I also played it in handheld mode on tuesday. I'll be honest, it's blurry. Really blurry. Was only able to play a bit around White Orchard, so i can't say anything about the Bog, or Novigrad, or Skellige and so on. But i haven't encountered any big drops in FPS, seems to hold the performance quite well. Though i also didn't use any Signs in the few minutes i've been playing. ^^
Still, to think that this game runs in an "acceptable" state on the Switch is nothing but black magic by the porting studio.
I guess if you only play Nintendo systems this is good thing. Great for a portable but ugly compared to the real versions.
luckily he was banned for trollingwell if you wanna be a dick about it, I could say the console versions are shit because of the worse graphics and horrible framerate.
I play on PC, maxxed out with 120+ fps.
But playing this on the go? Now that has wanting to buying it again.
I have the PC version, and given the choice, I'd rather play it on Switch. My PC's being used for more important things nowadays.I would choose again to play this on PS4 / Xbone / PC first given the choise, but this game is so good it is worth multiple play throughs. And being able to play it on handheld is crazy.
I have the PC version, and given the choice, I'd rather play it on Switch. My PC's being used for more important things nowadays.
Bare in mind this is the state of the game upon release. Who is to say there won't be any additional patches down the line that even squeeze out more performance as they optimize the game even further.Fair enough. It is a beautiful looking game and there is a big difference visually, but it holds up to other Switch games pretty well (I would say Astral Chain looks more impressive in fidelity, detail, etc), but it has kept the complexity of the environments. This is a massive game.
Bare in mind this is the state of the game upon release. Who is to say there won't be any additional patches down the line that even squeeze out more performance as they optimize the game even further.
It happened recently when I fired up Warframe again after being away from it for a long time. I never recalled the game looking this sharp, but now areas where there were obvious performance drops have been smoothed out (like a certain HUB area where dozens of online avatars roam).
So while no-doubt Saber Interactive have pulled off some pretty amazing tricks here, I'm sure there's still room for optimization. Maybe they could look into more demoscene coders to work out more "black magic".
Sorry, this was about the new mariko switch test video of DF, the power usage is lowered but somehow the thermals are still the same as the OG switch.
Jeez, those look good. I really can't understand people thinking this is ugly.
I mean, yeah that looks decent at 720p, but that ain't the game, thats cutscenes.
I obviously don't expect it to look like the PS4/Xbox One version 1:1, but it is a bit fugly and still better looking than I expected.
The Switch port negative band wagon really don't stop do they?
This is a technical marvel and still you got folks bending over backwards to paint it as ugly or unplayable.
Yall we know this aint a high end PC, there is always gonna be a trade off to get this on a very low power consuming mobile chip set.
The fact that we keep getting ports like this to a handheld are mindblowing especially considering last generation handheld capabilities. (Just look at what the 3DS and Vita could do maxed out and its leaps and bounds beyond them.)
Jeez, those look good. I really can't understand people thinking this is ugly.
B) the in engine cutscenes are the majority of the gameplay, this is the Witcher 3 after all
Gameplay almost always look better than direct screenshots, especially when comes to Switch games.
Not that it will affect me, I will play it anyway on the Switch, but wasn't it said somewhere that you can have control over this? Maybe I am wrong though, need to look this up.Started the demo last evening in portable mode. And ... let me say it this way ... if you think that DQ XI portable is too blurry, don't play Witcher 3 on Switch. Neither portable, nor docked, not at all.
A) we already have plenty of gameplay footage, so we know how it looks
B) the in engine cutscenes are the majority of the gameplay, this is the Witcher 3 after all
Not that it will affect me, I will play it anyway on the Switch, but wasn't it said somewhere that you can have control over this? Maybe I am wrong though, need to look this up.
We do indeed. And it's not like this. And more like this:
Those screenshots are the exception, not the rule.
Sorry, can't follow you here. What control?
The in-game cutscenes look better than the regular gameplay, simply because they're mostly zoomed-in while other gameplay is more zoomed-out. It gets blurry the more zoomed-out it was and less blurry when closer to Geralt.
Close stuff, like when Geralt moves around in the tavern of White Orchard to ask for Yennefer comes close to those screens really.
The in-game cutscenes also look better than regular gameplay because you focus on a scene and not an open environnement with stuff loading and such. Point being, yess, cutscenes looks decent. But they don't reflect how the gameplay looks. And not all cutscenes look that decent. Some look pretty bad (the fire in Novigrad one, the bear attack one)
First it was "impossible", then it would be 170p with zero foliage and less than 3 NPCs in screen, and now that it's 720p with almost every effect and NPC persevered, all that remains is playing it snob and pointing the small compromises that had to be made to run the full experience in a glorified tablet. For instance, even if the npc density is the same, the fact that they appear 100m instead of 150m ahead of the character becomes somehow a big deal and completely changes the atmosphere of Novigrad. Whatever...
Blurriness. This was something one could do with Doom (there were 2 controls that affected blur) and I seem to recall something similar said about Witcher 3. Could be wrong though.
"And now people can play a fully intact version of Witcher 3 with some graphical compromises on a 200$ device on a plane, or TV, in bed and of course on the toilet" - with a much better chance of completing the game or playing it for a long time and not just a few hours...Some people bought a new graphics card or a Pro or X especially for Witcher 3, played it 7 hours and than went to next game. Seeing the achievements of this game on consoles or Steam indicates that most people don't play to the end, perhaps to be forced sitting hours and hours in front of your TV/monitor is not exactly what most people want or can do.
And now people can play a fully intact version of Witcher 3 with some graphical compromises on a 200$ device on a plane, or TV, in bed and of course on the toilet, and that's bothers some, because they are human and want to assure themselves that they played the game "right" and spending hundred of dollars to play W3 was the right choice because the played it with better graphics.
The majority of the game isn't cutscenes, what a ridiculous take.
Started the demo last evening in portable mode. And ... let me say it this way ... if you think that DQ XI portable is too blurry, don't play Witcher 3 on Switch. Neither portable, nor docked, not at all.
Particularly, it looks way too butchered in comparison to the other versions, and performance on portable -- which is where it matters -- doesn't seem very flattering. Still, it's mighty impressive they got this running on Switch at all.
Particularly, it looks way too butchered in comparison to the other versions, and performance on portable -- which is where it matters -- doesn't seem very flattering. Still, it's mighty impressive they got this running on Switch at all.
I'd be surprised if they were on Switch, pre-rendered takes a lot of space and they need to cram everything they can in that cartridge.
One of the best examples of a third party going all out due to the success of the system.
RDR2 next please, compress it onto a 64GB cartridge, a solid 240p 15fps experience wouldn't be so bad 🤣