I believe it was a desperate attempt to get a new source of revenue. His upcoming Sokoban game is taking forever to make, so it’s not going to bring them any new revenue anytime soon. In large part because he made the arcane decision to create a new programming language for it (as a replacement for C++), because apparently Sokoban is the type of game where you really need that high performance.
Yes, but read that again, he’s making a new language, not a new engine… To put it in terms of food, using things like Unity is equivalent to eating industrialized food, you have absolutely no control and you get what you get; Using other engines like Unreal or Godot that have open source is like cooking at home, some work but you can get it just the way you like; Building an engine yourself is like having a little farm in your backyard and doing everything from start to finish, it’s slow, you’ll face problems that have nothing to do with cooking that were handled by the farmers before and at the end you’ll get something only slightly better than what you could using store bought products; Building a language from scratch is the personification of the saying “to make an apple pie from scratch first you have to invent the universe”.
And you know the worst part? It won’t be any faster or better in any mensurable way, large groups of developers spend decades to develop the languages we have today.
I think his use case is that the new language allows for more rapid iteration in development. Years ago now, I saw his demo of the language, and it compiled so quickly that it may as well have been done by the time he pressed Enter. For all the gains he got from that, it still hasn’t helped him release a game by now, but I do see the problem he’s trying to solve, and I do think it’s worth solving.
Faster compilation is probably nice, but making a new language with all its tooling from scratch is a huge endeavor. Props to him for actually doing it.
The problem is that all this work takes away time from the actual game development. I’m not sure about the scope of his next game, but from what I’ve seen I don’t really understand why his Sokoban adventure game can’t be made in Unity. I don’t think he’s pushing any hardware limits with it.
Unity also got hot reloading nowadays, which is about as fast iteration you can get.
I’m just armchair guessing, but I believe he would’ve been done with his game by now if he just used Unity.
Hollow Knight: Silksong is a Unity game, last I checked, and it’s not getting done any faster. As per The Witness, it’s probably far more about how he’s retooling puzzles rather than his language, if I had to guess. Plus, it’s not just iterating within the editor; this thing exported a build in well under a second. I worked on a Unity game a few years ago, and it definitely took me far longer than that. It even had a bug for a bit there where we couldn’t see the game when run via the editor on Linux, so the only way we could test it was by exporting a build until we got an update to Unity.
A pretty terrible one. Remasters are for games that are high on replay value and deeply nostalgic. Braid was cool and innovative and I enjoyed it when I played through it the first (and only) time, but I have no desire to play it again.
I swore off early access after Phoenix Point. It sucks to already be bored with a game before it has the major kinks worked out.
Dead Cells is kind of a counterpoint, though. I’m not sure if I got it as “early access” per se, but since I bought it, they made some major balance changes that completely changed the meta, and those changes got me playing way more enthusiastically than I was before.
I think part of the problem is down to how a lot of games come out as “Early Access” which implies it’s more bare bones and will get fleshed out over time.
If a game releases as EA then the expectation is you will get more content until release, if a game just comes out without EA then it’s assumed it has all content and anything new is dlc/mtx/expansions.
I’m not gonna bother addressing Live Service games, wish they would go in the bin with most other MTX.
Absolutely. I will never buy another Early Access game - it’s buying something that is clearly unfinished, and you the player never get a second chance at the first impression. There’s too many other games to expect us to come back and try it again once there’s more content and the bugs are ironed out.
I’m not against early access as a whole, if devs want to get player feedback earlier on in the life cycle and players are happy to be pseudo testers then it’s fine.
I get some people would rather wait and buy when it’s finished, and some studiosd/devs would rather bypass EA and just release the game outright, but I feel both paradigms can exist as long as both parties (devs/consumers) continue to benefit.
Early access definitely has its place. I’ve bought several EA games I really enjoy, and it’s kind of rewarding seeing something go from basic and threadbare to a more complete picture, and knowing I was a part of that is satisfying. I’ve also been burned by EA too, so it’s a double sided coin.
Rogue Legacy 2 was a standout example for me. I was happy to support the developer while they worked on the game, and all progress carried over to the finished product. Granted, roguelikes in particular are really well suited for EA because they’re meant to be played over and over with no real end.
Ground Branch for me. Love the old Rainbow Six games, and I find that newer tactical shooters in general just don’t hit the mark for me. GB still has a long way to go but actually has some original R6 devs at the helm and has an excellent core experience so far, and it’s only getting better.
I think when they fixed all the obvious jank, went all in on the world building and strong storytelling, and timed it with the incredibly excellent Cyberpunk Edge runners series… Everything turned around.
The game is still pretty crappy as a open-world, loot still feels halfbaked and honestly combat is so dumb that I have to gimp myself and refuse to pick certain skills just to have some challenge.
But I ignore it because when the story pulls you in, you’re hooked!
That’s funny, I feel kinda the opposite lol. The story just feels ok to me (I thought the story of PL was a lot more interesting though) but I just love the setting and just blasting through enemies
I loved the world, enjoyed its story but didn’t like the combat as it felt a bit messy and I felt overpowered as a hacker.
After two playthroughs, I’ll probably do the expansion at one point but I don’t know if I should play it from one of my playthrough or from a new save.
Given how modern AAA games are and Bethesda's recent track history, it's not negative to be skeptical, it's smart.
Especially since despite Microsoft watching over them and helping them to have the most "bug free launch in history" it's still probably going to be a hot mess for weeks to a month after launch. I want to be pleasantly surprised, but I'm not getting my hopes up.
Plus, the recent release of Baldur's Gate 3 with no microtransactions or season passes, etc. has gotten peoples' standards up, and given that Microsoft paid a lot of money to buy Bethesda, we're aware that they're going to have to make that money back somehow, and will probably give into the temptation to do some really player unfriendly things to do it.
Bethesda's been going all in on surprisingly expensive microtransactions for really tiny amounts of content, like in Fallout 4 and 76, and it wouldn't be shocking for them to continue in that direction. People aren't being mindlessly negative, they're looking at current and past trends and making an educated guess about the future.
Bethesda’s been going all in on surprisingly expensive microtransactions for really tiny amounts of content, like in Fallout 4 and 76, and it wouldn’t be shocking for them to continue in that direction.
This isn’t even new. Bethesda literally set the standard for overpriced MTX with the god damn horse armor in Oblivion for $7.50. That was the first time in history the microtransaction was used and it garnered much the same response as they do now.
Then you should know the content quality of their games have gone steadily down since Morrowind, as they have prioritized trend-chasing over, pretty much, everything else.
It culminated in 76’s concept and I highly doubt they are done with it.
Their games have gotten wide as the ocean and shallow as a puddle. The mechanics and quest design are so simplified and shallow. Skyrim and Fallout 4 are more like action games with some light RPG elements. As noted by the comment below, they’re chasing trends. Newer games can’t compare to options you have in New Vegas or even Morrowind.
The studio has changed. Just because Fallout 4 wasn't a "true RPG" doesn't mean I didn't have nigh on 400 hours of novel joy with it, maybe even because it wasn't just another core Bethesda RPG but because it was something new, a new kind of looting and crafting experience in that same large, dynamic open world that Bethesda could bring through. Morrowind was over 20 years ago. Bethesda isn't the one making those kinds of games anymore.
Have the games gotten shallower as RPGs? Sure. Fucking pac man is shallow at this point, does that mean everyone should hate on it en masse? If you don't like the direction Bethesda is going that's completely understandable, but it just seems absurd that people come out of the woodwork in these threads to just poop on a game that isn't even out yet. Save that for when it releases and it does or doesn't meet your expectations, as of now it just sounds like everybody is trying to get as entrenched as possible in their prejudice.
Bethesda games are buggy, what an old meme. It's more of a meme than a true criticism now because most games have bugs, especially ones as large as Bethesda games, and even on launch I've played other Bethesda games and enjoyed myself just fine. It's good to be cautiously skeptical and not pre order, you should be skeptical, but swinging all the way past that to being hard-line negative is not the right answer either.
And I know you personally are not reflecting all of these views, your comment just comes off as supportive of both genuine and over the top memetic criticisms due to replying in a seemingly justifying manner to someone confused about the buggy game comments. When it comes to those sorts of comments I'm talking generally about what I've seen from people on this platform.
I'm not saying Starfield will be an old Bethesda return to form or bug free on release, I'm just saying be cautious, not completely pedal to the metal negative, and accept that Bethesda as it was is dead.
At the risk of sounding like a cynical bastard, I’m gonna address some of your points.
Just let me start off with: If you enjoy the games, great. More power to you.
The lack of depth isn’t just reserved to the RPG mechanics. The story, the dialog, the characters… everything is lacking in depth. All the “Environmental Story Telling” in the world can’t make up for the neglected writing.
And everything that has been added isn’t new by any stretch of the imagination. It’s all borrowed from other current franchises, then half-assed and shoveled in by Bethesda. The loot system being one of the few things that actually works as intended.
Pac-Man is old as balls and I haven’t seen anyone trying to pass it off as something new. Hell, even The Legend of Zelda series still follow the exact same premise of the very first game on the NES. The sequels get bigger, smoother and more beautiful. But it’s still the same game at it’s core, because it actually works.
Next point: All games launch buggy. Yep, and it has become a bit of a meme with Bethesda for a reason. Their newest games still have the same game-breaking bugs in them as Morrowind did. Some have even gotten worse. The modding community are literally fixing the same stuff, every title. Which is amazing, as Beth keeps updating their crappy Engine, but at no point in 21 years did they take the time to iron this shit out.
I do agree that we shouldn’t be shitting on a game before it comes out. But it’s not like people have zero idea what they are in for. From what has been shown, Starfield just looks like Fallout 4 with a fresh coat of paint. And there is a bit of a track-record to back most of the assumptions up.
As i said: If you like the road they have been taking with their games and you enjoy them. Keep enjoying them.
I think there’s just a general sense of disappointment from a lot of old players. And it builds up fast in the echo-chambers of the internet and can come off as aggressive even when it wasn’t the intention. And it works both ways. Dear lord, have I met some angry people defending games, simply because they can’t fathom the idea that they might just like playing a ‘bad game.’
I understand your position as well, I think we just need to have more moderate discussions and less going to extremes.
I didn't address the writing and dialogue of the games because those are absolutely getting the short end of the stick in terms of what Bethesda is spending their resources on, but I found the systems that they put work into in Fallout 4 worthy enough of that time spent instead, and I think that says more about my preferences of what I like in a game than it really does about if Bethesda games are "better" or not this way.
I tend to prefer moment to moment gameplay and I found Fallout 4's complex interlocking loop of wanting to build a settlement and modify my equipment, leading to tracking down certain materials and identifying where they may be logically found, to going there on foot, to looting the place systematically and engaging the enemies with the weapons and armor I modified and have personal attachment to, to managing my inventory with an investment and thought that never mattered as much in previous Bethesda titles, etc.
That whole loop and set of mechanics that play into each other added an incredible wealth of what I consider more moment to moment gameplay depth than just enjoying the wider possibilities of dialogue options in past Bethesda titles.
Even at its best good old days Bethesda writing doesn't really compare to other games much more focused on writing (not going to mention New Vegas here because Obsidian is one of those devs better at writing than Bethesda). Bethesda games are always more than the sum of their parts.
My point about Pac Man is more that you don't dislike the game's lack of depth in certain areas just for its own sake, but because you're comparing it to the studio's past. When Pac Man Championship Edition and DX released, those
had favorable receptions because they took the arcadey roots of the franchise to their logical conclusion instead of swapping to more accessible gameplay trends as Bethesda did.
Not an invalid criticism, but not the only thing people should be mentioning in some of these comments as if that's what makes the game "bad".
And if you really think Starfield is going to be Fallout 4 with just a new coat of paint... That's just disingenuous. There's already more than enough changes in new mechanics and systems that didn't exist in FO4 aside from the entire new universe and premise that's more than simply a coat of paint.
I do hear what you're saying though and I appreciate acknowledging some of the parts people skip over thinking about just to hit the low hanging fruit that have been brought up in every thread about a Bethesda game since time immemorial, adding nothing new to the discussion.
In my personal opinion, I think what irks me the most is that all of Bethesdas missteps are fairly easily fixable. They just seem to refuse to do so for some reason.
A bit more focus on the overall writing would go a long way and wouldn’t have to interfere with the gameplay in the least for people who don’t care. It’s an intricate part of world-building for those that do enjoy it and serves to drive the player forward. Also helps the ‘suspension of disbelief’ and all that.
They don’t need to reach the heights of the old CRPG makers of the 90’s. Just make sure your “Antagonist” has a proper response when you put in an option to ask him Why he’s doing what he’s doing, you know? Stuff like that. As well as maybe not retconning the timeline of the universe just to fit an inconsequential quest-line and then recon it again in the next game… Stick to the established lore.
Secondly: Better implementation of a few new/borrowed features, like base building, that might fit the game. Instead of haphazardly throwing everything currently trending at the wall in the hope that some of it sticks. Take one thing and do it proper, otherwise just don’t do it at all.
Then there’s the Radiant-Quests in F4. This is just a poor excuse so as to not bother with making actual side-quests. There is a limit to how far they can execute their motto of “Keep it simple, stupid.” This is one of those limits.
There’s probably a couple of other things I’m forgetting. But I feel these little changes would help elevate Beth’ just a bit out of the meme-pit they’re currently in.
I agree with everything you said. Though that's certainly not everything, that's a lot of the major issues that hold Bethesda games back from their potential.
I am actually glad that with Starfield radiant quests have been expanded to dynamically place quests in different locations. I think that, if it's taken advantage of, will go a long way towards the potential criticism of "1,000 planets and nothing to do on most of them" that I see as a possible issue with their scope.
Bethesda continually evolves and changes their radiant system with each release, but from Skyrim to Fallout 4 we saw the felt effects of that system stagnate and become padding instead of adding dynamic experiences as its original intent.
And since I didn't specifically mention the bugs in my other comments, Ive played plenty of non-bethesda open world games with plenty of bugs long after release, I feel they're a part of the whole deal and I excuse most of them unless they truly cant be worked around (things like losing your companions or getting stuck on geometry if you're a console player). I cease to excuse those bugs as soon as the gameplay requires things of you that the bugs prevent, such as the game being too janky to support the strict save system of vanilla FO4's survival mode, which is inexcusable.
I also worry, though, about mods. Because of how many players use mods extensively in Bethesda games it becomes tricky to know which bugs are inherent, which are from poorly made mods, and which are from conflicting mods. It muddies the waters of really pinning down what's going on. Just something that contributes to the bugginess of those games in a way that isn't very calculable, unless you're unmodded on console.
But if anything remotely as problematic as the survival mode stability is a factor in Starfield, I'd be much much less willing to forgive some bugs here and there. We'll just have to see.
Bethesda makes well liked games, yes. But they have a track record of their games coming out as complete buggy messes that need 6-12 months to be in a decent state.
Could be in this case that Microsoft has realized how important this game is to their console efforts and the delays have been an effort to avoid a repeat of Bethesda’s typical. I wouldn’t be too surprised. I’d recommend being wary until the game is out. Waiting won’t hurt anyone.
Because - and this is the only real answer you'll get - Starfield is "cool" and "normies" are looking forward to it. Therefore, the "real gamers" must hate it, ESPECIALLY before actually playing it.
Same shit you see in any niche community. Buncha nerds hating on anything too big or popular.
No, you can measure it in things like sales and review scores. Sure, they also put out games like Fallout 76 and Wolfenstein: Young Blood, but two decades is enough to capture Skyrim and Fallout 3.
I really didn’t like Skyrim, Fallout 3, Oblivion, Fallout 4, or 76. Still playing Morrowind and New Vegas though. I could go on about why for a looooooooong time but really don’t care to. Suffice to say there are plenty of people (obviously) that are not happy with those games. I bought them all too so that would show up in sales data. Shame on me, I guess. I’ve been burned enough times that I’m not even going to bother being excited about this one.
But there are also tons of people who've been plenty pleased with those games, as you can see on the long tails of their sales and how many concurrent players they retain to this day. You're the odd one out on those heavy hitters. Not so much on 76, and to a lesser extent, 4.
The context of this discussion is that the top post claimed that people only are shitting on starfield because “normies” like it so none of that is relevant. All I’m saying is that there are legitimate reasons to have low expectations. The people who like those games aren’t the same people complaining about Bethesda/Starfield, they are people like me who have been disillusioned with bethesda for years after a long series of disappointing releases. It is especially frustrating because we KNOW they can do better, because they have in the past. They just don’t. The amount of people who will end up loving Starfield has no bearing on my ability to enjoy the game.
With that said, I’d be plenty happy for this to end up being another Morrowind or New Vegas. Now I feel I’ve proved my point so I’m gonna go play some Morrowind. 😜
I just think you would have made your point better if you had said maybe one decade, because two decades catches some certified bangers in the public consciousness.
two decades is enough to capture Skyrim and Fallout 3.
So a decent but by no means amazing game and a complete turd? Not really helping your case here very much, IMO. The last truly great game Bethesda made was Morrowind, and I will die on this hill.
Successful and good are completely different and unrelated metrics. Fifty Shades of Grey was extremely successful, but no one in their right mind would ever call it good. Psychonauts was met with universal acclaim, and is widely considered to be one of the best games of all time, and yet it was a complete flop and needed more than a decade to get a sequel.
Bethesda games are extremely successful. They are not good games, and their success is not a good thing. Bethesda kicked off microtransactions in 2007 with Horse Armour. This decision completely fucked the wider industry. Not a fan.
So...that's your personal taste. Fifty Shades of Grey wouldn't have been successful if no one liked it, and we can quantify some form of quality via review scores. Some of Bethesda's games have reviewed phenomenally well, especially in as large of a bucket as the past 20 years of their history. If I was the sole dictator of what was good, no one would be playing the latest Assassin's Creed game or Hades, but plenty of people love those games; the majority would say they're great, and we can measure that to some degree.
I’m sure that drives a good chunk of it, but it’s more likely that there are a lot of people that have had their fill of Bethesda games that all basically play the same, just in different settings, and those people tend to be in nerdier spots like this. Feels a little dorky to just blame it all on fun-hating nerds haha, what a coincidence that all the people that disagree with you are just mad losers!
Edit: Going back to this comment after Starfield came out and yeah, it’s about what I expected. Skyrim in space lol. Can totally understand why people are underwhelmed or annoyed.
Honestly mate? Not at all. I’m concerned about Starfield because of Bethesda’s track record since Fallout 4, and in particular, their constant attempts to introduce paid ‘mods’ to their games through the creation club (which are always overpriced for tiny amounts of content) as well as how broken their games have been at launch since Morrowind. When my PC, which can run Baldur’s Gate 3 on max settings, can’t run Oblivion without mods without regular crashes, then there’s a big problem.
I want Starfield to be good. But Bethesda do not make good games. They make broad games, but there’s no depth, and what is there is fairly consistently buggy. They have the Pokemon problem though, where people are willing to give them a pass because of the big name. I guarantee you, if a smaller developer released games in the state that Bethesda does, their games would be (rightfully) panned.
So how does that lead to so then there’s only negative things to say? It is, once again, not out yet. I’m starting to dislike being in any community around games, because everyone appears to just hate games. It’s exhausting.
I own every game they’ve ever released, but the expectation they’ve built over the last 20 years is that their games spend a year being trash, at least
In addition to what others have said I also suspect that being a console exclusive has made some people be very critical of it. I’m not a big bethesda fan but what I have seen so far looks great and I’m looking forward to play it.
I liked BZ, but I LOVED the original. The original is an 8/10 for me, and BZ is a 6/10 (not in shitty game reviewer numbers, for me a 5/10 is a game I thought was fun to play. And 8/10 is insanely good and almost no games get a 10.)
Don’t get too excited. The studio was been acquired by the publisher of PUBG, and their stated plans are to release subnautica 2 as a live service game with possible coop. I don’t think subnautica 2 is going to be anything like what you’re expecting. They’ve CLAIMED there will be no subscriptions or anything similar, but they’ve been conspicuously silent on microtransactions.
Unknown Worlds Entertainment is currently making another Subnautica game. They are publicly referring to it as “Subnautica 2.” So apparently they consider Below Zero to be a standalone expansion to Subnautica a bit like Half-Life: Opposing Force rather than a full sequel.
A few things that I have heard the developers confirm about this new game:
It will take place in the same universe as the first two games.
It will not take place on planet 4546B
There will be swimming in it
There will be submarines in it. Plural.
It will be co-op capable. If I understand what they’ve communicated right, it is going to be a single-player game that will have a “join game” button so you can invite a small number of buddies to join you.
From the screenshots they’ve shown, there’s going to be colorful ocean wildlife in it.
According to the Wiki, one of the original concept artists and the composer for Below Zero’s soundtrack are working on it.
They’re playing a lot of details close to the chest for now, very few gameplay or story concepts have been discussed. It is very likely going to be an ocean survival game with a nonzero chance of having your submarine bitten off by a 300 foot scream eel.
BZ was never Subnautica 2. It was a spinoff produced by a different team. It was originally supposed to be an expansion for the first game, but it got big enough they decided to release it standalone.
That’s why the top management should never be listened to. The CFO saying that means literally nothing because they will turn around and put MTX in single player games if they feel like they can get away with it. Their word is worthless because their goal is money.
The story’s been basically the same since the first game anyway: Gannon bad. Zelda missing. Kill Gannon; rescue Zelda. Oh and there’s maybe a triangle to find depending on the game.
Definitely true. But I liked the renditions from the last two 3d games before BOTW. It’s just the gameplay that was rough in those. The next round needs to put the two together.
You haven’t had to rescue Zelda much in the past 25 years.
In Ocarina of Time, Zelda was a badass ninja warrior that was constantly helping you.
In Majora’s Mask, Zelda didn’t appear.
In Wind Waker, Zelda was the leader of a gang of pirates. She had their respect and undying loyalty despite all being twice her size, because of her toughness and bravery. IIRC she actually kills Gannon in this one by bouncing an arrow off Link’s shield.
I don’t remember Twilight Princess enough to speak on that one, tbh.
In Skyward Sword, you think you’re saving Zelda, but she’s actually totally fine the whole time. She’s working with a Sheikah to restore seals to prevent Demise from returning.
In BotW, Zelda is fighting Gannon for 100 years (!!!) to buy time while Link sleeps and then later cooks food in his underwear.
In TotK, Zelda makes the ultimate sacrifice, trading her humanity to give Link a chance to beat Ganondorf. She makes herself immortal, but trades away her individuality and ability to think. She spends eternity crying because of what she lost to give Hyrule hope. I think she’s particularly brave in this one.
Zelda has not been a damsel in distress for a very, very long time. Both Zelda and Link play critical roles in saving Hyrule. Their roles are just different. Link saves Hyrule with a sword. Zelda saves Hyrule in other ways. Their roles are different but equally necessary.
Ocarina of Time, Zelda was a badass ninja warrior that was constantly helping you.
And is then captured by gannon toward the end of the game and you must rescue her.
Doesn’t appear in Majora’s Mask
I am not even counting the games she doesn’t appear in at all. Link’s Awakening and pretty much all the GBA games are like that. But they aren’t the main series, either.
In Wind Waker, Zelda was the leader of a gang of pirates. She had their respect and undying loyalty despite all being twice her size, because of her toughness and bravery.
And she is kidnapped at some point in the game, and you must rescue her.
Don’t remember Twilight Princess
Like Link to the Past, OOT and WW: Shes kidnapped toward the end by Ganon, and you must rescue her.
Skyward Sword
Zelda is literally trapped in a crystal and must be rescued by killing Demise. Sure, she put herself in that crystal, but you still save her from being imprisoned forever.
BOTW
Like Skyward Sword, Zelda is trapped as energy in a constant battle to keep Ganon at bay. Since she comes back in TOTK, you obviously rescued her.
TOTK
I haven’t beat the whole game yet, but either it’s the only main series one where you don’t rescue Zelda, or Link finds a way to turn her back to normal, which would be like rescuing her, much like Skyward Sword and BOTW. And please don’t spoil it for me; the big twist was already spoiled by all the memes and it’s impact when seeing it happen in the game wasn’t nearly as cool as it would have been otherwise.
As a lifelong Zelda fan, I’ve never cared much for the stories of Zelda games anyways. Like Mario games, they’re always incredibly simple placeholders that boil down to “princess gone, defeat evil that took her”. These games got their start when that was the only story that you could fit on the cartridge anyways, so I could see why Nintendo would want to keep that spirit alive.
Plus, in an open world game, is story really that important? I’d rather have the excellent gameplay of TOTK than something like Red Dead 2 which is a great story with excruciatingly boring gameplay.
I really enjoyed the writing of the side characters in the N64 games. Sure most only had two maybe three things to say outside a side quest but they all had a nugget of commentary on the human condition.
Personally I thought that N64 and the beginning of GC had the best cadence of Zelda games; a retelling of the main “legend” (evil ganon, triforce power corrupted, magical princess captured to use towards ultimate evil plan, hero appears, master sword, open path to ganon, defeat, time/space/existence saved) which was OOT, followed up by “here’s another adventure the hero went on that has almost nothing to don’t any of that, and it’s more character driven” which was Majoras Mask. It looked like we’d repeat that cycle with WindWaker (and to some extent I guess we did with Phantom Hourglass and Spirit Tracks) but then we got TP and nothing and SS and nothing and they got so bogged down into turning Zelda into a lore dump. Now we don’t even have dungeons and item anymore. Dungeons and items were the core gameplay! Imagine being able to hook shot around in BotW?
The sort of alternate universe I yearned for once upon a time was Zelda continuing to be about time gimmicks. OoT had two points in a timeline, MM had the groundhog’s labor day weekend, and there was oracle of ages/seasons by Capcom. I guess there’s only so many ways to spin it though.
The stories in most Nintendo games are weak and mostly pointless. I loved BOTW but strrrrrrrruggled to enjoy TOTK. It just felt too gimmicky. And I adore RDR2, story and gameplay.
Software updates can take quite a bit of bandwidth though. Call of Duty updates are significant events on the network, at the scale of streaming major sporting events.
Still not a big deal. Literally why CDNs and bitorrent tech exist. Ads, spam, and crawlers totally eclipse this traffic. This is just the ISPs posturing to raise rates.
Neither of these reduces the amount of bandwidth an end user requires to download a 120gb file. If anything torrenting makes it more problematic because the upload is spread amongst a dozen low density residential users rather than a single high throughput datacenter
This is just the ISPs posturing to raise rates.
Ya absolutely. Doesn’t change the fact that ‘gaming uses very little bandwidth’ is only considering the UDP packets sent during an online gaming session and ignoring all the other sources of usage.
I literally have 5-10gb of updates queued up the first time I open steam nowadays
That’s still not that much data. Advertisements and crawlers constantly use up far more bandwidth. Fight the real problems instead of blaming the users.
Gaming is 10-20% of the ISPs total network load, and the MW3 launch constituted like a 110% increase over base network load, so yes it’s a lot of data.
Advertisements and crawlers constantly use up far more bandwidth.
Crawlers rely on private connections between datacenters, very little of that traffic touches residential ISPs
Fight the real problems instead of blaming the users.
Literally no one is blaming users - There are plenty enough reasons to hate most ISPs, we don’t have to make up facts to find new ways to be mad.
Realistically it’s entirely possible it took more platform specific work to make the switch version viable than anything else.
It’s possible, but that’s wild speculation, and I think pretty unlikely.
It’s not their fault it’s lesser hardware.
It’s their fault for releasing a 70$ game on “lesser hardware” while not spending the time to get it working and looking well-enough. They didn’t have to release it.
It's not wild speculation. The CPU is 20 tiers worse than dogshit and getting anything that's even a hint of demanding to even function at all on it is a lot of work.
the point isn’t that it should cost less, it’s that it shouldn’t have been released to begin with AND it costs more than most games. the price isn’t really the problem, it just compounds on it to make it all seem worse.
No, it is wild speculation. Turning off graphical effects etc. until you get acceptable frame rates isn’t hard and doesn’t take long, definitely not as long as implementing them for the other consoles.
You don’t need to rebuild the game because the CPU is slower.
Graphical effects have never been the problem. They're completely irrelevant and not even sort of part of the discussion.
CPU performance is exactly the entire problem, and yes, you absolutely do have to make fundamental changes to make it functional. The CPU is the reason the majority of last gen games are straight up impossible to port in any context, and current gen games are much worse.
Graphical effects have never been the problem. They’re completely irrelevant and not even sort of part of the discussion.
What? This whole topic is about the lower quality of MK1 on the switch. How is the CPU involved in the graphics of MK1? You’ll need to share a source that this is the problem.
CPU performance is exactly the entire problem, and yes, you absolutely do have to make fundamental changes to make it functional. The CPU is the reason the majority of last gen games are straight up impossible to port in any context, and current gen games are much worse.
Please share a source, or at least a detailed description of what exactly the CPU is too slow for to run MK1 with higher quality. It sure as hell isn’t involved in shader execution, which is where most of the graphical fidelity comes from (if you’re developing a game post 2000).
The lower graphics quality is because the GPU can't do math. There's no way to mitigate that.
It's also absolutely none of the work involved in a port. The work on a port is entirely making the actual mechanics function on a CPU that was terrible for mobile years before the switch launched.
The lower graphics quality is because the GPU can’t do math. There’s no way to mitigate that.
Yes, which is why the CPU isn’t the problem. It’s the GPU.
It’s also absolutely none of the work involved in a port. The work on a port is entirely making the actual mechanics function on a CPU that was terrible for mobile years before the switch launched.
Please share a source for this. A game like MK1 doesn’t need a lot of CPU power, because there just isn’t anything complicated happening. It’s all GPU that’s missing.
I spent like 15 minutes looking up and comparing the minimum requirements on PC for mortal Kombat 1 (a game I have no intention of ever playing) and the CPU and GPU of the switch, pointing out that the GPU and CPU of the switch are both so far below even the minimum requirements on PC (which are pretty low tbh)
Am not an expert but i think particles and physics are both calculated by the CPU. Both very intensive tasks. Graphic wise, from looking at the screenshot above, it seems they only lowered the quality of model and it looks awful because they went for realism. The not so easy fixable problem is the characters design, Switch games look cartoonish for a reason.
Physics are calculated by the CPU, but a game like MK1 doesn’t have many physics to calculate - almost everything is pre-made animations. Particles are updated by the CPU, but rendered by the GPU.
And yeah, that’s why my point was that it’s not the CPU that is limiting the graphics.
What's your point? It's absolutely possible to make fun games that are simple and not demanding.
It's also extremely limiting. The vast majority of recent games can't possibly be made to run on anything anywhere close to as underpowered as the Switch.
I am just annoyed when people say the switch hardware is shit. It’s not shit, it’s just a completely different approach, that’s all. Also it’s annoying you’re using one of the shittiest ports ever to push this idea. They could have built this game from the ground up for switch and had something that looked and ran good. But that wasn’t their plan. The plan was a half assed port.
But it actually is obscenely underpowered, even for mobile, and the CPU is a massive limitation that keeps the vast majority of last gen games from being possible.
It changed the space by showing low end open world games on handheld were possible, but it hit its ceiling extremely quickly. There's a reason most AAA games didn't support it, and it's because it isn't capable.
Yeah I am a switch owner and also play on my Mac and on Windows with virtual machines, and the majority of switch ports are just garbage and should not have been released. I paid for the outer worlds on switch and it was awful, just a loading screen simulator.
Yes in a world that expects hardware to always get better and software to always be written sloppily and/or assuming those constant improvements I guess it makes sense to be angry at one of the greatest game consoles ever created
Remember when games used a few KB of memory and they did smart things to make that work? No you probably don’t because you’d be angered by that hardware’s existence
Right which is why first-party titles, which are built for the stupidly underpowered hardware found in a switch, run and look pretty damn good for the hardware inside. They are building the entire game around a singular shitty-ass chip. It can be optimized perfectly for just that.
But a developer creating a game for PC, Xbox, Playstation, potentially other platforms, AND Switch isn’t going to change the design of the entire game to accommodate the Switch’s dinky-ass hardware.
And yes old consoles and games used clever tricks to run well on slower hardware and it was amazing. But I guarantee that every single title you could think of as an example was either a first-party title, or in the case of something like Crash Bandicoot, was exclusive to that console.
You’re delusional if you think that third-party devs should be able to meet Nintendo’s level of polish on their console while creating graphically demanding games for current gen.
And yes it makes sense to be angry at “one of the greatest game consoles ever made” (okay fanboy) when that console was underpowered when it launched 6 years ago, has TERRIBLE controllers (joy cons are literally the least enjoyable controllers I’ve used, ever, and have serious drift issues), and has held back game development and caused headaches like the situation at hand for devs - they’re essentially in a no-win situation here.
Who's angry? It's not game developer's fault that it has 10% of the power needed to run a modern game.
There is no amount of optimization that could make most modern games run on the switch. It has nothing to do with laziness. If you were a first party making games built from the ground up to be comparable to other modern games, it could not be done.
There's a reason Nintendo leans hard into simple physics and extremely arcade style sports games, and it's not just to be more accessible to casual fans. It's because it's literally all the hardware can do.
There’s a reason Nintendo leans hard into simple physics and extremely arcade style sports games, and it’s not just to be more accessible to casual fans. It’s because it’s literally all the hardware can do.
Yeah when they chose the type of games they’d be known for in the 80’s, it sure was specifically because their crystal ball told them:
They chose that hardware because Nvidia was offloading it dirt cheap, so they could make big margins on it.
Yeah when they chose the type of games they’d be known for in the 80’s, it sure was specifically because their crystal ball told them
Nintendo’s shift towards simpler games has absolutely coincided with their consoles being less powerful than the competition. And since we’re name-calling like children (bc some of us are fanboys who can’t accept valid criticism)… this has been apparent for the last 20 years, and I made the observation as a child during the Wii era, numbskull!
Nintendo is currently not known for their 80s catalog of titles beyond generally being associated with Mario and Co. - they are known for the games and systems that most people grew up with - and statistically, that’s overwhelmingly Wii/DS and newer.
During which time their hardware has consistently lagged behind other systems, and rather than focus on graphics, like Nintendo once did - when they were pushing the hardware envelope - with titles like Super Mario 64, Nintendo has shifted focus and decided to use commodity hardware for their consoles.
Now, as a shift in strategy, I’m not saying it’s necessarily wrong, but don’t try and deny what’s going on.
They absolutely chose the hardware for the switch because it was cheap. There isn’t anything particularly special about that Nvidia chip, it had been commercially available for two years by the time the switch came out, so yes it’s reasonable to assume Nvidia was offloading it cheaply.
Use your brain and maybe put away the Nintendo kneepads.
Yeah, the physics on botw and totk are so simple. It hurts my brain how basic those games are.
Two of the highest rated games of all time.
On switch
The most underpowered console of our generation.
But yeah mortal kombat couldn’t make the game look even slightly better because it can only be as good at totk. That really basic shitty looking extremely popular and highly rated game.
Yeah, the physics on botw and totk are so simple. It hurts my brain how basic those games are.
Half Life 2 had physics like that 20 years ago.
Also totk is a stuttering mess when anything sufficiently complex happens unless you overclock the switch, which just proves the point of how underpowered the switch is.
Also also, art style CARRIES those games’ graphics. Running those games at higher res (or just on a TV) really shows the constraints they had to work within to get the games to run.
Two of the highest rated games of all time.
Yeah, and I’m sure the loyal Zelda/Nintendo fanboys have nothing to do with that.
Don’t get me wrong, they’re fantastic games, but I don’t think they’d be nearly as popular/well-received if they weren’t Zelda titles.
If you need an example in the opposite direction, I don’t even need to look up which Pokemon game it was that looked like dogshit on the switch bc you know exactly what I’m talking about.
Your claim about half life 2 is bold and would need backing up. Im not going to just accept your assertion without proof. That’s not how this works.
Totk has some frame rate issues here and there, but when you give playes the power to do whatever they want with a set of tools, you will always overload a game engine. Name any sandbox game that players haven’t been able to overload and cause frame rate drops.
Also, there are AAA games that struggle with frame rate drops on PC, PS5, and Xbox series X. Which i guess just proves the point of how underpowered those are… obviously, the switch is the lower end of these. Im not deluded. But claiming some stuttering in totk when players have set up chaos means it proves the switch is underpowered is just incorrect. Any game that gives you a set of tools and the instructions ,“go” stutters when there’s too much going on.
The switch is 6 years old, im not suprisdd its showing its age now. I am suprised its remained relevant and has games that are rated to highly.
So art style carries the games? So what? Isn’t that just ingenuity? And dorsnt it prove the .ain point of this thread? That Mortal Kombat could have looked good with a tweaked art style for switch but was just a bad port? If the product looks bad on the switch, then dont release it on Switch, i guess.
Ok, but if there are zelda/nintendo fan boys it follows that nintendo are consistently making great games and that zelda games are consistently great… you dont keep enough people gushing over your games by releasing trash game after trash game. Also fan boys wouldnt be enough alone to get a game that highly rated. Remeber that this game only released on switch, meaning it didnt have all the pa5 and xbox owners to help boost its numbers.
So whilst im sure the fanboys had something to do with it, its likely that the fact that the game is good played a kuch bigger part.
People bought a switch when these games came out just because they saw how good they were and wanted to play…
Sorry i think i know what you mean but i dont play the pokemon games. Is it the one with the shit textures, was it online like an mmo, i seem to recall one like that. Didnt interest me because it looked shit compared to so many other games ive played on switch.
lmfao have you never heard of the source engine? Garry’s mod? HL2 was just the first game running Source that really showed some of the physics and creativity off.
While the physics on totk are cool, and the crafting system is impressive, especially for the hardware it’s running on, nothing it does is exactly revolutionary. Plenty of games have been doing similar stuff for a very long time, on much older hardware.
Not exactly the same, and they certainly deserve credit bc what totk has is impressive, but acting like totk was some revolution in videogame physic and one of the best games ever is a bit of a stretch IMO. It’s a fun, well-made, complete open-world game, that builds on the previous title’s map.
Also, there are AAA games that struggle with frame rate drops on PC, PS5, and Xbox series X
Yeah but their stuttering is dropping from 60FPS to 50FPS, or 180FPS to 100FPS, and because they’ve got actually capable hardware, they also support freesync, which greatly reduces how jarring FPS drops feel.
But claiming some stuttering in totk when players have set up chaos means it proves the switch is underpowered is just incorrect
Any game that can barely run at 30FPS (totk relies heavily on dynamic resolution scaling in denser areas, even without player contraptions) and drops to 20FPS when loaded with stuff built in game is a stuttering mess. Be it on PC, Xbox or Switch. Switch doesn’t get a break on a game being a stuttering mess because it’s weak.
That’s literally the whole reason ppl are criticizing the switch. It makes games like totk a stuttering mess, instead of allowing people to enjoy incredible games like that at a nice smooth 60 or 90FPS
My two-year-old phone can run games at beyond 1440P, 120FPS, with better graphics than a Switch.
Any game that gives you a set of tools and the instructions ,“go” stutters when there’s too much going on.
Yes every game is gonna have a limit to the physics it can crunch. TOTK’s limit before stuttering is pretty damn small, relatively speaking.
And dorsnt it prove the .ain point of this thread? That Mortal Kombat could have looked good with a tweaked art style for switch but was just a bad port?
No. Because that would have required the devs to literally create new textures for every single asset in the game, with new art style, which especially in a game that people are often very competitive in can cause massive headaches for the devs.
Ok, but if there are zelda/nintendo fan boys it follows that nintendo are consistently making great games
Andrew Tate is a good person bc he has a lot of fanboys, right? If that logic doesn’t follow, why would it follow for videogames? Fanboys are known for irrational support, not rational criticism.
fan boys wouldnt be enough alone to get a game that highly rated.
Remeber that this game only released on switch, meaning it didnt have all the pa5 and xbox owners to help boost its numbers.
Wow, REALLY?? Nintendo didn’t release Zelda on Xbox??? 🤪
So whilst im sure the fanboys had something to do with it, its likely that the fact that the game is good played a kuch bigger part.
I never said it wasn’t a good game. It’s a great game. Not my speed, but it’s great. I don’t think it’s anywhere close to top 10 tho, and the only reason it’s even in that discussion is because of fanboys who are okay with Zelda becoming just another open-world RPG with towers to climb and now crafting shit.
I have a PC, PS5, and Switch, and never felt like the Switch was underpowered. Samewise, my phone doesn’t feel underpowered compared to my laptop, because I recognise they’re completely different devices.
You don’t get a Switch to play the latest God of War, you get it to play Mario and Zelda games, and cute lo-fi indie games
Right… I’m not sure what your point is exactly with that, doom came out in 1993 and had extremely low requirements and looks as dated as it is. Of course it can run on machines like fridges or ATMs or calculators in more recently made devices because the power of the chips in these machines are better then PCs back when doom released.
Yeah I looked and idk what to say - it looks like a switch game.
If you bought a switch, which was an extremely underpowered when it was released 6 years ago, and then get upset when AAA games releasing on current gen consoles look like dogshit… You have nobody to blame but yourself.
Isn’t a PS5 vs Switch comparison kind of like a PS4 vs Wii comparison? They’re not even the same hardware generation, it’s a wonder they’re even dedicating resources to this.
It doesn’t look like a hardware issue. Yes, the less powerful hardware is what forced graphical changes, but it looks like an art direction problem.
The changes mostly fail to capture the essence of the original design. The characters look like they were ripped from the SIMs.
No one is expecting the same lighting, textures, or poly counts, but they do expect something that looks like Mortal Combat. That isn’t an unreasonable expectation.
You’re right that this may be a budgeting issue of sorts, but if they can’t set aside enough resources to make it look like some sort of Mortal Combat game, then maybe they shouldn’t have made the port.
eurogamer.net
Ważne