Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

So basically it's not actually Dark Souls Remastered, just the 360 version with worse effects and much lower sound quality, a dynamic 1080p resolution (Despite being stated as pure 1080p in marketing) and drops to as low as 20fps. None of the improvements from the Remaster are actually added.

And this got delayed? Aight.

It sounds like what you should be saying is "360 version with the game play improvements from the Remastered Edition, improved performance, improved resolution (even the lowest being better then the original), and using the same graphics textures (mostly) as the 360 version but with slightly worse audio".

It doesn't try for 60 fps, but apparently does a much better job at hitting and maintaining 30 fps then the 360 version. Which drops down to 12 fps or lower at times, apparently. And having a drop from 30 fps to low 20's isn't too bad when you consider the original game as mentioned could apparently drop into single digit frame rates in the same places.

Also, the comparison also did point out that the XB1 and PS4 remasters have a target of 60 fps, but can regularly drop into the low 40's. Meanwhile the Switch version might drop from 30 to 28 fps in those same places. A difference that is unlikely to actually be noticed by most people.

I dunno. That doesnt like a remaster to me. Sounds more like an enhanced port.

Yes you have improved resolution and performance but the actual quality of the assets have not been improved, thus this isn't "Dark Souls Remastered". It's more like...Dark Souls Portable Edition.

I’ve kinda been curious with the DS delay... Do you need the online Ninty thing to use the online stuff for it? Bit curious how it launced pretty much the week after the online service launched if so - did Ninty ask them to hold it back to give them another ‘online title’ to justify cost?

Massive leap/conspiracy theory I know, just one of my curious wonderings that entered my brain way back when. I got impatient & grabbed it on the xbox anyway so no rush for the switch one (just yet).

@BrainOfGrimlock It launched a MONTH after the Online. I'd assume they'd be better with the timing if Nintendo asked.

Geez, is it a month already that the online has been out? Sorry, my bad, was too lazy to check & thought it was last 7-10 days-ish ball park - haven’t signed up myself as rarely play online etc.

Tongue was firmly in cheek with my suggestion in any case, just one of those bizarre ‘you don’t think...?’ moments.

Yeah it has been. September 18th was the launch date of NSO. And yes, you need an NSO subscription to use the Online features for the game. Which means if you don't have an NSO subscription you can't team up with others online, invade other players, or be invaded by other players.

As to this not being a "remaster", I'd say that improved performance and better resolutions (not to mention bug fixes) would qualify it as being a "remaster".

@Sadist, @Buizel, thanks for the info about DBFZ, I think it'll definitely be my next physical purchase.

Anyhow, while I wait on that, I got Mighty Gunvolt Burst to tide me over.

Bought Bloodstained: Curse of the Moon on a whim this past summer & really enjoyed that, so I decided I'd give this a whirl as well.

@FaeKnight Being given the option of better resolution and performance but not better assets does not qualify as a remaster, as I can do that on any given PC game I choose. Does that mean when I up my settings it has been "Remastered"?

@RR529
I tried buying Gunvolt Azure 1&2 pack for Switch because a friend said it was just like Mega Man......
yah, people say Binding of Isaac is just like the classic Zelda games too,

so I won't be buying those again, it may be a side scrolling, android shoot'em up, hell, he's even blue if I remember, but it is nothing like them at all, guess I'm going out and getting MM 11 come payday

If the game it's self is incapable of rendering at a given resolution, it doesn't matter what your system can handle. As an example, a game with native 720p resolution that's played in full screen on a 1080p monitor isn't actually being displayed in 1080p. It's being displayed in 720p. And what makes you say the new textures are 100% superior to the originals? Lacking animated grass, well sure, that's a sacrifice for the Switch being able to run things. But I've seen both the original and new textures side by side. And while the remaster's textures and lighting maps are crisper, I'd be hesitant to say they are better then the original textures and lighting maps.

@FaeKnight
well said,

I love it when movie studios try to rerelease movies from, 20, 30 or more years ago are re-released as upgraded to HD...

you can't upgrade Star Wars 4,5,6 or The Wizard of Oz into a format that it wasn't originally made in, even Lucas couldn't do it with ILM, he added stuff and tried to clean up some fuzzy stuff, but could never actually change the resolution, same with games, a game made for 1080p can be reduced to 720p for handheld mode, but a game made in 720p cannot be upgraded to 1080p unless they actually go back and recreate the whole game with upgraded graphics

@FaeKnight The new textures would be superior not on a case of being "Better", but exactly as you said - being higher resolution assets, crisper, cleaner, so on so forth.

Whether or not you think they are better does not mean it's remastered. The original assets are still being used. Sure they may fit the artistic style of the game better, but just because they fit better doesn't mean they are remastered.

@jhewitt3476 The originals were never shot with a digital camera, so they didn't really have a fixed resolution. 35mm is what they used for Star Wars, don't know about the Wizard of Oz. You can get a decent HD image out of 35mm (though it's rather complicated calculating what the equivalent in pixel count is of 35mm film). Either way, the home releases of Star Wars were downgraded quite a lot compared to its original source material, so releasing an ''upgraded'' version (compared to the original home release) isn't impossible at all.

So in the October newsletter it had some stats. I think they're wrong on the percentile thing.

@Octane
I watched all three in the theaters, other than Lucas cleaning some things up, there was no real improvement, yah, the betamax dumbed episode 4 down a lot, but the VHS releases were almost right on, not quite, but pretty good, but still will never compare to the full digital (since 2008), and 65mm & 70mm (since 2000)

@Trajan This isn't for Nintendo UK guys it seems, only US thus far. Bit odd to do.

@Knuckles-Fajita
UK bans a lot of stuff, I'm considering making an online site that sells banned games to countries those games are banned from

he he....evil >: )

I'm a greedy sort, I spend about 2/3 of my income on high yield dividend stocks, I plan on retiring with a regular $8,000+ a month free income, so yah, I'm a cheapskate, but also love to find extra sources of income when possible to add to my purchases, he he, I'm a BAAAAAD BOY !!!

@jhewitt3476 Well, trust me, the VHS quality wasn't anywhere near the original 35mm film it was shot on. That being said, I have no doubt that a lot of quality was lost from the projectors they used back in the day, plus it's kinda difficult to compare what you've seen in the theaters to the VHS you saw on your TV at home; definitely impossible to compare the 1-to-1. Without bringing your TV to the theaters, and even then I doubt it would be a good comparison

Hopefully there's an optional patch to enhance the audio quality in Dark Souls for the people who will be getting it. Seems like the biggest offender in terms of presentation at the moment.