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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Alien Isolation, the first game to look better on Switch than on PS4/XB1?

HoangNhatAnh on 06 December 2019
Radek said:
SpokenTruth said:

What resolution does it run on PS4 in portable mode?

This argument again... reminds me of all the people on YouTube, look the portable console from 2017 can barely keep up with downgraded ports of 8th gen games compared to 2013 consoles i.e. Witcher 3, no need to get so defensive.

Nintendo went cheap with Tegra X1, could have launched in Fall 2017 with X2 which is 50% more powerful and Switch would get much more ports.

Almost Xbox One quality, 900p 8th gen games like Witcher 3 or even Ass Creed.

Yeah, with X2, they could have a $400 portable instead. Very cheap and very reasonable price for a handheld, it would definitely sell gangbusters, triple of what has sold so far 



Around the Network
HoangNhatAnh on 06 December 2019
Radek said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

Yeah, with X2, they could have a $400 portable instead. Very cheap and very reasonable price for a handheld, it would definitely sell gangbusters, triple of what has sold so far 

Or just take a loss like everyone else? Also I said Fall 2017, so cheaper than March 2017

Just because Sony and MS aren't as good at managing their own budget as Nin so they had to sold ps4/xbox 1 at loss doesn't mean Nin have to pretend that they are the same level as those two and sold Switch at loss. And X2 was never used on a gaming system but car engine only, what make you think changing from March 2017 to Fall 2017 would make the price much cheaper?



Vodacixi on 06 December 2019

"The Switch is too expensive for 300 dolars"

- Random Guy on the internet

"The Switch should be slightly more powerful and cost 400 dolars"

- Also Random Guy on the internet.

Anyway... It's been 5-6 years since Alien Isolation launched. Obviously, we have better technology now. Also, as a cross-gen game, it doesn't use PS4/One full capacities. So, if a developer takes its time to optimize the Switch version instead of just porting from another console like this:

We have things like this game. Great job by Feral Interactive!



DonFerrari on 06 December 2019
curl-6 said:

Stuff like this makes me sad that so few Switch games attempt a realistic visual style, as titles like this, Outlast II, and The Vanishing of Ethan Carter demonstrate the system can do beautiful realistic visuals when devs make the effort.

It also makes me wish Nintendo wasn't so weirdly adverse to using AA, the system can clearly do it quite well.

Radek said:

Sorry but if resolution can drop to 900p and even 756p I can't believe it's a better looking game than PS4 version at native 1080p.

756p is borderline last gen territory.

Both in the video and on Twitter John has explained that it's 1080p most of the time. That minimum figure will only happen during the worst case scenarios, so in practice hardly ever; for the majority of playtime you're looking at the same pixel count as PS4 just with more modern AA.

Well Nintendo really doesn't care much about photorealism, and perhaps most 3rd parties think that their photorealistic games wouldn't be feasible or sell good so we get in a territory that it doesn't get much games like that.

And considering it is stronger than PS3 and X360 and both had plenty of photorealistic games Switch can do them to a competent degree.



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."

HoangNhatAnh on 06 December 2019
Radek said:
HoangNhatAnh said:

Just because Sony and MS aren't as good at managing their own budget as Nin so they had to sold ps4/xbox 1 at loss doesn't mean Nin have to pretend that they are the same level as those two and sold Switch at loss. And X2 was never used on a gaming system but car engine only, what make you think changing from March 2017 to Fall 2017 would make the price much cheaper?

Hardware is always cheaper with time, I thought it was common knowledge? It's just sad because X2 is 50% more powerful and just imagine RDR2 port on Switch if it had X2...

How much cheaper? From $400 to $370 or something? At $300, a lot people already complained about the price point of it. Switch at anything bigger than $300 will be the same as $250 3ds. Also, this chip had never been on gaming system so far, so no way it could be cheap



Around the Network
Conina on 06 December 2019
DonFerrari said:

So it isn't real VR, bummer... I believe they could reach some more sales making a DLC, patch or re-release with VR full support costing very little to implement.

Why ain't it real VR? You don't look at a flat virtual movie screen, but the virtual world surrounds you.

Because you use sticks and buttons to move and interact? In that case, VR racing games and games like Astro Bot aren't "real VR games" either.



RaptorChrist on 06 December 2019
Radek said:

And native 1080p without dynamic res, It's impressive port but I think Digital Foundry reached a bit too far calling it better.

You're pretty invested in this thread, it seems. Why are you so averse to the possibility that a five year old game which was being developed for the PS3 could be released in a more optimized way on Switch? As if it's actually something that matters. If the developers cared, they could work more on the PS4 version and make it even better than the Switch version. It's not like this means that the Switch is more powerful than the PS4.

When you are so strung out on Sony that a thread like this upsets you to where you find the need to speculate about how Nintendo could have done so much better and gotten more ports if they waited a half year and used a better GPU.

C'mon Radek, this reflects poorly on all of us.



z101 on 06 December 2019
Radek said:
SpokenTruth said:

What resolution does it run on PS4 in portable mode?

This argument again... reminds me of all the people on YouTube, look the portable console from 2017 can barely keep up with downgraded ports of 8th gen games compared to 2013 consoles i.e. Witcher 3, no need to get so defensive.

Nintendo went cheap with Tegra X1, could have launched in Fall 2017 with X2 which is 50% more powerful and Switch would get much more ports.

Almost Xbox One quality, 900p 8th gen games like Witcher 3 or even Ass Creed.

Nonsense. X2 would have raised the priced enourmously and is only under some circumstances noticeable faster than X1. Every game can be ported to Switch already and X2 would change practically nothing. If Witcher3, Hellblade and Dragon Quest XI can be ported, every can be ported.

I mean Sony and Microsoft went very cheap with the CPU of their consoles, they could have done much better and Switch would not be capable of receiving those ports. :)

By the way neither Sony nor Microsoft have subvention their consoles at launch, they made no profit with the hardware at launch but no loss also, the same is true for Nintendo Switch.



Things I like: Magic-Alchemist - The magic iPhone, Android and browser game:

www.magic-alchemist.com/

List of Nintendo Switch games (german):
http://www.zimmer101.de/nintendo-switch-spiele/

DonFerrari on 06 December 2019
Conina said:
DonFerrari said:

So it isn't real VR, bummer... I believe they could reach some more sales making a DLC, patch or re-release with VR full support costing very little to implement.

Why ain't it real VR? You don't look at a flat virtual movie screen, but the virtual world surrounds you.

Because you use sticks and buttons to move and interact? In that case, VR racing games and games like Astro Bot aren't "real VR games" either.

From the video posted it seemed like flat screen. If it is surround like RE7 then wonderful, if I hadn't finished the game would love the PSVR version of it.

RaptorChrist said:
Radek said:

And native 1080p without dynamic res, It's impressive port but I think Digital Foundry reached a bit too far calling it better.

You're pretty invested in this thread, it seems. Why are you so averse to the possibility that a five year old game which was being developed for the PS3 could be released in a more optimized way on Switch? As if it's actually something that matters. If the developers cared, they could work more on the PS4 version and make it even better than the Switch version. It's not like this means that the Switch is more powerful than the PS4.

When you are so strung out on Sony that a thread like this upsets you to where you find the need to speculate about how Nintendo could have done so much better and gotten more ports if they waited a half year and used a better GPU.

C'mon Radek, this reflects poorly on all of us.

Well the problem is that several other aspects are better on PS4 and X1. Switch have better AA and everything else is better on the others. So it isn't really looking better on Switch.

Anyway you are right, a good port on a crossgen can show a good result on Switch, devs didn't dedicate much on the PS4/X1 port and Sony/MS cheaped out on the CPU.



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."

Vodacixi on 06 December 2019
DonFerrari said:
Conina said:

Why ain't it real VR? You don't look at a flat virtual movie screen, but the virtual world surrounds you.

Because you use sticks and buttons to move and interact? In that case, VR racing games and games like Astro Bot aren't "real VR games" either.

From the video posted it seemed like flat screen. If it is surround like RE7 then wonderful, if I hadn't finished the game would love the PSVR version of it.

RaptorChrist said:

You're pretty invested in this thread, it seems. Why are you so averse to the possibility that a five year old game which was being developed for the PS3 could be released in a more optimized way on Switch? As if it's actually something that matters. If the developers cared, they could work more on the PS4 version and make it even better than the Switch version. It's not like this means that the Switch is more powerful than the PS4.

When you are so strung out on Sony that a thread like this upsets you to where you find the need to speculate about how Nintendo could have done so much better and gotten more ports if they waited a half year and used a better GPU.

C'mon Radek, this reflects poorly on all of us.

Well the problem is that several other aspects are better on PS4 and X1. Switch have better AA and everything else is better on the others. So it isn't really looking better on Switch.

Anyway you are right, a good port on a crossgen can show a good result on Switch, devs didn't dedicate much on the PS4/X1 port and Sony/MS cheaped out on the CPU.

Emmm... it's not just the AA. It's the lack of screen tearing, the more solid framerate, the gyro aiming... and on top of that, what it misses from PS4/One (ambient oclusion and draw distance mainly) it's close to irrelevant in a game as dark as this one and with 99% of its map consisting in hallways, ventilation conducts and small rooms. Overall it's the best console version. The reason is irrelevant: it is what it is.