Not as portable no.If you put it on a laptop you can have portable Doom at 120fps, and ultra settings to boot.
Not as portable no.If you put it on a laptop you can have portable Doom at 120fps, and ultra settings to boot.
Nobody cares about DOOM's multiplayer.
It will also be a lot more than $300.Not as portable no.
Not as portable no.
If you put it on a laptop you can have portable Doom at 120fps, and ultra settings to boot.
laptop is much bigger then a switch
unless you also have a mouse and place to use it, the laptop touch pad is going to suck.
No £280 laptop is going to run doom at that spec
Still portable, yes. The statement wasn't specifying the degree of portability, just that having it be portable would be amazing (nor was it about price either).
Plus you could argue more people take laptops around colleges and work environments than people bring switches with them, so there's an argument throwing a laptop in a little briefcase/bag is every bit as portable as a switch. You could probably also argue more people bring laptops on planes than switches as well, so there's quite a compelling argument that a laptop is as easy to bring around as a switch is for the general population - as they seem to have little trouble doing just that.
Regardless the semantics people have for what they consider a portable is a joke to me, so that's why I picked on this. I completely count both switch and laptops as portable devices, and to those who don't, sorry.
laptop is much bigger then a switch
unless you also have a mouse and place to use it, the laptop touch pad is going to suck.
No £280 laptop is going to run doom at that spec
Just because more people being laptops doesn't mean it's easier. How is that a logical conclusion?
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.
When we thought Switch was around 600Gflops you kept claiming down porting to it even from XBox One would be a big challenge. Now we know Switch is 400Gflops and we're seeing excellent down ports from PS4 apparently its nothing special?..
If you put it on a laptop you can have portable Doom at 120fps, and ultra settings to boot.
It is, but the original statement didn't argue price, or any limitations on size, just that it be portable. Also, see above, I'd feel fairly comfortable arguing people transport laptops around more often than Switches with little issue at all, despite their larger size. You could also use a gamepad with a laptop so mouse isn't necessary, but I've seen complaints about the switch joy cons too, people saying that using the Pro controller makes a huge improvement.
Most consumer laptops are closer to the ULV processor space than the high end gaming laptop space, which is going to be delivering something more like this.
When we thought Switch was around 600Gflops you kept claiming down porting to it even from XBox One would be a big challenge. Now we know Switch is 400Gflops and we're seeing excellent down ports from PS4 its just to be expected and nothing to write home about..
Market share is not synonymous with portability, and a big laptop is not nearly as portable as a GB Micro just because people carry them. That's why we have different tiers of computers - from iPods or Apple Watches, going through tablets, then netbooks, going all the way to massive gamer laptops. You can argue that there's no value for you in having something more portable than a laptop, but humanity being in love with smart devices that have to sacrifice specs for size and price clearly sees the value of actual portability.Still portable, yes. The statement wasn't specifying the degree of portability, just that having it be portable would be amazing (nor was it about price either).
Plus you could argue more people take laptops around colleges and work environments than people bring switches with them, so there's an argument throwing a laptop in a little briefcase/bag is every bit as portable as a switch. You could probably also argue more people bring laptops on planes than switches as well, so there's quite a compelling argument that a laptop is as easy to bring around as a switch is for the general population - as they seem to have little trouble doing just that.
Regardless the semantics people have for what they consider a portable is a joke to me, so that's why I picked on this. I completely count both switch and laptops as portable devices, and to those who don't, sorry.
You talked about it being a real challenge to move a game designed for a console in the 1.3Gflop range (XBox One) to one in the 700Gflop range (obviously Switch is actually 400gflops docked and under 200gflop undocked as we now know).
Considering this game runs well below 1080p and down into the low 40fps range at times on XBox One I'd say that putting it onto a sub 200gflop handheld even at 30fps should be given some credit.
Will be very interesting to see a comparison in docked mode.
No laptop that I'd want to carry with me all the time can run Doom that well, maybe something like a Lenovo Yoga 720 15 inch or an XPS15 can, but those are 1500+. And you need to have it plugged in, on a table, for proper gameplay.It is, but the original statement didn't argue price, or any limitations on size, just that it be portable. Also, see above, I'd feel fairly comfortable arguing people transport laptops around more often than Switches with little issue at all, despite their larger size. You could also use a gamepad with a laptop so mouse isn't necessary, but I've seen complaints about the switch joy cons too, people saying that using the Pro controller makes a huge improvement.
Right, people act like its elitism when it's been said again and again that it's the game at hand.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.
Well, halving the framerate, reducing the resolution quite a bit and getting rid of/reducing graphic effects is a result of quite a lot of work for a port. If everything would be so easy we wouldn't have the discussion about an over year old game but would talk about incoming multiplatform titles.
Not sure what kind of battle you are trying to fight here.
All true obviously - thanks for the research! -, and what I'm about to say is only speculation, but, like everything else, 60 fps requires trade-offs on a less powerful system. That's fine, it's not a big deal if the game looks uglier as a result. But from your quotes, Carmack's philosophy doesn't seem to be "60 fps at all costs" so much as "gameplay at all costs". 60 fps should absolutely be the goal... so long as it doesn't start affecting gameplay. Given how blurry the game already looks on Switch, you have to wonder how much legibility the game would lose if the graphics were brought down even more to achieve 60 fps.
I just watched Easy Allies's impressions yesterday, and they said that, on the tiny screen on the Switch and the low res/blurry IQ, things were sometimes hard to see in the distance. No doubt that would be even worse if the game was 60 fps. Maybe the devs thought this was the one case were going for 60 fps would actually be more of a detriment to gameplay than just reducing graphical quality. It's all about balance in the end, isn't it?
Then again, I'm not in the know. Maybe 60 fps would have been possible with a few morre cutbacks without making the game any harder to see. Who knows. But if it wasn't possible, then I fully understand why, just this once, they went for 30 fps instead.
Framerate and resolution may take hardly any work. Changing/reducing effects would probably be more involved. I'm not fully familiar with your history on this topic, but charges of moving goalposts don't seem inappropriate based on the current discussion.
The only people who are buying it primarily as a console are people who just want to play Nintendo games. Other consoles are both cheaper and more powerful for everything else.I don't think that many people are buying the Switch because of portability. They just want a good Nintendo system for a change after being let down by Wii U and even the Wii since it didn't get the games that PS3/360 got. It looks like finally they might not be in a position where the hardware is a complete barrier to getting ports of recent games. However future support is completely dependent on the consumers now. If they pass on this type of stuff because of performance issues then it will be just like on old consoles where publishers pull support.
I also don't buy the couch/bed argument. Yeah, you can do that, but it's not a selling point. If it was, WiiU would have sold.
People with options don't care. Switch users may since it'll be the only fps multiplayer on the system.
I also don't buy the couch/bed argument. Yeah, you can do that, but it's not a selling point. If it was, WiiU would have sold.
Pardon my ignorance but wouldn't an Nvidia Sheild TV be a better Switch analogue than the custom downclocked PC they built?
It is, but the original statement didn't argue price, or any limitations on size, just that it be portable. Also, see above, I'd feel fairly comfortable arguing people transport laptops around more often than Switches with little issue at all, despite their larger size. You could also use a gamepad with a laptop so mouse isn't necessary, but I've seen complaints about the switch joy cons too, people saying that using the Pro controller makes a huge improvement.
I can't imagine anyone buying the Switch version unless the prospect of playing it on the go was appealing.
Yes, but you can't play DOOM 2016 on it because it's Android-based.
I thought GameXplain was told it was 720p handheld. Wouldn't that indicate at least 720p docked, more likely 900p?
Potentially up to those numbers with dynamic res.
Still portable, yes. The statement wasn't specifying the degree of portability, just that having it be portable would be amazing (nor was it about price either).
Plus you could argue more people take laptops around colleges and work environments than people bring switches with them, so there's an argument throwing a laptop in a little briefcase/bag is every bit as portable as a switch. You could probably also argue more people bring laptops on planes than switches as well, so there's quite a compelling argument that a laptop is as easy to bring around as a switch is for the general population - as they seem to have little trouble doing just that.
Regardless the semantics people have for what they consider a portable is a joke to me, so that's why I picked on this. I completely count both switch and laptops as portable devices, and to those who don't, sorry.
Representatives at events like these are typically not a good source of information on technical details.
Just like you totally expected it to be 60fps amirite?While this is definitely true, people have been acting like 540p or sub 540p is confirmed just based on Digital Foundry observing the game for a short period of time.
I totally expect it to be dynamic resolution but for now all we've been told by official representatives is that it's 720p in handheld mode.
Just like you totally expected it to be 60fps amirite?
It's literally impossible that you don't understand the difference between taking out a Switch on the bus and playing with it in your hands, and taking out a gaming laptop and a controller and putting it on your lap. Not to mention when you are done playing you can't just put the laptop to sleep to easily resume your game since that would probably crash the game, while with the switch you just lock and unlock the thing.You could use a controller.
There isn't a vast difference between taking a Switch along versus a laptop. The Switch isn't as portable as a 3DS or phone. It's a bulky case. If you're already lugging a Switch around, a laptop isn't a stretch either.
Saw article think multiplayer is 60fps.30fps is fine for singleplayer
Saw article think multiplayer is 60fps.