More like the master of answering questions he has no real answer for.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Reggie on why Red Dead Redemption 2 skipped the Nintendo Switch
- Thread starter vestan
- Start date
Lying is worse though. Trust is important and frankly I've heard so much of this trash it's hard for me to believe or care about anything Reggie says.
Why would you ever expect PR to say something like that?
Kotaku: "Nintendo admits 'Switch lacks the power to run popular third party titles' and the developers are unsatisfied"
It's literally PR's job to spin any news regarding their business into a positive. You should only trust that Reggie will say what's best for Nintendo.
Yes any game can be ported to any platform if you're willing to sacrifice the experience enough. Not sure Rockstar would be willing to go that far when it's these little details that add so much to their game.
Might controls everything, without it- You can't get third parties onto your console, let alone game of the year nominees.
Reggie's job isn't to be transparent. It's to spin. The people asking questions are entertainment reporters, not Woodward and Bernstein. Not sure what kind of discussion people are expecting out of this.
To be fair, Reggie isnt lying here. The question was if hed like to see games RDR2 on the Switch, which he answers "absolutely" to. Hes also right that RDR2 was likely never considered for the Switch in the first place.
It is now with the extra content and patches as I mentioned, but when I got the game it was around 50-60. I would assume that the disc version is still around that size since that's the upper limit for blu-ray discs anyway.
Like I said, a lot of that extra content can just be downloaded separately. Just throw the campaign and parts of GTA Online on the cartridge and make people download the rest as a patch. You need to be online to play GTA Online anyway, so it wouldn't hurt.
Also remember that any potential Switch port of the game will have less assets (lower res textures, etc.), so that will help keep size down too.
Badically how RDR2 could look on Switch after the compromises:
.jpg)
Nah fam let's not exagerate.
My console rules the other one drools.
But we need Reggie to state it on the record.
No no, it would just remove all trees and apply cel-shaded graphics and it would look fine.
Well, to me it's also an example of what can be done with the Switch. Modern engines allow lots of flexibility now on what you do with assets, materials, LoDs and stuff like that. You don't have to remake the game from scratch if the engine allows for those kinds of tweaks. Look at Fortnite on phones vs consoles. That's the future. RDR 2 could go through that process and fit into the Switch's CPU and still be RDR 2, and keep the volumetric lighting and the game logic with reduced assets, reduced LoDs, maybe the grass in the distance wouldn't sway, the cloud simulation would be a bit more noisy, maybe it would have regular shadow maps and not the variable sharpness thing RDR 2 does... Some people would consider that heresy, others would enjoy playing the game on the go, and it would look roughly the same, even if it didn't hold up on the details.
Oops I thought you were talking about RDR2. Sorry, it's difficult keeping up with the thread at times. Never mind me!
Thanks! Got some stuff in the pipeline I think a lot of you will be happy with 🙂
It's not lying, it's spin. There's a difference. There are many reasons the game isn't on Switch; he just gave the most charitable explanation that doesn't make his product look bad.
The explanation he gave is so far from the truth that I would categorize it as a lie.
The only reason why RDR2 is not on the Switch and will never be on the Switch is because the Switch isn't even close to being able to run it in an acceptable state.
Its like saying RDR2 isn't on PSP because the PSP only has one analog stick. Like, it has nothing to do with the actual reason. -> Lie.
I personally don't care how you categorize it. The reality is that it isn't untrue that one of the reasons the game isn't on the Switch is because of how long it was in development for the other systems. No one is saying it is the sole reason, and when it comes to these kinds of decisions, there is never a single, sole reason. Reggie just capitalized on that fact.
Why is it on Pro and One X then?
If Reggies explanation held any merit it would also be true for other recently released consoles.
Well hey, you could probably port Red Dead 2 down to the ps2 or even the N64
There comes a point where it just isn't the same game anymore.
There comes a point where it just isn't the same game anymore.
Lol what do you want Reggie to say? Its his job to make something out of nothing thats why hes been working with nintendo for like 12-13 years. Hes good at it. If you have a problem with a spokesperson for a company managing his words to to make his product look good then you're missing the point. Complaining about what hes saying is like you buying a shoe size you know you dont wear but still complaining its too small. LOL
Evade the question. "You'll have the ask Rockstar about this one". Easy.
Anything is better than bullshitting people.
Because those are literally just extensions of the same platforms; there aren't any significant development resources needed to port them over. PC on the other hand, despite having capable hardware, won't be getting RDR2 for the foreseeable future.
Sure. That point is reached when the gameplay and/or story telling can no longer be carried over.
Plenty of PC games have enough scalability from high end to low end to look like they come from generations that are decades apart; they're literally still the same games, however.
I believe they only have up to 32GB available for now, with 64GB apparently coming later. They could make you download the rest of the game, yes, like they did with L.A. Noire, but I think the overall storage limitations on the Switch (only 32GB of internal storage, demanding the purchase of an SD card) might make this not as tempting for Rockstar. After all, the thing they want people to play the most if GTA Online, and the updates for it are huge.
What? Like how about no? Rockstar don't tend to put their games on Nintendo consoles. GTA V could very much run on the switch, yet it's not there. Power is one thing, but there are other reasons why RDR2 is not on the switch. Heck, it's not even on PC.
He did evade the question in a very clever way too. Sounds you got a personal problem. There's literally no reason at all to put so much in stake into what a PR spokesperson is saying when answering confrontational questions.
If the Switch was more powerful it wouldn't have cost any significant resources to port RDR2 over, either.
No matter how you turn it, its asinine to claim that a game port that doesn't happen because its simply impossible to run in on a certain platform, is actually not releasing on the platform because of scheduling issues.
Obviously this is not a big issue and as a Switch and Ps4 owner I really couldn't care less about a RDR2 port. But I don't like this kind of dishonesty and I find it weird when people go so far to even defend it.
I also don't believe that it would have affected the Switch in any negative if Reggie had just said "RDR2 won't run on Switch". Everyone would've been like "well, duh!".
Remember when Sony said their own line up was scarce?(I think back in 2014) At least that was honest, I prefer that any day over sweet talking a bullshit line up. That way I at least knew that Sony had more planned for later and 2014 wouldn't be indicative of Ps4s annual exclusive line up.
Now this is bullshit and the point where I deem that this conversation is no longer worth my time. Clearly you've never worked in video game development.
And decrease the polygons of all the models, lower the viewing distance and simplify all the CPU simulations going on (NPCs, weather, physics and so on) to the extreme.
By the end of it we will have a vastly inferior port that at best look like a PS2 game.
The Switch is a bit stronger than a Wii U. It'll run most Wii U games/ports with a nice resolution bump. This means that it could probably run most 360/PS3 games at 1080p. But it's significantly weaker than a base Xbox 1
The Switch is orders of magnitude stronger than the PS2 or the N64 though. It's a current gen lite machine. It has received all sorts of ports of modern, demanding games, including games like Ark that are more demanding of hardware resources than RDR 2.
Hyperboles like that are completely devoid of value.
Now, that's bullshit. The Switch uses a completely different GPU architecture with tiled rendering, different firmware, you don't know what kind of optimization problems could arise or not.
Now, this is also bullshit. The Switch is closer to the PS4 than it is to the Wii U, in feature set, in CPU architecture, and in general performance. It has about half the performance of the base XBOX One when docked, and a quarter of the GPU performance when undocked.
Last edited:
Do those that think this would run in an acceptable state if ported ever even play it? Besides the amazing graphics, loads of dialogue, and textures theres a shit load going on under the hood.
What does significantly weaker mean?
50% is significantly weaker but could run the same games if you made cuts to the resolution and maybe some effects.
I believe ark isn't really more demanding, it's juat terribly optimized.
Its only bullshit when you look at it from a perspective that assumes Nintendo going a different route than Sony and MS with their hardware is a given.
Sony and MS build their hardware with 3rd parties in mind. Nintendo hasn't done that since the Gamecube.
As a result, 3rd parties have moved away from Nintendo, but obviously that could change if Nintendo changed its approach to hardware.
I'm not saying they should do that, but to think that the comparatively small 3rd party support Nintendo is seeing on its platforms is caused by anything else than their hardware choices is simply dumb.
Nintendo knows what they are doing. Nintendo actively decided to do things differently. And at least in case of the Wii and the Switch to great success.
But why act so coy about your own business decisions?
We don't know how demanding ARK is though. We do know that it's incredibly unoptimized.
Have there been any other big, 30fps AAA open world titles that have been ported down to the Switch or are planned? Assassins Creed, Watch Dogs 2, Far Cry, Cyberpunk, Witcher 3, Fallout 4 or 76?
Doom and Wolfenstine ran at half the frame rate with a resolution that could dip to sub-hd.
NO Lol. it's like 3-4x in docked mode.
50% is very likely.
It wasnt dumb or dishonest. You dont know what dishonest and dumb mean?
Nothing he sad was dishonest. It was spin. He says it in such a way that the reporter can't back him into a corner and get him to say something negative about his product ("too underpowered to run RDR2").