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

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.

PS3/360 could've had a version of Hellblade, in the sense you can port almost anything to anything if you modify it enough; see last gen when the PS3/360 Call of Duty games were brought to the Wii.

But a PS3/360 port of Hellblade would looked quite unlike the Switch version. 

Rendering techniques aren't just technical buzzwords, they have a key role in how a game looks.

They would look different, sure. As well as Switch looks quite different than PS4 version.

You can use different techniques, less taxing and still come to a decent result.



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."