Hiku said:
That's what I've been saying all along.
I'm not sure how "I'm counting 3DS as part of the mobile markets" is so unclear to you.
At least after I've clarified it for you several times. My argument all along was that the market for portable games, whether on smartphones or 3DS is strong.
This is the discussion in a nutshell:
Me: Lower budget games that commonly appeared on 3DS will end up on Switch.
You: If you don't think these lower budget games are coming to Switch, you're kidding yourself.
Me: No, I said they would.
Me: The home console market is strong.
You: GTAV says otherwise. Because it's selling really well and got people to buy consoles.
Me: I didn't say it was doing badly.
Because you don't take time to read properly, even after multiple attemps at explaining it to you, I'll try to explain one more time to sum it up fort you.
I said that publishers will probably be cautiously optimistic about Switch's future. To which you replied that they can't afford to be on the wall about this, citing the weak home console market in Japan. To which I replied that if developers need to make money in the meantime, and asside from their home console business, there is the mobile market, which is strong in Japan. I mentioned 3DS as an example of the healthy mobile market, and that even Switch would be relevant hear at the very least when it comes to the lower budget titles that publishers like to develop for the portable systems.
At this point you seemed to get triggered by the mere mention of "mobile" because of previous discussions you've been in to the point where you stopped reading my posts on the subject properly.
After I said that lower budget games like the ones that commonly appear on 3DS would find their way to Switch, you told me I'm kidding myself if I do not think they will not end up on Switch.
After I said that the mobile market is strong because of smartphones, 3DS and even Switch, you told me I'm wrong, because the market for 3DS is strong.
Getting confused once or maybe twice I get. But three times? When I even specifically say I'm counting the 3DS as part of the the strong mobile market in Japan? I don't know how you got that wrong.
And even if we're only talking about the smartphone section of mobile gaming, I didn't say anything about it or anything else affecting the 3DS negatively.
That was all in your head. That's a different discussion to have, and not particularly relevant to the point I was making.
| 2- I'm not missing the point its more you don't get the point in that 3DS is a different scenario to what Switch is with the latter able to better run console level games that's the flaw in your argument yet portables like 3DS and Vita were able to get console like games and in Vita's case some console ports as well despite having a much bigger gap to overcome. NS has done away with alot of the problems being more in common with other platforms and having less of a gap to deal with compared to these two, those examples that contradict your argument aren't the exceptions they're what happens when business forces the issue. |
If you didn't miss the point then you'll have to explain why you gave lower budget games as counter examples to the claim that developers like to release lower budget games on portable devices. (Lower as in lower than their console counterparts.)
How did I miss the point of 3DS not being able to run console level games while Switch can, when I specifically acknowledged it and mentioned that Vita is a better example for that very reason? Wii and WiiU are even more capable of running current gen console ports, and yet they got very few. What did developers do instead on the super popular Wii? They developed new games specifically designed for Wii, while entries in popular franchises majorly appeared on PS3/360 instead. WiiU they mostly just ignored alltogether. And Switch is reportedly not a lot more powerful than WiiU.
Also, we haven't seen Switch run a single non-indie Playstation 4 game yet that's not also on PS3. Dragon Quest XI, which they still haven't shown us, may be the first. But what we're specifically interested in are games that don't use simple Nintendo-style textures, which DQXI happens to do. Because FF7 is not that kind of game. So just how well Switch can run games like that remains to be seen.
| 3- Not entirely true as 3D FFs go as the are cases where they have remained stationary and not forward an example being FFXII which graphically was reduced from FFX I can show you a straight up comparison if you wish. I'm basing things on what I've seen and not seen and not assumptions like what you're doing in what you think will be in the game, an episodic structure may also make things less demanding depending on execution because assets outside of episodes may not even be accessed or loaded. |
Final Fantasy XII is arguably an exception to this. But the tradeoff was that enemies appeared on screen, in larger explorable areas, which was a huge change from the invisible random encounters of the past. I would say that this very much did push the envelope visually for a 3D Jrpg at the time. Every modern FF game since have had enemies-on-screen in some form.
And I wasn't only assuming things about FF7. That was in reply to you suggesting that things you "haven't seen" in FF7 may not be in it. That's also assuming things. Assuming that DQXI is open world, and FF7 is not, then it would be relevant to bring it into the discussion. Not before that.
About the "episodic nature" let's not call it that because that's not the term SE originally used. They said "multi game series", and compared it to the Final Fantasy XIII series. But their English presss release took liberties with the translation, and because of that people got confused and associated that term with games like the Telltale game series.
Regardless, having it be a multi game series should not have any particular impact on overall game performance. The reason you couldn't access most of Midgar on Disc 2 and 3 of the original was due to data volume. That may be why they do the same thing in the remake. It could also be related to game performance though, if they for example make significant changes to the game system in between games, which for whatever reason do not blend well with the Midgar section of the game. But it's also possible that if the first game is only Midgar, it could be more demanding on the hardware than even a potential open world section in Game 2. Whether that's because of more poor optimization, or because the detaiuls of Midgar are just that demanding.
However, I can't imagine how this would be used to make a game run more properly on hardware that struggles to run any particular section of the game.
|
