Hardware Lego City Undercover on the Switch - Loading times are still terrible

[Saiyan Lusitano]

Were you hoping they'd take 10-15 secs? Yeah, no. It takes almost a minute even on a cartridge.



On the bright side, LCU will be available on more platforms so that's good.

 

[Jiehfeng]

You posted this a minute after I put this on that thread, alright.

 

[Bladexdsl]

so they really havn't changed anything and are charging full price for an OLD game

 

[DeslotlCL]

Even the 3ds one loads faster

 

[Jiehfeng]

so they really havn't changed anything and are charging full price for an OLD game

To be fair, they did, but they only reduced around 20-30 seconds of loading time, though it just brings it down to 50 seconds which is still a LOT.

 

[Bladexdsl]

have they downloaded the 13mb update that's supposed to make them faster so everyone claims?

 

[Jiehfeng]

have they downloaded the 13mb update that's supposed to make them faster so everyone claims?

Source? Or you mean the 13GB from the physical case?

 

[Bladexdsl]

yeah they reckon if you download that the loading times will be quicker that's what it's supposed to be for or so its rumored to be.

 

[DiscostewSM]

Think it'll be any better on PS4/XB1? I know someone did a test with an Assassin's Creed game, testing with an SSD, microSD, and PS4 Pro HDD on their computer for loading, and microSD actually beat out the HDD by a good 10 seconds on average. My theory on that is because games aren't like copying one large file but have to jump around the game data so many times to grab the unique pieces of data, the access time becomes the important factor, and when comparing flash storage with an HDD with moving parts, flash wins hands down.

Of course, on PS4/XB1, which how much more RAM they have, they might have a long "initial" load, then quick ones after that. As it is, the game was made initially for Wii U, which only had 1GB of RAM for devs, so I dunno.

 

[KapuDaKoopa]

yeah they reckon if you download that the loading times will be quicker that's what it's supposed to be for or so its rumored to be.

There isn't a 13GB update, iirc that's how big the base+update are and you'll have to download that if you get the digital version

 

[Bladexdsl]

it's on the back of the box on the physical version

 

[Jiehfeng]

it's on the back of the box on the physical version

And that was proved a hoax by WB, where have you been?

There isn't a 13GB update, iirc that's how big the base+update are and you'll have to download that if you get the digital version

Eshop says 7.1GB tho.

 

[KapuDaKoopa]

Eshop says 7.1GB tho.

ah yeah after looking into it the 13gb was false, woops!

 

[Bladexdsl]

Think it'll be any better on PS4/XB1?

or the PC if it has the same loading time on the pc version than this really is a badly optimized game.

 

[linuxares]

Woha that's some bad loading times.
Yes, if it's as bad on the PC or just eats memory. then it's very poorly optimized.

 

[pedro702]

this game has terrible loading times on all platforms, no idea who programed this but while the game is fun the loading times are atrocious.

 

[slingblade1170]

I feel like they should be shorter but f*ck it at least it's not like Ps1/Ps2 loading times.

 

[NEO-BAHAMUT-]

Didn't think the ps1 was bad on loading times... however for this day and age it's atrocious. I'll still probably buy it though.

 

[Saiyan Lusitano]

Didn't think the ps1 was bad on loading times... however for this day and age it's atrocious. I'll still probably buy it though.

I remember Driver 2 taking like 20-30s but still felt like it loaded up pretty quickly every time so there's no reason why more advanced technology takes longer. And it's on cartridge not on a disc!

If Zelda BotW was properly developed for the Switch the loading times would be extremely fast too, I'd guess but instead it's just a rushed, playable port we got.

 

[gundamu]

Think it'll be any better on PS4/XB1? I know someone did a test with an Assassin's Creed game, testing with an SSD, microSD, and PS4 Pro HDD on their computer for loading, and microSD actually beat out the HDD by a good 10 seconds on average. My theory on that is because games aren't like copying one large file but have to jump around the game data so many times to grab the unique pieces of data, the access time becomes the important factor, and when comparing flash storage with an HDD with moving parts, flash wins hands down.

Of course, on PS4/XB1, which how much more RAM they have, they might have a long "initial" load, then quick ones after that. As it is, the game was made initially for Wii U, which only had 1GB of RAM for devs, so I dunno.

botw loads really fast from the inbuilt 32gb storage, sd being the middle ground and loading from the cartiridge being the slowest.