I mean it's bad, but people did the same for Vita. The games always looked and/or ran like shit but were given a pass because muh portability.
Since when level size mattered? The game uses high fidelity and modern rendering techniques and effects. If you think it's possible then explain why the devs decided to lower the resolution and lower the quality.
I just watched the video and I'm mighty pissed that a 60fps mode was feasible yet they don't even attempt it on PS4 Pro. I always thought that the CPU shouldn't be a concern given how little is actually going on in these levels (preset enemy paths, relatively static backgrounds) and DF has confirmed that.
The game runs pretty well from what I've seen so far, both on Xbox One X and on Switch for all their differences. Graphics really aren't the issue. It's the hit detection, Crash's collision box, the slight input lag that really suck.
You know what else doesn't matter? All this effort if the game plays like garbage. As a customer I couldn't give a heck what turbulations devs went through if the game lacks gameplay features that PS1 version had because they pursued "graphical fidelity" and didn't hit the mark. It's so obvious that Vicarious Visions didn't account for Switch at all, and it's so obvious Toys for Bob did a shoddy port that people being surprised it doesn't perform well are completely legitimized because we do not have polycounts or even any kind of performance data in our faces at all, all players see is that the game runs like shit. Trash ports should not be supported.
So the switch shouldn't be cut any slack? Is that what you're saying? Like if we put a tiny 1 litre car up against a sports racing track car we couldn't sing it's praises at getting to 60mph etc and then say of course it doesn't hit the speed that the sports car does? But you can drive on roads with this car?
It really doesn't make sense to slam the Switch, though. You have to judge it within its own constraints. Did the developers do a good job for the hardware? It'll never match the other consoles. It's not a pass. I'm really not sure what you guys want. "The Switch version is inferior again. It's a waste of money. Why would anyone bother?" It's less powerful hardware, guys. Significantly less powerful. That's why it's so interesting - I love seeing developers squeeze what they can out of lower spec hardware. Compromises are always going to happen - but which compromises are made will vary. Some people said I was way too harsh on the Switch version in this video...others say the opposite. So I guess I was right on.
They would have to wait a whole while to even get his massive list of things to changes to be feasible in a modded version of NST*, might as well ask for a remake of a remake by somebody else with a larger team, different engine and a bigger scope with more features added (this one is very unrealistic, however, even as someone who fantasizes about it as "N. Sane Plus") *I will not say if they're absolutely right about some of those issues or not, that's not the point here
How does this game run like shit? It runs better than Snake Pass, and nobody complained about that one because there was little to complain about. This game is demanding on the GPU, so resolution has a limit. Simple as that. It doesn't matter if it's open world or if it's a real time cutscene. And honestly, the resolutions this game runs at are fine to play in.
It's the internet, somebody has to be salty and this time I have the unfortunate burden to bear. Reports of disappointments aren't forbidden or are they? The Switch is what it is but I would have prefered another compromise from the developers side. Getting the input lag and frametimes stable should be achieved and in the case of the latter I would sacrifice more graphics wise. The Switch version looks by and large very close to the other version, additional downgrading shouldn't change that. Personally I'm quite happy from the technical perspective and the scope of the project. Having Coco playable, time trials for Crash 1&2 and all three games in a package is great and there is even an extra level. It's the art + sound direction and decision making at certain points I have issues with, which wouldn't had needed additional resources.
Compared to NVIDIA SHIELD hardware the clockspeed of the GPU is lower, especially in handheld mode. In my opinion it's too low if even a game like Crash Bandicoot runs only in 480p. The docked mode proofs that the devs would have been able to reach the 720p target with a higher GPU clockspeed. Of course that's easier said than done but Nintendo and NVIDIA should consider working on a Switch with better power efficiency. 20 nm is not the end of the story, AMD introduced the first 7nm GPU a few weeks ago: https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/6/17433102/amd-7nm-radeon-vega-gpu-computex-2018
Much better well put than myself, i don't know why I tried the stupid analogy. Keep up the great work! :) The switch is literally the size of a sat nav, I don't understand how people want it to be knocked for this. It's up against consoles that are literally ten times the size.
I'm sure it will come, when the time is right....and I would imagine that it will run all the current software at higher resolutions, like a phone/tablet :)
I'd gladly bite but the input latency and lack of reflections (especially in that level where you need it to see missiles incoming) puts me off. I'm fine with 480p though. Hope it can be patched !
That's not true when the console is docked. The Shield operates differently from the Switch, instead of having fixed frequencies it has them float and has a TDP limit of 10W. But if both CPU and GPU are loaded, it ends up havingrunning the same frequences as the Switch. And yeah, the current Switch is not the end of the story. However, 7nm GPUs are still a year away, at least. Some 7nm devices may come late this year, but for a 7nm console we'll have to wait a bit longer. A "Switch 2" with substantially improved specs is due down the line (I say 2020) but until then the Switch is what it is.
Wait a minute, are you telling me this game does NOT run at 60fps on consoles? Not even on the Pro and One X? How could that happen? As a game relying on swift reaction and precision I'm outright baffled that they do not (decided to?) offer at least a 60fps mode with reduced resolutions/visuals.
Damn... I didn't realize how awesome this remake was. I'll pick this up on PC when I get back to the states. Has anyone in the mod community tried to unlock frame rates? I wonder if the game's physics are tied to framerate. If so no biggie. Does the game support resolutions above 4K?
For sure, I think the developers deserve a lot of credit for what they are doing with the Switch, especially when you see games like Doom and Wolfenstein 2 running on Switch. Switch will never live up to the PS4 and Xbox One when it comes to a direct comparison with graphics but the fact these games run at all, pretty much feature complete and are still very much recognisable as the full fat console game, not some massively cut down handheld version (except lower graphical settings) is seriously impressive in my book.
From what was said in the other thread apparently higher framerates work perfectly. I wonder why it doesn't offer the option for >60 natively.
Yes, it's strange indeed that they don't offer native support for this out of the box. It's very frustrating since I'd like to use ULMB with this game but that's not possible at 60hz (and the current method for forcing it isn't working quite right with my strange monitor). Clearly the game can support this.
The video actually turned me off the switch version due to the input lag, this game is hard enough without that. Glad I haven’t opened my switch copy + May return it.
Yeah, the visual cuts are no big deal, ultimately, but the input lag really bugs me in this version. It's a shame and I hope they can solve it.
I am bought it for my PC my measly 1050Ti can run it at 60 fps no problem on 3440x1440 ultrawide, my CPU did not even break a sweat. How is not Pro/X version not 60Hz is beyond me.
I'm not one to complain about frame rate in console games, but there's no justification for it being 30fps on even base consoles. The devs should comment on why the game isn't 60fps when there's no apparent reason why it shouldn't be. I'm hoping Spyro won't turn out similarly.
I'm starting to wonder if the switch was put in a semi-playable state so they could meet the other release dates. It is just for this title.
Good to hear, I've been considering buying a controller and that just threw me off guard that a game wouldn't support one of the only secondary controllers this system can use.
Surely capping the One X version to 30 is intentional? I’d be shocked if the X couldn’t pull off at least 1080/60
Some games have to have that support enabled, but I think Snipperclips was the only Nintendo published title, besides 1-2 Switch, that didn't support the Pro Controller. The pro controller is nice, but the d-pad is a little weird.
Someone else suggested that, if you quit and restart with joycon disconnected, you can use the Pro controller. Kinda kills the pickup and play nature, though.
