It doesn't, not even close. Every facet has been downgraded.
It does. Pretty much all effects are there (Sans for cubemap reflections in undocked mode) (But i heard that got patched back in?), just reduced in complexity. A reduction in complexity does not equate to effects completely missing which is what is implied here. That is what i mean with
core visual feature set: Everything is still there, just reduced in complexity.
Now, Call of Duty on Wii, that's what you would call a downgrade from a visual core set POV. And even that still retained all the level geometry from its PS360 versions.
Again, no it's not. There's downgrades, albeit little, more specifically to anisotropic filtering, environmental textures & from the looks of it, ambient occlusion.
That's not what i would put under the
downgrade moniker. Do note that i said
''quite on par'' with the other versions.
No, not when the native screen resolution is 720P. The fact that they have to cut resolution in half to render 60fps at times is nausea inducing.
Again, its a
6 inch screen. The visual difference on that surface is less pronounced than on a 42 inch TV. You make it sound like them aiming for 60 fps instead of resolution is a bad thing. It usually is the other way around. Also, how is retaining that framerate
nausea inducing?
I'm not dismissing the game, I'm dismissing the port their forced to come out with due to insufficient hardware.
Then i don't know what your
expectations are with the current hardware. You didnt answer it, but Doom Switch and the forthcoming Wolfenstein Switch are also no-shows for you for similar reasons?
Incorrect. The majority of Nintendo ports use dynamic resolution. Even without touching a thing, a boost mode would lock that resolution and framerate in place similar to the 1X & Pro. It's not rocket science to get it working.
This isnt a
Nintendo port, come on. And no, that totally depends on whether or not the game logic itself is catered towards dynamic scaling of resolutions
beyond what is expected. So it may very well be that there will be an automatic boost, but what i am saying, is that this isnt a
default situation to expect.
Do you have a source saying that as a fact? Or just assumptions/rumors?
I mean, given the experimental pricing, the whole idea by itself (streaming?) and it being Japan only, with its all encompassing internet highways, i figured this was a logical observation to make. That being said, multiple sites do report that this has to be seen more as an experiment than an actual port. Which is why i made the observation to begin with.
Going by past history, it's clear they don't when it comes to 3rd parties. X2 would be a HUGE upgrade due to it's Pascal cores running much cooler with higher clocks. The X1 TDP is 15w, X2 TDP is 15w while also providing 2x CPU, 2X RAM, 2X the bandwidth,and up 1.9x GPU in performance boost alone.
You seem to ignore that the X2 isnt made for the gaming market, and literally not Nvidia's focus with the device (Nor Nintendo's). Nintendo ever since the Wii has not been about cutting edge hardware, both in original form or even in revisions (The N3DS is still just an ARM11 based product, just with extra cores added in). If anything, Nintendo is very much on the
conservative side of performance, which plays into their attention to deliver power-efficient products.
As does the X2, Pascal is an extension of Maxwell on better node with improvements all around as noted before while also introducing Denver 2 cores at 2X the CPU performance/bandwidth.
Denver 2 might very well introduce new compatibility issues, given that these cores are relatively untested in devices. Not that this matters though since Tegra X2 contains multiple things that you wouldn't need in a Nintendo device, so Nintendo would have had to make a custom version of that SoC, tailor made, to introduce a revision. The fact that Nintendo went with a bog standard Tegra X1, totally not customized, should give you a hint as to why a Tegra X2 revision is not that likely. That does not mean that Nintendo would
never do it, just that Nintendo's angle is not like that.
The performance increase between each Nintendo generation has become smaller & smaller. Falling further & further behind.
This held true for the Wii, but it had such a massive install base that the console still got heavily downgraded ports from current-gen games regardless.
This held true for the Wii U, being a current-gen machine (the first even) but released in 2012 with only marginally better specs than PS360. Within a year the lowest common denominator was x86 based with DX11 equivalent GPU's. Both things the Wii U was not.
This is less true for the Switch. Sure, in terms of performance is roughly 1/3th of an XBO, but atleast it supports the same
feature set as these consoles, due to Tegra X1's desktop-like GPU. That alone has enabled devs more easily port things over, plus that ARM ISA's are more common than the PowerPC ISA Wii U went with in 2012. Its a perfect merge of the mobile ecosystem (ARM cores) with PC like desktop support (Maxwell GPU cores).
Which is why a lot of indies are dropping the ball on Switch and support the thing. Its a great proving ground for them.
This also doesn't change the fact that a lot of users like myself won't buy it until a properly spec version comes out to run 3rd party games without having to cut off the head to do so.
Then you can wait a long time given the Gamecube was the last Nintendo console that ran 3rd party games equivalent to the other consoles. You could argue that Wii U had some solid multiplat titles do, but the comparisons were definitely more towards last-gen comparisons than current-gen ones. So again, i am not sure what
expectations you have then regarding the current hardware (or even Nintendo's hardware in general).
