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

[Raduque]

Spend an hour slowly working your way through an area and take a corner just a second too quick? Whack, you are dead. Back to the beginning. That is the essence of this game.

D:

How is that considered "fun" or "good gameplay"?

 

[Red Hawk]

Same reasoning behind liking S&M, I would guess.

 

[KaOTiK]

Dark Souls gameplay is excellent. It rewards you for playing cautious and smart. If you go and do stupid stuff or without thinking you WILL be punished in the game.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I forgot Console Gamers are

I'm a gamer, I probably game ten times more on my PC then on the consoles. What I am not is ignorant on that which I comment.

How is that considered "fun" or "good gameplay"?

If you are a "PC Gamer"- a graphics whore that hates gameplay, stay far away from this game.

PC games need Adjustable graphics options, rebindable controls, proper mouse support

If you play this game with a mouse and keyboard you will hate it. Mouse may be great for aiming, but the keyboard is utterly atrocious for moving around. You need dual analog inputs. This isn't a faceroll FPS, nothing at all like it.

 

[Bryf50]

I'm a gamer, I probably game ten times more on my PC then on the consoles. What I am not is ignorant on that which I comment.

Exactly why making this distinction between console gamers and pc gamers is retarded. Mostly the same games and same people(I have an Xbox and Ps3. Am I a "console gamer" or "pc gamer"?) are on both platforms. If a game is successful on the consoles there's no reason why it can't be on the PC.

If you are a "PC Gamer"- a graphics whore that hates gameplay, stay far away from this game.

Can there be no middle ground. Does it have to be graphics or gameplay. Hell, no one here is asking for much more then the ability to change the rendered resolution. Something that has been a standard since the dawn of 3d gaming.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Exactly why making this distinction between console gamers and pc gamers is retarded.

Except, there are *very* clear distinctions between them. Then there are gamers, which are different then either faction. It isn't retarded to distinguish between them, PC gamers want everything as easy as possible, and will whine to no end if they aren't given what they want. Console gamers tend to accept massive issues with games without tolerating criticism. PC gamers are graphics whores, console gamers tend to not understand graphis tech at all.

If a game is successful on the consoles there's no reason why it can't be on the PC.

Except that reality says the exact opposite. PC gamers don't spend much money on games outside of MMOs. Games that generate hundreds of millions on the consoles fail to hit 1/5th of that on the PC on a frequent basis.

Hell, no one here is asking for much more then the ability to change the rendered resolution.

Then it would be the texture quality, then it would be the post processing, then the shader routines etc. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy having more graphics rendering options, but would I rather play a fantastic game with crap rendering options or another mediocre at best game with fantastic rendering options? Dark Souls is the best hack and slash to come out for any system in years(if we ignore Demons Souls ). People are going to skip it because of their lust for graphics, that is a damn shame.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

D:

How is that considered "fun" or "good gameplay"?

It's not - but it's also not an accurate description of how the Souls series actually works. It may be an accurate description of what typically happens, at least at first - but that's because players play it like a typical game.

In pretty much every case, lethal threats are pretty well signposted. Dangerous threats have signposts - you'll see blood and body parts, on scorched bodies over a bridge. You can die from falls which you might not know will kill you - but you can buy stones to check lethal vs non-lethal falls. You add in that other players can leave you messages, and that you can see replays of how other people died near you - well, the game gives you plenty of information about threats.

Thing is, players tend to ignore it. The game expects you to think as if your character was a person, not a game superhero. Play like "Oh, that's a big dragon, time for a boss battle" and not "Oh, well, that's a big dragon - maybe I'll stay over here." and you die a lot.

 

[smackababy]

It's not - but it's also not an accurate description of how the Souls series actually works. It may be an accurate description of what typically happens, at least at first - but that's because players play it like a typical game.

In pretty much every case, lethal threats are pretty well signposted. Dangerous threats have signposts - you'll see blood and body parts, on scorched bodies over a bridge. You can die from falls which you might not know will kill you - but you can buy stones to check lethal vs non-lethal falls. You add in that other players can leave you messages, and that you can see replays of how other people died near you - well, the game gives you plenty of information about threats.

Thing is, players tend to ignore it. The game expects you to think as if your character was a person, not a game superhero. Play like "Oh, that's a big dragon, time for a boss battle" and not "Oh, well, that's a big dragon - maybe I'll stay over here." and you die a lot.

The Souls series are all about pure player skill. Sure you can cheese some things, but not nearly as much as in other games. You are punished for sucking at the game in a much harsher way than "set on Easy and hack away." I haven't tried Dark Souls, but you could beat Demon's Souls with soul level 1.

The graphics options mean very little other than something for spoiled PC brats to cry about. This game doesn't look like Crysis? Well I refuse to buy it! Ha! Go ahead and miss out.

 

[motsm]

Then it would be the texture quality, then it would be the post processing, then the shader routines etc. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy having more graphics rendering options, but would I rather play a fantastic game with crap rendering options or another mediocre at best game with fantastic rendering options? Dark Souls is the best hack and slash to come out for any system in years(if we ignore Demons Souls ). People are going to skip it because of their lust for graphics, that is a damn shame.

It has everything to do with not supporting horrible PC ports, and absolutely nothing to do with graphics for me.

 

[Pia]

Except, there are *very* clear distinctions between them. Then there are gamers, which are different then either faction. It isn't retarded to distinguish between them, PC gamers want everything as easy as possible, and will whine to no end if they aren't given what they want. Console gamers tend to accept massive issues with games without tolerating criticism. PC gamers are graphics whores, console gamers tend to not understand graphis tech at all.

Dude. "PC gamer" and "console gamer" might carry various connotations depending on speaker and context, but the only thing they are guaranteed to stand for is someone playing games on the PC or on console. Your effort to assign One True Meaning of "whiny asshole" and "ignorant asshole" on them is pure trolling. Cut it out.

 

[PowerYoga]

The Souls series are all about pure player skill. Sure you can cheese some things, but not nearly as much as in other games. You are punished for sucking at the game in a much harsher way than "set on Easy and hack away." I haven't tried Dark Souls, but you could beat Demon's Souls with soul level 1.

The graphics options mean very little other than something for spoiled PC brats to cry about. This game doesn't look like Crysis? Well I refuse to buy it! Ha! Go ahead and miss out.

People will not buy it because its a crap port, not because it doesn't look amazing. That and GWFL sucks to high heavens.

There's a certain amount of expectation when it comes to the PC. I own the PS3 copy and was eagerly waiting for the PC version to come out so I can replay all the worlds in high res with fluid frames so I can see exactly what I was missing out on in the console version. If its the exact same copy as the PS3 version, why should I bother with it? I already have the game and I'm not paying $40 for a DLC. I also have 5 decked out characters I can use.

"spoiled pc brats"? Sorry, there's only one brat here and it's certainly not the pc gamers in this case.

 

[smackababy]

People will not buy it because its a crap port, not because it doesn't look amazing. That and GWFL sucks to high heavens.

There's a certain amount of expectation when it comes to the PC. I own the PS3 copy and was eagerly waiting for the PC version to come out so I can replay all the worlds in high res with fluid frames so I can see exactly what I was missing out on in the console version. If its the exact same copy as the PS3 version, why should I bother with it? I already have the game and I'm not paying $40 for a DLC. I also have 5 decked out characters I can use.

"spoiled pc brats"? Sorry, there's only one brat here and it's certainly not the pc gamers in this case.

There is no amount of expectation for anything coming out on PC except that it runs on PC. Don't give me this "oh it is expected to run at over 9000 resolutions and settings" garbage. There is no expectation for this, because they never said there would be.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Sorry, but I disagree. It's not like we're talking about "lacking hi-resolution texture packs". Having the game render at variable resolutions is so common it's not even a checklist feature - it's just expected. The only games I can think of that don't offer that are ones using 2-d sprites, and half of them still offer it.


It's not enough to make me cancel my pre-order - but this is a terrible port job.

 

[smackababy]

Sorry, but I disagree. It's not like we're talking about "lacking hi-resolution texture packs". Having the game render at variable resolutions is so common it's not even a checklist feature - it's just expected. The only games I can think of that don't offer that are ones using 2-d sprites, and half of them still offer it.


It's not enough to make me cancel my pre-order - but this is a terrible port job.

No, it should not be expected. That is a feature never listed by the developer to be in the game. That is like expecting Diablo 3 to have a single player offline mode because a ton of games prior had that feature. It is expected right?

 

[motsm]

No, it should not be expected. That is a feature never listed by the developer to be in the game. That is like expecting Diablo 3 to have a single player offline mode because a ton of games prior had that feature. It is expected right?

That's a horrible comparison.

I really don't see why you (collective you) are defending this, people have every right to feel entitled to proper resolution support on PC. You appear to have zero empathy, which ends up making you look like a jack ass trying to defend your point. You need to understand that resolution support, and the bigger picture of what that entails and implies in the industry is a meaningful feature to many people. If you had any capability of understanding, you'd realize you could have just made your comments about how to YOU, it isn't that important, but you instead feel the need to convince everyone that they are ass holes for thinking otherwise.

So yes, I will be "missing out" on a nearly unplayable sub 30 frames per second experience, and I will be missing out on supporting a company willing to release a game to sub par standards that have been set for over a decade. Oh no, how will I ever carry on!

 

[PowerYoga]

There is no amount of expectation for anything coming out on PC except that it runs on PC. Don't give me this "oh it is expected to run at over 9000 resolutions and settings" garbage. There is no expectation for this, because they never said there would be.

Wrong.

There IS an expectation for this because it's STANDARD for almost every single game out there on the PC. "Feature list"? Don't be ridiculous. You don't see car manufacturers telling you doors are a "feature". Why? It's fucking STANDARD. Hey, the expectation is just for the car to be able drive you where you want to go right?

It's fine you have no expectations for this game, but you're obviously not the representative slice for pc gamers, so don't be a jackass about it.

 

[surfsatwerk]

No, it should not be expected. That is a feature never listed by the developer to be in the game. That is like expecting Diablo 3 to have a single player offline mode because a ton of games prior had that feature. It is expected right?

You're terrible and you're wrong.

 

[KaOTiK]

No, it should not be expected. That is a feature never listed by the developer to be in the game. That is like expecting Diablo 3 to have a single player offline mode because a ton of games prior had that feature. It is expected right?

Sorry, but having a game render at the resolution you set it at is not a feature. I've defended Dark Souls for all its other port stuff because it that was all to be expected. But not having it render to your true resolution is piss poor.

 

[RussianSensation]

Except, there are *very* clear distinctions between them. Then there are gamers, which are different then either faction. It isn't retarded to distinguish between them, PC gamers want everything as easy as possible, and will whine to no end if they aren't given what they want. Console gamers tend to accept massive issues with games without tolerating criticism. PC gamers are graphics whores, console gamers tend to not understand graphis tech at all.

What a worthless generalization. Some PC gamers are also console gamers and some console gamers are PC gamers. You are purposely categorizing them into 2 distinct groups and moreso automatically implying that PC gamers care more about graphics than gameplay. Further, you think PC gamers like games to be "easy" and yet it console prolifiration that gave us health regeneration, dumbed-down level designs and constant barrage of worthless crappy sequels that only sell well on consoles. In that time, the PC game has moved from the original Deus Ex, System Shock, HL1 to COD. Arguing that PC gamers somehow want to play easy games is laughable. 99.9% of consoles games are now made so that any noob could beat them. I played consoles games in the 80s and 90s and it was never like that. Regardless, that's not even what this thread is about. We are discussing technical merits of Dark Souls, not debating its Gameplay, Difficulty or Level Design. If the game is difficult and it is fun, that's rewarding. If the game is difficult because there is control input lag, shoddy controls, etc. then it becomes a problem. Not saying any of these are issues for Dark Souls but on the technical front, they are now running for the worst console port I can recall in at least 5 years.

Witcher 2 was one of the best games last year and it was a mature game. It is #328 best selling game on the Xbox360 with less than 500,000 copies sold in total:
http://www.vgchartz.com/platform/7/xbox-360/

vs.

POS Fable 3 sold almost 5 million. COD that's a blatant rip-off of the Halo / Goldeneye 64 formula sells MILLLIONs on the PS3/360. The same exact game as MW1 --> BO, MW2, MW3, BO2...

You are going to argue that PC gamers want easy dumbed down games, as long as they look pretty?

This is 2012, not 1997 when it was maybe acceptable to sell a $40 game with 1024x720 graphics on the PC.

Except that reality says the exact opposite. PC gamers don't spend much money on games outside of MMOs. Games that generate hundreds of millions on the consoles fail to hit 1/5th of that on the PC on a frequent basis.

PC gamers spend plenty of $ on PC games and PC hardware. In fact both are growing segments. The latest report serves as an adequate follow-up to the group’s late 2011 study that predicted PC gaming hardware sales would reach $19 billion by year’s end. For 2012, the researchers are predicting total sales of $23.6 billion and by 2015.
http://www.techspot.com/news/48449-...inues-to-grow-despite-rising-competition.html

and
http://pc.ign.com/articles/122/1220114p1.html

A lot of PC games are sold in the form of digital copies. The data for those sales is not released by Valve for example. You couldn't possibly know unless they published it. We could care less that 100 million kiddies bought 5 versions of COD. This has nothing to do with Dark Souls on the PC. If your argument is that it's not cost effective to put any effort into a PC port because it won't sell, then talk to the developers of Alan Wake that made $, despite putting a lot of effort into making a game look a LOT better than the 360 counter-part, and selling it for $10 less.

Then it would be the texture quality, then it would be the post processing, then the shader routines etc. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy having more graphics rendering options, but would I rather play a fantastic game with crap rendering options or another mediocre at best game with fantastic rendering options?

A lot of people here would still buy the game in-spite of its crappy console port roots. That doesn't mean we can't look at how poorly the game was ported. If you have a PS3 and play Dark Souls, great. If someone is trying to sell a $40 game on the PC, there are certain standards that are considered almost a standard on the PC - like being able to change the resolution, not running into a locked 30 fps, not having your $500 graphics card drop to 20fps because the developer couldn't optimize the game for the life of them, not having to upscale 1024x720 textures to fake 1080P?

That's not a lot to ask when Alan Wake does all of those things and more for $30. It's too bad you have such low standards that you instead resort to criticizing fellow PC gamers and dropping attacks on PC gamers as snobs when in reality it is you who isn't seeing that a developer put 0 effort into porting this game to the PC. Even if the gameplay is great, we can still discuss the technical deficiencies.

Not 1 person in this thread said that Graphics > Gameplay. Only you keep talking about it.

 

[Dankk]

Whatever, I'll be playing Dark Souls on PC regardless of how good it looks. I lobbied for it in the first place, and the developers deserve my support. The game looks like a lot of fun so I'm definitely excited to be playing it. If you seriously refuse to buy Dark Souls because of some nilly-willy lack of graphics options, then

Spoiler

that's totally understandable and I respect your opinion.

 

[BenSkywalker]

What a worthless generalization. Some PC gamers are also console gamers and some console gamers are PC gamers.

Learning to read will help you in life-

Then there are gamers, which are different then either faction.

Hmm, almost like I pointed out there was a different group altogether that didn't fall under either faction, kind of negating your whole little temper tantrum there.

We are discussing technical merits of Dark Souls, not debating its Gameplay, Difficulty or Level Design.

My apologies, thread title didn't say *graphics whores only*.

It is #328 best selling game on the Xbox360 with less than 500,000 copies sold in total:

They didn't release the game in Japan, kind of a major territory for RPGs(and by major, it tends to be the largest).

A lot of PC games are sold in the form of digital copies. The data for those sales is not released by Valve for example. You couldn't possibly know unless they published it.

If I was a retarded monkey you would have a good point, but I'm not. I am capable of reading financial reports from the publishers.

not having to upscale 1024x720 textures to fake 1080P?

/facepalm

If you want to pretend you know anything at all about graphics don't post things as profoundly moronic as this. Rendering resolution has nothing to do with texture resolution.

 

[shadow9d9]

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. >_>

Has nothing to do with graphics and everything to do with smoothness of gameplay.. if the game isn't optimized and slows down when pcs have more than enough capability to smooth out the gameplay... it just doesn't make sense to support such laziness.

 

[RussianSensation]

If you want to pretend you know anything at all about graphics don't post things as profoundly moronic as this. Rendering resolution has nothing to do with texture resolution.

Huh? 2 separate articles showed that Dark Souls renders the game internally at a frame-buffer depth level of 1024x720. That means the texture quality without a high-resolution texture pack will be limited to resolve those details at 1024x720 even if magically PS3 version of Dark Souls used 4K resolution textures (which of course it didn't). Increasing resolution to 1080P will not magically add details to textures which appear to have been lifted directly from the 1024x720 PS3/360 version of the game. This is on contrast to Alan Wake where the textures were upgraded for the PC version of the game.

Again, a lot of us will still buy this game and enjoy its challenge but it's unfortunate that the developer didn't spend a little bit more time and $ optimizing the game just a bit.

 

[hyrule4927]

With this game, it will be *WAY* too hard for PC gamers. PC gaming at this part takes no skill whatsoever sadly, and as such this game will be far too punishing. It sounds more like you should look at Crysis- don't worry, every penny went into making it look good with not a cent wasted on that lousy gameplay

Spend an hour slowly working your way through an area and take a corner just a second too quick? Whack, you are dead. Back to the beginning. That is the essence of this game. *Waaah insta save, waaaahhh too hard, waaaaaah I needs mods* ad nauseam.

You're actually trying to argue that this game is too difficult to be popular with PC gamers and that console gamers somehow have a higher tolerance for such difficulty? That may be one of the most ridiculous claims I have ever heard.

 

[Ferzerp]

I'll just put this right here for mr console gamer.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/computers/are-pc-gamers-better-than-console-players/3386


Ok, so a lot of that had to do with the controllers used, but still