Nintendo Switch - Official Thread

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
This is the response I want to re-post to anyone who has ever said that romance is dead.
part of the point I was making though isn't just inflation but budget... a game made in 1993 has a microscopic budget compared to one made today, and that is AFTER adjusting for inflation

what you expressed is the exact issue I raised, you don't care about paying $85 for a game, but scoff at buying it for $60 and then paying $20 for a year of internet play for ALL of your multiplayer games on the system

to me it is like complaining about having to commit to a year of movie pass when you watch 10 movies a month... at that point you just have ethical issues with where it is being priced then the total sum of what you are buying and what price it comes out to.


to me it all comes down to a fear of change

it is like when my mom said she just wished she only ahd to pay $200 for a flagship phone like she used to... I told her "you do know that when you bought it for $200 you were paying $20 or so a month as part of your subsidization of the phone, right?" and she does... but she objected to payign it all up front... so I told her... "well you CAN finance the phone you know.. for like $20 a month, the exact amount you were paying in subsidy before" and she acknowledges there is no difference... but it still annoys her, because she got used to it in a different way... it FEELS more expensive to her while not actually being more expensive.
Oh, I totally scoff at paying an additional fee if I'm ostensibly buying the full game at retail. For the same reason that I don't buy Blu-rays for the special features, in the expectation that Paramount Pictures then needs a subscription fee on top of it in order to see the actual movie. (Also for the same reason people scoff at buying a game where the DLC is already on-disc or on-cartridge, and they're paying for the right to unlock it, because that palette-swapped costume took a whole left mouse click to create.)

Would I spend more up front on Splatoon 2? Yes, but mainly because of inflation adjusting. Game prices are gonna go up, eventually. There's only a small part of me that is partial to helping to pay the rent for server space for match making. That's a cost developers used to bake in to the price of the actual game; that's why multi-player-centric shooters ended up with short 5-6 hour campaigns and more maps and matchmaking options online (devs knew where they had to spend their money, which included netcode programming and beta testing and allocating cash for maintaining the ability to play online, where they knew everyone would be playing it because that's why you buy an online shooter). I'd be more amenable if widespread dedicated servers were an actual thing, but they're not, and I find it quite silly to pay an online subscription fee in order for me to host the match.

No, I'm salty about that $20. I'm hoping to not be salty, because I'm hoping Nintendo brings some VC value with the package. I'll feel a lot better about the whole thing, in that case, because there would be an actual service involved for me to purchase instead of paying for the right to pull host with most. But otherwise? XBL gamers got to be patient zero for this prion disease, and I hope to be free of it at some point. I was happy to be free of it until now.
 

TechnoHobbit

Ash nazg durbatulûk
I might be able to see theMightyME side of things, however, his argument appears to rests on the cost of game development going up. The $20 subscription fee isn't going to support developers, don't kid yourself. Servers are still payed for by the developer/publisher, not Nintendo (unless it is Nintendo).
All this will do is line Nintendo's pockets with money (which I suppose will indirectly help Nintendo developers), just as it has for Microsoft and Sony. It's not even that I object to giving Nintendo money--I give them tons of money as is--it's simply that I don't want to give it to them for a completely asinine, idiotic, and pointless (for us consumers) reason.

And as for hoping PC gamers get paywalled, remember, Microsoft did try that nonsense before on PC gamers, it didn't last. Just as it doesn't need to last for console gamers.
 

Koenig

The Architect
I just wish the big three would not try to pretend that the pay wall was for online play. Console games have almost always been peer to peer connections, so saying that the money is going towards the online is utter bullshit. The charge is just there to hold the games at ransom so that you will pay up.

That said, I am not against support the platform holders IF they provide quality secondary service. Sony and to a lesser extent Microsoft have done a good job of incentivising Playstation + and Xbox Live with their free game and discount deals. If Nintendo does something similar with their $20 a year subscription I would be far less bitter about it. Nintendo could easily release one free VCON game each month (and I mean free forever, not for this one month nonsense) and still have games left over 100 years from now.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
I think they could even get away with free for only one month, so long as they handle it properly, make it a new release, make it something people have been wanting, and then organize events around it (not like in person actual events, but like social media, Nintendo direct style videos, etc)... Make it a book club... And time the releases accordingly... So maybe start of with something that drives people insane... Like a localized mother 3... Through the month, at a pace that makes sense for where most gamers should be if they okay throughout the month, release videos, like new interviewed with the developers... And AMAs and such about the game, release clothes based on the game in Splatoon 2, put out wallpapers on my Nintendo, release the soundtrack on iTunes, Amazon, and Google play... Etc... Then when the month is up offer a deep DEEP discount to those who played it that month...deep like 75% off, and have that discount last a week or so

I mean just get the customers like super engaged
 

TechnoHobbit

Ash nazg durbatulûk
I just wish the big three would not try to pretend that the pay wall was for online play. Console games have almost always been peer to peer connections, so saying that the money is going towards the online is utter bullshit. The charge is just there to hold the games at ransom so that you will pay up.

That said, I am not against support the platform holders IF they provide quality secondary service. Sony and to a lesser extent Microsoft have done a good job of incentivising Playstation + and Xbox Live with their free game and discount deals. If Nintendo does something similar with their $20 a year subscription I would be far less bitter about it. Nintendo could easily release one free VCON game each month (and I mean free forever, not for this one month nonsense) and still have games left over 100 years from now.
I'm happy with that overall idea, so long as they provide the option to play online free. See PS+ on the PS3 for an example.

I'm fine with subscriptions, I have plenty, I just want them to be for reasonable things.
 
Last edited:

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
Do PC gamers have to pay for online gaming?
Not other than the regular ISP price. Not even for non-steam services like Origin or Uplay. Even including the initial investment in a gaming rig, PC gaming is the cheapest of them all by far thanks to no internet fee and great sales. Maybe the exception would be if you buy a refurbished PS4 and only buy games that you're going to resell a week later.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
Okay, so I'm going on a trip for spring break. Sadly not to Florida to get fucked up, but I digress.

I hate plane rides. I'm 6'3/2 and have super long legs, and plane seats are the equivalent to gestation crates in terms of cramp-ness. Do you know what would help though? A Switch, because the only quality mobile games are usually ports of old titles or emulators. But I'm broke.
 

Odo

Well-Known Member
Not other than the regular ISP price. Not even for non-steam services like Origin or Uplay. Even including the initial investment in a gaming rig, PC gaming is the cheapest of them all by far thanks to no internet fee and great sales. Maybe the exception would be if you buy a refurbished PS4 and only buy games that you're going to resell a week later.
So we have a good point here, right? Why can't we have free online on consoles if pc gamers have it for the same games?
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
Okay, so I'm going on a trip for spring break. Sadly not to Florida to get fucked up, but I digress.

I hate plane rides. I'm 6'3/2 and have super long legs, and plane seats are the equivalent to gestation crates in terms of cramp-ness. Do you know what would help though? A Switch, because the only quality mobile games are usually ports of old titles or emulators. But I'm broke.
Besides the obvious in bringing Switch, or a 3DS (you said you're broke), you could always just bring a book to read. I'm sure there's a novel or two, or simply a book in general that you could read to eat away at the time and miles. The last two international flights I've been on I read almost the entire time, and given how I don't do much leisure reading like I want to, long distance flights are great for that.

Also, buy some compression socks. You'll thank me later if you do.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
Besides the obvious in bringing Switch, or a 3DS (you said you're broke), you could always just bring a book to read. I'm sure there's a novel or two, or simply a book in general that you could read to eat away at the time and miles. The last two international flights I've been on I read almost the entire time, and given how I don't do much leisure reading like I want to, long distance flights are great for that.

Also, buy some compression socks. You'll thank me later if you do.
I gave my 3DS to my brother as a 'thank you' for his 360.

I'm probably gonna download a crap-ton eBooks on my phone before I go. I still gotta get through The Master and the Margarita.
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
I agree. But I'm personally willing to pay for it because I'm a sucker for Nintendo multiplayer.
I'm a sucker for playing with my crew. Who the hell else will I play Japan-imported Monster Hunter with?

(...and I'm pretty sure Nintendo won't be revenue sharing subscription profits with Capcom, so they'll just pocket my cash like a loan shark.)
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
I hate to be that guy, but holy shit what a half assed port. Light shafts, particle effects, color grading, soft lighting, light bounce, cel shading, 3D clouds, geometry complexity, texture quality, and pretty much everything else has been given the hatchet. They weren't joking when they said it would be comparable to the first game on PS3. Although the fact that they even disclosed it still doesn't excuse it. I could understand if it were running at double the framerate, but it's not.

Also, the game recycles most of the first game's content too, so there's that, and it doesn't even support things like HD Rumble. Between this and Dynasty Warriors 9, Tecmo Koei hasn't been off to a good start.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
I hate to be that guy, but holy shit what a half assed port. Light shafts, particle effects, color grading, soft lighting, light bounce, cel shading, 3D clouds, geometry complexity, texture quality, and pretty much everything else has been given the hatchet. They weren't joking when they said it would be comparable to the first game on PS3. Although the fact that they even disclosed it still doesn't excuse it. I could understand if it were running at double the framerate, but it's not.

Also, the game recycles most of the first game's content too, so there's that, and it doesn't even support things like HD Rumble. Between this and Dynasty Warriors 9, Tecmo Koei hasn't been off to a good start.
You can name all the tech spec you want but i really see no issue when watching that video... None of that would keep me from buying it

What does keep me from buying it is the clipping and frame stutter that I see in both versions, as well as the qte-ish gameplay... I love the anime, and the idea of a game that nails it is tempering, but this looks like a cheap liscenced game... I mean imagine attack on titan some by a huge team like the guys who made prototype back in the day
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
Nintendo is getting so 21st century these days
Nintendo is finally making me proud :mfancy:

Now, I have to wonder how versatile and user friendly the Bezel engine is?
That's so fucking weird
Well...it's certainly interesting, but the writers of the breathless headlines from this morning didn't...well...use google, I guess.

Firstly, it's not unheard of. Sony does it. They have their own middleware toolset called Phyre - which isn't even chained to Sony hardware, and is compatible with other devices (even the Switch, believe it or not). It's not all indie-centric, either; it appears SquareEnix may have used Phyre for FF X/2 Remaster.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PhyreEngine

Secondly, Nintendo already had their own middleware tools. They released an HTML5 web framework for Wii U. But you can go back further. To the Wii years. You have to dig to find it, but...

"He (Takeshi Shimada) also briefly touched on some Wii development tools in the works that will be made available to both first and third parties. He highlighted a development tool called NintendoWare, developed by Nintendo and HAL, that emulates Wii hardware on the PC so that artists can view an accurate representation of their special effects without loading their code onto a Wii development kit. He also noted that his group is working on easy-to-incorporate fur-shading middleware and predictive input (so the game can guess what you're about to do based on prior motion). NCL is also looking into the utility of text-to-speech for Wii."

https://www.nintendoworldreport.com...07-presentation-conclusion-n-future-wii-tools

From an industry-geekery standpoint, the bold part is pretty interesting. For years many people thought "oh, developers don't take advantage of Nintendo's hardware, but it's kinda Nintendo's fault for choosing chips and architecture that third parties aren't familiar with, and Nintendo is insular and doesn't go out of their way to help anyone." Instead, Nintendo was trying to make middleware as far back as 2007 so that third parties could do Mario Galaxy-style fur shading. I shit thee not. That's a little mind bending. It tells you that at least some of the "Nintendo doesn't even try with third parties" narratives we've all heard have been wrong, and the answers were right there under our noses.

But the real interesting part is talking about NintendoWare as not plain old middleware, but also an emulator. That is super interesting. Because if you back up and read that link on Phyre, it is also called an "installable package" that...well, works on other hardware. We tend to think of "game engines" as being highly exotic packages with phonebook-length manuals and expensive licenses that only work on bespoke dev kits. But these aren't.

Bezel, this new version of NintendoWare, is likely the same sort of thing as Phyre, mainly aimed at indies, making it easy for them to iterate and port code.

I've dealt in facts and reasonable inference until now. The following is purely speculative.

...if this is basically a sophisticated, modern emulator with middleware tools designed to leverage Switch? @Goodtwin can correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like third-party devs usual process is to dump code into dev kits from their high-powered programming rigs. It's conceivable you could simply install Bezel on that and have an idea of how your game would run on Switch, with more granular control over docked vs. undocked performance (right now UE, id Tech 6, etc. seem to mainly chop resolution). Too much work to take your existing code from a PS/XB game, adjust the graphical settings down, dump into a Switch dev kit, iterate, rinse, and repeat? Throw it into Bezel, perhaps.
 
Last edited:

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
https://mynintendonews.com/2018/04/...ls-called-bezel-engine-for-switch-developers/

If you needed more evidence that Switch-era Nintendo is a different animal, they're making middleware now.
"...we have asked developers of games for the Nintendo playform "to provide an environment that can create interesting games in a short period of time while keeping development costs as low as possible", middleware called "NintendoWare Bezel Engine."

Maybe this is what Retro has been working on. The last rumor was that they were working on something "non-gaming". This would work with some ambiguity. A Retro Studios engine would be like butter, so smooth and creamy and the only way to make delicious eggs.
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
Maybe this is what Retro has been working on. The last rumor was that they were working on something "non-gaming". This would work with some ambiguity. A Retro Studios engine would be like butter, so smooth and creamy and the only way to make delicious eggs.
That's where my mind went, too, but I don't want to set myself up for disappointment.

(It's fun to think of, though. And it would make some sense - use a western developer to make the sort of middleware that western devs mostly use.)
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
"...we have asked developers of games for the Nintendo playform "to provide an environment that can create interesting games in a short period of time while keeping development costs as low as possible", middleware called "NintendoWare Bezel Engine."

Maybe this is what Retro has been working on. The last rumor was that they were working on something "non-gaming". This would work with some ambiguity. A Retro Studios engine would be like butter, so smooth and creamy and the only way to make delicious eggs.
In fairness though, it shouldn't take an entire software company to create a middleware engine.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
So what are everyone's thoughts on PAX east so far

We got

- footage of Wolfenstein 2

- footage of a supposedly new demo of Travis Strikes back

And though I can't find it, we are supposed to see more about Dragon : Marked for Death

But nobody is talking

I though the tech heads would be dissecting the shit out of W2

Waiting for direct feed?
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
I'm not a real techie, but yeah, I do wanna see the direct feed. As is, it's impressive as hell that the thing runs on Switch, but DOOM kinda takes the thunder from impossible ports. They're not impossible anymore.

I think that is pretty much it in a nutshell. There was plenty of discussion on PS4/X1 ports to Switch, and just how viable they would be for developers. I remember becoming extremely skeptical full AAA third party support after it was known that the Switch was rocking the standard Tegra X1, and running lower than max clock speeds on top of it. After a little time to let it all sink in I came around to the conclusion that 1080p 60fps PS4/X1 games would be the most realistic titles to port with respectable results. Resolution is expensive, especially for a console with very limited memory bandwidth, but framerate is even more expensive. Basically, the drop from 1080p to 720p frees up a lot of resources, but the ability to drop from 60fps to 30fps is a monumental reduction is resource requirements. ET and I had extensive conversations about this in the pre Doom Switch era. Doom came along and did what many naysayers were previously saying would never happen, a high end PS4/X1 game was successfully ported to Switch, and the results weren't terrible. Doom on Switch looks pretty darn good, its only when you put the PS4 version right next to the Switch build that the compromises really become obvious.

Wolfenstein 2 just builds on what they accomplished with Doom. There is no shock value anymore because Doom already shattered the concept that games like this couldn't run on Switch. From the direct feed footage I have watched, compromises seem very much the same as Doom. Lower resolution, 30fps, and texture quality is reduced quite a bit. The artist for Doom and Wolfenstein 2 should feel very good about themselves, even with a big reduction in texture resolution, the game doesn't look bad or ugly, and instead just ends up with a softer blurrier look. Its pretty impressive when a game goes below its lowest PC settings, and still manages to look nice.

So far the thing that stands out the most to me is the framerate looks very stable, and this leads me to believe it will hold pretty tight to that target framerate in the final build most of the time. After Doom got its big post release patch, the game saw a noticeable improvement on fluidity. I think Wolfenstein 2 is going to be on that level at launch. It seems like Bethesda has given Panic Button ample time to get the port done, and the results will benefit because of it.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
It's conceivable you could simply install Bezel on that and have an idea of how your game would run on Switch, with more granular control over docked vs. undocked performance (right now UE, id Tech 6, etc. seem to mainly chop resolution). Too much work to take your existing code from a PS/XB game, adjust the graphical settings down, dump into a Switch dev kit, iterate, rinse, and repeat? Throw it into Bezel, perhaps.
Not really a simple process to move an entire game from one game engine to another. Its possible to do it, but when a game is developed with a middleware option, the game engine has the ability to export to the desired platform, but that doesn't really mean you can copy and paste that code into a new game engine. An example would be creating a website with Microsoft publisher, but then wanting to you simply dump all that work onto a competing software website builder.

I know SquareEnix has talked about porting Final Fantasy 15 to Switch, and have tossed around the idea of moving the game to Unreal 4 because their Luminous game engine doesn't scale very well. This would still require a good deal of work.

I think with Bezel, the idea is more for developers to have an option for a middleware option that is customized to maximize results without needing to do a bunch of low level code optimizations. With something like Unreal 4, a developer may not realize that applying certain effects can cause the Switch build to slow to a crawl, where as with Bezel, perhaps everything that can be applied plays nicer with the Switch's performance profile. If certain shaders or post processing effects are capable of crippling Switch, they probably wouldn't be natively supported in Bezel, but might be common with Unreal 4 because they work just fine with PS4/X1 and of course PC.
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
Whew. That player is nearly as bad at FPS as I am. :p

Looks like a pretty PS3 game with more expansive background environments, tbh. There could be some youtube compression, of course, but it's a bit blurrier (the gun models are a touch soft, some of the metal walls and crates are lower poly - the blown-up fuel tank thing at 9:38 is pretty nasty). The framerate isn't obviously compromised, so A+ there. I think I might spy some texture pop or resolution scaling. It's a little unfair to judge here, because the textures aren't helped by the art for this location. This environment is kinda purposefully sterile - lots of blanched out white and gray, so that the red pops when you see it, and the shadowing is more obvious. But that leaves some very plain textures out on display. They didn't excise steam and smoke effects, and the lighting is subtly awesome (that bit at 7:55 is supposed to be jarring). The level geometry is really boxy, so I want to see how more open environments hold up (besides the brief foray outside at 14:36).

I've pretty much been on blackout for this game, so I had no idea what to expect of the gameplay. Until the dudes with the red beam weapons show up, that looks way more like a pick-and-pop COD level than I thought it would. And even the beam brutes seem more like Big Daddy boss fights.

Overall? Technically, it's just as impressive as DOOM, if not more so. But I'm honestly less impressed than I was with DOOM, because that game's art/aesthetic is off the charts, and the gameplay was more fast and fluid. This seems like a more deliberate, use-your-ADS style. I dunno. After watching this, the main reason I want to buy it is because it's been too many years since I've gotten to shoot a bunch of Nazis in the face.
Doom came along and did what many naysayers were previously saying would never happen, a high end PS4/X1 game was successfully ported to Switch, and the results weren't terrible. Doom on Switch looks pretty darn good, its only when you put the PS4 version right next to the Switch build that the compromises really become obvious.

Wolfenstein 2 just builds on what they accomplished with Doom. There is no shock value anymore because Doom already shattered the concept that games like this couldn't run on Switch.
Yep. I'd probably be over-the-moon, shitting-my-pants excited if DOOM didn't already exist on Switch.
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
Just found the side-by-side comparison (not one-to-one, though).


Good news, the explosion/disintegration effects are baller, and I was a little too hard on the gun models. But whew, yeah you can see the environmental texture compromises. I think I'm a little more thrown by that, because even on the darn Wii, a game like Other M did really, really good with hard metal surfaces. I saw this environment in Wolfenstein and got my hopes a bit up for that reason (it's harder to do dense, lush vegetation). But it makes perfect sense; those higher quality, higher resolution textures are computationally expensive. Chop them and the framerate, and voila. It's like an improved version of what Treyarch used to do with COD (honestly, the parallels are more striking right next to each other).

It's kinda striking how little is lost in total. Yeah, it's blurrier. But that's it. 30 FPS is perfectly acceptable so long as it's stable.
Not really a simple process to move an entire game from one game engine to another. Its possible to do it, but when a game is developed with a middleware option, the game engine has the ability to export to the desired platform, but that doesn't really mean you can copy and paste that code into a new game engine. An example would be creating a website with Microsoft publisher, but then wanting to you simply dump all that work onto a competing software website builder.

I know SquareEnix has talked about porting Final Fantasy 15 to Switch, and have tossed around the idea of moving the game to Unreal 4 because their Luminous game engine doesn't scale very well. This would still require a good deal of work.

I think with Bezel, the idea is more for developers to have an option for a middleware option that is customized to maximize results without needing to do a bunch of low level code optimizations. With something like Unreal 4, a developer may not realize that applying certain effects can cause the Switch build to slow to a crawl, where as with Bezel, perhaps everything that can be applied plays nicer with the Switch's performance profile. If certain shaders or post processing effects are capable of crippling Switch, they probably wouldn't be natively supported in Bezel, but might be common with Unreal 4 because they work just fine with PS4/X1 and of course PC.
What throws me is also calling Bezel an emulator (that's what I was thinking regarding its utility installed on another machine). This is waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay beyond my knowledge, though.
 
Last edited:

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
the blown-up fuel tank thing at 9:38 is pretty nasty
Yea, that was pretty darn nasty. It looked almost as if the textures for it never fully loaded. Kind of takes us back to a lot of the textures in COD on Wii. LOL Seriously, there were textures in COD that weren't good even by N64 standards, and this particular tank in Wolfenstein 2 isn't much better. I was the most concerned with framerate stability, so far it looks like they have a good handle on performance, so hopefully they can continue to polish it up.

Part of the reason I wasn't all jack up with these footage of this game is because I am not as excited about it as I was Doom. The gameplay in Doom is just a blast, and Wolfenstein 2 just looks a bit more standard shooter by comparison. Not saying I wont buy it, but it better not have stiff competition when it releases, because I am not bouncing off the walls with excitement to play this one. I think it will be fun, but unlikely to blow me away like Doom did.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
That ship has sailed.
I think it does have a chance once they add G-Rank, but only if Nintendo has released a more powerful version of the Switch at that time. I think that even if Capcom wouldn't like to have their game available only on a fragment of the Switch's install base, that fragment would still be appealing to Capcom.

On the Nintendo side, having a portable system that can play a game like Monster Hunter World is likely the point of no return for game systems. At that point, there's no benefit for home-only systems other than VR games, which I think will be very niche for a while. (On the other hand, a system like a Switch Pro could already be AR-capable; in which case, home-only consoles, it's GG.)
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
So what are everyone's thoughts on PAX east so far

We got

- footage of Wolfenstein 2

- footage of a supposedly new demo of Travis Strikes back

And though I can't find it, we are supposed to see more about Dragon : Marked for Death

But nobody is talking

I though the tech heads would be dissecting the shit out of W2

Waiting for direct feed?
Based on IGN direct feed, the game exhibits aliasing when alpha effects and volumetric effects, of which the game uses tons of, intersect with geometry, indicating low res alpha effects, which is good since it's a big performance saver. I only noticed framerate drops in one or two spots, so I'm hoping that means Panic Button included the dynamic res options that MachineGames patched into the other versions (basically, they added an Aggressive option that locks the framerate at 60 FPS, which the Switch hopefully has to meet its 30 FPS target). There was lots of color banding, which could have been the feed, but seeing as DOOM's port had tons of color banding, I'd imagine it's the game itself.

Some other performance optimizations they can do include cutting framerate and polygons (Wolf II has insane poly counts and draw calls for a 60 FPS game, dynamically cutting it for performance is worth it) for distant NPCs in half (a la Halo 5 or most sandbox games), bake in stuff nobody would notice (like shadows), use a more aggressive texture streaming system a la Rage (I played it on 360, it wasn't that bad) or Wolfenstein: The New Order on last gen systems.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
I think it does have a chance once they add G-Rank, but only if Nintendo has released a more powerful version of the Switch at that time. I think that even if Capcom wouldn't like to have their game available only on a fragment of the Switch's install base, that fragment would still be appealing to Capcom.

On the Nintendo side, having a portable system that can play a game like Monster Hunter World is likely the point of no return for game systems. At that point, there's no benefit for home-only systems other than VR games, which I think will be very niche for a while. (On the other hand, a system like a Switch Pro could already be AR-capable; in which case, home-only consoles, it's GG.)
In Monster Hunter World's case, since it is a game best played with friends, being in a spot with really shitty internet like a hick neighborhood would kind of screw the pooch.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
In Monster Hunter World's case, since it is a game best played with friends, being in a spot with really shitty internet like a hick neighborhood would kind of screw the pooch.
The single player portion of MHW is still better than 99% of other single-player games on the market (the remaining 1% reserved for Mario and Zelda, and maybe stuff like The Witcher 3). The single player portion of MHW is a 100 hour game on its own.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
The single player portion of MHW is still better than 99% of other single-player games on the market (the remaining 1% reserved for Mario and Zelda, and maybe stuff like The Witcher 3). The single player portion of MHW is a 100 hour game on its own.
And Kingdom Come: Deliverance, which is a true successor to Daggerfall (bugs and poor performance included) in terms of how much depth the gameplay has at an RPG level with the scale taken into account. It's essentially the game that Bethesda wanted to create before they went after the console dollars.
 

simplyTravis

Lamer Gamers Podcast Co-Host
I have sooooo many games that I can just drop in and play for hours right now. Skyrim, Tyranny, XC2, Rocket League, Splatoon....it's just insane. I don't have any major desire for another game because I feel like I have so much left to do already. Still getting Pillars of Eternity Deadfire though...

Made my 3rd character on Skyrim today. Shoulda called him Frank cause he's a freakin' Tank.

Going for a block focused build with heavy forge work. Surprisingly fun. The blocking perks are really cool. Arrows no longer hurt me, I can bash somebody with my shield to stagger them, and now get a slow-time effect when baddies use their powerful hits on me.

It is unusual having to get used to letting people hit me on purpose though to build up my heavy armor and block. I have played as a wizard/spellcaster character type for so long that I generally avoid getting hit by using surprise or good placement.

I do hope that they release Fallout 4 for the Switch. I'm gonna have to get it. I got burnt out on the PC version due to copious bugs (don't buy release Bethesda apparently) so I still need to actually finish it.
 
Top