Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Dragon Quest XI for Switch delay due UE4, game based on PS4 version of game, why was announced for Switch so early

Hynad said:
Wyrdness said:

I already posted what Doom requires but it seems you ignored the post. Effects like FOV, motion blur, a new form of AA known as temporal super sampling, better lighting effects, higher quality shadows, good quality particle effects, reflections, well implemented DOF effects, compute shaders, higher quality decal, higher quality occlusion, higher quality textures and animations, physics and so on. DQXI doesn't use many of these even when you compare effects in play in both games like lighting and shadows Doom beats it out but a high margin.

What's ironic is your claim that fps means more demanding is further shot down when you factor in the dynamic resolution of Doom while DQXI is at a set resolution, you simply failed to acknowledge the were a tonne of factors now you're here trying to one with smiley faces in true commando fashion while crying that you've been flamed.

You do realize that not having a dynamic resolution when aiming for a given performance puts a different strain on the hardware, right? 

You do realize that you just admitted that Doom does make compromises to reach 60fps. By having its resolution dynamically change to accommodate the targeted framerate. Right?

From the get-go, I was the one saying there are tons of factors to take into account. You were the one who said compromises weren't required. 

Look at the strawman specialist in play he doesn't even remember the argument now, you said earlier DQXI is more demanding than doom because of the fps which we all know is complete bullocks. Not once did I mention Doom not needing to compromise visual fidelity to achieve 60fps at this point your desperation is present in trying to fabricate arguments to save face.

I said earlier that with optimisation DQXI could reach 60fps while still looking the same (not compromising visual fidelity) get your head out your ass because now I'm just going to be you're as clueless as the man in the white house here and trying to employ the same tactics as the said clown. The pure fact that you've gone down the route to start making shit up up to save face of your uninformed statement from before is not only outstanding but one I'll pull your card up on even if it leaves you bitter for months to come no wonder you post smiley faces and such in your replies that foolishness has more standing than pure fabrication and twisting.

You're here trying to make demands like some forum mogul but have not displayed a single thing detailing how DQXI is more demanding than Doom all you've done is make an awful declaration on 30fps and have danced around the debate like some fairy trying to look like you have some ground. From the get go your post was DQXI is more demanding because it runs at 30fps that is what you posted if you knew the were other factors you would never have posted it because you would have know that fps is one of a tonne of factors so don't give me that rubbish as after your card got pulled up on it you disappeared like Batman in the Doomsday fight and left VG to carry the debate and he actually brought something to it unlike you who vanished than pops up to post smileys perhaps you should stick to that.



Around the Network
JesusBuiltmyHotRod said:
GoOnKid said:

Shouldn't we blame SE instead for not doing basic checks about their game being even compatible on the Switch before announcing it?

Lots of blame to go around, but again...nintendo has a long history of being out of line with what third parties need, this at the end of the day is their platform, they need to make it so third parties can thrive without having to jump through a lot more hoops. 

Exactly, they do this for quite a while now. So it would be silly of SE to expect anything different now, wouldn't it. Not doing fundamental checks before jumping all in and announce a a flagship title is pretty stupid.

On the other hand, SE announces games way too early for quite a while now. So his behaviour on both sides fits pretty good into both their habits.



Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

Wyrdness said:

Look at the strawman specialist in play he doesn't even remember the argument now, you said earlier DQXI is more demanding than doom because of the fps which we all know is complete bullocks. Not once did I mention Doom not needing to compromise visual fidelity to achieve 60fps at this point your desperation is present in trying to fabricate arguments to save face.

I said earlier that with optimisation DQXI could reach 60fps while still looking the same (not compromising visual fidelity) get your head out your ass because now I'm just going to be you're as clueless as the man in the white house here and trying to employ the same tactics as the said clown. The pure fact that you've gone down the route to start making shit up up to save face of your uninformed statement from before is not only outstanding but one I'll pull your card up on even if it leaves you bitter for months to come no wonder you post smiley faces and such in your replies that foolishness has more standing than pure fabrication and twisting.

You're here trying to make demands like some forum mogul but have not displayed a single thing detailing how DQXI is more demanding than Doom all you've done is make an awful declaration on 30fps and have danced around the debate like some fairy trying to look like you have some ground. From the get go your post was DQXI is more demanding because it runs at 30fps that is what you posted if you knew the were other factors you would never have posted it because you would have know that fps is one of a tonne of factors so don't give me that rubbish as after your card got pulled up on it you disappeared like Batman in the Doomsday fight and left VG to carry the debate and he actually brought something to it unlike you who vanished than pops up to post smileys perhaps you should stick to that.

You still have nothing?

I never said DQ XI or Doom is more demanding than the other. I pointed out how one have no difficulty reaching 60fps while the other is capped at 30, and then asked YOU to explain why you think one is more demanding than the other. All you had were ad hominem and non answers.  

I explained why I'm saying a game reaching 60 fps the way Doom does on PS4 requires to make compromises to reach that target. I explained that games going for 30fps usually do because their requirements are different from games running with ease at 60fps. If Uncharted 4, for example, could have reached 60fps with every other aspects of its visuals intact, you can be sure Naughty Dog would have gone for that. Are you saying that they are not competent for not having reached that? All the different aspects a game requires don't necessarily fall in line with the requirements from games like Doom. 

None of this is taken out of my ass. 

But you keep at it, without providing anything other than a poor temper.

Last edited by Hynad - on 15 April 2018


JesusBuiltmyHotRod said:
GoOnKid said:

Shouldn't we blame SE instead for not doing basic checks about their game being even compatible on the Switch before announcing it?

Lots of blame to go around, but again...nintendo has a long history of being out of line with what third parties need, this at the end of the day is their platform, they need to make it so third parties can thrive without having to jump through a lot more hoops. 

If you actualy read OP what SE said you would know that hole blame is on SE side for this case, and actually in this case SE has long history of announcing games too early and delays them constantly.



Well this thread has gone totally off the rails with the name calling, insults, and raging. You guys should probably reign it in or someone's going to wind up getting moderated.



Around the Network
Miyamotoo said:
JesusBuiltmyHotRod said:

Lots of blame to go around, but again...nintendo has a long history of being out of line with what third parties need, this at the end of the day is their platform, they need to make it so third parties can thrive without having to jump through a lot more hoops. 

If you actualy read OP what SE said you would know that hole blame is on SE side for this case, and actually in this case SE has long history of announcing games too early and delays them constantly.

I think he's just saying that if Nintendo had released a standard console with architecture similar to the other consoles, this wouldn't have been an issue.
But of course Square Enix should not presume anything about the hardware. And if they did, it would be their fault. But they may not have, considering the official announcement of the game for Switch came after Switch was revealed. Though they seem to have made some miscalculations in regards to engine compatibility.

"Specifically with regards to the development, this game was developed on the Unreal Engine, but the version for Unreal Engine needs to be updated, I suppose, in order to support Switch."
"Unfortunately, the engine was not compatible at first, though Nintendo and Epic were working on it together."


@GoOnKid
The bolded text above might be related to what I said to you earlier about specific versions of UE4.

Last edited by Hiku - on 15 April 2018

* Thread Warning * ⚠️

It’s gotten to a point in here, folks. Don’t insult each other. Attack the post, not the poster.



                                                                                                             

Hiku said:
Miyamotoo said:

If you actualy read OP what SE said you would know that hole blame is on SE side for this case, and actually in this case SE has long history of announcing games too early and delays them constantly.

I think he's just saying that if Nintendo had released a standard console with architecture similar to the other consoles, this wouldn't have been an issue.
But of course Square Enix should not presume anything about the hardware, and they may not have, considering the official announcement of the game for Switch came after Switch was revealed. Though they seem to have made some miscalculations in regards to engine compatibility.

"Specifically with regards to the development, this game was developed on the Unreal Engine, but the version for Unreal Engine needs to be updated, I suppose, in order to support Switch."
"Unfortunately, the engine was not compatible at first, though Nintendo and Epic were working on it together."


@GoOnKid
The bolded text above might be related to what I said to you earlier about specific versions of UE4.

Yes, I see that now. Might shed some light into this story. Then again, I hope it's a lesson for SE.



Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

Hynad said:

You still have nothing?

I never said DQ XI or Doom is more demanding than the other. I pointed out how one have no difficulty reaching 60fps while the other is capped at 30, and then asked YOU to explain why you think one is more demanding than the other. All you had were ad hominem and non answers.  

I explained why I'm saying a game reaching 60 fps the way Doom does on PS4 requires to make compromises to reach that target. I explained that games going for 30fps usually do because their requirements are different from games running with ease at 60fps. If Uncharted 4, for example, could have reached 60fps with every other aspects of its visuals intact, you can be sure Naughty Dog would have gone for that. Are you saying that they are not competent for not having reached that? All the different aspects a game requires don't necessarily fall in line with the requirements from games like Doom. 

None of this is taken out of my ass. 

But you keep at it, without providing anything other than a poor temper.

I explained to you why its more demanding and you never had a response other than to come back and start posting smileys the usual ad hominem accusation is a typical tactic by those who have no rebuttal so instead start trying to perceive everything as a flame/attack I don't throw out subliminal attacks I come out directly with them if that's what you seek hence why I told you if that's what you want just say.

What exactly has ND got to do with DQXI and Doom? This is a typical response you've thrown out a red herring especially when you were going on about one version being worse than another in regards to DQ and I pointed out Doom and such had the same issue as more demanding games and were still able to supply a look at what the game would would be which lead to your fps post where again it was pointed out factors were in play. You adding ND into the mix is just a random attempt to salvage something that's been debunked.

Fact is I've provided information you've just chosen not to acknowledge it in anyway that doesn't give you any ground here because it still harks back to your original argument on SE being shot down that's the only course here.



GoOnKid said:

Of course YOU were going to say that!

I don't know how SE would be able to keep up with the antics seen in this forum like your post so to prove your's and the rest that have similar arguments they should just cancel the game altogether for the Switch ...  

Hiku said:

Nowhere did I say that it's the fans responsibility to announce release dates.
I said it's not unreasonable to expect a port that was said to be in development at least 6 months before the PS4 release, to be released sooner than 2019.

If you want to claim that those are unreasonable expectations, give us examples of where announced ports before a game released have taken that long before. I can't think of a single one. And if it has ever happened, it would be the exception rather than the rule.

@Bold That's just your implication ... 

And the the fans expectations of a port is irrelevant in either case, that should be the developers since their one's making the game ... (it's not about what the fans expect, it's about what the developers expect) 

Miyamotoo said:

Lol, they basically said they announce game for NX even before we had Switch name, so yeah, it was annuced too early, and they later basicly said that all version will be released in same time.

http://adria.ign.com/dragon-quest-xi/7474/news/dragon-quest-11-potvrden-za-nintendo-nx

Basically proves that a Switch version was NOT confirmed alongside the PS4/3DS version at the same date so you had to move goal posts ...