Quantcast
If you like Dark Souls and are a multiconsole owner with a Switch, portability or 60fps?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - If you like Dark Souls and are a multiconsole owner with a Switch, portability or 60fps?

Alkibiádēs said:
Azuren said:

I know I will. Remote Play has never let me down before.

Vita doesn't even have enough buttons to play most PS4 games adequately, not to mention that most places in the world don't have free wi-fi and if you're playing at home you might as well just play it on your TV.

Not to mention all the issues streaming has. There's a reason why the Vita and this feature hasn't taken off. 

https://www.dualshockers.com/clever-ps-vita-accessory-that-adds-l2r2-and-l3r3-triggers-for-ps4-remote-play-announced-by-hori/

 

And as I've said, I've never had an issue with Remote Play. In fact, roughly 30% of my Platinum for Scholar of the First Sin was earned on the Vita via Remote Play. The most usage it's had is while I'm visiting family (roughly an hour away, and it's frequent enough that bringing my PS4 each time would be a hassle).

 

Also not stating that Remote Play on Vita would be better than standard play on Switch. But for those out there who adamantly refuse to buy Nintendo, portability isn't going to be a feature they necessarily have to forgo.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

Around the Network
Mnementh said:
thepurplewalrus said:

For me I value both portability of the Switch and the 60fps of the PS4 (my primary gaming platform) equally. What will probably make me buy the PS4 version, however, is the online. You see, a lot of people on the Switch will probably be new to Dark Souls and won't be as skilled, making the online aspect way less enjoyable than they would be on a platform that already has an established audience.

Less skilled community means - more blood puddles that show me dangers ahead. And less skilled red phantoms. Both sound like wins.

Getting utterly destroyed by a red phantom that's infinitely better than you are is part of the Dark Souls experience lol.



PSN: SaltyCactus64

Honestly I'm curious to see how the Switch actually performs frame-rate-wise. I wonder if there's enough overhead on the Switch for such a boost in pixel count from the PS3/ X360 and a version of Blighttown that isn't 10 FPS. Unless From Software has done serious optimizations, I have a feeling the Switch will have some performance issues.



PSN: SaltyCactus64

60fps or 30fps. I wouldn't really be interested in the Switch version. Portability is not a selling point to me. Exclusive RPGs is the selling point to me for the Switch.



A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of his first breath to the moment of his last.



This is a easy one, Portability.



Around the Network
deskpro2k3 said:
It cost $39.99 on ps4, xbox, pc, and switch.

now here is the thing. if you buy it for switch you're paying full price for lower performance compared to the others. IJS, it should probably be cheaper.

This dont make any sense, buy your point, plenty of XB1 games would need to cost lower than PS4 games, all PS4 would need to cost lower than PC games, and 3rd party would need to have higher price for games that have better performance on PS4 Pro and Xbox X compared to PS4/XboxS.

Especially because with Switch version of game you getting two versions of game, full handheld version of game and full home console version of game, while with PS4/XB1 you just get home console version of game.

 

Alkibiádēs said: 
Depends on the quality of the port. 

If it's native 720p with a constant 30 fps and improved textures in HH mode then I'd say the Switch version. If it's just a port from last gen then I'd just skip it.

Its not just a port of last gen, its a remaster. We know its 1080p in docked mode and 720p in handheld mode.

 

Thespiralmatrix said: 
I played Dark Souls inside and out. 2 1/2 complete play through with 100% Achievements. 

Amazing game but no desire to play through it again especially at $60. If I had to pick I'd say ps4 for the remastered version. I'm curious if the switch is more powerful than the 360/ps3 version I've already played.

Price is actualy $40.



Alkibiádēs said:
Azuren said:

I know I will. Remote Play has never let me down before.

Vita doesn't even have enough buttons to play most PS4 games adequately, not to mention that most places in the world don't have free wi-fi and if you're playing at home you might as well just play it on your TV.

Not to mention all the issues streaming has. There's a reason why the Vita and this feature hasn't taken off. 

 

Azuren said:
Alkibiádēs said:

Vita doesn't even have enough buttons to play most PS4 games adequately, not to mention that most places in the world don't have free wi-fi and if you're playing at home you might as well just play it on your TV.

Not to mention all the issues streaming has. There's a reason why the Vita and this feature hasn't taken off. 

https://www.dualshockers.com/clever-ps-vita-accessory-that-adds-l2r2-and-l3r3-triggers-for-ps4-remote-play-announced-by-hori/

 

And as I've said, I've never had an issue with Remote Play. In fact, roughly 30% of my Platinum for Scholar of the First Sin was earned on the Vita via Remote Play. The most usage it's had is while I'm visiting family (roughly an hour away, and it's frequent enough that bringing my PS4 each time would be a hassle).

 

Also not stating that Remote Play on Vita would be better than standard play on Switch. But for those out there who adamantly refuse to buy Nintendo, portability isn't going to be a feature they necessarily have to forgo.

Same for me, remote play is a great feature, especially when you have a good mobile network (always in 4G/4G+ in my case).

 

"not to mention that most places in the world don't have free wi-fi 

We don't need a free wi-fi for a long time, thanks to the tethering on smartphone. 

"and if you're playing at home you might as well just play it on your TV."

Even Switch users are glad to play at home, elsewhere in the house than in front of the TV (in bed most of the time).

 

So, if I wanted to take DS, I could have 60 fps and portability with the same version ;-p



To be clear once again: Portability, and 30fps like previous souls games and Bloodborne.




At least we now know that Nintendo fans favor accessibility over a factor that constitutes gameplay, which is fine.

I myself prefer 30fps with higher graphics and visual fidelity, over a less impressive 60fps version of the same single-player game. I actually enjoy TLoU's 30fps more than the awkwardly smooth 60fps segments (in campaign mode). Yes, it's a little bit less responsive, but the lower frame rate does somewhat enhance immersion for me (even without any meaningful graphics enhancements)

Imagine Zelda BotW or Shadow of the Colossus running @60fps at its time... would they have been as impressive or as memorable as we think of them now? I don't think so... the graphics/draw distance trade off would have been too huge, especially in the case of SotC which is thought of as a timeless classic despite its atrocious framerate.



Not a Dark Souls fan but, based on my track record, I'd buy a competent Switch version over a tricked out PS4/XBO version every time.



Twitter: @d21lewis  --I'll add you if you add me!!