By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Witcher 3 revealed for the Switch!

Nuvendil on 29 May 2019
linkink said:
Nuvendil said:

If by cutbacks you mean substantial reductions in geometry,  textures, and the removal of essentially every single current gen rendering technique.  Also, yes, it runs at the same framerate.  But Xbone is generally more consistent and carrying a much higher rendering load.  Also, Rise of the Tomb Raider is just a patently less advanced game than Wolf 2.  It's perfectly adequate and uses current gen techniques, but Wolf 2 and Doom were regarded as technical masterpieces when they launched.   

And Switch does have current gen ports that preserve the same frame rate target.  Dragon Ball Fighterz, Hellblade, Mortal Kombat 11.  Dragon Quest 11 as well.  Yooka-Laylee as well, though that's not a masterclass of optimization on PS4/Xbone.  It's really a question of how much room is there for foundational optimization improvements, and what the porting studio chooses to sacrifice.  Because something has to give.  Rise of the Tomb Raider got closer performance wise to its big brother than a lot of other PS4/Xbone to PS360 ports, but it sacrificed nearly everything that made it an 8th gen game in the process.  Doom on Switch kept as much of the 8th gen rendering pipeline and geometry as possible.  But that comes at a cost, and the framerate was definitely part of that.  

Digital foundry called rise tomb raider one of the best looking games of this gen. I think cut back have to made for frame rate and resolution, you can cram all the current gen effects you want, it's not gonna look good running sub HD.

Rise of the Tomb Raider came out in 2015.  It has been long surpassed and had been by the time Switch launched.

And you are free to argue that.  Some will agree with you on that.  And it is entirely possible that if they had slashed the geometry, removed the physically based rendering, removed the volumetric lighting, disabled the gpu accelerated particles, disabled the motion blur, and replaced the cutting edge AA with something more rudimentary, that Doom and Wolf 2 could have targetted 60fps.  Maybe.  But they would have at that point been essentially recreated into 7th gren games in terms of technical makeup.  Which is exactly what was done with rise of the tomb raider. Like I said, something has got to give.



Around the Network
linkink on 29 May 2019
Nuvendil said:
linkink said:

Digital foundry called rise tomb raider one of the best looking games of this gen. I think cut back have to made for frame rate and resolution, you can cram all the current gen effects you want, it's not gonna look good running sub HD.

Rise of the Tomb Raider came out in 2015.  It has been long surpassed and had been by the time Switch launched.

And you are free to argue that.  Some will agree with you on that.  And it is entirely possible that if they had slashed the geometry, removed the physically based rendering, removed the volumetric lighting, disabled the gpu accelerated particles, disabled the motion blur, and replaced the cutting edge AA with something more rudimentary, that Doom and Wolf 2 could have targetted 60fps.  Maybe.  But they would have at that point been essentially recreated into 7th gren games in terms of technical makeup.  Which is exactly what was done with rise of the tomb raider. Like I said, something has got to give.

well it doesn't even have to target 60fps, some cut backs to keep it locked at 30fps, at 720p or higher would been a better option, 720p is low enough as it is. lets also not forget switch is like 2-3 times more powerful then 360.



curl-6 on 29 May 2019
Nuvendil said:
linkink said:

Like years, no. it's looks much better no doubt.

If the right concessions were made there is no reason to believe 60fps, wasn't possible. let's not forget Rise of tomb raider runs at 720p/30fps on 360. Switch is more power powerful, and modern.

That compares the PC versions with New Order maxed out.  It does not represent 360 vs PS4.  And in general, Wolf 2 has a massively higher geometric density, much higher res textures, far more sophisticated lighting, gpu accelerated particles,  and much more.  New Colossus struggled to lock in 60 on PS4, it's far more demanding than New Order.

Yeah, I just finished replaying New Order on 360 less than two weeks ago, and it's definitely not in the same league as Doom 2016 or Wolfenstein II in terms of tech, it looks like a game from 2006, whereas the Switch ports look like current gen games, just blurrier.

I suspect a big part of this equation that's being overlooked is cost. Sure, they could have rebuilt Doom or Wolfenstein II from scratch to run at 60fps on Switch, but that would've cost a lot more than just cutting the framerate in half and tuning down the settings until it runs okay. Panic Button's approach was, most likely, simply the more profitable one.



HoangNhatAnh on 29 May 2019
Vodacixi said:
linkink said:

Sorry i'm not paying attention to every direct, or what frame rate are running. I just remember many saying it would be 60fps, and i thought it was possible. switch had just come out and has never been to the test like that, so it wasn't some impossible task. especially when  wolfienstein was able to run 60fps on 360/ps3.

Switch ports of lastgen open world have struggled so far. almost all have except for skyrim, but that game is 8 years old. zelda drop frames often, sure it's not a big deal but' it's no where near locked.

   

Well, you remember wrong then. Most people were surprised to even see the game running on the Switch. And as such, almost everyone expected 30fps. Those who expected 60fps were almost non existent.

Zelda only drop frames on big cities. On portable mode, it doesn't even drop on those. That's not struggling. End of the story.

I want to ask you: even base ps4/xbox 1 struggled sometimes to maintain 30fps in some areas when running The Witcher 3, what fps Switch ver will have here when it encounter those areas? 



Darc Requiem on 29 May 2019

If this game really exists, it would have to be rebuilt from the ground up for Switch. They couldn't port the existing game. It would be like what they did with the Witcher 2 on 360. CD Projekt RED crafted a version of the game around the 360 hardware instead of just porting the PC game. With Cyberpunk 2077 in full swing, I can't see CD Projekt RED having the time to port this themselves. IIRC They've personally handled all Witcher ports. I stress again, if this game is real. It would have to be from the ground up and would probably end up looking like the 360 Witcher 2 with more modern effects.



Around the Network
linkink on 30 May 2019
curl-6 said:
Nuvendil said:

That compares the PC versions with New Order maxed out.  It does not represent 360 vs PS4.  And in general, Wolf 2 has a massively higher geometric density, much higher res textures, far more sophisticated lighting, gpu accelerated particles,  and much more.  New Colossus struggled to lock in 60 on PS4, it's far more demanding than New Order.

Yeah, I just finished replaying New Order on 360 less than two weeks ago, and it's definitely not in the same league as Doom 2016 or Wolfenstein II in terms of tech, it looks like a game from 2006, whereas the Switch ports look like current gen games, just blurrier.

I suspect a big part of this equation that's being overlooked is cost. Sure, they could have rebuilt Doom or Wolfenstein II from scratch to run at 60fps on Switch, but that would've cost a lot more than just cutting the framerate in half and tuning down the settings until it runs okay. Panic Button's approach was, most likely, simply the more profitable one.

Rebuilding a game for hardware is rare these days, most developers just don't do it, especially with how long games take to make these day.

AS for Wolfenstein II on switch, you can't look like a current gen game and be running at 500-600p so what's the point, they should focus on getting the resolution higher, and  overall the game would be much more visually pleasing on the eyes.



Megiddo on 30 May 2019

I don't trust websites that require you to have an account to even search for an item.

How many of you all even attempted to search for 巫师3ns on taobao.com I wonder? Cause I'm not going to bother to create an account for something I perceive to be an obvious fake.

After all, why would tiny marketplace stores (think of marketplaces on Amazon or Rakuten) get this information before anyone else?

Last edited by Megiddo - on 30 May 2019

fatslob-:O on 30 May 2019

Probably fake or just the cloud version ...

The promotional material could almost pass as legit though ...



Vodacixi on 30 May 2019
linkink said:
Vodacixi said:

Well, you remember wrong then. Most people were surprised to even see the game running on the Switch. And as such, almost everyone expected 30fps. Those who expected 60fps were almost non existent.

Zelda only drop frames on big cities. On portable mode, it doesn't even drop on those. That's not struggling. End of the story.

I don't remember wrong, but it doesn't really matter.

There is hardly anything going on here, and i see frame rate dips.

another video showing stressing areas with massive frame rate dips. 

On the first video... you think that ocasional 1 frame dips are enough to say the game struggles? Ok, I see there's no point in trying to reason with you.

Oh, btw... about the second video, which is the one where the game actually shows heavy slowdowns. First, as I said, it only happens on the big towns (and the kokiri forest). And second... if you could actually put one and one together, you would have noticed that the second video is from version 1.1.1 while the forst one is from version 1.2. And... surprise, surprise: Kakariko Village is shown in both videos and while in 1.1.1 it shows heave drops, in 1.2 it shows NONE. And that's version 1.2. Now we are at 1.6, which is nearly perfect in both handheld and docked.

Next time put a little effort into your evidences. I have nothing more to say to you.



HoangNhatAnh on 30 May 2019
Vodacixi said:
linkink said:

I don't remember wrong, but it doesn't really matter.

There is hardly anything going on here, and i see frame rate dips.

another video showing stressing areas with massive frame rate dips. 

On the first video... you think that ocasional 1 frame dips are enough to say the game struggles? Ok, I see there's no point in trying to reason with you.

Oh, btw... about the second video, which is the one where the game actually shows heavy slowdowns. First, as I said, it only happens on the big towns (and the kokiri forest). And second... if you could actually put one and one together, you would have noticed that the second video is from version 1.1.1 while the forst one is from version 1.2. And... surprise, surprise: Kakariko Village is shown in both videos and while in 1.1.1 it shows heave drops, in 1.2 it shows NONE. And that's version 1.2. Now we are at 1.6, which is nearly perfect in both handheld and docked.

Next time put a little effort into your evidences. I have nothing more to say to you.

Don't ignore me. You can't answer my question or something? "even base ps4/xbox 1 struggled sometimes to maintain 30fps in some areas when running The Witcher 3, what fps Switch ver will have here when it encounter those areas? "