Dark Souls 2: Crown of the Sunken King walkthrough
Our essential survival guide.
Hearthstone: Naxxramas strategy guide
How to beat down those Heroic bosses.
Loading... hold tight!
president of Sony assured that ps3 would run everything at 1080p 60fps
Yeah...no. A GTX 470 which is a 2 year old mid range card for its time is faster than the 7970M. This can't even hit 60 frames running medium in BF3. I'm not saying it's bad. It's great for a mobile device but in a next gen console? It's laughable.
Yes so the 1 TeraFlops is the minimum requirement for the new engine right.
I may be wrong but when 360 launched in 05 it ran the Unreal3 Engine with all the bells and whistles. Yes it was 720p at 30fps but for the first two or three years the only thing the PC done to better Unreal 3 was higher frame rates and resolution.
Tim Sweeney said it will run on 1 TeraFlop , but things start o get interesting at 3 TeraFlops.
This engine is being targeted highly at console developers. Epic will have likely designed it's features around the nextgen console tech.
360 and PS3 were fast enough to support all of the engines shader tech and features. for the best part of three years PC's that were more powerful than said consoles could only run the engine at higher frame rates and 1080p . They never used any features that the consoles didn't use with there extra resources because the Engine was designed to take advantage of the consoles resources.
Just because you will be able to turn of Features in Unreal4 like interactive realtime lighting to support legacy hardware , why would the nextgen consoles not be able to use all these features as the 360 pretty much nailed everything Unreal 3 could do with Gears.
Do you remember playing games like Resident Evil on PS2 and Gamecube?. It was meant to be a zombie holocaust with at most 6 zombies on screen at any one point of time?.
Then do you remember seeing screen shots of Dead Rising with 1000s of the undead as far as the eye could see. Thats what a nextgen jump in performance means to me and thats the types of surprises that await us in the coming year. I don't know but people are either very jaded/cynical when all they ask for is 1080p 60fps lol.
If it only needs 1 TeraFlop then why did Samaritan which was a tweaked Unreal3 need three GTX580's then. Why was the next demo shown on a 3.2 TeraFlop GTX680?.
If it only needs 1 TeraFlop why hasn't Nvidia shown of their value non GTX Kepler cards pushing this tech?.
Most people have had a TeraFlop in power in their PC's for years now, why do Epic keep saying the Engine isn't for current tech , it's nextgen tech.
I love AMDs graphics hardware, but their CPUs lag seriously behind Intels offerings. The 2.4 GHZ Intel quad core used in the laptop absolutely SMOKES any equally clocked octo core AMD in just about everything but video transcoding and such that can make use of the additional cores. Games rarely make use of more than 4 cores unless a multi-GPU setup is used. An AMD 8 core 1.6 (!) GHZ processor is not even in the same ballpark as the latest Intel quad core processors at 2.4 GHz.
i mean, like, these specs are not better than the PC thst are out. im not going to pretent that i understand what any of these numbers mean and stuff as many of you have done that already. but a was expecting more and im pretty disapointed
i was expecting sony to have spec that would be at least 3 or 4 times that of a PC and i would really want to spend more than £300.
Whats even more hilarious is that insider claims are ps4 can't handle 4K ????
shitty mobile GPU wich by the way isn't even the best one.
How can anyone honestly be excited with these specs? You are just lying to yourselves. I figured they would at least be CLOSE to high end PC's but FFS this is horrible. Slow CPU, slow GPU. This is a PC from 3-4 years ago.
Remember that it would only be the cost price of the chip itself, its not an entire card. just a tiny square of silicon, bought in bulks of seven digits.
ultimatly i'm glad there not giving up, i'm loving TSW and i'm not normally into mmorpgs. Its pro's massivly outweigh the cons, and suspect i'll be sticking with it to the end or untill there's literlly no one to pve with.
still worried that they're sticking to such high price point, i'd hate to see the game go f2p, (would change the focus from being a game to a money sink) but they should at least lower the sub price to the same as the competition, if not lower.
What the actual fuck is up with that headline/sub-header? Are we looking at megabytes as value now? Utterly ridiculous, poor attempt at clickbait.
Bethesda needs to invest multi-millions on setting up a good engine for their next-gen open world games. If that means working with Cry-Tek or Epic to deliver one of those engines, tweaked for the specific issues you face in open world games, fine. If it means the far harder task of writing one from the ground up, fine. But this kind of thing can't be allowed to happen again.
"Bring on the next gen"
That's what people thought when Daggerfall (the most ridiculously ambitious Elder Scrolls ever) was released back in 1996 - choke full of coding and scripting bugs that were never fixed.
And you know what? 16 years later, while our machines are humongously more powerful that they need to be... we're still having the same conversation.
Some things never change, and Bethesda is one of them.
I'm hoping Bethesda are just publishers and don't have a creative/technical hand in Dishono(u)red. Tell me it isn't true, someone, please?!?!?!
Skyrim(and probably all TES/Fallout games) needs lots of memories for all the objects in the world. The more of them you interract with, the more memory is needed. And Skyrim has an awful lot of objects. And It generates more and more..
Example. I play on PC but some problems are there too..
I have an container(like a chest).. I put in 10different items... and when I put in more its pretty instant. But as the container gets more and more different items, it starts to slow down. Some of my containers has like 120 items. Adding anything to it can take from 1 to 10 seconds..
On my computer I have 8GB of memory. So the game gets all the memory it can handle as a 32bits app. This mean it can grab like 2GB of Physical memory. And even here it starts to suffer.
What do you think will happen to a system which has like only 12% of this memory?
Yup it will go down to a crawl extreme.
The PS3 simply doesnt have the hardware to pull it. No system is stronger than its weakest link, and for PS3, thats its memory.
I look forward to it having very severe DRM, being a sales failure as a result and Yves Guillemot or someone else high up at Ubisoft criticising the pirates before saying their DRM has been a complete success.
It's already pretty easy to get 'Steambox' and 'Big Picture Mode' functionality by connecting your PC to a TV and cranking up the DPI.
This is a misnomer. The screen resolution hardly matters to a system's power in this day and age. 360 and PS3 already render certain games in native 1080p and have for a while depending on the game.
"Native 1080p compliant" is just a buzzword, because renerding more demanding games in 1080p is a much different matter entirely from something like Trine or Scribblenauts. These kinds of games are hardly taxing to the hardware.
Who said that? So far it seems doubtful it will even match the performance of PS3 and X360.
Btw, some games on these are actually Full HD, like Super Stardust for example, or Limbo (I believe).
its not the first. Ps3 was
From a techical standpoint it is. I mean how can a GPU that is 10 times faster than the PS3, heaps of more memory and a modern and powerful CPU be on par or slower than a PS3?
Thats right, it can not.
I think you are assuming this is a PC game version of the game, and not an emulation of the 360 version, messing up would require From to have developed for the PC.
To add these options is a week's work programming at most to any engine(but even less to an engine that is already PS3, 360 and PC compatible), and a few days testing at most.
Even to alter the default resolution of the 360 version to 720p native(1280x720) for an actually PC compiled version of the game is a five minute task requiring just three lines of code changed. A viewport scale change, frustum adjustment, and depth precision increase. And from that the aspect ratio would remain consistent but be of higher native resolution, like the PS3 version.
Just in case anyone is on the fence about whether the PS3 or PC version will be the better option for them. I'll state it again, the PhyreEngine is designed and licensed by Sony for multiplatform(PS3, 360, PC) games and has no sub-HD resolution for the PS3 according to their documentation, unlike the 1024x720 resolution of the 360, and this suspected 360 emulation on the PC.
if you miss out on this game because of the resolution, you're an idiot.
Look it up.
The game was brilliant at 15fps 720p on console, it will be brilliant at 30fps 720p on PC.
No, you're a childish entitled idiot if you choose not to buy something you are otherwise interested in, purely on the grounds of a video resolution.
This comments section is proof that pc gamers are more concerned with graphics than actually playing and enjoying games.
Reading through it is just cringeworthy. All those people now saying they wont buy it because it isn't improved enough for them are just laughable and pathetic. What a bunch of childish entitled idiots.
No, I can't. I'm not arguing that Dark Souls will be the most technically proficient game on the PC. Of course it won't be. My point was that I've seen no end of complaining comments from PC gamers who first wanted a port, then complaining because it was GFWL (for which there is a reason) and now that it's basically a direct port of the console game. Is it perfect? No. Do you still get to experience a most excellent game? Yes.
FROM soft aren't a very big or high-profile studio. They don't have oodles of cash to throw at a conversion and for all the fickleness of gamers these days (PC AND Console gamers alike), who can blame them?
Dark Souls is what it is. A game locked at 1024x720. The same version as the console version. If you don't have a console to play it on and want to play it on the PC then you'll soon be able to, with no extra bells or whistles. Take it or leave it. Just stop bloody complaining.
I'm not sure who first coined the phrase "entitled gamer" but you PC elitists are the whiniest bunch of ingrates the world ever did see. Get some bloody perspective.
Why can't you just be glad that you get to play a most excellent game that you otherwise would not have been able to?
@CountChocula I don't know if people are trolling me or if PC gamers don't understand how graphics display work.
Quote from the article:
"On close inspection, it appears that Dark Souls PC uses the very same 1024x720 internal framebuffer as the console versions, regardless of which resolution has been set in the menus."
INTERNAL framebuffer REGARDLESS of resolution - which means that this will work with your monitor in any resolution, it just won't render everything in that resolution INTERNALLY. It doesn't force you to use 1024x720.
Plus there is generous amount of blur and antialiasing in the engine, as you can see on the screenshots, so it really looks fine.
The amount of PC fools downgrading reasonable comments and badmouthing one of the best games of recent years is sickening.
Have you guys even looked at these screenshots? This game looks brilliant, the art style is really neat - and yet only thing people seem to focus on is internal frame buffer.
One of the commenters nailed it: From acted upon petition, got PC gamers the game that only console folks could enjoy and instead of thanking them for it and buying it, PC elitists are disappointed they can't show off with graphics upgrades.
You don't deserve this game. Morons.
It is funny, so many people complaining about the graphical options yet I bet half of these people will happily play indie games and state "Graphics don't make a game good, good Gameplay does".
Since when is 720p a horrible low res? I play most of my pc games at 720p with all options on to eliminate stuttering framerates.
Since there is one hell of confusion about it, Miyazaki was obviously referring to the gameís assets when he was talking about the resolution. Sure, Dark Souls PC might not support all kinds of aspect ratios, but youíll be a fool to think that it will be simply locked to a 1280◊720 resolution. No, it will have a nice choice of resolutions, thatís for sure. The game even uses GFWL which means that it HAS to support resolutions up to 1080p. Common sense is common sense. However, the gameís textures will remain the same (aka, same resolution as the console versions, which translates to no HD textures).
Each version runs at a native 1024x720, with v-sync engaged. The decision to decrease the resolution from Demon's Souls' 1280x720 is more than made up for by the additional coat of 2x multi-sample anti-aliasing (MSAA) lavished upon the overall image.
I can't get to the online petition that was used? Did it say "Bring Dark Souls to PC" or "Bring Dark Souls with advanced graphics options to PC"?
Essentially the game is awesome, and looked awesome at its sub HD resolution. They have simply answered the call to give the game to a platform that wasn't budgeted to have the game. Maybe naively assuming that it was a population of people who just wanted to play it, not those who wanted to turn the sliders to maximum.
So... It can be played like this? Though admittedly the shots are carefully selected for effect, I am sourcing parts for a PC and would replay FO3 in a shot if The Wasteland looked this good.