• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

IGN - NBA 2K18 graphics comparison: Nintendo Switch vs. PS4 Pro vs. Xbox One S

J

Jon Carter

Member
oti said:
I'd say the Vita is the perfect example of a product being ahead of its time. Nintendo's success with Switch is only possible due to the explosive demand in mobile computing tech thanks to the smartphone and tablet boom. That's why the Nvidia X1 exists. Vita was a flawed idea (who wants to play a direct to video Uncharted?) with terrible execution (that back touch pad...) on top.

It was destined to fail. It did. The market learned its lesson. Time to move on.
Click to expand...

I take "ahead of its time" to mean that the product was not popular when it was around but would have been popular at a later time when the world would have caught up to its genius. I don't think the Vita fits. It would have failed today too. The Switch is a different product, a different concept, and is successful on its own merits, not because it's the same as the Vita except now the world has caught up. Concept and execution are what made the Switch a success and Vita a failure.
 
N

nekomix

Member
It just needs to reach 60 fps because it really feels off at 30. Except that, I really thought they would have made more cuts, it's impressive.
 
R

random25

Member
sense said:
Remember the good old ole days when people used to say " why would I play a watered down port on the go when I can play the game on the big tv with all the bells and whistles" about the vita? Times sure have changed. Vita was probably ahead of its time.
Click to expand...

The difference between Vita version vs console versions of games are more than just "bells and whistles". It's a powerful pure handheld, but it's still a handheld and its games are adjusted to what it is.
 
Azelover

Azelover

Titanic was called the Ship of Dreams, and it was. It really was.
perpetual old values...

Even in that case thankfully Nintendo is keeping up at an acceptable level this time, that's good news, because the dominating hardcore market will never ever change..
 
L

Liabe Brave

Member
Cow Mengde said:
I rather have 60fps than graphics. They could have lowered the polygon count or something.
Click to expand...
xxbrothawizxx63 said:
Reducing model quality is not an easy task at all. Adding to a model is much easier than reducing.
Click to expand...
They did lower the polygon count, on the players at least. I suspect more of the crowd is 2D versus 3D as well, but a comparison isn't possible because of the DOF on PS4.

Foxy the Fox said:
Not gonna lie, impressive work by 2K by making a 1:1 version of the PS4/XO on the go.
Click to expand...
Lylo said:
Switch version looks great. Some little quirks, like no DOF, clothes physics, camera flashes, i hope they can patch that later.
Click to expand...
It's almost guaranteed they will not patch most of those things, because they were removed specifically to reduce power demands. There is a long list of reductions and compromises that were made to get the game running portably on Switch.

Half the framerate
Lower resolution, perhaps half? (than PS4, much lower resolution than Pro [12%?])
Sparser crowd
Lower-poly models
Lower-res textures
Lower-res reflections? (or not, depending on how much lower Switch res is overall)
Removed "camera flash" lights (though reflections of them are still in; patchable?)
Removed the DOF effect
Removed the cloth simulation on uniforms
No HDR
 
R

R00bot

Member
Game looks and plays great on the Switch. Few frame drops here and there but honestly quite happy with it, glad I got it over the PS4 or other console versions.
 
I

Inuhanyou

Believes Dragon Quest is a franchise managed by Sony
Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule said:
First example on how almost every third party game can run on the switch
Click to expand...

not every game has the same requirements. its impressive that they managed to get the basic experience including visuals across for this game, but that doesn't mean every other game could just be ported over, especially without careful consideration of the cutbacks and optimizations that would be required
 
M

m29a

Neo Member
nekomix said:
It just needs to reach 60 fps because it really feels off at 30.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for a sports game, input latency is key and when you halve the fps like that, you'll immediately feel it, delayed actions, which isn't great for dribbling/driving, basics of basketball.

That said, it's certainly impressive as people have said, and no doubt you can get used to it over time.
 
C

cw_sasuke

If all DLC came tied to $13 figurines, I'd consider all DLC to be free
Pretty impressive for their first title on Switch... Hope it sells well enough that they really optimize the engine again for next year's version and can hit 60fps. This would be a major selling point 2K19 on Switch.

But yeah still great for the first Switch release - Kudos.
 
F

flipswitch

Member
Liabe Brave said:
They did lower the polygon count, on the players at least. I suspect more of the crowd is 2D versus 3D as well, but a comparison isn't possible because of the DOF on PS4.



It's almost guaranteed they will not patch most of those things, because they were removed specifically to reduce power demands. There is a long list of reductions and compromises that were made to get the game running portably on Switch.

Half the framerate
Lower resolution, perhaps half? (than PS4, much lower resolution than Pro [12%?])
Sparser crowd
Lower-poly models
Lower-res textures
Lower-res reflections? (or not, depending on how much lower Switch res is overall)
Removed "camera flash" lights (though reflections of them are still in; patchable?)
Removed the DOF effect
Removed the cloth simulation on uniforms
No HDR
Click to expand...

The great thing about playing this in portable mode is some of the graphics downgrades will be less noticeable.

The same thing happened with GTA:LCS on PSP.
 
L

Liabe Brave

Member
flipswitch said:
The great thing about playing this in portable mode is some of the graphics downgrades will be less noticeable.

The same thing happened with GTA:LCS on PSP.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Most of these are smart trims where it won't be as notable. (Though of course playing on a big display at home won't help.) The major exception is the lowered framerate.
 
jufonuk

jufonuk

not tag worthy
Daphnes Nohansen Hyrule said:
First example on how almost every third party game can run on the switch
Click to expand...
Third party devs you gonna take this challenge?

Also the game looked rather nice l. Yes it was missing a few graphical tricks and I am sure the other versions had a higher framerate but damm the switch is the little console that could
 
C

CmdBash

Member
Don't see what everyone is raving about, especially at 30fps (just feels bad for a sports game) its on par with what you'd expect with a console of that power.
 
L

Luigiv

Member
ryushe said:
This is kinda where I'm at.. I guess because when I watch sports it's broadcasting in 24 frames (AFAIK), so seeing this run at 60 looks... off somehow.
Click to expand...

24fps is for film, not live TV. Live TV is either 60 field per second or 50 fields per second (depending on if it's NTSC or PAL). Each of these fields is half a frame so TV is normally advertised as being 30fps or 25fps but this is actually somewhat misleading. 60 halves make 30 wholes, which seems like sound logic, but in reality each field is actually a completely unique half frame, not a whole frame split in two. So really, NTSC broadcast TV actually bares a closer resemblance to 60fps at half the advertised resolution than 30fps at the full resolution that is normally quoted. I guess that back in the 30s they figured higher resolution made for better marketing than higher framerate... actually, nothing has really changed since then, has it?.

So yeah, the point of that story is that 60fps should actually look closer to broadcast TV than 30fps (though I guess you'd need to bump down from progressive scan to interlaced for that real authentic look).
 
J

Jon Carter

Member
CmdBash said:
Don't see what everyone is raving about, especially at 30fps (just feels bad for a sports game) its on par with what you'd expect with a console of that power.
Click to expand...

I believe it's the first AAA multiplatform release on the Switch, so it's basically like a test. It's probably more relief and hope for the future than raving.

What I'm excited about is the inevitable comparison thread about DOOM. I'd say that's the next big test.
 
gamerMan

gamerMan

Member
I'm sure on a technical level there is huge gap. 2K had to sacrifice a lot to get it to run on the Switch. Textures, shaders, physics, framerate, and lighting are definitely toned down. However, unless the camera moves in close, it's not really noticeable to make a "generational" difference. We have now reached a point where we are just counting pixels and effects.

This proves that if 3rd party developers want to port any AAA game to the Switch, they can by making the appropriate sacrifices. Gamers will have to weigh the ability to play it on the go versus being able to count all the pixels on their TV. It will be interesting to see how the Switch version sells.
 
X

xxbrothawizxx63

Member
Liabe Brave said:
They did lower the polygon count, on the players at least. I suspect more of the crowd is 2D versus 3D as well, but a comparison isn't possible because of the DOF on PS4.
Click to expand...

They are, but you can see the reduction was minor (facial areas that require animation are less compromised). The degree needed to achieve 60fps would likely be a greater change than that and require a good amount of texture reworking.
 
L

Liabe Brave

Member
xxbrothawizxx63 said:
They are, but you can see the reduction was minor (facial areas that require animation are less compromised). The degree needed to achieve 60fps would likely be a greater change than that and require a good amount of texture reworking.
Click to expand...
I agree that there's probably no degree of poly reduction that would get them to 60fps. They obviously put in a good amount of effort adjusting for the platform, ended up cutting or cutting back on multiple aspects, and still couldn't get to that framerate. I can't imagine just dialing any one thing to low levels would get them over that threshold. I believe they've said they reached a compromise point they were satisfied with.
 
R

ryushe

Member
Luigiv said:
24fps is for film, not live TV. Live TV is either 60 field per second or 50 fields per second (depending on if it's NTSC or PAL). Each of these fields is half a frame so TV is normally advertised as being 30fps or 25fps but this is actually somewhat misleading. 60 halves make 30 wholes, which seems like sound logic, but in reality each field is actually a completely unique half frame, not a whole frame split in two. So really, NTSC broadcast TV actually bares a closer resemblance to 60fps at half the advertised resolution than 30fps at the full resolution that is normally quoted. I guess that back in the 30s they figured higher resolution made for better marketing than higher framerate... actually, nothing has really changed since then, has it?.

So yeah, the point of that story is that 60fps should actually look closer to broadcast TV than 30fps (though I guess you'd need to bump down from progressive scan to interlaced for that real authentic look).
Click to expand...
Oh, I did not know that.

Thank you for this very informative post. :)
 
J

Jonneh3003

Banned
ProBusinessgamer said:
i own it, lower quality models, alot less detail, 30 fps... If we are judging this as a handheld, fine.
But to give this a pass for what we would crucify the PS4/X1 is just crazy to me... I own the X1 version as well, not the PS4 version so i cant speak on this. But it does not hold up well to the main two consoles ps4/x1, it holds up well if you lower your standards.
If the pS4/X1 got the pass the switch gets for bland, low detailed models/world, and low FPS... then almost every game would be equally amazing to its PC or PS4 Pro counterpart.
Click to expand...
You say you have it but I'm not sure you know what a Switch is
 
M

Metalmarc

Member
ProBusinessgamer said:
i own it, lower quality models, alot less detail, 30 fps... If we are judging this as a handheld, fine.
But to give this a pass for what we would crucify the PS4/X1 is just crazy to me... I own the X1 version as well, not the PS4 version so i cant speak on this. But it does not hold up well to the main two consoles ps4/x1, it holds up well if you lower your standards.
If the pS4/X1 got the pass the switch gets for bland, low detailed models/world, and low FPS... then almost every game would be equally amazing to its PC or PS4 Pro counterpart.
Click to expand...


Oh come on now, I love my PS4 and all, but my Switch I never expected it to be as good as the PS4/xbox from when they announced the specs, so what we are getting for first attempts of the annual sports games is amazing.

Cerium said:
You have 51 posts and like 30 of them are bashing all things Switch.
Click to expand...


Oh no wonder he Said that, Switch basher account
 
M

MemoryHumanity

Member
CmdBash said:
Don't see what everyone is raving about, especially at 30fps (just feels bad for a sports game) its on par with what you'd expect with a console of that power.
Click to expand...
Well sorry, but when the entire Switch console is about the same size as the Xbox One's power brick, people are gonna be impressed.
 
J

JaynePea

Member
As more devs start to figure this console out and as it improves over time, ports and such should see a bigger jump in quality, i'd hope - especially as more third parties seem interested this time around.
 
J

Jonneh3003

Banned
its not that impressed because its not sixty fps and the graphics arent exactly the same so its really not that impressive. even when docked it isnt that impressive and nintendo told me switch was a console so if thats true why is it not impressive?

It's impressive when big things come from small packages. Not everything is going to be on par with other systems and any Switch owner with reasonable expectations has accepted that. This thing is smaller than most tablets, I think what 2K have done with this game is very impressive.
 
Frostman

Frostman

Member
2K have done a great job.

Still, doesn't compare for me considering I don't 'game on the go', so there are no benefits for this version.

Too add to that, this isn't a great comparison. A baseline comparison should require a native recording off all versions.
 
S

Saty

Member
That aliasing on the fences of the backyard court. Who is the docked-user that's going to be happy he spent more than the current price of PS4\XB1 for that? The Switch is defined by compromise and looks to me as the worst of both worlds (home and portable).
 
H

Hermii

Member
ColtraineGF said:
Holds up pretty well. Switch also has the inherent advantage of being portable as well, so it has that as a reason you'd get it over the other versions.

60fps would've been killer too - hopefully it's technically possible to patch that in later, though I'd understand if it weren't possible.
Click to expand...
I think it's pretty clear they went with visuals/ resolution over framerate.
 
C

Celine

Member
EDarkness said:
Nvidia has got to be feeling pretty good about this. I doubt they'd get to see the Tegra chipset used for something like this if it wasn't for the NS.
Click to expand...
Of course not.
This was Shield LTD in US as February 2016:

PSTV ~ 187.6K
OUYA ~ 67.8K
SHIELD ~ 30.5K

No one is going to invest serious money and efforts to support a few 100K userbase worldwide (in fact the best example on Shield of a Tegra X1 game outperforming over Xbox 360 and PS3 was the port of Doom 3 BFG funded by Nvidia itself).
Even if Tegra X1 was used in a popular smartphone or tablet, the OS that gimps performances and the typical business model for games on these devices that won't favour maximizing graphics, would always be limits for Tegra X1 full exploitation.
 
A

AzaK

Member
R00bot said:
Game looks and plays great on the Switch. Few frame drops here and there but honestly quite happy with it, glad I got it over the PS4 or other console versions.
Click to expand...

I assume you're a portable player? I think this is generally how Switch games will work. People who like portables will get it on Switch for when they want that, but people who like console gaming will get it elsewhere. There's really no reason to get the Switch version of any game if you're a console gamer.
 
L

Lonely1

Unconfirmed Member
I dislike those label very much... what is a console gamer? Someone who only owns a Ps4 or an XBox? If someone only owns a switch is not a console gamer?
 
G

gtj1092

Member
Lonely1 said:
I dislike those label very much... what is a console gamer? Someone who only owns a Ps4 or an XBox? If someone only owns a switch is not a console gamer?
Click to expand...

Seems to me they would be more of a portable gamer. If you are buying NBA 2K to play on a TV I doubt many would choose the switch version if they had a choice. Basically if you are ok with the sacrifices to switch 2k you have to be doing it from the perspective of a handheld gamer.

I will say its odd the differences between Ps4 2K and Switch 2K are described as minor but at launch the differences between Wii U ports to switch were considered big time upgrades.
 
D

DasPenguin

Member
OryoN said:
"Console-quality gaming on the go!"

People doubted Nintendo could pull this off. Even after launching, the skeptics' argument has shifted to; not just any games on the go but AAA 3rd-party games in particular... "surely Switch will never run those on the go." That argument won't make it out of September 2017 alive, with all these recent developments.

I suspect the next argument will be concerning very specific AAA games, but I think, at some point, it become hard for skeptics(not to be confused with haters!) not to respect the fact that Nintendo's vision for Switch is coming to fruition right before our eyes. It's such a great system to own!
Click to expand...

I don't understand your post at all. The biggest problem for casual gamers and Switch is that it will (most likely) miss the biggest 3rd party games. Destiny, whatever Rockstar is doing (although I'm happy about the LA Noire announcement) etc. Sports games are the most likely ports and same goes for remakes, because Switch can run last gen stuff. I was quite surprised that GTA V wasn't announced yet for Switch. That seems like a logical move to make. Just port the last gen version of the game.

Of course you could port anything if you cut enough corners, but companies like Rockstar don't want to do that. Improved graphics/engine are important part for them when it comes to new games.
 
Z

Zedark

Member
gtj1092 said:
I will say its odd the differences between Ps4 2K and Switch 2K are described as minor but at launch the differences between Wii U ports to switch were considered big time upgrades.
Click to expand...

I think people are including their expectations into those judgments. A kinda widespread assumption from before launch was that Switch was "about a WiiU" and far from a(n) XB1/PS4, so upgrades from Wii U are more likely to be seen as (unexpectedly) big, while the current gen downgrades are seen as (unexpectedly) small, even if the downgrades are bigger than the Wii U upgrades are from a tech standpoint. Just a perception thing is my guess.
 
T

Tyaren

Member
Cow Mengde said:
I rather have 60fps than graphics. They could have lowered the polygon count or something. It's a sports game and you rarely see characters super up close.
Click to expand...

xxbrothawizxx63 said:
Reducing model quality is not an easy task at all. Adding to a model is much easier than reducing. 2K likely didn't have lower quality assets they could build on except those from the PS3 and 360 (as soon as 2K went next gen the last gen version became basically a different game). That's probably why the models look so close to PS4/XBO. Tbf, the players are much closer to the camera in 2K than Fifa, so they can't get away with as much.
Click to expand...

That's exactly what they did though, in a smart and subtle way. Apart from the lower quality textures and shaders they also simplified the polygon mesh. You can, if you look a little closer, make out polygon angles in the collar area, the edge of the chin and the edge of the top of the head in the Switch version, whereas the model is perfectly smooth on Xbox One and PS4.

37066703476_51c6410dd0_o.jpg
Click to expand...
 
D

DasPenguin

Member
Bubba_Sparks said:
Amazing! The Switch is the first time in gaming history that a handheld can offer a comparable experience to a home console.
Click to expand...

Well to be fair, Liberty City Stories came out during the PS2 era and it came to PSP first. I think that would qualify as comparable experience.
 
S

SpookyBlackFish

Member
AzaK said:
I assume you're a portable player? I think this is generally how Switch games will work. People who like portables will get it on Switch for when they want that, but people who like console gaming will get it elsewhere. There's really no reason to get the Switch version of any game if you're a console gamer.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make sense at all. What are you trying to do here, drawing a line between what is console gaming and what isn't? The Switch is a console as any other when it comes to pure playing. One is no lesser a "gamer" if she or he chooses a gaming experience with lower performance and / or on the go. Same as high- & low end gaming PCs do not qualify for being any type of gamer. Really, this two - tier society behaviour and naming that comes with this harmless hobby (which it should be) is just beyond childish.

On topic, this seems to be some good work and a good example which could encourage the one or the other suitable multiplatform title to be ported. Nice to see.
 
W

weekev

Banned
Reeeeeeeerally interested to see sales comparison between the platforms. Obvs Switch will be lowest due to install base but wondering just how close it will get to the other 2 versions.
 
S

seady

Member
The PS4 and Xbone maybe +1 point for the graphics over the Switch version, but the Switch version always give me +3 point over the other version.

For some reason this never get reflected in reviews. If they can bump up points on the other version for being slightly prettier, why not bump up points on the Switch version for being portable?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

IGN / NXGamer: Hogwarts Legacy Performance Review: Nintendo Switch vs Xbox One
31
5K
Lucifers Beard replied
  • Poll
Which system made the biggest comeback? PlayStation 4 or Nintendo Switch?
Opinion Platform 2 3
100
4K
FullMetalx117 replied
Rumor | Nintendo Switch 2 May Use Samsung 5th Generation V-NAND With up to 1.4 GB/S Read Speed
2 3
121
9K
Kataploom replied
FTC Judge said The Nintendo Switch is a competitor to the Xbox
Hardware Platform 2
83
5K
willothedog replied
$70 Mortal Kombat 1 Switch version called "robbery" as graphical comparisons flood the internet
News Game Dev Platform 2 3
126
7K
Pejo replied
Top Bottom