The Dark Souls Discussion Thread

Click here and disable ads!

What's that mean?

People seem to be unable to both like the game and criticize it. The port is shittier than it should be. GFWL, unexplained drops in framerate in a certain area going unfixed, apparently unmodifiable configurations (not sure if this still goes)... are these optimal? No. That's the whole point.

Does that mean the game or the port are inherently bad? Well, that's up to every single one to decide. But going OMG IS ALRIGHT AS IT IS doesn't help DkS as much as you think it does, it just makes you sound like a fanboy.

'sides, DkS is a worthy lad, it can stand up for itself.

From Software should have eaten their sobu PC noodles a bit slower.. then the meal wouldn't be so fucked sounding.

http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/6/7/3070697/dark-souls-pc-e3-preview

Saints Row 2 was a notoriously bad console port with horrendus performance issues, which meant that even top-of-the-line PCs at the time couldn't play it fluidly.

Saints row 2 was, again, perfectly fluid on quad core CPUs except for some minor stuttering loading new areas when your speed was above Mach 3. I expect to fix that you would need an SSD or something.

If you think they showcased Dark Souls PC at E3 on an 11-inch laptop, then you're a fanboy moron defending the undefendable. Did you omit the ''EON11-S and its High-Performance Desktops'' part in that article on purpose?

I don't get these fucking untermensch, what do they gain from blindly defending a video game. I had (and still have) genuine interest in Dark Souls PC, that is exactly why I don't like it when the devs themselves go on record saying they don't have the knowledge nor the experience to port the game properly to PC. What's the problem? I couldn't care less if they're fucking up a port of Pokemon because I don't play that shit.

So, if DS PC has 'framerate issues' on a top of the line GTX 6xx series what can be expected in terms of performance on more mid-range cards? Or does everyone defending this port is a graphics whore with a monster gaming rig?

Also, Cynic, keep in mind most people here aren't criticizing the game itself, except for the occasional 'ololol Dark Souls popamole shit ololol' trollain. We're attacking the dubious quality of the port. And having a decent framerate has nothing to do with graphics whores and everything to do with gameplay. So if the gameplay itself is great but you have problems enjoying it on a monster rig, what does that tell you?

So you need a quad-core CPU and an SSD drive to properly play a console port from 2008, are you fucking kidding me? Is that acceptable by your standards?

No, you don't need it to play it. You need it to play close to perfectly smooth.
If a game has performance issues it just has them and you can't expect they magically disappear during porting process.

Better tell us how such a technically excellent PC exclusives like Gothic 3 from 2006, or Bloodlines from 2004 run your modern PC

Both of those games have fan patches that fix lots of things without access to the same tools the devs had.

EON11-S isn't some crappy laptop, either. It has Intel B960 + GF GT 650M. That's quite decent for 1366 x 768 resolution. You could probably play most current games on high settings. I'm too lazy to look up Steam survey, but I bet it's better than what half of Steam users game on.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. And that's what 'properly' means if you're playing a fast paced action game.

Did SR2 had performance issues on the console versions? Furthermore, a properly done port should take advantage of superior hardware to iron out any previous performance issues.

So, those PC exclusive games (and tons others) were optimized worth of shit, and your point is? Oh, sorry, I didn't realize you don't have any.

I've played them both 1-2 years ago with community patches and performance was not smooth by any stretch of the world.
Both were flawed but still good for what they were despite technical and other shortcomings. Dark Souls can be as well, that is the point.
I'll understand bitching if port introduce more issues than the game already has. To call a *port* shit because it doesn't fixed problems that original game had in the first place is

B960 = 2.2 GHz pentium dual core ( only 2M cache ) - it is slower than PS3 cell
GT 650M – performance equal to 8800 GT. It doesn't even have dedicated VRAM and lack of it can be the main reason for a lag when you try to turn around in the open space.

Just because some shitty company is selling it as a “gaming” laptop it doesn't mean it is one.

I don't know about SR2 but everyone claimed that GTA4 run smooth like silk on consoles and that was bullshit.

We're discussing *performance* issues here for fuck's sake, not design issues.

Also, the laptop is irrelevant, since they didn't use that to test DS.

You illiterate, ignorant fuck. Everything you write is a bunch of gibberish. Are you hiver's alt?

I don't even...
GF GT 650M is marginally slower than Radeon HD 7750. It has a 128-bit memory bus with dedicated 1GB or 2GB of DDR3 or DDR5 memory. It's a solid card.

The processor is not a bottleneck for majority of games. Sure, it's not the BESTEST PROCESSOR EVAR, but it should be good enough. And slower than Cell? How would you even compare them? Straight up FLOPS comparison? And why?
"2M cache"? What's that? 2 million caches? Like that's a crippling blow to performance...

We are talking about 1366 x 768 resolution. I would think EA ran some benchmarks before releasing the fucking laptop.

True, but it should actually run quite decently even on that laptop, should they manage to port it right.

From that video, it would need GTS 450 or better. I wonder if they would manage to make it playable on low end cards. I might have my Kepler, then again I might delay it.

A high end highly parallelizable CPU is necessary to run my, or Paradox games. In fact many problems from SC were caused by slow CPUs. It's one of these PC advantages xxx*1 talked about. Game developers should use massive computing power and RAM sizes of PC, and should create better games than consoles can do.


*1 Forgot his name...

Only 2M cache makes it ~ 10 - 20% slower than more mainstream desktop CPUs with the same clock.
It was a rough estimation from a known performance tests of GTA4 which probably runs a bit slower than on consoles on this CPU.
I couldn't find any info about amount of dedicated VRAM on this laptop product page and don't bothered to search more. I could have assumed too much.
Doesn't matter anyway. It was pointless discussion.

Keep parroting gaming journalism with shock stories. I'll wait and see how the port is when it get released.

If the card doesn't end with an -800 or an -80, at the minimum a -70 or -700, it isn't a solid gaming card. That's a simple fact, and it applies to both Nvidia and AMD cards. It's also the mobile version, so weaker still.

Note how an -800 card from 6 generations prior only barely gets beaten by a -50 card that is just a few months old:

8800 Ultra 3dmarks: 1,800

650M 3dmarks: 2,100

680 3dmarks: 10,000

Now, the 8800 Ultra still plays a shit ton of games pretty well, even maxing out some of the console ports that aren't demanding. I'm still using one (a ridiculously good purchase at the time, let me tell you). Dark Souls will most likely play pretty well, considering the video of gameplay looks fairly smooth with minimal stutters. But don't pretend that a 650m is somehow a powerful gaming card for anyone that hasn't gone 5 years since their last upgrade.

The article said that is ran poorly on the geforce 6xx cards. The only system whose details were revealed was the laptop, which had the 6xx card. Ergo, fuck off.

How to tell someone is a moron btw: If they say the word "6xx" other than as a quotation. Because "6xx" means jack shit when there are 6-series cards that are hardly better than integrated.

Bro, don't be a fucking retard, read what I wrote. I used terms as "solid" and "decent" for 1366x768 resolution. Don't lecture me about gaming cards, when you don't even know the nomenclature. None of AMD cards end with -700 or -800. Also, there are multiple versions of 3DMark, so "3dmarks" means nothing.

Let's assume you mean 3DMark11 and -7x0 for AMD cards. Radeon HD 7750 scores about 2300 for graphics in 3DMark11. It's roughly comparable to GF GT 650M. It runs BF3 (1680 x 1050, High Details, 16xAF, 4xMSAA) at 27 fps. That's on a beefier CPU, but it's also at much higher resolution. I would argue that GF GT 650M + B960 offers good enough performance at 1366x768 to play almost all modern games at good level of detail.

You mean like console hardware? Oh wait, that's 6 years. My bad!

Actually the 650M is a pretty decent card, capable of good framerates at a modest resolution. It should be able to easily run Dark Souls, unless From Software manage to roaylly fuck up the port.

*derp*

Take the 2nd number of the card. If it isn't an 8 (sometimes a 7, depending on generation), its not designed for gaming. This is the standard that both AMD and Nvidia have used for at least a decade.

You used the term "solid card". Then talked about the resolution in a completely different part of your post. You never said "solid card at X resolution". I suppose if you throw all of your words into a blender you can rearrange them into anything you want, but either way you still look retarded.

Someone doesn't understand the idea of a relative comparison it seems.

Yeah. It's almost like if you play with console level-hardware you get console-level performance. That includes some slowdowns in places and some stuttering. What is your point again?

It said the 6xx series from the GTX line which is the best available right now you dim-witted sorry excuse of a person.

So they know what the card is but don't know what the card is? Yeah makes perfect sense.

GT 440 is a low end gaming card.
GTS 450 and GTX 550 Ti are middle class gaming cards.
GTX 670 and GTX 680 are higher class gaming cards.
GTX 690 is insanely fast card for high end.

He simply get his card cheaply the same as I my gold plated sound card. When I looked around how much would cost a PCI-E replacement, so I'd get cheaper MB... Titanium what? I'd probably pay more for MB. So he received a high end gaming card for cheap, and now he's comparing stuff to high end. On unrelated note, people are selling relatively new GTX 560 for peanuts.

Let me quote my first post on this subject.

Not only are you completely retarded, but illiterate. Tell me, what's the difference between "card designed for gaming" and GT 650M? What is GT 650M designed for, dumbfuck?

Everyone is saying that console performance was spotty only in couple of places. The presenter can adjust the draw distances or show areas that are less demanding. My point is that it should run fine EVEN on this laptop, let alone a GTX 6xx card as is written (which ties into you being illiterate shitstain).

You are over 9000 averagemanatee retarded.

Yes it does. Not for you, obviously. The configurations are equipped with different graphic cards. They are all from GTX 6xx line. That means GTX 670, GTX 680, GTX 690. The game was running on all of them or only one of them and the guy didn't get to look inside the case, fiddle with windows or ask what the GPU inside was. Mystery solved, bitch.