Mortal Kombat 1’s graphics on Nintendo’s hybrid console have been widely panned, with many wondering how the developer …

  • @schema@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    18
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Imo the anger is a bit misdirected. Making a toned down version of the game takes equal the amount of resources, if not more compared to other ports. Performance wise the switch always has been a toaster, even compared to the last gen of consoles. There probably are now phones with more graphical power, so ports to hardware that is so far behind is difficult.

    I’ve ported games to switch and there is a lot of extra loops to go through to make it even remotely run at decent frame rates.

    The publisher could have made the switch version cheaper, but they probably invested more resources into it than porting it between xbox and playstation, so i can kind of understand why they didn’t.

    The argument “it looks worse so it should be cheaper” is kind of questionable, when the console they are buying it for just doesn’t allow for much better considering the art direction. If the switch was as powerful as the ps5 or current xbox, they would have made the game look as good as it is on all the other platforms.

    A valid question is if this needed a switch port at all, and considering the backlash, the publishers are probably asking themselves the same question.

    • stopthatgirl7OP
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      Aren’t most Switch games still $60, though? Just flipping through the US E-store, the only game I saw at $70 was Tears of the Kingdom, and this version of Mortal Kombat is not going to compare favorably to that.

      • @schema@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I wouldn’t personally buy it for the switch.

        But typically publishers are not making the price on release based on what platform you run it on. It looks worse, but that isn’t really the game’s fault. It has the same amount of cost attached to it as any other port of the game, if not more. On the other hand, from the consumer perspective, I can 100% understand why someone wouldn’t want to spend $70 on this.

        In the end, will it be worth the money they put in to port this game to less-than last gen? I have no idea.

      • roguetrick
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        Some mid level exec wants to keep his units sold spreadsheet relevant for all platforms.

    • DarkThoughts
      link
      fedilink
      01 year ago

      The argument “it looks worse so it should be cheaper” is kind of questionable, when the console they are buying it for just doesn’t allow for much better considering the art direction.

      I disagree.
      When you have to pay the same or more for something less then that’s simply not justified for the consumer. If the console can’t handle anything better and is that expensive to port over, then you should simply not port your game over to it. If that’s a general Switch problem, then the Switch maybe shouldn’t be a thing either. I thought that’s how markets are supposed to work, no?

      • Fushuan [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        51 year ago

        But it’s not something less, it’s something less, in your device. That’s the distinction.

        If the console can’t handle anything better and is that expensive to port over, then you should simply not port your game over to it

        If enough people want to play it on the switch, the investment is worth it.

        I thought that’s how markets are supposed to work, no?

        Well, if it were up to you maybe, but if there’s enough people that will buy it just to play it on the switch, then the markets are working as intended.

        • DarkThoughts
          link
          fedilink
          -21 year ago

          Lot’s of hypothetical “ifs” there that are seemingly in direct contradiction to this topic.

      • conciselyverbose
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        You can call it less because you only value graphics. Someone else can call it more because it’s portable.

        Discounting the most expensive port to do doesn’t make sense.

  • @Mandy@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    181 year ago

    a glorified tablet has an inferior version of a game from other systems, who could have thunken?

    more news at 8

  • @teamevil@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    31 year ago

    The GTA ports where a piece of shit, why would this be different…and I’m saying that as a person who uses his switch much more than my series x.

  • @ShittyRedditWasBetter@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -171 year ago

    What a bunch of whiney cunts.

    Imagine bitching because your 10 year old phone GPU can’t push polygons.

    You are lucky they made it work as well as they did on switch and don’t charge you EXTRA for the absurd amount of optimization that it must have took to get it even workable.

    • BruceTwarzen
      link
      fedilink
      101 year ago

      It seems easier to just not release these games on switch and focus on the stuff it can run

      • stopthatgirl7OP
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        Or maybe just wait for the Switch 2, since that’s actually looking like it’s real? This could’ve been a good 3rd party launch title for it.

        • @gaylord_fartmaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          I’m sure there are people out there with Switch as their only means to play games that would like to be able to play Mortal Kombat now and are happy it’s available. The people complaining have unrealistic expectations, either for what the Switch’s hardware can render, the amount of work that was and is required to make a game like it work on the Switch in the first place, or both. If you don’t want to play an inferior version of the game don’t buy it, but you clearly aren’t the target audience for the game.

          • Chozo
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            I mean, it probably would have been better than this. Not every game needs to release on all platforms. NeverRealm made a stupid decision trying to release on Switch at the same time as other consoles, especially when the Switch already has a foot in the grave as it is.

            If they’d have waited for the new hardware, sure some fans might’ve been a little upset, but it’s not like there’s a whole lot of crossover between MK fans and players who only own a Switch in the first place. Half of the MK games never got released on a Nintendo platform at all, and several that did didn’t release simultaneously with other platforms, and were also heavily modified ports.

            They could’ve waited a year or two, and not left such a bad taste in players’ mouths. I’m sure most people would’ve rather waited.

          • Maximilious
            link
            fedilink
            -31 year ago

            Ah yes, I’m sure Sony lost oodles of money sitting on Spider-man and FF7R for years before they were ported to PC, or the other console “exclusives” that have a 3-12 month waiting period.

      • Fushuan [he/him]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        That’s for the development company to decide. If its profitable they will keep releasing because there’s a market of people that want to play the game and only have a switch. Mortal Kombat is a multiplayer game that you play for the combat, not the graphics. You can play it for the graphics but fighting games fans don’t really, so if the game runs on the switch they open up to a huge extra market.