By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - What is going to sell better on the Switch, Skyrim or FIFA 18?

Tagged games:

 

What is going to sell better on the Switch, Skyrim or FIFA 18?

The Elder Scrolls V. Skyrim. 193 44.06%
 
FIFA 18. 160 36.53%
 
They will practically sell the same. 20 4.57%
 
The rabbids will consume us all. 65 14.84%
 
Total:438
Nuvendil said:

Except the Frostbite 3 engine originated on weaker hardware than the Switch.  And Fifa is hardly a technical titan.  There's no evidence that Fifa is taking advantage of some special features of the engine that need PSr and Xbone level specs.  And I'm not about to trust the mouth pieces of Electronic Arts.

And I doubt that beyond graphics there will be any major differences between the Switch and PS4 versions of DQXI.  DQXI runs on UE4, natively compatible with Switch.  And it isn't a technical marvel.  

Just because the older release of the engine ran on the older systems doesn't mean the latest release will ... (And FIFA arguably does take advantage of the current gen systems in comparison to last gen systems which lack physically based rendering and volumetric lighting but I won't deny that game is designed to be more performance oriented. EA takes their engine development just as seriously as a dedicated engine developer like Epic Games would if not maybe even more so since their willing to raise the baseline hardware requirements to achieve a higher technical quality. Would you rather a downgrade in resolution and framerate to get the same graphical features and content instead ?)

As for your last line it depends on what you mean by 'major' ... (Despite both the PS4 and 3DS featuring near identical mechanics, sound, general design and story people still view them as different games since the graphics in both games present the artwork, level design and content very differently.) 

So regardless of the graphics there won't be any major differences to begin with ... (If people reject the idea that Switch can handle FFXV in it's current form which had a relatively good performance profile on PS4@1080p30fps then those very same people should doubly so rule out the idea of Switch handling the PS4 version of DQXI since it has even worse performance in comparison to FFXV since it runs at 900p30fps on PS4.) 



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
Nuvendil said:

Except the Frostbite 3 engine originated on weaker hardware than the Switch.  And Fifa is hardly a technical titan.  There's no evidence that Fifa is taking advantage of some special features of the engine that need PSr and Xbone level specs.  And I'm not about to trust the mouth pieces of Electronic Arts.

And I doubt that beyond graphics there will be any major differences between the Switch and PS4 versions of DQXI.  DQXI runs on UE4, natively compatible with Switch.  And it isn't a technical marvel.  

Just because the older release of the engine ran on the older systems doesn't mean the latest release will ... (And FIFA arguably does take advantage of the current gen systems in comparison to last gen systems which lack physically based rendering and volumetric lighting but I won't deny that game is designed to be more performance oriented. EA takes their engine development just as seriously as a dedicated engine developer like Epic Games would if not maybe even more so since their willing to raise the baseline hardware requirements to achieve a higher technical quality. Would you rather a downgrade in resolution and framerate to get the same graphical features and content instead ?)

As for your last line it depends on what you mean by 'major' ... (Despite both the PS4 and 3DS featuring near identical mechanics, sound, general design and story people still view them as different games since the graphics in both games present the artwork, level design and content very differently.) 

So regardless of the graphics there won't be any major differences to begin with ... (If people reject the idea that Switch can handle FFXV in it's current form which had a relatively good performance profile on PS4@1080p30fps then those very same people should doubly so rule out the idea of Switch handling the PS4 version of DQXI since it has even worse performance in comparison to FFXV since it runs at 900p30fps on PS4.) 

And Snake Pass runs at 864p on PS4 yet still runs on Switch just fine.  Guess that means we'll get 720p Dragon Quest XI and 900p Final Fantasy XV! 

Except that's nonsense because you can't just compare games on different engines in such an incredibly basic way.  Final Fantasy XV is much more technically advanced than Dragon Quest XI.  The Digital Foundry analyses show that.  The resolution choice is anyone's guess but if I were to speculate, it was a prioritization of post processing image quality effects, same thing as with Snake Pass.



sethnintendo said:

They still own a 10% stake in Mariners....

I thought they sold that stake a year or so back.  No?



sethnintendo said:
killeryoshis said:
Skyrim no contest. Nintendo fans love open world fantasy games. Sports games will have build up that love for now. Maybe a year or two from now my statement will be flipped.

Maybe if Nintendo would start making good sports games again like Ken Griffey Jr Baseball....

Ken Griffey on SNES was so bomb. Loved Home Run Derby.

Back back back back back.... 



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Top 12: Best Games on the N64 - Special Features, Episode 7

Nuvendil said:

And Snake Pass runs at 864p on PS4 yet still runs on Switch just fine.  Guess that means we'll get 720p Dragon Quest XI and 900p Final Fantasy XV! 

Except that's nonsense because you can't just compare games on different engines in such an incredibly basic way.  Final Fantasy XV is much more technically advanced than Dragon Quest XI.  The Digital Foundry analyses show that.  The resolution choice is anyone's guess but if I were to speculate, it was a prioritization of post processing image quality effects, same thing as with Snake Pass.

Snake Pass ran sub-720p on Switch when docked ... (DQH2 on Switch ran 1080p@20-30fps while on PS4 it was 1080p@50-60fps with graphical upgrades too so it is ALMOST 3x harder to run DQXI on PS4 compared to DQH2. Best case scenario is Switch getting DQXI at 720p30fps with graphical downgrades going by Snake Pass. Snake Pass is too easy on the Switch when DQXI is geometrically more dense with base PS4 having 5x higher triangle throughput compared to Switch undocked and can achieve even higher triangle throughput with usage of async compute!) 

FFXV maybe more technically advanced but DQXI is technically more demanding to run since it takes 16.66ms to render a 900p frame for the latter than 1080p the former ... (Optimization and results are another issue altogether. What may work for the PS4 may not work for the Switch and vice versa like we see with how UE4 is a poor fit for home consoles when literally almost every western AAA publisher such as Activision, EA and even *gulp* dare I say it Bethesda has a better solution too.)

Anyways this is getting a little off topic ...



Around the Network
Nuvendil said:

It's not the technical gap that's the issue.  It's the fact that Career Mode and Ultimate Team are more limited and The Journey is cut.  And unless an EA dev comes to my house and proves otherwise, all evidence points to this being a result of EA being cheap, not the Switch being unable to run a soccer game - a freaking soccer game - on an engine designed for the PS360 in the first place.  

In short, the game is feature stripped.  Gimped.  Objectively inferior in ways beyond simple graphics.  And that stigma will hamper it.  Do your casual Fifa players know all this?  Nah.  But that's actually worse.  All your casual fans will hear is "the game is feature stripped" and boom. Done.  That's it.  Sale lost.  Some will value the portability enough, most will not.  

And the PS4 and Xbone versions have normal old local multiplayer.  I doubt the ability to play system to system local will even register on the radar.

Skyrim is technically downgraded but at least noticeably stepped up from last gen and includes all the DLC plus some added trinkets.  That is, it is a full and complete version of the game + portability.  Not a feature stripped version hoping for portability to offset it.

While I agree that the unfortunate lack of certain modes has lead to FIFA Switch being seen as a stripped down version, on a technical level it could have been worse; it's not like they just stuck the PS3/360 version on Switch and called it a day, which I honestly expected them to. It's 1080p/60fps and it's using the physically based rendering tech that the PS4/Xbone versions use but PS360 FIFA never got. I'm not sure the engine it's running on is such a big deal.



curl-6 said:
Nuvendil said:

It's not the technical gap that's the issue.  It's the fact that Career Mode and Ultimate Team are more limited and The Journey is cut.  And unless an EA dev comes to my house and proves otherwise, all evidence points to this being a result of EA being cheap, not the Switch being unable to run a soccer game - a freaking soccer game - on an engine designed for the PS360 in the first place.  

In short, the game is feature stripped.  Gimped.  Objectively inferior in ways beyond simple graphics.  And that stigma will hamper it.  Do your casual Fifa players know all this?  Nah.  But that's actually worse.  All your casual fans will hear is "the game is feature stripped" and boom. Done.  That's it.  Sale lost.  Some will value the portability enough, most will not.  

And the PS4 and Xbone versions have normal old local multiplayer.  I doubt the ability to play system to system local will even register on the radar.

Skyrim is technically downgraded but at least noticeably stepped up from last gen and includes all the DLC plus some added trinkets.  That is, it is a full and complete version of the game + portability.  Not a feature stripped version hoping for portability to offset it.

While I agree that the unfortunate lack of certain modes has lead to FIFA Switch being seen as a stripped down version, on a technical level it could have been worse; it's not like they just stuck the PS3/360 version on Switch and called it a day, which I honestly expected them to. It's 1080p/60fps and it's using the physically based rendering tech that the PS4/Xbone versions use but PS360 FIFA never got. I'm not sure the engine it's running on is such a big deal.

The engine wouldn't be a big deal if it wasn't a tacet excuse to exclude certain features.  If they spent the time to make the game feature complete in this engine, I would by their commitment rhetoric.   



Nuvendil said:
curl-6 said:

While I agree that the unfortunate lack of certain modes has lead to FIFA Switch being seen as a stripped down version, on a technical level it could have been worse; it's not like they just stuck the PS3/360 version on Switch and called it a day, which I honestly expected them to. It's 1080p/60fps and it's using the physically based rendering tech that the PS4/Xbone versions use but PS360 FIFA never got. I'm not sure the engine it's running on is such a big deal.

The engine wouldn't be a big deal if it wasn't a tacet excuse to exclude certain features.  If they spent the time to make the game feature complete in this engine, I would by their commitment rhetoric.   

Is the lack of modes directly tied to the engine difference though? They seem separate issues to me, one is a technical consideration, the other a design choice.



curl-6 said:
Nuvendil said:

The engine wouldn't be a big deal if it wasn't a tacet excuse to exclude certain features.  If they spent the time to make the game feature complete in this engine, I would by their commitment rhetoric.   

Is the lack of modes directly tied to the engine difference though? They seem separate issues to me, one is a technical consideration, the other a design choice.

It was their implication when the difference was revealed.  I don't buy it, hence my ire.  I think it was excluded to save money.  Pretty much all the feature stripping I think is that though.  EA just can't be assed to put in the effort.



Nuvendil said:
curl-6 said:

Is the lack of modes directly tied to the engine difference though? They seem separate issues to me, one is a technical consideration, the other a design choice.

It was their implication when the difference was revealed.  I don't buy it, hence my ire.  I think it was excluded to save money.  Pretty much all the feature stripping I think is that though.  EA just can't be assed to put in the effort.

Oh I'm with you as far as it not being full featured, I just don't think that's necessarily a result of the engine. I mean, I don't see why they couldn't have built the missing modes on whatever engine the rest of the game is running on, if they already went to the trouble of getting all the retained modes running on it.