What? 720p to 1080p requires 2.5x the raw  power. I understand what you're saying about pacman, but it doesn't make any sense. lowering resolution is the best way to get the best performance  in a game while keep it's original look.  you look at ps4 pro or xbox x peromance mode in games for example when they try to hit 60fps, every developer lowers resolution as it's the best way to get better performance, all you have to do is look at how big dynamic resolution is. 

It's the best way to get better performance if you're not willing to remove "shiny effects". I for one would much rather have a sharp crisp looking game. I'm not saying lowering resolution doesn't have a big impact on performance, I'm saying lowering these effects has a big impact also. The reason behind the choice to lower resolution is the same as the reason developers don't target 60fps on consoles, "ooh look pretty effects". I'd always prioritise in the order of Frame Rate > Resolution > Graphical Effects, Developers tend to go for Graphical Effects > Frame Rate (30fps) > Resolution > Frame Rate (60fps).

"With Wolfenstein 2, Panic Button instead focuses on delivering an experience that is as close as possible to the original release in terms of visual makeup and basic design. Removing things like volumetric lighting, ambient occlusion, per-object motion blur and dynamic lighting could have increased performance, but it would come at the expense of its visual identity" - DF

They left those in, instead of delivering a game that was consistently 720p or higher. I would have removed every single one if I had to.

Like I replied to you above this comment. People can use their Mobile phone as a hotspot for the Switch to connect to and play online. Very easy to do and allows more than 1 Switch to connect to (if you are playing with friends)

Higher resolution is way more demanding then cutting down some effects, that's the reason they drop resolution so much on the  other 2 games. while rocket league was probably not holding a rocket solid 60fps, so cutting down some effects made sense, as it was really close to reaching it's target anyway.

Turning off an effect, volumetric lighting for example, does not require a lot of work, Let's not forget both these titles are on PC with graphics options to turn off most of it already. Instead they decided to just downsample the textures and lower the render resolution. I would say neither requires much more work than the other. Though I'd much rather they had better resolution and textures.

What? 720p to 1080p requires 2.5x the raw  power.

 you look at ps4 pro or xbox x peromance mode in games for example when they try to hit 60fps, every developer lowers resolution as it's the best way to get better performance, all you have to do is look at how big dynamic resolution is. 

I understand what you're saying, but maybe removing those effects still didn't get anywhere the same performance as lowering the resolution. 

How can you even assert such a thing? They made a choice to retain the rendering pipeline at the expense of resolution and performance, not the other way around.

If they actually spent more time reworking the game so that the shadowing and lighting was baked, simplified the GPU accelerated particle effects and dumbed down the physics... Aka. What most 7th gen games would have done... They could have gotten away with a much higher resolution and framerate... But that would have come at the cost of significant development time and money, something they were obviously not going to do.

Still though, it's impressive what the Tegra chip in the Switch is capable of, makes you wonder what it could have been if Nintendo didn't castrate the clock speeds of that chip... And I am extremely interested to see how future porting efforts go as it's still super early days yet.
Credit where credit is due and all that.

Why do you seem obsessed about NMS? Two posts in a row to complain about it were necessary? 

NMS has never been an AAA. It's an indie game developed by a small team, "AAA of indie" is one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. What's next? "The most FPS of racing games"?

Warframe isn't AAA and never was, that's it. 

I don't think being an online game on the Switch is that much of an issue given how successful Fortnite has been on the platform.

curl-6 said: 

What game would that be?

PUBG

Speaking of which, the fact they haven't brought this one over to Switch is a bit baffling, considering it as a mobile version that runs on specs worse than Switch. I personally wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole, but it makes sense for Switch to pick up as many popular games of this type as it can.