Has any game been fucked harder by console limitations than Dark Souls 2?
I remember reading something about call of cthulu being downgraded alot too
Jesus man! Fuck consoles and fuck FROM for not releasing 2 versions. I would even accept and upgrade to pc version now that all console shitters already gave them money. Damn this game could have been beautiful.
I would honestly buy a remastered version with the old lighting and assets and such
didn't it run better than ps3 still?
all i remember of console DaS1 was getting 10 fps in blighttown
Just you wait.
1 year or so after Bloodborne, From will announce the "NEXT-GEN DARK SOULS 2 EDITION!" to suck money from the fucking idiots that fell to their lies.
And no, they won't update the PC version.
If much they'll release it again at full price.
I don't think you guys realize how much fucking shit got cut because it wouldn't run on consoles.
Textures, dynamic lighting, ENTIRE DAY NIGHT CYCLES FOR EVERY ZONE
entire areas cut (you know all those doors you can't open in drangleic castle? yup)
it's a fucking travesty
Can't you see how fucking jewish it was what From did?
They had a WORKING version of the game with all the graphical improvements.
And then they DOWNGRADED it because of consoles sales and because, as I said, I'm pretty sure they are going to re-release it.
But that's the thing.
Cutting those on the consoles because they can't run it?
Cutting it on the PC just because they wanted "graphical parity" or something?
When they had a working version with the game with all that?
I couldn't take From's shit anymore after that.
I honestly do not believe it was hardware limitations...
Bear with me here but the timeline as I understand it goes like this.
AotA is released
Sony offer FromSoftware free blow jobs and cash for a console exclusive.
AotA sales come in... PC sold comparatively well.
From realises they fucked over their new fanbase with a sony exclusive.
From begin work on dark souls 2.
Production looks promising but...
Sony wants to announce bloodborne at the first 2014 conference.
FromSoft rush to finish dark souls 2 so that it is released before the bloodborne announcement can undermine and foreshadow it.
If you want to know why DS2 sucked, look no further than bloodborne.
Well I obviously do not have proof merely correlation.
Bloodborne begun development before DS2.
This is why DS2 has the B-Team.
Sony would have wanted that exclusive as one of their gotchas at the conference they announced it.
It's pretty realistic that if they released DS2 in a less than stella state it would have reflected badly on both sony's attempt at stockholme syndrome and DS2 sales.
DS2 had comparatively less dev time than bloodborne will get.
I feel these are all fairly self evident but if you wish to dispute them with good logic go ahead.
well it didn't really get fucked in the way DaS2 did but it is held back alot by consoles
letterboxed, low res, low texture quality, no AA, low draw distance
and to top it off, it barely hits 30 even with nothing going on looking a a wall in the middle of no where. it's a mess
>It's pretty realistic that if they released DS2 in a less than stella state it would have reflected badly on both sony's attempt at stockholme syndrome and DS2 sales.
Therefore releasing early would have allowed for Dark Souls 2 sales to have their day before the bloodborne announcement?
as some one who played the beta on PS3
they also down graded the graphics from there MOSTLY because people whined about areas being too dark
it kills alot of builds like duel wield/Shield/two hand because you cannot see SHIT
they realized it was a bad idea
they also took down the new magic system where R1 was faster but weaker cast and R2 was slower but stronger cast
and you could aim magic without binoculars
Sony wants in on that dosh. The Souls games sell very well.
"We are very very sorryu Miyazaki-san, prease accept my suppre young daughteru and makeu a new gameu"
Seems like piss poor reasoning to cut a very valid concept... they could have simply added lanterns like Dragon's Dogma. Just replace torches with oil and make oil a bit rarer than torches are now.
Not only do you add a whole new element of gameplay such as hiding in the dark in pvp. You also add the fear of not being able to light your way through the darker areas of the game.
Sony are pathetic and they know it. None of their Japanese studios measure up. They can't make games that sell and hit that million mark. Their best selling IP is 2nd party made and it's a golf game for christ sake.
But sir, what about the griffin?
There are plenty of games that either look as good as or better than their trailers.
Just off the top of my head:
The entire Crysis series
Halo Reach and 4 (but not 2 or 3, which were fucking travesties and grossly misrepresented the final product)
I thought Call of Cthulu looked great.
Use 4x4 Wide Tent/Quincunx Supersampling with it.
PC hardware has held back a lot of games.
Crysis is the worst example there. From Donkey Kong Country 3D to nothing special. Like Deus Ex without everything that made Deus Ex good.
Blame hardware devs.
Consoles use pc hardware.
Dark Souls 2 could have looked as initially shown though. Instead they decided to use a higher resolution.
>developed with PC as lead platform with ports to consoles
>the majority of the Steam userbase is playing on laptops with shitty hardware
>they have to downgrade the overall graphics rather than lose out on PC sales due to high requirements
>HURR CONSOLES RUINED IT
I see this shit all the time. Devs still have to optimize their games to play on Intel GPUs, so rather than try to do workarounds they just drop fancy lighting and shaders entirely. You can't blame the platforms that sold the least for problems that happen on the best selling one.
sadly most people here dont realize this
only 1/3 of the steam user base that actually did their surveys can actually play 1080p 60 fps
high graphic capabilities is and will never be the majority
And From should have told them to allow porting as part of the contract. Full exclusivity hurts everyone but the publisher, sony.
>The Souls games sell very well.
Demon's Souls sold 1.7 million.
Dark Souls sold 1.8 million.
Dark Souls II sold 1.39 million.
Not really... Just for a hilarious comparison... FFXIII sold 7.1 million copies... Collectively the souls series doesn't even touch that.
which blows my mind because it's being downgraded for the PS4 and Xbone
THESE JUST CAME OUT
GAMES ARE ALREADY GETTING GIMPED TO HELL
though I still retain hope until the game releases
based slavs have stronk magick
So ~1.5-2mil somehow isn't good because it isn't as high as one of the highest selling entries in a franchise that is a household name in all three major regions and has been for over 2 decades? Great logic there.
Gran Turismo does though. So does The Last of Us. So does Uncharted. So does God of War. So does Singstar.
Square Enix can't even measure up to Sony and Sony is a fucking shit. Comparitively speaking Square Enix means nothing when a Platform holderlike Sony outdoes them.
What's your yardstick for that? A new series that even Sony laughed at initially (DeS) has gone on to create two more games each selling at least one million units. That sounds like it sells well to me mate.
It's easier and much more managable to cut graphics options entirely to market it to more PC gamers with a wider set of hardware options. People still bought it, after all.
They did the same thing with Half Life 2, they cut out certain lighting effects at the release but added them back in years later with the Orange Box update.
The only kids who defend consoles:
>Autistic kids with IQ Below 80
>Butthurt manchildren whose parents wont buy them a gaming pc
>Entitled and vocal minority
This is why gaming can never truly move forward. The standards are set low.
Corridor simulator sold better than the entire souls series combined... Despite the huge amount of bad press revolving around FFXIII... But fine... I concede that it does have a heavy name bias on it.
Dragon's Dogma sold 2.31 million and it was an entirely new IP. In almost half the time it took Demon's Souls to get 1.71.
Is that your yardstick? I am sincerely baffled as to how you can say a brand new series from a one trick pony developer that has gone on to sell at least 1 million units from each game in said series isn't something that sells well.
Do you work at Square?
We are debating sales, not quality. I hate FFXIII but that trilogy is highly successful and apparently extremely well liked outside of communities like this. Dragon's Crown also had a much more well known AAA publisher pushing it. You keep comparing a D list dev team's newest ip to major internationally known and trusted publishers and dev teams.
What was he supposed to rebut? All you did was call random groups of people names.
Not him but I'm not sure if it was ever actually stated. But before release I actually thought the game was going to have day night cycles for some reason, I think because the first IGN reveal had that fancy clock looking icon where the covenant icon is in the retail version. And that icon isnt even used in the final version at all.
Fair enough, I did wonder what that was about.
Though i wouldn't necessarily chalk that up to console limitations.
Things get left on the cutting floor in just about any game ever made.
1.5 seems about average actually... So i'd say thats my yardstick.
Anything obscure, small name or most jrpgs that aren't persona or have square written on them seems to hit under this.
I wouldn't consider "average" selling well... It sold about as well as everything else.
Sony didn't want From for their game sales, they wanted them for their image.
Sony think by having bloodborne on the PS4 it'll give it a more desireable image.
If they wanted sales theres plenty of triple A studios at EA or Activision that shit out games that sell substancially higher than 1.5.
just saying, cut back on that /v/. i don't care one way or the other. some games come out on consoles, fine, guess i'll play them on a console. in any case, i doubt games would be as big without consoles, both in the good and the bad. what does that last part even mean, entitled? who is entitled?
>Sony didn't want From for their game sales, they wanted them for their image.
Yeah I can dig that.
>keeping features that maybe 20% of the playerbase would be able to run vs optimizing for everyone else with weaker machines
This is the thing about PC gaming, you're automatically locking out a huge portion of a possible consumer base just by adding in fancy lighting features. If they had gone through with it, we'd have a nicer looking game but the sales would have been abysmal in comparison, and fewer online players in an online centric game like this spells doom for the franchise.
It's easy to keep the gameplay feature of darkness and adding options to make it less expensive to render. Even then, at some point you have to say "your computer is shit". That's what minimum requirements are for.
Please, Skyrim looks twice as good as DS2 on its worst day and it's an open-world action game developed three years ago by Bethesda on fucking Gamebryo. FromSoft is fucking incompetent and the more you cunts fawn over their many ineptitudes the worse they'll get.
That's the thing that bothers me.
If you have to cut so much content out of something because of limitations set by the consoles they are being designed for, the company should make the intelligent decision of taking it over to superior consoles and if they couldn't handle it, just make it a fucking PC exclusive.
But, you see, that wouldn't have acquired them the money they desired, so they cut corners and made the small cash cow that is Dark Souls 2. Even though it's practically a cult classic anyways.
So, then they marketed correctly and gave pre-order bonuses along with a special super duper ultimate dew box set edition so they can yield a bigger profit on a cheap figurine.
I can't blame them for wanting them to make money, and I can't even get mad. At least I have Dark Souls 1.
Didn't they also unwisely remove miyazaki from the development of the entire game?
probably because they wanted him to focus on BB, they've been working on it since the DaS1 DLC. sony approached them like hey wanna make another game for our new console and ditch the xbox. i don't think the pc version of DaS was even a thing at that point
Let's get this shit going
Artorias of the Abyss>=Demon's Souls>Dark Souls first half>Old Iron King DLC>Sunken King DLC>Dark Souls II>Dark Souls second half
Old Iron King DLC>Artorias of the we totally didn't rip off berserk for all our ideas>Dark Souls first half>Sunken King DLC>Dark Souls 2 and Demon's Souls> Second half of Dark Souls.
>old iron king dlc
>three big humanoids with big weapons
>one of which is the exact same as a previous boss except with a different color
DaS=DeS>DaS2 dlcs included
> Played a series about kings and knights and the world they live in...
"OMG THEY HAVE BOSSES THAT ARE KINGS AND KNIGHTS AND THEY USE LARGE WEAPONS MADE FOR HUMANOIDS"
What exactly were you expecting in a western themed game about the dark exploits of fallen kingdoms? Lolis?
Y'know I don't get the whole "a lot of bosses are humans/a lot of enemies are humans" complaint.
Vendrick refused to kindle the first flame, so the game is now heading to the Age of Dark, the age of Man. Surprise surprise there are humans everywhere.
Sunken King>Iron King=AotA
Admittedly Dark Souls 2 has a lot of small stupid flaws like proc equipment and flat damage reduction spells, but again they're minor.
And the fantastic vertical level design(bar the memory and iron passage), cool new weapons, and well designed encounters.
>and well designed encounters.
Foreal. I found myself thinking a lot "wow this is really good and challenging enemy placement."
FFXI got hit pretty hard by the limitations of the PS2.
Console games making PC games worse, is regrettably not a new thing.
FFXIV continued this trend by completely separating the world into zones, as the PS3 can't handle the open world and instead has to have separate maps for every area.
Hmm, well here we get subjective so let's just agree to disagree.