• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

[Digital Foundry] LEGO City Undercover : PS4 vs Switch vs Xbox One

@MUWANdo

Banned
No mention of load times, I see.

I heard the Switch version's load times are only marginally better than the horrendous load times on Wii U--can anyone share their experiences with any of the new ports in terms of load times?
 

Xcell Miguel

Gold Member
No mention of load times, I see.

I heard the Switch version's load times are only marginally better than the horrendous load times on Wii U--can anyone share their experiences with any of the new ports in terms of load times?

I moved my digital game from my microSD to internal storage because it's way faster.

Initial load time (when you load your save to get in the city in front of the Police Station) :
- microSD (Samsung 128 GB EVO) : 56 sec
- Switch internal storage : 35 sec

Wii U was about 70 sec ?
 

MisterR

Member
I don't know, man. I played quite a bit in portable mode and it wasn't bad at all.

To be fair I don't think you've found fault with anything associated with the Switch that I've ever noticed. People will vary on how much frame rate bothers them, but it seems like lots of folks are finding the portable mode performance to be not great.
 

Jazzem

Member
I moved my digital game from my microSD to internal storage because it's way faster.

Initial load time (when you load your save to get in the city in front of the Police Station) :
- microSD (Samsung 128 GB EVO) : 56 sec
- Switch internal storage : 35 sec

Wii U was about 70 sec ?

How did you move the game from SD card to the internal storage? I can't for the life of me find that option =/
 

Ridley327

Member
No mention of load times, I see.

I heard the Switch version's load times are only marginally better than the horrendous load times on Wii U--can anyone share their experiences with any of the new ports in terms of load times?

They're definitely considerably better, especially after the patch they did, but they cut in half load times that could bump over a minute in length on Wii U, so it's a matter of perspective.
 
To be fair I don't think you've found fault with anything associated with the Switch that I've ever noticed. People will vary on how much frame rate bothers them, but it seems like lots of folks are finding the portable mode performance to be not great.

... he started that "Lack of new Switch game announcements" thread that (rightfully, IMO) criticizes the... lack of new announcements as well as discussion of previously announced games.
 

SomTervo

Member
They can't capture portable mode yet. They mention that dips are more noticeable on portable mode, but is still an enjoyable way to play the game.

I don't doubt that, but four times the price of the perfectly-running PC version is a bitter pill to swallow for me.

Like, portability is great, but not £50 great (that's like $80 at least)

I don't know, man. I played quite a bit in portable mode and it wasn't bad at all.

That's good to hear.
 

LordKano

Member
I don't doubt that, but four times the price of the perfectly-running PC version is a bitter pill to swallow for me.

Like, portability is great, but not £50 great (that's like $80 at least)

I perfectly agree and while I think the game looks great I didn't buy it for this exact reason. It costs way too much for what I'd pay for. Fortunately, all LEGO games tend to drop in price pretty quickly.
 

Pif

Banned
They will still make some money off the shoddy XB1 port with apparently less effort too.

Thing is, the XB1 port still goes up to 60fps, Switch doesn't.

But it is strange to see Switch having a full 1080p and xb1 doesn't.
 

Lexxism

Member
Thing is, the XB1 port still goes up to 60fps, Switch doesn't.

But it is strange to see Switch having a full 1080p and xb1 doesn't.
Xbox One and PS4 use better quality DOF and reflections, they also have HBAO and the Switch don't.

Thus the Switch can handle 1080p with lower settings, where the Xbox One has to drop the resolution a bit to keep the almost same quality settings as the PS4.
.
 

jroc74

Phone reception is more important to me than human rights
Xbox One and PS4 use better quality DOF and reflections, they also have HBAO and the Switch don't.

Thus the Switch can handle 1080p with lower settings, where the Xbox One has to drop the resolution a bit to keep the almost same quality settings as the PS4.

I'm not too knowledgeable in spec details like some on the forum, but this is what I was thinking as well.

If the XBO was dialed back some too it probably could hit 1080p. I think this is what some were saying near the XBO launch and months after.
 

Xcell Miguel

Gold Member
How did you move the game from SD card to the internal storage? I can't for the life of me find that option =/

You can't "move" it yet but there's a trick (involving redownloading the whole game) :
- archive the game in the Switch Storage settings (it will delete the game files from the SD but keep the save on the console)
- turn OFF the Switch (press power for 3 sec then Power Settings, turn off)
- remove the SD card
- turn ON the Switch
- download LEGO
- once downloaded, turn the Switch OFF
- put the SD card back
- turn ON the Switch
- LEGO is still on the Internal Storage and will be played from there.


Note : don"t try to keep LEGO on the SD card before removing the SD, once you put back the SD card it will delete LEGO from internal if already on the SD, it can't be on both storages.
 
It's most definitely not perfect. Visit the OT for one minute. You'll see loads of people complaining heavily about the frame rate. Several people have called it unplayable.

The fact that it's a full £50 on Switch is a bit of a joke imo. Think imma get it on PC where is 1/4 the price.

A full 50 quid??? The only place its that much is the eshop, you could get it last week from smyths for 35 quid with a free mini lego plane
 

jroc74

Phone reception is more important to me than human rights
Thing is, the XB1 port still goes up to 60fps, Switch doesn't.

But it is strange to see Switch having a full 1080p and xb1 doesn't.

So, if it was dialed back some it could be up to 60fps and be 1080p, but sacrificing some things vs PS4.

Some more ppl better versed in this area will hopefully chime in. This is the time I do more reading than posting, lol.
 

gamz

Member
There's footage out there that shows that the framerate is absolute trash while undocked on Switch. Shame DF wasn't able to analyze that, because it looked rough.

Good to hear that these problems are mostly solved while docked though.

Which is odd? Don't games run better on Switch when it's undocked?
 

Ridley327

Member
Which is odd? Don't games run better on Switch when it's undocked?

Not necessarily. We already have one really prominent example of a game that runs better docked than undocked in DQH1+2. Even in undocked boost mode, isn't the power still roughly half of what docked can put out?
 
Higher resolution on Switch than Xbox One?

What a joke. I hope no Xbox One owners buy this crap.

Is that really a reason to completely ignore the game? Digitial Foundry even said "It's not massively noticable during gameplay but both PS4 and Switch offer up a slightly more refined image here". We're way too sensative to numbers, every version seems great.
 

M3d10n

Member
Isn't Xb1 quite a bit more powerful than Switch? How can this happen?
The Xbox One ESRAM is probably to blame, they might have reduced the resolution to get the framebuffer to fit on it, while the Switch has no such restriction even if it isn't as powerful. The Switch's tile based rendering also alleviates the lower memory bandwidth.
 

@MUWANdo

Banned
I moved my digital game from my microSD to internal storage because it's way faster.

Initial load time (when you load your save to get in the city in front of the Police Station) :
- microSD (Samsung 128 GB EVO) : 56 sec
- Switch internal storage : 35 sec

Wii U was about 70 sec ?

Load Times Comparison Video From NWR

On Switch, the load times are greatly improved if you have the digital version and it's installed to the internal NAND.

They're definitely considerably better, especially after the patch they did, but they cut in half load times that could bump over a minute in length on Wii U, so it's a matter of perspective.

Alright, thanks all! I was expecting bigger improvements, honestly, but better is better.

Card and microSD load times are more or less the same, yeah?
 
So we have two multiplats with which to compare Switch against its older brothers now, Snake Pass and Lego City, and in both cases it seems to hold up remarkably well. There are some obvious downgrades, but it's not at all a Wii/HD Twins situation.

Was a Wii U game originally so not to best thing to compare.
 

EDarkness

Member
To be fair I don't think you've found fault with anything associated with the Switch that I've ever noticed. People will vary on how much frame rate bothers them, but it seems like lots of folks are finding the portable mode performance to be not great.

There are problems, but this idea that it's "garbage" is crazy. Not to say that some folks aren't more sensitive to these things, but even Digital Foundry is saying that's it's not that bad. Who are you ultimately going to believe? Anyway, yes, there are frame drops and sometimes that does last a bit of time, but it's not down into the teens where you're getting screenshots. If you find any frame issues to be a fault of the game, then you might want to avoid.
 
So we have two multiplats with which to compare Switch against its older brothers now, Snake Pass and Lego City, and in both cases it seems to hold up remarkably well. There are some obvious downgrades, but it's not at all a Wii/HD Twins situation.
The Switch seems to be doing better so far with PS4/XB1 multiplats than the Wii U performed with PS360 ports which is absolutely hilarious.

Unity games seem to be struggling but if there's still room to optimize these 3rd party engines then things may not be as disastrous for 3rd party games on Switch as most guessed once the hardware was revealed. We should get a much better idea of how consistent these results are by E3.
 

Rodin

Member
Was a Wii U game originally so not to best thing to compare.
Lighting and materials are completely different and there are huge improvements in resolution, texture quality and draw distance as well. Sure it was originally a Wii U game, but the enhanced port certainly isn't.
 

Xcell Miguel

Gold Member
Alright, thanks all! I was expecting bigger improvements, honestly, but better is better.

Card and microSD load times are more or less the same, yeah?

From DF's Zelda load times I'd say :

Internal >>> microSD > Card

But depending on the model, microSD can be worst than game cards.
 
The Switch seems to be doing better so far with PS4/XB1 multiplats than the Wii U performed with PS360 ports which is absolutely hilarious.

Unity games seem to be struggling but if there's still room to optimize these 3rd party engines then things may not be as disastrous for 3rd party games on Switch as most guessed once the hardware was revealed. We should get a much better idea of how consistent these results are by E3.

I think it's a consequence of Nvidia's involvement in the dev tools, APIs and documentation. That's likely going to have a much, much bigger effect on port quality than hardware by itself would.

On the other side the Wii U's dev tools were constantly described as being terrible. And their dev support/documentation as well.
 

MisterR

Member
There are problems, but this idea that it's "garbage" is crazy. Not to say that some folks aren't more sensitive to these things, but even Digital Foundry is saying that's it's not that bad. Who are you ultimately going to believe? Anyway, yes, there are frame drops and sometimes that does last a bit of time, but it's not down into the teens where you're getting screenshots. If you find any frame issues to be a fault of the game, then you might want to avoid.

That's fair enough. Everybody has their own threshold as to how bad these things affect them. For some people it's probably fine while for others it's probably unplayable to them.
 
Yeah no, this is actually unplayable. They need to fix this.

I'm not sure it can be fixed, players are free to explore the world without being tethered to each others, rendering that in two screens is pretty demanding. I'm curious how this mode runs on PS4 but I don't expect the Switch version get any better, if anything it's just a throw away mode at this speed.

Edit: I'm a fool who didn't think of scaling the game down
 
I'm not sure it can be fixed, players are free to explore the world without being tethered to each others, rendering that in two screens is pretty demanding. I'm curious how this mode runs on PS4 but I don't expect the Switch version get any better, if anything it's just a throw away mode at this speed.

They could offer resolution scaling or drop the resolution to 720 when playing coop. Or they could make it exclusive to local play saying you need 2 switches to play coop?
 
They could offer resolution scaling or drop the resolution to 720 when playing coop. Or they could make it exclusive to local play saying you need 2 switches to play coop?

Actually yeah I'm not sure why I didn't think of that. They could just drop the visual quality for co-op.
 
Honestly I am not sure why they didnt offer an exclusive feature like 2 to 4 player coop when using local play with multiple switches. That would have more than made up for a lack of coop on 1 switch IMO.
 
Top Bottom