-
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.
Mark of the Ninja: Remastered has disappointing performance (framerate) on Switch
- Thread starter ScOULaris
- Start date
We need more "it's not ideal but it's good enough" posts in a thread dedicated to the subpar performance of a game?
We really dont. Being vocally accepting of a less than ideal port doesn't really make any sense, especially when it costs the same as every other version that runs and performs much better.
No we need post that aren't overly about the world is ending and a game is unplayable. When doom came out on Switch all I saw were post about unplayable at 30fps. I bought it and played it myself and had no issues and it was a great experience. I meant exactly what I said.
Did you even play the damn game this is about? Did you even see a single screenshot? Or are you just here to shitpost? Because your post looks like the latter.
The game in question here would run on a damn toaster.
User Warned: "Lazy Dev" Rhetoric
The Switch can run this game at 60fps in its sleep. There's nothing going on in this game that requires it to be locked at 30fps. Dev was definitely lazy when handling this port. Wheres Panic button when you need them? We need them to take on task other developers aren't capable of handling on the Switch.
I doubt it was laziness. Just inexperience with working with the Switch and the nature of how the game was made, more than anything else
They still sell it full price; hell, even more than the original version actually. Yet, they admit that they are not willing to go the extra mile (that is, recoding the game) to have it run properly.
I have a much bigger problem with the lack of transparency prior to release.
Yes, the news was several pages ago when the developers plainly stated that there isn't going to be a fix.
Apparently getting the framerate to 60fps is an under-taking that simply isn't in the cards.
Oh they no doubt didn't handle it well but calling them lazy is rather uncalled for. Not that you did, of course
Oh I completely understand that. I mean, it was expected to run at 60 FPS, as even the last gen versions ran at that. The fact that they didn't even bother is pretty shitty
User Warned: "Lazy Dev" Rhetoric
The fuck...
That's really disappointing. Screams of laziness from Klei.
They said they would have to rewrite code in order for that to happen from scratch. One of the few excuses I would allow. I will try the game when it goes on sale. To much else to play right now.
If the game is coded to run all game logic in a single CPU thread, it doesn't really matter how much the Switch CPU as a whole rates compared to the 360 CPU. What matters is how one of the Switch's eight cores rates compared to one of the 360's three cores. Along with things like the memory bandwidth available to each core etc.
Maybe somebody who knows could chime in.
Still they sell the game at full price. They should be willing to rewrite the game, if they expect people to pay an even higher price than the original release.
this isn't doom
people knew doom was targeting 30 fps before release
this is a slightly improved 360 game that was 60fps, the devs hid the fact that the switch version is going to be 30 fps
i don't understand why people don't see what the dev did was wrong
if it's truly impossible for it to run at 60 fps on switch, they should have came out and said it before launch and let people decide for themselves if 30 is acceptable for them
It includes the special edition DLC ($5 on its own) which is why its priced at $20 instead of $15. Not excusing it, but that's why.
Ok, then I understand the price hike, thanks for the insight.
Still, it's being sold "full price". As a potential buyer, i would expect them to sell me a full game, not an half assed one.
Yeah, this is what I'm mad about. Not what they achieved or what they charge, or what they're able to do going forward. Just that there was no heads up to inform the buyer. They wouldn't even necessarily lose a lot of sales, lots of people would just buy it on one of the other platforms.
The point I was making is that it isn't unplayable. The most I responded to stated he had the game was playing it and the version was fine. Too many times we freak out but it comes down to if the game is playable and you can enjoy it.... even at 30fps.
Yeah, but I would be pissed if I'd bought it on Switch before knowing, like I had planned to. Now I can get it on PS4 instead because even though 30fps is playable it's not as good at 60fps.
no one is saying it's unplayable or that you can't have fun with the game. it's just inferior to the old game and the other new versions, and that inferiority should have been communicated to people before the game launched. the way things happened, it's SUPER hard not to see this as an intentional move by the dev to hide a flaw in a version of their game, and they didn't even have the decency to come out on launch day and say it. they waited a few days so more people bought the game, some of them even may have known about the issue but made the very safe assumption that it'll get fixed. then they come out and say it is what it is.
i'm not saying the game is bad, it's unplayable, not fun, trash, etc. it's just that in the context of this thread a "i'm having fun with it so whatever" post doesn't make senae and there's no reason for people to make excuses when a dev does something scummy
The Messenger runs also like crap on the Switch and a toaster could run it...Snake Pass runs also bad on Switch, Dead Cells is also running much badder than on PS4...numerous titles are running badly on Switch because the device just has not enough memory/power and enough games prove that the hardware is at the limit even with indie games. Or maybe it is too hard to port games to the device and it requires too much optimization? either way, performance is questionable in a lot of games on the device.
Besides that, don´t assume someone "shitposts" just because you don´t like what you read. different people have different opinions and my opinion is just that the Switch has weak hardware that struggles with many games, even Nintendo ones if you look at Zelda and the Plateau/Korok Forest.
But Zelda is in no way comparable to The Messenger or Mark of the Ninja. Optimization costs resources and some devs aren't willing or able to put those recousreces towards that version. Hollow Knight is on the same level as Mark of the Ninja and the Switch version runs just as good as the PS4 and PC versions.
We also heard form multiple devs/publishers like Bethesda that it's pretty damn easy to port games to the machine thanks to the tools provided by Nvidea and Epic.
I'm calling it a shitpost because you seriously try to claim that Switch isn't powerful enough to run freaking Mark of the Ninja smoothly. Stop trolling.
That and he must not have played BotW in a VERY long time if he's still referring to performance issues from at launch as opposed to how the game is now. I'm also pretty sure Snake Pass holds up well in the Switch compared to the PS4
Korok Forest is still a slideshow in docked mode. I believe it runs a little better in portable mode.
The idea that a system that is more powerful by a wide margin than the 360 can't run a 2D 360 game is laughable. The idea that the devs were unable to dedicate enough resources to ensuring the Switch version runs smoothly is, however, entirely feasible.
If Devs can't put the resources in shouldn't the price of the game reflect that. If they decide to do a quick port job with less resources shouldn't they sell this game for much cheaper. Also shouldn't they have let people know about this game runs at 30fps. Anyways this doesn't affect me as I don't buy gams blindly but I can see how it might annoy some people who bought it expecting to run like the 360 version.
Nope, the area around the Deku tree has very nasty frame drops in docked mode. I played it recently and there's been no patches since.
The fact that it can't run as well as the 360 version is an absolute embarassment, and not on the part of the Switch. The Switch Handheld is more powerful than the Wii U, and the Wii U is more powerful than the 360, so the game not even running up to par with a decade + old system is pathetic.
Yeah, there's a problem area in the game, but it's like, one area, and that one area has like 11,000,000 things going on. Let's not be hyperbolic and claim that a single area that just has too much going on means that the Switch sucks or some shit.
Honestly, I can hear the argument that the game was coded in a certain way that makes it difficult to port to a more powerful but different hardware. But they could have: either
1) Sold the game for half the price, since Switch users are getting half the frames and this is NOT a power limitation of the machine.
2) Recoded everything. They sell a game FULL PRICE. They should be willing to do the FULL DISTANCE. Moreover, while I'm not underestimating how time consuming the technical aspect is, recoding the game is not the same as redoing the game. The art, the concept, the mechanics, everything is already in place. Had they done that, the price point would have been justified. Currently, it's just not.
3) Be upfront about the framerate issues. This is the worst part in my view. The fact that they waited after the release of the game to acknowledge the problem, and to say that they would not fix it, is downright dishonest.
On switch or any other platform, I won't buy any of their game now. I'm old enough to put my money where my mouth is.
1) Sold the game for half the price, since Switch users are getting half the frames and this is NOT a power limitation of the machine.
2) Recoded everything. They sell a game FULL PRICE. They should be willing to do the FULL DISTANCE. Moreover, while I'm not underestimating how time consuming the technical aspect is, recoding the game is not the same as redoing the game. The art, the concept, the mechanics, everything is already in place. Had they done that, the price point would have been justified. Currently, it's just not.
3) Be upfront about the framerate issues. This is the worst part in my view. The fact that they waited after the release of the game to acknowledge the problem, and to say that they would not fix it, is downright dishonest.
On switch or any other platform, I won't buy any of their game now. I'm old enough to put my money where my mouth is.
I never said that. My only contribution was to say that Korok Forest has issues on Switch.
I personally believe that some of the problematic indie games could run a lot better on Switch if proper time was taken. But sometimes simply releasing takes priority over rewriting a lot of code - end product be damned, the game neeeds to ship on the platform now! That's why I'm only willing to buy those games at a reduced price later. I'm not saying that they're unplayable, but I only pay reduced price for a reduced effort.
Wow, there's a lot going on in this thread. I clicked cause I am thinking about buying the game. I had no issues with the performance of Zelda, The Messenger or Dead Cells on switch. I've never played Mark of the Ninja and with this being a portable version, I'm more likely to play this than on ps4 or xbox. Reviewers say the game is pretty good. Does this performance issue make this a bad port? Or, would I even notice since I thoroughly enjoyed those other three games on switch that have issues?
I've never played it before, but all the buzz makes me want to pick it up. If you have the slightest interest in stealth games it sounds like a winner.
As for the "performance issues," the only biggie is that it's 30FPS on the Switch instead of 60FPS elsewhere. Some people see it as a deal-breaker, while other people are upset that the developer didn't tell Switch owners ahead of time. Too much drama over a small matter if you ask me -- folks have beaten the game on the Switch and loved it.
Its hardly a slide show. It's not perfect but it's not downright awful either and the rest of the game runs fine. I don't see why you responded with pointing out the one area that doesn't run perfectly smooth, especially when I've previously acknowledged that not every area does
The Messenger runs crap on Switch? Which part and how bad is it?
Has the patch actually been released yet? Don't know what people are going on about. I checked the most current version I have downloaded and it's V1.0.0. That doesn't scream 'patched'. I can see smooth and jittery frames.
First time playing through and this is some fun awesome shit! Loving it.
First time playing through and this is some fun awesome shit! Loving it.
Well, first of all plenty of people were perfectly fine with Doom at 30fps on Switch and the two main reasons for this is that the game was built for much more powerful hardware and that it was known and expected to be 30fps long before the game came out.
Again, the biggest issue (IMO, anyway) is the lack of transparency prior to launch. They should have said it was 30fps on Switch so people could make a more informed purchase, whether that means getting the game on a different platform or skipping it all together.
I mean decoding those textures or sprites, so they can be show, could eat a lot of CPU and bandwidth resources. I highly doubt that CPU in Switch is more capable than CPU in X360 and comparing flops in different architectures is meaningless.
I could be wrong, but Wii U too had really underpowered CPU. And decoding assets is a bitch and since cartridge pricing policy probably did not helped in this case.
Anyway this game costs full price? It was like 1200 space bucks on X360. Which was, what, 15-20$? What happened?
I could be wrong, but Wii U too had really underpowered CPU. And decoding assets is a bitch and since cartridge pricing policy probably did not helped in this case.
Anyway this game costs full price? It was like 1200 space bucks on X360. Which was, what, 15-20$? What happened?
Been having a long session with this game today and I gotta say, IMO, this 30 fps is way more preferable to my eyes. 60 fps is smooth yes but it also looks like slick budget flash animation. But 30 fps is giving me vibes of playing Batman the Animated Series in real time... haha Really gives it Saturday morning cartoon look.
I have been playing games for over 30 years and I can't tell the difference much either, lol.