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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Outer Worlds Switch port

HollyGamer on 04 June 2020
Darwinianevolution said:
HollyGamer said:

It's definitely look like Fallout 3 on PS3 but with extra blur and extra slow frame rates 

Edit:  yes it's even worse than Fallout on PS3 in terms of detail graphic & resolution.  

I wonder can Bathesda port Fallout 3 to Switch? I just curious how it will it look compared to outerworld. 

I'm sure they can port both Fallout 3 and New Vegas. The problem is that their code is a jumbled mess, and they would be quite glitchy. At least Skyrim they've ported it so much they got a good grasp at it, and even then it still had the old bugs unpatched.

I hope bathesda port Fallout 3 and New Vegas to Switch as an HD remaster . I think will will see that in the future and how Bathesda like to milk their IP LOL



Around the Network
Pemalite on 04 June 2020
Darwinianevolution said:

Tell that to Fallout 76 at launch. XD

I doubt the game would have been a good game even if it had no glitches.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

AbbathTheGrim on 04 June 2020

It looks very good and in some part you can see the Switch port even improves visuals above the older versions.



Nintendo is selling their IPs to Microsoft and this is true because:

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/thread.php?id=221391&page=1

AngryLittleAlchemist on 04 June 2020
curl-6 said:

Given their analysis happened pre-launch I do wonder if they are playing without the 6GB day 1 patch, which according to the devs: "will optimise gameplay, provide additional hi-res textures, and include other fixes to provide the employees of Halcyon with the best gameplay experience."

Gamexplain said their digital copy came with the patch, according to the game's PR team. 



curl-6 on 04 June 2020

I'm two hours in now and honestly, I really don't think it's as bad as all that.

Image quality is generally better than what you get in ports like Doom 2016, Wolfenstein II, and Witcher 3; it feels like the balance of priorities is different, with more emphasis on keeping a clearer picture and cutting detail to achieve that.

It's certainly not beautiful, and I can see why the Digital Foundry guys, who live and breathe graphics, would find it inadequate, but I'm enjoying it.

Also, just to vent, I resent the attitude I often see that "some games just shouldn't come to Switch". If you don't want to play something at this level of fidelity, then cool, feel free not to buy it, that's your choice. But it's kinda dickish to say that others like me should miss out just cos you don't like it.

Last edited by curl-6 - on 04 June 2020

Around the Network
HollyGamer on 04 June 2020


KLXVER on 04 June 2020

Yeah, I waited for the Switch version, but Im going with the PS4 version now. This is just not good enough unfortunately. At least the PS4 version should be cheaper now.



curl-6 on 04 June 2020
mZuzek said:
Shiken said:

Outer Worlds in of itself is just a more demanding game and the port job was half assed. We have seen far more demanding games such as Witcher 3 with much better results.  Not to mention that it likely runs on its own engine (different from Fallout 3 and Skyrim) and there may be compatibility issues there as well.

The engine point probably favors The Witcher 3 in this case, as UE4 has quite the history of crappy performance on the Switch. Nintendo couldn't get even one of their games (Yoshi) to run well on it.

Yoshi runs at a quite stable 60fps. Yeah yeah it's dynamic 720p, but that's what excellent material shaders at 60fps costs on Switch, it still looks great. The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, Hellblade, and Dragon Quest 11 also show strong performance on Switch with UE4.



curl-6 on 04 June 2020
mZuzek said:
curl-6 said:

Yoshi runs at a quite stable 60fps. Yeah yeah it's dynamic 720p, but that's what excellent material shaders at 60fps costs on Switch, it still looks great. The Vanishing of Ethan Carter, Hellblade, and Dragon Quest 11 also show strong performance on Switch with UE4.

Yoshi has good framerate, but the dynamic resolution isn't something you'd expect from an exclusive like that, the Switch has better looking games at locked 1080p/60fps.

I can't speak for those games you mentioned. Had no idea DQ11 was UE4 in fact, I'm surprised because I've only ever heard positive things about that one. My experience is more stuff like, um, Bloodstained.

Yoshi's materials are a lot better than any of Switch's 1080p/60 titles; UE4's shaders prioritize quality over speed so they don't come cheap.

And yeah there are some bad eggs like Bloodstained and Ark, unfortunately, but I feel like the likes of DQ11 and Ethan Carter prove UE4 can produce great results on Switch. It's more down to the developer than the engine.

In the case of Outer Worlds, in addition to the game being very demanding (It can drop below 30fps at 720p on PS4) Virtuos were spread pretty thin as they were porting this at the same time as Bioshock, Bioshock 2, Bioshock Infinite, and XCOM 2. I feel like they bit off more than they could chew a bit in terms of how many games they could tackle at once.



Otter on 05 June 2020

Honestly I'm not sure how meaningful other game comarisons are here.

We can't compare this massive open world game to hellblade (Far more linear and few assets)
We can't compare it to Yoshi (which aside from scale differences was also built for the ground up with Switch GPU/CPU targets)
Even Witcher 3 doesn't make a perfect comparison, both for engine reasons and the fact that a first person camera exposes a lot assets more than a distant 3rd party. I also think the density of unique textures & geometry is often above Witcher 3.

Definitely this could have spent more time in the kitchen, but at some point you have to ask yourself is even worth it, both from a cost standpoint but also an experience one? And for those saying a Switch Pro is the solution, that doesn't really help the devs who now just have 2 underpowered systems to port to. Switch 2 (Nov 2021) is the answer ;)