PLEASE Port For Honor to the Nintendo Switch | Forums

[xdeadzx]

The switch runs Steep, an Anvil Next title the same as For Honor is. No reason why it can run Steep and not For Honor. Complaining about technical specs is fruitless because Steep is more demanding.

[Ymir.exe]

Does it really run Steep though?

We've seen a few seconds of a trailer for Steep that is not necessarily (read: definitely not) running on the switch. It will without question be the worst version of that game, which from what I hear is running like donkey balls even on the more powerful consoles, and even on PC.

[yodidlydo1862]

For Honor with the joycons motion control would be fun. they could port it without online and maybe even bring split screen back for the switch, I highly doubt this would ever happen unless the switch sold an insane amount in its first month.

[Bladescarr]

Seriously, do we have to talk about the graphic quality differences between the two games or people who have watched the HD trailer of Steep on Switch have realized by themselves how the environment looks low res and the details are just so poor it could fit in a 800x600 version of For Honor?

Now, if you tell me Far Cry is running 60 fps on a switch, yeah in that case I will say it is portable. But until then, making For Honor for switch would be downgrading it so much that it would make my eyes bleed just to look at it.

Oh boy, calm down man.

Not everyone here is an elitist.

[Ymir.exe]

Oh boy, calm down man.

Not everyone here is an elitist.

TIL that elitism means not wanting SD resolutions in 2017.

[Be1dou]

Call me old school, but as long as the frame rate is stable at 30fps, I'd have no problem playing at sub HD. I own a GTX 1080 and play most of my 3rd party games at 1440p/4K, including FH during the tech test, but I'd still be down for a low res FH if I can play it on the go, like when I'm doing the laundry or walking the dog. Pokken Tournament was one of my favorite games last year and it wasn't even HD, IIRC.

Plus, lower resolutions aren't as jarring on handhelds.

[Ymir.exe]

I honestly think putting out any game that runs at less than 720p on the Switch will kill the system outright. Sub 720p with 30fps would not be tolerated. It's not a 3DS, it's Nintendo's newest home console. That kind of performance would be pathetic. For 300 dollars? Same price as a PS4? No way. Nintendo would be insane to do something like that, considering that people are already giving them a hard time for Zelda not being able to get 30 stable, when most people expected 60 given the cartoony graphics.

As much as people say graphics don't matter, resolution and framerate do. They matter a whole lot. There's a reason we get all of these comparison videos for multiplatform games, with thousands of threads across the interwebs asking which version runs better, looks better, etc. etc. I think a lot of times it's the right decision not to release a game on certain systems if you don't think you can achieve at least some measure of parity with other platforms. Not only because people generally just don't want to pay the same price and get an inferior version, but also because you as a developer don't want people to see your game looking like hot garbage.

[Homy2008]

I honestly think putting out any game that runs at less than 720p on the Switch will kill the system outright. Sub 720p with 30fps would not be tolerated. It's not a 3DS, it's Nintendo's newest home console. That kind of performance would be pathetic. For 300 dollars? Same price as a PS4? No way. Nintendo would be insane to do something like that, considering that people are already giving them a hard time for Zelda not being able to get 30 stable, when most people expected 60 given the cartoony graphics.

As much as people say graphics don't matter, resolution and framerate do. They matter a whole lot. There's a reason we get all of these comparison videos for multiplatform games, with thousands of threads across the interwebs asking which version runs better, looks better, etc. etc. I think a lot of times it's the right decision not to release a game on certain systems if you don't think you can achieve at least some measure of parity with other platforms. Not only because people generally just don't want to pay the same price and get an inferior version, but also because you as a developer don't want people to see your game looking like hot garbage.

Please let that decide the devs and the people who want games besides Nintendogames on Switch. Nintendo doesn't fill every genre. Switch is a handheld with TV functions, it doesn't matter how Nintendo calls it. It doesn't need parity in resolution or graphical fidelity. I would gladly have hardcoregames in 540p on the small screen than none. I don't even understand why some people are against ports (speak against them), you don't need to buy it, others would. That said, i own a strong PC and a (weaker) Playstation 4 (and a 3DS and Vita) and i would love to have some more Ubisoft "core" franchises on a handheld.

I can promise you that future owners of a Switch would be far more excited about a game like For Honor than Rayman legends (i like it, but it doesn't amaze people)

[Label07]

This would be like porting for a last gen console...it's not going to happen and pipe dream to think it will. IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER TO RUN IT!

[Bladescarr]

This would be like porting for a last gen console...it's not going to happen and pipe dream to think it will. IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE THE POWER TO RUN IT!

False.


And to all the people that are so COMPLETELY against this game being on the Switch, I have to ask: Why?

Why are you so against having this game on another console? A console that, mind you, has literally no effect on your life, if you choose not to purchase it.

Also, porting to the Switch would do nothing but BENEFIT you. It would allow for more sales of the game, and allow for more money to be put towards its development.

There are no downsides that personally affect you, so why do you despise the idea of a Switch port?