For reference the Crysis Remastered/2/3 games on Switch uses 360/PS3 models, but improved textures, lighting including svogi, fps and resolution over the original relase. That's probably what we're looking at assuming it's from a competent team
-
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.
For reference the Crysis Remastered/2/3 games on Switch uses 360/PS3 models, but improved textures, lighting including svogi, fps and resolution over the original relase. That's probably what we're looking at assuming it's from a competent team
didn't Remedy say they'll do the port themselves or are they outsourcing it?
i have not heard anything, but would be wonderful if they did it in house.
Not only that the Switch Skyrim port is halfway between the regular and Special Edition containing some of the newer features like the improved foliage some godray lighting stuff and the game runs far more consistent and stable compared to the barely playable PS3 version.
The fact people continue to have the perception that the Switch is incapable of running games beyond that of PS3 and 360's library feels very disingenuous trolling at this point.
Nobody in this thread has said the Switch couldn't run the game. Assuming this is a streaming version (which it doesn't appear to be) and not thinking the game can run on Switch are different things.
Yeah, the idea that Switch can't can't get remastered releases because its like a portable 360/PS3 is largely a made up thing.
That's unlikely as already addressed above. And yes people were implying Switch couldn't run it. It takes a very creative reading of the insta 'cloud version' responses to parse out what you are suggesting.
When it comes the a potential Alan Wake Remaster on Switch, could it have improved textures and lighting, although not as good as those in the other consoles? Definitely. Better framerate? Absolutely not. The original 360 game teared at points, but it was no Crysis. It mostly ran at 30fps. Also, I don't expect the resolution to be much higher than that of the 360 release. The remaster runs at 900p/30fps on Xbox One. 720p/30 docked 540p/30 undocked would be my guess. That is unless the Switch version is more closely based on the 360 one. In that case they could target higher resolutions and even framerate.
It all depends on whether the original PS4/Xbox One game is CPU-bound as well as on the original framerate. With 60fps games you can always lower the resolution and halve the framerate, along with other cuts to fit everything into the Switch's memory. Ports of 30fps games that are CPU-bound are much harder to do. To me, ports like The Witcher 3 are really cool, but seriously compromised unless you have a hacked console.
Last edited:
The fact that people continue to enter 3rd party Switch game threads and immediately state "Cloud version" suggests otherwise.
That clearly comes with the implication that Switch can't run the game natively. Why would people immediately say a Cloud version otherwise.
Because it wasn't announced with the other versions and that's the easiest way to have it on Switch? Nobody is denouncing the hardware or saying it can't run the game anywhere.
Are you talking about Alan Wake or Crysis? Can't speak for Alan Wake since we haven't seen Switch footage nor is it confirmed, but Switch Crysis compared very favorably to the PS4/XONE versions.
As for framerate, it absoletely runs circles around the 360/PS3 versions. just look at the DF videos.
Yeah its possible it runs poorly or looks low res but it's very difficult to make a generalization based on XONE performance since Switch has different bottlenecks and strengths and devs have been able to get more mileage out of it. Sabre seems quite good at that as they handled Witcher 3 as well as all the Crysis games. But a less capable devs may not get the same results.
All cloud games on Switch in the West are now announced day and date with the physical releases. The only exception was Control because that was the first cloud game in North America(pilot). This is going to be a Switch port y'all and I'm curious to see how it performs.
The Xbox One hardware is more capable. Period. Faster CPU, more performant GPU and more memory and bandwidth. I can't think of a single advantage the Switch hardware has over it, apart from perhaps the flash storage in select cases and the slightly newer GPU architecture. Sure, the Witcher 3 port is impressive considering the hardware, but it's seriously compromised in terms of resolution and general IQ. The Crysis ports are also very competent, but they're based on the 360 versions. They're in a different ballpark to the PS4/Xbox One versions.
Last edited:
I can't believe the amount of people taking your post seriously
Yes... but your logic suggests Switch being roughly 1/3 as powerful and 1/5 of a PS4 would be unable to run 30fps games on those platforms at 30fps with decent visuals. We've had many games do both. It's not linear.
The Xbox store and EGS list Remedy as the developer and Epic as the publisher, but it wouldn't be the first time a Switch version was handled by another studio.
That seems to be the case with the upcoming Marvel's Midnight Suns being developed by Firaxis with Virtuos handling the Switch version.
Firaxis is PC only they aren't a large studio. The console ports for XCOM and Civ were all outsourced. Virtuos did the XCOM 2 to port to Switch so it makes sense they'd handle this one too.
Nope
Looks like it skipped all Latam countries actually https://eshop-prices.com/games/5756-control-ultimate-edition-cloud-version
I'm not sure if Ubitus' services are available
Even xCloud is still in closed beta
IIRC, the consoles ports of XCOM and Civ were handled by a different company than the Switch version, right? The only reason I brought up Virtuos is because a quick glance at the eShop listing confirms them for Midnight Suns and it's been rumored for a while that they'd be handling Alan Wake Remastered.
You said it yourself. They run "With decent visuals". None of those ports have resolution/fps graphical feature parity, so comparing them to the original games as a measure of how capable the system is and to somehow suggest that the Switch is punching above its weight makes no sense. The specs pretty much line up with raw specs in the case of the Switch. The same games on PS4/Xbox One push a lot more pixels. To run them on Switch, resolution is paired back and so is framerate in many cases, texture resolution is lower and so is the precision and number of graphical features.
There is nothing magical about the Switch ports you've mentioned. It's simple optimization work. I agree that it's remarkable that games like Doom Eternal or The Witcher 3 are running on the hardware at all, but IMO the compromises to get there are painfully obvious.
It's a satiric meme about the switch, more famously used with a PS2 game like SMT3 struggling.
Usually makes fun of/mocks those that really believe it, not used to mean that they believe what they said.
Aspyr handled all the console ports for Civ, and they all received the iOS version with modifications. Since iOS was RAM limited it had static leader portraits, whereas Switch received animated portraits same as in PC. Switch appears to be the lead platform actually as it came out a year before the other two and had the controls adopted to a joycon/procontroller first.
As for XCOM 2, because of the delay in porting, Switch was ported by Virtuous, while XBOX/PS4 was ported by another team (not Firaxis) first and that team wasn't involved in the Switch port.
Well for starters I didn't say anything about magical about the platform, just that Switch has different bottlenecks and it's not a linear conversion. And it is using a more modern chipset from nvidia, which has a more efficient gpu per flop from the comparative AMD designs on base XBONE/PS4, so even the flop figures are misleading.
A 15 watt console isn't going to have graphical parity with a giant 70+watt brick. The discussion is about getting a high scope game to run at a good fps with good visuals, Switch has plenty of examples. we don't even know if this game is real. Could be an error.
But you're so committed to shitposting and downplaying a game on Switch that doesn't exist yet. I wonder why.
Last edited:
It's outsourced. D3T is making it.
its a 360 game originally
it can be marketed as remastered while being a port.
First of all, the Switch has a lot more bottlenecks than PS4/Xbox One, so talking about "different bottlenecks" is disingenuous; it's both-siding what is a clear-cut technical issue. The raw hardware specs on Switch are simply much lower. As I said, the GPU architecture is slightly newer, but that is hardly enough to help it catch up to those two platforms. That is a fact.
And excuse me for speculating in a thread that is speculating about a potential Switch port of Alan Wake Remastered. All I've done is talk about several potential options based on the target specs that we know for the other consoles and previous Switch ports. I'm not downplaying absolutely anything. I think porting the game to the Switch is absolutely possible. I'm also saying that target resolution and framerate will depend on whether the port is based on the remastered version or is a more direct conversion of the 360 original. In the case of the former, I can see the game running at 720p docked and 540p undocked at 30fps based on the specs of the Xbox One version. In the case of the latter, the resolution ceiling will be considerably higher. I've no idea what's so controversial about that.
All I see is you being overly defensive over something that you've already admitted. The Switch does not compete with those consoles based on specs. It's first and foremost a handheld that happens to be able to be docked to extract additional performance from its SoC. It is a great piece of hardware, but let's not pretend that porting PS4/Xbox One titles to the Switch is trivial or that the compromises are not substantial.
I don't follow your point. Most remasters are technically ports. This one definitely is.
I think you'd be better served not doubling and tripling down on your own hot take.
I'll grant you this. The port-house doing the work will matter much more on Switch. A mediocre team will get middling results, a really good team will kick ass.
And hey you could still be right, but it would be conincidental. Broken clock syndrome.
I don't feel like the rest warrants a response. This isn't a long thread. Read the other posts explaining why it's entirely possible this Remastered edition arrives on Switch and not as compromised as you imagine
Last edited:
not sure how the Brazilian ratings board does things but the ESRB and PEGI do not rate Switch cloud versions
of course this could also just be a mistake, they've done it before
What exactly is my hot take?
Also, the whole "mediocre team" thing is awfully close to the lazy dev narrative. Yes, teams like Panic Button are very adept porting houses, but even them struggled a lot with their Doom Eternal port, which has extensive compromises in terms of overall IQ and graphical effects, just like other ports of graphically-intensive PS4/XB1 games on Switch. Some of their other Bethesda ports target even lower resolutions and have frame pacing problems. CPU-bound, 30fps games are even harder to port. There's a reason why there are almost no ports of last-gen, open-world games on Switch apart from Witcher 3. The hardware is definitely the main limitation there. With 60fps games that are not CPU limited, you can always remove or use less precise graphical features, lower the resolution and halve the framerate.
Again, you come off as extremely defensive for no reason. Read my posts explaining that a Switch port of AW:R would be absolutely possible. Of course there are going to be compromises, just like there are on other platforms. I already explained what I expect those to be based on the target specs for other last gen consoles and depending on which version that potential Switch port may be based on.
I'll make this my last post because it's just a conversation at this point between the two of us that can be a DM and I rather not have someone ask us to take it to DMs so I'll do it now and ask you to take it to DMs. .
As for your rhetroical question, Our first exchange is literraly post #51 at the top of this thread which you can scroll up and read. There is no defensiveness, just annoyance
Last edited:
Rated by PEGI
OP
OP
Rated by the Esrb for switch
www.esrb.org
Alan Wake Remastered - ESRB
Alan Wake Remastered - Teen - This is a third-person shooter in which players assume the role of Alan Wake, a writer in search of his missing wife at a lakeside town.
www.esrb.org
OP
OP
The announcement should be soonRated by the Esrb for switch
Alan Wake Remastered - ESRB
Alan Wake Remastered - Teen - This is a third-person shooter in which players assume the role of Alan Wake, a writer in search of his missing wife at a lakeside town.