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

[Sulaco]

Learning to read will help you in life-

...

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

Hmmm. Perhaps if you had followed your own advice, you would have been able to read enough of the thread, past simply the thread title, to know the context of the entire topic?

 

[PowerYoga]

Derp

Summed it up for TLDR.

Dark souls is still an unfortunate terrible port. Maybe they'll patch the basic stuff like being able to change resolution one of these days.

 

[Raduque]

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

I'm platform agnostic. If a game is good, i'll play PC or console, doesnt matter to me.

You didnt answer my question, i noticed.

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.

Honestly, this is not a game I want to play. It simply doesn't sound appealing to me. I play games to do things and be people I could never be or do IRL. Why would i want to play a game as a plain, fragile, average human?

 

[BenSkywalker]

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 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 appears to have lifted straight from the 1024x720 PS3/360 version of the game.

Wow, you don't know anything about graphics rendering at all, do you? Seriously, you need to start at the most basic level, pre DirectX era and work your way up from there. For some historical perspective check out the original Unreal Tournament with differing texture sizes and see what a huge difference larger textures have even when running a resolution smaller then the texture sizes being used. Gets into signal theory, sampling, weighted values and their application depending on filtering method used(16x AF w/Trilinear means you need 128 samples *per pixel*). Pretty much, what you said is utter nonsense. You can bash the game for running at 10x7, the texture resolutions are something entirely different.

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?

Gamers have a higher tolerance for it. PC Gamers moreso then any other group will be the first to rip a game a part because it doesn't have instant save anywhere or mods that allow them to ignore game mechanics(Bag Space in Elder Scrolls etc). PC gamers are overwhelmingly lazy(just go through this forum and actually read the threads). Console gamers tend to be on the opposite end of the spectrum, tollerating massive flaws in the game without bothering to complain about them. If you disagree, name me the games. I spend *far* more time gaming on my PC then the consoles, I actively try to buy the hardest games I can find. Demons Souls, Dark Souls and Ninja Gaiden make everything I've tried on the PC for the past decade look like a joke in comparison.

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

I could ask how having an "I Win" button in every game is good gameplay. Two different ends of the spectrum. If I don't want a challenge when I'm playing a game, I'll read a movie or watch a book.

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

Heh, let's go on line, I'll grab my controller, you have your mouse/kb and we'll play some NeedForSpeed Obviously anyone on a PC should decimate someone on a console for any FPS or RTS, it shouldn't be close to competitive.

Heh, so anyway, this is what Dark Souls looks like scaled-

http://i.imgur.com/UcIfJ.jpg

So everyone can bash it for the right reasons.

 

[mOeeOm]

D:

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

Eh he simplified it to be biased, here's how the game works:

When you kill enemies and use certain items, you gain souls, the game's currency to spend on stat upgrades, armor and weapons. There are checkpoints throughout the world (it's an open world) called bonfires, when you use the bonfire you get locked to that bonfire. If you die as you progress, you leave your bloodstain on the ground and drop down to 0 souls and spawn back at the last bonfire you used. To get your souls back you have to go back to your body and get the souls without dying again or they disappear. Every time you use a bonfire to rest up and restock on whatever, all enemies minus bosses in the world respawn. Also you never lose your items or any permanent changes to the world.

The game punishes you for dying to the same thing twice, because you should have learned your lesson. Nothing is cheesy or cheap in the game, everything is beatable. Also people make it way too big a deal if you lose your souls.

The game is amazing, I loved every second of it (60 hours played first playthrough), the atmosphere is amazing, the sound/music is great, even though the voice acting is meh the story and characters are well made. It's a great game and should not be missed.

 

[PowerYoga]

http://i.imgur.com/UcIfJ.jpg

All the stuff you're saying is worthless nonsense but this picture intrigues me. Looks like the stray demon boss but I don't remember there being corridors in the area.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

Honestly, this is not a game I want to play. It simply doesn't sound appealing to me. I play games to do things and be people I could never be or do IRL. Why would i want to play a game as a plain, fragile, average human?

Well, for me, it's about getting a different feel from the game then normal. If I feel like being a whirling dervish of doom, there's about a million different games. And in most RPGs, action or otherwise, you eventually end up being so powerful that every battle is trivial. Here I had to think, learn and adapt - it's more engaging because it's so much more demanding.

But, if that's not your cup of tea, you wouldn't be the first. I actually like the game, but it's certainly not something I'd want all games to be. And you will save yourself a good bit of frustration.

 

[Red Hawk]

Demons Souls, Dark Souls and Ninja Gaiden make everything I've tried on the PC for the past decade look like a joke in comparison.

http://thelettervsixtim.es/

Try this.

 

[RussianSensation]

Wow, you don't know anything about graphics rendering at all, do you? Seriously, you need to start at the most basic level, pre DirectX era and work your way up from there.

I understand it perfectly well and not once did I say in general for all games that whatever resolution the game is being rendered is equal to the original texture resolution. In this particular example, the flaw in your entire premise is that you assumed from the offset that Dark Souls uses some high resolution textures with a resolution of something that magically exceeds 1024x1024 or similar. Thus you are implying that just because Dark Souls will run at only 1024x720 that it will somehow overcome the lower rendered resolution? You need higher resolution to resolve more detail if you want those original Dark Souls textures to look good on a 1080P/1600P monitor. Clearly you haven't read any of the BigGamer or EuroGamer articles on this game and are just spouting your opinion to piss off fellow PC gamers because you label PC gamers as "graphics whores/snobs". Honestly, you should probably stick to PS3 and then PS4 since you can't seem to comprehend the idea that you can get good graphics and great gameplay in a videogame (Witcher 2). Also, the discussion at hand is looking at how the game was ported on the technical side, fun or gameplay notwithstanding.

The points can't be simpler:

1) Dark Souls uses low resolution textures in the console version of the game since it was made for 10-15x slower GPUs found in the PS3/360 to begin with. Those textures are not going to be upgraded for the PC version without a high resolution texture pack / community modding. Other console ported games such as Alan Wake include upgraded textures in the PC version of game from the Xbox360 version. Other console-to-PC ports can rendered at whatever resolution you set them, unlike Dark Souls which fixes internal rendering quality at 1024x720.

Here is a video of Alan Wake that showcases a great console-to-PC port and it takes all but 3 seconds to pause at the Gas Station scene in the beginning to notice:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shBi9jkAE2A

The PC version of the game looks like a proper higher resolution game with a lot more detail and superior graphical effects.

2) Dark Souls rendering takes place entirely at 1024x720 resolution, which means that when you turn on 1080P resolution setting in the game, you are just stretching the original pixels. The image quality doesn't improve. This has already been explained by 2 professional publications. Maybe you should email them and educate them.

Since you love to attack people's knowledge and their ability to read, I quote:

"On close inspection, it appears that 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." ~ EuroGamer

So please explain why you continue to defend that Dark Souls is not a terrible console-to-PC port?

Heh, so anyway, this is what Dark Souls looks like scaled-

http://i.imgur.com/UcIfJ.jpg

So everyone can bash it for the right reasons.

Demons Souls, Dark Souls and Ninja Gaiden make everything I've tried on the PC for the past decade look like a joke in comparison.

And how does their difficulty compare to the difficult of console games? I bet it makes them look like a joke in comparison too.

What you failed to realize is this thread isn't bashing Dark Souls for gameplay but looking at the console porting to PC aspects. Yet you went totally off-topic discussing that PC gamers like easy games, can't tolerate lack of mods, etc., etc. You seem to hold a lot of negative bias against PC gamers as a group in general. Interesting since it is console gaming that has arguably made games so easy. Dark Souls/Demon Souls may be hard compared to modern PC/console games (and hardly anyone is denying that) but compared to old school hard games of the 80s and 90s, it's nothing special.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e84EkDGSsWQ
OR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bC-...xLA1L6_Q7jMmWbo&lch=email_reply&feature=email

Go beat Contra without extra lives, or Battletoads solo, or Mike Tyson's Punch Out. Dark Souls is a joke compared to final bosses in fighting games, but this thread isn't about hardest games, hardest bosses or how awesome you are a videogames.

 

[smackababy]

Interesting since it is console gaming that has arguably made games so easy. Dark Souls/Demon Souls may be hard compared to modern PC/console games (and hardly anyone is denying that) but compared to old school hard games of the 80s and 90s, it's nothing special.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e84EkDGSsWQ
OR
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bC-...xLA1L6_Q7jMmWbo&lch=email_reply&feature=email

Go beat Contra without extra lives, or Battletoads solo, or Mike Tyson's Punch Out. Dark Souls is a joke compared to final bosses in fighting games, but this thread isn't about hardest games, hardest bosses or how awesome you are a videogames.

1. Fighting game bosses are not hard in the least bit for people who don't suck at fighting games. Sorry the AI doesn't play mind games or do anything but instantly react to my mistakes.
2. Old school games were mostly hard because of bullshit. Invisible walls? Traps you have no way of avoiding unless you know they are there from dying before hand. Terrible controls are another reason for them being "hard". Go play Top Gun. It was only hard because you couldn't land or refuel. It had nothing to do with being hard, just that the inputs wouldn't read well into the game.
3. Demon's / Dark Souls has very few gimmicks. You die from your own mistakes.

 

[Raduque]

I could ask how having an "I Win" button in every game is good gameplay. Two different ends of the spectrum. If I don't want a challenge when I'm playing a game, I'll read a movie or watch a book.

Who said anything about an "I Win" button? All I'm saying is that it's not fun to die from everything in one hit, and to die 504 times in the span of 20 minutes, because you moved two steps and an enemy hit you once.

 

[Ferzerp]

Go play Top Gun. It was only hard because you couldn't land or refuel. It had nothing to do with being hard, just that the inputs wouldn't read well into the game.

I finally managed to beat that as a kid. That was a pretty awful game.

The last boss was a space shuttle.

 

[PowerYoga]

Don't know why you're still arguing with the troll.

 

[BenSkywalker]

I understand it perfectly well

No, you don't, you aren't in the remote league of comprehending it.

At 1024x720 you are pushing 716,800 pixels per frame. A GeForce 2 Ultra, a part that came out 12 years ago, can draw 1,395 texture samples per second *per pixel* at that resolution. The PS3's GPU is roughly an order of magnitude faster then that part.

1) Dark Souls uses low resolution textures in the console version of the game since it was made for 10-15x slower GPUs found in the PS3/360 to begin with.

So you are saying the GTX480 is slower then the 285? The texel throughput on the 285 was a decent amount higher then the 480, using your logic the 480 must be the slower part. You are making a massive logical error trying to comprehend texture throughput via overall GPU performance characteristics.

2) Dark Souls rendering takes place entirely at 1024x720 resolution, which means that when you turn on 1080P resolution setting in the game, you are just stretching the original pixels. The image quality doesn't improve.

That is a valid point. That has nothing to do with texturing. Nothing at all. Not remotely related.

Go beat Contra without extra lives, or Battletoads solo, or Mike Tyson's Punch Out.

Not that difficult, only pain was memorizing the sewers(done it) and not that hard at all(only need to score 5K points to beat Tyson, and no, I didn't look that up I remember it well).

Dark Souls is a joke compared to final bosses in fighting games

Wow are you terrible at fighting games, lol. Fighting game bosses are stupid easy, the average online fight, average mind you, is significantly more challenging then most fighting game bosses on the highest difficulty setting(and they get the advantage of bending game mechanics rules).

You quoted Eurogamer, so I'll quote them too-

The implication of a PC release is obviously that all these problems can be tackled by the brute force of a faster CPU, and though there are very light hitches here and there, it's a relief to say Blight Town now plays without all the constant chugging. The improvement is staggering to those that endured the treacle-like pace of the area on PS3 and 360, already making this version a winning proposition.

It's immediately apparent that From Software has lost neither its ability to realise some fantastical visual designs in-game, nor its token standard of difficulty.

Fantastic visual designs realized, greatly improved performance.

All I'm saying is that it's not fun to die from everything in one hit, and to die 504 times in the span of 20 minutes, because you moved two steps and an enemy hit you once.

Block, strafe, roll. If you have to die 504 times before realizing how not to die on that encounter, you are better off not playing this game.

 

[-Slacker-]

Don't really care about the 1024x720 thing, but if the game has slowdowns significantly below 30fps and, more importantly, if it's incompatible with my generic dual analog gamepad then the deal is off.

I signed the petition before I realized that it was nothing more than viral marketing, as apposed to Namco doing us poor PC peasants a huge, selfless favor that we begged on our knees for; So I don't feel compelled to buy the game just because of that.

 

[smackababy]

Don't really care about the 1024x720 thing, but if the game has slowdowns significantly below 30fps and, more importantly, if it's incompatible with my generic dual analog gamepad then the deal is off.

I signed the petition before I realized that it was nothing more than viral marketing, as apposed to Namco doing us poor PC peasants a huge, selfless favor that we begged on our knees for; So I don't feel compelled to buy the game just because of that.

Proof it was a viral marketing campaign? I am not sold it was. IIRC Namco is pretty good about listening to the fighting game community, so why not the platformer community? From isn't in the PC market and people wanted them to be.

 

[RussianSensation]

No, you don't, you aren't in the remote league of comprehending it. At 1024x720 you are pushing 716,800 pixels per frame. A GeForce 2 Ultra, a part that came out 12 years ago, can draw 1,395 texture samples per second *per pixel* at that resolution. The PS3's GPU is roughly an order of magnitude faster then that part.

You know what you do, you take a statement and twist it to suit your agenda : which is to attack posters.

READ exactly this word for word: Dark Souls has low resolution textures and the PC game is NOT rendered higher than 1024x720 natively. Thus, it will look like garbage on the PC unless someone adds high resolution textures to bring the game up to PC standards to 1080P.

You discussing pathetic PS3 GPU power as to somehow discredit that Dark Souls on the PS3 looks like garbage changes nothing. I already proved it to you that some console ported games improve technical aspects when the games are ported to the PC: Alan Wake PC vs. Alan Wake 360. Dark Souls is not one of those games. If you don't understand this, I can't help you.

Trying to attack my technical knowledge of how textures works is laughable since you are clearly not grasping the simple concept that an ugly PS3 game will look ugly on the PC and Dark Souls is a a half-ass ported effort.

So you are saying the GTX480 is slower then the 285? The texel throughput on the 285 was a decent amount higher then the 480, using your logic the 480 must be the slower part.

I never said anything of the sort. It's like Alan Wake. Xbox360 cannot handle high resolution textures and effects. When the game was ported to the PC, those features were reintroduced and textures were thus upgraded. PS3 can't handle modern graphical effects and high resolution textures which is why they weren't implemented in Dark Souls for PS3. PC can handle them but the developer spent no time actually improving the graphics. :thumbsdown:

Without a high resolution texture pack, Dark Souls will look poor on the PC.

Not that difficult, only pain was memorizing the sewers(done it) and not that hard at all(only need to score 5K points to beat Tyson, and no, I didn't look that up I remember it well).

Dude no one cares. Even if you play 100 hours a week, no one here cares. If you got the world record for every game on the planet, we don't care. If you find 99.999% of games too boring or too easy, we don't care. None of these things relates to the technical aspects of Dark Souls. You don't want to discuss those technical aspects, graphics and textures, move on from this thread since you aren't adding any value to the discussion.

Wow are you terrible at fighting games, lol. Fighting game bosses are stupid easy, the average online fight, average mind you, is significantly more challenging then most fighting game bosses on the highest difficulty setting(and they get the advantage of bending game mechanics rules).

Ya, here we go, another attempt to shift topics to discuss my skills in fighting games. We get it man, you beat Dark Souls without dying once, you beat every fighting game on Hardcore mode blind folded. If you think PC games are so easy and boring, why do you play PC games 10x more than you play on the PS3? You sound like a very bitter PC gamer who loves your obsolete PS3 more than anything. Great, go back to playing Dark Souls on PS3.

You quoted Eurogamer, so I'll quote them too-Fantastic visual designs realized, greatly improved performance.

You must have missed reading comprehension where they said the game ran OK but they used high-end Alienware laptops. When was the last time a $1700 laptop was needed to render at game at 1024x720 at 30 fps?

The visuals must be fantastic by PS3 standards. That's what they meant. Compared to any modern PC game, this game would have benefited greatly from proper 1080P resolution and high resolution textures and game code optimization. This is not what one would call up to PC standards. Does this look good to you? That's the worst graphics from a console-to-PC port in at least 5+ years.

vs. 1080P Alan Wake port:

Granted Alan Wake was originally a PC game, but there have been other cross-platform games done much better (Batman AC on the PC looks vastly superior to console versions). All of the Assassin's Creed games look vastly superior to console versions. It's pretty obvious that PS3 wouldn't be able to handle such graphics but PC can, and yet the developer spent no time at all getting the game up to PC standards, but is charging $40 for what essentially is a 1024x720 console game.

The good news at least is the new content:

- New bosses: Black Dragon, Sanctuary Guardian, Artorias of the Abyss
- New Areas: Oolacile Township, Oolacile Sanctuary, Royal Wood, Battle of Stoicism
- New Enemies: Including Wooden scarecrows, Chained Prisoner, Stone Knight
- New NPCs: Hawkeye Gough, Elizabeth
- New Weapons and Armor
- New bosses, enemies, equipment and NPCs will be free and we'll get it right away

You seem to be defending this game from all angles and missing the point that most of us are looking forward to playing it but graphics wise, it's about a 0/10 on the PC in the year 2012. The artistic aspects of the graphics will make up for it hopefully, but those textures and details look like a 2004 PC game.

 

[Ferzerp]

^^^^ Oh, come on, at least pull out the real resolutions 2560x1600!. Also, I think that's American Nightmare, not the normal alan wake

Even if it's a terrible port, I'll likely buy it if it can run without framerate drops.

If any PC can run it, mine can, so we will see.

I liked it on 360, but the low framerate really killed the experience.

edit: The developer flat out said they didn't know how to port games early on, so it's never been a secret the result would be like this.

 

[Dankk]

Indeed, Alan Wake is a very pretty game on PC. :thumbsup: One of the better gaming experiences I've had this year, and certainly one of the best ports I've played this year.

edit: The developer flat out said they didn't know how to port games early on, so it's never been a secret the result would be like this.

You know, I'm glad the developers have been honest about this right from the start. If it's already generated this much controversy pre-release, can you imagine the gigantic, colossal, leviathan impending shit-storm that would happen if the devs were 100% secretive about the PC porting problems until release day? PC gaming communities everywhere would explode in rage.

Imagine the angry internet mobs...

 

[BenSkywalker]

You know what you do, you take a statement and twist it to suit your agenda : which is to attack posters.

Personal attacks, try going after the points I'm making, we both know you are *way* out of your league when discussing technical merit, so at least try and make a compelling case for those who don't understand what I'm saying.

You discussing pathetic PS3 GPU power as to somehow discredit that Dark Souls on the PS3 looks like garbage changes nothing.

You have continually brought up texture quality, you have brought up how the PS3 GPU can't handle high quality textures. These things are wrong in no uncertain terms. If you want to take issue with the quality of the visuals, then start doing it. Explain what elements are lacking and why this is a result of porting. So far all you can do is talk about your love fest for Allan Wake. Allan Wake looks like crap compared to Crysis, so why aren't you bashing that? Kind of an ignorant line of argument, fits with the rest of your posts

You must have missed reading comprehension where they said the game ran OK but they used high-end Alienware laptops.

They comment on how good the visuals are, you are the one that wanted to use that site as a point of reference, they say the game looks good.

Ya, here we go, another attempt to shift topics to discuss my skills in fighting games.

You. Brought. It. Up.

You bash on texture quality due to techical limitations, I point out how stupid that is so you say I'm changing the subject. You bring up old school games, I reply and you say noone cares. You bring up fighting games, it is repeatedly pointed out how simple they are and you say stop changing the subject. If you have something to actually debate, spell it out. Break down which shader routines you don't like, point out the visual artifacts you take issue with, point out examples of these terrible visuals you keep complaining about.

 

[RussianSensation]

Personal attacks, try going after the points I'm making, we both know you are *way* out of your league when discussing technical merit, so at least try and make a compelling case for those who don't understand what I'm saying.

I still don't understand what aspect of Dark Souls will be ported with no enhancements to PS3's visuals you don't understand? You want me to write a 100 page paper on texture quality for you? The screenshots speak for themselves. The textures in the PC version look awful. No need to get into the details. PS3 btw can't hold high resolution textures due to lack of RAM and VRAM available on the console. That would largely explain why Dark Souls from the beginning didn't even have good texture quality since the developer had no need to go overboard.

You have continually brought up texture quality, you have brought up how the PS3 GPU can't handle high quality textures. These things are wrong in no uncertain terms. If you want to take issue with the quality of the visuals, then start doing it.

PS3 GPU can't handle high resolution textures. It's only a 256MB HD7950GT with 22.4GB/sec memory bandwidth via 128-bit memory bus.

Explain what elements are lacking and why this is a result of porting.

Already been explained in post #1, and was subsequently derailed by you into:

1) PC gamers can't tolerate hard games
2) PC gamers are graphics snobs/whores
3) PC gamers choose graphics over gameplay

So far all you can do is talk about your love fest for Allan Wake. Allan Wake looks like crap compared to Crysis, so why aren't you bashing that? Kind of an ignorant line of argument, fits with the rest of your posts

Alan Wake is a console-to-PC port. Why would I compare Alan Wake to Crysis? I just used it as example of a well-done console port. There are many others I noted - Assassin's Creed, Batman games.

They comment on how good the visuals are, you are the one that wanted to use that site as a point of reference, they say the game looks good.

They aren't going to say that it looks awful since they are still trying to somewhat promote and write about the game in a magazine. Both magazine publications (BitGamer and Eurogamer) have discussed the visual limitations. I don't even know why you are still arguing this after I posted 3 screenshots from the PC version and the graphics are very poor.

You bash on texture quality due to techical limitations, I point out how stupid that is so you say I'm changing the subject. You bring up old school games, I reply and you say noone cares. You bring up fighting games, it is repeatedly pointed out how simple they are and you say stop changing the subject. If you have something to actually debate, spell it out. Break down which shader routines you don't like, point out the visual artifacts you take issue with, point out examples of these terrible visuals you keep complaining about.

All of these things addressed in my thread, but you failed to read posts carefully. Screenshots, technical aspects, all addressed already. Also, if you actually watched the fighting bosses video, you wouldn't say they are easy. Besides, I only brought it up because you keep saying how easy PC games and other games are. Like I said you derailed this whole thread from start to finish basically, while addressing none of the concerns your fellow PC gamers had regarding the technical aspects of the actual port.

Your entire contribution to thread was just trolling about how PC gamers love easy games, how it's not worth to spend any $ on PC games since they sell 1/10th, how PC gamers are graphics whores, etc. etc. All that started with your very first post #41. Then you accuse me of bringing up extraneous points and information? OK bud.

 

[ImpulsE69]

It is what it is, a direct port. It will look the same on a PC as a PS3. No point continuing to argue over it. If it's as good a game as ppl say, then it will sell (just not to the ppl who already own it on PS3)

 

[-Slacker-]

Proof it was a viral marketing campaign? I am not sold it was. IIRC Namco is pretty good about listening to the fighting game community, so why not the platformer community? From isn't in the PC market and people wanted them to be.

I ... have no proof ... how could anyone have proof about something like that ... what are you, dense?

Obviously it's possible that it wasn't a viral marketing campaign - to be philosophically correct, anything is possible - but if you employ a bit of common sense, you realize that no corporation would deliver a product to consumers just to be super extra special nice to them; If Namco Bandai didn't already think it would probably be profitable to port the game over to PC, then they wouldn't, petition or no petition.

 

[smackababy]

I ... have no proof ... how could anyone have proof about something like that ... what are you, dense?

Obviously it's possible that it wasn't a viral marketing campaign - to be philosophically correct, anything is possible - but if you employ a bit of common sense, you realize that no corporation would deliver a product to consumers just to be super extra special nice to them; If Namco Bandai didn't already think it would probably be profitable to port the game over to PC, then they wouldn't, petition or no petition.

There could easily be proof. They could have stated they were planning to release it and wanted to test interest. Plenty of viral marketing campaigns have been found out by the public. And again, I simply stated I wasn't sold that it was From and Namco behind it from the beginning.

 

[Ferzerp]

It is what it is, a direct port. It will look the same on a PC as a PS3. No point continuing to argue over it. If it's as good a game as ppl say, then it will sell (just not to the ppl who already own it on PS3)

Even if it is a direct port, I can't imagine that it will run as poorly as it did on ps3 and 360. It ran like monkeybutt Console players didn't know any better though.