Currently Online 
| Cerebralbore101 said: There's a lot of games on PS4 that could be easily ported over to Switch. Persona 5, Ys VIII, Odin Sphere, Dragon Quest Builders, Yakuza 0, Yakuza Kiwimi. Switch isn't as powerful as the two main consoles, but it isn't a 360 or a PS3 either. There's a big difference between nearly no ram on PS3/360, and the 4GB ram on Switch. |
That's the point I made previously and why we should be thankful to Capcom. They pushed Nintendo to go from 2GB Switch memory to 4GB stating they needed it to port many of their games. Nintendo accepted this and I feel many of these ports wouldn't be possible if that decision hadn't been made. The Switch cpu resources are less than 360 and PS3 and graphics in portable mode are less powerful in raw performance although the feature set is better. However games like Skyrim on ps3 and 350 were constantly having to shuffle memory around to get the game working creating frame drops when under load etc. They even have greater memory bandwidth than Switch but that is no substitute for having more memory.
However saying that we haven't actually seen the final retail version of Skyrim on Switch so need to be cautious. It's quite possible the demonstration units we have seen had the Switch operating at docked performance level while portable hence the cables connected underneath. Bethesda may be hopeing to optimise to bring real portable performance to that level. I'm expecting it to be slightly dialed back for the retail version in portable mode.
On PC it has been possible to run Fallout 4 with only 2GB of memory with everything dialed back to very basic graphics. It doesn't even look as good as Fallout 3 on 360 or PS3. The frame rate is poor etc. If that can be achieved by tinkering I don't think there is any issue for making a version from the outset that can run using lower resolution textures and properly designed downgrades and then optimising performance for that console. The issue is always how much of a downgrade will it be.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQw5NM0zWcg
When you look at games that were designed for the later consoles but got cut down ports for the earlier consoles like Destiny the difference while obvious isn't game destroying.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNxfcCWmn4o
Graphics can always be downgraded but if a game has very high cpu requirements then it becomes more tricky to port. However as both ps4 and xbox one never really pushed cpu resources and used low end Jaguar cores those consoles also have a big weakness compared to PC. Yes they are much more powerful than Switch in cpu resources but not anywhere near as powerful as they could have been. If I remember rightly the Switch CPU resources would have been about 2/3rds of PS4/Xbox one if they had matched the Nvidia Shield box using the same chipset but instead kept to a 1ghz limit making the performance somewhere between 1/3rd and 1/2 PS4/Xbox one cpu performance. Yes much lower but nowhere near the deficit between the previous generations GC/PS2 to Xbox 360/PS3.
The big difference really is its becoming clear many people want to play the same games on a portable as well as at home a completely different situation to wii u which just got downgraded ports with a huge list of disadvantages but no advantages. It makes sense to port to Switch commerically.
