Support NeoGAF

[TheCongressman1]

Because it probably was? I mean, we are playing on consoles that will be 9 years old not long from now...

Do not tell me you think that these systems can't handle what DS2 is doing. There have been much more complex games on the systems, and several years ago too.

The problem is From not being able to script a stable engine. If they wanted to make a new engine, they should have hired some more experienced engineers instead of risking flopping again in that regard.

 

[thorsilver]

The main complaint about the lighting/darkness in Doom 3 was that the flashlight couldn't be used at the same time as a gun, it was either light and no weapon, or weapon and no light which was stupid. People suggested they just add a light to the guns or your helmet and it would be fine but id never would do it. Modders fixed it and all was right in the world.

The thing about the torch mechanic, in most situations it appears that it was only a temporary setback until you lit the sconces which would permanently light up that area. As you pushed through you would eventually light them all and subsequent trips through the area would no longer require holding the torch. It would have added a little more depth to the gameplay.

Doesn't sound like 'depth' to me, sounds like busywork that forces you into a very different style of play briefly for no significant purpose. Plus then you have to make the areas look good both in extreme high-contrast darkness *and* in well-lit scenarios later. As Doom 3 shows (again), in-game areas that look great in darkness often look pretty atrocious in the light -- and the Souls games clearly care about this too, since they make you adjust the contrast to the proper level right at the start of the games.

For what would be a very minor, and probably annoying, addition to the gameplay, the amount of design, programming and testing involved just doesn't sound worth it. As others said, they most likely wanted to do this all over the shop and set up demo areas with this system, found out it was a nightmare and scaled it way back. Scaling features and systems back happens constantly in game development and isn't a conspiracy.

A gameplay change like that would have been announced by the devs rather than going about it in such a smoke and mirrors fashion.

What were they going to say, 'Hey turns out we can't do that lighting/torch business, so we've taken it out and reduced certain things to improve performance (or whatever). Please understand'

Any sensible dev or PR person would never say anything like that prior to release and risk pissing off their customer base before the game even comes out.

 

[kevm3]

dp

 

[Karkador]

Dark Souls was brilliant enough that I was willing to take a risk and see what they would do in a sequel. So far I'm pleased, but then I wasn't expecting miracles. These systems are well enough understood that I don't expect developers to wring more performance out of them. All they can do is make trade offs that suit their game, showcase an appropriate artistic style, and deliver solid gameplay. IMHO Dark Souls II delivers on all three counts.

A lot of these shots look like they didn't have time to rework things to look okay with less effects/resources on the scene, so you get really flat-looking environments like the dragon stairway thing, or that really obviously tiled texture on the firey floor with those big frogs/lizards. Seeing the comparison shots, it's kind of weird how much they peeled back from the visual design of the areas (and this, to me, directly affects the art style). It's not just the lighting, but entire scenes seem to be missing stuff that they had there before. It seems a bit unusual that they wouldn't at least try to preserve something simple like paintings in a hallway (it looks like a really stale hallway without that flavor).

People say "graphics don't matter in these games", but I think that's a really wide net to cast on such a complex matter of opinion. In my opinion, the Souls games are (along with gameplay) very much about the design and exploration of the environments. There is both the "dark" aesthetic as well as the powerful way they use light- which the lighting in the preview videos really made all the more dramatic over the previous games.

 

[Ricky 7]

They didn't downgrade Tomb Raider with the foreknowledge that they would get people to double dip. Not sure why you're comparing that situation to this one.

I'm just using Tomb Raider as an example of getting people to buy the same game again due to small upgrades, not regarding downgrades. I didn't word it correctly.

 

[Hubble]

I would not be surprised if the initial release is the PC version. It's not uncommon for console counterparts to be gutted compared to its PC title.

Of course this may not be true and I agree with OP in getting an answer and that it's misleading to consumers who buy the console versions without clarification.

 

[mechphree]

The screen shots make dark souls 2 look more like dark souls 2 version 1.5 because it's not that all different from the original. Matter fact if you showed me ds1 and ds2 if I hadn't played I probably couldn't tell . dS has always been about gameplay and atmosphere but the downgrade is troubling. I highly doubt though it was a resource problem and more so a change in art style. But i think it is very very unlikely the PC version will have all the textures and lighting that was gutted from the console versions.

 

[Vicetrailia]

A gameplay change like that would have been announced by the devs rather than going about it in such a smoke and mirrors fashion.

Heh, the backlash would have been delicious. I liked the Tomb of Giants, but I don't want too many levels to be that way, moderation! I'm just not that upset about the downgrades I gotta say.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Because it probably was? I mean, we are playing on consoles that will be 9 years old not long from now...

And yet it doesn't look any better than a 360 launch game.

 

[Steel]

And yet it doesn't look any better than a 360 launch game.

What? It looks way better than Perfect Dark Zero, and it certainly looks better than Dark Souls 1. The hyperbole here, smh. Sure it's no God of War or Gears of war, but there's a bit of a budgetary difference here.

 

[mechphree]

Heh, the backlash would have been delicious. I liked the Tomb of Giants, but I don't want too many levels to be that way, moderation! I'm just not that upset about the downgrades I gotta say.

Tomb of giants was just annoying. Good thing I had the light spell..

 

[nckillthegrimace]

What were they going to say, 'Hey turns out we can't do that lighting/torch business, so we've taken it out and reduced certain things to improve performance (or whatever). Please understand'

Yes.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

What? It looks way better than Perfect Dark Zero, and it certainly looks better than Dark Souls 1. The hyperbole here, smh. Sure it's no God of War or Gears of war, but there's a bit of a budgetary difference here.

The only way DS2 looks better than PDZ is in aesthetics. Tech wise it's not even close.

I am a veteran of the great Halo2 bait and switch.

For those that don't remember:

Trailer comparison:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8YgMDzZzm4

E3 demo comparison:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEM98h1nV4M

videogamer.com ran a story on this, and, well, it's possible Namco didn't even know:

Excellent article.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

What? It looks way better than Perfect Dark Zero, and it certainly looks better than Dark Souls 1. The hyperbole here, smh. Sure it's no God of War or Gears of war, but there's a bit of a budgetary difference here.

It looks about on par with Dark Souls with sloppier texture work in spots as it stands right now, I'd say (and a bit less darkness). Funnily enough I popped in Demon's Souls today and was surprised at how sharp and crisp the shadows were, even though the level geometry and textures weren't as good as Dark Souls.

 

[John Harker]

How is it embarrassing that we don't like being lead to believe the final product would have certain new features?

We aren't saying the game is awful, but it is missing features that have been shown since the unveiling all the way up until release.

Because it's a videogame and that's part of the process. I dunno, I made a long post about it a few days ago, but the whole you lie thing is what's embarrassing - hell, I'm just too close to the process I suppose since I've been doing it for so long, but code is sent to agencies who cut trailers with such lead times that development sometimes changes before master. Especially in late q&a cycles. This isn't new or anything, people see not intentionally setting out to lie to anyone haha. Maybe things need to change a bit since Theres so much vitriol these days, but its being gone about the wrong way: threads like this and the WD ones are the very reason features get cut more and more. It gives the impression that all consumers care about are graphics and all reviws score on are look and feel, so scopes get diminished and features scroped to dedicate more resources to graphics and fluff elements and renderings. Sad really. Shallowification of design because publishers are afraid you're saying you won't buy a game unless it looks better than anything released previously (at the scale needed for profitability).

That's why publishers support live streams now from retail copies... So you see the master code and features and gameplay once its available, and aide your purchasing decision. No ones hiding... But nope, you get #youlie campaigns from the hard core and people shit bricks and since marketing did what they could with the content provided by devs, devs sometimes have to pay the price

 

[IchigoSharingan]

Good grief. I guess I understand the feeling of having been misled, but every game changes throughout development. The reveal was eye-catching in a high-contrast kind of way, but it would likely have been unplayable. As it is, I think it's clear shadows were introduced or drastically improved and lighting in general was tuned for performance and playability. If you're worried about the exact form of the shipping product, you can always wait for reviews of the retail product that include footage.

Dark Souls was brilliant enough that I was willing to take a risk and see what they would do in a sequel. So far I'm pleased, but then I wasn't expecting miracles. These systems are well enough understood that I don't expect developers to wring more performance out of them. All they can do is make trade offs that suit their game, showcase an appropriate artistic style, and deliver solid gameplay. IMHO Dark Souls II delivers on all three counts.

It's fine that every game changes before development. However it is the developer/publisher's responsibility to show footage representative of the final product around launch, when the game has gone gold. If this does not occur, it is most certainly false advertising.

For those who have purchased DSII......did the launch trailer match the visuals you have in the game? I just saw the trailer and saw some really nice lighting, wondering if all of it has been downgraded or not.



If you're worried about the exact form of the shipping product, you can always wait for reviews of the retail product that include footage.

So let's burden the consumer because of the developer's/publisher's bad policy? No, that is ridiculous and toxic.

 

[Mistouze]

I'm not a graphics whore and I know I'll enjoy the game when I eventually get it but this shit should not fly without consequences. Straight up false advertising.

Now, the future will tell us if they kept the "prettier" version of the game for PC and the eventual current gen versions.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

Because it's a videogame and that's part of the process. I dunno, I made a long post about it a few days ago, but the whole you lie thing is what's embarrassing - hell, I'm just too close to the process I suppose since I've been doing it for so long, but code is sent to agencies who cut trailers with such lead times that development sometimes changes before master. Especially in late q&a cycles. This isn't new or anything, people see not intentionally setting out to lie to anyone haha. Maybe things need to change a bit since Theres so much vitriol these days, but its being gone about the wrong way: threads like this and the WD ones are the very reason features get cut more and more. It gives the impression that all consumers care about are graphics and all reviws score on are look and feel, so scopes get diminished and features scroped to dedicate more resources to graphics and fluff elements and renderings. Sad really. Shallowification of design because publishers are afraid you're saying you won't buy a game unless it looks better than anything released previously (at the scale needed for profitability).

That's why publishers support live streams now from retail copies... So you see the master code and features and gameplay once its available, and aide your purchasing decision. No ones hiding... But nope, you get #youlie campaigns from the hard core and people shit bricks and since marketing did what they could with the content provided by devs, devs sometimes have to pay the price

Considering this is 1. Dark Souls we're talking about and 2. the game is in the 90s on MetaCritic, I'm not sure what you're on about. The game is still hard. The game is still fun and reviewed exceptionally well.

It just happens to also look like butt, and is missing some key features and effects that nobody knew wouldn't be part of the game because they'd been constantly mentioned and shown in preview footage and playable builds up until release. It's a shock and a surprise to some folks and as many people keep trying to point out repeatedly, it's not an attack on the game as a whole. Dark Souls 2's honor doesn't really need to be defended, it's a fun game.

We were told since the reveal that the game was going to have much better graphics and not only that, a lighting system that would be part of a central feature. Neither of those things happened, and considering we were playing and being shown demos with that stuff still in the game up until release, people feel a little cheated.

A breakdown happened somewhere, either between FROM and Namco, or Namco and their PR department, or within FROM's internal development process. We don't know and might never know. That doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing just because other parts of the game happen to be good.

 

[immortal-joe]

So to recap for the defense force

(quotes below are paraphrasing)


"Just don't buy the game"

Downgrade was not communicated by Namco up until the game's release. Do you really expect people, especially the hard-core fans, to wait for amateur let's play videos before buying their game? Isn't retail footage meant to be the responsibility of the game's publisher?


"game still plays great"

Irrelevant to the discussion. You can love the game and still be against what happened here. Crazy, I know.



"Old hardware, not their fault"

We don't blame them for not pulling off what they showed us, we blame them for lying about how the game looks all the way until release.

And like OP said, they advertised the features which are no longer there.


"industry standard practice"

First of all, having something be standard does not make it OK, and If someone or some group is trying to push for change why would you argue against it?

Second of all, no, THIS particular brand of bullshit is not standard (but probably will be if we say nothing)

This was not a bullshot or early target render trailer which would then be contradicted with later footage and media. This was deceiving gamers from reveal all the way to release. You would only see the Downgrade after booting the game up.


"Was PC footage"

Then have them call it that. Did they ever suggest this was strictly PC footage?


"You won't achieve anything"

We make our voices heard, and as consumers that's about the only weapon we have left, especially since many of us lost the opportunity to speak with our wallets.

Also, last time I checked, social media campaigns do tend to illicit a response.


Well that covers what jumped out at me.

 

[IchigoSharingan]

Because it's a videogame and that's part of the process. I dunno, I made a long post about it a few days ago, but the whole you lie thing is what's embarrassing - hell, I'm just too close to the process I suppose since I've been doing it for so long, but code is sent to agencies who cut trailers with such lead times that development sometimes changes before master. Especially in late q&a cycles. This isn't new or anything, people see not intentionally setting out to lie to anyone haha. Maybe things need to change a bit since Theres so much vitriol these days, but its being gone about the wrong way: threads like this and the WD ones are the very reason features get cut more and more. It gives the impression that all consumers care about are graphics and all reviws score on are look and feel, so scopes get diminished and features scroped to dedicate more resources to graphics and fluff elements and renderings. Sad really. Shallowification of design because publishers are afraid you're saying you won't buy a game unless it looks better than anything released previously (at the scale needed for profitability).

That's why publishers support live streams now from retail copies... So you see the master code and features and gameplay once its available, and aide your purchasing decision. No ones hiding... But nope, you get #youlie campaigns from the hard core and people shit bricks and since marketing did what they could with the content provided by devs, devs sometimes have to pay the price

These devs didn't communicate the changes. They could have left the task to marketing. They did not. The responsibility falls upon the dev/publisher.

Gamers appreciate honesty, and loate this kind of bullshit.

 

[John Harker]

This happens to me all the time, gents, I ain't attacking the things you like, just trying to provide a little insight into how things work broadly speaking.

If this is becoming a forum wide issue for most people, I can just stop altogether? Figured I'd earn my street cred after 9 years here, ha!

 

[Brandon F]

To those saying torches have been made pointless and downgraded, here's my personal screenshot. This area is near impossible to navigate without torches because you can't see more than a few feet ahead:

Agreed, there has been plenty of areas the farther I progress where I wish light was more prevalent and I have traveled too far from the bonfire to get my torch going.

The first few zones though? So many damn sconces with no apparent need for them. It does seem that those areas were designed for the player to carve a path of light forward slowly upon initial exploration, but was quickly altered last minute.

That said, the footage shown from beta's and preview events still looks better than the final product turned out.

 

[IchigoSharingan]

This happens to me all the time, gents, I ain't attacking the things you like, just trying to provide a little insight into how things work broadly speaking.

If this is becoming a forum wide issue for most people, I can just stop altogether? Figured I'd earn my street cred after 9 years here, ha!

Game company I worked with before was pretty damn honest with gamers about all issues. They were rewarded with gamers' wallets. This, I expect the opposite.

 

[Horp]

I just tweeted. I really hope that with this and the articles popping up on the matter, they will at least make a statement.

 

[unsightly]

This thread smells fishy..

Get a better TV, OP. My game looks nothing like the greyscale pics in the first post, and my TV isn't even that good.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

gotta save some stuff for the next gen versions

 

[XANDER CAGE]

This happens to me all the time, gents, I ain't attacking the things you like, just trying to provide a little insight into how things work broadly speaking.

If this is becoming a forum wide issue for most people, I can just stop altogether? Figured I'd earn my street cred after 9 years here, ha!

I'm not really sure what you're saying. What forum-wide issue? What is "this?"

If anything, some folks in here need to understand the reverse: no one (at least as far as I can tell) is attacking Dark Souls 2 as being some crappy game, people just have evidence of changes and are disappointed by those changes specifically, since they weren't apparent until release and were constantly emphasized until said release.

 

[TheCongressman1]

Because it's a videogame and that's part of the process. I dunno, I made a long post about it a few days ago, but the whole you lie thing is what's embarrassing - hell, I'm just too close to the process I suppose since I've been doing it for so long, but code is sent to agencies who cut trailers with such lead times that development sometimes changes before master. Especially in late q&a cycles. This isn't new or anything, people see not intentionally setting out to lie to anyone haha. Maybe things need to change a bit since Theres so much vitriol these days, but its being gone about the wrong way: threads like this and the WD ones are the very reason features get cut more and more. It gives the impression that all consumers care about are graphics and all reviws score on are look and feel, so scopes get diminished and features scroped to dedicate more resources to graphics and fluff elements and renderings. Sad really. Shallowification of design because publishers are afraid you're saying you won't buy a game unless it looks better than anything released previously (at the scale needed for profitability).

That's why publishers support live streams now from retail copies... So you see the master code and features and gameplay once its available, and aide your purchasing decision. No ones hiding... But nope, you get #youlie campaigns from the hard core and people shit bricks and since marketing did what they could with the content provided by devs, devs sometimes have to pay the price

Hey, I understand things happen during development. That of course makes complete sense. No one is saying things should never change, but that only goes so far. When a major visual element is missing from the game after so many previews, and is only discovered upon release, that is dishonest no matter what you say. Which again, that is the issue, not knowing about this change in the product before release. It isn't just about the graphics. It's also about the performance of the game. They told us their new engine would deliver much smoother gameplay. There was no reason to believe otherwise there either, but reports of slowdowns seem quite common.

I don't like when people focus on graphics over gameplay, which I'm not doing here. I don't think anyone here is. I don't like the way Namco has operated during this launch, that is what I am upset about. So trying to pin consumer complaints like this on why companies focus on graphics is kind of insulting.

I've said several times that I'm sure this game is fun. I wouldn't exchange that for graphics, but I'd rather not be coaxed into believing it actually has impressive graphics.

 

[Sid]

People were lied to and now they're pissed,they should have shown the game closer to release if downgrades had to happen.

 

[Lucent]

Well, I hope they make a nice explanation. But I also hope that the game is successful enough for them to continue making them. Downgrade or not, I'm loving it. Looks and feels like Dark Souls to me. I played the first one on PS3 the day before it came out and then played Dark Souls 2 on PS3. It looks as good and sometimes better to me. The areas that get lit by the bonfire or with your torch look really nice to me. I'm just thankful that none of the areas I've been to in 18 hours have had Blight Town frame drops. Pretty smooth.

 

[John Harker]

Sure, I get being upset. I was on media blackout so I didn't have anything to compare it to(except I played pre release builds a few times, I wasn't studying it that closely). I always get weary of attack campaigns though, it's a slippery slope.

 

[CountAntonius]

This happens to me all the time, gents, I ain't attacking the things you like, just trying to provide a little insight into how things work broadly speaking.

If this is becoming a forum wide issue for most people, I can just stop altogether? Figured I'd earn my street cred after 9 years here, ha!

After seeing the retail build in the media blitz from a month ago I figured there was some issue with old footage being in new trailers. It's pretty sloppy but I can believe this being the case. Kinda of a big oversight.

 

[Steel]

Sure, I get being upset. I was on media blackout so I didn't have anything to compare it to(except I played pre release builds a few times, I wasn't studying it that closely). I always get weary of attack campaigns though, it's a slippery slope.

Honestly what I was thinking. People can be upset that things changed, hell I wasn't happy with the Watch_Dogs downgrade on PS4/Xb1(Much more powerful than they're counterparts), but to have a twitter campaign over graphics sends the wrong message. Especially when Dark Souls 2 honestly does its gameplay properly.

 

[TheCongressman1]

Honestly what I was thinking. People can be upset that things changed, hell I wasn't happy with the Watch_Dogs downgrade on PS4/Xb1(Much more powerful than they're counterparts), but to have a twitter campaign over graphics sends the wrong message. Especially when Dark Souls 2 honestly does its gameplay properly.

Ok, so what is the course of action you would suggest? Just not say anything, right? I guess that wouldn't create any confusion for the company, but it's their job to research what we want. We can't be afraid to speak our mind in hopes of not sending the wrong message.

If they aren't smart enough to figure out we don't like the way they hushed the downgrade, well then I don't know what to say.

 

[Pikma]

Maybe they didn't want to show the downgrade to prevent what happened to Watch Dogs? It's a lose-lose situation for them.

To me, the blame rests on the devs, if the gameplay elements they planned on implementing didn't have a guaranteed technical viability, then don't fucking promote their relevance until you are 100% sure about being able to include it.

 

[Alastor]

Tweeted. I'm really curious what From has to say about all this.

 

[quantumnerd]

I'm not sure a Twitter campaign will accomplish much, but it's worth a shot, as long as we keep asking for answers and don't just focus on brandishing virtual pitchforks.

 

[Lucent]

Maybe they didn't want to show the downgrade to prevent what happened to Watch Dogs? It's a lose-lose situation for them.

To me, the blame rests on the devs, if the gameplay elements they planned on implementing didn't have a guaranteed technical viability, then don't fucking promote their relevance until you are 100% sure about being able to include it.

I think this is completely fair.

I just think that this point and asking them why things changed is what should be done but as nice as can be done. I doubt this one screw up will make them think "well, I guess people don't want these games anymore" or "I guess they care more about graphics than the rest of the elements of the game"

 

[Sid]

Honestly what I was thinking. People can be upset that things changed, hell I wasn't happy with the Watch_Dogs downgrade on PS4/Xb1(Much more powerful than they're counterparts), but to have a twitter campaign over graphics sends the wrong message. Especially when Dark Souls 2 honestly does its gameplay properly.

I think it's more about Namco's dishonesty than it is about graphics.

 

[atr0cious]

I think this is completely fair.

I just think that this point and asking them why things changed is what should be done but as nice as can be done. I doubt this one screw up will make them think "well, I guess people don't want these games anymore" or "I guess they care more about graphics than the rest of the elements of the game"

Nope. They're selling the game already. We have to be loud, or not only will they ignore us, so will everyone else.

The only thing they should get out of this, is more respect for their consumer base for sticking up for what it believes in, which is fully functional games that are advertised clearly and honestly. It's not about graphics, it's about the limits we set as consumers to keep them honest, otherwise E3 will be nothing but cutscenes

Spoiler

it still will be

.

 

[KingFire]

I fully support this campaign. I am waiting for the PC version, and if previews/reviews show that it does not look as good or even close to the pre-retail builds, then I will skip the game entirely.

Even though I love the series, I just refuse to support deceptive practices like this.

I can say no to my fix. Fuck From/Namco.

 

[IchigoSharingan]

It kind of is about the graphics.....

that lighting would have really hammered immersion.

Looks like Dark Souls 1 will be the furthest I go.

 

[Cassius]

Shameful shit.

I don't care how good the game is, Namco/From need to come clean on why they decided to release a version of the game that doesn't match what was used to hype up the release.

 

[Steel]

Ok, so what is the course of action you would suggest? Just not say anything, right? I guess that wouldn't create any confusion for the company, but it's their job to research what we want. We can't be afraid to speak our mind in hopes of not sending the wrong message.

If they aren't smart enough to figure out we don't like the way they hushed the downgrade, well then I don't know what to say.

... I suppose if you don't want graphics to be cut in the future from pre-release footage no matter what, you have a point. On the other side of the coin, I think developers should be allowed to make drastic changes to their work if they feel it's necessary. If you think this graphics debacle suddenly makes Dark Souls 2 a terrible game that isn't worth the $60 as is, than by all means twitter campaign, but you better be willing to make a twitter campaign for things like the dumb AI in Titanfall, cause Respawn said that the AI would be so great that it had to use the cloud to operate.

Or even better yet, where was the twitter campaign against the Watch_Dog's graphical downgrade? Will we also have a twitter campaign when The Division inevitably looks worse than what was shown at E3? Will we have a twitter campaign for every game whose gameplay changes from initial reveal(A far worse transgression imo)?

Well, if your answer to all of this is yes, then go and have fun with your twitter campaign to inform Namco people aren't happy with the sudden graphical downgrade as if they wouldn't be aware of that fact otherwise.

 

[Sioen]

The graphics don't "look like crap" at all. They're good for last gen machines and the downgrade seems more to take out the complete darkness in some zones which I really don't mind.

 

[Ramenman]

but they are not EA or Ubi. they are the only two evil corps that would pull this type of thing. [/sarcasm]

Though now that you mention it, Dark Souls has plenty of armed people fighting and takes place in the past, so I wouldn't be surprised if we found out that Ubisoft is pulling all the string and this is just another move in their evil scheme to MAKE EVERY GAME LOOK LIKE ASSASSINS CREED like they already do with all their line-up amirite ?

 

[Alienous]

... I suppose if you don't want graphics to be cut in the future from reveal no matter what, you have a point. On the other side of the coin, I think developers should be allowed to make drastic changes to their work if they feel its necessary. If you think this graphicals debacle suddenly makes Dark Souls 2 a terrible game that isn't worth the $60 as is, than by all means twitter campaign, but you better be willing to make a twitter campaign for things like the dumb AI in Titanfall, cause Respawn said that the AI would be so great that it had to use the cloud to operate.

Or even better yet, where was the twitter campaign against the Watch_Dog's graphical downgrade? Will we also have a twitter campaign when The Division inevitably looks worse than what was shown at E3? Will we have a twitter campaign for every game whose gameplay changes from initial reveal(A far worse transgression imo)?

Well, if your answer to all of this is yes, then go and have fun with your twitter campaign to inform Namco people aren't happy with the sudden graphical downgrade as if they wouldn't be aware of that fact otherwise.

Dark Souls thrives on a core, passionate fanbase. The Twitter campaign is an effort to get an honest response from FROM, a developer that has no trackrecord of misleading gamers.

The point of #DarkSoulsDowngrade and #YOULIED isn't to take them to task. It's intended to be an clear message to FROM and Namco Bandai that there is a situation that needs there attention. They have not been truthful, and still decide not to be.

This is solely about getting answers. The campaign isn't about demanding refunds, or demanding people get fired. It's a simple, easily interpretable message. "You haven't been honest. What happened?".

 

[Psycho_Mantis]

#youshouldhavewaitedforthePCversion

#Youhavenoideawhatyourtalkingabout

 

[Durante]

The graphics don't "look like crap" at all. They're good for last gen machines and the downgrade seems more to take out the complete darkness in some zones which I really don't mind.

I think the issue is that some of these zones were very clearly designed to be absolutely dark, and not sufficiently (or at all?) adjusted for the new level of ambient lighting.

It does seem pretty obvious that at least for those areas, this was not a voluntary design decision.

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

Next gen versions incoming?

I hope PC version gets this one. If not than I'll be sorely disappointed.