Dark Souls 2 Graphics brought into question.

[Elfgore]

So, strolling through memebase, I come across this video. (If you can't tell, the left is the trailer and right is the current game on a PS3.


Now I'll admit I'm no follower of Dark Souls so I didn't pay attention to any gameplay reveal. But did they admit the trailer was on PC, or we were suppose to assume it was? People posted answers in the comments section of both youtube and memebase, but I think I trust this site a little more.

So, you're opinions on this. Did Dark Souls 2 do a bait and switch? We just had a big deal with this and Watch Dogs. I don't have enough info to make a well-informed decision, but it seems like people want to give Dark Souls a free pass because the gameplay trumps graphics and well... it's Dark Souls. But as a person with no dog in this fight, I must say those graphics are very different.

 

[endtherapture]

PC footage vs Console footage, simple as that.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I'm pretty sure that they said that those graphics were on PC.

Either way, From Software never really talked about graphics at all, except when talking about fixing performance issues. That's quite a bit different from Ubisoft talking up watchdogs specifically because of the graphics. You can't say that it's a bait and switch when the graphics were never "baited" in the first place.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I'm pretty sure that they said that those graphics were on PC.

Either way, From Software never really talked about graphics at all, except when talking about fixing performance issues. That's quite a bit different from Ubisoft talking up watchdogs specifically because of the graphics. You can't say that it's a bait and switch when the graphics were never "baited" in the first place.

yepp, ubi was jizzing all over the place about next gen graphics and how awesome watch dogs was going to look, then they backpedaled with trying to cover things up and lying. From is not doing this, so I don't have a problem really.

 

[Flutterguy]

Well it only makes sense to use PC footage for trailers. Easier to record, doesn't require making a demo console version to do, looks nicer. Hardly anything worthy of distrust.

Had they done press releases about how amazing and revolutionary the trailers graphics where then it would be an issue.

 

[Tom_green_day]

The console (right) footage looks worse than console footage for Dark Souls 1...
I thought the graphics in that were fine but the video looks like a ps2 game!

 

[teh_Canape]

I'm pretty sure that they said that those graphics were on PC.

Either way, From Software never really talked about graphics at all, except when talking about fixing performance issues. That's quite a bit different from Ubisoft talking up watchdogs specifically because of the graphics. You can't say that it's a bait and switch when the graphics were never "baited" in the first place.

if I remember correctly, they stated that while they were trying to give good graphics, they were heavily focusing on the physics

 

[MrRaggaedeman]

While Dark Souls 2 isn't the prettiest game, its dynamic lights while holding a torch are simply awesome. Even if all the textures in a dungeon are boring and washed out, once you equip your torch everything turns beautiful.

 

[AdagioBoognish]

Well i'm happy that it'll look like that on the PC, but I'd take the reduced quality graphics if it meant PC access would start today.

 

[Compatriot Block]

Skip to 3:50 for the first, 6:50 for the second.

First one was posted in January, second was from retail. He commented on part one that he got the game a couple days early.

Both are specifically, no way around it, PS3 footage. Same section of the game at the times of the videos I mentioned.

Nobody is saying that the game-play is bad, but I think some people are giving it a pass because the Souls series is a gaming sacred cow. At least the news with Watch_Dogs came out BEFORE release.

EDIT: It's the lighting system people are talking about. It looks like your character is constantly shooting out a flat grey light even without a torch equipped.

 

[otakon17]

The console (right) footage looks worse than console footage for Dark Souls 1...
I thought the graphics in that were fine but the video looks like a ps2 game!

Have you seen a graphically good PS2 lately?

OT: It looks like mostly draw distance, which from my experience with the "Souls" games has always been an issue.

 

[Stabinbac]

It seems like people bringing up the "just like Watch Dogs" point haven't bothered looking at how massively different the Watch Dogs crap is. For a dated comparison it's like showing a trailer for Unreal Tounament 3 level graphics and releasing a game that has the graphical detail of GTA3.

This DS2 compare mainly shows a change in the engine to improve ambient visibility, and some different texture work. In many cases it's not quite as pretty, and the better ambient lighting kills a bit of the mood, but it's far from the jump WD took.

 

[sXeth]

They clearly pulled it last minute, even leaving the now useless (98% anyways) torch lighting stuff in. You can also spot a lot of unfinished textures off in side spots that would've been concealed by the lighting effects.

 

[Bombiz]

They clearly pulled it last minute, even leaving the now useless (98% anyways) torch lighting stuff in. You can also spot a lot of unfinished textures off in side spots that would've been concealed by the lighting effects.

I wonder why though?

 

[Compatriot Block]

They clearly pulled it last minute, even leaving the now useless (98% anyways) torch lighting stuff in. You can also spot a lot of unfinished textures off in side spots that would've been concealed by the lighting effects.

I wonder why though?

Depends on if we apply the standard Escapist level of cynicism.

A more positive explanation would be that they realized that they wouldn't be able to get performance to acceptable levels in time, and rather than delay and risk upsetting diehard fans, they decided to gut the lighting system.

A ridiculously cynical explanation is that they are releasing a sub-par last-gen version in order to double dip on sales with the superior PC version and/or a PS4/Xbone port.

EDIT: They probably know that some of the Souls community will defend the game regardless of what it came out like, which meant sacrificing lighting for a bit of performance was an easy decision. But I have no idea, and this is all guessing. Also, I'm not in a position to make any claims about game-play as I've said before, which I hear is mostly pretty good.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

Yeah, it looks worse

Could have something to do with the limited scope of the demo. Yeah, it's a bullshot, but the game was never touted as being anything special graphically anyway. Most fans of the series weren't looking at the graphics, they were looking at the gameplay.

They clearly pulled it last minute, even leaving the now useless (98% anyways) torch lighting stuff in. You can also spot a lot of unfinished textures off in side spots that would've been concealed by the lighting effects.

I wonder why though?

Maybe with the new lighting they ended up with another Blighttown and deemed this unacceptable. I'd take a graphical downgrade for a game that runs smooth as it should. Who knows? Maybe with the PC release they'll have an updated texture pack even for the console versions. Unlikely, but it could happen.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I'll reserve judgement for when the PC version comes out. And even then, I probably won't care. I didn't play Dark Souls for its phenomenal graphics, after all.

 

[NiPah]

EDIT: They probably know that some of the Souls community will defend the game regardless of what it came out like, which meant sacrificing lighting for a bit of performance was an easy decision. But I have no idea, and this is all guessing.

Stop putting words the fan-base's mouth, if people defend it with with poor reasoning then call them out on it. Beating phantom fanboy logic to back up your own is pointless and annoying.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

They clearly pulled it last minute, even leaving the now useless (98% anyways) torch lighting stuff in. You can also spot a lot of unfinished textures off in side spots that would've been concealed by the lighting effects.

I wonder why though?

Depends on if we apply the standard Escapist level of cynicism.

A more positive explanation would be that they realized that they wouldn't be able to get performance to acceptable levels in time, and rather than delay and risk upsetting diehard fans, they decided to gut the lighting system.

A ridiculously cynical explanation is that they are releasing a sub-par last-gen version in order to double dip on sales with the superior PC version and/or a PS4/Xbone port.

EDIT: They probably know that some of the Souls community will defend the game regardless of what it came out like, which meant sacrificing lighting for a bit of performance was an easy decision. But I have no idea, and this is all guessing. Also, I'm not in a position to make any claims about game-play as I've said before, which I hear is mostly pretty good.

There's a third possibility. They might have playtested the game and found that the central mechanic of having to carry around torches to light a lot of the areas to be really REALLY annoying to the playtesters, and therefore changed the lighting to make torches mostly unnecessary, but this lighting change created much more washed out lighting in more areas and caused a lot of textures to look worse due to the different lighting.

Or it could be that the realized that many invaders might take advantage of people playing in the dark areas of the game by turning up the brightness on their own TVs, therefore allowing themselves to use shields or dual-wield while their opponents are forced to use a torch to see them (kind of like what sometimes happened with invasions in Tomb of the Giants in DS1), so they changed the lighting in order to make the pvp less exploitable, since PvP is a lot more difficult to avoid in DS2.

 

[Scars Unseen]

They probably know that some of the Souls community will defend the game regardless of what it came out like, which meant sacrificing lighting for a bit of performance was an easy decision. But I have no idea, and this is all guessing. Also, I'm not in a position to make any claims about game-play as I've said before, which I hear is mostly pretty good.

That is an easy decision. Dark Souls with marginally worse than hoped for graphics? Still awesome. Dark Souls with stuttering framerate(which could lead to unfair deaths)? Possibly controller throwing levels of rage inducement. I'll take a smoother gaming experience over a prettier one 10 out of 10 times.

Now, do I think that it would have been better for From to make a PS4 version that can handle a graphically superior experience? Yeah, I kinda do(even though I have a PS3 and no plans to buy a PS4 in the immediate future). But that's why I'm getting the PC version.

Now let's just hope that From learned from their DS1 port experience...