Dark Souls PC port was 'half-assed' says director

Yui Tanimura says PC version of role-playing game "not very well done," promises From Software won't repeat mistakes with sequel.

The PC version of Dark Souls was "half-assed," according to Dark Souls II director Yui Tanimura. Speaking with Shacknews, the From Software designer promised the studio won't make the same mistakes twice with the PC version of the upcoming sequel.

"A lot of it was not very well done, sort of half-assed," Tanimura said.

The PC version of Dark Souls shipped some ten months after the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 iterations. This won't happen with the sequel, as all Dark Souls II versions are slated to launch simultaneously.

"Yes, we will definitely put more priority on the PC. Last time, we started working on PC after the console version was complete," Tanimura added. "This time, because we are considering the PC from the beginning, you can be sure there will be more care put into PC development."

Publisher Namco Bandai also confirmed to Shacknews that Dark Souls PC has sold more than 300,000 digital copies, though physical retail sales were not divulged.

For more on the Dark Souls series, check out GameSpot's review of the PC version, as well as first-look preview of Dark Souls II.

Written By

Eddie Makuch is a news editor at GameSpot, and would like to see the Whalers return to Hartford.

Want the latest news about Dark Souls?

Dark Souls

Dark Souls

Follow

Discussion

370 comments
FernoFrY
FernoFrY

When the console version came out they apologised for it not being good enough too! I think these guys have really high standards of themselves. Good company trying to do better every time

June-GS
June-GS

"...A lot of it was not very well done, sort of half-assed..." -- I like it when someone with balls admits to their mistakes. So @Mr. Tanimura, you have our faith, but we WILL hold you to your word. So don't let us down.

dark_sith_
dark_sith_

Latter. I meant that in a positive light. I don't mind dying, but having to replay the same section over and over, fight same enemies over and over, those things do become tedious after a while. I hope in that the sequel bonfires get placed much closer to the big boss fights.

soeppel
soeppel

Dark Souls was launched on the PC to glowing reviews (8.5 on metacritic). It got a 9.5 here on Gamespot and anybody questioning the quality of the port was instantly shot down by fanboys in the forum threads.

Now even From Software admits it was a lousy port. Half-assed indeed.

petez34
petez34

I really hope they get rid of those stupid 'A' 'B' console prompts. they drive me totally f***** crazy. respect PC players or fuck off!

Gravity_Slave
Gravity_Slave

I remember when it was the other way around and everything was ported from the PC.  Now the PC end is shoddy and half assed.  PC gaming just took a dive this past decade.  Just doesn't make sense anymore.  Last time I had a rig I spent 350 on a graphics card just to be able to hit the benchmark for the next new game.  I'm done with that shyt

deeper_crust
deeper_crust

300,000, not a bad stat! See if you give us good games, we'll support it. And I thought the PC version was very good after using the DS Fix  


Waiiit, there was one caveat, bloody GFWL! Remove that sh*t pls

sknight175216
sknight175216

The third time is the charm I guess. You would think they would have learned from Ninja Blade, but nope.

x-2tha-z
x-2tha-z

I love playing DS on my PC, but I prefer to play my PS3 copy, mainly because multi-player works properly on PS3. I still load the PC version once in a while but the issues with summoning and being summoned really frustrate me. Hopefully DS2 won't have these issues because I've decided to get the PC version when it's released.

TheEveryMan
TheEveryMan

Admire his honesty, but he shouldn't crap on his own product. If that happens, everybody loses a little faith in you.

laser00
laser00

I'm glad to hear these news, the PC version was half-assed but thank god for modders. You saved my gaming experience once again :)

AlexFili
AlexFili

I hate half-assed ports. AC3's frame rate optimisation was horrible, dual cores not being used properly, 20% of the CPU being idle...

Pete5506
Pete5506

The port was done poorly, but I am just glad that the PC players have the game. 

bfa1509
bfa1509

I like that guy's honesty.

willzihang
willzihang

Even though I don't like the original game, I am elated to hear they are having a same time release for PC and consoles for the sequel. Nice to see companies investing more confidence in PC gaming.

digitaltiger
digitaltiger

The price tag probably wasn't half assed.

TohouAsura
TohouAsura

@soeppel NO one shot down anyone questioning the quality but the most blind of fanboys.

It was a shitty port, there is no argument there. Thankfully, with Keyboard mods and the famous DSFix and 60fps mods, the game became fully playable and even quite pleasant. But it's still preferable to play it with a controller.


President_Novak
President_Novak

@Gravity_Slave Talking to petez34 a few posts back, you said, "most wont even notice anyway" You mean high resolution textures and 60+ fps? Or just the frame rate?

I can see the difference that the Skyrim HD textures DLC makes very, very clearly on my 21.5" monitor running at 1920x1080. Also, I do this with a Radeon HD 6850, which cost me only $250 when it was brand new... You don't really need an enthusiast VGA. If anyone pressured you into thinking that you had to buy the most powerful VGA just to run new games without BSODs, they are either weird elitists or just ignorant. It's like saying, "Your fluffy couch wont be comfortable unless is vibrates," or telling a person who is visually impaired, "You won't be able to see at all unless you use these glasses." It's just nonsensical tomfoolery.

When the next gen consoles are all released, I'll wait to buy a VGA until at least one series of cards after the ones that would compete with the new console hardware (about two years). A $350 card would put a PC with a good hard drive, good processor, and good power supply on the same level as a new console which would probably cost $400 - not to mention the cost of controllers, batteries, and (the big one)Xbox Live - even two years after release

the_bi99man
the_bi99man

@deamonblade31 It does if you want to play it at more than 30 fps. Which makes a world of difference in a game like this.

erMonezza
erMonezza

@TheEveryMan I prefer honesty than being obviously lied in my face, like many other devs/publishers do.

Stiler
Stiler

@bfa1509 Me too, it's nice to see someone being honest and up front about the games they made/are making.

OuTLaWzGamer
OuTLaWzGamer

@digitaltiger 40$ for the full game and DLC on release was pretty good. Fact is the game looked MUCH better after downloading the small 5mb patch from the modder the same day the game came out and it played just as well as the console version using a controller. Nowadays even if youre a PC gamer having a controller is a must. Way too many games are made for consoles/gamepads.   So no,I  was pleased for my money.

archnophobia
archnophobia

@doraemonllh1989 ppl like you still say craps like this?

June-GS
June-GS

@dsb333  I was actually speaking for me and my friends, not ALL of humanity, LOL. But hey, if YOU don't ever want anything to do with DS' developers (whom I was actually challenging above), sure thing, that's your deal.

Gravity_Slave
Gravity_Slave

@President_Novak

"which cost me only $250"

lol wow...what a bargain.  And on top of every thing else you paid towards that rig of yours.

All that money to play one game.  You're a financial guru my friend.

Slade968
Slade968

@somatzu @bfa1509 It wasn't so much about honesty as it was about being disrespectful. Orth came off like a arrogant douchebag and extremely childish. He has his freedom of speech but he better be ready to accept the consequences. 

He is a higher ranking employee of Microsoft, a company that large is under much more scrutiny than From Software. He should know better than to represent the brand that way. And to be honest, it will probably cost them money because it turned ALOT of people to PS3.

Tanimura told it like it was. He didn't make any bullshit excuses and said they would do better. Completely different situation.

Gravity_Slave
Gravity_Slave

@japespszx6297 

Dying every 60 seconds is NOT fun.  Any game that literally forces players to die, that surrounds gameplay mechanics around it is NOT fun.   I really wanted to like DS but the journey was just too frustrating.  imo

faceless-mask
faceless-mask

@OuTLaWzGamer @digitaltiger Got it for $20 on steam actually, which was great. Plus, I didn't get a gamepad, which made the whole cost a grand total of $20. And who says having a controller is a must for PC gamers?

Gravity_Slave
Gravity_Slave

@Cloud_imperium

Ironic how anyone that disagrees with a PC gamer is a troll.  Maybe you're a troll for liking it and insulting this guy?

ChuffyChuff
ChuffyChuff

@Gravity_Slave For most people though it is not a straight comparison, because they use a PC for lots of non-gaming stuff, and would have to buy a PC anyway.

Zorlox
Zorlox

@Doldrummer@President_Novak@Gravity_Slaveyou do realize that the new consoles are using parts that are already outdated right? if you know how to shop online you could build a rig for cheaper than those consoles that would be at the very least equal. the only thing that would make it expensive is if you don't have the extras, ie, monitor/desk/chair/keyboard/etc, but the same goes for a console, it gets rather expensive if you have to buy a couch/chair/tv/tv stand/plus accessories like paddles.

Doldrummer
Doldrummer

@President_Novak @Gravity_Slave i really wanna be a pc gamer, but with without a decent graphics card at a reasonable price point, it's hard not to just stick with a console till the next=gen. i bought a desktop new 2 years ago, and it was able to play games on high settings with a geforce gt230, but now i can't play games on low settings that are on consoles...i want to upgrade, but finding a decent card for $100-$200 that will actually make a difference is difficult..

President_Novak
President_Novak

@Gravity_Slave @President_Novak  

And on top of that console you had to buy controllers, batteries (or rechargeable controller batteries and a battery charger... or wired controllers, which would be much less expensive) , and pay $60 a year for Xbox Live, which after only 6 years of use amounts to $360 for Xbox Live alone.

So $400 for an Xbox back in 2006 + ~$30-240 average for 1-4 controller(s) factoring only one replacement over a six year operating lifetime (varies on user handling) + $360-420 for Xbox Live payments from 2006 until now + $60-720 (two games every year) for games over six years = $850-1780 over six years.

I will admit that PC gaming is much more expensive than console gaming, but I personally believe it is worth it. Some prefer the cost efficiency and ease of access of consoles, other prefer the experience of PC gaming. To each his own.

Zorlox
Zorlox

@TohouAsura @petez34 @Gravity_Slave what does it matter anyways, most people that run games at 200fps and the like only have 60Hz monitors anyways. more than 60 fps is useless no matter which side of the theory of the fps debate you're on just because of the Hz limits. and btw, i'm well aware of the fact that we can't process more than approximately 40 fps but we'd have to be in perfect sync with the game/monitor for fps increase not to make a difference. what I find hilarious though is when someone says they can tell the difference between 60 and a higher fps when the monitor they own won't display higher than 60 fps.

Gravity_Slave
Gravity_Slave

@TohouAsura 

aside from picky PC purists like yourself, no one else would be able to tell.  You're fooling yourself if you think you had money well spent.

TohouAsura
TohouAsura

@petez34 @Gravity_Slave It is distinguishable, when put side by side.

Hell, I can still see the difference between 52 and 60 fps. 60fps is just super buttery, silky smooth, and 50 is pretty damn smooth, but about as much as a kitchen table map.

Gravity_Slave
Gravity_Slave

@petez34 

I'm just replying to the 30 fps argument above.  I've been an opponent to PC tech vs. console for years.  ppl go on about frame rates and textures/res...and like you said, most wont even notice anyway.

petez34
petez34

@Gravity_Slave your eyes won't notice anything above 60fps anyways (anything above 40, i think is indistinguishable). what leap do you want?

longestsprout
longestsprout

@Gravity_Slave @Cloud_imperium 

The thing is, whether or not people still play games on the pc or not is not really a subject where people can seriously disagree on. I think that this was an attempt to come off as sarcastic rather than a troll post, but it's always difficult to tell with these things. Then again, it's always a little too easy to assume rationality from others, the writer could've been a perfectly legitimate idiot for all I know.