"It seems"... Have you played the Switch version yourself? Because I'm doing that right now (I'm on mission 8) and I've encountered myself in many battles with far more than 4 demons on screen and the framerate have not dropped to the low 20s at all. I'm not saying that it was rock solid 30 all time, but at worse (in standar sequences), it dropped a couple of frames for two or three of seconds.  And as I said before, the only time that it noticeably dropped to the low 20s for a long time was in a specially demanding sequence were lots of lightning effects, explosions and unlimited enemies keep coming at you no matter how many you kill. Not something that you'll encounter all the time in your playthrough.

So this "4 enemies on screen makes the framerate drop to low 20s" is complete bullshit. And because I don't like lies, this comments bother me.

I'm not saying is wrong to criticzise the port. I'm saying that some people are trying very hard to just make it look like some unplayable shit with early PS3 graphics. When that's not the case, not even close. Also, I think you don't understand that DOOM on Switch does not come from air. They need to make it, they need to pay Panic Button for the port, they need to pay distribution, packaging and all that stuff. It's not free. They can't just sell the game at 20 bucks.

Finally... I've played DOOM on both Switch and PS4. And I'm having the same fun in Switch as I had back in the day on PS4. And while it doesn't look as good... I can play it anywhere. Something that a lot of people seem to not want to take into account. But to me it does count.

Well said.

The selling rate isn't a representation of a titles inherent quality.

I think anyone could be quick to point out some pretty average games that have sold gangbusters... Yet one of the most highly rated games of all time (Sacrifice) was a colossal sales failure.

Which is unacceptable. You generally do need performance the most during intense battles where framerates and framepacing are solid.

20fps should be condemned, it is 2017.
I would have rather they downgraded the visuals more, bad framerates really does affect gameplay in a negative way.

Same goes for any platform, 3DS, Switch, Playstation 4, Xbox One X. Drops to 20fps is not okay in my opinion, Nintendo doesn't get a free pass from criticism just because their device is a handheld.

And you have the game?

"It seems" because I'm taking DF's report as a correct one, and that's what the discussion is all about. And the fact that they can actually measure the FPS rate lends a lot more credence than a personal opinion of any one person online.

So I'm glad you are having the same fun now with the game that you had before, that's great. But it does not disqualify other people from complaining about the shit FPS rate this game has on Switch. I am even willing to admit it was the best they could do, and it's an amazingly crafted port, but then it just shows that the console itself is not made for such kind of games.

So of course the portability is a plus for anyone that cares about it, but that does not mean the flaws shouldn't be pointed out by those who desire to do so. There's no need to complain about complainers, that's all I'm saying :)

Thing is I have the game and I even stress tested it on Ultra Violence Arcade mode.  The game does perform well.  The only big dip I could emulate was if I stood in a corner and let all enemies gather in one spot, which is asking to be killed anyway.  And even so, it was not a game breaking dip, just a wtf kind of instance where you notice a hic up.

The majority of the game is smooth.  This is coming from someone who has a PS4 and an X1.  I have played the Arcade, Multiplayer, and campaign and in no instance did the game not feel like a current gen console port, and a good one at that.

So the bottom line is DOOM on the Switch is a good port of a current gen title that can be played on the go.  There are versions that will push visuals to the max (PS4 and X1X), and there is the version that is handheld with the option to play on the TV.  This is going to be an ongoing trend so I suggest people get used to the idea.

If some of themore demanding games in the future have problems, there will likely be two development teams so one could work on getting it on the Switch, even if it means using a different engine like Unreal 4.  It can be done and will happen if the demand is there.

Don't believe me?  Just look at how many Japanese games had a PS4 version and a VITA version yes they are less demanding games, but the hardware gap is far greater.

I'm not interested in Doom but in terms of graphics it looks pretty great. Watching the video the difference in graphics between the PS4 version and the Switch version don't seem to matter at all for gameplay and both versions looked great.

Well, if you actually paid attention the the DF video, you would have noticed that the the framerate only drops to the low 20s with some frequence in Arcade mode and in certain difficulty levels. Fun fact: although DF won't say it, PS4 and specially Xbox One versions also drop frames significantly in this mode. But I guess that's not worth mentioning. Now, I'm not trying to say that because this is not something exclusive to Switch, it's not bad. All I'm saying is that is something common in all console versions of DOOM to less or major degree.

That being said, if you watch the framerate test footage of the campaign mode in DF video, you'll see that it mostly moves in the 29-31fps line. And as I said, in this mode it only drops to low 30s in very specific sequences.

So, as I said, the game is not "20 ish fps with 4 or more enemies". It needs much more than that to happen, and those requirements only meet in a few moments in the campaign and in the most busy moments of the arcade mode. 20ish is not the most common framerate at all.

As for other people complaining about the fps on Switch... Funny enough, most of them does not have that version of the game. They complain because they don't like what they hear/see. Sure, "Sub HD with less graphical detail and 30fps that can drop to the low 20s" sounds bad on paper. But when you actually play the game, you realize that it actually plays great and that the game doesn't even look bad on screen. Theory is one thing. Doing something is very different.

So I'll still think I should complain about complainers because they talk without actually playing the game.

I don't have anything else to say on this subject. Have a good day :)

So... Digital Foundry are liars then? Because that is not what they are saying here.


If you have the appropriate testing tools (I.E. Not just using your eyes.) then please provide empirical evidence that refutes Digital Foundry, I am sure everyone here would indeed be interested in such findings.

Seeing how using our eyes is how we play games, that is what matters.  It is there job to point out where the dips take place, and they tell you it is primarily in Arcade mode.  They are looking for dips using tools that you will not use playing the game.  Furthermore the dips that do come to light is what they will focus on in the article, because that is what they are looking for.

And I am not alone on this.  The only people who are taking the DF article to heart are the people who do not own the game, and often times do not even own a Switch.  The vast majority of people PLAYING the game, not a media outlet looking for dips, will tell you and confirm that it looks and plays great in action.

So no, they are not lyers.  However their findings are far less relevant that my own personal experience with the game and the experience of people actually playing it as well.