Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Digital Foundry: Wolfenstein II on Switch

I assume that all of those stating the obvious, that a switch version of reasonably demanding game runs considerably worse than the PS4 & XB1 equivalent, are going to be fair-minded enough to mention that you can't play on the go in every PS4 / XB1 game thread...

 

Oh wait, that would get interminably old very quickly!



Around the Network
OTBWY said:
360? Maybe this game will get the Switch to fall off that cliff.

Meanwhile, several PS Vita games run at native and fixed resolutions of 640x384 and 720x408 or 720x448 at less than 30 FPS, but back then it was the future. Only Nintendo can manage to be archaic while having arguably the most powerful (in terms of actual output) handheld on the market. Switch has a game that the Vita would not even dream of being able to run, that falls down to 360p under load in extreme circumstances, and we are suddenly all freaked out. Utter hypocrisy. I repeat myself, I know, but this is maddening!



quickrick said:
And people think switch can run 30fps p4/xb1 games that are demanding?

Do you care to name some individuals who hold this view?

The way you've worded your post makes it seem like a widely held belief, so it shouldn't be too difficult to list 3 or 4... 



Just got hands on with this. 30 fps my arse. 15 fps more like



 

China Numba wan!!

Helloplite said:
OTBWY said:
360? Maybe this game will get the Switch to fall off that cliff.

Meanwhile, several PS Vita games run at native and fixed resolutions of 640x384 and 720x408 or 720x448 at less than 30 FPS, but back then it was the future. Only Nintendo can manage to be archaic while having arguably the most powerful (in terms of actual output) handheld on the market. Switch has a game that the Vita would not even dream of being able to run, that falls down to 360p under load in extreme circumstances, and we are suddenly all freaked out. Utter hypocrisy. I repeat myself, I know, but this is maddening!

I'm not one to knock on the Vita, since this is a Switch related thread too, but Borderlands 2 ran at 9fps at times. More ontopic though, Panic Button are miracle workers. This game is recent and they somehow made it work, regardless. That is amazing to me no matter what.




Around the Network
OTBWY said:
360? Maybe this game will get the Switch to fall off that cliff.

Looks like it. I cant believe people expect MHW to work on the switch when this can't even hit a reasonable standard. Spamanig, in another thread wondering what the 'computational power' required was...lol.



 

China Numba wan!!

Helloplite said:
OTBWY said:
360? Maybe this game will get the Switch to fall off that cliff.

Meanwhile, several PS Vita games run at native and fixed resolutions of 640x384 and 720x408 or 720x448 at less than 30 FPS, but back then it was the future. Only Nintendo can manage to be archaic while having arguably the most powerful (in terms of actual output) handheld on the market. Switch has a game that the Vita would not even dream of being able to run, that falls down to 360p under load in extreme circumstances, and we are suddenly all freaked out. Utter hypocrisy. I repeat myself, I know, but this is maddening!

This just in: a handheld from 2017 has better performance than a handheld from 2011.



Watch me stream games and hunt trophies on my Twitch channel!

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

John2290 said:
Just got hands on with this. 30 fps my arse. 15 fps more like

Where did you get your 'hands on' with this? Are Digital Foundry liars? It seems to hover around the 24-30 FPS mark, the vast majority of the time. It is clearly evident that the Switch should not even be able to run this game. That it does must certainly be impressive. 



⚠️

Some of you guys are only here to stir up trouble, while others are taking this stuff a little too seriously. So, let's not do either of those things. :)



                                                                                                             

Azuren said:
Helloplite said:

Meanwhile, several PS Vita games run at native and fixed resolutions of 640x384 and 720x408 or 720x448 at less than 30 FPS, but back then it was the future. Only Nintendo can manage to be archaic while having arguably the most powerful (in terms of actual output) handheld on the market. Switch has a game that the Vita would not even dream of being able to run, that falls down to 360p under load in extreme circumstances, and we are suddenly all freaked out. Utter hypocrisy. I repeat myself, I know, but this is maddening!

This just in: a handheld from 2017 has better performance than a handheld from 2011.

Thank you for making my point for me. Just as it is unrealistic to compare the Vita to the Switch, so should it be to compare current gen consoles with the Switch. My point is precisely that we should not be drawn into ridiculous comparisons. Read my previous posts for further context.

 

At any rate, for extra points on reading comprehension, you should have realized that I compared, in this instance, attitudes and not systems. I compare the attitude we had when judging the PS Vita back then, with the attitude we have judging the Switch nowadays. Back then, no one even had this expectation to be able to compare the Vita with the PS3. Now we watch comparison videos of the Switch side by side with the One X and we go "look at those blurry graphics lolol!". It is hypocritical through and through.

Last edited by Helloplite - on 30 June 2018