I started doing PC gaming a couple of years ago and my steam collection is well over 100 games now so I like to think I'm familiar with PC gaming now. There is one thing that always bugs me though.
I frequently hear people say that a port of a game from console to PC is very bad and having played a few of those games myself (a newer one being Dark Souls) I don't really understand where the complaint is from.
Graphics: Sometimes I see people say that the PC port is bad because you can run it on the highest settings and it won't make your computer explode. I say is that such a big deal? Graphics aren't everything and I enjoy games just fine that don't push my (admittedly crappy) laptop to its limits. I run Skyrim on medium graphics, although I can run on ultra I just get a crapload of slowdown but its actually still reasonably playable. A game doesn't need amazing graphics to be good.
Controls: I see people say that if keyboard/mouse controls aren't perfect the port is bad, or if a controller is better suited to the game the port is bad. I don't see how. If a controller would work better, just use it. I've beaten Super Meat Boy and used a controller to do that, though when playing through XCOM: Enemy Unknown I haven't even ever thought of using my controller. In some games, like Borderlands, I've used both. I say, is the game still playable? If yes, move on.
I ask you, what do you say makes a PC port bad? Feel free to tell me I'm wrong as long as you tell me why and have a good reason. (I love a good debate)
Oh also I'm planning to start my 4th playthrough of XCOM: Enemy Unknown (I really love that game). I have finished it on normal twice (I'm not happy to admit I used a lot of save scumming for that, feel free to hate me.:P ) Though I just did a runthrough on classic without save scumming and finished while only losing a total of 8 soldiers. Think I could run a successful ironman impossible?