And Nintendo Switch is quite a bit less powerful than the PS4 so it would obviously suffer more from those problems. What's new exactly?
Nintendo Switch Technical discussion [SOC = Tegra X1]
- Thread starter Alucardx23
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nintendo nintendont
And Nintendo Switch is quite a bit less powerful than the PS4 so it would obviously suffer more from those problems. What's new exactly?
So, if LA Noire has no problem on PS4, then porting a PS3 game on PS4 is not as difficult as Godwin implied.
It seems to be a difficult task only if you vastly improves the original game.
Anyway, it's not really comparable because LA Noire is not a true exclusive. We don't know what version was used for the remaster.
Last edited:
This should be obvious, but you do realize there is a large disparity in performance between PS4 and Switch right? This is reduces the difficulty in porting. PS4 has a lot more resources to work with than the Switch. Double the CPU cores and way more GPU performance. If it were such a cake walk then LA Noire should run at 60fps instead of 30fps on PS4. That should in itself speak volumes. I think it is safe to assume that a studio for hire doing the port work to Switch wasn't doing much low level code optimization for Switch. Suggesting this teams abilities are anywhere near abilities Rockstar has internally is quite franking insulting to Rockstar. I'm not suggesting that porting GTA V to Switch is a cut and paste situation, but trying to extrapolate conclusions based on some performance issues for a budget port seems ridiculous to me. Watch Dogs was ported to Wii U for goodness sake, and that CPU was far less impressive than the A57 cores in the Switch.
The truth is there isn't a game from PS3 or 360 that couldn't be ported to Switch. Results will vary depending on the team doing the work, and the amount of time and budget they are working with. Skyrim running at 900p with a near locked 30fps compared to PS3's abysmal framerate should be very telling. GTA V coming to Switch will be a business decision, and any technical hurdles are surely within Rockstars abilities should they take on the challenge.
No... Skyrim is one of the worst PS3 port.
The Switch port is vastly superior to the 360 build as well. Not just a little, framerate, resolution, textures, and lighting are all improved on Switch.
No, the framerate is already good on 360. The Switch mainly improves the resolution which is a GPU dependent setting.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Good developers make hard things look easy.
Just because ND did a good port does not mean that the port wasn't very difficult.
Regards,
SB
Switch version has more stable frame rate, and is is 900p, those are the modt notable things i see. The main bottleneck that causes frame rate drops was the Ram issues IIRC. it's better then the 360 version, i think the main upgrades are from a stronger GPU, and more ram, I just watched the DF video of skyrim on 360 vs ps3 and it was a solid 30fps.
Last edited:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...-chronicles-2-push-switch-mobile-mode-too-far
The Switch is definitely not made for modern rendering techniques...
In my opinion, developers should target last-gen settings at a higher resolution for exclusive titles.
More ambitious games are too heavily impacted by a bad IQ. The minimum resolution allowed should be 900p for most games when docked.
And if i was Nintendo, i would make my games to run at 720p when undocked, because the result is really excellent and many people bought a Switch for its portability.
MK8 is an example of the best possible compromise made on Switch in my opinion.
The Switch is definitely not made for modern rendering techniques...
In my opinion, developers should target last-gen settings at a higher resolution for exclusive titles.
More ambitious games are too heavily impacted by a bad IQ. The minimum resolution allowed should be 900p for most games when docked.
And if i was Nintendo, i would make my games to run at 720p when undocked, because the result is really excellent and many people bought a Switch for its portability.
MK8 is an example of the best possible compromise made on Switch in my opinion.
Last edited:
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Eh?
It uses less advanced rendering techniques than Zelda. Zelda uses modern rendering techniques extensively as do some of the other Nintendo first party games. I'm not sure where you are getting that the Switch wasn't made for modern rendering techniques.
If anything, one might suppose that to get good performance out of the Switch they should be using more modern rendering techniques. But even that would be flawed without knowing why a developer chose to do things the way they did.
Regards,
SB
Zelda is a port of a WiiU game and doesn't impress me more than the last-gen versions of GTA5.
The Switch version only runs at a higher resolution.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It doesn't matter whether you think it is impressive or not. Your quote...
That is most certainly not true. There are plenty of games on the Switch that use modern rendering techniques that run just fine. Some of which even run at 60 FPS.
Considering the graphics IP level of Maxwell is at least roughly the equal of GCN in PS4/XBO (in features if not in pure speed), that shouldn't come as a surprise. If anything the Switch was not built for older rendering techniques which are often times far more heavily CPU reliant than the newest rendering techniques which attempt to leverage the GPU more.
The biggest Achilles heel for the Switch other than the relatively weak CPU is the low memory bandwidth. Luckily for Nintendo Maxwell has pretty good memory compression that eases the demands on the memory bandwidth. It doesn't get rid of the problem, but helps to mitigate it somewhat.
Regards,
SB
Last edited:
Xenoblade Chronicles 2 is the most technically disappointing Switch game for me on Switch. Xenoblade Chronicles X on Wii U was not pushing as many impressive techniques, but ran at a near locked 30fps. XC2 right now stutters all the time, and at some points really chugs. I think this is the first Switch game that Nintendo pushed out the door to make the release date. It needed more time in the oven for certain. It surprised a lot of us that XC2 was going to be ready just two years after XCX came out, but I think the quick turnaround has resulted in a rougher product than Nintendo has customarily released.
Now the question is will this game be patched and brought up to par? I believe it will. We saw a nice performance boosting patch for Zelda BoTW, and I believe within a month we will see something similar for XC2. I still take issue with it however, for those of us who were day on this game will likely log dozens of hours by the time this is sorted out. Meaning we will play half the game in substandard conditions.
Now the question is will this game be patched and brought up to par? I believe it will. We saw a nice performance boosting patch for Zelda BoTW, and I believe within a month we will see something similar for XC2. I still take issue with it however, for those of us who were day on this game will likely log dozens of hours by the time this is sorted out. Meaning we will play half the game in substandard conditions.
But at the cost of image quality... this is my point. I prefer less ambitious games with a good image quality : 900p or 1080p.
And ideally, games should have a native resolution on the handheld mode because the result is excellent.
We do not agree often, but I agree with you on this. I would certainly prefer a game like XC2 to replace effects like screen space reflections with cube maps from XCX if it means a better framerate and higher resolution. How much can you really appreciate some of these more advanced effects when the game renders as low as 360p? I think every developer should make it a priority to take ownership of their code. Using less accurate reflections and lighting calculations wont break a game, but framerate stutters and extremely low resolution is very distracting. Doom may have been lower resolution, but the excellent motion blur and temporal AA really helped make for an clean image, even if it were a bit blurry. I also felt like the framerate in Doom was more locked to 30fps than XC2. Sure, it would dip in hectic firefights, but the motion blur really helped make it less problematic. There is also an expectation for when a game might stutter a bit, and times when it shouldn't. Exploration shouldn't be littered with stutters, epic boss battles that chug a bit is more acceptable.
I am pretty irritated with Mololithsoft because it seems like they let their ambition with the tech get in the way of an otherwise great game. I'm not saying that they wont be able to iron things out, but for right now I cant say I am pleased with how they prioritized things. Framerate and resolution should have held higher priority than they obviously did, and I feel like the current build of the game is less enjoyable because of those choices.
Rootax
Veteran
What did you expect of a big open world (and not as empty as Zelda BOtW) ? Seriously, I don't mean to troll. But for me, XC2 is the most advanced game on Switch, huge world, pretty ok density, voice acting, a lot of modern rendering technics.... I'm sure some patchs will clean up some stuff anyway. I mean look again at switch specs. X1 is maybe nice but the clocks are so low ffs, docked or not. To me it's already very good that we see some of these games on Switchs with that kind of performances.
Sigfried1977
Legend
The resolution and fr drops only seam to affect the first big open world region so far. The next big area runs fine. I'm very impressed with the game so far, even though I ultimately prefer Nintendo's more balanced approach. I mostly miss the physics-driven, tactile quality of Hyrule, but then XBC2 is just a completely different game.
I expected it to be a finished product on day one. Assuming there will be a patch that cleans a lot of this up, that only reaffirms the notion that this game was rushed and the final game currently suffers because of it. XC2 is an exclusive, it isn't like they were targeting higher spec hardware and then trying to shoehorn it onto the Switch. I am just miffed right now that Monolithsoft didn't have a better handle on their tech when releasing XC2. I am hoping for a patch because right now it is distracting (for myself) from what is otherwise a great game.
Sigfried1977
Legend
Not saying it's good, but BotW had its fair share of performance problems as well. So it's not like Nintendo is excempt from day 1 woes. And when BotW drops frames, it drops them hard. When it comes to 1st party software, It's really only been Nintendo's 60fps games which were really solid from day1. XBC2 doesn't seem any less unfinished to me than any other ambitious large scale rpg I've played in recent memories. Certainly seems more finished than the 10 year project that's FFXV.