Hiku said:
I'm no technical expert, but judging by what I see with my eyes it doesn't seem very demanding at first glance. And yet the game is struggling to maintain 30fps on PS4, that much is certain. So that could very well be a problem when porting to Switch. |
I have only seem 60fps games on PS4 for games that it was really important (I know there are some that weren't, but I don't even remember then as they were irrelevant to me) but you are right that dropping fps to half cover most of the gap.
But then again we would incur on what most of Nintendo fanbase swear is the most important aspect of the game (which is gameplay), the constant 60fps and that would be a to significative trade-off for the game. And as you said they don't push much graphically from what the eye can see, so there isn't much they could cut there (but of course they could also not be pushing PS4 at this and the potato CPU is the issue of the game on it).

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363
Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"
http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994
Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."







