Well The P.C. version sounds disappointing...

  • 177 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
#2 Posted by Spoonman671 (4777 posts) -

It sounds exactly like what they told us it would be all along.

#3 Posted by RIDEBIRD (1233 posts) -

Yup, but I thought it was just lost in translation or journalists exaggerating. Now I have to cancel my damn pre-order. Never would've I expect a PC-game in sub HD in 2012. Fuck, I don't even know if I've played a PC game in sub-HD since like 1998.

#4 Posted by TobbRobb (4853 posts) -

We asked for a PC version, and they delivered. Consider that we asked console developers to make a PC game, so we get what they could do. Not optimal, but better then nothing.

#5 Posted by Cheesebob (1249 posts) -

I'm still going to get it for some crazy reason. I can't play it on XBOX 360 at Uni so it is really the only way I can play it for any length of time

#6 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -

@TobbRobb said:

We asked for a PC version, and they delivered. Consider that we asked console developers to make a PC game, so we get what they could do. Not optimal, but better then nothing.

This actually makes sense.. You can't blame the developer for trying their best.

Sadly, their best isn't good enough

#7 Posted by Gaff (1891 posts) -

Forbes. Eugh.

#8 Posted by Kung_Fu_Viking (717 posts) -

I imagine it won't take long for unofficial patches to fix the resolution problem.

#9 Posted by Cheesebob (1249 posts) -

@Kung_Fu_Viking: Is that even possible if the game is as 'console porty' as it sounds?

#10 Posted by valrog (3648 posts) -

1024x720? That's not even HD... I really, really hope they hire competent people to handle the next Souls game. If there will even be one.

#11 Posted by TobbRobb (4853 posts) -

@Cheesebob: it might be possible. But "won't be long" probably is very very wrong. We will probably have to wait a while for that, and it will be pretty "complicated" to deal with most likely.

Anyone remember why they locked it to 30? I'm pretty sure it had to do with animation speed, they would have to redo everything to get it balanced if it ran faster. Or something like that.

Kind of like LA Noire with the faces, they look plain weird with the 60FPS hack.

#12 Posted by Bobby_The_Great (1015 posts) -

And then when nobody buys the game on PC, rather than being like, "oh they didn't buy it because it wasn't optimal," From Software will just go, "well, we are never doing that again, what a waste," and stick to consoles. 

#13 Posted by Cheesebob (1249 posts) -

@TobbRobb: If it stays a steady 30FPS and barely dips, it should be ok. The resolution thing is crazy though.

#14 Posted by ajamafalous (12166 posts) -
@Bobby_The_Great said:
And then when nobody buys the game on PC, rather than being like, "oh they didn't buy it because it wasn't optimal," From Software will just go, "well, we are never doing that again, what a waste," and stick to consoles. 
Yep, this. 
 
 
Fucking idiots.
#15 Posted by legendlexicon (97 posts) -

I went out and got a cheap 360 just for this game a month before the pc announcement. At first I thought I had been unlucky, but it looks like I've done the right thing. 1024x720 stretched to 1980x1200? No thank you.

#16 Posted by doobie (605 posts) -

this is what they said it would be all along. they always said it was a straight port with no enhancements for the master race.

#17 Posted by Shivoa (645 posts) -

@TobbRobb said:

We asked for a PC version, and they delivered. Consider that we asked console developers to make a PC game, so we get what they could do. Not optimal, but better then nothing.

Nope, doesn't work like that. They failed to deliver, development of 3D software is development and PCs are hard due to edge cases and weird software conflicts not core competences like resolution option (OpenGL and DX provides a very clear way to deal with this, no one is coding to the metal so there is no reason for this). Not optimal is being a bit off in requiring more resources than would be ideal or not reworking the textures to make use of the new 1080p expected resolution. This is not acceptable, the worst of the worst lazy porting. If you want to get peopel to pay for a product then spend some money on engineers who can solve your platform specific problems and release a good product, don't get some monkeys to type on some keyboards and try to pass off the result as 'oh, it was really hard; but you asked for it so you should buy this shit'. That's just abusive nonsense. This product should not be purchased by anyone as it is not fit for sale.

#18 Posted by CaLe (4058 posts) -

I hope they don't bring any subsequent games to PC because of whiny brats who don't deserve shit and will probably pirate it anyway. Who needs ya.

#19 Posted by JackOhara (227 posts) -

@CaLe said:

I hope they don't bring any subsequent games to PC because of whiny brats who don't deserve shit and will probably pirate it anyway. Who needs ya.

I know, shit like this is embarrassing. People will miss out on one of the best games ever because they don't like the frame rate or the resolution.

#20 Edited by TobbRobb (4853 posts) -

@Shivoa: I didn't say that it was ok, I'm not buying it for this explicit reason. I'm just saying we got exactly what we asked for. If it's due to incompetence or laziness on their part is up for debate. I'm inclined to say they didn't know what they were doing and didn't care enough to research it.

Still, complaining about it will do nothing. That they made this thing happen at all is a fucking miracle, expecting them to do it well is a bit much.

EDIT:@JackOhara: I hope people will get this in spite of the shittiness. I already played this on 360, so I see no reason to encourage crap ports. But people without consoles really should make sure to give it a shot. Definitely one of my favorite games ever.

#21 Edited by RIDEBIRD (1233 posts) -

@CaLe: @JackOhara: @ajamafalous: @Bobby_The_Great: Literally no port this generation has been this bad, and there were some awful ports around 06/07. I don't think I've ever heard of the native resolution being unchangeable. The game will be unplayable on a 1080 monitor that has no native up/downscaler in itself since it will be super blurry, not in the way you would say "gosh darn pc gamers and their gosh darn demands", but in the way that you would probably die several times from pure technical limitations, which sure is not fun in a game like Dark Souls. Sure, you could play on a TV like the console version, but that's not how I like to play my PC games, nor is it even an option. Therefore I won't buy it, as I will not find any enjoyment in it. It's simply disappointing, that's all, and most console ports today are totally fine, and therefor I expect them to be.

30 FPS is no biggie really, you get used to it over time. Worked fine in LA Noire after a few hours of adjusting my eyes. And implying that PC gamers just pirate is old and tired, please just don't, piracy is widespread on all platforms.

#22 Posted by doobie (605 posts) -

there is no shiftiness. they have always said the would not be add anything to the PC version. if they had not told anyone and everyone bought it and then found out, then that would be shifty.

#23 Posted by WarlordPayne (706 posts) -

Because we all know that resolution makes the game.

If you guys wanna miss out on a great game because it isn't pretty enough for you, more power to ya.

#24 Posted by FoolishChaos (447 posts) -

@JackOhara said:

@CaLe said:

I hope they don't bring any subsequent games to PC because of whiny brats who don't deserve shit and will probably pirate it anyway. Who needs ya.

I know, shit like this is embarrassing. People will miss out on one of the best games ever because they don't like the frame rate or the resolution.

Framerate I'm okay with. But the resolution is going to look like shit up close and stretched out.

I can't say we didn't know it was coming though, because they were straight up about it. Basically said "Listen, we will put out a PC version but we don't think it will sell that well, so we aren't going to spend that much time on it." Just means I wont be buying it till its super cheap

#25 Posted by Beforet (2934 posts) -

Hm, that's the truth of the matter, and it doesn't change, then I might just get it on PS3 to avoid GFWL. Unless the framerate in certain spots is still terrible on consoles. Hm.

#26 Posted by connerthekewlkid (1843 posts) -

and now the next souls games will be a console exclusive when they see all the complaining GG

#27 Posted by BongChilla (234 posts) -

I'm not going to buy a bad PC port just so they will release more PC ports in the future. They should do their work and make it the best version available. I don't have the money to spend on a bad game ( the port job, not the game itself) out of principle.

#28 Posted by JackOhara (227 posts) -

@RIDEBIRD said:

@CaLe: @JackOhara: @ajamafalous: @Bobby_The_Great: Literally no port this generation has been this bad, and there were some awful ports around 06/07. I don't think I've ever heard of the native resolution being unchangeable. The game will be unplayable on a 1080 monitor that has no native up/downscaler in itself since it will be super blurry, not in the way you would say "gosh darn pc gamers and their gosh darn demands", but in the way that you would probably die several times from pure technical limitations, which sure is not fun in a game like Dark Souls. Sure, you could play on a TV like the console version, but that's not how I like to play my PC games, nor is it even an option. Therefore I won't buy it, as I will not find any enjoyment in it. It's simply disappointing, that's all, and most console ports today are totally fine, and therefor I expect them to be.

30 FPS is no biggie really, you get used to it over time. Worked fine in LA Noire after a few hours of adjusting my eyes. And implying that PC gamers just pirate is old and tired, please just don't, piracy is widespread on all platforms.

Your monitor or graphics card can't upscale lower resolutions? Seriously? When did you purchase it? I built a fairly cutting edge desktop about a year or two ago and I can play lower resolution games just fine, though I play most games in 1920x1080. I assume all of the footage they've shown for the 'prepare to die' edition has been PC footage, and if that is the case I really don't see the problem.

#29 Posted by CornBREDX (6083 posts) -

The 30 FPS doesn't bother me but the  1024x720 is kind of weird since that's not even average anymore. I mean I don't care about graphics and whatnot, but for a modern game that's a really weird resolution to lock it at on a PC game. I assume it's not a very good port now. That's kind of a shame. This mainly does not bode well for other things, but we'll see. It could be fine.

#30 Posted by valrog (3648 posts) -

@WarlordPayne said:

Because we all know that resolution makes the game.

If you guys wanna miss out on a great game because it isn't pretty enough for you, more power to ya.

Resolution is an important aspect. Ever tried to upscale a low resolution picture? Didn't turn out well, did it? Essentially the same thing will happen here.

I wanted this to be good, I really did. But I will not support laziness and/or incompetence.

#31 Edited by RIDEBIRD (1233 posts) -

@JackOhara: Almost all LCD monitors have no upscalers. That's why everything below 1920x1080 looks like total shit on your or my screen.

If you play a game at say 1680x1050 on your 1080 screen and think it looks fine, then this is a very subjective issue. I thought no one found that OK though. I have a pretty decent IPS (Dell u2311) and a 560 Ti, and if I switch to a few lower resolutions in ARMA 2 to get rid of a bug, I can't see what's going on our what I'm doing. That's how unsharp it is.

The reason for why StarCraft 1 pros still play on CRTs is because they have upscalers, which means the game displays it's 800x600 resolution fine and clear, even if they use 1600x1200 screens. You can't use a LCD for a game like that since they have no upscalers, meaning it would make it all blurry. The difference between 800x600 on a 1080 screen and 1680x1050 on a 1080 screen is of course huge, even disregarding the aspect ratio, but it's still, to me at least, very blurry. No upscaling is going on, it's just that you find it acceptable and I do not.

#32 Posted by Packie (255 posts) -

I have to wonder why they simply didn't outsource it to some small studio that specializes in PC porting or at least hired a contractor. I mean it's not like this is new to Japanese publishers/developers, Sega already do most of their PC ports with PC porting studio, Devil's Detail. The whole situation seems unnecessarily stupid, they had 5 months to ask for help or get outside support.

#33 Posted by McShank (1630 posts) -

@Shivoa said:

@TobbRobb said:

We asked for a PC version, and they delivered. Consider that we asked console developers to make a PC game, so we get what they could do. Not optimal, but better then nothing.

Nope, doesn't work like that. They failed to deliver, development of 3D software is development and PCs are hard due to edge cases and weird software conflicts not core competences like resolution option (OpenGL and DX provides a very clear way to deal with this, no one is coding to the metal so there is no reason for this). Not optimal is being a bit off in requiring more resources than would be ideal or not reworking the textures to make use of the new 1080p expected resolution. This is not acceptable, the worst of the worst lazy porting. If you want to get peopel to pay for a product then spend some money on engineers who can solve your platform specific problems and release a good product, don't get some monkeys to type on some keyboards and try to pass off the result as 'oh, it was really hard; but you asked for it so you should buy this shit'. That's just abusive nonsense. This product should not be purchased by anyone as it is not fit for sale.

Then dont bitch about a console only game and you wont have to see this. I have it for ps3 and I enjoyed it fine. I have Demon's Souls and I enjoyed that. I am buying pc version as I would like to play online again since all but me own a ps3 from my friends and we will spend countless hours finding each other if needed. 30fps is fine, My screen is small since I only have a laptop so resolution isnt a problem. Dont complain when a Console only company finally makes a pc port and STATES it is purely a port with no enhancements make a game that isnt as good as a console game since it is a PORT. So what if they were lazy in this, it is also being released with the DLC and also at a cheaper price then the original at launch by itself, You pay for what you get and they honestly dont need alot of sells as the game has already sold a ton.

#34 Posted by ShaggE (6727 posts) -

Here's where being behind the curve for most of my life pays off. Yeah, that resolution is fucked, but I've been playing many games at low-medium settings and at low resolutions up until around 2005, so this really doesn't bother me that much. I can take a LOT of ugly, and I still see 60fps as a luxury. Hell, my 360 runs on a janky-ass TV through composites, so Dark Souls will still look better on my PC. Bring on the port.

#35 Posted by c0l0nelp0c0rn1 (1811 posts) -

I feel that dealing with a subpar version is a small price to pay, considering I'd have to shell out an extra $50-60 if I wanted to play online. An extra $300 if I wanted to play on PS3.

#36 Posted by Brunchies (2484 posts) -

They should have outsourced the game but I'm not going to be whiny about it since this shouldn't even exist in the first place.

#37 Posted by cyraxible (694 posts) -

Yeah, sounds exactly like what I was expecting. I can't wait!

#38 Posted by SamFo (1562 posts) -

PC Gamers are the most entitled.... They BEGGED for Dark Souls, then it got made. Now they are angry...

#39 Posted by Ravenlight (8011 posts) -

I'm not entirely turned off yet. I'm still not ready to jump on the Prepare to Die edition on day one, but if the reviews are more positive than negative, I'll probably pick DS up in the first week.

#40 Posted by Shivoa (645 posts) -

@SamFo said:

PC Gamers are the most entitled.... They BEGGED for Dark Souls, then it got made. Now they are angry...

You are an idiot or incredible disingenuous. Begone troll!

This isn't entitled, this is demanding a quality product built on best practices for the target platform.

#41 Posted by SamFo (1562 posts) -

@Shivoa: things like GFWL and the game being capped at 30fps are not good enough reason to complain in my opinion

#42 Posted by Terramagi (1158 posts) -

1024x720? Are you kidding? My toaster outputs better than that.

#43 Posted by RIDEBIRD (1233 posts) -

@SamFo: Read every argument made about the resolution issue. Everyone has said 30 FPS is fine. No one here has mentioned GFWL.

The resolution is totally fine on console since your TV upscales it to whatever your TVs resolution is. It's still not going to look as good as real 720p or 1080p on console, but it will look totally fine and not blurry. Read my previous post about how it works on LCD monitors. That's the big issue here. I'd be fully pleased if it just ran on 1080p native and that was the only change made from console. Hell, I've played plenty a console port that way.

If anything though this whole thing will make a further huge rift in the whole PC vs. console thing. PC gamers are mad about something that console gamers don't see as an issue or just see PC gamers complaining about graphics as usual (or being as we here every goddamn time 'entitled'), when the truth is that this is a far worse port then anything ever ported since it will looks super blurry and probably much, much worse then on console. Don't judge it by videos since those are very likely recorded on a machine at 720p, and you see the video in 720p, meaning it looks totally fine since it's recorded at native resolution.

#44 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -

@RIDEBIRD: You're killing it! *Thumbs up*

#45 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@RIDEBIRD said:

@JackOhara: Almost all LCD monitors have no upscalers. That's why everything below 1920x1080 looks like total shit on your or my screen.

Then explain how the image covers all the pixels on the screen. If the image did not get upscaled, anything lower than your native resolution will be displayed as an image boxed in black bars all around (i.e 1:1 pixel output). Yet regardless of whatever resolution you choose to run, your monitor will display it in fullscreen (meaning it does upscale).

The reason why you'd perhaps not perceive the same blurriness on TV is that you're sitting farther back from the screen than you do when you're playing a PC game. Get up close to a TV though, and you'll see even worse image quality than you see on your monitor.

#46 Posted by RIDEBIRD (1233 posts) -

@SlasherMan: Well, I guess it has really shitty upscaling then. I don't know much about this to be totally honest here, but it must be something along the lines that LCD screens have one resolution they display properly at, and then it all goes to blurtown.

The only time I've seen a game look absolutely unplayably shit on console from what seemed like upscaling was MW2 for PS3. Looked ridiculously bad, and as far as I know that runs pretty sub HD. I sat at about the same distance as from my monitor, the TV was only a 720p TV however.

#47 Posted by SlasherMan (1725 posts) -

@RIDEBIRD: In addition, and I completely forgot to mention this, all this talk about upscaling is entirely irrelevant here. You're forgetting the fact that your monitor/TV will do no upscaling when the signal it's receiving matches its native resolution.

The game lets you choose your output resolution, which you will undoubtedly set to your native monitor resolution (i.e 1920x1080 60Hz, etc). Now, the render buffer will remain unaffected by whichever output resolution you're setting the game to (in most PC games the render buffer resolution is the same as the output resolution, except in games where the two have separate settings), so essentially you're already getting an upscaled image before it even reaches your display. Your GPU will be doing the upscaling here.

It's very much like setting your console to output in 1080p. The native rendering resolution remains essentially the same in most cases, but the signal your TV is receiving (the output resolution) will be 1080p. The TV would have nothing to upscale in this case since the image its receiving is already to scale. Same thing here.

Now don't mistake this for me not agreeing with you that this whole affair is pretty shitty. I was fine with GFWL. I was fine with the 30 FPS cap, too. Now I'm not so sure I'm buying this day one on PC as I'd originally planned. I already have the game on PS3, and so for me, the only reason to buy a PC version were the extra perks. Now I'm thinking I'll wait for a 50% off or something.

#48 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11421 posts) -

What's up with people saying 720P isn't HD? They're joking, right? Elitist PC-Master-Race-Gamesmen-A-holes!

#49 Posted by granderojo (1793 posts) -

My response to hearing this news.

Goodbye Dark Souls, I was looking forward to playing you on PC, you played with such honor on my 360 it's a shame you died before reaching your real potential.

#50 Edited by mikeeegeee (1575 posts) -

Yeah but, can you run it in windowed mode? A 1024x768 window on a 1920x1080 monitor is still fairly sizable. Just looking for a silver lining here...

Edit: Errr 1024x720. Balls.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.