Support NeoGAF

[Clear]

Case in point, From put that demo out there, presumably believing that would be in the final product. Now they have to address the fact that the final product does not deliver it. Regardless of intentions, they have to address an issue of their very own creation.

FROM's paramount objective is to deliver the best product they can, not just the best-looking product, or the one that is the most slavishly accurate to any pre-release materials.

If the road to that goal involves changing appearances or dropping features then its right for them to make that choice, it would be madness to do anything other.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

There's the torch mechanic, then there's the lighting issue (and potentially textures, animations and more?) Seems people confusing them.

I know I'm supposed to be content with mods and Sweetfx or ENB or whatever, but that's not good enough. Bandaids, not solutions. Not sure why so many people think a graphics mod can replace a lighting engine.

They kind of go hand in hand, though. Without the lighting, the torch/sconce mechanic is a shadow (heh) of what it was clearly intended to be. There's no need to light sconces, and managing the torch as a resource isn't stressful at all because you rarely need to use it.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

FROM's paramount objective is to deliver the best product they can, not just the best-looking product, or the one that is the most slavishly accurate to any pre-release materials.

If the road to that goal involves changing appearances or dropping features then its right for them to make that choice, it would be madness to do anything other.

What they should've done is show the real game and not a tech demo while passing it off as the actual game.

 

[deddonpachi]

i will play on ps3, but i'm looking forward to some nice hires screenshots from the pc version for wallpapers and stuff

 

[XANDER CAGE]

FROM's paramount objective is to deliver the best product they can, not just the best-looking product, or the one that is the most slavishly accurate to any pre-release materials.

If the road to that goal involves changing appearances or dropping features then its right for them to make that choice, it would be madness to do anything other.

Is leaving a now-virtually pointless mechanic front and center delivering the best product possible?

 

[Talon]

FROM's paramount objective is to deliver the best product they can, not just the best-looking product, or the one that is the most slavishly accurate to any pre-release materials.

If the road to that goal involves changing appearances or dropping features then its right for them to make that choice, it would be madness to do anything other.

Graphical fidelity is not a separate item from the game. The game is the full package.

From fucked up by putting that footage out there and mismanaging expectations.

 

[Brandon F]

Started playing this an hour ago on PS3, just got to Majula.

I'm really bothered by the whole torch business because it's clearly even more central to the game then I thought it was going to be. The ENTIRE starter/tutorial area is built around teaching you the value of using the torch and lighting sconces.

I didn't know you had a time limit on torch usage either, man, it really WOULD have given the game a survival horror feel. I'm seriously disappointed. All your ressources seem to be limited by design, including the amount of soul grinding/item farming you can do and amount of items you can purchase.

First side area that I check in Majula has a sconce right before the entrance, that place is supposed to be fucking pitch black with sconces that you permenantly light up on your first journey in there. This change is GIGANTIC, if we ever see a version of the game with the original lighting engine in place people will realize just how big of a deal this is.

I'm less than an hour in and the game feels heavily compromised already. The framerate is also really poor, Dragon's Dogma on PS3 is a very apt comparison.

Regardless, I'm enjoying the game and I don't necessarily regret buying it, but it's a truly sad state of affairs. One of the central core mechanics of the game has been rendered obsolete AND it makes alot of rooms/environments ugly as hell.

I'm even more disappointed because I can see just how special and unique this mechanic would have made the game feel compared to previous Souls games. It would have been fucking awesome! Sure some people wouldn't like it but whatever, the darkness was clearly an intrinsic part of the ENTIRE design.

If it's a technical issue then it's a real shame but we could atleast see the PC version bring back the game to its full potential. If it's a last minute backtrack based on feedback then they fucking blew it hardcore. Stick to your guns and if any issues arise find more creative solutions than gimping the entire experience.

Yea, watching the GB QL, they spend half the camera time attempting to light all of the torches in the tutorial area thinking it unlocks some secret, but sadly it's more likely the original intent was make them a guiding beacon for exploration under a thick shroud of darkness.

It really was confusing why so many sconces existed in that tutorial now as well since the region is well lit and nothing seemingly occurs for lighting all of them.

 

[Garcia]

FROM's paramount objective is to deliver the best product they can, not just the best-looking product, or the one that is the most slavishly accurate to any pre-release materials.

If the road to that goal involves changing appearances or dropping features then its right for them to make that choice, it would be madness to do anything other.

Regardless of the reasons, they pulled a blatant bait and switch here.

No need to be apologetic. It won't change that fact.

 

[jimmypython]

Started playing this an hour ago on PS3, just got to Majula.

I'm really bothered by the whole torch business because it's clearly even more central to the game then I thought it was going to be. The ENTIRE starter/tutorial area is built around teaching you the value of using the torch and lighting sconces.

I didn't know you had a time limit on torch usage either, man, it really WOULD have given the game a survival horror feel. I'm seriously disappointed. All your ressources seem to be limited by design, including the amount of soul grinding/item farming you can do and amount of items you can purchase.

First side area that I check in Majula has a sconce right before the entrance, that place is supposed to be fucking pitch black with sconces that you permenantly light up on your first journey in there. This change is GIGANTIC, if we ever see a version of the game with the original lighting engine in place people will realize just how big of a deal this is.

I'm less than an hour in and the game feels heavily compromised already. The framerate is also really poor, Dragon's Dogma on PS3 is a very apt comparison.

Regardless, I'm enjoying the game and I don't necessarily regret buying it, but it's a truly sad state of affairs. One of the central core mechanics of the game has been rendered obsolete AND it makes alot of rooms/environments ugly as hell.

I'm even more disappointed because I can see just how special and unique this mechanic would have made the game feel compared to previous Souls games. It would have been fucking awesome! Sure some people wouldn't like it but whatever, the darkness was clearly an intrinsic part of the ENTIRE design.

If it's a technical issue then it's a real shame but we could atleast see the PC version bring back the game to its full potential. If it's a last minute backtrack based on feedback then they fucking blew it hardcore. Stick to your guns and if any issues arise find more creative solutions than gimping the entire experience.

real shame...

so if it's a design choice then it would be possible to fix through a patch. but if it's a technical tissue then definitely wait for PC or PS4/Xbone version (if ever)

 

[EatinOlives]

FROM's paramount objective is to deliver the best product they can, not just the best-looking product, or the one that is the most slavishly accurate to any pre-release materials.

If the road to that goal involves changing appearances or dropping features then its right for them to make that choice, it would be madness to do anything other.

This isn't a simple shift in changing appearances seen in games from pre-alpha onward. This is a sign of a much bigger issue in the game's development. The game's previews almost immediately hit the ground running going on and on about the game's lighting system, and promised the use of darkness in a much more prominent way. This was seen up until merely a few months ago. Changes or no changes, using a build that outdated in trade shows so close to release is ill-advised, no matter how you want to spin it. There is no way that they hadn't made this change by then, but they were still happily putting out a demo they knew full well was not at all representative of the final product. I hate to give Ubisoft credit for any of this, but at the very least they're putting out footage that seems to be more representative of the final product before release (though they go right ahead and deny any downgrade via Twitter, but still).

And they still haven't addressed this in the last bit. A big feature they shouted from the rooftops at the game's reveal now mysteriously missing at the last minute and the developer/publisher is nowhere to be found. Let's not pretend that's par for the course in the industry.

 

[Stone Ocean]

So basically, the torch is now just a prettier skull lantern for a couple of dungeons?

Prettier and time-limited :/

I hope there's some sort of Lantern/Sunlight Maggot item that lets me ditch the torch altogether.

 

[CadetMahoney]

It's a sad state now we can't trust media even months before release but must wait for the actual disc in gamers hands to see what the reality is

Yep, whilst all we see is 9.5's and 10's with no mention of downgrades.

 

[Kamina]

Reading all these posts from people being upset about the torch/darkness situation i have started to ask myself if there isn't just an ingame-option to control the darkness, alias "turn down the brightness until the logo is barely visible". We could just reduce that setting even more to make previous not-so-dark areas darker right?

 

[John Rabbit]

Yep, whilst all we see is 9.5's and 10's with no mention of downgrades.

because a review deals with the released product, not what the game was going to be at some point in development.

 

[AkuMifune]

because a review deals with the released product, not what the game was going to be at some point in development.

Only because game reviewers have become conditioned to not actually be critics.

 

[Stet]

Reading all these posts from people being upset about the torch/darkness situation i have started to ask myself if there isn't just an ingame-option to control the darkness, alias "turn down the brightness until the logo is barely visible". We could just reduce that setting even more to make previous not-so-dark areas darker right?

Try putting the brightness way up in the Tomb of the Giants and you'll see why this doesn't work.

 

[John Rabbit]

Only because game reviewers have become conditioned to not actually be critics.

are you implying reviewers should 'punish' companies by giving their game low scores, regardless of the game's actual quality?

 

[JoeFenix]

I don't think the reviewers are necessarily wrong with their scores, the game is still very good so far. It's definitely sinking its hooks in already but it still feels unfinished/tarnished to me.

The framerate is also really bad at times, if you're sensitive to this kind of stuff stay the hell away from the PS3 version. It's tolerable to me but on the flip side I can't tolerate a lack of V-Sync.

The game definitely seems like it's worth playing regardless of all this mess so I would recommend that anyone previously interested still strongly consider checking it out either way. It might be compromised and it might never reach its full potential (who knows down the line with other versions though) but it still seems worthy of a purchase is you can stomach the framerate.

Really bad case of "what could have been" though, one of the worst I can think of personally.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Reading all these posts from people being upset about the torch/darkness situation i have started to ask myself if there isn't just an ingame-option to control the darkness, alias "turn down the brightness until the logo is barely visible". We could just reduce that setting even more to make previous not-so-dark areas darker right?

It doesn't really work like that. Turning the brightness all the way down still leaves everything perfectly visible.

 

[Stet]

are you implying reviewers should 'punish' companies by giving their game low scores, regardless of the game's actual quality?

Absolutely. Look at any review of a consumer product online that doesn't deliver what it advertises. If they have to add in a category that specifically speaks to the game's outcome vs. advertising then so be it.

 

[Orthogonal]

Yea, watching the GB QL, they spend half the camera time attempting to light all of the torches in the tutorial area thinking it unlocks some secret, but sadly it's more likely the original intent was make them a guiding beacon for exploration under a thick shroud of darkness.

It really was confusing why so many sconces existed in that tutorial now as well since the region is well lit and nothing seemingly occurs for lighting all of them.

Yes, I noticed this as well. The sconces are plentiful, but completely unnecessary since you can just blow through the tutorial without the torch at all. Such a shame. I think the game is still going to be fun and have a lot of great moments, this is just one aspect that will always leave void in what could have been.

 

[SilverBullet]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1YX30AmYsA

Someone needs to try and mimic this gameplay on the final build and post for compare.

 

[HyperBitHero]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1YX30AmYsA

Someone needs to try and mimic this gameplay on the final build and post for compare.

I actually had this idea too. May do it.

 

[John Rabbit]

Absolutely. Look at any review of a consumer product online that doesn't deliver what it advertises. If they have to add in a category that specifically speaks to the game's outcome vs. advertising then so be it.

so for you the review of a product isn't really about the product, it's about your pre-conceived notions of what the product should be and your feelings about the company who made it. that's not a review at all and it's the same kind of subjective bias that people are already bitching about in the industry.

 

[Gbraga]

so for you the review of a product isn't really about the product, it's about your pre-conceived notions of what the product should be and your feelings about the company who made it. that's not a review at all and it's the same kind of subjective bias that people are already bitching about in the industry.

You're missing his point. It's not about what you think the product should be, it's about what the company promised it would be when they convinced you to spend 60 bucks on it.

I'm not even sure I agree with him, need to give this more thought, but you're definitely missing the point.

 

[mollipen]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1YX30AmYsA

Someone needs to try and mimic this gameplay on the final build and post for compare.

That's the part of the game that I had played an early build of that I noted in my review. Playing in the final version, I absolutely did not need a torch after going down those stairs.

 

[Garcia]

are you implying reviewers should 'punish' companies by giving their game low scores, regardless of the game's actual quality?

The main problem here isn't even the product's quality; it's the way it is advertised.

Maybe you didn't notice but what you are actually implying with that line of thought is that people should be perfectly content by receiving a pristine, fully functional freezer at their doorstep when they actually paid for a full fledged refrigerator. Both work for the same purpose, but you actually paid for the complete pack and got a limited version instead.

Why even bother about releasing a last-gen version of Dark Souls 2 when the final result wasn't ever going to resemble their original concept?

I think all of us know the answer to that question.

 

[John Rabbit]

You're missing his point. It's not about what you think the product should be, it's about what the company promised it would be when they convinced you to spend 60 bucks on it.

I'm not even sure I agree with him, need to give this more thought, but you're definitely missing the point.

i'm not missing his point, i understand what he means. however, given the disparity between 'what was advertised' and 'what is', it's not unreasonable to suggest that despite this disparity, the end product is still good/worthwhile/fun/whatever. i'll agree that not mentioning it whatsoever is kind of strange, but to 'punish' the company as some kind of petty retribution is just unprofessional.

 

[Fallout-NL]

so for you the review of a product isn't really about the product, it's about your pre-conceived notions of what the product should be and your feelings about the company who made it. that's not a review at all and it's the same kind of subjective bias that people are already bitching about in the industry.

Dude you're making this overly complicated. It's false fucking advertising, that's all. And since presentation is so extremely important in a videogame and, considering the torch/lighting stuff that was shown to be in the game earlier, sometimes integral to the gameplay even, it makes sense to address significant changes in the run up to the release of a game.

 

[RE_Player]

so for you the review of a product isn't really about the product, it's about your pre-conceived notions of what the product should be and your feelings about the company who made it. that's not a review at all and it's the same kind of subjective bias that people are already bitching about in the industry.

Why not have both is the argument I think others want. Have your subjective review but don't be oblivious to how this product was marketed and if it misses what has been advertised call it out to inform.

 

[Gbraga]

i'm not missing his point, i understand what he means. however, given the disparity between 'what was advertised' and 'what is', it's not unreasonable to suggest that despite this disparity, the end product is still good/worthwhile/fun/whatever. i'll agree that not mentioning it whatsoever is kind of strange, but to 'punish' the company as some kind of petty retribution is just unprofessional.

I can see why it would be unfair to give a 9/10 game a 4/10 because it wasn't as good looking as advertised, but in the other hand, publishers care about those things, so while it may be unfair to the first few games, it might prevent the same from happening in the future.

As I said though, I'm not sure I agree with him, but I'll definitely give this more thought.

 

[dubq]

The framerate is also really bad at times, if you're sensitive to this kind of stuff stay the hell away from the PS3 version. It's tolerable to me but on the flip side I can't tolerate a lack of V-Sync.

I haven't read anything in the reviews about the FPS other than that it stays at 30.. is it much worse than the first was?

 

[JoeFenix]

I haven't read anything in the reviews about the FPS other than that it stays at 30.. is it much worse than the first was?

Keep in my that I'm early in the game still but it's been pretty rough, Majula especially runs very poorly.

I would say that if you tolerated Dark Souls (Demon's Souls definitely runs better overall minus the severe drops during physics stuff) on PS3 then you can PROBABLY tolerate this one too. I was just giving a heads up to be people that are truly sensitive to this stuff. Dragon's Dogma on PS3 really does seem like a perfect comparison in terms of feel.

I dealt with it there and I'm dealing with it here I guess.

 

[SpokkX]

I haven't read anything in the reviews about the FPS other than that it stays at 30.. is it much worse than the first was?

Uhm WORSE than ds1?

Surely that is impossible?

 

[Garcia]

i'm not missing his point, i understand what he means. however, given the disparity between 'what was advertised' and 'what is', it's not unreasonable to suggest that despite this disparity, the end product is still good/worthwhile/fun/whatever. i'll agree that not mentioning it whatsoever is kind of strange, but to 'punish' the company as some kind of petty retribution is just unprofessional.

No, it is not whatsoever kind of strange, it is completely unacceptable. It goes against your rights as a consumer. Misleading your audience by saying that "Dark Souls II runs at a steady 30 frames per second throughout the entire campaign without a hiccup" is highly unprofessional.

People have the right to know about what they are actually paying for. This specially covers pre-orders which are based on trust and faith towards the publisher.

 

[DeBurgo]

I think it's funny/sad how many people here are laying the blame at the feet of From for this. Once again a developer gets blamed on neogaf for what is likely the publisher writing checks that the developer couldn't cash.

 

[SpokkX]

Keep in my that I'm early in the game still but it's been pretty rough, Majula especially runs very poorly.

I would say that if you tolerated the previous Souls games on PS3 then you can PROBABLY tolerate this one too. I was just giving a heads up to be people that are truly sensitive to this stuff. Dragon's Dogma on PS3 really does seem like a perfect comparison in terms of feel.

I dealt with it there and I'm dealing with it here I guess.

Omg, i think i will hold out for a ps4-version then

Have already prepaid but oh well, from deserves the money anyway

 

[dubq]

Dude you're making this overly complicated. It's false fucking advertising, that's all.

Legit Q: Was the lighting thing ever an actual advertised feature? Like a back of the box type of thing, or in the bullet points of the sequel description from the publisher when it was announced? Or was it just something we all saw and thought was the case via gameplay footage? I ask, as if it was just something gleaned from developer footage then that stuff usually has a "not representative of final build" disclaimer around it.

 

[Fermbiz]

This may be a silly question to ask but I just got my copy for the PS3. I was going to buy the PC version when it comes out anyway but should I hold off till the PC version.is released?

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Legit Q: Was the lighting thing ever an actual advertised feature? Like a back of the box type of thing, or in the bullet points of the sequel description from the publisher when it was announced? Or was it just something we all saw and thought was the case via gameplay footage. I ask, as if it was just something gleaned from developer footage then that stuff usually has a "not representative of final build" disclaimer around it.

They touted it quite a bit in previews and interviews, yeah. It was meant to serve a specific purpose in the game; torches and sconces were originally meant to be crucial to traversal.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Legit Q: Was the lighting thing ever an actual advertised feature? Like a back of the box type of thing, or in the bullet points of the sequel description from the publisher when it was announced? Or was it just something we all saw and thought was the case via gameplay footage. I ask, as if it was just something gleaned from developer footage then that stuff usually has a "not representative of final build" disclaimer around it.

It was explicitly advertised:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_JFDPCtXFY&t=2m56s

This may be a silly question to ask but I just got my copy for the PS3. I was going to buy the PC version when it comes out anyway but should I hold off till the PC version.is released?

If a stable framerate is important to you, I'd say yes.

 

[dubq]

They touted it quite a bit in previews and interviews, yeah. It was meant to serve a specific purpose in the game; torches and sconces were originally meant to be crucial to traversal.

It was explicitly advertised:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_JFDPCtXFY&t=2m56s

Damn, that's balls then. I hadn't really followed the development of the game, TBH, so I was legit curious. =\

I wonder why they would remove this? It seems like such a simple concept to keep in tact, really. I have the PS3 version sitting on my desk at work right now.. I'm still gonna play regardless.. kinda shitty that there won't be this pitch black/torch system a la Dragon's Dogma, though.

 

[Parsnip]

I don't think review would be the right place for the false advertising criticism. Review should be about the actual product at hand, not about any marketing bullshit, not about what could have potentially been.


Surely there are better soap boxes to start that discussion.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Early/mid game spoilers below that highlight how detrimental the lighting changes are:

Spoiler

in No Man's Wharf, there is a giant torch you can light hanging from the ceiling by using a Pharros Lockstone. Considering this is one of the first truly brutal areas of the game, finding this giant torch would basically be a momentous, triumphant step forward, as it lights the whole area. With the original lighting I imagine this could have been a pretty iconic moment, as it would have bathed a huge pitch-black area in firelight.

As it stands, though, it makes a few enemies slightly annoyed at the fire and back off a bit. It's a total waste of a Lockstone. You can see everything without torches, so lighting the giant one is pointless.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

I don't think review would be the right place for the false advertising criticism. Review should be about the actual product at hand, not about any marketing bullshit, not about what could have potentially been.


Surely there are better soap boxes to start that discussion.

No. Gamers have expectations and make buying decisions based on material released by the devs/publishers. Reviews should be clear about whether the final product matches that material or not.

 

[zephervack]

This may be a silly question to ask but I just got my copy for the PS3. I was going to buy the PC version when it comes out anyway but should I hold off till the PC version.is released?

No one knows how the PC version will look like, all they have said is better textures and frame rate.

So, if you are sensitive to that kind of stuff, then wait.

I am waiting my self, regardless of how it looks like, It will look better on PC and allow you do to crazy stuff like this:

Triple screen, texture mods, lightning mods, etc.

 

[Pie and Beans]

Early/mid game spoilers below that highlight how detrimental the lighting changes are:

Spoiler

in No Man's Wharf, there is a giant torch you can light hanging from the ceiling by using a Pharros Lockstone. Considering this is one of the first truly brutal areas of the game, finding this giant torch would basically be a momentous, triumphant step forward, as it lights the whole area. With the original lighting I imagine this could have been a pretty iconic moment, as it would have bathed a huge pitch-black area in firelight.

As it stands, though, it makes a few enemies slightly annoyed at the fire and back off a bit. It's a total waste of a Lockstone. You can see everything without torches, so lighting the giant one is pointless.

Yeah this is pretty close to total disaster territory. I'm sure theres a good game there still, but they have rushed this out after carving an entire element out of the game last minute and thats frankly fucking ridiculous.

 

[kvn]

Early/mid game spoilers below that highlight how detrimental the lighting changes are:

Spoiler

in No Man's Wharf, there is a giant torch you can light hanging from the ceiling by using a Pharros Lockstone. Considering this is one of the first truly brutal areas of the game, finding this giant torch would basically be a momentous, triumphant step forward, as it lights the whole area. With the original lighting I imagine this could have been a pretty iconic moment, as it would have bathed a huge pitch-black area in firelight.

As it stands, though, it makes a few enemies slightly annoyed at the fire and back off a bit. It's a total waste of a Lockstone. You can see everything without torches, so lighting the giant one is pointless.

This is fucking ridiculous. What. the. fuck.

 

[soldat7]

so for you the review of a product isn't really about the product, it's about your pre-conceived notions of what the product should be and your feelings about the company who made it. that's not a review at all and it's the same kind of subjective bias that people are already bitching about in the industry.

Fans with pitchforks. It's pretty common. I might grab mine once I've had the chance to play the game, actually.

What's funny is the media reviewers have actually been exposed to more pre-release gameplay footage than the rest of us. In fact, they've probably spent more time playing the pre-release game than the rest of us. If truly egregious, final release-build differences should stand out to them quite a bit.

I'm starting to think that the downgrade, while frustrating, might not actually ruin the game. We'll see!

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

Early/mid game spoilers below that highlight how detrimental the lighting changes are:

Spoiler

in No Man's Wharf, there is a giant torch you can light hanging from the ceiling by using a Pharros Lockstone. Considering this is one of the first truly brutal areas of the game, finding this giant torch would basically be a momentous, triumphant step forward, as it lights the whole area. With the original lighting I imagine this could have been a pretty iconic moment, as it would have bathed a huge pitch-black area in firelight.

As it stands, though, it makes a few enemies slightly annoyed at the fire and back off a bit. It's a total waste of a Lockstone. You can see everything without torches, so lighting the giant one is pointless.

Oh fucking hell.