• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.

Previews Bayonetta 3 Previews Going Up

Reader mode
EDIT: Nvm, just saw the edit, sorry I am pedantic by nature but didn't mean to start shit.

At any rate, the game having Switch graphics is not going to hinder my enjoyment, as I still greatly enjoy the original, with its actual PS3 era graphics, and Bayonetta 2 with its Wii U graphics.
So long as the style and gameplay are there, I'll be happy.

I can still happily go back and enjoy games from 20 years ago so I'm not a stickler for the latest in graphics technology.
 
Last edited:
curl-6 said:
EDIT: Nvm, just saw the edit, sorry I am pedantic by nature but didn't mean to start shit.
Click to expand...

All good. I realized what I wrote and quickly threw in the edit. I'm also not trying to stir the pot, but acting like there's some inherent bias against Switch or Nintendo is just silly. It's an outstanding piece of hardware, and it probably (?) couldn't have been better than it was when it launched. However, even at launch it was holding some of the industry back. We're now 5 years out and that statement would be more true than ever.

If Nintendo decided not to update the Switch power in a major way for it's successor, that'd be a business decision, not one made because developers were perfectly OK the current limits of the hardware.

Anyway - on topic: previews look good. I tried and couldn't get into Bayo 2. If we see a demo of 3 I'll give it a shot
 
0
1663210280785287.png
 
On media blackout but I'm glad everyone is positive on it. It looks freaking wild and I can't wait. The first two games are some of the best action games of all time.
 
We really need to talk about the power of the witch​

Ah, yes, I have distinct memories of that Xenoblade review way back when, which gushed in the text about how absolutely impressive it was that MonolithSoft managed to make the game look so good on such incapable hardware, only to dock points in the number score for the Wii holding the game back.

In any case, it's good to see that -- light hardware limitations aside -- the game is providing glowing impressions. I can look fondly already at those memories of Platinum discourse; people seemed to have really given up on them and were ready to assume the worst, even given the maintained quality of their Nintendo-related titles.
 
I really hope this game is good. I won't watch the previews so I don't spoil things for myself, but I feel like Bayo 2 left a lot to be desired.
Bayonetta is like the perfect action game, where story and cutscenes punctuate the action and are always unintrusive and funny. Like, every single one of them is hilarious.

Bayo 2 feels like its only comedy is callbacks, and the story is much more heavy-handed. Cutscenes are far more serious, and there are even walking segments where you have to slowly walk while characters speak, which kills the pacing. It's like a minute, but for a game that's so replayable and concerned with high scores, it's mind boggling. The final boss being effectively a retread of the penultimate Bayo 1's boss doesn't help.

I'm not that good at those games, and I did feel like Bayo 2 was better in terms of gameplay, but it's also far less memorable for me.

Since then I'm a bit wary of Kamiya not being extremely involved with Bayo, as the dude has a wonderful sense of humor. I'm playing through Okami right now and it has the same feeling of "every cutscene is fun and funny". Here's hoping Bayo 3 can do something as memorable as the first game without resorting to the only jokes being callbacks.
 
0
Seems like previews are very positive and even better than i thought.

Never felt confident about the game quality given the development time and recent internal reestructuration/problems in Platinum Games.
 
0
A single piece of hardware "holding back the industry" is really more an indictment of the industry at large. It’s an inherently dorky-ass premise.

edit: this was meant to go in that other thread but on second thought, whatever
 
Last edited:
Thunder84 said:
Disagree with the idea that games should be reviewed relative to hardware, but perhaps that's a personal preference. I don't really believe in the idea of a game looking/performing well for a console, it either just looks/performs well or it doesn't. If the Switch hardware is the culprit for a game running suboptimally, then I don't see the issue with it being brought up.
Click to expand...
Personally to me doesn't make any sense to prepare a review irrespective of the hardware and its vision on the platform. From that perspective Switch games would all be 50s or 60s at best because their visuals and perofrmance are below par compared to a XSeries/PS5; XSeries/PS5 would be 70s or 80s at best because you can get better visuals on a gaming rig. A 3DS game could never have been higher than a 40s meta because you had Wii game stopping in 50s/60s, PS3 and XOne with a max of 70/s/80s and PC games could reach the 90s.

Thunder84 said:
If Switch owners know their consoles and its limits, then they should be able to parse a review and decide whether the problems stemming from the poor hardware are enough to be a dealbreaker to them or not. The reviewer's job is the look at the game through a critical lens, not cater it to a specific audience.
Click to expand...
Again, doesn't make any sense to me. Switch owners already know the hardware is poor compared to others in the market, it already was from the moment when they bought it. For them it cannot rationally be a deal breaker a game for the Switch performing at Swtich standards rather than at PS5 standards. The reviewer's job is to look at the game through a critical lens but absolutely cater it to a specific audience. And I mean this for pretty much every review made on subjective quality (like a game review), all of them need to have into account its environment as they're essentially a comparison.

I understand your perspective but it literally just doesn't make any sense to me, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Let me, however, ask you a questions. If you were to review, today, as part of those retro reviewers or something like that, say, the Last of Us on the PS3 for example (and here assume you loved the game even if you didn't) and you had to rate and appraise/suggest it to a friend who owns a PS3, would rate it in the 90s because it's so fricking awesome on the PS3 or in the 40s because that kind of performance is just so unacceptable?
 
edamame said:
Every outlet that's previewed it (even the one everyone is being critical of) raves about how much fun the gameplay is, how cool/crazy the set pieces are, and that it runs at a solid 60 fps. Sounds great to me! Bayonetta 3 looks awesome and I'll take "held back by the Switch" over "the game doesn't exist" any day.
Click to expand...
Nailed it.
 
Esticamelapixa said:
Personally to me doesn't make any sense to prepare a review irrespective of the hardware and its vision on the platform. From that perspective Switch games would all be 50s or 60s at best because their visuals and perofrmance are below par compared to a XSeries/PS5; XSeries/PS5 would be 70s or 80s at best because you can get better visuals on a gaming rig. A 3DS game could never have been higher than a 40s meta because you had Wii game stopping in 50s/60s, PS3 and XOne with a max of 70/s/80s and PC games could reach the 90s.


Again, doesn't make any sense to me. Switch owners already know the hardware is poor compared to others in the market, it already was from the moment when they bought it. For them it cannot rationally be a deal breaker a game for the Switch performing at Swtich standards rather than at PS5 standards. The reviewer's job is to look at the game through a critical lens but absolutely cater it to a specific audience. And I mean this for pretty much every review made on subjective quality (like a game review), all of them need to have into account its environment as they're essentially a comparison.

I understand your perspective but it literally just doesn't make any sense to me, so I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Let me, however, ask you a questions. If you were to review, today, as part of those retro reviewers or something like that, say, the Last of Us on the PS3 for example (and here assume you loved the game even if you didn't) and you had to rate and appraise/suggest it to a friend who owns a PS3, would rate it in the 90s because it's so fricking awesome on the PS3 or in the 40s because that kind of performance is just so unacceptable?
Click to expand...
I have absolutely no idea where you’re getting the idea that I think visual performance should affect a game that much. Fire Emblem: Three Houses looks ugly as hell, and yet it’s still one of my favorite games of all time. The N64 games have aged terribly in terms of visual, but I still love Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time. Calling out a game for poor performance does not mean that’s the only thing a game should be criticized for.

Like, in the case of The Last of Us PS3/PS4. I’d recommend it regardless of what console they own. Not because it’s a graphical powerhouse, but because it’s a damn good game. Something does not need to look like the top of the market to be well worth your time, but that doesn’t mean you should ignore what it looks like either.
 
Thunder84 said:
I have absolutely no idea where you’re getting the idea that I think visual performance should affect a game that much. Fire Emblem: Three Houses looks ugly as hell, and yet it’s still one of my favorite games of all time. The N64 games have aged terribly in terms of visual, but I still love Mario 64 and Ocarina of Time. Calling out a game for poor performance does not mean that’s the only thing a game should be criticized for.

Like, in the case of The Last of Us PS3/PS4. I’d recommend it regardless of what console they own. Not because it’s a graphical powerhouse, but because it’s a damn good game. Something does not need to look like the top of the market to be well worth your time, but that doesn’t mean you should ignore what it looks like either.
Click to expand...
I feel like you're kind of deflecting my points and my question, and this derailing the thread a bit. So we disagree, let's just eave it at that.
 
Esticamelapixa said:
I feel like you're kind of deflecting my points and my question, and this derailing the thread a bit. So we disagree, let's just eave it at that.
Click to expand...
I don't see how? This is what you said:
Esticamelapixa said:
Personally to me doesn't make any sense to prepare a review irrespective of the hardware and its vision on the platform. From that perspective Switch games would all be 50s or 60s at best because their visuals and perofrmance are below par compared to a XSeries/PS5; XSeries/PS5 would be 70s or 80s at best because you can get better visuals on a gaming rig. A 3DS game could never have been higher than a 40s meta because you had Wii game stopping in 50s/60s, PS3 and XOne with a max of 70/s/80s and PC games could reach the 90s.
Click to expand...
And I responded to that. Nothing about what I said was deflective, and I'm honestly kinda insulted that you're insinuating that. I never brought up where the bar needs to be set for review scores, nor how much a game's performance should be weighted. All I've ever said is that reviewers should have the right to review games irrespective of hardware, and that criticizing a game's performance due to it pushing up against the limits of its hardware is a perfectly valid stance, even if the game isn't entirely at fault. I even answered your hypothetical regarding The Last of Us.

If you want to simply agree to disagree, then that's fine. But please don't dismiss what I say as deflective when I directly responded to what you said.
 
0
This is where I was referring to when I said you were being deflective:
Thunder84 said:
I have absolutely no idea where you’re getting the idea that I think visual performance should affect a game that much.
Click to expand...
I never mentioned visual performance only as well, but performance as a whole, ie visuals, responsiveness, FPSs, things happening at once on screen, loading times, etc.

Thunder84 said:
Like, in the case of The Last of Us PS3/PS4. I’d recommend it regardless of what console they own. Not because it’s a graphical powerhouse, but because it’s a damn good game. Something does not need to look like the top of the market to be well worth your time, but that doesn’t mean you should ignore what it looks like either.
Click to expand...
I am literally asking for a rating. I want to know if you'd rate it a 95 or similar and call it a masterpiece; but your choice of words is "recommend it" which to me it sounds a bit of a non-answer to the point I was trying to make, a recommend can go from a, say, 75 to 100 review score.

I didn't mean to say you were being deflective in an offensive manner so I apologize for that. It just seems to me at times I'm saying "tomato" and you reply "tomatoe", perhaps I'm not sending my message across properly or you're missunderstanding what I say. Anyway, it really doesnt matter, let's just move along on this debate as it is not really the purpose of this thread and I'm sure we're annoying everyone else. :)
 
Esticamelapixa said:
I never mentioned visual performance only as well, but performance as a whole, ie visuals, responsiveness, FPSs, things happening at once on screen, loading times, etc.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see. That’s just poor wording on my part, as I was referring to performance as a whole. My bad.
Esticamelapixa said:
I am literally asking for a rating. I want to know if you'd rate it a 95 or similar and call it a masterpiece; but your choice of words is "recommend it" which to me it sounds a bit of a non-answer to the point I was trying to make, a recommend can go from a, say, 75 to 100 review score.
Click to expand...
I grade games on an S+ to F scale, and I’d give The Last of Us an A+, which roughly translates to a 9. Same grade as The Last of Us Part II, and would firmly be in my top 30.

I’m good with moving on though, thanks for clarifying.
 
0
Where is all of this new footage coming from? Like the clips of Bayo in casual clothes? Is it from Japanese previews / TGS?

Got a new avatar by digging around on twitter. Lord... just look at her!! 👑
 
Thunder84 said:
Exactly as expected. Fantastic game, middling performance due to poor hardware. The Switch standard.
Click to expand...
I don't think it has poor performance, it's just characteristic of platinum to have games that are unstable 60FPS. Bayo 1 was like this on the 360, worse on PS3, like this on Wii U, like this on Xbox One/Series, PC and PS4. Powerful hardware won't automatically make a game better optimized or stable. Nier Automata is not 1080p nor locked 60FPS on PS4, nor does it look as good as Bayo 3(or it does? Idk). I think that when Drake comes we might get this game in 4K, but i don't think it will have stable 60FPS lol.

Also it targets 60FPS so it can't look as great as Astral Chain or Luigi's Mansion did. Super Mario Odyssey was quite a looker even by PS4/Xbox One standards for non-realistic games and was 60FPS tho. It depends on the game.
 
Dragoncaine said:
Am I the only one who doesn't see the issue with pointing out the aging Switch hardware in game previews? Xenoblade 3 is my GOTY behind Elden Ring this year, but of course I'd like to see that gorgeous world in 4K with better anti-aliasing, steady performance, etc. A game like Bayonetta 3 requires great performance even more due to its fast-paced action, right?
Click to expand...
Well, sometimes I look at some aliasing on Nintendo games or games that drop resolution during times and wonder if they were higher res...

It's not something that's quite "real" tho tbh. It depends on how you wanna notice things. I played Far Cry 5 on my friend's Xbox Series S and watched him playing FIFA for some moments and... Well, if I look enough I can still see aliasing or pixels? And looking enough I don't think stuff like water and character models were that impressive either.

While looking at character models on the Switch version of Wolfenstein II I was quite impressed tho. And the game features anti aliasing, tho it means getting blurry some times. I get amazed watching videos of Luigi's Mansion 3. When I get to play it on my TV I might see stuff. I think BotW looked sharper than Odyssey due to higher res mostly but Odyssey has better textures, models, performance, features, etc. Astral Chain was an absolute delight to behold. That was 30FPS but I couldn't notice. Nor did I notice while playing Wolfenstein. If Odyssey had a frame drop or Astral Chain had any resolution drop I would be ready to see tho. Monster Hunter Rise is such a great achievement in visual features and textures that sometimes the resolution will bother us. Other game might not be that great looking and we won't notice.

Some delightful and impressive games due to some feature can be easier for us to spot any compromise. Other times, we just can't see it.
 
Bayonutter said:
Where is all of this new footage coming from? Like the clips of Bayo in casual clothes? Is it from Japanese previews / TGS?

Got a new avatar by digging around on twitter. Lord... just look at her!! 👑
Click to expand...

It's from the japanese website of the game.
 
0
Thunder84 said:
Isn't that what's typically happening in these previews/reviews though? These games are aimed at the Switch hardware, and suffer as a result in terms of performance. Nothing wrong with pointing that out.

It'd be one thing if the performance of these games were great, and people still used the review to bash the hardware for no particular reason. But poor performance is becoming a common theme in reviews for Switch games, and the lackluster hardware is the primary culprit for that, so I think it's plenty fair to point it out.
Click to expand...
I mean, GTA V was aimed at PS360 and PS4/Xbox One came out two months after. Meanwhile we didn't see any "the game is good but it's held back by the hardware, has a very unstable 30FPS and graphics aren't as good as The Last of Us".
 
Dardan Sandiego said:
It’s just aiming for Platinum-style 60fps like most of their games.
Click to expand...
Exactly!!! They do have games on other platforms and I don't think any of them is locked 60FPS at the absolute higher resolution possible nor any of them are photorealistic or God of War level graphics or something. It's not Switch holding the game back, it's just that not every game targets meeting the western AAA+ visual style.
 
ILikeFeet said:
some outlets expected the demo they played was the final game, so I wouldn't expect a demo
Click to expand...
The Polygon one says they played it on Pax West for 15 minutes. I think that's very Prologue-esque like the demo that 2 had on Wii U.
 
0
karmitt said:
Switch is giving people PS3 era visuals with better resolutions in most cases.* Console games have been ahead of Switch for nearly a decade now with PS4. PS5 has taken things a pretty massive step ahead of that.

I love the Switch, but don’t pretend it’s not holding developers back. Bayonetta 3 would be a better game on better hardware.

*Edit: please don’t be pedantic about this specific line. yes it’s more powerful than the PS3 but we’re definitely not getting anywhere near PS4 rn
Click to expand...
It depends on the game tho. Nintendo EPD and some console exclusive games look nowhere near anything PS3 era accomplished. In that I mean stuff like Monster Hunter Rise, and to me Luigi's Mansion 3 looks better than even most PS4 games, and Super Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild don't fall behind either. We have Shin Megami Tensei V too, that looks just stellar and better than P5R or Soul Hackers, despite those being on more powerful hardware.
 
Dragoncaine said:
What's the over/under on Bayonetta 3 breaking 90 on MC?
Click to expand...
Pros: Bayo 1 and Bayo 2 were 90+, looks like an improvement over those in every way, more ambitious than ever and stellar game

Cons: 90+ being rare AF these days on non-very-biased games(and even those not getting it), superb Switch games like Metroid Dread, Xenoblade Chronicles 3 and Shin Megami Tensei V not reaching it.
 
Marce-chan said:
I mean, GTA V was aimed at PS360 and PS4/Xbox One came out two months after. Meanwhile we didn't see any "the game is good but it's held back by the hardware, has a very unstable 30FPS and graphics aren't as good as The Last of Us".
Click to expand...
Different time period. Standards for graphics and performance weren’t as high back then as they are now.

Also worth mentioning that those games were played on (at the time) the best consoles available, whereas Bayonetta 3 and other Switch titles are played on the worst major modern console in terms of hardware power. It’s a lot easier to point to the console being the problem when there are 4+ modern equivalents that are more powerful, two of which released back in 2013.
 
0
Marce-chan said:
Pros: Bayo 1 and Bayo 2 were 90+, looks like an improvement over those in every way, more ambitious than ever and stellar game

Cons: 90+ being rare AF these days on non-very-biased games(and even those not getting it), superb Switch games like Metroid Dread, Xenoblade Chronicles 3 and Shin Megami Tensei V not reaching it.
Click to expand...
XC3 and SMTV have obvious flaws and I don't think they had ever a chance to reach unanimous praise. I was surprised that XC3 almost managed the 90 on metacritic.

Bayonetta seems to be in another league in its genre. I think it will get 90+ easily.
 
EnergyDrink said:
XC3 and SMTV have obvious flaws and I don't think they had ever a chance to reach unanimous praise. I was surprised that XC3 almost managed the 90 on metacritic.

Bayonetta seems to be in another league in its genre. I think it will get 90+ easily.
Click to expand...
I didn't see any flaws in Dread tho and that didn't reach 90. The predecessors all got 90+(Prime Trilogy, Super, Fusion, Zero Mission), and Dread brought so much new stuff to the table while feeling just like the old ones in quality and feeling.

I think Bayonetta 3 has real chance of getting 90+, even surpassing 2's 91, and I'm rooting hard for it, but it isn't a guarantee imo.
 
EnergyDrink said:
XC3 and SMTV have obvious flaws and I don't think they had ever a chance to reach unanimous praise. I was surprised that XC3 almost managed the 90 on metacritic.

Bayonetta seems to be in another league in its genre. I think it will get 90+ easily.
Click to expand...
Yeah even as a big fan of both XC3 and SMTV, there are pretty noticeable things about both of them that I totally get taking off points for, even if I might not necessarily do the same

That being said, I don't think we can decide anything about Bayo 3 yet. While the core gameplay seems incredibly solid from initial previews there's no guarantee the game as a whole will hit and maintain a 90+ level of quality, which itself is a separate issue from getting a 90+ MC in this day and age.
 
Dragoncaine said:
Am I the only one who doesn't see the issue with pointing out the aging Switch hardware in game previews? Xenoblade 3 is my GOTY behind Elden Ring this year, but of course I'd like to see that gorgeous world in 4K with better anti-aliasing, steady performance, etc. A game like Bayonetta 3 requires great performance even more due to its fast-paced action, right?
Click to expand...
Oh, don't worry. Once the new Switch comes sniffing around, they'll port the hell out of that game.

You'll get your wish, just Monkey's Paw Style
 
0
Marce-chan said:
I didn't see any flaws in Dread tho and that didn't reach 90. The predecessors all got 90+(Prime Trilogy, Super, Fusion, Zero Mission), and Dread brought so much new stuff to the table while feeling just like the old ones in quality and feeling.

I think Bayonetta 3 has real chance of getting 90+, even surpassing 2's 91, and I'm rooting hard for it, but it isn't a guarantee imo.
Click to expand...
You mean that it has a real chance of getting an 89 on metacritic.
Bayonetta can't beat the curse i'm sorry.

Also I missed the discourse about unacceptable graphics so I'll just say that my goty of 2021 looked kind of bad in the graphics department especially on switch where it had frequent frame rate dips but I'll still recommend it to anyone and definitely rate it a 10/10.
I'm not saying graphics isn't important but you can still move past them if the game has a great style and if they're competent enough.
 
Regarding the overall discussion, I think it's perfectly fair to point out if a game has performance or visual issues but going on about it not being on the best hardware is rather pointless. A handheld will always be weaker than a console. There's no getting around it. The Vita was a lot weaker than the PS3 and it's games reflected that. Same for the Switch and PS4 and, inevitably, the Switch 2(?) and PS5. Going on about it being weaker hardware is pointless because you can't have it not be weaker hardware. It's basically impossible. But you're getting a handheld because you want to play games portably, which is something consoles dont offer, at least not well with streaming having its own issues. When it comes to stuff like graphics or high the framerate will go (120 FPS wasn't exactly a thing on consoles before PS5/XS), I feel you kinda have to judge relative to the hardware as, well, otherwise, everything before current gen might as well be trash

OT: I think the game looks great and I'm looking forward to playing it. Happy that folk are having a good time in the previews
 
SuperFakerBros said:
Regarding the overall discussion, I think it's perfectly fair to point out if a game has performance or visual issues but going on about it not being on the best hardware is rather pointless. A handheld will always be weaker than a console. There's no getting around it. The Vita was a lot weaker than the PS3 and it's games reflected that. Same for the Switch and PS4 and, inevitably, the Switch 2(?) and PS5. Going on about it being weaker hardware is pointless because you can't have it not be weaker hardware. It's basically impossible. But you're getting a handheld because you want to play games portably, which is something consoles dont offer, at least not well with streaming having its own issues. When it comes to stuff like graphics or high the framerate will go (120 FPS wasn't exactly a thing on consoles before PS5/XS), I feel you kinda have to judge relative to the hardware as, well, otherwise, everything before current gen might as well be trash

OT: I think the game looks great and I'm looking forward to playing it. Happy that folk are having a good time in the previews
Click to expand...
Pretty much where I'm at. If a reviewer thinks the game runs poorly or looks bad it's fair game if they want to mention that or even dock points for it, but attaching some narrative about the Switch holding it back is pointless and doesn't mean anything when the game wouldn't exist if it wasn't on Switch.

Personally I think it looks good, I hope the game's balance and enemy behavior is a bit better than 2's but I'll worry about that when the game is out.
 
Leica said:
Pretty much where I'm at. If a reviewer thinks the game runs poorly or looks bad it's fair game if they want to mention that or even dock points for it, but attaching some narrative about the Switch holding it back is pointless and doesn't mean anything when the game wouldn't exist if it wasn't on Switch.

Personally I think it looks good, I hope the game's balance and enemy behavior is a bit better than 2's but I'll worry about that when the game is out.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I'll take the game existing with less than PS4 level performance over the franchise being dead and buried. There's nothing really being taken away here

Oh yeah, Bayonetta 2 was an easier time than the first game, although, won't lie, I definitely preferred it over the 1st game as well but I can get that being a negative for others
 
If the performance is like other Bayo games than I’m fine. Is there anything that suggests differently?
 
I took a look at the part of the GamesHub preview talking about the Switch:

My brief time playing Bayonetta 3 really highlighted how much the series stands out as a compelling action game – but in an unfortunate way, it also highlighted an issue that’s been front of mind for many Switch owners as of late – the Nintendo Switch is showing its age.
Click to expand...

I admit I'm a bit tired of the 'aging Switch hardware' line - it's almost six years old, that's kind of expected. I'm not sure how necessary commentary about Switch hardware is if the game is meeting its target framerate and resolution. If this game were struggling to run then I'd be curious about the trainwreck, but watching these videos that's not the impression I'm getting. I mean this specific quote is saying it's 'highlighting' the issue of aging hardware, and I don't see how. When I think of hardware showing its age I think of excessively low resolutions, sub 30 frames, lower than low visual setting. Not this great looking game.

While not totally a fault of the game, my brief time with Bayonetta 3 showed that some concessions had to be made to get it running consistently. While the core combat runs at 60 frames per second (FPS), the cutscenes and cinematics are set at 30FPS. The transitions can often come off as jarring, and what’s worse is how the visuals and textures have a blurriness to them.
Click to expand...

I don't think switching between 30 and 60 FPS between cutscenes and gameplay is some Switch-exclusive compromise either, I'm pretty sure that's the inevitable result of pushing more visuals where fidelity is important and pushing more frames where input responsiveness is key. Is it jarring? It kind of was at first, in Metroid Dread, but I got used to it. The end result was sharper cutscenes which is nice to see.

During this preview, I was playing exclusively on a monitor with the Nintendo Switch in docked mode. While the gameplay flows incredibly well running at 60FPS, it did look a bit washed in motion. Of course, these issues are increasingly more common with Switch games, which is a bummer to see.
Click to expand...

This excerpt doesn't even seem to mention anything about framedrops, either. What does 'washed in motion' mean, washed out contrast? Low res? The complaints about the blurriness are fair, but I'm not sure how much of it is the game itself being low-res (I'm guessing it's a 720p docked target), or just specific edges and textures being blurry as the review mentions.

I didn't watch the other previews yet, I just focused on some gameplay excerpts and it looks like it's frequently hitting its 60 FPS target. No matter what game I play on any platform, I expect compromises for 60 FPS, Switch or not. So blur is unsurprising. Makes me give the stink eye to blurry Switch games that only hit 30, lol.

Obviously a reviewer can say whatever they want in a preview, if they want a soapbox to talk about Switch hardware then the floor is theirs. Likewise I can choose to nitpick what they're saying (as I just did) and question if that commentary has any relevance for a Switch exclusive game that seems to be hitting its performance target. Basically - if I'm reading a preview for a game exclusive to a device I already own, I kind of already know what the capabilities of the device are. I'm not deciding between buying this game on multiple platforms. If the game has bad performance to the point of degrading gameplay then I won't buy it.

I feel a little bad for picking at this when the previews themselves seem off-the-cuff and talking about Switch performance is low-hanging fruit, but my sentiment is more about the conversation in general. I'll complain about Xenoblade 2's resolution and dream about the Switch Ultra any day of the week, but if a game looks good on the current Switch as it is, I'll give due credit.
 
I genuinely don't mean this in a snarky way, but I am eternally grateful I'm not one of those who need their game to have top shelf graphics in order to enjoy them. It must be so restrictive.

I love being able to fire up an old Wii or Gamecube game and still have a great time with it, or being able to play and enjoy games like Witcher 3 or Doom Eternal on the Switch, and I'd hate to be limited to only games running on strong hardware.
 
Last edited:
Performance is important for a game like Bayonetta

Luckily, even that particular preview said it is 60fps where it matters
 
Marce-chan said:
I didn't see any flaws in Dread tho and that didn't reach 90. The predecessors all got 90+(Prime Trilogy, Super, Fusion, Zero Mission), and Dread brought so much new stuff to the table while feeling just like the old ones in quality and feeling.

I think Bayonetta 3 has real chance of getting 90+, even surpassing 2's 91, and I'm rooting hard for it, but it isn't a guarantee imo.
Click to expand...
Dread not managing to keep its 91 (it managed to get that, but a review from a persona kirby guy brought it to 89 and then another to 88) was the clearest sign times changed. Metroid used to score 90s extremely easily. Im not worried abiut prime 4 getting a 90 at all, but for bayonetta it will be difficult.
 
Reviews are slightly tougher these days (still way too lenient overall though). I see this settling in the mid to upper 80's. Not that I really care, I'm playing the crap out of it either way!
 
Serif said:
I took a look at the part of the GamesHub preview talking about the Switch:



I admit I'm a bit tired of the 'aging Switch hardware' line - it's almost six years old, that's kind of expected. I'm not sure how necessary commentary about Switch hardware is if the game is meeting its target framerate and resolution. If this game were struggling to run then I'd be curious about the trainwreck, but watching these videos that's not the impression I'm getting. I mean this specific quote is saying it's 'highlighting' the issue of aging hardware, and I don't see how. When I think of hardware showing its age I think of excessively low resolutions, sub 30 frames, lower than low visual setting. Not this great looking game.



I don't think switching between 30 and 60 FPS between cutscenes and gameplay is some Switch-exclusive compromise either, I'm pretty sure that's the inevitable result of pushing more visuals where fidelity is important and pushing more frames where input responsiveness is key. Is it jarring? It kind of was at first, in Metroid Dread, but I got used to it. The end result was sharper cutscenes which is nice to see.



This excerpt doesn't even seem to mention anything about framedrops, either. What does 'washed in motion' mean, washed out contrast? Low res? The complaints about the blurriness are fair, but I'm not sure how much of it is the game itself being low-res (I'm guessing it's a 720p docked target), or just specific edges and textures being blurry as the review mentions.

I didn't watch the other previews yet, I just focused on some gameplay excerpts and it looks like it's frequently hitting its 60 FPS target. No matter what game I play on any platform, I expect compromises for 60 FPS, Switch or not. So blur is unsurprising. Makes me give the stink eye to blurry Switch games that only hit 30, lol.

Obviously a reviewer can say whatever they want in a preview, if they want a soapbox to talk about Switch hardware then the floor is theirs. Likewise I can choose to nitpick what they're saying (as I just did) and question if that commentary has any relevance for a Switch exclusive game that seems to be hitting its performance target. Basically - if I'm reading a preview for a game exclusive to a device I already own, I kind of already know what the capabilities of the device are. I'm not deciding between buying this game on multiple platforms. If the game has bad performance to the point of degrading gameplay then I won't buy it.

I feel a little bad for picking at this when the previews themselves seem off-the-cuff and talking about Switch performance is low-hanging fruit, but my sentiment is more about the conversation in general. I'll complain about Xenoblade 2's resolution and dream about the Switch Ultra any day of the week, but if a game looks good on the current Switch as it is, I'll give due credit.
Click to expand...
If gameplay runs at 60 FPS, then I see no problem. Cutscenes are something I will only see in my first playthrough, then I will skip them in every subsequent playthroughs as I rise the difficulty and hunt new weapons, collectibles and Platinum ranks, like I do in all games. They're an incredibly small part of the experience for me, so hearing that gameplay hits stable 60 FPS is great news :).

BTW, give me 60 FPS with graphic compromises every day over "cinematic" 24 FPS with horizontal bars and better IQ.
 
0
Phendrift said:
If the performance is like other Bayo games than I’m fine. Is there anything that suggests differently?
Click to expand...
No, not even remotely.

Critics today Is really biased, in my opinin. Sites and magazines are all about how a game looks, how long It takes to be beaten, how content filled Is, how glorious are the production values etc.

On the other hand, Little attention Is dedicated to how a game works, how Is mechanically designed, how Is supposed to challenge and/or entertain the player, how the gameplay Is designed and why Is so.

This Is the reason why I have a hard time to read review. I have a handful of italian (I'm italian of course) and american videogame journalist that I follow because they deeply value what I think is worth to value in a videogame, but that's It.
 
I replayed Bayonetta 2 recently and was surprised how poorly it ran. It was only ever in the larger open areas, and combat always worked like a charm, which is why I probably had no memory of it. As long as the game runs well in combat, I won't care.

ILikeFeet said:
Click to expand...


This is giving me Professor Layton vibes, which is not a thing I expected to say before listening to it.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.


Back
Top Bottom