Hiku said:
With Resident Evil 2 Remake around the corner, it just occurred to me that the last time a mainline Resident Evil game ended up on a Nintendo console was Residsent Evil 4, back in 2005. |
And what's with Resident Evil 7 Cloud edition? 
| spurgeonryan said: Big third party games are still nearly non-existent on the Switch. As far as I can tell not one of the big Holiday block busters are coming to the switch this year. |
Let me check:
Switch has clearly more big games than Wii, GC and WiiU combined. It baffles me how 'big games' nowadays is synonymous with a small selection of action and FPS titles, while a majority of games with great sales are ignored, just because these sales happen on PC or the genre is deemed unworthy for ... reasons.
And for the holidays: not 3rd-party, but I'm pretty sure Pokemon and Smash may be among the biggest holiday blockbusters.
Last edited by Mnementh - on 17 October 2018
The basic answer of "not powerful enough" is not satisfactory. Obviously it is not as powerful as PS4 or XBox...just like NES was not as powerful as PC, Game Boy was notas powerful as Game Gear, Genesis was not as powerful as Neo Geo, and Wii was notas powerful as Xbox360. Yet I can get Street Fighter II on Game Boy or Call of Duty on Wii!
What I find surprising is that I am not missing the AAA third parties this gen. I can get Mega Man, Street Fighter, Doom, Minecraft, Fortnite, Diablo, Skyrim, Bomberman, Rocket League, Crash Bandicoot, Sonic, soon Final Fantasy, and every major indie game for miles. The only genres underrepresented on the system are maybe sports and racing. I would argue it is the best third party situation for Nintendo since DS, maybe even since SNES.
But no, I am not holding my breath for GTA or next years COD.
Not enough power is an easy excuse, considering this was a thing...
https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81OT-Cgy6GL._AC_SL1500_.jpg
COD: Black Ops on DS
Agree to a degree.
Would be nice to have COD, I didn't mind the shitty gfx just liked it on Nintendo for the Wii remote controls and then the Wii U with two screen play. Two switches would have been cool. JFor me it was how the game was played vs gfx. Plus COD wasn't exactly relying on cutting gfx to make it part of the appeal. I mean all you do is shoot people lol.
Not every title watered right down is a good idea so for those I would go for PS4 as I got one if the gfx form part of the story/gameplay elements and watering them down would detract from it..
| RolStoppable said: Because third parties are biased against Nintendo. When you look through the generations and see that Nintendo can never please third parties no matter what they do while Sony and Microsoft can mess up all they want and still get the games, then it's time to accept that there's a double standard at work. It's the price that Nintendo is paying for altering the course of history, effectively making consoles here to stay with a royalty model while the various home computers bit the dust. Of course this altered history only concerns North America and Europe, but not Japan. So the third party support for Switch from Japan has improved because of hardware sales. If somebody thinks this is a conspiracy theory, they should read up on the history of Electronic Arts and the Sega Genesis. EA didn't like that Nintendo changed the gaming market into something very different than EA had envisioned, but that didn't mean that they would reject consoles altogether. Trip Hawkins saw Sega and its Genesis as an opportunity to beat Nintendo, essentially "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." - That's something that persists to this day, because Nintendo doesn't fall in line with the vision of those AAA third party publishers who want everything to be games as a service, filled with microtransactions and other shenanigans. Switch in general represents the opposite of the ideals of AAA publishers, so supporting it would mean to stifle their vision of what gaming should turn into. The only big Western publisher who is bringing a good number of its games to Switch is Bethesda who just so happens to be the one publisher who didn't forecast the death of single-player games. |
All you mean Nintendo's policy of price-gouging third parties and limiting the number of titles they could release on NES/SNES per year while not limiting the number of titles they published themselves? Or maybe it was when they started to censor what kind of content third party developers could publish on their platform to a point where Mortal Kombat games couldn't even feature blood? Those kinds of things Nintendo thought they could get away with when they were the only real option. Is that the kind of "bias against Nintendo" you're referring to? And it's not like it got any better from there. Just look into Nintendo's history with Argonaut games.
Third parties never liked working with Nintendo, they've always been by far the most difficult to work, the most anal about shit that really doesn't matter. Getting a game certified by Nintendo was like pulling teeth. Third parties worked with Nintendo for the NES because they had little other choice. it was the only real viable platform at the time. But when other first parties like Sega, Sony and Microsoft gave third parties viable options to work with, third parties didn't have to put up with Nintendo's shit anymore, so they didn't. It's taken over 20 years, but Nintendo's finally started to lighten up and be more willing to work with third parties, but you know, it's a bit late.
TL;DR Nintendo were giant dicks and no one wanted to work with them, not the other way around.
| KBG29 said: ARM and Underpowered. AAA games are built for X86. So not only do they have to downgrade, but they have to completely rewrite the game for ARM. Switch is capable of running anything on PS4 and XBO with reduced fidelity, but the chances of turning a profit are slim. Had Nintendo went with X86, they would be getting a lot more titles. Unfortunately, at the time there were no good X86 options. Sony and Microsoft are set if they want to compete with Switch in the future, because Ryzen is incredibly scalable. |
No. They don't have to completely rewrite the game. They might need to completely rewrite the engine, and adapt the game to work with lower capabilities. This means things like scaling back audio quality, simplifying 3D models, reducing texture qualities, reducing complexity of animations, rendering effects etc. It has nothing to do with "how scalable" the architecture is and everything to do with how well optimized a game and its engine are. The more "to the metal" you develop your game to operate at to optimize performance, the more you need to undo to make the game/engine more compatible with other hardware configurations.
KBG29 said:
Nothing yet, but Ryzen is fully capable of running in a Mobile device. As for scalability, benchmarks have a Ryzen 2700U with Radeon Mobile chip at 12 - 25W only trailing the Ryzen 2500X at 65W buy 33%. They are both 4 Core/8 Thread Ryzen chips. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-7-2700U-vs-AMD-Ryzen-5-2500X/m432558vsm567224 Compair that with an Athlon 5350 vs Ryzen 3 2200G and it is 209% faster. This is a (4) core version of the CPU in the PS4 at 2.05GHz vs 1.6GHz, up agaist a (4) core Ryzen chip. The Jaguar is a 25W chip and the Ryzen chip is 45 - 65W. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-3-2200G-vs-AMD-Athlon-5350-APU-R3/m441832vsm10020 If you look at Ryzen Mobile vs Jaguar, 12 - 25W vs 25W you get 124% increase, and that is with (2) Cores/ (4) Threads on Ryzen, vs (4) Cores on Jaguar. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-3-2300U-vs-AMD-Athlon-5350-APU-R3/m511816vsm10020 Looking at the most high end chip that could go in PS5 Ryzen 2700 8 Core/16 Threads 65W vs Ryzen 2700U 4 Cores/8 Threads, the effective processing gap is only 55%. https://cpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/AMD-Ryzen-3-2300U-vs-AMD-Athlon-5350-APU-R3/m511816vsm10020 As we move to 7nm, 7nm+ and beyond, the gap will only close. Microsoft and Sony will both very likely be using Ryzen on PS5 and XB4, making it extremely easy to deliver a Mobile version of the systems. I think Nintendo's decision to go with ARM and Nvidia has left the door wide open for Microsoft and Sony to grab the market anytime in the future. With Game Pass and PS Now, or via Digital, they can offer all their 1st party titles, and all 3rd party titles across Home and Mobile for one purchase. |
No. For the 100th time, No. This isn't how this works.
| TheLegendaryWolf said: Not enough power is an easy excuse, considering this was a thing... https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/81OT-Cgy6GL._AC_SL1500_.jpg COD: Black Ops on DS |
DS was around 130 million units sold when that was released, right? I'm sure if the Switch comes anywhere near those numbers it'll get a CoD release.
potato_hamster said:
All you mean Nintendo's policy of price-gouging third parties and limiting the number of titles they could release on NES/SNES per year while not limiting the number of titles they published themselves? Or maybe it was when they started to censor what kind of content third party developers could publish on their platform to a point where Mortal Kombat games couldn't even feature blood? Those kinds of things Nintendo thought they could get away with when they were the only real option. Is that the kind of "bias against Nintendo" you're referring to? And it's not like it got any better from there. Just look into Nintendo's history with Argonaut games. |
That was 30 years ago. How is it nowadays? Genuine question, as I'm no developer. I look at it from the consumer perspective and I see nothing of that stuff from the past anymore.
About Us |
Terms of Use |
Privacy Policy |
Advertise |
Staff |
Contact
Display As Desktop
Display As Mobile
© 2006-2024 VGChartz Ltd. All rights reserved.
Currently Online 
