Why does the switch port run so poorly?

apop

I wouldn't hold my breadth for a more optimized version, but I wouldn't come out and call DiCO incompetent programmers, either.

For one thing, programming games is very difficult, and requires really good programmers with special knowledge and skills to begin with; if you're gonna say they're not competent, you better put up or shut up - show you can do better, or don't call them incompetent at all.

More to the point, though, when a game is not built from the ground up as an exclusive for a given platform, it's almost a given that the game won't be able to tap that platform's real potential.

Why?

Well, you can look at game's performance being determined by three separate but related elements:

1. The assets (graphics and sound data) the game uses.
2. How those assets are moved around in system memory.
3. How those assets and the game logic are processed.

When you're making a game as an exclusive for a given platform, like the new Yoshi game, and you're targeting a specific frame rate (say, 60 fps), what you're gonna do is you're going to

1. Create assets that are easy for the platform to handle, considering things such as memory bandwidth, GPU features and clock speed, etc.
2. Build your asset management logic around those assets and the system's limitations.
3. Not include any assets or logic that constitute a bottleneck for reaching your target frame rate.

Here's the kicker, though - sometimes, not even doing this is enough. Sometimes you need a programmer who's really good at optimization - and I mean fricking genius level good at optimization - to meet your target frame rate. I know because the well-known company I worked for was stacked with brilliant programmers (who've gone on to illustrious careers at the likes of Square Enix), but there was one who was really good at optimization, and you'd hear about how he'd just double to frame rate of the games he worked on; so if he hadn't been on board, lots of really brilliant programmers would not have been able to get the level of performance the retail versions of the games shipped with.

But wait, there's more!

You know why games like Yoshi run at 60fps on Unreal 4? It's not because of the developer, it's because of the publisher. You see, a company like Nintendo has the financial resources to hire some freelance genius to optimize a game; but they won't do that, because they don't really need to do that, because they can just pay Epic to send one of their top engineers, someone who knows the Unreal Engine like the back of his hand, and optimize the game for the developer - it's what Square Enix did when developing Dragon Quest XI, actually.

So can you get Bloodstained to run on Switch at 60 fps? Maybe, but you'd probably need to redo the assets, redo the program's architecture, drop the resolution to 720p and then have someone from Epic come and look at it. None of these things are realistic, and so the game will probably be locked at 30 fps forever. That said, if Nintendo does release an improved version of the Switch, and if it's possible for the system to identify itself to the software it runs as distinct from the original Switch, and if the performance increase is good enough that reaching a stable 60 fps is feasible without redoing assets and major portions of code, then 505 might be inclined to provide a patch to game at a later point in time.

But those are a lot of ifs.

It's locked at 720p in handheld. In docked mode its dynamic between 720p and 1080p depending on how much is going on.

This video of Switch version footage went out yesterday:



My backer copy should be arriving today so I guess I will find out more soon.

It's not a question of priorities - they have to work with the assets they have, and they were created before the Switch platform was even on the radar; the same goes for the game's logic, probably.

The Switch is basically a PS3. Compare Bloodstained with games running at 60 fps for the PS3 and you'll see the assets are more computationally expensive and memory intensive. They likely don't have the budget to redo the assets and optimize or maybe even redo the code for the Switch (which probably requires bringing someone from Epic over to help - assuming Epic would even bother with a game that's not an Epic Store exclusive), and on top of that fulfill all the stretch goals promised as DLC.

So, I doubt it's a question of not giving the Switch priority, as much as it is a question of not having the time and money to rework the game so that it both looks good and performs well on the platform.

Making a game run at a given frame rate is not just a matter of hunkering down and putting more hours into optimization: if you didn't plan the game with a given platform in mind from the get-go, your only choice is to hire another dev team to redo it from the ground up (what Netherealm did with MK11 for the Switch). It's very costly (enough that it might offset any profits from the game) and time consuming (you'll miss the launch window completely); it's a huge gamble, and one that no publisher is going to take when they can just drop the frame rate by half and have the game run well enough. 

If the game sells like hotcakes on the Switch, though, you might be able to get that from the sequel. Then again, if it sells like hotcakes, that would probably prove there's a market for the game at 30 fps.

I really hope the day 1 patch hits Switch BEFORE the game goes live on eshop or we’ll have another round of people getting gamebreaking bugs for having started the game in 1.01 before 1.02 hits later in the day like it happened on PS4.

Has 1.02 even hit Xbox yet at all?

Dude, I worked as a programmer for a very good Japanese game company - it's up to you if you wanna listen to me or not.

When a game is made, a lead platform is settled on. In this case, it's pretty obvious the lead was going to be the PC, and Xbox One and PS4 a close second. You do development on a lead platform and then port to the others. The Wii U and Vita were stretch goals, and neither supported UE4. As stretch goals, they were afterthoughts, and neither version was going to have the market impact that the Switch version would eventually have.

When they say "we're building this game on UE 4 and definitely releasing on PS4 and Xbox One", you know that hitting 60 fps on last-gen platforms is not a priority.

When they built the game engine that sits on top of the UE4 middleware, and when they ordered the game's assets, they were most definitely not prioritizing getting the game running at 60 fps on a platform that did not exist outside of Nintendo's prototype labs. Switch support turned out to be easier because the platform runs a special, light version of UE4, but God only knows what compromises they had to make to get a game built on the original version of UE4 to run on the lighter version on Switch.

Could you get a game like Bloodstained to run on Switch at 60 fps? Yes, if you built it with the Switch as the lead platform and had enough of a budget and enough clout to get Epic to help you with optimization.  It's not just a question of hunkering down and doing a lot of optimizing. There is always a limit to how much you can do in a timely fashion given the circumstances.

While it's not theoretically impossible, it is extremely unlikely you'll ever see the game running at 6o fps on the current Switch model. 

The state of the Switch game is awful. Utterly disappointing to have waited years and years and years, then another week after everybody else, get no backer rewards, and get a game released in this state. Unbelievable.

Very disappointing that so little care was put into the Switch port. I'm going to get an exchange for the PS4 version, as I don't have confidence the developers can fix all of the issues in a timely manner. It should never have been released in such an unacceptable state.

I'm also extremely disappointed in the Switch version, and regret backing the game/choosing a Switch copy. I accept that the Unreal Engine is not great on Switch, however an understandable reason does not equal an acceptable justification.

To be blunt, it's not my problem that the Unreal Engine does not run well on Switch, nor should I be expected to know that in advance. I was unaware of that fact until today. Either another engine should have been used, or the Switch version should have been cancelled. The latter would mean that I would have chosen a different platform, so I would be enjoying the game right now.

I'm sure the developers did the best job they could, so I don't blame them. But somebody somewhere made the decision to develop a Switch version on an engine that would result in a poor end product. So Switch owners got shafted, and no amount of blaming the engine changes that. It was the studio that decided to use said engine and go ahead with a Switch version.

By the way, I made this thread arguing that Switch backers should at least be offered free Steam keys, as free Steam keys were given to backers who had their deliveries delayed, and as far as I'm concerned, Switch backers have it far worse than people who simply had to endure a delivery delay:


bloodstained.forums.net/thread/4186/switch-kickstarter-backers-steam-keys?page=1&scrollTo=69000