-
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.
DigitalFoundry analysis of DOOM for Nintendo Switch
- Thread starter Cerium
- Start date
ThisIsMyDogKyle
Banned
What I'm getting from this thread are that the guys that have actually played it and are experts on this sort of thing say that, while unfortunate, 30 FPS isn't a deal breaker and that the game overall seems to be a really damn good port, meanwhile some people that haven't played it and have only seen off screen compressed footage of a beta version of the game in its lowest powered form have decided that the port shouldn't be made as it's basically not DOOM anymore. gee whiz I wonder who's opinion I'm going to put more stock in.
Yeah you make a good point. I was mostly going off of how many times I've read or heard people explaining they stayed with CoD because "the way it feels", which I think is directly related to the frame rate. I know that's anecdotal but I thought there was merit to the idea when games like Halo, Gears of War, and Uncharted have moved to 60fps for the multiplayer.
Also wouldn't a large portion of that metacritic list be ~30fps because the majority of games target that performance?
TLZ
Banned
He did say it's lower than 560p or whatever 500's~p he mentioned when compared to PC equivalent specs. Please watch again and mention that.
i don't think there's any dispute (by anybody sane) this is an incredible feat
caveat here is doom 2016 is *fast*... outside of current MP arena shooters there's really nothing else where framerate can be so make or break.
I have a PS4 and Switch and I'll be getting it for the Switch anyway.
I also don't want to know how many people are ok with stuff like Destiny being 30fps and then coming in here and spouting their nonsense.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
It's not that 60 isn't better, but 30hz and 60hz shooters coexisted for a very long time without clear sales dominance (in fact, in Halo's heyday you could say it was the reverse). It's only very recently that the last of the heavy hitters have made the switch to 60.
Call of Duty's multiplayer success it not just down to low input latency. Although CoD2 was 60fps and enjoyed popularity, it was not until 4 with the addition of numerous new features that it was catapulted into the position enjoys to this day. The multiplayer suite as a whole was perfected with this game - killstreaks, a huge selection of weapons and equipment, class based customization, perks, an addictive leveling and progression system, good map design, super fast respawn times, etc etc. The gameplay as a whole (not just the framerate) achieved an almost perfect balance that allowed inexperienced gamers to pick it up and have fun while still offering a respectable skill ceiling and kept veterans coming back for years. Since 2007 every major franchise has tried to copy the lessons of Modern Warfare, to a greater or lesser extent. It's a struggle to think of popular shooters in the last 5 years that didn't have some kind of progression metagame with ranks and unlocks.
The single player game still looked great in 2007 (even ignoring framerate), it had an action packed story mode that blew people away, and the multiplayer suite was highly addictive for a large number of reasons. Having played several Call of Duty games on PC at sub-60 framerates due to my PC being shit back in the day, I can also confirm for you that they're still very fun!
Considering the huge number of factors involved, can we really say that it's success was primarily because of the target framerate? And can we realistically extrapolate that 60fps translates in any direct way to high review scores or high sales? This is a popular, sexy idea for a lot of people on the forums but it feels very reductive and overly simplistic to me.
I have been playing Doom since the first one on PC and across multiple platforms ever since and it's not always been 60 fps everywhere, actually for the most part it has never been and I'll be more than glad to play that game on the go as much as I have played it on a stronger console... because it is still a good game without 60 fps. My ex-PC didn't run DOOM 2016 at 60 fps and I was still able to play and kick ass just as much. I do get your point, I'm just not sure you get mine. Still love you no matter what.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
lol
You do bring up some great points and it's true that CoD didn't see the jump in sales until they hit modern times with the multiplayer features that would become their template for years.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
I'd be nice if they included an extreme low visual setting that tried to hit that 60fps benchmark in portable mode, but I wonder if that'd require a bit too much work for a smaller port studio. Like combing over the models to reduce the triangle count beyond the in-built scalability. Still, the option would be welcome for those who really want to hit 60fps. Just like how some people drop their CSGO/BF/PUBG settings to low to ensure maximum framerate.
But, you know, the Switch is already a very limited system even if the GPU is feature rich. Doubly so for portable mode. No matter the content or engine scalability, having a very modern game powered by a very modern engine still supported and playable on a portable system is alone very impressive. There's major limitations with the Switch's hardware, and hitting 60fps on the go would be a hell of an achievement.
But, you know, the Switch is already a very limited system even if the GPU is feature rich. Doubly so for portable mode. No matter the content or engine scalability, having a very modern game powered by a very modern engine still supported and playable on a portable system is alone very impressive. There's major limitations with the Switch's hardware, and hitting 60fps on the go would be a hell of an achievement.
It still wouldn't be possible without scaling back the number of enemies and reducing the number of necessary AI computations.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
It really does look like the CPU is the weak link.
And if it's CPU bound there's little they could do to mitigate that. Model complexity and enemy count might be the most effective way, but as you noted, model complexity might be more than a small(ish) port studio can handle for a title releasing in a couple of months.
Given the visuals on display, it doesn't seem like the GPU is the culprit.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
I watched Cheers at 24fps.
Mr big rich man with his CRT from the 90's! Mine worked in 1972 and dagnabit it worked until 2002!
Dead Man Typing
Member
I was convinced that they would drop enemy count before they let go of 60hz - but I was wrong. It's the full Doom experience at 30fps.
Its still an amazing achievement and I might still buy it because I really, really like Doom 2016. I won't lie, I had convinced myself they were going to pull off a miracle on Switch.
Depending on the final product I might still consider it a technical miracle. I was always on the fence about double dipping on the Switch version - the decision is still up in the air until we hear a price. (It's Bethesda, it'll be full price)
Its still an amazing achievement and I might still buy it because I really, really like Doom 2016. I won't lie, I had convinced myself they were going to pull off a miracle on Switch.
Depending on the final product I might still consider it a technical miracle. I was always on the fence about double dipping on the Switch version - the decision is still up in the air until we hear a price. (It's Bethesda, it'll be full price)
Great point. Look what Nintendo did with the NGC architechture. Everything that machine could do with only 24 MB of MoSys 1T-SRAM main memory. Yet in many cases, it could outperform the other 2 because of a great architecture. As you say, I love DF, but 'we built this PC to simulate console harware X': no thank you. Not even close to being fair.
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
I think it depends on whether it's CPU bottlenecked or not. The DF video implies that it might be, but that's just speculation on their part based on a not-100%-reliable simulation of the switch version they were using for testing.
You know, at first I thought 30FPS would be a dealbreaker, but now that i'm home from work and watching some of the preview videos (after checking out the DF analysis), it actually looks way better than the mental image I had of what it was going to look like.
Seriously looks smooth as...hell.
Seriously looks smooth as...hell.
professor denim
Member
Looks indcredible to me. A better port than Quake 2 on Ps1.
coughlanio
Member
DOOM was 35FPS.
nordique
Member
Well said
PdotMichael
Banned
But we all know the Tegra specs and other high end mobile solutions. Why should people be amazed about it? A game which can only run with a low frame rate is still an inferior product to all the other available solutions in that regard.
primasaurus
Member
Other versions run at 0 fps in portable mode, so this could actually be the superior product ;P
PdotMichael
Banned
Well, if that is the deciding factor for you. Doesn't change the frame rate situation though.
Jon Carter
Member
Because people have never played a game this big, beautiful and ambitious on a portable device. We know mobile tech is powerful, but there's never been anything on the level of DOOM 2016 on mobile devices, so to see it is impressive I would imagine.
lwilliams3
Member
Prior to this, some posters really downplayed Switch's graphical potential. They did not expect a decent port of Doom to be possible. While compromises are made, this is bit higher than the expectation of, "zero chance of happening" or "it can't run."
Honestly, the people who claimed that no third party devs will feel that it's worth the effort to port down to the Switch are the ones that need to eat crow after these last few weeks.
Yup. It's like people don't want 3rd party on Switch
With you 100%. 60fps zealots are the worst.
vasametropolis
Member
I'm a 60fps zealot but it's a fricken handheld in power. 10/10 effort this port looks great.
flipswitch
Member
If this wasnt a port made by a small team? but made ground up ( like first party Nintendo games) theres no question about it, it would look and perform much better. /s states obvious.
Im really impressed with Marios Odyssey for example.
Im really impressed with Marios Odyssey for example.
MHWilliams
Member
To understand the "Doom = 60 fps", you have to understand the culture Id Software circa Carmack built on that benchmark.
https://web.archive.org/web/2013062...tty-at-60fps-than-graphics-as-the-only-thing/
Carmack also preferred a locked framerate to a variable one.
http://www.develop-online.net/news/carmack-next-gen-games-will-still-target-30-fps/0113660
Carmack even showed off Rage running on an iPhone back during QuakeCon 2010... in 60 fps of course.
This focus on framerate was important in many of id's games in the previous generation. It became a part of the fanbase's general culture. This carried forward even after Carmack left id. That's was the framerate was something Doom 2016's devs.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/doom-dev-we-want-to-be-the-best-looking-game-out-t/1100-6429178/
Like, I'm trying to get you to understand, 60 fps has been a selling point for id Software. It's been a thing they themselves have made a very big deal.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-doom-tech-interview
https://twitter.com/idSoftwareTiago/status/721238218113351680
It was a stated goal on their official blog.
So if you're wondering why some folks are dipping, some of that is they prefer those higher (or locked) frame rates. But there's also the folks that have been told, for a very long time, that id Software games are 60 fps. That's the selling point, that's the key. And whether it actually bothers them, or they believe it does, that's why they're passing on the concept of the experience.
It's probably better to save your disgust for something more worthwhile. As I noted above, Carmack got Rage running at 60 fps on iPhone with heavy caveats in 2010.
A port is always doable, it's just a matter of what cuts a developer or publisher want to make to the experience to fit it on a different platform. What becomes a problem is the insistence that a dev or publisher do so. Some want to reach as many platforms as possible. Some developers, like id Software usually (which is likely why Panic Button is doing most of the heavy lifting on this), aim for higher spec systems and platforms. That's what they do. Especially in the case of some PC developers, the graphical presentation at those levels is a part of their vision for the title.
What becomes an annoyance - note, not an actual problem - is that the decision not to make those cuts to your title is presented as wrongdoing and malfeasance. Ubisoft has a number of games on the Switch already, but the Assassin's Creed team deciding not to try and cram Origins onto the Switch isn't them being bad developers. They have completely valid reasons not to port to that platform, one of them being that their vision of the game leans on a graphically detailed open world.
The PSP, Vita, and 3DS have played host to some interesting ports of graphically-intensive games, as have many mobile devices like iOS/Android tablets. Anything can fit on the Switch, but it's a matter of A) if developers want to make those cuts and B) if fans are willing to stomach those compromises to buy the projects. Those are things publishers take into account in deciding to do a port.
https://web.archive.org/web/2013062...tty-at-60fps-than-graphics-as-the-only-thing/
Carmack also preferred a locked framerate to a variable one.
http://www.develop-online.net/news/carmack-next-gen-games-will-still-target-30-fps/0113660
Carmack even showed off Rage running on an iPhone back during QuakeCon 2010... in 60 fps of course.
This focus on framerate was important in many of id's games in the previous generation. It became a part of the fanbase's general culture. This carried forward even after Carmack left id. That's was the framerate was something Doom 2016's devs.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/doom-dev-we-want-to-be-the-best-looking-game-out-t/1100-6429178/
Like, I'm trying to get you to understand, 60 fps has been a selling point for id Software. It's been a thing they themselves have made a very big deal.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-doom-tech-interview
https://twitter.com/idSoftwareTiago/status/721238218113351680
It was a stated goal on their official blog.
So if you're wondering why some folks are dipping, some of that is they prefer those higher (or locked) frame rates. But there's also the folks that have been told, for a very long time, that id Software games are 60 fps. That's the selling point, that's the key. And whether it actually bothers them, or they believe it does, that's why they're passing on the concept of the experience.
It's probably better to save your disgust for something more worthwhile. As I noted above, Carmack got Rage running at 60 fps on iPhone with heavy caveats in 2010.
A port is always doable, it's just a matter of what cuts a developer or publisher want to make to the experience to fit it on a different platform. What becomes a problem is the insistence that a dev or publisher do so. Some want to reach as many platforms as possible. Some developers, like id Software usually (which is likely why Panic Button is doing most of the heavy lifting on this), aim for higher spec systems and platforms. That's what they do. Especially in the case of some PC developers, the graphical presentation at those levels is a part of their vision for the title.
What becomes an annoyance - note, not an actual problem - is that the decision not to make those cuts to your title is presented as wrongdoing and malfeasance. Ubisoft has a number of games on the Switch already, but the Assassin's Creed team deciding not to try and cram Origins onto the Switch isn't them being bad developers. They have completely valid reasons not to port to that platform, one of them being that their vision of the game leans on a graphically detailed open world.
The PSP, Vita, and 3DS have played host to some interesting ports of graphically-intensive games, as have many mobile devices like iOS/Android tablets. Anything can fit on the Switch, but it's a matter of A) if developers want to make those cuts and B) if fans are willing to stomach those compromises to buy the projects. Those are things publishers take into account in deciding to do a port.
You mean like every multiplatform console game being an inferior product compared to PC?
SMOK3Y
Generous Member
Great post
Kaleinc
Banned
What if I don't sit on a toilet for 30+ minutes.
Thunder Monkey
Banned
Start?
Elfotografoalocado
Banned
Depending on how CPU bound it is, there may well be a possibility that there's a "performance" mode when docked, at the same resolution only at 60HZ? The only drop I saw in the video in portable mode happened during a GPU intensive moment.
And, TBH, 30FPS with good motion blur and low latency is fine on a small screen.
The angular difference between frames is lower on the small screen, which makes it much easier in the eyes. Kind of like MGS Peace Walker being 20FPS and people not noticing because the screen was small.
PdotMichael
Banned
Well, if the console versions don't reach various standards for many people then it would be a legit argument against them as well.
I bought a gaming pc so I can play most of my games in solid 60 fps.
But ffs let's not pretend that there isn't plenty of amazing games that run sub 60. BotW which so many of you praise to the death isn't even solid 30 fps.
I hate the 60 fps elitism. It's one of the topics I could easily live without.
Hats off to Doom Switch version. This is a really good sign that there is more to come. Just don't expect every AAA game releasing on Switch.
But ffs let's not pretend that there isn't plenty of amazing games that run sub 60. BotW which so many of you praise to the death isn't even solid 30 fps.
I hate the 60 fps elitism. It's one of the topics I could easily live without.
Hats off to Doom Switch version. This is a really good sign that there is more to come. Just don't expect every AAA game releasing on Switch.
Gunslinger
Member
Botw and doom are two different things. Fps and fighting games are optimal at 60 fps. Thats why any game from those genres that are even remotely competitive push for 60 fps. Even uncharted online is 60fps. So is gow4.