Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice Switch vs PS4 version comparison! (Not a DF vid)

  • 52 results
  • 1
  • 2
Avatar image for davillain-
#1 Posted by DaVillain- (36022 posts) -

I had to post this because I love Hellblade: Senua's Sacrifice on PC, still one of my favorite Indie game so far. As for how the Switch stack up compare to PS4:

  • Too much Blur on Switch.
  • Lower Resolution compare to PS4.
  • More pop-in during rendering.
  • Washed out lighting & no character shadows on Switch.
  • The framerate is reasonably solid for a much weaker hardware so that's saying something

Overall, yes it's obviously downgraded in every relevant category, from model details to shaders to lighting to textures. But it's still recognizable and looks good for the Switch system on it's own. Hellblade is still one of the best Walking Simulator game (not cinematic so let's get that out of the way) I personally enjoy and should be played using headphones.

Avatar image for jaydan
#2 Edited by jaydan (2201 posts) -

The plot twist absolutely nobody expected:

Hellblade on the Switch is downgraded from the other versions.

For some reason, though, no matter what platform Hellblade might have released on - I have always maintained zero percent interest in playing the walking simulator. I will not be playing it, period.

Avatar image for FinalFighters
#3 Edited by FinalFighters (3137 posts) -

Who in there right mind would buy this game on the switch? if your only gaming system is the Switch (lol) then yeah, i can understand - but if you own other systems then the switch would be the last place you would want to play this beautiful game on, especially at full price. Graphically it looks horrible and all those downgrades to make the game run on the system makes it by far the inferior version.

Avatar image for whatafailure
#4 Edited by WhatAFailure (308 posts) -

In cutscenes it actually looks decent (still blurry but surprising they kept the same high-poly models).

But once it turns to a gameplay section, you can tell cutscene time over. Character models when you actually fight and the environments look like shit.

It's playable, yes. But you lose a lot of that creepy atmosphere. Forests seem less threatening when they look like 360p trees from Turok 64!

Avatar image for Sgt_Crow
#5 Posted by Sgt_Crow (6062 posts) -

@FinalFighters: People who want to play it portable. That’s the biggest and in this case only reason people would play this game on Switch. It’s a solid reason too, depending on your life style.

Avatar image for princessgomez92
#6 Posted by PrincessGomez92 (5696 posts) -

Is this good or just a "walking simulator"? I was interested in checking it out on Switch.

Avatar image for BenjaminBanklin
#7 Posted by BenjaminBanklin (4350 posts) -

It's missing much of the shadowing, some LOD and it's lower res of course. But, surprisingly, it's not bad. They have it scaled down enough to make it look like the game and be playable on Switch. And that's good enough I guess. I was expecting Ark level graphics.

Avatar image for hrt_rulz01
#8 Posted by hrt_rulz01 (18687 posts) -

Great game that more people get to play now on Switch... awesome.

Avatar image for Random_Matt
#9 Posted by Random_Matt (3947 posts) -

People who buy third party just because it's on a Nintendo platform. It is a downgraded port like the rest of them, 100% pointless in buying it. Switch is a exclusive game platform, that's it.

Avatar image for Pedro
#10 Posted by Pedro (33921 posts) -

Too bad the game sucks.

Avatar image for jaydan
#11 Posted by jaydan (2201 posts) -
@Pedro said:

Too bad the game sucks.

Is it even a game though?

Avatar image for Pedro
#12 Posted by Pedro (33921 posts) -

@jaydan said:
@Pedro said:

Too bad the game sucks.

Is it even a game though?

That is the reason why it sucks.

Avatar image for jaydan
#13 Posted by jaydan (2201 posts) -
@Pedro said:
@jaydan said:
@Pedro said:

Too bad the game sucks.

Is it even a game though?

That is the reason why it sucks.

Lol touche...And furthermore I can't buy into the character model. It looks too uncanny valley too me. It's like they tried way too hard to make it look photo-realistic with its expressive motion-capture sensibilities, so much that it's a huge turn-off to me. At this point I'd rather just have video game characters being video game characters by design, with the consideration of artistic design and gamey-ness.

Also I just can't get over how the character looks like a squirrel to me.

Avatar image for zmanbarzel
#14 Posted by ZmanBarzel (1794 posts) -

@princessgomez92 said:

Is this good or just a "walking simulator"? I was interested in checking it out on Switch.

Great game. Not sure where you heard it's a "walking simulator," as it actually features combat.

If you play it, make sure you do so wearing headphones. The binaural audio design is fantastic.

Avatar image for davillain-
#15 Posted by DaVillain- (36022 posts) -

@princessgomez92 said:

Is this good or just a "walking simulator"? I was interested in checking it out on Switch.

If you like Norse Mythology stuff like that, the game itself is worth playing and the Switch version is a solid port for it's portability. It's often a walking simulator, but the combat was fine and easy to mastered. The puzzles can be a hit or a miss but it's just matching the symbols and it's 15 hours long depending on you're playstyle of course. No real replay value and I didn't think the ending was satisfying but the game itself was rewording only because it was good. It's only $30.

Edit: Use headphones. It's a good game but headphones make it so much better.

Avatar image for judaspete
#16 Edited by judaspete (2904 posts) -

I'm shocked how well this seems to have turned out. Might have to get it after all. Huddled up in a dark closet would be the perfect way to experience this game. Now you can do that.

Avatar image for princessgomez92
#17 Posted by PrincessGomez92 (5696 posts) -

@zmanbarzel: @davillain-:

Walking simulator just seemed to be a popular term when reading about it. I went ahead and bought it anyway before you guys responded, was pretty interested and it's not super expensive. I'm gonna be waiting a few hours for it to download, but I hope I enjoy it. Thanks for the headphone suggestion, and info.

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
#18 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (28846 posts) -

@FinalFighters said:

Who in there right mind would buy this game on the switch? if your only gaming system is the Switch (lol) then yeah, i can understand - but if you own other systems then the switch would be the last place you would want to play this beautiful game on, especially at full price. Graphically it looks horrible and all those downgrades to make the game run on the system makes it by far the inferior version.

I prefer any game if there's a switch version, to play on the switch.

Avatar image for enzyme36
#19 Posted by enzyme36 (4151 posts) -

I hear this game is big on audio ques and ambient sound. Sound is just not one of Switch's strong points. Probably a better experience played elsewhere.

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
#20 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (28846 posts) -

@Random_Matt said:

People who buy third party just because it's on a Nintendo platform. It is a downgraded port like the rest of them, 100% pointless in buying it. Switch is a exclusive game platform, that's it.

Weird, then why do I own so many third party games on switch? Weird.

Avatar image for jaydan
#21 Posted by jaydan (2201 posts) -
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@Random_Matt said:

People who buy third party just because it's on a Nintendo platform. It is a downgraded port like the rest of them, 100% pointless in buying it. Switch is a exclusive game platform, that's it.

Weird, then why do I own so many third party games on switch? Weird.

The same people that say garbage like this are the same people that complained how older Nintendo consoles lacked 3rd-party games. These people can't make up their goddamned minds. Now that Nintendo finally has a console with a viable lineup of 3rd-party games that is only continually growing, now it's "why play 3rd-party games on it?"

No one here says a Switch 3rd-party game has greater performance or graphical fidelity than a competing console or PC; however, most 3rd-party Switch games have shown to be quite viable for the system nonetheless and the reason why 3rd-party games can sell on the system, and the biggest draw - most of these games were never offered for a handheld until now.

And believe it or not, some 3rd-party Switch games ARE better than what's on other platforms. Take Dragon Quest 11, for example. It's going to have more content and different offerings for gameplay than any other version of the game. It ultimately comes down to how a game offers different content and expanded ideas that can make a Switch version superior, not whether or not it has prettier graphics.

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
#22 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (28846 posts) -

@jaydan said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@Random_Matt said:

People who buy third party just because it's on a Nintendo platform. It is a downgraded port like the rest of them, 100% pointless in buying it. Switch is a exclusive game platform, that's it.

Weird, then why do I own so many third party games on switch? Weird.

The same people that say garbage like this are the same people that complained how older Nintendo consoles lacked 3rd-party games. These people can't make up their goddamned minds. Now that Nintendo finally has a console with a viable lineup of 3rd-party games that is only continually growing, now it's "why play 3rd-party games on it?"

No one here says a Switch 3rd-party game has greater performance or graphical fidelity than a competing console or PC; however, most 3rd-party Switch games have shown to be quite viable for the system nonetheless and the reason why 3rd-party games can sell on the system, and the biggest draw - most of these games were never offered for a handheld until now.

And believe it or not, some 3rd-party Switch games ARE better than what's on other platforms. Take Dragon Quest 11, for example. It's going to have more content and different offerings for gameplay than any other version of the game. It ultimately comes down to how a game offers different content and expanded ideas that can make a Switch version superior, not whether or not it has prettier graphics.

And games like south park TFBW are identical. And now we have MK11 day n day with the other versions.

Avatar image for jaydan
#23 Posted by jaydan (2201 posts) -
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@jaydan said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@Random_Matt said:

People who buy third party just because it's on a Nintendo platform. It is a downgraded port like the rest of them, 100% pointless in buying it. Switch is a exclusive game platform, that's it.

Weird, then why do I own so many third party games on switch? Weird.

The same people that say garbage like this are the same people that complained how older Nintendo consoles lacked 3rd-party games. These people can't make up their goddamned minds. Now that Nintendo finally has a console with a viable lineup of 3rd-party games that is only continually growing, now it's "why play 3rd-party games on it?"

No one here says a Switch 3rd-party game has greater performance or graphical fidelity than a competing console or PC; however, most 3rd-party Switch games have shown to be quite viable for the system nonetheless and the reason why 3rd-party games can sell on the system, and the biggest draw - most of these games were never offered for a handheld until now.

And believe it or not, some 3rd-party Switch games ARE better than what's on other platforms. Take Dragon Quest 11, for example. It's going to have more content and different offerings for gameplay than any other version of the game. It ultimately comes down to how a game offers different content and expanded ideas that can make a Switch version superior, not whether or not it has prettier graphics.

And games like south park TFBW are identical. And now we have MK11 day n day with the other versions.

I've been saying this for a long time, but the emphasis on graphical superiority is probably one of the greatest disservices in gaming. Graphical evolution IS important - because just look at how far we've come along from the Atari days; however, leaning on pixel superiority that an average gamer leans on for deciding on a better game, is a mass disservice to the craft and build of gameplay as a whole.

Over the years I've grasped a motley selection of gaming consoles that range between companies of Sega, Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony. Interestingly so for some odd reason I always found myself gravitating towards a handheld experience such at the Gameboy and DS for whatever reason. I feel like partially, handheld developers largely 'get it' when it comes to gameplay design, largely because they always had to deal with far greater technical limitations than the average home consoles for their respective generations. While we've had our Xbox's and Playstation's always battling it out over prettier graphics, many of these pixel-pushers have become forgotten to the generations that followed.

Handhelds, though, they never had to worry so much about graphical boundaries, simply because they never pushed these boundaries to begin with. So what made handheld games compelling? I guess it really boils down to gameplay and design, and whether or not the games themselves are fun.

Nowadays we have things called "walking simulators". All I gotta say is "wow" to that one. These games certainly have impressive visuals but they just don't have the lasting value of being compelling games. It's funny even the people in this thread that love Hellblade are coming to terms there's no reason to replay it.

Now I love a game with some pretty visuals as well, but as long as it's got the compelling gameplay to back it up as well. I can easily go back and play an old PS2 game I might have missed, given the opportunity there's great gameplay design I missed out on. I can be equally immersed in an older game as much as a new one with gameplay satisfaction.

At the end of the day, your average consumer does not hold image slides of an Xbox One, PS4 or Switch game, painstakingly analyzing each pixel behind them. That's just a form of insanity exclusive to the niche angry crowds that exist on internet forums.

Avatar image for Bread_or_Decide
#24 Posted by Bread_or_Decide (28846 posts) -

@jaydan said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@jaydan said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@Random_Matt said:

People who buy third party just because it's on a Nintendo platform. It is a downgraded port like the rest of them, 100% pointless in buying it. Switch is a exclusive game platform, that's it.

Weird, then why do I own so many third party games on switch? Weird.

The same people that say garbage like this are the same people that complained how older Nintendo consoles lacked 3rd-party games. These people can't make up their goddamned minds. Now that Nintendo finally has a console with a viable lineup of 3rd-party games that is only continually growing, now it's "why play 3rd-party games on it?"

No one here says a Switch 3rd-party game has greater performance or graphical fidelity than a competing console or PC; however, most 3rd-party Switch games have shown to be quite viable for the system nonetheless and the reason why 3rd-party games can sell on the system, and the biggest draw - most of these games were never offered for a handheld until now.

And believe it or not, some 3rd-party Switch games ARE better than what's on other platforms. Take Dragon Quest 11, for example. It's going to have more content and different offerings for gameplay than any other version of the game. It ultimately comes down to how a game offers different content and expanded ideas that can make a Switch version superior, not whether or not it has prettier graphics.

And games like south park TFBW are identical. And now we have MK11 day n day with the other versions.

I've been saying this for a long time, but the emphasis on graphical superiority is probably one of the greatest disservices in gaming. Graphical evolution IS important - because just look at how far we've come along from the Atari days; however, leaning on pixel superiority that an average gamer leans on for deciding on a better game, is a mass disservice to the craft and build of gameplay as a whole.

Over the years I've grasped a motley selection of gaming consoles that range between companies of Sega, Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony. Interestingly so for some odd reason I always found myself gravitating towards a handheld experience such at the Gameboy and DS for whatever reason. I feel like partially, handheld developers largely 'get it' when it comes to gameplay design, largely because they always had to deal with far greater technical limitations than the average home consoles for their respective generations. While we've had our Xbox's and Playstation's always battling it out over prettier graphics, many of these pixel-pushers have become forgotten to the generations that followed.

Handhelds, though, they never had to worry so much about graphical boundaries, simply because they never pushed these boundaries to begin with. So what made handheld games compelling? I guess it really boils down to gameplay and design, and whether or not the games themselves are fun.

Nowadays we have things called "walking simulators". All I gotta say is "wow" to that one. These games certainly have impressive visuals but they just don't have the lasting value of being compelling games. It's funny even the people in this thread that love Hellblade are coming to terms there's no reason to replay it.

Now I love a game with some pretty visuals as well, but as long as it's got the compelling gameplay to back it up as well. I can easily go back and play an old PS2 game I might have missed, given the opportunity there's great gameplay design I missed out on. I can be equally immersed in an older game as much as a new one with gameplay satisfaction.

At the end of the day, your average consumer does not hold image slides of an Xbox One, PS4 or Switch game, painstakingly analyzing each pixel behind them. That's just a form of insanity exclusive to the niche angry crowds that exist on internet forums.

It's crystal clear, the things the die hards care about, are not the things people care about. And if there's ever been an overlap it only did a disservice to the diehards, to fool them into thinking that everyone cares about what they care about when that's far from the truth. See also the PS4 being the most powerful for a time and also the best selling. Now the most powerful is not the best seller, xbox one x. As it always has been and always shall be.

This also goes across many other mediums, this is why Avatar 2 will be huge despite ten people online who keep saying they don't care. Geeks do not control the cultural zeigeist, just because what you like finally became popular doesn't mean you get to say which ones do or do not succeed.

I went off on a tangent there but I feel this is currently happening in games. Nobody plays Battle Royale...except for everyone playing it.

Avatar image for BassMan
#25 Edited by BassMan (10032 posts) -

....or you can just play it on PC and avoid any half-ass console experience....

Avatar image for FinalFighters
#26 Posted by FinalFighters (3137 posts) -

@BassMan said:

....or you can just play it on PC and avoid any half-ass console experience....

Beautiful...This is how its meant to be played.

Avatar image for getyeryayasout
#27 Posted by getyeryayasout (12261 posts) -

Sure it's a downgrade, but as a Switch owner I'm pretty pleased that it looks as good as it does.

Avatar image for princessgomez92
#28 Posted by PrincessGomez92 (5696 posts) -

I started it, and I think it looks pretty good. Playing it with headphones too, really immersed.

Avatar image for sakaixx
#29 Posted by sakaiXx (5309 posts) -

Meh on video switch may look promising but when you get your hands on any switch ports it looks worse than it should be.

Pretty good for those not having the better version elsewhere but if you do own other consoles, buy it there instead of switch.

Avatar image for joebones5000
#30 Edited by joebones5000 (2100 posts) -

Looks like a dreamcast game

Avatar image for xantufrog
#31 Posted by xantufrog (11162 posts) -

Pretty impressive delivery for the hardware

Avatar image for nintendoboy16
#32 Posted by nintendoboy16 (36057 posts) -
@FinalFighters said:

Who in there right mind would buy this game on the switch? if your only gaming system is the Switch (lol) then yeah, i can understand - but if you own other systems then the switch would be the last place you would want to play this beautiful game on, especially at full price. Graphically it looks horrible and all those downgrades to make the game run on the system makes it by far the inferior version.

What's the point of playing Mortal Kombat, Tekken, Street Fighter, etc on a DS, PSP, or Vita? What's the point of playing Civ on ANY console (PS1, Switch)?

I can play that game too.

Avatar image for djoffer
#33 Posted by djoffer (1216 posts) -

Always cracks me up when console owners lashes out against switch inferior graphic! If graphic is your driving factor get a pc ffs...

And yeah hellblades is a great game, if you haven’t played it yet, it’s definitely time to give it a go!

Avatar image for princessgomez92
#34 Posted by PrincessGomez92 (5696 posts) -

Another really impressive Switch port, definitely up there with Doom and Wolfenstein II. I'm really enjoying the game too, blown away by it.

Avatar image for deactivated-5cd08b1605da1
#35 Edited by deactivated-5cd08b1605da1 (9317 posts) -

Thats quite impressive for the Switch hardware. Anyway, amazing experience as a whole.

Tip to switch owners: Play with headphones and lights out = much better experience

Avatar image for deactivated-5cd08b1605da1
#36 Edited by deactivated-5cd08b1605da1 (9317 posts) -

@jaydan said:

The plot twist absolutely nobody expected:

Hellblade on the Switch is downgraded from the other versions.

For some reason, though, no matter what platform Hellblade might have released on - I have always maintained zero percent interest in playing the walking simulator. I will not be playing it, period.

I approached the game with the same mindset, thinking it was just a walking simulator and nothing else. Well, it kinda is, but its combat is quite underrated imo. Not complex by any means but still entertaining if you know what to do (there are a fair amount of combos but the game doesnt explain to you anything about its combat, you have to find on your own its intricacies). I dont know if it was because I went with low expectations or what but was completely blown by it. The setting, vibe, soundtrack were right up my alley. One of the best experiences I had this gen. At least give it a try if you find it for cheap

Avatar image for uninspiredcup
#37 Posted by uninspiredcup (32764 posts) -

Set youtube to 4K and you've got the best, cheapest version of the game.

Avatar image for zaryia
#38 Posted by Zaryia (8178 posts) -
@uninspiredcup said:

Set youtube to 4K and you've got the best, cheapest version of the game.

PS4 has been owned.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
#39 Posted by foxhound_fox (97853 posts) -

I can't imagine anyone caring, everyone and their grandma knows the Switch is lower powered compared to the PS4/XBO.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#40 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (25195 posts) -

Yeesh, exclusives are great, but I'd feel royally ripped off playing with graphics like that on a 300 dollar system.

Avatar image for davillain-
#41 Posted by DaVillain- (36022 posts) -

@DragonfireXZ95 said:

Yeesh, exclusives are great, but I'd feel royally ripped off playing with graphics like that on a 300 dollar system.

The Switch can only do so much. We can't expect to have a super handheld on par with PS4/Xbox One capabilities but I must say, Hellblade manage to run on the weakest hardware but yeah, if I want to play it, it'll be on PC for sure and it's a reason why I only use Switch just to play exclusives only.

Avatar image for evil_loli
#42 Posted by Evil_Loli (120 posts) -

Hellblade is best play on Xbox One X!!!

Avatar image for dzimm
#43 Posted by dzimm (5345 posts) -

No physical release on Switch = no sale

Avatar image for m_machine024
#44 Posted by m_machine024 (15835 posts) -

Buy it on the Switch to play it portable, not to play on the TV.

Avatar image for onesiphorus
#45 Posted by onesiphorus (2824 posts) -

GameSpot gave the Switch version a 8/10 score.

Avatar image for darthbuzzard
#46 Edited by DarthBuzzard (127 posts) -

@evil_loli said:

Hellblade is best play on Xbox One X!!!

PC is the best platform for the game. Even the developers believe this themselves.

Avatar image for BenjaminBanklin
#47 Posted by BenjaminBanklin (4350 posts) -
@evil_loli said:

Hellblade is best play on Xbox One X!!!

As long as there's a PC version, a console version will never be better. Unless the PC port is a rushed botch job.

Avatar image for princessgomez92
#48 Edited by PrincessGomez92 (5696 posts) -
Loading Video...

There is actually a Digital Foundry video, somehow I missed the upload. I was interested in hearing details on it.

Avatar image for DragonfireXZ95
#49 Posted by DragonfireXZ95 (25195 posts) -
@davillain- said:
@DragonfireXZ95 said:

Yeesh, exclusives are great, but I'd feel royally ripped off playing with graphics like that on a 300 dollar system.

The Switch can only do so much. We can't expect to have a super handheld on par with PS4/Xbox One capabilities but I must say, Hellblade manage to run on the weakest hardware but yeah, if I want to play it, it'll be on PC for sure and it's a reason why I only use Switch just to play exclusives only.

Don't get me wrong. If the system were 150, then I'd expect graphics like this and would be fine with it if I paid that much, but not for 300 bucks.

Avatar image for mrbojangles25
#50 Posted by mrbojangles25 (43775 posts) -

This is great news. Hellblade is an amazing game, amazing experience. I recommend people look up the Ninja Theory development videos, those people really know how to create. They put so much tech, thought, and care into Hellblade, it's incredible.

@jaydan said:
@Pedro said:

Too bad the game sucks.

Is it even a game though?

Narrow-minded view. Yes, it is a game. But also more.

I won't sit here and tell you I had more fun with Hellblade than I did with, idunno, DOOM 2016 or Civilization VI or a bunch of other titles; but the thing about Hellblade is that it offered so much non-traditional experiences not found in games, while still being a game, it is a truly unique experience.

If you found it boring, that's fine, I understand; but it does not make it a non-game nor a bad one.

The only problem with this view is it degrades games as something less than they are. They are art, and entertainment. We would be lucky if there were more games like Hellblade because it demonstrates just what video games can be, and that is more than they are.

@BenjaminBanklin said:
@evil_loli said:

Hellblade is best play on Xbox One X!!!

As long as there's a PC version, a console version will never be better. Unless the PC port is a rushed botch job.

The VR version is pretty incredible, too. On PC, of course.