I have to wonder, while having fun playing the game, did you constantly think to yourself, "Man, this is fun as hell but it sucks so bad because of _________ tech issue?" Because that doesn't sound very fun to me; in fact it sounds downright dreadful.
God of War 3 does not let you control the camera most of the time. Thus, they only need to optimize for one viewpoint. The God of War series is also linear, while Dark Souls is not. It is not a fair comparison between these games. A more fair comparison is a game like Dragon's Dogma or the witcher 2.
By people that have no idea of graphics technology. Kameo had thousands of particles on screen, geometry instancing, interactive water, day and night cycle, parallax mapping...This is why no one takes you people seriously. Lol.
By people that have no idea of graphics technology. Kameo had thousands of particles on screen, geometry instancing, interactive water, day and night cycle, parallax mapping...
By people that have no idea of graphics technology. Kameo had thousands of particles on screen, geometry instancing, interactive water, day and night cycle, parallax mapping...
What does DS2 have? One shadow casting light and the framerate suffers. Amazing.
Art vs tech. You confuse aesthetics with technology. And it is part of my argument. People claiming that PS3 and XB360 can't handle the TGS demos and therefor cuts had to be made are proven wrong by showing that even a 2005 game had more advanced technology and ran better.You can list buzz words all day mate, the game still looked like garbage.
DSII, despite occasional hiccups, looks pretty good. Not Naugty Dog good, but pretty darn good nonetheless.
Of course how good DSII looks is not the issue, and you're distracting from your own cause with that baseless complaint.
But the shaders in Kameo are considerably more simple though, plus you also have to consider the complexity of lighting too (not saying Dark Souls is great here but compared to Kameo, it appears more complex)
#YOULIED is pretty unnecessary.
The answer will be, at best, "Games change during development. We had to cut corners for performance." You know this is the answer.
So I said this in the first page, and it still stands - it's exactly the answer they gave. What were you expecting?
Come on.
And you are incredibly spiteful.
And how am I the minority?
Also there is a semblance of scale here. Your statement is ridiculous that I would take the stance to accept a product of any quality.
Not the case at all. This isnt Crisis to Doom2 but your reaction seems to suggest such.
There is nothing wrong with fighting for consumer rights but this is shirking the border of crying wolf. I'm not saying this is the case here but the tone of the arguments seem to suggest a reaction on par to your extreme example.
We should pick our battles and handle each circumstances with the necessary weight each one deserves. Be more reasonable and less vitriolic if you want people to take your stance seriously.
I would have been furious had the game been of poor quality but they clearly delivered a product that is better or the same as what previous games delivered on the platform as well as promising to deliver a high fidelity experience on a platform that can deliver it.
Maybe we should better examine the scale and context of the deceptive marketing as a whole since the current evidence is fragmented and riddled with assumptions.
Such as demo builds being promised as being the final product for the platform.
Wait, you're fighting this hard to play down the scandal, but you say to "pick your battles" and "be less vitriolic"? You're in here saying people essentially can't have such a strong reaction to the downgrade. People feel wronged, but you go "no, you don't", and you're basically saying FROM get's a free pass because "well, technically, it said 'this product is subject to change', so therefore everything is as it should be.
But thanks again for the laugh at you saying one should pick ones battles, when you're the one fighting hardest against the fact that FROM did something wrong.
Whatever man
All the evidence I am seeing from the Beta and all the 2014 previews are showing the retial version on broad daylight
The so called TGS smoking gun is starting to look more and more like a pre built demo showcasing the PC version. Maybe there was a mistake somewhere along the line but we had plenty of opportunities to see the console version in action before buying.
All the Media previews leading up to the console release look the damn same to me. The includes the Network Test
GTFO with that weaksauce picture.
Come on.
Your positions have shifted all over the map in this thread and now you've landed on 'they showed these downgraded graphics before release, we all just somehow didn't notice' which has to be the least convincing argument yet. You don't see an issue fine but trying to pretend that those who are somehow deluded is doing you no favours.
So if you guys are right, Kameo is technically better than Dark Souls 1 as well, what's the point here?
That the excuse "PS3/XB360 couldn't handle the TGS demo" is bullshit.
Maybe they could handle a tailored demo but not the full game
I dunno. Im not sure if the Demo was every fully detailed from a technical standpoint or specified in one way or the other.
Maybe they took a snippet from a PC build, made it run on PS3, and was just showcasing it.
Yep, from beginning to end actually.
I'll just share some examples of how those technical problems got in the way and how they negatively affected my experience:
Input lag:
I'm in the middle of a boss fight. My main weapon breaks and I didn't equip a secondary weapon because of the tight equipment load I'm dealing with. The only option is to lock-on, circle around while I browse my inventory in order to quickly switch swords. "I'm sorry, were you in a hurry? (says game)", you have to wait 4 seconds before the inventory decides to show up.
This is something that happened to me a lot of times, both during solo and co-op runs.
Audio lag:
One of the most exciting battles for me was theboss fight. The background song is my favorite from the entire OST; the battle is dynamic and filled with adrenaline. Imagine how mood breaking it was for me not hearing any sound effects while I kept hitting those skellys. . . Not only distracting but truly disgraceful.Executioner's Chariot
(I'm an audio guy, so the constant out of syncing felt like the game showing the middle finger every time).
Gameplay lag.
Excruciatingly long battle against, it's me and 2 other guys trying to kill him and we've been going for almost 5 minutes now. He kills them and I'm left all alone; I try to roll and dodge one of his thrust attacks but my character decided to say "fuck you, I'm dead" (full stamina bar).The Lost Sinner
Menu Lag + Loading times:
Always, constantly getting in the way whenever you want to level up (SL 145 here). Imagine the fun!
To me, having to play through the disc version was a test of patience. I sincerely can't remember any other game that put through such an ordeal. Very unfortunate because I had a blast during Co-op.
There are many games that look better than the TGS demo. Maybe FROM couldn't handle the task but that's a whole different reason.
The jury is still out on the PC version but considering the mix of pre and post downgrade pictures on the Steam page, the best prediction is that the PC version looks the same as in consoles, just with higher-res textures and a better framerate.
That the excuse "PS3/XB360 couldn't handle the TGS demo" is bullshit.
It's nice to know what people are ok with false advertising. Now I know who never to take seriously.
http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/d...rk_souls_2_graphics_downgrade_complaints.html
What a joke.
"Resource management"
Is what they call it.
http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/d...rk_souls_2_graphics_downgrade_complaints.html
What a joke.
"Resource management"
Is what they call it.
The hate, iif you want to call it that, comes from the fact that usually, you're made away of last minute changes.
The issue is, reviewers got copies with the debug build. The build with these lightings, and better textures. Most reviewers videos look like the footage we were expecting, and the reviews were MADE off these versions.
Then, non-press people got their versions, with unstable frame-rates, graphics looking NOTHING like what they had been shown.
So obviously people are going "Huh, what?"
I mean, this isn't a trailer from last year. We have reviews done weeks before release, based on graphics far superior.
http://youtu.be/A3MdOBH-jDc
http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/d...rk_souls_2_graphics_downgrade_complaints.html
What a joke.
"Resource management"
Is what they call it.
And how are you qualified to say that, exactly?
http://www.videogamer.com/xbox360/d...rk_souls_2_graphics_downgrade_complaints.html
What a joke.
"Resource management"
Is what they call it.
Why wouldn't my position shift as i sift through the evidence?
Plus the argument that all the media has been based on the PC version up until the Network test and 2014 Media Previews is looking more and more like the truth...
Not surprising given thats where the game was developed from the beginning.
And whether Namco was SPECIFIC about platforms during these demos of the prettiest version or guaranteed these visuals on anything outside of PC is still being debated though I think they should have clarified more from the get go....
The hate, iif you want to call it that, comes from the fact that usually, you're made away of last minute changes.
The issue is, reviewers got copies with the debug build. The build with these lightings, and better textures. Most reviewers videos look like the footage we were expecting, and the reviews were MADE off these versions.
Touché
Then they really have some explaining to do as they were pushing the 'running on a PS3' argument pretty hard at many previews with the better lighting what with having PS3s there, a 'faked' XMB (see Dark10x's post) and the DS3. Whether any of the demo/builds/slices were running on a PC is not the point though, at some point they had a build for 360/PS3 that did not have that lighting but they chose not to make that clear before release. In fact you can still see that footage at multiple places advertising the 360/PS3 and we only have a forlorn hope that the Steam page has representative media for the PC version.
I can think of a lot of reasons why this wasn't communicated but none of them reflect well on FROM soft or Namco Bandai.
Come on.
Check this out
Two Previews, Both in January. I am assuming something went wrong. One Clearly looks like TGS and The other clearly looks like retail
IGN Gameplay Preview Jan 30th https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNlPl6Cfe7c
Playstation Access Jan 29th https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3MdOBH-jDc
False advertising or preview mixup?
"But while From's response may be true, it doesn't explain why publisher Namco Bandai continued to promote early footage of Dark Souls 2 as PS3 "gameplay" footage just six weeks before the game's release, or why the PS3 beta allegedly contained higher quality assets."
At least one site gets it.
Keep pressuring these guys on Twitter, for some answers. I set up a new message for everyone to retweet, or create your own.
https://twitter.com/Grief_exe/status/446344154788806656
Clearly a mixup, but people are going to keep linking that Playstation Access video as proof of From/Namco's deception.
Thats what I am saying
Its looking like there is a very clear distinction between the PC and Console versions
Outside of promotional mixups.... whether you believe they were intentional or not.
We knew the fidelity of the Console version as early as January (or earlier if you count the beta)
The mixup isn't between PC and consoles, but between pre-downgrade and post-downgrade footage.
When you've seen over 100 PS3 releases, I'd say you're qualified to form a valid opinion about what seems possible for a PS3 game to look like and what not.And how are you qualified to say that, exactly?
Okay. They openly acknowledge the downgrades and give a reason.. alright. That's cool I suppose, though utterly vague.