I do not agree, if anything they are slightly more consistent while still having a few bad spots.
From Software responds to Dark Souls II graphics downgrade concerns
- Thread starter Poetic.Injustice
- Start date
I do not agree, if anything they are slightly more consistent while still having a few bad spots.
Juras
Member
So Ps2:
Im not responsible for spoilers, you click at your own risk:
http://static.dyp.im/TW5HxKYhAG/50c2ef05ba1b344b4545814475e28e1f.gif
http://static.dyp.im/9X75R2ttr9/75111b349ed19926e1d7f9da8dc60a01.gif
http://static.dyp.im/ljUVWqf7W9/22ddde6f93f4a52d91efc134cc166c81.gif
http://static.dyp.im/QX2LuT0yA0/fd634f6cc164317b0bb8f83062fb7d31.gif
http://static.dyp.im/WszC3PMC1o/71d44b5df76163daf453791e54545bac.gif
http://i.imgur.com/8N83xVE.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/vg8339P.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/m98AzgC.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/VHC07Nj.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/kptjXwL.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/J1XZSY2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XEdTsGw.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/LlwqYKY.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/C1dLDNJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/rPohoFz.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Rlz0SsM.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/hSAN8af.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/kEK1qxi.jpg
All of them are direct shots from PS3.
Im not responsible for spoilers, you click at your own risk:
http://static.dyp.im/TW5HxKYhAG/50c2ef05ba1b344b4545814475e28e1f.gif
http://static.dyp.im/9X75R2ttr9/75111b349ed19926e1d7f9da8dc60a01.gif
http://static.dyp.im/ljUVWqf7W9/22ddde6f93f4a52d91efc134cc166c81.gif
http://static.dyp.im/QX2LuT0yA0/fd634f6cc164317b0bb8f83062fb7d31.gif
http://static.dyp.im/WszC3PMC1o/71d44b5df76163daf453791e54545bac.gif
http://i.imgur.com/8N83xVE.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/vg8339P.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/m98AzgC.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/VHC07Nj.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/kptjXwL.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/J1XZSY2.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/XEdTsGw.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/LlwqYKY.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/C1dLDNJ.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/rPohoFz.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/Rlz0SsM.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/hSAN8af.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/kEK1qxi.jpg
All of them are direct shots from PS3.
The bad spots in DS2 are way worse than anything in previous Souls games. And there are quite a few of them. Tsedora looks like shit altogether, no lighting at all and repeating textures everywhere; same with Shaded Woods and a lot of empty, flat rooms with repeating textures. That shit is everywhere. Just look around in the Drangleic castle rooms, in Earthen Peak or Dragon Shrine. It was nowhere near as bad in DeS or DS1. Lost Izalith is a design masterpiece compared to many areas in DS2 (I really think the area is pretty great looking and displays some excellent texture and modelling work).
Same with the skyboxes. Take that blurry, copy-pasted 2D mess of a skybox in Iron Keep, for example. That's absolutely unprecedented in the series.
I haven't played DS2 yet, but weren't lots of DS1's far backgrounds were masked by heavy DoF, being above clouds or surrounded by walls and thus barely showing other details, or both? Where you could actually explore in-game looked great from the distance, presumably because it was already modeled on a higher level of detail; perhaps this is a key difference between DS1 and DS2 in this regard - because of the interconnectedness of the game world and because accessible areas often overlooked others, more areas looked good from the distance?
OldAsUrSock
Banned
Thanks, people are either used to PS4 graphics or have forgotten what gen 6 looked like.
what the hell.
The inconsistency is killing me. Also, I am pleasantly surprised by the framerate in those gifs.
jacksepticeye
Member
So many carefully chosen shots to make the game look so much worse than it is. Sure it's not a looker but standing on the edge of the map looking out into a non playable area to judge how good the game looks? Come on guys!
Yup. It's staggering.
It's like some of the levels are still in a rough draft stage.
It just demonstrates the extreme inconsistency. Depending on what is cherry-picked, the game looks beautiful or absolutely hideous.
But stuff like those poor backgrounds really shouldn't exist; especially since that's an area you cannot go to. You can use all kinds of tricks there.
It was definitely pretty jarring to look at in the game and ruined the immersion for me quite a few times while playing (something that never happened with previous Souls games).
PensivePen
Member
Yes, that's called designing around your strengths, and something they should have continued to do.
Krusenstern
Banned
legacyzero
Banned
Garcia
Member
Welcome to Dark Souls 2: Visually inconsistent from start to finish.
UnrealEck
Member
And yet again I can simply replace "next gen platforms" with "PC" and my point would still stand. That aside, even if a PC/Xbone/PS4 version did look the same as a PS3/X360 version, it would still offer more performance.
TheForceWithin
Banned
It's inconsistent because some the levels are clearly unfinished/rushed.
The one shot from Forest of the Fallen Giants DOES look like a PS2 game.
Dark Souls 2 pretty obviously does not look like a PS2 game. Frankly, I thought the well-lit, outdoor levels looked quite breathtaking. However, it is apparent to me that From made a bigger game in about the same time. As a result, they weren't as meticulous about the design of every individual area and it shows.
They tried to hide a lot of their skunk with darkness, but it isn't totally avoidable. Like bedlam mentioned above, some of the environments like the Cove Tsedora are absolutely horrible with no redeeming qualities. Shaded Woods is awful. Huntsman's Copse is near there. Iron Keep is messy. Earthen Peak uses N64 fog to great effect (it's poison!). The interiors of Drangleic Castle are sparse and empty. IMO Sinner's Rise and the Lost Bastille are not very imaginative and are samey and lazy looking.
But there are tons of areas in the game where your jaw will drop (mostly towards the end of the game). So I think it is fair to call the game remarkably inconsistent. I just think they didn't have time to paper over their weaknesses.
The awful 2d tree backgrounds that were visible on the bridge between the Parish and Sen's Fortress in Dark Souls were very visible if you looked up close but From did a lot with how they framed each shot that made your eyes go elsewhere.
DarkoMaledictus
Tier Whore
Wow that is Fugly!!
Saintguine
Member
Jesus Christ, I can't remember anywhere in Dark Souls looking that terrible. But eh, this is what I get for trusting a developer I guess. Should have known better.
Haunted
Member
Shit lava and the bridge to Sen's Fortress aside, I personally think the (unintentionally) worst looking area of Dark Souls 1 was the small outdoor part outside of the Crystal Cave. Blurry repeating ground textures, bad colours, terrible trees, no interesting geometry. The above shot actually reminded me of that area.
A game as big as dark souls is bound to have shitty looking areas. I'm willing to forgive the ugliness of some areas just because the game has so much content. I would be dissapointed if a 9 hours game had areas looking like that one picture that has been quoted enough times already, but a 50+ hours game? It's ok.
You missed the water stream in the darkroot garden then.
game looks great in some areas, is fun and is probably a lock for goty 2014. and you shit on FROM from one shitty looking area? thisisneogaf.gif
RyanPierre
Member
That stuck out so much that I had to mention it on another forum when I was played through Dark Souls. I couldn't believe how ridiculous it looked compared to the rest of the game.
John Harker
Definitely doesn't make things up as he goes along.
Game looks really great, especially given the size, scope, and hardware, so I genuinely feel bad for anyone who can't appreciate
I used to be confused by it, but now I just accept that some people look at things only from a technical perspective and simply can't appreciate what is in front of them in its natural state, so whatever. Have at it. But even as someone whose played games two years out or more on the new hardware, you'll never be satisfied given the technical and development realties and that makes me
I used to be confused by it, but now I just accept that some people look at things only from a technical perspective and simply can't appreciate what is in front of them in its natural state, so whatever. Have at it. But even as someone whose played games two years out or more on the new hardware, you'll never be satisfied given the technical and development realties and that makes me
Garcia
Member
No dude, it's not just one shitty looking area unfortunately. This is a game where grotesque shit like Shaded Woods, Tseldora and Earthen's Peak coexist with jaw dropping locations like Dragons Aerie, Dragon Shrine and Majula.
ichtyander
Member
I mean, I pretty much expected inconsistencies in DS2 but it's sad that they just might've handled that part of the level differently, putting up some beautiful looking rock or wall or even a barrier of some sort with holes that look into a Half-Life 2-like vista just by using tricks developers have used for years to hide parts of the environment and still make it look at least moderately good.
But I've noticed this kind of inept design in other Japanese developed games and it kinda seems to me that a lot of them aren't getting up to the task these days.
Does anybody know how many people actually worked on DS2? From has a bit above 200 employees so you'd kinda think they would be able to pull of a game with a bit more graphical consistency. Another likely scenario is that a lot of these worse looking locations might be a result of an unexpected downgrade which, again, is an unfortunate miscalculation for such a large team with years of development experience.
Saintguine
Member
I assume you're talking about this area.
Well first, it's a secret backdoor area that most people don't go through unlike the video shown though that's no excuse in itself. Secondly it still looks better despite looking horrible as sin, i.e better textures.
First, "one" shitty area lol.
Second, I just find it ludicrous that a game could have just as bad if not worse LODs and distant lands than Skyrim which was no graphical power house in itself despite the game being more confined than Skyrim.
Thirdly, the game looks worse than a game like say DMC4 which was released almost 7 (edit: 6 years) years ago and runs at 60FPS whilst on consoles Dark Souls 2 averages about 30 FPS.
DigitalDevilSummoner
zero cognitive reasoning abilities
nah, you got it all wrong, the internet told me it's because of the piss poor consoles. (yes I'm being sarcastic)
You are not seriously comparing the budget in Dark Souls II to Skyrim.
There's no way in hell that FROM had the same money and man power as Bethesda had for Skyrim.
I don't even know what to say anymore.
and comparing to DMC4 (an action game with really small areas, no online) to Dark Souls (big sprawling areas, action rpg, always online etc...) smh
There's no way in hell that FROM had the same money and man power as Bethesda had for Skyrim.
I don't even know what to say anymore.
and comparing to DMC4 (an action game with really small areas, no online) to Dark Souls (big sprawling areas, action rpg, always online etc...) smh
Relaxed Muscle
Member
The path leading to sen fortress has 2D tress as well, but in Dark Souls every level is very well constructed around the limitations of the hardware.
In itself it's not surprising for something so far etc.. but I can't wrap my mind around the fact they didn't add 3-4 more 3d tree with leaf ( like the one on the right ) on the foreground to make it far far less apparent. The fact that it's was so easy to 'fix' with existing asset for little performance impact ( 3-4 more trees... ) is what make it so sad.
Garcia
Member
That's how I feel about the game as well. It needed at least an extra year inside the oven.
To those who haven't played the game yet: this quote is true and there's no hyperbole involved. The poison in Earthen Peak really looks like N64 fog.
Saintguine
Member
No, I'm not comparing the budgets so stop beating on a strawman. I'm comparing the graphical fidelity but maybe I've been unfair. So here's Anor Londo from Dark Souls, the lighting looks better, the textures don't look like ass and the LOD and distance is more detailed.
Okay, fine I guess I too was wrong with DMC4. So how about games like Serious Sam 3: BFE which is more graphically detailed, has more effects like particle effects, more enemies on screen, has equally large levels and made by a developer with just as much if not less funding than From Software?
SargerusBR
I love Pokken!
No, I'm not comparing the budgets so stop beating on a strawman. I'm comparing the graphical fidelity but maybe I've been unfair. So here's Anor Londo from Dark Souls, the lighting looks better, the textures don't look like ass and the LOD and distance is more detailed.
Okay, fine I guess I too was wrong with DMC4. So how about games like Serious Sam 3: BFE which is more graphically detailed, has more effects like particle effects, more enemies on screen, has equally large levels and made by a developer with just as much if not less funding than From Software?
A modded PC screenshot vs a console screenshot is hardly a fair comparision.
Saintguine
Member
First, there's a strong implication there that AO, supersampling etc. would make that area look drastically better.
Secondly, I'll humour you.
Here's the unmodded game upscaled to 1280x720 from 1024x720.
Lighting still looks better, textures still look better, distance still looks better.
SS3 is still a bad comparison since producing that game's levels takes so much less effort/resources for various reasons.
But still, the producers/the director at From working on DS2 obviously wanted to do too much while not having the resources for such an undertaking. Looking at those particularly bad areas, someone should've made the call to just cut them and put the freed up resources into polishing the rest of the game.
jediyoshi
Member
Unless you can point out what's modded, I'm not seeing what's wrong with the comparison unless you're conflating IQ and general asset fidelity.
Portugeezer
Member
Garcia
Member
sublimit
Banned
No, I'm not comparing the budgets so stop beating on a strawman. I'm comparing the graphical fidelity but maybe I've been unfair. So here's Anor Londo from Dark Souls, the lighting looks better, the textures don't look like ass and the LOD and distance is more detailed.
Okay, fine I guess I too was wrong with DMC4. So how about games like Serious Sam 3: BFE which is more graphically detailed, has more effects like particle effects, more enemies on screen, has equally large levels and made by a developer with just as much if not less funding than From Software?
The character also looks as if he has more mass and more detail than the character in DS2 (regardless of what type of body you choose).
Maybe it's the lighting that makes the difference but i could have sworn that the character in DS2 has less polygons.
FinalStageBoss
Banned
I was waiting for the PC version but I don't think it's going to look that much better. So I said fuck it and bought it on PS3, it ain't pretty but I'm having too much fun to care. You'll all get over the downgrade saltiness pretty quick once you play it.
That picture is not the console version. Direct screen grabs from console DS1 look terrible compared to this...
EDIT: i just made the picture to fit my 1080p screen and it does actually look like DS1 on console.
Saintguine
Member
The unmodded PC version is a direct port with barely changes. It is the console version directly ported with no PC features apart from rebindable PC controls and rudimentary KB&M support with no graphical upgrades in anyway as seen in both the screenshots and the developer's own words.
Okay, keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better about your decision to not support them. Did you need an excuse or something? No one's forcing you to buy the game.
People have been saying "if they didn't want us to focus on the graphics, they shouldn't have mentioned the graphics!" which is just ludicrous. Listen to yourself when you say these words, and think about how stubborn and closed-minded you sound.
What exactly is your agenda here? "Let From lose money"? People will buy a game on their platform of choice regardless of internet mobs telling them how they're being screwed or how companies are letting us down. Durante is an individual who's free to do whatever the hell he wants, and even if he doesn't touch DS2, you can bet that somebody else will.
Again, no one is arguing against the notion that this game could have used more time. It's out now, and the team is either tightening up preparations for the PC version or working on DLC to keep things cooking over until whatever comes next. We know From is working on at least one next-gen project (which isn't going to be DS2 - they would have to spread their resources pretty thin), so how about we all sharpen our pitchforks and economise our torch time for that?
And what is the point in hamming up this N64/PS2 era stuff? So you've bought the game and aren't satisfied. That is unfortunate. I hope you can enjoy better looking poison in other games.
Seriously, what is your contribution/goal here other than a desire to fan the flames?
That is so god damned cool oh my god
Another franchise goes to the shit for me... I swear last gen made me start to hate a lot of franchises I loved because of the bs and damn long generation of weak hardware... I'll buy Ds2 when it's $5. I just can't support bs.
When I hear "n64 fog" this is what I think of : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_fog
I really dont think this means the franchise went to shit, just that the advertising was poorly executed.
Dark Souls II could look like a PS1 game but if it still played well, it would be a fun game. The boosted visuals absolutely help the appeal, but it wouldn't make it necessarily less engaging.
Similar threads
- Poll