You must be an expert. Tell me more why it wouldn't run on PS3.

you telling me to take a seat is getting personal, and over what? because i used DF as evidence of the game's poor  performance and them saying it mostly 600p?  or is it because i said  the game is not a looker? nothing i said was ridiculous. the game barley runs on switch properly, and mostly 600p what's ridiculous about that? i'm also using one of the best sources.  

Simple. Besides the different architecture, the amount of memory needed for Doom 4 is way too high than what the PS3 or the 360 can offer. It would be incredibly slow. Worse than Skyrim PS3 slideshow slow. That's just one aspect to the incredible amount of work, the amount of textures, certain physics etc. But like I said, they could make a Doom 4 PS3/360 version, but that would be almost a different game technically, since it would mean a different/older engine than id Tech 6.

Switch is more capable than PS3 and 360 by a considerable margin when docked, and a small but still noticeable margin when undocked. Specs don't lie.

What a lot of people seem to be overlooking with these comparisons is that games like The Last of Us and God of War 3 arrived later in the PS3's lifespan, and were built with gargantuan budgets and a strong focus on achieving the highest possible graphical fidelity. Switch hasn't even been out of a year yet, and really doesn't have any big-budget games built with graphics as the top priority.

GOW3 looked incredible in 2010 but it has aged and is clearly technically below what Switch can do.

Because it retains most of the core rendering tech of the PS4/Xbone/PC versions; Physically Based Rendering, Subsurface Scattering, GPU accelerated particles, temporal supersampling, high quality motion blur, etc. There's simply too many advanced effects going on for a GPU from 2006 to handle.

`

xD

Just kidding but no Doom on Switch looks worse than God of War 3 on PS3 and also runs at a lower resolution and framerate.

I still understand that Switch is more powerful and that really shows what an impressive achievement God of War 3 is but its not the best the machine has to offer. God of War: Ascension, Killzone 3 look better.

As for your point about focusing on graphics Switch might never get a game like that which pushes the platforms to its limits and takes full advantage of its hardware. Xenoblade 2 could have been but it looks awful in portable mode. So we should compare with what we have rather than what would be if someone magically got a huge budget for a Switch game.

Which ever "looks worse/better" is a matter of preference, but on a technical level, Doom on Switch is much more advanced than God of War 3. It's rendering techniques are far more sophisticated and demanding, transplanted as they were PS4/XBox One/PC.

God of War 3 and other PS3 heavy hitters are remarkable achievements in graphics engineering, but at the end of the day they are running on a GPU from 2006 and less than 500MB of RAM, so naturally they are less demanding than games that take proper advantage of a GPU from 2015 and 3GB of RAM.

I know, I was just making fun of how better rendering techniques doesn't necessarily translate to a better looking game.

Ah, my bad. Yeah I definitely agree, I mean I still think games like Okami on PS2 and Muramasa on Wii look better than most current gen games despite being 2 generations out of date technically. Great art design goes a long way.

Just having FOUR TIMES THE RAM is huge.
Hell the wii U punches comfortably abouve the HD twins.
While in most cases cpu doesn't really matter, the wii U's was a bit TOO slow for that statement to work.
Aanyway the switch punches quite a bit abouve the wii U even in portable mode.