Nintendo Witcher 3 on Switch will be 540p handheld, 720p docked, dynamic resolution enabled

[Chris-]

3 minutes ago, GameDadGrant said:

Heh. Re-reading through this thread...it's funny to me that screen resolution is such a big deal. I mean, I know it's 2019, and we're talking about the Switch (a handheld/console hybrid) and times/tastes have changed...but wow. I remember back in the day I picked up games like Contra III, The King of Fighters '95 and Battletoads & Double Dragon - for Gameboy. If screen size or resolution (or even color, lol) was as big of a deal to me then as screen resolution is to y'all now...yikes. I would have missed out on some great portable games.

 

Comparing high fidelity, 3D polygon-based graphics to 8-bit graphics is more than a little disingenuous. 

[GameDadGrant]

21 minutes ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

I'm starting to see some of that stealth trolling people are talking about...

Don't fall for @Keyser_Soze's tricks!  

20 minutes ago, Chris- said:

 

Comparing high fidelity, 3D polygon-based graphics to 8-bit graphics is more than a little disingenuous. 

I wasn't...I was making an analogy between (what used to be) high-end, cutting-edge 16-bit graphic games and their Gameboy counterparts being kinda the same as taking a modern, 3D open-world game like The Witcher 3 and paring it down to run on Switch. Yeah, sacrifices are going to be made so the game can be shoe-horned onto the hardware. Mostly graphical sacrifices, I think. But the core game should still be as good as the original version, so...at least for me, that lands clearly in the "no harm, no foul" territory. 

 

Using my example above, have you played Contra: The Alien Wars on Gameboy? That title has NO business being as good as it is, especially considering the hardware it is on. But, it *IS* good. Really good. And if handled properly, I think the same *could* be true for a portable version of The Witcher 3. 

 

Consider these more modern examples; I seem to recall people crying foul at some of the (minor, IMO) sacrifices several console games had when they were ported to more modern handheld systems. Non-animated backgrounds in SUPER Street Fighter IV on 3DS, some scaled-down character models in the Vita version of Mortal Kombat, and somehow less traffic (shorter race tracks?) in Need for Speed: Most Wanted on Vita. (or something like that) But you know what? All of those games were still fantastic on the handhelds, even if they weren't the PRIME or BEST versions of those games. The sacrifices made were of such little consequence, that the privilege of being able to play those games on-the-go was an "even trade" to have them on smaller hardware. 

 

I'm just saying the same could be true for this game, too. 

[legend]

7 minutes ago, GameDadGrant said:

Don't fall for @Keyser_Soze's tricks!  

I wasn't...I was making an analogy between (what used to be) high-end, cutting-edge 16-bit graphic games and their Gameboy counterparts being kinda the same as taking a modern, 3D open-world game like The Witcher 3 and paring it down to run on Switch. Yeah, sacrifices are going to be made so the game can be shoe-horned onto the hardware. Mostly graphical sacrifices, I think. But the core game should still be as good as the original version, so...at least for me, that lands clearly in the "no harm, no foul" territory. 

 

Using my example above, have you played Contra: The Alien Wars on Gameboy? That title has NO business being as good as it is, especially considering the hardware it is on. But, it *IS* good. Really good. And if handled properly, I think the same *could* be true for a portable version of The Witcher 3. 

 

Consider these more modern examples; I seem to recall people crying foul at some of the (minor, IMO) sacrifices several console games had when they were ported to more modern handheld systems. Non-animated backgrounds in SUPER Street Fighter IV on 3DS, some scaled-down character models in the Vita version of Mortal Kombat, and somehow less traffic (shorter race tracks?) in Need for Speed: Most Wanted on Vita. (or something like that) But you know what? All of those games were still fantastic on the handhelds, even if they weren't the PRIME or BEST versions of those games. The sacrifices made were of such little consequence, that the privilege of being able to play those games on-the-go was an "even trade" to have them on smaller hardware. 

 

I'm just saying the same could be true for this game, too. 

 

8bit games were (are for some current indie games) designed from an artistic and gameplay perspective for the constraints of that hardware. The Witcher 3 was not. A port is going to lose something.

 

Speculatively, having to drop the resolution that low also does not bode well for stable framerate. Maybe it will be fine! but it is worrying.

 

 

 

I will likely still get it at some point anyway  

[CastlevaniaNut18]

30 minutes ago, GameDadGrant said:

Don't fall for @Keyser_Soze's tricks!  

I wasn't...I was making an analogy between (what used to be) high-end, cutting-edge 16-bit graphic games and their Gameboy counterparts being kinda the same as taking a modern, 3D open-world game like The Witcher 3 and paring it down to run on Switch. Yeah, sacrifices are going to be made so the game can be shoe-horned onto the hardware. Mostly graphical sacrifices, I think. But the core game should still be as good as the original version, so...at least for me, that lands clearly in the "no harm, no foul" territory. 

 

Using my example above, have you played Contra: The Alien Wars on Gameboy? That title has NO business being as good as it is, especially considering the hardware it is on. But, it *IS* good. Really good. And if handled properly, I think the same *could* be true for a portable version of The Witcher 3. 

 

Consider these more modern examples; I seem to recall people crying foul at some of the (minor, IMO) sacrifices several console games had when they were ported to more modern handheld systems. Non-animated backgrounds in SUPER Street Fighter IV on 3DS, some scaled-down character models in the Vita version of Mortal Kombat, and somehow less traffic (shorter race tracks?) in Need for Speed: Most Wanted on Vita. (or something like that) But you know what? All of those games were still fantastic on the handhelds, even if they weren't the PRIME or BEST versions of those games. The sacrifices made were of such little consequence, that the privilege of being able to play those games on-the-go was an "even trade" to have them on smaller hardware. 

 

I'm just saying the same could be true for this game, too. 

Yeah, Contra III on GB was pretty bad. 

 

Look, if all you have is a Switch, The Witcher 3 is a great game. If all you had was a GB back then, then I understand why you'd play lesser versions of great games. 

 

But your comparisons are just silly and you come off as semi-trolling or just incredibly ignorant.

[Raggit]

3 hours ago, CastlevaniaNut18 said:

Yeah, Contra III on GB was pretty bad. 

 

Look, if all you have is a Switch, The Witcher 3 is a great game. If all you had was a GB back then, then I understand why you'd play lesser versions of great games. 

 

But your comparisons are just silly and you come off as semi-trolling or just incredibly ignorant.

 Damn, am I the only one who gets his point?  His comparison makes perfect sense to me.

 

 

[CastlevaniaNut18]

5 minutes ago, Raggit said:

 Damn, am I the only one who gets his point?  His comparison makes perfect sense to me.

 

 

As someone who plays a lot of retro games and knows those GB games he listed were vastly inferior? 

 

I guess you are.

[Keyser_Soze]

4 hours ago, GameDadGrant said:

Don't fall for @Keyser_Soze's tricks!

 

Don't take this away from me. She finally considers me to be a person!

[Xbob42]

5 hours ago, GameDadGrant said:

Heh. Re-reading through this thread...it's funny to me that screen resolution is such a big deal. I mean, I know it's 2019, and we're talking about the Switch (a handheld/console hybrid) and times/tastes have changed...but wow. I remember back in the day I picked up games like Contra III, The King of Fighters '95 and Battletoads & Double Dragon - for Gameboy. If screen size or resolution (or even color, lol) was as big of a deal to me then as screen resolution is to y'all now...yikes. I would have missed out on some great portable games.

A bad port is a bad port, they've existed forever.

Is this your favorite version of Pac-Man?

 

Also, your last sentence is bizarre, but I guess you did use the qualifier of "portable" games. Because it seems like you miss out on tons of great games and don't really care all that much!

[Keyser_Soze]

8 minutes ago, Xbob42 said:

Also, your last sentence is bizarre, but I guess you did use the qualifier of "portable" games. Because it seems like you miss out on tons of great games and don't really care all that much!

 

It's true allegedly. He hadn't heard of Red Dead Redemption until last year or something.

[CastlevaniaNut18]

Ya, it is  bit odd that GDG gets on us for supposedly missing good games because of stuff like this(though most of us here who have wanted to play TW3 have done so by now) when he limits himself all the damn time.

[Nokt]

30 minutes ago, Man of Culture said:

The people who are porting Witcher 3 to Switch have "Timeshift" under their belt. A hohum fps game that got murdered by releasing sometime near Modern Warfare 4, on top of being a poor performer. Since then, they've been relegated to port duty for titles like Shaq Fu and R.I.P.D. The Game. This fact should not instill any hopeful level of confidence for the port, especially considering that they were also the developers behind the grossly botched Master Chief Collection, with online so broken 343i had to publically apologize and offer owners a free month of XBL to compensate them for such catastrophe.

I just want to point out that Saber Interactive only handled remastering Halo 2 and Halo CE's campaigns (which are pretty fantastic IMO), nothing else. They didn't touch netcode, UI, multiplayer, or anything else like that.

 

Certain Affinity did H2A multiplayer. 343i handled netcoding and UI. Blur did cutscenes for H2A. Ruffian did Halo 3 and Halo 4.

[crispy4000]

I played a good bit of Xenoblade 2 portably.  It was known to drop below 480p semi-frequently.  Still was playable, but not ideal for the Switch's screen size.

 

A lot is riding on how well it can stick 540p/30fps.  If that's a mostly accurate description of how it runs, and you want to experience it portably, I consider that doable.  DF's breakdown didn't look like it was being cut back beyond recognition.  It looks more faithful than the 360 port of Witcher 2, for example.


... The kicker is the price tag.  This is going to be sold as a $60 game when it's $20 on sale elsewhere.  For me, that's an auto-pass on Switch.  Even if a Pro model gets released.

[Zaku3]

7 hours ago, crispy4000 said:

I played a good bit of Xenoblade 2 portably.  It was known to drop below 480p semi-frequently.  Still was playable, but not ideal for the Switch's screen size.

 

A lot is riding on how well it can stick 540p/30fps.  If that's a mostly accurate description of how it runs, and you want to experience it portably, I consider that doable.  DF's breakdown didn't look like it was being cut back beyond recognition.  It looks more faithful than the 360 port of Witcher 2, for example.


... The kicker is the price tag.  This is going to be sold as a $60 game when it's $20 on sale elsewhere.  For me, that's an auto-pass on Switch.  Even if a Pro model gets released.

 

Xenoblade 2 is a beautiful game. I really hope we get a stronger Switch so maybe it can do 720p on handheld. I hate playing the game portable because it's so beautiful and runs better docked.

[Nokt]

5 hours ago, Man of Culture said:

In other words, it was a giant cluster fuck of too many inexperienced hands in the pot. My point still stands, Saber Interactive has a legacy of shit that it has to overcome.

I think the Halo remasters are actually some of the better remasters out there with all of the HD ports we get. It’s an entirely new graphics engine piled on top of the original and seamlessly being able to switch between them at the click of a button. 

 

There isn’t a lot behind their studio, yes, but it’s not all bad. 

[GameDadGrant]

*sigh* 

 

Alright, apparently there has been some confusion and misunderstanding about what I've been getting at (except you, @Raggit !). So I'm gonna try and laid it out as simply as I can to get you h8ers off my jock.  

 

*I* feel that a few small sacrifices to a game are acceptable when making it portable, so long as gameplay isn't hindered in any major way.

 

If you don't agree, then you have a different opinion than I do. And I will respect that. 

 

Now, back to the topic at hand, if the only thing The Witcher 3 sacrifices on Switch is resolution, I'm cool with that. *IF* however, it ends up suffering from all the dumpster fire garbage that @Man of Culture described, then I am NOT cool with that. And I would not endorse getting the Switch version of that game, even if it is portable. No sooner than I would recommend Borderlands on Vita or Street Fighter II on Gameboy from back in the day. (both of those are baaaaaaaad versions of those games!)

 

Oh, and no, @Xbob42 that is NOT my favorite version of Pac-Man. What a ridiculous thing to even suggest. It's not even portable. What's wrong with you? Get stuffed.   

 

Though if it were portable.... 

[AbsolutSurgen]