game. I'd unload it cheap.
TomGreen321
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2007
- Messages
- 901
I picked this up for 10 bucks and finally got around to install it. The game is capped at 30, but why when I attack why does it shoot up to the 40-50's? I doubt I'm going to bother finishing the game, but it makes it even harder to play going from 30-40-30 whenever I attack something.
Anyone else see this happen?
Anyone else see this happen?
TomGreen321
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2007
- Messages
- 901
Yeah. It's obvious when it happens because it's smooth. I'll get a capture.
Edit- Resized to 800x600.
Last edited:
I don't know what video drivers you have, or if you have the 1.2 TFU patch, but you should check that nothing related to vsync is enabled in your video drivers. I see you have a 5/4 aspect ratio. What refresh rate are you running your LCD/CRT? If it's an LCD use 60Hz.
TomGreen321
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 12, 2007
- Messages
- 901
Heh I know about all of that stuff.
Running 10.1 cats. Tried with 1.2 patch and without. No vsync is forced, and it does it with .exe renamed for AA forced through CCC, and without. Runing 1280x1024 85Hz on my CRT. It does the same thing at 1024x768 though 1600x1200 60Hz-85. Hell even ran everything at stock to see what the hell it could be.
The game itself is playable but the 30fps bothers my eyes enough, shooting up constantly to higher fps, then back down makes it worse. it also is a pretty big cock tease running at 50fps.
I have been searching and no one else has reported this, from what I can tell.
It's almost the opposite of what happens on the 360 version(demo). When you hit shit with your lightsaber the game actually pauses for a split second in that one.
Bizarre...
Running 10.1 cats. Tried with 1.2 patch and without. No vsync is forced, and it does it with .exe renamed for AA forced through CCC, and without. Runing 1280x1024 85Hz on my CRT. It does the same thing at 1024x768 though 1600x1200 60Hz-85. Hell even ran everything at stock to see what the hell it could be.
The game itself is playable but the 30fps bothers my eyes enough, shooting up constantly to higher fps, then back down makes it worse. it also is a pretty big cock tease running at 50fps.
I have been searching and no one else has reported this, from what I can tell.
It's almost the opposite of what happens on the 360 version(demo). When you hit shit with your lightsaber the game actually pauses for a split second in that one.
Bizarre...
What can I say, weird. Try running a widescreen resolution (1280x720) at 60Hz just for the kicks.
Although it might have something to do with the new 10.1 drivers. I played it with 9.12, you could try a downgrade to see if it solves this issue.
Another reason might be the 5770, maybe the new series works a bit different. I played it on a 4870.
Although it might have something to do with the new 10.1 drivers. I played it with 9.12, you could try a downgrade to see if it solves this issue.
Another reason might be the 5770, maybe the new series works a bit different. I played it on a 4870.