Demoskinos
Member
Oh man, do people still think they can see more than 27 frames per second?
Joke post? Cause the human eye can easily see 60fps.
Oh man, do people still think they can see more than 27 frames per second?
Come on, what?Come on. It was probably for the Direct that was going to be viewed by a generalized audience. Nintendo hasn't given a shit about censoring violence or gore since the 90s. See: Manhunt, Madworld, Ninja Gaiden 3: RE (Where they published it and that version ADDED more blood and gore) Devil's Third, etc.
- "Utterly insane, how did they do that?"
.
.
.- Post process pipeline mostly intact
- 30fps cap was "inevitable"
- Depth of field reduced but not removed
- Resolution is lower on Switch, dynamic, unsure of exact count
- Reduced textures
His point was that it's impressive a handheld can even run this at 30fps, yeah the 90s example doesn't work well thoughHow is this relevant in any way to my reply about a comparison between 90's gaming and today's?
But the switch IS effectively a tablet. All the games we've had so far have been showing us exactly that. It's not a bad thing, it's a compromise to give us the portability that people love about the system.Even ignoring the 30 fps cap, if you listen carefully what DF says in the video, it is not a good port. At least not in undocked mode.
When you need to call Switch a tablet to excuse the quality of the port you know that things are pretty bad.
Above, I asterisked mostly because there were parts of the first level where the frame rate dipped considerably. It usually recovered, but in one instance it stayed low. A spokesperson told me that the game was still undergoing optimization courtesy of the ports developer, Panic Button and with the full game already running as well as it is in advance of its holiday release this year, theres still time.
Seems quite alright from what I can tell. Cool.
There are cutbacks and compromises of course, and to be clear, one in particular is going to sting. id's intention with the title was to recreate the best-looking 60Hz console shooter and on Switch, that isn't the case, with the experience pared back to half-refresh. Our session with the game was entirely in handheld mode and it still played well, with a mostly consistent frame-rate smoothed over with the same post-process motion blur found in the original. 30fps though? It's a reduction in fidelity that many won't be able to get past - but of course, it's what makes this port possible in the first place.
However, many of the features of the post-process pipeline seem to remain in place - depth of field and motion blur to name just two. GPU-driven sparks and particles are still there as well. However, adding to the blur factor are low resolution textures, which seem broadly equivalent to PC's lowest setting - and possibly even lower in places. But it's definitely Doom with the same weapons, levels and enemies. The entire single-player campaign is in there and multiplayer is a download away. We played eight levels in arcade mode and of those we completed, their length was the same as the PS4 version, with no mid-level loading - despite the Switch's reduced memory.
By and large, the Doom stays at its 30fps target, but there is momentary stutter in the game's busiest areas. We would expect frame-rate stability and resolution to increase when docked, but we harbour few hopes of a sudden jump to 60fps.
No, in many cases it isn't. It's definitely not fine in FPS, racing and fighting games.
Again I don't see what the issue is in this particular case.So you agree with the poster saying that there should be the same expectations from games in 2017 as they were in the 90's? That the technical evolution of the last 25 years shouldn't matter in what is expected from a game?
This thread is embarrassing.
Seems quite alright from what I can tell. Cool.
Here's our GameSpot video from our hands-on https://www.gamespot.com/videos/doom-on-switch-gameplay/2300-6440979/
Not really. As illustrated by their BF1 example, simply turning down effects isn't enough. If it was then you'd see a lot more PS4Bone games on Switch.So, um, let me get this right. They said with great hyperbole Utterly insane, how did they do this!?!?
Then they went on to explain exactly how they did it.
Here's our GameSpot video from our hands-on https://www.gamespot.com/videos/doom-on-switch-gameplay/2300-6440979/
Edit: Youtube version if you like https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=8eOdEkmTP0o
Not when it's already on every platform for a discounted price and much better performance.
Come on, what?
I'm not suggesting that anything is happening outside of what Nintendo have shown. maybe it;s the same all the way through, maybe it isn't. None of us know and we only have what Nintendo have shown us to go on. The reason that I would suggest that it was Ninetndo's request to do this is that when the sequence was shown on PC and the other consoles blood was the standard colour.
Disappointing to see that they appear to have changed the colour of the blood in the Switch version, it's now either dark green or black. I didn't realise that Nintendo still supported that practice
Uhh, I may be blind, but doesn't that look like 60fps?
This thread, this frame rate.
Lol 30 fps! 😂
Uhh, I may be blind, but doesn't that look like 60fps?
Uhh, I may be blind, but doesn't that look like 60fps?
Here's our GameSpot video from our hands-on https://www.gamespot.com/videos/doom-on-switch-gameplay/2300-6440979/
Edit: Youtube version if you like https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=8eOdEkmTP0o
That looks... Pretty damn good?
Not obscene but not great. I remember the rune trial loads feeling like a bit much.What were the load times like on console DOOM? These seem kinda lengthy
just good post processing effects.