By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
curl-6 said:
DonFerrari said:

Sure people won't know the details and breakdown. But when you basically defend that people aren't even differentiating two versions made on consoles that have that much performance difference then it gets on ridiculous level of poorly used performance budget.

As much as Ark is in no way a demonstration of Switch capability, a game that looks about the same on Switch and PS4 certainly isn't putting their performance budget on the right place.

Snake Pass doesn't look the same on Switch and PS4. I never said it did. PS4 version is cleaner, has additional effects missing on Switch, and has a locked framerate where Switch can occasionally dip. It's just that the cuts are very carefully chosen so that they save a lot of processing time without making the game look like shit.

You do understand that there is difference being subtle, not super noticeable to not looking like shit. You need to decide yourself because in one post you are putting that the player doesn't notice the difference, in the other you say you very much do but Switch version isn't shit looking. There is a very big gap between the two stances you said.

And I'm pretty ok acknowledging that Snake Pass looks fine on Switch and it was celebrated as a very good Switch Port.



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."