By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

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

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... 



Around the Network
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.



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. 



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

Around the Network

Ugh, on one side we have unreasonable posts exaggerating how bad it is, "I heard it comes with special glasses" wow, great post. On the other it's the overly defensive crowd throwing "handheld" around, even though everyone is talking about docked performance, rip "hybrid" it's apparently been relegated to just a handheld to defend its power.

The worst from both sides are here, this thread has turned to crap.



JRPGfan said:

Its impressive it runs this at all.... but damn it looks like a blurry mess compaired to the xbox version.
I get that its cool you can play it handheld mode, but you give up soooooooo much visual quality to get that.

 

"this might be the lowest resolution game of the generation so far.." - DF.

Docked = 360p (lowest) - 720p (highest)  (avg somewhere between)
Portable = 360p -  432p

30 fps instead of the 60fps of the PS4/XB1.

"when playing the game docked mode, I did find the game to be exceptionally blurry.."
"texture quality is paired back significantly compaired to other versions of the game"   (its 21gigs instead of 54 on the Switch)

He notes he doesnt really like playing this game docked, because of how blurry it is, but that its better played in handheld mode.
He also mentions if you buy this "physically" you still need to download a large portion of the game, to play it.

Nice cherrypicking here.



Helloplite said:
Azuren said:

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.

The problem is Switch is a direct competitor with PS4 and Xbox One. So when it's running the same game, comparisons will be made. 

Last edited by Azuren - on 30 June 2018

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

Check out my Twitch Channel!:

www.twitch.tv/AzurenGames

According to gamespot, not very playable in portable. Frame rate issues.



John2290 said:
Helloplite said:

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. 

Impressive...haha. not even close. Its a slideshow even docked but handheld its closer to 15 fps than any game I've seen this gen. What I mean is its so noticeable it effect gameplay and MHW doesn't have a fucking chance...not even close. Docked or not.

I don't expect MHW on the Switch. When it was first announced, I did not expect current gen games period. I felt that at best it would be able to get some of the games from last-gen. If you are not impressed that a measly Tegra can do this, then nothing should be impressing you here on. I personally do not have a Switch, nor do I plan to buy one any time soon (I am happy with my PS4 Pro at the moment, and I do not game on the go), but if someone told me that a system running 3+ year old tablet tech will be able to run a game like this I would laugh at their face. Notice how the vast majority of current iPhone X games, which technically run on a platform far superior to the Switch, have comparably worse graphics on the whole. Same goes for any games running on the new Snapdragon 845 platform. Yes, these games are unoptimized for the most part, and that explains the disparity, but still -- this is a Tegra X1 running Wolfenstein II. Can we get realistic now?

Last edited by Helloplite - on 30 June 2018