Currently Online 
| Slownenberg said: I just don't get the hatred for Switch graphics. Switch games look great. All modern games that go for nice graphics these days look great, except when the developer just simply does a poor job. Tons and tons of Switch games look absolutely stellar, Prime remaster is one of them. Anyone could name loads of great looking Switch games. What would you do...just pretend like none of them look good? lol |
There are tons of Switch games that don't look great. - Pokemon for example.
The limitations of the Switch games visual make-up tends to become very readily apparent on my 85" 4k TV, more often than not.
That's not to say there aren't games that haven't been handled well... Links Awakening I think has absolutely charming visuals due to the Gameboy-centric art style and material shaders that were put to good use.
But... The low resolution of Switch games tends to hide those smaller details, which is extremely unfortunate.
mZuzek said:
I would've imagined as much, because the game itself is clearly the exact same Metroid Prime we've always had, just with aesthetic changes. Like I don't know anything about engines and such, but I imagine that an engine swap would lead to the game feel being at least a little different from the original. That said, in some parts the new graphics do remind me of that typical UE4 look you see in like prototype remasters and such. I know technically an engine doesn't determine the look of a game, but I think most of you know what I mean, there's a certain look that UE4 is associated with and Metroid Prime falls in there, hence why people thought it was made on it. |
The game would handle very differently due to different middleware being employed.
An engine does place some technical "limits" on how a game will present, for example.... The Half Life 2 engine for example has hard limits of 10,000 polygons/model, 17,433 vertices, 4096 texture size and 128 bones. - So those models tend to be presented in a certain way to fit inside those constraints... Which are also often dictated by the hardware that it's being run on.
Same goes for how lighting/shadowing and effects are presented... idtech 4 for instance leveraged stencil shadows, it was an engine feature, so shadows felt dynamic, but also extremely contrasty verses baked or shadow maps we get in games today, which gives games on that engine a very unique look.
The game is clearly still presented on the same technical base as it's original release, but you can tell they have made some massive improvements to the engine... They would have likely borrowed technology from their later engines and backported.
It's a smart way of doing it, it reduces development time significantly... Whilst not changing gameplay behaviour to a massive degree... And you still get a big improvement in visuals.
Leynos said:
And up until mid last gen CoD games were using a heavily modified engine from 1999. |
CoD Games were based on id Tech 3... Their latest engine IW 9.0 still has a tiny bit of code from decades prior. - Engine has been rebuilt and overhaul multiple times over the years... And this is actually a common practice.
Epic does it with Unreal, Valve does it with their engines, Bethesda with Creation still has code from Net Immerse.
No point throwing away the entire wheel if you don't need to.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
