By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
caffeinade on 06 December 2017
Edit Thread
curl-6 said:
irstupid said:

Polished or not, I am loving the game. I would rather have Monolith come out with a new game every couple years of this quality than worry about some extra polish and it take say 4 years.

Oh I agree, I loathe delays and long dev times, so I'm happy we got it now in its current form.

Cerebralbore101 said: 

- The graphics are on par with a PS3 game from 2009.

Yeah, nah. This isn't PS3 graphics. You could point to certain minor assets in the game and say that they wouldn't look out of place on PS3, but the scale, lighting, foliage, effects, etc all together are well beyond what PS3 could do.

caffeinade said:

It isn't just memory steaming that is tanking the framerate.
The game is just too big for the standard Switch.

I don't think that's the case; granted I'm only in chapter 3 but so far it's not as "big" as Breath of the Wild which was designed for the weaker Wii U. I hardly think XBC2 is the limit of what the Switch hardware can accomplish given its a first year title.

If it had a 4 year development cycle, it would have come out mid next year.
Not a big deal for a more polished end product.

I would put Xenoblade 2 above any PS3 title out there.
The only thing close would be Metal Gear Solid V, but even that seems to fall short (on PS3).
Oh, and look at that framerate:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In3osfKXYFc
Also Xenoblade 2 runs at a higher res.

I was not talking about the size being an issue (though I cannot deny I should have used more accurate wording).
Xenoblade 2 drops frames when I am doing larger combos, which would seem to indicate a GPU bottleneck.
Given a few more years I am sure we will see more impressive games, running on more optimised engines.
For now: Xenoblade seems to max out the the Switch in a few instances, given the circumstances.

Last edited by caffeinade - on 06 December 2017