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

On this degree I would say Switch doesn't have a game that looks as good as UC2 or TLOU that run on PS3. But of course that is no evidence that PS3 is stronger than Switch.

Well, that depends on how you're defining "looks as good as". If you particularly love the style of presentation in those games there's certainly nothing on Switch in the same vein, simply because nobody has tried it, at least not with anywhere near the same level of investment of resources.

On the other hand, Switch games like Hellblade and Doom are more technically advanced than UC2 or TLOU by a significant amount, largely by virtue of using mostly PS4 tier rendering techniques.

So looking at the presentation level, what is seem by people and not what/how it is done, the point made that PS3 or X360 could have Hellblade executed there and having acceptable result that looks alike the Switch result is true.

It may not have the same techniques, but if someone were willing to make the port they could.

Which is the same situation on whenever we are discussing ports to Switch, any game launched on PS4/X1 could be released on Switch, and that isn't because it is almost as powerful or have similar technology. It's because it is at least on a level that if dev wants to take the very long time and cost they could make even RDR2 work on Switch (and still look alike). But most ports won't happen because the level of work is just to high to be justified.



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."