Namco Bandai has released a new set of screenshots for Dark Souls II, showcasing underwhelming visuals and blurry textures. While we all know that Dark Souls II will be a great game, its visuals are seriously outdated. Yes, PC gamers will be able to boost the overall IQ thanks to SweetFX (provided it is compatible with this game) but the vanilla version is one ugly mess. Nevertheless, we are excited for this new Dark Souls game, so go ahead and take a look.
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
As long as it is moddable i don’t really care about the graphics (I mean it’s made for and in the end of the last generation consoles you can’t expect that much), just dont screw up locking things like last time and I’m fine with it.
dark souls was never praised much for its visuals, they are circa 2007-2009 quality and merely adequate for the purposes of presentation. It’s still one of the games of the generation, but people don’t say that because of the visuals, so i don’t see it as being very important
False advertisement .???
in my opinion the graphics where 2005-6 (pc wise) and the animations, story and mechanics are mediocre. People praise it as an amazing rpg but they need to get real, its a hard game, thats its selling point, the rest are mediocre.
I didn’t play it because it’s hard. I played it because I enjoyed the gameplay. The animations aren’t that bad. It fits the game’s pacing. I’ve seen much worse ( Deadpool comes top mind). Also about the story, it was actually innovative by moving away from storytelling in the traditional sense to a method where the gamer had to take time to learn about the lore. This made the game much more memorable to me. What I liked most is that it goes away from many traditional RPG elements and makes it’s own. Didn’t you want innovation?
Lol it didn’t sell well because it was hard, that’s a ignorant and childish statement, but then again it is you saying it again hehe.
stupid much? Teh fact the game had old techonlogy is what allowed it to be cheap and thus be happy witn 1-2 million sales where everyone else wants 2-3, stop being an idiot and flame like a dumb kid.
they are not that bad, besides you don’t play Darksouls2 for its graphics either..
Sure, but when they said that the main platform for the game will be the pc, they forgat to say that it’s a pc from 2009. When they say something like that, you would at least expect something that looks like a game from 2013/14.. but this…
At least the modders will have a lot of work.
2009 PC .? Crysis was released in 2007 . Half Life 2 was released in 2004 and it still looks great , same goes for Max payne 2 (2003) .
More like PC of 2002
To be fair even Crysis had some bad textures but mostly fixed by turning texture streaming pool up of texturesstreaming off.
I made textures for UT2004, they looked better than some games now days so I don’t understand how devs can get so sloppy with texture work.
“To be fair even Crysis had some bad textures”
Correction: Crysis had a LOT of bad textures, and no, rygle’s “HD” texture pack didn’t fix it and neither did turning up texture streaming. I’ve created my own personal textures for Crysis, true HD 2048×2048 textures based on 4k reference images, and only then does the game really begin to look amazing, imo. The vanilla game had horrid texture quality in many parts of the game even back in late 2007, by today’s standards they are just atrocious.
But, yeah, I agree. Crap textures in modern games is puzzling.
At least they used detail maps on the textures, a lot of games don’t even use them now and even UT99 used detail maps. Crysis was around the time when 512Mb cards were more used, 1Gb ones for the higher end to be fair. Detail maps are a good way to hide low quality textures but close.
Maldo’s Crysis 2 looks amazing as well, such attention to detail and even on the tessellation.
Yup, and yes, Maldo did an amazing job. Really wish more developers dedicated more time to textures. They’re such an important part of visual fidelity.
There is no need to be on the defensive about graphics but Dark Souls was just a monster grind anyway, like a lot of console games. Kill the humongous enemy and wave and wave of enemies. There is really no excuse not to have good graphics, textures, modders often do a better job than devs and they do it in their free time.
dark souls was a storyless badly translated monster killer. It didnt have nor good graphics or good story or good character development or good animations/combat, it was justa hard game.
Lol it had an awesome story and lore, clearly u didn’t play it. Character progression was also well done. Nice fail there dear lol.
No it didnt have awesome story, if you think it had a good story you are a stupid braindamaged fanboy and a idiot and no moron having to spend more and more souls each time evne on skills you never upgraded is not a good upgrade system nice job being a complete waste of childbirth there idiot.
With current technology is really easy to get beautiful lighting and particle systems. There’s no doubt that these are console screenshots and the PC version is just a port. As usual.
Why is everybody assuming it’s from the PC version? The graphics of the IGN reveal (which was confirmed to be the PC version) looks much better.
I think these screens actually look better than previous ones. However there doesn’t seem to be any ambient occlusion, something the first game also lacked until DSFix.
I saw some PS3 beta game-play and it doesn´t look as “terrible” (low resolution) as in these images. Sometimes even if the game is not so graphically appealing, while in motion you forget about it. But this looks like the console version.
Watch this PS3 game-play: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWRIO92R_pQ
Or this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tGJb_BfAEw
Looks like complete ass…..console screens.
They said that PC version is the base version for all platforms, and still they didn’t show anything from it. Every screenshot and video that we have was made in 720p.
They’re most likely downsampled because there is not a jaggy to be seen. Native console shots never appear because they would look like crap.
I remember seeing what supposedly were PS3 Skyrim shots, it was clearly downsampled, altered and the location didn’t seem to match in-game.
Wow these are even worse than the last set of screenshots. They are bad even for “next-gen” consoles.
Don’t care. Dark souls 2. give it to me.
And i thought Edge mentioned that It had great Graphics.
anyways gimme the game.
Edge played the game on a high-end laptop.
Lol. I think even some android games look more attractive than this. Nevertheless, if the game is as good as its predecessor, I don’t care much about the graphics.
Please don’t exaggerate… The visuals are no “ugly mess”. Seriously this game is a X360/PS3 game so the visuals are more than acceptable but really who the f*ck cares about the graphics in Dark Souls 2?
I think it looks good, dark souls wasn’t top end graphics and it was a blast, this looks to be even better.