this post was submitted on 05 Jun 2024
22 points (92.3% liked)
Nintendo
18438 readers
4 users here now
A community for everything Nintendo. Games, news, discussions, stories etc.
Rules:
- No NSFW content.
- No hate speech or personal attacks.
- No ads / spamming / self-promotion / low effort posts / memes etc.
- No linking to, or sharing information about, hacks, ROMs or any illegal content. And no piracy talk. (Linking to emulators, or general mention / discussion of emulation topics is fine.)
- No console wars or PC elitism.
- Be a decent human (or a bot, we don't discriminate against bots... except in Point 7).
- All bots must have mod permission prior to implementation and must follow instance-wide rules. For lemmy.world bot rules click here
Upcoming First Party Games (NA):
Game | Date
|
Mario & Luigi: Brothership | Nov 7 Donkey Kong Country Returns HD | Jan 16, 2025 Xenoblade Chronicles X: Definitive Edition | Mar 20, 2025 Metroid Prime 4 | 2025
Other Gaming Communities
- Gaming @ lemmy.ml
- Games @ sh.itjust.works
- World of JRPG's @ lemmy.zip
- Linux Gaming @ lemmy.ml
- Linux Gaming @ lemmy.world
- Patient Gamer @ lemmy.ml
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The game runs fine on PC. Your problem is that you crowdfunded a PC game and expected to play it on a 10-year-old Android tablet. They never said they were developing it for switch. The switch was weaker than cell phones that existed when it was released and it's a joke to expect it to run anything now beyond undemanding mobile games.
They originally said they were developing it for PS Vita and Wii U. Switch should have been a good deal easier.
Also, Metroid Dread exists.
Did you play breath of the wild? It ran like trash on the switch compared to the Wii u.
And I'm not a console guy, but I'm pretty sure a docked Vita was more powerful than a switch too.
I played both versions and I really don't know how you got that impression. Both were rough at times (Korok forest being the worst of the worst) but Switch was always a bit smoother and loaded a lot faster.
See also MK8 Vs MK8D or any of the Wii U to Switch ports. I know first-hand, I had those.
Well that's egg on my face. You are right. I thought that when I played breath of the wild in a Wii u emulator that it was just matching up to the Wii u. Apparently it was much better, so when I saw my nephew playing it on switch I thought it was performing worse than the Wii u. Now that I went to run it again, I see that it is running at twice the frame rate of the switch or the Wii u and four times the resolution.
I do have to say WTF? They released a mobile game that can't run at full 30 FPS consistently on multiple platforms?
Don't care about emulation performance, it's apple and oranges. Lots of games more impressive than Bloodstained have been adapted successfully to the Switch. Compromises exist but they don't include making them almost unplayable.
Anyway, regarding why Bloodstained specifically should have been easier on Switch than Wii U, it's not only about the Switch being more powerful or a more modern architecture than a Wii U or a Vita (though it is).
It's also that the version of unreal engine (4) they were developing the game on wasn't even officially supported on the Wii U. They made a point in their crowdfunding campaign that they were enlisting the help of Armature, former Retro Studios Devs with experience in porting. They needed them to do the necessary development to adapt a UE4 game to Wii U. Back then Armature were even proposing to release their work once done for other studios wanting to do the same.
Development went longer than expected, Wii U was a big commercial failure and its life was cut short, so I can see why they cancelled that and went to Switch instead. But UE4 is officially and fully supported on Switch, so that barrier didn't exist anymore.