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

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.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series X will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

Around the Network
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

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.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series X will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

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

jonathanalis said:
I always trow the same example.
Early gen 7 games were all 1080p, but looked gen 6.
Late gen 7 the games were all at 640p, but look far better than early gen games.

No, only a handful of Xbox 360 and PS3 games were native 1080p or above 720p.

Most early Xbox 360 and PS3 games were 720p.

And not all late Xbox 360 and PS3 games were 640p, many of them were still 720p, a few were 600p.

https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/list-of-rendering-resolutions.41152/#post-1114422



Around the Network

And yet in 2019 games like Death Stranding are still full native 1080p on PS4, this gen has been much better for resolutions for Playstation than last gen.



Well, it's always nice when a story has a happy ending. A while back a lot of folks thought this would end up being a port of the 3DS version, because the full fat version was deemed just not possible.

It's easy to forget, in this post-Witcher 3 world we live in, that there was a time when it was widely believed the Switch would never be able to handle PS4/Xbone ports outside of indie titles.

DQ11 may not be my cup of tea personally, but all the same, I doff my cap to Square for putting in the effort to make a quality port. Definitely one of the better conversions of a current gen game to the platform.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series X will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

curl-6 said:

Well, it's always nice when a story has a happy ending. A while back a lot of folks thought this would end up being a port of the 3DS version, because the full fat version was deemed just not possible.

It's easy to forget, in this post-Witcher 3 world we live in, that there was a time when it was widely believed the Switch would never be able to handle PS4/Xbone ports outside of indie titles.

DQ11 may not be my cup of tea personally, but all the same, I doff my cap to Square for putting in the effort to make a quality port. Definitely one of the better conversions of a current gen game to the platform.

Also better to have a port (even if result is deemed poor by some) than not have. At least if there is one the customer can opt to purchase or not. That is from the POV of a customer. For a company if they can`t make a good port better to avoid it so they don`t damage their image.



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

DonFerrari said:
curl-6 said:

Well, it's always nice when a story has a happy ending. A while back a lot of folks thought this would end up being a port of the 3DS version, because the full fat version was deemed just not possible.

It's easy to forget, in this post-Witcher 3 world we live in, that there was a time when it was widely believed the Switch would never be able to handle PS4/Xbone ports outside of indie titles.

DQ11 may not be my cup of tea personally, but all the same, I doff my cap to Square for putting in the effort to make a quality port. Definitely one of the better conversions of a current gen game to the platform.

Also better to have a port (even if result is deemed poor by some) than not have. At least if there is one the customer can opt to purchase or not. That is from the POV of a customer. For a company if they can`t make a good port better to avoid it so they don`t damage their image.

I think at this point, games like Witcher 3 and this have demonstrated there's not much on PS4/Xbone that you can't bring a decent version of to Switch if you put in enough effort. 



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series X will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

Also better to have a port (even if result is deemed poor by some) than not have. At least if there is one the customer can opt to purchase or not. That is from the POV of a customer. For a company if they can`t make a good port better to avoid it so they don`t damage their image.

I think at this point, games like Witcher 3 and this have demonstrated there's not much on PS4/Xbone that you can't bring a decent version of to Switch if you put in enough effort. 

As Pemalite have said, even if Switch is considerably weaker than even base X1, it have similar technology and allows similar techniques for rendering and game making, so any current gen game should be doable and working (yes sure sometimes the result may seem ugly, but since a lot of people don't care much about the IQ of the game that isn't of much importance).



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