Support NeoGAF

[DrROBschiz]

Here's some footage of the Forest of Fallen Giants from the January Press Preview event: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Io7xa6vCV_w

Looks like the retail to me.

Also, lets not forget that in the months leading up to release there were no shortage of people popping into the various DkSII threads and commenting on how awful they thought the game looked; via video and screenshots.

To assert that FROM pulled a bait and switch on release day is complete garbage.

Games change during development. A very well known and well documented case of EXACTLY this is the Halo 2 E3 Gameplay Reveal. The game looked far better than retail, it's AI was far better than retail, it's graphics were far better than retail. Go look up The Making of Halo 2 on YouTube.

This wasn't a case of Bungie maliciously attempting to mislead consumers. Just like this isn't a case of FROMSoft maliciously misleading consumers. It's simply game development. And this kind of thing has happened far longer and much more often than anyone here seems to remember, or be aware of.

From have us a third, fantastic Souls game. They don't owe "gamers" anything else.

I'm not saying DkSII is perfect, but it's a fantastic game despite it's flaws. Unlike many other modern games I've played.

Yup and I am going through all the youtube videos

The E3/TGS builds HAVE to be PC

The network test didnt even look that good. I know you guys have sources and are positive that it ran on PS3... But that must have been a premade demo for sure.

All the January-Feb footage I could find from the media outlets seem to fall in line with the retail edition.

 

[Clear]

What a bullshit excuse. The TGS demo, running on actual PS3s, looked and performed way better than the retail game.

It's very clear now that the TGS demo was a vertical slice and the actual game never looked or ran as well as the demo. From lied since the beginning all the way to the release of the game and is still doing it in regards of the PC version.

Fuck From and fuck its apologists.

And there go the toys out the pram... Assumptions without actual knowledge followed by abuse.

 

[SweetJohnnyCage]

No-Mans Wharf on PS3 has some serious surpassing Blighttown potential.

I'm not trying to defend From or dickride the company, but I haven't had any issues throughout the entire game. Yes, the framerate is definitely lower than 30 in some cases, but it is literally nowhere near the 3fps you get in Blighttown. Maybe it's because my PS3 is newer and doesn't have a ton of hours on it (got a new one when GTA5 dropped), but some of the people in this thread are nuts.

 

[Bedlam]

Started last night and thought the same thing. The costal area you get to where it's sunny looks pretty nice but overall the game seems really ugly so far:

You haven't seen nothing yet. Preserve your memories of the good looking early areas. You'll be glad to have them when you have to fight your way through areas that look like rough 3D sketches.

Really these lighting issues are nothing in comparison. Even the hideous official screenshots look good in comparison.

 

[zephervack]

Yup and I am going through all the youtube videos

The E3/TGS builds HAVE to be PC

The network test didnt even look that good. I know you guys have sources and are positive that it ran on PS3... But that must have been a premade demo for sure.

All the January-Feb footage I could find from the media outlets seem to fall in line with the retail edition.

So how are you going to feel if the PC version doesnt look like the E3/TGS builds?

 

[Jack cw]

Ick. I was thinking you were talking about something else, but yeah, that sucks.

I have the 360 review code too and while the fps goes down too sometimes, it stays at least in a area where its not that bad, mostly like 10 fps higher than the PS3. Thats why I dont understand why the PS3 version has so much drops. Vsync cant be the only reason because a 10 fps gap needs something else. I have the feeling From somehow fucked up that version and on average it runs worse than DS1.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Yup and I am going through all the youtube videos

The E3/TGS builds HAVE to be PC

But they are not. They ran on real PS3s which means they were demos polished in a separate branch of development to look and run well while the actual game looked and ran like crap.

From lied. Plain and simple.

 

[PairOfFilthySocks]

Perhaps you are unaware of what a 'screenshot' is.

And I'm not loyal to anyone. Lay off the accusations until you know what you're talking about please.

There are plenty of official screenshots that demonstrate the better lighting effects.

 

[XANDER CAGE]

What really confuses me is the conflicting information coming from every direction.

• People claim "no 'downgraded media' was shown prior to leaked gifs and early copies." Brad and Vinny on GiantBomb says the final event they went to before the game was released (2 months before release or so) had the event-version looking exactly like the final product. They, and other websites, published videos and screenshots from this build, that apparently was exactly the same as the final build.
  
• People claim that "the build that the network Beta ran on was hugely different than the final 'downgraded' build", yet others claim it was the same 'final' build.
  
• People seem to have the idea that spending huge amount of development time and resources with the only intent on tricking their consumers is a plausible scenario. That, to me, is crazy talk.
  
• Finally, I agree that it's crazy that Namco and / or From aren't talking more about this. There's obviously been some change between an early build that was shown, and the build that was finally released. I'm sure the simple answer to why it changed is more boring than the conspiracy theory "they wanted more pre-orders!!".

Disclaimer: I haven't (like many other users, I suspect) seen this game live in action, but only through .gif and videos. I'm waiting on the PC version.

The confusing part is that there was media that we know now was post-"downgrade" shown earlier, but at the time those screens/videos were of areas we hadn't seen yet, so nobody had any comparison to make. There was that set of screenshots everyone made fun of right before the beta, but at that point there was no indication that those were anything but ugly shots of a part of the game we hadn't seen yet.

It doesn't help that screens like that came out around the same time that the network test (which didn't look as good as the reveal, naturally, but still had much better lighting than the final product) and things like the Mirror Knight walkthrough video popping up on official channels like PlayStation Blog, which was clearly using older, better-looking footage.

The streams crossed and that's why a lot of people are upset, I think. The changes caught a lot of us off guard because we didn't have a clear sense that they had been made.

Everyone knows games change in development, that isn't a revelation to anyone upset about the graphics changes. What's confusing and annoying is that the change wasn't super transparent, and also negatively impacted some parts of the game, i.e areas that were clearly supposed to have more apparent lighting mechanics.

 

[Ziltoid]

"Throughout the game development process, a game is constantly being balanced not only in game playability, but also in the realm of resource management,” From told MCV.

“A developer is always challenged with creating the most rewarding gaming experience while delivering continuity in graphical quality, gameplay dynamics, and balance within the game. The final version of Dark Souls II displays the culmination of this delicate balance and we’re very proud of the positive media and fan reception for the game.”

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but that reads like they got too little time on development of the game to make the entire game like the vertical slices shown earlier. I'd like to know about the PC version, but I'm not holding my breath for anything substantially different from the console version except better IQ and possibly lightning.

It doesn't bother me to much as I have been on a complete media blackout on this game so my expectations were not that high to begin with, but unless the PC version is like the demo builds they should apologize still using promotional footage from the demo builds.

 

[DrROBschiz]

So how are you going to feel if the PC version doesnt look like the E3/TGS builds?

Very Very disappointed for damn sure lol

No reason to scrap those assets on a platform that can handle that level of quality

It better look amazing

 

[GamingIsDead]

I'm not defending their actions but I think people have chosen the wrong game to go on a full blow witch hunt for. The fact the game is still excellent makes this whole thing ring hollow to me and most people who have actually played the game.

 

[Alebrije]

"No matter we lied , you will buy the game"

I did it :/

 

[Plopboy]

MCV are hardly a reliable source though, since they are a UK trade mag made for and by the trade who are less than unbiased in their reporting. It also surprises me that From would speak to them over say a Japanese or more respected outlet, but then again stranger things have happened.

 

[LogicStep]

So how are you going to feel if the PC version doesnt look like the E3/TGS builds?

That will obviously suck. I'm waiting on the PC version with hopes of better visuals and performance. I give them the benefit of the doubt. It isn't hard for me to imagine that those videos are from the PC version.

 

[MMaRsu]

I am with this guy who needs to endure that shitstorm from some assholes here on the forum. Yeah, I said it, ban me if you like, NeoGAF becomes a place I want to be less and less lately anyway.

If the final result does not meet your standards/expectations, don't buy it.

And if companies try to screw you over? What do you do? Just not buy it? You need to let them know why you are not buying it or else they might think people have lost interest in Dark Souls games.

I don't want to be treated like a goddamn 8 year old child who you can just tell lies to, tell him he's going to get a apple than give him a piece of shit instead.

 

[Asd202]

What a absolutely shocking and revealing statement! I didn't expect that not at all!

 

[Jack cw]

I'm not trying to defend From or dickride the company, but I haven't had any issues throughout the entire game. Yes, the framerate is definitely lower than 30 in some cases, but it is literally nowhere near the 3fps you get in Blighttown. Maybe it's because my PS3 is newer and doesn't have a ton of hours on it (got a new one when GTA5 dropped), but some of the people in this thread are nuts.

I'm talking about average fps and the input delay or lag that it comes with. DS1 hadnt had such a bad framerate outside of Blighttown like this one in many areas. Call me nuts, thats ok, but when one version is able to at least hold 24 fps on average, while the other falls below that at times and decide about success or failure in the game. I notice the drops everytime, some apparently not. Thats fine, but to call someone a liar or nuts because he points out this drops and its consequences isnt really fair, as they are real just like Digital Foundry proved with their face off.

 

[Anteater]

Perhaps you are unaware of what a 'screenshot' is.

And I'm not loyal to anyone. Lay off the accusations until you know what you're talking about please.

These are their official screenshots though after the first gameplay footage which they said was running on the PC build:

http://www.4gamer.net/games/196/G019660/screenshot.html?mode=thumbs&move=reverse

The one with the horse boss is one of the screenshots on steam too

I think one of the things people want FROM to address is whether or not the PC version will still feature the same lighting as the build they keep demonstrating

 

[Timmy00]

Yeah that doesn't really address the graphical downgrade concerns. It's not a big deal to me, the game still looks nice to me and I'm really enjoying the game as a whole. You're not really convincing some people to pick up the game and ignore the downgrades though From.

I'm not trying to defend From or dickride the company, but I haven't had any issues throughout the entire game. Yes, the framerate is definitely lower than 30 in some cases, but it is literally nowhere near the 3fps you get in Blighttown. Maybe it's because my PS3 is newer and doesn't have a ton of hours on it (got a new one when GTA5 dropped), but some of the people in this thread are nuts.

As a whole, I feel like dark souls 2 runs better. Dark Souls 1 just had a low framerate in most places. Still dark souls 2 isn't really even in that sense either. I haven't encounter anything like blighttown though throughout my whole playthrough.

 

[Toxi]

I have the 360 review code too and while the fps goes down too sometimes, it stays at least in a area where its ,not that bad, mostly like 10 fps higher than the PS3. Thats why I dont understand why the PS3 version has so much drops. Vsync cant be the only reason because a 10 fps gap needs something else. I ahve the feeling From somehow fucked up that version and on average it runs worse than DS1.

I'm not sure what to say because I haven't suffered any Blighttown-level FPS issues and the game has been running way more smoothly than Dark Souls.

I did download the game, so that might explain the performance difference.

 

[DrROBschiz]

But they are not. They ran on real PS3s which means they were demos polished in a separate branch of development to look and run well while the actual game looked and ran like crap.

From lied. Plain and simple.

Maybe they DID

I am saying they must have been showcase one-off demos. Likely a PC build pushed to all outlets.

All the early 2014 preview footage and Beta footage is much closer to what the Last Gen consoles achieve.

Sounds like the Marketing fell in line in early 2014 guys. The IGN and Gamespot previews from January-February look significantly closer to retail

I really hope the PC version looks that friggin good followed by an equally impressive PS4 Version.

They are looking at quite the shitstorm otherwise

 

[Deitus]

But they are not. They ran on real PS3s which means they were demos polished in a separate branch of development to look and run well while the actual game looked and ran like crap.

From lied. Plain and simple.

Maybe you don't know, but that's how demos work. You can't just gin up a game demo in 10 minutes. You need to lock in features at a point in time, and branch off development of the demo, and have a separate team work on polishing the rough edges (that probably won't be addressed in the main game for months), and get the demo into a workable state.

And this process takes time. In that time, there might have been significant changes to the main build, but you can't simply roll those changes into the demo build without a massive amount of rework, and possibly missing your deadline.

Maybe that's not how it should be. But as long as people want playable demos of games in development, and want them to not look like games in development, that's how it is.

 

[kmax]

 

[jim2point0]

I had a feeling the noise about the downgrade for consoles would drown out those questioning the PC version.

Based on this response, I think we can divine what they would say in response to questions about the PC version.

"We think the PC version will be better and fans will be happy with the increased graphical continuity."

Or some bullshit.

 

[HK-47]

Chances of him posting again after that?

 

[jim2point0]

I am with this guy who needs to endure that shitstorm from some assholes here on the forum. Yeah, I said it, ban me if you like, NeoGAF becomes a place I want to be less and less lately anyway.

If the final result does not meet your standards/expectations, don't buy it.

ROFL. That's gold.

 

[Vazra]

Meh the game doesn't look as it was shown but for most of the part looks good and the gameplay is great. Getting PC version for extra bells and whistles.

 

[Principate]

Based on this response, I think we can divine what they would say in response to questions about the PC version.

"We think the PC version will be better and fans will be happy with the increased graphical continuity."

Or some bullshit.

They will refer to the pc as much more balanced and accessible to the majority of pc's.

 

[Robobandit]

How the fuck are people supposed to know?

Don't pre-order, basically.

Wait until real people have the game in their hands before spending money.

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Maybe you don't know, but that's how demos work. You can't just gin up a game demo in 10 minutes. You need to lock in features at a point in time, and branch off development of the demo, and have a separate team work on polishing the rough edges (that probably won't be addressed in the main game for months), and get the demo into a workable state.

And this process takes time. In that time, there might have been significant changes to the main build, but you can't simply roll those changes into the demo build without a massive amount of rework, and possibly missing your deadline.

Maybe that's not how it should be. But as long as people want playable demos of games in development, and want them to not look like games in development, that's how it is.

Show me one game that just one month before release, looks completely different and runs worse than what is shown in its public demos.

One.

 

[mnannola]

This is perfect.

 

[Jack cw]

Meh the game doesn't look as it was shown but for most of the part looks good and the gameplay is great. Getting PC version for extra bells and whistles.

I liked your old avatar much more, mate
And slowclap again to detective GAF. Never disapoints.

 

[Principate]

Don't pre-order, basically.

Wait until real people have the game in their hands before spending money.

But those pre-order bonuses...

 

[Metroid-Squadron]

Don't pre-order, basically.

Wait until real people have the game in their hands before spending money.

And prepare to be shamed when you point out the downgrades, except if it's a Ubisoft game, of course.

 

[Relaxed Muscle]

So people are claiming that the material pre-release already looked bad (although we don't have direct comparissons between the TGS demo and this new material) but also they have been showing the lead version, that is, PC version...

I'm sure you can find the contradiction here.

Also the network test have effects that were lost in the retail like the "fog doors". They are much better than the retail version, poiting to several more downgrades aside from dynamic shadows losts.

 

[Toxi]

Don't pre-order, basically.

Wait until real people have the game in their hands before spending money.

That's exactly what I did.

Unfortunately, not everyone looks at gaming boards to see customer impressions, and with a day 1 review embargo and tons of misleading footage and images, the normal customer isn't going to realize Dark Souls 2's problems until its on their TV.

 

[Deitus]

Show me one game that just one month before release, looks completely different and runs worse than what is shown in its public demos.

One.

One month? The TGS build of Dark Souls 2 was a lot more than a month prior to release, and the E3 build was almost a year ago.

 

[Toxi]

So people are claiming that the material pre-release already looked bad.

Yep.

 

[test_account]

But those pre-order bonuses...

Wasnt the pre-order bonuses just early access to some weapons and shields? Or was there something else as well?

 

[DrROBschiz]

So people are claiming that the material pre-release already looked bad (although we don't have direct comparissons between the TGS demo and this new material) but also they have been showing the lead version, that is, PC version...

I'm sure you can find the contradiction here.

Also the network test have effects that were lost in the retail like the "fog doors". They are much better than the retail version, poiting to several more downgrades aside from dynamic shadows losts.

Seriously the only smoking gun I am seeing is the claim that the TGS version was running on a PS3... which might have just been a PC build running a specific instance in Demo form to show off the game

All subsequent PS3 previews including the beta test are easily accessible on Youtube and look very damn close to retail

 

[Grief.exe]

Based on this response, I think we can divine what they would say in response to questions about the PC version.

"We think the PC version will be better and fans will be happy with the increased graphical continuity."

Or some bullshit.

lol

 

[Vitten]

DS2 as it is now is an amazing game. DS2 without the downgrade would have been a legendary game.

 

[Robobandit]

That's exactly what I did.

Unfortunately, not everyone looks at gaming boards to see customer impressions, and with a day 1 review embargo and tons of misleading footage and images, the normal customer isn't going to realize Dark Souls 2's problems until its on their TV.

Most "normal" customers don't read gaming websites at all, for reviews or anything. People on this site are an exception. What has happened here is definitely a problem, particularly since the shots on the back of the box are not perfectly representative of what the game actually looks like.

 

[Bedlam]

DS2 as it is now is an amazing game. DS2 without the downgrade would have been a legendary game.

Nope. Sorry I have to repeat myself, but the poor art in many places hurt the game much more than any lighting changes. It's unbelievable that some of this stuff made it into the game. The previous Souls games had their ups and downs too but nothing nearly as bad as in DS2.

 

[TheSeks]

A million times this.

For the 12093421093201930129th time, this isn't about the fucking downgrade. It's about them advertising the game with the pre-downgrade builds weeks before release.
We get it, sacrifices need to be made and you couldn't hit that level of visuals, just don't bullshit us.

Spoiler

All games go through this

SHOCK AND HORROR, I KNOW. But this practice of advertising is a tale as old as time. Beauty and the Souls.

Now you're gonna move your wording and go "b-b-but one month from release!"

Things change. Shock, I know. Is the downgrade question worthy? Yes. Is it as big a deal as half of you are making it out to be? No, not really.

 

[DrROBschiz]

One month? The TGS build of Dark Souls 2 was a lot more than a month prior to release, and the E3 build was almost a year ago.

Can we get specifics about each one?

Right now we only have the claim that the TGS build was on a PS3

Was E3 the same?

E3 and TGS look about the same in quality and looks clearly to me to be PC builds. They are just night and day above anything shown leading up to release. (Media previews and Beta)

Someone claimed a better preview build was shown running on PS3 2 months (or one month?) before release that looked significantly better.

We need sources people

 

[soontroll]

PC version pls deliver.

 

[Nerokis]

But they are not. They ran on real PS3s which means they were demos polished in a separate branch of development to look and run well while the actual game looked and ran like crap.

From lied. Plain and simple.

Well, that's very often what a demo is - a build separate from what you'll get at retail, or a game section tailored to be played a specific way. And in this case, it's my understanding that what was played on the PS3 wasn't advertised as a demo, but rather a quick beta session. Am I wrong there?

Now, in all likelihood at some point the word "lie" becomes accurate for what From/Namco did. And either way, marketing should have reflected the final product much more accurately. But while having the full story isn't a prerequisite for some degree of condemnation, let's not pretend we have the full story. For example, the PS3 beta may very well have been the target From was going for, and it's possible feedback/metrics from the beta may have helped persuade them to downgrade the graphics. It's possible From were lying to themselves as much as to us about the downgrade's significance. Perhaps this is a case of the path of least resistance being the reuse of marketing material from previous builds, because it was during earlier builds that marketing began to ramp up.

Again, I'm not arguing that consumers weren't lied to, or that From/Namco aren't in the wrong for this whole fiasco. I do disagree, though, that it's "plain and simple." The full story does matter, and any condemnation should be coupled with the acknowledgment that the narrative of a nefarious bait and switch is missing some facts.

 

[quetz67]

What a absolutely shocking and revealing statement! I didn't expect that not at all!

Bullshit! You all make it sound like they downgrade just to annoy you.