-
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.
DF: Bloodstained Is Brilliant - But What's Up With The Switch Port?
- Thread starter Kudo
- Start date
Seeing our shadows on the environment when passing in front of light sources never gets old. I feel like it helps justify the 3D visuals even more than the customization. That just looks awesome.
Yeah. I could understand people finding the game bland before we got the current game but now? The game is screaming atomsphere. Especially that "red room". You know the one.
I can't wait to see what they do for the sequel.
While I think this port could have stood to be better on release, I feel like that there is some degree of bias regarding the type of game that it is that colors opinions. For reasons I've never understood, 2D/2.5D games never get the proper respect for pushing tech as, say, a open world RPG or a meticulously detailed FPS, and the result is that it's facing an uphill battle in terms of being able to "hang with the big boys" in terms of widespread appreciation. That's why I liked how this video highlights both the visual improvements it made since the backer demo as well as some of the ambitious techniques that the game is able to pull off, since getting at least one person to overcome their "but it's just 2D" bias makes the effort worth it.
Games like Doom, Skyrim, Wolfenstein, Hellblade etc. are visually impressive games and the ports for Switch are very well optimised. Games like Doom have even some new features on Switch, like gyro controls, that would make some people choose them above other versions. And all these games had no meaningful bugs.
Bloodstained may look stylish and beautiful but is not technically impressive, therefore many people expected a better result from the Switch port, and they definitely expected not crashes and laggy controls.
Well Doom had a big audio bug during online but they patched it
... of course it runs well on a 2080 Ti. Wtf. You can brute force a lot of games into performing well on PC.
I gotta say, I'm disappointed. I got this digitally and bought it physically on the switch but I'm going to return it. I'm not paying full price on a physical game when the game has so many issues. I really should have waited. Dead cells was fucked up at launch of switch, mark of the ninja basically okey-doked it's own player base on switch as well and now this. I wasn't expecting miracles but god damn, this is not cool.
Last edited:
Watched the vid, went PC as well, playing it at 4K 120 with roughly 50% GPU usage on my 2080 Ti. Runs like a dream with awesome demon wings.
Yeah no one else said this but me.
Yeah no one else said this but me.
4k120 is not a given by any means, especially with that low GPU utilization. Lower end cards can even achieve that sort of image quality/performance.
You're kidding right? Bloodstained looks like it could perfectly run on Switch at 60 fps just by dropping resolution and some detail.
It's just a botched port of a game that isn't technically impressive in the first place
It doesn't even run at a stable 60fps on PS4 or Xbox one. Why would it on switch? 30fps is a much better target
Kickstater indie game? Kickstarter indie game.
Imagine noise if any Big Greedy Corporation pulled this shit.
Imagine noise if any Big Greedy Corporation pulled this shit.
It's not stable on ps4 or xbox because it's really bad optimized. The graphics are nothing to write home about.
It's always enjoying reading these hot takes in DF threads.
Okay I have a genuine question.
In their testing of the Pro vs XB1X performance, they showed an fps graph as they played various scenes.
The Pro seemed to hover around 58-59
The XB1X seemed to hover around 54-55.
Yet the narrator made a big deal about this...can anyone really notice 4-5fps difference, especially whilst playing an intensive game?
It seemed to me the XB1X running the game at 4x the resolution is more appealing than a few fps?
Also, if I played the XB1X through a 1080p TV, wouldn't I get the exact same performance as the Pro?
In their testing of the Pro vs XB1X performance, they showed an fps graph as they played various scenes.
The Pro seemed to hover around 58-59
The XB1X seemed to hover around 54-55.
Yet the narrator made a big deal about this...can anyone really notice 4-5fps difference, especially whilst playing an intensive game?
It seemed to me the XB1X running the game at 4x the resolution is more appealing than a few fps?
Also, if I played the XB1X through a 1080p TV, wouldn't I get the exact same performance as the Pro?
Whatever the reason is, the reality is that the game's performance in one platform will always be relative to the performance in other platforms. They don't develop each version separately, and simultaniously, from the ground up. If it's poorly optimized in every single platform, that's fair criticism, but expecting one console in particular to perform better than it should when compared to other platforms is absurd.
There's a difference between a game that could be better optimized and a bad port. One is relative to the tech the game is pushing, the other is relative to other platforms.
It's not the amount of frames, it's how often it sticks to the 60fps target. Even if it was a rock solid 59fps, that would result in judder in a 60hz screen without variable refresh rate support.
Some people are more sensitive to this than others, however, and John has always complained about this. I think it's fair to say that the majority of players would have a better experience on Xbox One X.
Well, it's more that the X drops below 60 in a lot of scenes. The dips aren't huge but it happens often.
On Pro, most areas are 100% locked in comparison.
A frame-rate of 58fps may not seem like a big deal but it is on a 60hz display as it results in judder and the sensation of inconsistent movement.
It's really not BAD on X or anything but it's definitely something I felt throughout. The game just feels less stable overall while slowdown on Pro is relatively rare.
Ah, think I understand. So the magic of locked 60fps is that it matches 60Hz of most screens?
Yeah, exactly. Also why locked 30fps will feel better than locked 35~45fps to most people, even though it's less frames. That means each frame stays for exactly 2 refreshes, while 35~45fps will be all over the place.
This is very important information for me. I've always appreciated how much attention you put into frame consistency, because judder drives me absolutely bonkers. PS4 Pro version wins for me automatically based on this.
That's exactly right. When it matches 60hz, every frame is on-screen for the same duration! So it creates a sense of fluidity and stability.
If you run at 58fps, however, you're going to have a mix of frames that persist longer than others leading to a sense of judder.
If you use FreeSync, however, it should clear this up!
Cool, thanks for the explanation guys.
I played through on the XB1X and only had one area that I noticed any problems...I think it was the Millionaire room..
I think I just don't register small judders when I am caught up in the action.
disappointed that there's no discussion of the original 2016 demo (the 2018 demo is mistakenly referred to as the "original" demo). also, no PC coverage?
and relatively minor nitpick, but the Vita version wasn't cancelled until last August, over three years after the Kickstarter, not "early on" as claimed in tyhe video
and relatively minor nitpick, but the Vita version wasn't cancelled until last August, over three years after the Kickstarter, not "early on" as claimed in tyhe video
1) I don't have the 2016 demo so I have no clue
2) It was officially canned in 2018 but it was never actually started
3) No PC coverage because I barely managed to finish this and ended up working most of the weekend - this covers six platforms. I just couldn't do PC as well.
It really does not look like a
I agree with this. I don't see how this game could tax the Switch hardware THAT much. I'm going to see if updates fix this as I think it would be a fun portable game.
I agree with this. I don't see how this game could tax the Switch hardware THAT much. I'm going to see if updates fix this as I think it would be a fun portable game.
I
Aside from some missing text, the game never dips below 90 fps on my 7700k/1080 ti build on 4k/max settings.
I assume even a 1060 can run this game at medium setting at 4k no sweat.
Agreed. Why exclude the PC version?
Aside from some missing text, the game never dips below 90 fps on my 7700k/1080 ti build on 4k/max settings.
I assume even a 1060 can run this game at medium setting at 4k no sweat.
You're not taking into account engine or game overhead. There are VERY few 60fps UE4 games on Switch - and those that do exist were crafted exclusively for Switch likely with larger budgets and teams focused on optimization and, even then, they run at resolutions lower than Bloodstained.
Optimization is expensive and Switch isn't exactly blazing fast for UE4 games like this.
I feel like too many people judge games solely by how they perceive them to look. You can't say what is or is not demanding just based on that.
I'm pretty sure this is still kicking around on my PC if you actually want to try it.
Yeah, i still have it as well... and all the curse of the moon betas, even the one with the proper filenames (not the scrambled mess made to prevent reverse engineering) :) I soooooooo much dislike when authors want to force you into not modding the games.
If you need filesize to search:
*Google Searches 2080Ti*
Well yeah, a $1,200 video card better damn well run this game like a dream.
Sure you can... you just replied to people that did. 😆
I don't wanna point and laugh, but we have an expert on the matter here and even then, they still plug their ears and say "WHY NOT 60FPS?!" It's not conducive to the discussion at all.
Great work as always, John!
Also: I think I may be the luckiest of all. I have physical Switch waiting at home, but I bought digitally on PS4. Played about 10 hours on Pro, 25 on base for the plat. Never a single crash. Amazing game, nipping at RE2's heels for GotY.
Edit: to extrapolate on my point without sounding like appeal to authority, think about the Switch version's development. Firstly, ArtPlay was developing three versions internally: PC, PS4, X1. The Wii U and Vita versions were going to be outsourced to another developer to help smooth out development. When those were canceled, the Switch version was introduced. This was about two years or so into development.
Not only that, but the Switch version was going to be handled internally too. So we have a sudden entrance of a console that was both never originally planned AND adding more time and taking more of the budget from the main dev team. On top of that, we know the Switch has been missing key UE4 features for a while by this point (remember, Square said they were waiting on UE4 updates to finish the Switch version of DQXI). So we have a console version that was unplanned, with work split between it and three other platforms, that showed up on the workbench two years later than the other versions... all from an indie studio and for a partially Kickstarter-funded game. I'm honestly shocked it even runs like it does, to be honest, and the loading and input latency will be addressed per 505 themselves.
But the fact of the matter is that UE4 is stupidly resource-intensive on consoles. Nothing can change that. The other versions of the game run at 60fps through brute force. The Switch simply does not have the muscle to do so. Now, looking at John's video, it seems to have a fair bit of overhead since it maintains 30fps about 99% of the time. With a safe overhead for locked framerate being about 10fps, you're looking at a ~40fps (variable, of course) game, which is so much more of an eyesore than 30fps. I love RE Revelations 2 on PC and on Switch, and I can play it despite its unlocked framerate which is usually 45fps on Switch. I play it despite that, though, as it's really annoying.
Sidetracked there for a sec, but long story short: UE4 is power hungry, and the Switch, while an impressive hybrid console, needs intense, intense optimization to even get 60fps, and that's not without severe cuts to certain effects or resolutions. That adds countless work hours and budget dollars that an indie studio that's already working on three other versions of the game simply did not have at the time.
P.S. Yes, I think the game looks beautiful. Great art style.
Last edited:
I adore the look and feel of the game, actually.
There's dozens of us!
That's great! I feel less like a weirdo for thinking it looks great most of the time.
Same, I don't know if it's because I'm old (30) but I think the game is great and looks great.
I assume that's a Yooka-Laylee situation where the game will mostly visually click with the target audience around my age that grew up with SotN, because we're comparing it to SotN instead of today's standards.
This or people are now just expecting too much while my treshold for an enjoyable visual experience hasn't increased since long.
Since I don't think I said it here, add me to the list of people that think the game looks great.
I was very skeptical of it pre-release, but after seeing how successful they were with this, I think 3D was the right choice with a game designed for home systems rather than handheld ones.
If you were to replace those with PC, it would be one less system to deal with. But I suppose you can transfer saves between those, while PC would be separate for most games.
I was very skeptical of it pre-release, but after seeing how successful they were with this, I think 3D was the right choice with a game designed for home systems rather than handheld ones.
Please understand that this is not a complaint about you skipping over the PC version, but especially this late in the console cycle, does original PlayStation 4 / Xbox One (S) performance really matter that much for multi-platform releases? It seems almost guaranteed that they will be 1080p/900p and run a little bit worse.
If you were to replace those with PC, it would be one less system to deal with. But I suppose you can transfer saves between those, while PC would be separate for most games.
Playing since launch on PS4 Pro the only big problem I ever experienced was the glitch with the chests being open already which I fixed by removing the launch patch. Poker chip boss is a frame rate nightmare though.
Framerate is largely a CPU problem, not a resolution issue. The game is already running in low-resolution......bumping it down further isn't going to magically double performance.
The game doesn't even "perfectly run" at 60 FPS on PS4 or X1S.
Last edited:
Yeah, that 45fps range tends to give me headaches and nausea on a 60hz display. I ended up having to put PS4 Pro Nioh on the 1080p 60fps mode because the higher res mode was making me sick.
Wow, that's extreme. I just dislike how it looks, but thankfully don't actually get sick from it, for the cases where I don't have the option to lock it.
Dark1x Dictator
The game on PC renders at arbitrary resolutions, and respects the UE4 internal supersampling setting (up to 4x pixels). That's all good so far.
However, for some unfathomable reason, it limits the rendering resolution of character dialogue closeups and the equipment screen model to 1080p, by only using a 1080p chunk of the existing framebuffer, even if that is e.g. 5120x2880. I've checked this using Renderdoc.
This should be absolutely trivial to fix -- and really makes no sense, it's not like you need to eke out a last bit of performance in dialogue or the equipment screen -- and in fact, these character closeups are where you actually want to see the best rendering, aesthetically!
Now please mention this somewhere where the devs see it and are motivated to fix it :P
The game on PC renders at arbitrary resolutions, and respects the UE4 internal supersampling setting (up to 4x pixels). That's all good so far.
However, for some unfathomable reason, it limits the rendering resolution of character dialogue closeups and the equipment screen model to 1080p, by only using a 1080p chunk of the existing framebuffer, even if that is e.g. 5120x2880. I've checked this using Renderdoc.
This should be absolutely trivial to fix -- and really makes no sense, it's not like you need to eke out a last bit of performance in dialogue or the equipment screen -- and in fact, these character closeups are where you actually want to see the best rendering, aesthetically!
Now please mention this somewhere where the devs see it and are motivated to fix it :P
Will do. I noticed this on the Xbox One X version and found it distracting but forgot to mention it in the video.
Thanks Durante. I have yet to check out the PC version yet, but will get in some time with it mid-week if I can to see what I can say.
DF Direct this week ?- let's talk about it Dark1x :D
I believe that that 1x version would still render at 4k and downsample/supersample that to 1080p, so it would still run the same (unless that game has a selectable performance or 1080p option).
It's even worse if you're playing the game in ultrawide, as the character models get stretched out:
The game does not support ultrawide officially (sadly) but it's possible that scaling to match the rendering resolution, rather than using a fixed 1080p, would also fix this.
I'm also hoping that someone can mod out the vignetting used at the edges of some rooms, which disappears in conversations.