• 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.

JigglesBunny

Prophet of Truth
Avenger
Oct 27, 2017
31,075
Chicago
I know you're not supposed to care what other people do with their money or judge their spending habits but if you pay for this disaster then someone should seize control of your finances.

This has to be one of the worst ports of all time.
 
Last edited:

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,271
Are you trolling or just oblivious?
  • The thread is about Switch hardware being able to run games

It's about how Ark Survival Evolved runs on the Switch, not whether people believe RDR2 or AC: Odyssey might run on it. Using this game as an example here to discuss how some games "just can't come to Switch" would be like using the Xbox One X version running at 1440p/15-30fps to discuss "how RDR2 just won't can't run at 4K on the console." Neither are good arguments as the point of comparison is a massive outlier when it comes to optimisation on their respective platforms.
 

Adamska

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
7,042
That and Ubisoft is, again, charging full price for the streaming game, making it really no different than the retail game. Especially if we're going to compare it to the Vita's remote play.
Wait, the streamed version of AC Odyssey is the same as the version on consoles and PCs because of the price? What?

And why would you compare this to Vita's remote play? You do know remote play requires owning the console that the game runs on in the first place, right? And no one in their right mind would say the Vita "has" every PS4 game just because you can stream them via remote play.
 

JustinP

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,343
It's about how Ark Survival Evolved runs on the Switch, not whether people believe RDR2 or AC: Odyssey might run on it. Using this game as an example here to discuss how some games "just can't come to Switch" would be like using the Xbox One X version running at 1440p/15-30fps to discuss "how RDR2 just won't can't run at 4K on the console." Neither are good arguments as the point of comparison is a massive outlier when it comes to optimisation on their respective platforms.
DF threads often branch outside the context of the one game. If you think I was doing what you describe, you misunderstood.
 

Eoin

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,103
I'm waiting for the 3DS version. ;-)
IeQUQ5km.jpg
 

HeroR

Banned
Dec 10, 2017
7,450
Wait, the streamed version of AC Odyssey is the same as the version on consoles and PCs because of the price? What?

And why would you compare this to Vita's remote play? You do know remote play requires owning the console that the game runs on in the first place, right? And no one in their right mind would say the Vita "has" every PS4 game just because you can stream them via remote play.

I didn't. Another poster did when they compared streaming AC from the Switch to Vita's remote play. While the techniques maybe the same, the comparison is flawed when Ubisoft is making you pay for AC on the Switch like a normal retail game.

I also didn't say they were the same. I said Ubisoft doesn't treat Switch AC differently from its retail game despite it being stream only. They even brag how Switch AC will be the most successful AC in Japan.
 

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,271
DF threads often branch outside the context of the one game. If you think I was doing what you describe, you misunderstood.

Often, but I think in this case the game is such an outlier that the branched out discussion doesn't really make sense. It would be like going into the thread for the XB1 version of the game, which had similarly terrible resolutions for that console, and saying how the Xbox One isn't good enough for upcoming AAA titles.
 

JustinP

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,343
Often, but I think in this case the game is such an outlier that the branched out discussion doesn't really make sense. It would be like going into the thread for the XB1 version of the game, which had similarly terrible resolutions for that console, and saying how the Xbox One isn't good enough for upcoming AAA titles.
Again, that's not what I'm doing. You're misunderstanding.

PS4-Ark -> Switch-Ark vs PS4-othergame -> Switch-othergame is comparing the delta of the same games on different platforms, not comparing different games on the same platform.

An optimized game that is pushing the limits of 30fps on PS4 does not have an easier time porting to Switch than an unoptimized game pushing the limits of 30fps on PS4. Both have the same hardware deficit to make up for.
Ark is an extreme case but trying to downport any game that already doesn't have wiggle room (whether because of poor optimization or just pushing the hardware to the metal) from PS4 to Switch is going to be tough, which is why it's not common with AAA games.
(AAA games rarely have much wiggle room, whether they're optimized or not)

edit: maybe this would help -- very rough, not necessarily to accurate scale (and obviously an oversimplification) -- more like a very quick guesstimate, more to get general idea across. Think of the horizontal lines as limits to get under if you want to accomplish that performance (inspired by game engine profilers).

9GQCB74.png


The best candidates for PS4->Switch ports are going to be the ones with the most wiggle room on PS4 (like Doom running at 60fps so they can drop it to a still playable 30fps for Switch or games that are just not graphically demanding). Most AAA games run at only 30fps on PS4/XBO, often not at full res -- there's usually not a lot of wiggle room.

You can see indie games generally port over easily. Doom only had to sacrifice a little bit to run on Switch at 30fps (because it was specced for 60fps on PS4). Ark didn't do so hot because it's an unoptimized mess, but AAA games that are still very optimized at 30fps will have to sacrifice a lot to get running on Switch -- optimized or not, they're still demanding. The AA game only runs at 30fps on PS4 because it's not optimized enough for 60fps, but it's not pushing that 30fps limit on PS4 so it will have an easier time porting to Switch.
 
Last edited:

Plum

Member
May 31, 2018
17,271
One look at the e-shop should tell you exactly where Nintendo's quality control went.

In the bin.

Nintendo's quality control has never been what you think it is. It's literally just been how they advertise "We licensed this game for our system because it doesn't literally break anything and is playable at some level," and that's been the case since the NES days.
 

Raide

Banned
Oct 31, 2017
16,596
The Melodica JP cover was genius. Also, just cutting the graphics down that badly just to make it barely work, seems a little pointless. People won't bother with a port of a poorly performing game, just because they reduce everything down to Turok 64 levels.
 

zma1013

Member
Oct 27, 2017
7,674
This is like the videogame version of "Hank Hill - Do I look like I know what a jpeg is?"
 

Urishizu

Dead Drop Studios Founder
Verified
Nov 5, 2017
885
Completely lost it at the Contra 3 part of the video. Absolutely incredible. DF is beyond amazing.
 

Mahonay

Member
Oct 25, 2017
33,314
Pencils Vania
Low quality bait, low quality bullying. We literally got some cool headed analysis that doesn't rely on the armchair wannabe devs on Era literally just guessing the resolution etc. I have no interest in this game or anything invested in it, and no reason to defend it. My whole point is that in the original thread there were loads of "lol this is the worst port evaaa lol" posts which were uninformed and boring and based on reaction not analysis. We all knew this game was going to run badly, because it runs badly on other consoles anyway. I'm interested in why it runs badly and how it runs badly compared to the other console versions, which is what this video delivers. Like, the video literally says that when taken in the context of the other console versions and the impossibility of this ever being passable on Switch, this is actually better than expected, which is more nuance than any of the posters in the other thread were giving.
What can I say, I am a low quality person. I inherited a dominant 170p gene and suffer from a degenerative LOD disease.

But uh, BETTER than expected? Sure why not.
 
Oct 29, 2017
4,721
Can't wait for people to keep bringing up this joke of a port as an example of the Switch's peak capabilities with ports for years to come!

Did you just compare an $850 gaming device to the Nintendo Switch 😳

Switch actually outperforms the GPD2 Win, so it's pretty representative of what to expect from a potential Switch port.

BTW, DQ11 also runs pretty well on that thing too.
 

spyroflame0487

One Winged Slayer
Member
Nov 3, 2017
3,078
This is extremely unfortunate. ARK has an incredible concept; surviving in the wilds of a jungle but..also there seems to be this unsettling tech/"being watched" feeling that you learn more about in lore.

The game barely runs on better hardware so it's not surprising it's barely chugging along on Switch. I really wish the devs would have gotten some pushback from Nintendo for releasing it, but maybe Nintendo was just eager to have a game like this on their system?
 

Deleted member 4274

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,435
I just want to know: Why did the developers even bother? I don't get it. Like, who's gonna buy this shit?
 

javiBear

The Fallen
Oct 30, 2017
886
The programmers were so preoccupied with whether they could, they didn't stop to think if they should.
 

Mars People

Comics Council 2020
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,181
Every time this game appears it once again reveals what an utter embarrassment it is.
 

Skittzo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
41,037
Why would Xenoblade Chronicles 2 be built with the Wii U in mind when Xenoblade Chronicles X came out in 2015? Why would they think the Wii U would still be alive in over two years?

IIRC XC2 was made by a "B team" at Monolith so it may have started production before XCX came out. And even if it started production in 2015 I doubt they had Switch devkits ready by then. Either way I think my point was that it wasn't confirmed to have been targeting the Switch from the beginning. Maybe it was but I don't remember it being confirmed.

And Starlink looks better than XC2 too, and wasn't built specifically to target the Switch either.

Well fuck me then, lol. Wow. I watched the video and have a headache it's so blurry. Jeez. Something tells me MAYBE this isn't the correct build?

What do you mean correct build? This is most certainly the build they meant to ship if that's what you meant. They already patched it once (and apparently it got even blurrier after that patch).
 

Deleted member 4274

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,435
What do you mean correct build? This is most certainly the build they meant to ship if that's what you meant. They already patched it once (and apparently it got even blurrier after that patch).

Like maybe they sent out the wrong build, given how it looked before. But seeing the info you just posted: yeesh! Where's the developers pride?
 

Mars People

Comics Council 2020
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,181
The literal huge brass balls on these developers to charge $50 dollars for this!
Its an utter scam. Pretty disgusting to be honest.
 

Deleted member 15538

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,387
Ooh that's a nice DF video, actually entertaining for once.
Glad I never have to grab something non exclusive on switch.
 

Skittzo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
41,037
Like maybe they sent out the wrong build, given how it looked before. But seeing the info you just posted: yeesh! Where's the developers pride?

These developers are apparently pretty shit about this game on all platforms. People have said the game basically launched as a broken mess and because people bought it they decided it wasn't worth trying to fix it at all.

There's only so much a porting studio can do when the ones setting the budget literally just don't care.


It's also not quite as powerful as the Switch in terms of gaming. So the comparison does actually work.
 

Dark1x

Digital Foundry
Verified
Oct 26, 2017
3,530
Like maybe they sent out the wrong build, given how it looked before. But seeing the info you just posted: yeesh! Where's the developers pride?
They definitely didn't send us this one! I had to pony up $49.99 to do the video so I could warn others not to do the same.