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
Miyamotoo on 14 December 2018
Barozi said:

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.

You could see similar results only if devs that are porting game dont know meaning of optimisation, game is mess on every platform and probably worst optimised game of generation on every platform. For comparision RDR2 thats looks like most impresive and demanding game of generation works at 1080p on base PS4, while Ark Survival Evolved on base PS4 runs at around 640p with much worse frame rate. 

Signalstar said: 
Bring on the RDR2 port next!

RDR2 port on Switch would probably look miles better than this, RDR2 on base PS4 runs at 1080p while this thing runs at base PS4 at 640p with worse frame rate.



Around the Network
ironmanDX on 14 December 2018

That intro to the video was pretty spot on. This port is equally parts poor as it is hilarious. Shouldn't have made it to the Nintendo store.



Keybladewielder on 14 December 2018

Did they really release the game in that state? 

Shameless and even disrespectful to Switch owners.



vivster on 14 December 2018

They did want 3rd party support. And they want it more than quality control, apparently.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Oneeee-Chan!!! on 14 December 2018

https://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/ark-survival-evolved

Metascore  70 

It's a mediocre game.



Around the Network
Azzanation on 14 December 2018
curl-6 said:

There's nothing "spoilt" about objecting to a product of such staggering low quality being sold for $50 in this day and age.

Games cost just as much in the 90s with alot lower standards. 

Its just as sad as when gamers point out 1 frame drops in tech analyst and claiming something is unplayable because it dropped 5 frames from 30 to 25fps.

Modern gamers are extremly spoilt.



curl-6 on 14 December 2018
Azzanation said:
curl-6 said:

There's nothing "spoilt" about objecting to a product of such staggering low quality being sold for $50 in this day and age.

Games cost just as much in the 90s with alot lower standards. 

Its just as sad as when gamers point out 1 frame drops in tech analyst and claiming something is unplayable because it dropped 5 frames from 30 to 25fps.

This isn't one of those cases though. Nobody's crucifying the game over a 1 frame per second dip. The reason its catching flak is because it is quite possibly one of the most technically atrocious games to see a console release since the N64 era. It is simply not acceptable to charge $50 for something so massively below par. This isn't 1994.



Azzanation on 14 December 2018
curl-6 said:

This isn't one of those cases though. Nobody's crucifying the game over a 1 frame per second dip. The reason its catching flak is because it is quite possibly one of the most technically atrocious games to see a console release since the N64 era. It is simply not acceptable to charge $50 for something so massively below par. This isn't 1994.

Its a common tread with sandbox games. Even Fallout76 which was made by a AAA developer cannot master the art. 

Ark should not be sold $50 i agree there.

Keep in mind current games release broken normally  and get hot fixed over time. Where as a broken game in the 90s was not repairable. All for the sameprice.



curl-6 on 14 December 2018
Azzanation said:
curl-6 said:

This isn't one of those cases though. Nobody's crucifying the game over a 1 frame per second dip. The reason its catching flak is because it is quite possibly one of the most technically atrocious games to see a console release since the N64 era. It is simply not acceptable to charge $50 for something so massively below par. This isn't 1994.

Its a common tread with sandbox games. Even Fallout76 which was made by a AAA developer cannot master the art. 

Ark should not be sold $50 i agree there.

It's common for sandbox games to be glitchy, yeah, but I honestly can't even remember the last time a game this hideous saw a console release. This shit makes Life of Black Tiger look like Uncharted 4.



Barozi on 14 December 2018
curl-6 said:
Barozi said:

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.

Wolfenstein II isn't 1080/60fps on Xbox One, it's 810p, yet it was ported to Switch fairly well.

Of course it isn't since PS4 and Xbox One aren't identical in power and developers try to push PS4 as much as possible. I just didn't want to make the post more complicated. 810p is a poor job indeed as it's usually 900p for X1 when PS4 runs it at 1080p. It also doesn't run at a locked 60FPS on both consoles, but you get the idea. 1080p 60FPS is easily portable to Switch. A little below that is tricky but possible. Something significantly lower than that (900p30FPS/720p60FPS on X1 or 1080p30FPS/900p60FPS on PS4) is going to be a huge problem and everything below that (Ark, PUBG and maybe others) will look exactly like the pics above.