View Full Version : Is anyone going to argue that IW is not a direct port?

23rd Nov 2003, 01:42
Look in the options menu and you find the option to turn vibration off! LOL, where is the quality testing ISA?

Personally, I think the demo will prove to be a fair representation of the final game. It still has, IMO, the great DX atmosphere (the convos seem nicely done, music is excellent etc.) but how ISA could release this piece of ported crap in its current state is unfathomable. Why not spend 24 hours tidying the .ini file up to at least make it playable? Bizarre.

I was all set to import this game from the US so that I could play it before it comes out in Europe, but now I think I'll wait for the reviews. February doesn't seem nearly as far away as it once did.

I also hate some of the design choices that made DX so great. I'll not rehash the same old arguments, but I don't think that it's possible to argue that this game was not dumbed down for the evil green Box.

Please ISA, get your act together. :rolleyes:

23rd Nov 2003, 01:50
As someone has pointed out, there are, in fact, vibrating PC peripherals.

I would define "port" as a game that is developed specifically for one console and then later moved over to another. I don't know if this is stricly true for DXIW, since both versions were developed simultaneously for a shared codebase.

23rd Nov 2003, 01:51
Even if your comment about "vibration" is true, you have to admit that the demo smacks of consoleness. Why the AWFUL default performance and movement issues if it is not a port?

Edit: Your definition of a port is technically correct I suppose, but I don't think it is not the working definition that I would apply in this situation. I tend to think of a port as a game that has been designed for one platform (technical and gameplay issues) and transplanted to another. A bad port is one that has not received sufficient polishing.