Dark Souls Port Brings Console Problems to PC

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

I think I am one of the single PC gamers left that has a 19" monitor with a max resolution of 1200/1024 which I have been using for a couple of years now.

Guess the cropping from the lower resolution won't make the game blurry enough and it will be playable.

Joseph Alexander:
[(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.

Didn't care about the game before it launched, didn't care after it launched, didn't sign any petition to get it ported to PC and I sure as hell don't care now. Also just for the record, I'm not buying it.

Your assumptions about what I want from a game are hilarious, by the way. I don't think the graphics in say, Chrono Trigger are anything to write home about, but I still think it's a fantastic example of gaming.

And it's not "being a graphics whore", so much as "bling bling".

DonTsetsi:
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.

"shitty controls" isn't a substitute for difficulty. It's the only reason NES games were difficult.

Also, 3240x1920, seriously, try it XD

I can only imagine how bad it must feel for you people to have to stick to a decent framerate with decent graphics. You should all start complaining like normal.

Jesus christ, people wonder why PC gamers have such a bad reputation, this is why. Goddammit people this is why my friends laugh at me when I talk about how I buy more games for PC than I do anything else, stop making everyone else look bad!

Karloff:
If there's one thing PC gamers like to talk about, it's graphics. Graphical fidelity is usually enhanced on the PC compared to console editions, which is one of the reasons many people hold out for a PC version of popular games. Enter Dark Souls: Prepare to Die, the latest From Software edition of the hardcore fantasy die-die-die game, that has already been rumored to be slightly on the problematic side. A rush to get the PC port out "as quickly as possible" - according to developer Daisuke Uchiyama - might, the rumors went, mean that frame rate problems and other concerns wouldn't get fixed.

Weeeell ... hard luck, PC gamers. "While the frame-rate's rough edges have been filed down," said Eurogamer, which has had access to a pre-release version, "you're still going to be playing at 30FPS out of the box." There doesn't appear to be an easy fix for that problem, but it gets worse. "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." There's no way to change that basic image quality, which means that "PC gamers will very much be getting the genuine console experience here, right down to the pixel."

Still, there's some comfort to be had. The game is still as difficult as it ever was, and there are extra areas for the player to poke around in - and die a lot - with new enemies prepared to squish you like a gnat. The visual tone is as striking as ever, and the frame rate is much smoother than it has been before. But, if you were looking for graphical greatness, better readjust your expectations. When Uchiyama said "we haven't been able to step up into doing any specific optimization for PC," he really meant it.

Source: Eurogamer

Permalink

Wasn't all this supposed to happen?
This isn't a problem but they way they intended the game to always be, they always claimed that the game would be this way.

DarkhoIlow:
I think I am one of the single PC gamers left that has a 19" monitor with a max resolution of 1200/1024 which I have been using for a couple of years now.

Guess the cropping from the lower resolution won't make the game blurry enough and it will be playable.

Oh mister fancy pants with is 1200*1024 monitor some of us still have 1024*768 monitors. Also still surprised at people's comments here. There is what a 9:1(exaggeration but no more than "oh noes the shame of a few elitists ruining it for everyone") ratio of people not complaining and buying it over this to it being a deal breaker. Especially since they more or less said this was happening anyway.

Glademaster:

DarkhoIlow:
I think I am one of the single PC gamers left that has a 19" monitor with a max resolution of 1200/1024 which I have been using for a couple of years now.

Guess the cropping from the lower resolution won't make the game blurry enough and it will be playable.

Oh mister fancy pants with is 1200*1024 monitor some of us still have 1024*768 monitors. Also still surprised at people's comments here. There is what a 9:1(exaggeration but no more than "oh noes the shame of a few elitists ruining it for everyone") ratio of people not complaining and buying it over this to it being a deal breaker. Especially since they more or less said this was happening anyway.

Let me ask you this,do you own any of the 3 consoles? If the answer is yes then my point is proven.

Cause else,I really doubt you would be able to play any high fidelity games that have come out the past year with that kind of low resolution.And I would reckon that with such a low rez monitor the system specs must be pretty low as well.

PS: Don't get me wrong,I will buy the game myself,just wanted to point that out.

At least they told you months before. Some publishers and devolepers wouldn't say anything.

So long the graphics don't interfere with the gameplay (like lagging during a combat, specially in this game), I have no problem with it.

This is the most fun I've had reading a thread in so long. Thank you guys.

Jazoni89:
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.

Well equating this to cancer is, at least from your position, giving "us" credence. After all, isn't cancer a real problem?

Anyway, could you be any more of a hilariously generalizing, circlejerk-participating, straw-man fighting forum equivalent of Don Quixote?

gnihton:
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"?

See that's the sad part. Apparently, from a lot of people's perspective anyway, you do.

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.

Here's my guess about what would happen. There's almost nobody that would serve as proof of your proposition, and what little proof you'd be able to find would be either directly taken out of context or the person not speaking everything they have to say on the subject, effectively making the context hidden.

How about this. Instead of going "Hey everybody, I bet you're hypocrites!", how about you actually go and ask people what's their opinion on the topic of graphics and the quality of a game (which by the way isn't even the bloody issue here, it's display) and then form a conclusion.

MPerce:
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!

What? You are probably the first person in this thread to [dramatic]see the light[/dramatic] and not bail on the thread once you're challenged on your views. For that, you get 1000 internets. Spend them well.

image

Why are PC gamers being called entitled for not buying a product that does not offer what they want? I just can't help but feel that some of the comments here lack a fundamental understanding of the way a consumer is supposed to act.

Hint: you buy products that give you what you want.

Nothing entitled about not liking a feature set. I wont buy the game, From wont get my money, and I wont play the game. I'm not entitled to anything and neither is From.

It's also ridiculous to assume that PC gamers should have expected a game with a locked resolution. When a developer says "a straight port" we expect a game that's probably a bit badly optimized, has some bugs, maybe a 30fps cap etc. But seriously, when was the last time a high profile game was released on the PC without working resolution options? I can't think of one...

Meh. I know they said it was going to be a basic port, but come on. Even low budget indie games usually have resolution options. My native resolution on my laptop is 1920x1080. That means the game is going to look horrendous on my laptop. The image will be all screwed up and will detract from the experience. I don't see what's so hard about adding resolution support. I don't see how expecting these things is considered entitled or whiny. This is very basic stuff for any PC game, and while I was initially going to consider getting the game close to launch to support the devs, now I'm going to hold off until a Steam sale. I didn't expect upgraded graphics and was prepared to deal with GFWL (as crap as it is, I've had trouble with it in the past), but I don't support laziness. There are certain basic features that need to be accommodated for each platform, and if they expect my money they need to provide them.

Also, the DLC isn't "free". The game is available for $39.99 on Steam. I was in Gamestop a few days ago, and the price on a new copy of Dark Souls on PS3 is $29.99. So we are paying more money than you would have to pay in store. We aren't getting some great deal. It's cheaper than it was at launch for consoles, yes, but that was some time ago and a price drop is normal. We are paying more for a new copy today than you have to.

I will just bide my time. I am actually pretty excited about this game, having missed the franchise on PS3.
It will be fan-patched at some point, thus we can have our cake & eat it. Just don't play it on release.
Remember STALKER?

Alatar The Red:
Why are PC gamers being called entitled

Because 'entitled' is the new 'elitist'

Entitled? Gonna go with "no" there.

I really couldn't care much about the framerate or the resolution myself. An ugly game can still be fun. No, my concerns is rest with what happened with the last ported game I got: Skyrim. Up until it got patched, the controls were terrible, mouse was nuts and the game was unplayable. Granted I was the rare occurrence of this sort of issue, but it was still there. But this is from a company that has no clue what they are doing with pc, and has already shown that the port is barest of bones. I have to wonder if it will even be playable without a lot of patches.

Honestly, given the variety in monitors and the issues framerate might have on a pc, I think asking for some effort there is not asking too much. It is part of what a lot of pc gamers are after (myself not included, but I can understand their desires there). Entitled though, that is not the case. After all, none of us are demanding anything in this, merely exercising our rights to not buy a product we feel is not worth the money. And what may well be an ugly, buggy, unplayable game does fit the bill there.

Oh God, this is atrocious! This game needs to die in a pit of flames and death, I just... I won't be able to play this game at all, in fact, I should just reject the terms of service of Steam and have my account terminated. THIRTY FPS?! That's... Who can ever play a game at 30FPS?! Even though that's the standard FPS of many things and the human eye can't see much more.

AND CONSOLE RESOLUTION?! OH GOD PLEASE STOP NO MORE! God forbid, you'd think that i'd buy the game for the gameplay... which is why any normal human being would buy the game. But I buy games exclusively on my PC because I only play them for graphics, I hope the developers die for this. This game is probably worse than those shitty busts like Super Meat Boy and League of Legends. Who the hell would play those? The graphics are terrible. At least I still have Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3, what an amazing, brilliant game that is.

Angry Juju:
Oh God, this is atrocious! This game needs to die in a pit of flames and death, I just... I won't be able to play this game at all, in fact, I should just reject the terms of service of Steam and have my account terminated. THIRTY FPS?! That's... Who can ever play a game at 30FPS?! Even though that's the standard FPS of many things and the human eye can't see much more.

AND CONSOLE RESOLUTION?! OH GOD PLEASE STOP NO MORE! God forbid, you'd think that i'd buy the game for the gameplay... which is why any normal human being would buy the game. But I buy games exclusively on my PC because I only play them for graphics, I hope the developers die for this. This game is probably worse than those shitty busts like Super Meat Boy and League of Legends. Who the hell would play those? The graphics are terrible. At least I still have Call of Duty Modern Warfare 3, what an amazing, brilliant game that is.

I was playing Borderlands before, dropped down to 40 frames and though "Dammnit this is annoying and laggy, hopefully it will go back up to 60".

Then it did, and I was happy. Ipso facto, you're completely wrong about the framerate thing. Also try reading about the fact that monitors and televisions aren't the same thing (weird I know).

Supernova1138:
Pfft, might as well not release it on PC at all then. Given the fact the game is locked at 720p and 30FPS since they can't take the time to fix that, I doubt the bug testing is going to be that great either. The port is probably going to be a buggy mess that crashes every 5 minutes.

Hell, we might even have a contender for a worse port than GTA IV here.

Seriously that's such a big deal to you? Get over it. If it turns out to be crashing constantly, got bad controls and doesn't work, then yes its a shoddy port. But having it the same resolution as the console (esp 720p which most games now a days run at anyway, even on PC), is the most pathetic thing to bitch about I've ever heard of.

Rabid Toilet:
This whole Dark Souls port thing is being blown way out of proportion.

News sites are making it out to be garbage that no one should buy, that the developers are rushing out a crappy port to make money, that the result is an unplayable mess. The reality is that PC gamers get the exact same game that consoles have. The exact same, perfectly playable, perfectly fine looking game we've been playing for so long.

But because the port isn't superior to the original, this is apparently unacceptable. Now, the game will likely not sell very well because of everyone being led to believe the port is crap. Say goodbye to getting PC ports of future titles. Apparently the same as everyone else just isn't good enough.

You don't get it.

30 FPS is good for Conoles, but the PC doesn't use the same metric.

its like temperature, the C and F are not the same.

A normal PC game requires 60 frames to even run properly. 30 is a literal slide show, especially if the frame rate drops lower than that.

Pick the Master Key, skipp Blightown. Solves 90% of frame rate drops.
Sucks for PC gamers but you guys are still getting a great game.

DarkhoIlow:

Glademaster:

DarkhoIlow:
I think I am one of the single PC gamers left that has a 19" monitor with a max resolution of 1200/1024 which I have been using for a couple of years now.

Guess the cropping from the lower resolution won't make the game blurry enough and it will be playable.

Oh mister fancy pants with is 1200*1024 monitor some of us still have 1024*768 monitors. Also still surprised at people's comments here. There is what a 9:1(exaggeration but no more than "oh noes the shame of a few elitists ruining it for everyone") ratio of people not complaining and buying it over this to it being a deal breaker. Especially since they more or less said this was happening anyway.

Let me ask you this,do you own any of the 3 consoles? If the answer is yes then my point is proven.

Cause else,I really doubt you would be able to play any high fidelity games that have come out the past year with that kind of low resolution.And I would reckon that with such a low rez monitor the system specs must be pretty low as well.

PS: Don't get me wrong,I will buy the game myself,just wanted to point that out.

What is your point? I'll answer when you tell me what your point is because I don't see the point in answer since I don't know what your point is also you could have just looked at my Escapist profile. Is your point that I don't bother to play my BF 3 on high settings because I haven't had the money to upgrade my monitor and decided to upgrade important things like RAM and HDD?

So much for making a tongue in cheek comment.

My point was actually not regarding your comment,but to the other person that mentioned that the majority of PC players have big monitors with minimum 1600 resolution.He implied that those have become "standard" in this day and age(and I can agree to that myself).I wanted to say that there are still a few amongst PC gamers that still do not own such a high resolution monitor.

Not being able to get a more powerful monitor and have a PC that could handle so much more is a tad disappointing,but I didn't want to invest in a new monitor,being already used to the 1200/1024 resolution in all the games that I have played in the last decade.

Sorry if you thought my reply to your comment was insulting,I didn't want it to turn out like that.

OT: I merely expressed my concerns about this title,because I have signed the petition as well and really want to experience the game for myself so I was a little worried about the limitations that they've put on this game just to port it.

If it flops in sales,then they will the blame PC for not being a worthwhile platform.I don't understand why they couldn't just outsource it to a developer that actually knew how to port console games to PC,really stubborn decision there.

Ultratwinkie:

Rabid Toilet:
This whole Dark Souls port thing is being blown way out of proportion.

News sites are making it out to be garbage that no one should buy, that the developers are rushing out a crappy port to make money, that the result is an unplayable mess. The reality is that PC gamers get the exact same game that consoles have. The exact same, perfectly playable, perfectly fine looking game we've been playing for so long.

But because the port isn't superior to the original, this is apparently unacceptable. Now, the game will likely not sell very well because of everyone being led to believe the port is crap. Say goodbye to getting PC ports of future titles. Apparently the same as everyone else just isn't good enough.

You don't get it.

30 FPS is good for Conoles, but the PC doesn't use the same metric.

its like temperature, the C and F are not the same.

A normal PC game requires 60 frames to even run properly. 30 is a literal slide show, especially if the frame rate drops lower than that.

No, you don't get it.

30 FPS is completely playable on a PC. I know this from experience. Back when I had a crappy computer, that's about the frame rate I would get after lowering all the graphic settings, and it was still pretty damn smooth. Saying it's a literal slide show is just false.

Rabid Toilet:
No, you don't get it.

30 FPS is completely playable on a PC. I know this from experience. Back when I had a crappy computer, that's about the frame rate I would get after lowering all the graphic settings, and it was still pretty damn smooth. Saying it's a literal slide show is just false.

For anyone (or, well, most anyone) who's used to 60FPS, it's perfectly true. And you don't even have to be used to it to notice the vast difference between 30FPS and 60FPS, even though you might actually be fine with playing it at 30FPS.

I, too, used to have a shitty PC, and I played things at around 30FPS. Seeing how smooth everything was on my brother's PC at 60FPS blew my mind. It is an objectively, and immensely, superior experience, unless one has some eye defect or something to that extent. And it's the fucking standard, and has been for a long long time, which is something a lot of people conveniently forget. This is a studio game that costs 40 bucks, not having something as basic as this is inexcusable.

Here's a fun experiment: Go emulate a PS2 game and cap the FPS at thirty. Then, take the cap off completely, and allow the game to run at speeds higher than 60FPS.

Report your findings.

Supernova1138:
Pfft, might as well not release it on PC at all then. Given the fact the game is locked at 720p and 30FPS since they can't take the time to fix that, I doubt the bug testing is going to be that great either. The port is probably going to be a buggy mess that crashes every 5 minutes.

Hell, we might even have a contender for a worse port than GTA IV here.

I always thought Saint's Row 2 had the worst port job? Don't get me wrong, they both suck, but I recall Saints Row had a bunch of bugs. Then again, Saint's Row eventually got an awesome fan patch, and didn't come shackled with GFWL.

But even those games had resolution options. It's like they're intentionally making it bad so they can say "they tried!" and then not have to bother any more.

Carnagath:
A classic case of "miscommunication", isn't it... When people asked for this game on the PC, they actually meant that they wanted a proper PC port, not a half-assed copy paste cash grab. I played Dark Souls to death on the PS3, but was still planning on buying it for the PC just so I could play it with many of my friends who are not console owners and yet were very interested in the game. Then, of course, they read shit like this and lost their interest, and so did I. So, all our sales are effectively lost for the company, and I'm pretty sure we're not the only ones who feel that way. Still, I feel that the game will do reasonably well, which is a shame. The ideal for me would be for it to tank hard and for clearly defined reasons that will be communicated to the devs/publisher, so that they know, for future reference, that if you plan on serving the PC crowd shit, they are not going to eat it. They had a very unique and, in my opinion, quite large niche of gamers to appeal to with this game. A niche that, even on consoles, is apparently large enough to support the development of a game of such ambitious scale like Dark Souls. A crowd which, on the side of PC gaming, is much, much larger and way more thirsty for a game like that. A great port might have potentially brought about changes of perspective in the industry. So much for that...

I don't get this, people on console don't even give a shit about graphics and they don't feel there is any problem with the framerate. Why is it such a big deal on the PC? In fact why do PC gamers give so much of a shit about this crap? Oh great now I can't enjoy the game now that I've been told it's 30 fps time to picket the developer. If the only advantage PC gaming had was graphics no one would be gaming on the PC because that's just a fucking waste of money. PC gaming though has mod's, it has expanded capabilities like supporting 60 players in one multiplayer match, it has a larger selection of controllers, it has longer lasting servers as well as private servers,it has the best exclusives etc. etc. hence why I'm going to get my rig updated. How come PC gamers don't get angry over you know those things that actually matter and instead focus on graphics the most inconsequential part of gaming? Like how Batman Arkham City doesn't have mods? Or better yet how some games don't come out with capability of modding them? To me it's like not buying a game because you don't like the HUD or the menu is ugly.

I mean I guess I'm not the kind of person who is willing to shell out a couple extra thousand dollars just so that a couple of minor graphical problems are gone, but at the end of the day it's just picture, now I'd get if you got a surround sound system and a better sound card because Sound is what truly immerses you and it's something that you will notice every second of gameplay whereas you only notice good graphics for the first 10 minutes before you forget about them.

Warforger:

Carnagath:
A classic case of "miscommunication", isn't it... When people asked for this game on the PC, they actually meant that they wanted a proper PC port, not a half-assed copy paste cash grab. I played Dark Souls to death on the PS3, but was still planning on buying it for the PC just so I could play it with many of my friends who are not console owners and yet were very interested in the game. Then, of course, they read shit like this and lost their interest, and so did I. So, all our sales are effectively lost for the company, and I'm pretty sure we're not the only ones who feel that way. Still, I feel that the game will do reasonably well, which is a shame. The ideal for me would be for it to tank hard and for clearly defined reasons that will be communicated to the devs/publisher, so that they know, for future reference, that if you plan on serving the PC crowd shit, they are not going to eat it. They had a very unique and, in my opinion, quite large niche of gamers to appeal to with this game. A niche that, even on consoles, is apparently large enough to support the development of a game of such ambitious scale like Dark Souls. A crowd which, on the side of PC gaming, is much, much larger and way more thirsty for a game like that. A great port might have potentially brought about changes of perspective in the industry. So much for that...

I don't get this, people on console don't even give a shit about graphics and they don't feel there is any problem with the framerate. Why is it such a big deal on the PC? In fact why do PC gamers give so much of a shit about this crap? Oh great now I can't enjoy the game now that I've been told it's 30 fps time to picket the developer. If the only advantage PC gaming had was graphics no one would be gaming on the PC because that's just a fucking waste of money. PC gaming though has mod's, it has expanded capabilities like supporting 60 players in one multiplayer match, it has a larger selection of controllers, it has longer lasting servers as well as private servers,it has the best exclusives etc. etc. hence why I'm going to get my rig updated. How come PC gamers don't get angry over you know those things that actually matter and instead focus on graphics the most inconsequential part of gaming? Like how Batman Arkham City doesn't have mods? Or better yet how some games don't come out with capability of modding them? To me it's like not buying a game because you don't like the HUD or the menu is ugly.

I mean I guess I'm not the kind of person who is willing to shell out a couple extra thousand dollars just so that a couple of minor graphical problems are gone, but at the end of the day it's just picture, now I'd get if you got a surround sound system and a better sound card because Sound is what truly immerses you and it's something that you will notice every second of gameplay whereas you only notice good graphics for the first 10 minutes before you forget about them.

It's not the graphical quality that's the issue, it's optimization. PC's are different than consoles. People usually play pc games on a desk, sitting close to a large monitor. This is why having options like an FOV slider (especially in first person games) and a framerate higher than 30 is important, it makes playing the games more comfortable for your eyes. Lying on your couch 4 meters away from a TV is a different setup. Granted, you can do that with a PC too, but most people don't do it due to the way their space is set up. In such conditions, many things go unnoticed, limited FOV is more forgiving to the eyes, aliasing issues are not as prominent as when you are sitting in front of a computer monitor etc. Try running a console game and move yourself close to the TV and you will notice how terrible it actually looks, but distance alleviates some of the issues. Of course, there is also the fact that people spent some money to buy a rig with certain capabilities. Even if it is a mid-range rig, it should be more than capable of handling far higher fidelity than any existing console. When a developer copy pastes the console version and denies you that, because they cannot be arsed or cannot afford to properly optimize their port, it leaves you an unsatisfied customer.

My original post has been quoted a few times in this thread, with replies that basically boil down to "why do you care that it's a bad port". My answer to that is, what the hell is the matter with you? Are you serious with this shit? Come on... And I'm not even a "PC gamer", I own all the consoles and do most of my gaming on them actually, but it's a simple fact that PC's have more capabilities and a developer should at least put SOME minimum amount of effort into taking advantage of those, if not for better visuals then at the VERY least for some basic comfort. If you lock your game at 30 FPS even though my rig can handle 60, just because you can't be arsed to change a single line of engine code, or release an FPS that is locked at 60 FOV so that I can't see shit and it gives me a headache, then why on earth would I buy it?

Carnagath:

My original post has been quoted a few times in this thread, with replies that basically boil down to "why do you care that it's a bad port". My answer to that is, what the hell is the matter with you? Are you serious with this shit? Come on... And I'm not even a "PC gamer", I own all the consoles and do most of my gaming on them actually, but it's a simple fact that PC's have more capabilities and a developer should at least put SOME minimum amount of effort into taking advantage of those, if not for better visuals then at the VERY least for some basic comfort. If you lock your game at 30 FPS even though my rig can handle 60, just because you can't be arsed to change a single line of engine code, or release an FPS that is locked at 60 FOV so that I can't see shit and it gives me a headache, then why on earth would I buy it?

Oh ok, that makes sense. But I think what I and other posters were talking about was just in general, things like this are what confuse me, I mean the you only slightly notice it during the screenshots but during gameplay you don't notice at all. For all the advantages the PC has, PC gamers seem to be the most sensitive and the most proud of its graphics, and I just can't figure out why because that is possibly the least important thing you can be proud of (and hell it makes it worse for developers as now they have to take up more time on graphics instead of the rest of the game).

Wow. Does everything have to turn into a PC vs console debate with the two sides at each other's throats?

I don't really see a problem with this. The devs admitted that they didn't have experience with the PC and that it was going to be a direct port. It's not like we PC gamers were promised a shining, golden version of the game that could cure cancer and feed the homeless.

The good news is that, given a bit of time, fans will probably fix it. Also, driver-side enhancements like morphological AA will probably work.

Captcha: remain calm. Yeah, that's what I just said!

Hammeroj:

MPerce:
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!

What? You are probably the first person in this thread to [dramatic]see the light[/dramatic] and not bail on the thread once you're challenged on your views. For that, you get 1000 internets. Spend them well.

image

Thank you for the Internets! I shall wisely invest them in the next video that is just beginning to go viral. Once it has grown from a million views to fifty million views, I shall sell my shares for MILLIONS of Internets!

THE WEB WILL BE MY OYSTER!!!

But yeah, when I am proven by a fellow forum member to be completely incorrect and talking out of my ass, I find it's better to just accept it and learn from it instead of stubbornly sticking to my guns and coming off as a troll/moron.

Well, it's late but I'm going to add my two bits.

In the end, this game is still functional, but it's something that many P.C. fans aren't going to like. If my graphics card wasn't A gt 530 60fps would be an FPS rate I'd like. But surely it seems reasonable to me not to argue over whether the P.C. gamers deserved a better game than the consoles got or not, but for P.C. owners just to move and say to the devs: "You gave us a shitty port. We're not buying it." A tad more productive than bickering and calling people entitled, no?

Matthew94:

I believe you wanted in on this.

trollpwner:
Well, it's late but I'm going to add my two bits.

In the end, this game is still functional, but it's something that many P.C. fans aren't going to like. If my graphics card wasn't A gt 530 60fps would be an FPS rate I'd like. But surely it seems reasonable to me not to argue over whether the P.C. gamers deserved a better game than the consoles got or not, but for P.C. owners just to move and say to the devs: "You gave us a shitty port. We're not buying it." A tad more productive than bickering and calling people entitled, no?

Matthew94:

I believe you wanted in on this.

PC gamers deserve access to the gates of heaven for having the game ported to them so I disagree with you on that! They should also have optimised it so I could run 3D on triple monitors at the full 120Hz refresh rate and still be able to run a rendering program in the background. The devs should also give us the sequel for free.

Take that you hussied up, hodgepodgeing charlatan!

PC master race away!!!

Hammeroj:

Rabid Toilet:
No, you don't get it.

30 FPS is completely playable on a PC. I know this from experience. Back when I had a crappy computer, that's about the frame rate I would get after lowering all the graphic settings, and it was still pretty damn smooth. Saying it's a literal slide show is just false.

For anyone (or, well, most anyone) who's used to 60FPS, it's perfectly true. And you don't even have to be used to it to notice the vast difference between 30FPS and 60FPS, even though you might actually be fine with playing it at 30FPS.

I, too, used to have a shitty PC, and I played things at around 30FPS. Seeing how smooth everything was on my brother's PC at 60FPS blew my mind. It is an objectively, and immensely, superior experience, unless one has some eye defect or something to that extent. And it's the fucking standard, and has been for a long long time, which is something a lot of people conveniently forget. This is a studio game that costs 40 bucks, not having something as basic as this is inexcusable.

Yes, 60 FPS is better than 30. I'm not arguing that.

I was objecting to him saying that 30 FPS is literally a slide show. Sure, it won't look as good as it would at 60 FPS, but it's still perfectly playable.

 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