By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - DF : Ark Survival Evolved on Switch - 360p (docked) / 216p (handheld) goodness!

 

Would you be proud to launch a game like this?

yes 11 20.37%
 
no 43 79.63%
 
Total:54
Mr.GameCrazy on 13 December 2018

Jeez. This is a terrible looking game on the Switch and it still doesn't have a smooth framerate. This shouldn't have been ported to it in the first place.



Around the Network
Lafiel on 13 December 2018

it has a nice painterly look to it, right guys?



JRPGfan on 13 December 2018
TheMisterManGuy said:
This is just one of those games where the developers really just wanted to say "Hey, Switch can run it!, not well but it can run it!". Doom and Wolfenstein were heavily optimized and smaller scale titles that managed to feel, look, and play as accurately as possible to the other versions, while still being good ports in their own right.

Doom and Wolftenstein are fine, even if they had to make sacrifices to run on the Switch, its within acceptable levels.

Ark Survival isnt in that league, this is to the point where you have to ask, "why was this done?".



HoloDust on 13 December 2018

Well, ARK runs like shit on right about everything, is it really any surprise that runs as bad on Switch too?



Barozi on 13 December 2018

Just as I expected. Horrible results.
That is what happens when you try to port games that already run poorly on PS4/X1 to a significantly worse system (performance-wise).

While not as drastic, similar results could be seen if devs ported other games to Switch that aren't targeting 1080p 60FPS on PS4/X1.



Around the Network
Paatar on 13 December 2018

I got this and the pic in the OP is of handheld mode, looks much worse here than on screen. Docked looks way better than that pic.



[Switch Friend code: 3909-3991-4970]

[Xbox Live: JissuWolfe]

[PSN: Jissu]

episteme on 13 December 2018

Damn, I imagine Crysis would look like this forcing it to run on Voodoo 1 PC.



Mandalore76 on 13 December 2018

I'm not defending the state of the game as launched, but I do want to comment on the side by side graphical comparison in op. Why are the side by side graphical comparisons of multi-platform games shown as Switch against Xbox One X? The X is the premium edition of the Xbox One. There is no "Premium" Switch, so you would think the graphical comparisons would be between the Switch and the base model Xbox One. Having said that, Ark on Switch looks like a mess, and no I wouldn't be happy with that kind of release.



Metallox on 13 December 2018
Mandalore76 said:
I'm not defending the state of the game as launched, but I do want to comment on the side by side graphical comparison in op. Why are the side by side graphical comparisons of multi-platform games shown as Switch against Xbox One X? The X is the premium edition of the Xbox One. There is no "Premium" Switch, so you would think the graphical comparisons would be between the Switch and the base model Xbox One. Having said that, Ark on Switch looks like a mess, and no I wouldn't be happy with that kind of release.

I guess it's just there to determine how much had to be sacrificed for the Switch release, compared to the best looking version of ARK, the Xbox One X one. Sounds fair to me. 



My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first. 

SuperNova on 13 December 2018

As far as I can tell this game is an unoptimized mess on just about every system. They would have had to put some serious work into a well-running Switch port, but seeing that they weren't willing to put the work into any of the otehr versions of the game I'm not sure we realistically could have expected any better...