Not as portable no.
-
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
- Thread starter Cerium
- Start date
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
People with options don't care. Switch users may since it'll be the only fps multiplayer on the system.
It will also be a lot more than $300.
Minsc
Gold Member
Still portable, yes. The statement wasn't specifying the degree of portability, just that having it be portable would be amazing (nor was it about price either).
Plus you could argue more people take laptops around colleges and work environments than people bring switches with them, so there's an argument throwing a laptop in a little briefcase/bag is every bit as portable as a switch. You could probably also argue more people bring laptops on planes than switches as well, so there's quite a compelling argument that a laptop is as easy to bring around as a switch is for the general population - as they seem to have little trouble doing just that.
Regardless the semantics people have for what they consider a portable is a joke to me, so that's why I picked on this. I completely count both switch and laptops as portable devices, and to those who don't, sorry.
LordOfChaos
Member
Still impressive, but I had assumed they weren't removing their marquee lightning slick 60fps console minimum. That's why the Switch versions visuals were so impressive before. Still good, but the 30fps downgrade makes it more down to earth.
Diablohead
Member
laptop is much bigger then a switch
unless you also have a mouse and place to use it, the laptop touch pad is going to suck.
No £280 laptop is going to run doom at that spec
Minsc
Gold Member
It is, but the original statement didn't argue price, or any limitations on size, just that it be portable. Also, see above, I'd feel fairly comfortable arguing people transport laptops around more often than Switches with little issue at all, despite their larger size. You could also use a gamepad with a laptop so mouse isn't necessary, but I've seen complaints about the switch joy cons too, people saying that using the Pro controller makes a huge improvement.
Niceguydan8
Member
Just because more people being laptops doesn't mean it's easier. How is that a logical conclusion?
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
You could use a controller.
There isn't a vast difference between taking a Switch along versus a laptop. The Switch isn't as portable as a 3DS or phone. It's a bulky case. If you're already lugging a Switch around, a laptop isn't a stretch either.
When we thought Switch was around 600Gflops you kept claiming down porting to it even from XBox One would be a big challenge. Now we know Switch is 400Gflops and we're seeing excellent down ports from PS4 its just to be expected and nothing to write home about..
biggersmaller
Banned
Portable Doom on what's essentially a $300 gaming tablet? I find it hard to argue that even at 30 fps. Will definitely be a purchase for me.
Gotdatmoney
Member
Dude was the one screaming "Bandwidth, bandwidth, bandwidth!!! How will they solve it!!!!". Just ignore him
Herb Alpert
Banned
We're back to arguing which is more comfortable to play on the go between a Switch and a laptop?
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
While this is technically true, I don't really think most people have laptops with what it takes to give you 120hz doom @ ultra settings. Unless it's zdoom.
Most consumer laptops are closer to the ULV processor space than the high end gaming laptop space, which is going to be delivering something more like this. Not that this is totally unplayable, but it is impressive to see Doom running on what is basically a 7" tablet while still looking good. I don't think anybody is making the case that this will be a good buy for everyone, but it definitely has a niche.
My beef with laptop gaming on transport/in public (and many other laptop activities too for that fact) is it is a case of sit down, get set up, get in position to play, play, note where you are in journey in order to allow time to pack up again.
I've got a work laptop. It's no awesome piece of work but I could play many games in my Steam library. But it is much more convenient at the moment to just whip my phone out and plough through FFIX. When I had a Vita, same story, I was able to just belt through Gravity Daze... plus it didn't matter if I was stood up for lack of a seat, or even if it was an impromptu set down with a train delay in the station.
I borrowed a Surface 4. And it was impressive about how I could get Deus Ex going on it. Definitely a situation where you have to start giving a lot of love to going through your optimal settings (or borrowing someone elses).
I was really tempted to take it off their hands. Still am. It's less the gaming side of things, more being able to slap my music software on it. My mind is more set towards portability with low graphics though, leave the gaming to a dedicated device. Especially with Ultrabooks (a relatively decent one) all pushing from £600.
PdotMichael
Banned
You talked about it being a real challenge to move a game designed for a console in the 1.3Gflop range (XBox One) to one in the 700Gflop range (obviously Switch is actually 400gflops docked and under 200gflop undocked as we now know).
Considering this game runs well below 1080p and down into the low 40fps range at times on XBox One I'd say that putting it onto a sub 200gflop handheld even at 30fps should be given some credit.
Will be very interesting to see a comparison in docked mode.
Considering this game runs well below 1080p and down into the low 40fps range at times on XBox One I'd say that putting it onto a sub 200gflop handheld even at 30fps should be given some credit.
Will be very interesting to see a comparison in docked mode.
Market share is not synonymous with portability, and a big laptop is not nearly as portable as a GB Micro just because people carry them. That's why we have different tiers of computers - from iPods or Apple Watches, going through tablets, then netbooks, going all the way to massive gamer laptops. You can argue that there's no value for you in having something more portable than a laptop, but humanity being in love with smart devices that have to sacrifice specs for size and price clearly sees the value of actual portability.
PdotMichael
Banned
Well, halving the framerate, reducing the resolution quite a bit and getting rid of/reducing graphic effects is a result of quite a lot of work for a port. If everything would be so easy we wouldn't have the discussion about an over year old game but would talk about incoming multiplatform titles.
Not sure what kind of battle you are trying to fight here.
Elfotografoalocado
Banned
No laptop that I'd want to carry with me all the time can run Doom that well, maybe something like a Lenovo Yoga 720 15 inch or an XPS15 can, but those are 1500+. And you need to have it plugged in, on a table, for proper gameplay.
A 13 inch laptop plus a Switch is a lighter setup, and you can play on the bed, on the commode, on the train... The portability is not comparable. The closest comparison is the GDP Win and... Well, it's not comparable in performance.
Greatest Ever
Member
Right, people act like its elitism when it's been said again and again that it's the game at hand.
prag16
Banned
Framerate and resolution may take hardly any work. Changing/reducing effects would probably be more involved. I'm not fully familiar with your history on this topic, but charges of moving goalposts don't seem inappropriate based on the current discussion.
This
When I played the original Doom on my 486 PC in the early 90's, that thing did not run it at a high framerate. I could force it to by hitting F5 to change it to low resolution mode, but that resulted in EXTREME pixelation where I couldn't even make out what enemy types were ahead of me, but man did my framerate fly at that point.
PdotMichael
Banned
The combination of all those things take time and effort, you still want to run the most optimized version of the game.
The only people who are buying it primarily as a console are people who just want to play Nintendo games. Other consoles are both cheaper and more powerful for everything else.
When we're talking about third party multiplatform games like this one, I can't imagine anyone buying the Switch version unless the prospect of playing it on the go was appealing.
Being able to go between console and portable at will is appealing, and even though I mostly play on the train, I like being able to plop it in the dock and play on my TV. But if I wasn't playing on the go, I never would have thought about buying one in the first place.
I also don't buy the couch/bed argument. Yeah, you can do that, but it's not a selling point. If it was, WiiU would have sold.
ElectricBlanketFire
Member
The difference is Wii U's range was garbage.
I have a powerful pc, ps4, and a switch. I have plenty of options but have played over 200 hours of Doom multiplayer on PC. So, people with options do care. What you really mean is that you don't care.
prag16
Banned
There are plenty of use cases. And it's surely a selling point for at least some people; arguably a lot of people. With the Wii U I could sit on the couch and play a game but still physically be hanging out with my wife who was watching some show on TV. Sure this wasn't enough to make the Wii U a rousing success. But scenarios like that and the bed scenario are plenty useful. And the bed situation with Wii U was tough because most of the time the Wii U's poor range disallowed this.
sixteen-bit
Member
Pardon my ignorance but wouldn't an Nvidia Sheild TV be a better Switch analogue than the custom downclocked PC they built?
Yes, but you can't play DOOM 2016 on it because it's Android-based.
I can't help but notice the argument in favour of gaming laptops is just missing the entire point to the switch. Form factor and design matters. You are not going to use a gaming laptop on the couch, and then continue to play on it while you walk to the shitter to continue your game. Your not. This might be a stretch, but I think the switch is changing gaming the way the iPhone changed mobile phones. That is, it is introcuding a new design and allowing you to do what you want in more convient ways than you could ever before. With the switch, you can have the full fat doom, and sky rim experience whenever and whereever you want similar to how the iPhone introduced the full fat email, and web browsing experience that no other phone before it could deliver on a mobile phone. Sure, you could have done those things on a laptop, but that's not the point.
That would be me. I'm gearing myself up to getting one of these in a bundle and I would really have to think about what to get a game on if it came out on both PC and Switch.
sixteen-bit
Member
ah, I knew I was missing something basic. Thanks.
Representatives at events like these are typically not a good source of information on technical details.
Skittzo0413
Member
While this is definitely true, people have been acting like 540p or sub 540p is confirmed just based on Digital Foundry observing the game for a short period of time.
I totally expect it to be dynamic resolution but for now all we've been told by official representatives is that it's 720p in handheld mode.
Naked Snake
Member
Just like you totally expected it to be 60fps amirite?
Skittzo0413
Member
Firstly, touche.
Second, when I said I expect it to be dynamic resolution I mean yes, down to 540p and maybe further. But I'm just taking issue with people acting like that's been confirmed, when the only official word so far is 720p.
It's literally impossible that you don't understand the difference between taking out a Switch on the bus and playing with it in your hands, and taking out a gaming laptop and a controller and putting it on your lap. Not to mention when you are done playing you can't just put the laptop to sleep to easily resume your game since that would probably crash the game, while with the switch you just lock and unlock the thing.
As I said, it's literally impossible that you can't understand the difference. I'm just gonna assume that everyone who seriously think it doesn't make sense to play a game on Switch because you can play it on a laptop are trolling.
Saw article think multiplayer is 60fps.
TheMoon
Member
press only saw single player, disregard that article.
Souldriver
Member
So much complaining in this thread, but from what I hear this is essentially a downgraded port from our current gen console game. That... Sounds impressive to me actually.
Aha! I found where it was I read that the switch has partial access to it's 4th cores. Remember Blu posting this leak 2 months back in a discussion.
http://switchbrew.org/index.php?title=SVC#svcGetInfo
So the Switch would indeed have slightly better CPU performance than the test rig in the Digital Foundry. I wonder how much of a difference it would make.
http://switchbrew.org/index.php?title=SVC#svcGetInfo
So the Switch would indeed have slightly better CPU performance than the test rig in the Digital Foundry. I wonder how much of a difference it would make.
It's apparently been confirmed that the game fits on a 16 GB card and the multiplayer download is 9 GB.
http://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/...at-30fps-multiplayer-download-is-9-gb-w504975
This tell us two things:
http://www.rollingstone.com/glixel/...at-30fps-multiplayer-download-is-9-gb-w504975
This tell us two things:
- The entire experience could have been included in a 32 GB cart but they decided to cheap out and use a 16 GB cart
- It seems we don't really need to worry about Wolfestein 2 storage size, unless it needs a 32 GB cart and they decide to cheap out again (I don't really want to give them ideas, but they could include 480p cutscenes on the cart and 1080p cutscenes as an optional download or something like that in order to not use a 32 GB cart)