Despite the Switch having an SSD of sorts (Its faster than the Xbox One X HDD), it's very intriguing to see it struggling so badly with asset streaming with this port, this just emphasizes the fact that a console is the sum of it's parts and not just a single component, the Switch really needs more Ram to keep more data in memory, 3GB for games just isn't enough.
I think the downgrades were a little too severe, they really needed to rework assets to better fit the system, not just keep making cutbacks until it technically "ran".
This is the Switch vs Xbox One (Original/Base hardware) rather than the Xbox One X X Digital Foundry was making the comparison with, you expect to take a hit to resolution/framerate on Switch verses OG Xbox One, but the cutbacks are pretty extreme.
Either way, better to purchase this title on another platform.
Darwinianevolution said:
HollyGamer said:
It's definitely look like Fallout 3 on PS3 but with extra blur and extra slow frame rates
Edit: yes it's even worse than Fallout on PS3 in terms of detail graphic & resolution.
I wonder can Bathesda port Fallout 3 to Switch? I just curious how it will it look compared to outerworld.
|
I'm sure they can port both Fallout 3 and New Vegas. The problem is that their code is a jumbled mess, and they would be quite glitchy. At least Skyrim they've ported it so much they got a good grasp at it, and even then it still had the old bugs unpatched.
|
They all run on the same Net Immerse turned Gamebryo turned Creation Engine, so the porting process should be easier than we think.
Either way, they are Bethesda games, the Glitches add to the charm.