Digital Foundry: Wolfenstein 2 on Switch: can mobile hardware really run a cutting-edge shooter?

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
1,555
1,225
375
#1
Video:


Article: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-wolfenstein-2-switch-tech-analysis

Docked:
We pixel counted a wide variety of shots from the docked mode, and came up with a whole host of results. Everything ranging from a top end of 720p to 1216x684 to 540p and 432p all the way down to 640x360.
Undocked:
When played in portable mode, 768x432 and 640x360 are common pixel counts, but it can increase from there depending on load. In general, it's comparable to the Switch version of Doom but seems to scale towards the low-end more often. There's no getting around it - this really is a very blurry game.
Performance:
Throughout most of the game, Wolfenstein 2 does a great job at maintaining the target 30fps and most of the time, it maintains even frame-pacing as well - which wasn't properly implemented in Doom. When combined with the excellent per-pixel motion blur, the game manages to look reasonably fluid during gameplay. More importantly, the frame-rate really is steadier than Doom across the run of play. Most scenes successfully maintain 30 frames per second with moderately heavy battles exhibiting minor frame-rate and frame-time inconsistencies - but nothing too untoward. During the first half of the game, it's remarkably stable.

That doesn't mean there aren't some problem areas, however. Once you reach New Orleans, things start to take a dive. This is one of the most visually complex areas in the game and on Switch, the resolution dips very low and stays there throughout this section. For most of the game, I'd say we're looking at a mostly locked 30fps with a few wobbles here and there. It's only during a couple of larger battles that frame-rate issues begin to crop up. When in portable mode, the results are less stable but it's still quite playable.
Game also looks quite similar to PS4/XBO, but just click the link for more - Its a great article, as expected by John. Or just watch the video if you have a small half an hour of spare time :)

EDIT: Personal thoughts after watching video:
The biggest culprit is the blur. This is one blurry game, although not all the time. I can tolerate that, but even for my tendency to accept visuals to a very low standard, this is stretching it. Clearly, Wolfenstein Switch is best played on the handheld mode, as there most of these blurry issues are far less noticeable. If you do happen to play on docked exclusively, then be advised for a very soft image.

That being said, it is absolutely impressive what Panic Button has pulled off. It runs better than Doom, whilst having pretty much all geometric detail intact. Most visual effects are in use here, and others are reduced. By and large, Wolfenstein Switch captures the core look of the game rather impressively, unlike say, Call of Duty for the Wii, were most of the effects were removed and either replaced with fixed function surrogates or not replaced at all.

So with that said, what is Wolfenstein Switch? A very, very blurry game, but which from a visual core POV, is very similar to the other consoles, at 30 fps. It clearly favors playing on handheld mode though. At the end of the day, Like Doom before it, Wolfenstein on Switch is a technical tour de force, and also one of the few ways to play the game in a handheld form factor. In that light, it makes living with the extreme blurry look of the game a passable experience.
 
Last edited:
Jun 13, 2018
671
872
240
#3
Pretty cool that they managed to make it run, but it's not a good look for Nintendo. Doom and Wolfenstein run on id Tech 6 which is basically black magic in terms of performance and the Switch can barely handle them.
 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
1,555
1,225
375
#4
Spoiler alert, looks like complete dogshit.
:/ Way to miss the point of the video! Yes, it is blurry in italic, but on a technical level, it is Wolfenstein. And despite the increased complexity, it even runs better (on average) than Doom. On a handheld.

But, if you intend to play it on Docked exclusively, than expect PS360 levels of IQ, with a blurriness filter on top. Technically its a generation beyond those consoles, but IQ wise, the blurriness exceptionally hurts the Docked version. Still, by no means does that make the game unplayable or terrible, but realistic expectations have to be in check.

Won't stop the Nintendo cult from eating it up.
Well, can you blame them when its a current-gen title running on a 7 watt handheld at (mostly) 30 FPS with similar levels of geometrical detail and handling most of the visual effects of its non-handheld counterparts? Add to that that on the handheld the extreme blur is a lot less noticeable and its not hard to imagine that people like this.

Pretty cool that they managed to make it run, but it's not a good look for Nintendo. Doom and Wolfenstein run on id Tech 6 which is basically black magic in terms of performance and the Switch can barely handle them.
Runs more often at 30 fps than Doom Switch does, so performance is less of an issue. You are talking about IQ here, and yeah, the game is blurry to the teeth from time to time. Its also feature complete and visually (As in effects) it has most of them intact, on passing on stuff like water caustics. That part by far is an actual downgrade as it changes the look of the scene and it breaks immersion.

All in all, its a remarkable achievement, but you definitely pay the price for the Switch being a mobile platform, in this case, Image Quality.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
12,158
254
1,575
#6
:/ Way to miss the point of the video! Yes, it is blurry in italic, but on a technical level, it is Wolfenstein. And despite the increased complexity, it even runs better (on average) than Doom. On a handheld.

But, if you intend to play it on Docked exclusively, than expect PS360 levels of IQ, with a blurriness filter on top. Technically its a generation beyond those consoles, but IQ wise, the blurriness exceptionally hurts the Docked version. Still, by no means does that make the game unplayable or terrible, but realistic expectations have to be in check.


Well, can you blame them when its a current-gen title running on a 7 watt handheld at (mostly) 30 FPS with similar levels of geometrical detail and handling most of the visual effects of its non-handheld counterparts? Add to that that on the handheld the extreme blur is a lot less noticeable and its not hard to imagine that people like this.


Runs more often at 30 fps than Doom Switch does, so performance is less of an issue. You are talking about IQ here, and yeah, the game is blurry to the teeth from time to time. Its also feature complete and visually (As in effects) it has most of them intact, on passing on stuff like water caustics. That part by far is an actual downgrade as it changes the look of the scene and it breaks immersion.

All in all, its a remarkable achievement, but you definitely pay the price for the Switch being a mobile platform, in this case, Image Quality.
I have DOOM 2016 on Switch a chance, bought it on top of the PS4 edition I have for the portability aspect of it and, on top of the JoyCons particular asymmetric setup, the frame rate (not just frame pacing) and the blurry ness of the visuals do take a toll, especially the frame rate.

This is a game that is unequivocally better at 60 FPS. Even a locked 30 FPS, not the case anyways, does not feel the same especially if you were able to experience it at 60 FPS at some point.

Sure motion blur works very well, but this game feels limited by its frame rate on Switch and the motion blur makes already blurry visuals even more so (motion blur works best to pleasantly hide frame rate problems with high resolution high fidelity visuals IMHO).

I am not sure I would purchase DOOM 2016 on Switch again. It is a neat technical demo of how you could push the console and try to replicate a game designed for much higher species machines keeping the renderer’s key features and the level size and most of the geometry intact, but it also shows the performance gulf between it and the other two consoles and it is trying to bit more than it can chow and Wolfenstein 2 does not seem to aim lower at all, especially in portable mode.
 
Last edited:

blu

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
May 4, 2007
13,517
102
1,055
#7
Spoiler alert, looks like complete dogshit. Won't stop the Nintendo cult from eating it up.
From 'The nintendo cult are delusional to think switch will be able to run cross-plats!' to 'Complete dogshit! Nintendo cult will eat it up!'

While in reality the 'nintendo cult' will be enjoying a current-gen on the go. The nerve of them!
 
Jan 5, 2012
14,792
515
520
#9
Video:


Article: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2018-wolfenstein-2-switch-tech-analysis

Docked:

Undocked:

Performance:


EDIT: Personal thoughts after watching video:
The biggest culprit is the blur. This is one blurry game, although not all the time. I can tolerate that, but even for my tendency to accept visuals to a very low standard, this is stretching it. Clearly, Wolfenstein Switch is best played on the handheld mode, as there most of these blurry issues are far less noticeable. If you do happen to play on docked exclusively, then be advised for a very soft image.
Well yeah when you are rending at half the native resolution the end result will be massive blur
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
12,158
254
1,575
#10
For reference the original Wolf3d is 640x480.
Considering that some effects are likely running at a fraction of the screen resolution (common to render some additional buffer at 1/2 or 1/4 of the screen resolution), I shudder to think how those look. Unless at that dynamic resolution they are going with full screen effect buffers essentially (those buffers may have a minimum resolution).
 
Likes: octiny
Jan 31, 2010
3,088
28
595
#11
From 'The nintendo cult are delusional to think switch will be able to run cross-plats!' to 'Complete dogshit! Nintendo cult will eat it up!'

While in reality the 'nintendo cult' will be enjoying a current-gen on the go. The nerve of them!
"We are too good to play you filthy generic multiplats!"

to

"OMG 360p, Nintendo continues to innovate, please give it to me harder Reggie!"
 
Likes: brap

blu

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
May 4, 2007
13,517
102
1,055
#13
"We are too good to play you filthy generic multiplats!"

to

"OMG 360p, Nintendo continues to innovate, please give it to me harder Reggie!"
Opps, did I touch a nerve? My apologies..
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
12,158
254
1,575
#15
From 'The nintendo cult are delusional to think switch will be able to run cross-plats!' to 'Complete dogshit! Nintendo cult will eat it up!'

While in reality the 'nintendo cult' will be enjoying a current-gen on the go. The nerve of them!
Blu, no offence meant, accepting some more cutbacks you could perhaps get it running on PS Vita, but there is a point where it is more about making it do with what you have than really being able to enjoy the same experience.

Particularly on the go the frame rate is an impediment for its intended gameplay experience (and controls are not ideal, JoyCon’s are not perfect for fast paced FPS’s like this that do require a modicum of accuracy and make use of plenty of buttons and joysticks for camera and motion) and the resolution does hamper its atmosphere (some effects being toned down a lot or being removed altogether do also have an impact).

Sure it is a neat technical undertaking and it is not a rage inducing abysmal game experience, but as owner of both versions (Switch and PS4) I find the gap much bigger than expected (frame rate difference between the two versions is really strong) and I will fire it up from time to time in undocked mode for technical curiosity/geekiness mostly. I prefer playing other Switch games on the go when I have time to play though.
 

blu

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
May 4, 2007
13,517
102
1,055
#16
Blu, no offence meant, accepting some more cutbacks you could perhaps get it running on PS Vita, but there is a point where it is more about making it do with what you have than really being able to enjoy the same experience.
No offence taken, Pana, these are videogames after all : ) You clearly cannot have 'the exact same' experience -- if something was designed for a certain power envelope, something has to give when getting it to a 1/10th of that, while running it on the same living-room tv. But the question at the end of the day is -- 'can I enjoy the portable version?' Some people won't, while others will.

Particularly on the go the frame rate is an impediment for its intended gameplay experience (and controls are not ideal, JoyCon’s are not perfect for fast paced FPS’s like this that do require a modicum of accuracy and make use of plenty of buttons and joysticks for camera and motion) and the resolution does hamper its atmosphere (some effects being toned down a lot or being removed altogether do also have an impact).
If you step back and think what you just said -- you said it about a handeld version of a demanding home-console game! When was the last time you had the exact same experience on your home console and on your handheld? For me it was Ridge Racer on the psp OG -- it looked nowhere nearly as good as on the ps3, but it was essentially the exact same game; also a bunch of puzzle games on the wiiU and 3ds, but that is easy to do. Wolfenstein is none of that -- it's a very demanding game. And yet, you can play it on the train. Of course you may prefer not to sacrifice a single bit from your ps4 IQ, and never play it on the train. But for many that would be a great option.

Sure it is a neat technical undertaking and it is not a rage inducing abysmal game experience, but as owner of both versions (Switch and PS4) I find the gap much bigger than expected (frame rate difference between the two versions is really strong) and I will fire it up from time to time in undocked mode for technical curiosity/geekiness mostly. I prefer playing other Switch games on the go when I have time to play though.
Look at it this way -- if you magically had the option to transfer your Wolfenstein savefile from your ps4 to a mobile device, where the game was playing at lower IQ and worse framerate, but had the essentially same experience (say, on a pro controller, since you dislike the JoyCons -- so do I), then would you rather not?

For me the switch has been a renaissance -- I've been playing less and less at home -- comes with the age. Now I can take my home-console games on any trip, and do actually finish those games I've had in my proverbial backlog for years.
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
12,158
254
1,575
#17
No offence taken, Pana, these are videogames after all : ) You clearly cannot have 'the exact same' experience -- if something was designed for a certain power envelope, something has to give when getting it to a 1/10th of that, while running it on the same living-room tv. But the question at the end of the day is -- 'can I enjoy the portable version?' Some people won't, while others will.


If you step back and think what you just said -- you said it about a handeld version of a demanding home-console game! When was the last time you had the exact same experience on your home console and on your handheld?
It depends on the game. For me (not even rock solid stable) 30 FPS removes too much of what makes this game work. If you had a palette limitation on some old 2D console that was able to run Ikaruga almost perfectly beside for the fact that the two polarities looked almost the same or much closer than they are now. Sure the game runs, but it does not have the same playability (not as bad as that, but I hope it gives you the idea). Then the graphics cutbacks are understandable yes, but they cut a bit too much into the aesthetics of the game.

For me it was Ridge Racer on the psp OG -- it looked nowhere nearly as good as on the ps3, but it was essentially the exact same game; also a bunch of puzzle games on the wiiU and 3ds, but that is easy to do. Wolfenstein is none of that -- it's a very demanding game. And yet, you can play it on the train. Of course you may prefer not to sacrifice a single bit from your ps4 IQ, and never play it on the train. But for many that would be a great option.
I feel that graphically and gameplay wise Ridge Racer PSP was closer to its console (PS2++ in some things) brother than DOOM 2016 on Switch undocked is. Ridge Racer on PSP is 60 FPS and its graphical quality was still a stunner at launch (PSP LCD ghosting was probably factored in by Namco as it works with the game lol).

Look at it this way -- if you magically had the option to transfer your Wolfenstein savefile from your ps4 to a mobile device, where the game was playing at lower IQ and worse framerate, but had the essentially same experience (say, on a pro controller, since you dislike the JoyCons -- so do I), then would you rather not?

For me the switch has been a renaissance -- I've been playing less and less at home -- comes with the age. Now I can take my home-console games on any trip, and do actually finish those games I've had in my proverbial backlog for years.
I would like to be able to transfer the save file from the PS4 version to the Switch one though... I would also like a kickstand designed for function rather than looks (kind of Applelike they wanted to show off the logo clearly well) ;).
 
Last edited:
Apr 16, 2009
2,614
262
725
N.Ireland
#23
Pretty crazy how far portable tech has come that you can get a game like this on a portable.
In saying that it's sounds like unless you really want this game on the go then it's not a optimal way to play.
The mandatory download is a bit of a kick in the nuts too.
 
Last edited:
Sep 18, 2017
1,313
938
230
#25
Do you think that's bad? They also believe it's checkerboarded
Nitpicking, but no. They state that likely some kind of reconstruction is used. I doubt they'd be using checkerboarding, because without dedicated hardware for the process (like in a Pro), it's not exactly just toggling it on - it's quite resource-intensive even (and on a Pro it's not "free" in terms of resources either, but the hardware helps). But in the video, reconstruction artifacts are very much visible at times, so something like it is used.
 
Sep 5, 2013
7,067
25
395
UK
#26
Pretty crazy how far portable tech has come that you can get a game like this on a portable.
In saying that it's sounds like unless you really want this game on the go then it's not a optimal way to play.
The shield tablet with the Nvidia processor came out in 2014, and really not much has advanced since the... I guess nobody has really tried in the portable console space....

There probably be a step forward when 7nm comes out.
 
Last edited:
Jan 28, 2010
2,225
85
550
#27
Nitpicking, but no. They state that likely some kind of reconstruction is used. I doubt they'd be using checkerboarding, because without dedicated hardware for the process (like in a Pro), it's not exactly just toggling it on - it's quite resource-intensive even (and on a Pro it's not "free" in terms of resources either, but the hardware helps). But in the video, reconstruction artifacts are very much visible at times, so something like it is used.
Uhh it's going to be easier to checkerboard than to run the actual higher pixel count. You don't need dedicated hardware for checkerboarding. The Pro just has it because Sony knew the specs weren't up to snuff for 4k and wanted to make it easier to use for all developers.
 
Last edited:
Sep 18, 2017
1,313
938
230
#30
Uhh it's going to be easier to checkerboard than to run the actual higher pixel count. You don't need dedicated hardware for checkerboarding. The Pro just has it because Sony knew the specs weren't up to snuff for 4k and wanted to make it easier to use for all developers.
Yes... but there are other ways for reconstruction instead of checkerboarding, that's what I was getting at. Checkerboarding (depending on the implementation - the devil as always is in the details) can produce very good results, but it's quite "heavy" in terms of computation.

For example, Insomniac uses "temporal injection" with Ratchet & Clank (and the upcoming Spider-Man) - the end result is a bit cartoonish, but works very very well there. Killzone Shadow Fall multiplayer used something of a precursor of checkerboarding to reach 60fps. But neither are checkerboarding, as such, just reconstruction techniques.
 
Last edited:
Mar 3, 2018
442
725
240
#31
Nitpicking, but no. They state that likely some kind of reconstruction is used. I doubt they'd be using checkerboarding, because without dedicated hardware for the process (like in a Pro), it's not exactly just toggling it on - it's quite resource-intensive even (and on a Pro it's not "free" in terms of resources either, but the hardware helps). But in the video, reconstruction artifacts are very much visible at times, so something like it is used.
Regardless, reconstruction is taking a lower resolution and reconstructing it into something higher. So whether it be checkerboarding or not 640x360 is built from something lower than it. What you're saying is totally nitpicking.
 
Jul 16, 2010
1,270
53
585
#32
I watched the NintendoLife side by side comparison Switch/XBONE I was impressed. Sometimes blur can cover blemishes and create a sort of impressionist element and make the game look more realistic vs. Seeing every little pixel in all its clarity. It’s the same phenomenon I get when playing old SNES games in HD Vs playing in CRT. Some things look better with a bit of obscurity. It’s a matter of acquired taste but personally it’s passable and I don’t mind the difference that much.
 
Sep 11, 2016
351
26
240
#35
2 hours in and although im enjoying the game i was hopeful clarity would be much better than Doom Switch considering they've had more time with it, which unfortunately isnt the case. All in all i think my eyes and brain will just adjust as it did with Doom Switch and i can see myself sticking to it and enjoying it as i did Doom. I think it's safe to expect that all future AAA 3rd party fps ports to the Switch will run and look no better than this - best to get our expectations in check. Must say im still impressed.
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
1,555
1,225
375
#36
I have DOOM 2016 on Switch a chance, bought it on top of the PS4 edition I have for the portability aspect of it and, on top of the JoyCons particular asymmetric setup, the frame rate (not just frame pacing) and the blurry ness of the visuals do take a toll, especially the frame rate.

This is a game that is unequivocally better at 60 FPS. Even a locked 30 FPS, not the case anyways, does not feel the same especially if you were able to experience it at 60 FPS at some point.

Sure motion blur works very well, but this game feels limited by its frame rate on Switch and the motion blur makes already blurry visuals even more so (motion blur works best to pleasantly hide frame rate problems with high resolution high fidelity visuals IMHO).

I am not sure I would purchase DOOM 2016 on Switch again. It is a neat technical demo of how you could push the console and try to replicate a game designed for much higher species machines keeping the renderer’s key features and the level size and most of the geometry intact, but it also shows the performance gulf between it and the other two consoles and it is trying to bit more than it can chow and Wolfenstein 2 does not seem to aim lower at all, especially in portable mode.
Panic Button definitely chose a different option than most when porting the game over. Where most would seek to remove geometry details or even whole rendering passes altogether, PB clearly wanted to port as much stuff over from the non-handheld versions as possible. Which it does an admirable job to, but porting all the fancy over has a price. And that is a really blurry output.

John did mention that motion blur can be toggled off i believe. But yeah, as enticing as these ports are, Tegra X1 is limited. I definitely do think that this is more of the upper limit for third party ports. The limited memory bandwidth, among other things, just does not work well with the Switch and current-gen titles with heavy post processing. That isnt to say that other titles are less performant, Things like Amid Evil/Rico/Aftercharge clearly show there is a market for shooters on Switch. But these game typically are less shader heavy than Doom/Wolfenstein.

But now i do want Battlefront on Switch. :p
"We are too good to play you filthy generic multiplats!"

to

"OMG 360p, Nintendo continues to innovate, please give it to me harder Reggie!"
''I make use of brackets so i can imply that people said something like this when they haven't said that at all.''

Atleast argue and talk about the video instead of this edgy nonsense.
Do you think that's bad? They also believe it's checkerboarded which means that 640x360 is actually 320x360....

I like that just on ERA, people take that number and apply that to the entire game when the game does not run 360p all the time. John even said so himself that he esetimates its more commonly in the 540p range.
 

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
Jun 7, 2004
12,158
254
1,575
#37
Panic Button definitely chose a different option than most when porting the game over. Where most would seek to remove geometry details or even whole rendering passes altogether, PB clearly wanted to port as much stuff over from the non-handheld versions as possible. Which it does an admirable job to, but porting all the fancy over has a price. And that is a really blurry output.

John did mention that motion blur can be toggled off i believe. But yeah, as enticing as these ports are, Tegra X1 is limited. I definitely do think that this is more of the upper limit for third party ports. The limited memory bandwidth, among other things, just does not work well with the Switch and current-gen titles with heavy post processing. That isnt to say that other titles are less performant, Things like Amid Evil/Rico/Aftercharge clearly show there is a market for shooters on Switch. But these game typically are less shader heavy than Doom/Wolfenstein.

But now i do want Battlefront on Switch. :p

''I make use of brackets so i can imply that people said something like this when they haven't said that at all.''

Atleast argue and talk about the video instead of this edgy nonsense.

I like that just on ERA, people take that number and apply that to the entire game when the game does not run 360p all the time. John even said so himself that he esetimates its more commonly in the 540p range.
Blurry output (and removed rendering passes, the undocked version has several effects toned down or missing, see reflective pools of blood) is one thing, but the (unstable) 30 FPS decision does hurt the game. Removing motion blur would make 30 FPS even worse for this game.

I appreciate the 60 FPS choice for MGS V, but it would work about the same with its good motion blur at half the frame rate. DOOM 2016 is a very very fast paced shooter where reaction speed is about as important as the fluidity of the gameplay and 30 FPS does hamper that.
The PSP version of Ridge Racer (and Quake II for PSOne somewhat although it was only 30 FPS) is a better example of poets with priorities set straight: ensure the core experience is there and works.

Panic Button wanted to make a statement that the console could indeed go toe to toe with the other consoles, that it was not Wii U like underpowered or a generation behind, so giving the impression the game (especially in still shots) was indeed a no compromise magic version of the console DOOM now on the go. I would have preferred Nintendo to get involved and helped Panic Button focus even more on the game on top of making a point about it. Then again as a marketing tool it was effective. [Big aside note:... Some things are effective as system sellers albeit they are not as good for consumers as you may think. Take the Switch kickstand as an example: it looks neat and fits elegantly with the system and lets the logo shine and be visible and all... but it is a very poor and impractical support for the system. Nobody in their right mind would design a prop like that: single leg, thin, and especially way off center].

A slightly higher resolution and 60 FPS custom version of DOOM would have cost Nintendo money (to invest in it, Bethesda would have not done all that customisation and Nintendo was probably worried about not getting games if they were to require extensive customisation).
 
Last edited:
Aug 3, 2010
20,041
1,786
675
In a cave outside of Whooville.
#38
Getting full current gen games to run on a tablet is a pretty sweet achievement, despite the major compromises necessary. Things may seem like more of a problem when PS5/XB2 come out and it's not longer possible to have pared-down versions anymore, though.
 
Jan 23, 2018
804
661
230
#40
Most of the Switch footage actually looks better than the X footage. Aesthetically some games can benefit from softness, and this is one of them. Those scenes look less convincing and coherent and aesthetically pleasing when presented with the intended level of sharpness.

There's a lesson to be learned here by a lot of digital artists who could really benefit, but it'll likely go completely unnoticed as their "realistic" art continues to look very much like computer games.
 
Last edited:
Jan 31, 2010
3,088
28
595
#42
Panic Button definitely chose a different option than most when porting the game over. Where most would seek to remove geometry details or even whole rendering passes altogether, PB clearly wanted to port as much stuff over from the non-handheld versions as possible. Which it does an admirable job to, but porting all the fancy over has a price. And that is a really blurry output.

John did mention that motion blur can be toggled off i believe. But yeah, as enticing as these ports are, Tegra X1 is limited. I definitely do think that this is more of the upper limit for third party ports. The limited memory bandwidth, among other things, just does not work well with the Switch and current-gen titles with heavy post processing. That isnt to say that other titles are less performant, Things like Amid Evil/Rico/Aftercharge clearly show there is a market for shooters on Switch. But these game typically are less shader heavy than Doom/Wolfenstein.

But now i do want Battlefront on Switch. :p

''I make use of brackets so i can imply that people said something like this when they haven't said that at all.''

Atleast argue and talk about the video instead of this edgy nonsense.

I like that just on ERA, people take that number and apply that to the entire game when the game does not run 360p all the time. John even said so himself that he esetimates its more commonly in the 540p range.
Might want to read the original post I was quoting. But then again, reality doesn't register with Nintendo fangirls.
 
Oct 10, 2014
760
262
280
#44
Most of the Switch footage actually looks better than the X footage. Aesthetically some games can benefit from softness, and this is one of them. Those scenes look less convincing and coherent and aesthetically pleasing when presented with the intended level of sharpness.

There's a lesson to be learned here by a lot of digital artists who could really benefit, but it'll likely go completely unnoticed as their "realistic" art continues to look very much like computer games.
am sorry but as good as it is to have it on the switch it looks like the screen needs wiping to clear it up
 
Nov 4, 2004
2,613
71
1,260
UK
#46
Most of the Switch footage actually looks better than the X footage. Aesthetically some games can benefit from softness, and this is one of them. Those scenes look less convincing and coherent and aesthetically pleasing when presented with the intended level of sharpness.

There's a lesson to be learned here by a lot of digital artists who could really benefit, but it'll likely go completely unnoticed as their "realistic" art continues to look very much like computer games.
Yeah no.

But hey, if you really want the game to be blurry as fuck, you can always turn the output resolution down to 720p on the One X and have it downscaled, while keeping all the graphical improvements and 60fps gameplay intact.
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
Jun 25, 2018
1,555
1,225
375
#47
Blurry output (and removed rendering passes, the undocked version has several effects toned down or missing, see reflective pools of blood) is one thing, but the (unstable) 30 FPS decision does hurt the game. Removing motion blur would make 30 FPS even worse for this game.
Reflections definitely take a hit but atleast cubemaps are in. Not an ideal solution, but at the levels of resolution it usually operates (540p) its a conservative one.

I appreciate the 60 FPS choice for MGS V, but it would work about the same with its good motion blur at half the frame rate. DOOM 2016 is a very very fast paced shooter where reaction speed is about as important as the fluidity of the gameplay and 30 FPS does hamper that.

The PSP version of Ridge Racer (and Quake II for PSOne somewhat although it was only 30 FPS) is a better example of poets with priorities set straight: ensure the core experience is there and works.
...was not talking about MGS V?

And i bought Q2 PSX for that exact reason, the definition of a custom port done right. :)

Panic Button wanted to make a statement that the console could indeed go toe to toe with the other consoles, that it was not Wii U like underpowered or a generation behind, so giving the impression the game (especially in still shots) was indeed a no compromise magic version of the console DOOM now on the go. I would have preferred Nintendo to get involved and helped Panic Button focus even more on the game on top of making a point about it. Then again as a marketing tool it was effective. [Big aside note:... Some things are effective as system sellers albeit they are not as good for consumers as you may think. Take the Switch kickstand as an example: it looks neat and fits elegantly with the system and lets the logo shine and be visible and all... but it is a very poor and impractical support for the system. Nobody in their right mind would design a prop like that: single leg, thin, and especially way off center].

A slightly higher resolution and 60 FPS custom version of DOOM would have cost Nintendo money (to invest in it, Bethesda would have not done all that customisation and Nintendo was probably worried about not getting games if they were to require extensive customisation).
By bringing most visual flair over to the Switch, something had to give, and PB felt that low res would weigh up against visuals.
The result is a game that i can totally understand people would just give a glance over purely on IQ because it is that bad in that departement. But if one can stomach that, you find a feature-intact game in there. But i'd by lying if IQ didnt matter for a visually heavy game like this - it does. That blur can be a turnoff for a lot of folks.

Might want to read the original post I was quoting.
So i did. You are needlessly aggressive in tone.

And yes, Blu is not much better. Does not change much for my perspective when your FIPO was similar in tone.

But then again, reality doesn't register with Nintendo fangirls.
Case and point. Untrue aswell. Is your only switch (heh) being provocative and drive-by commentary? Because in that case, please refrain from doing so, thanks :)

Most of the Switch footage actually looks better than the X footage. Aesthetically some games can benefit from softness, and this is one of them. Those scenes look less convincing and coherent and aesthetically pleasing when presented with the intended level of sharpness.

There's a lesson to be learned here by a lot of digital artists who could really benefit, but it'll likely go completely unnoticed as their "realistic" art continues to look very much like computer games.
It really does not look that good, even on a crappy 1280x1024 screen like mines. I agree that softness can help a game visuals, but Wolfie's artstyle is less suited in my opinion for this than say Paladins.
 
Last edited:
Likes: phil_t98
May 13, 2007
10,115
24
925
Japan
skullforge.omc-games.com
#48
The port is pretty amazing. I don't think that can really be debated. Of course, you can value the compromises they made or not, but it doesn't take away from what Panic Button accomplished. Porting any game is all about compromises, and I can totally see how some people wouldn't like the direction they took with the port. Still, gotta give Panic Button some props for what they did. I wouldn't have done it that way if I was porting it myself, but that's the nature of the beast when porting games from platform to platform.
 
Jan 23, 2018
804
661
230
#49
It really does not look that good, even on a crappy 1280x1024 screen like mines. I agree that softness can help a game visuals, but Wolfie's artstyle is less suited in my opinion for this than say Paladins.
I think I'd prefer Paladins to look really sharp for two reasons; because I think the style benefits from it, or at least the sharpness doesn't detract from it, and because "readability" or clarity is so important in a competitive multiplayer game and should usually take precedence over things like atmosphere. A game like Wolfenstein, a singleplayer story/experience type of game, relies heavily on creating atmosphere to effectively pull the player into the world, and to me it looks a lot more atmospheric and convincing when it's softened.