
Not long ago, Bethesda held a panel at PAX Australia 2018 discussing its games and even speaking about relations with certain other companies. At the time, Bethesda's Marketing Executive Pete Hines said Fallout 76 wouldn't be coming to the Switch and it was also briefly mentioned how the MMO Elder Scrolls Online could not fit on the system.
During the same panel, Hines explained Bethesda always liked Nintendo - including its systems like the Wii - but the main barrier was the hardware specs. Fortunately, when the Switch was released Bethesda found a great partner in Panic Button:
So the idea of being able to take something like what we did, looking at the tech specs, and going, ‘That’s actually really close to like what we kind of do now.’ That was always the big barrier for us with Nintendo stuff. It wasn’t that we didn’t like the Wii or we don’t like this, it was just this is the stuff that we make, and as many things as will run that, we’ll do it. So as we looked at the specs, we started looking at games like Skyrim and Doom and Wolfenstein, and we were fortunate enough to either have really talented devs who were also very keen on making it which I think is important or finding a great partner in Panic Button who had the ability to take what we were doing and say, ‘Yeah we can make that happen on a Switch.’
Later in the panel, Hines said during the time the 2016 version of Doom was being developed, the team already knew about the Switch. As a result, they designed the game to be scalable. This paid off in the long-run, with the company able to easily bring Wolfenstein II: The New Colossus across to the hybrid system. He went on to note how the next Wolfenstein would be on Switch and made a nod to Doom Eternal coming to the platform as well:
The benefit for us was that id Tech 6 was really built and we knew about the Switch during the development of Doom 2016, so they were able to make some choices to make sure that it was scalable so that it would sort of not be too far out of line with what the Switch was doing. The benefit there was that it allowed both Doom 2016 to happen on the Switch as well as Wolfenstein: The New Colossus, because that was built off of the tech that ran Doom 2016 so that was sort of a two for one there, and that’s also why the next Wolfenstein is gonna be out on Switch as well and that’s why Doom Eternal was announced. In that case not just as a port, but as something that for the first time we’re building a game from scratch that really has the Switch in mind. That was honestly… that tech allowed us to do a lot of things across two different franchises. I don’t know how the hell they made Skyrim run on the Switch, but they did it. It looks great, it’s fun. I have played more Skyrim than a lot of people, but I still play it on my Switch because it turns out it’s pretty cool to be sitting on a plane and fighting a dragon.
Hines also clarified older games like Fallout 3 are unlikely to be ported across to the Switch because it takes a lot of work to get such titles running on new platforms. As stated above, it's easier to create new games with certain platforms in mind.
[source nintendoeverything.com]
Comments 106
and though some people would still argue the Switch still falls short, it proves it can be done, both to Nintendo and competing console makers, the hybrid is the future and Sony and Microsoft could easily get on that bandwagon with potentially better hybrids, having analyzed the Switch and how it could be improved
The switch is a powerful handheld. Extremely underwhelming in terms of power for a main console.
@Nemodius
I don’t think they will. They would still face the same compromises with regards to performance vs battery life, heat etc. Nintendo did the best that anyone could have really given the tech at the time.
I would love the new iPad Pro processor in a Switch though. That thing is impressive.
of course it's easier to make a new game with the target platform already in mind. duh. big duh.
@Mgene15 i would call it the most powerful hybrid console to date even though it might not be at xbox one.x1x,or ps4/pro level but the switch can be a beast wen it comes to quality games which nintendo has proven you dont need extreme power to put all well polished games on the switch plus panic button doing amazing job with the ports for switch as well.
Glad their games didn't run on Wii U, they would run just as bad as AC4: Black Flag did.
that’s also why the next Wolfenstein is gonna be out on Switch as well and that’s why Doom Eternal was announced. In that case not just as a port, but as something that for the first time we’re building a game from scratch that really has the Switch in mind
Love it.
@Mgene15
And if it were strictly a home console I'd probably agree. But it's not, and that's why it's actually pretty impressive how good it works as a home console. Ever since we got to the HD era, law of diminishing returns has ensured that, while there's still a noticeable difference between Switch and PS4/X1, it's not nearly as significant a difference as it used to be in years past.
And that plays perfectly into the hand of a hybrid console, standing on the shoulders of recent mobile technological advancements. It's how we have a mobile handheld unit actually playing PS4 games.
@PrincessBowsette
I agree It is the most powerful hybrid console to date, but that’s not really saying much because how many hybrid consoles are out there? And yeah panic button has done a good job.
It’d be nice if Nintendo could come out with a proper home console again. But I kinda doubt it’ll happen.
I'm going to leave it like this, Switch great idea and it was implemented perfectly, it is not perfect, but it proved many things, raised some bars and made competitors take notice, Nintendo hasn't really been up there with Sony and Microsoft for some time, save for game sales, but now they have a system that is a direct threat and threat to game sales, so I do see the competition seriously considering making serious changes
anyway, big day tomorrow, wish me luck y'all !!!
@Mgene15 i think nintendo made a smart move by going the hybrid route cause frankly the console market is slowly dying over there in japan reason why handhelds is dominating over there so having both in one system was a awesome idea.
@PrincessBowsette Doesn't Nintendo own the handheld martket still? Or has that change in recent years in Japan?
I was just at someone's home today playing the Fallout 76 beta on the Xbox One and I was not the least bit impressed . The graphics looked identical to Fallout 4 which is not a compliment.
@Shade_Koopa No one else is even in the handheld market these days, so yeah, they own it.
Specs clearly weren't everything, though. Skyrim and plenty of other last-gen Bethesda games could have run well on the Wii U if they'd taken the effort to port them over. Unfortunately we all know why that wouldn't have been a viable endeavor for them business-wise.
But finally Nintendo's got an innovative and unique console that's actually successful, so of course Bethesda is all aboard the Switch hype train now.
@link3710 I figured as much, given that the PSVita is discontinued. So unless mobile counts, Nintendo own the handheld market.
Consoles in a way are on the way out, Japan is just ahead of the curve and Nintendo being Japanese and having their ass handed to them with WiiU decided to go with the flow instead of sticking to their guns so we have Switch not WiiU the sequel doomed to more failure. Nintendo will always refuse to release a console that sells at a loss so they can't keep up with the other two who stupidly do that hoping to get it back years later as they have lots of businesses to cover that, and Nintendo doesn't. They knew it years ago and did the Wii, being pressured the did the abysmal WiiU and well that died fast and annoying stuck around. The best console games now are also PC games and better off on their too if you look into it outside of console specific made games from first and second parties (which even for MS isn't much since they stuff it on Windows too basically leaving mostly Sony.) Nintendo saw the good tech Nvidia made and used it, and without the bloated android/nvidia package overhead got good results, better than the stock shield tablet can do (I have it.) People can dump on Switch all they like such as one fool in this thread, but the results speak for themselves. The sales, the appreciation, the returning developers to Nintendo, the minimal amount of complaining and cancellations, they're ahead of the game instead of being run over by the others for once.
@Shade_Koopa nintendo still dominating in the handheld market over there with the 3ds and switch now reason why switch remains the top system over there.
Pretty obvious the Switch is a handheld with a TV dock in the box at this point. If paying $60 for Wolfenstein - rather just get the PS4/PC version before a compromised Switch version.
Switch just not made for home AAA games with realistic graphics. Cartoony Nintendo games (and sega/namco anime) are a better fit. Or 2.5D games like Octopath or Hollow Knight. Bethesda does not make that.
I guess if only have a Switch makes no difference - but what Bethesda or FPS fan only has a Switch? 🤔🙄
@Agramonte It sounds kind of like you're missing the point of the Switch.
@Mgene15 I don't think Nintendo would go head-to-head with Sony and Microsoft when they basically dominate an entire sub-market.
They are only developing for the switch because its a succses
@ilikeike The minimum memory for Skyrim is 4 gb. The Wii U only had 2 gb. I don't think it would have worked like you think it would have. The Switch has 4 gb of system memory which is why it's easier to port some games. 2 gb was a joke.
@Agramonte Lol, many games have prooven that the Switch can handle realistic graphics, youre just being a grampa.
Companies just dont want to take the effort. I really wonder how the next metroid prime will look and same foor Doom eternal
@DenDen well yes. That and the fact the system is capable of running certain popular titles completely handheld is worth the price of admission alone.
Game devs are gamers themselves first and foremost. Look at Blizzard. They brought Diablo 3 to Switch because they themselves wanted to play it portably. Obviously without a market, not many companies would be brave enough to undertake such a venture.
@Painkiller_Mike Yeah it’s actually bland all around and just falls into the category of another AAA timewaster.
In my opinion a really bad year for AAA gaming on the XBone at least.
If your friends have a Switch just make them pick up SSB next month. My time is really more valuable than the developers of FO ‘76 think.
@Agramonte switch can handle realistic graphics but that depends if the developer builds the switch version from the ground up instead of directly importing from a pc version the first doom was and now doom eternal panic button can build the switch version from the ground up.
Skyrim was a 360/PS3 game. The Wii U could run it as well if they wanted to. The Switch isn't the 'first capable system' of running their games. It's just the first one in a long time that actually sells. Specs aren't important to devs and publishers, if the console is popular enough, they can make everything work these days. They're chasing after the masses like everyone else; why not say that?
"We changed our strategy because the Switch actually sells, and the Wii U didn't."
I agree. If Nintendo did at least use 8gb ram they would have more addition to a game. Now everything needs to be lowered... the game can't be at it's best as it should. However i'm aware Xbox X and Ps4 neither can't hold 60fps, but those are more 1440P and sometimes 2160P. But if only Switch was more 1080P 60fps then it would even sell more. Well it's what it is
@mikegamer
Don't know what you're talking about, AC 4 runs great on Wii U.
@JudgeMethos said : "The minimum memory for Skyrim is 4 gb. The Wii U only had 2 gb. I don't think it would have worked like you think it would have. The Switch has 4 gb of system memory which is why it's easier to port some games. 2 gb was a joke."
1Gb available for games because an entire one has to be used for the system.(1/2 one for the Switch).
Now, Zelda BOTW and Xenoblade Chronicles X run on a Wii U with 1Gb of RAM.
Don't know you but when I see how Xenoblade 2 runs poorly on a Switch with 3.5Gb RAM, I ask myself if the homogeneity of the system wouldn't be more important than the RAM size itself... ? ^^
One of my biggest dreams was to be able to play Oblivion on Wii. Bethesda is probably my favourite software house even if only for TES games. Oblivion was the only thing I really felt I was missing on Wii. I had it on X360 (bought it only for that game btw) but I really wanted to have it on Wii because I loved both Wii and Oblivion so much
Ninty does need to step it up about for the next console... More power, more memory and less gimmicks lol
I thought Nintendo was NOT interested in big 3rd party games, they were aiming for a completely different market with their consoles. Even Zelda botw was designed cartoon style to make it work better on the Switch.
Suddenly 3rd parties see a new revenue stream and want their older games on the Switch and to do this there has to be compromise.
Take a game I've been looking at, watching reviews, Diablo. Having never played a Diablo game this looks interesting. But the reviews are so mixed. They all agree its good but they disagree on how it looks.
The frame rate is solid but the graphics suffer being a bit fuzzy, this is the compromise needed to have Diablo on the Switch. The graphics look OK on the handheld but the writing is to small to read.
These 3rd party companies want their games to look good on the small screen while the big screen suffers. I guess the thinking is, if Switch gamers want great graphics on the big screen then get a PlayStation.
Every big 3rd party game reviewed for the Switch is mostly about how well its been ported over and what compromise has been made.
Unlike Zelda, none of these old 3rd party games have been made with the handheld screen in mind.
These companies will port over what suits them and what is easy to port for the biggest revenue. If they don't consider the Switch its for these reasons.
If Nintendo are serious about these games and 3rd party new games for the Switch then they need to create a more powerful console, but I'm not sure they want that.
@Cobalt well... XC2 is well known to be a very poorly optimized game for the Switch so it’s not completely fair to mention that game. Would you judge the power of the PS4 based on how Dynasty Warriors 9 runs on it?
@NotTelevision
Cobalt specifically chose XC2 so he can continue to push his anti-Switch agenda. I wouldn't even bother arguing with him or Agramonte.
Problem is still far too often games "aren't possible on Switch" This will happen more in the next few years.
Games from last gen are easy to do but current gen ones are a lot harder. Sure we could have a Switch Pro that could play certain games, but that would split the community. Developers wouldn't develop for it, look at the tiny list the new 3DS games that are released. Because the install size is small, they don't see the money in it.
Enjoying playing Skyrim for the first time. Thank you Bethesda!
@Hughesy
Hardware-upgrades will come to the Switch. I hope they will be or have been announced early to the developers out there, so they can start programming. And I hope the specs are as high as possible.
I still hope there will be a powerful dock coming. Let's use those scaleable engines of these days.
Bethesda could have easily ported something like Skyrim (i.e. a game that is currently playable on the Amazon Alexa) to the Wii U. They didn't because Nintendo never approached them for support and because the Wii U was a dismal failure.
The exact opposite happened with the Switch. That's why Bethesda is now on board.
When it's Zelda it's fine running 30fps at 900p, when it's Tomb raider on Xbox One X it's garbage that it's only 30fps at 4k. This is the Nintendo logic on here. I don't miss the point of owning a switch I just rarely play portable. For me the purpose of owning a switch is to play first party nintendo games and I hope my Sony tv upscaller does its best to make the games look fine on my uhd tv.
@westman98 actually Bethesda ported Skyrim to the switch before it was a major success (Skyrim was show on switch at trailer reveal)
@Mgene15 I don't see them doing a powerful console again and can't see reason for. Nintendo games don't need to be more realistically looking to be better (look at botw, SMO or XC2) and if you really need your AAA 3rd party games in 17.7k Res just buy the other ones (you already have 2 powerhouses so why bother about a third one
Too bad about Fallout 3. I'd love to see a Switch port.
@zool "Take a game I've been looking at, watching reviews, Diablo. Having never played a Diablo game this looks interesting. But the reviews are so mixed. They all agree its good but they disagree on how it looks."
It looks great docked and handheld. I have no idea what some reviewers are referring to when they say it looks blurry in handheld mode, because it doesn't. At all.
These comments fall in line to an article read on this very site some time ago when Bethesda said the main reason they didn’t support the Wii U was because Nintendo didn’t let them in on the system specs early on. Looks like Nintendo learned from their mistakes in that regard.
Glad to hear there's gonna be another Wolfenstein. Wasn't so sure after the mediocre sales of Wolfenstein II. Or did he mean the upcoming Spin off?
I'm not really surprised by this answer. Bethesda has always relied on brute force rather than finesse to solve programming challenges.
How about they release a bug free version of skyrim?
@Frenean @NotTelevision
I've chosen Xenoblade 2 because I was talking about Xenoblade X on the Wii U !
Dudess, do an effort...
@Mountain_Man
No, it doesn't look "great" on TV. It looks acceptable at best but not "great".
On the small screen, yep that's great...
@Mountain_Man it looks blurry on full screen, because they have kept the frame rate at full 60. The graphics are OK in handheld but the print is hard to read..... so some reviews have said.
So in an alternate universe people played Skyrim: Nintendo Wii Edition?
@NotTelevision If I wasn't in the gym right now, I would be giving you a standing ovation. Definitely picking up the new Smash, even though I've purchased the previous ones and barely played them.
So Bethesda.... Put the entire game in the cartridge and I`ll buy it. I wanted Doom and Wolfeinstein, but the download requirement was a deal breaker for me. I did get Skyrim digitally though.
@zool "[Diablo III] looks blurry on full screen, because they have kept the frame rate at full 60. The graphics are OK in handheld but the print is hard to read..... so some reviews have said."
I don't care what reviewers have said. I'm telling you my actual, hands-on experience. The visuals look great whether you're playing docked or handheld; there is no blurriness in either mode. Yes, the text is a bit small in handheld mode, but it's still legible; however, this is true for many Switch games and is not unique to Diablo III.
@MattFox "I wanted Doom and Wolfeinstein, but the download requirement was a deal breaker for me. I did get Skyrim digitally though."
That's... ironic.
@Painkiller_Mike thanks man. One would think Bethesda is doing them a good service by allowing to play an early build of the game. In reality you are just their unpaid game testing intern with this Fallout 76. Even Steam early access titles don’t have a glitch that freezes the game and proceeds to delete the entirety of the game file.
@marck13 not going to happen nintendo is not going to do the upgrade specs thing like xbox and sony keeps doing on on every model and i expect the next switch successor will be alot stronger then the current switch which we wont see it till 2023.
@Cobalt Monolith suffers from the same problems Bethesda Game Studios does: A horribly outdated engine that takes a ton of effort to add modern-ish features into but does everything poorly when they try. Square-Enix has that same problem with DQ11 and Nier: Automata. They runs like garbage on a PS4, don't scale well to the Pro, and with Nier even PC's kind of choke, despite not being terribly impressive looking.
@zool Diablo III doesn't look blurry, full screen or handheld. Yes, the handheld text is small, and that's an issue I do wish more developers would tackle. Octopath text is too small and that's an exclusive built entirely for Switch. Text size sometimes is a problem with HD on handheld because the interface is designed for a 720 minimum display....and handheld Switch supports it, but at the rendered size, yes, text is a problem.
However, Diablo III text is actually better than Octopath, Titan Quest, and Skyrim's tiny text, by a good amount. I do agree, I want to see devs address that.
Blurry, however? Just no. Not at all. It's ever so slightly sub-1080p native, higher res than BotW. The result on-screen has no visible blurring. I was impressed, playing part of act 1 on X1X with 4k supersampling one night, and on Switch the next night, how much I did not notice a meaningful difference if not comparing side-by-side.
Of course as a Diablo II fan, I'm used to 640x480 diablo, and LOD making a big deal of increasing the res to 800x600! 960p is still lush next to the good old days But seriously, only side-by-side with X1X or PC will DIII look anything but fantastic docked. Give a few hours between comparing them and you don't consciously notice a difference.
@Octane Only partially agreed. If a console's chances of getting certain games would be exclusively tied to the success of that console, then by all rights, the Wii should also have gotten some Bethesda games, and yet it didn't, regardless of the fact that it did get plenty of lo-res versions of other triple A games...
So, it's not really as black & white as that. There's always more to it than just a single factor.
@ThanosReXXX Only partially agreed
The performance gap between Wii U/Switch and PS4/Xbox isn't as big as it was between the Wii and PS3/360. And as diminishing returns get bigger with every generation, it becomes easier to run the same content on lower spec systems, since the compromises are also less noticeable.
@mikegamer: I had no issues running Black Flag on my Wii U. AC III on the other hand was the only game that I had crash repeatedly on the system.
@Octane Of course. But that is another point entirely. I just responded to your "correction" of Bethesda's quote, and exposed the (partial) fault lying within.
@Tyranexx Never change, Ubisoft
@JudgeMethos Thats for PC. The Xbox 360 & PS3 had 512 MB and they ran Skyrim just fine.
When next gen comes, I expect Bethesda will either return to not supporting Nintendo consoles or using the Ubisoft/Capcom cloud version strategy because the power gap between Switch and PS5/Scarlett will likely be massive.
I find it funny that Bethesda won't port Fallout 3 Remastered onto the new platforms, but they are willing to port Skyrim to literally every platform ever, including the Amazon Alexa and a smart refrigerator.
Instead, they decided to re-purpose Fallout 4 into an empty MMO-lite that runs like garbage on even the best PCs.
@Mountain_Man there should be a demo of this game. May be reviewers look to closely at these games. Or maybe that's their job. Thanks for the feedback.
@NintyNate
“Ninty does need to step it up about for the next console... More power, more memory and less gimmicks lol”
Why?
@Octane @ThanosReXXX
Yeah he’s been a bit imitative in his explanation. Suddenly getting Bethesda support is a combination of the power of the system, the ease of development, how well their engines run, the sales success of the system and who knows maybe some sweeteners from Nintendo? They published Skyrim and Doom. All these things adding up to make Seitch development financially attractive whereas Wii, Wii U, 3DS couldn’t tick all those boxes.
@sixrings
“When it's Zelda it's fine running 30fps at 900p, when it's Tomb raider on Xbox One X it's garbage that it's only 30fps at 4k. This is the Nintendo logic on here.”
Pardon?
@Mountain_Man Lol I know. I like Skyrim waay more than Doom or Wolfstein. Using my SD card for a game like Skyrim, which I love, is ok in my book.
@electrolite77 coz they keep loosing out on everything, most stuff is more expensive on Ninty consoles, I want to be comfy and relaxed to play games not have motion controls or 10 different controller types, more memory, more power ... A GameCube 2
@electrolite77 Exactly. It's never just one or the other, but always a combination of factors, and a big factor is also time/the right moment for something to happen. The window of opportunity, so to speak...
@JRRR92 Not as smooth as PS3/Xbox 360 ports. Runs sub 30 fps on Wii U, good look at DF's comparison video.
Yup, it was the last time Ninty did power and it was great, the games were great the system was great
@NintyNate
Given how well Switch is doing and how badly Gamecube did, I don’t think they’ll be in a rush to make what you’re after.
Plus the Gamecube has the same issue with the Switch in that it missed out on loads of third party games. No GTA, no MGS 2, no Silent Hill, no Burnout 3 or Legends, no Tekken, no Bully, no Outrun 2, no Onimusha, no The Punisher, no Call of Cthulhu, no Pro Evolution Soccer.
None of the portability or convenience of the Switch, actually designed with power in mind, still lagging well behind the competition for games. Any Nintendo home system would be the same.
@electrolite77 yeah true but most of those games are meh anyway... Why hasn't switch got GTA? MGS? Tekken? Burnout? Silent hill? etc...
For the people who like it it's great but slot like me hate and never use portable
GameCube had two awesome Starfox games, F-ZERO, Metroid, Zelda games and so on... Just miss having lots of great games coz from 2006 to now not many games on Ninty consoles
@NintyNate
I don't think very many people who are interested in those specific games get a Nintendo system, and then go on to be upset that they aren't around.
That said, it's a good question just WHY these games aren't on Switch.
Personally, I consider Wii and DS to have a plethora of amazing titles, so I don't think I agree with your 2006~ statement.
@electrolite77 Just like people on here went crazy when donkey kong had fur in tropical freeze and then when Crash had no fur said it wasnt a big deal....
Gamecube didn't sell well not because it was so powerful but because Nintendo at the time was still super arrogant about their system and didn't do enough to court third parties.
@NintyNate I would love remasters of lots of Gamecube games... on the other hand all I care for from the Wii era is Galaxy 1/2. Maybe Punchout.
@sixrings @Pod ... The Switch needs games and it's loosing out on lots because of the power game...ok it's not my games but why ain't red dead, cod, battlefield,big sports games, fallout etc on switch??? Power! ...
On side note sixrings, that all ya want??? Skyward sword? Metroid prime trilogy? There's a lot of great games that came to Wii
@Pod
The context was ‘Nintendo should make another Gamecube because (among other reasons) Switch misses out on loads of games’. I was just pointing out that Gamecube missed out on loads too. And that’s despite Gamecube being designed to compete with the competition on power while the Switch is expressly designed to be something different.
The complaints about third party support are always going to run into the same issues. A Nintendo system designed to compete with Sony and MS will struggle because of that competition. And it will struggle for third party support because third party games sell better on the competition. Nothing much can be done to change that.
I totally agree on the Wii era though. I’d love to see remasters of the Galaxy games, Xenoblade, Sin and Punishment 2, Punchout, Return to Dreamland, Radiant Dawn, Super Paper Mario, Skyward Sword and the Excite games. Especially if they could be reworked to provide non-waggle control options.
I own a Xbox one x for my other gaming needs. So it isn't for me to have third parties. Although I do think more power makes it easier for third parties. Selfishly I want a switch pro just so I can be assured my first party switch games are 1080p 60fps when docked. Every time I say that though people here point to games on Xbox one or ps4 which can't run at 1080p. Guess what? Those games can't run at all on a switch.
@sixrings
“Just like people on here went crazy when donkey kong had fur in tropical freeze and then when Crash had no fur said it wasnt a big deal....”
Which people? Unless it’s the exact same people saying both those things (like the Tomb Raider and Zelda comparison you came up with) all you’re doing is saying ‘some people feel differently about some things’.
And yes, Nintendo helped sink the Gamecube. This was after destroying a lot of third party relationships during the N64 era. They then followed up the ‘Cube with the definition of ploughing their own furrow in the Wii. For obvious reasons most PS3/360 third party games skipped that. Then there was the Wii U disaster. Now there’s the Switch where third party games are faring a little better, especially well suited ones but it still isn’t getting the same support as the competition. It isn’t meant to. Yet by ploughing it’s own furrow it’s doing very well. There’s absolutely nothing to suggest a powerful Nintendo home system would suddenly get full support and sell well.
@JRRR92
I played AC IV on Wii U and it ran OK. I’m glad I played that before I played any other version though.
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-assassins-creed-4-next-gen-face-off
The best part of this article was the last sentence.
At a time when everyone is doing (or considering) remakes, remasters, retro-inspired games etc., it is comforting to hear a big publisher say that they'd rather make new games for the system instead of yet another port!
@mikegamer
It runs the same on all, except the ps4, Xbox one and PC. A couple of frame drops is not an issue, the ps3 and 360 versions, not ports, run the same at 30 fps. 30 fps is not [removed], it's standard.
@electrolite77
It ran great, just because it was released on current gen doesn't mean the old gen versions ran bad. The game was made for old gen systems, that's how they were supposed to ran, the current gen versions are ports, of course they would run better. The Wii U runs the same as ps3 and 360 versions, for 2013 that's not bad at all.
@JRRR92 On Wii U, it never hits 30 fps, like, at all. Look up that video.
@JRRR92
Except it didn’t maintain 30 FPS. As shown in the link I put and was evident to me from playing it.
@NintyNate
COD4 was reworked/downgraded specifically for Wii, didn't get particularly good scores, and still sold one and a half million copies.
For the Switch, it's easier than ever before to port over with minimal differences, even if it is less powerful. Doom Eternal is slated to launch alongside the other versions.
If the system proves successful enough, the games will be there. Maybe not GTA or Red Dead, but then again, maybe. Bully was on Wii, and L.A.Noire is on Switch.
@electrolite77
I'd find it ill-advised to tell Nintendo to "make another GameCube". It was their worst selling home system before the Wii U, after all. So while some might personally prefer that constellation, I don't think I could defend it as being a great financial decision.
@electrolite77
So did BotW and people loved it, including myself. Frame drops doesn't automatically mean it runs bad.
@JRRR92
You said “The Wii U runs the same as ps3 and 360 versions, for 2013 that's not bad at all.”
First, it’s not great considering you’re comparing the Wii U to hardware 6/7 years older. Second, that isn’t true. It doesn’t run the same.
@Pod not good enough is it really lol
@Pod
It would be a terrible idea. A few people (some very vocal) on the Internet would be pleased but thats it. They can’t support two systems and the one they’ve got now hits the sweet spot of being portable (always their biggest selling systems) while also being heir most powerful home system. Also it should get all Nintendo’s output for he next few years.
Going up against the competition-and let’s be brutally honest, Sony are simply much better at selling dedicated home systems than Nintendo-with one hand tied behind their backs would be crazy. Not having a portable would be crazy. This is the future for Nintendo 😉
@JRRR92 Please mind your language!
@NintyNate
I guess that depends on who you ask.
@electrolite77
Really hoping the Switch keeps working out for them.
And who really knows what the landscape will look like five years from now?
At that time, VR on smartphones might have ben normalized, and the existence of the console experience is threatened once more.
@Octane
I'm sorry, I didn't realize I used an offensive word. My apologies.
@electrolite77
It doesn't matter the Wii U is 6/7 years newer, the specs are the same as the ps3 and 360, that's no secret. If Nintendo released a new console now as powerful as an N64, wouldn't be fair to compare it more to the N64 than consoles from now? Obviously it wouldn't be able to compete tech-wise.
Also, how worse does it run? A couple of frames? That's no huge deal. DF says a game not maintaining 60 or 30 fps is disappointing, even if it drops like 1 frame only. They over exaggerate. I played the game for more than 60 hours and only noticed the frame drops when there was too much stuff happening on screen, which only happened on ship deck battles.
@JRRR92
You said it ran as well on Wii U and ‘for 2013 that’s not bad’. My point is it’s pretty bad. Especially as it doesn’t run as well as the PS3 or 360 versions. The frame rate isn’t as good.
@electrolite77
30 fps isn't good? Well, I guess you hated BotW, that ran worse than AC4 on the same system. 30 fps is still good and will always be good. That you have the standards of a PC player it's what's different.
@JRRR92
It isn’t 30FPS. AC IV on Wii U runs worse than on PS3 and 360. Stop squirming around and throwing out straw men. You’re wrong.
Show Comments
Leave A Comment
Hold on there, you need to login to post a comment...