How was the game ported?

[Blitz4]

Was it ported to PC or ported to console?

[Playzr 🐵]

I think it was made for PC and ported elsewhere. The mouse and keyboard controls don't have that made for console feel to them.

[ULTRA]

The game is somewhat buggy in general but not in a way that smacks of "low-effort console port"

For all intents and purposes it plays like a hardcore PC game that has game design concessions for consoles like big fat buttons, rolodex-style and radial menus, and tooltips all over the screen

[Blitz4]

Originally posted by Рlαγζr 🐵:

I think it was made for PC and ported elsewhere. The mouse and keyboard controls don't have that made for console feel to them.

Originally posted by ULTRA Outdoorsman:

The game is somewhat buggy in general but not in a way that smacks of "low-effort console port"

For all intents and purposes it plays like a hardcore PC game that has game design concessions for consoles like big fat buttons, rolodex-style and radial menus, and tooltips all over the screen

thanks.

i tried with the controller and it didn't feel right. i was looking to play the game as it was originally developed and I also believe it was made for PC first

[Amble]

The game was pretty infamous for performing terribly on consoles at launch. It's been improved somewhat, but there's still issues like absurdly long loading times.

On top of that the general feel of the game and speed at which the enemies can move makes me think this was almost certainly a PC game first.

[GamingWithSilvertail]

Originally posted by Amble:

The game was pretty infamous for performing terribly on consoles at launch. It's been improved somewhat, but there's still issues like absurdly long loading times.

On top of that the general feel of the game and speed at which the enemies can move makes me think this was almost certainly a PC game first.

idk what console you played but the main issue was deadzones on controllers, not perfformance. It actually ran fine on ps4.

[Amble]

Originally posted by GamingWithSilvertail:

Originally posted by Amble:

The game was pretty infamous for performing terribly on consoles at launch. It's been improved somewhat, but there's still issues like absurdly long loading times.

On top of that the general feel of the game and speed at which the enemies can move makes me think this was almost certainly a PC game first.

idk what console you played but the main issue was deadzones on controllers, not perfformance. It actually ran fine on ps4.

Fine is very debatable. 30 FPS is poor for a first person shooter, especially when Doom 2016 that came out at a similar time managed to target 60 FPS. Relatively average computers at the time could reach 60 or even 100+ FPS in Prey easily, leading me to believe the console versions were just poorly optimized.

That's without mentioning the absurdly long loading times, which were so bad I consider it a pretty major detriment to the playability of the game.

Digital Foundry's video on this game from 2017 highlights it all pretty well.

[GamingWithSilvertail]

Originally posted by Amble:

Originally posted by GamingWithSilvertail:

idk what console you played but the main issue was deadzones on controllers, not perfformance. It actually ran fine on ps4.

Fine is very debatable. 30 FPS is poor for a first person shooter, especially when Doom 2016 that came out at a similar time managed to target 60 FPS. Relatively average computers at the time could reach 60 or even 100+ FPS in Prey easily, leading me to believe the console versions were just poorly optimized.

That's without mentioning the absurdly long loading times, which were so bad I consider it a pretty major detriment to the playability of the game.

Digital Foundry's video on this game from 2017 highlights it all pretty well.

Fine is not debatible when it comes to consoles. 30 FPS was always standard there. One game doesnt make 60 FPS standard.

Most games require a 'pro' to run 60 FPS IF thats even an option to begin with.

[Jake]

The game runs very well for me, 4K ultra with no issues here. None at all infact, its refreshing to have a game that doesn't require hours of fiddling to get it going.

[Jeffery2048]

The menus and hacking definitely seem designed with controller in mind. They've also talked about how they had to limit the capabilities of the gloo gun because consoles couldn't handle too many objects interacting with each other. So even though it is designed with old pc design mentalities it was definitely aimed primarily at consoles.

With that said this game generally looks and runs very well on PC and doesn't suffer from the typical console port problems and lack of optimization. The exception is Moon crash which I had to give up on because of bugs and crashes, though I suspect that that DLC might be just as bad on console.

[ULTRA]

Originally posted by GamingWithSilvertail:

Originally posted by Amble:

Fine is very debatable. 30 FPS is poor for a first person shooter, especially when Doom 2016 that came out at a similar time managed to target 60 FPS. Relatively average computers at the time could reach 60 or even 100+ FPS in Prey easily, leading me to believe the console versions were just poorly optimized.

That's without mentioning the absurdly long loading times, which were so bad I consider it a pretty major detriment to the playability of the game.

Digital Foundry's video on this game from 2017 highlights it all pretty well.

Fine is not debatible when it comes to consoles. 30 FPS was always standard there. One game doesnt make 60 FPS standard.

Most games require a 'pro' to run 60 FPS IF thats even an option to begin with.

Not that I have any skin in this game since I basically refuse to play console unless someone literally gifts it to me for free, but it's been 2 decades and 3 console generations since Metal Gear Solid 2. 30 FPS is 1990s territory. "One game" is kinda disingenuous. Cryengine is infamously poorly optimized.

[Jeffery2048]

Originally posted by GamingWithSilvertail:

Originally posted by Amble:

Fine is very debatable. 30 FPS is poor for a first person shooter, especially when Doom 2016 that came out at a similar time managed to target 60 FPS. Relatively average computers at the time could reach 60 or even 100+ FPS in Prey easily, leading me to believe the console versions were just poorly optimized.

That's without mentioning the absurdly long loading times, which were so bad I consider it a pretty major detriment to the playability of the game.

Digital Foundry's video on this game from 2017 highlights it all pretty well.

Fine is not debatible when it comes to consoles. 30 FPS was always standard there. One game doesnt make 60 FPS standard.

Most games require a 'pro' to run 60 FPS IF thats even an option to begin with.

"30 FPS was always standard there"? What are you talking about? Most SNES games ran at 60 FPS. Frame rate took a dive when 3D started being explored but recently 60 has become the enforced standard again. And throughout all generations there have been many games which met that target on console.

[Playzr 🐵]

the 320x240 resolution of standard definition televisions never had the frame rate of 60fps. They only needed like 20 something.

[Blitz4]

Originally posted by GamingWithSilvertail:

Originally posted by Amble:

Fine is very debatable. 30 FPS is poor for a first person shooter, especially when Doom 2016 that came out at a similar time managed to target 60 FPS. Relatively average computers at the time could reach 60 or even 100+ FPS in Prey easily, leading me to believe the console versions were just poorly optimized.

That's without mentioning the absurdly long loading times, which were so bad I consider it a pretty major detriment to the playability of the game.

Digital Foundry's video on this game from 2017 highlights it all pretty well.

Fine is not debatible when it comes to consoles. 30 FPS was always standard there. One game doesnt make 60 FPS standard.

Most games require a 'pro' to run 60 FPS IF thats even an option to begin with.

Giving them the benefit of the doubt, It could be that they wanted to add atmosphere by using a lower frame rate. It's a game that relies on jump scares, so maybe. For example watch gemini man @120fps vs 24fps and you can tell it doesn't belong in cinema.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaZnxAfcvY4

But in gaming, things are a bit different. The issues I had with controller was aiming and moving my head fast enough to see the threat. sure I'm really good at having a high sensitivity and fine aiming on a controller. but at no point will I ever be good as using a mouse. a mouse, like a vr headset, puts you closer the scene.

In a movie you're watching the action and want to imagine that you're there with them, but don't want to be reminded they're "acting". In a game you are in the action and need to have the ability to react quickly.

digital foundry videos I trust. they are extremely thorough and sometimes inform devs of issues they weren't aware of. however they have spoilers so I can't watch them yet.
https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=digital+foundry+prey

[GamingWithSilvertail]

While you like digital foundry, I seen numerous other games 'tested' by them and some of them where very excaggerated.

And this other person seems to think decades of 30 fps console doesnt make it standard...

Prey wasnt released during snes, or ps5/xbox series.

[Jeffery2048]

Originally posted by GamingWithSilvertail:

While you like digital foundry, I seen numerous other games 'tested' by them and some of them where very excaggerated.

And this other person seems to think decades of 30 fps console doesnt make it standard...

Prey wasnt released during snes, or ps5/xbox series.

Yes 30fps became unfortunately common for a while, as I said in my original post. But there were always games which achieved 60fps even on consoles where many games were only hitting 30. Either way responsiveness in games should always be a top priority so simply accepting 30fps is quite defeatest. Luckily 30 is most certainly becoming the standard on console nowadays, and even higher frame rates are being pushed on pc.