Should Halo Infinite drop Xbox One and go Scarlet exclusive?

[DonFerrari]

curl-6 said:

Mr Puggsly said:

I agree, other aspects of the hardware help simplify port work. However, developers have redesigned effects or removed them to boost performance on Switch. That was also common in cross gen (6th/7th or 7th/8th gen) or PC to console ports to use completely different effects or omit them.

Its the RAM of Switch that allows ports to happen without having to make significant changes to how the game essentially works.

I think Shadow of Mordor is a good example of porting a game without enough RAM. Huge changes were made to the actual game and it looks like there was no room left for textures.

Switch ports from PS4/Xbone do tend to retain most of the 8th gen rendering techniques though, whereas PS3/360 versions of crossgen games almost universally axed all that stuff.

But yeah, RAM followed by GPU were the biggest differences from PS3/360 to PS4/Xbone/Switch, whereas it's looking like the biggest gain going to Scarlet and PS5 could be CPU.

DonFerrari said:

Witcher 2 run on X360 with a lot less RAM.

That's not quite an apples to oranges comparison though; Witcher 2 wasn't open world for one thing.

Pemalite said:

It depends on the instructions being used. - But an 8-12x increase is more than possible in an ideal scenario. (I.E. AVX)
Otherwise 5-6x increase in more conventional workloads is probably a good guesstimate...

In saying that, we have absolutely zero idea on clockrates, so it could be substantially higher if Microsoft/Sony dial those clocks home. Or lower.

So a big leap then. Thanks, I was curious as while it interests me I'm not an expert on technical stuff.

RDR1 and GTA V are though. And you understood the point. Most if not all technical limitations are surpaseable if you cut down enough on the game. And as pemalite said, the biggest plus Switch have that WiiU didn't for the ports is that the architeture is more modern and closer to PS4/X1 so the cuts are less heavy than if ported to last gen.

Mr Puggsly said:

DonFerrari said:

GTA V is huge, RDR also, TLOU same, and a lot of other open world. So devs could do with limited RAM with their tricks.

Do fine runing Witcher 3? Well that is a little reaching. It does run Witcher 3, but it isn't really fine. Witcher 2 run on X360 with a lot less RAM. Almost any game can run on almost any HW if you readequate enough. But still what you see will be severely impacted.

Most gamers want better presentation so certainly a lot of the performance will be put on the look. Not a problem in that. And the most power the HW have the more is free to use in other stuff besides looks.

I'll wait for gen 9 happening to say all games could be done as good without new HW.

From what CGI-Quality puts around in his thread I'm pretty confident gen 9 will bring a lot of good surprises.

And a good evidence of the HW and scope is that most of the very demanding games of this gen won't show on Switch because the compromise is to big to make it work.

They certainly made massive changes to make the game run on Switch though.

God of War was more grounded and UC4 tries to go the realistic route so they certainly wouldn't show you the stuff you got impressed in AC.

Witcher 3 is gonna be a functional product on Switch. No cut content, it will probably be around 30 fps with dips, it will ultimately be the same game.

I agree, better graphics is great especially after ~7 years into a gen. The mid gen upgrades were also great for a visual boost. I also agree the specs can be used in other places. I'm saying games don't necessarily take advantage of specs to make games more ambitious, that's often the case.

You're saying "all games." I'm saying most games won't really utilize the new specs to make games more ambitious or increase scope, etc. I was careful about my word choice.

The 8th gen had a huge spec boost, there could have been surprises there as well. I'm simply arguing they were few in regard to game design.

I argue the 8th gen mostly felt like 7th gen with extra polish. But as the games were designed, much of it could have worked fine on 7th gen from a game design perspective.

They are cutting a lot for Witcher 3, there is no other way around it. I guess what you mean is that the gameplay elements will be kept.

Mid gen upgrades I can agree weren't needed and that the games didn't really improve outside of graphics due to them, but the fault would be that they had to keep support for the baseline versions and also kept same architeture due to compatibility. So in this case very bad CPU that held down the GPU more than it should.

Nope, I the "all games" you are saying, which I don't remember saying, would be that any game could benefit from a better HW to improve scope. Still I wouldn't say all games, because there is plenty of shovelware and indies that would run "exactly" the same if released on PS3.

Plenty of games would have a very lower NPC count and physics if CPU was worse (that is a game design element), but also the bad CPU of both consoles also limited the ambition one could go for on PS4/X1 so it had more juice for graphics on GPU than gameplay on CPU.

If one was willing most of the games today with some heavy tweak could play on PS2 perhaps even PS1. But you can be sure a Halo designed exclusivelly for X4 would have potential to be better than having to launch on X1 base. If the game will be better than og Halo that we can only know when it releases and won't be fault of the better HW if it is worse Halo or game.