curl-6 said:
Barozi said: While not as drastic, similar results could be seen if devs ported other games to Switch that aren't targeting 1080p 60FPS on PS4/X1. |
Wolfenstein II isn't 1080/60fps on Xbox One, it's 810p, yet it was ported to Switch fairly well.
|
I think what you're missing is Ark is significantly more GPU taxing. That's why Ark is sub-30 fps on X1 while Wolf II sits mostly at 50-60 fps at a similar resolution.
On the Switch, Wolf II reduced the GPU demand simply by reducing the resolution, graphics settings, making tweaks to the levels and cutting the frame cap in half. Even if the game was a solid 480p on Switch that be massive decrease in pixel count versus the X1 pixel count at its lowest.
Ark could do many of the same tweaks, but they couldn't cut the frame rate in half to reduce GPU load.
Frankly, I'm not sure what direction they go with Ark on Switch. Even if they improve the resolution via optimization, its still hideous due to the low quality effects. Like DF suggest they need to get rid of some effects entirely, like maybe shadows, reflections, lighting, etc. Essentially it needs a more simplistic and cartoonish presentation because this ain't working.