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

[thejunglegod]

If it takes off, the modding community may come up with texture packs of their own. Hopefully, it is not REALLY bad, that it is almost unplayable. Part of what makes DS what it is is the uber-tight controls.

 

[Dankk]

Being a lazy port is one thing. Being totally broken is another.

As long as the game actually works (and works properly), I'll be happy to play it... even if it's essentially a console game running on a PC. I don't have a 360 or PS3, so this will be a good chance for me to play a game I otherwise wouldn't be able to.

 

[PowerYoga]

I'll just buy the DLC when it comes out on PS3. The whole reason I wanted a PC version was for improved graphics, not just for the extra content. I already got a few good characters on the PS3, if this plays just the same way why bother.

Also don't visit blighttown anyways. >_>

 

[EDUSAN]

hahaha what is the bug in blighttown in ps3?

 

[PowerYoga]

low frames. Actually I don't find it much of an issue, considering the areas where it has slow down are... dangerous to be in.

 

[smackababy]

There is no Blighttown bug, it just slows down horribly. Also, I doubt this will play the same way considering I have much more power pushing it to a constant 30FPS.

 

[EDUSAN]

but the slow down is SO DAMN BAD that is unplayable?

 

[smackababy]

Not unplayable, but at times it gets to almost a slide show. As far as PC gamers were concerned, I would say they would consider it unacceptable.

 

[AdamK47]

1024x720 is going to look like crap on a 30" 2560x1600 monitor.

 

[Elixer]

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.

Yes, they ALL develop games on the PC, and then they use a emulator for the console in question, or upload the data to the console itself.
The problem between actually making a game for a PC vs a console is that they don't wish to make X versions of the models / textures since it costs more, and they think PC people will be happy enough to get a console port, instead of correctly supporting the PC with higher resolution and better textures.

 

[mindcycle]

I'm generally ok with scaled back graphics options concerning console ports, as long as the gameplay doesn't suffer. However, GFWL makes this an automatic no-buy for me.

 

[Dumac]

Yes, they ALL develop games on the PC, and then they use a emulator for the console in question, or upload the data to the console itself.
The problem between actually making a game for a PC vs a console is that they don't wish to make X versions of the models / textures since it costs more, and they think PC people will be happy enough to get a console port, instead of correctly supporting the PC with higher resolution and better textures.

No, you are simplifying the issue. Game development in Japan in entirely based around the console; PC gaming basically doesn't exist. It isn't like western development where there is a built-in infrastructure to support a PC port. You are ignoring the enormous costs to port Japanese games to the PC. You should read this for a better explanation.

In North America, most development happens on PC entirely. Even console focused games have maintained PC versions which most developers use, because it’s not worth $3m to give every developer their own dev kit. But in Japan, it often happens entirely on console. Most of those devs never have a version that can run on PC at all.

It’s not a simple matter of From Software being ‘lazy’ or doing a ‘half assed’ port job.

Also

Japanese games developed entirely on console rather than on PC (where most Western games are developed.) This makes porting a Japanese game to console a much different and far more challenging experience, which is one reason so few Japanese games are ported to PC in the first place.

source

 

[Elixer]

No, you are simplifying the issue. Game development in Japan in entirely based around the console; PC gaming basically doesn't exist. It isn't like western development where there is a built-in infrastructure to support a PC port. You are ignoring the enormous costs to port Japanese games to the PC. You should read this for a better explanation.
Also
source

All development of game data and all prototyping is still done on the PC, as well as working with all the 3rd party SDKs.

While that author talks about the design from a console point of view, I still say that if they do their homework correctly, they can absolutely have the best of both worlds when they are designing the game in the first place.
All art assets can and should be made for multiple resolutions, especially if there is a chance there will be a PC port at some time.
While the rendering engine itself will most likely differ greatly because of the limitations of the console, that can be minimized as well with a proper design.

Most companies don't want to put the extra effort in the beginning of the design process to overcome the challenges.
Now, putting that aside, most ports are done with the minimal amount of money so that is the main reason why you don't see anything really improved, and then they wonder why their port has such bad press from gamers.

 

[IlllI]

They admitted they have no experience how to port the game, it's unfortunate, this + GFWL = no buy.

The game is amazing though.

yeah i was optimistic.. but not anymore. that 1024x720 resolution was the final nail in the coffin. i wont be buying it.

sadly i bet they'll use poor sales as 'confirmation' that people are not interested in pc ports of their games. but they really only have themselves to blame. what a shoddy excuse of a console port.

 

[KeypoX]

FF7 was released on PC way back in 2000.

I have FF8 for PC too. Had FF7 on PS so never worried about it on pc

 

[BenSkywalker]

All development of game data and all prototyping is still done on the PC, as well as working with all the 3rd party SDKs.

You are not understanding. The PS3 dev kit launched at $10K. It was an extremely high end custom workstation that wasn't related to a personal computer at all. It is big endian, PCs are little endian, it has manual SRAM management, PCs have register allocation. They are totally different beasts. Is it possible for a PC to emulate the PS3? Yes. Can a current highly overclocked phase change cooled i7 do it at full speed? Not even close. PS3 development is nothing at all like 360 or PC development, not even close.

All art assets can and should be made for multiple resolutions

We aren't talking about a 2D game. Being hard wired for a fixed resolution normally has to do with processing elements being timed to a code loop. It is the type of quality programming you can't get on the PC due to the staggering limitations of the PC platform(Carmack states x00% edge on consoles due to these factors). PCs have a ton of brute force to overcome their massive shortcomings as a development platform, flexibility is the biggest cause of both sides of that coin.

especially if there is a chance there will be a PC port at some time.

Dark Souls generated ~$100Million in revenue on the console side. What would you say the potential for them is if they ported it perfectly to the PC? Maybe 1/10th of that? But they should compromise development of their lead development platform to appease a tiny minority? I'd much rather they said no to considering a PC port and got back to spending additional time making console games for the people that appreciate them. From is too good to be wasting their time on the graphics whores.

Most companies don't want to put the extra effort in the beginning of the design process to overcome the challenges.

You mean most developers don't want to seriously compromise their entire development for the benefit of the pirate bay's ad revenue?

sadly i bet they'll use poor sales as 'confirmation' that people are not interested in pc ports of their games. but they really only have themselves to blame. what a shoddy excuse of a console port.

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.

 

[The_Golden_Man]

Sad news. I am a console hater, and was looking forward to getting this game on PC. Also GFWL sucks.

 

[RussianSensation]

BitGamer:

What was much more of a problem was the performance, which was lacking to the point of skipping frames even though it was running at only medium detail, non-extreme resolutions on beefy Alienware gaming laptop.

So what did they spend 6-8 months doing exactly porting this game?

Like I said earlier, it will probably be a fun game and a challenging game but for $40, we expect some kinda of quality for that price on the PC. I don't think it's unfair to criticize a developer that charges $40 for a PC game that can't even run smoothly on a modern system at 1024x720?!

This puts PC gamers in a bad spot. If many of us buy this game at $40, it shows we will buy any console port, regardless of quality. If we wait until the game drops to $5-10, it will 'prove' the market for PC games outside of shooters and MMOs/Strategy is small. Considering PS3 uses an outdated crippled 7950GT, GTX680 should run this game at a minimum of 30fps the whole game.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Don't have the consoles -- and with all the praise this game gets I'm interested, regardless of GFWL or the low res. That doesn't bother me...what does bother me though is if they can't even get it running properly and charging $40 for it at those low res. I will be waiting to hear what the outcome is, as I doubt they will ever patch it in any way. There are way too many other game options available.

 

[Bull Dog]

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.

If this is supposed to be their test case then they are doing a damn fine job of making sure it fails or is luckluster. At the lest they are going to shoot their feet off. If a PC game can't offer fundamentals that make PC gaming what it is, you are just creating a massive turd.

PC games need Adjustable graphics options, rebindable controls, proper mouse support (invert y axis, sensitivity, ability to disable mouse smoothing), and FoV control.

FoV never used to bother me that much before but lately I start to feel nauseated and claustrophobic when being forced to play at a FoV of less than 80 degrees. The fact that Crysis 2 PC shipped with a default FoV of 55 degrees is just appalling.

 

[Bryf50]

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.

I forgot Console Gamers are

Just so many things wrong with your statement I don't feel like pointing them out.

 

[Pia]

If this is supposed to be their test case then they are doing a damn fine job of making sure it fails or is luckluster. At the lest they are going to shoot their feet off. If a PC game can't offer fundamentals that make PC gaming what it is, you are just creating a massive turd.

PC games need Adjustable graphics options, rebindable controls, proper mouse support (invert y axis, sensitivity, ability to disable mouse smoothing), and FoV control.

FoV never used to bother me that much before but lately I start to feel nauseated and claustrophobic when being forced to play at a FoV of less than 80 degrees. The fact that Crysis 2 PC shipped with a default FoV of 55 degrees is just appalling.

C2 shipped with 55 degree FOV? Whoa.

While graphics options are nice, I consider most of them nice-to-have, not a must. Rendering resolution is a really big deal, of course, and Dark Souls stands pretty much alone in not even managing to do that. I only find adjustable FOV important for first person games.

 

[Madia]

Green man gaming has 20% off one game with the code DERHE-RRDER-RINGE so I figured it was worth $32. Hopefully it's at least as good as the console version.

 

[LeviathanPT]

Its a clear victim of the problem when you have a company behind you pressing you to release ahead of schedule. :|

 

[ashenburger]

I think this port will be fine once it launches, I did play through it at this resolution sitting very close to the TV and at a lot less than 30 fps at times.

I bought it on steam and can't wait for it to come out so I can play through it again.