Dude, first off how is it WORSE? How is a better framerate and added content not BETTER?

Secondly, the mod exists. Why pretend it doesn't?

Also, even if it is worse how are a few games disproving of the entire point?

First off, you cannot mod the framerate, as it will fuck up the game.

And you are talking about the port. Which means the boxed product. We got lucky that DS was easy to fix. But that was not thanks to the port, but a dedicated private person. There are still countless games with unsolved problems do to shitty porting (recent example Far Cry 3. Utterly brilliant game, but if I would own a console, I would buy it there).

And the only thing the mod does better than the console version is a higher resolution. That is the only thing. Which is nothing really important. The fucked up gameplay element of the broken netcode isn't fixed by it. Which is much more important than some higher resolution.

I don't mind, as it was pretty much advertised as a shitty port. And a shitty port is better than no port. But it still is inferior, even after the mod, than the console version.

Dude, even console focused sites like Giantbomb are holding up Far Cry 3 as being terrible on consoles and ten times better on PC.

I meant the framerate plummets in the console versions in big towns and areas, reportedly as low as 15 or less, while the PC does not have this issue. I couldn't care less about the netcode and the resolution mod does exist.

Anyway, even if DS is worse on PC based on your priorities it's still one game among thousands. I said most "bad ports" are still better on PC by a good margin. A few that are not, like the two I listed myself, do not change that.

Even if the netcode was perfect I would shut the multiplayer portion off.

Assuming this is sarcasm, whatever.

"Bad ports" are called that because they do not enhance the game for PC in some meaningful way. They are not, typically, called that for being actually worse than the console version. With most console games running below 720p with little to no AA or AF and a fluctuating framerate it is pretty hard to make PC versions worse.

Does it happen? Yes. Is it typical? No.

I'm sorry you find it elitist to enjoy our platform. What a horrible person I am.

You are missing out. A lot. Still a brilliant game without it. Like Doom without the shotgun.
That is just BS. Bad Ports are games that run notoriously buggy and laggy on the PC because they didn't bother optimizing it for the countless hardware possibilities. Those are also bad in transferring the console controls to the PC (not an issue if you use a gamepad, but there are console ports that drop gamepad support. Which makes the game inherently worse.). There are dozens of bad ports. They aren't as frequent anymore, but from the PSX era on, when the developers started making game primarily for the console and then porting them to the PC there were countless games which had much more problems on the PC.

A game that doesn't add anything to the PC is just a port. Not a bad port.
You are saying that a shitty, unstable botch job on the PC is better than the console version. Which is elitist crap.

The multiplayer aspect is pretty integral to the experience. You have no direct contact with the other players, but you are supposed to see ECHOES of their actions and learn from them. That aspect is not present without the multiplayer component at all.

A bad port is not a port that does not enhance things, that is a bare bones port. A bad port is a port that SOMEHOW degrades or diminishes the game, or is just plain broken. Dark Souls is not a bad port, just not enhanced. It is only a bad port if your benchmark for ports is Alan Wake.
Dark Souls is not only not a bad port, it is the best and most stable version of the title, while it is not particularly WELL optimized (on any of the platforms), it runs better than the console versions. Consistent framerate in Blighttown? Yes please.

No, I am saying the vast majority of PC ports are not that. I have no idea with Dark Souls, I don't own it and haven't played it. I assumed the resolution thing was the reason it was bad, if it netcode then okay fine but I haven't read about any issues with that.

In either case the point is 90% of PC ports are better than their console versions. Even if it is a basic port it runs better, looks a little better and has mouse aim if desired.

You keep throwing Dark Souls at me as some kind of proof of something. It has literally nothing to do with my statement.

You said the Dark Souls port is better than the console version. Which is BS.

You said bad ports are better than the console versions. Which is BS.

I got the feeling you need to talk PC gaming better than it is.

Holy shit guys this has been like, the last page and a half. Does it really matter that much?

YES! Dammit!

Yes. Yes it does.

I would think after years of seeing my posts on here you would know better than to call me a PC elitist, but I guess not.

In any case I already explained it. I assumed he was complaining about the resolution issues because even though I read PC gaming news sites on a daily basis I have never heard any other complaints about Dark Souls on PC. If it has netcode issues then fine, whatever, and I immediately pivoted to keep the point on track as "the vast majority of ports are better than the console versions."

Which is true.

That is why I'm so adamant.
Which is debatable.

I own like 1,000 games and know of three which are arguably better on console: Double Agent, Resident Evil 4 and Saint's Row 2. And even two of those have mods and fan patches that arguably make them the better versions.

Now admittedly I don't play online and that could have an impact for those who do. Still, the number of games that play better on consoles is extremely limited as far as the actual games are concerned.

If you want to bring convenience, price and other such things into it then that's a whole other ball of wax and not at all what I am talking about.