Nintendo Switch

The Switch Version Of RiME Will Be Updated To Version 1.0.2 On February 19th

Grey Box has announced that the Nintendo Switch version of Rime will be updated to version 1.0.2 on February 19th. The team confirmed the news in their blog post, where they also said that “while we launched the Switch version of RiME in November, our original plan was to release it at the same time as the other platforms earlier in 2017. We understood that we had to make some sacrifices in order to get the game to perform and that process took some extra development time. Even so, the release of the Switch was not as good as we wanted it to be, and we own that”. They have already released patch notes for the update, so we’ve included them for you down below.

  • Increased visual fidelity, bloom and post-processing
  • Sharpened image resolution
  • Opening Cinematics visually improved
  • Fixed possible stage exploits that would enable players to skip parts of the stages
  • Increased texture quality in specific areas
  • Increased view distance
  • Fixed an issue with foliage density, shadows, and render distances
  • Updated texture mipmaps for the Fox
  • Improved global mipmaps
  • Improved shadow distance and quality
  • Fixed instances of foliage pops
  • Stabilized FPS
  • Optimized the Boys cape and hair physics
  • Rebuilt streaming volumes
  • Fixed an issue that allowed you to see outside of the map in later stages.
  • Updated lighting to prevent bleed through
  • Updated the quality of trees in earlier stages where they would display poorly.

Source

Advertisements

27 comments

      1. I’m aware of all the performance issues it had but perhaps you forgot what you actually wrote. You said that Rime looks worse than Wind Waker’s HD and the original and that’s not true. So clearly you haven’t played RiMe and in previous posts you made it abundantly clear that you’ll happily comment on things you know nothing about.

        Like

      2. It’s basically more flat color than Cel shading.

        Yea.. you definitely haven’t played RiME.

        Most of Wind Waker isn’t cell shaded. The characters are cell shaded but the environments just use textures that are made to look cell shaded. Look for yourself.




        Those trees aren’t dense so much as they’re a handful of really large, textured leaves. Nearly ever surface of Hyrule Caste has little flat textures for decorations. None of those are cell shaded because any shading needed to be done in baked into the texture.

        Now lets looks at RiME.





        Most of the detail in RiMe is from shading. The way it renders foliage is very much a form of cell shading. Many surfaces still use textures for detail but they don’t have lighting baked in they simply tell the game what color the polygon is at each point while relying on geometry and normal maps to shape objects. Light also bounces off of objects as is the case with the yellow grass lighting the bottoms of trees.

        Animated normal maps are also used in RiME to show rain hitting the ground and makes nice use of depth of field. These are two things that neither version of Wind Waker does and it allows this portion of the game looks really beautiful.



        Like

      3. I haven’t played it because the porting job for the Switch version is shit.

        I played WW myself (original and HD remake) and you’re telling me they’re not Cel Shaded, at least for the environments? Explosions, the ocean, the grass, lava, they’re not obviously Cel Shaded either?

        No, let’s look at the real version of Rime: Besides one particular platform, the others aren’t properly optimized with Switch being the worst because..laziness. You saying WW doesn’t look better than Rime which is what it’s based on, cannot be anymore wrong than that.

        Like

      4. I should point out that I’m NOT saying it runs well on Switch. I’m taking exception to you saying the developers are lazy. The studio that did the port as been porting games to Nintendo platforms for other people for years and were the same people who did Twilight Princess HD and Twilight Princess and Wind Waker used the same engine.

        Like

      5. Why didn’t this get posted the first three times?!!

        I haven’t played it because the porting job for the Switch version is shit.

        At least some of that blame is on the Switch though. It’s far weaker than other platforms in every way.

        I played WW myself (original and HD remake) and you’re telling me they’re not Cel Shaded, at least for the environments? Explosions, the ocean, the grass, lava, they’re not obviously Cel Shaded either?

        Correct. Most of the look of the environments has nothing to do with shading at all. The environments are very low polygon and the Gamecube didn’t support real normal mapping so there was really wasn’t many places where cell shading would do much of anything for the games environments. Instead, everything was textures. It’s actually very evident by the textures are limited in resolutions while any detail that’s done with shading wouldn’t be.

        Same thing applies to everything else you mentioned. Explosions and smoke, as with all particle effects of that generation, were just a bunch of layered sprites. The tufts of grass were geometry with textures on them. The ocean is very clearly textures placed on moving geometry and sometimes it was just blue. Distant waves are completed textured considering there’s no wave geometry in the distance. The wave geometry in Wind Waker and Mario Sunshine are animated planes that are attached beneath you.

        In the case of things like stairs, they did some of the shading by explicitly changing the color of the some of the colors to a darker color and the lighting effects for torches are just colored geometry placed on the ground.

        If you want an example of games that use cell shading on everything then look at Killer 7.

        No, let’s look at the real version of Rime:

        Wha does this mean? All those screenshots were actually from RiMe. I played the game. That’s how it looks.

        Besides one particular platform, the others aren’t properly optimized with Switch being the worst because..laziness.

        It’s not laziness. They’re trying to get a game to run on platform that’s 1/5th to 1/12 the performance of the original platform is was made on. I’ve told you this before. The Switch is not anywhere near as powerful as the Xbox One like you’ve previously claimed. Even without knowing about how the hardware works, any reasonable person would be able to tell that from the games themselves.

        You saying WW doesn’t look better than Rime which is what it’s based on, cannot be anymore wrong than that.

        It’s alright to like the Wind Waker look better. That’s subjective. I love the styles of both for different reasons. But when you’re acting like Wind Waker is technically more advanced than Wind Waker, that’s where you’re objectively wrong. RiMe is higher polygon, has more textures per polygon, has significantly more advanced shading effects than both Wind Waker and Wind Waker HD. Neither the Zelda games from the Wii and Gamecube era nor their remasters even allow more than one light to effect Link.

        Like

      6. Switch isn’t the blame. It’s like blaming gun violence on video games. Makes zero sense. It all goes down on optimization. If you can’t at least try with the resources at hand, don’t attempt it and call out on the system being the problem. That’s switching the blame and it’s pathetic.

        Like

      7. The Switch is definitely to blame for it being difficult to port over in a certain amount of time. If it was really simple get things running well on the Switch THEN you could call them lazy. But as it stands, Tantalus put in a lot of work getting RiMe ported to the Switch just be called lazy by someone like you who has no idea what they’re talking about. Sure, it wasn’t until this recent update that a lot of people consider it playable whose to say that Tantalus had that option? And if they had waited until now to release it then you’d criticize them for THAT too. And if they chose not release it at all then you tell them to fuck themselves and that they’re missing out on “Switch money”.

        Accept that your console of choice is really weak compared to other platforms and that that makes it harder for devs to support it as easily as they can support other leading platforms.

        Liked by 1 person

      8. Weak, weak, weak. That’s all I fucking hear from you and proves just shit. Otherwise, you wouldn’t be hearing ports like Dark Souls or Skyrim remastered being nearly identical to the PS4 versions. Try again.

        Like

      9. They’re similar on the PS4 and Switch because Skyrim is a PS3/X360 with reworked shaders and some additional foliage. It’s such a minor change that PC players who had purchases some of the extra stuff for Skyrim got the Remaster update for free. The models are EXACTLY the same between Remaster and original.

        In regards to the Switch version versus the PS4 version. Switches looses the fog that the PS4 has. The Switch version runs at 900p when docked vs 1080p for the PS4/XBO. Foliage density is very comparable to the PS3 version with foliage being drawn when the player is waaay closer. Switch has lower resolution textures and shadows than the PS4/XBO versions. Volumetric lighting and ambient occlusion is paired back or gone in the Switch version.

        Dark Souls Remastered isn’t out yet so we don’t know how they cookware but it too is likely a more minor update to the X360/PS3 originals. Same applies to LA Noir.

        Doom IS an actual example of a game made with newer console in mind and clearly it target frame rate is half that of the other consoles which reduces CPU. GPU, memory bandwidth by half. Target resolution is 66% lower on Switch in docked mode (or you can say other consoles have a target resolution 2.25x higher than Switch). Switch also has lower resolution textures which cuts down on total memory used and memory bandwidth. In that respect, Doom suggests there’s at least a 4.5x difference between its TV mode and other consoles.

        However Switch still doesn’t reach those lower targets. It’s average docked resolution is 1088×612, it still experiences frame rate dips. So the difference is clearly larger. As I’ve told you, just on the GPU front there’s something like a 6x to 12x (TV and portable modes) difference between PS4 and Switch CPU is sort of half as capable, and it has nearly 1/7th the memory bandwidth.

        So yea. Please don’t use weak arguments like “but slightly revised ports of X360/PS4 look kind if similar on Switch.” Monopoly even runs at 900p on Switch, new Lego games run at 720p, Bayonetta and 2 are STILL running at 720p and STILL don’t run at a locked 60fps.

        Like

      10. My point is the system can match the others with some effort and it has been proven. Or do I have to remind you that the best the original XB1 model can do was 850p which is laughably bad and 900p on PS4 from 2013 and yet, 2017 Switch with “half” or a portion less power than PS4 could do 1080p/60FPS NATIVE? It took those same systems 2 updates in less than 3 years to get it right and they’re not even quote on quote “4K ready” either. XB1X was told to do 1440p max with 4K upscale. I’m not impressed and quite frankly, that’s not important because if the gameplay is boring or the product itself is incomplete/broken, what you get is a $60 eye candy with turd hidden underneath. Care to argue the same old dance with me again or are you gonna go copy/paste more BS specs sheet from Digital Foundry?

        Like

      11. My point is the system can match the others with some effort and it has been proven.

        Except that’s apsolutely never happened except with 2D games or games that don’t need much, if any processing power to run.

        Or do I have to remind you that the best the original XB1 model can do was 850p which is laughably bad and 900p on PS4 from 2013 and yet, 2017 Switch with “half” or a portion less power than PS4 could do 1080p/60FPS NATIVE?

        Every single XBO game is made to the specs of the original XBO and it has many 1080p games. Doom is just one example of that. Yet more proof that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

        It took those same systems 2 updates in less than 3 years to get it right and they’re not even quote on quote “4K ready” either.

        The performance increases in the XBO are minor. They’re so minor that XBO games don’t even know when they’re running on an XBO or XBO S. The PS4 Slim, has absolutey no performance increases.

        that’s not important because if the gameplay is boring or the product itself is incomplete/broken, what you get is a $60 eye candy with turd hidden underneath.

        You’re complaining that the systems or their games are incompletely or broken yet you’re going down on a system that uses friend codes for online. You’re also judging games and system that you haven’t played because they’re not made by Nintendo or coming out on the Switch. You’re the worst kind of fanboy.

        Care to argue the same old dance with me again…

        You clearly haven’t read nor understood what I’ve been saying. That becomes apparent by your random argument about 4K. That’s just a resolution, not a spec, and it means nothing without considering what’s being rendered.

        The reason I brought up resolution at all is for the sake of comparison. You’re here constantly shitting on developers for being lazy while erroneously claiming that the Switch is a 1 TFLOPS system that’s on-par with the XBO and it’s abundantly clear that have no idea what TFLOPS are or what they effect. The Switch is not a system that’s crazy easy to port games over to.

        For the past 3 years developers have updating there engines and games to get the best out of a specific class of hardware with very similar specs. Then out comes a Nintendo system with half the total memory, up to 1/12th the GPU prowess, yada yada, I said it all already. That’s like a developer working on a GameCube game only to be told “Hey, we want it to be playable on the N64 as well”. That’s not a minor undertaking.

        In this Switch’s case, getting it actually running is easy enough but making it playable is a different story. Sure they can lower resolution settings, shut off effects, lower polygon counts, and maybe they can lower frame rate if they targeted 60fps on the other systems, but they still have work to do from there. Most of those things do little to make up for the fact that they have less storage space and the storage available is slower. See, Switch may use cartridges but they have a slightly lower max speed than the Blu-ray drives (25 MB/s vs 27 MH/s) on the other system and they’re MUCH slower than the hard drives that their games actually run from (25MB/s vs 60-110MB/s). That’s a 2.4-4.4 times difference in speed.

        So essentially assets may need to be further paired back or more staggered in areas in order to prevent stutters during streaming. All those optimization might only get them up and running on the docked mode. With the decreased clock speed of the mobile mode, peak FLOPS, pixel and texel fill rate, and peak polygon count all go down by at least half and the more the game in question maxes out the better hardware, the harder this whole process becomes.

        Also don’t try to be witty with the whole “same old dance” thing. It doesn’t suit you. You just sound like an anime herb.

        or are you gonna go copy/paste more BS specs sheet from Digital Foundry?

        I never touted any specs to you in that last post. Any of the released specs for the Switch including clock speeds have all been confirmed by developers at this point though. In fact, in an argument with someone else who kept claiming the Switch was a powerhouse, I Switch developer on this very site commented to confirm those specs and added that there are a number of lower CPU clock speeds available to devs for battery saving.

        On top of that, I wouldn’t need Digital Foundry to tell me that they system is far weaker than the competing systems because you can just look at the GPC and SMM configuration of the TX1, compare it to the GTX 950, which is the Maxwell GPU most comparable to the PS4’s GPU, and see that there would be at least a 6x performance difference. So yea, now’s your turn to prove that you no your shit. Tell me why and how I’m wrong, idiot.

        If you want me to copy and paste something, I’ll copy and paste this spreadsheet that multiple people of compiled with frame rates, resolutions, and notes of Switch games.

        https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/13F5kp5iJZUXE-5gHgck7j45HqR5omqLdhCmNK-cOjDI/edit#gid=0

        Like

  1. If you haven’t bought this yet and could give a rat’s ass about portability, you can get this game for free on PS4 if you got PS+ and are still on the fence about paying actual money for this.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. I’ll buy it if the frame rate stick to 30 most of the time. I don’t mind the occasional lag and stutter like Breath of the Wild post patch but the current state is just unplayable. Its even worse than Breath of the Wild at launch and that game is 10x more complex than this with its insane physics engine.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s