By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Hardstuck-Platinum 2 days ago
Edit Thread
BraLoD said:
Hardstuck-Platinum said:

Can't handle it at 60fps though. Skyrim may be a PS3 game but the PS3 had a CPU that was better than PS4 and Switch 2. Steamdeck can run it at 60 just fine and that has a good CPU. It's all CPU related. 

PS3 CPU was stronger on paper than the PS4, the PS4 ran games miles better than the PS3 and you never expected to see a PS3 game running better than it's PS4 counterpart. PS4 had much newer tech and tools than the PS3, and the Switch 2 also have newer tech and tools than the PS4.

Switch 2 can run open world games like Breath of the Wild at 60fps. It even as access to a form o DLSS.

Bethesda/MS simply didn't want to spend more time and money on a version they think should not sell too much to justify it.

It's completely on them.

I know PS4 ran games better than PS3, that's obvious. My point was, there is an aspect of the PS4 that was not 2x better than PS3 and that was it's CPU and that's why it didn't Skyrim was only 30fps just like the PS3. To have 60fps you'd need every aspect of the hardware to be 2x better than last gen consoles and Switch 2 is not, meaning that it's stuck at 30fps and there is nothing BGS's could've done about it to get it to 60. 

If you want to believe that Fromsoft/Gearbox and now BGS are all incompetent/lazy that's up to you but it's just disturbing to see that people would rather smear quality and highly respected devs over criticising nintendos hardware even though Nintendo has not made powerful and competitive hardware in decades.