CountChocula Comments

Page 1 of 2

  • Orbis unmasked: what to expect from the next-gen PlayStation

  • CountChocula 20/01/2013

    @roargrumble can you point to some benchmarks showing a stock 470 is faster than a stock 7970m?

    Everything I've seen indicates the 7970m is a faster card.

    It's not as fast as the 7970 desktop card, but it is faster than 99% of the desktop cards on the market.

    At stock clocks the 7970m falls roughly in between the 570 and the 470 in terms of avg 3DMark scores. Individual game performance can vary a lot, but the 7970m is way more than enough to handle 2012 games at 1080p. I expect most of the next gen games will likely run at 30fps.

    http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
    Reply +1
  • CountChocula 20/01/2013

    @Turok3000
    president of Sony assured that ps3 would run everything at 1080p 60fps
    Wow, Sony really made that claim when they launched the PS3?

    That's pretty sad, out of hundreds of games only a couple of puzzle and sports games can run at 1920x1080, and I don't even know of any that run at 60fps. 99.9% of PS3 games run at 1280x720 30fps.

    My guess is that most next gen games will run at 1920x1080, 30fps, which is still a significant step forward, your games will look great at 1080p on a good 1080p display, especially with higher res textures.

    But who knows, maybe Sony will use Gaikai to stream games that are rendered remotely on a server. If your Internet connection is fast enough, perhaps you can get 4k in a few years.
    Reply 0
  • CountChocula 19/01/2013

    @roargrumble
    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.
    If you find the 7970m laughable for a next gen console, what the hell kind of card were you expecting? Dual 680s in SLI? They are going to sell this console for $499 or $599, not $2,000. And a mobile card makes sense because the case will be rather small form factor.

    Personally I think it is even too optimistic to expect a 7970m. My guess is that the GPU they ship in the PS4 will be weaker than the 7970m, although it will gain a bit of a boost from the asymmetrical crossfire configuration with the integrated graphics.

    I don't believe this generation shift is transitioning from running games at 30fps, 1280x720, 2xAA, 0xAF, DX9, low texture resolution to suddenly running games at 4k resolution. I imagine most games will run at 30fps, 1920x1080, DX11, higher res textures, with slightly better AA and AF. You can already do this with a relatively inexpensive mid-range laptop, even the GT3 Haswell integrated graphics will run games at 1080p.

    It's still going to be a significant improvement for people used to playing games on previous gen consoles at 720p because 1080p looks a hell of a lot better on a 1080p display. And the idTech5 games will run at 60fps.

    As for your comparison with the desktop 470, perhaps you can overclock your desktop card higher, although laptop users can still overclock the 7970m quite a bit as well. No idea about BF3, performance certainly varies with individual games according to the drivers, and I know there were some driver problems related to Enduro last year.

    At any rate, at stock clocks the 7970m is significantly faster than the desktop 470 card, and faster than 99.9% of the desktop graphics cards on the market.


    More info here: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html
    Reply +4
  • CountChocula 19/01/2013

    @ATARI
    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.
    You make some great points, but I think even if the next gen consoles may not handle 100% of the UE4 bells and whistles at launch, there are other next gen engines, like idTech5.

    Also, I feel strongly that going from 1280x720 with low res textures, 2xAA, 0xAF to 1920x1080 with DX11, 8xAA, 16xAF, high res textures, HDAO, DoF, etc., is already a huge change. We are talking about doubling the amount of rendered pixels per frame (720p is 921,600 pixels and 1080p is more than 2 million pixels) and adding a lot of great new graphics features and better textures. DOOM4 is going to look gorgeous and it will run at 1080p 60fps on next gen consoles.

    I had a similar experience when I upgraded my old laptop which ran games at 720p on low settings to a new laptop that runs everything at 1080p on higher settings. I went back and tried some of the same games and it was like a whole new world, it really blows you away to see a FullHD rendered game with good textures on a 1080p HDTV for the first time. This is still a big step up, even if there are some high end PCs with better specs.

    Although graphics are what sells as nice visuals are always much easier to use in marketing campaigns, personally I'm not quite so excited about advances in graphics capability as much as the fact that the consoles will have more RAM and faster CPUs. This might permit multiplatform PC games to incorporate more complex and dynamic open world game systems, etc., and better optimization for multicore processors.

    For example, we can already scale up the resolution for a current gen PC port or multiplatform title, use DX11, high quality shadows, anisotropic filtering, high res texture packs, etc.

    But there is no way to "scale up" better A.I., larger, more interactive and complex game world, more actors onscreen, more persistent data, etc. These are fundamental game design choices baked into the engine, severely restricted by the CPU and amount of memory of current console hardware (only 256MB RAM in the case of PS3!). UE4's dynamic lighting is pretty, but I'm hoping we will begin to see more ambitious strategy games, better A.I., more complex open world sandbox games with dynamic events and lots of persistent data, etc.
    Reply +15
  • CountChocula 19/01/2013

    @ATARI
    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.
    Of course they are going to showcase their demos on high end systems, but that doesn't mean the engine will instantly become unplayable every graphics card below the Nvidia 680. That would be a ridiculous business strategy. There will always be a lot of scalable options for any game engine.

    Steam has an installed base of 60 million PC gamers, how many of them do you think are using Nvidia 680, 690, AMD 7990 or even the laptop card 7970m? Those are top of the line flagship graphics cards.

    Most PC gamers out there are using much weaker cards than the 7970m, and most will still be able to play Unreal Engine 4 games. Some might need to dial down the anti aliasing or dynamic lighting settings, etc., but publishers still need to sell games to these folks, as well as next gen console users.
    Reply +6
  • CountChocula 19/01/2013

    @Josh128
    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.
    My understanding is they went with AMD because they intend to utilize asymmetrical crossfire with the integrated graphics and whichever AMD card they end up using in the system.
    Reply +2
  • CountChocula 18/01/2013

    @jetsetwillie
    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.
    You were really expecting the specs to be faster than PCs? You want to pay $2000 for your PS4?

    Previous rumors suggested the PS4 would use a much weaker graphics card, the AMD 7670.

    http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/4/2925457/ps4-specs-rumor-amd-a8-3850-cpu-radeon-hd-7670-gpu

    If it turns out to use the 7970m, you should be glad, not disappointed. I think the 7970m might actually be too expensive for them to include it. I would imagine they will try to go with MSRP around $599 or less at launch. This means they are not going to incorporate the top of the line graphics cards.
    Reply +7
  • CountChocula 18/01/2013

    @themerlin13
    Whats even more hilarious is that insider claims are ps4 can't handle 4K ????
    running games at 4k resolution (3840 ◊ 2160, 8.3 million pixels per frame), with no anisotropic filtering, 2xAA, low res textures, low quality shadows and lighting would require at least 8 times more powerful hardware than current gen consoles, which can only run most games at 1280x720 resolution (921,600 pixels per frame) with 2xAA, 0xAF, low res textures, etc.

    If you add 16xMSAA, 16xAF, high res textures, high quality dynamic lighting and shadows, etc., you are talking about a machine that would need to be 15-20x more powerful in order to run games at 4k resolution.

    Desktop PCs that can run 2012 games at 4k resolution require multiple high end graphics cards in SLI/Crossfire configuration.
    Reply +20
  • CountChocula 18/01/2013

    @zwanzig2
    shitty mobile GPU wich by the way isn't even the best one.
    The 7970m is currently the fastest mobile graphics card on the market. It is also faster than most desktop graphics cards.

    I would be extremely surprised if it is actually included in the PS4, as it is a rather expensive card. Previous rumors suggested the PS4 would use a much weaker graphics card in hybrid crossfire with the APU.
    Reply +4
  • CountChocula 18/01/2013

    @roargrumble
    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.
    The 7970m is more powerful than 99.9% of desktop graphics cards. Unless we get some sort of confirmation about this rumor, I'm still doubtful the Orbis would include it.
    Reply +5
  • CountChocula 18/01/2013

    @mr2ange
    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.
    I don't follow, can you explain a bit more? I don't see where you are drawing a distinction between a "chip" and a "card." The 7970m consists of a small circuit board.

    There is no fan or heatsink like the enclosure when you buy a desktop graphics card. Mobile graphics cards look like this: http://www.notebookcheck.net/typo3temp/pics/ecbc5ef75e.jpg

    The fan and heatsink are added by the laptop manufacturer.
    Reply -1
  • CountChocula 18/01/2013

    How legit is this 7970m rumor? If true it suggests the launch price of the PS4 would be crazy high.

    When language like "We've previously suggested that AMD's mobile "Pitcairn" design - the Radeon 7970M - could be a strong basis," is Richard Leadbetter merely stating he thinks it would be cool if the Orbis included a 7970m? Or is he reporting some legit info leaked from a source familiar with the hardware?
    Reply +7
  • Ragnar Tornquist on The Secret World's "turbulent couple of weeks", and the future

  • CountChocula 05/09/2012

    @Headless_Monkey_Boy
    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.
    I played two different Beta weekends, and really enjoyed The Secret world.

    The puzzles were so much fun and damn challenging to solve, even with a group of people working together, researching old poems and Bible passages, etc. Didn't care at all about trying to level up my character. I simply enjoyed completing the quests, solving the mysteries and learning about the backstory from interesting NPCs.

    There were some minor bugs that made a couple of quests impossible, but other than that I really enjoyed all the quests, the combat, the crafting, the lore, the Lovecraft and Poe mashup with some DaVinci Code conspiracy theories, etc.

    However, there is simply no way in a million years that I would ever pay a monthly fee for any game. Perhaps I'm stuck with a singleplayer mentality, but I just cannot bear to fork over a subscription for a game. Maybe they need to go F2P or Buy-To-Play in order to attract folks like me?

    Did a free beta weekend of TOR and found the cinematic cut scene stories interesting, but the environments and the game world outside of the cutscenes was a big turnoff. It was incredibly silly and fake the way creatures and enemy NPCs would simply stand around waiting for the next player to approach, like actors in a Haunted House maze waiting for their next customer, and the quests were rather boring.

    Tried WoW for a day and found it even worse than TOR in this regard. I suppose MMO worlds simply ring false compared with a single player RPG like Skyrim, where creatures and NPC actors have some sort of half believable life or ecology beside standing around waiting for a player to appear so they can "grind".
    Reply 0
  • Skyrim's Hearthfire DLC weighs just 75MB, out now

  • CountChocula 04/09/2012

    @dudefella
    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.
    Completely agree, Hearthfire simply expands on the gameplay systems with new scripts, etc, it doesn't add new lands with new textures.
    Reply +2
  • Bethesda struggling with Dawnguard on PS3: "This is not a problem we're positive we can solve"

  • CountChocula 01/09/2012

    @HotCoffee
    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.
    @Kaminari

    "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.
    Fortunately the PS4 will have more than 256MB RAM, which bodes well for better performance in big open world sandbox RPGs with lots of persistent data.

    @Golgo
    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?!?!?!
    Arkane Studios, Bethesda Game Studios and Bethesda Softworks are all part of the same company, but the team that developed Skyrim (Bethesda Game Studios) did not work on Dishonored. Bethesda Softworks is the publishing division.

    Also, Dishonored is not a big open world sandbox RPG with so much persistent data. It's a much smaller game world with hub and spoke missions, so it won't have the same kinds of issues working with 256MB RAM.

    @BorkWork
    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.
    Thanks, that is a great explanation of the issue.
    Reply 0
  • Survival horror I Am Alive announced for PC next month

  • CountChocula 24/08/2012

    Looks like fun, hope it will be available on Steam (and doesn't use any secondary DRM like GFWL)

    @Triggerhappytel
    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.
    Studies show 93% to 95% of pirates would buy this game if only it were free to play.
    Reply +1
  • Star Trek Online nude patch accidentally outed by virtual peeping tom

  • CountChocula 21/08/2012

    Female players? or Female player characters?

    This person really designed a mod that takes over people's webcams and there are really that many people who happen to play Star Trek Online in the nude?

    Or his mod makes copies of the player character models?
    Reply +1
  • Full Steam Ahead: How Valve's Platform Just Gets Hotter

  • CountChocula 21/08/2012

    @Andytizer
    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 already how I play most of the time.

    However, it's pretty damn hard to read anything in the Steam chat window.
    Reply 0
  • Sega: Sonic and Sega All-Stars Racing Transformed Wii U graphics on-par with PlayStation 3 version, "maybe even better"

  • CountChocula 18/08/2012

    @inutaihanyou
    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.
    I believe you are misinformed here, inutai. Here is a list of the resolutions for most console games on Xbox and PS3: http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241

    The PS3 can only run a couple of games at 1080p, like Virtua Tennis, etc.

    @DrStrangelove

    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).
    According to Eurogamer, Wii-U will render games at 1080p, which is the main draw for this console (I don't think anybody cares about the gimmicky controller): http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2012-06-05-nintendo-wii-u-supports-1080p-cpu-and-gpu-revealed

    @NeoTechni
    its not the first. Ps3 was
    Yes, but only on a couple of boring sports games.

    @Kostas
    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.
    Perhaps you misunderstood my comment. I was very surprised to hear that the graphics are "maybe" even better. From the previous information reported by Eurogamer they should be much, much better. If they are looking the same as PS3 which is already at the end of its life cycle, then what is the point of buying a Wii-U?

    For anyone who is accustomed to playing games at 1920x1080 on PC with AF, AA, high res textures, etc., games look really bad if you drop down to 1280x720 resolution with 2xAA, no AF, no AO, low res textures, low quality shadows, etc., which is how most games look on PS3 or Xbox360.

    Having read Eurogamer's previous article, I was expecting that the Wii-U would at least render games at 1920x1080, hopefully with a little bit higher AA and possibly AF and higher res textures.

    EDIT: It seems there is a rumor that some Wii-U games using hardware resources to render additional 480p graphics on the padlet controller will not be able to render on the primary display at 1080p.

    http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?p=36144655#post36144655

    I think it would be a shame to sacrifice 1080p resolution for a gimmick.
    Reply 0
  • CountChocula 16/08/2012

    "maybe even better"? What the heck? I thought the Wii-U was supposed to be leaps and bounds ahead of PS3 and Xbox360 because it is the first console that renders games at 1920x1080 Reply +12
  • Sony Gamescom Conference

  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    i hope Fallout 4 will have better combat animations than new vegas Reply 0
  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    was considering getting a PS3 just for Last of Us and Journey but it's going to be obsolete in a year so what's the point Reply 0
  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    @albo it seems sony spends more on a larger number of exclusives and MS spends more on co-op advertising deals for timed window exclusives instead Reply 0
  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    @enfilade i guess they worry more about piracy in the US Reply 0
  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    @enfilade US retailers stock new games on tuesdays, Euro retailers do it on Fridays Reply 0
  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    **cough** twilight cough Reply 0
  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    will there be hip hop dancing in hogwarts with the PS Move? Reply 0
  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    1GB? that's barely enough to keep my saves from half a playthrough of Skyrim Reply 0
  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    Winter is Coming, PS Vita! Reply 0
  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    his accent reminds me of the Starks in Game of Thrones Reply 0
  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    @nick-h @X201 didn't you know Kwanzaa and Festivus are also really big days for game sales Reply 0
  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    this playstation mobile thing seems to be promoting their primary competition (tablets and smartphones) Reply 0
  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    if he says you can play it seamlessly on your tablet or smartphone, why do you need the vita? Reply 0
  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    for those of you who bought one, are the vita games really that much better than android/ios tablet games? Reply 0
  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    @supermeatboy3D looks like a fun game but not worth spending $200 to buy the Vita Reply 0
  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    i bet he drinks PBR Reply 0
  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    his tshirt is an optical illusion Reply 0
  • CountChocula 14/08/2012

    This seems pathetic, PS Vita is already dead. Reply 0
  • Dark Souls PC Preview: The Devil's Bargain

  • CountChocula 11/08/2012

    @vizzini
    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.
    To make sure I understand, vizzini, you believe this was likely not a PC compiled version of the game, but a sort of emulation wrapper for the 360 hardware? Has there ever been a PC port like this in the past? It would seem to involve some sort of special license from the console manufacturer to ship an emulator, no?

    Also, are you certain the PS3 version renders at 1280x720? Beyond3D is reporting that both the Xbox and PS3 versions render at 1024x720:

    http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=46241
    Reply -2
  • CountChocula 10/08/2012

    @PlugMonkey
    if you miss out on this game because of the resolution, you're an idiot.

    Look it up.
    No, I would be an idiot if I wasted money on a game that is not compatible with my monitor.

    The game was brilliant at 15fps 720p on console, it will be brilliant at 30fps 720p on PC.
    Surprisingly, it will not even be rendered at 720p, which is 1280x720. Look it up.
    Reply +2
  • CountChocula 10/08/2012

    @PlugMonkey
    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.
    You need to do more research on the correct meaning of the words "entitled" and "idiot."

    You might be considered entitled if you expect the world to hand you a free lunch, or demand that a game publisher change a game in some way.

    I'm not on welfare and I don't expect handouts or free lunches. Namco is entirely free to do whatever they like with this project as far as I'm concerned, just as I'm happy to save the $40 and buy a different game.

    There is a reason every other game out there, including every single PC port, allows you to adjust the resolution to fit your monitor.

    Unfortunately, we're not living in the 1990s and this is not Wolfenstein 3-D or some 8-bit NES game, we're talking about a 2011 AAA title. I'm willing to overlook a lack of standard graphics features like AA, AF, AO, etc., but locking the resolution is unprecedented and a ridiculously bad decision. Have you ever played a game at 1024x720 stretched out on a 1920x1080 LCD monitor? It looks like dog crap.

    Of course I'm not going to buy it on the grounds of this fixed resolution. I don't own a 1024x720 display and haven't even seen anything like that for sale for the past decade. I'd be interested to know who is the target market for this game, people with antique CRT monitors?

    If you listen carefully, you will hear the sound of Steam pre-orders being cancelled around the world today.
    Reply +4
  • CountChocula 10/08/2012

    @DogTheBountyHunter
    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.

    Nice try - 0/10

    It's not about "improving" the game, it's about the bare bones basic and essential feature of simply being able to adjust the resolution to match your monitor.

    Every other PC port in the past ten years allows you to adjust the resolution. This is the first time I've ever heard of any game locked at 1024x720, which is even a step down from the game's console resolution.

    Some exec at Namco made a rather bad decision and as a result, many consumers will make a decision not to spend their own money on a game that is not compatible with their native display.

    So we are "childish entitled idiots" because we choose not to buy something we are not interested in? Does that mean mature, smart people waste money on products they don't want?
    Reply +2
  • CountChocula 10/08/2012

    @TelexStar
    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.
    We complain because we're having trouble understanding the bizarre decision to lock the resolution. We already knew the game was going to have GFWL, and lack a lot of bells and whistles of most PC ports, but this locked resolution thing is completely out of left field. Who knows, perhaps if enough people complain, Namco Bandai might decide to patch the game to allow adjustable resolution.

    And it is actually Namco that paid for this port, not From Software. They are a very large, high profile publisher, with annual revenues in the range of $4.7 billion during 2011.
    Reply +1
  • CountChocula 10/08/2012

    @TelexStar
    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?
    Can you name a single other game from the past decade that was locked at 1024x720 resolution?

    I'm completely willing to overlook annoying GFWL, poor optimization, low frame rates, low res textures, lack of AA, AF, AO, etc., but who locks a game at 1024x720?

    This is not the 1980s and very few people gaming on PC have a monitor with native 1024x720 resolution. Since they locked it, there is no way to adjust the settings to match our native monitor res, and no way to reduce the resolution to get better performance, etc.

    This is not elitism, it's simply a fundamental and very essential feature of every PC game I've ever heard of that you can adjust the resolution to match your display.
    Reply +2
  • CountChocula 10/08/2012

    @BartsBlue
    @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.
    You can already choose to render any game at whatever resolution you like. If Witcher 2 doesn't run well on my PC and I want to render it at a lower resolution, such as 1280x720, I can choose that setting, and the game will be stretched to fit my 1920x1080 display. Or I can choose to render it at 1600x900, 1920x1080, etc. Adjustable display resolution is a very basic and essential feature of every PC game released in the past 15 years.

    In the case of Dark Souls, the game is locked at 1024x720 resolution. Apparently there are some phony settings you can choose that do absolutely nothing as the game will always be rendered at 1024x720. What is the point of bothering to add resolution settings that don't do anything? Are they trying to trick us with these false settings?

    I certainly wouldn't call 2XAA "generous," but I don't even care about that, I just want a game that is compatible with my monitor. When you render at 1024x720 and the image is stretched to fit a modern LCD monitor, the result looks horrible, worse than on a native low resolution monitor.

    Locking the game at 1024x720 resolution also means you cannot scale down in the event the framerate is too low. So if you find your PC is not able to run the game well, you cannot even drop to a lower resolution.
    Reply +1
  • CountChocula 10/08/2012

    @BartsBlue
    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.
    I can only speak for myself, but I don't care about showing off with graphics upgrades. And I'm no elitist, certainly I harbor no ill will toward anyone who plays games on a console.

    Fancy graphics enhancements would be nice, but I just want a game that's compatible with my PC and monitor. If it's locked at 1024x720 (which is lower than the console version's resolution), and then stretched to fit a 1080p LCD display, that is simply ridiculous.

    I'm not aware of any other PC port ever made that forces you to use a specific resolution like that. What were they thinking? They wasted a lot of time and money making something very few people will buy.
    Reply +4
  • CountChocula 10/08/2012

    @chrismikehunt
    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".
    I've played plenty of super low budget indie games and never once come across anything that was locked to 1024x720 resolution.

    There's pretty graphics and then there's doing at least the bare minimum to make your game compatible with PCs and PC monitors (which are not 1024x720 for the most part).
    Reply +4
  • CountChocula 10/08/2012

    @darkmorgado
    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.
    It's not even 720p. That would be 1280x720. If you have an older monitor and very weak graphics card, maybe 1024x720 is great for you and you won't even notice the difference. Then again, reportedly the frame rate is very low at 1024x720 even for faster PCs, so maybe you won't even be able to run it at that very low resolution on your PC. For those of us who run most games at 1600x900, 1920x1080 or higher it's extremely odd that the game is arbitrarily locked to 1024x720 and if your monitor is LCD, stretched resolutions look pretty bad, worse than a native low res monitor.

    I've never heard of any other PC game in the past decade that locked to a specific resolution like that, and this flies in the face of a previous statement claiming "The game uses GFWL so it HAS to support resolutions up to 1080p." By "support" do they mean it has some phony make believe settings to make people think they are playing at 1080p when the game is actually rendered at 1024x720? http://www.dsogaming.com/news/namco-and-from-software-in-an-attempt-to-kill-their-own-game-dark-souls-pc-to-be-locked-on-30fps/

    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).
    If Thomas Morgan at Eurogamer is correct, then John Papadopolous at DSOgaming turned out to be completely wrong on this. It's not that the textures are low res, in an unprecedented show of poor decision-making on the part of a game publisher, the game is actually locked to 1024x720.

    If I wanted to play games at such a low resolution, I'd simply buy an Xbox. In fact, according to @vizzini below, the game runs at a higher resolution on Xbox!

    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.
    Oh I see, beautiful, it will run at a lower resolution than the console version, but as a consolation we get 2XAA - genius move, Namco Bandai! This porting project was a complete waste of resources.
    Reply +2
  • CountChocula 09/08/2012

    @Widge

    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.
    Whatever it was called, I'm pretty sure it wasn't "Bring Dark Souls to PC at 1024x720 Resolution" - seriously, what's the point of playing on PC at such a horrible low res? Has there ever been any PC game in the past 10-15 years that was locked at a specific resolution?

    Who cares about max settings, DX11 or high res textures, I just want to play the game on my monitor that is not from the 1980s. What is even the point of the fake resolution setting? You can already choose to run any game at 1024x720 and it will always scale to your display. Are they trying to trick us by adding some resolution settings that don't do anything? Thank god I didn't pre-order.

    Some executive made a really bad decision to lock this game at 1024x720 and as a result this port is going to be unprofitable for the publisher.
    Reply +5
  • Astounding modded Fallout 3 screenshots look shockingly ahead of the curve

  • CountChocula 10/08/2012

    @barchetta
    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.
    Yes, he provided a list of the mods he's using and the settings on flickr:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/83889674@N02/7729260890/in/set-72157630926518440/

    http://enbdev.com/enbseries/forum/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=924&sid=00be714f8f25c0ca5fc4dafbe1647796

    - ENB FNV .116 Beta http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/downloads/file.php?id=11930
    - NMC Texture Pack http://fallout3.nexusmods.com/mods/12056/
    - Project Beauty HD http://fallout3.nexusmods.com/mods/6341/
    - Fallout 3 Retextured http://fallout3.nexusmods.com/mods/12132
    - FalloutPrefs.ini settings: http://pastebin.com/auVdn7bR
    - Fallout.ini settings: pastebin.com/JCsEW1u6
    Reply +8