Dark Souls is on Steam

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-09-dark-souls-pc-preview-the-devils-bargain

There's also something curious about the resolution too in that there's no change in clarity when attempting to crank up the settings. On close inspection, it appears that Dark Souls PC uses the very same 1024x720 internal framebuffer as the console versions, regardless of which resolution has been set in the menus. The option provided is for output resolution only; a simple courtesy to allow the game to play on most monitors, but the image quality will always remain the same. In short, PC gamers will very much be getting the genuine console experience here, right down to the pixel.
Click to expand...
 
The developers were very clear that there were not going to be any graphical improvements. AA is all you're getting.
 
bigdogchris said:
The developers were very clear that there were not going to be any graphical improvements. I think the best you're going to be able to do is force AA and AF.
Click to expand...

Too much to ask to be able to natively render the game in 1080P and above?
 
While I'm glad to be playing this on my PC...man...that's lame. I almost wish I just bought the 360 version last year. then I could've at least gotten some achievements for my troubles. Oh well!
 
Domingo said:
While I'm glad to be playing this on my PC...man...that's lame. I almost wish I just bought the 360 version last year. then I could've at least gotten some achievements for my troubles. Oh well!
Click to expand...

You'll still get them. Dark Souls PC has GFWL.
 
They fixed framerate issues(or CPU just smashed the issues), but didn't improve resolution. Hmm. Let's see if there is a workaround, I guess.
 
Plague_Injected said:
You'll still get them. Dark Souls PC has GFWL.
Click to expand...

Interesting. I guess I have mixed feelings about that. As long as it isn't buggy as hell, I guess at least I'll get some achievements and have the ability to chat with my XBL friends while playing it. On the other hand, it *IS* GFWL, and it's a notoriously buggy platform.
I wonder if some people will tweak it to do 60FPS.
 
Domingo said:
Interesting. I guess I have mixed feelings about that. As long as it isn't buggy as hell, I guess at least I'll get some achievements and have the ability to chat with my XBL friends while playing it. On the other hand, it *IS* GFWL, and it's a notoriously buggy platform.
I wonder if some people will tweak it to do 60FPS.
Click to expand...

Work out where GFWL stores the save files so you can back them up in the event it decides to randomly delete them.
 
Man 1024 x 720 with a 2560 x 1600 monitor is going to look... awesome.


I'll still buy it.
 
Domingo said:
Interesting. I guess I have mixed feelings about that. As long as it isn't buggy as hell, I guess at least I'll get some achievements and have the ability to chat with my XBL friends while playing it. On the other hand, it *IS* GFWL, and it's a notoriously buggy platform.
I wonder if some people will tweak it to do 60FPS.
Click to expand...

I suspect that there's a reason why it's locked to 30. Engine framerates can affect the way that the mechanics of a game work on a fundamental level that can be very difficult to fix. That's why you still jump further in Quake 3 at 125 FPS to this day. Might even still be present in the Call of Duty games.
 
defiant007 said:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-08-09-dark-souls-pc-preview-the-devils-bargain
Click to expand...

sounds like good news/bad news...the good news seems to be that the frame rate hitching seems to be gone...any chances we could see advanced graphics options introudfuced in a later patch?

"To cut to the chase, the frame-rate on consoles has always been a major area of complaint among Dark Souls fans, and the notorious Blight Town or New Londo Ruins areas are usually singled out as the big offenders. The implication of a PC release is obviously that all these problems can be tackled by the brute force of a faster CPU, and though there are very light hitches here and there, it's a relief to say Blight Town now plays without all the constant chugging. The improvement is staggering"
 
The news that this game is locked at 1024x720 and 30 fps reads to me like the developers have ported the console engine over literally without any real optimization. I'm betting that if we could set resolutions higher than 1024x720 that performance would diminish and show just how poor the conversion really is. The previews report that the game isn't even running at a solid 30 fps at 1024x600 which really is quite shocking for a 2012 PC game. Those previews were done on the publisher's hardware too so there's no telling exactly how the game will run on the varied configurations in the real world. I suspect it isn't going to be pleasant and this will prove to be as dire a port as Ubisoft's abysmal unfinished conversion of Ghost Recon: Future Soldier was. Possibly worse.

/shudders

Anyway I've cancelled my pre-order as I was hoping for at least sharper graphics and a slicker framerate over the PS3 version I already have. With only a more stable framerate and the despicable Games for Windows LIVE the PC version has suddenly become a whole lot less appealing even with the extra content. Such a shame. Oh well. There's Darksiders II and Sleeping Dogs out at the same time so I doubt I'll miss it that much. :(
 
TheToE! said:
Shitty console res : Check
GWFL: Check
Framerate locked at 30: Check
Click to expand...

Amazing Game Still : Check
Everything the Developer Promised when the Game was Announced?: Check
PC Elitists Trolling up the Thread? : Check
 
LeninGHOLA said:
+ Completely mappable keys, better framerates, new content, AA.

- 30fps cap, 720p framebuffer, GFWL, graphical options.
Click to expand...

Did the original game regularly drop below 30 FPS? Otherwise, this doesn't really mean anything.
 
The publisher gave them a set timeframe to get it ported on top of the fact that it was one of their first pc games. If the game was developed concurrently with the console versions or released 2+ years later(a la Alan Wake) I could understand taking issue with the features. I mean, who even knows if they had higher res textures on hand since it was only developed for console the whole way?

Also, just because it's not as good as it could have been doesn't mean it's not still amazing. They even included the dlc as part of the pc edition to help "make up" for some of the missing features. That, along with the base price at 2/3 the cost of the console versions is fair IMO.
 
MavericK96 said:
Did the original game regularly drop below 30 FPS? Otherwise, this doesn't really mean anything.
Click to expand...

Yes, on PS3 and Xbox there were dips in the ~10fps range in Blight Town and I think Anor Londo. It could actually mean life and death, at times.
 
theNoid said:
Amazing Game Still : Check
Everything the Developer Promised when the Game was Announced?: Check
PC Elitists Trolling up the Thread? : Check
Click to expand...

I'm PC elitist as it gets, and I will not cancel my pre-order. This game is good. We get more content than the console crowd got, better framerates, full KB/M support, lower price and... yea basically what was promised.

I can deal with GFWL if the game is good enough, like Batman AC or this. Hell, even Dawn of War II worked fine.

I'll be on the lookout for day 1 tweaks for the framerate cap and framebuffer lock, though.
 
1024x720? Are fucking kidding me? I don't think I've run a resolution that low since I had a 15" CRT. I'll remain skeptical until I see some user posted screen shots.
 
The only thing I can hope is that they keep developing it after they release it. Until its a good port. If they can promise that, then ill buy. Since it seems they stick to their promises.
 
This will be one of those cases where it will be hard to blame the developer if the port turns out to be dodgy, given the circumstances.

I don't understand the capped 30fps though. Is there extra development time needed to "uncap" the framerate? Is it done for stability reasons? I seriously don't know what's up with that so if someone who understands this stuff can enlighten me, I'd be grateful.
 
Volkum said:
1024x720? Are fucking kidding me? I don't think I've run a resolution that low since I had a 15" CRT. I'll remain skeptical until I see some user posted screen shots.
Click to expand...

*Sigh.* The game isn't locked at 1024x720. The assets are. It will run at higher resolutions, but the textures and stuff don't upscale.
 
Plague_Injected said:
This will be one of those cases where it will be hard to blame the developer if the port turns out to be dodgy, given the circumstances.

I don't understand the capped 30fps though. Is there extra development time needed to "uncap" the framerate? Is it done for stability reasons? I seriously don't know what's up with that so if someone who understands this stuff can enlighten me, I'd be grateful.
Click to expand...

Likely stability and action animations. We'll see once the internet folks unlock it.
 
theNoid said:
Amazing Game Still : Check
Everything the Developer Promised when the Game was Announced?: Check
PC Elitists Trolling up the Thread? : Check
Click to expand...

What is elite about that resolution and fps though?

Bare minimum standard for pc should at least be 60 and 1920x1080.
 
spaceman said:
What is elite about that resolution and fps though?

Bare minimum standard for pc should at least be 60 and 1920x1080.
Click to expand...

You CAN run it at 1920x1080, it's just the graphics don't upscale with the resolution.
 
Derangel said:
You CAN run it at 1920x1080, it's just the graphics don't upscale with the resolution.
Click to expand...

So it will look like complete shit and run terribly? Its OK though, because this is dark souls :rolleyes:
 
xIronCrossx said:
So it will look like complete shit and run terribly? Its OK though, because this is dark souls :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Except that none of the previews have said anything about it looking bad. As for "run terribly". It's not a racing game or fast paced FPS. It doesn't need 60fps to run smooth.
 
While It'd be great if they updated it better for PC, the game is good enough that I'll be happy even if looks and runs exactly as it did when I played it on PS3. It should also be noted that the PC release is $40 and includes the upcoming additional content.
 
Derangel said:
Except that none of the previews have said anything about it looking bad. As for "run terribly". It's not a racing game or fast paced FPS. It doesn't need 60fps to run smooth.
Click to expand...

And the excuses already rolling in that would label any other game by any other publisher utter shit. I like it.
 
xIronCrossx said:
And the excuses already rolling in that would label any other game by any other publisher utter shit. I like it.
Click to expand...

From has never developed a PC title before (both of their previous PC releases were done by other studios) and they were given little time and money. They have also been completely honest from the get-go about what to expect. That earns some leeway. If it was anyone else they would probably lie about it or try to cover it all up. I've never been one to give a damn about frame-rate locks. As long as the game runs well and doesn't feel like it was capped too low, then I really don't care. I don't even have to worry if it's a good game or not because I know it is a freaking great game. Anyway, all that aside I can understand people not wanting to buy the PC version. I own it on the 360 already so I'm going to wait until it goes on sale before picking it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top