How do the visuals on the Nintendo Switch compare to those of the Xbox 360 & PS3?

[quickrick]

sc94597 said:

quickrick said:

you do the same for almost any technically impressive looking if you wanna list every effect it does, that doesn't impress me. i'm not saying zelda is not impressive, but its obvious that a living breathing city with traffic, and NPC every where is gonna way more demanding then empty looking forest areas, and on top of that it has better graphics.

If GTA V had the traffic system of say, Cities: Skylines, you'd have a point. Otherwise, there is nothing speculator about the way traffic is handled in Grand Theft Auto games. There is not much "simulating" going on there. Follow pre-determined path -> if a jam is created (or there is a red light): stop, is pretty much the scope of it. 

The illusion of it complexity is created by the diversity in assets, locales, and the large scale of it all. 

 

 

heh you are the first person i heard say this, even a developer who is a huge nintendo fan BTW, say's other wise. I mean just look at zelda on wiiu when it goes in karoki forest it doesn't have nearly as much as going as GTAV, yet its start running at 20fps, here is whattaht developer said in regards to GTAV port on switch, and switch has a much better cpu then WII u.

"GTA5 has lots of simulated people and lots of cars and lots of other simulated systems running concurrently. The city feels alive. PS2 would never been able to achieve that. Last gen console versions had much less cars and people on the streets. You can't really simulate rush hour traffic without being able to simulate enough cars. Highways simply don't have enough cars in the last gen version to cause traffic jams. The city feels less alive. 

Haven't got experience from Switch, but 3x ARM cores are likely a significant downgrade compared to 7x x64 cores for this kind of highly parallel city simulation workload."