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

#51
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
I can relate to that impulse. When I mess around with emulators for 3D consoles like Dolphin or PCSX2 I always start out wanting to see every game rendered at native or higher than native on the sharpest display; or when I get some new PC hardware I just wanna see everything as crisp as possible; but when I actually compare the way things look, their visual coherency, and the way they convey a sense of place, I realize that my first impulse isn't one that best complements every game.

Another time it becomes apparent to me is in games like Cuphead that have optional effects that let you clean up the image. I'm instinctively drawn to the idea of setting it to "wipe it clear" mode, but when I actually compare the two, like in Cuphead, I sometimes realize the importance of what the blurriness/softening/obscuring effect is doing for the game.

Softening is commonly accepted as being a valid and important technique or choice, or whatever you wanna call it, in other mediums like conventional art, film, in music (example equivalent in music is EQing during recording and mastering in a way that makes the sound less clear/vivid). But in games it's far less accepted, and rarely used or appreciated. Sometimes for good reason, because of the way it can impact the way a game plays, but sometimes for no good reason other than typical anti-"vaseline" gamer and digital artist sentiment. I don't know if it's a possibility that many digital artists even consider.
 
Last edited:
#52
I don't get why people are saying the game has an unstable framerate when the Digital Foundry video says it's basically locked 30fps with a couple of places having issues. Compared to the base PS4/Xbox One versions that aren't locked 60fps and dip fairly often. I can understand wanting 60fps in general, but I'd much rather have a stable framerate even at 30fps.
 

blu

Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
#55
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.
Guilty as charged of having (low-effort) fun at the expense of easily-triggered fanboys. But hey -- at least my post had actual quotes ; p
 
#56
I’m just impressed that this game is out on a “portable” console in any form, sure it’s not as good looking as other console versions but using my Switch as a 3DS replacement I’m just happy to see this game out without compromising to much performance.
Props to Panic Button.
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
#57
I don't get why people are saying the game has an unstable framerate when the Digital Foundry video says it's basically locked 30fps with a couple of places having issues. Compared to the base PS4/Xbox One versions that aren't locked 60fps and dip fairly often. I can understand wanting 60fps in general, but I'd much rather have a stable framerate even at 30fps.
But in those places where it does drop, it also does fairly heavily - towards the 20 fps range. And if it doesnt drop to 20 fps, then you have scenes that look exceptionally blurry. So its clear the game makes a lot of trade offs along the way, but the majority of the time is in the 540p resolution range (portable atleast) and on 30 fps.

I do wish though that John, seeing as the resolution changes all the time (and thus it is extra annoying for him to decipher) could give a number on what is the most common resolution docked and undocked. Dynamic res games like this that change resolution per scene kinda are asking for this rather exception meta-statistic. Should not be the case.

Guilty as charged of having (low-effort) fun at the expense of easily-triggered fanboys. But hey -- at least my post had actual quotes ; p
Oy, he got banned even, i am not sure what for though :O
I purposefully didn't quote you since you went indepth in your commentary later, whilst the FIPO was just arguing rather negatively and provocative without reason.

That being said Blu, glad you are here, i might want to have a talk with you on the Wii U. :3
 
#58
Looks terrible but I've all ready seen comments like "I can barely tell the difference between playing this on my Xbox One X." and "To be honest, this looks just as good as my pro version and maybe a little bit better actually" on the Nintendo Switch sub on Reddit.
 
#59
Just like Doom this is pretty neat for Switch only owners or people that desperately need to play this on the go.

But other than that it's hard to justify buying this for $60 when the vastly superior version is like a third of that on every other major platform
 
#60
Blurriest game I’ve ever seen. Unacceptable for me.

I can’t imagine even as a switch only gamer to want to buy such a compromised ugly version of the game when PS4 and Xbox is cheaper than a switch to begin with.

2018 has been a horrible year for the switch and its prospect as a good game machine.
 
Last edited:
#61
Blurriest game I’ve ever seen. Unacceptable for me.

I can’t imagine even as a switch only gamer to want to buy such a compromised ugly version of the game when PS4 and Xbox is cheaper than a switch to begin with.

2018 has been a horrible year for the switch and its prospect as a good game machine.
It may be blurry but Switch owners will literally buy anything and act like it’s the greatest game ever
 
#62
I don't want to see this kind of stuff on my Switch.

We get a blurry port of a recent game while we could actually be playing a 720_1080p/60fps port of an older game.
What's the point of having a 720p screen if all games render at lower resolutions ? Did our common sense abandon us ?

Stop this already, port older games in good, playable conditions.
 
#65
If the switch was the only version of the game it would be more praised. It is a handheld console, a small portable machine with a small screen.
 
#66
I don't mind that it looks like crap, that is not the point.
As long as you get the spirit of the game.
It is not like it is running on some other engine, right?
My issue is the gall to ask $60 for it when the 4k polished version on Xbox can be had for $20-$30 now.
Charge $20 for a mobile version where 80% of the work was done already and I'll give them a nice high five.
 

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
#68
Blurriest game I’ve ever seen. Unacceptable for me.

I can’t imagine even as a switch only gamer to want to buy such a compromised ugly version of the game when PS4 and Xbox is cheaper than a switch to begin with.
As i read a user on ERA being encountered with the same argument:

''When it comes to playing these games in the train the XB1X version is a 0/10 for me.''

Its the portability aspect that sells these ports more than anything else. On docked, despite it having near-HD resolutions, its still one blurry game.

2018 has been a horrible year for the switch and its prospect as a good game machine.
In terms of what? First party? Sure. But third party? A Switch is an indie magnet, and thats just talking about shooters. All these titles that usually only serve life as a Steam digital game or (at best) in the PS4/XBO jump to Switch and you have that instant portability plus. For small time devs the Switch is quite enticing as an entry level machine being both console and handheld (See Dusk/Amid Evil Switch).
Whether these games make good use of the hardware is another thing though.

It may be blurry but Switch owners will literally buy anything and act like it’s the greatest game ever
And that isnt true either for your average Switch user. What this port does is having severe drawbacks to get it run in a playable state on a handheld with the bonus of playing it on console.*

*Do you consider this statement being the equivalent of acting like its the greatest game ever?

360p what is that like 3DS resolution?
Because clearly the game spends at 360p all the time :/ Bad drive-by poster, bad!
 
#70
Just like Doom this is pretty neat for Switch only owners or people that desperately need to play this on the go.

But other than that it's hard to justify buying this for $60 when the vastly superior version is like a third of that on every other major platform
And here lies the crux of my issues with just about everything Bethesda has done with the Switch so far. Inferior ports of Skyrim SE, Doom and now WS2 and BAM! Full MSRP despite being both a late port and a significant drop in performance and quality.
 
#71
But in those places where it does drop, it also does fairly heavily - towards the 20 fps range. And if it doesnt drop to 20 fps, then you have scenes that look exceptionally blurry. So its clear the game makes a lot of trade offs along the way, but the majority of the time is in the 540p resolution range (portable atleast) and on 30 fps.
Here's the thing, though. If the game is locked 95% of the time, then I'd say that's pretty awesome and is pretty much locked and is definitely a positive considering not even the original PS4/Xbox One versions were even that. I get that you don't like the resolution trade off. That's fine.
 
#72
And here lies the crux of my issues with just about everything Bethesda has done with the Switch so far. Inferior ports of Skyrim SE, Doom and now WS2 and BAM! Full MSRP despite being both a late port and a significant drop in performance and quality.
Yep, although it's not just Bethesda, it's all publishers.
South Park (Ubisoft) is the same and I'll be shocked if Dragonball Fighterz isn't the same.

But the audience has established that they are fine paying inflated prices on Switch so publishers would be dumb not to take advantage of that
 
#73
As i read a user on ERA being encountered with the same argument:

''When it comes to playing these games in the train the XB1X version is a 0/10 for me.''

Its the portability aspect that sells these ports more than anything else. On docked, despite it having near-HD resolutions, its stil
But that's not the point. The point is that, as a GAME, the game is not reaching minimums of quality. It has to run at Ps2 era resolutions, can't keep 30fps and it's blurry as hell. I have a 720p screen, I expect the games will work AT LEAST at 720p
 
Last edited:
#75
It’s miraculous that the game can even run on such a limited piece of hardware, so kudos to the development team for making the impossible possible.

That said, given that Switch is a home console for me instead of portable (too big/bulky to carry), I’ve gotta stick with the more powerful consoles on this one, like I did for DOOM. The compromises are far too great. Had I only owned a Switch, my decision-making would likely be different... but when I also have an Xbox One X that runs these games so well, buying either DOOM or Wolfenstein II would be like setting $60 on fire.
 
#76
Why not?

Same reason I didn't buy Vita games that didn't display at native resolution. Same reason I don't buy 1X patched games that don't at least hold 4K 90%+ of the time, and years before why I sold my XB1 for a PS4 @ 1080P.

Regarding the Switch, you pay for a device with a built in screen @ 720P 6 inches. It's not wrong to expect it to take full advantage of said screen, especially if you're paying full price for a game on top of all the other sacrifices it's had to make. The PPI just isn't high enough from the get go to be able to make sacrifices that large in the resolution. Alternatively, if you put a 1440P into a 6 inch device, downscaling to 1080P would still look great & razor sharp due to the pixel density (samsung phones for instance). Of course that's an unrealistic expectation, and more of an example of how an already low PPI getting cut in half is clearly detrimental to the playing experience. Sure, it might not matter to some, but for others including myself, it does.

It's great they can get the game running, but I see it more as a "hey guyz, look wut we did". Personally I'm glad these ports are being made though, as it points a finger at Nintendo from a developer standpoint to say "hey! at least make it powerful enough in the next Switch revision so that we don't have to slaughter these ports".

In the end, people have expectations when they shell out hard earned money. So it's not really a matter of why, but why not?
 
Last edited:
#77
Why not?

Same reason I didn't buy Vita games that didn't display at native resolution. Same reason I don't buy 1X patched games that don't at least hold 4K 90%+ of the time, and years before why I sold my XB1 for a PS4 @ 1080P.

Regarding the Switch, you pay for a device with a built in screen @ 720P 6 inches. It's not wrong to expect it to take full advantage of said screen, especially if you're paying full price for a game on top of all the other sacrifices it's had to make. The PPI just isn't high enough from the get go to be able to make sacrifices that large in the resolution. Alternatively, if you put a 1440P into a 6 inch device, downscaling to 1080P would still look great & razor sharp due to the pixel density (samsung phones for instance). Of course that's an unrealistic expectation, and more of an example of how an already low PPI getting cut in half is clearly detrimental to the playing experience. Sure, it might not matter to some, but for others including myself, it does.

It's great they can get the game running, but I see it more as a "hey guyz, look wut we did".

In the end, people have expectations when they shell out hard earned money. So it's not really a matter of why, but why not?
A game should be rendered at whatever resolution best serves the particular game is why not. Sometimes that'll be 1080 docked and 720 undocked, sometimes it won't be. The choice should be made thoughtfully and tastefully, ideally involving talented artists in the decision. Let the technoweenies in the audience complain and let the technoweenies on the team tell the artists what's feasible, but let the artists make the aesthetic decisions.

This doesn't apply to something like Rocket League, but it does apply to a singleplayer "experiential" game like Wolfenstein 2.
 
Last edited:
#78
Tempted to buy it but I heard the story is a bit silly with some serious plot holes and some SJWy moments. And the level design was a big step down from the first game. =/
 
#79
The game should be rendered at whatever resolution best serves the particular game is why not. Sometimes that'll be 1080 docked and 720 undocked, sometimes it won't be. The choice should be made thoughtfully and tastefully, ideally involving talented artists in the decisions.
That's a pretty broad statement, as these games were clearly made with higher resolution in mind. This can be said for the majority of indie games as well. This isn't the PS2 era, where games didn't have the in-game assets to clearly take advantage of said built- in screen or TV/Monitor outside of some PC games. I get where you're coming from, but your statement is a little off.

Edit: and in this case, framerate as well.
 
Last edited:

Redneckerz

Those long posts don't cover that red neck boy
#80
Borderlands on Vita got crapped on for the same reason. Impressive effort but ultimately a terrible product due to performance constraints.
Borderlands Vita was actually a more severe port than Wolfenstein. It did run north of 25-30 fps sans one area that always dropped down. Visuals took a big hit but atleast the cellshaded nature atleast ensured it looked somewhat like the PS360 versions. As i remember, a lot of people could live with that port, despites its various minuses.

And here lies the crux of my issues with just about everything Bethesda has done with the Switch so far. Inferior ports of Skyrim SE, Doom and now WS2 and BAM! Full MSRP despite being both a late port and a significant drop in performance and quality.
Skyrim SE was not inferior. Again, its predominantly the portability aspect that makes these inferior ports enticing. Because i can tell you right now the XBO port of any of these games is inferior when played on the bus.

The money issue is a legitimate issue though, due to the cartridges. And these current-gen ports should have been on a 32 GB card, but i reckon it would have pushed their price even more. Its a core problem when using cartridges for your release - These things are always more expensive than their counterparts. N64 had the same problem for its entire lifetime and it does not play out for the Switch either.

Here's the thing, though. If the game is locked 95% of the time, then I'd say that's pretty awesome and is pretty much locked and is definitely a positive considering not even the original PS4/Xbox One versions were even that. I get that you don't like the resolution trade off. That's fine.
John did allude that it does run more often at 30 fps or near 30 fps than it is below 25 fps, though.

But that's not the point. The point is that, as a GAME, the game is not reaching minimums of quality. It has to run at Ps2 era resolutions, can't keep 30fps and it's blurry as hell. I have a 720p screen, I expect the games will work AT LEAST at 720p
It runs at various resolutions over the entire time both docked and undocked. As for the bolded, so i take it that you didnt play any COD game either given most of the PS360 titles were 600p?
 
#81
It may be blurry but Switch owners will literally buy anything and act like it’s the greatest game ever
Well, you trade off for convenience. If you can play Wolfenstein or Doom on a handheld while watching Netflix, or while on the train commuting to work, or while on your lunch break, you can deal with the blur for the versatility and additional access to gaming time. I do wish it was more powerful or had more unique 3rd party games.
 
#82
That's a pretty broad statement, as these games were clearly made with higher resolution in mind. This can be said for the majority of indie games as well. This isn't the PS2 era, where games didn't have the in-game assets to clearly take advantage of said built- in screen or TV/Monitor outside of some PC games. I get where you're coming from, but your statement is a little off.

Edit: and in this case, framerate as well.
I realize that not many people who would be on a forum like this in a thread like this would agree with me, that most people here are likely the native + 60fps always kind of guy, but my opinion's a considered one that has nothing to do with platform bias or excusing ineptitude. Some games with certain types of art and assets look best at extremely high resolutions and others don't, and that's something I think even when disregarding the trade-offs that accompany high rendering resolution.

The reason I posted initially was because I found it interesting that this game actually looked better in a lot of the low res footage, and I think that conceptually that's a possibility that, unlike every other artistic medium, video game artists and audiences rarely even consider. Overwhelmingly in video games clearer is always better, higher number is always better, newer is always better, slicker and cleaner is always better, polished is always better. And while there are often good justifiable reasons, unique to video games, for each of those preferences, it's not always the case. In many cases any number of those things may not be better.
 
Last edited:

Panajev2001a

GAF's Pleasant Genius
#83
Well, you trade off for convenience. If you can play Wolfenstein or Doom on a handheld while watching Netflix, or while on the train commuting to work, or while on your lunch break, you can deal with the blur for the versatility and additional access to gaming time. I do wish it was more powerful or had more unique 3rd party games.
Trade offs have limits... the frame rate (and the controls and the visuals, in that order) are a bit beyond what I expected in a non positive way. The game was made for fast and hectic 60 FPS gameplay and it shows.
 
Last edited:
#84
Well, you trade off for convenience. If you can play Wolfenstein or Doom on a handheld while watching Netflix, or while on the train commuting to work, or while on your lunch break, you can deal with the blur for the versatility and additional access to gaming time. I do wish it was more powerful or had more unique 3rd party games.
Or you can do something unless instead of playing a shit port for every second you're awake.
 
#86
Or you can do something else instead of playing a mediocre game at all. But different people like to spend their time in different ways.
There's a time and place for everything. Not all of us need to play switch every second of the day.
 
#92
My God, the hate is strong here in this thread. Instead of praising this technical achievement on a device several times smaller than the stationary consoles, people keep complaining that the visual are inferior. Noone could have expected this inferiority...

I played Wolfenstein II on a masterrace machine when it came out and replaying it now on switch mostly in docked mode. And can't stop being impressed when thinking that this is running on switch. To me it feels also smoother than pre-patched Doom. And people always forget about the Switch shooter glory with seperated Joy-Con Motion Aiming. This is an experience for itself.
 
#93
That's neat that they can get it to run to the point where it's playable, but it's really just a novelty and when results like this are the best you can get when porting games like Wolfenstein 2 to the Switch, it's no wonder Capcom went the streaming route for RE7.
 
#94
My God, the hate is strong here in this thread. Instead of praising this technical achievement on a device several times smaller than the stationary consoles, people keep complaining that the visual are inferior. Noone could have expected this inferiority...

I played Wolfenstein II on a masterrace machine when it came out and replaying it now on switch mostly in docked mode. And can't stop being impressed when thinking that this is running on switch. To me it feels also smoother than pre-patched Doom. And people always forget about the Switch shooter glory with seperated Joy-Con Motion Aiming. This is an experience for itself.
The 'technical achievement' doesn't negate the horrible results.
 
#95
If I'm want to play this game on the big screen, I'd get the PC version (with K&M... I cannot play FPS using controllers--yuck). If I want to play it anywhere, I'd get it on Switch (with gyro). So as far as I'm concerned, how the Switch version looks and performs on handheld mode should be the focus of the analysis and that the docked performance should just be a side note.
 
#96
It's impressive how it runs the same geometry and models though. This game has some of the most detailed 3D enemy models. It really needs a character viewer like DOOM.
 
Last edited:
#98
it's a game about killing nazis, if that's upsetting for you best give it a swerve
Are you implying I am a Nazi sympathizer?

It's a game bout killing Nazis but that doesn't automatically mean the story telling or the game play is good.

And the plot hole I was referring to

The good guys capture a submarine but don't sweep each section on the blue print and so they find out after 5 months there were many Nazi soldiers still on the sub.

these videos mention my concerns with the game.
 
#99
Why not? I paid for it, I expect the games to run at that resolution.

It runs at various resolutions over the entire time both docked and undocked. As for the bolded, so i take it that you didnt play any COD game either given most of the PS360 titles were 600p?
I didn't. But PS3 and Xbox360 weren't sold as portable systems with 720p screens. If that was the situation I would have been there saying the same.
 
I feel like Nintendo made things a bit awkward by launching on a 2013 fabrication node (28nm) in 2017. This example and a few others show the Switch could benefit from an update from the several die shrinks it has available now, as many of these dynamic res games would automatically benefit, but it's also been just over a year since the initial hardware launch, so early adopters might feel burned.