After years of hearing people praise Dark Souls and Demon Souls, and how I should totally play them........just today, I finally decide to get in on the action and decided to buy Dark Souls II.
Maybe you should go back and actually see what a PS2 game looks like.
Maybe you should stop taking what I said literally and realize that I said "looks like a PS2 game" to emphasize how much worse it looks now compared to how it did when they first showed it off.
OK, that is bad. Someone compared them before, and I thought that was as bad as it would get but the comparison above is horrible. I get how people are saying Watch Dogs looks bad now, but I am waiting to see how it looks when it is released on next gen, but Dark Souls 2 has been caught after release. They should have at least said something first. Lies are wrong.
Apparently the framerate is still caught between 20 and 30 fps. I really don't care how the console version looks or runs, but I'll be severely disappointed if the PC version doesn't look as good as that initial demo, because there's no excuse for it not to.
Maybe you should go back and actually see what a PS2 game looks like.
Maybe you should stop taking what I said literally and realize that I said "looks like a PS2 game" to emphasize how much worse it looks now compared to how it did when they first showed it off.
Maybe you should go back and actually see what a PS2 game looks like.
Maybe you should stop taking what I said literally and realize that I said "looks like a PS2 game" to emphasize how much worse it looks now compared to how it did when they first showed it off.
Maybe you should go back and actually see what a PS2 game looks like.
Maybe you should stop taking what I said literally and realize that I said "looks like a PS2 game" to emphasize how much worse it looks now compared to how it did when they first showed it off.
You said it, in those exact words. And you offered no type of other commentary to show people you weren't being literal. Youre typing on the internet, people don't know what your intent or context is when you type because all they have to go by is what you say. So maybe youre the one who has an issue, and stop assuming that everyone on the planet knows exactly what your meaning is, especially when you actually wrote very little for them to go on.
2) If you are so focused on how a game looks then you shouldn't even bother playing dark souls 2 because you wont enjoy the game because it isn't slick, bright and shiny to distract you much like a shiny toy will a dog. It isn't the prettiest game but I like the dark/demons games because they are fun for me to play, I don't care about the graphics so much because unlike most I care more about the game itself and if its fun to play, if a game is fun to play because it looks good then usually its a hollow game.
I think it's not properly optimized to promote buying a ps4/xb1. regardless, you shouldn't be playing the souls games for graphics... but I did notice a lot of insanely bad looking textures too.
If they're gonna be coming out with a next gen version I expect some compensation for those who want to double dip. The game is excellent but damn does it look murky most of the time
@Pffrbt: @Pffrbt: I haven't got a clue about PC gaming but I'm sure I read that you will be able to adjust the visual settings, but anyway graphics isn't a big deal to me gameplay is most important. As long as graphics are half descent, and as proven by Dark souls story isn't that important either. That is all
@Jacanuk: @Gargus: "You said it, in those exact words. And you offered no type of other commentary to show people you weren't being literal."
I would hope I would be able to give people the benefit of the doubt that an obvious exaggeration would be enough to tip them off that I'm not being 100% dead serious. In either case, I don't care.
"If you are so focused on how a game looks then you shouldn't even bother playing dark souls 2"
I enjoyed the other Souls games. I'll just be disappointed that this one doesn't look nearly as good as I know it could've.
"Ok, thanks for telling us about your needs.
Not sure what anyone can do with it but im sure someone cares what you think or need."
Thank you for your condescending and dismissive attitude.
Apparently the framerate is still caught between 20 and 30 fps. I really don't care how the console version looks or runs, but I'll be severely disappointed if the PC version doesn't look as good as that initial demo, because there's no excuse for it not to.
After the crappy port that was Prepare to Die Edition, I'm not sure I can trust From Software to release a decent Dark Souls 2 port.
And yes, the lighting and some of the textures have been downgraded. According to Digital Foundry, Dark Souls 2 runs at 720p compared to the sub-HD resolution of Dark Souls 1. They dialed down the graphics so that the game would run better. Even if the framerate is 20-30, it is much better than Blighttown's single digit frames.
I am not impressed with the dark souls games. I can't understand how they are rated so highly.
Because they challenge the player to think and explore, rather than telling them where to go and holding their hand and rewarding the simplest of actions completed.
And TC, you must never have played a PS2 game, because none of the Souls games look anything like things on the PS2. Not even close.
After years of hearing people praise Dark Souls and Demon Souls, and how I should totally play them........just today, I finally decide to get in on the action and decided to buy Dark Souls II.
And now, I am hearing criticisms.
What timing. I am still gonna buy it, but damn.
People are criticizing the lighting, but then in the same breath are calling it an amazing game. Demon's Souls and Dark Souls are amazing. People might be underwhelmed by the lighting and graphics of DaSII, but I wouldn't say textures and lighting was the main draw of DaS to begin with. I mean the original DaS had some textures that looked N64 era. Sure it's a shame that the released version doesn't have the same fidelity as a previous build, but it's not something that will destroy the game like many seemed worked up about.
Maybe you should go back and actually see what a PS2 game looks like.
Maybe you should stop taking what I said literally and realize that I said "looks like a PS2 game" to emphasize how much worse it looks now compared to how it did when they first showed it off.
It seems like only a few areas are really heavily impacted by this. I've still seen loads of sections that are simply breathtaking. Sure it might not look as great as it could have on the technical front, but damn if that fantastic art direction doesn't make up for it.
That image looks way clearer than what I'm playing on, especially the armor textures. Which version is this? Also, these enemy designs....honestly, Japan.
That image looks way clearer than what I'm playing on, especially the armor textures. Which version is this? Also, these enemy designs....honestly, Japan.
@Minishdriveby said:
@JangoWuzHere said:
Still doesn't look like a PS2 game.
How 'bout 'dem leaf textures. Pretty close.
These were pre-release screens about a month before the game launched.
Graphics aren't everything, though I'll be honest - I was shocked at the YouTube footage and how awful some of the graphics actually looked. The textures look blurred and low res, and the use of polygons seemed to have gone awry somewhere along the line, as round pillars look jagged. I could have easily seen similar quality on the GameCube or Xbox, which for the time was brilliant, but is now extremely lacking. This is 2014 and at their best games shouldn't look like launch titles for the 360:
Still, if the game plays well then fair enough. People get jumpy for two reasons:
1) Graphics immerse you more, and the lower the quality the more the feeling that you've been ripped off.
Log in to comment