-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Digital Foundry: Wolfenstein II on Switch
- Thread starter Deleted member 8112
- Start date
I just don't get why this port is miraculous. It's a good port all things considered but it's clear the cutbacks, there's no miracle there.
Comments like that suggest that you simply have no appreciation or understanding for what the developers had to work with. I'm praising their work and they deserve.
There is no hand waving happening. You want this to be judged on a different scale and that isn't fair to the developers. It's like Doom on the Super NES. It's a technical achievement that is, in many ways, more impressive than the original DOS version. It's also basically unplayable.
It's impressive given the hardware which is what is being discussed. This isn't a competition.
Amazingly detailed 24 minute analysis video. Awesome work as always, Dark1x!
For me, the game is simply too blurry to be enjoyable based on what I'm seeing as I always game on the TV with my Switch, and it looks like a low quality YouTube video. Still, if you don't have access to the game on any other platforms then I think this would be a decent purchase. Best of luck to Panic Button getting more contract jobs in the future as they are the best at what they do.
For me, the game is simply too blurry to be enjoyable based on what I'm seeing as I always game on the TV with my Switch, and it looks like a low quality YouTube video. Still, if you don't have access to the game on any other platforms then I think this would be a decent purchase. Best of luck to Panic Button getting more contract jobs in the future as they are the best at what they do.
Unless you're running a high-end PC, every port is compromised.
And I'm not sure why it matters to you because I suspect you won't be buying them anyway.
The success of Nintendo makes some people nervous apparently.
Last edited:
This is nice and stuff. But at the end the articles aren't just technical descriptions but make clear result and gameplay relevant statement.
A game that dips to lower sub HD resolutions regularly can't be described as miracle all the time like done in the article.
I'm surprised at the number of negative reactions to these ports. I played through Doom and was amazed at how many visual bells and whistles were intact, despite the obvious hardware limitations. Impossible port is definitely the right way to describe it.
I think when the game booted, my initial thoughts were that this would be what a 360/PS3 port would look like, and I'll tell ya, I was pretty amazed, given this system is the size of two pieces of toast.
I hope there might be patches down the road for resolution, but effects wise, and stable fps, and geometry not being cut, frankly amazes me!
I hope there might be patches down the road for resolution, but effects wise, and stable fps, and geometry not being cut, frankly amazes me!
Capcom is streaming RE7 because it's a cheaper option overall than porting the game and, so far, their Switch support has been the definition of cheap. There's nothing to suggest that the game would be impossible to run and, due to its slow-paced nature, even a port with similar fidelity to Wolf 2 would be perfectly playable.
So if this game was running on a PSP at 480x272 it wouldn't be a miracle? Because it's sub HD?
"mostly locked"... eh.
We are all aware about the hardware of the Switch. At the end of the day you want to rate the quality of the port, so if you are cool with games running at whatever sub-hd resolution with "mostly locked" 30fps framerates and want to tell everyone that are great ports, then I don't agree with your evaluation of such ports, yeah.
What is this[/] as in "this is why..."
I don't see what you're referencing with "this"
??
At this point some need to understand that the switch is ultimately a handheld (for the record that's no slight). Getting this game to run it's a miracle in itself, and at the day many won't appreciate or play it due to the sacrifices made.
It's like they hear "360p" and immediately stop listening, only to come into this thread to shit on the game and accuse DF of being a Nintendo shill. Embarrassing.
Last edited:
If the PSP port would looks and plays like a mess (which actually happened quite often with its ports it received from consoles) then I wouldn't describe such games as miracle just for the mere fact that they run on the PSP in the first place.
Sure it can. They are putting it into perspective and the Switch running this game is impressive. You are just looking at the results and not the surrounding circumstances. I think they are looking at the overall picture and when you compare a mobile device like Switch that is a fraction of the size, running on a fraction of the power running the same game it's impressive.
That area is one of the best running on the Switch, though. This video show show a framerate of 28-32 on a more intensive area while running at 50 res scale at 1024x576.
The point isn't whether or not the Switch can run these games, but that the publishers are not likely to put in the effort in compromising and optimizating games for the platform.
The Wii had a colossal install base when games like MW3 and Modern Warfare Reflex came out for it. Nintendo had to build up that install base for years to get Activision's attention.
The WiiU got Black Ops 2 and Ghosts, but missed Advanced Warfare, Black Ops 3, Infinite Warfare, and even Modern Warfare Remastered.
What happened? Can the Switch make up for this? I can't say for sure. What I do know is that running multiplats at a fraction of the standard resolution and half the framerate is not the best sign.
My god this is absolutely insane. It's a mostly locked 30fps with very few cutbacks on visual effects, mostly just scaled down to work on the Switch AND it has better performance than DOOM which I thought would be impossible given how much complex geometry there is in Wolf 2. Mighty impressive and shows that if a dev team is willing, it's totally possible to port some of the more linear current-gen games to Switch.
Why? If consumers are satisfied why do you want to limit what is available? If you prefer a port that has a higher resolution and framerate then there are several options available to you.
For those that want portability I don't understand why this getting a Switch Port get people upset as if it shouldn't exist.
The hardware itself isn't relevant anymore the moment DF startes to evulate how playable the port and it's visuals. it's not that they are selling that game for half of the price of the other ports.
I'd say a greater than 50% chance it'll release on the Switch. If it doesn't release on the Switch then I guess that means Bethesda was not satisfied with Doom sales. I'm expecting a day and date release with the other versions though.
I'd imagine it depends on how the sales of Doom on Switch are (which I've been curious about).
The Wii got Call of Duty 3 and World at War in 2006 and 2008 respectively. It was a success in those years, of course, but in no way was the install base "colossal."
The Wii U didn't get those later games because it was an insanely big flop; if it wasn't there would have been a fairly good chance of it receiving AW and BO3 at the very least.
As a matter of fact Black Ops 4 is the first Treyarch-developed Call of Duty game to not release on an 'alive' Nintendo console; they've been developing ports of their own games and IW's games since the Gamecube days yet the Switch is where that line ends.
I personally never see the Call of Duty series coming to the Switch, but not because it would require such insane compromises as you seem to imply, but because Activision isn't the type of company to do anything but what nets them the "big bucks" anymore. They're the company that didn't realise Crash Bandicoot would do well on a Nintendo console until somebody did the groundwork for them, and they're also the company who has yet to realise that Spyro would do well on a Nintendo console. They clearly don't care at all for the Switch which is why its third party support is so unprecedented in how godawful it is.
For me it's because when I buy a game for the Switch I'd like them to be high quality and not have to lookup the game ahead to make sure it's ok.
I actually got nauseous when looking at the DF video. I can take lower res/fps games but this one was bad imo even if it's technically impressive to get it to run at all.
I understand some might like it but personally I think games in this state does the system a disfavor.
This doesn't make sense. So for PS4 games that run at a higher resolution should they be sold for more than X1 games?
Should games on Switch that have the same resolution and framerate be twice as expensive because they offer portability and home console versions?
Also, the entire discussion is about platforms and how the platforms differ from each other.
Last, what you deem u playable may be perfectly fine to others. It seems like more comments acting like this Port shouldn't exist because you deem it u playable.
Nauseous, lol! You must be very young for this type of resolution to make you nauseous (lol). I can't imagine you playing games 20 years ago. You'd be sick all the time.
Nauseous....l-o-fucking-l
I stopped playing consoles after the SNES since I couldn't take the 3d graphics of N64 and PS1 et al..
My first console after the SNES was a PS4.. So lol away.
Luckily there is a simple solution for you. Ignore it on Switch if you don't believe it's worth your money. Others may feel it warrants a purchase.
I just don't understand why some people seem to get mad because this game exists on Switch. If you feel like it's not up to your standards then there are other options available for you just as those that may want portability or may not have another system may want this option.
OP
OP
Oh I'm sorry. I thought you were being facetious. Wasn't trying to make fun of your medical condition.
BUT you must have to look up EVERY game ahead of time to ensure it's okay from a technical standpoint. If there is dynamic resolution in a PS4 game that could cause nauseousness too, couldn't it? So it's not exclusive to the Switch, correct? Just putting this in perspective...
Oh god, that's bad, and among the worst places to be like that.Yeah. Author kept repeating how impressed he was with this port, so I was kinda began agreeing with him, but then he showed this scene...
I'm not going to buy it, don't worry :)
And I'm not mad, but I'd like the ports to have some standards that is all.
It also greatly depends on the game, for instance XC2 I had no problem with, but a FPS game is a whole different matter.
We're not giving consumer advice. We're examining the efforts required to pull of the game.
While I hope this sells well, I just find it fascinating that there is a significant enough audience for games like this on the Switch. This game was released 8 months ago and can be commonly found for half the price on other platforms that target 60fps and have significantly better resolution/effects than can be found on the Switch. Like, if games like Wolfenstein 2 appealed to you, FPS' and the like are much more abundant on every other platform and are routinely graphical showpieces and I would have thought someone would have purchased another platform that more satiates their taste in these types of games. I'm just interested in the ven diagram of gamers that only own a Switch and want FPS'. There definitely is some people that fall in to this group, just hope it is enough to make it worth it because it's extremely interesting seeing the sacrifices made to this game to make it run in an "acceptable" manner and it appears they did a great job of pulling it off.
I haven't had the problem on PS4 before, this is the first time in a long time I've gotten ill from a game/video.
I did have the same issue with some games on PC in the late 90s early 2000s, but not much since.