.... I dont know if I really care. I know the framerate on the 360 version, like when you hit Blighttown is HORRIBLE so have a game with stable framerate seems good. Everything else, is From being up front with people, they were gonna do enough to get it on PC and that was it. They had no plans on doing, so probably had no team on staff to do a real port.

@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.

Ignorant or troll? Why not play the game upscaled from its crap frame buffer resolution of 1024x 720 on a 30 inch monitor and see how great it is? What pc gamers "deserve" is a game that is at least functional and fit for purchase on PC. There is nothing whiny about discussing the issues in a game that everyone agrees are serious problems that plague an otherwise great game. The fact that you seem to think that there is some sort of divide in between console and PC gamers; as if they were two seperate species, only makes you seem like you have a serious maturity issue or very oddly strong predudices against a broad spectrum of people.

For the record, I'm not trying to be elitist. I just think that such a low resolution port seems odd. It doesn't mean the game will be bad, just suggests it might have other things that could potentially not been touched that may break the experience. I've seen it before is all. We wont know until it comes out though.  
 
Like I said it could be fine, too. =) I still plan on getting it..... again haha

Doesn't sound that bad to me. Yeah, it's the same as the console version, but... so? Gee, you'd think they were asking you to buy a turd or something.

Besides, if you're really that worried then I'm sure someone, somewhere will figure out how to knock it up to 60 FPS and 1920 x 1080. It might be an animations thing that's keeping it down.

EDIT: "1024 x 720 is a serious issue" because...? I've been outputting that from my Xbox on everything and I sit pretty close to my TV (which, by the way, is an LED-LCD TV and serves as a computer monitor anyway). I can't help but feel like this is entitled nitpicking.

"Blurry textures!" Yeah, if you stick your fucking nose in them and stare for ten minutes I'd imagine they will look blurry. When you're dodging the attacks of insanely hard bosses, though, I doubt you'll be concerned about textures not being up to the snuff of your Skyrim high-res mode or those produced in Battlefield 3.

Uh, can we just hold out on the "world port ever" declaration for now? I think we want to hold that distinction for those with stability and bug issues, and we don't know if Dark Souls has those.

Damn this sucks for the PC crowd. If you aren't going to buy the game now then buy a console and play it. One of my favorite games of all time.

This'll likely be the first time I'm going to cancel a Steam pre-order. They should've at least warned buyers beforehand if they're going to pull shit like this.

I've already played the game on a PS3 anyway, it's a shame it'll never truly get the treatment it deserves on the PC.

Telling people to buy an awful port so the developers will continue to release on the platform is a horrible argument for purchasing a game.

@believer258 said:

Doesn't sound that bad to me. Yeah, it's the same as the console version, but... so? Gee, you'd think they were asking you to buy a turd or something.

Besides, if you're really that worried then I'm sure someone, somewhere will figure out how to knock it up to 60 FPS and 1920 x 1080. It might be an animations thing that's keeping it down.

EDIT: "1024 x 720 is a serious issue" because...? I've been outputting that from my Xbox on everything and I sit pretty close to my TV (which, by the way, is an LED-LCD TV and serves as a computer monitor anyway). I can't help but feel like this is entitled nitpicking.

"Blurry textures!" Yeah, if you stick your fucking nose in them and stare for ten minutes I'd imagine they will look blurry. When you're dodging the attacks of insanely hard bosses, though, I doubt you'll be concerned about textures not being up to the snuff of your Skyrim high-res mode or those produced in Battlefield 3.

Would you look at that, a console gamer who doesn't know any better.

@Terramagi: Fuck off with your condescension.

@cyraxible said:

@Terramagi: Fuck off with your condescension.

You're in a topic related to PC gaming, pretending you know things about PC gaming. I'm sorry, would you like me to nod my head and refrain from saying "no, that's stupid, you're horrifically ignorant".

You're the kind of person who flips out over "entitled" gamers when a developer locks FOV options to 65. I'm sorry, a lot of people on PC suffer from hideous migraines when playing with less than 90, because of things like humanbiology. I'll neglect to mention this next time you decide to go on a tirade because you're offended somebody doesn't want to pay a chunk of money for a faulty product that doesn't live up to the standards of the platform.

@Giantstalker said:

They should've at least warned buyers beforehand if they're going to pull shit like this.

Well, to be fair, From were pretty open about how they were approaching this. They did mention everything this port would entail in interviews, people just assumed they were exaggerations or just misunderstandings since the interviews were originally in Japanese.

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

Doesn't sound that bad to me. Yeah, it's the same as the console version, but... so? Gee, you'd think they were asking you to buy a turd or something.

Besides, if you're really that worried then I'm sure someone, somewhere will figure out how to knock it up to 60 FPS and 1920 x 1080. It might be an animations thing that's keeping it down.

EDIT: "1024 x 720 is a serious issue" because...? I've been outputting that from my Xbox on everything and I sit pretty close to my TV (which, by the way, is an LED-LCD TV and serves as a computer monitor anyway). I can't help but feel like this is entitled nitpicking.

"Blurry textures!" Yeah, if you stick your fucking nose in them and stare for ten minutes I'd imagine they will look blurry. When you're dodging the attacks of insanely hard bosses, though, I doubt you'll be concerned about textures not being up to the snuff of your Skyrim high-res mode or those produced in Battlefield 3.

Would you look at that, a console gamer who doesn't know any better.

I spent two years fixing computers for a college. Yeah, I know better, now will you please explain to me why this is such a big fucking deal instead of being a condescending jerk off?

This is where the fucking "elitism" insult comes from. You can take your bullshit and shove it elsewhere. 1024 x 720 is a fine resolution, it's hardly the most that computers can perform or even a third of what computers can do but this game isn't mean to do that. Could they have done a better job? Yeah. This is disappointing. But it's still not a "big deal" when you're talking about console developers doing this because PC gamers asked for it. Now so many of them are bitching and complaining because they didn't get the same caliber of port that the aforementioned Skyrim and Battlefield 3 are? I can understand complaining about, say, the issues Rage had upon release, but that's not this and a lot of you motherfuckers are already condemning it.

Oh, and here's one last "fuck you".

God, I hate elitism. /rant.

@believer258 said:

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

Doesn't sound that bad to me. Yeah, it's the same as the console version, but... so? Gee, you'd think they were asking you to buy a turd or something.

Besides, if you're really that worried then I'm sure someone, somewhere will figure out how to knock it up to 60 FPS and 1920 x 1080. It might be an animations thing that's keeping it down.

EDIT: "1024 x 720 is a serious issue" because...? I've been outputting that from my Xbox on everything and I sit pretty close to my TV (which, by the way, is an LED-LCD TV and serves as a computer monitor anyway). I can't help but feel like this is entitled nitpicking.

"Blurry textures!" Yeah, if you stick your fucking nose in them and stare for ten minutes I'd imagine they will look blurry. When you're dodging the attacks of insanely hard bosses, though, I doubt you'll be concerned about textures not being up to the snuff of your Skyrim high-res mode or those produced in Battlefield 3.

Would you look at that, a console gamer who doesn't know any better.

I spent two years fixing computers for a college. Yeah, I know better, now will you please explain to me why this is such a big fucking deal instead of being a condescending jerk off?

This is where the fucking "elitism" insult comes from. You can take your bullshit and shove it elsewhere. 1024 x 720 is a fine resolution, it's hardly the most that computers can perform or even a third of what computers can do but this game isn't mean to do that. Could they have done a better job? Yeah. This is disappointing. But it's still not a "big deal" when you're talking about console developers doing this because PC gamers asked for it. Now so many of them are bitching and complaining because they didn't get the same caliber of port that the aforementioned Skyrim and Battlefield 3 are? I can understand complaining about, say, the issues Rage had upon release, but that's not this and a lot of you motherfuckers are already condemning it.

Oh, and here's one last "fuck you".

God, I hate elitism. /rant.

Battlefield 3 is not a console port. Skyrim, conversely, is... much to my chagrin. I know, I know, hard to imagine - a game NOT designed for consoles. You can tell the difference... or at least, you should be able to. It's why I loved The Witcher 2 so much when it came out.

Also, what exactly is that Steam link supposed to show me? That you've played very little of New Vegas (amazing game) or The Witcher 1? Or that you have at least tried (and failed) to play Deus Ex?

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

Doesn't sound that bad to me. Yeah, it's the same as the console version, but... so? Gee, you'd think they were asking you to buy a turd or something.

Besides, if you're really that worried then I'm sure someone, somewhere will figure out how to knock it up to 60 FPS and 1920 x 1080. It might be an animations thing that's keeping it down.

EDIT: "1024 x 720 is a serious issue" because...? I've been outputting that from my Xbox on everything and I sit pretty close to my TV (which, by the way, is an LED-LCD TV and serves as a computer monitor anyway). I can't help but feel like this is entitled nitpicking.

"Blurry textures!" Yeah, if you stick your fucking nose in them and stare for ten minutes I'd imagine they will look blurry. When you're dodging the attacks of insanely hard bosses, though, I doubt you'll be concerned about textures not being up to the snuff of your Skyrim high-res mode or those produced in Battlefield 3.

Would you look at that, a console gamer who doesn't know any better.

I spent two years fixing computers for a college. Yeah, I know better, now will you please explain to me why this is such a big fucking deal instead of being a condescending jerk off?

This is where the fucking "elitism" insult comes from. You can take your bullshit and shove it elsewhere. 1024 x 720 is a fine resolution, it's hardly the most that computers can perform or even a third of what computers can do but this game isn't mean to do that. Could they have done a better job? Yeah. This is disappointing. But it's still not a "big deal" when you're talking about console developers doing this because PC gamers asked for it. Now so many of them are bitching and complaining because they didn't get the same caliber of port that the aforementioned Skyrim and Battlefield 3 are? I can understand complaining about, say, the issues Rage had upon release, but that's not this and a lot of you motherfuckers are already condemning it.

Oh, and here's one last "fuck you".

God, I hate elitism. /rant.

Battlefield 3 is not a console port. Skyrim, conversely, is... much to my chagrin. I know, I know, hard to imagine - a game NOT designed for consoles. You can tell the difference... or at least, you should be able to. It's why I loved The Witcher 2 so much when it came out.

Also, what exactly is that Steam link supposed to show me? That you've played very little of New Vegas (amazing game) or The Witcher 1? Or that you have at least tried (and failed) to play Deus Ex?

That I've actually played games on PC. A stupid idea in retrospect but I'm not at all clueless to PC gaming.

And Battlefield 3 was meant to be created for PC and then ported to consoles, but they had to change it around at some point

Look, PC elitism is one of the few things that (obviously) makes me explode and then you assumed that I had no knowledge of PC gaming. I do, I know what I'm talking about. I understand why it's a shame that this is not the best that could be done for Dark Souls - but the reasons are so damned petty. It's a deep and entrenched sense of superiority and entitlement because... why? Because you spent more money on your computers than I did on my Xbox? Because you spent more time tinkering with them? You're getting to play Dark Souls on your computer but you still complain that it's not "good enough". If it runs fine, and doesn't crash, or doesn't have any other weird problems, then what's the big deal?

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

@Terramagi said:

@believer258 said:

Doesn't sound that bad to me. Yeah, it's the same as the console version, but... so? Gee, you'd think they were asking you to buy a turd or something.

Besides, if you're really that worried then I'm sure someone, somewhere will figure out how to knock it up to 60 FPS and 1920 x 1080. It might be an animations thing that's keeping it down.

EDIT: "1024 x 720 is a serious issue" because...? I've been outputting that from my Xbox on everything and I sit pretty close to my TV (which, by the way, is an LED-LCD TV and serves as a computer monitor anyway). I can't help but feel like this is entitled nitpicking.

"Blurry textures!" Yeah, if you stick your fucking nose in them and stare for ten minutes I'd imagine they will look blurry. When you're dodging the attacks of insanely hard bosses, though, I doubt you'll be concerned about textures not being up to the snuff of your Skyrim high-res mode or those produced in Battlefield 3.

Would you look at that, a console gamer who doesn't know any better.

I spent two years fixing computers for a college. Yeah, I know better, now will you please explain to me why this is such a big fucking deal instead of being a condescending jerk off?

This is where the fucking "elitism" insult comes from. You can take your bullshit and shove it elsewhere. 1024 x 720 is a fine resolution, it's hardly the most that computers can perform or even a third of what computers can do but this game isn't mean to do that. Could they have done a better job? Yeah. This is disappointing. But it's still not a "big deal" when you're talking about console developers doing this because PC gamers asked for it. Now so many of them are bitching and complaining because they didn't get the same caliber of port that the aforementioned Skyrim and Battlefield 3 are? I can understand complaining about, say, the issues Rage had upon release, but that's not this and a lot of you motherfuckers are already condemning it.

Oh, and here's one last "fuck you".

God, I hate elitism. /rant.

Battlefield 3 is not a console port. Skyrim, conversely, is... much to my chagrin. I know, I know, hard to imagine - a game NOT designed for consoles. You can tell the difference... or at least, you should be able to. It's why I loved The Witcher 2 so much when it came out.

Also, what exactly is that Steam link supposed to show me? That you've played very little of New Vegas (amazing game) or The Witcher 1? Or that you have at least tried (and failed) to play Deus Ex?

Could you possibly stop turning the discussion into a pissing contest?

@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.

Are you fucking kidding me? 1024x768 was common in 1998. It is laughable to release a game only functioning at that resolution 14 years later, heck it's laughable if you're still using a 1024x768 to begin with. I played Quake III at 1280x1024 in 1999 or something.

I like Dark Souls, but good god defending this mess is hilarious.

I have to echo my fellow duders here. This is nuts. Makes me want to go out get the PS3 version. What was the point in bothering if they weren't going to allow players to play in at least normal 1080p? And I agree with the sentiment here if no one buys this Namco will say that no one buys PC games. Not that they screwed up and put out a crappy port.

Oh boy. I played the PS3 version using my PC monitor, and it looked pretty damn bad, mostly because it was blurry as all hell.
 
FROM, thanks, but no thanks. I don't feel like buying a subpar product.

Ah well.

FROM almost got me to buy it twice.

Half ass, sloppy second ports should be frowned upon regardless of where it came from or was heading too.

Dark Souls was never a game that looked all that great to begin with. Its not a game that needs to be super high res at 2000 FPS. Fuckin PC whores ><

The trolls out in full fucking force today. 
 
 
Jesus Christ people. Just because you don't perceive something as a problem doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to someone else.

Well, I always said if this same game was released by another company, on another platform, with as many problems as it had people wouldn't be so forgiving. Go figure.

@ajamafalous said:

The trolls out in full fucking force today. Jesus Christ people. Just because you don't perceive something as a problem doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to someone else.

Perhaps they should just suck it up and deal with it to play a one of a kind (excluding Demon's) game

It seems bizarre that this is even an issue. I understand when a port has a bad framerate, or unusual glitches, but a low resolution? Thats the issue here? Yeah, its not going to look as good as it could, but I've played a bunch of modern games in their lowest possible resolution just so they ran better, its never affected the quality of the actual game. I guess its an issue, but hardly one worthy of such dismay. Besides, the way the community goes, there will probably be some kind of hack within a month or so.

If something like running it in a suboptimal resolution is stopping you from playing Dark Souls, you never really wanted to play it anyway.

1024x720 is NOT 720P

720P = 1280x720 with progressive scan.

Goddamn the ignorance in this thread.

If the low specs are true, it sounds like a terrible port and much as I enjoyed the Souls games on console, they're entirely missing the point of developing for PC.

To put it in context, my 2 year old phone outputs at 1280x800, 1024x720 is a horrid resolution and stopped being acceptable on PCs about 10 years ago.

@ajamafalous said:

The trolls out in full fucking force today. Jesus Christ people. Just because you don't perceive something as a problem doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to someone else.

Perhaps they should just suck it up and deal with it to play a one of a kind (excluding Demon's) game

It seems bizarre that this is even an issue. I understand when a port has a bad framerate, or unusual glitches, but a low resolution? Thats the issue here? Yeah, its not going to look as good as it could, but I've played a bunch of modern games in their lowest possible resolution just so they ran better, its never affected the quality of the actual game. I guess its an issue, but hardly one worthy of such dismay. Besides, the way the community goes, there will probably be some kind of hack within a month or so.

If something like running it in a suboptimal resolution is stopping you from playing Dark Souls, you never really wanted to play it anyway.

@cyraxible said:

@Terramagi: Fuck off with your condescension.

@cyraxible: You call PC people entitled nitpickers and then when people respond you call THEM condescending? Hypocrite much?

@ajamafalous said:

@JackOhara said:

@ajamafalous said:

The trolls out in full fucking force today. Jesus Christ people. Just because you don't perceive something as a problem doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to someone else.

Perhaps they should just suck it up and deal with it to play a one of a kind (excluding Demon's) game

Sorry, I'm not going to 'just suck it up' when a company is trying to sell me a product. It's their job to make a product that I want to buy. When you do something worse than your competitor I have no reason to want to buy your product.

Like I said, people have different expectations. You may not see it as an issue but obviously to some amount of people (as evidenced by this thread) this is enough that they're no longer interested.


@Zippedbinders said:

It seems bizarre that this is even an issue. I understand when a port has a bad framerate, or unusual glitches, but a low resolution? Thats the issue here? Yeah, its not going to look as good as it could, but I've played a bunch of modern games in their lowest possible resolution just so they ran better, its never affected the quality of the actual game. I guess its an issue, but hardly one worthy of such dismay. Besides, the way the community goes, there will probably be some kind of hack within a month or so.

If something like running it in a suboptimal resolution is stopping you from playing Dark Souls, you never really wanted to play it anyway.

I do want to play the game, but I'm not going to pay $40 for a game that runs at 1024x720, is capped at 30 fps, disconnects you if you drop below 15 fps (which now seems incredibly likely because they sure as hell didn't bother optimizing any other part of anything), and requires GFWL. It's completely unacceptable by today's standards.

What you are saying isn't false, but it seems like you want a technically advanced game rather than one that is fun/interesting

This is a pretty sad. Cries of elitism and suck it. Really? I have it on the PS3, but was looking forward to what a PC port should mean. not something castrated to simply and only put it on that platform. What it sounds is possibly worse than console, which (supposedly) it was optimized for.

But I have to say this also, wait for it to come out. Not get antagonized because some bitter ppl. said aha..is this our chance? This really didn't need to be a console vs. PC discussion..well for some maybe it did.

I like the part where everyone is whining.

I do have this feeling that almost everyone posting here either wouldn't or were not going to buy the game anyway.

I do see parallels with this topic and the recent Silent Hill HD collection release. Ports are often difficult compounded by the sensitive concurrency issues that pop up. In both cases, they needed to release it as, with all of the problems, or not release it at all. Consumers are within their rights to complain about this stuff where especially the value proposition is bad (why buy this version over the other console versions??) but that doesn't ruin the old version either.

@ajamafalous said:

@JackOhara said:

@ajamafalous said:

The trolls out in full fucking force today. Jesus Christ people. Just because you don't perceive something as a problem doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to someone else.

Perhaps they should just suck it up and deal with it to play a one of a kind (excluding Demon's) game

Sorry, I'm not going to 'just suck it up' when a company is trying to sell me a product. It's their job to make a product that I want to buy. When you do something worse than your competitor I have no reason to want to buy your product.

Like I said, people have different expectations. You may not see it as an issue but obviously to some amount of people (as evidenced by this thread) this is enough that they're no longer interested.


@Zippedbinders said:

It seems bizarre that this is even an issue. I understand when a port has a bad framerate, or unusual glitches, but a low resolution? Thats the issue here? Yeah, its not going to look as good as it could, but I've played a bunch of modern games in their lowest possible resolution just so they ran better, its never affected the quality of the actual game. I guess its an issue, but hardly one worthy of such dismay. Besides, the way the community goes, there will probably be some kind of hack within a month or so.

If something like running it in a suboptimal resolution is stopping you from playing Dark Souls, you never really wanted to play it anyway.

I do want to play the game, but I'm not going to pay $40 for a game that runs at 1024x720, is capped at 30 fps, disconnects you if you drop below 15 fps (which now seems incredibly likely because they sure as hell didn't bother optimizing any other part of anything), and requires GFWL. It's completely unacceptable by today's standards.

What you are saying isn't false, but it seems like you want a technically advanced game rather than one that is fun/interesting

Well damn. I really wanted a copy of Dark Soul's on both pc and ps3, but this is past the point of being bearable. This thing sounds like such a horrible port.

@JackOhara said:

@ajamafalous said:

The trolls out in full fucking force today. Jesus Christ people. Just because you don't perceive something as a problem doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to someone else.

Perhaps they should just suck it up and deal with it to play a one of a kind (excluding Demon's) game

Oh, right, I forgot. I'm being blessed by being given the chance to hand over 40 dollars for something that, from every piece of evidence FROM has provided, will barely function. Completely unoptimized, low resolution, no graphics options, and GFWL? No, I am not paying money for this. I am not paying money for a half-assed port, nor will I be told that I should be grateful for being in the presence of said port. You wouldn't have paid 60 dollars for Skyrim on the PS3 if you had known it would slow to 5 FPS within 10 hours of gameplay. That doesn't make you "entitled". That makes you a responsible consumer.

Of course, this being PC gaming, my choosing to not purchase the game will simply make Namco brand me a pirate, and that will be relayed to FROM when they decide to never touch the platform after they get their shit together.

I imagine the blighttown issues won't be fixed. Just a guess, but it seems likely.

@ajamafalous said:

@JackOhara said:

@ajamafalous said:

@JackOhara said:

@ajamafalous said:

The trolls out in full fucking force today. Jesus Christ people. Just because you don't perceive something as a problem doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to someone else.

Perhaps they should just suck it up and deal with it to play a one of a kind (excluding Demon's) game

Sorry, I'm not going to 'just suck it up' when a company is trying to sell me a product. It's their job to make a product that I want to buy. When you do something worse than your competitor I have no reason to want to buy your product.

Like I said, people have different expectations. You may not see it as an issue but obviously to some amount of people (as evidenced by this thread) this is enough that they're no longer interested.


@Zippedbinders said:

It seems bizarre that this is even an issue. I understand when a port has a bad framerate, or unusual glitches, but a low resolution? Thats the issue here? Yeah, its not going to look as good as it could, but I've played a bunch of modern games in their lowest possible resolution just so they ran better, its never affected the quality of the actual game. I guess its an issue, but hardly one worthy of such dismay. Besides, the way the community goes, there will probably be some kind of hack within a month or so.

If something like running it in a suboptimal resolution is stopping you from playing Dark Souls, you never really wanted to play it anyway.

I do want to play the game, but I'm not going to pay $40 for a game that runs at 1024x720, is capped at 30 fps, disconnects you if you drop below 15 fps (which now seems incredibly likely because they sure as hell didn't bother optimizing any other part of anything), and requires GFWL. It's completely unacceptable by today's standards.

What you are saying isn't false, but it seems like you want a technically advanced game rather than one that is fun/interesting

I don't even want technically advanced, just technically up to par, which the Dark Souls PC port apparently will not be. Take Darksiders 1 for example. The PC port wasn't the greatest: there were almost no graphical options aside from resolution and vsync, and there was a bug where, even if you found the secret armor set, when you started a game in New Game+ it wouldn't carry over. That was a fine, competent port. It wasn't great, but it was technically sound. If Dark Souls PC rendered at whatever resolution the user picked and it wasn't capped at 30 fps there would be almost nobody complaining. I'm not offended by a technically-sound-but-bare-bones port. I realize that it's a reality of the industry and many companies can't afford to flesh out the graphical options on their PC ports. Dark Souls PC does not appear to be a technically-sound port, and that's why I won't be purchasing it.

Quoting this just to add myself as one more person with the same opinion and mindset of what I want in a PC port. I bought Darksiders knowing the limitations that it had as a port, but at least it had the bare essentials for a product asking for a premium amount of money. I love what Dark Souls wants to provide players game-wise, but nothing excuses features that have been available in games ranging from Premium to downright FREE. If this game was at a significantly lower price point, I could just outright buy it and hope to tolerate it enough (I've done it before for quality games with oddly primitive or non-existing PC config options) but for me in Australia, paying around $70AU ($73US approx as of the time of this post) for a product with these problems is stupid to people with rational expectations for a typical premium gaming experience. I'll definitely buy it, but once it goes down in price to about $25AU or less. They will get some money off me for the gameplay and gesture of trying, but not for the horrid port job.

its a port, prompted by a petition, it will sell at most a few thousand copies, why the complaints? or is it that the cry for a PC port was really a request for more, that somehow (internet) signatures would compel a company to break even or lose money hiring a skilled port house to do the job? This is a favor, its crazy that people are feeling hurt.

And everyone writing "I canceled my pre order, I hope they learned their lesson", well sure they have, they will never port to PC again, because they are console developers with no skills and no interest in that field.

@hawkinson76 said:

And everyone writing "I canceled my pre order, I hope they learned their lesson", well sure they have, they will never port to PC again, because they are console developers with no skills and no interest in that field.

Then why the fuck did they make a port?

If someone asked me to make a port of Persona 4 Arena for PC, I wouldn't just throw a P4A disc in a computer, shit on a PS3, and say, "Welp, that's the best I can do. You're welcome." I'd just say, "No."

How would you feel if Skyrim had been a PC-centric game and was ported to consoles without touching a thing? "Oh, I'm sorry, you have to control the mouse cursor with the left analog stick. It's a FAVOR."

@Terramagi said:

@JackOhara said:

@ajamafalous said:

The trolls out in full fucking force today. Jesus Christ people. Just because you don't perceive something as a problem doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to someone else.

Perhaps they should just suck it up and deal with it to play a one of a kind (excluding Demon's) game

Oh, right, I forgot. I'm being blessed by being given the chance to hand over 40 dollars for something that, from every piece of evidence FROM has provided, will barely function. Completely unoptimized, low resolution, no graphics options, and GFWL? No, I am not paying money for this. I am not paying money for a half-assed port, nor will I be told that I should be grateful for being in the presence of said port. You wouldn't have paid 60 dollars for Skyrim on the PS3 if you had known it would slow to 5 FPS within 10 hours of gameplay. That doesn't make you "entitled". That makes you a responsible consumer.

Of course, this being PC gaming, my choosing to not purchase the game will simply make Namco brand me a pirate, and that will be relayed to FROM when they decide to never touch the platform after they get their shit together.

You completely missed the point of what I was saying, what I meant was that it's a good fucking game. Good and interesting enough to warrant a purchase even if you think that it is sub par in a technical aspect. I wouldn't have paid any money for Skyrim because it isn't a good game, no matter how shiny the graphics are or how many fetch quests it has. My point has nothing to do with being a 'responsible consumer', and no, I don't think you feel entitled.

@ShiftyMagician said:

@ajamafalous said:

@JackOhara said:

@ajamafalous said:

@JackOhara said:

@ajamafalous said:

The trolls out in full fucking force today. Jesus Christ people. Just because you don't perceive something as a problem doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to someone else.

Perhaps they should just suck it up and deal with it to play a one of a kind (excluding Demon's) game

Sorry, I'm not going to 'just suck it up' when a company is trying to sell me a product. It's their job to make a product that I want to buy. When you do something worse than your competitor I have no reason to want to buy your product.

Like I said, people have different expectations. You may not see it as an issue but obviously to some amount of people (as evidenced by this thread) this is enough that they're no longer interested.


@Zippedbinders said:

It seems bizarre that this is even an issue. I understand when a port has a bad framerate, or unusual glitches, but a low resolution? Thats the issue here? Yeah, its not going to look as good as it could, but I've played a bunch of modern games in their lowest possible resolution just so they ran better, its never affected the quality of the actual game. I guess its an issue, but hardly one worthy of such dismay. Besides, the way the community goes, there will probably be some kind of hack within a month or so.

If something like running it in a suboptimal resolution is stopping you from playing Dark Souls, you never really wanted to play it anyway.

I do want to play the game, but I'm not going to pay $40 for a game that runs at 1024x720, is capped at 30 fps, disconnects you if you drop below 15 fps (which now seems incredibly likely because they sure as hell didn't bother optimizing any other part of anything), and requires GFWL. It's completely unacceptable by today's standards.

What you are saying isn't false, but it seems like you want a technically advanced game rather than one that is fun/interesting

I don't even want technically advanced, just technically up to par, which the Dark Souls PC port apparently will not be. Take Darksiders 1 for example. The PC port wasn't the greatest: there were almost no graphical options aside from resolution and vsync, and there was a bug where, even if you found the secret armor set, when you started a game in New Game+ it wouldn't carry over. That was a fine, competent port. It wasn't great, but it was technically sound. If Dark Souls PC rendered at whatever resolution the user picked and it wasn't capped at 30 fps there would be almost nobody complaining. I'm not offended by a technically-sound-but-bare-bones port. I realize that it's a reality of the industry and many companies can't afford to flesh out the graphical options on their PC ports. Dark Souls PC does not appear to be a technically-sound port, and that's why I won't be purchasing it.

Quoting this just to add myself as one more person with the same opinion and mindset of what I want in a PC port. I bought Darksiders knowing the limitations that it had as a port, but at least it had the bare essentials for a product asking for a premium amount of money. I love what Dark Souls wants to provide players game-wise, but nothing excuses features that have been available in games ranging from Premium to downright FREE. If this game was at a significantly lower price point, I could just outright buy it and hope to tolerate it enough (I've done it before for quality games with oddly primitive or non-existing PC config options) but for me in Australia, paying around $70AU ($73US approx as of the time of this post) for a product with these problems is stupid to people with rational expectations for a typical premium gaming experience. I'll definitely buy it, but once it goes down in price to about $25AU or less. They will get some money off me for the gameplay and gesture of trying, but not for the horrid port job.

73 USD? I see it on Steam right now for 39.99 USD

@JackOhara said:

@ShiftyMagician said:

@ajamafalous said:

@JackOhara said:

@ajamafalous said:

@JackOhara said:

@ajamafalous said:

The trolls out in full fucking force today. Jesus Christ people. Just because you don't perceive something as a problem doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to someone else.

Perhaps they should just suck it up and deal with it to play a one of a kind (excluding Demon's) game

Sorry, I'm not going to 'just suck it up' when a company is trying to sell me a product. It's their job to make a product that I want to buy. When you do something worse than your competitor I have no reason to want to buy your product.

Like I said, people have different expectations. You may not see it as an issue but obviously to some amount of people (as evidenced by this thread) this is enough that they're no longer interested.


@Zippedbinders said:

It seems bizarre that this is even an issue. I understand when a port has a bad framerate, or unusual glitches, but a low resolution? Thats the issue here? Yeah, its not going to look as good as it could, but I've played a bunch of modern games in their lowest possible resolution just so they ran better, its never affected the quality of the actual game. I guess its an issue, but hardly one worthy of such dismay. Besides, the way the community goes, there will probably be some kind of hack within a month or so.

If something like running it in a suboptimal resolution is stopping you from playing Dark Souls, you never really wanted to play it anyway.

I do want to play the game, but I'm not going to pay $40 for a game that runs at 1024x720, is capped at 30 fps, disconnects you if you drop below 15 fps (which now seems incredibly likely because they sure as hell didn't bother optimizing any other part of anything), and requires GFWL. It's completely unacceptable by today's standards.

What you are saying isn't false, but it seems like you want a technically advanced game rather than one that is fun/interesting

I don't even want technically advanced, just technically up to par, which the Dark Souls PC port apparently will not be. Take Darksiders 1 for example. The PC port wasn't the greatest: there were almost no graphical options aside from resolution and vsync, and there was a bug where, even if you found the secret armor set, when you started a game in New Game+ it wouldn't carry over. That was a fine, competent port. It wasn't great, but it was technically sound. If Dark Souls PC rendered at whatever resolution the user picked and it wasn't capped at 30 fps there would be almost nobody complaining. I'm not offended by a technically-sound-but-bare-bones port. I realize that it's a reality of the industry and many companies can't afford to flesh out the graphical options on their PC ports. Dark Souls PC does not appear to be a technically-sound port, and that's why I won't be purchasing it.

Quoting this just to add myself as one more person with the same opinion and mindset of what I want in a PC port. I bought Darksiders knowing the limitations that it had as a port, but at least it had the bare essentials for a product asking for a premium amount of money. I love what Dark Souls wants to provide players game-wise, but nothing excuses features that have been available in games ranging from Premium to downright FREE. If this game was at a significantly lower price point, I could just outright buy it and hope to tolerate it enough (I've done it before for quality games with oddly primitive or non-existing PC config options) but for me in Australia, paying around $70AU ($73US approx as of the time of this post) for a product with these problems is stupid to people with rational expectations for a typical premium gaming experience. I'll definitely buy it, but once it goes down in price to about $25AU or less. They will get some money off me for the gameplay and gesture of trying, but not for the horrid port job.

73 USD? I see it on Steam right now for 39.99 USD

Welcome to Australia, mate.

Now if you`ll excuse me, a dingo is eating my baby.

@Packie said:

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.

Most likely due to monetary reasons.

@mordukai said:

@Packie said:

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.

Most likely due to monetary reasons.

Nixxes would have been my first choice, they did a great job on Deus Ex: Human Revolution

@JackOhara said:

@ShiftyMagician said:

@ajamafalous said:

@JackOhara said:

@ajamafalous said:

@JackOhara said:

@ajamafalous said:

The trolls out in full fucking force today. Jesus Christ people. Just because you don't perceive something as a problem doesn't mean it isn't a big deal to someone else.

Perhaps they should just suck it up and deal with it to play a one of a kind (excluding Demon's) game

Sorry, I'm not going to 'just suck it up' when a company is trying to sell me a product. It's their job to make a product that I want to buy. When you do something worse than your competitor I have no reason to want to buy your product.

Like I said, people have different expectations. You may not see it as an issue but obviously to some amount of people (as evidenced by this thread) this is enough that they're no longer interested.


@Zippedbinders said:

It seems bizarre that this is even an issue. I understand when a port has a bad framerate, or unusual glitches, but a low resolution? Thats the issue here? Yeah, its not going to look as good as it could, but I've played a bunch of modern games in their lowest possible resolution just so they ran better, its never affected the quality of the actual game. I guess its an issue, but hardly one worthy of such dismay. Besides, the way the community goes, there will probably be some kind of hack within a month or so.

If something like running it in a suboptimal resolution is stopping you from playing Dark Souls, you never really wanted to play it anyway.

I do want to play the game, but I'm not going to pay $40 for a game that runs at 1024x720, is capped at 30 fps, disconnects you if you drop below 15 fps (which now seems incredibly likely because they sure as hell didn't bother optimizing any other part of anything), and requires GFWL. It's completely unacceptable by today's standards.

What you are saying isn't false, but it seems like you want a technically advanced game rather than one that is fun/interesting

I don't even want technically advanced, just technically up to par, which the Dark Souls PC port apparently will not be. Take Darksiders 1 for example. The PC port wasn't the greatest: there were almost no graphical options aside from resolution and vsync, and there was a bug where, even if you found the secret armor set, when you started a game in New Game+ it wouldn't carry over. That was a fine, competent port. It wasn't great, but it was technically sound. If Dark Souls PC rendered at whatever resolution the user picked and it wasn't capped at 30 fps there would be almost nobody complaining. I'm not offended by a technically-sound-but-bare-bones port. I realize that it's a reality of the industry and many companies can't afford to flesh out the graphical options on their PC ports. Dark Souls PC does not appear to be a technically-sound port, and that's why I won't be purchasing it.

Quoting this just to add myself as one more person with the same opinion and mindset of what I want in a PC port. I bought Darksiders knowing the limitations that it had as a port, but at least it had the bare essentials for a product asking for a premium amount of money. I love what Dark Souls wants to provide players game-wise, but nothing excuses features that have been available in games ranging from Premium to downright FREE. If this game was at a significantly lower price point, I could just outright buy it and hope to tolerate it enough (I've done it before for quality games with oddly primitive or non-existing PC config options) but for me in Australia, paying around $70AU ($73US approx as of the time of this post) for a product with these problems is stupid to people with rational expectations for a typical premium gaming experience. I'll definitely buy it, but once it goes down in price to about $25AU or less. They will get some money off me for the gameplay and gesture of trying, but not for the horrid port job.

73 USD? I see it on Steam right now for 39.99 USD

That's an approximate conversion of the Australian price of $70AU over here. The Australian dollar is floating slightly above the US dollar, where each $1AU is worth a teensy bit more than each $1US. So most Steam games when properly priced are quite cheap for an Australian when compared to our local retail prices. Hope that clarifies your confusion on those numbers mate.