• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

DigitalFoundry analysis of DOOM for Nintendo Switch

Lonely1

Unconfirmed Member
Dips under 540p, dips under 30 fps, lower settings than lowest PC settings. Runs great for a tablet. Yeah, all around praises in that video.

Did you even saw the video? lowest PC setting was no depth of field, and post effects all, which the Switch has. They gave no mention of how many and how severe were the dips and couldn't confirm the resolution at all.
 

NateDrake

Member
Did you even saw the video? lowest PC setting was no depth of field, and post effects all, which the Switch has. They gave no mention of how many and how severe were the dips and couldn't confirm the resolution at all.
Because the game was only playable in handheld mode. There will be no direct feed video captures once the embargo lifts.
 

ryushe

Member
Honestly, I'm glad it's reported to be a "good" port, but o don't think I can do Doom in 30. And I'm not even that type of guy who absolutely cares about framerates.
 
I don't really care about how people feel about this port, good on them if they find it enjoyable, I'm not going to dictate how they should feel, but in my opinion, DOOM at 30fps, no matter the visual settings, is not a good version. It may look good, but if it doesn't feel good to play there's absolutely no point. And it can't play good at 30fps.

This applies to the upcoming Wolfenstein II port too.

Okay... then you're good, you can stop arguing with people in this thread. What do you gain by arguing how other people are wrong for finding a game enjoyable at a lower framerate then you do?
 

pa22word

Member
No, there are many ways to optimize besides turning down resolution.

Reducing shader complexity is one of them, as well as turning down particles. Those things suck away performance like crazy. Turning off post-processing effects should gain you a few frames too, and there's still the tried and true method of lowering geometry detail (although this can be a pita if you have to rework skinning)
This doesn't really matter if cpu bandwidth is the limiting factor here, considering it's extremely doubtful id originally left much on the floor in the og console version of the game to play around with in the first place given how notoriously shit those cpus are, and if that's the case then 60 fps was never going to happen on the switch unless they made a new game based around switch limitations and called it Doom.
 
Fast cuts and shaky cam don't hurt your eyes, they create a sense of nausea or mental stress because they are disorienting and can't be properly processed.

If Doom is nauseating or painful to you at 30fs, then it should also be painful at 60fps, because what you are experiencing is motion sickness. Your brain is capable of filling in the "missing" 30 frames per second without issue. It is not comparable to fast editing where there is a disruption in the flow of movement (same with shaky cam).

This would be like saying that watching someone chop vegetables at 30fps is painful because the knife moves fast and your brain can't comprehend it.
That's not true, framerates have a definite effect on simulation sickness. That's why VR headset need to have high refresh rates. That's why more people get sick watching low framerates vs high. Stop making things up about an issue you obviously don't understand.

There are people who effectively see each individual frame in fast succession instead of seeing it as fluid motion. Their eyes get strained and they get headaches with lower fps. These are the people who talk about 30 being like a slideshow. They aren't all just being dramatic. It can be disorienting, cause eye fatigue and simulation sickness.
 

Polygonal_Sprite

Gold Member
No, there are many ways to optimize besides turning down resolution.

Reducing shader complexity is one of them, as well as turning down particles. Those things suck away performance like crazy. Turning off post-processing effects should gain you a few frames too, and there's still the tried and true method of lowering geometry detail (although this can be a pita if you have to rework skinning)

I do sympathize with the devs porting this though. There's only so much you can do without changing the look of the game. They made a choice and went with preserving the game's aesthetics.

The CPU is probably the bottleneck where turning everything else down still didn't get them close to a stable 60fps. Switch is what it is so 30fps with decent visuals is a great compromise for what is essentially a handheld version of the game imo.
 

LordKano

Member
Okay... then you're good, you can stop arguing with people in this thread. What do you gain by arguing how other people are wrong for finding a game enjoyable at a lower framerate then you do?

I never said once that other people are wrong, how the fuck do you read that in my post ? I said the exact opposite, it's good if people like the port as it is. I personally think it's a bad version of the game, and explained why, against DF's arguments.
 
No, there are many ways to optimize besides turning down resolution.

Reducing shader complexity is one of them, as well as turning down particles. Those things suck away performance like crazy. Turning off post-processing effects should gain you a few frames too, and there's still the tried and true method of lowering geometry detail (although this can be a pita if you have to rework skinning)

I do sympathize with the devs porting this though. There's only so much you can do without changing the look of the game. They made a choice and went with preserving the games aesthetics.

Especially since it's Panic Button doing the port, not id Software themselves. Yeah, they might have gotten design documents and source files to work with, but fundamentally, these are people who likely had to figure how the game works before they could start rebuilding it for a far lower spec machine. Given the potentially custom textures and settings involved, it's not like they just went for a simple solution either.

Edit:
Übermatik;249535419 said:
Unless you're being ridiculously sarcastic, you're an idiot.

Eh, it's standard rhetoric for how a game should theoretically run well on rather low end hardware - devs like Lab Zero will use it themselves. True, you probably could build a PC priced similar to the Switch that would have much greater performance than the Switch, but the form factor is, well, a major factor here.
 

Polygonal_Sprite

Gold Member
No, there are many ways to optimize besides turning down resolution.

Reducing shader complexity is one of them, as well as turning down particles. Those things suck away performance like crazy. Turning off post-processing effects should gain you a few frames too, and there's still the tried and true method of lowering geometry detail (although this can be a pita if you have to rework skinning)

I do sympathize with the devs porting this though. There's only so much you can do without changing the look of the game. They made a choice and went with preserving the game's aesthetics.

The CPU is probably the bottleneck where turning everything else down still didn't get them close to a stable 60fps. Switch is what it is so 30fps with decent visuals is a great compromise imo for what is essentially a handheld version of the game.
 

OmegaDL50

Member
Hahaha.

You guys thought it would run at 60.

There are PC's weaker than the Switch that can run the game at 60FPS.

Hell the equivalent Nvidia Shield tablet powered by the same Tegra X1 manages to run Crysis 3 natively, just to put things into perspective that the Tegra X1 is fairly capable for a SoC.
 

LordKano

Member
Übermatik;249535419 said:
Unless you're being ridiculously sarcastic, you're an idiot.

oh my god

Okay, I'll clarify : a toaster can't run DOOM at 60fps. Because a toaster can't run video games. It makes toasts. That's why we call it a toaster. It was a figure of speech to talk about the optimization of idTech but for some reason people can't read it that way.
 

EDarkness

Member
Because the game was only playable in handheld mode. There will be no direct feed video captures once the embargo lifts.

I wonder if they know folks are gonna be up in arms about the framerate and the look of the game, so they're keeping video to a minimum.
 

Lonely1

Unconfirmed Member
There are PC's weaker than the Switch that can run the game at 60FPS.

Hell the equivalent Nvidia Shield tablet powered by the same Tegra X1 manages to run Crysis 3 natively, just to put things into perspective that the Tegra X1 is fairly capable for a SoC.

Those PC's have stronger CPU, though. And there's no nvidia shield tablet. There's the pixel c that downclocks the gpu to 200mhz under stress.
 

diaspora

Member
oh my god

Okay, I'll clarify : a toaster can't run DOOM at 60fps. Because a toaster can't run video games. It makes toasts. That's why we call it a toaster. It was a figure of speech to talk about the optimization of idTech but for some reason people can't read it that way.
People are calling you out because a low spec PC clocked at Switch levels can't run the game at 60fps
 

jett

D-Member
There are PC's weaker than the Switch that can run the game at 60FPS.

Hell the equivalent Nvidia Shield tablet powered by the same Tegra X1 manages to run Crysis 3 natively, just to put things into perspective that the Tegra X1 is fairly capable for a SoC.

Crysis 3 was built to run on the PS3 and 360.
 
oh my god

Okay, I'll clarify : a toaster can't run DOOM at 60fps. Because a toaster can't run video games. It makes toasts. That's why we call it a toaster. It was a figure of speech to talk about the optimization of idTech but for some reason people can't read it that way.

I bet the PS3 could make toasts.
 
Just watched a video of Doom in 30fps... am I missing something? Do I need to play it to understand why it's apparently so awful?

I feel like I'm truly missing some sort of baffling decision.
 
oh my god

Okay, I'll clarify : a toaster can't run DOOM at 60fps. Because a toaster can't run video games. It makes toasts. That's why we call it a toaster. It was a figure of speech to talk about the optimization of idTech but for some reason people can't read it that way.

I beg to differ.

hqdefault.jpg
 

LordKano

Member
People are calling you out because a low spec PC clocked at Switch levels can't run the game at 60fps

I said that a low spec PC could run DOOM at 60FPS, meaning that they should have made any sacrifices for it to run at 60FPS. They prioritized the visuals instead of the game feel, against their own philosophy.
 

cireza

Member
They without a doubt did a great job with the port, but as far as I am concerned, I won't play a game like Doom at 30 fps.

I already have the game on Xbox One and love it, and would have double dipped if the framerate was there.

This port probably helps in understanding what we can realistically hope for with Switch, and what we should give up on.
 

coughlanio

Member
There are PC's weaker than the Switch that can run the game at 60FPS.

Hell the equivalent Nvidia Shield tablet powered by the same Tegra X1 manages to run Crysis 3 natively, just to put things into perspective that the Tegra X1 is fairly capable for a SoC.

No there isn't. The whole point of the Digital Foundry video is that they build a PC of equivalent power to the Switch, and it struggles to maintain 30FPS at 540p with DOF turned off.
 

diaspora

Member
I said that a low spec PC could run DOOM at 60FPS, meaning that they should have made any sacrifices for it to run at 60FPS. They prioritized the visuals instead of the game feel, against their own philosophy.
So PCs faster than the Switch run it at 60fps, and those that aren't or are on par- don't. Well shucks.
 

sleepnaught

Member
People expecting 60 fps were fooling themselves. This thing is a 6 inch tablet I can fit in my pocket. Regardless of how Nintendo chooses to market it, this thing is a portable first and foremost when you consider the power on tap. Anyone expecting 60 fps AAA titles need to check that at the door because it aint happening. Expect 30 fps ports and sub hd resolutions. That's the tradeoff if you want to play these titles in portable mode. I always expected that going in day 1 and am willing to sacrifice visuals and performance for that, if you're not, then stick to Nintendo first parties or find a new console to play on.
 

knerl

Member
There are PC's weaker than the Switch that can run the game at 60FPS.

Hell the equivalent Nvidia Shield tablet powered by the same Tegra X1 manages to run Crysis 3 natively, just to put things into perspective that the Tegra X1 is fairly capable for a SoC.

Tegra X1 in Switch however isn't exactly like Tegra X1 found in Shield Tablets. It's downclocked and the CPU core setup isn't the same if I recall?
 

Piscus

Member
So Digital Foundry, whose analysis is revered on this forum, makes a report of the Doom port for Switch, provides technical details, and emphasizes repeatedly how good of a port it is.... and a whole bunch of Gaf pros respond with exclamations of how terrible it's going to be and automatically dismiss it? Why not dismiss DF's analyses when the results are above expectation, too, then?
 
I said that a low spec PC could run DOOM at 60FPS, meaning that they should have made any sacrifices for it to run at 60FPS. They prioritized the visuals instead of the game feel, against their own philosophy.

I do not think that is what is happening, at all. They prioritised the game existing, in a 1:1 form (the game, you know, the logic, the AI, the simulation), which made the game run at 30fps.

They would have to make a decidedly different game probably to have it run at 60fps on the switch CPU.
 

TannerDemoz

Member
So Digital Foundry, whose analysis is revered on this forum, makes a report of the Doom port for Switch, provides technical details, and emphasizes repeatedly how good of a port it is.... and a whole bunch of Gaf pros respond with exclamations of how terrible it's going to be and automatically dismiss it? Why not dismiss DF's analyses when the results are above expectation, too, then?

This absolutely.

DF who has played the game "good port"
GAF who hasn't played the game "terrible port"
 
So Digital Foundry, whose analysis is revered on this forum, makes a report of the Doom port for Switch, provides technical details, and emphasizes repeatedly how good of a port it is.... and a whole bunch of Gaf pros respond with exclamations of how terrible it's going to be and automatically dismiss it? Why not dismiss DF's analyses when the results are above expectation, too, then?

Relative standards for many here. For those who feel that 60 FPS is essential in the DOOM experience, it is a problem. For those looking at it in terms of performance relative to the tech (and actually acknowledging why DF built a nominally, similarly specced PC), it may seem more impressive.
 
Top Bottom