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

Miyamotoo said:
Cloudman said:
It kind of sounds like it's up to Nintendo to update the version of UE on the console, or something like that. Though I guess they can still make due with the current one it sounds..?

Well, I suppose we know it's still coming to the Switch. Perhaps they should have released the 3DS version in the meantime, if it's going to take a good while for the Switch version.

Actualy opposite, Nintendo update IE version on console and now SE need to update version of game for Switch hardware.

Nem said:

They shouldn't have said anything. No matter what they say, nintendo fans are gonna flip because they can't understand that an underpowered system is a problem to port to.
Nintendo is the only one to blame, imo. They made their choice,with all it's advantages and disavantages. That and people's expectations always running wild.

Yes, i know someone will flip at my comment too, because having an unbiased opinion is an offense. I'll say in advance, i will ignore such posts.

Temper your expectations, it's all i'm saying.

This is UE4 game, engine that's very scalable, game that doesn't look at all demanding, game can run easily on Switch hardware. Saying that Nintendo is blame in this situation and not SE that announced game too early for Switch and they still dont know when game will be released, not to mention that fact is that SE is worst in industry when to come to this kind of things (announcing games too early and have plenty of delays), is just ridiculous.

It runs 900/30fps on PS4 that either means the game is among the most demanding games on PS4. Or the code is very poorly optimised. Either way porting a game that runs 900p/30fps on PS4 and only in 1728p checkerboard on the pro to a device that is more than 5 times as weak when running in handheld mode is no small feat. At least with Doom you could cut the FPS in halve and the resolution at the most demanding points using a dynamic resolution.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Around the Network
Xen said:
Funny that that is exactly what people were guessing on here in one of the threads, perhaps they knew.

To be fair, the "UE4 is outdated" excuse is the only one that could make SE not look bad. They are one of the companies that had the dev kits for the longest time, and they've done other UE4 games already, so this excuse is the only one that blame something out of SE's control.



You know it deserves the GOTY.

Come join The 2018 Obscure Game Monthly Review Thread.

Since they mentioned not holding back the release of the PS4 version, I have a feeling other factors are at play here.




Qwark said:
Miyamotoo said:

Actualy opposite, Nintendo update IE version on console and now SE need to update version of game for Switch hardware.

This is UE4 game, engine that's very scalable, game that doesn't look at all demanding, game can run easily on Switch hardware. Saying that Nintendo is blame in this situation and not SE that announced game too early for Switch and they still dont know when game will be released, not to mention that fact is that SE is worst in industry when to come to this kind of things (announcing games too early and have plenty of delays), is just ridiculous.

It runs 900/30fps on PS4 that either means the game is among the most demanding games on PS4. Or the code is very poorly optimised. Either way porting a game that runs 900p/30fps on PS4 and only in 1728p checkerboard on the pro to a device that is more than 5 times as weak when running in handheld mode is no small feat. At least with Doom you could cut the FPS in halve and the resolution at the most demanding points using a dynamic resolution.

How runs on PS4 doesn't matter because we most likely talking about bad optimization, SE said that Dragon Quest XI’s Western Release “Closer to Remaster than Update", while fact is that UE4 is very scalable and easy to work with, so all this is just SE problem, dont have nothing with Nintendo or even PS4 hardware.

https://www.dualshockers.com/dragon-quest-xi-western-release-remaster-localization/



Qwark said:
Miyamotoo said:

Actualy opposite, Nintendo update IE version on console and now SE need to update version of game for Switch hardware.

This is UE4 game, engine that's very scalable, game that doesn't look at all demanding, game can run easily on Switch hardware. Saying that Nintendo is blame in this situation and not SE that announced game too early for Switch and they still dont know when game will be released, not to mention that fact is that SE is worst in industry when to come to this kind of things (announcing games too early and have plenty of delays), is just ridiculous.

It runs 900/30fps on PS4 that either means the game is among the most demanding games on PS4. Or the code is very poorly optimised. Either way porting a game that runs 900p/30fps on PS4 and only in 1728p checkerboard on the pro to a device that is more than 5 times as weak when running in handheld mode is no small feat. At least with Doom you could cut the FPS in halve and the resolution at the most demanding points using a dynamic resolution.

Sigh...that's not how that works, it's not that simple.  Is Yooka Laylee more demanding than Doom?  Does its presence on Switch mean the Doom port is garbage and should be 60fps?  How about Crash, also 30fps on both.

Or Snake pass!  864p 30fps on PS4 and was ready for Switch *at launch* and that's a UE4 game.

... all of these are much less demanding games than Doom that targeted 30fps on PS4 by choice more than anything else.  From every single technical analysis I have seen of DQXI, it's the same story.  If I had a dime every time someone used that flawed logic, I could retire before I'm 30.

Last edited by Nuvendil - on 08 April 2018

Around the Network
Miyamotoo said:
Qwark said:

It runs 900/30fps on PS4 that either means the game is among the most demanding games on PS4. Or the code is very poorly optimised. Either way porting a game that runs 900p/30fps on PS4 and only in 1728p checkerboard on the pro to a device that is more than 5 times as weak when running in handheld mode is no small feat. At least with Doom you could cut the FPS in halve and the resolution at the most demanding points using a dynamic resolution.

How runs on PS4 doesn't matter because we most likely talking about bad optimization, SE said that Dragon Quest XI’s Western Release “Closer to Remaster than Update", while fact is that UE4 is very scalable and easy to work with, so all this is just SE problem, dont have nothing with Nintendo or even PS4 hardware.

https://www.dualshockers.com/dragon-quest-xi-western-release-remaster-localization/

The UE engine is generally easy to work with. But Square needs to optimise the Switch version a hell of a lot more than the PS4 version. That will take quite a bit of time it seems. They don't have a code they can just copy paste on Switch. If they had the PS4 version would have ran at 1080p/60fps. I mean they obviously could not optimise the Switch port, but it would look  and run pretty bad if they did just that.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Qwark said:
Miyamotoo said:

How runs on PS4 doesn't matter because we most likely talking about bad optimization, SE said that Dragon Quest XI’s Western Release “Closer to Remaster than Update", while fact is that UE4 is very scalable and easy to work with, so all this is just SE problem, dont have nothing with Nintendo or even PS4 hardware.

https://www.dualshockers.com/dragon-quest-xi-western-release-remaster-localization/

The UE engine is generally easy to work with. But Square needs to optimise the Switch version a hell of a lot more than the PS4 version. That will take quite a bit of time it seems. They don't have a code they can just copy paste on Switch. If they had the PS4 version would have ran at 1080p/60fps. I mean they obviously could not optimise the Switch port, but it would look  and run pretty bad if they did just that.

"He mentioned that for those who would consider purchasing the English version, the version of the engine used is different, so he considers it “closer to a remaster than to an update.” Unfortunately implementing those changes on the Japanese version would require a lot of time and is not realistic in terms of costs".

Did you actualy read link that I put? Thats a point, if one version of game is opimaised bad it dont mean same will be for other versions for other platfomrs or even for same platform for difrent market (like case is with PS4 West release) link that I provided proving that Western release will be more remaster compared to Japanese release, because of different engine (updated UE4 engine) and better optimisation, they most likly doing Switch version now on that new engine also.



Miyamotoo said:
Qwark said:

The UE engine is generally easy to work with. But Square needs to optimise the Switch version a hell of a lot more than the PS4 version. That will take quite a bit of time it seems. They don't have a code they can just copy paste on Switch. If they had the PS4 version would have ran at 1080p/60fps. I mean they obviously could not optimise the Switch port, but it would look  and run pretty bad if they did just that.

"He mentioned that for those who would consider purchasing the English version, the version of the engine used is different, so he considers it “closer to a remaster than to an update.” Unfortunately implementing those changes on the Japanese version would require a lot of time and is not realistic in terms of costs".

Did you actualy wrote link that I put? Thats a point, if one version of game is opimaised bad it dont mean same will be for other versions for other platfomrs or even for same platform for difrent market (like case is with PS4 West release) link that I provided proving that Western release will be more remaster compared to Japanese release, because of different engine (updated UE4 engine) and better optimisation, they most likly doing Switch version now on that new engine also.

I read what they changed on the PS4 version and guess what they are not changing either the resolution or the framerate. Otherwise Square would have shouted that of the roofs. Sure they changed the menu's, English voice over, difficulty, dashing and the camera. 

The only reason they used a new engine is because it was cheaper. The PS4 version is probably still not optimised and why would they, it will sell short of 500k in the West anyway. Also the updated engine was probably easier for porting the PS4 version to Steam.

 

The Switch version will obviously have much better optimisation because it needs to. That's why it will take a lot longer than porting the PS4 version. Hell the Switch might even be build from the ground up. It's also the version that will likely outsell the PS4 version, so obviously there is way more budget for optimisation. Unfortunately that comes with time and that's why Square is delaying this version.

 

So I truly doubt if Square Enix is going to do much outside of what they announced for the PS4 version. They will make an effort for the Switch. Because they need to and because it's the version that will outsell the PS4 and PC version combined. Besides the term remaster usually doesn't include much.



Please excuse my (probally) poor grammar

Qwark said:
Miyamotoo said:

"He mentioned that for those who would consider purchasing the English version, the version of the engine used is different, so he considers it “closer to a remaster than to an update.” Unfortunately implementing those changes on the Japanese version would require a lot of time and is not realistic in terms of costs".

Did you actualy wrote link that I put? Thats a point, if one version of game is opimaised bad it dont mean same will be for other versions for other platfomrs or even for same platform for difrent market (like case is with PS4 West release) link that I provided proving that Western release will be more remaster compared to Japanese release, because of different engine (updated UE4 engine) and better optimisation, they most likly doing Switch version now on that new engine also.

I read what they changed on the PS4 version and guess what they are not changing either the resolution or the framerate. Otherwise Square would have shouted that of the roofs. Sure they changed the menu's, English voice over, difficulty, dashing and the camera. 

The only reason they used a new engine is because it was cheaper. The PS4 version is probably still not optimised and why would they, it will sell short of 500k in the West anyway. Also the updated engine was probably easier for porting the PS4 version to Steam.

The Switch version will obviously have much better optimisation because it needs to. That's why it will take a lot longer than porting the PS4 version. Hell the Switch might even be build from the ground up. It's also the version that will likely outsell the PS4 version, so obviously there is way more budget for optimisation. Unfortunately that comes with time and that's why Square is delaying this version.

So I truly doubt if Square Enix is going to do much outside of what they announced for the PS4 version. They will make an effort for the Switch. Because they need to and because it's the version that will outsell the PS4 and PC version combined. Besides the term remaster usually doesn't include much.

I dont know, they wouldn't said remaster not simply update without reason, September is still far away.

My point is simple, there is no reason to blame Nintendo in this case, only SE is to blame, beacuse they are doing same thing all time, announcing game too early and then have too many delays.



Nuvendil said:

Sigh...that's not how that works, it's not that simple.  Is Yooka Laylee more demanding than Doom?  Does its presence on Switch mean the Doom port is garbage and should be 60fps?  How about Crash, also 30fps on both.

Or Snake pass!  864p 30fps on PS4 and was ready for Switch *at launch* and that's a UE4 game.

... all of these are much less demanding games than Doom that targeted 30fps on PS4 by choice more than anything else.  From every single technical analysis I have seen of DQXI, it's the same story.  If I had a dime every time someone used that flawed logic, I could retire before I'm 30.

@Bold People have no idea what the term "demanding" means when it's just an implication of performance metrics and in that case yes, Yooka Laylee is more *demanding* than Doom ... (both run at 1080p but the difference is Yooka Laylee targets a frametime of 33.3ms while Doom targets 16.6ms) 

Now we can talk about optimization or more technically accomplished games but what "demanding" actually means is that it's just hard to run ... 

Your comparison between Crash/Snake Pass (in the case of those games might've actually had a lot of performance headroom left especially in the case of Snake Pass where it rendered 3x more pixels on Pro compared to base hardware) and DQXI is flawed since refresh rate caps obscure the true performance metrics of how demanding each title is ... 

DQXI is probably using every ounce of it's 33.3ms rendering budget available as a AAA title compared low budget indies like Snake Pass or lower standard remakes like Crash ... (literally, DQXI on Pro is 1792p checkerboard so it's rendering slightly less than 2x the pixels compared to base hardware with temporal upscaling to reconstruct the other half of the pixels despite the fact that the GPU is MORE than 2x powerful compared to base hardware)