robertman2
Chain Chomp
- Pronouns
- He/him
this is the industry where you can get an 80 on mc just for showing up.
Also you're following up P5R (96) and SMTV (84), so a 74 isn't gonna cut it.
-
Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (Read the staff posts before commenting!)
- Thread starter Dakhil
- Start date
Also you're following up P5R (96) and SMTV (84), so a 74 isn't gonna cut it.
"SH2 isn't what the fans wanted." Since when do you speak for the fans? Are you basing that off of disappointing sales on PS/Xbox/PC? I'd wager there's a decent chunk of fans on the Switch that are interested in playing it (potentially a large number since this is the player base that pushed SMT V to 1 million) whose interest literally cannot be captured in a sales metric due to the game being unavailable on the platform.
And if you say Visions "definitely needs to release on Drake since a lot of sales came from Nintendo systems" (for previous games in the series), doesn't that also hold true for SMT? SE can just as easily keep it to PS/Xbox/PC at launch cause that's what they planned for when development started. Then if it fails to meet their expectations (potentially due to a decent chunk of the fanbase being on Nintendo platforms and not having access, as you said), they can just say, "Welp, looks like this isn't what the fans wanted. No use porting it to Nintendo!"
Funnily enough, Trials of Mana is sitting at a Metacritic 76 (PS4 version). So why is anyone excited for its similar-looking successor, Visions of Mana? This is clearly a kusoge series. /s
By your logic, if Visions of Mana scores below an 80 (very possible based on the previous game), it won't be worth porting to a Nintendo platform either.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Manakete
SH2 was made for PS4 and those games are difficult to downport to Switch and cost money. It's reasonable to assume that a total financial failure on PS4 won't do that well on Switch so it's reasonable not to downport.
Visions of Mana is on PS4 and the Switch 2 should largely be more powerful than the PS4 with the exception of RAM bandwidth so the port should be easier.
Sales-Era can give up the very stupid conspiracies about third-parties hating Nintendo or whatever because random niche games that sold 40k worldwide didn't get Switch ports.
"The reason 'My sister is 13 years old and has an ass the size of the iceberg that hit the Titanic' didn't get ported to Switch can be found in this 2015 interview with the creator where he stated that he didn't like the WiiU," no it's because the game sold like shit and no one wanted it.
Visions of Mana is on PS4 and the Switch 2 should largely be more powerful than the PS4 with the exception of RAM bandwidth so the port should be easier.
Sales-Era can give up the very stupid conspiracies about third-parties hating Nintendo or whatever because random niche games that sold 40k worldwide didn't get Switch ports.
"The reason 'My sister is 13 years old and has an ass the size of the iceberg that hit the Titanic' didn't get ported to Switch can be found in this 2015 interview with the creator where he stated that he didn't like the WiiU," no it's because the game sold like shit and no one wanted it.
It's annoying how people still act like any third party game that doesn't come to the Switch is all part of some grand conspiracy against Nintendo. After all the support the Switch has gotten these past several years, you'd think people would've given up on that by now.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Manakete
Yeah, every publisher has been pretty good to the Switch, lol.
People can like... Disagree with Capcom and Square and Ubisoft not wanting to downport a handful of games because they think the visual sacrifices would be too extreme, but those publishers have released a ton of great Switch games. Square in particular was probably the best Switch third-party publisher with DQ11 and Nier Automata being maybe the best downports to the system other than maybe Doom Eternal?
Fifa was the only "publisher seems to genuinely hate this platform" title and then they did the work to actually port Frostbite to Switch. IDK, everything has been fine.
What people also don't get is that most Japanese publishers have been supporting the Switch like a handheld rather than a traditional console. Most of the third party support from these companies are a natural evolution of the third party relations Nintendo's had on previous handheld systems (Monster Hunter, Sonic, SMT, DQ, TWEWY, Klonoa, AA, Mega Man), and companies like Bandai Namco and Square Enix have even dedicated resources and studios to Switch development. Same goes for western companies, with most of the Switch's western third party support consisting of indies, 7th gen remasters, and the occasional PS4/XBO downport.
To them, Switch is the latest DS or Game Boy, not a direct competitor to PlayStation or Xbox.
Last edited:
RoyalGoldenFES
Tektite
- Pronouns
- He/him
That was the prevailing sentiment among numerous Megaten fans lol, especially hardcore fans of the franchise. In places like Youtube and Twitter and reddit, you’ll mostly see criticism of the game (justified or not) from fans of the franchise. I have seen some people who like it, but I highly doubt the consensus surrounding Soul Hackers 2 would change much if it hypothetically also arrived on the Switch.
Anyway that’s besides the point, the game would’ve sold better if it was on the Switch but it wouldn’t have changed its reception.
Multiverse
Moblin
Edit: I’m moving my post to the software thread.
I'll give you this. Should objectively be easier to port from PS4 to Switch 2 than PS4 to Switch. So for that reason alone, I think Visions of Mana has a better shot at getting a Switch 2 port than, say, Monster Hunter Wilds (which is next gen only, so it faces the challenge of being a "down port" to Switch 2).
But there's still the question of, "will SE bother if it wasn't in the plans from the start?" When Switch came out, it didn't just immediately start getting ports of PS3 and 360 games, which would have been super easy to port. It took time. Obviously, there was also the issue of Switch being released right after the massive failure of Wii U, so 3rd parties naturally were skeptical. But even now, when the Switch is a known success, we're still missing dozens of games from that era (ex: Dark Souls II, Final Fantasy XIII, Street Fighter IV, Tales of Xilia, Guilty Gear Xrd, Devil May Cry 4, etc...). And I think a big part of the reason for that is it's not just a matter of "is it possible?" or, "will we make our money back?" but, "how high priority is it compared to other things we could be doing?" cause they only have a finite amount of manpower.
Anyways, we've been going back and forth for a while, and I don't think anyone will budge from their position. There's a chance Switch 2 could get a lot of these ports, certainly. I just think it's a lower chance than most of you guys. I'm maybe sitting in the 40%-60% chance range on a lot of these games, and a lot of you seem to be in the 80%-100% range. But we're all on the same side! I hope we get as many ports as possible!
I mean...you can go to Youtube, Twitter, and Reddit and see people shit on SMT V as well. If we wanna try to be objective about it somehow, I guess we could use the Metacritic user score. SH2 is at 71 and SMT V is at 75. So they seem to have similar "fan" reception. But to your point, if "fan reception" is what dictates whether Atlus will do a late port, maybe that's why they also never ported SMT V!
ItWasMeantToBe19
Manakete
The PS3 was a massive pain in the ass in general and could have caused some games to have fucky code and I think most PS3 games did end up ported over that people wanted.
Outside of GTA5, FF13, and MGS4 (which eat up storage space), what PS3 games are missing from the Switch lineup that people really want.
Like, maybe there's a few fighting games from the PS3 that sold 2m units in 2011 that were never ported to Switch, but I don't know if people were really desperate for that many old PS3 games that were missing.
Outside of GTA5, FF13, and MGS4 (which eat up storage space), what PS3 games are missing from the Switch lineup that people really want.
Like, maybe there's a few fighting games from the PS3 that sold 2m units in 2011 that were never ported to Switch, but I don't know if people were really desperate for that many old PS3 games that were missing.
Last edited:
ItWasMeantToBe19
Manakete
Has anyone done a CPU benchmark test on Avatar Frontiers of Pandora to see how it scales on CPUs down to slower CPUs.
Just seeing GPU benchmarks, but those are less necessary as we know it can run well on Series S.
Just seeing GPU benchmarks, but those are less necessary as we know it can run well on Series S.
I listed 6 games off the top of my head in my last post. Do you want me to give you an exhaustive list of PS3/360 era games I want on Switch that we don't have? (I listed FFXIII, like you did, but if you recall, it has a whole trilogy as well. I didn't list MGS4 cause I figured it's probably coming in the MGS Master Collection Vol. 2, but yes, technically MIA at the moment. And I omitted GTA V cause I personally have no interest in it.)
And while, yes, PS3 was a pain in the ass to work with cause of the Cell processor, a majority of the games from that era also have a perfectly normal 360 version to use as a base.
Charamiwa
Bob-omb
SH2 being a bad game and annoying to downport to Switch isn't the actual "problem" regarding Atlus support of the Switch. The problem is why a spin off of SMT and a sequel to a 3DS game from the team that just made a Wii U game wasn't scoped for Switch to begin with? It's this choice that's contentious. You can always dismiss any Switch support criticism by handwaving any released game as annoying to port, that's easy. But oftentimes the issue is the need to port these games in the first place.
Sorry I realize this is off topic but this subject is a pet peeve of mine. There is a failing to understand what is actually being argued.
Sorry I realize this is off topic but this subject is a pet peeve of mine. There is a failing to understand what is actually being argued.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Manakete
Atlus had just sold millions of copies of Persona 5 on PS4 when they probably started development of this game and it probably made sense to them to scope it for PS4 as they were trying to make a Persona like game that they hoped would have Persona like success and they probably wanted to focus on the platform where Persona fans definitely were.
I mean, it's a "sequel to a 3DS game" but the game doesn't have much in common with the original and the original was first a Sega Saturn game released in 1997...
In some cases, "aim for the platform where our fans are" is a self-fulfilling prophecy, but Persona 5 is so much more successful than any prior Atlus game that it would be weird to not aim for the same target platform as Persona 5 when you're making another Persona like game.
Charamiwa
Bob-omb
And thus, Atlus support of the Switch is mid.
If the game began development in 2017 like they said, then its understandable why they didn't consider the Switch for SH2. Wii U was dead, PS Vita was on life support, and 3DS had never really done all that well outside Japan. Atlus, like many other companies, wasn't very confident in the Switch at first, Hell I'm willing to bet they only gave it SMT V early on because of Nintendo's money-hatting.
Presumably, the original plan for Japanese devs, had the Switch not been a factor, was to try and compete in the main home console market with PS4 as the lead platform, partly why Bamco was trying to make Tales a AAA franchise with Arise. But when the Switch became a smash hit, they had to completely retool that strategy and start making Switch stuff.
Switch 2 isn't likely to have this problem, since most Japanese devs will be on board from the start given the success of its predecessor.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Manakete
Outside of Persona 3 Remake and Soul Hackers 2, they released every possible game they could for the Switch so uhhh, idk.
Metaphor is barely running on the 12 teraflop Series X (mostly due to Atlus not being very good at programming), it will probably literally blow up every remaining PS4 when its PS4 version is released.
Charamiwa
Bob-omb
We're running in circle. "Every possible game", Atlus decides what is possible. If they went ahead with the new Etrian Odyssey game, that would have been possible as well. But they didn't.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Manakete
Like, Sonic Frontiers probably sold best on Switch, but Sonic Frontiers 2 will probably be scoped well beyond the Switch's capabilities because they need to go much further with the game's sequel to keep people interested.
Would this be the right move? Probably. Is it risky to rely on the Switch 2 as your target platform even though it doesn't exist yet and leave behind 130m+ users? Also yes, but aiming for power levels is hard.
Would this be the right move? Probably. Is it risky to rely on the Switch 2 as your target platform even though it doesn't exist yet and leave behind 130m+ users? Also yes, but aiming for power levels is hard.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Manakete
Metaphor will release after the Switch 2 and again, looks barely functional and absolutely horrific visually on the Series X.
I'm not sure if they have the programming capabilities to do what they think is necessary to get people's attention for a new IP if they needed to target a .38 teraflop device.
A lot of devs just aren't that skilled and don't have the time and money to optimize things as far as they can go. Could Metaphor be done on the Switch by EPD or Rockstar or Naughty Dog? Obviously. Atlus is not them.
You need to have an idea that people will get excited for first. EO stopped getting original entries because consumers didn't care about it and weren't very excited about first-person dungeon crawling.
Like, Namco could have made a Tales game that was targeting the Switch, but they instead made a pretty game every Tales fans hated that was easily the best selling game in the series. You need your game to stand out first, then scope it.
A lot of sales-era seems to think you can just make hyper low budget games with nothing boundary pushing happening and you can get a lot of sales and most of the time, you cannot without a massive brand with no competition. Sales era also seems to think a lot of dev studios have much more skilled programmers than they actually do.
Last edited:
Charamiwa
Bob-omb
Alright last thing on this and they we can move on (or go to the appropriate topic): good third party support isn't necessarily defined by how many PS4/5 game you can painfully cram onto the Switch. To take an example close to Atlus: when Vanillaware made 13 Sentinels exclusive to Playstation, you could use all the usual excuses (created too early, they didn't know Switch was going to be successful, runs bad on PS4 so impossible...). The Switch port down the line was probably a bit painful, but they did it, nice. Then for their next game, the Switch was part of their original plan, it looks well within the scope of the console, even revealed on a Nintendo event as a bonus. That's a logical follow up for a company that plans to take the Switch seriously. That's good support. Something Atlus never did in an entire generation as they repeatedly showed that Switch was not a part of their thinking when scoping a game (maybe if you count Tactica but it's obviously not a mainline game). That's mediocre support.
Last edited:
ItWasMeantToBe19
Manakete
Which game are you mad about other than Persona 3 Remake.
Metaphor started development in 2016 and looks held together by bubble gum.
Charamiwa
Bob-omb
Now we're really running in circle. I explained as best I could.
General reminder to everyone posting in this thread to please stick to hardware talk. If you want to discuss the state of third parties on Nintendo, you are free to bring that conversation to the General Discussion ST, Switch 2 Speculation ST, our sales threads or even create a new thread about that topic. Thank you.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Manakete
Which one though.
Persona 3 Remake not being scoped for Switch is a little weird and bad, but everything else seems completely fine.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Manakete
Leakers saying that the PS5 Pro has only a slightly faster CPU.
Not sure how many Pros GTA6 will sell if the game is 1080/30 on the PS5 base and 1440/30 on the Pro.
Not sure how many Pros GTA6 will sell if the game is 1080/30 on the PS5 base and 1440/30 on the Pro.
- Pronouns
- He/him
If even one human being can fit inside the system, it will be much too big for portable play
I think it would be best to keep the size of the Switch 1 OLED in terms of Joy-Con compatibility, but if it were to be larger, 7.5" would be best.
lemonfresh
#Team2024
- Pronouns
- He/Him
People underestimating the power of devs ability to do miracle ports, switch 2 will probably get some crazy one I feel that will blow us awayRegardless of Rockstars relationship with Nintendo, I really like all these “(blank) won’t be able to run on Switch 2” quotes. Very reminiscent of “Witcher/Doom/NoMansSky/etc can never run on Switch”
Thraktor
"[✄]. [✄]. [✄]. [✄]." -Microsoft
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Honestly I'd be pretty surprised if this were a new PC handheld. Aside from the fact that these will all be smaller launches than the Steam Deck OLED (which wasn't big enough to warrant a mention in Samsung's financial reports), I'm not sure if the right screens are even available to them. Valve was in a fortunate position in that they could piggy-back on Nintendo's adoption of OLED in the Switch; suddenly affordable rigid OLED screens at the right pixel density were available. I'm not sure if anyone has confirmed this, but it appears that the Steam Deck OLED panels are coming off the same production lines as the Switch OLED panels, with a slightly larger screen size just due to the slightly higher 800p resolution.
These screens won't be any use for companies like Asus or Lenovo, though, because their systems use higher resolution, and higher frame rate displays. The ROG Ally, for example, uses a 7" 1080p 120Hz display, which is approx 315 PPI. Samsung don't seem to make any panels at this pixel density. On the laptop side (which use rigid panels similar to what would be used in a portable gaming device), the highest pixel density seems to be the screen used in the OLED version of the XPS 15, which is a 15.6" 3456*2160 display, at 261 PPI. It also only supports 60Hz, which would be a big downgrade for many users.
Samsung's phone displays can hit up to 120Hz, but the pixel density is too high (~440PPI for the Galaxy S23) and they use the more expensive flexible OLED technology, which isn't necessary in a gaming handheld. The Legion Go has an 8.8" 2560*1600 144Hz display, at 343 PPI, which again sits right in between Samsung's current offerings.
Nothing's to say Asus or Lenovo couldn't get Samsung to make a custom panel for them, but it's likely not cheap for a relatively niche device, particularly when we're talking about a combination of panel technology, pixel density, size and refresh rates which Samsung doesn't currently offer.
Concernt
Optimism is non-negotiable
- Pronouns
- She/Her
I still think 7.91" is the most likely size, even if it's just the dev kit size, if I'm not mistaken Switch dev kits have always had the same screen size as production, even the earliest ones using GamePad screens. If they're ordering and developing on 7.91" displays, they're probably going into production with that size, because Devs need to know what their games look like, especially in terms of size and scaling. That's part of why they even bothered with HDEV(Lite) and ADEV(OLED), for the screen size differences.
As for Joy-Con compatibility? Well, I should really get my image editing software open and illustrate this, but for now I'll just describe it.
So a 7.91" display, on a device with miniscule bezels (look at LG G6 or iPhone XR). So it wouldn't be that big! It would be about 8" diagonal, in all, not bad, really. I would say 4.8" vetical, which isn't a huge amount more than now. For compatibility... Use the same rails! Maybe have an extra latch and better tolerances to ensure a snugger fit, but using the same rails, aligned where the bottom of the rail is at the bottom of the sides of the console. So what if they don't go up the whole length? The Switch already has a cut-out for the rails, it would just be a bigger one. With a heavier device, I doubt they'd allow original Joy-Con to be used in handheld mode, but it would definitely charge them. For the new Joy-Con, well, the rail is now smaller relative to the length of the controller. Rather than having a flush edge to edge finish at the top of the controller, have it rounded out at the top, giving the device a unique silhouette, perhaps more room for the L/R button, perhaps a nice curved surface for capacitive scrolling. With the railing moved relatively down, it's no longer centred on the side of the controller, so SL and SR should move away from it. As I've said before, I think if the new controllers have grips, SL and SR should move there, posirioned like triggers in sideways Joy-Con mode. The compatible rails and the improved comfort of the new Joy-Con could mean compatibility with the old Switch, where they just poke up a bit from the top of the console, and provide better ergonomics.
There's so, so many ways to improve the controllers with a bit more physical size, even when keeping the original rail.
I am 100% convinced that the new system keeps Joy-Con rail, regardless of everything, since backwards compatibility will all but certainly include controllers, so they need to be able to charge! Even with changes to the railing, as I said above, locking out old Joy-Con from handheld mode even though they charge, it can still work.
As for Joy-Con compatibility? Well, I should really get my image editing software open and illustrate this, but for now I'll just describe it.
So a 7.91" display, on a device with miniscule bezels (look at LG G6 or iPhone XR). So it wouldn't be that big! It would be about 8" diagonal, in all, not bad, really. I would say 4.8" vetical, which isn't a huge amount more than now. For compatibility... Use the same rails! Maybe have an extra latch and better tolerances to ensure a snugger fit, but using the same rails, aligned where the bottom of the rail is at the bottom of the sides of the console. So what if they don't go up the whole length? The Switch already has a cut-out for the rails, it would just be a bigger one. With a heavier device, I doubt they'd allow original Joy-Con to be used in handheld mode, but it would definitely charge them. For the new Joy-Con, well, the rail is now smaller relative to the length of the controller. Rather than having a flush edge to edge finish at the top of the controller, have it rounded out at the top, giving the device a unique silhouette, perhaps more room for the L/R button, perhaps a nice curved surface for capacitive scrolling. With the railing moved relatively down, it's no longer centred on the side of the controller, so SL and SR should move away from it. As I've said before, I think if the new controllers have grips, SL and SR should move there, posirioned like triggers in sideways Joy-Con mode. The compatible rails and the improved comfort of the new Joy-Con could mean compatibility with the old Switch, where they just poke up a bit from the top of the console, and provide better ergonomics.
There's so, so many ways to improve the controllers with a bit more physical size, even when keeping the original rail.
I am 100% convinced that the new system keeps Joy-Con rail, regardless of everything, since backwards compatibility will all but certainly include controllers, so they need to be able to charge! Even with changes to the railing, as I said above, locking out old Joy-Con from handheld mode even though they charge, it can still work.
Concernt
Optimism is non-negotiable
- Pronouns
- She/Her
They won't be miracle ports anymore, unless they've made T239 on some awful node with some awful clockspeed, it'll just be ports.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Manakete
Regardless of Rockstars relationship with Nintendo, I really like all these “(blank) won’t be able to run on Switch 2” quotes. Very reminiscent of “Witcher/Doom/NoMansSky/etc can never run on Switch”
There's like literally 1-2 released games people care about in which people have frequently said this and 1-2 announced games.
GTA6 probably won't run on Switch 2, the question is whether MH Wilds and Baldur's Gate 3 will run on Switch 2 as both look/are very CPU heavy.
Last edited:
ItWasMeantToBe19
Manakete
"
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora can be easily described as a GPU-bound title. Our NVIDIA RTX4090 was used to its fullest even at 720p with DLSS Performance on Ultra Settings. As such, there was no point in testing different CPU configurations. For kicks and giggles, we’ve simulated a dual-core system with SMT/Hyper-Threading. At 720p/Ultra Settings, this CPU could push a minimum of 75fps and an average of 165fps. Again, keep in mind that we were GPU-limited. The drops to 75fps were mostly due to some stutters.“
www.dsogaming.com
Looks like Ubisoft's formula games are not going to be an issue to port to Switch 2 as long as the resolution/performance is good enough on Series S.
Guessing they use tech like Nanite that minimizes draw calls and other CPU saving techniques.
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora can be easily described as a GPU-bound title. Our NVIDIA RTX4090 was used to its fullest even at 720p with DLSS Performance on Ultra Settings. As such, there was no point in testing different CPU configurations. For kicks and giggles, we’ve simulated a dual-core system with SMT/Hyper-Threading. At 720p/Ultra Settings, this CPU could push a minimum of 75fps and an average of 165fps. Again, keep in mind that we were GPU-limited. The drops to 75fps were mostly due to some stutters.“
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora Benchmarks & PC Performance Analysis
Powered by the Snowdrop Engine, it's time now to benchmark Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora and examine its performance on PC.
www.dsogaming.com
Looks like Ubisoft's formula games are not going to be an issue to port to Switch 2 as long as the resolution/performance is good enough on Series S.
Guessing they use tech like Nanite that minimizes draw calls and other CPU saving techniques.
Individualised
Bob-omb
I actually really hope we don't get "miracle ports" and that devs stick to porting stuff that will reasonably run on the system. Which will still encompass a lot of current gen games as the power gap is much smaller - including probably GTA6. I don't want a repeat of what has ended up happening with the Switch where we've been getting ports that, while some are impressive, run at a completely unacceptable level.
redmutineer75
Bob-omb
- Pronouns
- He/Him
Isn't that the opposite of a miracle port? E.g. the Switch versions of Mortal Kombat 1 and Arkham Knight obviously didn't get the same attention as the Switch versions of Nier: Automata or Doom Eternal.
Individualised
Bob-omb
You're right. I'm not sure what else to call them though. I was also including things like Witcher 3 and No Man's Sky though; while they're very impressive, they're just not good versions of the games. Doom Eternal is a completely fine version of the game even if it doesn't look as good.
EDIT: Both The Witcher 3 and No Man's Sky are much better than I remembered them being from footage after I checked, though The Witcher 3 still has some pretty severe frame drops.
Last edited:
robertman2
Chain Chomp
- Pronouns
- He/him
Sounds like a skill issue on your part.
Individualised
Bob-omb
I originally read the post you're replying to as "If even one human skull can fit inside the system" and I wanted to make the pun "don't you mean... skull issue"? The post doesn't actually say that though and now I'm pissed
Will Nanite be something that will be useful on Switch 2? I don't know much about the technology; it seems like it should boost performance greatly but it also seems there are CPU-related caveats when using it?"
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora can be easily described as a GPU-bound title. Our NVIDIA RTX4090 was used to its fullest even at 720p with DLSS Performance on Ultra Settings. As such, there was no point in testing different CPU configurations. For kicks and giggles, we’ve simulated a dual-core system with SMT/Hyper-Threading. At 720p/Ultra Settings, this CPU could push a minimum of 75fps and an average of 165fps. Again, keep in mind that we were GPU-limited. The drops to 75fps were mostly due to some stutters.“
Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora Benchmarks & PC Performance Analysis
Powered by the Snowdrop Engine, it's time now to benchmark Avatar: Frontiers of Pandora and examine its performance on PC.
Looks like Ubisoft's formula games are not going to be an issue to port to Switch 2 as long as the resolution/performance is good enough on Series S.
Guessing they use tech like Nanite that minimizes draw calls and other CPU saving techniques.
cw_sasuke
Octorok
Man the way even Fortnite is now expanding and getting bigger makes me wish Nintendo will have a 512gb internal storage at launch.
I'm still expecting 256gb/Non-OLED 1080p 7.91 inch for 399€ to be the only and base model but man would I love
512GB/OLED Screen Premium SKU for 499€ - would be Day 1 for me.
I'm still expecting 256gb/Non-OLED 1080p 7.91 inch for 399€ to be the only and base model but man would I love
512GB/OLED Screen Premium SKU for 499€ - would be Day 1 for me.
9-Volt
Adept
- Pronouns
- he/him
Storage is literally the biggest issue with Steam Deck but thanks to extra optimizaitons, the successor won't have that big of memory problem. Still I think everyone should get their 1TB sd cards ready for launch.
One thing that infuriates me the most about gaming industry is that graphics technology advances much faster than storage tech. SD cards and SSD get cheaper at a very slow rate and new cards introduced very rarely. We just got 1.5TB card and it's gonna be some serious time before it becomes affordable.
yes. it's not just a per-pixel rasterizer, but a compression algorithm that reduces file sizes on models. it also falls back to mesh shaders for super-pixel triangles. there's not really any cpu costs here, as it's gpu driven. same with mesh shaders (but slightly different). these techniques are meant to saturate gpus to make better use of resources.
also note that nanite has a gpu cost, so it doesn't improve performance, it reduces memory usage against equivalent sized meshes while having more detail. but generally, a lod'd model will run faster at the expense of more noticeable pop-in
- Pronouns
- he / him
That target was PS3/PS4 cross-gen.
I think it makes enough sense for a 2024 release to set the minimum target beyond Switch, when the successor is in view. Considering they've been dragging these releases across 2-3 generations, that will make it a much more appealing PS6/Switch3 game down the road.
ziggyrivers
thunder
- Pronouns
- He/him/his
It's either Assassin's Creed or Oceanhorn
I wish for more pirates and sails games on the future
Last edited:
