Far. Too. Negative: Porting Disaster

That too. As titles go, Porting Disaster sounds like it should be about "Porting Decay Done Badly".

(Wait, what?)

edited 20th Nov '10 2:51:57 PM by Stratadrake

Also, we should have a trope for ports, done well or not.

Porting Distillation is a port is better than the original.

edited 20th Nov '10 5:03:47 PM by Raso

I think he's saying we need a value-neutral page for ports, but that isn't really a trope. Perhaps a page explaining the term is what he means?

Technically it's not a trope, but then doing it well or badly most certainly wouldn't be, but since we have those, we should have the neutral one.

This might be way out on a limb, but "the ported version is better than the original" and "the ported version is worse than the original" are kinda-sorta tropeish, but "the ported version is basically the same but for a different system" is People Sit On Chairs.

No, because making a game that's on one system to another is a clear and conscious choice by a developer. Saying that's just something without purpose is wrong.

Adding or removing things to a port affects how people experience the game. Having a page on porting has just as much merit as having a page on, say, Executive Meddling.

edited 20th Nov '10 8:12:01 PM by SpaceWolves

I just think this page just needs a clean-up from nitpicks to truly disastrous ports.

Indeed, that's the problem. We can claim it only applies when the final product is nearly unplayable, but I've seen people justify only the slightest changes as making the port Ruined FOREVER. After all, in their eyes, it's unplayable.

Sure needs a cleanup, but can it be maintained?

I don't know, any port that actually loses features or takes a major preformance hit should be this trope IMO (Not so much on the GFX in most cases its the system itself that's the limitation). In most cases its a Year or more for it to come out.

Now what about multiplatform games (all came out at the same time) where one version is busted does that still count?

edited 21st Nov '10 1:22:39 AM by Raso

I think a multi-platform release where one platform's version is broken probably would count, considering that platform is probably the most different to the one which was the primary development focus of the game. These days you can probably expect the Windows and Xbox 360 versions of a game to be virtually identical, but the Playstation 3 one will have suffered due to the system's weird architecture confusing the developers.

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

What's that we're always saying, about how if examples are bad we should clean them up instead of changing the trope to fit the bad examples?

Let's start by compiling a list of criteria for a Porting Disaster. Not all of these need to be present to qualify the program as a Porting Disaster.

• Game Breaking Bugs
• Missing content which is present in other ports
• Poor quality visuals which can't be excused by the host system's technical limitations.

Anyone go anything else for the list?

^ I can't think of anything objective that isn't already covered by those three, so that should probably be sufficient.

Very good criteria.

Maybe add manability troubles. If the port is worse in terms of controls, it kills a lot of fun playing it.

Now the trap to avoid on this one, is if the controls are worse because of an inherent controller problem (some controllers are worse on some consoles than others), which can't arguably be blamed on the port itself, or if the controls weren't correctly programmed in the port, which then falls square in the port's blame.

Two more additions for the list:

• Sub-standard audio compared to other games on the host system.
• Poor performance compared to games of similar or greater complexity on the host platform.

Okay, so far we have:

• Game Breaking Bugs
• Missing content which is present in other ports
• Poor quality visuals, audio or controls which can't be excused by the host system's technical limitations.
• Poor performance compared to games of similar or greater complexity on the host platform.

I think that's everything covered, no?

edited 22nd Nov '10 5:12:33 AM by RocketScience

i'm not a gamer, but i just wanted to comment that i'd be wary of that "missing content" criterion. missing content, if it was left out for a good or at least understandable reason, does not necessarily make the game unplayable.

one has to be really careful with the wording of these kinds of tropes— take the adaptation tropes, for example: Adaptation Distillation and Adaptation Decay were not meant to be about the adaptation being good/bad at all. but you try telling people that.

Yeah, okay. That should probably be "Substantial amounts of missing content" such as whole levels, playable characters/vehicles, weapons, and the like.

Yea. Particularly with ports to Nintendo systems, certain things might get changed around with no overall impact on quality (such as removing crosses or direct mentions of God and Death), but when the change is notable to the casual observer ("wait, wasn't there that cool hovercraft minigame between these two areas?"), then it becomes significant.

Looking though the examples... it will need some major cleanup.

The PS 2 port (of the X Box version) of Rainbow Six 3 took a major hit, given the hardware limitations. The levels were, according to IGN, "cropped like a butch haircut, stripped like a captive terrorist, and given a facelift like Michael Jackson".

The entire Gamecube version of the Mega Man Anniversary Collection takes some getting used to, since the "attack" and "fire" buttons were switched from the NES originals.

Not an example

The PSP remake of Final Fantasy Tactics suffers from slowdown of something like 50% (that's half-speed animation) whenever a three-dimensional effect is processed. This renders almost anything except basic attacks twice as slow as the PSX version. While the heavy script rewrite from the original (and from the Japanese version) is a debatable aesthetic issue, the slowdown makes long missions nearly unplayable.

• The slowdown is especially infuriating because it's a PS 1 game ported to a hardware as powerful as the PS 2!
• You can now download the original PS 1 game from the PSN store and play it on your PSP, at full speed. They Just Didnt Care. The only reason to play War Of The Lions now is the somewhat-improved translation, if you can wait around for it.

edited 22nd Nov '10 5:24:46 PM by Raso

# Poor quality visuals, audio or controls which can't be excused by the host system's technical limitations.

1. Poor performance compared to games of similar or greater complexity on the host platform.

Those seem related to me, for some reason. But framerates and loading times should at least get a mention among performance benchmarks....

We could always add sub-bullets to expand on our criteria if you think the way they're currently written is lacking in detail.