There's a difference between stuttering and say, the graphics found in Bastion. Bastion isn't photorealistic, but the graphics are smooth. The problems with 30FPS is it's roughly half the FPS provided by a PC monitor. Try playing a console game with a strobelight on.RubyT said:
Dark Souls Port Brings Console Problems to PC
- Thread starter Karloff
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I agree, it would be interesting though they are right about one thing. A bad port is a bad port, unlocking frames and resolution is pretty standard when it comes to PC games. I'm not upset at all cause I know someone on the internet will figure it out.RubyT said:
30 fps isn't bad at all if there's motion blur.
The 1024x768 limitation seems much worse since almost everyone has 16x9 screens nowadays.
THAT's what will look like crap.
The ability to change the resolution should be a given in any pc game and I have yet to see one that doesn't allow for it.
The 1024x768 limitation seems much worse since almost everyone has 16x9 screens nowadays.
THAT's what will look like crap.
The ability to change the resolution should be a given in any pc game and I have yet to see one that doesn't allow for it.
I'm really looking forward to it, I'll get a legendarily difficult game bundled in with a meta game where one has to wrestle with Games for Windows: Live and resolution incompatibilities.
I can already see this being game of the year.
Disclaimer:
That was not sarcasm.
I can already see this being game of the year.
Disclaimer:
That was not sarcasm.
Up-scaling 1024x720 to 1680x1050 would look really blurry (hell, if I had a 2048x1440 monitor I wouldn't complain at all)... And since I watch my monitor from half a meter that would be a problem. Also, sluggish control from the low refresh rate can be aggravating, but it will increase difficulty, which could be good, since k&m controls could make the game too easy on the PC.
I think I am one of the single PC gamers left that has a 19" monitor with a max resolution of 1200/1024 which I have been using for a couple of years now.
Guess the cropping from the lower resolution won't make the game blurry enough and it will be playable.
Guess the cropping from the lower resolution won't make the game blurry enough and it will be playable.
Didn't care about the game before it launched, didn't care after it launched, didn't sign any petition to get it ported to PC and I sure as hell don't care now. Also just for the record, I'm not buying it.Joseph Alexander said:
Your assumptions about what I want from a game are hilarious, by the way. I don't think the graphics in say, Chrono Trigger are anything to write home about, but I still think it's a fantastic example of gaming.
And it's not "being a graphics whore", so much as "bling bling".
DonTsetsi said:
"shitty controls" isn't a substitute for difficulty. It's the only reason NES games were difficult.
Also, 3240x1920, seriously, try it XD
I can only imagine how bad it must feel for you people to have to stick to a decent framerate with decent graphics. You should all start complaining like normal.
Oh mister fancy pants with is 1200*1024 monitor some of us still have 1024*768 monitors. Also still surprised at people's comments here. There is what a 9:1(exaggeration but no more than "oh noes the shame of a few elitists ruining it for everyone") ratio of people not complaining and buying it over this to it being a deal breaker. Especially since they more or less said this was happening anyway.DarkhoIlow said:
Let me ask you this,do you own any of the 3 consoles? If the answer is yes then my point is proven.Glademaster said:
Cause else,I really doubt you would be able to play any high fidelity games that have come out the past year with that kind of low resolution.And I would reckon that with such a low rez monitor the system specs must be pretty low as well.
PS: Don't get me wrong,I will buy the game myself,just wanted to point that out.
So long the graphics don't interfere with the gameplay (like lagging during a combat, specially in this game), I have no problem with it.
Why are PC gamers being called entitled for not buying a product that does not offer what they want? I just can't help but feel that some of the comments here lack a fundamental understanding of the way a consumer is supposed to act.
Hint: you buy products that give you what you want.
Nothing entitled about not liking a feature set. I wont buy the game, From wont get my money, and I wont play the game. I'm not entitled to anything and neither is From.
It's also ridiculous to assume that PC gamers should have expected a game with a locked resolution. When a developer says "a straight port" we expect a game that's probably a bit badly optimized, has some bugs, maybe a 30fps cap etc. But seriously, when was the last time a high profile game was released on the PC without working resolution options? I can't think of one...
Hint: you buy products that give you what you want.
Nothing entitled about not liking a feature set. I wont buy the game, From wont get my money, and I wont play the game. I'm not entitled to anything and neither is From.
It's also ridiculous to assume that PC gamers should have expected a game with a locked resolution. When a developer says "a straight port" we expect a game that's probably a bit badly optimized, has some bugs, maybe a 30fps cap etc. But seriously, when was the last time a high profile game was released on the PC without working resolution options? I can't think of one...
Meh. I know they said it was going to be a basic port, but come on. Even low budget indie games usually have resolution options. My native resolution on my laptop is 1920x1080. That means the game is going to look horrendous on my laptop. The image will be all screwed up and will detract from the experience. I don't see what's so hard about adding resolution support. I don't see how expecting these things is considered entitled or whiny. This is very basic stuff for any PC game, and while I was initially going to consider getting the game close to launch to support the devs, now I'm going to hold off until a Steam sale. I didn't expect upgraded graphics and was prepared to deal with GFWL (as crap as it is, I've had trouble with it in the past), but I don't support laziness. There are certain basic features that need to be accommodated for each platform, and if they expect my money they need to provide them.
Also, the DLC isn't "free". The game is available for $39.99 on Steam. I was in Gamestop a few days ago, and the price on a new copy of Dark Souls on PS3 is $29.99. So we are paying more money than you would have to pay in store. We aren't getting some great deal. It's cheaper than it was at launch for consoles, yes, but that was some time ago and a price drop is normal. We are paying more for a new copy today than you have to.
Also, the DLC isn't "free". The game is available for $39.99 on Steam. I was in Gamestop a few days ago, and the price on a new copy of Dark Souls on PS3 is $29.99. So we are paying more money than you would have to pay in store. We aren't getting some great deal. It's cheaper than it was at launch for consoles, yes, but that was some time ago and a price drop is normal. We are paying more for a new copy today than you have to.
