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.
The CoD = 60 fps = success syllogism is really dubious. It's not that I think it doesn't make games feel smoother, but I really don't think the market as a whole bares this out and there are easy too many secondary factors to possibly isolate frame rate.
In terms of critical reception, a very large fraction of metacritics top games of all time are 30 hz and a few are 20 with dips. It's basically mostly Mario that is 60 along with soul caliber and Metroid prime until you get into the 20s.
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.[*]Resolution is lower on Switch, dynamic, unsure of exact count
Pretty disgusting that some people are shitting on this port for being 30 fps on a lower spec machine instead of being amazed by the fact that it's Doom portable with such a great graphic fidelity and stable performance.
Is certainly a good effort. Game looks good.
But no 60fps is a nope for me, ppl who only have a switch should be satisfied.
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?
Destiny 1 and 2 were both mainly designed for 30 fps. From the floaty jumps, slow run animations and what not.
Shooting is faster , and controls are responsive more in 60fps, but certain things like animations, and what not were all designed to look and be played out in a 30fps environment.
Doom has mechanics that actually revolve around the speed of the frame rate. From what I've seen of the switch version it looks like certain things have been sped up to compensate for 30fps.
I wonder if animations are shorter as to make the game flow better when in a hectic fight using a power up that makes you stronger or run super fast.
But in any case Doom was meant to be super fast paced, especially with doing visceral combo's, using power up orbs to actually even shoot/kill faster.
That all now has to be compensated somehow in it's timings, animation delay's.
I would rather they find a way to either render the game differently to accomodate switch hardware, and take a hit on res so they could achieve 60fps.
Running at 30fps to me kills what makes doom so great. And that's coming from someone who played it on both PS4 and PC.
More than likely they have not had a lot of time developing for switch. They could have taken more time to maybe rework the engine more for tegra style chip switch has, and maybe write a more customized api, and renderer to help offset graphical impact on the processing so with a low res they would be able to achieve 60fps.
Gameplay means everything, and Doom is about fast paced in your face action that requires lightening reaction when in later fights during hell sections and beyond.
lolThey should port it to the 3DS as well!
make that the New 3DS, give'em a bit of extra power.
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'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.
It really does look like the CPU is the weak link.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.
I watched Cheers at 24fps.All these people bitching about a game they had never even heard of until that direct.
30 fps was the same frame rate we all watched Cheers in. Cheers.
Let that sink in.
I love Digital Foundry, but these "we built this PC to simulate console hardware X"-features are just dumb fillouts. If they would have any actual hardware architecture experience i'm sure they would just stay away from that type of guess-work comparisons.
The same could be said for the features with video from trailers as the only source. I mean that Doom-trailer could just be a video-rip of a video-rip of the PC version with video compression quality loss.
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.
id game at 30fps just feels so wrong.
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.
Pretty disgusting that some people are shitting on this port for being 30 fps on a lower spec machine instead of being amazed by the fact that it's Doom portable with such a great graphic fidelity and stable performance.
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.
Other versions run at 0 fps in portable mode, so this could actually be the superior product ;P
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.
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."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.
The turn against this game after the 30fps fact, is wild to see. First everyone was insanely pumped, now it's "jump ship".
With you 100%. 60fps zealots are the worst.I really wish people on this forum would just enjoy videogames instead of video game performance. "No 60fps, no buy!!!1!one1!".
Jesus christ. 30FPS is fine. It's absolutely fine.
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.
Yet, working on id Tech 5 and upcoming game RAGE has brought him to the conclusion that the pursuit of stunning graphics for the sake of it is not the path to great gameplay: ”I quickly reached the decision, the realization, that rather than trying to make ‘pretty damn good plus one' pictures on there, I'd rather try and make pretty damn good pictures at 60 frames per second, and that's a good example of not pushing graphics as the only thing," he told IndustryGamers.
unless you can maintain 60fps almost all the time, you are better off locking at 30 instead of dropping all the time. 60 is hard.
ID Software games such as Rage and the Call of Duty series both hit up to 60 fps, but many titles in the current generation fall short such as the likes of Battlefield 3, which runs at 30 fps on consoles.
”Unfortunately, I can pretty much guarantee that a lot of next gen games will still target 30 fps," said Carmack.
"When you're developing, you make thousands of decisions that have an impact on performance or visual fidelity," he told us. "We've always been at the forefront of saying we want our games to run as fast as possible at the highest resolution possible. So for us, that goal is 1080p and 60 FPS. Along with that goal, the mantra of our technology team is that we want to be the best-looking game out there at 60 FPS and 1080p. So you draw that line in the sand."
"For us it isn't just a lofty technical goal," he explained. "We really do think it's important to the feel of the game, it's important to the way our combat feels and our movement feels. It's got to be fast, it's got to be fluid, and it's all based on that. It really is a gameplay goal first and foremost. You do make decisions here or there. Ultimately I don't think you can ever expect most consumers to really nitpick."
"If you do your best to give them a very consistent experience and a very high-quality experience, which for us is a fast, fluid 60 FPS, I think that's the most important thing. It's when you cut corners and you end up with a game that doesn't feel that good, and it's slow, and it's just a hodgepodge of a lack of focus throughout, that's when things start going awry. I think we'll hit all of our goals."
Digital Foundry: When we look at the history of Doom, and of id software, we see a phenomenal heritage of technological excellence. What were the objectives for idTech6 and are you happy with the final results?
Robert A Duffy: The original objectives were very simple; we wanted best-in-class visuals at 60fps and the best player movement and feel for a shooter. There is obviously a whole list of smaller objectives that form the foundations of achieving those goals, but as primary consumer facing technology goals, those were it. We are very happy with the final results but we are continuing the push with console updates, Vulkan support for PC, and a host of other updates geared towards the community.
Digital Foundry: Can we get some idea of the timelines on idTech6 - did it essentially evolve in parallel with Doom development, across both the final game and the cancelled Doom 4? Or did you revamp the underlying tech completely when you targeted 60fps?
Robert A Duffy: As we were prototyping Doom gameplay and the environments started to take form, it was clear we needed to take the technology in a different direction to achieve the visual fidelity we felt a modern Doom game warranted. 60fps was always the target for the game but as we started adding full dynamic lighting, shadows, and other features the performance target became a main focus of the engineering team. The short answer is a lot changed but not everything.
Happy that we announced FPS unlock officially - code team been working hard on eradicating that for #PCMASTERRACE <3
With the debut of a new DOOM comes a new engine: idTech 6. So what can players expect from idTech 6? ”We want players to wonder how DOOM and idTech 6 games can be so visually stunning at 60 frames-per-second at 1080p on all platforms, when other titles cannot even achieve a similar look at 30 frames-per-second," says Lead Project Programmer Billy Khan. ”Our goal is to be the best-looking game at 1080p at 60fps."
Pretty disgusting that some people are shitting on this port for being 30 fps on a lower spec machine instead of being amazed by the fact that it's Doom portable with such a great graphic fidelity and stable performance.
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.
Great postIt'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.
What if I don't sit on a toilet for 30+ minutes.It's Doom in your hands. On the toilet. On the bus. In your bed. It's Doom!
What if I don't sit on a toilet for 30+ minutes.
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.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.
You mean like every multiplatform console game being an inferior product compared to PC?
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.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.