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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The Witcher 3 on Switch vs PS4 - The Complete Tech Breakdown DIgital Foundry Videos

Tagged games:

 

Is it a good port

Yes 32 58.18%
 
No 9 16.36%
 
It's an OK 14 25.45%
 
Total:55
HoangNhatAnh said:
DonFerrari said:

I don't remember praising Witcher 3 PS4Pro version, would you kindly quote me on it?

I think I'll have to say again so it sinks for you and all your personal attacks when you reply to me, I don't care about 60fps and even drops below 30fps in most games/situations aren't a problem for me.

Also I don't like Witcher 3, and didn't found the graphics on it to be anything impressive even on PS4Pro.

Then why are you here and attack Switch ver for being 25-30fps?

If you weren't so rushed to try and attack me you would have understood firsthand without even needing to reply.

I was questioning people that say gameplay is the most important thing and if it isn't 60fps it isn't worth playing. If they believe both are true, why are they praising the port? Now do you understand?

HoangNhatAnh said:
Pinkie_pie said:

This post right here. Are you sure you're not a child? You saying the game would run 240p/15fps. That is the definition of impossible because that would be unplayable

You forgot DS game was even 190p, Switch low resolution is nothing compared to it. Also ARK: Survival Evolved, WWE2k18 or Saints Row: The Third on Switch, did you forget those games even existed? "Are you sure you're not a child?" just like when you made up about the word "impossible" and didn't admit it? OK, heh

One thing that you expect when generations move forward is that resolution go up.

PS5 and Xbox next not being 4k won't be looked fine because PS360 were more often than not below 720p.

HoangNhatAnh said:
Pinkie_pie said:

We are talking witcher 3 here. Theres no way they would port it to the switch if the game was running at 240p/15fps because no one would want to play that. You saying it running 240p/15fps is the same thing as saying its impossible. You are a kid who simply wont admit you were wrong 

As long as it have very beautiful graphic, the casual audience will still grab it like crazy. And admit? Like when you ignored on purpose what i said about the word "impossible" for many times? Yeah sure, heh

How beautiful would be this 240p/15fps on Switch? Do you really think people would flock to purchase it?

I'm very confused on how you define beautiful graphic.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
DonFerrari said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

Then why are you here and attack Switch ver for being 25-30fps?

If you weren't so rushed to try and attack me you would have understood firsthand without even needing to reply.

I was questioning people that say gameplay is the most important thing and if it isn't 60fps it isn't worth playing. If they believe both are true, why are they praising the port? Now do you understand?

HoangNhatAnh said:

You forgot DS game was even 190p, Switch low resolution is nothing compared to it. Also ARK: Survival Evolved, WWE2k18 or Saints Row: The Third on Switch, did you forget those games even existed? "Are you sure you're not a child?" just like when you made up about the word "impossible" and didn't admit it? OK, heh

One thing that you expect when generations move forward is that resolution go up.

PS5 and Xbox next not being 4k won't be looked fine because PS360 were more often than not below 720p.

HoangNhatAnh said:

As long as it have very beautiful graphic, the casual audience will still grab it like crazy. And admit? Like when you ignored on purpose what i said about the word "impossible" for many times? Yeah sure, heh

How beautiful would be this 240p/15fps on Switch? Do you really think people would flock to purchase it?

I'm very confused on how you define beautiful graphic.

"I was questioning people that say gameplay is the most important thing and if it isn't 60fps it isn't worth playing. If they believe both are true, why are they praising the port? Now do you understand?

Except everyone was fine with 25-30fps on ps4/xbox 1, Switch is much weaker but still manage to keep 25-30fps. Why they can't praise it? 

"One thing that you expect when generations move forward is that resolution go up.

PS5 and Xbox next not being 4k won't be looked fine because PS360 were more often than not below 720p."

True for those systems, sure. And also true for Nintendo, compared to 3ds 240p, Switch resolution is much higher.

"How beautiful would be this 240p/15fps on Switch? Do you really think people would flock to purchase it?

I'm very confused on how you define beautiful graphic."

You could ask any casual gamer who don't give a crap about high resolution/fps then, if they find some 3ds games at 240p is beautiful then Switch is more than fine



HoangNhatAnh said:
DonFerrari said:

If you weren't so rushed to try and attack me you would have understood firsthand without even needing to reply.

I was questioning people that say gameplay is the most important thing and if it isn't 60fps it isn't worth playing. If they believe both are true, why are they praising the port? Now do you understand?

One thing that you expect when generations move forward is that resolution go up.

PS5 and Xbox next not being 4k won't be looked fine because PS360 were more often than not below 720p.

How beautiful would be this 240p/15fps on Switch? Do you really think people would flock to purchase it?

I'm very confused on how you define beautiful graphic.

"I was questioning people that say gameplay is the most important thing and if it isn't 60fps it isn't worth playing. If they believe both are true, why are they praising the port? Now do you understand?

Except everyone was fine with 25-30fps on ps4/xbox 1, Switch is much weaker but still manage to keep 25-30fps. Why they can't praise it? 

"One thing that you expect when generations move forward is that resolution go up.

PS5 and Xbox next not being 4k won't be looked fine because PS360 were more often than not below 720p."

True for those systems, sure. And also true for Nintendo, compared to 3ds 240p, Switch resolution is much higher.

"How beautiful would be this 240p/15fps on Switch? Do you really think people would flock to purchase it?

I'm very confused on how you define beautiful graphic."

You could ask any casual gamer who don't give a crap about high resolution/fps then, if they find some 3ds games at 240p is beautiful then Switch is more than fine

Everyone was fine? Good luck on that. We have plenty of threads on people not accepting below 60fps. If you aren't one that think like that not sure what you are getting worked up for.

You were using DS 190p as excuse for Switch if they wanted to put a game on 240p, and now 3DS having 240p as excuse for Switch doing it. They haven't. I think you are the only person advocating that they launch something at 240p.

The image Witcher 3 have as in this port is far from beautiful, if they dropped to 240p on a 42"+ screen the blurriness would hardly qualify as a beautiful picture.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

I am aware of anybody claiming that anything under fps isn't worth playing. Where is this myth coming from? Especially in regards to Switch owners.



DonFerrari said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

"I was questioning people that say gameplay is the most important thing and if it isn't 60fps it isn't worth playing. If they believe both are true, why are they praising the port? Now do you understand?

Except everyone was fine with 25-30fps on ps4/xbox 1, Switch is much weaker but still manage to keep 25-30fps. Why they can't praise it? 

"One thing that you expect when generations move forward is that resolution go up.

PS5 and Xbox next not being 4k won't be looked fine because PS360 were more often than not below 720p."

True for those systems, sure. And also true for Nintendo, compared to 3ds 240p, Switch resolution is much higher.

"How beautiful would be this 240p/15fps on Switch? Do you really think people would flock to purchase it?

I'm very confused on how you define beautiful graphic."

You could ask any casual gamer who don't give a crap about high resolution/fps then, if they find some 3ds games at 240p is beautiful then Switch is more than fine

Everyone was fine? Good luck on that. We have plenty of threads on people not accepting below 60fps. If you aren't one that think like that not sure what you are getting worked up for.

You were using DS 190p as excuse for Switch if they wanted to put a game on 240p, and now 3DS having 240p as excuse for Switch doing it. They haven't. I think you are the only person advocating that they launch something at 240p.

The image Witcher 3 have as in this port is far from beautiful, if they dropped to 240p on a 42"+ screen the blurriness would hardly qualify as a beautiful picture.

Yeah, how many of them? Plenty of threads? How many people was there? 1000 or lower? A massive users or just a few loud talkers - a very small fraction of a very big userbase

Since when i said that i supported that idea? But it is a possibility if they target the casual audience and choose graphic over fps

You clearly ignored what i said on purpose. I said casual audience, handheld mode with small screen, just like the phone audience. But yeah, you have to ignore it in order to even support your own argument



Around the Network
HoangNhatAnh said:
DonFerrari said:

Everyone was fine? Good luck on that. We have plenty of threads on people not accepting below 60fps. If you aren't one that think like that not sure what you are getting worked up for.

You were using DS 190p as excuse for Switch if they wanted to put a game on 240p, and now 3DS having 240p as excuse for Switch doing it. They haven't. I think you are the only person advocating that they launch something at 240p.

The image Witcher 3 have as in this port is far from beautiful, if they dropped to 240p on a 42"+ screen the blurriness would hardly qualify as a beautiful picture.

Yeah, how many of them? Plenty of threads? How many people was there? 1000 or lower? A massive users or just a few loud talkers - a very small fraction of a very big userbase

Since when i said that i supported that idea? But it is a possibility if they target the casual audience and choose graphic over fps

You clearly ignored what i said on purpose. I said casual audience, handheld mode with small screen, just like the phone audience. But yeah, you have to ignore it in order to even support your own argument

Don't keep tab of how many users or threads had that claim, but to pretend they don't exist you know you would be wrong.

It was a possibility only in your mind, but you won't accept you were wrong and that a 240p15fps wouldn't be pretty nor playable.

Isn't Switch capable of being plugged to TV? Aren't smartphones resolution mostly over 1080p? Isn't Switch screen reasonably large for a portable system? So what leads you to believe CASUALs would ignore all that but would flock to purchase Witcher 3 based on your supposed pretty graphics? What type of casual player is this you are painting off? You are ignoring logic just to say you are right.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

Yeah, how many of them? Plenty of threads? How many people was there? 1000 or lower? A massive users or just a few loud talkers - a very small fraction of a very big userbase

Since when i said that i supported that idea? But it is a possibility if they target the casual audience and choose graphic over fps

You clearly ignored what i said on purpose. I said casual audience, handheld mode with small screen, just like the phone audience. But yeah, you have to ignore it in order to even support your own argument

Don't keep tab of how many users or threads had that claim, but to pretend they don't exist you know you would be wrong.

It was a possibility only in your mind, but you won't accept you were wrong and that a 240p15fps wouldn't be pretty nor playable.

Isn't Switch capable of being plugged to TV? Aren't smartphones resolution mostly over 1080p? Isn't Switch screen reasonably large for a portable system? So what leads you to believe CASUALs would ignore all that but would flock to purchase Witcher 3 based on your supposed pretty graphics? What type of casual player is this you are painting off? You are ignoring logic just to say you are right.

Since when i said that? I said everyone was fine with it because just a small fraction of the big userbase did complain about it and nothing guarantee that they didn't get the game even with their loud talk lol

If ds resolution is fine for casual, then so is the Switch lol

LOL hope you can tell that to Switch Lite and the japan owners lmao



Why would DS resolution be fine for the Switch? The DS is old and technology has moved forward. That is like saying black and white is fine for the Switch, because Gameboy. I don't even understand the logic being used.



lol this has to be one of the most confusing discussions I have seen



HoangNhatAnh said:
DonFerrari said:

Don't keep tab of how many users or threads had that claim, but to pretend they don't exist you know you would be wrong.

It was a possibility only in your mind, but you won't accept you were wrong and that a 240p15fps wouldn't be pretty nor playable.

Isn't Switch capable of being plugged to TV? Aren't smartphones resolution mostly over 1080p? Isn't Switch screen reasonably large for a portable system? So what leads you to believe CASUALs would ignore all that but would flock to purchase Witcher 3 based on your supposed pretty graphics? What type of casual player is this you are painting off? You are ignoring logic just to say you are right.

Since when i said that? I said everyone was fine with it because just a small fraction of the big userbase did complain about it and nothing guarantee that they didn't get the game even with their loud talk lol

If ds resolution is fine for casual, then so is the Switch lol

LOL hope you can tell that to Switch Lite and the japan owners lmao

DS resolution was fine for basically all users, over 10 years ago, Atari as well 30 years ago. What does that have to do with making a 240p15fps port on Switch a success?

Great, so from your answer I understand you know there are people that preach that under 60fps is unacceptable, but they would praise this port, ok, thanks.

Tell what to Japanese owners? They love portables, do you find anything strange on they liking the Lite? Do you think they would buy Witcher 3 240p15fps?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."