Nuvendil said:
Actually, it could hit 60fps if they prioritized that, theres nothing about the game as a game that is that demanding. People need to wrap their heads around the fact that it's the engine and the systems (that is, what goes on in the game) that determines how difficult it is to scale, not graphics. Because if the engine has integrated scalability tools and such, the graphics issue is easily resolved. Systems - things like AI, physics simulation, etc - can be the bigger challenge, especially if said systems are integral to the game's function. The first EA Battlefront certainly did not have such complex and demanding systems, it was the graphics pretty much exclusively that sucked up the juice as the real meat and potatoes of how the game works is even simpler than your average CoD and definitely simpler than Battlefield. So the question here is really quite simple: when they upgraded Frostbite for use in next gen games, did they do it in such a way that scaling back down in the area of graphics is very difficult (I would hope they are not this stupid) or did they just enhance what COULD be done, adding another level of capabilities. If the latter, a Switch version would be far less difficult than people seem to think, assuming this game doesn't add a whole lot of demmanding systems the first did not have, which I doubt it will. |
Yeah, this is why I was rather happy to see Snake Pass run so effectively on the Switch when undocked... it looks cartoonish and simple but that they were able to make a solid port in a few weeks with all of the physics at play that are quite a bit more taxing than I think most realize was rather encouraging to me.
I think the ports for some of these games will likely depend on two obvious things: Switch Sales numbers, and the performance of the first round of 3rd party titles on it. If the money is there most of these games can be made to function on the Switch with that motivation in place.
