hqqttjiang
Member
what about the framrate of ns, 30 or 60 ??
This just blew my mind for one reason everyone is skipping over: The Nintendo Switch has the potential to revive the PS Vita. Imagine the easy port jobs between the two.
Edit: Also, think about all of those 3ds developers and their massive new Switch library in the future easily coming over to vita. The potential is there.
what about the framrate of ns, 30 or 60 ??
what about the framrate of ns, 30 or 60 ??
Easier to upport than to downport. Same reason why Vita was getting 3ds lego upports and not console downports even when ps3 was on the market.
Yes. And people will be surprised everytime.We're gonna have this kind of thread for every game, aren't we?
Personally, I find it easier to downport. I can't speak for other programmers, but I find going down to lower spec'd hardware to be simpler since the foundation has already been laid, so things can be tweeked to fit the hardware you're working on. Porting up is just more work, in my opinion. Too many things to add which takes more time.
15-20 when lots of enemies and effects are on screen
Nintendo can make magic out of hardware, though. This is a little disconcerting for third party ports that come over.Well, yeah. It's a quicky port. And yeah, Switch is obviously less powerful than PS4. And yeah it looks worse than PS4 version. But using the game as representative of the Switch is mind boggling. Of course the Switch can do better, we have Botw, Mario Odyssey, etc running on it, people.
Not even as powerful as ps3 really.It's not finished yet, but yeah. Switch, the portable home console, isn't as powerful as PS4 in case anyone missed that news
Nintendo can make magic out of hardware, though. This is a little disconcerting for third party ports that come over.
what!!! r u sure??
Not even as powerful as ps3 really.
Well, yeah. It's a quicky port. And yeah, Switch is obviously less powerful than PS4. And yeah it looks worse than PS4 version. But using the game as representative of the Switch is mind boggling. Of course the Switch can do better, we have Botw, Mario Odyssey, etc running on it, people.
BotW is a WiiU game in 900p at 30fps. No one has seen Mario on an actual Switch. Xenoblade 2 looks really rough. Bomberman is 30fps. Not looking great as a first impression tech wise. In factfact, DQH does seem indicative since it falls in line with all that.
BotW is a WiiU game in 900p at 30fps. No one has seen Mario on an actual Switch. Xenoblade 2 looks really rough. Bomberman is 30fps. Not looking great as a first impression tech wise. In factfact, DQH does seem indicative since it falls in line with all that.
Wait what? Why does Bomberman have to be 30fps instead of 60?
And isn't Zelda aiming for 1080P?
Where did you hear that?
From this thread:
Eiji Aonuma does NOT confirm that Zelda: Breath of the Wild runs at 1080p on Switch
Never saw the update. :-(
BotW is a WiiU game in 900p at 30fps. No one has seen Mario on an actual Switch. Xenoblade 2 looks really rough. Bomberman is 30fps. Not looking great as a first impression tech wise. In factfact, DQH does seem indicative since it falls in line with all that.
I'd wait on launch. What I DO suspect however is that the GPU trounces it but the CPU is inversely stomped on by the PS3.Not even as powerful as ps3 really.
You just gonna ignore Mario Kart like that >_>
And ARMs for that matter.
But then Splatoon 2 takes it back down a notch....
Not even as powerful as ps3 really.
Your statement only makes sense if you think Vita is as powerful as a PS3. It isn't, at all. The Switch could easily be much more powerful than Vita and still be in the same ballpark as PS3. I'm not saying that's the actual situation, just that your logic isn't sound and doesn't refute it.Here's what you're saying. You're saying console utilizing a mobile chipset that's several mobile generations powerful than a Vita is actually less or about as powerful as a Vita.
If I had to guess, similar to the 360 version, running at 1080p docked with any luck. Maybe with a couple of additional effects made available with newer architecture.and people thought ME:Andromeda would be on the Switch.
Switch in its own league. I wonder how the Skyrim port will look.
BotW is a WiiU game in 900p at 30fps. No one has seen Mario on an actual Switch. Xenoblade 2 looks really rough. Bomberman is 30fps. Not looking great as a first impression tech wise. In factfact, DQH does seem indicative since it falls in line with all that.
From this thread:
Eiji Aonuma does NOT confirm that Zelda: Breath of the Wild runs at 1080p on Switch
Never saw the update. :-(
Lol, dont worry about it
So a game running on inferior hardware is downgraded?
Dang!
[...]
DQH, FIFA, Skyrim. 3 major publishers, 3 major franchises, 3 multi-generation titles. Why is the Switch version supposedly closest to the last gen ones each time? And more importantly, do we really expect this to get much better moving forward? It says something about the ease of porting a current gen (PS4/XB1) title to Switch - ie: not very easy. With the PS4 and XB1 getting incremental hardware upgrades, that seems like a problem that will grow larger, not get smaller.
[...]
I don't think it's a fair complaint to make when there is no other mobile device on the market pushing better visuals at a $250 price point.(if we are generous and say the joycons/dock make up $50 of the build cost)
In fact, tablets with similar capabilities and a total lack of software to take advantage of those capabilities are much more expensive.
For a number of reasons that may not have anything to do with development tools, processor speed or architecture, or graphical effects.
If they're up porting DQH because they start from a smaller file size, that could also be why Skyrim and FIFA are getting the up port treatment.
Game cards must be expensive compared to disc based media, and publishers are going to want developers to go for the smallest file size possible with most multiplatform projects. (As we know, at 16GB, the size of a standard game card is much closer to the size of a dual layer DVD than it is to a Blu-ray.)
Or, at least, that might be the case with Skyrim. EA has its own special relationship with Nintendo hardware and past ports on said hardware.
Of course it's a fair complaint. What you are basically saying is that the Switch is a console priced at the same level as more powerful consoles, and the Switch is a portable priced at much more than other portables. The hows and whys don't matter to the consumer. The reality is that the Switch is a product that has disadvantages any way you look at it. It doesn't compare well. As far as the table comparison goes, I don't think you know what capabilities people look for in their tablets when you say there are similar ones. The Switch isn't a tablet. This isn't a comparison where we look at individual parts and price tags and go "ah this is fair". That's not how the consumer goods market works.
If space is such a concern, and card size is already holding them back so much, wouldn't the simple conclusion then be that in future if the file size of multiplatform games are too large, developers will just ignore the Switch altogether? Isn't that even worse?
We're gonna have this kind of thread for every game, aren't we?
They will use a bigger cart?I think another issue of the Switch is that it'll miss out on the graphic heavy, size heavy AAA games that the PS4/Xbox One/PC are getting and will get if they're aiming to pull in the PS4/Xbox One/PC crowd.
Take for example FFXV. If Square Enix wants to put in FFXV in Switch, how the hell can they compress 50+ GB worth of content to say... 16GB?
They will use a bigger cart?
When you're talking about a visual medium based on player input, it's hardly surprising that those two aspects get talked about a lot.visuals and performance arent the only things that make games
This is where I am. The docking aspect will be nice at home. It's win win for me as far as that's concerned. I just hope third parties will optimize for good framerates/frame pacing at 720p at the very least.The fact that it's portable still outweighs the minuscule downgrade for me, and that will pretty much go for most games. As someone who goes to work everyday and usually brings their 3DS, the Switch is perfect, and small downgrades like particle effects don't make a huge difference.
it looks like the vita version to me?
Nobody should be expecting cutting edge AAA games on the Switch in the first place, especially from western 3rd parties. Nintendo hasn't made hardware to facilitate those games in more than a decade.My major issue with the Switch is that it'll miss out on the graphic heavy, size heavy AAA games that the PS4/Xbox One/PC are getting and will get if they're aiming to pull in the PS4/Xbox One/PC crowd.
Take for example FFXV. If Square Enix wants to put in FFXV in Switch, how the hell can they compress 50+ GB worth of content to say... 16GB?