• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
  • We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.

Nostremitus

Member
Nov 15, 2017
7,777
Alabama
I'm not sure why so many get so defensive when it comes to the Switch's capabilities. It's a great handheld, but let's not pretend that a downclocked mobile SoC from 2015 is somehow super powerful. Like I said, it is as powerful as it can be considering the battery and cooling. When in handheld mode, it is slightly more powerful than last gen consoles. It has a further edge due to newer tech and much more RAM, but it is still not that big of a difference.

Maybe "slightly" sounds much worse to you than me. I really don't get why anyone would be worked up about it otherwise.
People correcting you for saying something that isn't true is not them being defensive, it's just them pointing out that what you said wasn't true.

Being defensive about being corrected on something you were wrong about and then doubling down? Now, that is being defensive.
 

Bjones

Member
Oct 30, 2017
5,622
It's kind of funny when ever a new game or port of a big AAA game gets announced for the switch we always get people telling us why we will never get big AAA games on the switch. :/
 

OmegaDL50

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,690
Philadelphia, PA
I assume quite a lot of that was down to the small amount of RAM to work with on last gen consoles so the Switch version hopefully should be improved on that at least, but I guess we'll see.

Yeah the 360 and PS3 only had like 512MB of ram to work with and generally the more stuff you try to shove on screen (texture data) it will undoubtedly bog things down. The Switch has eight times the memory at 4GB while some of it is reserved to the OS it still is substantially more than what the 360 and PS3 had to work with which means it shouldn't have as nearly as much issue when things get intense regards to enemies on screen and light particles exploding everywhere on screen.

The thing is it's understandable people question the performance of port of a PS4 and XB1 game to the Switch because those console are more powerful, so when games like DOOM or Wolfenstein II are ported over there a level of scrutiny involved.

However in regards to games that targeted 60 FPS on the PS3 and 360 or hell most 360 or PS3 ports in general it comes across as rather foolish to make the claim that the Switch would have the same issues and struggle considering newer architecture it has to work with and of course more power under the hood.
 

Skittzo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
41,037
It's alright man, no worries. But you're far from the only person reacting this way to the news, to the point where it's becoming suspicious. Some people (not you) seem to genuinely think that the Switch is a rotten potato and/or have no clue about Diablo 3's port history. If they did, there wouldn't be so many reactions of surprise at the fact that the game is targeting 60fps. Anyone who's been following the game was expecting it. If they'd said "30 fps", I would have dismissed it as a typo or false reporting. That's how obvious it was. It's essentially non-news. 720p/960p, while not extremely surprising, is news however, given the game's original resolution on Xbox One (900p) and PS360 (584p).

I don't know if it's suspicious. People have just been used to hearing "half the framerate" for current gen ports (DOOM and Wolfenstein 2 namely) so they're now expecting it for all ports. I'm guessing most people don't know/remember that it was 60fps on last gen consoles.
 

Wander_

Banned
Feb 26, 2018
5,552
I'm not sure why so many get so defensive when it comes to the Switch's capabilities. It's a great handheld, but let's not pretend that a downclocked mobile SoC from 2015 is somehow super powerful. Like I said, it is as powerful as it can be considering the battery and cooling. When in handheld mode, it is slightly more powerful than last gen consoles. It has a further edge due to newer tech and much more RAM, but it is still not that big of a difference.

Maybe "slightly" sounds much worse to you than me. I really don't get why anyone would be worked up about it otherwise.

it's not "slighlty" better, it's at least 2x in handheld mode. next Zelda will destroy all these assumptions. maybe you don't remember how ps3 games look
 

Nostremitus

Member
Nov 15, 2017
7,777
Alabama
Rise of the Necromancer was PS4/XBO/PC/Mac, right?

(I don't think it was available on Ps360, could be wrong though. A cursory search didn't show anything.)

I'd guess that this would be the factor that cost the most dev time, since it would have been created with the current Gen consoles in mind.
 
Dec 23, 2017
8,802
So how hard to optimize for and weak is the switch if a ps360 game took nine months to port? Not really my question but it seems this is a thought of many here on era.
 

Lyrick

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,818
So how hard to optimize for and weak is the switch if a ps360 game took nine months to port? Not really my question but it seems this is a thought of many here on era.

We'll have to wait for the actual game to release, but the PS3/360 game and the original PC release are now trashed (COMPLETELY OBSOLETED). Every [current] version of Diablo 3 has used a new renderer (DX11/OpenGL Equivalent) for quite a while.
 

OmegaDL50

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,690
Philadelphia, PA
Rise of the Necromancer was PS4/XBO/PC/Mac, right?

(I don't think it was available on Ps360, could be wrong though. A cursory search didn't show anything.)

I'd guess that this would be the factor that cost the most dev time, since it would have been created with the current Gen consoles in mind.

Yeah the Necromantic Pack wasn't available on the RoS versions of PS3 and 360. As far as I'm aware they recieved one final content update in a Blizzard press release and they basically said future content updates would only impact the PS4 / XB1 and PC versions only.

Although this isn't the first time of a case of content only available for the PS4 and XB1 versions of a game that was not part of a PS3 and 360 release, case in point Skyrim.

The Switch version of Skyrim contains some of the improved textures and shader work of the Remastered version, another case that proves the Switch is more powerful than the 360 and PS3, especially considering the horrid performance of the PS3 version.
 

Deleted member 18161

user requested account closure
Banned
Oct 27, 2017
4,805
It's alright man, no worries. But you're far from the only person reacting this way to the news, to the point where it's becoming suspicious. Some people (not you) seem to genuinely think that the Switch is a rotten potato and/or have no clue about Diablo 3's port history. If they did, there wouldn't be so many reactions of surprise at the fact that the game is targeting 60fps. Anyone who's been following the game was expecting it. If they'd said "30 fps", I would have dismissed it as a typo or false reporting. That's how obvious it was. It's essentially non-news. 720p/960p, while not extremely surprising, is news however, given the game's original resolution on Xbox One (900p) and PS360 (584p).

I've been very up on the Switch since it was revealed in terms of its technical chops but we've seen time and time again that it struggles with 720p mobile / 1080p docked in terms of rendering resolution. It's not that the GPU isn't powerful enough it's that it struggles with alpha transparencies at those resolutions (spell effects in this case) because the system is bottlenecked by it's paltry memory bandwidth.

If all Nintendo does with a potential Switch 2.0 is double the memory bandwidth then it would enable most currently released exclusive Switch games to hit 720p mobile / 1080p docked resolutions.

If Diablo 3 manages to keep those EG quoted resolutions 100% of the time without a dynamic resolution system in place (even if they target 30fps) then it will be a fantastic achievement.
 

joylevel11

Banned
May 19, 2018
840
i'm all in. i've bought it on PS3/PS4/PC. Definitely getting it on Switch.

Can't get enough Diablo 3 :)
 

Deleted member 82

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
2,626
Rion : right, but pretty much every single time, we're talking about ports of games that come directly from the PS4 or the Xbox One era, not from the PS360 era, let alone games that ran at (an unstable) 60 fps on those older machines. The only example I can think of of a truly botched Switch port that had no business looking and running that poorly was Dragon Quest Heroes 1 and 2. The game looked like the PS3 version and ran like complete crap.

Nobody is going to argue that the game on Switch will never drop frames and/or resolution at any point. Diablo 3's very nature means that its demands on hardware resources will vary greatly throughout a session, and as we've seen, even the PS4 and XBO ports drop frames at some point. But it'd be insane to assume that it'll have mediocre performance compared with other console ports, short of a botched port.

I'd still like someone with more tech knowledge to answer my question: when it comes to mob density, what's the one component that'll help maintain good performance more than any other? The CPU? The RAM? The GPU? My guess would be CPU because strategy games typically require a fast CPU to handle the AI from all the on-screen units, but I have no clue.
 

Bjoern

Member
Oct 26, 2017
626
Germany
I won't hold my breath for a 1080p60 experience with variable resolutions, but I think it should generally work at 900p60 with variable resolutions.
I mean, the PS360 versions were slightly sub-HD from what I remember but also sported a pretty solid 60fps.

I'm looking forward to this port and definitely will play through it some more times.
 

ILikeFeet

DF Deet Master
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
61,987
I won't hold my breath for a 1080p60 experience with variable resolutions, but I think it should generally work at 900p60 with variable resolutions.
I mean, the PS360 versions were slightly sub-HD from what I remember but also sported a pretty solid 60fps.

I'm looking forward to this port and definitely will play through it some more times.
well, no one should be expecting 1080p since Blizzard already stated the cap was 960p. and the PS360 version weren't stable at all and it shit ton of screen tearing
 

JJH

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
2,881
Not to derail but would this have any affect on a possible PoE port coming to Switch?
 

Dekuman

Member
Oct 27, 2017
19,026
Iron Galaxy did the pretty solid port work for Skyrim SE. I have confidence. Also Nintendo is involved in the marketing as well. It will be a competent port.

Not a huge fan of the 'lazy port' narrative that keeps cropping up when Switch gets something like this. We had the same 'concerns' with Skyrim, DooM, Paladins, Fortnite and a whole host of indies
 
Dec 23, 2017
8,802
Iron Galaxy did the pretty solid port work for Skyrim SE. I have confidence. Also Nintendo is involved in the marketing as well. It will be a competent port.

Not a huge fan of the 'lazy port' narrative that keeps cropping up when Switch gets something like this. We had the same 'concerns' with Skyrim, DooM, Paladins, Fortnite and a whole host of indies
I think the same should go for the opposite the switch is weak hard to optimize for narrative. The truth is somewhere in the middle. I mean the switchbin it's first iteration we know what it is. But I couldn't be more happier than what has been achieved so far with it. Future is bright.
 

Bernd Lauert

Banned
May 27, 2018
1,812
Reminder that even on the PS4 Pro, D3 runs at 1080p when there's a lot of stuff going on on the screen. I can even get it to stutter on my pretty beefy PC (GTX 1070). I hope they optimized it further for the Switch.
 

JJConrad

Member
Nov 3, 2017
671
The phrasing about "9 months" implies the game is done. If so... Why the vagueness on its release date?
 

Rodney McKay

Member
Oct 26, 2017
12,205
If Amazon ever puts the 20% Prime discount on the game, I'll pre-order it there.

Otherwise I'll just get use my eshop credit (would be nice to have it digitally too)
 

fiendcode

Member
Oct 26, 2017
24,926
RionThe only example I can think of of a truly botched Switch port that had no business looking and running that poorly was Dragon Quest Heroes 1 and 2. The game looked like the PS3 version and ran like complete crap.
Even that port still ran higher res (1080p Switch docked vs 720p PS4) and oddly the framerate held up better than PS3 outside battle. It was a botched/rushed port though and Omega Force improved and optimized their Musou engine quite a bit on Switch since.
 

zenspider

Banned
Nov 7, 2017
1,583
I predict that it will reach its target frame rates just fine but like so many other games, will have this unexplainable input lag.

Huh?

I've never heard of this outside the Hollow Knight thread, and the dev explained it as intentional for gamefeel.

Unreal Engine 4 had an input buffer issue (across all platforms) that was fixed in an update some time ago... is that what your talking about?