I don't think lazy dev rhetoric should be used here at all and is way off the mark.
Gamers wanted a remaster, not a port. The port is fantastic, but not in the ways they get all up in arms about.
Some of it is the usual "how dare they charge more than $20 for this. Don't they know old game is old" discourse; some of it is that it still isn't on PC (which I agree is just fucking weird at this point).
It is a remaster, especially by Switch standards... actually the biggest reason why the Switch version is getting slack is that gamers thought some big remake was coming to PC and PS5 because of rumours... but they got nothing... Switch got a great remaster. The circumstances changed but people still tried to perpetuate the same myth that this is a lazy port when that is wildly inaccuruate...
yep, and anecdotally, Steam games that can't run on portable PCs like GDPWin Max get Switch ports.
Not that I disagree with the fact that the Switch is more powerful than people give it credit for, but RDR running on it is absolutely not witchcraft at all. RDR is a game designed for the Xbox 360, which it ran and looked reasonably good on. The Switch is more powerful and better equipped by it by a factor of MANY, even in undocked mode. This is a very straightforward port, with some extremely minor enhancements that are not at all resource intensive relative to the hardware the Switch has. It’s a great port of a great game, but it’s not a technical marvel of any sort.
Well, all the commentary on HOW Red Dead Redemption is actually held together code wise would indicate that a remaster running this well with enhancements is indeed a bit of a marvel, but not because the Switch wasn't capable of it. Rather, it's a marvel because Rockstar seemingly was able to finally pull the game out of the purgatory it had occupied for a decade due to the supposed spaghetti code.
While true I have to wonder if they were willing to untangle it to the extent that it could run on the Switch, then what was stopping them from putting this release on PC as well?
Thanks for the replies. I guess I can kind of see not liking it at full price as I am not going to pay for it at that price. But I also already own the 360 version of it. I am just glad it is on Switch and will absolutely pick it up on a sale.
Yep... and let's not forget 1080p is double the pixels.of 720p... the Switch version looks a lot cleaner because of AA and the frame rate is also better.
That sounds like a last minute decision. This probably was supposed to be a straight Switch port to accompany next gen remakes. Now that those remakes don't exist, they decided to port the game as ps will be the only one without it.
I don't have an Xbox 360 (I only own Nintendo consoles), and the fact that this is coming out on Switch means I get to play it along with the Batman Arkham Trilogy games for the very first time means I don't mind paying full price for it.
Both GTA Trilogy and La Noire have been half-price plenty of times. So if someone's willing to be patient they can probably get Red Dead on Switch for like $25 eventually.
I don't think the GTA Trilogy or La Noire were worth full price but I'd gladly pay that to Rockstar for actually delivering the goods with RDR.
I think it's safe to say that the loud minority that makes the most noise online, regarding anything videogame-related (be it for or against something), is often the opposite of how successful something will be.
Yes. Frankly I expect Sea of Stars to reach no. 1 in the US eShop in the coming days, its current position (no. 4 already) only includes preorders (which imo were nothing to write home about) and its first 2 days of sales...
