Dark Souls 2 Graphics brought into question.

[Compatriot Block]

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.

I'm really not interested in starting a fight here, but I was referring to places like the GameFAQS boards. Where I already have called people out on it.

Speaking as someone who likes the series, complaining about Watch_Dogs and not complaining about this is hypocritical. The fact that people don't play the Souls games for graphics doesn't change the fact that they did not show real footage of the retail versions before release. That's not cool, and people like Jim Sterling agree with me. That good enough for you?

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...

I agree, but I do wish they could have shown it to us before launch, or at least said something.

 

[The Lunatic]

Pretty pointless to bring up graphics whilst talking about last generation consoles.


Wait until the PC version comes out, then compare.

 

[michael87cn]

Yeah, graphics like that were never going to happen on a 360 or PS3. Not really surprised, personally.

 

[MrDumpkins]

What it looks like to me is they made the game lighter to just make the game easier for everybody. I say that because if you go to the gutter you can definitely understand why. A lot of people complained about tomb of giants in the first game so maybe when they started doing more testing people were hating on the darkness.

 

[BraveSirRobin]

Honestly didn't notice anything graphically bad at all through my entire first playthrough, certainly not as bad as people seem to be making it out. The game is gorgeous on my PS3 all the way through. They definitely have lightened some of the areas compared to the early demo footage so they aren't pitch black, but given that the framerate has been near perfect in all the areas of the game with no Blighttown style stuttering I really have no complaints. It won't surprise me if it looks much better on a good PC but that is just how graphics work at this point.

 

[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.

I'm really not interested in starting a fight here, but I was referring to places like the GameFAQS boards. Where I already have called people out on it.

Speaking as someone who likes the series, complaining about Watch_Dogs and not complaining about this is hypocritical. The fact that people don't play the Souls games for graphics doesn't change the fact that they did not show real footage of the retail versions before release. That's not cool, and people like Jim Sterling agree with me. That good enough for you?

Jim Sterling didn't talk about showing non-release footage before release, he talked about intentionally misleading consumers with bait and switch tactics. As he mentioned in his video games change from initial builds to releases, but purposefully giving footage that a studio knows they have no way to provide in the retail release in order to drum up pre-orders is not cool. Now did Dark Souls 2 do this? I think some people have made pretty good arguments against this, when it's balancing gameplay sometimes other settings have to be turned down, it was not a choice made to deceive.

Now we could argue this point, which leads to constructive debates, but nothing gets done when you just beat up an argument that hasn't been made.

 

[Parker Layden-Tapp]

No one buys from software games for the glitzy graphics, I know I didn't, and I bought the pc version of dark souls.

it may be a little hiccup to gripe over for 5 seconds, but this is not like Watchdogs.

And it is not hypocritical to yell at ubisoft while quietly questioning From.

Because ubisoft were selling watchogs to next gen console goers as "this is what you can expect from your new amazing consoles". To now when you can literally spend 600$ and get a better pc that runs at 1080p high on nearly all games, at 50+fps. These consoles JUST came out and are pretty much beat by pcs.

Now, if the pc version of DS2 arrives and the fans need to fix it again, then we can start talkin.

 

[Norrdicus]

It may be a little hiccup to gripe over for 5 seconds, but this is not like Watchdogs.

This is potentially worse than Watch_Dogs. The preview copies that were sent to reviewers this February on PS3 looked pretty much EXACTLY like the promotional material. There was no reason NOT to expect the final retail versions to look as good.

At least Ubisoft showed what the game really looks before release. FROM Software did no such thing. They kept the pretense up until fans found out.

Heck, they still do. Dark Souls 2 website ONLY uses the gorgeous old build footage. The back cover of the game uses them too!

And it is not hypocritical to yell at ubisoft while quietly questioning From.

Because ubisoft were selling watchogs to next gen console goers as "this is what you can expect from your new amazing consoles". To now when you can literally spend 600$ and get a better pc that runs at 1080p high on nearly all games, at 50+fps. These consoles JUST came out and are pretty much beat by pcs.

It is very hypocritical. Ubisoft might've said what to expect from next gen consoles, but FROM did same with current gen. The preview builds worked on actual PS3s and 360s. Not a PC with a controller attached.

And if you're disappointed with Watch_Dogs looks, then cancel your pre-order or just don't buy it. You bought Dark Souls 2 on release date? Tough titties, money is FROM's now.

Now, if the pc version of DS2 arrives and the fans need to fix it again, then we can start talkin.

Even if the PC version ultimately looks better and more like the build from February, it'd still be sleazy to ONLY market with PC version footage, make PC-version looking console demoes for preview purposes, and tell nobody about it.

 

[Skin]

Guy who worked on the guide and was directly in touch with the people behind the game (GermanSpy) said that they promised to have the game running at a steady 30FPS. What happened is they had to lessen the graphics to fulfill that.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Yup the lighting looks slightly worse but that difference to me is minimal but then again I still play PS and PS2 games fairly regularly. Diminishing returns has been strongly in effect since the beginning of last gen imo and its only getting more prominant.

 

[josemlopes]

I still like the game and it doesnt look worse then DaS 1 so its not that big of a deal, but what From Software did was very crappy, even worse then Ubisoft. Every footage of the game was from the other version and even the PS3 beta had the visuals of the other version, how can someone really expect that only after buying the game it doesnt look as good as what we already played.

What bothers me is them advertising a game in a state that they couldnt deliver (the previews in the PS3 had those visuals so you cant really say that it was just the game on the PC).

 

[sXeth]

It takes what? 5 minutes to issue some sort of statement on Twitter or something saying "We removed the dynamic lighting system to combat potential framerate issues". Which could be done at any point from when they made the decision, even at the last possible moment before it went gold they could've still put the info out before release. Its now almost a week into the game's release, and they still haven't addressed it firsthand.

Sure, a minority, or even no one at all would've pulled out on the game over the reduction, but the way its been gone about stinks of blatantly poor customer relations at best.

 

[Elijin]

While the original footage looks much nicer, the actual footage looks much more playable. The light sources in the promo footage were obnoxiously glare-y, and well.....the dark areas were never fun.

That said, I can see why you might be annoyed on the promise vs delivery.

 

[Compatriot Block]

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.

I'm really not interested in starting a fight here, but I was referring to places like the GameFAQS boards. Where I already have called people out on it.

Speaking as someone who likes the series, complaining about Watch_Dogs and not complaining about this is hypocritical. The fact that people don't play the Souls games for graphics doesn't change the fact that they did not show real footage of the retail versions before release. That's not cool, and people like Jim Sterling agree with me. That good enough for you?

Jim Sterling didn't talk about showing non-release footage before release, he talked about intentionally misleading consumers with bait and switch tactics. As he mentioned in his video games change from initial builds to releases, but purposefully giving footage that a studio knows they have no way to provide in the retail release in order to drum up pre-orders is not cool. Now did Dark Souls 2 do this? I think some people have made pretty good arguments against this, when it's balancing gameplay sometimes other settings have to be turned down, it was not a choice made to deceive.

Now we could argue this point, which leads to constructive debates, but nothing gets done when you just beat up an argument that hasn't been made.

https://twitter.com/JimSterling/status/443858674977878016

"Yes, everything I said here can apply to the Dark Souls 2 stuff happening this week too!"

The argument is being made right here in this thread that they are continuing to use footage that is not representative of the final game. It's on the back of the box! And people are responding by saying it doesn't matter anyway, which is what I was saying would happen. It is EXACTLY what happened with Watch_Dogs, but From managed to hide it until release day instead of the news breaking a couple months earlier.

 

[AdagioBoognish]

While the original footage looks much nicer, the actual footage looks much more playable. The light sources in the promo footage were obnoxiously glare-y, and well.....the dark areas were never fun.

That said, I can see why you might be annoyed on the promise vs delivery.

Reminds me of all the post effects and lighting mods for skyrim. I would get amazing screen shots of some of the areas, but anytime I'm actually playing the game I'd ease back on all the added visual effects, which makes for a much better game play experience.

 

[Zipa]

I am not sure what people were expecting, if a game is coming out on the 7th gen consoles it is not going to be able to hold up to the standards of the 8th gen and definitely not the PC, the outdated hardware just can't handle it.

Plus isn't it a well known thing that developers almost always do captures for trailers and events from the a PC build of the game for this exact reason?

 

[oplinger]

Watching just the first video, the game does look significantly different. The textures however, do not look significantly different. It's all just the lighting. The release footage has a pronounced ambient lighting to everything, which decreases the definition on all bump and normal maps and makes many things look flat. The color of the light is also not the same as the torch, so the colors are noticeably grayer.

They brightened up the game, it's not a huge change in graphics. I feel it was a quality of life change, that just happened to ruin a lot of the finer details (which is what normal/bump mapping is for.)