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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Digital Foundry: Dragon Quest 11 on Switch, " a remarkably impressive port"

fatslob-:O on 31 October 2019
Radek said:

I just hope FF VII Remake is not 900p on base and just 1080p on Pro...

Wrong to bet otherwise ... 

SE should've just spent some more time and resources into refactoring Luminous Studio for the next generation instead of fucking around with UE4 but in the end they're going to pay dearly for it by having their game turn into an unoptimized piece of shit as well ... 

Out of all the Japanese publishers out there, only Capcom was sane enough to build their own universal high-end engine like the RE Engine ... 



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 31 October 2019
curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

Don't blame the engine. It isn't a poor engine, and Pug gave you Days Gone and others as examples of games with much higher graphics done on UE4.

It was simply a design choice and probably corner cutting decision to save money. And if fans of the game are happy with the result and the game sold well they have little reason to worry. But I won't agree that this game couldn't have been made on 1080p60fps on PS4 without losing the rest of the effects.

Sorry, but that's just not realistic; if it runs at 900p/30fps in actuality, there is simply no way the headroom is there for it to hit 1080p/60fps in its current form.

The fact is, just because something looks cartoony, doesn't mean it's not demanding on the hardware. If it wasn't demanding, there wouldn't be any need for "corner cutting" as getting a non-demanding game to 1080p on PS4 isn't costly in the first place.

There is no headroom because it was poorly made, simple as that. If you have games that are more intense, have higher IQ and can get 1080p and or 60fps, then it is clear this game could as well. I haven't said anything about the current form, because obviously if it could in the current form it would.

Yes sure being cartoony doesn't automatically make it light. But comparing it to other games (photorealistic or not) I don't see anything technically outstanding in this game.



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."

Chrkeller on 31 October 2019

Maybe the game isn't technically impressive, but it is one of the best looking games on the ps4 period. Which demonstrates that art style trumps graphics, every time.



DonFerrari on 31 October 2019
Chrkeller said:
Maybe the game isn't technically impressive, but it is one of the best looking games on the ps4 period. Which demonstrates that art style trumps graphics, every time.

You consider it to be one of the best looking, and you think that it demonstrate anything. Are you from the group that photo-realistic games don't have art style or lack creativity?



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."

Chrkeller on 31 October 2019
DonFerrari said:
Chrkeller said:
Maybe the game isn't technically impressive, but it is one of the best looking games on the ps4 period. Which demonstrates that art style trumps graphics, every time.

You consider it to be one of the best looking, and you think that it demonstrate anything. Are you from the group that photo-realistic games don't have art style or lack creativity?

I think it depends on the photo realistic game.  Some do and some don't.  Horizon and GoW have style.  I found GTA to completely lack style.  So it changes from game to game.  I have nothing against photo realism, as long as style comes with it.  RDR2 is another game that looked pretty but lacked style, IMHO.  



Around the Network
DonFerrari on 31 October 2019
Chrkeller said:
DonFerrari said:

You consider it to be one of the best looking, and you think that it demonstrate anything. Are you from the group that photo-realistic games don't have art style or lack creativity?

I think it depends on the photo realistic game.  Some do and some don't.  Horizon and GoW have style.  I found GTA to completely lack style.  So it changes from game to game.  I have nothing against photo realism, as long as style comes with it.  RDR2 is another game that looked pretty but lacked style, IMHO.  

Fair, although I think RDR2 have a good art style and atmosphere.



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."

curl-6 on 31 October 2019
DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

Sorry, but that's just not realistic; if it runs at 900p/30fps in actuality, there is simply no way the headroom is there for it to hit 1080p/60fps in its current form.

The fact is, just because something looks cartoony, doesn't mean it's not demanding on the hardware. If it wasn't demanding, there wouldn't be any need for "corner cutting" as getting a non-demanding game to 1080p on PS4 isn't costly in the first place.

There is no headroom because it was poorly made, simple as that. If you have games that are more intense, have higher IQ and can get 1080p and or 60fps, then it is clear this game could as well. I haven't said anything about the current form, because obviously if it could in the current form it would.

Yes sure being cartoony doesn't automatically make it light. But comparing it to other games (photorealistic or not) I don't see anything technically outstanding in this game.

I don't see any sign of it being poorly made from a technical perspective; it's not like its has a bad framerate, rampant bugs, or anything like that. It simply makes the common UE4 tradeoff of a lower resolution.

It may not be a top-tier graphical showcase, but we can't really write off the Switch version's accomplishments by saying it's "not demanding" when we're talking about a game that runs at 900p on PS4.



DonFerrari on 31 October 2019
curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

There is no headroom because it was poorly made, simple as that. If you have games that are more intense, have higher IQ and can get 1080p and or 60fps, then it is clear this game could as well. I haven't said anything about the current form, because obviously if it could in the current form it would.

Yes sure being cartoony doesn't automatically make it light. But comparing it to other games (photorealistic or not) I don't see anything technically outstanding in this game.

I don't see any sign of it being poorly made from a technical perspective; it's not like its has a bad framerate, rampant bugs, or anything like that. It simply makes the common UE4 tradeoff of a lower resolution.

It may not be a top-tier graphical showcase, but we can't really write off the Switch version's accomplishments by saying it's "not demanding" when we're talking about a game that runs at 900p on PS4.

Making a common tradeoff is hardly a showcase of good optimization or going the extra mile.

Sorry if it seemed like I was writing off Switch. It is great that it good another very competent port. My wole point was that it is the type of game I would expect a great port of. As I said I don't see any technical feature that is so taxing that either the game couldn't be 1080p on PS4 or ported well for Switch.



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."

curl-6 on 31 October 2019
DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

I don't see any sign of it being poorly made from a technical perspective; it's not like its has a bad framerate, rampant bugs, or anything like that. It simply makes the common UE4 tradeoff of a lower resolution.

It may not be a top-tier graphical showcase, but we can't really write off the Switch version's accomplishments by saying it's "not demanding" when we're talking about a game that runs at 900p on PS4.

Making a common tradeoff is hardly a showcase of good optimization or going the extra mile.

Sorry if it seemed like I was writing off Switch. It is great that it good another very competent port. My wole point was that it is the type of game I would expect a great port of. As I said I don't see any technical feature that is so taxing that either the game couldn't be 1080p on PS4 or ported well for Switch.

We'd have to talk to someone with experience using the engine, (I'm sure there are some VGC users who've played with it) but for whatever reason UE4 games very commonly (though not always) run at a lower resolution than is usual for the hardware. It's like the effects they provide out of the box have a high cost in pixel fillrate or something.

I'm not saying DQ11 is a showcase for the maximum capability of the PS4 or anything. It's just that since the game is 900p on PS4, I expected a lower resolution on Switch than what we got, so I was impressed by the port job.



DonFerrari on 01 November 2019
curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

Making a common tradeoff is hardly a showcase of good optimization or going the extra mile.

Sorry if it seemed like I was writing off Switch. It is great that it good another very competent port. My wole point was that it is the type of game I would expect a great port of. As I said I don't see any technical feature that is so taxing that either the game couldn't be 1080p on PS4 or ported well for Switch.

We'd have to talk to someone with experience using the engine, (I'm sure there are some VGC users who've played with it) but for whatever reason UE4 games very commonly (though not always) run at a lower resolution than is usual for the hardware. It's like the effects they provide out of the box have a high cost in pixel fillrate or something.

I'm not saying DQ11 is a showcase for the maximum capability of the PS4 or anything. It's just that since the game is 900p on PS4, I expected a lower resolution on Switch than what we got, so I was impressed by the port job.

Fair enough, the port seemed a very good job.



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."