Fans have taken to the likes of X (formerly Twitter) and TikTok to question NetherRealm’s decision to market Mortal Kombat 1 as a $70 Switch release. It has been called “robbery” and “disrespectful” to users.

  • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Who’s angry? It’s not game developer’s fault that it has 10% of the power needed to run a modern game.

    There is no amount of optimization that could make most modern games run on the switch. It has nothing to do with laziness. If you were a first party making games built from the ground up to be comparable to other modern games, it could not be done.

    There’s a reason Nintendo leans hard into simple physics and extremely arcade style sports games, and it’s not just to be more accessible to casual fans. It’s because it’s literally all the hardware can do.

    • Mr_Dr_Oink@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Yeah, the physics on botw and totk are so simple. It hurts my brain how basic those games are.

      Two of the highest rated games of all time.

      On switch

      The most underpowered console of our generation.

      But yeah mortal kombat couldn’t make the game look even slightly better because it can only be as good at totk. That really basic shitty looking extremely popular and highly rated game.

      • clanginator@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Yeah, the physics on botw and totk are so simple. It hurts my brain how basic those games are.

        Half Life 2 had physics like that 20 years ago.

        Also totk is a stuttering mess when anything sufficiently complex happens unless you overclock the switch, which just proves the point of how underpowered the switch is.

        Also also, art style CARRIES those games’ graphics. Running those games at higher res (or just on a TV) really shows the constraints they had to work within to get the games to run.

        Two of the highest rated games of all time.

        Yeah, and I’m sure the loyal Zelda/Nintendo fanboys have nothing to do with that.

        Don’t get me wrong, they’re fantastic games, but I don’t think they’d be nearly as popular/well-received if they weren’t Zelda titles.

        If you need an example in the opposite direction, I don’t even need to look up which Pokemon game it was that looked like dogshit on the switch bc you know exactly what I’m talking about.

      • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        They chose that hardware because Nvidia was offloading it dirt cheap, so they could make big margins on it.

        That’s the entire reason. There is no other. It’s certainly not that it’s capable of modern gaming, because it isn’t.

        • SnowdenHeroOfOurTime@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Who’s angry?

          Your moronic ass obviously is

          There’s a reason Nintendo leans hard into simple physics and extremely arcade style sports games, and it’s not just to be more accessible to casual fans. It’s because it’s literally all the hardware can do.

          Yeah when they chose the type of games they’d be known for in the 80’s, it sure was specifically because their crystal ball told them:

          They chose that hardware because Nvidia was offloading it dirt cheap, so they could make big margins on it.

          You’re too stupid to spend another moment on

          • clanginator@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Yeah when they chose the type of games they’d be known for in the 80’s, it sure was specifically because their crystal ball told them

            Nintendo’s shift towards simpler games has absolutely coincided with their consoles being less powerful than the competition. And since we’re name-calling like children (bc some of us are fanboys who can’t accept valid criticism)… this has been apparent for the last 20 years, and I made the observation as a child during the Wii era, numbskull!

            Nintendo is currently not known for their 80s catalog of titles beyond generally being associated with Mario and Co. - they are known for the games and systems that most people grew up with - and statistically, that’s overwhelmingly Wii/DS and newer.

            During which time their hardware has consistently lagged behind other systems, and rather than focus on graphics, like Nintendo once did - when they were pushing the hardware envelope - with titles like Super Mario 64, Nintendo has shifted focus and decided to use commodity hardware for their consoles.

            Now, as a shift in strategy, I’m not saying it’s necessarily wrong, but don’t try and deny what’s going on.

            They absolutely chose the hardware for the switch because it was cheap. There isn’t anything particularly special about that Nvidia chip, it had been commercially available for two years by the time the switch came out, so yes it’s reasonable to assume Nvidia was offloading it cheaply.

            Use your brain and maybe put away the Nintendo kneepads.