On March 15 2014 11:26 OsaX Nymloth wrote: Probably it was this one:
Makes you wonder: either the footage was from PC version all along and PC will have the graphics that were intended for the game or they "buffed" it artificially. Anyway, 25th of april can't come soon enough
To be honest, I'd rather play a DS game that has a consistent framerate than one with slightly better graphics but that bogs down once in a while, like it did in Blight Town. Dark Souls 1 had pretty terrible graphics anyway, even to console standards (compare to Gears of War 3, Halo 4, The Last of Us, GTA V etc etc).
Good artwork is a lot more important than shaders. Blizzard's and Valve's games are perfect proof of that.
Makes you wonder: either the footage was from PC version all along and PC will have the graphics that were intended for the game or they "buffed" it artificially. Anyway, 25th of april can't come soon enough
To be honest, I'd rather play a DS game that has a consistent framerate than one with slightly better graphics but that bogs down once in a while, like it did in Blight Town. Dark Souls 1 had pretty terrible graphics anyway, even to console standards (compare to Gears of War 3, Halo 4, The Last of Us, GTA V etc etc).
Good artwork is a lot more important than shaders. Blizzard's and Valve's games are perfect proof of that.
Absolutely agreeing with you. Dark Souls didn't had the best graphic when it was released - not even close. But part of what made the game this unique, was the art style, the atmosphere and the color palette. This are way more important than fancy SSOA and other funny named technologies and shaders and billions of polygons.
Also, DS is the game I'm playing for gameplay, not for graphic. Still, one have to wonder why the difference is so big.
So much jolly cooperation. I have been helping at the Cardinal Tower for about 4 hours straight this morning on a fresh (alt) sorcerer and it's been a weird but fun experience. Hosts summoning for random slaying. Hosts suiciding into the fire pit. Hosts taking on Pursuer just outside the shortcut and getting annihilated. I killed myself a few times to cliffs and Last Giant jumped back into me a few times as well. Overall gained a bunch of levels and had a good time and still haven't killed a boss. Was the original like this? I didn't pick up DaS until well after it released and got grief-invaded so much in Undead Burg / Parish that I played mostly offline.
On March 15 2014 18:23 maartendq wrote: To be honest, I'd rather play a DS game that has a consistent framerate than one with slightly better graphics but that bogs down once in a while, like it did in Blight Town. Dark Souls 1 had pretty terrible graphics anyway, even to console standards (compare to Gears of War 3, Halo 4, The Last of Us, GTA V etc etc).
Good artwork is a lot more important than shaders. Blizzard's and Valve's games are perfect proof of that.
Sure, but they're still advertising the game with bullshit footage. Go on the Steam page and look at the trailer that plays. I'll buy it no matter how it looks, but I don't think the publisher should get away with such blatant false advertising.
On March 15 2014 17:46 kusto wrote: What do you think, should i play Dark Souls 1 or buy this?
DS1 first. Because both are pretty similar and if you hate them at least you'll have spent less $ with the first one. Ifyou love them you'll do 1 and then 2
Makes you wonder: either the footage was from PC version all along and PC will have the graphics that were intended for the game or they "buffed" it artificially. Anyway, 25th of april can't come soon enough
To be honest, I'd rather play a DS game that has a consistent framerate than one with slightly better graphics but that bogs down once in a while, like it did in Blight Town. Dark Souls 1 had pretty terrible graphics anyway, even to console standards (compare to Gears of War 3, Halo 4, The Last of Us, GTA V etc etc).
Good artwork is a lot more important than shaders. Blizzard's and Valve's games are perfect proof of that.
DkS1 had terrible graphics? The textures were often fairly low res, and the frame rate was capped, but the art style and atmosphere was extremely unique and beautiful in its own way. They did amazing work with what they had available, and tricks that normally would just help performance (distance LOD and things) actually enhanced the world. DkS2 doesn't have that same feel, because the current engine and changes were probably implemented too late to refine and "hide the cracks" so to speak.
And then you said good artwork is more important than shaders, which is exactly what DkS was despite just saying you disliked it lol
Makes you wonder: either the footage was from PC version all along and PC will have the graphics that were intended for the game or they "buffed" it artificially. Anyway, 25th of april can't come soon enough
To be honest, I'd rather play a DS game that has a consistent framerate than one with slightly better graphics but that bogs down once in a while, like it did in Blight Town. Dark Souls 1 had pretty terrible graphics anyway, even to console standards (compare to Gears of War 3, Halo 4, The Last of Us, GTA V etc etc).
Good artwork is a lot more important than shaders. Blizzard's and Valve's games are perfect proof of that.
DkS1 had terrible graphics? The textures were often fairly low res, and the frame rate was capped, but the art style and atmosphere was extremely unique and beautiful in its own way. They did amazing work with what they had available, and tricks that normally would just help performance (distance LOD and things) actually enhanced the world. DkS2 doesn't have that same feel, because the current engine and changes were probably implemented too late to refine and "hide the cracks" so to speak.
And then you said good artwork is more important than shaders, which is exactly what DkS was despite just saying you disliked it lol
I meant that artwork is more important than technical prowess. In my experience, when people say "good graphics" they mean the shaders, texture resolution etc, not the artwork that actually defines the game. This is why, in my opinion, a game like Battlefield 3/4 looks so bland while Dark Souls, Diablo 3, Warcraft 3, Half Life 2 look interesting, no matter how old these games are or ever will get.
Edit: in terms of lore, how does this game stack up to DkS1?
Makes you wonder: either the footage was from PC version all along and PC will have the graphics that were intended for the game or they "buffed" it artificially. Anyway, 25th of april can't come soon enough
To be honest, I'd rather play a DS game that has a consistent framerate than one with slightly better graphics but that bogs down once in a while, like it did in Blight Town. Dark Souls 1 had pretty terrible graphics anyway, even to console standards (compare to Gears of War 3, Halo 4, The Last of Us, GTA V etc etc).
Good artwork is a lot more important than shaders. Blizzard's and Valve's games are perfect proof of that.
DkS1 had terrible graphics? The textures were often fairly low res, and the frame rate was capped, but the art style and atmosphere was extremely unique and beautiful in its own way. They did amazing work with what they had available, and tricks that normally would just help performance (distance LOD and things) actually enhanced the world. DkS2 doesn't have that same feel, because the current engine and changes were probably implemented too late to refine and "hide the cracks" so to speak.
And then you said good artwork is more important than shaders, which is exactly what DkS was despite just saying you disliked it lol
I meant that artwork is more important than technical prowess. In my experience, when people say "good graphics" they mean the shaders, texture resolution etc, not the artwork that actually defines the game. This is why, in my opinion, a game like Battlefield 3/4 looks so bland while Dark Souls, Diablo 3, Warcraft 3, Half Life 2 look interesting, no matter how old these games are or ever will get.
Edit: in terms of lore, how does this game stack up to DkS1?
Ah yes, I agree with you whole heartedly there. But in that department I think DkS is still superior to DkS2 as well, not just because of the lighting but a lot of the other choices too (as many of the DkS2 beta/release comparisons have also shown; missing objects/assets, reduction in detail and not just texture resolution, etc).
I'm actually curious to get back to playing now that it's the weekend, because I do want to learn more about the lore. It's something I paid very little attention to on my first couple playthroughs of DkS, but now that I understand the method of storytelling and the subtlety I've been reading everything I can in DkS2 and it's fun.
Having watched some video reviews, I am flabbergasted at how terrible the people playing are. Most of them apparently want to be cool instead of effective. They'll either try to dodge every attack that comes their way, failing horribly and getting killed by things that shouldn't even hit them, or use a greatsword and taking two to four hits before actually doing damage themselves. If you see that kind of stuff, it's kind of obvious they call Dark Souls frustratingly difficult.
In my personal experience, yes, Dark Souls is frustratingly difficult. That is, if you don't play it like it wants to you play. If you play patiently and carefully, choosing your angles and timings wisely, it isn't that difficult and the frustration will come only from the cheap parts, such as the Anor Londo Snipers. If, however, you play as an ADHD bunny, as most reviewers seem to do, then yeah, you'll experience that feeling of wanting to smash your controller on the nearest hard surface.
Well nothing new then. Poor players were already crying about Dark Souls there's no reason to think things changed.
Well to be honest I'd wage it's still a bit better than DS1 due to the fact that people are aware it's a hard game.
Personally I don't know really, I haven't been really frustrated with these games. Sure it's harder than your average AAA. But I have been way more frustrated by some other games trying to finish them on the hardest difficulty and getting cheaply one shoted every step. Sure for someone that usualy plays these on normal DS will be quite a huge leap in difficulty but to be honest people that play everything on hard and are used to start over and over a boss fight have the skill to beat a souls game. Well like you said, I'd add it still requires patience and carefulness which I admit isn't something that other games, even at the hardest, ask you to have... so it's a prerequisite yeah.
On March 17 2014 05:59 maartendq wrote: Having watched some video reviews, I am flabbergasted at how terrible the people playing are. Most of them apparently want to be cool instead of effective. They'll either try to dodge every attack that comes their way, failing horribly and getting killed by things that shouldn't even hit them, or use a greatsword and taking two to four hits before actually doing damage themselves. If you see that kind of stuff, it's kind of obvious they call Dark Souls frustratingly difficult.
In my personal experience, yes, Dark Souls is frustratingly difficult. That is, if you don't play it like it wants to you play. If you play patiently and carefully, choosing your angles and timings wisely, it isn't that difficult and the frustration will come only from the cheap parts, such as the Anor Londo Snipers. If, however, you play as an ADHD bunny, as most reviewers seem to do, then yeah, you'll experience that feeling of wanting to smash your controller on the nearest hard surface.
To be fair, the hit detection in DS2 is absolutely terrible compared to DS1.
So guys, please tell me: Do the areas become a wasteland after 10-15 deaths as mentioned previously or is there a way to reset them somehow (without even making the enemies harder)? To be honest, thats quite a bummer for me. I just recently started to play DS1 and without farming some areas, I think I had very little chance to complete the game ever, I totally suck.
Can't wait for this game to come out for PC. I do hope there's a lot of people though for PvP. After a couple hundred hours in DS1 (which is probably the most I've played any game), I'm extremely hyped to play the second :D
On March 15 2014 17:46 kusto wrote: What do you think, should i play Dark Souls 1 or buy this?
Both. You won't regret it.
While you're at it, make a Giantdad in DS1 and become unstoppable. \m/ Giantdad build here: + Show Spoiler +
On March 17 2014 16:31 JazVM wrote: So guys, please tell me: Do the areas become a wasteland after 10-15 deaths as mentioned previously or is there a way to reset them somehow (without even making the enemies harder)? To be honest, thats quite a bummer for me. I just recently started to play DS1 and without farming some areas, I think I had very little chance to complete the game ever, I totally suck.
Once you clear them out permanently they stay clear until you complete the game and go into the next NG+, or you can stimulate that effect by using a bonfire ascetic (though I wouldn't if you're having that much trouble on NG). Try using your soapstones to get souls / experience with the areas.
I started the game by clearing zones out a few times each as well and then realized I was wasting time for tiny amounts of souls. Start out helping with the bosses in Forest until you're comfortable and move on from there. Especially now when tons of people are playing due to how new the game is, you'll have no trouble getting co-op action and basically free souls from other people's games.
So I am currently around soul level 60 and fought my way up to the Poison Princess. And oh boy is she kicking my butt. I get the feeling that her fight is a big DPS check because she regenerates constantly and you get poisoned constantly, so I am wondering when you guys managed to beat her
I am a Mage Pyromancy mix character with minimal Str and Dex