calc84maniac
Member
At the same time, removing them might have made 8-Player Smash on Wii U possible. I'm not sure if it could have handled 16 Climbers at once.
-
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.
Nintendo Switch Dev Kit Stats Leaked? Cortex A57, 4GB RAM, 32GB Storage, Multi-Touch.
- Thread starter Robert at Zeboyd Games
- Start date
- Status
Oh ok, good to know!
True, but that's possibly just a rough guide. We don't know how much of that is necessary and how much of that is just the default to help ensure the smooth transition for most games. Devs can and will tweak that to best suit their game.
And that's just one engine as well.
In any event the overall design of the system and power states appears to be that way so the greatest difference between Docked and Undocked modes is that output resolution.
ShadowFox08
Member
More like 3x the ram. 16 player ice climbers with all items turned on high frequency on great escape leggooo!
Maybe that was it. And why I love it so much.
Didn't Uncharted 4 use TAA and a mix of MSAA?
Skittzo0413
Member
I'm quoting this from that Unreal Tournament thread:
So seeing as we now know the default settings for UE4 Switch development, and we assume that Epic has used UT to determine those settings, would it be possible for someone to run UT with those settings for docked and undocked mode (listed here) and compare those to the game with max settings?
Also, do we know anywhere if there are corresponding settings for XB1/PS4 on UE4? And would any of the above at all be a valuable comparison, or is it likely not all that indicative of performance?
So seeing as we now know the default settings for UE4 Switch development, and we assume that Epic has used UT to determine those settings, would it be possible for someone to run UT with those settings for docked and undocked mode (listed here) and compare those to the game with max settings?
Also, do we know anywhere if there are corresponding settings for XB1/PS4 on UE4? And would any of the above at all be a valuable comparison, or is it likely not all that indicative of performance?
Smurfman256
Member
PdotMichael
Banned
That are just the settings for the renderer. We don't know anything about polygoncount, texture quality or stuff like physics.
Skittzo0413
Member
You're right about polygon count and physics/CPU functions but texture quality is one of the settings listed there. Doesn't the fact that Epic (apparently) used UT to create these defaults mean that setting +CVars=sg.TextureQuality to 2 (and 1 for undocked) and doing the same for all of those other settings would give us a good idea of how UT would look on the Switch?
Obviously it wouldn't be a 1:1 comparison with the final hardware but it would give us an idea of how much it would be scaled/downgraded from the higher settings right?
lwilliams3
Member
Well, it's a Hybird at least in terms of Nintendo consolidating both their HH and console efforts to one machine.
blu
Wants the largest console games publisher to avoid Nintendo's platforms.
I can't find a source for nintendo's own, but here's Shin'en:
https://twitter.com/ShinenGames/status/483639073798500353
Shogmaster
Member
I'm fine with that. But don't make it compete with 75+W set top boxes for one of the conditions of successful design for fuck's sake.
Of course, but with Nintendo calling the system a home "first and foremost", i don't think it was a huge priority. I'd be happy to be proved wrong by 5-6 hours battery life.
I searched a bit but the first result on google is an old gaf thread and its content was... yikes.
Anyway looking at Nintendo's first party output, we consistently see games with no AA/post AA but many light sources and advanced lighting in general at high frame rates, so i'd assume that must mean they used deferred rendering for their first party output (Nintendo Land, Mario Kart 8, 3D World, Zelda, etc... maybe Xenoblade is forward?), especially considering that on Wii U's limited hardware they had to make some compromises compared to games we see on more powerful consoles today. There's also an interesting Shin'en quote that points to this, they went with forward rendering for Nano Assault and then switched to deferred with the second iteration of their engine used for FNR. Here it is:
Shin'en said:
Games like Trine 2 also ran better on Wii U compared to similar hardware, the game was sub HD on PS360 and struggled to maintain 30fps, while on Wii U it was 720p locked 30fps.
Here's a Nvidia article about it.
Hybrid though is an accurate description of the device. Games will perform differently to best suit the state of the system. The difference may only really be in resolution but that's all that really is necessary. Nintendo is not likely going to position this at all in a way to try and equate it to the other systems.
All they're going to do is show that the system will give you the same overall experience regardless of mode. It plays on the go or it plays on your TV and alters the game in order to provide the best experience for both. Lower resolution, but still HD, undocked to provide a longer lasting battering and a higher resolution to meet the standards of HD TVs today.
Trying to market it as just a handheld that you can play on your tv is a whole lot more problematic than saying it's a Hybrid.
Shogmaster
Member
By that thin definition, every modern handheld are already hybrids. But I guess for Nintendo, it's a brave new world lol. Honestly, I think Hybrid talk is a marketing mistake. Just say ultimate pocket portable and it's already a fucking winner. Nintendo should just embrace the handheld dominance and come clean with the intention of the device.
What other major gaming handheld device even has TV Out let alone alters the resolution of games on the fly when hooked up to a TV?
In any event, try and sell a handheld at the rather likely $250 price tag this thing will have. Ultimate or not, that image of handhelds past, especially Nintendo's, is going to stop a lot of people in their tracks.
Shogmaster
Member
Those are all fair points. But then you have to tell some of these crazies in this thread to ignore the hybrid moniker and check their ridiculous expectations.
calc84maniac
Member
Handhelds have the stigma that major third parties will not support it with modern games, and that's not what Nintendo is going for. Whether it will actually get that support remains to be seen, but you can't fault Nintendo for trying harder than ever.
A number of developers do seem to be stoked that there's a portable device that can actually handle current-gen ports. While obviously not quite at current console level graphics, that's more than can be said of any handheld that came before (though Vita could sort of handle ports of a few less demanding games).
Adding to that, I also think the kinds of games this thing plays has some input on it being a "portable home console" rather than an alternative. If it consistently gets full featured ps4/xbone ports then it is really set apart from the mobile space we are all used to at this point(I know ps4 vita did it but they were VERY scaled down and way more rare).
That and the ability to connect a controller to it(different controllers, actually) and play multiplayer games on the same console is a big differentiating factor. I think Nintendo is marketing the right way here, especially if they can deliver on the kinds of experiences we can expect on the console.
wonderful103
Member
Thanks fam.
Yeah the combination of single screen multiplayer and ad hoc multiplayer is what really defines it as a hybrid to me. It was no surprise that the different multiplayer setups took up a good chunk of the reveal trailer.
You mean first party. Most big 3rd party games on the system had some form of AA.
Mariokart 8 uses deferred rendering according to digital foundry.
"This is all enhanced by a convincing combination of real-time and pre-baked shadows that even take occluded edges into account. Complimenting this is a vast array of dynamic light sources, such as headlights, item boxes, and special effects, made possible by what we suspect is a shift to a deferred rendering solution. "
After witnessing re2 being ported to the n64 (with all the fmv) I always take issue when someone tries to tell me such and such game is "impossible" on said system.
lwilliams3
Member
Eh, specs wise, it is much more competitive than the Wii was compared to its competition, and it was still considered to be a "console."
calc84maniac
Member
Exactly, I just don't understand the specs elitism in gaming these days.
Isn't Wii U to Switch power increase a good bit greater than GameCube to Wii increase by our current estimates?
Smurfman256
Member
GCN>Wii is the currently proposed path for Switch's portable mode (in reality, it's probably closer to GCN>Wiix2 due to newer hardware being used). Docked mode is 60% more powerful than that.
Nah, that was to do with their insistence that the media is lying and that Nintendo will come out with something greater than what is reported from AMD and DMP while making up shit to prove it.
If you want to talk about a console more powerful than the competition or a 4 TFLOPS peripheral attachment, go ahead.
However, if you're making the claim that you expect Nintendo to actually make a powerful console when Yamauchi is no longer around and the GameCube proved that the audience isn't there for those that want a system more powerful than the competition. Then it gives Nintendo less reason to go with a Scorpio killer unless they need power for a particular reason like VR, we've already seen proof now with the Switch.
Switch is currently estimated to not even be half as powerful as an Xbox One, that shows Nintendo are fine at the level that they want to handle games at, they don't care about brute forcing everything with raw power to be on the same level as their competitors.
lensoftruth
Member
Still mind blows me that people have seen the size of it and expect it to be massively xb1 levels of power, like they've not seen the size of an xb1 
I won't disagree with your point, but you're saying that we won't have powerful consoles anymore partly because Yamauchi is no longer there. Should I remind you that Nintendo has a new CEO since one year ? The Switch is not a Kimishima project, he's only finishing the job that Iwata started. He probably didn't change anything, as the concept was likely already locked.
The next console following the Switch will be very interesting, because it will be the first one completely thought by the new Nintendo's CEO. It could be anything, we don't have precedents for this.
calc84maniac
Member
Actually, docked mode is 150℅ more powerful (2.5x scale). But I was talking about docked mode only anyway, since we're talking about its merits as a console.
Yamauchi is definitely one reason. The other reason I was pointing out is that Nintendo don't brute force everything with raw power compared to the competition.
They like to have a reason that their system is designed in a particular way, that's why I said there may be an exception to having a powerful console and that would be going for VR.
However, even I think Nintendo might not go for the same setup, they'll probably find wires hanging off of you annoying so they'll either go for VR display that is portable like Gear VR or spend money on wireless tech to have a powerful home console that streams to VR goggles which I don't even know if it's feasible.
Smurfman256
Member
So I just had a thought. Since, if a game publisher decides that "the PC port of Game X is going to have Nvidia specific features", then Nvidia themselves will send an engineer on-site to make sure that the developers can squeeze every last drop of performance from Nvidia GPUs, do you think that Nvidia would do the same thing if publishers announced that "game Y is going to have a Switch port"? Please note that the whole "Nvidia sending engineers out to assist in porting for Nvidia specific features" thing is a recent development.
Tacklemacain
Member
Who would actually like to play a multiplatform game on the switch, when it looks and runs way better on the other consoles.
TheGreatMightyPoo
Banned
Obviously someone who wants to use the portability of the system.
People who want to play them on the go or in bed or in portable mode. Personally, I'd be willing to accept some compromises to a game like Dark Souls to be able to play it on a portable. I'd also kill or at least mame someone for a portable wrestling game.
Guys who just want the switch but want games from other platforms.
Which achieves nothing for Nintendo.
Herb Alpert
Banned
because I could play it when commuting?
Gamer @ Heart
Member
Who would actually like to play a multiplatform game on consoles, when it could look and run way better on PC.
Answer: because they own one
Look at all of the Call of Duty games on the Wii as another example. Even in the face of IW saying it wasn't possible but Treyarch did it numerous times. Power (strong or weak) is never the final deciding factor.
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
Don't know about UT, but this is my guess as to what DOOM would look like on the Switch in docked mode(running 30fps):
and in handheld mode(again, 30fps):
Smurfman256
Member
Don't know about UT, but this is my guess as to what DOOM would look like on the Switch in docked mode(running 30fps):
and in handheld mode(again, 30fps):
DOOM running at 30FPS is out of the question. Period. The devs themselves have even said that everything they did was done while maintaining a 60Hz refresh. UT might be more doable (Epic is always willing to go down to 30Hz just to get it to run on a console), but I'm still waiting for my laptop to do it's updates to see if 1) I can get it to downclock far enough to get it to run at the proposed docked performance and 2) if UT is even playable at the proposed docked settings.
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
Agreed, but this is how it would run on Switch hardware.
Thinking DOOM BFG might happen, but DOOM(2016) could be out of the question.
So what's the internal resolution of that portable picture :\ ?
Skittzo0413
Member
Me. I typically buy all my multiplats on PC but if I can get them on a portable console like the Switch I would absolutely do that for every single one.
If graphics is all anyone cared about why would you own a PS4 or XB1? PC is always better.
I wouldn't be so sure. I think Nintendo will have done their best to acquire a game that takes advantage of Vulkan if they have any interest in showing why Vulkan compliance is a good thing. DOOM is really the only game that makes sense there. Also Bethesda is already on board and seems positive on the Switch.
I'm completely speculating this but I'd give it about a 65% chance of being announced before launch.
CrustyBritches
Gold Member
Not sure. Pulled it from an article on how to get DOOM to run on a i7+Nvidia GPU Surface Book.
I'm assuming that's the 940M version, not the i7 Surface sporting the 965M.
Getting to a playable 60fps at 720p/Low Settings required a 950m which has 640 shader cores, 914MHz(1124MHz boost) core, and 4GB 128-bit memory @ 1800MHz.
DOOM on a handheld @ 60fps would be godly even at low settings. I'd love if you're right and I'm just being pessimistic.
- Status