Quantcast
Why is the Switch still not getting big games from 3rd parties?

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why is the Switch still not getting big games from 3rd parties?

curl-6 said:

During the later encounters in RotTR where you're supposed to hold out against enemy onslaughts, there's much more than 6.

Monster Hunter Tri on the Wii had 4-player co-op with multiple bosses and smaller targets too, so you don't even need PS3/360 level hardware to handle that.

Did they come in so called "waves" ? If so then I don't think you could make the argument that there were more than 6 simultaneous targets ... 

I realize that there was 4-player co-op in MH Tri but it's more limited compared to MHW where the sections of the map are connected and there's other improvements to the mechanics such as enhanced stealth, reactive environments and improved traversal ... 

All of these changes in game logic put MHW on par with current gen games in that aspect ... 

Alkibiádēs said:

It's not like he could say that Sony paid them a hefty sum of money to develop the game lol.

Switch literally couldn't run the game no matter how much anyone wishes it. It dips below 30fps on base PS4 ... 



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:

During the later encounters in RotTR where you're supposed to hold out against enemy onslaughts, there's much more than 6.

Monster Hunter Tri on the Wii had 4-player co-op with multiple bosses and smaller targets too, so you don't even need PS3/360 level hardware to handle that.

Did they come in so called "waves" ? If so then I don't think you could make the argument that there were more than 6 simultaneous targets ... 

I realize that there was 4-player co-op in MH Tri but it's more limited compared to MHW where the sections of the map are connected and there's other improvements to the mechanics such as enhanced stealth, reactive environments and improved traversal ... 

All of these changes in game logic put MHW on par with current gen games in that aspect ... 

Single waves in RotTR can comprise far more than 6 simultaneous units, as do well guarded base areas.

Stealth, reactive environments, and dynamic traversal are all things that games on PS3, 360, and Wii U have done. None of that is beyond what Switch could handle.



curl-6 said:

Single waves in RotTR can comprise far more than 6 simultaneous units, as do well guarded base areas.

Stealth, reactive environments, and dynamic traversal are all things that games on PS3, 360, and Wii U have done. None of that is beyond what Switch could handle.

Maybe so in the entire map but I haven't seen the game spawn more than 6 enemies in front of Lara or wherever she was headed ... 

@Bold Altogether and in expansive areas like MHW ? MHW also has destructible environments too but maybe not to the same level as recent Battlefield games ... 



fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:

Single waves in RotTR can comprise far more than 6 simultaneous units, as do well guarded base areas.

Stealth, reactive environments, and dynamic traversal are all things that games on PS3, 360, and Wii U have done. None of that is beyond what Switch could handle.

Maybe so in the entire map but I haven't seen the game spawn more than 6 enemies in front of Lara or wherever she was headed ... 

@Bold Altogether and in expansive areas like MHW ? MHW also has destructible environments too but maybe not to the same level as recent Battlefield games ... 

Breath of the Wild has expansive environments full of destructible and physics-driven elements, plus stealth and dynamic traversal, and it runs not only on Switch but on the even less capable Wii U.



curl-6 said:

Breath of the Wild has expansive environments full of destructible and physics-driven elements, plus stealth and dynamic traversal, and it runs not only on Switch but on the even less capable Wii U.

Not trolling but BotW looks more "barren" or "empty" compared to MHW and the level design is more complex too in the latter ... (no 4-player co-op either)

It's the enhancements to the mechanics and the cohesive combination of these things in MHW that puts the game logic above last gen games ... (the vast majority of last gen games are unmatched compared to MHW in terms of level design, AI, animations and interactivity)



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:

Breath of the Wild has expansive environments full of destructible and physics-driven elements, plus stealth and dynamic traversal, and it runs not only on Switch but on the even less capable Wii U.

Not trolling but BotW looks more "barren" or "empty" compared to MHW and the level design is more complex too in the latter ... (no 4-player co-op either)

It's the enhancements to the mechanics and the cohesive combination of these things in MHW that puts the game logic above last gen games ... (the vast majority of last gen games are unmatched compared to MHW in terms of level design, AI, animations and interactivity)

Botw's areas are filled with interactive vegetation, (with blades of grass interacting individually rather than in grouped clumps as it seems to in MHW) wildlife, collectables, etc. You can engage a mob of enemies, throw a chicken into them so that it summons a bunch more to gank the enemy that hits it, set the grass on fire which will then spread in accordance with the wind conditions, (which will also influence particles created during the encounter) throw a bomb which might knock down a nearby tree and sending apples scattering around to be cooked in the fire, which will also degrade and destroy any wooden shields and weapons the enemy have of they catch fire, and all this can be going off at once. I have yet to see anything in MHW that even comes close to that level of interactivity.



Because there is a significant power gap. Any games ported to Switch need to be downgraded to function on the undocked unit, which is maybe a tenth of the power of the base model PS4 & XBO. That is not trivial. Technically demanding games are highly unlikely to ever be ported to the Switch due to having to downgrade the game to the system. Also, Nintendo's online will probably continue to remain a step behind XBL and PSN. We'll never see RDR2, or FFVII Remake, or Cyberpunk 2077, or the inevitable GTA6, or most AAA multiplayer-focused titles.

While cross-gen games do show that, yes, games can and have been ported between two systems of vastly different power levels, such games are released at a time when developers are just starting to learn the ins and outs of a new system. Cross-gen games are rarely so demanding as to where the new-gen version can take full advantage of the new hardware, and are typically outclassed by later games made exclusively and optimized for current-gen systems. Meanwhile, major AAA games being released now for PS4 & XBO are fully optimized for those systems and their superior hardware capabilities, their developers having long since familiarized themselves with those systems and how to make the most of them. In other words, doing something like putting CoD: Ghosts on both PS3/360 and PS4/XBO is not equivalent to porting Red Dead Redemption 2 from the PS4 & XBO to the Switch.

And this is going to get worse long before the Switch is ready to be replaced. The PS5 and Xbox 4 could be released as early as Nov. 2020. By that point, the Switch will be just over 3-½ years old. Games being made for systems that may have upwards of 10 TFLOPs of GPU power, even if they are being made to be translatable to PS4 & XBO, aren't going to stand a chance in hell of being ported to a system with maybe 2% the graphics processing power.

The Switch will probably see plenty of mid-tier titles, games that don't demand a lot of graphical horsepower. Smaller-budget games (e.g., Mega Man 11, BlazBlue Cross Tag Battle), indie titles, compilations of older games (e.g., Street Fighter 30th Anniversary Collection), and certain remasters of past-gen games (e.g., Skyrim, Dark Souls). And sometimes we might get the odd game like Doom or Wolfenstein ported to it. But for the most part, I expect very few big-budget AAA titles to find their way to the Switch. Just because it might be popular doesn't mean much. The Wii was super popular, but third parties largely ignored it except as a dumping ground for shovelware, and that's because of the power gap between it and the PS3 & 360. While they may be treating the Switch more seriously, third parties are still going to be putting their biggest games on the most powerful hardware, and won't be giving the Switch the same kind of games the PS4 & XBO get.



curl-6 said:

Botw's areas are filled with interactive vegetation, (with blades of grass interacting individually rather than in grouped clumps as it seems to in MHW) wildlife, collectables, etc. You can engage a mob of enemies, throw a chicken into them so that it summons a bunch more to gank the enemy that hits it, set the grass on fire which will then spread in accordance with the wind conditions, (which will also influence particles created during the encounter) throw a bomb which might knock down a nearby tree and sending apples scattering around to be cooked in the fire, which will also degrade and destroy any wooden shields and weapons the enemy have of they catch fire, and all this can be going off at once. I have yet to see anything in MHW that even comes close to that level of interactivity.

I highly doubt that every blade of grass is interactive. What BotW does looks like a displacement map with simple spherical bounds ... (the blades of grass being bent further behind Link is not very plausible and not even Nvidia's state of the art solution simulates "every" individual blade, BotW makes a lot more simplifications for grass deformation than you think) 

MHW may not feature combustible destruction as seen like the Far Cry series but it has far more destructible environments and that more than makes up for it. Furthermore the level design in MHW feels more populated and alive compared to BotW but there's other details to enhance the environment such as smaller roaming critters throughout the map ... (monsters intentionally targeting each other is also a part of the AI's new behaviour too, it's these small things that add up to create a detailed and highly interactive experience in MHW that sets it apart from last generation games) 

Even if what you said was true there's still the issue of the Switch staying graphically accurate to the original art ... (I don't think the Switch would be able to render many of the same beautiful vistas even with graphical cut backs) 



fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:

Botw's areas are filled with interactive vegetation, (with blades of grass interacting individually rather than in grouped clumps as it seems to in MHW) wildlife, collectables, etc. You can engage a mob of enemies, throw a chicken into them so that it summons a bunch more to gank the enemy that hits it, set the grass on fire which will then spread in accordance with the wind conditions, (which will also influence particles created during the encounter) throw a bomb which might knock down a nearby tree and sending apples scattering around to be cooked in the fire, which will also degrade and destroy any wooden shields and weapons the enemy have of they catch fire, and all this can be going off at once. I have yet to see anything in MHW that even comes close to that level of interactivity.

I highly doubt that every blade of grass is interactive. What BotW does looks like a displacement map with simple spherical bounds ... (the blades of grass being bent further behind Link is not very plausible and not even Nvidia's state of the art solution simulates "every" individual blade, BotW makes a lot more simplifications for grass deformation than you think) 

MHW may not feature combustible destruction as seen like the Far Cry series but it has far more destructible environments and that more than makes up for it. Furthermore the level design in MHW feels more populated and alive compared to BotW but there's other details to enhance the environment such as smaller roaming critters throughout the map ... (monsters intentionally targeting each other is also a part of the AI's new behaviour too, it's these small things that add up to create a detailed and highly interactive experience in MHW that sets it apart from last generation games) 

Even if what you said was true there's still the issue of the Switch staying graphically accurate to the original art ... (I don't think the Switch would be able to render many of the same beautiful vistas even with graphical cut backs) 

Botw's world is also full of small roaming critters; insects, lizards, birds, etc are everywhere, and enemies and wildlife interact; goblins hunt attack boar and other wild game, field bosses can be lured into fighting one another, etc.

Naturally MHW would need graphical cutbacks on Switch; lower screen/texture/alpha resolution for instance, but I think Switch owners would be fine with this, and it wouldn't be a barrier to the game selling.



curl-6 said:
GOWTLOZ said:

Switch has a weaker CPU than PS3 and in portable mode I've heard that its GPU is less powerful than a PS3. It has more ram and a more modern architecture but I don't think that would be enough.

Look at Doom say. It runs at 1080p60fps on PS4 at medium to high settings. It runs at 640p30fps on Switch docked with lower than low settings. That with a  very scalable and good engine like Idtech6. Unreal engine 4 games struggle to even run at 30fps at 1080p on PS4, it would get real bad on Switch. There is only so much downgrading possible before the game loses its soul. Those Wii ports of PS3 games felt nothing like the PS3 version. I don't think that is an ideal experience for a Switch owner whose spending $60 on a game.

Even in portable mode, Switch's GPU is better than PS3's. If we look at games they share, like FIFA 18 and Skyrim,  Switch performs better both docked and undocked.

Switch ports of PS4/Xbone games wouldn't have to be cut back as much as Wii ports from PS3, because the power gap is much smaller in the former case.

Switch has weaker GPU in undocked mode in terms of raw power than PS3. It has some advantages like modern architecture, shaders and all but still we are talking about PS4 and Xbox one games here. The hardware power difference is big even in docked mode. Like i said Doom shows how big it really is in practice. Doom is also one of the best looking and running games on PS4 so think how bad a game like MHW will look that runs at a much lower framerate on PS4.

I know Switch is more comparable to PS4 than Wii was to PS3 but the difference is still really big.