I dunno, it gets a little offputting for so many threads to be wondering about switch versions of current gen games though when you know the only way that's happening is if the switch version is crippled. It's cool when they can do it, but as a happy switch owner...I don't see why anyone wants them to make stuff like that, I understand not everyone owns an Xbox or a PS4, or maybe you want something portable for some reason, but it's really not different power-wise from asking for a 3DS version of a 360 or PS3 game, and that wasn't exactloy a common request. It's like with switch specifically people go 'oh but it's nintendo's home console' and completely lose sight of the power differential.
-
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
I dunno, it gets a little offputting for so many threads to be wondering about switch versions of current gen games though when you know the only way that's happening is if the switch version is crippled. It's cool when they can do it, but as a happy switch owner...I don't see why anyone wants them to make stuff like that, I understand not everyone owns an Xbox or a PS4, or maybe you want something portable for some reason, but it's really not different power-wise from asking for a 3DS version of a 360 or PS3 game, and that wasn't exactloy a common request. It's like with switch specifically people go 'oh but it's nintendo's home console' and completely lose sight of the power differential.
ExigentContact
Member
The point, I think, was to see 1: how scalable iD Tech 6 is and 2: demonstrate how much of a technical achievement Doom is on the Switch. It's a weird choice for a video but it does ascertain that yes, iD Tech 6 is very scalable and that might make it easier for Bethesda to bring their games over than other developers with less scalable engines such as DICE's Frostbite, which ran poorly on the low-specced PC in comparison to Doom. It also shows that according to his words, the developers got more consistent performance from the undocked Switch than he got from his PC which does show a lot of impressive optimization work went into the port.
That being said, a straight preview would have been less muddled.
So what did they actually do? Analyse the trailer or build a "Switch PC" and use that as a basis?
I mean, both methods are rather asinine if you think about it. IIRC, every third party trailer in the direct was 30 fps.
Alexander DeLarge
Member
As a Switch owner, I don't want a port of an arena shooter if it can't maintain a solid 60. That is the bare minimum for the genre and I genuinely can not see this gameplay (linked below) translating well at half the frame rate of the consoles.
https://youtu.be/BwAVoaZcN6Y?t=94
It also sucks that people are using this as an example to point at that current gen games can run on the Switch. No one was disputing that. It was a matter of whether they could run well or not (without being butchered visually or when it comes to processing). This game isn't too rough on the CPU but the butchering is only going to get worse when people start demanding open world games which are heavily CPU reliant and developers will have to decide whether develop for Switch as a processing baseline or to butcher the port retroactively. I hope they choose the latter.
Kenzodielocke
Banned
So DF is wrong or why was this video removed? Early upload? I haven't watched it, was he at the event himself?
This really. The bubble here is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.
The à¹ÛBronx
Member
I wasn't pretending anything, I was commenting on the topic of frame-rates for which it is common to see people act smug about their 'standard' and not playing anything less than 60FPS. It bewilders me.
On the topic at hand though, DOOM (2016) has been out for awhile now and yes, people who wanted it and have other platforms will probably have played it on that. What's your point? That leaves people that might want to play it on a handheld for which compromises should be expected. I never for a second thought they'd manage 60FPS but if they did I'd take it, if not then whatever, still have that game playable on the go.
MetalliCabombination
Member
Fp16 isnt bringing serious upgrades for consoles any time soon. Far less so for the switch which has an nvidia card.
Wont go into detail but expect some small improvements on ps4 pro if ever.
Rapid packed math is only properly supported by by the new vega cards and while nvidia cards do support it, its efficiency borders on uselessness.
The next iteration of nvidia cards is likely to support it tho.
Even the xb1x doesnt have it, and pro only has it because it was externally implemented or something. Cant find any such claims regarding the switch.
I wonder if the people who are saying "30fps is unacceptable" also defend their console when it cant do 60 for most games? Would you rather the devs just didn't bother releasing the game in that situation also?
And don't give me the 'its different for doom'. Play destiny 2 on PC at 60 and tell me that not the way the game is "meant" to be played. ALL games feel better at 60, thats just a fact
More frames is good, but releasing on more platforms is better.
And don't give me the 'its different for doom'. Play destiny 2 on PC at 60 and tell me that not the way the game is "meant" to be played. ALL games feel better at 60, thats just a fact
More frames is good, but releasing on more platforms is better.
If the performance is terrible then it is pointless.
Some games just won't work on certain hardware, and that's ok.
I'd rather developers produce stuff that does work.Give me exclusive Switch games over terrible third party ports.
Yeah maybe.
After half the people already got their confirmation that the game sucks? We have someone who wants to sell his Switch because of this lmao.
Not when it's already on every platform for a discounted price and much better performance.
I'd guess it's an even mixture of switch owners and people who just want to take the opportunity to shit on the switch.
I think it's just because the smooth high framerate is such a critical element of this game considering it's a fast paced shooter, so a lot of people are thinking what's the point of buying this if you've already played on other platforms and the portability isn't enough of a factor to them.
I'm probably still going to get this even though I played through it on PC last year, I like having physical copies of games and I especially like having carts for new games in old franchises that I have carts for from the NES/SNES/N64, just because it's cool to me to have them side by side.
Called it, but I was hoping for 60fps still.
Wow dude calm down, with that mentality there wouldn't be much ports on Switch, compromises have to made, it's a tablet.
Wow dude calm down, with that mentality there wouldn't be much ports on Switch, compromises have to made, it's a tablet.
It's capped at 30fps, but it's not flawless 30fps. How would you call that?
chronic_archaic
Member
I wonder that myself - even a late port of the first game and maybe Old Blood together with slightly higher visuals than 360/PS3 (they both look quite alright as it is) would make sense in terms of a first run I think. Though, it does have to be said Switch is so different from PPC and those are consoles with so much time spent optimizing games that it's somewhat understandable trying to hit 60fps is kind of difficult. I suspect though if id took the port in house it could hit 60fps given the tech they're using but I'm not the one to talk about this.
The à¹ÛBronx
Member
Which they would have likely already bought it on if they had an interest in the game and said platform? You honestly don't think that's been accounted for. This is evidently for people that want a version of DOOM (2016) on the Switch because of its utility, not because they want to play the best version of it.
Toadthemushroom
Member
Rich did play a variety of levels from the Switch version of the game in arcade mode at the London event, though. Throughout the video he compared his experience with the Switch-docked-PC-equivalent to his experience playing it in handheld mode on Switch.
This might explain why the multiplayer.it preview claimed it ran at 60fps with no hitches.
I think CPU is the bottleneck. It was for Doom - Richard mentioned that while the A57s in the Switch have better per-core performance than AMD Jaguars, that's clock-for-clock and the One/PS4 have notably higher clocks.
Many of them expect a PS4 handheld with nuclear batteries when they bought it or how many posters actually bought a Switch? Lots of posters are just trashing the Switch and its game whenever they get the chance. Just cos.. it's Nintendo.
for a portable, it's expected, what do you want, it's not like they can do miracle
plagiarize
Banned
I trust DF not to get something like this wrong, so locked 30 fps it must be. I'll wait for impressions then before deciding to buy.
Alexander DeLarge
Member
If that's what is to be expected, why do Switch owners expect third parties to develop multiplatform game for their platform? I'm really concerned about developers designing for the Switch's hardware as a baseline in processing performance. Graphical fidelity can always be increased but if an open world multiplatform game were to be developed with the Switch in mind, there would be concessions made across the board for consoles and PC.
If this is the best they can do, then maybe they shouldn't have bothered. Maybe their engine isn't as scalable as people think.
Seems like they did both. And yeah, it's kinda asinine.
This is console war fodder as well, you don't need a Switch to post in these threads.
The à¹ÛBronx
Member
..because they seem to be?
Enter The 36 Chambers
Member
Why do people take any criticisms so personally?
30fps is fine for the majority of games. This isn't the usual frames wankery threads we always have. This is a game that objectively plays better at 60fps, not being 60fps.
DOOM is a fast game, it needs 60fps.
30fps is fine for the majority of games. This isn't the usual frames wankery threads we always have. This is a game that objectively plays better at 60fps, not being 60fps.
DOOM is a fast game, it needs 60fps.
But then he goes on and compare the visual settings vs. the trailer from the Direct and vs. a custom built Switch-like PC. It is a pretty disingenuous video in the end.
I refuse to believe that he will not know how 30fps look like from the hands-on. So that's that at least.
Wonder Peter
Member
Because Switch is selling quite well and third party developers want to make more money?
I believe Doom could be 60FPS on the Switch. Same goes for Sonic Forces and NBA 2K18 you mentioned. The thing is, developers choose to deliver some games at lower framerates that they would run on other consoles and it becomes a rule for more demanding titles. I hope for more games hitting 60FPS target within bigger third parties in the future, but I keep my expectations in check.
Jawbreaker
Member
Well, if you absolutely must play the game on the go or only own a Switch, it's your only option. Can't say I'd ever want to play DOOM at 30 FPS, though.
Watched the video too while it was online. While most likely all of the bolded segments hold true, they are apparently all based on the direct footage since they use that for comparison.
I'm still more than a bit disappointed on 30FPS. Will still hold out for motion controls, but my excitement is a bit dampened right now. I was really sure that they wouldn't settle for anything less than a 60FPS target.
From a certain day one to waiting on some more details.
JetSetRadio
Banned
DFgate? 
The à¹ÛBronx
Member
No, you need 60FPS to play it.
Lol this post is trash.
Sounds like a good port. Over half the fps hardliners can't even tell the difference in a video as evidenced by every time we get footage of a title pre-release. Glad this game is coming to Switch.
TannerDemoz
Member
Just because a game runs in 30fps doesn't make it 'terrible'. I completely get your point, but how are people actually jumping to a conclusion that this game 'won't work' or will 'run very poorly' when it looks to me like DF has praised the performance?!
For real? Since when DF does this kind of things?
I want quality games, not downscaled cash grabs because the Switch is doing well.
Ah forgot about LowSpecGamer!
Tbh many Western AAA 3rd party devs aren't gonna invest in a new Nintendo platform with an exclusive game, especially after the Wii U. It's unrealistic 6 months out for the Switch.
SatoAilDarko
Member
The à¹ÛBronx
Member
Fucking lol. Got the people that deal with this stuff day in and day out praising the port but hey, guess you know more about the possibilities.
Wonko_C
Member
Alexander DeLarge
Member
Watch the video. There's a 60FPS option and a 30FPS option. You can definitely tell the difference (and I'd imagine the original video was recorded at 144hz on a PC)
https://youtu.be/BwAVoaZcN6Y?t=131
30FPS for this particular subgenre (arena shooter) is horrible. Can you imagine that kind of movement at that kind of frame rate? We did it back in the day with Quake and Doom. It wasn't ideal.
dragonfart28
Banned
I can't imagine this game will sell very well with that kind of performance, regardless of the unique features of Switch.
And most of your posts are trashing the Switch?
Yeah, they did both, but they apparently also played around 40 minutes of the port in handheld mode and are basing most of their talk on that.
But they couldn't show it and since DF operates mostly on video... They had to show something I guess and it is interesting to see how it might compare... Just not for someone who is really thirsty for a deep dive into the Switch version.
Kenzodielocke
Banned
What, why the heck would they do that? Like, they could have done this way earlier then, no? I really wish I watched that video.
Edit: Ah, so they played and showed the Direct footage because they didn't get anything from Bethesda, got it.
Oh boy, we've come full circle.
Same users that always defend that 30 fps is fine when comparing PC versions to console versions are saying now that 30 fps is not fine when comparing console to portable console versions, without a hint of shame huh.
And to think we wouldn't have all this delicious drama if Digital Foundry didn't invent the footage? You doing God's work DF.
Same users that always defend that 30 fps is fine when comparing PC versions to console versions are saying now that 30 fps is not fine when comparing console to portable console versions, without a hint of shame huh.
And to think we wouldn't have all this delicious drama if Digital Foundry didn't invent the footage? You doing God's work DF.