This is the first time I hear of it. In any case, the wholesaler in question is french and it's not the case there.
-
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.
(Rumor) Witcher 3 is coming to Switch in September?
- Thread starter Deleted member 3700
- Start date
- Status
This is the first time I hear of it. In any case, the wholesaler in question is french and it's not the case there.
If this is real and the port is somehow not utter shit, then the port house in question is to be declared as lord supreme of Switch ports.
I found this: https://www.thoughtco.com/spains-equivalent-of-april-fools-day-3971893
Seems to be limited to Spanish-speaking regions mostly, though. Not something that France or China would observe.
Eh, it's not really the same imo. My post was more a light jab than anything because I doubt everyone going "It can't run!" will suddenly change their tune if the game releases and isn't Ark-tier terrible.
I used to celebrated back in the days in Colombia, just googled it,
Should have used Doctre81 as a source maybe? at least he dug a lot harder than me and deserves some attention to his channel.
I was never able to confirm that it was Panic Button, though I do hope they are behind it, by this point they are the most experienced with the Switch, and I've thought it needed special attention if it was ever coming over.
EDIT: Fixed my post to at least include Doctre81's post and info.
Last edited:
This, not Zelda BotW is launch game but its also Wii U port, same couldnt be said for Witcher 3.
Also worth pointing that Zelda BotW has much stronger physics and you can almost completely change environment (cutting grass, cutting trees, setting grass on fire..), compared to Witcher 3.
The overworld in Witcher 3 is pretty static. Aside from foliage moving in the wind, there isn't really much interactivity there. There's almost no physics stuff, NPCs are only loaded in when needed, there are almost no NPC routines outside of quests. I mean, even Skyrim does much more dynamic things with it's NPCs and AI.
The really stressing parts are Novigrad, Toussaints Castle Town and Crookback Bog due to the NPC density, or massive use of alpha blends.
The world of Witcher 3 is impressive for its worldbuilding, but it doesn't even come close to the interactivity of BotW, or the NPC systems of Skyrim for example.
That being said, I still don't believe that it's coming to Switch. Maybe on a possible Switch Pro, but I won't hold my breath.
The really stressing parts are Novigrad, Toussaints Castle Town and Crookback Bog due to the NPC density, or massive use of alpha blends.
The world of Witcher 3 is impressive for its worldbuilding, but it doesn't even come close to the interactivity of BotW, or the NPC systems of Skyrim for example.
That being said, I still don't believe that it's coming to Switch. Maybe on a possible Switch Pro, but I won't hold my breath.
Lazuli City the in The Last Story is much denser and more populous than any area in BOTW but the latter is obviously more intensive. Straight comparisons don't always work.
A hypothetical port of the The Witcher 3 wouldn't be expected to run at as high a resolution as BOTW for one thing though.
A hypothetical port of the The Witcher 3 wouldn't be expected to run at as high a resolution as BOTW for one thing though.
The GTX 460 in this video is roughly twice as powerful. You can secret sauce it up a bit a guess but how much lower than 720p do you want to get?
It wouldn't be worth the lower performance and awful trade offs just to run the witcher 3 on the switch to make a point.
It isn't going to happen and you wouldn't want it if it did.
That's not accurate.
They had to split some areas, introducing architectural barriers and related loading screens.
Xbox 360 was running a less 'open' game.
Xenoblade 2 landscape is large open areas. Even though I feel the cities in Xenoblade are rather big and detailed in their own right they are not as big of the cities in Witcher 3 and most importantly they are not as dense as what you would find in the Witcher 3 series.
That's one thing I think people are not thinking about is that even though Witcher 3 is a massively big open world it's also a massively big Dense open world. It isn't a barren waste land like a lot of open world games.
With that said
I think it's possible to bring it over. There's more then enough talent at CDPR and Nintendo to make this work at a respectable and quite frankly exciting level.
Because CDPR has handled prior ports of their games to home consoles.
The dense cities will play out as prerendered videos with a controlled geralt layed over the video the direction you move him dictates how the video goes forward npcs will be rendered in real time when they pass the visible video view and are close to geralt.
I made this all up.
I made this all up.
When people talking about those things, in most cases they have technical informations on mind from DF reviews,
while in most cases normal users wouldnt notice at all at least half of things that DF reported.
Just to make a point?
The point of this port (real or not) would be for it to sell, and make money. Nobody is porting anything "just to make a point"
Hell, even Ark on Switch sold decently well and that was a horrible, horrible port.
Now they don't have time, they are working on two AAA games at the same time.
It would sell awful because it would be an awful version of the game. A completely unplayable version of the game
No one should want/ask for this. The people who bought ark on switch were fools.
The "just to make a point" are all of the people in here asking for a port that would look and perform WORSE than in that video and that video represents a GARBAGE version of the game.
I don't know you stranger, but I trust you, because lying about such thing on the internet would be pretty sad. Thanks for the insight then. ANy idea of who is doing the port? I wish it is Iron Galaxy.
This is a good point. The Witcher 3's world is dense as fuck but from what I can recall there's very few actual dynamic elements within it. Compare that to BotW which had thousands of physics objectives littered around its map (alongside whatever dynamic elements you chose to create) that were crucial to gameplay and there's definitely a difference there.
But still the same game, and that would be the case if TW3 released with more instancing of areas (sectioning off Novigrad, for example). It wasn't like, say, Dragon Quest XI on 3DS which was a completely different version that shared the same story and gameplay (I think).
Well nobody is saying the port would be without some cutbacks, but the hardware is capable of impressive things so it's not impossible.
For the record: Yes, the Switch can handle The Witcher 3. It's doable. But it won't be at a good graphical fidelity. Not that it matters much though. But The Witcher 3 is a scalable game. And I doubt running the game at lower graphical fidelity all over the board, at 360p undocked is out of reach, nor that it would be a technical feat. The Switch is capable enough for its form factor, even though a lot of sacrifice has to be made (see Wolfenstein 2 or Hellblade, which while have been technically possible... landed in a bad shape).
Hellblade still looks really nice though, wouldn't call that a bad shape.
Just how bad? Look at the video I posted in this thread. That's with a gtx 460 and i5 3570! Docked the 460 is twice as powerful. Undocked its nearly four times the performance. BTW, the video is of the gaming rendering at 768P.
How many of you are going to pony up $40-$50 for 20-27fps 480p-720p destroyed visual quality docked and 360p or lower undocked, if it even runs? Any takers?
Potentially the worst port of all time.
Not the same type of game, but I am curious, what did you say at the time (perhaps you still say) about Doom 2016?
He mentioned the Switch version of LA Noire before anything about any remaster for any console was announced. It doesn't matter how long ago it released. I added that to show that he did actually know his stuff.
I didn't want to mention his name or link to him since he's said he's not interested in leaking anything anymore. I also thought this was fairly well known around here.
Considering they have to replace cutscenes by video files... Yeah, it looks bad. And you can clearly see the difference in geometry and visual fidelity
Just look at any GPD Win 2 video:
So yeah, at 360 or 432p, with a framerate ranging from 20 to 30fps with similar settings, I think this is achievable for the Switch. I never said it'd look good. But then again, it's not like people were bothered with the 20fps drops on PS4.
Too different of a game. But, I'll humor you.
Had no thoughts then, wouldn't get the game for switch as the video's I've seen.... not great.
I could run Doom 2016 on low at 720 with a 460 or even at 1600x900 at 45-60. I could run a mix of medium/low at 1200p at 60fps with my gtx 660ti.
Whew.... 20fps at 432p in the city...
My experience with the game is that the drops below 30fps/any stuttering really affect combat in a horrible way. Even with a controller.
I look at the end results and it looks good, I don't care if other versions are noticeably better because that's not the point of the port
People are asking for a port that would be portable. That's all. People will buy it because it's portable, regardless of how it looks or runs. Again, see Ark.
Portability is far, far more important than graphics or framerate to a lot of people. Specifically, the people who aren't able to play games at all without portability.
I thought it was discovered that Hellblade used video files for some cutscenes in every version of the game.
That's the point of comparison though. People using a game to claim "it's doable because a port of X game was done". Sure it was, but it was with heavy sacrifices. I don't believe that it looks good either. But is the point to look good ? No, the point is to bring the game in a playable state. No one wants The Witcher 3 on Switch to have a good looking game but people want the Witcher 3 on Switch... to play the Witcher 3. Plain and simple.
Those entitled and egoist as fuck posts are probably the worst in the sea of garbage takes this thread witnessed. Who in the world do you think you are to tell people what they should or shouldn't want ?
You're contradicting yourself though. You make sacrifices to make the game playable even if not as good looking.
No, Hellblade does not look bad. It is an impressive current-gen port by an already renowned studio (QLOC).
Those cutscenes are completely seamlessly integrated with the rest of the game. Tell me where this choice hampers with the game experience and its immersion (the most important part about a game) itself.
Last edited:
I really feel that a vocal minority of people here are genuinely bothered that such game would come out on Switch. That's really strange...
How am I contradicting myself ? I said it's totally possible. And that people in the end dont expect it to look good but to play it.
Sorry, it looks bad. Hellblade is impressive in its character model of Senua. The technical achievement here is the character model. The environnement in the game looks nice indeed, but even these at to suffer major visual drawbacks on Switch. I'm not here to argue about that though.
My Witcher 3 experience on pc was only ok as performance wasn't great. Getting below 30fps makes combat nearly impossible. The game wouldn't be playable.
Its a "be careful what you wish for" situation.
Well then I am not sure what your point is. I said people want the game to be playable even if it doesn't look as good, which is the same thing you're saying now
I think people will want what they want in spite of an avid internet poster telling them they shouldn't.
I think maybe, just maybe, you should wait and see what it looks like (if indeed it's happening) before making definitive judgements about whether it will be awful and unplayable.
Well, I'm saying the same thing. I just disagreed on Hellblade looking good. But as I said people who wanted the game on Switch didn't want it for visuals.
Where there's smoke, there's is fire...but seriously, why does it seem so many have their feelings hurt over the possibility of the Witcher 3 running in some form on the Switch? It's a bit ridiculous. The PS4/Xbox/PC version will still run just as they were and you can play those versions if you wish. I thought after ports like DOOM, Hellblade, and Warframe hit, we'd be done with such denialism regarding potential ports. Especially since Switch port usually get done by very talented studios who know to scale assets and optimize code to the Switch's strengths.
Also, the notion that "bad" ports will (or do) sell poorly is just so obviously flawed that it isn't worth entertaining. The PS2 went an entire generation receiving heavily downgraded ports from the Xbox and Gamecube, yet most of ports/versions outperformed their counterparts.
Also, the notion that "bad" ports will (or do) sell poorly is just so obviously flawed that it isn't worth entertaining. The PS2 went an entire generation receiving heavily downgraded ports from the Xbox and Gamecube, yet most of ports/versions outperformed their counterparts.
- Status