Nintendo Switch Spec Thread

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
I have sat back for a bit on this one. Am I impressed with Doom on Switch? Sure, but am I shocked? Not really. For me and many others here on these boards, this is playing out as we expected. Ports to Switch would receive an expected reduction in resolution (resolution is expensive) and framerate (when going from 60fps to 30fps is viable). Look, Switch is 1/8th as capable as the PS4 in portable mode, and developers must account for this. But unlike the Wii that was significantly underpowered, the Switch actually supports all the modern features. Actually more so, the Tegra X1 is actually one generation ahead of the chips powering the PS4 and X1. The chasm in raw horsepower is still relevant, and must be respected. However, reducing something like resolution from 1080p to 600p could be reduction of 800% in some games depending on their demands. It is not just pixels, but lighting and shading those pixels. The Tegra X1 can easily fill 1080p games, but once you start apply advanced shaders the pipeline can begin to slow down quickly.

I still to this day feel like we wont be seeing games like Battlefield on Switch. The requirements are significant, and the process of scaling back these demands may result in a final product nobody wants. However, a game like COD WW2 with compromises similar to Doom are absolutely possible. COD was 30FPS on Wii, and sold rather well. I think the platform is becoming increasingly attractive for publishers.

Across the board support is still a pipe dream, but games like Doom and Wolfenstein 2 are building confidence within consumers and the media alike that the Switch is not destined to be nothing beyond a Nintendo box.
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
I have sat back for a bit on this one. Am I impressed with Doom on Switch? Sure, but am I shocked? Not really. For me and many others here on these boards, this is playing out as we expected. Ports to Switch would receive an expected reduction in resolution (resolution is expensive) and framerate (when going from 60fps to 30fps is viable).
Precisely. I'm kinda amused at all of the journos calling this an "impossible" port for these very reasons (it's also convenient that it's DOOM, since the "impossible" was done with it before). Did people really actually believe devs who say ports to lower-powered hardware are impossible? If money is to be made, things will be made possible. If anything, the only thing that surprises me are the purely economic reasons for DOOM being ported. I'll buy it, but we've seen this song and dance before where a third party puts out a game and it just doesn't sell, because the audiences are different on different devices. DOOM does not scream "Nintendo owners." But the Switch-era is proving to be a little bit different, so what do I know?
Look, Switch is 1/8th as capable as the PS4 in portable mode, and developers must account for this. But unlike the Wii that was significantly underpowered, the Switch actually supports all the modern features.
Also worth remembering that people will read "wow, 1/8th peak theoretical computational power is a big difference" and forget that when people were talking about the jump from the 6th to 7th generation of consoles, they were saying 50x the power, plus a new modern suite of API features (all combined with the jump to higher resolution screens). Switch is operating in a different technological era than Wii was, and straddles a line of generational hardware leaps that aren't of the quantum variety.
 

Koenig

The Architect
You would be surprised how many people there are who are absolutely convinced that the Switch is far too weak to play any modern game. When confronted with the specs, the effect of low level API, and the difference a 720 to 4K effort requires, they recoil and start spouting nonsense.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
You would be surprised how many people there are who are absolutely convinced that the Switch is far too weak to play any modern game. When confronted with the specs, the effect of low level API, and the difference a 720 to 4K effort requires, they recoil and start spouting nonsense.
It has been crazy, and I believe some people cant even keep their story straight. The narrative before was that ports wouldn't come because the Switch couldn't run the games. Now when ports are announced these same naysayers try and focus on the compromises made in the porting process. I have seriously had multiple WTF moments over the past few weeks. It is like I am in the twilight zone at times. I agued that with reductions in resolution, framerate when possible, and of course various fidelity settings ports to Switch were absolutely possible, and it would be the business side of things that dictated support. Now we have these ass hat clowns simply pointing out the compromises made in the ports, as if I ever once suggested there would be parity with PS4 and X1. Doom on Switch was "impossible" until last week, and now the narrative has shifted to pointing out the compromises made to make it happen, all things were said would be typical for porting a game from PS4/X1 to Switch.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
ports of anything to just about anything is possible, it is just the amount of work... and of coruse there IS some cut off point... where it couldn't be called a port anymore... like an nes 2d de-make

but pretty much any new game could be ported to the n64 if the developer was willing to put in the time and money, and accept the HUGELY significant compromises...

hell, even games on xbone are scaled down from ps4, and ps4 games are scaled down from high settings PC games, whose low settings are bellow xbone, and in some cases at around xbox 360 spec... which could of course then run on the more powerful switch

there is always going to be an excuse... I just hate the whole "it can't run on it" mentality... as Is aid.. just about anythign can run on just about anything...

if sony really wanted to they could down port uncharted 4 to ps1... it wouldn't be pretty, and it would be needlessly time consuming and expensive, but it could be done... both can display polygons with textures... it can be done

the argument for me has ALWAYS been about if the port is worth it or not... never that it couldn't be done.

ever since the 360, I think graphics have been good enough, that using the 360 as the bottom, anything can be ported to it without significant loss of gamer enjoyment

if the less polys and lower resolution ruin the game for you, then that doesn't say much about the game itself, does it?
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
It has been crazy, and I believe some people cant even keep their story straight. The narrative before was that ports wouldn't come because the Switch couldn't run the games. Now when ports are announced these same naysayers try and focus on the compromises made in the porting process. I have seriously had multiple WTF moments over the past few weeks. It is like I am in the twilight zone at times. I agued that with reductions in resolution, framerate when possible, and of course various fidelity settings ports to Switch were absolutely possible, and it would be the business side of things that dictated support. Now we have these ass hat clowns simply pointing out the compromises made in the ports, as if I ever once suggested there would be parity with PS4 and X1. Doom on Switch was "impossible" until last week, and now the narrative has shifted to pointing out the compromises made to make it happen, all things were said would be typical for porting a game from PS4/X1 to Switch.
It's gets better (or worse). LA Noire supposedly runs at 1080p docked, and 720p handheld. And then the fine folks at GAF were wondering if the Switch could even run GTAV...even though it ran just fine on the 360 and PS3. But wait, there's more! Then the fine folks diverted the talk, suggesting the CPU in the Switch was too weak, and weaker than the 360's, and the PS3's.

It's just constant dodging, and diverting, and outright denial.

"Switch is too weak for current-gen games!"

*DOOM announcement for Switch*

"Well, there's no way it'll run well. It'll look like the original Doom!"

*DOOM gameplay footage shown looking better than Doom 3 BFG at a mostly stable 30fps...in handheld mode*

"Well, look at all those compromises. There's no way this'll be a good port"

It's this constant doubling down, it's almost worse than a Politician not answering questions.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
Regardless of what the narrative is, the critics are simply going to mold their opinions continuously. Be it sales or specs, the talking points will change, but the underlining desire to undermine the Switch will persist with these people. You will never persuade these people, they will not accept the truth, and will forever be critical of the Switch no matter what.

Mario Odyssey in 900p 60fps......Cartoon graphics, doesn't prove anything. LOL Skyrim on Switch......Old game, proves nothing. Doom and Wolfenstein 2 on Switch......Not on par with PS4 version, nothing to see here.

I personally think it is great that the tech is becoming less and less a part of making a game great. Games that lean heavily on graphics and production values rarely hold up to the test of time, but games that are built on the foundation of a great concept and gameplay can transcend generations, and can be played for decades, possibly longer.

Switch is performing better than I expected on all levels. Third party ports are great, sales are great, and Nintendo's first party exclusives are easily game of the year contenders. People critical of the Switch based on specs is kind of ridiculous. Best of the best on Switch run at 1080p 60fps and look great. Isn't that what gamers want? Great looking games that play great with a silky smooth framerate? Again, some people will move those goalpost till the cows come home.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
Regardless of what the narrative is, the critics are simply going to mold their opinions continuously. Be it sales or specs, the talking points will change, but the underlining desire to undermine the Switch will persist with these people. You will never persuade these people, they will not accept the truth, and will forever be critical of the Switch no matter what.

Mario Odyssey in 900p 60fps......Cartoon graphics, doesn't prove anything. LOL Skyrim on Switch......Old game, proves nothing. Doom and Wolfenstein 2 on Switch......Not on par with PS4 version, nothing to see here.

I personally think it is great that the tech is becoming less and less a part of making a game great. Games that lean heavily on graphics and production values rarely hold up to the test of time, but games that are built on the foundation of a great concept and gameplay can transcend generations, and can be played for decades, possibly longer.

Switch is performing better than I expected on all levels. Third party ports are great, sales are great, and Nintendo's first party exclusives are easily game of the year contenders. People critical of the Switch based on specs is kind of ridiculous. Best of the best on Switch run at 1080p 60fps and look great. Isn't that what gamers want? Great looking games that play great with a silky smooth framerate? Again, some people will move those goalpost till the cows come home.
The narrative continues to change from "We want games at 1080p 60fps!" to "We want the best graphics!"

The funniest part though is during the PS360 era, the big thing was how most games could not do 1080p60, and were 720p30, or 720p60 even (some lower res plus under 30fps). Now that we're n the 8th gen, we're getting 1080p, but it's normally at 30fps, and not 60fps (with some exceptions), and people cannot comprehend why when the systems are more powerful. In this case, they don't realize that graphics get better over time, and thus the improvement in hardware offsets the benefits they are expecting.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
The narrative continues to change from "We want games at 1080p 60fps!" to "We want the best graphics!"

The funniest part though is during the PS360 era, the big thing was how most games could not do 1080p60, and were 720p30, or 720p60 even (some lower res plus under 30fps). Now that we're n the 8th gen, we're getting 1080p, but it's normally at 30fps, and not 60fps (with some exceptions), and people cannot comprehend why when the systems are more powerful. In this case, they don't realize that graphics get better over time, and thus the improvement in hardware offsets the benefits they are expecting.
You are absolutely right. The problem is that expectations for increased resolution and framerate have coincided with increased in graphical fidelity. Look back at the 360 and PS3, when those consoles were tasked with rendering PS2/Xbox level visuals, they could pretty much pull them off at 1080p 60fps. However, that generation really highlighted that high resolution and framerate doesn't sell all that well. The most impressive games of that generation were typically games that ran at 720p or less, and most were 30fps. This has been a monumental task for developers. Keep in mind that 480x640 was the standard tv resolution for decades. 1080X1920 is now the standard, but is quickly becoming replaced with the even higher pixel count 4k tvs. HD more of less became the standard about 10 years ago, and that was 720p early on, but now we area talking significantly higher resolutions. Simply running PS4 level visuals in native 4k requires a processor nearly 8x as capable. Any time the developer also increases the fidelity of textures, lighting and shadows, the requirements can quickly spiral out of control.
 

Koenig

The Architect
I just want to point out that one of the only game series I have seen that has consistently pleased me with its balance of graphical fidelity, consistent frame rate, and decent resolution, is freaking Call of Duty. I know the series gets a lot of (justifiable) hate, but off the top of my head it is one of the most reliable game series I can think of in terms of performance across multiple platforms. Hell, even the Wii versions of the game were graphically impressive compared to most other games on the system despite the reduced frame-rate. I remember LOVING the physics engine; doing private matches and going around shooting/flash-banging all the various boxes and fruits scattered around the map and enjoying the physics behind them.
 

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
I just want to point out that one of the only game series I have seen that has consistently pleased me with its balance of graphical fidelity, consistent frame rate, and decent resolution, is freaking Call of Duty. I know the series gets a lot of (justifiable) hate, but off the top of my head it is one of the most reliable game series I can think of in terms of performance across multiple platforms. Hell, even the Wii versions of the game were graphically impressive compared to most other games on the system despite the reduced frame-rate. I remember LOVING the physics engine; doing private matches and going around shooting/flash-banging all the various boxes and fruits scattered around the map and enjoying the physics behind them.
I have to disagree on a few fronts here

1. CoD games had horrid resolutions until just recently
2. The Wii CoD games were super ugly, they basically stripped off all the effects, scaled back the geometry and textures to get it to run, and then called it a day, little to no optimization for the hardware

as far as the series being reliable... it is an annualized franchise, pretty much all annualized franchises are reliable... because it basically a new coat of paint on the same game over and over.

I only give credit to CoD on the Wii for actually putting the games out... the wii could have had pretty much any multiplat from that gen if other publishers were willing to do the lazy down-scaling CoD did... but it isn't even close to being one of the more attractive games on the wii... first you would have to get rid of just about every exclusive the system had... not just nintendo's stuff, but stuff like red steel 2... then you would have to clip off the multiplats that hit the ps2 or psp as well.. like silent hill... once you got several dozen games deep then MAYBE you could place a wii CoD game.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
I have to disagree on a few fronts here

1. CoD games had horrid resolutions until just recently
2. The Wii CoD games were super ugly, they basically stripped off all the effects, scaled back the geometry and textures to get it to run, and then called it a day, little to no optimization for the hardware

as far as the series being reliable... it is an annualized franchise, pretty much all annualized franchises are reliable... because it basically a new coat of paint on the same game over and over.

I only give credit to CoD on the Wii for actually putting the games out... the wii could have had pretty much any multiplat from that gen if other publishers were willing to do the lazy down-scaling CoD did... but it isn't even close to being one of the more attractive games on the wii... first you would have to get rid of just about every exclusive the system had... not just nintendo's stuff, but stuff like red steel 2... then you would have to clip off the multiplats that hit the ps2 or psp as well.. like silent hill... once you got several dozen games deep then MAYBE you could place a wii CoD game.
I have to say I very much disagree. COD on Wii had a solid 30fps when playing online, and that was with ten players. When I first played the jungle on map on Black Ops, I honestly couldn't believe I was playing a Wii game. I do not remember another game on Wii pulling off that much foliage and looking that realistic. I loved Goldeneye on Wii, but many of the online maps would get pretty framey when playing with 8 players. Yes these games were significantly cut down versions of their 360/PS3 counterparts, but considering the hardware, I was and remain impressed with the work that Treyarch did.
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
I have to say I very much disagree. COD on Wii had a solid 30fps when playing online, and that was with ten players. When I first played the jungle on map on Black Ops, I honestly couldn't believe I was playing a Wii game. I do not remember another game on Wii pulling off that much foliage and looking that realistic.
I remember that night! You were well and truly amazed by that map. Can't believe it's been 7 years.

(And oh, the miracle of voice chat.)
I loved Goldeneye on Wii, but many of the online maps would get pretty framey when playing with 8 players. Yes these games were significantly cut down versions of their 360/PS3 counterparts, but considering the hardware, I was and remain impressed with the work that Treyarch did.
Same. For anyone that doesn't know, the progression of COD on Wii was a really interesting success story. I can't find the links for the Treyarch dev who posted on GAF and GameFaqs, but COD3 on Wii was the PS2 version and ported by like four guys in a week. It sold so well that they made World at War, which was compromised, but was like 70% of the core game. That led to porting COD4 (somewhat against IW's own wishes), which at first alternately ran at 12 FPS with actual graphical effects or 30 FPS and looked like StarFox, before finally tweaking it within an inch of its life for release...but they spent so much time on the presentation that they didn't fix the hit boxes. That was all fixed with Black Ops, which was legitimately was a modern 360 game running on Wii - chat, different objective modes, host migration, we even got a Zombie map. By the time MW3 came out, the online modes looked like a prettier version of a PS2 game (youtube compression aside). Which is no put-down. They had figured out how to port something made on much more powerful hardware down to a charged up GameCube.

Treyarch gets much respect from me for all the work they did. Sure, Red Steel 2 looked better with its cel shading, and Prime 3 was gorgeous, but for degree of difficulty? For porting down a 360 game and making it run well with an online mode with 10 players? Treyarch was up there, man. I think what they did on Wii with COD is probably 10 times as hard as what Bethesda is doing with DOOM.
 
Last edited:

theMightyME

Owner of The Total Screen
I have to say I very much disagree. COD on Wii had a solid 30fps when playing online, and that was with ten players. When I first played the jungle on map on Black Ops, I honestly couldn't believe I was playing a Wii game. I do not remember another game on Wii pulling off that much foliage and looking that realistic. I loved Goldeneye on Wii, but many of the online maps would get pretty framey when playing with 8 players. Yes these games were significantly cut down versions of their 360/PS3 counterparts, but considering the hardware, I was and remain impressed with the work that Treyarch did.
I am not talking about the frame-rate performance, I am talking about how horrid the game actually looked, they prioritized framerate, which is good, but they didn't optimize the visuals at all, those games were fugly as hell.. a ground up cod for the wii would have looked MUCH better.

YES, I know that as a multiplat it was a downgrade, but that is kindof my point... those games couldn't touch wii exclusives on visuals, not even close

It is how it had to be, those games only sold like 300k each, so the budget and time spent on them had to be low.
 

Koenig

The Architect
If you think the game looked horrid, I think that says more about your own perception than the game itself. I would challenge you to find a more appealing "Realistic" style game on the Wii. The CoDs were simply some of the best looking games around the system, at that is how I saw it.
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator


Remember looking at this picture for weeks leading up to launch day, and not actually knowing if the game was coming out or not because Activision wouldn't say a word and retailers wouldn't list the damn game?
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
While 2K18 is broken, at least it's the full 2K18 and not some Frankenstein's monster. This is a fraud release, and if EA is betting the future of FIFA on Switch based on this game, they have another thing coming and well, everybody is getting screwed.

All people want is the full Frostbite experience. Is it really that hard? Drop the resolution to 900p a la PES on Xbox One, but don't half ass it and expect people not to notice.


Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
The COD games on Wii were horrid looking if you directly compare them with the HD versions on PS360PC. But by themselves? They looked quite good, given the hardware.
Even compared to 6th generation 30 FPS shooters such as Area 51, Black, and Doom 3, it was lacking. Things like DOT3 bump mapping, per pixel lighting, specular mapping, refraction maps, and self shadowing should have been possible since the Wii is just a GameCube.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

EvilTw1n

Even my henchmen think I'm crazy.
Moderator
Well of course a game like Black looked better than something like MW3. It was also a ground-up effort, sixth-gen game, without multiplayer and geared toward being a 100% offline setpiece experience where the levels were laid out like a fuse setting off timed fireworks. Criterion was making a proto-Platinum game, really. The ethos of Black was kind of like Vanquish (whereas DOOM was DOOM - it's amazing what you can do with claustrophobic corridors).

COD Wii was chopping down a seventh gen game with 99% of the experience online with 9 other players lobbing grenades and calling in attack choppers and sentry guns with constant shoot-outs and support-fire happening all at once. Treyarch was making something else entirely with a completely different gameplay hook from a very different source material - they weren't playing to Wii's strengths; they were compromising the strengths of a 360 game to get it to run on slightly beefed up PS2/GC-era hardware. They didn't have the benefit that Retro or Ubisoft did with Prime 3 and Red Steel 2. I'd put COD Wii up there with anything from gen-6 online.
(And people's recollections of what the best gen-6 stuff looked like in online matches is generally remembered through rose-tinted glasses, anyways.)

DOOM on Switch will probably be a similar story (except that modern engines make scaling down a lot easier). If Retro or someone were making a Switch exclusive FPS, sure, it'd have a higher native resolution, higher framerate, better depth of field, etc. than DOOM. You can pretty much always say that when you're comparing an exclusive against something built around other hardware and ported down. It's a pointless discussion, honestly. If wishes were horses...
 

Koenig

The Architect
(whereas DOOM was DOOM - it's amazing what you can do with claustrophobic corridors).
Again, it makes me wonder what a Metroid Prime game built from the ground up for an HD system could look like. What the series managed to pull off on the game-cube and Wii was utterly amazing, so just imagine what it could be on the Switch (Thankfully, we won't have to wait too long to find out)

(Although I am concerned about the in game "Loading" times; Nintendo likes to use compression a lot, I just hope it does not make the in game doors too slow in the decompression process.)
 

Juegos

All mods go to heaven.
Moderator
(Although I am concerned about the in game "Loading" times; Nintendo likes to use compression a lot, I just hope it does not make the in game doors too slow in the decompression process.)
We don't live in that era of game design anymore, man. These guys have gotten so good at loading things in the background and at being able to load very large areas in front of your very eyes without you noticing, that games' areas don't have to be separated by doors anymore unless it makes sense in-game.

I hope the Metroid fanbase doesn't think that doors, of all freaking things, are a necessary convention of the series.
 

Koenig

The Architect
We don't live in that era of game design anymore, man. These guys have gotten so good at loading things in the background and at being able to load very large areas in front of your very eyes without you noticing, that games' areas don't have to be separated by doors anymore unless it makes sense in-game.

I hope the Metroid fanbase doesn't think that doors, of all freaking things, are a necessary convention of the series.
I certainly consider them (Or rather their functions) as part of the equation, although in this case I was referring more to the fact that the Prime series was able to pull of much of graphical achievements thanks in part to the fact that each "Room" allowed the system to use almost of all its resources at once, with the doors functioning as an in universe way to completely hide the loading of the next area. Corridors were rarely in the Prime series for the sake of combat, but rather to act as a transition between each room while the system prepared it.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
I personally think Fifa 18 on Switch is a solid port. Does it use frostbite? No, but using frostbite doesn't immediately make the game better if the hardware isn't capable enough to make full use of the engine. It sounds like they started with the 360/PS3 engine, and spliced in a lot of improvements to the rendering pipeline. Better lighting and grass shaders for example. You have to remember that in portable mode, Switch isn't a great deal more capable than previous generation consoles. If priority was to have a 1080p 60fps version of Fifa 18 on Switch in docked mode, then this is probably the best route they could have went. If they continue to bring FIfa to Switch going forward, I would expect them to continue to improve the engine, but I am not convinced that frostbite is a great scaling engine, and believe that moving to it on Switch will result in a dumbed down low resolution versions of the PS4/X1 game.

Even compared to 6th generation 30 FPS shooters such as Area 51, Black, and Doom 3, it was lacking. Things like DOT3 bump mapping, per pixel lighting, specular mapping, refraction maps, and self shadowing should have been possible since the Wii is just a GameCube.
Exclusives always did a better job of tapping into the unique hardware features. Ports are not ground up efforts intended to leverage the strength of the console being ported to. The intention is to retain the base material as closely as possible. With Gamecube and Wii, the best looking games typically made great use of the TEV unit. This allowed for what was essentially programmable shaders. The problem is that very few developers were up to speed on how to use it, and that is why games that did stand out. Fur shading always stood out to me in the Mario Galaxy games.

Your list of better looking games I don't disagree with, but they were far more limited on their scope. They were all pretty much corridor shooters, and this allows the developer to leverage resources for what is onscreen at the moment. Metroid Prime benefited in a great way thanks to partitioned off areas. Metroid Prime 3 opened up quite a bit thanks to the extra memory and processing power Wii offered, but was still partitioned off with doors taking time to open thanks to loading in the new assets. If COD ports to Wii were lazy ports, then they were also lazy ports to PS3 where they didn't leverage the capabilities of the Cell processor. Just because there is untapped potential doesn't mean it was a lazy port, it only means the developer didn't have the budget, time, and resources to work those capabilities into the source material.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
I personally think Fifa 18 on Switch is a solid port. Does it use frostbite? No, but using frostbite doesn't immediately make the game better if the hardware isn't capable enough to make full use of the engine. It sounds like they started with the 360/PS3 engine, and spliced in a lot of improvements to the rendering pipeline. Better lighting and grass shaders for example. You have to remember that in portable mode, Switch isn't a great deal more capable than previous generation consoles. If priority was to have a 1080p 60fps version of Fifa 18 on Switch in docked mode, then this is probably the best route they could have went. If they continue to bring FIfa to Switch going forward, I would expect them to continue to improve the engine, but I am not convinced that frostbite is a great scaling engine, and believe that moving to it on Switch will result in a dumbed down low resolution versions of the PS4/X1 game.
I would rather have the same game with the same features at a lower resolution than a spruced up 360 game with missing features. Dragon Quest XI debunked the Switch not being scalable system. I

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
I would rather have the same game with the same features at a lower resolution than a spruced up 360 game with missing features. Dragon Quest XI debunked the Switch not being scalable system. I

Sent from my SM-G950U using genital warts
Who cares if it doesn't have the same features as Frostbite? Maybe for the developers, it was easier to port over the PS360 engine, and since this is a new thing for EA, maybe they simply want to test the waters first before committing Frostbite to the Switch.
 
Who cares if it doesn't have the same features as Frostbite? Maybe for the developers, it was easier to port over the PS360 engine, and since this is a new thing for EA, maybe they simply want to test the waters first before committing Frostbite to the Switch.
according to EA, the port we got was extremely difficult so probably wasnt the reason lol
testing the waters with an uninteresting port is false. The only reason FIFA 18 was ported was because its a contractual obigation between FIFA and EA, nothing more.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
according to EA, the port we got was extremely difficult so probably wasnt the reason lol
testing the waters with an uninteresting port is false. The only reason FIFA 18 was ported was because its a contractual obigation between FIFA and EA, nothing more.
Interesting. With that, I guess I'm out of cards on this one. EA is just a shitty company then.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
according to EA, the port we got was extremely difficult so probably wasnt the reason lol
testing the waters with an uninteresting port is false. The only reason FIFA 18 was ported was because its a contractual obigation between FIFA and EA, nothing more.
As I explained, testing the waters is a perfectly viable business decision with a Nintendo system given how poorly mainstream 3rd party games sold in the past (though none of the consoles were marketed towards a mainstream gaming audience so there is that). However, the waters should be tested with well made content, such as the Skyrim port. That port actually had effort put into it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
As I explained, testing the waters is a perfectly viable business decision with a Nintendo system given how poorly mainstream 3rd party games sold in the past (though none of the consoles were marketed towards a mainstream gaming audience so there is that). However, the waters should be tested with well made content, such as the Skyrim port. That port actually had effort put into it.

Sent from my SM-G950U using genital warts
So, what exactly are you wanting with regards to Fifa 18 then?
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
The same Frostbite game as PS4/Xbox One, running at a lower resolution (1080p is a waste of time on Switch, use temporal resampling) but with the same content.

Sent from my SM-G950U using genital warts
So with that in mind, why didn't they use it? Because if DF's video is anything to go by, Fifa 18 on Switch is definitely a step up over the previous gen versions, but doesn't match up to the PS4 version, which should be obvious. It sounds like it's providing the best balance between improved graphic capabilities with still a near locked 60fps during gameplay, and at 1080p.

If you ask me, Fifa 18 on Switch from a graphical perspective looks fine, and if there are future titles coming out for it, you'll bet that it'll use the same engine as before, but with more enhancements. Chances are the physics engine from the PS4/X1 versions will be used in future titles.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
The same Frostbite game as PS4/Xbox One, running at a lower resolution (1080p is a waste of time on Switch, use temporal resampling) but with the same content.

Sent from my SM-G950U using genital warts
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and yours is of course no exception. I just think this comes down to personal opinion of what you yourself would prefer, but the insinuation of it being a lazy port because it doesn't deliver the criteria you personally value the most was a bit off base.

None of us are developers, so we do not have a good understanding of the nuts and bolts of these engines. What if the Frostbite engine heavily relies on multi threading, and extensively uses 6 CPU cores on PS4/X1? Perhaps the AI and Physics system with Frostbite would have required a reduction in framerate to 30fps, and reduced controller response because of it. I personally am not convinced that Frostbite would have offered a superior experience. EA was obviously willing to invest some R&D into this customized engine. If Frostbite would have offered superior results, why not spend the money into porting that to Switch? Fifa 18 on Switch runs at 720p with .2 Tflops of power in portable mode and half as many CPU cores as PS4/X1. I am not a Fifa guy, and have no interest in the game, but in my opinion this is a solid effort from EA, and struck a great balance of bridging the gap between last gen and current gen consoles.
 

Koenig

The Architect
Graphically I am not too disappointed from Fifa 18 based on what I have seen. No, I am frankly more disappointed by the games lack of private matches due to "lack of online infrastructure"; on one hand it is Nintendo fault for failing to have a decent online system in place in 20-fucking-17, on the other however it is no excuse for not setting up the game to handle it either; even indies on the Wii could pull this off, EA has NO valid excuses.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
Graphically I am not too disappointed from Fifa 18 based on what I have seen. No, I am frankly more disappointed by the games lack of private matches due to "lack of online infrastructure"; on one hand it is Nintendo fault for failing to have a decent online system in place in 20-fucking-17, on the other however it is no excuse for not setting up the game to handle it either; even indies on the Wii could pull this off, EA has NO valid excuses.
Whoever is running Nintendo's online services needs to be physically replaced with someone competent.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and yours is of course no exception. I just think this comes down to personal opinion of what you yourself would prefer, but the insinuation of it being a lazy port because it doesn't deliver the criteria you personally value the most was a bit off base.

None of us are developers, so we do not have a good understanding of the nuts and bolts of these engines. What if the Frostbite engine heavily relies on multi threading, and extensively uses 6 CPU cores on PS4/X1? Perhaps the AI and Physics system with Frostbite would have required a reduction in framerate to 30fps, and reduced controller response because of it. I personally am not convinced that Frostbite would have offered a superior experience. EA was obviously willing to invest some R&D into this customized engine. If Frostbite would have offered superior results, why not spend the money into porting that to Switch? Fifa 18 on Switch runs at 720p with .2 Tflops of power in portable mode and half as many CPU cores as PS4/X1. I am not a Fifa guy, and have no interest in the game, but in my opinion this is a solid effort from EA, and struck a great balance of bridging the gap between last gen and current gen consoles.
Because it would have required more time, effort, and money than porting a 360 game with additional bells and whistles.

Rime, Dragon Quest XI, DOOM, Wolfenstein II, Skyrim, and Snake Pass (considering this game is unoptimized as fuck, it's impressive) are all based on current gen builds. I see no reason why EA couldn't do the same.
So with that in mind, why didn't they use it? Because if DF's video is anything to go by, Fifa 18 on Switch is definitely a step up over the previous gen versions, but doesn't match up to the PS4 version, which should be obvious. It sounds like it's providing the best balance between improved graphic capabilities with still a near locked 60fps during gameplay, and at 1080p.

If you ask me, Fifa 18 on Switch from a graphical perspective looks fine, and if there are future titles coming out for it, you'll bet that it'll use the same engine as before, but with more enhancements. Chances are the physics engine from the PS4/X1 versions will be used in future titles.
Probably because they were "testing the waters" and "didn't want to take a huge risk." It's disingenuous.

As for the bold text, 60 FPS FIFA with Frostbite could be pulled off on the Switch if they made compromises. For example, render at 960x1080p and temporally resample the frames to give the illusion of 1080p. I keep on saying this.
 

Shoulder

Your Resident Beardy Bear
Probably because they were "testing the waters" and "didn't want to take a huge risk." It's disingenuous.

As for the bold text, 60 FPS FIFA with Frostbite could be pulled off on the Switch if they made compromises. For example, render at 960x1080p and temporally resample the frames to give the illusion of 1080p. I keep on saying this.
Maybe the developers did not want to do that. Perhaps 1080p docked was one of their goals, on top of the 60fps, and maybe there would've been too many compromises with Frostbite, given the time allowed for development. I can't speak for the developers, but I'm certainly not complaining, and given what the final product is, I doubt using Frostbite would've provided that much of a difference anyway.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
Maybe the developers did not want to do that. Perhaps 1080p docked was one of their goals, on top of the 60fps, and maybe there would've been too many compromises with Frostbite, given the time allowed for development. I can't speak for the developers, but I'm certainly not complaining, and given what the final product is, I doubt using Frostbite would've provided that much of a difference anyway.
That's probably the case. Time is of the essence in game development. Does anyone even play the new FIFA games on last gen systems any more? Dump them to focus on Switch.
 

mattavelle1

IT’S GOT A DEATH RAY!
Moderator
Whoever is running Nintendo's online services needs to be physically replaced with someone competent.
I’m assuming you have not played any of nintendos games online.

Because if you had you would realize they are the most buttery smooth experiences you can find online. It’s like playing an offline game online.

Now if your talkin about features like voicechat and whatnot then yeah I get your point. But there online play of the games themselves is unbelievable.
 

GaemzDood

Well-Known Member
I’m assuming you have not played any of nintendos games online.

Because if you had you would realize they are the most buttery smooth experiences you can find online. It’s like playing an offline game online.

Now if your talkin about features like voicechat and whatnot then yeah I get your point. But there online play of the games themselves is unbelievable.
I played Call of Duty 4 online on Wii, as well as MH4 Ultimate. I'm referring to the lack of features the original Xbox had.
 

Goodtwin

Well-Known Member
I have a few things on my mind today, but the topic at the top my list is the amount of games that require huge downloads even when buying the physical copy. Sorry, but we know that 32GB carts are available, and yet most publishers are instead choosing the 16GB carts with huge downloads required. Doom doesn't bother me so much because the entire single player campaign is on the cart, and only requires a download if your going to play the multiplayer. But games like LA Noir and WWE 2k18 require massive downloads to play. I get it, carts cost more than disk, but the wholesale cost difference of a 16GB cart to a 32GB is a few dollars. Think about this, 3DS has a max cart size of 8GB, and those games sold for $40 typically, much tighter profit margins compared to $60 games on Switch.

Mario Odyssey is certainly a fantastic game, but in portable mode Mario looks pretty low res. Most games look as good if not better on the smaller screen, but so far I do not believe that applies to Mario Odyssey. Portable mode seems to use some sort of 720x640 rendering resolution with temporal reconstruction. Honestly I find it to be more distracting than it was in Fast Racing Neo, but I suppose the blistering speed of that game made it less noticeable. In docked mode the temporal reconstruction appears to be replaced with a more traditional adaptive resolution. 900p with the ability to drop as low as 720p. I game on a 42" TV at about 8ft away, so I suppose a bigger display may make these drops more noticeable, but so far it looks fantastic on my set. Nintendo prioritized 60fps, and while they indeed have some great tech within the game, it also isn't difficult to find the compromises they made to get there.
 
Top