Far. Too. Negative: Porting Disaster

We have a negative trope on aisle 3. What do we do about it?

First, the article itself: Almost every example in the section feels written in an overly degrading tone, with bonus points for repeatedly potholing So Bad Its Horrible and They Just Didn't Care.

Second, the article's name: Would it be better served by a less "disaster"ous title, like Porting Decay, to mirror Adaptation Decay? At the very least it Needs A Redirect that isn't so negative.

Third, the wicks: A percentage of related articles link to places where fans are nitpicking minor differences between ports, when the article seems to focus more on glaring differences in ports. I haven't actually reviewed them, but as a spot example I do recall the Metroid Prime article, where citing Porting Disaster made me think "wait, what?" when comparing the Trilogy versions to the Game Cube originals.

Well, I don't exactly disagree with Porting Decay, but the overall negativity is kinda the point to the trope, which explains about games brought from one medium horrifically bomb in execution on another.

Usually, where I could see a use for Porting Decay when the game is still good but flawed from the source version, Porting Disaster seems more comprehensive and IMHO needs no change, as a port should ideally try to stay as close to the original as possible (i.e.- Porting Distillation), and when it can't meet that standard, Porting Disaster seems entirely appropriate.

I agree with changing it to Porting Decay or something like that. Much better because it covers parts of ports which are inferior without being outright terrible.

^^ Porting Distillation does not describe what you think it is.

edited 19th Nov '10 11:52:26 AM by Stratadrake

So why do we basically have two tropes that are literally Done Badly and Done Well respectively? Shouldn't we just have a neutral page for video game ports?

For the same reason we have Adaptation Distillation and Adaptation Decay? Because people like to Gush and Complain?

This kind of bugs me a bit and always has. Something can be an adaptation or a port. This is a fact of its existence in the same way as something can be The Film of the Book, The Film of the Series, the Novelization, the OVA, the Licensed Game, the Remake, etc. They're not really tropes in the classic sense but they exist as objective attributes of the work.

But "distillation", "decay", etc., are quality assessments and should be treated in the same way as any other subjective tropes.

edited 19th Nov '10 1:36:55 PM by Fighteer

I think we should dump 'em all in Darth or Sugar as appropriate.

Porting Disaster has the advantage of being an objective negative. A game was originally released on platform A and worked, then it was transferred to platform B where features X, Y, and Z either broke or were removed due to technical issues.

How about Broken Port or some other name that's less inherently negative?

edited 19th Nov '10 1:55:37 PM by Fighteer

Sheesh. Where do we go to vote for, "Yes, I'm okay with negativity in some of the trope titles. It adds character."

?

I like Broken Port.

That works, yeah.

Porting Disaster has the advantage of being an objective negative. A game was originally released on platform A and worked, then it was transferred to platform B where features X, Y, and Z either broke or were removed due to technical issues.

Agreed. It's a situation where it being negative is not only sort of the point, but it's objective as well.

Broken Port is good.

Part of the problem is that while there is a list of objective criteria, the only thing that actually has to be satisfied is that the port/remake is "bad", however the reader/editor chooses to define "bad" so long as it's not changes that would have to be made for the game to work on the new platform. If we leave the trope as-is, it's subjective, and thus the "objectively bad" arguments don't apply. If we restrict the trope to ports/remakes having one of the listed problems, we can say that it's "objective badness", but that badness need not be disastrous—while increased load times would make a port objectively worse, only egregiously long load times would be worthy of "disastrous".

In short, the current name actually fits the current description, but the description ought to be cleaned up to actually be objective—a change that would break the name.

edited 19th Nov '10 3:00:30 PM by Ironeye

I think defining it as a port that has been reduced in some clearly-defined fashion is best, yes. It'd be best if we could come up with a name that expresses this... Broken Port is all right, but it doesn't cover, say, a port that cuts out half the game's levels, which I think should also qualify (since it's an unambiguous way that the port is 'lesser' than the original.)

The main thing is to ensure that the name and write-up exclude They Changed It, Now It Sucks! — if something is changed rather than being removed or broken, it isn't this trope, unless the change is totally unambiguously for the worse (a removal by another name, like replacing all the graphics with lower-resolution ones or something.)

The internet disagrees.

edited 19th Nov '10 4:34:12 PM by RocketScience

I'm with the Baron.

Mark it as a Subjective Trope, with all that entails. That's all that needs to be done.

edited 19th Nov '10 11:04:29 PM by SpaceWolves

I added it to the YMMV index. Adaptation Decay was already on there, and Porting Disaster was created as analogous to it.

What's subjective about a port to another console that is clearly buggy and unplayable? It's not analogous to Adaptation Decay, sometimes change in a Derivative Work can sometimes be for the better. This isn't YMMV, if someone is using it wrong, clean up the wick, not the main page.

edited 20th Nov '10 10:51:32 AM by MegaJ

"What's subjective about a port to another console that is clearly buggy and unplayable?"

Many examples are not either one. Some just have a bug or two, and a lot are just They Changed It, Now It Sucks!.

As was said above then, just clean those examples. Porting Disaster is OK, has character, it is almost Exactly What It Says on the Tin, etc.

For the time being, Porting Decay should at least be a redirect. Grammatically, the only difference is that Porting Disaster can be applied as a discrete, individual noun while Porting Decay is abstract and non-quantizable.

Also, "decay" is mostly objective, "disaster" is a value judgement. Just sayin'.