Support NeoGAF

[RCU005]

I want to understand something:

Since the beginning of gaming, I've been hearing that a game is only possible on whatever console, specially if it's the following generation. So a SNES game could not be even possible to make on the NES.

By the time of the PS3, there were a lot of games that people said the PS2 would explode if they'd even try to make for it. Then there was the meme of Crysis ([insert hardware]… but can it run Crysis?)

It should be expected I suppose, since the consoles become more powerful allowing them to do more things and do them better right?

However since the Switch, I've seen that every game is somehow ported to it. They are finally announcing games that supposedly wouldn't be able to run on the PS4, that finally look "next gen", but then, there's a port for Switch 2.

If supposedly the Switch 2 is considerably less powerful than a PS5/Series X, how can they make ports for it? Are they making compromises on the next gen consoles, meaning that they are not making games that actually use their power?

The next gen (PS6/Helix), will be out and the Switch 2 will still be around for some time. Of course they will still make games for it. So then, will they "waste" the power of those consoles in order to make games able to run on it?

Coming back to the main point. What happened to "Only possible on…"? Had The Last of Us been a third party game, would we have somehow seen a Wii port or a Switch port, when supposedly that game was almost breaking the PS3 apart and squeezing every single ounce of power? If so, how?

I know many of you will talk about resolution and frame rate, but to me a next gen game should mean more polygons, better LOD, better physics, etc. not just resolution. Obviously not every game applies, and there are some small games, but how are they making RE Veronica, Kingdom Hears 4, Final Fantasy 7 Part 3, etc. on Switch 2? If these games were from the PS3 era, would be impossible to run on any lesser hardware (supposedly).

Please explain. Thanks

 

[IAmRei]

it's all depend on the publisher and devs, if they want it, they surely could squeeze any power they could into the consoles.
today game development is kinda different with the past. where we could do branch development into specific things.
and also that's what game engine for, they could port and test without much hassle (of course it will still need optimization and doing something with assets)
You see that they are not just open the file, export to x consoles, they will test it, if it's still too much, they will break it dowwn little by little until they got sweet spot.

TLDR: they are not compromising, Switch 2 maybe lower than the other 2, but it is still had some power if the devs want and done it right

 

[Loomy]

However since the Switch, I've seen that every game is somehow ported to it. They are finally announcing games that supposedly wouldn't be able to run on the PS4, that finally look "next gen", but then, there's a port for Switch 2.

Switch 2 is not that far off from a PS4.

Depending on how much you want to compromise, anything is possible with enough effort. Compromise isn't a bad thing here.

FF7 Remake & Rebirth are both available on Switch consoles. I doubt anyone would call the original releases compromised in any way other than the usual unoptimized fashion that games launch at these days.

PS3 was also an anomaly. Where games made specifically for it are a pain in the ass to port without a lot of effort.

 

[Cakeboxer]

This is usually just marketing bullshit. A perfect example is Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart and its supposedly groundbreaking, never-before-seen dimensional rifts that were claimed to be "only possible on PS5" thanks to its lightning-fast SSD. Then the game came to PC, and as far as I know, you didn't even need an SSD to run it.

 

[onQ123]

I want to understand something:

Since the beginning of gaming, I've been hearing that a game is only possible on whatever console, specially if it's the following generation. So a SNES game could not be even possible to make on the NES.

By the time of the PS3, there were a lot of games that people said the PS2 would explode if they'd even try to make for it. Then there was the meme of Crysis ([insert hardware]… but can it run Crysis?)

It should be expected I suppose, since the consoles become more powerful allowing them to do more things and do them better right?

However since the Switch, I've seen that every game is somehow ported to it. They are finally announcing games that supposedly wouldn't be able to run on the PS4, that finally look "next gen", but then, there's a port for Switch 2.

If supposedly the Switch 2 is considerably less powerful than a PS5/Series X, how can they make ports for it? Are they making compromises on the next gen consoles, meaning that they are not making games that actually use their power?

The next gen (PS6/Helix), will be out and the Switch 2 will still be around for some time. Of course they will still make games for it. So then, will they "waste" the power of those consoles in order to make games able to run on it?

Coming back to the main point. What happened to "Only possible on…"? Had The Last of Us been a third party game, would we have somehow seen a Wii port or a Switch port, when supposedly that game was almost breaking the PS3 apart and squeezing every single ounce of power? If so, how?

I know many of you will talk about resolution and frame rate, but to me a next gen game should mean more polygons, better LOD, better physics, etc. not just resolution. Obviously not every game applies, and there are some small games, but how are they making RE Veronica, Kingdom Hears 4, Final Fantasy 7 Part 3, etc. on Switch 2? If these games were from the PS3 era, would be impossible to run on any lesser hardware (supposedly).

Please explain. Thanks

Once programmable shaders & GPU compute entered the picture there isn't much that's impossible to be done in some shape or form . Most of the time it just wouldn't be worth the effort though .

 

[Loomy]

This is usually just marketing bullshit. A perfect example is Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart and its supposedly groundbreaking, never-before-seen dimensional rifts that were claimed to be "only possible on PS5" thanks to its lightning-fast SSD. Then the game came to PC, and as far as I know, you didn't even need an SSD to run it.

Have you seen dimension hopping on an HDD? Or a bottlenecked NVME? The claims were exaggerated, but the benefit of the PS5 in this case is much better control and predictability in how hardware will behave.

 

[Cakeboxer]

Have you seen dimension hopping on an HDD? Or a bottlenecked NVME? The claims were exaggerated, but the benefit of the PS5 in this case is much better control and predictability in how hardware will behave.

No, but they still marketed the game as being possible only on PlayStation and even before the PC port, the first experts had already said that was nonsense.

 

[Same ol G]

Back in the day there weren't engines like unreal and the likes, companies made their own engines tailored for the hardware, that made games more dificult to port.
Now whe said goodbye to mechanical hard drives which was a giant bottleneck, no reading of discs anymore.
It got more streamlined and consoles are not 10x more powerfull than the previous model.

 

[Puscifer]

This is usually just marketing bullshit. A perfect example is Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart and its supposedly groundbreaking, never-before-seen dimensional rifts that were claimed to be "only possible on PS5" thanks to its lightning-fast SSD. Then the game came to PC, and as far as I know, you didn't even need an SSD to run it.

You didn't need it but it was very clearly designed around an SSD in general. Long as it was an SSD be it SATA or NVMe you got the effect. Hell, I'm just happy games in general are built around SSDs but maybe GTA 6 will show us something cool but I doubt it.

 

[Guilty_AI]

Mostly marketing bullshit. It's true you may need to make changes to port from system to system depending on the nature of the system and game, especially on older ones like N64 vs PS1 where, for example, the ps1 could have 10x more data on games than the N64, but the N64 had better 3D rendering.

In general, any game can run anywhere with enough effort and compromises. The question is only if you're willing to make that effort or if the necessary compromises will ruin the experience.

 

[Cakeboxer]

You didn't need it but it was very clearly designed around an SSD in general. Long as it was an SSD be it SATA or NVMe you got the effect. Hell, I'm just happy games in general are built around SSDs but maybe GTA 6 will show us something cool but I doubt it.

That may be true, but the marketing was still a lie. "Perfectly optimized for our lightning-fast SSD" or " A showcase of what our SSD is capable of" or something like that would have been better. But I agree, SSDs were the most important step consoles have taken in a long time.

 

[crackajack]

"only possible" is mostly pure BS. Struggling with XSS bottlenecks is BS, they just don't want to invest the effort and unprofessionally rather point fingers. Demakes prove that.

 

[MrRibeye]

play it day one with game pass is only possible on xbox

 

[DevilHunterX0]

Every game can be downgraded / upgraded based upon the hardware. Have you never gamed on a PC?

 

[Baemono]

However since the Switch, I've seen that every game is somehow ported to it. They are finally announcing games that supposedly wouldn't be able to run on the PS4, that finally look "next gen", but then, there's a port for Switch 2.

If supposedly the Switch 2 is considerably less powerful than a PS5/Series X, how can they make ports for it? Are they making compromises on the next gen consoles, meaning that they are not making games that actually use their power?

From my understanding, basically it goes down to these things:
- raw power of the Switch is a PS3+, while raw power of a Switch 2 is a PS4+
- the way NVidia chips handle power is different on how AMD chips handle it
- Switch 1 and Switch 2 have a 10+ year gap of technological advancements on their home console equivalent, thus making modern tools more suitable for them.

The last thing depends on the devs obviously. We saw games that shouldn't have any problem to run on Switch 1 to struggle to maintain an acceptable framerate and resolution (like Assassin's Creed 3) while you had other games going above and beyond the target consoles could do back then (Red Dead Redemption runing at a native 1080p@30fps on Switch 1 while running sub-720p on PS3 with frame drops).

 

[Shifty1897]

I want to understand something:

Since the beginning of gaming, I've been hearing that a game is only possible on whatever console, specially if it's the following generation. So a SNES game could not be even possible to make on the NES.

By the time of the PS3, there were a lot of games that people said the PS2 would explode if they'd even try to make for it. Then there was the meme of Crysis ([insert hardware]… but can it run Crysis?)

It should be expected I suppose, since the consoles become more powerful allowing them to do more things and do them better right?

However since the Switch, I've seen that every game is somehow ported to it. They are finally announcing games that supposedly wouldn't be able to run on the PS4, that finally look "next gen", but then, there's a port for Switch 2.

If supposedly the Switch 2 is considerably less powerful than a PS5/Series X, how can they make ports for it? Are they making compromises on the next gen consoles, meaning that they are not making games that actually use their power?

The next gen (PS6/Helix), will be out and the Switch 2 will still be around for some time. Of course they will still make games for it. So then, will they "waste" the power of those consoles in order to make games able to run on it?

Coming back to the main point. What happened to "Only possible on…"? Had The Last of Us been a third party game, would we have somehow seen a Wii port or a Switch port, when supposedly that game was almost breaking the PS3 apart and squeezing every single ounce of power? If so, how?

I know many of you will talk about resolution and frame rate, but to me a next gen game should mean more polygons, better LOD, better physics, etc. not just resolution. Obviously not every game applies, and there are some small games, but how are they making RE Veronica, Kingdom Hears 4, Final Fantasy 7 Part 3, etc. on Switch 2? If these games were from the PS3 era, would be impossible to run on any lesser hardware (supposedly).

Please explain. Thanks

Adoption of standardized chipset architecture starting with the PS4 era by console manufacturers means every console is basically just a PC now.

Pros: Backwards compatibility, cost reduction, developing for multiple consoles is trivial compared to the old days
Cons: No hardware secret sauce like there was in the 90's

 

[PeteBull]

Best example how downports are possible yet still can be utter shit is downport of current gen jedi survivor to last gen ps4/ps4pr0/xbone/xbone X
Here u go DF vid about it with everything explained:

As u can see even tho lastgen port "works" even on 1,2tf xbone, u dont wish that version even on ur worst enemy, even compared to subpar xbox series s version

Another example- xbone cp2077 version, looking and running like this(lets forget about bugs/crashes for a sec):

Vs trully maxed out with rt on topend pc(still 4k but dlss Q and 2x fg, so almost maxed but fps gains are immense so atm thats best compromise):

Basically looks and runs like full 2 gens above even tho we know its same game

Now about switch2 ports, it is entry lvl nvidia 2021 tech, so it has all the features current gen consoles have, just has much weaker cpu and gpu(aka likely 30fps and often with dips, and image quality usually worse too).

Now if u wanna trully see how many and how bad ports gonna get wait till xgen games from 2028 and onwards get ported to switch2, those will look vastly inferior to midrange pc or ps6 versions 4sure.

 

[Three]

No, but they still marketed the game as being possible only on PlayStation and even before the PC port, the first experts had already said that was nonsense.

I mean I would say they were right. On a HDD you might aswell have a loading screen and call it another level rather than a dimension hopping mechanic.

 

[nkarafo]

This was more prominent in the older days when generational jumps were big enough. Porting a PS3 game to the PS2 meant massive cuts, let alone a PS2 game to the PS1. Or Mario 64 on the SNES, now that's impossible, right?

Because not only the screen/textures resolution had to be lower but also the 3D geometry was too much and most of the time it made more sense to make new maps and models instead of porting the existing ones, like how they did with most of the XBOX360/PS3 to Wii ports.

Those generational jumps don't exist anymore. After the 360/PS3 Gen, the diminishing returns were massive. Most ports could have the same 3D models and maps between gens.

 

[Fafalada]

Coming back to the main point. What happened to "Only possible on…"?

It hasn't really been a thing since the early 90ies (and even then - the ports were often made that looked completely impossible and still retained the original game - like Street Fighter 2 on the Spectrum).
Even in PS3 era - PSP frequently received full ports of PS360 games - with all of the gameplay intact and visual identity remaining recognisable - and those were gaps far larger than anything we have today.

The other bit is that hardware basically became completely uniform from PS4 onwards (there's no real architectural differences between consoles and PCs anymore) and diminishing returns on performance curve have been only growing as well.