Topic: Did Rayman Legends improve with 4.0.0?

Now, I don't have Rayman Legends on Switch (I have the Wii U version), and I've heard that it has plenty of issues ranging from long load times to performance issues. But, someone recently said that after updating to firmware 4.0.0, they were seeing significant load time reductions, even to the point where they'd almost have a hard time grabbing the heart flask during the loading scenes.

For anyone that has Rayman Legends on Switch and has updated to firmware 4.0.0, can you tell any difference?

Hopefully

I skipped it since i already have it on WiiU, but i kinda want it since i can get it for 24$ @ BB w/ GC.

Let me check...

I would like to pre-face this by saying I never thought there was an issue with the load times in the first place. Seemed no different than the Wii U version tbh. For the life of me I couldn't figure out what people were going on about. But ok, booting the game now (maybe I'm just remembering wrong- it has been a few years after all).

Umm... ya, actually. It does seem a little faster than before. Like 8 seconds instead of 15?

The "loading issues" are really no reasons to not grab the game especially if you haven't already owned it previously. The reasons the game contains loading screens while the PS4 versions and so on don't is because the Switch uses file compression. This is the reason that Rayman legends comes in at almost 10GB on the PS4/PC and the Switch comes in at only 2.4GB. The loading is a way they can compress files to maintain lower DL sizes.. but creates some loading even though SD cards really don't require loading as they can be more than 50gb per card. But system memory is an issue for those that don't seek physical copies. Anyway... what I'm saying is don't worry about a few seconds loading before a level.. its a great game and I own it not only for Switch but also Wii U and on PC.

Wait, people were complaining about long loading times? Kids these days are really too impatient to wait more than ten seconds for a game to load? Hadn‘t noticed any significant difference between the 'definitive' and WiiU versions but then again, the latter is already a few years old.

@JaxonH I hope it's faster like that.

@krankstar2k Compression doesn't explain it though. It was said by Ubisoft that Rayman Legends on PS4 and XB1 use uncompressed assets, yet why is the PS4 version clocked at 9GB while the XB1 version is clocked at 4.3GB? If there was compression done for the Switch version, it can't be heavy by comparison to cause the game to push 10+ seconds of load time. Heck, the PS3 version on the PS Store states 2.1GB, and it only has to deal with a few seconds per level on technically weaker hardware. Even the Wii U version, being closer to PS4's size and dealing with a slow disc drive is also only pulling a few seconds of load time. The only other system to cause long load times was the Vita version. So, my conclusion is that they did a quick rush port based on the Vita version and replaced the assets with high-quality ones, yet not doing anything to allow the game to benefit from what the Switch offers.

@GoldenGamer88 It's not so much the long load times. It's how ridiculous they are by comparison to the rest, including those platforms which are weaker. Absolutely no reason why the Switch version on internal storage takes longer to load than the Wii U version running off of a disc.

@JaxonH worth buying if i already own it for WiiU? I can get it brand new physical for about 20 bucks..

@Samus7Killer definitely imo. I've got it on PS4/Vita/PS3/X360 already (some of these were Origins, but still), I'm playing it on Switch now and delighted to have it. I don't care much about the new content (Football tournaments aren't that fun), but going through the same levels is a treat, I just enjoy it a lot. We play it on local multiplayer a lot too, 2, 3 sometimes 4 players.

I never noticed the long loading times or any performance issues. You can punch each others and try to grab a heart while it's loading anyway... so it's not like we're waiting for it to load.

@Discostew good points, maybe its just that these devs are not that great with optimizing for the new hardware. I assumed it was more so a compression issue as we use it for my job in animation and it will add to certain elements of load such as sound or texture loads. Either way.. the load times don't bother me much and at least you only get the original load and afterwards if a death occurs you are right back into it. Good idea with the idea of a Vita Port.. makes sense. I was also thinking maybe these companies are just not on board with the Switch architecture.. While it seems that Nintendo is eager to get 3rd party titles and mature titles on the system.. I read articles such as the director of FFXV saying he can't find a switch when talking about a port coming to the Switch. I find it crazy that Nintendo would push these system not only now but dev kits well before the system launched or was even announced. I hope the Vita port is actually a thing as the 3rd party worries me past Indie titles for the upcoming 2018 year. But titles such as Skyrim, Wolfenstein, and Doom will be big pushes on the overall capabilities of these dev teams being able to keep up with other title competition. Thanks for the response.

@krankstar2k Honestly, there are ways to optimize the game (assuming they aren't currently implemented). The Switch has native support for compressed texture formats like ASTC, which not only is beneficial from a level-loading perspective, but also from a processing perspective (and not simply because it won't have to decompress them). A texture must be loaded into texture cache from RAM/VRAM before it can be used for rendering purposes, and because there's so little cache, only those sections from the texture that require immediate use will be loaded, and pieces will get swapped in as needed. An uncompressed texture not only takes up more space, but when attempting to render geometry with that texture, the texture pieces have to be swapped out more often, resulting in a longer time to render mainly because of data swapping. A compressed texture, natively supported, takes up less space, so more pieces of the texture could fit into cache by comparison, resulting in a sizeable speedup due to less swapping. Take the 3DS, for example. There's only one compressed format it supports (the rest of uncompressed), and that is ETC, and according to official documentation, it's also the fastest at being processed because the hardware can natively process it. Being compressed means there's less data to load from RAM to cache. The next fastest format is whatever takes up the least amount of space. To note, any uncompressed texture format that isn't 32-bit on the 3DS is internally converted to 32-bit with practically no conversion time, making the format that uses the least number of bits per pixel among textures of equal pixel counts as the next fastest because, again, less data to load to cache.

Then there's the fact that there's 3.5GB of RAM available to games. Even if they ported from the Wii U version (as opposed to the Vita version that I theorize), that system only had 1GB available for games, so if it required all that RAM in the first place, there would still be 2.5GB available on Switch doing nothing. So, use it as an asset cache, where the more common stuff gets loaded and simply stays in RAM while the game runs. Honestly, I think that's why the PS4 and XB1 versions are practically free of load times. Heck, the game on Switch is roughly 2.9GB. Most of the game could sit in RAM so it won't have to take much from storage during gameplay.

So tested five levels that used to take 15+ seconds and they all loaded in under five. Does this mean the issue wasn't with Rayman Legends but a glitch in the OS?

Edit: Not only that, but every instance of frame drops is gone too. What the heck happened?

@Discostew Actually the Switch has 3.25 GB of RAM for games.

@link3710 i just bought the game and maybe its cause it updated.

@link3710 That's great to hear. It's giving me increased reason to buy it.

@Smash_kirby I keep hearing between 3.25GB and 3.5GB. Either way, it's a lot of RAM that could be used effectively.

@Samus7Killer Thinking about it, what if RL was ported with 4.0.0 in mind, but the firmware didn't come in time for release?