| Nuvendil said: Sigh...that's not how that works, it's not that simple. Is Yooka Laylee more demanding than Doom? Does its presence on Switch mean the Doom port is garbage and should be 60fps? How about Crash, also 30fps on both. Or Snake pass! 864p 30fps on PS4 and was ready for Switch *at launch* and that's a UE4 game. ... all of these are much less demanding games than Doom that targeted 30fps on PS4 by choice more than anything else. From every single technical analysis I have seen of DQXI, it's the same story. If I had a dime every time someone used that flawed logic, I could retire before I'm 30. |
@Bold People have no idea what the term "demanding" means when it's just an implication of performance metrics and in that case yes, Yooka Laylee is more *demanding* than Doom ... (both run at 1080p but the difference is Yooka Laylee targets a frametime of 33.3ms while Doom targets 16.6ms)
Now we can talk about optimization or more technically accomplished games but what "demanding" actually means is that it's just hard to run ...
Your comparison between Crash/Snake Pass (in the case of those games might've actually had a lot of performance headroom left especially in the case of Snake Pass where it rendered 3x more pixels on Pro compared to base hardware) and DQXI is flawed since refresh rate caps obscure the true performance metrics of how demanding each title is ...
DQXI is probably using every ounce of it's 33.3ms rendering budget available as a AAA title compared low budget indies like Snake Pass or lower standard remakes like Crash ... (literally, DQXI on Pro is 1792p checkerboard so it's rendering slightly less than 2x the pixels compared to base hardware with temporal upscaling to reconstruct the other half of the pixels despite the fact that the GPU is MORE than 2x powerful compared to base hardware)
