Dark Souls - the laziest console-to-PC port? (Update: Resolution Rendering Update)

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
1) Dark Souls PC uses the very same 1024x720 internal framebuffer as the console versions, regardless of which resolution has been set in the menus. The option provided is for output resolution only; a simple courtesy to allow the game to play on most monitors, but the image quality will always remain the same. In short, PC gamers will very much be getting the genuine console experience here, right down to the pixel. :thumbsdown:

2) You're still going to be playing at 30FPS out of the box, as widely rumoured. A graphics menu has been added in, but there are no obvious ways to raise the bar to the preferable 60FPS mark.

3) Meagre graphical options
Screenshot_3.bmp.jpg


Source - Eurogamer

I am sure it'll still be a fun game but seriously that's looking like the worst attempt at a console port ever!

==========================

Update: For those who want to render the game at a much higher resolution, a fix has been released:

Dark Souls internal rendering resolution fix (DSfix). Current Version is 0.5
Version 0.5 updates include:

- Mouse cursor toggling with F9 should now be less finicky
- You can toggle whether the mouse is allowed to leave the window with F10
(this is useful in windowed mode or in fullscreen with multiple monitors)
- Both of these settings can also be set in the .ini
- The fix introduced in version 0.2 for cut-off text/buttons has been reworked to be much less invasive — if you have seen any degradation in performance or functionality from 0.1 to 0.2 this should fix it
http://blog.metaclassofnil.com/?p=127

Unmodded
data2012-08-2401-28-0xepj9.png


Modded
data2012-08-2401-24-0c4qnh.png
 
Last edited:

Drako

Lifer
Jun 9, 2007
10,706
161
106
Well, it can't be nearly as laggy on the PC as it is on the PS3, so it's got that going for it :)
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
I agree with your technical criticisms, but we really should wait to see how it actually plays. There is more to graphics than the few settings you described. Just being able to add AA/AF driver side might make a huge difference.
 

Grooveriding

Diamond Member
Dec 25, 2008
9,107
1,260
126
Looks like another Darksiders 2 (game only has options for resolution and vsync, and vsync doesn't work) :D
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Damn, my guess was within 24 hours of release on this post:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=32837712&postcount=21

Didn't guess it would happen before release though.

Still a chance to nail it.

I am not saying the game will be bad. As I said earlier I look forward to the gameplay. However, from a technical side, 30 fps lock, 1024x720 resolution and not even a high resolution texture pack? I mean we did petition for this game to come to the PC and you'd think they'd put a little bit of effort. I am sure the game will still sell but they really had a chance here to improve upon the console version (Crysis 2 even did). 1024x720 resolution? o_O
 

Dumac

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,391
1
0
I am not saying the game will be bad. As I said earlier I look forward to the gameplay. However, from a technical side, 30 fps lock, 1024x720 resolution and not even a high resolution texture pack? I mean we did petition for this game to come to the PC and you'd think they'd put a little bit of effort. I am sure the game will still sell but they really had a chance here to improve upon the console version (Crysis 2 even did). 1024x720 resolution? o_O

The market for the PC version is so tiny, more effort on a port probably wouldn't be worth it.

Plus, they may not even have the know-how. Jap devs don't develop on PCs; they develop on consoles. PC gaming is about non-existant in Japan. This is probably their first time even touching a PC.
 

Maleficus

Diamond Member
May 2, 2001
7,685
0
0
They admitted they have no experience how to port the game, it's unfortunate, this + GFWL = no buy.

The game is amazing though.
 

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,266
169
106
Well darn. I didn't join the petition to get Dark Souls on PC, but I might have picked it up if it turned out decently. But after hearing this, no way. If the developer can't be bothered to make the internal framebuffer adjustable like every goddamn Direct3D game, ever, then I can't be bothered to play it.
 

smackababy

Lifer
Oct 30, 2008
27,024
79
86
I love how the "gameplay > graphics" arguments quickly turn once a developer cares more about the gameplay than graphics.

If the ported specs are not "good" enough, go fap over Crysis. >_>
 

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,266
169
106
It's not a matter of graphics, it's a matter of basic PC compatibility. Do you realize how bad 1024x720 looks on a 20 inch or larger monitor when you're sitting right in front of it? And it also points to bigger underlying PC port problems. If they can't be bothered to properly port over the frame buffer, I doubt controls have been ported over well at all.
 

Anteaus

Platinum Member
Oct 28, 2010
2,448
4
81
I think they are using this as a test case. PC used to be the bane of developers but it is slowly becoming the prefered platform due to lack of license fees and established distribution centers that can minimize piracy (Steam, etc) and maximize profits. If Dark Souls does well I'm sure they will dedicate future development for PC, but I'm all but certain they are using this as profitability test.

People may not recognize the significance, but it is a big deal that up until now this developer, which has been almost completely dedicated to console gaming, has crossed the line over to PC. Dark Souls aside, this entire situation has implications. In addition, Square suddenly rereleases FF7 for PC? It might be nothing, but I think there is some sort of paradigm shift in gaming on the horizon.
 

MustangSVT

Lifer
Oct 7, 2000
11,554
12
81
I love how the "gameplay > graphics" arguments quickly turn once a developer cares more about the gameplay than graphics.

If the ported specs are not "good" enough, go fap over Crysis. >_>

heh, good point.

I realized its by FROM.

is ARMORED CORE COMING TO PC?!?!?!!?!!??!?!?! I am alll over that if it does!
 

Dumac

Diamond Member
Dec 31, 2005
9,391
1
0
It's not a matter of graphics, it's a matter of basic PC compatibility. Do you realize how bad 1024x720 looks on a 20 inch or larger monitor when you're sitting right in front of it? And it also points to bigger underlying PC port problems. If they can't be bothered to properly port over the frame buffer, I doubt controls have been ported over well at all.

Yet it looks fine on an HDTV?
 

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,266
169
106
Yet it looks fine on an HDTV?

Keyword: When you're sitting right in front of it. Generally when you play console games you're sitting on a couch and won't notice the low resolution. Also, a good amount of people still use 720p televisions. But when you're accustomed to gaming on a 1080p monitor only sitting a coulple feet away from you? 1024x720 is insulting.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
I love how the "gameplay > graphics" arguments quickly turn once a developer cares more about the gameplay than graphics.

If the ported specs are not "good" enough, go fap over Crysis. >_>

The game is selling for $40, not $10. Ever heard of Alan Wake? It was $30 and had massively upgraded graphics, a ton of graphical options. I am pretty sure the developer funded porting of Alan Wake on their own.

- Includes Alan Wake Special Episodes “The Signal” and “The Writer” for FREE
- Experience Alan Wake’s Pacific Northwest in higher resolutions and higher fidelity than the Xbox360 version.
- Fully configurable mouse and keyboard support, or if you prefer to play with the Microsoft gamepad connected to your PC, you can do that too!
- Lots of customizable graphics settings and support for 4:3, 16:9 and 16:10 aspect ratios!
- Multithreaded engine that takes advantage of quad core CPUs.
- Additional features our fans have sought after such as field of view adjustment as well as “hide HUD”.
- Works with AMD Eyefinity 3D 3-screen mode.

$29.99 vs. $40 for a 1024x768 game.....
 

Red Hawk

Diamond Member
Jan 1, 2011
3,266
169
106
To be fair, Alan Wake was originally developed as both a PC and 360 game, until Microsoft hijacked the development and forced it to be a 360 exclusive (really supporting PC gaming there, Microsoft. :colbert:) Eventually the developers got permission to finish the PC version like they had originally intended to.

While I like PC ports to have high standards, I can actually tolerate a lot. Low resolution textures, no fancy DX11 effects, no field of view adjustment, etc; I can tolerate all of that. (I would have left the Mass Effect series long ago if I couldn't...) But not making the framebuffer resolution adjustable is just too damn lazy. And it's sad, because Dark Souls does seem like a good game.
 

Zenoth

Diamond Member
Jan 29, 2005
5,189
184
106
Can't be worse than the port of Star Wars: The Force Unleashed (which unfortunately I have to say I bought). So even if it's a "bad port" then I'm sure I'll still be able to sustain it, after all I bought Darksiders 1 (have yet to complete it but I do like what I played so far) and even though I saw immediately that there's barely any options to temper with at least the game-play is good enough (and Darksiders 2 is supposedly at least just as good if not better than the first).

So, keeping TFU and Darksiders in mind I think that whatever happens with Dark Souls' options (or lack thereof) I might still consider it.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
I am still buying the game but it's disappointing that they put no effort into the port. Maybe they'll release a patch later with upgraded resolution/textures. Who knows. It did take them 1 year to port this game.