By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Intrinsic on 12 December 2016
Edit Thread
superchunk said:

You're right my choice of wording "ported" wasn't accurate and yes they could run some coding magic to actually port to last gen hardware. 

My point is, that won't be necessary.
1) NS is already fully supported by the middleware so cost to port is very low.
2) NS is defintely quite a bit more powerful than the specs given for GPD in the gaf thread. (intel atom quad vs tegra X2 6 to 8 cores, Intel GPU vs nvidia, faster RAM, etc). 

Its not about getting hopes up. I'm quite realistic. Games are going to look and run very similar to what we see now on Xbox One. I'd bet on the portable screen you won't even see a difference whereas on TV you will as the larger screen will make the resolution and other differences more noticeable. 

We are mostly in agreement.

But to be clear, this thing is not as powerful as the XB1. The power difference  between it and the XB1 would be similar to the power difference between the XB1 and the PS4. And that's just talking processing power. Things like memory size and bandwidth can also make things a little worse too. 3/3.2GB of available game ram compared to 5GB on the XB1. Even if devs wanted, they couldn't possibly fit identically rezzed textures on the switch as you would see in the XB1.

But this isnt all bad, cause as 720p console it would be a killer. And I personally don't think there is anything wrong with 720p. Playing on the mobile screen it would look ridiculously good as you have said, but when output to the large screen we should see an image that is all round softer than the XB1 but still look good. 

I think the best thing about the Switch is that all its development would be tailor made for its mobile screen. And it's performance would be built for 720p. So when its running to a TV it would just be upscaled. If it's treated as a 720p console, devs can work wonders with its hardware.