If you think of it in handheld terms, it's pretty impressive. For an HD TV... maybe not so much.

If you think of it in handheld terms, it's pretty impressive. For an HD TV... maybe not so much.

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Actually, that didn't prove "his" point. Nothing in that reply stated or even hinted at me caring about frame-rate or resolution. So it didn't prove anything. The point of the reply was "of course a developer would say that, they're selling a product". Which .... is true. If he said the opposite he wouldn't be doing his job, but of course he never really had to state that in the first place. I also don't think his point is very valid. Don't get me wrong, fun will always be more important than resolution, graphical quality and framerate. But using that quote to excuse problems in those areas isn't good, especially when DooM is a game that actually benefits from a high framerate. Proving a point doesn't always give it credence, either. If he says that, and someone responds to him and says "framerate and resolution are important for x,y, and z reasons" it doesn't matter how well thought-out those counter-points are, his point would still be proven, since it was essentially "people care about framerate and resolution" and not something that automatically makes you correct if your point is proven. It's just an observation that causes the developer disappointment, not some undeniable strong argument. If his point is that people shouldn't care about frame rate or resolution, then my reply, or the many other replies in the thread have not proven his point since it has not been shown that they don't matter. But again, my comment didn't prove his point in any scenario. The point is that of course a developer would say that, duh. |
"I’m bummed some gamers focus on framerate or resolution, and don’t focus on, ‘Is it fun?’ or ‘Does gameplay feel good?'"
Outside of mentioning fun once, all you've gone on about is framerate and resolution. You still haven't addressed his point- "‘Is it fun?’ or ‘Does gameplay feel good?'" The overwhelming consensus being that it delivers on the core Doom experience.
Whatever your point was meant to be (not that anyone asked), you still have only focused on writing waffle about framerate and resolution, and haven't actually addressed if the game is a worthy port of Doom (just because it benefits from high framerate, doesn't mean it's a different game without it).
Your original smartass comment, while maybe correct, was unnecessary and still didn't make any mention on if the game delivered the core Doom experience.
So yes, you are now pretty much a caricature of what he was describing.
And no, I don't bear a grudge against you. But you keep saying these things, and I keep having to write these responses I don't want to write.
| quickrick said: Port is very disappointing. basically worse case scenario.. |
So you've played it? What's your Switch friend code? I'd love to add you! Mine is SW-0666-6288-1304. Maybe if we play online, you'll enjoy it more.
| Normchacho said: I'm surprised the game came to Switch at all, but I can't see why someone would buy this version unless you don't have anything else to play it on. It looks and runs way worse and is more expensive than the other versions of this game. |
Have a fully capable custom built gaming PC (16GB of ram, i7-8700 cpu, 1070 6gb GPU, SSD, liquid cooled, etc) bought it on the Switch and enjoyed what I’ve played of it so far even with the drawbacks.
the drop from 60 to 30 frames per second is noticeable to me. But for the average person they probably couldn’t tell the difference if they’ve not played the PC/console port. As I’ve mostly played in handheld, the blur does somewhat does bother me and hopefully they can find ways to lessen that like other games that used UE4 and had the same issue on release on Switch (ie: Snake Pass), but it’s not that bad and is passable and enjoyable.
Portability is the biggest factor for me picking it up on the Switch. It’s not easy to lug around a PS4Pro or desktop when I travel. Switch version is a completely decent port.
Shiken said:
Portability |
A list price twice that of the other versions, paired with significant performance issues and severely scaled back visuals seems like quite the cost for just portability.
Bet with Adamblaziken:
I bet that on launch the Nintendo Switch will have no built in in-game voice chat. He bets that it will. The winner gets six months of avatar control over the other user.
| Shaunodon said:
|
"And no, I don't bear a grudge against you. But you keep saying these things, and I keep having to write these responses I don't want to write."
Holy shit, I didn't even say it this time! Literally didn't even mention it. Lol.
You're reading too much into my comment. You are trying so hard to act like he has some great point and that i'm the epitome of the stupidity he's battling against - it's not like that at all. My original "smart ass" comment was, guess what, supposed to be a smart ass comment. And it was a correct one, with a point that was easy to understand and communicate. You replied to that comment by saying that i'm exhibiting exactly what he was talking about. The irony is that I never even mentioned frame rate or resolution until I replied to your claim. So if you want to say I am a "caricature" of what he's describing now? Go ahead ... but in context I only provided those points because the conversation was furthered and you, not me, brought up resolution and frame rate. I know you know this, so I don't understand why you're making this into some huge battle about how I'm a smart ass or how he's right and I'm just a caricature of what he's fighting against. We don't have to talk like that, man. It's just a conversation worth having. My stance has always been "good job on the port, happy it's on the console". Not "this is terrible because it's x frames and y resolution!" I know you won't do me the curtsy of believing this, but I'd actually like to think on this topic I'm fairly nuanced. I can argue against a stance and a developer's statement, and still agree that the port was worthwhile.
I do think it probably delivers on the DOOM experience. That's great, and I'm happy for Switch owners getting the ability to play it. I have it on PC, and I think this is one of those games that doesn't personally benefit from a handheld format. So I'll skip it. But it's a decent port. And yes at the end of the day fun is what matters the most. But it's not like resolution or frame rate don't matter. The latter especially does effect how fun a game is, especially a game like DooM.
All I tried to say was, of course he'd say that, he wants the product to make money. At the end of the day, that's all that matters. His statement holds some accuracy, but it is also severely overblown and overshadows what benefits a better frame rate or resolution could provide. It's not just some small insignificant thing that some people are too anal about, it's a real concern. It's so hyperbolic, that I'd wager quoting it in a forum to make a point is useless.
Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 11 November 2017

30fps is a hindrance to gameplay. Drops below that is a big hindrance to gameplay.
With that, the port is impressive considering the anemic hardware it's trying to run on.
In short... If you own other platforms, it's best to get the game on those rather than the Switch version.

www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
Normchacho said:
A list price twice that of the other versions, paired with significant performance issues and severely scaled back visuals seems like quite the cost for just portability. |
Except I have actually played it on the Switch. I can assure you the game looks fine and feels smooth in action. I am not saying that there are not drawbacks, but considering all dlc packs are included and I can play it in two different ways, I feel like I got my 60 bucks worth.
And this is coming from someone who has the option of playing on either a PS4 or X1 also.
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
"And no, I don't bear a grudge against you. But you keep saying these things, and I keep having to write these responses I don't want to write." Holy shit, I didn't even say it this time! Literally didn't even mention it. Lol. You're reading too much into my comment. You are trying so hard to act like he has some great point and that i'm the epitome of the stupidity he's battling against - it's not like that at all. My original "smart ass" comment was, guess what, supposed to be a smart ass comment. And it was a correct one, with a point that was easy to understand and communicate. You replied to that comment by saying that i'm exhibiting exactly what he was talking about. The irony is that I never even mentioned frame rate or resolution until I replied to your claim. So if you want to say I am a "caricature" of what he's describing now? Go ahead ... but in context I only provided those points because the conversation was furthered and you, not me, brought up resolution and frame rate. I know you know this, so I don't understand why you're making this into some huge battle about how I'm a smart ass or how he's right and I'm just a caricature of what he's fighting against. We don't have to talk like that, man. It's just a conversation worth having. My stance has always been "good job on the port, happy it's on the console". Not "this is terrible because it's x frames and y resolution!" I know you won't do me the curtsy of believing this, but I'd actually like to think on this topic I'm fairly nuanced. I can argue against a stance and a developer's statement, and still agree that the port was worthwhile. I do think it probably delivers on the DOOM experience. That's great, and I'm happy for Switch owners getting the ability to play it. I have it on PC, and I think this is one of those games that doesn't personally benefit from a handheld format. So I'll skip it. But it's a decent port. And yes at the end of the day fun is what matters the most. But it's not like resolution or frame rate don't matter. The latter especially does effect how fun a game is, especially a game like DooM. All I tried to say was, of course he'd say that, he wants the product to make money. At the end of the day, that's all that matters. His statement holds some accuracy, but it is also severely overblown and overshadows what benefits a better frame rate or resolution could provide. It's not just some small insignificant thing that some people are too anal about, it's a real concern. It's so hyperbolic, that I'd wager quoting it in a forum to make a point is useless. |
| AngryLittleAlchemist said: Pretty unexpected for a developer delivering a game with low framerate and low resolution to say that. |
It's also pretty clear the dev was airing a personal grievance, on something he actually feels quite passionate about. So I'm not sure why you seem to believe it's just him trying to sell his game.
They delivered Doom last year with a great framerate, and great visuals, and probably never expected they'd be porting it to a handheld. Expecting them to have a version ready that could have complete parity with PS4/Xbone is just unreasonable.
I'm not sure why you're using this as fuel for your crusade, when it's obvious they're quite devoted to bringing the best possible versions of their games they can. But they're also not miracle workers.
There was an audience for Tony Hawk games on Gameboy Advance.
A fully 3D game with licensed music that took full advantage of the PS2/GameCube/etc and people were buying the pixelated sprite version for GBA.
You guys are looking at this through the eyes of hardcore gamers with awesome setups and 4k displays. I bought Doom to showoff to some friends at work. Everyone I've shown has been blown away by how good it looks. Same with NBA 2K18. It's essentially one of the gen's prettiest games running decently on ab powerful handheld device (or weak home console--pick your poison). Remember this when you think of ports for PSP and Vita. The Switch version is almost fully featured AND portable. That's why I bought it.