I don't think it's only the "ultra hardcore tech geeks" that care about graphics. Have you looked at the Balan's Wonderworld thread? If I had a nickel for every post that complained about the graphics...
This may be going is definitely going way off topic, but I get annoyed with the graphical quality of the Switch because, especially on multi-platform games, you can see how much better the games look on current-gen hardware. The Switch's hardware was already aging when it was released, which I get is Nintendo's mantra, but it's annoying to see the system chug with content that is no problem for even the PS4 and Xbox One. Heck, launch titles like Breath of the Wild chug under the right conditions. Still, I'd rather have a smooth experience than a pretty one, especially when it comes to fast-paced gameplay like a Sonic game. I love my Switch so much and it is my dream console concept, but it just bothers me that even Nintendo's first-party content has frame rate problems while also not having the same graphical fidelity as the competition. EDIT: Going back to the conversation actually at hand, I would also take a fun game over a good looking game. However, I think that it's been Sonic's thing for the past decade or so to have stunning mainline games and I don't think that's going anywhere any time soon. If it means that the Switch port will suffer, I think they'll still go for it
I wonder what the possibility is of the Switch version being Cloud based? SEGA have done this recently with Phantasy Star Online 2 on Switch, right? Maybe this means that the PS5/Series X versions can go as hard as possible without worrying if the Switch can keep up.
Balan Wonderworld on switch looked like a PS2 version of Sonic 06 in terms of graphical issues. There's a difference between lower definition graphics, and downright unfinished and buggy graphics. Just cause most of us are willing to settle for less (I don't even think 1080p is that bad, like come on), that doesn't mean we don't want good things too. Balan was a poor excuse for the switch's graphical limitations. To get back on topic, I'm calling it now- "Frontiers" will be 1080p 30fps on switch. I saw it coming with colors from a mile away, I'm betting on this one too. Even Forces ran at 30fps; I'm not getting my hopes up. But that's fine- people who care that much about 4k ultra HD (and whatever 100s of fps people play games at now) can pay the extra money to have that. I just want a fun Sonic game. I don't care if it looks like Sonic's Schoolhouse, I just don't want it to look broken like 06 or Balan.
I think you may be right There's still not much to say at this point other than that we now have a better idea of what the name will most likely be
Not since the brief time the game could maybe be considered relevant, no. But Rhythm Raccoon covered my rebuttal already, so I'll leave it at that.
As a Switch user, I care. I like when a game has clean visuals and good performance. I consider myself fairly casual and don't any sort of high-end gaming equipment, and I still appreciate this stuff. The race for top-quality graphics, if anything, appeals to casuals and not the hardcore tech nerds. I play on the Switch with the understanding that games are going to come with some compromises, but at the very least I want a consistent framerate for this game and a resolution that allows me to actually see what's up ahead when I'm going fast and (presumably) exploring. If they can't provide a competent release on the Switch (how did Forces fare on this thing?) then I'll probably just have to get it on my not-that-great-but-probably-better-than-Switch PC. And the "interactive movies" complaint is just pathetic. I fondly remember all the cool arcade games of old with their amazing presentation values, spectacle, and immersion that couldn't be found elsewhere, and I'm not going to belittle anyone for wanting that kind of experience at home. The desire for higher-quality graphics is not even remotely new and goes back even further than just the 90s. If you were being facetious, it's a low-hanging-fruit joke and not a good one.
I mean, there's a difference between "it sure would be nice if the game could look as pretty as possible" and "anyone who settles for less than 10K Mega HD 240fps is an uncultured swine". When we talk about people being hung up on graphics, we're (or at least I'm) talking about that second group. And you're right about the graphical arms race having always been a thing, but I've long had a problem with it for 2 reasons: 1: The goal is photorealism, but, if for no other reason than the uncanny valley, I don't think it can be done. Movies can pull it off because they don't have to process all the data that goes into the CG in real-time every time you watch, but video games don't have that luxury. 2: Suppose someday they do finally achieve photorealism in video games...where do you go from there? Have these companies put any thought into what happens after that, when there's no longer any way to tout your graphical capability because you've hit the end goal?
Yeah this is what I was trying to say earlier. Part of the reason Sonic Unleashed was such a mess is because the performance issues got in the way of responsiveness, which is a killer for a reaction based game.
Now that you mention PSO2, New Genesis is probably the closest reference to how an open world Sonic game could turn to be, both on the good and the bad sides. The southern lake area has a lot of twisting and intertwining paths both in land bridges and caves, and it isn't the only area that reminds me of a classic Sonic level layout brought to 3D, but most of the others are weaker as an example. You can replace upward gliding devices with springs for a Sonic game, and stuff like those goddamn red boxes are quite a hook for intensive exploration, plus you do a lot of platforming in that game overall where the jump mechanics give you to goat-level wall climbing skills sometimes. On the bad side, I would refer to how the repetitive and samey look of some areas, you go around and yet you seem to always be at the same place. Oh, and Sonic Frontiers is a good enough name, as good as any other previous Sonic-(The Hedgehog)-plus-some-extra-word(s) title, released or not. It's just a label for an entry in a videogame franchise, it's not confusing or misleading, and no one's expecting literature here anyway.
Eggmanland was a frame eater, too. There are a few spots in every Unleashed daytime level, but Adabat and Eggmanland were the most notorious.
PS3 here. The hubs and the Werehog had frame drops, but the day levels ran quite well. Even Jungle Joyride was pretty playable; I only recall a few sections having drops, and nowhere near as bad as the previous examples. Eggmanland was pretty bad IIRC, though.
I played some Unleashed on PS3 a few months ago, and either I'm remembering the 360 version wrong, or it was MUCH worse on PS3. It dropped to what looked like single digits during Werehog fights as a matter of course. Unleashed runs with an uncapped frame rate on PS3, whereas the 360 version is capped at 30. But the PS3 is so much more inconsistent, the fact that there wasn't much backlash about it says a lot about how unsuccessful the system still was in 2008. It was awful, even in an era where SOME degree of it was kind of the norm on consoles.
For me, Sonic Unieashed is basically unplayable on original hardware. The frame rate is absolutely abysmal in much of the Werehog levels, Jungle Joyride Day, and Eggmanland. It's one of the biggest reasons I hesitate to go back to Unleashed, it's just so poorly optimized. The bad frame rate makes the tedious medal collecting and the already snail-like pace of the Werehog levels unbearable at points.
Aaaaaaaaaannnnd, back to Sonic 2022! I'm willing to settle for 30fps on switch, but only if the game is drop dead gorgeous. Otherwise, it better be 60.
