Quantcast
Alien Isolation, the first game to look better on Switch than on PS4/XB1?

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

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

Around the Network
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.



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.

It's on par at best with dynamic res, why do you care so much? I like Nintendo Switch I just wish it had Tegra X2 so we had games like RDR2 and FF XV



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.

You completely missed my point. 

Skeeuk said:
its a good port but ps4 xbox players had this years ago, Apart from a better AA solution theres nothing on it better than the higher console versions in fact in handheld it goes to 500p at times.

^This is irrelevant and he tried to use it to downplay this interesting tidbit of technical achievement for Switch. To which I retorted with an equally irrelevant point to simply show him how ridiculous his slight against Switch was. And you took the ball and ran with it.



Massimus - "Trump already has democrat support."

DonFerrari said:
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.

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.

It's just a shame in my view cos the hardware is clearly capable. With how good the games I mentioned looked, I'd love to see what could be done with a realistic looking third party exclusive made from the ground up for the hardware.



Around the Network
Radek said:
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.

It's on par at best with dynamic res, why do you care so much? I like Nintendo Switch I just wish it had Tegra X2 so we had games like RDR2 and FF XV

How many people would even spend $400 for a portable? Certainly a lot fewer than this now



HoangNhatAnh said:
Radek said:

It's on par at best with dynamic res, why do you care so much? I like Nintendo Switch I just wish it had Tegra X2 so we had games like RDR2 and FF XV

How many people would even spend $400 for a portable? Certainly a lot fewer than this now

RDR 2 run ok in Switch. FF XV is luminous engine, its garbage



Das weerd.



 

John2290 said:
Das weerd.

...sorry? I'm not getting much out of online translators with this one.

What do you mean?



curl-6 said:
John2290 said:
Das weerd.

...sorry? I'm not getting much out of online translators with this one.

What do you mean?

Daz wee-er-ed