It's getting Fortnite this year third person but still big AAA shooter
-
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.
Treyarch: "No plans to bring Black Ops 4 on Nintendo Switch"
- Thread starter Wander_
- Start date
We don't even know if the next Fifa comes to Switch and more importantly, in which version...
Capcom does support the Switch? You mean with ports of old Resi games, a cloud version of R7 and a late port of 3DS based game that was already available in Japan a year ago? And yes, Wii U did get a Monster Hunter game. So support was there. As for bethesda, let's see if their support goes beyond year old games.
The difference is not night and day, it's exactly the same. Except for indies. The Switch is much superior to the Wii U in many areas, but AAA third party support is not amongst them, unfortunately.
Yeah, Call Of Duty had very minimal Nintendo presence. If rumors are to believed of a messy development, now that we know a campaign isn't in there, that there'll be a giant Battle Royale mode, and knowing that the updated Call Of Duty engine is pretty heavy, really not surprising they aren't ready for the Switch. The kind of sacrifices tech wizards at id did to get Doom working were insane, in order to have a proper 60fps Call Of Duty experience on the Switch I can't imagine how much they'd need to downgrade, in fact they'd probably have to make a new engine or heavily tweak their existing one just for that one port. I just don't see it happening anytime soon.
In terms of how things are going, XB1 really isn't getting a free pass. The Switch is likely to surpass it in sales in a year or sooner, though it is holding up well in the US.
Have you seen Black Ops 3 on the PS3 and 360? The differences are incredible. Detailed textures became single-tone textures. Almost all foliage and background decoration was removed. There's a map that's covered in ice and snow on PS4 and XB1 that doesn't have a speck of the stuff on PS3 and 360. The audio quality has been compressed to such an incredibly degree that the audio is tinny and muffled. Oh, and the entire campaign had to go, because that flat-out would not run.
Simply put, I don't think a Call of Duty game on Switch would look that much better.
Here's an Imgur album of comparisons I've collected.
Last edited:
People please stop putting Black Ops 3 as a comparisonHave you seen Black Ops 3 on the PS3 and 360? The differences are incredible. Detailed textures became single-tone textures. Almost all foliage and background decoration was removed. There's a map that's covered in ice and snow on PS4 and XB1 that doesn't have a speck of the stuff on PS3 and 360. The audio quality has been compressed to such an incredibly degree that the audio is tinny and muffled. Oh, and the entire campaign had to go, because that flat-out would not run.
Simply put, I don't think a Call of Duty game on Switch would look that much better.
Here's an Imgur album of comparisons I've collected.
Outsourced - Rushed - Dev with no work on the series before.
Look at Advanced Warfare, a game made for both generations of hardware and that does more impressive graphics than Black Ops 3 does on current gen. Old gen is 1-1 asset wise.
Have you seen Black Ops 3 on the PS3 and 360? The differences are incredible. Detailed textures became single-tone textures. Almost all foliage and background decoration was removed. There's a map that's covered in ice and snow on PS4 and XB1 that doesn't have a speck of the stuff on PS3 and 360. The audio quality has been compressed to such an incredibly degree that the audio is tinny and muffled. Oh, and the entire campaign had to go, because that flat-out would not run.
Simply put, I don't think a Call of Duty game on Switch would look that much better.
Here's an Imgur album of comparisons I've collected.
Not a fair comparison probably, that port was quite notably rushed and bad. I mean, Black Ops 2 looked better than that, and it ran at 60fps unlike this version that struggled to keep 30fps. But yes, the Switch version would have not been pretty compared to the other versions of the game, seeing how Doom ran with super low quality textures well below 720p at 30fps, I don't see how Call Of Duty would have ran significantly better than that.
With kids moving on to Fortnite, isn't the Switch probably COD's best chance at success?
Oh... never mind.
Oh... never mind.
Black Ops 2 looked better because it was designed for last-gen systems, whereas the devs here had to make stuff designed for current-gen platforms work on older systems. And this version actually does run at 60FPS, despite all of its shortcomings, not the common misconception that it "struggled to keep 30FPS".
Black Ops 3 was designed from the ground-up to be on the XB1 and PS4, where Advanced Warfare was going to be a cross-gen title from day one.
My bad, I remember reading it ran at 30FPS. Obviously didn't pick it up since I owned the game on X1.
That isn't a good comparison, Advanced Warfare is, objectively pushing more fidelity than Black Ops 3, so that doesn't matter. And with that said, it was outsourced but kept in line with other versions. Even though Black Ops 3 was a crap showing doesn't mean downporting isn't feasible, particularly when Treyarch isn't doing much with their visuals.
Pushing more fidelity, how? There's a lot going on in the maps of Black Ops 3 concerning dynamic elements, alpha effects, transparencies, and so on. AW had a lot of detailed maps, but they weren't anything that stood out to me as particularly different from what had been offered on the 360 and PS3. They looked nice, but they don't look nearly as good as maps like Redwood or Hunted, which have incredibly detailed skyboxes in addition to the lush environments. Graphically, they're far and above what was in AW.
If you gave the porting team the time necessary to create new assets that the last-gen systems could've handled, sure, I bet the game could've looked a lot better. But that means simultaneously developing the ports side-by-side with the main game.
There was also a significant difference in visuals in AW, regarding current and last-gen platforms. Take a look. You said this game "does more impressive graphics than Black Ops 3 does on current gen. Old gen is 1-1 asset wise." Comparing the visuals seen in that video to Black Ops 3 on current-gen platforms, I'm unconvinced.
Missing lighting effects and particle effects, dramatically simplified background details, post-processing and shading effects dropped completely, blurrier textures and lower resolution. The list goes on. Yes, AW looks leagues better than BO3 on last-gen systems, but part of the reason for why it does is because it was being developed alongside the (then new) consoles. The install base was significant enough that they could justify that kind of expense when AW was in development, while during BO3, it was not. I doubt Activision is interested in that kind of expense for a single system that isn't particularly known for good online networking or performance.
Usually I would say yes but, Activision is there if cash is, and the Wii was in the same place where absolute technical barriers got crushed time and time again - of all the people who have downported content, the Wii build the Treyarch got for MW3 stands out as the most impressive game on the console, it's utterly ridiculous how much it pushes out of so little, but to be fair it's been four years since Ghosts on Wii U and maybe the port team moved on and a port wouldn't even be in house.
User Warned: Platform warring. Image spam. History of similar behaviour.
NSW ====4X PS3 and 360
NSW
PS3
NSW
PS3
NSW
PS3
NSW
PS3
PS4
PS3
Mod Edit: Wrapped images in quote tags.
Last edited by a moderator:
First off, there's existing precedent for ports of current-gen Call of Duty games to last gen, and the results are significantly cut down compared to what you showcased, as the CoD series traditionally targets 60FPS above all. Not to mention these games are running on different engines that have differing degrees of CPU, GPU, RAM usage, as well as taking up significantly less data than Call of Duty games typically do. Add on top of that that Switch performance in a lot of, if not most of these games tends towards "awful" (especially stuff like DQ Warriors), or wasn't really pushing the PS4/XB1 particularly hard to begin with means these aren't good comparisons.
Second, there's no way in hell the Tegra X1 is comparable in performance to a GTX 980. I don't know why you even shared that image; it was just to show the Tegra X1 can utilize a lot of the same APIs as a GTX 980, not that they're even remotely close to one another in terms of power.
Third, you should probably use spoiler tags next time you post that many images at once. Holy crap.
A, no game pushes the hardware outside of 1st party games, that is a fact,
B, engine wise, CoD runs on IW 7.0, we dont have official quote on "it runs on Switch" but IW.60 did run on WiiU and IW engine is rater flexible so its possible
C. you can still make 60 FPS just get rid of particles effects and eye candy.
whenever someone says People asking for Switch ports are playing to Armchain developers, same applies to 99% of the people claiming porting its impossible despite precendents and word on real devs commenting how easier is now to make Switch ports (counting in the necessary graphical retooling)
Switch is set to overtake the XB1 userbase end of this, beginning of next year (and already Switch games are selling better in most markets), and the power difference, while big, is not insurmountable. Neither of those are the problem. The problem, as exemplified in the ditching of the singleplayer campaign, is that Activision is focusing on GaaS bucks with CoD and Nintendo has neither the infrastructure nor historic player base to capitalize on this.
The base PS4 is dog slow for loading BO3 matches due to all the DLC, I don't see it as a workable solution for the Switch.
Oh, please do tell! I'd love to hear this kind of info because it is so useful. /s I fail to see why the bolded has to be mentioned beyond a haha response that one wants to trigger.
This is not as easy as it might seem on the outset. Whilst the OG Xbox had more common featureset support, like a proper shader model derived from the PC space, That isn't to say the Wii couldn't do the same things. It had to rely on its TEV's (Texture EnVironment Unit)'s, which were little more than texture/register combiners like ATI's Pixel Tapestry or Nvidia's Shading Rasterizer. By writing specific TEV code, which in turn blend effects layer over layer, you could achieve much of what you could see in OG Xbox games with pixel and vertex shaders. Factor 5's unreleased Wii stuff highlights this, aswell as Jett Rocket and Fast Racing League and ofcourse, Conduit 1. The thing is with TEV's, you can only do so much with them before you bog the system down. So whilst Wii could do similar looking effects with texture combiners, there was a limit to these. And it was also an older way of doing these effects. Hell, Wii could pull off X360 style effects if you carefully manage the TEV layers. But a proper shader model was the way forward back then, which is why only a select few actually wrote specific TEV shaders for their games.
From a GPU point of view, The NGC and Wii are really interesting in terms of technology on display. I agree with the rest of your post tho :)
Like Chronic already has ushered, i feel AW is a better comparison as Mercenary Technology (and Beenox, i believe) clearly were under a tight scheldule when they had to deliver BLOPS 3. It is not exactly fair to compare aside that both are BLOPS titles. Its also the only PS360 COD that targets 30 fps full stop.Have you seen Black Ops 3 on the PS3 and 360? The differences are incredible. Detailed textures became single-tone textures. Almost all foliage and background decoration was removed. There's a map that's covered in ice and snow on PS4 and XB1 that doesn't have a speck of the stuff on PS3 and 360. The audio quality has been compressed to such an incredibly degree that the audio is tinny and muffled. Oh, and the entire campaign had to go, because that flat-out would not run.
Simply put, I don't think a Call of Duty game on Switch would look that much better.
Here's an Imgur album of comparisons I've collected.
That being said tho, when you would compare it to other last-gen outings, it is serviceable in terms of looks. Yeah, BLOPS 2 and even OG BLOPS are likely more advanced on a tech level (BLOPS 1 pushed Physically based shading a few years before anyone else would, its not a full PBR pipeline tho!) but globally put, BLOPS 3 last-gen is serviceable. Still not that great for a 2015 title with it targeting 30 fps however.
Exactly. High Moon Studios had the unthankful task of porting over a made-for-current gen title and apply it to the last generation. To this effect, they had to remove all the PBR related workflow stuff, which leaves the game with a rather barren look. But despite all that, it actually looks pretty good for a last-gen outing, and, atleast on X360, it targets 60 fps rather frequently at 600p. For a game that is an exclusive DX11 title and made for current-gen, it is pretty great. Its on this basis that i bought the X360 version second hand, and i am considering buying the BLOPS 3 game too. As long as you treat it like a weird arena shooting type with bots, BLOPS 3 even on last-gen should be okay.
Eh, BLOPS 2 was tailor made for last-gen consoles, simply because in 2012, there were no PS4/XBO games yet. It did see an increased focus on physically based shading however.
Untrue. Advanced Warfare was the first COD that was build with current-gen in mind, which explains why the last-gen versions look so radically different (And still perform rather well on X360.). This is evidenced by DF: https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/...l-of-duty-advanced-warfare-last-gen-revisited
AW was designed from the ground up for PS4/XBO. The PS360 versions were effectively downports. Crysis 3 is also some sort of a downport on PS360, as the PC version is DX11 only.
Something like BLOPS 4 should be do-able on Switch, but due to the online nature, Treyarch might have advised against it. Well, that and the fact that Treyarch is on a time scheldule and probably does not have the time to afford developing/refactoring an ARM based version of the IW Engine in time.
Again, untrue. COD AW for last-gen was as much a down port as was BLOPS 3. The difference is that High Moon had more and better experience with last-gen stuff than a studio like Mercenary Technology. That, and budgets, obviously.
Tis what you get when you want to prove a point, but you aren't aware what exactly you try to prove. :/
Sounds like mostly RAM issues. 512MB vs 3.2GB vs 5.3GB. So, yes. A Switch version can look better than that.Have you seen Black Ops 3 on the PS3 and 360? The differences are incredible. Detailed textures became single-tone textures. Almost all foliage and background decoration was removed. There's a map that's covered in ice and snow on PS4 and XB1 that doesn't have a speck of the stuff on PS3 and 360. The audio quality has been compressed to such an incredibly degree that the audio is tinny and muffled. Oh, and the entire campaign had to go, because that flat-out would not run.
Simply put, I don't think a Call of Duty game on Switch would look that much better.
Here's an Imgur album of comparisons I've collected.
Last edited:
I mean, there using Id technology, so technically there id devs.........
Right, but this game without the online play is coming for PS4 and Xbox. So I would guess they will put i this on the Switch as well, as a late port.
Could, but that's assuming Activision is willing to allocate a ton of resources for one port that's almost certainly going to sell the worst of all the console releases.
I don't know why people keep saying this when it's plainly untrue. Where this misconception started, I'll never know. But the port, for all its failings, does target 60FPS (key word is target; it drops frames really often).
Aside from that, I agree with much of your post. Thanks for sharing your insights.
OP
OP
the switch is way stronger than last gen consoles and has a way better GPU so it CERTAINLY will look much better even with 0 resources in
That campaign is my favorite part of any cod game. But it's like $3 at GameStop on ps360 so I would probably pass.
You misunderstand. It's not a matter of "could it happen?", but rather, "would Activision be willing to make such a significant expense to ensure the Switch, a system with infamously bad online functionality, receives a good port of BO4?" In order to create a product that works satisfactorily without looking like total garbage, a lot of resources would need to be allocated.
... Huh.
I remember someone else posted this earlier in this topic and it just didn't connect to me. If it is true, then the misconception started because the devs themselves said that it targeted 30 fps. If its performance is usually at 40, then is it really targeting 60? :P
Likewise for your post here :) Still even BLOPS 3 last-gen has its merits, if you just consider it an arena shooter :)
I wouldn't say 0 resources as despite its better specs. A lot of last-gen ports do seemingly take the PS4 version as a base whenever that is available, but way stronger is quite something. It is stronger, but not by orders of magnitude as is implied here.
Last edited:
Wrong Division 2 engine is snowdrop and the engine works on Nintendo Switch
Just because we're not getting one game, that's not a good reason to port beg other games.
He is talking about the online infrastructure, Snowy. And yes, in its current state and even when the online service launches its pratically unusable for 3rd party developers. Third party's want their own online infastructures on platforms such as Origin, uPlay etc and Nintendo will likely not allow that to happen.