Dark Souls + Demon's Souls + Bloodborne Megathread VIII. At The End - Games

[QUOTE=BuDSpOoNce;49875792]i am fine with 30fps. it was fine in bloodborne and it'll be fine it ds3. 60fps is obviously superior but 30fps is not hurting the game for me. i'll only be slightly disappointed. what i'm worried about is that others won't think the same, and it will hurt the goty status ds3 deserves.[/QUOTE] It won't deserve GOTY status if it's locked at 30 on PC. Reviewers are going to tear it a new one. Dark Souls 1 was a disastrously bad port, and we all hope FromSoft learned from it.

60 FPS would be nice, but I wouldn't call it a dealbreaker if it was locked to 30. The game will survive perfectly fine without it. Bloodborne was locked to 30 frames and it still won GOTY from many big name reviewers.

[QUOTE=Nidhogg;49875929]60 FPS would be nice, but I wouldn't call it a dealbreaker if it was locked to 30. The game will survive perfectly fine without it. Bloodborne was locked to 30 frames and it still won GOTY from many big name reviewers.[/QUOTE] Bloodborne was a console exclusive. 30FPS just doesn't fly on PC. Like you said, the game will survive without it - but don't expect it to win any awards unless just the console versions are considered. [editline]5th March 2016[/editline] I'm not saying 30FPS suddenly makes it a bad game. I'm saying locking it to 30FPS on PC is unacceptable, especially when they've had since Bloodborne to get the damn thing right. Hell, since DS1.

they could do the halo pc thing where they unlock the framerate for camera movement but leave animations and physics running at 30fps, leaving the game a bit of a clusterfuck if you look at it too close

[QUOTE=Itszutak;49875979]they could do the halo pc thing where they unlock the framerate for camera movement but leave animations and physics running at 30fps, leaving the game a bit of a clusterfuck if you look at it too close[/QUOTE] Gross. That would just look awful. Besides, the draw of 60FPS is smoother anims and better physics. I realize I sound like an asshole elitist, but I'm just sick and tired of PC ports being subpar garbage because consoles can't handle a decent framerate. That's like denying a man a T-bone steak because a baby can't chew it. [editline]5th March 2016[/editline] Actually, I take that back. Physics in 30FPS would be fine, so long as the animations were in 60FPS - In Dark Souls 1, taking the framerate on the PC port up to 60 had very smooth animations without disrupting the game's physics. And a lower physics FPS is actually something a lot of games do to make the netcode interaction better.

60fps is what pushes a game from great to perfect. MGSV, Arkham Knight(after the patches), and The Witcher 3 were all improved by managing to run above 30fps, it didn't change the games but it made them feel so much better. Of course even though they're all incredibly great games and what made 2015 the best year for gaming IMO, Bloodborne is the only game I kept coming back to and playing throughout the year. Even after just clearing for the 5th time and deciding to take a break so I don't get sick of it, I can't help but want to play through it again

30fps also blows when you know your computer can easily handle a stable 60fps or higher and has done so on many games and then you gotta cut that in half. It's a pretty big change and me swapping between PC and consoles to play with friends is always pretty jarring.

so how confirmed is this "30fps on pc" i'm still seeing mixed information

Let's take a moment to talk non-story-related nuances of Dark Souls 3 gameplay. I'll put tags on it anyway, just in case someone's somehow shocked by the existence of basic gameplay elements that were in both previous titles. This discussion is mostly for people who have seen both the recent game start reveal that was uploaded about a week ago, and have also seen footage of the network stress test. [sp]Basically, medium shield parries. We saw on the network test that rather than playing a parry animation, the Kite shield of the knight class had triggered the right hand weapon's weapon art stance when the player hit L2. Many of us took this to mean at the time that medium shields were no longer going to be able to parry. Personally, I was very upset about this, as parrying with medium shields had been my thing in both Souls titles, and I preferred the challenge of the smaller parry window and the stylistic value of medium shields.[/sp] But in the recent gameplay reveal event where prominent YouTubers and Twitch streamers known for their Dark Souls content were invited to record footage of the first three hours of gameplay in the game itself, [sp]We saw the same Knight class with the same kite shield - only now this shield was able to parry. I take this to mean one of two things. 1 - That the devs changed that shield in particular to make parries possible Or - and I hope this second one is true - 2 - That there is either an NPC service or option menu setting that lets you choose whether L2 parries or goes straight to the weapon art.[/sp] What do you guys think?

tried playing ds1 again, since it's been a long fucking time and we're talking about 30fps caps. I really fucking hope ds3 gets 60fps. It makes a huge difference to my ability to respond to things in time. Aside from that, WOW is ds1's control simply amazing. I miss lightrolling and I could write paragraphs about the differences in enemy behavior and encounter rate in the church climb alone. I also miss the shaders that ds1 had. It had a much more visceral feeling to it, even if some of the assets were lower resolution. Everything's sharp and reflections contrast greatly with their environments, and the whole look is fantastic. I mean, look at the SHINE on this shield. It's beautiful. [t]http://puu.sh/nwx4u.jpg[/t]

[QUOTE=Itszutak;49876764]tried playing ds1 again, since it's been a long fucking time and we're talking about 30fps caps. I really fucking hope ds3 gets 60fps. It makes a huge difference to my ability to respond to things in time. Aside from that, WOW is ds1's control simply amazing. I miss lightrolling and I could write paragraphs about the differences in enemy behavior and encounter rate in the church climb alone. I also miss the shaders that ds1 had. It had a much more visceral feeling to it, even if some of the assets were lower resolution. Everything's sharp and reflections contrast greatly with their environments, and the whole look is fantastic. I mean, look at the SHINE on this shield. It's beautiful. [t]http://puu.sh/nwx4u.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] I've always maintained that Dark Souls 1 looked better by far than Dark Souls 2, shader-wise. Dark Souls 2 had slightly better textures overall - but that's all it had. It looked like ass.

My current Bloodborne character is built around the gatling gun. Getting said gatling gun at level 23 was a nightmare. [sp]get it? nightmare?[/sp] He's this ripped old dude who beats people to death with a severed arm. [img]http://puu.sh/nwxQV/fd7f97ac89.jpg[/img] His hair is a really light grey, for some reason uploading the screenshot from my ps4 darkened the picture

[QUOTE=BuDSpOoNce;49875812]because it is clearly goty[/QUOTE] Can't tell how serious this is [editline]6th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=BuDSpOoNce;49876677]so how confirmed is this "30fps on pc" i'm still seeing mixed information[/QUOTE] According to an earlier build it's 30, doubt it's going to change.

The fact that people are saying "30 fps is fine, I'll buy it" is exactly what's wrong with the industry right now. 30 FPS is [B][I][U]NOT[/U][/I][/B] fine on PC. It generally makes your game look cheap, handle terribly (again, [I]especially[/I] in reflex-heavy games. Y'know, like the ones this thread is explicitly about.), and there's ultimately no reason for it. They've had Dark Souls 1, Dark Souls 2, and Scholar Of The First Sin to work this shit out, and it's absolutely unacceptable in the year 2016 for a game to be locked at 30 FPS. That's the kind of shit that makes a 10/10 game an 8/10, for me. It's artificial. It's asinine. It's bullshit. Objectively a trash decision.

no it's fine though, shutup

[video=youtube;00g2ZbI3ung]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00g2ZbI3ung[/video]

While I do think 60fps feels great, I also accept that if Dark Souls 3 is locked to 30 fps since they've based most of their games on consoles before, and they want to play safe with this final dark souls game. I mean, you can see their game engine is based on 30fps, and unlocking the fps will cause all kinds of problems in the game. It is not that easy to fix these problems, not to mention they'll have to make it work on PC, where they might encounter even more problems. Therefore, while I wish that the final PC build will have 60fps, I am also fine with 30fps as long as the game is great.

[QUOTE=kyle877;49876962]The fact that people are saying "30 fps is fine, I'll buy it" is exactly what's wrong with the industry right now. 30 FPS is [B][I][U]NOT[/U][/I][/B] fine on PC. It generally makes your game look cheap, handle terribly (again, [I]especially[/I] in reflex-heavy games. Y'know, like the ones this thread is explicitly about.), and there's ultimately no reason for it. They've had Dark Souls 1, Dark Souls 2, and Scholar Of The First Sin to work this shit out, and it's absolutely unacceptable in the year 2016 for a game to be locked at 30 FPS. That's the kind of shit that makes a 10/10 game an 8/10, for me. It's artificial. It's asinine. It's bullshit. Objectively a trash decision.[/QUOTE] PC sales are a fraction of the market and the games locked to 30 fps nowadays are a fraction of their market, you are being hyperbolic by saying that the people who enjoyed two 30fps games and look forward to the third are what is wrong with the industry. No one said it wasn't artificial, asinine, or objectively better, just that it won't dissuade them from playing the game.

[QUOTE=BuDSpOoNce;49876677]so how confirmed is this "30fps on pc" i'm still seeing mixed information[/QUOTE] Nothing's confirmed yet.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;49877123]PC sales are a fraction of the market and the games locked to 30 fps nowadays are a fraction of their market, you are being hyperbolic by saying that the people who enjoyed two 30fps games and look forward to the third are what is wrong with the industry. No one said it wasn't artificial, asinine, or objectively better, just that it won't dissuade them from playing the game.[/QUOTE] It's the fact that people keep looking at ports that are less than acceptable and go "that's fine" or "Well we better support it or we won't get it" that drives me nuts. I could not care less if PC sales are a fraction of the market. If it's going to be ported to a platform then it needs to be a proper fucking port. Also the gamelogic being tied to the framerate is something that people have complained about since the Dark Souls 1 port. That was in 2012. They've had years to work that out. It's not like this is a sudden thing cropping up, so there's absolutely no need to excuse that. I played the shit out of each game on the console release, from Demon's Souls to Bloodborne, all while dealing with a rather poopy framerate and the problems that it presented with the controls. Now that they've started consistently releasing their games on PC they need to take it seriously and not just half-arse it. DS2 being able to run at 60 FPS native was a step in the right direction, but it brought up the whole durability bug that persisted for ages (due to the engine logic being tied to the framerate), only getting fixed (if I recall) with the release of SOTFS. Now if DS3 releases locked at 30 FPS, that (to me) is crippling the game for no reason other than "We want to keep using delta time." I'm not saying it'll make the game downright terrible, but it's an absolutely terrible decision that we, as consumers, should not be encouraging from From Soft, or other developers.

So, more DS3 story speculation (Spoilers, obv) [sp]Watching Vaati's videos on the first three hours of Dark Souls 3, the state of Lordran in general, and seeming contradictions within the timeline has brought to my mind an inkling, a possibility, wild theorycrafting, if you will, to explain these contradictions. And if true, it's crazy. Miyazaki has said that Dark Souls 3 is at the end of the series' timeline - That both Dark Souls 1 and 2 occurred before it. If that's true, then only one possibility for Dark Souls 2 exists - that its events took place tens or hundreds of thousands of years before those of Dark Souls 1. And here's how that may be possible. Entropy - decay, heat death, a return to dust - is a central theme in all of the Souls games. Dark Souls 3 opens on the land of Lordran in a state of rapid decay. The fire must be linked again, but this time something is different. The world is ashen, in a deeper state of desolation than we've ever seen it before. Four lords of Cinder, powerful beings who have linked the flame in the past, have risen from their graves and must do so again. The fifth throne in Firelink Shrine is meant for the Champion of Ash, the 'Unkindled'. I believe that name is very important. These Lords have abandoned their thrones, fled from their duty. And I believe I may know why. Reflect on the fact that Gwyn, the Witch of Izalith, Nito, and the Pygmy found the lord souls within the flames when the world was 'formless, shrouded in fog, a land of grey crags, archtrees, and everlasting dragons'. What if the world wasn't always this way? There are four Lord Souls. There are four Lords of Cinder - beings of immense power who have already linked the fire, and are now risen again from Ash. Why did they flee? Because their fate is one darker than those who came before. Theirs is not to link the fire and cure the undead curse, for a time. Theirs is to kindle the Unkindled, the Champion of Ash, and together with him or her, fuel a fire that will consume the world itself, returning all to formless ash and fog. Their souls, powerful and ancient, will return to the flame. From this fertile ash shall Archtrees grow once again, and the Everlasting dragons will appear once more. And when the inferno they create is almost burnt out, when the fire is waning again, the souls of the Lords of Cinder will be found again in the flame, new Lords will arise, challenge the dragons, and the world of men will be born anew. Your task as the Champion of Ash is to unwittingly bring together the Lords of Cinder, peacefully or by force, and to bring the world to ruin - You will be the source of the next First Flame, and they will be your fuel.[/sp] This is all wild speculation, of course. And I don't doubt there's much that the community can come up with that contradicts it. But... what if? [sp] That or, you know, Miyazaki just decided Souls 2 was no longer canon. [/sp]

[QUOTE=archangel125;49877204] [sp] That or, you know, Miyazaki just decided Souls 2 was no longer canon. [/sp][/QUOTE] How sad, eh?

[QUOTE=EliaMoroes;49877217]How sad, eh?[/QUOTE] That would be, aye. [editline]6th March 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=kyle877;49877162]It's the fact that people keep looking at ports that are less than acceptable and go "that's fine" or "Well we better support it or we won't get it" that drives me nuts. I could not care less if PC sales are a fraction of the market. If it's going to be ported to a platform then it needs to be a proper fucking port. Also the gamelogic being tied to the framerate is something that people have complained about since the Dark Souls 1 port. That was in 2012. They've had years to work that out. It's not like this is a sudden thing cropping up, so there's absolutely no need to excuse that. I played the shit out of each game on the console release, from Demon's Souls to Bloodborne, all while dealing with a rather poopy framerate and the problems that it presented with the controls. Now that they've started consistently releasing their games on PC they need to take it seriously and not just half-arse it. DS2 being able to run at 60 FPS native was a step in the right direction, but it brought up the whole durability bug that persisted for ages (due to the engine logic being tied to the framerate), only getting fixed (if I recall) with the release of SOTFS. Now if DS3 releases locked at 30 FPS, that (to me) is crippling the game for no reason other than "We want to keep using delta time." I'm not saying it'll make the game downright terrible, but it's an absolutely terrible decision that we, as consumers, should not be encouraging from From Soft, or other developers.[/QUOTE] Also, well fucking said.

Also from the same author [video=youtube;_9oIi8a07Ac]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9oIi8a07Ac[/video]

Goddamn, i have done the Rogue Warrior build, it's so fun. I'm glad the community manages to make so many things memorable.

Have i been kept out the loop or something or are hex builds some kind of OP ridiculous build that annihilates everything?

[QUOTE=Source;49877773]Have i been kept out the loop or something or are hex builds some kind of OP ridiculous build that annihilates everything?[/QUOTE] Hex builds have been incredibly powerful since the get go. The dark chaos blade (and dark anything really) that plagued high SM PvP is what spurred forth the SM meta. If you aren't playing above 3mil SM then you won't encounter dedicated hexbuilds without counter, due to stat limitations. Really though, the skill ceiling for hex builds isn't that high, and most overly rely on the huge damage of their spells to carry them through. Once you get your head around the weaknesses of casting, you can reliably punish them so long as latency isn't too far off. You'll suffer more against a hex build than you will a melee build for latency though.

Base game being at 30 isn't a problem, but with Bombai Vietnamco's ban system, it's not like you can even externally rig the game to run at 60. Every Dark Souls game on PC thus far has been at 60, natively or not. This lack of 60fps [I]will[/I] negatively impact the game, why is there even an argument?

For an interactive medium, having twice the normal framerate is such a massive difference that it shouldn't even be a talking point whether or not 30 is ok. Obviously there are morons saying it doesn't make a difference and we would do well to remember that they aren't in this thread, but I'm still worried at the amount of people saying they wouldn't mind playing at half the accepted rate (for PC). I love Bloodborne and it's my favourite game of 2015, but it being 30fps just kills my soul. I had to accept that it was only going to be on PS4. Knowing that dark souls is back, on PC, and it could be in 60fps has been one of the most exciting things to me as a player of the series, but now all this 30fps talk is going on and I'm sinking into doubt. Doubling the framerate just makes the world look so much lively and believable, and it would make me so sad that a work of art was lessened because a developer couldn't sort their shit despite having years to (since the DS1 backlash) or that they didn't want to make consoles look bad or some other stupid reason (not that i'm saying any of these things are factual, but why do we have to battle for 60fps in this day and age?) I hope against hope that the namco representative was telling the truth in saying that they were aiming for 60fps for the final build. Where is the fucking official statement

it will be 60 i believe