PDA

View Full Version : Clean or Horror Port?


Crass Spektakel
07-27-2010, 09:30 AM
While I am nowhere a windows computer for days I have no chance to check it out myself.

K&L1 was a h-o-r-r-r-r-i-b-l-e console port (besides having low fps even on console), controls where nonsense and so on... it could have been a real fun game, the story and world where pretty cool, but all that was wasted because the producer didn't have time to bugstomp the game for half an hour.

Is K&L2 a clean port or a horror port?

Do PC controls work well?

Does it profit from better PC hardware?

Cedge
07-27-2010, 09:36 AM
"Clean" or "Horror"? Interesting terminology...

Anyways, it seems fine to me, but I can't account for all the nitpicking that I'm sure some people would like to do. Why not try the demo for yourself?

Dragunovhun
07-27-2010, 09:56 AM
Why not try the demo for yourself?

While I am nowhere a windows computer for days I have no chance to check it out myself.


:p :p

erwem576
07-27-2010, 10:24 AM
Hard to say for sure coming off just a demo. IF the demo is anything to go by, from what I saw, I don't think this is a "horrible" port. Fairly clean IMO.

Nightmare117 p3
07-27-2010, 10:34 AM
HORROR ! i'm running the game on low with 10 fps
PC :
Intel core quadro 2.41ghz
3Gb of ram
EN8800GTX 768 mb
Windows 7

Robersdee24
07-27-2010, 10:41 AM
absolute horror

dunno if its because of a bad console port (usually is the problem nowadays) but I took these settings in the street (looking all the way down, because thats a part with alot of effects/shadows/textures etc etc.

All high settings 1440 X 900, Everything on! 4 x AA and 8 x AF

43 fps

Everything off, all settings low, everything disabled, No AA or AF

50 fps

7 frames different on opposite sides of the setting spectrum, something is truely borked here, or like I said, total port.

Whist
07-27-2010, 10:52 AM
Chances are you probably can't even launch the game like many people.

Claptovaughn
07-27-2010, 11:10 AM
absolute horror

dunno if its because of a bad console port (usually is the problem nowadays) but I took these settings in the street (looking all the way down, because thats a part with alot of effects/shadows/textures etc etc.

All high settings 1440 X 900, Everything on! 4 x AA and 8 x AF

43 fps

Everything off, all settings low, everything disabled, No AA or AF

50 fps

7 frames different on opposite sides of the setting spectrum, something is truely borked here, or like I said, total port.

Aside from the oddly small framerate difference between those two settings, the game is still running on max at a very playable framerate.

What's the problem? If you're getting 43 fps why would you WANT to play on lowest, even if it ran at, say, 100 fps? Is 43 fps not enough fps for you or are you simply disturbed by the small difference?

The demo ran fine for me and I have a fairly outdated rig by today's standards.

AMD x2 6000
2 gb DDR2
8800 GTX

rulleris
07-27-2010, 11:24 AM
Well, if you think that KL1 was a horrible console port you are an idiot.

Best version of KL1 was on the PC.

...''controls were nonsense'' I wish I could punch you in the face, troll.

Now, KL2 - that game is a disaster.

shovelface88
07-27-2010, 02:05 PM
HORROR ! i'm running the game on low with 10 fps
PC :
Intel core quadro 2.41ghz
3Gb of ram
EN8800GTX 768 mb
Windows 7

Your processor is garbage...

2.4ghz is low as hell.

JokersFlame
07-27-2010, 02:41 PM
I think it's awesome!

The multiplayer is a blast! Always watching your back!

It's quite fun.

Scott3vil
07-29-2010, 01:24 AM
While I am nowhere a windows computer for days I have no chance to check it out myself.

K&L1 was a h-o-r-r-r-r-i-b-l-e console port (besides having low fps even on console), controls where nonsense and so on... it could have been a real fun game, the story and world where pretty cool, but all that was wasted because the producer didn't have time to bugstomp the game for half an hour.

Is K&L2 a clean port or a horror port?

Do PC controls work well?

Does it profit from better PC hardware?
Only your own opnion will matter in the end,dl the deom and try it.It runs beautifully on my rig i have the game maxed out and it run between 50-60FPS(vsync on) which is all you need.Any frames above 60 is a waste on the human eye

creed_20103
07-29-2010, 03:15 AM
IDK guys but i run this game very very great on highest settings , is very good optimized :D

soldussnaku
08-11-2010, 01:11 AM
Your processor is garbage...

2.4ghz is low as hell.

He has a quad core, a 2.4 quad core is more then enough for a obvious console port like this.

Not many games even use a quad core, having one at 2.4 is perfectly fine for today's games.

Oh, and this game seems to be a horror port, half the time it works, half the time it crashes without warning. Heck, it used to reset my computer until I verified my files and re downloaded a few files.

eldo76
08-11-2010, 03:31 AM
on my setup it runs like a charm maxed and looks really good.
win7/64
I5
gtx275

I will buy KL2, why ?
because its freaking awesome !
because I loved KL so much, despite some flaws and the fact that they never delivered a patch for the game.

BUT, KL was one of those rare case of game for "adults".
is not the usual kiddy stuff, finally some characters/story/environments that appeal to an adult crowd !
finally you are not the same old cliché hero who is going to save the world but badass basterds in a rude, hostyle, relentless world.
the first one was the closest thing to a Tarantino movie I played so far and this one seems even better, love the "youtube" esthetics, great, fresh touch -IMO.
I love the police butchery and the cutting irony of it all.
we need more game like this and the glorious MaxPayne.
I admit they could do better with the controlls but it works after a while, just like the first one.

I just hope they ll bring Hitman 5 in the near future, another great franchise I miss so much in todays kiddies saturated marked.

ganjagoblin
08-11-2010, 09:37 AM
I'd say clean, I'm running it with everything maxxed, except AA, @ 1680x1050 silky smooth on a 9500GT Overclocked Edition 1GB.

fisk0
08-11-2010, 12:40 PM
It runs really well on both the machines I've tried it on. And one of them was a low end laptop that was below the GPU requirements (Radeon HD 3200 integrated chipset).
I've had no control issues worth mentioning (except that it wasn't obvious that I would have to press the cover button again to unstick from cover, I expected I should just be able to walk away from the cover to unstick), the game looks great even on low settings and the sound design is one of the best I've heard in a game.

ivowns
08-12-2010, 05:59 AM
running very well on my computer on max settings... no problems at all.

i5 750
4gb ddr3 1600
hd5770

Und Becks
08-12-2010, 04:05 PM
Works fine on my machine:

Q6600 @ 2.4
GTX 260 sp 216
4 gigs ram
Vista 64

This is at 1920x1080 and everything max except AA and AF (8x for both). Using fraps my fps is between 30 and 70, averaging in the high 40s (lowest fps being in the first firefight). No crashes. Playing with the 360 controller works great, I haven't even bothered using keyboard/mouse yet.

Overall I like it. The camera effects freaked me out at first because I thought my video card was on the fritz ;) I didn't play the first game, but I might pick this one up after the intitial reviews give the all clear on any major bugs.

Mr.Bando
08-12-2010, 05:49 PM
Visually it looks good. But it seems a lot holes have opened up somewhere during the port. I guess I can forgive them since its much harder to make games for PC than it is for consoles.


The multiplayer however, judging from the demo, leaves much to be desired and I hope they get fix up the big problems before the release date, and patch up the smaller ones with updates further down the track.

-Wanted-
08-14-2010, 10:32 AM
Well, if you think that KL1 was a horrible console port you are an idiot.

Best version of KL1 was on the PC.

...''controls were nonsense'' I wish I could punch you in the face, troll.

Now, KL2 - that game is a disaster.

What are you babbling on about?

The original game was panned by critics and consumers alike as being a sloppy game with atrocious control.

svx22
08-14-2010, 12:16 PM
I played Kane & Lynch 1 on 360. It's a horrible game overall that was still horrible on PC. The PC version of KL2 feels great. I don't think it's a dedicated PC game (unlike the awesome job i've seen on PC mafia 2), the gameplay has really tightened up and the keyboard+mouse feel solid.

My complaint right now would be the multiplayer server lobby. There is no host migration(the server will automatically close if the host ditches), nor is there an ability to choose to become a host. But seeing as these can be easily fit as console options, it's more a problem will span across all platforms and need to be requested by owners of either versions.

$50 for the PC version :)

Laokin
08-16-2010, 02:30 AM
Truth is it lies in between.

E8600 3.16ghz 4gb ram 9800GX2 Windows 7 64.

Single Player.
Doesn't drop a frame and runs smoother than glass at 1920x1080 everything maxed without AA on, because I don't feel the need at 1920x1080, the game handles aliasing pretty well.

The multiplayer on the other hand, is HORROR.

No text chatting, can't play with friends in the demo, because the demo is ranked mode only (who would put RANKED MODE in the demo???? Can't progress in a fraction of the game, so locking out friends is a huge oversight) mics are on voice activation all the time, only way to shut it off is to unplug it. No dedicated servers, although with that said, it ran pretty lag free in the games that I played, but it's inevitable that there will be people with closed ports, from the other side of the country, or simply on slow connections that are going to ruin it for everyone.

So yeah, MP = Garbage (not cuz of gameplay, but because of design decisions on the MP backend.) SP is pretty well developed.

When a game is crashing for some and not others, and it's not singled out to a solitary piece of hardware, 99% of the time it's virus' and spy/adware at fault.

And verifying cache, is not a game fault, it's a data transfer error that left a corrupted file on your computer... this is your ISP and Steams fault, not the games. Had you installed off a disk, it couldn't of happened.

Just to be clear.

P.S.

This is iO's highest quality production yet. Hitman 5 being a single player game, is gonna be dope. iO reached a new level of skill.... still lacks in the MP side of things...(this is because it is a port.)

Decurio
08-16-2010, 10:43 AM
As far as I recall, all poor reviews of K&L1 was based on the console versions, where the PC version tended to score higher - what's with people calling it a poor port? I haven't tried the demo, since I typically don't care much for demo builds (them typically being beta/alpha codes that work, but not up to the standard of the final build) - and that I don't want to litter my HDD with things I will just uninstall shortly after anyways.

I am getting it to play co-op with a friend. The demo gameplay videos I saw on YouTube looked interesting enough (wich was from Xbox 360). If you're really not sure about wanting to buy a game or not, why not just wait for it to be out and read a bunch of reviews to make up an opinion (not always reflective of how you'd feel about the game though), or perhaps one of your friends gets a copy and can give you their opinion, perhaps you can play it at their house? Basing a buy on a demo is in my opinion not the smartest thing to do. Yes, a demo is a showcase of a game and could/should be a selling point - but they rarely are.. another reason I don't care much for demo builds.

ArecBalrin
08-16-2010, 12:09 PM
All poor reviews based on the console version?

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/kane-lynch-dead-men

It's average on the PC was 67, the average on 360 was 65 and it was 64 in PS3 reviews. Everyone agreed it sucked monkey balls except for a small hardcore of professional 'idjuts'.

Daxelman
08-16-2010, 12:14 PM
67 is Average. On the higher side of the Mixed/Average scale, according to MetaCritic

Sucked monkey balls, this game did not.

Morosi
08-16-2010, 12:17 PM
All poor reviews based on the console version?

http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/kane-lynch-dead-men

It's average on the PC was 67, the average on 360 was 65 and it was 64 in PS3 reviews. Everyone agreed it sucked monkey balls except for a small hardcore of professional 'idjuts'.

It's true that the first one was flawed but hell.. I still found it enjoyable enough to finish playing through the story.

Spectlaser
08-16-2010, 09:25 PM
It's a solid port, but it's lacking some PC features like text chat.

TRMcDee
08-17-2010, 03:13 AM
If it doesn't feel like a native PC game, that means it's a bad port. A good port is when you play it on your PC and it feels like a PC game. Most porting failures are usually within the interface department. Play anything that uses the Unreal 3 engine on your PC that was also released on consoles and you'll see what I mean. Borderlands, Gears of War, Mass Effect, Mass Effect 2, and a dozen others I can't think of at the moment will have you doing stupid things like pressing Enter to select a menu option when a double-click will do nothing at all.
Horribly low default FOV's and other things like no toggle-crouch/ADS options are all signs of a lazily coded console port. Let it be known also that a true multiplatform release that was coded from the ground up for all platforms (CoD 4&5, Source Engine games, Burnout series, Elder Scrolls IV, Fallout 3, etc.) and will not exhibit any of these symptoms.

ArecBalrin
08-17-2010, 04:22 AM
67 is Average. On the higher side of the Mixed/Average scale, according to MetaCritic

Sucked monkey balls, this game did not.

Game scores are weighted and misleading. An 'average' game will score in the 70s-80s. The score 'average' is only placed at 50-60 because there are so many just plain awful games out there. The Leisure Suit Larry series alone means for every game scoring over 80 you must knock 5 points off the actual score to get a more accurate measure of it. Most reviewers acknowledge the problem of review scores but know if they un-weighted their scores, it would be wide open to abuse so instead they rely on players to use their own judgement of how scores relate to the actual game.

There was a time when fairly simplistic and bugged games(like Half-Life) could easily score over 95, because far worse games were more accurately panned. As technology moved on, expectations changed meaning games like the new Command and Conquer titles should have been compared with their predecessors, but they weren't. If they had been, the newer ones would have been a lot better than they turned out to be because the criticism would have been accurate. Reviewers failed to compare GTA IV with GTA: San Andreas and Vice City, but players didn't and as such I think players gave the more accurate review of it.

Until reviewers are more prepared to call a turd a turd, the better titles will not get the accurate scores that make them stand out. Funny enough; the best games of the last few years are those that were compared to their predecessors: Starcraft 2 = Starcraft: Brood War, Bioshock = System Shock, Mass Effect = Knights of The Old Republic.