hit tracker

Sega Confirms Sonic Forces Is 720p, 30fps On Nintendo Switch

Discussion in 'Nintendo Gaming News' started by GaryOPA, Oct 9, 2017.

By GaryOPA on Oct 9, 2017 at 11:33 AM
  1. 24,448
    2,081
    113
    GaryOPA

    GaryOPA Master Phoenix Admin Staff Member Top-Dog Brass

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2006
    Media:
    864
    Occupation:
    Design Eng.
    Location:
    Tropical Island
    Home Page:
    In both docked and handheld modes
    [​IMG]

    Sonic Forces is confirmed to be only 720, 30fps, just like some of the earlier rumors, but even docked mode it does not get better.
    So will this 'fact' turn you off from grabbing Sonic Forces on the Switch, or will still do so due to all the hype involved with this game.

    NEWS SOURCE: Sega Confirms Sonic Forces Is 720p, 30fps On Nintendo Switch (via) NintendoLife
     

Comments

Discussion in 'Nintendo Gaming News' started by GaryOPA, Oct 9, 2017.

    1. 290
      24
      18
      DW360

      DW360 Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Oct 31, 2010
      cue the nintendo fanboy graphic whores that slated the other systems for running at 720/30fps.... now all defending and accepting this shite because its nintendo.

      you know something again nintendo release a weak ass cheap system that cant offer the norm, as the industry is now pushing towards 4k, nintendo cant even manage the basics.

      jeeze this company doesnt care anymore about the gaming industry, to me theyre like apple, technology of the last decade today!
       
    2. 6,564
      423
      83
      tech3475

      tech3475 Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Jul 2, 2007
      Again, it's going to be the portable (or 'hybrid') aspect which will give it an excuse to many people.

      It's a bit hard to lug around a PS4.

      If I buy this game for the Switch, it will be for this reason.

      I do wonder what they mean by "proprietary engine", is this the Hedgehog Engine or is it a new one?
       
    3. 24,448
      2,081
      113
      GaryOPA

      GaryOPA Master Phoenix Admin Staff Member Top-Dog Brass

      Joined:
      Mar 18, 2006
      Media:
      864
      Occupation:
      Design Eng.
      Location:
      Tropical Island
      Home Page:
      It says this on the matching Wikipedia page:

      "Sonic Forces will run on the "Hedgehog Engine 2", a refined version of the game engine used in Sonic Unleashed and Sonic Generations"

      Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_Forces
       
    4. 6,564
      423
      83
      tech3475

      tech3475 Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Jul 2, 2007
      I was curious because in the past with colours and unleashed for the ps2/ wii, they ran on a different engine to the 360/ps3 unleashed/generations, the latter being hedgehog.
       
    5. 24,448
      2,081
      113
      GaryOPA

      GaryOPA Master Phoenix Admin Staff Member Top-Dog Brass

      Joined:
      Mar 18, 2006
      Media:
      864
      Occupation:
      Design Eng.
      Location:
      Tropical Island
      Home Page:
      It really does not say if the Sonic on Switch is using the same engine as on the PS4. -- Maybe not, as the FIFA does not. -- Hard to tell for sure until the game comes out.
       
    6. 557
      84
      28
      AlbedoAtoned

      AlbedoAtoned Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Jul 13, 2011
      Yeowch! Look, even if you're normally the kind of person that doesn't care about framerate, I just can't imagine playing any really fast game that demands faster reflexes at such a low framerate. This game absolutely demands 60fps imo. whether it need to be at 720p or 240p to reach it, it needs that higher framerate. This isn't some turn based rpg, it's a fast paced platformer. The fact it couldn't even hit 60fps at 720p is a damn shame really.


      It may give it an excuse to people, but portability was never an excuse before. When a game was available for purchase on the 3ds or vita and some console or PC, people turned down the portable versions because they ran at a lower framerate. Resolution wasn't so much the problem since it is a smaller screen, but people did care about the lower framerate. Hell, I still remember when people threw a fit about Final Fantasy X HD on the vita, an actual turn based rpg because it had some fps drops here and there. Portability is only seemingly an excuse for Nintendo fans. Despite the fact that unlike with the 3ds or the vita, the switch is expected to be ran docked at least some of the time by some people, and nearly all of the time by some other people. Running it undocked may hide the lower resolutution, but it's not going to run the game at a higher fps. It's far more likely to introduce more fps drops.
       
    7. 6,564
      423
      83
      tech3475

      tech3475 Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Jul 2, 2007
      Last time I recall it being an issue was with hyrule warriors on the o3ds because it was really bad (the 10s) and should have been restricted to the n3DS.

      In regards to Forces, I think we'll just have to wait and see. If they are going for 720p/30FPS, I hope that's a solid frame rate and not 'dynamic' as anything below that would likely be an issue.
       
    8. 290
      24
      18
      DW360

      DW360 Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Oct 31, 2010
      so again proves my point, when it comes to nintendo excuses are made to accept the one thing nintendo fans all slate the other systems for..... they defend using "portable" yet slate a system that is doing more, its engine is not "like this" based off a CUBE 2.0 engine, the PS4/XBX1 are running superior engines to bring better details, capping its resolution/fps to ensure a smooth gameplay is not acceptible.

      my mobile phone can emulate the cube in full hd and a fair whack of games play full speed, this console just released cant even do its own games without being dumbed down..... you do know what impact this will have on new ips from third parties.

      hybrid/portable makes it ok to not only pay more for said game than it is on the other platforms, but your also paying more for an inferior version with features removed.

      so again your being shafted by nintendo for its cheap money making decision, and the expense of actually gaming is passed onto the consumer.

      but you dont need to lug a PS4/XBX1 around in order to play games away from the home, you can remote play, my mobile provider offers unlimited 4g connection and i get a very good coverage nearly everywhere i go, i can remote play my ps4 using my vita or my laptop.

      Also my ISP has set up free wifi access for its customers so i can always be connected where ever i go.

      I can also remote play my XBX1 away from the home.

      I have been doing this and not had any "disconnection" problems, so I ask the question, do i pay more for an inferior port or for a game i already own when i never have any issues remote playing?.

      dont get me wrong I liked the concept of the switch, but since its launch its had nothing worth buying and what it is getting now are games i already own or inferior ports that cost more.... i dont buy the whole "its portable".... good for you, still i refuse to pay £10 more for a game just because its portable and ESPECIALLY when its missing content the other versions have.

      one game i really did want to see come to the switch at the time was RE7, even the fans were (probably still are) crying for it, but we already have that confirmed in a nice way the switch hardware is unique..... yup inferior so FAT chance of it getting anything were getting today.

      I simply do not understand how a tablet in this day in age cant run in 1080p..... also again its another system that is out dated and unable to bring anything new, such as 4k gaming thats become the norm.

      i really do class nintendo the same as apple, over priced old tech.
       
    9. 6,564
      423
      83
      tech3475

      tech3475 Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Jul 2, 2007
      Streaming is not an option for everyone, myself included.

      Even trying to stream from Steam while abroad was impossible gameplay wise for me despite my domestic connection being more than good enough (70/15mbps).

      One thing to remember with tablet gaming.....most tablet games aren't that good compared to traditional consoles and makes you sound like you've fallen for the same Apple-esque marketing over SoCs.

      For the record, 4K gaming is not the norm, even the Xbone X struggles in that regard (the 'most powerful' console you can get).
       
    10. 24,448
      2,081
      113
      GaryOPA

      GaryOPA Master Phoenix Admin Staff Member Top-Dog Brass

      Joined:
      Mar 18, 2006
      Media:
      864
      Occupation:
      Design Eng.
      Location:
      Tropical Island
      Home Page:
      Yeah, even with my super-good 4G internet here, streaming not an option either as my monthly bandwidth is only 40gb, even d/l digital games are bad enough, streaming is killer, just watching youtube daily at 480p can kill it quickly.

      Same with 4k gaming, its just too much data for digital in countries like me, look at the recent Shadow at War its 100gb min. start just to get the game on Steam and that before any updates or patches.
       
    11. 557
      84
      28
      AlbedoAtoned

      AlbedoAtoned Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Jul 13, 2011

      And yet a tablet can do a hell of a lot more. Especially compared to the switch

      I use my tablet all of the time be it to listen to my music, browse the web, read manga, watch videos. And if I wanted to, yes I could play games on it. But I don't. If I am at home, I've got a pc, and I've got multiple consoles, and handhelds. ANd when I am on the go, I'm not really going to play games, I'll listen to music and such. I don't bring my handhelds with me either and they're a lot more portable than the switch. So for me if I got a switch, chances are it will be played docked, I might play undocked if the tv is being used, but again I've got a pc so unless a game is exclusive to the switch I'm more likely to play on that. One of the reasons the vita failed was because when you're out in public, you're generally not likely to play a game, at least one that requires any real amount of complexity. It's why even the most hardcore gamers tend to be more likely to pull out a phone and play on it than a handheld. I almost never see anybody with a handheld, they're always playing on a phone or tablet when on the go.

      That's why people judged the games on the vita. THey were looking at it as "why would I play this inferior version when i could just play the better version. The switch has the same problem, people are looking at how even docked it is greatly inferior, The problem isn't so much the undocked performance, since everybody expects a lower resolution and doesn't mind it on a smaller screen. But for most gamers, they're playing their games on a tv, many on 4k tv screens. 1080p is over 2 (2.25 times specifically) times as big as 720p and 4k is 4 times as big as 1080p. While the xbox one x and ps4 pro are indeed struggling to hit 4k a lot of the time, the switch is struggling to hit 10800p or even 900p. But that's not the bigger issue. The bigger issue is that not only is it struggling to hit those resolutions, it's failing to hit 60fps in even the games that got 60fps on those other consoles. It'd be one thing if the games were hitting 30fps on them, but even people that normally didn't care about framerate or really know what framerate is, are noticing that overall the switch versions play worse.

      As much as people may like the idea of playing their games while taking a shit, they ultimately do not want their games to play like shit.
       
    12. 6,564
      423
      83
      tech3475

      tech3475 Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Jul 2, 2007
      This may comes as a shock to you, but not everyone is you.

      In your case the portable aspect doesn't matter, fine, get the version you want.

      I can't comment on the Vita ports as I've never come across those comments, however, one thing to remember is that in many cases you also had to purchase two versions of the game and that's why I tended to avoid allot of the ports, not necessarily because of their quality.
       
    13. 290
      24
      18
      DW360

      DW360 Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Oct 31, 2010
      Maybe you cant stream, but i have no issues from home or away using my mobile data.

      This is me accessing a superior version of said game, thats also cheaper than its inferior version on the switch.

      And my point was that tablets these days support far better resolutions that the switch, again looking at how companies are pushing towards 4K, nintendo are just managing 720p..... again behind.

      sure most tablet games are designed to be that quick lunch time game or something you can kill time while on the bus, but there are games that are console quality.

      but if your going to rip off the morphus x300 as your next gimick console, then at least put some money behind it and make it capable of doing thing other products have been doing already.

      it makes nintendo look dirt cheap again using old cheap inferior hardware, it struggles to run its games already and devs are having to cut content out of the games, and its games are costing you more.

      seriously are nintendo fans that deluded and wil pay anything, because its "portable".

      if only nintendo actually cared and lets say released a system that could run in full hd, had more resources so games could run smoother and without content being cut out.

      i love the comment "i can play having a shite"..... how many people actually play a game while having a shite, i mean come on is your life that boring you must play a console during that 3-10 minute shite?

      but again, no matter what anyone fan tries to say to convince or claim different, the switch is a an over priced out dated system with expensive inferior games.

      like fuck am i going to pay £44.99 for a shitty PS3 port of LA NIORE, when i can get it on PS3 for £5 (but i already own it) or could get its superior so called "HD REMASTER" on PS4/XBX1 for £34.99 which likely will support 4k.

      Like fuck am i going to pay £35.99 for this shitty game based on CUBE 2.0 engine when i can get the PS4/XBX1 version running on its next gen engine for £27.99, again likely support 4k.

      Like fuck am i going to pay £49.99 for a very shit port of DOOM, when i can get it on PS4/XBX1 for £20 and likely support for 4k.

      Like fuck am i going to pay £49.99 for another shitty inferior port of Wolfenstein 2 when i can get it for £39.99 which likely support for 4k.

      So if you can get my drift here, like fuck am i ever going to pay more for third party titles that are inferior, WOW i can play on the shitter, erm naa think ill pass.

      So nintendo will again be another system sat collecting dust because i simply refuse to pay more for a game because nintendo made shit decisions, because all they care about is releasing cheap shit with a gimmick so it can print money.

      they dont give a crap about providing a console with hardware to rival or match whats currently on the market, all they care about is how they can re release its same shit titles again and even worse on the switch that they just ported most of its recycled crap from the wii u.

      again fanboys slate the PS/XBX when third parties port its games, yet defend nintendo because the wii u failed.....

      point proven that no matter what, nintendo lovers will blindly follow and defend.

      Like fuck am i going to ever pay more for ASDA SMART PRICE BREAD when i can buy PREMIUM BRAND BREAD cheaper.
       
    14. 557
      84
      28
      AlbedoAtoned

      AlbedoAtoned Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Jul 13, 2011
      Of course not everybody is me. But not everybody is you either. Most people don't care about portability. What they care about are the games themselves. So if a game runs like shit on the portable version they'll just get the console version. And yeah the vita could have done better if all or most of the games supported cross buy. But it's no better for the switch either. Because you still need to buy two versions unless you're okay with poor performance. And at least with the vita the games themselves were cheap. Back during one sale I ended up getting FFX/X-2 HD on the vita for $10. I've rarely seen a game go below 30 for Nintendo consoles, and more often than not, you're paying full price. Lastly, there was also the Playstation TV that you could get that would play vita games. They weren't terribly expensive when I got mine, as I bought it in a controller bundle (I needed a ps3 controller and got them together for something like $80. It rendered the games at 720p as opposed to the vita's resolution of 540p. While it didn't play all vita games, most that came out after the PSTV supported it. It ended up being the best way to play games such as Persona 4 Golden.

      With the switch it's much the same way, except for the not needing to buy an addon to play on the tv. The difference is that the vita was clearly a handheld, and as such does better when it is treated as such. That's why the lower resolution of it wasn't a problem, just like the lower resolution of the 3ds wasn't a problem. But people start complaining when the framerate is low in these things. That's why people complained about the vita versions of the Jak and Daxter Trilogy, FFX/X-2 HD, and Borderlands 2. For what was being done, most of these ports aren't bad (the Jak and Daxter port is likely just a shoddy port though). Maybe more could be done to help them run better, but chances are there's not much you can do. And yet people didn't care, so they skipped out on it. Even if you play the vita versions in a PSTV, it won't improve the framerate. So despite them probably being fine if you just wanted those games on the go, because people don't really care about portability anymore these ports got ignored.

      The switch doesn't even get the excuse. What's kind of interesting is that no matter the problem, people will come up with some excuse, The system is weak, but it's a portable so that's okay, the system has shit battery life, but it's a console so what do you expect. The fact that so many excuses have to be made for it shows that it got more flaws from both of the halves than benefits. Despite what fans say, the system was sold with the dock, the same dock that if you want to buy separately, costs $90. Either Nintendo is ripping people off or it really does cost somewhat close to that, but in either case, people aren't given a choice to buy just the switch, you have to buy it with the dock as well. I know several people that bought a switch and they all pretty much told me they just leave it in the dock, taking it out was a nice gimmick at first, but was not anything special, and they have no real desire to play on the shitter and at most might get used around the house, but because it's too big to really carry around it stays home. I've also asked around on the internet and the sentiment is mostly the same, Most got a switch because of Breath of the Wild and once that and a couple of other games were played they generally don't see much use waiting for the next big exclusive.
       
      DW360 likes this.
    15. 6,564
      423
      83
      tech3475

      tech3475 Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Jul 2, 2007
      @DW360 @AlbedoAtoned

      Ultimately, I think YMMV summarises everything.

      If you want to stream, stream. If you want the PS4/Xbone version, get that version, etc. etc.

      Personally, I'll probably end up getting the game on the PC if at all (depending on reviews as it's a Sonic Team game), assuming it doesn't contain Denuvo (at which point I'll wait for it to appear in the bargain bin).


      For the record, I'm not denying the Switch's issues and that this is the weakest console version, I'm just saying that the portability/hybrid aspect can matter to SOME people regardless of it flaws and that's my point.
       
    16. 290
      24
      18
      DW360

      DW360 Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Oct 31, 2010
      but your completely missing the point here, again fans stick their head in the sand.

      when you own all systems right, and a game comes out on all three, what incentive is there to go buy the shitty inferior version with features missing and costs you more?

      and haa knew the pc would surface, totally fucking up your argument, so correct me if i am wrong but your defending the switch and making excuses because its games are inferior, missing features and cost more compared to the PS4/XBX1...... so your arguement is to say youd rather get it on PC because its superior to the PS4/XBX1..... so using your same logic, that makes the SWITCH even worse..... right?

      but to counter your PC claim, PC gaming is only superior to consoles is if you pay the high price for a high end hardware to run said games at full settings.... thus costs far more than a PS4/XBX1 which are capabible of doing a good job with its OLD hardware, whereas your guranteed unless you pay FULL WHACK, your PC hardware will need updating during a consoles life.

      when you see Nintendo's social media pages, it proves its fanboys love anything they do, seeing the retarded prices they charge for what would be free mobile apps, sorry but just because its a morphus x300 clone doesnt mean they can intentionally rape you with expensive games.

      this will be the downfall for the switch, a lot of gamers will not buy a multiplatform game if its going to be inferior and missing features and cost more..... this is what the fanboys will do.

      saying that, thats when nintendo stop intentionally keeping its stock short.

      Like every other nintendo console before, i can bet you this time next year no one will give a fuck about the switch, its third party support will be minimal next to non existent and again when MS/SONY release their next gen system nintendo will need to crap out another BS gimmick to sell another old hardware system..... you never know you might get PS4/XBX1 quality games.

      anyways, yup as @AlbedoAtoned put it, the ONLY reason i got the switch was for BOTW and it turned out to be an utter pile of crap, proof again that fanboys love anything nintendo release, this game was paid off to get excellent reviews so the sheep believe it, end of the day if everyone is saying something is excellent then others are going to be thinking yes that must be true. you can influence someone into thinking its great when actually its not.

      I found this game to be boring as fuck, had no story, simply running around an over sized map with AI far superior to you no matter how many hearts and equipment you have, it had POOR ai, boring repetitive levels, nothing story driven, too many bugs and shit frame rates.

      how other enemies would eat you up for supper, yet bowser was a pussy whipped bitch.... WTF the actual BIG BAD ASS BOSS!

      BOTW is the reason why fanboys never had a new zelda game for the WII U, yup you got shitty last gen ports and loved em (yet you all slate the other systems for last gen ports), this was far from a ZELDA game, it was basically a running demo of what motion control puzzles they could come up with, but thrown into the ZELDA universe to bring in sales.

      I got bored of the game running doing enless shrine after shrine and completed it, to find you got absolutley fuck all for completing the game, even doing hard tasks of getting the hyrule shield and master sword to find these also break, so whats the point.

      you complete the game and revert back to your last check point.... WOW.

      and since then the switch has never been used, proving again another nintendo console with nothing to play...... and like hell will i pay more for a game.

      i mean what the fuck are nintendo actually thinking, what sane person will intentionally go out and pay more for a product when they know they can get not only better quality but also for less.

      makes no sense at all, here nintendo customers, please pay us £10+ more for this inferior product, its ok because you can play it on the move..... which really not as easy as said considering the screen size, motion controlled games not possible on the bus, screen not back lit enough to ensure constant visibility when on the move, poor sun glare.

      so sorry i have still to see someone playing a switch on the move, sat on the tube or bus....

      i did during the first week but fucked it off because of its small screen and having to use the joycons to motion control the shrine puzzles thus being further away from the screen and it been harder impossbile to see.

      so i simply remote play my ps4/xbx1 from my office pc on a 22inch monitor.
       
    17. 6,564
      423
      83
      tech3475

      tech3475 Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Jul 2, 2007
      Sigh.

      Look, all I said was that people may buy the Switch version because of it's portability.

      I also said that if I bought the Switch version, it would be for that reason, streaming IS NOT FOR EVERYONE, when I'm on holiday I might have a p*** poor connection and I've tried it, mobiles can be very hit or miss (my network is one of the best where I live and it can range from Edge to 4G in the space of 20 minutes).

      If portability matters, people may take an inferior version which works compared to nothing at all.

      BTW, I never said why I would get the PC version, which would actually be more for mods.

      In fact the last Sonic game I got for it near launch was Generations, running it on my then laptop at 720p because I wanted to play it while away from my house (yes, I compromised quality for portability).

      The Switch is also going to be my primary system for a few weeks thanks to a move (I need an engineer to come out).

      That said, I didn't like BOTW much, I despised the weapon system in it and actually preferred TP over it.

      edit:

      Thinking about it, these days consoles are doing 'half gens' so even your argument over upgrades is starting to go out of the window.
       
    18. 557
      84
      28
      AlbedoAtoned

      AlbedoAtoned Loyal Member

      Joined:
      Jul 13, 2011
      Actually, you don't need to pay much more than a console for a pc that beats said console. While you might not beat it for cheaper as some fans say (though with deals and used parts, it's certainly possible), whatever you pay extra in hardware is more than made up in what you save in the games themselves. Back when I was a console only gamer and even now, I noticed games were expensive, tended to scratch easily, which meant that you had to buy them again (especially during the ps2 era, where no matter what the console would give them circular scratches eventually, even when laid flat with no opportunity to bump it. Furthermore you generally had to buy them again come next gen unless you were satisfied with the old version.

      Whereas on pc if you did upgrade, you could likely turn up settings. Then there is the framerate, which on console tends to be 30fps or lower most of the time. On PC even with equivalent hardware, you could target a higher framerate, like maybe the game devs put too much focus on a visual effect that you don't care about and you care more about framerate than graphics, then you could turn that setting down or off and then have a better framerate.

      When I became a pc gamer, my library of games grew exponentially. My steam account alone is worth almost 11000, and I paid a fraction of that over the years. Whether i was getting a game in a steam sale for less than a tenth of the price, or buying a bundle somewhere for far far less than even that, my steam account grew immensely. By the end of the first year I had more games than all of my consoles combined. I didn't completely give up console gaming, but the deals pale in comparison. To even come close to competing with a pc library you need to pay for Sony's rental service called PSN+ or MS's Xbox Live Gold. Once Humble Bundle was added into the mix, it was a no brainer, and their monthly service was much better since even if you ever canceled service with them, you still got to keep the games they gave you during that time.

      For Nintendo it's even worse. Most of the games I own on the Wii U were bought from a couple of Humble Bundles. Outside of that it pales in comparison to my PSN library, and doesn't even blip on the radar compared to my pc library.

      What's more is how much on console still requires a pc. I suppose you could pick up some $10 computer at some flea market, but most are more likely to buy their stuff new and that plus a console is no cheaper than gaming pc. If anything, it's more expensive. And while a gaming PC can excel at playing games, it can do so much more than just game. And it can play the games or mods that Sony, Nintendo, Microsoft don't want you playing as well.
       

Share This Page