Quantcast
View Post
curl-6 said:
Angelv577 said:

This is a game that was made by a few people and it was launched as a $30 game.  That should tell you something that even if the game looks impressive, that is pretty much it.  If you have played the game, you would realize this game wouldnt be a good exemple about the possibility of other graphical demnading games on switch.  Yes, focusing on less thing happening on screen means better graphics but that isnt the reality of most ps4,xb1 games that tried to push graphics as well as a lot of things happening on screen.  Most games that looks like hell blade also tried push a lot of things happening on screen as well as being more open, less linear unlike hell blade.

The difference though largely comes down to how resources are prioritized and allocated.

The limit for what is considered doable on Switch has been a moving target for a while now. First many insisted that "Switch can't handle AAA PS4/Xbone games" but Doom 2016 proved them wrong. Then it was "Okay it handle a 60fps PS4/Xbone game, but not an advanced 30fps one". If Hellblade turns out okay, this assertion will also have been proven wrong.

Megiddo said:
Keep in mind that Hellblade's "low" settings are fairly low, able to be ran at ~50 fps on an overclocked 10 year old processor and 5 year old graphics card.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lBrGro3gHtc

Is that 5-year-old desktop GPU though? Cos if so even a card from 2013 is likely going to have more grunt to it than a mobile GPU from 2015. Furthermore, we can see here that the aesthetic of the game is basically completely broken by running at these settings. It's more likely the Switch port will try to maintain the core look as much as possible which means it won't have the luxury of stripping things back in this way. The footage shown in the direct suggests they're taking an approach closer to Doom 2016 and Wolfenstein II where as much of the rendering pipeline as possible is kept intact with the tradeoffs being made in things like resolution, alpha, etc.

Nogamez said:
Ninja theory wouldt release a bad port of a bafta winning game that much i am certain. Im pretty sure yooka laylee was also Unreal engine? That was a really impressive port compared to base XBox. Hellblade has alot of excellent lighting and effects in place so i too cant wait for the DF analysis. If ports good ill pick it up again, just to support the game ( its that good).

Here's hoping they have enough pride in their product to ensure the port is a good one. Yooka Laylee ran on Unity, but there are examples of Unreal Engine 4 working well on Switch, such as Snake Pass, Fortnite, and Octopath Traveler. None of those were even close to as advanced as Hellblade though so it's still uncharted territory for the Switch.

So looking good but not offering anything else is considered a demanding 30 fps nowadays.  And here I thought graphics is much more than just textures.  For all we know, this game could have been a 60fps title on ps4 have they had a bigger team than 30 devs with more time to developed.  They managed to make a profit with just 500k of sales.  You can tell their time and resources was extremely limited.  I still feel you need to play the game to realize why the game looks they way it looks with just 30 devs.  By the record, I still believe switch can run most of the ps4/xb1 with the due sacrifices but dont feel hell blade is the showcase to proof that once you play the game.  Switch problem is that a lot of d3velopers don't want to put the time and money to makes ps4/xb1 titles playable on it as you can tell it is not as easy to port as we might think.