Switch graphics are unquantifiably awesome shit. *cycle*
- Thread starter Goodtwin
- Start date
- Status
How does splatoon 2, and mario kart 8 which is just a wiiu game at 1080p help prove the doubters that think switch can't do proper ports of the more technically demanding ps4/xb1 games.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Of course not, because any technically demanding game can't be properly ported to the Switch.
Doesn't matter if Skyrim, Fallout 4, Wolfenstein 2, or whatever game gets ported to the Switch. I'm sure as soon as it gets ported to the Switch people will claim it's not a technically demanding game.
Just because IQ settings of a port have to be adjusted downwards to suit the more modest hardware of the Switch does not mean the game isn't technically demanding.
Regards,
SB
Actually, they tend to port games running at 60fps on PS4/Xbox One because they can run them at half the framerate on Switch. So, unless you're speaking about old gen remasters, we've still havent see any modern AAA 30fps game ported on Switch. It's very clear from the trailer that Doom runs at 30fps on Switch. However, that could change until its release, but i doubt it. Even games that are not particularly impressive still run at half the frame rate on Switch (Xenoverse 2 being one example).
Fallout 4 could be the first one, but the Xbox one version is almost indistinguishable from the PS4 one (hardly a showcase). I would like to see how AAA that run at 900p/30fps on Xbox One could run on Switch. Some examples : Batman, Just Cause 3, TW3, Watchdogs 2, etc.
Last edited:
Skyrim....really ? Skyrim at native 4k on the pro already looks extremely dated, let alone the switch version. As for the rest let's wait and see how they will look on the switch.Of course not, because any technically demanding game can't be properly ported to the Switch.
Doesn't matter if Skyrim, Fallout 4, Wolfenstein 2, or whatever game gets ported to the Switch. I'm sure as soon as it gets ported to the Switch people will claim it's not a technically demanding game.
Just because IQ settings of a port have to be adjusted downwards to suit the more modest hardware of the Switch does not mean the game isn't technically demanding.
Regards,
SB
The Perculator
Newcomer
It's possibile, with custom assets and/or custom engine. Rise of the Tomb Raider was ported on xbox 360 with very good results, and the Switch is a more capable hardware in comparision
I've no idea. I'm not making any arguments. I'm just trying to recover this technical thread from the trash it's descended to. All we have at the moment is two sides bitchin' how they're right, without any solid sort of arguments. How do you even qualify that one side is right when the ports are happening with downgrades? What are the criteria for 'success'?
It's just crap nonsense. I'm gonna prune it out.
RTR is a cross-gen game running at 1080p on Xbox One. Not exactly our standard modern AAA games running at 900p/30fps on Xbox One.
But i agree with you, everything is possible, especially if the main bottleneck isn't CPU related. However, few developers are ready to drastically downgrade their games : they know that it's not a good selling argument. Also, not all developers want to spend ressources to make a specific version for the Switch.
If you were to go back and look at my post, I actually brought up this exact argument. I always said that ports were more likely to be decided by the business side of things, and not simply because the hardware is less capable. There is of course a link between the two, because the hardware is less capable this will increase the cost involved ports, but if sales of the hardware are good, and third party titles are selling well, that is the criteria that would dictate the type of support publishers would bring.
Again, this is something I said multiple times on these forums. 1080p 60 fps would be the most viable because the drop to 720p 30fps frees up a ton of resources before making any other cuts. This was an argument in favor of Switch ports, not against them.
The narrative for many of the doubters has changed. It was once levied on the opinion that Switch wouldn't get third party ports because the hardware wasn't powerful enough to support those titles. Now that we are seeing more and more titles being ported, the narrative has turned to highlighting the compromises made. I don't remember a single person making the argument that Switch ports would be on par with PS4/X1, but there was plenty of opinions voiced that Switch wouldn't get them at all.
phoenix_chipset
Regular
Gears is also 1080p on the Xbox (well it's dynamic I think but hardly ever drops). Funny how the most impressive games manage to hit 1080p on that console, forza horizon 3 too.
Plus i'm not sure if Tomb raider was made with the 360 in mind or they just hacked at the main version until it worked on that console. Impressive results either way.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Crystal Dynamics (developers of RTR) targeted the XBO. The X360 version was a port done by Nixxes Software. Nixxes handles most of the ports of high profile Square-Enix games.
Regards,
SB
phoenix_chipset
Regular
Right, so effectively both versions were the best they could be.
Gears is a very linear game. FH3 is a racing game (they tend to run at a higher resolution on any console). Anyway, it doesn't matter... the bottom line being that games running at 1080p on Xbox One should be easier to port on Switch or if you prefer, a game running at 720p on Xbox One should be harder to port on Switch.
Now, can exclusive titles push a little more the hardware ? Yes, but it's true for any console and the gap remain unchanged... i don't know what you're trying to prove...
Of course not, because any technically demanding game can't be properly ported to the Switch.
Doesn't matter if Skyrim, Fallout 4, Wolfenstein 2, or whatever game gets ported to the Switch. I'm sure as soon as it gets ported to the Switch people will claim it's not a technically demanding game.
Just because IQ settings of a port have to be adjusted downwards to suit the more modest hardware of the Switch does not mean the game isn't technically demanding.
Regards,
SB
Doom and Wolfenstein 2, are technically demanding games, but are also 60fps, so if they have to cut down to 30fps with down graded, they don't prove anything. I think everybody knows switch can handle ports that are 60fps on ps4 at 30fps with down graded graphics, now technically demanding games at 30fps don't have the luxury of being cut down to half the frame rate, is a different story. we just had final fantasy 15 director say the engine can't run on switch.
Everything can be ported to everything, you could have a sub-720p 30 fps version of doom on PS3/xbox360 . Maybe a few big open world titles would be extremely difficult to port, like the new assassin's creed, but linear games should be doable with enough compromises. How this shuts the doubters I have no idea. The switch is cool and it will be nice to have these games on a portable but as a home console I can't imagine why anyone would want to play the switch versions of these games on a huge tv.
There's nothing to prove, because no-one's actually made a statement to be proven. Again, one of crappest 'discussions' in a long time. Completely vacuous.
Who are the doubters? What are they saying?
Ask the defenders of the switch who keep calling out "the doubters" . As for the rest, you are taking everything switch way too personally .
I think he's talking about people that say switch won't get most of technically demanding games because of the power difference/too much work for developer doubters.
- Status