-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
DF: Bloodstained Is Brilliant - But What's Up With The Switch Port?
- Thread starter Kudo
- Start date
I will watch this after finishing it (on Switch). Have no point of comparison because it's only version I have, but been having a great time with it.
Same, I've explored almost 50% on hard and haven't had any trouble
Quite baffling how badly optimized this game is (on consoles) for what it delivers, graphically speaking.
Last edited:
One thing I think would be really interesting is word of how the game runs on the GPD Win 2. See what the PC optimisation is like compared to the Switch, while accounting for the power difference.
Yeah this seems like another case of an UE4 game that runs massively better on PC for some reason. I'm running it at 3413x1920 (DSR) at 144 fps and the 1080 sleeps, so I'm surprised the X can't run it at stable 60.
that loading and input lag for the Switch version is terrible, hopefully they at least patch those two things.
Based on their notes, I suspect that both things can be improved significantly.
...but it'll remain at 30fps game with lower quality textures and poor image quality, I'd imagine.
Dat phat G-buffer!
UE4 is often rather GPU bound on consoles and very sensitive to resolution. I can't think of many (any?) UE4 games that run at native 4K and 60fps on Xbox One X (there must be a few others, I'd imagine).
You feel bad for PS4 pro users yet you're considering picking up the switch version? Did you watch the video?
Also apparently the Pro version is the best performing.
Last edited:
GPD Win 2 is pretty much on par with the Switch undocked (graphically, CPU is a different story). So if you turn all (or at least most) of the graphics to low, drop the resolution to 576p and use RTSS to cap the framerate at 30fps you'll probably get a similar experience to Switch but with better input latency and loading times.
Some folks have tested even higher than that! I just used a slow motion phone camera feed to test so it's not super accurate.
They actually went a lot easier on the Switch version than I thought they would. I think if they fix the input lag, crash bugs and replace the anti-aliasing with the post processing that John recommends in this video, it could become a viable primary option for those who have no other way to play, such as myself, or a secondary option for those who might want a portable version.
Likely CPU related somehow. I realise it shouldn't be a CPU bound game at all but the issue certainly isn't the GPU (with X).
But yeah runs like a dream on my 2080 Ti too, but then everything does. It's a wonderfully predictable GPU. Hopefully the Switch version gets fixed given that's where most seem to be playing this game. But I'll stick with the PC version obvs :)
Backed the game for the Switch version and at first I thought the game was intended to feel like you're walking through water, as SOTN also has a bit of that quality. But I noticed it actually affected my performance: missing jumps, harder to time quick successive jabs and just playing more sluggishly myself than how I'd play this type of game normally.
Then I read about the input lag and decided to wait until this issue is resolved. Comparing the graphics to OneX is also a staggering difference, but I'm fine with that in trade-off for portability.
Then I read about the input lag and decided to wait until this issue is resolved. Comparing the graphics to OneX is also a staggering difference, but I'm fine with that in trade-off for portability.
Wound up going PC, but I would've bought it for Switch if the port was better. Hopefully they can fix it up a bit.
Well, Xbox One X slowdown is most significant anytime alpha particles fill the screen...that's when it's at its worst.
Given how many times I fell back down during those jump transitions while playing the PS4 version, I think I probably would've quit playing the Switch version with those load times.
That's 4 frames. Honestly not the worst I've seen but ideally they should be hitting 3 frames at 30fps (anything less than 3 isn't really realistic on a modern engine with vsynce enabled, so don't expect it to go lower than that).
I admit, though, what I played felt worse than 4 frame, so I'd take that number with a grain of salt (as John admits, his method is not super accurate).
Last edited:
I haven't watched the video yet, so maybe what I'm about to say is in the video :
In another youtube video, one guy said they probably took the work they started on the PSVita port as a base for the Switch port, which explain the lower/lack of shaders effects which is extremely common on plenty of console => Vita ports to keep the game playable.
In another youtube video, one guy said they probably took the work they started on the PSVita port as a base for the Switch port, which explain the lower/lack of shaders effects which is extremely common on plenty of console => Vita ports to keep the game playable.
I don't think that's the case at all. In fact, I don't think the Vita version was even started and, as far as I know, Unreal Engine 4 never supported Vita and no developer even attempted in the end.
Really? I was under the impression that it was actually more like a docked Switch but portable, though I guess I had it wrong. I wonder what that upcoming GPD Win Max will be able to manage. Or even a future Zen2/Navi version.
Yes, i did. I'm considering picking Switch version because i can play outside of my home. If i play this game in my home, i'll pico the best version, Xbox One X.
That's mostly a misconception based on just comparing GFLOPs directly but the reality is you can't compare Nvidia and Intel GPUs directly like that. Intels iGPUs kind of suck, to put it politely. Ofcourse that does depend on a game by game basis. Some games are really well optimised for Intel, in which case you can get close to docked switch performance and of course CPU limited games will perform better (Eg. Doom). But for the most part I find the particular processor in the Win 2 tends to perform most closely to a PS3 in the games I've tried*.
I'll be surprised if Bloodstained ends up performing better on Win 2, as UE4 is quite bandwidth heavy and bandwidth is not the Win 2's strength.
*I don't have a Win 2 but I do have a Surface Pro that has a nearly identical processor but with higher clocks and TDP (so in theory the Win 2 should perform worse, but I'm being charitable).
Last edited:
there was no work done on the vita version, nor did anyone port UE4 to the vita. the claim is bunk
4 frame input lag and the performance issues are unfortunate, though I still had fun completing in on Switch yesterday, it's all manageable.
One fun fact too is that the base cart version (V0.1) is complete and performs similarly to 1.1. This was a pleasant surprise to me as I was wishing this game to be future proof and it is.
Now I'll complete the PC version I bought because I couldn't wait for the Switch backer copy to arrive, this game is legit good and addicting. I'll probably end up buying the PS4 version as well just to have a reason to do it again. :lol
One fun fact too is that the base cart version (V0.1) is complete and performs similarly to 1.1. This was a pleasant surprise to me as I was wishing this game to be future proof and it is.
Now I'll complete the PC version I bought because I couldn't wait for the Switch backer copy to arrive, this game is legit good and addicting. I'll probably end up buying the PS4 version as well just to have a reason to do it again. :lol
Fair enough. If Intel is the issue then maybe the Max will be better as they've apparently switched to this.
Honestly, this is a prime example of why not to KS games and why not to buy games on physical media.
Bloodstained should have been delayed on ALL platforms another 1-2 months to polish fix bugs. Releasing it with a save-file killing bug for PS4/Xbox One is just ridiculous.
Switch versions suffers from multiple game crashes, single digit frames in certain area (climb the spiraling tower and the lags is unbareable) and 3DS-like graphics. It's hot garbage.
Now, all physical media either has a game-breaking bug etched onto the disc/cart, or in Switch's case a barely playable game.
But no one really seems to care because we have a Castlevania game and they already spent money 4 years ago so getting something is better than nothing. It's disgusting. Trying bringing this up and a majority of people will push it aside because they have some weird thing for Iga. The 3DS games were way more polished.
Bloodstained should have been delayed on ALL platforms another 1-2 months to polish fix bugs. Releasing it with a save-file killing bug for PS4/Xbox One is just ridiculous.
Switch versions suffers from multiple game crashes, single digit frames in certain area (climb the spiraling tower and the lags is unbareable) and 3DS-like graphics. It's hot garbage.
Now, all physical media either has a game-breaking bug etched onto the disc/cart, or in Switch's case a barely playable game.
But no one really seems to care because we have a Castlevania game and they already spent money 4 years ago so getting something is better than nothing. It's disgusting. Trying bringing this up and a majority of people will push it aside because they have some weird thing for Iga. The 3DS games were way more polished.
These are performance issues, yes...but you are speaking it as if it's a disaster. If anything else, I'll say bloodstain is a Kickstarter success in term quality despite these issues.
Call me crazy but a game's quality and success is not depending on it's pixel count & frame rate.
Digital Foundry are way to lenient on these crap Switch ports in my opinion.
They always say 'well that's about all that could be expected'. I don't buy that.
Switch games can and should be better.
They always say 'well that's about all that could be expected'. I don't buy that.
Switch games can and should be better.
Interesting. X does seem to struggle with alpha effects for some reason. A poster on here (can't remember their name) claims that it is because the X GPU is somewhat imbalanced as it only has half the ROPs of the PS4 Pro (32 vs 64) - hence poor performance in games like AC7 too. Is there any truth to that?
I'd say Pro is the best given performance. But people value things differently.
The Xbox One, a much more powerful piece of hardware, has frame rate drops to the 40s and runs in 900p. I'm curious as to you think could have been done. The Switch being locked down gives it a much more even experience without the crazy drops experienced on other platforms. The performance for all systems is lower than one would expect for this title. The Switch is hardly an outlier.
Last edited:
it IS a disaster. Why is everyone just OK with the fact that the game crashed all the time.
It's literally unplayable at time. I have to stop moving to allow everything to 'catch up' otherwise I face a crash. The game even has missing text. Like, WTF? It's such an amateur product at this point and should have been delayed.
But its OK, they delayed the Switch version so reviewers would not review the shittier project.
Yeah definitely. The Vega 8 GPU in that APU will absolutely slaughter Intel's iGPUs, not questions.
OP
OP
During the wind-up, I think it probably calculates the enemies on the screen that are going to get hit by it.
