Originally posted by BackFire
Ouch. If it's under warranty you can send it in for a fix/new one for free. If not, you gotta pay $150 to send it in for a fix/new one
buy a new one.
i purposely have no warranty so i dont have to go trough refurb hell.
id rather pay the money, get the system, and keep on playing
Originally posted by dirkdirden
So your saying that resident evil for Gamecube is just a port for the PS1, and final fantasy 3 for the DS is just a port from the NES if so then we have completely different definitions of what a port is.
No, those aren't ports, those are remakes because there were significant changes, enough so that they are very different from the original in several aspects.
But something like updating a lighting algorithm to allow better anti-aliasing on a system that is graphically more powerful, or reworking parts of the programming to fit a different control system does not make it a remake.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Err, no, that's not true... you don't need to change a darn thing. Anti-aliasing of 3d models can be done entirely by hardware regardless of whether software was written to do it at all. Easy way to tell- emulators anti-alias Playstation stuff that was never designed with such stuff in mind. In fact, you can anti-alias 3d models created before anti-aliasing existed, without altering the original code at all.For someone who cries a lot about the ignorance of others, you are rather short on facts yourself.
But if you do anti-aliasing from on the fly and not internally in the code it is going to bog down the system especially if you were to try and do it with a game like Resistance fall of man or Gears of war. Gears of war runs with at least 4x on the 360 so if you moved it over to the PS3 it would have to run 4x just to match the 360 version and if you moved it to 8x it will slow down the game. It’s not as easy as turning on anti-aliasing on your emulators.
Originally posted by Lana
No, those aren't ports, those are remakes because there were significant changes, enough so that they are very different from the original in several aspects.But something like updating a lighting algorithm to allow better anti-aliasing on a system that is graphically more powerful, or reworking parts of the programming to fit a different control
system does not make it a remake.
Well what about adding addition features and content like they did with RE4, would that make it a port or a remake?
Originally posted by Ushgarak
You can port something and improve it. You can never make the code better simply because you are not improving the code, but what you port to might make better use of what is there.
Having a PS3 take Xbox code and do more with it than the xbox did is so unlikely that I'd say it’s damn near imposable.
Originally posted by dirkdirden
Well what about adding addition features and content like they did with RE4, would that make it a port or a remake?
They added in a couple things to make up for what it was lacking. It wasn't enough to make the game completely different. If you've ever seen/played the original version of FFIII, it's pretty obvious that the DS version is completely different from it.
Originally posted by dirkdirden
But if you do anti-aliasing from on the fly and not internally in the code it is going to bog down the system especially if you were to try and do it with a game like Resistance fall of man or Gears of war. Gears of war runs with at least 4x on the 360 so if you moved it over to the PS3 it would have to run 4x just to match the 360 version and if you moved it to 8x it will slow down the game. It’s not as easy as turning on anti-aliasing on your emulators.
Of course it might bog down the system. It takes processing power, just like any function.
But you're changing the argument now. Your point was that porting always makes stuff look woirse by definition, an inevitable consequence. Well, that's absolutely not true. Porting might not improve quality of code but that doesn't mean it might not come out as a better product. it depends on circumstance, and the graphical and audio capabilities of the product being ported to.
Originally posted by dirkdirden
Well what about adding addition features and content like they did with RE4, would that make it a port or a remake?Having a PS3 take Xbox code and do more with it than the xbox did is so unlikely that I'd say it’s damn near imposable.
At the very most, impractical. Very different from your claim of impossible.
You could port something from, say, gamecube to 360 and it might look a whole lot better.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
Of course it might bog down the system. It takes processing power, just like any function.But you're changing the argument now. Your point was that porting always makes stuff look woirse by definition, an inevitable consequence. Well, that's absolutely not true. Porting might not improve quality of code but that doesn't mean it might not come out as a better product. it depends on circumstance, and the graphical and audio capabilities of the product being ported to.
yeah that is true. But they rarely have the ability and take the time to do so because they are just after money and don't care if the product is worse. So my point that ports are worse than the original still holds true....for the most part.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
At the very most, impractical. Very different from your claim of impossible.You could port something from, say, gamecube to 360 and it might look a whole lot better.
Yes in that circumstance it could enhance it but that circumstance rarely arises, but I have not seen such a circumstance. But it could happen so I can’t say all ports are worse than the original just all the ports that I know of.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
But now you are saying it is because of the way people do it rather than the physical capabilities of the platforms? That really is a completely different point to the one originally made.
Between the Xbox360 and PS3 it is a due to the physical capabilities. But if they port older games they could enhance them. But they wouldn't becuase they'd just want to sell.
Just so that everyone here is playing with a full deck of cards...
Resident Evil from PS to Gamecube: Remake
Resident Evil from PS to DS: Remake
Resident Evil 2 from PS to Gamecube: Port
Resident Evil 4 from Gamecube to PS2: Port with add-ons.
FFIII from NES to DS: Remake
A port is a game transferred from one system to another, with no significant changes other than to make the game playable on another system. A remake is a game transferred from one system to another, with significant changes in one or more areas, such as graphics or control.
Now that that's out of the way... good job changing your argument into something entirely different. So now it's the developers fault that a port NEVER looks good? Because they're apparently lazy and just out to make a buck?
Nevermind that crappy ports would tend to, oh, I dunno... not sell well? Huh.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Now that that's out of the way... good job changing your argument into something entirely different. So now it's the developers fault that a port NEVER looks good? Because they're apparently lazy and just out to make a buck?
Argument still holds true that ports suck, and that a port from a ps3 wouldn't look as good on the Xbox360, and every port know is worse than the original, if they can make it better they sure as hell don’t. Thanks for the report on what’s a port captain obvious.
Well seeing as you asked whether Resident Evil on the Gamecube was a port, I assumed you didn't exactly know, Mr. Manners. But you're welcome anyway.
And no, it doesn't hold true. Not all ports have to suck. It is NOT some unspoken rule that all ports must be worse than the original. There's no magical Graphics-Killing Port Fairy (which you seem to believe in) and you have managed to prove only that you don't know how the porting process works.
Originally posted by General Kaliero
Well seeing as you asked whether Resident Evil on the Gamecube was a port, I assumed you didn't exactly know, Mr. Manners. But you're welcome anyway.And no, it doesn't hold true. Not all ports have to suck. It is NOT some unspoken rule that all ports must be worse than the original. There's no magical Graphics-Killing Port Fairy (which you seem to believe in) and you have managed to prove only that you don't know how the porting process works.
Not all ports "have" to suck but they all do. And so far yes it is an unspoken rule that all ports must be worse than the original just like its an unspoken law that video game movies must suck because they all do. It will remain an unspoken law until someone spends the time and effort needed to make a good port. But until then ports suck.
As for porting I have never ported from video game dev kits. But I spent the last year porting code from one platform to another and every time I ported the code it decreases in performance due to the differences in compilers except when I ported from Boarld C++ to MS Visual C++ because they are both C++. But Xbox and PS3 don’t use the same code so therefore they will run a crossed many problems thus making the port worse than the original. I would imagine that porting code from Xbox to PS3 would be like porting code from Unix to Windows……not fun and never gain better results. But then again you are the resident porting expert so I shouldn’t argue.