Dragon Quest Heroes 2: Switch vs PlayStation 4

As a first look at how multi-platform development may pan out on Switch, it's fair to say that Dragon Quest Heroes 2 probably isn't that enlightening. Not only is it a launch title for a new console, but there's a definite sense that more effort could have gone into optimisation - and perhaps more cutbacks may have been prudent in stabilising performance. However, it's safe to say that in cross-generational terms, this title draws more upon its PS3 heritage than it does on its PS4-enhanced assets. That's absolutely fine for this title, but a solid, consistent frame-rate really is a must - and in this regard, PlayStation 4 offers up a huge improvement to the core gameplay experience.

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
zivtheawesome717d ago

20 fps at combat almost all the time at docked and even worse on portable ughh. ps4 version runs at 60fps for comparison. also ps4 version looks much better.

Aceman18717d ago

Played part 1 on PS4 first so I'll be continuing there with part 2.

bouzebbal717d ago

Was this comparison really necessary ? Switch vs vita would have made more sense

rocketpanda717d ago


While I agree a vita comparison should also be considered, at this point the switch is positioned to compete with the PS4 and Xbox, so it is a fair comparison.

darthv72717d ago

so according to their own findings, the switch version uses assets from the PS3 version and improves upon them. Making the switch fit right in the middle of the PS3 and PS4.

When you look at the physical nature of both PS systems and compare that to the small design of the switch... it's pretty impressive what Nintendo achieved with that hybrid system. you can't play either the PS3 or the PS4 versions on the go and the Vita might have a slightly better frame rate but a pretty good drop in image quality as well.

Teflon02717d ago

nintendo calls it a home console first and handheld second. Vita game prices are cheaper than ps4 games unlike switch which are the same price. It's only fair to compare. But also if this is the digital foundry video it has a vita comparison for graphics and frame rate.
Basically, it uses a modified version of Vita's build but with some of the ps4 graphic elements like foliage, though not on the same level as ps4. The framerate runs worse than vita in combat. Vita runs an average of 25ish and will drop frames outside combat, Switch will run 30 outside combat but some areas and the very moment youre battling the game runs 20fps. DF said it's because they're using a double Vsync which forces the framerate to stay at a multiple of 10 pretty much so it's either 20 or 30 and the second combat starts it's 20.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 717d ago
blackblades717d ago

Of course, ps4 will be better. Who ever get the switch version are the ones that don't care or don't have a ps4. Let's see which sales better.

darthv72717d ago

Or they want to play the game on the go from time to time in better quality than the Vita.

cleft5717d ago

I played the Switch demo multiple times, because I am waiting on Zelda and it was enjoyable to me. Obviously, the PS4 version is going to be superior, but at the same rate I can't play that version in handheld mode and then switch back to my on the fly.

ABizzel1717d ago


I have no clue how you came to that conclusion, but that's not what I got from that at all. They literally said there was no PS3 demo available, so they couldn't compare 1:00. At 3:30 he literally says based on the media available from the PS3 version it seems many of the Switch assets were pulled directly from the PS3 version. He also says it feels like the Switch version falls right behind the PS4 (but again the PS3 version isn'e being previewed here, therefore there was no PS3 version to fully compare).

But considering the Switch version is missing a lot of texture work, draw distance, lighting effects, geometry, foliage, shadows, and more it's hard to say it falls right behind the PS4 version when there's a clear graphic difference. But considering it's anime artstyle it's not a huge deal, but it's noticeable.

The big difference is performance, and it's night and day here.

The Switch runs at 720p handheld, 1080p docked with a solid 30fps when exploring the world. But it ends there by dropping down to 20fps - 30fps when in combat, and unfortunately it's a much more consistent 20 - 25 fps than being anywhere near 30fps in combat and can even dip into the teens. On top of that framerate is even worse in handheld mode.

The PS4 runs 1080p 60 fps most of the time, and can drop into the 50's during combat.

The PS3 version is 720p, but again no demo to compare, but we'd assume it targets 30fps like the Switch.

Meanwhile Vita runs at its native 540 resolution and aims for 30fps, but again like the Switch doesn't really hit it. The Vita struggles throughout even with exploration keeping up with the framerate, the only highly is that it consistently stays around 25 fps making the game choppier throughout, but making the dips not nearly as noticeable.

This is not a good showing for the Switch at all, and most definitely doesn't put it anywhere between the PS3 and PS4 performance wise. If it ran at 60fps on the Switch and stuck at 30fps on the PS3 then I'd agree with you. Halfway between PS3 and PS4 would be a lot closer to 1 TFLOP in performance give or take (depending on which metric you go by regarding the PS3's GPU), which the Switch most definitely is not.

Switch is in the same ballpark as PS360Wii U undocked (in some cases worse due to the mobile CPU), and a tad more powerful docked thanks to the boost in GPU clock speed.

darthv72717d ago (Edited 717d ago )

You do realize your long winded comment amounts to what i said.... right?

Ps3 is 720p 30
Ps4 is 1080p 60
Switch is 1080p 30 (docked)
Switch is 720p 30 (undocked)

That makes the switch right smack in the middle of the ps3 and ps4. Depending on how you play it is either equal to ps3 or just below the ps4.

That's just going by the basic info you yourself stated. And the vita is worse than the rest.

conanlifts717d ago

"This is not a good showing for the Switch at all, and most definitely doesn't put it anywhere between the PS3 and PS4 performance wise"

You disproved your own sentence by adding the details. I.e ps3 720p vs switch 1080p. Digital foundry even stated they thought poor optimization was partly to blame and they also stated it was close to the ps4 in graphics but not performance.

ABizzel1717d ago

If what you were trying to say was PS4 > Switch > PS3 > Vita, then I might agree with you (but we still don't know if the PS3 version performs at a much more stable framerate).

But "Making the switch fit right in the middle of the PS3 and PS4." does not indicate that at all. The Switch version solely based on Resolution and target framerate is on par with the PS3 version in handheld mode, and a higher resolution when docked. It's not right between anything unless it's 60fps, which it is not.

ABizzel1716d ago


Once again, they said it was closer to the PS4, in comparison to the 3 versions they tested. The PS4, the Switch, and the Vita. The PS3 version was not tested, because there was no demo, which they said at the beginning of the video, which is also why they said based on available media (aka the PS3 versions trailers) the Switch version seems to us the same assets.

So once again no it's not anywhere near the PS4 version visually, especially considering it's missing all those features the video describes it's on par with the PS3 version. But if it comes down to being closer to the PS4 vs PSV, then it's closer to the PS4 since the Vita version has no texture work and has everything else turned off.

The Switch version is only 1080p when docked, and 720p running handheld mode. Which puts the Switch GPU when docked close to being 2x as powerful as the PS3's GPU, but right on par with the PS3 when undocked, since it usually takes 2x the performance to double the resolution of a game. The PS4's GPU is 9x as powerful as the PS3. The Switch is not in the same boat as the PS4 hardware wise, graphically, or in this game.

Once again if the Switch was it would be running the game at 60fps just like the PS4 version, even if it was still using the PS3 version assets, like it does in this video. The Switch is on par with Xbox 360 in handheld mode, and a slightly better Wii U when docked.

For a handheld it's great, but it's nowhere near the PS4 or even XBO when it comes to hardware. It's a nudge ahead of the PS360Wii U group.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 716d ago
badz149717d ago

Wow performance-wise, it's simply crap! And that's with lower graphical settings than the PS4 and half the fps target to boot. Always 20fps in combats and only barely 30fps during travel. In handheld mode, it's looking worse than the Vita version!

Just as I thought, this will be the kind of treatment the Switch will be getting from 3rd parties. They aren't willing to put too much effort into it. It's a battle the Switch is not gonna win IMO because who would buy the worst version of any game that cost the same and plays better on a competing console that is more powerful yet cost less?

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 716d ago
FallenAngel1984717d ago

Of course the Switch version would be closer to the PS3 version.

The western market isn't even going to get this game until next year though

OtakuDJK1NG-Rory717d ago

No it's closer to PS4 minus the different textures work and less lighting and fps.

ABizzel1717d ago

No it's not. He literally says at 3:30 that many of the assets in the Switch version seem to be pulled from the PS3 version.

TomatoDragon717d ago

Uh...the game is releasing in the west in april.

OtakuDJK1NG-Rory717d ago

Not the Switch version.
The Switch version is Dragon Quest Heroes I & II.

Segata717d ago

Game is coming out in April in the US

FallenAngel1984717d ago

@ Otaku

This article even says the Switch version is closer to the PS3 version than the PS4 version.

@ Tomato & Segata

For clarity I was talking about the Switch version of Dragon Quest Heroes 2 included in the bundle on NS isn't going to arrive here until next year. I already know the PS4 version is due next month.

717d ago
FallenAngel1984717d ago

@ Cupo

No crap, I was talking about the Switch version not arriving here until 2018

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 717d ago
Moonman717d ago

Switch version looks better in some places to me. Lol

Neonridr717d ago (Edited 717d ago )

Clearly the devs need to do a bit better optimizing..

rjason12717d ago ShowReplies(4)
bluefox755717d ago

It's pretty rough, PS4 is a fairly solid 60fps with better visuals, while the Switch in docked mode regularly dips to 20fps every time you enter battle, handheld mode is even worse. If Switch can't even hit 30fps in this undemanding game, I don't see how it's going to run any modern games.

OtakuDJK1NG-Rory717d ago

It's a quick port.
If Shinen can get Fast RMX running at 1080p 60fps in single and split screen with only a file size of 900 MB then so can other games.

Not only that Xenoblade Chronicles 2 is still by far the best looking Switch game shown.
Not only that I believe Omega Force/Team Ninja put more work in Fire Emblem Warriors than this game.

_-EDMIX-_717d ago (Edited 717d ago )

I mean it's also not running on a platform that's not as powerful as a PlayStation 4.......

OtakuDJK1NG-Rory717d ago

Even so. It still the second best looking version. Until the PC one comes then it will be the third.

Segata717d ago


But Switch is more powerful than PS3/Vita which this game is also on

ABizzel1717d ago (Edited 717d ago )

I don't think it's simply because it's a quick port though I agree with you it likely is a quick port. But it also has to do with the CPU in the Switch being a mobile ARM CPU that's clocked down to far less than it normally operates, which is obviously going to cause issues with CPU related task such as open world / open settings and having multiple enemies on screen at once which this game has. That's moreso the problem with performance, but being at launch didn't help.

And while Fast RMX is a beautiful game if anything it just puts the Switch performance in perspective even more. Fast Track Neo ran 720p @ 60fps on Wii U, split screen as well. Fast RMX runs 1080p split screen on Switch while docked, and all reports refuse to list the undocked performance which considering the screen resolution it's likely 720p considering that's the norm thus far and it doesn't really make sense to have a game running at a higher resolution than the screen can display. And once again we have Switch on par with the Wii U in handheld mode, and slightly more powerful when docked due to the higher GPU clock speed.


Switch has a more powerful GPU and more RAM than the PS3, the problem with the Switch is it's mobile processor, thermal bottlenecks, and CPU clock speed being cut in half. That's why the PS3 will be able to hang with the Switch, especially since the PS3's CPU can help with graphics loads.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 717d ago
MyDietEqualsGames716d ago

I think it was a rushed port. The FPS looks like this was unoptimized. For what is displayed on the Switches screen, I would think it could lock an average of 30 fps. Inexcusable, imo.