Digital Foundry: Wolfenstein II on Switch

Great job on the analysis, John.

This port is kind of incredible, all things considered. I would have happily bought this version if portability was my only option.

That said, hope PB is able to improve the resolution and shame Bathesda didn't use a 32GB cart even though they're charging Switch consumers the full retail price.

Pmichael said:

DF always use the same rhetoric and vocabulary for their Switch articles. I'm not sure if it somekind of shilling or DF wants to cover against possible backslash from Nintendofans.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Shilling usually implies you go to bat for a cause and for money, DF doesn't.

Its impressive from a technical standpoint, but there's no way sugar coat it. The game looks down right awful in both dock and handheld. Something like Fallout: New Vegas would have made far more sense. We likely could have gotten a 720p 60 fps in portable and visuals would have been crystal clear. I really hope with Switch selling as well as it is, we actually start seeing third parties making games specifically designed for the Switch. I don't care how visually impressive a game originally is, once you downgrade the textures to mud, lower the resolution to something circa 1998, and apply a vaseline like AA solution, you're not left with a visually appealing game.. As Switch owners, we'd be much better served if games were made/ported with the goal of 1080p/720p in mind. A game with simpler geometry and effects at HD is going to look far better than anything reduced to 320p with a host of other drawbacks.

Another great game by Bethesda.

Now I'm hoping for a port of Fallout: New Vegas - Ultimate Edition for the Switch by Panic Button.

MrHeisenbird said:

Between this and the Doom port, it's safe to say that AAA shooters like Call of Duty and Battlefield will never come to this platform.

Bethesda should be more realistic moving forward - especially with the PS5 and next Xbox coming in a few years. I don't know how much Doom has sold on the Switch, but Wolfenstein wasn't very good commercially on other platforms.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Battlefield I can understand but if you really think CoD is in any way an "impossible" game to run on Switch then have I got a Wii port of Modern Warfare 3 to sell you.

Pmichael said:

DF always use the same rhetoric and vocabulary for their Switch articles. I'm not sure if it somekind of shilling or DF wants to cover against possible backslash from Nintendofans.

Maybe the authors are truely impressed by the ports but then the articles aren't in line with articles for other hardware, where way smaller differences received way more criticism.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

"Shilling"? Really?

I'll be playing it on my lunch time on monday while you guys keep arguing if the game looks good or not.

have fun.

Good video. I'm actually interested in playing this on my Switch in portable mode, warts and all. I find this port intriguing (Doom as well).
But as someone who has the game on PC, it's priced all wrong. I even think they're taking first time Switch players for a ride with that €60 price for a decimated, late port.
I'd part with €30 tops for this version of the game.

People still want/expect Ubi etc. to port current generation open world games like AC Origins to Switch? How does 240p checkerboard rendering sound?

*Guaraná said:

I'll be playing it on my lunch time on monday while you guys keep arguing if the game looks good or not.

have fun.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Me too.

I finally could watch the framerate analysis. It's very impressive. I played DOOM at launch, pre-patch, and in most large scale battles the game dipped frequently at near-24frames per second. Here it seems to be a locked 30fps through most of the game, with the exception of these outside fights in New Orleans.

Pmichael said:

DF always use the same rhetoric and vocabulary for their Switch articles. I'm not sure if it somekind of shilling or DF wants to cover against possible backslash from Nintendofans.

Maybe the authors are truely impressed by the ports but then the articles aren't in line with articles for other hardware, where way smaller differences received way more criticism.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It could just be that the Switch has different standards of graphical fidelity and performance when compared to the 4 other main consoles but, no, it must be shilling and/or cowardess.

When talks of the next handheld started I hoped for 540p but braced for 360p lol looks like that kinda happened

Great game tho and cool to see it running on Switch

Pmichael said:

DF always use the same rhetoric and vocabulary for their Switch articles. I'm not sure if it somekind of shilling or DF wants to cover against possible backslash from Nintendofans.

Maybe the authors are truely impressed by the ports but then the articles aren't in line with articles for other hardware, where way smaller differences received way more criticism.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Things are written from the perspective of the hardware. The Switch is a mobile device. It cannot be judged by the same standard as an Xbox One or PS4. There's a reason I started th video talking about Saturn Quake.

I can't recall nitpicking anything like you suggest this year, though.

Damn, that looks good. Panic Button is working on another Switch port soon to be announced right?

Also, this makes me wish Nintendo used the X2 chips in the Switch.

My short time with the game has confirmed my long-held belief that the sweet spot for 3rd party support on Switch should be remasters of games and collections of big series from the last two gens. Stuff that would hold up as an improvement on the original release and be novel in portable. Bioshock collections, Borderlands (ya Vita I know but lol), Mass Effect, Fallout, etc. I'm sure there's a lot I'm forgetting, but I missed out on most of last gen and there's a gold mine of stuff there for me, personally.

It's impressive that it's running on a tablet but the compromises are pretty glaring and hard to ignore. I was less bothered by Doom for some reason, maybe because there were fewer humans and cinematics to look at.

Pmichael said:

DF always use the same rhetoric and vocabulary for their Switch articles. I'm not sure if it somekind of shilling or DF wants to cover against possible backslash from Nintendofans.

Maybe the authors are truely impressed by the ports but then the articles aren't in line with articles for other hardware, where way smaller differences received way more criticism.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Ewwww, this is some shitass nonsense.

VeePs said:

Panic Button is working on another Switch port soon to be announced right?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

To be announced next month actually. I hope it's another Bethesda Game (The Evil Witihn runs on idTech too, same as Wolfenstein 2 and DOOM).

360p and as low as 24 fps when alphas start filling the screen? Yikes but I suppose it's impressive that it runs on a 7w tablet. I'd rather see games that don't need miracles to be ported to the switch. GTA V for example.

Has does it compare image quality wise to Xenoblade 2 in portable, which is currently the worst looking game in terms of image quality that I've seen on Switch?. Plus it has a sharpness filter on top of that.

Amiibola said:

"Shilling"? Really?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Handwaving that resolution scaling is sure something.

Abdul Malik Ka'bah said:

360p and as low as 24 fps when alphas start filling the screen? Yikes but I suppose it's impressive that it runs on a 7w tablet. I'd rather see games that don't need miracles to be ported to the switch. GTA V for example.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's 540-720p most of the time with drops that low only in a few more hectic battles later into the game.

Dark1x said:

Things are written from the perspective of the hardware. The Switch is a mobile device. It cannot be judged by the same standard as an Xbox One or PS4. There's a reason I started th video talking about Saturn Quake.

I can't recall nitpicking anything like you suggest this year, though.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

It's both admirable and sad that you engage some of the terrible takes here. Don't let some awful opinions get in the way of the incredible work you guys do.

I'm happy there finally is a good Wolfenstein experience on a Nintendo console after those crap ports of Wolf 3D on Snes (ugly/censored) and GBA (ugly/no music).

That's pretty blurry.

Looks perfectly playable though.

sleepnaught said:

Its impressive from a technical standpoint, but there's no way sugar coat it. The game looks down right awful in both dock and handheld. Something like Fallout: New Vegas would have made far more sense. We likely could have gotten a 720p 60 fps in portable and visuals would have been crystal clear. I really hope with Switch selling as well as it is, we actually start seeing third parties making games specifically designed for the Switch. I don't care how visually impressive a game originally is, once you downgrade the textures to mud, lower the resolution to something circa 1998, and apply a vaseline like AA solution, you're not left with a visually appealing game.. As Switch owners, we'd be much better served if games were made/ported with the goal of 1080p/720p in mind. A game with simpler geometry and effects at HD is going to look far better than anything reduced to 320p with a host of other drawbacks.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I disagree. A game like Wolfenstein 2 with complex geometry and lighting looks even at a low resolution far better than a last gen game at 1080p.

Dark1x said:

Things are written from the perspective of the hardware. The Switch is a mobile device. It cannot be judged by the same standard as an Xbox One or PS4. There's a reason I started th video talking about Saturn Quake.

I can't recall nitpicking anything like you suggest this year, though.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

please don't take this kind of person serious. this is the kind of guy that makes internet a worst place. You do a great job and I hope you keep doing this kind of job for years to come.

Interesting. I may have to pick this up. Only interested in handheld mode and John seemed to think the game holds up pretty well visually while undocked.

Dark1x said:

Things are written from the perspective of the hardware. The Switch is a mobile device. It cannot be judged by the same standard as an Xbox One or PS4. There's a reason I started th video talking about Saturn Quake.

I can't recall nitpicking anything like you suggest this year, though.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Resolution scaling down to 360p is quite something while not being even stable 30fps. At this point the question could be asked if a Switch port should even try to run the same set of visual features.

But stuff gets handwaved like crazy.

Pmichael said:

Resolution scaling down to 360p is quite something while not being even stable 30fps. At this point the question could be asked if a Switch port should even try to run the same set of visual features.

But stuff gets handwaved like crazy.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

False. The runs does a very good job at holding its target framerate, only in rare situations it drops. It's also far more stable then DOOM.

dampflokfreund said:

False. The runs does a very good job at holding its target framerate, only in rare situations it drops. It's also far more stable then DOOM.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I'm only quoting the article.

Oscarzx n said:

I'm happy there finally is a good Wolfenstein experience on a Nintendo console after those crap ports of Wolf 3D on Snes (ugly/censored) and GBA (ugly/no music).

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Shame the Wolfenstein version embedded into the game runs so poorly, iD's classic games are really lacking in official ports nowadays. Personally I'd absolutely love an "id Classic Collection" for modern consoles with everything from Commander Keen to Quake 2, but it's very likely not going to happen.

Borderlands already runs on the Nvidia shield and the switch straight up supports open gl. I don't want to get my arm chair Dev shit going but I can't imagine it'd take much resources or money for that to be brought over. Portable loot shooter = yesss.

I got Doom on Switch and it was a terrible experience with how blurry it was. I was hoping this one might be improved since they have more experience with the hardware now but I guess it wasn't possible.

Thanks for the analysis Dark1x , I've played for about three hours now docked and a hour undocked and the game is not only playable but dispite the "blurryness" I'm really enjoying the game.

Yes, I can see the difference between resolutions, yes I can tell the difference between texture quality, no I'm not deceiving myself, or just a blind Nintendo fanboy, the reason why I chose this version was for the flexibility of playing docked/undocked.

My wife went to pick this up for me for my birthday, she mistakenly got the PS4 version, I returned that for the Switch version.. I'll admit I did the same thing with Doom (but I had played that version, knew what I was getting myself into and wanted to support this studio) but this seemed more different, could I live with Wolfenstein 2 compromised as my first experience with it? The answer is a resounding yes.

I love good high quality, high fidelity 1st party games like God of War or Horizon, but when it comes to third party games if I can get it on the Switch, as long as it is playable and is of decent quality I will for the flexibility sake.

Maybe since I've been gaming since the NES days and still regularly play games from past generations and on original hardware; I'm just not bothered by these compromises.

Don't get me wrong, I look forward to playing Red Dead, and whenever Cyber Punk 2077 drops I'll be there. But I only care about graphics for what I consider "event games" games that are really moving it's reapective genres forward.

For a solid shooter to mess around with I'm having a blast playing this on the Switch. Let's hope we can get them to squeeze out a patch for performance.

ShinUltramanJ said:

This is a Digital Foundry thread, where the entire point is to discuss the technical aspects of the game.

If all you care about is playing docked and portable then why are you here?

Switch owners are super defensive in DF threads. I take it you never ventured into a DF thread where PS4/Xbox One games got torn to shreds every time in comparison to the PC ports?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

And it's silly when it happens in those threads as well. Comparing it to PC is pointless. Should be judged on the actual hardware between PS4 and XBox. And he has a point, in the Switch ones people are comparing too much to the PS4, which is silly. Compare it to what he Switch can do as a piece of hardware and it's bettwr to discuss what should be cut or scaled down to get eh best possible performance and resolution.

CaviarMeths said:

Panic Button will likely have no shortage of work any time soon. They're going to be an in-demand studio for the foreseeable future.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I agree.

Next Resident Evil 2 please !

Pmichael said:

"impossible ports" why does DF think they need to pull out that nonsense?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Pmichael said:

Where is the fun of calling ports impossible... again and again?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Pmichael said:

DF always use the same rhetoric and vocabulary for their Switch articles. I'm not sure if it somekind of shilling or DF wants to cover against possible backslash from Nintendofans.

Maybe the authors are truely impressed by the ports but then the articles aren't in line with articles for other hardware, where way smaller differences received way more criticism.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Pmichael said:

Handwaving that resolution scaling is sure something.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Pmichael said:

Resolution scaling down to 360p is quite something while not being even stable 30fps. At this point the question could be asked if a Switch port should even try to run the same set of visual features.

But stuff gets handwaved like crazy.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

good god...

Pmichael said:

I'm only quoting the article.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Of course, this is the worst-case scenario here and certainly does not represent the overall experience. For most of the game, I'd say we're looking at a mostly locked 30fps with a few wobbles here and there. It's only during a couple of larger battles that frame-rate issues begin to crop up. When in portable mode, the results are less stable but it's still quite playable.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

That's what the article has to say about the framerate. How does that refute what dampflokfreund said?

EDIT: And are you going to reply to the other posts explaining why there's no "handwaving" going on here? Not even the post made by the guy who created the video?

Plum said:

That's what the article has to say about the framerate. How does that refute what dampflokfreund said?

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I didn't claim what he said about the framrate compared to Doom was wrong. My comment regarding to the Wolfenstein framerates still sta da though.

Pmichael said:

I didn't claim what he said about the framrate compared to Doom was wrong. My comment regarding to the Wolfenstein framerates still sta da though.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The article says that the game holds a steady 30fps for most of its runtime yet you made that into a much bigger issue and accused DF of "handwaving".

IAMtheFMan said:

Yeah this is it for me.

I own a PS4 and a high end PC capable of running pretty high end stuff and VR etc. What some people can't seem to wrap their head around with the whole "crap port, lol play it on XB/PS4/PC" is that I have the option to do so but availability and time are my biggest limiting factors now... not access or cost. The only game I've finished on PS4 recently was God of War and there were times I had to set aside to play that. I bought Doom on PS4 but only got through 2 chapters. I really wanted to keep playing it, but life and time got in the way even to the point where I couldn't guarantee a good 1/2 hour play session. On the other hand it's much easier with the Switch to be able to play in sporadic bursts, even between docked and portable. I got Doom on Switch and was able to play it on commutes, away from my TV, etc. and beat it within a couple weeks. Right now I'm playing South Park FBW on Switch and I know it would've been the same way; I would pick it up, play a few hours then not have the dedicated time to sit down in front of my TV to play but now, I'm probably nearing the end of it after about 20 hours total with just here and there gaming.

I'll likely play Wolfenstein on my Switch knowing that yes, I could play it on my PC running at 60 with all the graphical bells and whistles. I'll play it in portable but also docked sitting right next to my PS4 Pro but by playing it on my Switch, I'm much more likely to sink a lot more time into it and actually beat the game.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Also have HUGE tv in the lounge, high end PC with VR, PS4 & XBox One - BUT the amount of time I actually get on the TV due to family make me think a lot about game purchases on XBox & PS4 when a switch port IS available or coming...

Tyaren said:

I would not call slashing the framerate in half to 30fps and that framerate not being perfectly stable and in some cases dropping to almost 20fps "really good".

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

well frame rate is mostly locked and compare to doom is lot better

Pretty good port, with necessary sacrifices made to get it to run on a 7 Watt portable. Well done.

Plum said:

The article says that the game holds a steady 30fps for most of its runtime yet you made that into a much bigger issue and accused DF of "handwaving".

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The article says stable for the most time except in larger battles (the moments in a game where I actually like a stable frame rate), while the framerates in the portable mode was commented with a short sentence as "less stable".

Incredible port, though I do wish they would have cut some of the geometric complexity (without removing objects) to keep the resolution a little higher.

Pmichael said:

The article says stable for the most time except in larger battles (the moments in a game where I actually like a stable frame rate), while the framerates in the portable mode was commented with a short sentence as "less stable".

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

The article, and john himself, states that the game is through most of the game at a almost locked 30fps with the exception of outside fights of New Orleans, which was the single and worst case of framerate dipping into the mid 20s, and the framerate in portable mode has been commented as largely the same and "still feeling fine".

You obviously have an agenda that clearly shows in all your posts in this thread.

Pmichael said:

DF always use the same rhetoric and vocabulary for their Switch articles. I'm not sure if it somekind of shilling or DF wants to cover against possible backslash from Nintendofans.

Maybe the authors are truely impressed by the ports but then the articles aren't in line with articles for other hardware, where way smaller differences received way more criticism.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

Wow, so know we are questioning DF integrity because they are able to put things into perspective regarding the Switch? Seems to me they realize a machine the size of Switch, with 7 watts of power, running a current gen game is a technological achievement.

LordKano said:

The article, and john himself, states that the game is through most of the game at a almost locked 30fps with the exception of outside fights of New Orleans, which was the single and worst case of framerate dipping into the mid 20s, and the framerate in portable mode has been commented as largely the same and "still feeling fine".

You obviously have an agenda that clearly shows in all your posts in this thread.

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

I mean the article describes the frame rate as not stable. The quoted part is just a few posts above here.

So get a grip.

Great job Dark1x. The length and in-depth analysis, plus how you contextualize a game and/or platform, really are second to none.

I really hope Nintendo supports backwards compatibility in the successor to the Switch, and in the same way Microsoft does. It would be quite wonderful to get resolution/FPS upgrades on titles like this. I'd be pretty locked into getting multiplatforms on Switch if I could expect at least 1 generation of forwards compatibility with increased resolution and stable framerates.

Sorry to steal the thread but could we know when is the Crash Bandicoot face off coming?

Pmichael said:

The article says stable for the most time except in larger battles (the moments in a game where I actually like a stable frame rate), while the framerates in the portable mode was commented with a short sentence as "less stable".

Click to expand...

Click to shrink...

In one or two very large battles at the tail-end of the game, not in "larger battles." As for the portable mode, less stable =/= unstable; more drops down from 30fps is not the same as a framerate which rarely meets that target. If you watch other videos from DF you'd know that an "unstable framerate" is something they'd specifically mention as a major issue.