By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
goopy20 on 23 March 2020
Edit Thread
Mr Puggsly said:
goopy20 said:

If all ps4/Xone games were designed to release alongside a Switch version with parity in mind, those games would also be seriously compromised and we wouldn't even have games like RDR2 right now. Luckily that's not happening because games like Witcher 3 were developed separately and released much later. It does run, but it can drop to 810x456 at times. The Switch can somewhat get away with that because its a handheld, but good luck playing in that resolution on a 55inch tv. 

All I'm saying is that any game will have to make concessions if it has to run on a range of different specs and the high-end will never be fully used to its potential. Just look at the mid-gen consoles. They were like 4 or 5 times more powerful than base consoles but they never felt like that big of an improvement. Why? Because developers could never really take advantage of the extra hardware since they had to aim for parity with the base consoles. In the end we got the exact same games with only got a higher res and/or framerate. But here's a tech-demo of what's possible on a ps4 pro if it's not held back by base ps4 and is running at 1080p/30fps: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lhpn96bbzkk

That's the thing, there isn't true parity between X1, Series S or Series X. A Series S version will have lower quality visual settings given the rumored disparity is GPU. The X1 version might be compromised in other ways kinda like Switch ports can be.

The Switch version of Witcher 3 on Switch doesen't just have lower graphics settings and resolution. They also made changes to geometry, AI density, etc. They reduced the load on GPU, CPU and RAM without breaking the game. Yeah, it looks terrible compared to other versions. Its the same game though running on surprisingly low specs. It demonstrates how much modern games can scale back spec demands.

Your argument is inconsistent. Sometines your concern is the Series S version could look bad. The simple solution for you is dont get the S. Meanwhile spec disparity isnt a big issue if its just GPU. I suspect you keep bouncing because you don't feel strongly either way.

Also I suspect you're in the PS camp. So do you really care if MS makes technically inferior games? Is that going to impact your Gamepass subscription.

Anywho, the Witcher 3 can technically function on specs well below X1 capabilities and well beyond. Yet its still a very ambitious product. Get the point? A core game can function often on limited specs.

Sometimes concessions could be exclusive to a version with limited specs. There are many examples from various generations as well. Just depends on the route MS goes.

The mid gen upgrades were simply designed to improve performance and visuals. However, if a game was designed specifically for X1X, that doesen't mean a base X1 port is impossible. Especially when the big disparity is GPU power.

How do you know for a fact that Xbox games won't aim for parity across all of their consoles? Because to me that's exactly what it sounds like if they're saying Series X will target 4k/60fps. I don't care that the Series S versions would look bad, I care that the Series X will be held back by it and potentially the ps5 if it becomes the lowest common denominator for 3rd party games.

The thing with Witcher 3 is that it took a lot of work to get it to run on the Switch, so is MS really going to develop 4 different versions of all of their exclusives? Or will it be like they said, 1 game that scales up and down their family of devices? 

Last edited by goopy20 - on 23 March 2020