Quantcast
Hellblade could be an interesting test case

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Hellblade could be an interesting test case

twintail said:
curl-6 said:

Switch may support UE4 but that doesn't necessarily mean anything running on this engine is an easy port. Hellblade is still a demanding game that's 30fps even on PS4 wasn't designed with the limitations of a mobile SoC in mind. 

And we don't know how it overall runs on switch yet either. 

Nonetheless,  if it is ue4, it is always possible and not surprising. It's not easy of course but it's alot easier than porting a non ue4 game.

Anyways DQ11 is ue4 and I'd argue that would be more difficult. Hellblade is a very linear experience.  

I honestly think you are overselling what this port means.  

DQ11 is open world and does run at a lower res on PS4 than Hellblade, it's true. On the other hand a cartoon art style tends to give the dev more leeway to make trimmings without it being quite as noticeable. And yeah, as I prefaced in the OP, this is speaking theoretically, if Hellblade turns out okay.



Around the Network

Why is this even a question? Have you not seen Wolfenstein 2? It was downgraded so much it's like another game altogether. 



Microsoft porting one of their games to the Switch. :)



  • PSN: Hynad
  • NN: 3519-6016-4122
  • XBL: Hynad
  • Steam: Hynad81
Drakrami said:

Why is this even a question? Have you not seen Wolfenstein 2? It was downgraded so much it's like another game altogether. 

Making a mountain out of a mole hill much? It's really hard to have a proper dialogue in this subject. Every time somebody goes to this way



 

 

We reap what we sow

a real test case would be assassins creed unity with it's massive crowds.



Around the Network
curl-6 said:

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.

You just could have checked the video and then you'd know that they used a 750Ti coupled with a Core 2 Duo. That combo barely compares to the Xbox One (slightly more GPU power in theory, but that gets hold back by the dualcore CPU and it's FSB so much the Xbox should almost be able to run circles around the rig. In effect it's about what the Switch should reach.



I'm definitely interested in seeing how this one turns out, for the reasons you stated. I've been keeping my eye out for these type of games that can change our perspective on what is feasible on Switch. And this could very well be one of them.
I don't know how much it would do for other developers, because I recon many of them who are interested in porting games to Switch will run some internal tests.
But at the very least for us who like to speculate about these sort of things, it could be an interesting reference.

twintail said: 
curl-6 said: 

It's unique in that there hasn't yet been an advanced 30fps PS4/Xbone game ported to Switch.

Out of curiosity which more demanding ones do you think would be better suited?

Sure but the game runs on UE4 and considering Switch supports UE4 and that the engine is scaleable (I believe?), this isn't exactly an overly difficult port to do.

Something like RDR2, or even not open world would be a better test case. Anything UE4 is pretty much fair game for Switch and hardly surprising if announced for the device.

One Unreal Engine 4 game can greatly differ from another in how demanding or scale friendly they are made to be.
If the game dictates that there are let's say 13 enemies at once on screen for story purposes (The 13 Organisation members from Kingdom Hearts as a made up example) then its impossible to remove any one of them to enhance performance.
But removing objects, whether it's in the form of increased draw distance, or just permanently, is something developers some times have to resort to in situations where lowering resolution, textures, effects, etc isn't enough. (At least while maintaining a visual standard they don't want to drop below.) So then they'll need to come up with more creative workarounds.

Anything UE4 isn't even fair game for Xbox One X or PS4 Pro theoretically, if the developer wants to go that route.
But realistically there's little reason anyone would release such a demanding game.

Last edited by Hiku - on 18 February 2019

Drakrami said:

Why is this even a question? Have you not seen Wolfenstein 2? It was downgraded so much it's like another game altogether. 

What do you mean? I have both versions and apart from a lower FPS, they play almost identical and post Launch switch version looks alright alot less blurry than when first launched.



Just because the game runs on UE4 doesnt mean it's guaranteed to work on the Switch. The dev's expertise, how demanding the game is, and many more factors are in play here.

For example, Ace Combat 7 runs at 720p at a very unstable 40-45 fps on the base xbox there's no way that runs on Switch. Because of the terrible optimization by the developer.



Bet with Intrinsic:

The Switch will outsell 3DS (based on VGchartz numbers), according to me, while Intrinsic thinks the opposite will hold true. One month avatar control for the loser's avatar.

Bofferbrauer2 said:
curl-6 said:

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.

You just could have checked the video and then you'd know that they used a 750Ti coupled with a Core 2 Duo. That combo barely compares to the Xbox One (slightly more GPU power in theory, but that gets hold back by the dualcore CPU and it's FSB so much the Xbox should almost be able to run circles around the rig. In effect it's about what the Switch should reach.

The 750 Ti is a PS4 level GPU. Maxwell is much more efficient, per streaming multiprocessor, than the GCN architecture in the XB1/PS4. And CPUs don't evolve as fast as GPUs. The Core 2 Duo performs better than Jaguar CPUs quite easily:

https://www.game-debate.com/cpu/index.php?pid=1961&pid2=15&compare=%20APU%20A6-5200M%20Quad-Core-vs-Intel%20Core%202%20Duo%20E8400%203.0GHz

Granted, the PS4/XB1 can use 6 or 7 cores instead of 4, but at a lower clock than desktop Jaguars, and even then, the difference would still be there in favor of the Core 2 Duo. If it were a console, the Core 2 Duo + GTX 750 Ti would be close to the PS4 graphically, and be much more balanced than the Wii-U (the console which had the largest CPU-GPU gap I can think of ).