| Nuvendil said: That's an awful high and mighty tone you're taking, lumping everyone who dares question Square here is an ignorant, entitled dimwit. Square set these expectations up. I'm not expecting Switch versions to be conjured from the ether. But they've had dev kits for a year and a half, possibly longer. UE4 received its Switch compatibility updates twelve months ago. Multiple devs porting either more demanding games - Doom and Wolfenstein 2 are obvious examples given id Tech 6 was never intended for any mobile SOC - or UE4 games either have the games out already or have progress to show. Square has nothing. Going by this statement, it sounds like they haven't even started or barely have. If they had said, hey DQXI is coming in November or Q1 2019 and had some footage or screens to show, a lot of people like me would have been fine. Still would suck but hey. But this? Having fuck all to show after a year and a half with the dev kits and over a year with official Unreal Engine 4 support for it and then telling everyone you basically have done nothing and have not a single picture to show? That's just embarassing. And of course let's forget they set these standards. They've had no issue bringign their other announced games so they clearly aren't sitting on their hands like Capcom. They also announced this game going on 2 years ago for Switch. They reaffirmed it January 2017. If this game was such an insurmountable, herculean task (a hilarious notion but I'll play devil's advocate), they should have kept their darn mouths' shut if they didn't want people to hold them to any kind of standard or accountability. |
Well, Square are the ones with the engineers here with internal knowledge so they probably do know what they're doing compared to the rest of us and in actuality, DQXI is more demanding than Doom or Wolfenstein 2 ... (both of them run at 1080p/60fps while DQXI is 900p/30fps on base PS4)
It's also really difficult to measure *progress* just from whether or not they show a working build from either a functional or a content perspective. It could very well be that they first started by porting the content before they even got the game to compile for the Switch or they could be ironing out graphical bugs before they do a presentation of the game or they could be trying to get past through the dreaded black screen/crashes ... (we simply just don't know enough about the development status of the Switch version to say for sure how much it has progressed with these possible issues arising)
The only standard the Square should be held is whether or not they deliver the game for the Switch, nothing more and nothing less but a famous poster here once proclaimed that "today is the truth, tomorrow is a lie" so unless we can buy DQXI for the Switch in stores today the said version of the game doesn't truly exist ...
| Nuvendil said: Pray tell, when do we have permission to be dissatisfied with these kinds of things? I understand and will totally join you on breaking harsh reality to people demanding to know where Cyperpunk 2077 is or Witcher 3 or Battlefield 1, I am a realist in the extreme challenges faced by devs working with the highest end games. But are we allowed to expect reasonable time frames on games that aren't that demanding and were announced ages ago? Or is that basic standard too high? When can we start complaining that Bandai promised game after game afger game *to their investors* and have since done nothing of note despite 75% of their library being impressive only by late PS3 standards? Or is holding devs to their own word to people they are legally obligated to be honest to too unreasonable? |
They aren't legally obligated to deliver their targets at all! Probably goes for every company/business as well I imagine so grumbling about them not committing to a solid timeframe and a sooner one at that doesn't help your case ... (each companies have their own standards and targets they set like it or not)
| Nuvendil said: I'm so sick and tired of people who own Switches be told they aren't allowed to complain, no matter how reasonable, told that holding devs to basic standards is being an entitled brat. How far from launch do we have to be for people to stop saying it's so soon and most of these games were already being made? Or should I expect people in 2020 to say, "don't be so demanding, these games were well into production and almost finished 3 years ago when no one had announced them or shown them, you can't expect them to show up immediately so soon after Switch launches!" And how graphically simple does a game have to be, or if Megaman 11 gets delayed for Switch should I look forward to hearing "you shouldn't blame Capcom, blame Nintendo, it's their fault porting to the Switch is soooooo hard." How many tests have to be passed, how many systems does the Switch have to sell, how vibrant does the ecosystem have to be before Switch owners are entitled to expect some professionalism and effort? |
Whenever the developers feel like it since after all they work according to *their own* schedule rather than outside people's expectations ...
| Nuvendil said: In short, when can Switch owners have even a FRAGMANT of the entitlement to be disgruntled that PS4 and Xbone users have? And in the case of DQXI, how many UE4 games have to beat them to the punch, how long does the delay have to be, how flipant does their attitude need to be, how many games running on higher end engines not intended for Switch need to beat them out the gate before we can start to complain? When do we have your permission to be dissatisfied *with Square*? I would very much like to know where the arbitrary line is drawn. |
Maybe give it 2 years ? I didn't see PS4/X1 getting many big current gen exclusive 3rd party titles until they were well into their second year with games such as Fallout 4, Star Wars Battlefront and Witcher 3. Expecting reasonable support by 2019 with a full ramp up by 2020 doesn't sound too far-fetched ... (game development is like a train that won't stop until it either reaches it's destination or crash so the Switch's best bet is to catch the next wave of games which started development less than 2 years ago rather than the current ones which started even farther along than that)
| Nuvendil said: Or do Switch owners need to sit like little school children, hands folded in their lap and be very good, clapping whenever these publishers hold up the "Applause" sign and being very very good in order to maybe convince these publishers to deign to grace the Switch with their glorious presence? I am a realist, I know many games are a challenge, I know Switch versions take time. I never would have requested Doom or Wolfenstein 2 at all and never would have complained of their absence. And their presence doesn't have me up in arms demanding Battlefront 2 or Battlefield 1 or Witcher 3. Cool as those would be, those are very challenging. And I am not complaining at all about Wolfenstein 2's dev cycle cause I get it. But DQXI? No. No, this is not acceptable. Wouldn't be on the PS4 or Xbone or PC. When you take all the elements into consideration, there is no excuse. This is on Square. And this is unacceptable. Edit: Sorry this is such a wall of text and I'm sure you weren't trying to pick a fight, but I've seen the attitude I described far too often and it bugs me to death. And also, calling your opinion the unbiased one, implying those who disagree are biased and wrong by default came off as quite condescending and abrasive. |
The only difference here is that developers had the benefit of PS4/X1 releasing over 4 years ago to be able to consistently deliver like they do now. To put it bluntly, the Switch is NOT in the same boat as either PS4/X1 so the situation between the two is not comparable ...
