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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Why is the Switch still not getting big games from 3rd parties?

fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:

I stand by it; MHW looks nowhere near good enough to be stressing the PS4 so any performance issues there are Capcom's bad.

But a game doesn't need to be 1080p/60fps on PS4 to be portable to Switch. Games with that much headroom would be easier, but as Rise of the Tomb Raider's 360 conversion demonstrates, 30fps titles are not off limits.

I would say it looks good enough to be a next gen exclusive title and the director of the game seems to implicate a hardware limitation with the Switch as well to run the game, the game has some of the more geometrically complex scenes of this generation ... (MHW definitely doesn't look like a game that's possible on last generation systems) 

A game doesn't need to be 1080p/60fps on PS4 like we see with a bunch of last gen ports or cross gen games on PS4 but I've yet to see the Switch being able to run a ground built up current gen exclusive 30fps game for HD twins ... 

I can imagine that most 30fps games that are built solely for current gen leave the Switch out of the picture ... 

It's not like he could say that Sony paid them a hefty sum of money to develop the game lol.



"The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" - Thoukydides

Around the Network
GOWTLOZ said:

Switch has a weaker CPU than PS3 and in portable mode I've heard that its GPU is less powerful than a PS3. It has more ram and a more modern architecture but I don't think that would be enough.

Look at Doom say. It runs at 1080p60fps on PS4 at medium to high settings. It runs at 640p30fps on Switch docked with lower than low settings. That with a  very scalable and good engine like Idtech6. Unreal engine 4 games struggle to even run at 30fps at 1080p on PS4, it would get real bad on Switch. There is only so much downgrading possible before the game loses its soul. Those Wii ports of PS3 games felt nothing like the PS3 version. I don't think that is an ideal experience for a Switch owner whose spending $60 on a game.

Even in portable mode, Switch's GPU is better than PS3's. If we look at games they share, like FIFA 18 and Skyrim,  Switch performs better both docked and undocked.

Switch ports of PS4/Xbone games wouldn't have to be cut back as much as Wii ports from PS3, because the power gap is much smaller in the former case.



curl-6 said:

During the later encounters in RotTR where you're supposed to hold out against enemy onslaughts, there's much more than 6.

Monster Hunter Tri on the Wii had 4-player co-op with multiple bosses and smaller targets too, so you don't even need PS3/360 level hardware to handle that.

Did they come in so called "waves" ? If so then I don't think you could make the argument that there were more than 6 simultaneous targets ... 

I realize that there was 4-player co-op in MH Tri but it's more limited compared to MHW where the sections of the map are connected and there's other improvements to the mechanics such as enhanced stealth, reactive environments and improved traversal ... 

All of these changes in game logic put MHW on par with current gen games in that aspect ... 

Alkibiádēs said:

It's not like he could say that Sony paid them a hefty sum of money to develop the game lol.

Switch literally couldn't run the game no matter how much anyone wishes it. It dips below 30fps on base PS4 ... 



fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:

During the later encounters in RotTR where you're supposed to hold out against enemy onslaughts, there's much more than 6.

Monster Hunter Tri on the Wii had 4-player co-op with multiple bosses and smaller targets too, so you don't even need PS3/360 level hardware to handle that.

Did they come in so called "waves" ? If so then I don't think you could make the argument that there were more than 6 simultaneous targets ... 

I realize that there was 4-player co-op in MH Tri but it's more limited compared to MHW where the sections of the map are connected and there's other improvements to the mechanics such as enhanced stealth, reactive environments and improved traversal ... 

All of these changes in game logic put MHW on par with current gen games in that aspect ... 

Single waves in RotTR can comprise far more than 6 simultaneous units, as do well guarded base areas.

Stealth, reactive environments, and dynamic traversal are all things that games on PS3, 360, and Wii U have done. None of that is beyond what Switch could handle.



curl-6 said:

Single waves in RotTR can comprise far more than 6 simultaneous units, as do well guarded base areas.

Stealth, reactive environments, and dynamic traversal are all things that games on PS3, 360, and Wii U have done. None of that is beyond what Switch could handle.

Maybe so in the entire map but I haven't seen the game spawn more than 6 enemies in front of Lara or wherever she was headed ... 

@Bold Altogether and in expansive areas like MHW ? MHW also has destructible environments too but maybe not to the same level as recent Battlefield games ... 



Around the Network
fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:

Single waves in RotTR can comprise far more than 6 simultaneous units, as do well guarded base areas.

Stealth, reactive environments, and dynamic traversal are all things that games on PS3, 360, and Wii U have done. None of that is beyond what Switch could handle.

Maybe so in the entire map but I haven't seen the game spawn more than 6 enemies in front of Lara or wherever she was headed ... 

@Bold Altogether and in expansive areas like MHW ? MHW also has destructible environments too but maybe not to the same level as recent Battlefield games ... 

Breath of the Wild has expansive environments full of destructible and physics-driven elements, plus stealth and dynamic traversal, and it runs not only on Switch but on the even less capable Wii U.



curl-6 said:

Breath of the Wild has expansive environments full of destructible and physics-driven elements, plus stealth and dynamic traversal, and it runs not only on Switch but on the even less capable Wii U.

Not trolling but BotW looks more "barren" or "empty" compared to MHW and the level design is more complex too in the latter ... (no 4-player co-op either)

It's the enhancements to the mechanics and the cohesive combination of these things in MHW that puts the game logic above last gen games ... (the vast majority of last gen games are unmatched compared to MHW in terms of level design, AI, animations and interactivity)



fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:

Breath of the Wild has expansive environments full of destructible and physics-driven elements, plus stealth and dynamic traversal, and it runs not only on Switch but on the even less capable Wii U.

Not trolling but BotW looks more "barren" or "empty" compared to MHW and the level design is more complex too in the latter ... (no 4-player co-op either)

It's the enhancements to the mechanics and the cohesive combination of these things in MHW that puts the game logic above last gen games ... (the vast majority of last gen games are unmatched compared to MHW in terms of level design, AI, animations and interactivity)

Botw's areas are filled with interactive vegetation, (with blades of grass interacting individually rather than in grouped clumps as it seems to in MHW) wildlife, collectables, etc. You can engage a mob of enemies, throw a chicken into them so that it summons a bunch more to gank the enemy that hits it, set the grass on fire which will then spread in accordance with the wind conditions, (which will also influence particles created during the encounter) throw a bomb which might knock down a nearby tree and sending apples scattering around to be cooked in the fire, which will also degrade and destroy any wooden shields and weapons the enemy have of they catch fire, and all this can be going off at once. I have yet to see anything in MHW that even comes close to that level of interactivity.



curl-6 said:

Botw's areas are filled with interactive vegetation, (with blades of grass interacting individually rather than in grouped clumps as it seems to in MHW) wildlife, collectables, etc. You can engage a mob of enemies, throw a chicken into them so that it summons a bunch more to gank the enemy that hits it, set the grass on fire which will then spread in accordance with the wind conditions, (which will also influence particles created during the encounter) throw a bomb which might knock down a nearby tree and sending apples scattering around to be cooked in the fire, which will also degrade and destroy any wooden shields and weapons the enemy have of they catch fire, and all this can be going off at once. I have yet to see anything in MHW that even comes close to that level of interactivity.

I highly doubt that every blade of grass is interactive. What BotW does looks like a displacement map with simple spherical bounds ... (the blades of grass being bent further behind Link is not very plausible and not even Nvidia's state of the art solution simulates "every" individual blade, BotW makes a lot more simplifications for grass deformation than you think) 

MHW may not feature combustible destruction as seen like the Far Cry series but it has far more destructible environments and that more than makes up for it. Furthermore the level design in MHW feels more populated and alive compared to BotW but there's other details to enhance the environment such as smaller roaming critters throughout the map ... (monsters intentionally targeting each other is also a part of the AI's new behaviour too, it's these small things that add up to create a detailed and highly interactive experience in MHW that sets it apart from last generation games) 

Even if what you said was true there's still the issue of the Switch staying graphically accurate to the original art ... (I don't think the Switch would be able to render many of the same beautiful vistas even with graphical cut backs) 



fatslob-:O said:
curl-6 said:

Botw's areas are filled with interactive vegetation, (with blades of grass interacting individually rather than in grouped clumps as it seems to in MHW) wildlife, collectables, etc. You can engage a mob of enemies, throw a chicken into them so that it summons a bunch more to gank the enemy that hits it, set the grass on fire which will then spread in accordance with the wind conditions, (which will also influence particles created during the encounter) throw a bomb which might knock down a nearby tree and sending apples scattering around to be cooked in the fire, which will also degrade and destroy any wooden shields and weapons the enemy have of they catch fire, and all this can be going off at once. I have yet to see anything in MHW that even comes close to that level of interactivity.

I highly doubt that every blade of grass is interactive. What BotW does looks like a displacement map with simple spherical bounds ... (the blades of grass being bent further behind Link is not very plausible and not even Nvidia's state of the art solution simulates "every" individual blade, BotW makes a lot more simplifications for grass deformation than you think) 

MHW may not feature combustible destruction as seen like the Far Cry series but it has far more destructible environments and that more than makes up for it. Furthermore the level design in MHW feels more populated and alive compared to BotW but there's other details to enhance the environment such as smaller roaming critters throughout the map ... (monsters intentionally targeting each other is also a part of the AI's new behaviour too, it's these small things that add up to create a detailed and highly interactive experience in MHW that sets it apart from last generation games) 

Even if what you said was true there's still the issue of the Switch staying graphically accurate to the original art ... (I don't think the Switch would be able to render many of the same beautiful vistas even with graphical cut backs) 

Botw's world is also full of small roaming critters; insects, lizards, birds, etc are everywhere, and enemies and wildlife interact; goblins hunt attack boar and other wild game, field bosses can be lured into fighting one another, etc.

Naturally MHW would need graphical cutbacks on Switch; lower screen/texture/alpha resolution for instance, but I think Switch owners would be fine with this, and it wouldn't be a barrier to the game selling.