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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Doom for Switch Reviews - 78 Metacritic (45 critics)

DonFerrari on 09 November 2017

I would say it's good enough right?



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."

Around the Network
DonFerrari on 09 November 2017
irstupid said:
Shaunodon said:

I don't think you could use portability as a reason to score a game higher, even though it's obviously a big selling-point.
You still have to judge a game based on how it feels to play.

I'm certain the game was never intended to be played natively on a handheld (not anytime this decade), so the fact they could make a straight port this competent and comparable, is extremely impressive.

I can't wait to try it soon, and see if I also want to wait for Wolfenstein II on Switch.

You sure as heck can.

Take Captain Toad Treasure Tracker. That was a great game, imo. I would rate it like 7.5-8/10

If that game had come out on the switch instead of the WIi U though, I would rate it probably between an 8-8.5/10

Yes same game sure, but the option of playing it portable is a huge plus. Picking up your switch and popping out a level or two before bed or on the bus, or ect just would mess so well. Portability improves that game.

Now for Doom? IDK. Maybe for some. I don't see me using the portable factor at all if I were to get this game. Doom has always been a sitting on computer chair, lights off, sound up and killing demons to me.

the platform per see shouldn't affect the score at all.



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."

Stefan.De.Machtige on 09 November 2017

I bought it. It wil arrive soon and then Demons will die .



In the wilderness we go alone with our new knowledge and strength.

irstupid on 09 November 2017
DonFerrari said:
irstupid said:

You sure as heck can.

Take Captain Toad Treasure Tracker. That was a great game, imo. I would rate it like 7.5-8/10

If that game had come out on the switch instead of the WIi U though, I would rate it probably between an 8-8.5/10

Yes same game sure, but the option of playing it portable is a huge plus. Picking up your switch and popping out a level or two before bed or on the bus, or ect just would mess so well. Portability improves that game.

Now for Doom? IDK. Maybe for some. I don't see me using the portable factor at all if I were to get this game. Doom has always been a sitting on computer chair, lights off, sound up and killing demons to me.

the platform per see shouldn't affect the score at all.

Why wouldn't it?

Take RE7. IT's the same game whether playing on the One or PS4 or PC. It's the same game whether playing on the TV or with a  VR system. But would you not agree that the VR makes the game more fun?

Portability is the same as like VR. It's a new way to experience the game.

People who play say Disgea 5 for like 100's of hours I'm sure greatly love the aspect of having portability. I'm sure that makes the game much more enjoyabl eto them.

What about say a Pokémon game. Doing link battles or trading in person is a whole different expeirence than trading online through the GTS. Removing or adding those aspects are definitely things that improve a game or not.



MajorMalfunction on 09 November 2017
DonFerrari said:
I would say it's good enough right?

Cutting graphics even further may have let id/Panic Button to hit 60 FPS. Right now, it's been compromised compared to the other versions. Nintendo fans are going to have to buy it at full price ($60 USD, $80 CAD) and deal with 30 FPS in a arcadey twitch shooter, buy it on any other platform, or not buy it at all. Well see how it does in the next month or so. If they wanted full points, they could've given an option between 30 and better graphics or 60 and lower graphics. By all accounts, Panic Button did a good job given the hardware, and time constraints.



Currently (Re-)Playing: Starcraft 2: Legacy of the Void Multiplayer, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

Currently Watching: The Shield, Stein's;Gate, Narcos

Around the Network
DonFerrari on 09 November 2017
irstupid said:
DonFerrari said:

the platform per see shouldn't affect the score at all.

Why wouldn't it?

Take RE7. IT's the same game whether playing on the One or PS4 or PC. It's the same game whether playing on the TV or with a  VR system. But would you not agree that the VR makes the game more fun?

Portability is the same as like VR. It's a new way to experience the game.

People who play say Disgea 5 for like 100's of hours I'm sure greatly love the aspect of having portability. I'm sure that makes the game much more enjoyabl eto them.

What about say a Pokémon game. Doing link battles or trading in person is a whole different expeirence than trading online through the GTS. Removing or adding those aspects are definitely things that improve a game or not.

Playing RE7 on VR changes how the game is played. A game show on the TV or the portable doesn't change this... If a social aspect of the game would be different because of how you interact with it them sure the score can be different. But in this case this is irrelevant. Or should we give extra 10 points for each game that is made portable? Should UC2, 3 or 4 be over 100 if you play they portably?

And worse yet on this case the portable runs worse than the original.

For pokemon it would make the game experience really different....

Or in another way for me playing on 65" is better than a HH so can I give 20 extra points comparing versions?



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."

Shaunodon on 09 November 2017
MajorMalfunction said:
DonFerrari said:
I would say it's good enough right?

Cutting graphics even further may have let id/Panic Button to hit 60 FPS. Right now, it's been compromised compared to the other versions. Nintendo fans are going to have to buy it at full price ($60 USD, $80 CAD) and deal with 30 FPS in a arcadey twitch shooter, buy it on any other platform, or not buy it at all. Well see how it does in the next month or so. If they wanted full points, they could've given an option between 30 and better graphics or 60 and lower graphics. By all accounts, Panic Button did a good job given the hardware, and time constraints.

You'd want the visual fidelity of the game to be even lower than it already is?
I'm not sure you realise just how bad that would look. I doubt they could even scale it that far back, without completely shifting the game engine.



Goodnightmoon on 09 November 2017

It doesn't matter if the critics don't take the portability as a plus because the public will.



Shaunodon on 09 November 2017
Goodnightmoon said:
It doesn't matter if the critics don't take the portability as a plus because the public will.

A+



DonFerrari on 09 November 2017
MajorMalfunction said:
DonFerrari said:
I would say it's good enough right?

Cutting graphics even further may have let id/Panic Button to hit 60 FPS. Right now, it's been compromised compared to the other versions. Nintendo fans are going to have to buy it at full price ($60 USD, $80 CAD) and deal with 30 FPS in a arcadey twitch shooter, buy it on any other platform, or not buy it at all. Well see how it does in the next month or so. If they wanted full points, they could've given an option between 30 and better graphics or 60 and lower graphics. By all accounts, Panic Button did a good job given the hardware, and time constraints.

Well, so we are close to fans in vgc discounting bad sales due to bad port.



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."