Dark Souls Port Brings Console Problems to PC

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT
 

gnihton:

Kheapathic:
If 30 FPS is choppy and 1024 resolution is blurry then the problem is probably with your eyes, not the developer.

I... don't... even...

Are you seriously trying to use 'You don't have shit eyesight' as an insult?

More like "You must have shit eyesight if you think that's bad"

gnihton:

Kheapathic:
If 30 FPS is choppy and 1024 resolution is blurry then the problem is probably with your eyes, not the developer.

I... don't... even...

Are you seriously trying to use 'You don't have shit eyesight' as an insult?

I'm not insulting anyone, I'm drawing conjecture. If someone is seeing 30 FPS as a slideshow then they probably have a medical condition that gives them mini-strokes everytime they look at a digital 3D image... or seizures when watching pokemon. Most movies run at just shy of 30 FPS and while I understand that more frames = smoother gameplay and what-not; 30 FPS is not a slide show.

Kheapathic:

gnihton:

Kheapathic:
If 30 FPS is choppy and 1024 resolution is blurry then the problem is probably with your eyes, not the developer.

I... don't... even...

Are you seriously trying to use 'You don't have shit eyesight' as an insult?

I'm not insulting anyone, I'm drawing conjecture. If someone is seeing 30 FPS as a slideshow then they probably have a medical condition that gives them mini-strokes everytime they look at a digital 3D image... or seizures when watching pokemon. Most movies run at just shy of 30 FPS and while I understand that more frames = smoother gameplay and what-not; 30 FPS is not a slide show.

Right. That's why we have 120hz monitors, and always have them at competitive gaming events. It's not to have the smoothest experience, but to cause seizures. How could I have been so blind, there I was thinking that some silly people on forums didn't have good attention to detail, when it turns out that me and everyone that plays video games above a casual level are simply wrong and have a medical condition that makes us think we see more... or something.

As incredibly likely and credible as that sounds, I'll have to go with Occam's razor on this one, sorry bud.

Edit: I'd also like to add that I find it interesting that you assume that it has to be something wrong with other people, have you not considered that perhaps it's you that's handicapped for eyesight, as opposed to the people that can easily perceive more detail?

Kheapathic:
30 FPS is not a slide show.

Yes it is, if you use a monitor as a previous poster pointed out. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/jump/7.384561.15271133

Zipa:
Because of monitors don't work the same way a TV does , plus you are sitting a lot lot closer to it generally with a PC so it's blindingly obvious .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video

TVs use interlacing pc monitors do not, pc monitors us e progressive scanning. The difference is like night and day at 30fps, on a tv it's effectively 60 fps because of the way interlacing works, monitor users on the other hand have no such benefit.

Oh plus of there is fps drop which is quite possible with the way the game runs (dark town) then its going to look like a PowerPoint presentation.

Darkmantle:

well if the uppity PC fans don't buy it after they demanded it, the developers won't even bother to release any more ports. They have implied as much in the past, and it's why they were hesitant to make the port in the first place.

This same argument could also be applied to why they should try to optimize it better for the PC. Why would people want to buy a product that doesn't respect their hardware?

Darkmantle:

It's a company taking it's first foray into putting on the PC game at all, let alone a port, and they get nothing but hate from it. I hope they never do anything nice for you guys again.

They are getting criticism for it because they haven't handled it well. They don't get leverage just because it's their first time, this isn't like a director's first film, these are technical issues that can be foreseen and fixed ahead of time.

Waaghpowa:

RhombusHatesYou:

Waaghpowa:
How would you react if one of your xbox/ps3 games ran like crap? You would be complaining your ass off I'm sure.

Man, the next time a PS3 game has *ahem* 'launch performance issues' (it's like erectile dysfunction for games!), and it's always the PS3 version that has the problem, I'm going to be tempted to use the 'you should be grateful' routine.

I'll laugh when they try to call you an elitist for it too.

Yeah but what doesn't get you called a PC elitist on this site?

Kheapathic:
How are they going to know the product is "subpar" if there's no feedback about it. From is a Japanese company and guess who (I'm willing to say) 95% of those petition signatures were from. There's a level of disconnect there because what the small PC group in Japan may accept isn't going to be on the same level as what all the loudmouths outside of Japan want. If 30 FPS is choppy and 1024 resolution is blurry then the problem is probably with your eyes, not the developer.

Since we're talking about the most simple, basic standards of picture quality, they're going to know if they own a monitor that's capable of doing anything better than that. Which they bloody well fucking do being software developers.

I don't know at this point, how stupid do you think From software are? How could you possibly, as a sizeable group of software developers, not know that this resolution has been out of date for something like a decade? Never mind the actual fucking games, do you think they use monitors from 1999 to not know that the standard has long been at 60FPS and a resolution way bigger than that? Not to mention if they didn't know they're putting a subpar product, they wouldn't be making press releases saying "Hey people, don't expect much."

Man, I'm really getting tired of all this bending over backwards just to put them in a better light. Here's the issue, and I'll repeat it again since you seem to have missed it in the very post you quoted. It isn't an issue of them being complete blathering buffoons and not knowing what kind of monitors people use. It isn't an issue of them being complete blathering buffoons and not having the "experience" to do anything other than make their game run on Windows. This is an issue of there being a deadline. That's it. And again, I don't particularly care who imposed that deadline, the bottom line is that the game suffers for it.

The idea of my eyes being fast enough to pick up on the individual frames at 30FPS somehow being a "problem" with my eyes is hilarious. Maybe it's your eyes that have a problem, being slow and all? To someone who plays games at 60+ FPS with practically no exceptions, 30 FPS is a noticeable annoyance and an almost literally eye hurting experience, not to mention that the input lag gets noticeably longer at this FPS too. Another thing to note is that TVs, as someone pointed out something like 5 times earlier in this thread, use a different technique for frame updates, effectively pushing out 60FPS with only 30 actual frames to show, while monitors don't have that.

If you're not going to use an actual 1024x720 monitor, yes, the game is going to get blurrier with the size of the monitor. With a generic 1080p monitor, the image is going to be stretched three times. It's going to be blurry. Plus, as I've mentioned four times before, one generally sits several times closer to a monitor than they do to a TV, which makes any graphical flaws extremely more noticeable.

RhombusHatesYou:

Waaghpowa:

RhombusHatesYou:

Man, the next time a PS3 game has *ahem* 'launch performance issues' (it's like erectile dysfunction for games!), and it's always the PS3 version that has the problem, I'm going to be tempted to use the 'you should be grateful' routine.

I'll laugh when they try to call you an elitist for it too.

Yeah but what doesn't get you called a PC elitist on this site?

From what I've seen, not much. So quoted for truth I guess.

I'd write more but I've already said my piece earlier in the thread.

Hammeroj:
Another thing to note is that TVs, as someone pointed out something like 5 times earlier in this thread, use a different technique for frame updates

Not all TVs use interlacing. A lot of the newer digital tvs use progressive scan... and, gee, would the players at home like to guess why?

RhombusHatesYou:

Hammeroj:
Another thing to note is that TVs, as someone pointed out something like 5 times earlier in this thread, use a different technique for frame updates

Not all TVs use interlacing. A lot of the newer digital tvs use progressive scan... and, gee, would the players at home like to guess why?

No clue. Honestly, the only reason I mentioned it is to throw in some sort of explanation as to why the person doesn't notice the choppy quality of a game running at 30FPS.

Man, you guys got Namdai to listen to you through a petition(something Tales fans have been doing for years with no sucess). You're getting free DLC which console owners have to still pay for and you have the option to mod its issues(which console owners can't do) , AND YOU'RE STILL CRYING!!!

I'm just at a lost for words.

rhizhim:

Zachary Amaranth:
Oh my God. Can PC gamers even ENJOY the game now?

let me tell you about the order of modders....

You say that like it's ever stopped tantrums from the PC Gaming Master Race before.

Zachary Amaranth:

rhizhim:

Zachary Amaranth:
Oh my God. Can PC gamers even ENJOY the game now?

let me tell you about the order of modders....

You say that like it's ever stopped tantrums from the PC Gaming Master Race before.

gamers and tandrums are one.
it goes beyond gaming systems.

but the glorious "pc gaming master race" has found ways to fix things.

like the KOTOR II restoration patch....

Daystar Clarion:
You guys wanted Dark Souls, you're getting it, warts and all.

The game isn't going to be worse on PC, it's going to be exactly the same as the console version, the version you petitioned so hard to get.

image

And you get free DLC.

Telling PC gamers to deal with it, is like telling someone that you are dying of cancer to deal with it.

PC gamers are never pleased no matter what you do, unless the game gives you a blowjob voucher out of the game case. Which means, No DRM whatsoever (not even a once online authenticity check) or only online for that matter (coughDiablo3), Bind-able keys so they can go all Korean style, A godforsaken load of graphical options for better textured hair, A huge FOV so it looks like your playing Quake through the eyes of a Fish, Mod integration so they can walk around as a big boobed cat lady, and zero glitches, bugs, and no texture clipping whatsoever.

Also, No Games for Windows Live due to the...inconvenience of signing in to an account.

Most PC gamers demands are ridiculous, and I kinda feel sorry for all the PC devs, that try to please even the most demanding of PC Gamers.

Now, I'm a PC gamer. Yes, I know, I'm terrible. But I own Dark Souls on Xbox 360 and I was thoroughly looking forward to the PC port, and after reading this, I'm afraid I'm just not going to bother.

I'm not being some PC gaming, master-race-psychopath, here, I'm just not sure what they were trying to do with this? If you're going to port anything, SURELY you would at least put some effort in and do it properly? It's as though they don't care that people know that they've put out a product well below what they could have achieved.

Wait...isn't this what they said it would be from the beginning?

The developers never made a secret of the fact that it will be a straight port of the console game. Sorry it won't look better than the console version, but it is 100% playable and will still look quite pretty.

Please don't tell me that the majority of PC gamers are so obsessed with graphics that they won't buy an incredible game tailor-made for their hardcore mindset because it looks like a console game. That would be sad.

I'm more pissed off that people who ALREADY BOUGHT THE GAME have to wait till October for the DLC, or buy the game again on PC. It's quite a greedy move by Namco and I'm worried that I might be obsessed enough with Dark Souls to fall for it...

Dark Souls released on PS3 and XBox 360
PC Gamers petition for PC release
PC release starts being made.
PC Gamers complain that the game isn't 4 times better than the console versions.

So we whined for it to be released on our platform, then we whined that it isn't good enough?

Way to look a gift horse in the mouth.

Evilsanta:
Wow, After reading some of the comments here I am ashammed to call my self a PC gamer.

You are getting the same freaking game plus new added content for FREE. I can't count how many times I replayed Dark Souls on my PS3 and still enjoy the hell out of it despite some of it flaws. Like the framedrop rate in Blighttown, Fuck that place. So it won't run perfectly fine in 1900x1200 resolution or higher the 30 fps, So what? It is still a great game.

And here I thought the whole PC gamer elitist was a exaggeration or what the "extreme" ones where called. But apperently not.

Whilst I don't agree with most of the comments, those of us who have got machines capable of better performance than a PS3 would appreciate some acknowledgement of this from developers. It's not a dealbreaker (that's GFWL's job), but it sure as hell is annoying.

MPerce:

Please don't tell me that the majority of PC gamers are so obsessed with graphics that they won't buy an incredible game tailor-made for their hardcore mindset because it looks like a console game. That would be sad.

Not obsessing, but you can't be annoyed when I expect something released for this

image

to be slightly better than something released for this.

image

Jazoni89:

Daystar Clarion:
You guys wanted Dark Souls, you're getting it, warts and all.

The game isn't going to be worse on PC, it's going to be exactly the same as the console version, the version you petitioned so hard to get.

image

And you get free DLC.

Telling PC gamers to deal with it, is like telling someone that you are dying of cancer to deal with it.

PC gamers are never pleased no matter what you do, unless the game gives you a blowjob voucher out of the game case. Which means, No DRM whatsoever (not even a once online authenticity check) or only online for that matter (coughDiablo3), Bind-able keys so they can go all Korean style, A godforsaken load of graphical options for better textured hair, A huge FOV so it looks like your playing Quake through the eyes of a Fish, Mod integration so they can walk around as a big boobed cat lady, and zero glitches, bugs, and no texture clipping whatsoever.

Also, No Games for Windows Live due to the...inconvenience of signing in to an account.

Most PC gamers demands are ridiculous, and I kinda feel sorry for all the PC devs, that try to please even the most demanding of PC Gamers.

I would refute your claims... but I'm probably the only PC Gamer who's okay with a game that isn't the second coming of Christ. Now I'm starting to realize that this is why my chosen platform never got Dragon's Dogma or Revenge of the Sith...

I'm actually looking forward to Dark Souls. 30FPS is fine with me (Though I'm secretly hoping that Fraps won't drop it to 5, cause I'm hoping to do a Let's play, but that's not a deal breaker) and I do not give a flying fuck about Mods.

But now I'm all depressed that the whining might get to the point the From Software never even looks at the PC again.

I'm really sad... can I have a hug, someone?

Jesus, I await the multitude of threads that will kickstart yet another PC/console flamewar once the PC edition gets released.

Edit:

Bhaalspawn:
I'm hoping to do a Let's play

I know we've disagreed on some things before, and we might not share the same views quite often, but please, please take my advice and do not do this blind. Not just because of the fact that blind LPs of hard games are some of the worst things to ever appear, but also because it's such a better experience if you play the game just to soak up the atmosphere the first time around.

theemporer:
I'm more pissed off that people who ALREADY BOUGHT THE GAME have to wait till October for the DLC, or buy the game again on PC. It's quite a greedy move by Namco and I'm worried that I might be obsessed enough with Dark Souls to fall for it...

Honestly, from viewing this whole fiasco, I think it might not be because of Namco but because of FROM. It seems like FROM has little experience in dealing with DLC, considering they promised they wouldn't make DLC to begin with.

Still, I'll be buying both the PC version and the Xbox DLC, because I want to support FROM as much as possible.

MPerce:
Please don't tell me that the majority of PC gamers are so obsessed with graphics that they won't buy an incredible game tailor-made for their hardcore mindset because it looks like a console game. That would be sad.

The average hardcore game is 5.625 times the picture quality of this (actually, pretty much every game is). The average really hardcore (professional) game is 11.25 times the picture quality, assuming 1080p.

Just pointing out that while the console crowd are fine considering this hardcore in comparison to what they have, pc gamers mostly will disagree due to the game limiting their reaction times, being a slideshow, and being completely blurry and undefined because the image is upscaled 2.8125 times to fit the average monitor.

I mean sure, it's a single player game, but there are significantly more challenging things that test your capability much more. You can hop on Quake Live or Promod and have to play against players that can react in 1/120th of a second and have no practical skill cap, as opposed to a single player game that's designed for you to be able to win, and limits you to reacting in 1/30th of a second (and possibly slower, depending on framerate drops).

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by hardcore. And in all fairness, I don't really know much about the game, but it doesn't sound like it's particularly hardcore, you just have to learn attack patterns apparently. But if you consider learning attack patterns hardcore, then you're mistaken... unless it's a bullet hell. Or Tetris.

And not a fuck was given. If the game is decent, who cares if it gets some graphics snobs' undies in a twist.

gnihton:

The average hardcore game is 5.675 times the picture quality of this (and ones that aren't hardcore, actually). The average really hardcore (professional) game is 11.25 times the picture quality, assuming 1080p.

Just pointing out that while the console crowd are fine considering this hardcore in comparison to what they have, pc gamers mostly will disagree due to the game limiting their reaction times, being a slideshow, and being completely blurry and undefined because the image is upscaled 2.8125 times to fit the average monitor.

I mean sure, it's a single player game, but there are significantly more challenging things that test your capability much more. You can hop on Quake Live or Promod and have to play against players that can react in 1/120th of a second and have no practical skill cap, as opposed to a single player game that's designed for you to be able to win, and limits you to reacting in 1/30th of a second (and possibly slower, depending on framerate drops).

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you mean by hardcore. And in all fairness, I don't really know much about the game, but it doesn't sound like it's particularly hardcore, you just have to learn attack patterns apparently. But if you consider learning attack patterns hardcore, then you're mistaken... unless it's a bullet hell. Or Tetris.

Sweet Jesus, that video was ridiculous.

Apologies on not defining hardcore correctly. I mean that the game is pretty fucking hard, especially for a single player game. It's no bullet hell, but very few games are.

According to the article the game is still very playable despite the graphical shortcomings compared to other PC games. I just find it rather odd that this is such a big deal to so many people, especially since many people demonize developers for thinking that good graphics=good game. As long as the game is good and the graphics non-detrimental to the gameplay (which is apparently the case), why get in such a tizzy?

MPerce:

Sweet Jesus, that video was ridiculous.

Apologies on not defining hardcore correctly. I mean that the game is pretty fucking hard, especially for a single player game. It's no bullet hell, but very few games are.

According to the article the game is still very playable despite the graphical shortcomings compared to other PC games. I just find it rather odd that this is such a big deal to so many people, especially since many people demonize developers for thinking that good graphics=good game. As long as the game is good and the graphics non-detrimental to the gameplay (which is apparently the case), why get in such a tizzy?

Resolution and framerate aren't reeeealllyy graphics, I mean they are, but it isn't about eyecandy. They define how pleasant something is to play, and 30fps is just not acceptable for most pc gamers, and even some console gamers (CoD runs at 60fps on consoles, it could be a reason why it's so popular on consoles).

It's not about graphics, it's about playability. I absolutely loved Amnesia: The Dark Descent (I can't wait for A Machine For Pigs), but if it were running at 30fps, I wouldn't fucking bother. Framerate is the deciding factor on whether something's playable or not. For many, many people, 30 fps isn't. As for resolution... higher resolution just looks nicer. It has nothing to do with the graphics of the game, You could run Metro 2033 maxed out at 300x300 resolution and it would still look like arse on account of the resolution, despite it being one of the nicest looking games out there.

Since you're probably going 'that's just complaining about the graphics!' resolution also defines the accuracy of the representation of the game world. Higher resolution = you see more. Although I really don't have to justify people liking higher resolution, it just looks nicer. I mean, why do you go to cinemas instead of watching a movie on tv? Is that being 'picky' or a 'graphics whore'? Or is it, as a lot of people say, "viewing it as it's supposed to be viewed"?

Hint: It's the latter.

Well this sucks, I wasn't expecting redone textures or lighting but I was at least hoping I would be able to at least play it in 1080p at 60fps. Guess I will buy it when modders figure it out.

It would be fun to cross-compare how many people moan about 30 FPS and low-fidelity here, but are touting "games don't need good graphics to be good" in those other topics.

RubyT:
It would be fun to cross-compare how many people moan about 30 FPS and low-fidelity here, but are touting "games don't need good graphics to be good" in those other topics.

There's a difference between stuttering and say, the graphics found in Bastion. Bastion isn't photorealistic, but the graphics are smooth. The problems with 30FPS is it's roughly half the FPS provided by a PC monitor. Try playing a console game with a strobelight on.

RubyT:
It would be fun to cross-compare how many people moan about 30 FPS and low-fidelity here, but are touting "games don't need good graphics to be good" in those other topics.

I agree, it would be interesting though they are right about one thing. A bad port is a bad port, unlocking frames and resolution is pretty standard when it comes to PC games. I'm not upset at all cause I know someone on the internet will figure it out.

gnihton:
[quote="MPerce" post="7.384561.15283057"]

It's not about graphics, it's about playability. I absolutely loved Amnesia: The Dark Descent (I can't wait for A Machine For Pigs), but if it were running at 30fps, I wouldn't fucking bother. Framerate is the deciding factor on whether something's playable or not. For many, many people, 30 fps isn't. As for resolution... higher resolution just looks nicer. It has nothing to do with the graphics of the game, You could run Metro 2033 maxed out at 300x300 resolution and it would still look like arse on account of the resolution, despite it being one of the nicest looking games out there.

Since you're probably going 'that's just complaining about the graphics!' resolution also defines the accuracy of the representation of the game world. Higher resolution = you see more. Although I really don't have to justify people liking higher resolution, it just looks nicer. I mean, why do you go to cinemas instead of watching a movie on tv? Is that being 'picky' or a 'graphics whore'? Or is it, as a lot of people say, "viewing it as it's supposed to be viewed"?

Hint: It's the latter.

Touche, good sir. Being a console gamer who's never owned a PC worth jack shit, I infrequently take such matters into consideration. I still feel like I'd need to actually see the game in motion on a PC to make a call as to its quality, but I now understand what people are pissed about.

Knowledge is awesome, being ignorant is not. Thank you very much!

30 fps isn't bad at all if there's motion blur.
The 1024x768 limitation seems much worse since almost everyone has 16x9 screens nowadays.
THAT's what will look like crap.

The ability to change the resolution should be a given in any pc game and I have yet to see one that doesn't allow for it.

I'm really looking forward to it, I'll get a legendarily difficult game bundled in with a meta game where one has to wrestle with Games for Windows: Live and resolution incompatibilities.

I can already see this being game of the year.

Disclaimer:
That was not sarcasm.

Up-scaling 1024x720 to 1680x1050 would look really blurry (hell, if I had a 2048x1440 monitor I wouldn't complain at all)... And since I watch my monitor from half a meter that would be a problem. Also, sluggish control from the low refresh rate can be aggravating, but it will increase difficulty, which could be good, since k&m controls could make the game too easy on the PC.

ResonanceSD:

Evilsanta:
Wow, After reading some of the comments here I am ashammed to call my self a PC gamer.

You are getting the same freaking game plus new added content for FREE. I can't count how many times I replayed Dark Souls on my PS3 and still enjoy the hell out of it despite some of it flaws. Like the framedrop rate in Blighttown, Fuck that place. So it won't run perfectly fine in 1900x1200 resolution or higher the 30 fps, So what? It is still a great game.

And here I thought the whole PC gamer elitist was a exaggeration or what the "extreme" ones where called. But apperently not.

Whilst I don't agree with most of the comments, those of us who have got machines capable of better performance than a PS3 would appreciate some acknowledgement of this from developers. It's not a dealbreaker (that's GFWL's job), but it sure as hell is annoying.

MPerce:

Please don't tell me that the majority of PC gamers are so obsessed with graphics that they won't buy an incredible game tailor-made for their hardcore mindset because it looks like a console game. That would be sad.

Not obsessing, but you can't be annoyed when I expect something released for this

imagehttps://p.twimg.com/AzI2mEYCcAAK02l.jpg:large/img]

to be slightly better than something released for this.

imagehttp://static.ddmcdn.com/gif/three-sixty-1.jpg/img]

yes we can when its a post-release port being done cause fan petition.
were it being made with mind to port it to PC I'd be a bit more on your side(I frankly don't give two shits about graphics-whores like yourself) but considering the facts that this is being done as a favor to the petitioners, you acting like an entitled brat who is mad that the game he wanted isn't coming out on his console and thus blaming the developers is uncalled for.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here