xbox 360 had the same issues so you can spare me the "ps3 is a bad example" crap. also the fact you said Crysis 3 on switch drops to 15 FPS simply shows you have no clue what you are talking about. the fact you say most switch games look like ps3 games further proves that
Still there is a lot of crap gets released on the Switch, as I said above - for every twenty games released on the switch only about one is any good. The vast amount released have poor graphics, crap sound and poor gameplay.
i don't have crysis 3 nor do i care enough to buy it on the switch
there is shovelware on EVERY console this does not making it a defining factor and just makes people look dumb for going "oh looks this low effort game is all the switch is capable of"
again xbox 360 had the same issues with crysis 3 and the cell processor was the most overhyped thing since blast processing but like usual people buy into the hype. hell even last of us didn't look as good as people like to pretend it did. you using 2d games as an example shows how very little you know about the inner working of games by assuming "oh its 2d so it must not be demanding at all right?" common flawed logic. saying Skyrim on Switch looks and plays the same as ps3 really shows how much you are just talking out of your ass at this point and just hating for the sake of hating
you clearly know very little about anything so i'm going to refrain from responding to your broken logic, i've given you good examples and you've said i've been pulling it out of my ass saying "wow no it isnt" even though there's a lot of documentation on a lot of things, including comparison benchmarks and examples
considering I know 2D games can be just as demanding as 3D games and I know that Skyrim doesn't look or perform the same on switch as ps3 like holy shit looks at those horrible trees on ps3 for example. all the while you claim games run worse than they actually do without having any actual experience with them so who is the one here without logic. if you want to keep riding cells dick for its TIME it was impressive but by todays standards it is absolute trash but people won't let the hype die they just go ooooo look at this big arbitary number it must be good
2015 actually and are you really trying to use this argument while trying to falsely claim its as weak as a chip from 2006? meanwhile when done right it can push out ps4/xbox one graphics. if you want to really be arbitrary the cell was only about 230gflops while the Tegra X1 is a little over 1Tflop
here, since you're a fan of arbitrary information, the minimum requirements for enter the gungeon according to steam are a low end cpu from 2006 (core 2 duo e6320), and a budget gpu from 2006 (geforce 7600 gs), why does the switch, something that has "1tflop of performance" struggle to run a game that can run on nearly 20 year old hardware?
why does witcher 3 run better on switch than a stronger pc? you are right comparing to pc is beyond arbitrary. from the sounds of it you still think cell is viable today which is just not the case as i said it was the blass processing of its time and people look at the 3.0GHZ as if it matters. its not that people don't know how to develop for the switch its a combination of lazy/poor ports and needig to make compromises in order to make handheld and docked work in tandem. if it was only a docked system it wouldn't have as many issues it does at stock settings. this is why modding is an important part of showing its true potential
Actually I've not said that at all, as well you know if you read back my posts in this thread. For the third time, there's some good games on the switch but for ever good one, there's 20 crap ones.
just like every system ever made but I guess we forget trash like E.T. existed that was so bad that it had to be buried
Name a platform this doesn't apply to.
Xdqwerty
realtimesave
@
SylverReZ:
@
Xdqwerty:
@
Xdqwerty:
