By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

There is no headroom because it was poorly made, simple as that. If you have games that are more intense, have higher IQ and can get 1080p and or 60fps, then it is clear this game could as well. I haven't said anything about the current form, because obviously if it could in the current form it would.

Yes sure being cartoony doesn't automatically make it light. But comparing it to other games (photorealistic or not) I don't see anything technically outstanding in this game.

I don't see any sign of it being poorly made from a technical perspective; it's not like its has a bad framerate, rampant bugs, or anything like that. It simply makes the common UE4 tradeoff of a lower resolution.

It may not be a top-tier graphical showcase, but we can't really write off the Switch version's accomplishments by saying it's "not demanding" when we're talking about a game that runs at 900p on PS4.

Making a common tradeoff is hardly a showcase of good optimization or going the extra mile.

Sorry if it seemed like I was writing off Switch. It is great that it good another very competent port. My wole point was that it is the type of game I would expect a great port of. As I said I don't see any technical feature that is so taxing that either the game couldn't be 1080p on PS4 or ported well for Switch.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."