Someone has been trying to point that out throughout this thread, sadly the guy that knows close to nothing about 3D graphics kept spewing ignorance
1. Actually most of the PC gaming community was surprised that the artists of Dark Souls did such a good job on the original art because the game looks so poor on the PS3 and 360. I am not the only person who thought Dark Souls may benefit from a high-resolution texture pack or a high resolution fix. Thousands of gamers seem to agree and many people donated $ to Durante for actually fixing the broken ported graphics/resolution.
2. The guy who is supposedly ignorant to 3D graphics is the one who pointed out in the first place that the game is running at 1024x720 internally and it would look miles better if the frame-buffer was not rendered internally at this gimped resolution. You on the OTOH claimed that the game looks amazing since despite 1024x720 resolution, by implying that textures and the output resolution had nothing to do with one another. I even said in Post #84 that if Dark Souls had better textures than in the PS3/360 model that:
"You need higher resolution to resolve more detail if you want those original Dark Souls textures to look good on a 1080P/1600P monitor." That was on Page 4 of this thread in case you are paying attention.
You may want to re-read this thread over and over until you actually grasp the concept that for high-resolution textures to be realized, you need the resolution to expose those details, something that I claimed from the beginning in this thread and you couldn't understand that basic point, instead going on a tangent about how I should learn about the relationship between textures and resolution. This despite after I even acknowledged that 1024x720 resolution and original textures are not necessarily inter-related but what is inter-related is the ability of those original textures to be realized, which
requires the higher resolution in the first palce.
You also missed the
entire point of this thread from the beginning - the poor technical aspects of the Dark Souls console port, not gameplay, not gaming difficulty, not how many PC or console games are sold that make porting worthwhile for developers -- all topics you brought up out of nowhere to support your biased view that PC gamers are graphics whores and snobs who like easy games; and that it wouldn't be worth the effort for the developer to make this game into a well-coded console port ala Alan Wake. The poor technical aspects of Dark Souls port have been shown to be true, and which is why the modding community got involved in fixing the game in the first place, apparently agreeing with my, EuroGamer's and BitGamer's initial assessments. Interestingly enough, over and over you kept attacking me for bringing up the poor technical aspects of the original Dark Souls port on Steam, while the rest of us have long acknowledged that in the shipped form it was a terrible port and has since been vastly improved via high resolution mod fix, implementation of AF, etc. We even saw a fix to the current blurry DOF with Version 0.4 fix. The most interesting part is if we had more people like you, constantly defending how awesome consoles are, and how PC gamers are graphical snobs, etc. etc., Dark Souls would still be a game rendered at 1024x720 resolution on the PC. I am glad people were critical of the original Dark Souls port and the game came out looking
miles better as a result.
Thanks for contributing next to nothing in this thread though other than personal attacks on myself and other members and not understanding even once what was discussed - technical implementation of the ported game to the PC.