By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Zekkyou on 07 December 2017
Edit Thread
Kyuu said:
Zekkyou said:

I don't think XC2 is a particularly useful reference point for 3rd party developers. Many of its issues extend beyond what makes sense (e.g. the resolution sometimes dropping almost twice as much as what the handheld GPU downclock should justify), and it having been pushed out too early is a reasonable explanation for them.

Doom would be a better example given it's an actual 3rd party port, and seemingly a pretty well handled one. There's a limit to how broadly we can apply any single game here simply because they're all balanced differently, but Doom has highlighted the difficulty many less flexible titles are likley to face.

Doom isn't a very good example either because it ran at a dynamic 1080p/60fps on PS4 (and even Xbox One)

Demanding open/large world games that target 30fps on PS4 (like Monster Hunter World) are some entirely different beasts that will be a lot more challenging to port. The Switch otherwise shouldn't have too much trouble handling games that target 60fps on base PS4.

And I don't know about rushing, but word has it that XC2 took three years in the making, or since before XCX came out. Regardless, if a highly regarded first party studio struggles with optimizing, then expectations from third party ports have to be lowered as well (or to put it in another way.. porting games at a later date rather than releasing them simultaneously across all platforms will have to be the norm if you want "unlazy", reasonably optimized, ports)

The PS4 version of Doom doesn't fluctuate much, and only slightly when it does (the exact quote from DF "it boasts a full 1080p output for the vast majority of the duration, with minor drops in resolution occurring in select circumstances"). It's not perfect, but the PS4 version is certainly a better example than a game with no secondary reference at all, and with issues not currently present in any other Nintendo title (despite being made by one of Nintendo's most technically competent studios).

My point (which was largely in agreement with yours, just with a different reference) is that Doom presented far more wiggle room for the Switch than most higher end PS4/X1 titles, which makes it a good reference for many less flexible ones. It doesn't predict the specific outcome (especially when compared to titles with very different technical balances), but it does give a baseline for what a flexible title can do, and by extension highlight the difficulties some less flexible titles will face. MHW could well be such an example. It runs at almost half Doom's performance profile, and has a much less focused design. If it pushes the PS4 anywhere near as much as Doom, then Doom would be a good reference for saying something like "porting MHW would be exceptionally difficult".

It's also worth noting that XCX spent 5+ years in development. 3.5 years might be a lot, but it doesn't grantee they were 100% done. Given the unique nature of XC2's issues, and the record of who made it, i'm still inclined to believe time restrains played a role.

(Just a side note: My future replies might be a bit slow, sorry. I'm currently not staying at home, and don't like posting on my phone. I popped back to get some washing done, so i wrote this comment while waiting for it to finish lol).