By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Spindel on 28 January 2018
Edit Thread
GOWTLOZ said:
curl-6 said:

Switch is more capable than PS3 and 360 by a significant margin. Specs don't lie.

What a lot of people seem to be overlooking with these comparisons is that games like The Last of Us and God of War 3 arrived later in the PS3's lifespan, and were built with gargantuan budgets and a strong focus on achieving the highest possible graphical fidelity. Switch hasn't even been out of a year yet, and really doesn't have any big-budget games built with graphics as the top priority.

GOW3 looked incredible in 2010 but it has aged and is clearly technically below what Switch can do.

Because it retains most of the core rendering tech of the PS4/Xbone/PC versions; Physically Based Rendering, Subsurface Scattering, GPU accelerated particles, temporal supersampling, high quality motion blur, etc. There's simply too many advanced effects going on for a GPU from 2006 to handle.

`

xD

Just kidding but no Doom on Switch looks worse than God of War 3 on PS3 and also runs at a lower resolution and framerate.

I still understand that Switch is more powerful and that really shows what an impressive achievement God of War 3 is but its not the best the machine has to offer. God of War: Ascension, Killzone 3 look better.

As for your point about focusing on graphics Switch might never get a game like that which pushes the platforms to its limits and takes full advantage of its hardware. Xenoblade 2 could have been but it looks awful in portable mode. So we should compare with what we have rather than what would be if someone magically got a huge budget for a Switch game.

What looks best/worseis kind of a subjective metric (i mean one of the best looking games ever according to me is Okami PS2/Wii).

 

But the difference in amount of geometry between those two screen grabs is huge.