Update #82 "April Dev Mini-Update: PAX East and Switch Stats

The 30 fps target is expected and perhaps inevitable, but somewhat unfortunate.

People often mistake framerate as purely a visual issue, when in fact it has more to do with control responsiveness - though, admittedly, only veteran gamers are likely to notice without having the two versions side-by-side to compare (and even then people might not notice).

It's the price for playing it on the go, though, and it's great that the information's out there so people can make an informed purchase.

yikes that switch framerate meh. i see a huge wave of angry and dissapointed people coming but im at the point where i gave up paying attention to the the bad stuff involving this game as long as im not affected.

30 fps and im still certain that Bloodstained is going to be a hit in the switch and will probably become the top seller for consoles.
its a metroidvania. I would love to play it on the go if i could. but my PS4 owns me despite all the bs i have to go through with that console.
looking forward to the next update.

Also, shitpost below.

I'm just ready to play this already!!!

I expected 30 fps on the switch, its just a compromise that has to happen to keep it playable in a portable format, same with the lower resolution. But the fact the game defaults to 720 even docked on a proper television is a bit surprising. Granted Im a PS4 backer, but I know the Switch is going to be a big deal for the game and i just wonder what the reasoning is that the game couldnt be 1080 by default when the console is properly docked.

Though Im also ignorant as to just what "dynamic" means in this context so that might mean people with 4K monitors could see even higher than 1080.

Pure Miriam

You've come to the right place, 'cuz this is...

Dareka's Quick and Easy Guide To WTF with FPS!

Ahem.

fps, or frames per second, is the number of times the image on screen is updated each second.
If a game runs at 30 fps, it means the image is updated 30 times a second; if the game runs at 60 fps, it means the image is updated twice as often.
Now, the quicker images are updated, the smoother they look; thus, 60 fps is smoother than 30 fps, and 120 fps is smoother than 60 fps, etc.

That said, the difference in visual smoothness offered by increasing fps is relatively small; unless you have really good and experienced eyes, you often won't be able to tell if a game's running at 30 fps or 60 fps unless you're looking at the game running  on  separate monitors side by side. It also helps if the two monitors are of the same make and model, with the same color settings. If these conditions are met, then anyone can tell the difference; otherwise, only people with really good eyes will notice...

... going only by the visuals, that is!

Because a game running at 60 fps is updated more often, it also means that the player's input is reflected on screen more quickly; so the controls tend to feel smoother and more responsive at 60 fps. That said, as with the visuals, only veteran gamers are likely to notice much of a difference, and for most games, 30 fps is smooth enough. But for control purists, 30 fps is a no-no; action games often target 60 fps, while fighting games lock at 60 fps, because  with fighting games responsiveness is everything.

Most people, especially Switch users, will probably be perfectly happy playing Bloodstained at 30 fps; but those of us who know exactly how tight the game is supposed to feel will naturally gravitate towards 60 fps.


Since the Switch's processing power drops by more than half in portable format, it stands to reason that it should be able to run at 60 fps in docked mode, but that's assuming that processing power is the bottle neck - it may be just one of the factors (memory and other architectural characteristics may be at play). What's clear is that the developers felt it was worth it to add some visual flair missing from the game's portable mode when docked; visual flair that was computationally expensive enough for the Switch that not only were they not able to increase the game's resolution, they actually need to have it drop on occasion to maintain a constant 30 fps.

That's what dynamic resolution means: the game runs at 720 p, but when the going gets tough, it may drop to 600 p or 520 p or what have you, it order to maintain the framerate. It won't ever go past 720 p, so it's not a good thing: it's a necessary evil. That said, again, it's a technology that works smoothly enough that you're unlikely to ever notice.

The bottom line is that when docked, the game will look better than in portable mode and run just as smoothly - it just won't match current gen consoles and PCs with a halfway decent graphics card in terms of visual detail, visual smoothness, and responsiveness.

Considering the technology the game is built on (UE4) was never meant to run on technology as old as the Switch (nvida Tegra X1), it's still quite an achievement.

Aztec

Yeah, the suggestion a Vita version would be anything other than visually gimped at best, unplayable and bug-ridden at worst, is laughable; but I've seen very talented and otherwise game programmers buy into even more absurd endeavors. The system would only have been able to handle the game if the assets and engine were built from the ground up for it, and they weren't, so it wouldn't be able.

So, Mortal Kombat 11 runs for the most part at 60 FPS on the Switch but Bloodstained doesn't? Something ain't right there chief. The 720p resolution I can understand, a lot of games run at 720p on the Switch, but 30 FPS is a big non non.

I know NetherRealm is a much bigger company that has the backing of a much bigger publisher but it's a shame to see Bloodstained, a game that is definitely not as hardware demanding as MK11, running at 30 FPS on the Switch. Side-scrollers, platformers, metroidvanias / igavanias are games that NEED 60FPS, otherwise they feel sluggish and unresponsive. One of the reasons I ABSOLUTELY HATED Azure Striker Gunvolt was because it ran at 30FPS on the 3DS.

If I ever buy this game it will be on PC, but my sentiments go to all Switch users who will have an incredibly sub-par experience with this game.

At the end of the day, I appreciate the transparency here on the frame rate and resolution situation. On the other hand, as someone who's played games across multiple consoles for close to three decades, and often plays games on lower-resolution screens, I'm not sure how much it matters to me. A stable frame rate is what matters the most...and even then, I managed to get through Mighty No.9 on Wii U, which had one or two sections where the frame rate chugged to basically NES-slowdown levels. That was pretty unacceptable, but I dealt with it to get through a super-rough-around-the-edges but much-better-than-reported game. More to the point, though, Zelda: Breath of the Wild basically maxes out performance at 30 fps, so keep that in mind. Aside from a few grumblings in the media, most players didn't feel like that held that game back from being something special.

I can see the difference between the frame rates, and I can see instances where it definitely matters, but I also want to point out that in games that use 3D assets especially, higher frame rates start to look more artificial to my eyes at a certain point. It's like when Peter Jackson decided to film The Hobbit at 48 fps versus the movie industry standard of 24 fps. The brain is used to filling in gaps in real life, and a fast, buttery-smooth panning, for instance, can ironically seem unnatural. Even so, I can understand why there is some level of disappointment or confusion surrounding this announcement.

All of that said, it will come down to how it affects the feel of the combat and platforming. If Bloodstained ends up even better than advertised on the whole, I may at some point upgrade to a different version, but we'll see. Usually, when all is said and done, an experience is what an experience is: i.e. If you enjoyed watching a movie in SD, you're only going to get so much more enjoyment out of it in HD, because the experience was about the engagement, first and foremost.

Notable Angel comment on Kickstarter: "To clarify, the dynamic resolution when docked doesn't mean it may drop below 720, that means that it will go HIGHER than 720 depending on where the player is, what's happening, etc."

My eyesight is pretty poor, even with glasses, but 30 FPS looks sort of more 'slide-showy' than 60fps. However, I'm not sure if the difference would be as significant for a sidescrolling platformer as opposed to a first person shooter or fighting game.