Gameplay from the opening scenes of Dark Souls 2: Scholar of the First Sin on the PlayStation 4. Be sure to change the playback settings to 1080p60 for best results
The only thing stunning here is the fact that some people will still discuss the graphics in this game in the context of how good they are. If you honestly consider this game to be better than average looking, I'd wager you're not so much stunned as stunted. And I don't mean to flame, but let's be realistic here. Even if you disregard all other games in existence, Bloodborne, using the same engine, clearly looks better. And then there's tons of other games that trounce Bloodborne graphically, not to mention the marginally enhanced, reheated DS2. A game that looked worse that its predecessor upon its release. A grip on reality. Get it.
Your going to get bombarded with disagrees from Souls fans but you're right. The visuals of Dark Souls 2 are not stunning, even the PS4 version. Bloodborne is stunning. Dark Souls 2, even when it first game out was very average at best.
But, as this article was pointing out, the PS4 version looks much better than the PS3 version. It wasn't comparing it to any other game out there. Even if everyone agrees that the graphics are 'average', one version clearly looks and performs better than the other.
I won't disagree with your, because that's your opinion and I respect that everyone has one. I don't think I'm "stunted" though, but if labeling people helps make it easier to make your point, it's all good. My initial impressions upon firing up the game was that it looked extremely good at 1080p60, the way it popped off the screen and the silky smooth animation. Compared to the last-gen version (PS3) I played, it's leaps and bounds better. I'm assuming you've played both versions in person on an HDTV, but I'm surprised you don't think going from 720p/barely 30fps to 1080p/60 and upgraded visuals improves on the experience. To each their own. Thanks for commenting though! :)
Some people always have to take some kind of dig at others in order to try and make their point. Don't really know why that it is. I could point to some scientific studies that show its more about their own unvoiced insecurities than other people but I'm sure we've all heard those before. But you are correct, everyone has their own opinions and I applaud your respectful reply.
I don't own a console, I've played both games on the PC at 1080p60. I didn't say that I don't think going from 720p/barely 30fps to 1080p/60 and upgraded visuals does not improve on the experience. That's completely beside the point. What I said was that the game does not look "stunning" by any standards and whether the graphics in the game are good (not to mention stunning) or not is not a matter of your opinion. It's something we can rate objectively. If you're not "stunted" then I guess you must be new to gaming or something. Either way, let me explain. By looking at the game, most of us are quite capable of deducing that what the game is going for is realism. And no, I don't mean that there are monsters in real life. What I mean is that the representations of things we know from real life (like, you know, people, books, tables, buildings, lamps, grass, trees, things) are, by design, supposed to as closely resemble their real life counterparts as possible. Now, the closer they are in their looks and behavior to the ones from outside the game world, the better. So as long as you perceive reality the same way most normal people do, you should be able to do this: look at DS2, look at other games, realize that if you call DS2 "stunning", you won't have any adjectives left in the English language to describe all the other games that actually are (or have been for years) leaps and bounds ahead graphically. And before you even go that route, no, graphics do not make a game. I'm not comparing DS2 to games that are going for a different visual style (indie games, Rayman, whatever.) I hope that's clear.
It certainly isn't going to win any awards for technical achievement (nor is Bloodborne, for that matter), but the little enhancements and effects go a long way in bringing out the beauty of the artistic design of the game. It can still be "stunning" and not be as technically impressive as other games. That's why a game like Bloodborne (which is technically unimpressive) can still stand toe-to-toe with a game like the Order (which is arguably the most impressive technical achievement of the generation so far).
it doesnt look stunning, but it looks a heck of a lot better than its previous iteration. and to some people, thats good enough. this game was never meant to be a graphical powerhouse.
Darksouls 2 is not a visual power house, the game looks dated as hell at times and you would be a fanboy to think otherwise. In some cases upping the resolution to 1080p only highlight the worst of DS 2 visuals.
Before playing Bloodborne I saw some gameplay footage of the Dark Souls 2 remaster and thought it looked pretty nice. After playing Bloodborne I saw a stream of the Dark Souls 2 remaster and thought it looked pretty dated. At no time did I think it looked stunning.
looks pretty good / damn fine to me, depending on locations. .. played the ps3 and this looks far much far better then the ps3 ..bloodborne is good , different atmosphere , a blast in his own realm , is no remaster and is an original .. they are bit different being dark souls more of fantasy world .. different but in each own both masters of their own ..imo.. i personally consider them quite different being bloodborne the top modern & superb hack/slash , to me .. dark souls bit less arcade . . love both stages and results ..
The graphics aren't amazing by any means. However, SOTFS is my first time playing DS2 and I'm loving the game. The only downside for me is splitting time between DS2 and Bloodborne =P. I'll admit though, my inner theory crafting rpg nerd causes me to have an ever so slight of preference for DS2 (dont kill me please) simply because of the larger variety of builds, weapons, and armor.
i think a lot of people will agree with that. So far i love BloodBorne but i prefer the builds and depth of the souls series compared to the different depth of the Borne series.
Looks like when I ran it on my PC a year ago ;)
Not sure why anyone would disagree, as I was telling the truth. But OK
Is this any good on X1? Asking because that's what I have to play Dark Souls II on, anyway.
I have it on X1, and it plays and looks darn good.
still looks like shit here we go again ..
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.