• the16bitgamer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    61
    ·
    10 months ago

    For those wondering if this is under exaggerated, it’s not. Now my experience is on the Switch.

    This issues I saw in my time before I got refunded was as follow. Texture Flickering and Shadow Flickering (hard to see as a screen shot so this is the worse I saw)

    Textures that are still in 4:3 and not 16:9

    Random Texture floating when they shouldn’t be

    The lighting failing on the Bridges on the Naboo Map

    And the FMV’s being so compressed you can see the compression artifacting (and this is a game that ~34GB)

    • circuitfarmer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      10 months ago

      And not to mention: the original versions actually run fine to this day. Pure money grab and they made the product(s) worse to do it.

    • Tattorack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      10 months ago

      The original games are about 4 GB each. Together they should be around 8 GB.

      What the fuck is the rest of the size used for!?

        • ripcord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          1080p (docked). So you’d plan for 1080p.

          But you’re actually probably at least partly right. I’m sure they’ve done at least some upscaling and stored at a higher res which may actually take up more space.

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Looking at the 34GB install, I’m guessing it’s some kind of massive emulation layer; it’s scary to say but I feel like we’ve just run out of game developers that can genuinely code against the machine itself to optimize install size and performance.

      When you look back on the meager specs of old consoles and what they got running there, it now feels more and more impressive.

      • frezik
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        10 months ago

        Emulators don’t take up that kind of space. In general, code makes up a small fraction of any game.

    • bitwolf@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Wow this looks so disappointing.

      It look like they just barely fixed controller support in the original.

      I expected at least upgraded textures and particle effects.

      Two Battle front let downs in a row (EA, and now this). 😞

      • the16bitgamer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        The controls are “fine” for the most part. If you were on an Xbox controller it would work. Space Battles in Battlefront II are an improvement, but the same treatment was never made to Battlefront 1. If I had to complain about anything, it’s that the auto aim needs to be more sensitive and when you blast an enemy it auto locks on them like the console games. Mouse and keyboard this would be annoying but on controller it’s necessary.

    • BoiLudens@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      Well I’m glad you laying it out for us, I’ve got a better idea what I’m dealing with. And it really does miff me on how unnecessarily wasteful the game is with storage

      • the16bitgamer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        10 months ago

        Ditto, I sadly didn’t go online so no comment there. Well I mean I tried once and I couldn’t connect so I just jumped into instant action. But yeah the storage requirements are a bit unrealistic on Switch. I don’t think you can even play it on OG switch without a Micro SD Card.