DOOM lands on Nintendo Switch on November 10

Yil · Oct 18, 2017

the_randomizer said:
To each their own. 4K is overrated. I personally couldn't care less.

Considering some games, especially RTS, could go with a bigger map, 4k is vastly superior. They also tend to hurt the eye less.

Kioku · Oct 18, 2017

Yil said:
They say some humans can take advantage of FPS and better detail to gain advantage in multiplayer.

Sarcasm or not, I can attest to this. Got a 144hz monitor and there's a huge difference.

DrkBeam · Oct 18, 2017

the_randomizer said:
Point still stands that 100 fps is unnecessary and looks weird as hell. 30 and 60 fps look more natural, 100 fps looks like those weird Spanish soap operas. Why the hell would people want 100 fps?

Life doesn't have framerate, our brains sees motion blur, there is nothing wrong about a game running at more than 60fps, it will be even better when it wouldn't be distinguished from real life motion, anyway motion can be detected at 6fps

Yil · Oct 18, 2017

DrkBeam said:
Life doesn't have framerate, our brains sees motion blur, there is nothing wrong about a game running at more than 60fps, it will be even better when it wouldn't be distinguished from real life motion, anyway motion can be detected at 6fps

Actually if plank time exist we just have over 10^40 frames per second. Not even one googol. And some can perceive more than 60 frames per second, especially with martial training, or superior neurology.

the_randomizer · Oct 18, 2017

DrkBeam said:
Life doesn't have framerate, our brains sees motion blur, there is nothing wrong about a game running at more than 60fps, it will be even better when it wouldn't be distinguished from real life motion, anyway motion can be detected at 6fps

It looks too weird for my eyes *shrug*.

Yil said:
Considering some games, especially RTS, could go with a bigger map, 4k is vastly superior. They also tend to hurt the eye less.

That's good for those who enjoy RTS, which I don't.

Xzi · Oct 18, 2017

I didn't originally buy my 4K display for my PC, but it's being used for that and Switch now. I'll play devil's advocate a bit here and say that when games are well-optimized and do run at a steady 60 FPS in 4K, it's every bit worth it, especially if you can get a good 4K display with sale pricing. Many games have to be dialed back to 1440p, and IMO that's the perfect middle ground for gaming clarity/sharpness. 4K is not a necessity, it's just nice to have on occasion.

nero99 · Oct 18, 2017

Foxi4 said:
Not a recommended version judging by the Digital Foundry analysis (lower-than-low detail setting, 30FPS frame cap with dips, jagged polys and grainy textures) but then again, the selling point is portability - the same could've been said about Borderlands on the PSVita, so I guess the cons balance out with the pros. The lack of SnapMap is a big deal though as the game is short and the multiplayer isn't something to write home about - SnapMap kept the title worth keeping thanks to user-generated content.

Why do pepole expect ports to the switch to have high setting graphics, 60fps and no fps dips?

Foxi4 · Oct 18, 2017

nero99 said:
Why do pepole expect ports to the switch to have high setting graphics, 60fps and no fps dips?

I didn't expect the port to be in any way comparable to the home console or PC version, I'm quite familiar with the Switch's specs. I was merely saying that it's not a recommended version and it has a number of shortcomings.

sarkwalvein · Oct 18, 2017

Memoir said:
Sarcasm or not, I can attest to this. Got a 144hz monitor and there's a huge difference.

This.
I don't know why people argue so much against this, it is a fact.
Perhaps it is the lack of contact with high fps hardware.
Actually, almost everybody can see and take advantage of 144Hz, it is not only some people.
Trained people can identify objects correctly that appeared in only one frame at >200FPS, and even the most common person can notice a lone flash frame (from whole black to white then back to black) at 500FPS.
Normal people do this, because they require it for all kind of skills, like driving a car fast, batting a ball that comes at near 100mph, etc. It is something all people do, doing common tasks in everyday life. It is not special people that notice things that occur very fast (that is near to 200FPS).

PS: And of course for games that require fast reflexes like first person shooters it makes a difference. Not saying that it is a must, but I find people trying to perpetuate this myth that "people don't see more than 60 or 100FPS" something very damaging. They are perpetuating a fake concept, not so much different than what flat-earthers do.

ShadowOne333 · Oct 18, 2017

Most of us do not care about top-notch specs nor 100+ fps.
We want a fun game, and that's it.
I'm not saying there is no difference between 30-60/100+ FPS nor that most people cannot see beyond those FPS (because a lot of people can), but who would want to play competitively in the Switch version? Those people are already playing it on PC since its release.

How could people expect 60+fps and 1080p consistently out of the Switch with this game goes beyond me.
The port is a somewhat technical feat on its own, and as long as there is no cut content from it, I'm fine with it.
That still doesn't mean it's overpriced, because if it ends up selling at 60 bucks, it is.

However, you have to take into consideration that a console gamer is not willing to spend 800+ bucks just to get a somewhat decent PC to get the games running at 100+FPS with 4k and up.

We get it, this port is not for your PC specs.
We don't care, that's not a reason to shit on the port.
The only thing I'm against is the full price of $60 on it, but that's about it.

Heck I even don't care about the multiplayer, so I won't be getting those extra 9GB of downloaded data.

I'm sick of PC gamers always bragging about their specs and games running on them compared to consoles.
It's obviously a stupid comparison to make, because the hardware is in no way in the same spectrum, more so when you can customize the hardware on a PC, but not on a console.

I would much rather pay for a console around 300 dlls every 5+ years than to waste those very same 300 bucks on just one card for the PC.
No thanks, console gaming and PC gaming have their differences, and the market for each one is different as well.

Simply take your PC game, play it, and thats it.
If a console gets a downgraded port, why even complain?
You can already play said game on your PC with your oh so beloved high tech specs, fine for you, just please stop shitting over console ports just because "it's not on pair with my 1k dlls machine".

sarkwalvein · Oct 18, 2017

ShadowOne333 said:
The only thing I'm against is the full price of $60 on it, but that's about it.

This. Specially when I can get the XB1 version for 5 pounds. (neither version run at 60 FPS anyway, I think the XB1 averages at 50, and it is not portable on XB1... but 5 pounds...)

Kioku · Oct 18, 2017

ShadowOne333 said:
Most of us do not care about top-notch specs nor 100+ fps.
We want a fun game, and that's it.
I'm not saying there is no difference between 30-60/100+ FPS nor that most people cannot see beyond those FPS (because a lot of people can), but who would want to play competitively in the Switch version? Those people are already playing it on PC since its release.

How could people expect 60+fps and 1080p consistently out of the Switch with this game goes beyond me.
The port is a somewhat technical feat on its own, and as long as there is no cut content from it, I'm fine with it.
That still doesn't mean it's overpriced, because if it ends up selling at 60 bucks, it is.

However, you have to take into consideration that a console gamer is not willing to spend 800+ bucks just to get a somewhat decent PC to get the games running at 100+FPS with 4k and up.

We get it, this port is not for your PC specs.
We don't care, that's not a reason to shit on the port.
The only thing I'm against is the full price of $60 on it, but that's about it.

Heck I even don't care about the multiplayer, so I won't be getting those extra 9GB of downloaded data.

I'm sick of PC gamers always bragging about their specs and games running on them compared to consoles.
It's obviously a stupid comparison to make, because the hardware is in no way in the same spectrum, more so when you can customize the hardware on a PC, but not on a console.

I would much rather pay for a console around 300 dlls every 5+ years than to waste those very same 300 bucks on just one card for the PC.
No thanks, console gaming and PC gaming have their differences, and the market for each one is different as well.

Simply take your PC game, play it, and thats it.
If a console gets a downgraded port, why even complain?
You can already play said game on your PC with your oh so beloved high tech specs, fine for you, just please stop shitting over console ports just because "it's not on pair with my 1k dlls machine".

You're almost as bad as me when it comes to taking things personally.

Yes, complaining about niche things like downgraded console ports or anything related is a massive waste of time. The fact we're getting anything at all is astounding.

ShadowOne333 · Oct 18, 2017

sarkwalvein said:
This. Specially when I can get the XB1 version for 5 pounds. (neither version run at 60 FPS anyway, I think the XB1 averages at 50, and it is not portable on XB1... but 5 pounds...)

Yeah that I can agree with

PolloDiablo · Oct 19, 2017

Nintendoomed

KongsNutz · Oct 19, 2017

In this thread, people still talking down switch when it's selling gangbusters and getting 3rd party support (some old some new), I own and play all systems but I literally don't see the point in wishing for the Switch to fail?
You would all be the first in-line to buy a new Mario if it were on PS4/XBX, you need to step back and understand you are all fucking ignorant about Switch.

NES = Success
Gameboy = Huge Success
SNES = Success
Gameboy Color = Huge Success
Virtual Boy = Failure (Hard)
N64 = Mild Success
Gameboy Advance = Huge Success
Gamecube = Failure
Wii = Great Success
DS = Huge Success
WiiU = Failure
3DS = Success (Over 60mil now)
Switch = Success (so far)
NESmini = Huge Success (can't make enough still, more coming)
SNESmini = Huge Success (same as above)

Nintendo's track record is fanFUCKINGtastic, Switch is on-track to do gangbusters and get more 3rd party support, it's already taken Sony's indie support away (no more exclusives) and continues to sellout (Japan still has to line-up for a ticket for a chance to get a console).
Let's reflect back in 2 years if the Switch has been a success or failure and stop wishing for the later. If there is no Nintendo consoles (including handhelds) the industry will die a fast death.

One more thing, Nintendo's record of games with high review scores is unprecedented go and look at the Nintendo games released on Switch in it's 6month life span so far, you will find that the average score is much higher than the competitors.

You all need to remember the size difference yet again!

VmprHntrD · Oct 19, 2017

Calling the Gamecube a failure and the N64 not one is fairly laughable. Both sold terribly, both had nice games, sold into the tens of millions, and the GC had better third party support than the N64 could hope to ever have. Mild success is really what it it was. WiiU and the VB were downright failures.

I do agree though people need to grow up and stop the switch bashing just because it's switch and/or Nintendo if that is what you're seeing. Get over it, it's not a console, it's a handheld that works as one. Yet it may not push so many polygons as the other dudes it can use the similar game development tools so things can be scaled to it within and outside of(idTech6) as well for great performance that should keep people happy. The sales of it have side by side done better than the Wii and that's without a Christmas behind it. Third party support is seemingly crushing into the GC and into the SNES level of people willing and demanding to stuff games onto it.

I'm fine burning on it too, but not yet. If it ends up having a couple bad Christmas periods and people start pulling the hey it's Nintendo let's cancel ... game with it then go for the throat as it's beyond tired.

SlCKB0Y · Oct 20, 2017

Retroboy said:
And what gain is there to mention one consoles resolution that the beloved one your trying to defend cant even run at 1080p

but erm tell me one switch title that runs above 1080p..... NONE and will it ever NOPE!

Seriously? What's wrong with this guy?

Xzi · Oct 20, 2017

TanookiSuit said:
Get over it, it's not a console, it's a handheld that works as one.

Wii U was a console, and Switch is more powerful, so I think it qualifies for that that title. It's not a big issue what you call it, though, only that it does something other gaming systems can't.

Spider_Man · Oct 20, 2017

Xzi said:
Wii U was a console, and Switch is more powerful, so I think it qualifies for that that title. It's not a big issue what you call it, though, only that it does something other gaming systems can't.

and whats that because the other systems can be played away from the home. ok it requires an internet connection.

but wow thats the only ONE thing the switch can do.

erm lets look at what the other systems do that the switch will NEVER do.

think youll find that list includes a lot more than just playing on the move.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

SlCKB0Y said:
Seriously? What's wrong with this guy?

well its a valid point, when nintendo used to be on top the fanboys be all about better graphics, now its not the case y'all soon change your tune.

but if you read a lot of nintendo fanboys sit and jump on the wagon if said XBX1/PS4 game cant run at full 60fps and 1080..... few posts above theyre commenting that the XBX1 isnt true 4k......

back to my point, y'all here defending a cheap tablet that cant even run full 60fps and 1080p, in tablet mode its resoltion and fps is 720, when nearly every tablet on the market runs at far higher resolutions.

so really, defend the product thats clearly inferior and slate the ones that actually offer better resolutions..... you know there is a name for folks like this and it begins with F.

I honestly cant see what this system has going for it, same old nintendo titles, very old ports, inferior, features removed, dumbed down graphics and COSTS MORE.

i couldnt give a crap if it sucked me off while playing, again no one EVER would pay more for a cheap brand of bread when you can buy the premium brand for less.

this is something only the Fanboys would blindly defend.

i can see this being the downfall for the switch, gamers who already own a game have no incentive to buy it again on nintendo switch when it costs more.

and take LA NIORE for example, its getting a HD remaster for the other systems, yet switch is getting the same version that the PS3/360 had..... and its costing you £10 more, erm you can buy that version on the PS3/360 for under a tenner.

i think you all like to hate the other systems because other than the same old mario crap, you know they get the better third party support, and clearly shown, when these OLD games get ported y'all get exited about it, and were like MEH CALM DOWN weve been there, done that and moved on.

ItsTheWolf · Oct 20, 2017

SlCKB0Y said:
Seriously? What's wrong with this guy?

Well, you can always put him on Ignore. Reading his posts is harmful for your brain anyway.

Well-Known Member

猫。子猫です！

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

The Temp's official fox whisperer

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Endless Trash

There's hope for a Xenosaga port.

QVID PRO QVO

There's hope for a Xenosaga port.

猫。子猫です！

QVID PRO QVO

Madre de Dios! Es El POLLO DIABLO!!!

[Team Oceanic]

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Time to fly, 621

Well-Known Member

Splatoon 2 Addict

Similar threads

Popular threads in this forum