| F.Scofield said: This is not a wii u port, it's a remaster, and no matter how much people try to downplay it as a wii u port it won't change the fact the xbox one is struggling to maintain the full hd resolution while the switch isn't, every new multiplatform is the same...switch proves to run decently and people try to downplay it by saying "but this game isn't the right one to benchmark, wait for x game" then when that game releases and proves to run decently we hear the same story again "no,this doesn't count,wait for y game". I remember when switch released people were eagerly waiting for the snake pass release to compare it to ps4 to check it's power, snake pass releases, people start to trash the switch for running at 700p saying it's a weak system that can barely run an indie game full hd, digital foundry shows the game is running very decent compared to ps4 and that ps4 is running it at 800p, the same people instead of calling ps4 of weak just like they did to switch changes their arguments to "don't buy this game, it's a bad optmized trash", saying after that "this isn't a good game to compare anymore".
I am setsuna releases, digital foundry shows the only difference between versions is fps, people once again saying this is a port and a small game and that we need a big and open world game to compare, lego undercover is released, it's a remaster from the wii u edition, new textures, water layers, new graphics effects, better draw distance, native 1080p while the wii u version was 720p, better shadow effects, digital foundry releases comparisson video between versions and here we are with you downplaying it by being a wii u port, if these arguments are the best people can use, that pocket is getting empty quick. |
While some are unreasonable about the Switch, you're not being much better here.
When the PS4 and X1 are able to run something like The Witcher 3 (one of the most technically accomplished open world games ever made on consoles) at higher performance profiles than Snake Pass, i think we can reasonably assume that the latter is a poor representation of their capabilities.
It might be that the Switch is better designed for games with minimal optimisation, but the end result is the same. If a game is properly optimised for all platforms, the Switch version will obviously be significantly inferior. That's not a controversial opinion, it's basic math. The Switch had to fit all of its hardware into a small, difficult to cool space. That limited how much power could be squeezed in while still hitting a reasonable price point, and the end result is a system several magnitudes weaker than even an X1.
As it stands the Switch hasn't received any highly graphically complex multi-platform titles, which makes comparisons difficult. The most technically accomplished multi-plat title on the Switch so far is Dragon Quest Heroes, and while the gap shown there was likley far more representative of the PS4 and Switch's capabilities (the Switch version had significant graphical downgrades, and ran at 20 - 30fps rather than 40 - 60fps), that game wasn't particularly well optimised on either so is likewise a questionably useful comparison.
We might never know exactly what the Switch is capable of with most AAA multi-platform games. If developers decide it's not capable enough to run their games to their standards, the Switch wont get those games at all.
