• the16bitgamer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    58
    ·
    8 months ago

    For those wondering if this is under exaggerated, it’s not. Now my experience is on the Switch.

    This issues I saw in my time before I got refunded was as follow. Texture Flickering and Shadow Flickering (hard to see as a screen shot so this is the worse I saw)

    Textures that are still in 4:3 and not 16:9

    Random Texture floating when they shouldn’t be

    The lighting failing on the Bridges on the Naboo Map

    And the FMV’s being so compressed you can see the compression artifacting (and this is a game that ~34GB)

    • circuitfarmer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      20
      ·
      8 months ago

      And not to mention: the original versions actually run fine to this day. Pure money grab and they made the product(s) worse to do it.

    • Tattorack@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      14
      ·
      8 months ago

      The original games are about 4 GB each. Together they should be around 8 GB.

      What the fuck is the rest of the size used for!?

        • ripcord@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          8 months ago

          1080p (docked). So you’d plan for 1080p.

          But you’re actually probably at least partly right. I’m sure they’ve done at least some upscaling and stored at a higher res which may actually take up more space.

    • Katana314@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 months ago

      Looking at the 34GB install, I’m guessing it’s some kind of massive emulation layer; it’s scary to say but I feel like we’ve just run out of game developers that can genuinely code against the machine itself to optimize install size and performance.

      When you look back on the meager specs of old consoles and what they got running there, it now feels more and more impressive.

    • bitwolf@lemmy.one
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      Wow this looks so disappointing.

      It look like they just barely fixed controller support in the original.

      I expected at least upgraded textures and particle effects.

      Two Battle front let downs in a row (EA, and now this). 😞

      • the16bitgamer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        The controls are “fine” for the most part. If you were on an Xbox controller it would work. Space Battles in Battlefront II are an improvement, but the same treatment was never made to Battlefront 1. If I had to complain about anything, it’s that the auto aim needs to be more sensitive and when you blast an enemy it auto locks on them like the console games. Mouse and keyboard this would be annoying but on controller it’s necessary.

    • BoiLudens@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

      Well I’m glad you laying it out for us, I’ve got a better idea what I’m dealing with. And it really does miff me on how unnecessarily wasteful the game is with storage

      • the16bitgamer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        8 months ago

        Ditto, I sadly didn’t go online so no comment there. Well I mean I tried once and I couldn’t connect so I just jumped into instant action. But yeah the storage requirements are a bit unrealistic on Switch. I don’t think you can even play it on OG switch without a Micro SD Card.

  • TheSpermWhale@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    ·
    8 months ago

    Another game launch, another broken game. How hard is it to just release a game that works? This is a port as well - pretty much their entire job with this was fixing issues and optimisation

    • beebarfbadger@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      How hard is it to just release a game that works?

      Harder than delivering shit and cashing in just as much. The grab&run simply is more profitable than actually putting in the work - especially since there seem to be no palpable negative consequences.

    • PrettyLights@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      8 months ago

      I want to blame the company but from their point of view this business model works so I understand why it keeps happening.

      Steam refunds are great for situations like these but I doubt the average casual knows how easy it is. The other platforms are much stricter on refunds.

      There’s also the culture shift of gamers defending broken releases with “at least they fixed it!” Or “they released a roadmap for future fixes” that encourages early releases.

  • big_slap@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    8 months ago

    and I bet this made bank, hence why things will never change with online game releases

  • Snowcano@startrek.website
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    Weren’t there a bunch of mods for the original releases that upgraded textures, added maps and factions and all that? Why would anyone buy these rereleases instead?

  • Jackthelad@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    8 months ago

    I’ve been playing the campaigns and a bit of multiplayer on Battlefront 1 on PS5 and it’s been absolutely fine.

    I’m not sure where all these complaints are coming from. Is the PC version a lot worse?

    • LucasWaffyWaf@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      8 months ago

      From what I read on Steam: Three servers, 64 players max each. Embarrassingly miniscule for one of the best selling, best received Star Wars games of its time, if not of all time. You’d expect more than 192 people would buy your game on launch, especially something this big.

      • Jackthelad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        15
        ·
        8 months ago

        That was as it launched. There are now a whole bunch of dedicated servers.

        People have got their knickers in a twist over nothing.

        • AstralPath@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          8 months ago

          Dude, imagine you buy a brand new car for a 5 person family and then as you arrive to drive it off the lot you find out its only got the two front seats… Launches like this are completely unacceptable.

          • Jackthelad@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            10
            ·
            8 months ago

            Yes, because that’s exactly the same thing.

            It was literally a few hours later that they added the dedicated servers and people could play online.

            • Gamoc@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              8 months ago

              …but not before launch? The game launched and they weren’t there? So they released a game and there were only three servers available? Hours later they added a bunch of servers? AFTER LAUNCH? Is there another way I can phrase this so you realise how stupid it is that you’re defending it?

              • Jackthelad@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                8 months ago

                Game has online problems for the first few hours after launch. This has never happened before in the history of video games. 🙄

                Wasn’t Helldivers 2 almost impossible to play for the first month? Yet there wasn’t much anger about that. This has a problem for a few hours and it’s the worst thing that has ever happened. 😂

                • Gamoc@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  ·
                  8 months ago

                  I recall there being plenty of talk about Helldivers servers. About a month’s worth. Meanwhile I haven’t seen a single person say this is the worst thing that’s ever happened or that it’s never happened before with other games, just that releasing a multiplayer game and only having three servers available is absurd. That and the apparently poor port at least on Switch detailed in another comment.

                  Believe it or not, shit happening before doesn’t change anything. Shit’s still shit. And we all already know the only actual obstacle to ensuring a smooth multiplayer launch (assuming a competently made game, of course) is paying for enough servers to handle the initial surge. They just prefer not to spend that money and present a poor experience to customers who buy the game at launch instead, because fuck them right.

          • Jackthelad@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            Imagine just playing and enjoying a game, rather than forming your opinion based on an IGN article.