Sonic Forces on Switch runs at 30fps

This really isn't much of a surprise. Sonic Forces on Switch is clocking in at 30fps. The PS4/XB1/PC versions are running at 60fps. The overall presentation in the Switch version is pretty much the same as other versions, albeit with some texture differences. When we look at third party ports available on XB1/PS4/Switch, seeing some scaling back in the Switch version only makes sense.

Categories: Consoles
Tags: eshop, sonic, sega, switch
Games: Sonic Forces


Top Rated Comment
Sun Jun 25 17 12:09am
Rating: 12 (Updated 1 time)

Still gonna get the switch version because I don't want my psn friends to know I play sonic games

Remember when we used to compare games by counting each blade of grass to see who's game version was better?

My how times have changed.

And yet this is the first time I recall seeing arguments about the graphic fidelity of a SONIC game. Truly wild times we live in.

Sat Jun 24 17 11:35pm
Rating: 1

At least Sega is actually releasing a multiplatform game on Switch, kudos to them for that. I'll probably end up getting the PS4 version though.

Sun Jun 25 17 04:33am
(Updated 1 time)

This! People keep complaining about a lack of third party multiplatform games. And when Sega does their best to ensure the Switch actually gets one, people start whining about how it's technically inferior. The Xone is 8 times more powerful than the Switch in handheld mode, and still 4 times over the Switch in docked mode. It's a handheld console for crying out loud! Why do people keep expecting developers to do the literally impossible?
Sega is to be commended here, not chastised. If you want to complain, you should have done so when the Switch was announced as a portable console the size of a dvd case.

Sat Jun 24 17 11:36pm
Rating: 1 (Updated 1 time)

That's a really tough pill to swallow....
Resolution and some textures,draw distance, and lighting is one thing... But don't mess with my framerate..

Guess I'll be getting this on PC or PS4 Pro now Sad

Maybe I'll get it for switch anyways and buy it on PC when it eventually drops to near 10 bucks like every other Sonic game loves to do on PC.

Sat Jun 24 17 11:47pm
Rating: 2 (Updated 1 time)

Will be getting this on PS4 now instead. For fast paced platforming games, frame rate trumps graphics. Always. Sega should have scaled back the resolution or visuals to make the game run at 60fps on Switch. They absolutely made the wrong decision here, and the sales of the Switch version will suffer as a result.

They already scaled back the resolution and visuals. I hope they can manage to optimize the game's visuals, since I don't think 60fps is possible on the Switch with so much going on everywhere. At least not for Sega...

Also, they should get Classic Sonic's eyes right on the ranking screen. His pupils are just blocks.

I've been hearing that the game runs at 720p/30FPS on both handheld and docked.
Seems they haven't optimized it for docked just yet.

That's what I'm hoping for.

I hate that it's only 30fps on Switch but I'm still probably gonna get the Switch version. Only because I have access to my Switch more often than my PS4.

Sat Jun 24 17 11:58pm
(Updated 1 time)

First lack of achievements (though that's really Nintendo's fault and nothing on Sega), and now a choppy framerate in a game that NEEDS it to control well. I don't see how anyone who owns both a PS4/XB1/Steam and a Switch would choose the Switch version at this rate, unless it was your only system or if it was priced lower.

Why do you think 30fps means a choppy frame rate? If it's a locked 30, that's more than adequate.

A constant, locked 30 fps is much better than a choppy, variable 60-30 fps. At least in speedy precision platforming.

Sun Jun 25 17 05:36pm
Rating: 1

Complaining about the framerate in a fast-paced platformer I get. I'll even join in. But I'll never get being so fascinated by achievements that thinking them not being mandatory is a negative. Granted, if a game encourages the player to do something it should let them know if they have succeeded; a stealth game, for example, should tell you if no guards saw you. But handing out rewards for jumping on your first Goomba, then your tenth, then your hundredth, is just ridiculous, as is requiring a game to do so.

Something something disappointed.
Something something on another system.

Sun Jun 25 17 12:47pm
Rating: 1

Being a Sonic game I am really having a hard time wrapping me head around people being disappointed by this.

I personally don't care much for this game. I just want Mania, maybe this as a side purchase. Both on Switch, I love the portability.

Sun Jun 25 17 12:09am
Rating: 12 (Updated 1 time)

Still gonna get the switch version because I don't want my psn friends to know I play sonic games

So you don't play R&C because of you "friends" then? WHY WOULD YOU CARE what they thinks about "kids" game, just show them a speedrun of a Sonic and then ask them IF they think they Can do it themself, that sould show them.

Sonic Unleased on ps3 was the reason I wanted a ps3 and Sonic Generation (+R&C:ACiT) was the first game I Platium, so I "thank" SEGA for making me want a ps3!
(Have every S rank in Sonic Color, and some of the later stages can be a pain to do Quickly)

This could be the funniest comment I've read on this site in weeks. laughed for 5 minutes straight bravo sir.

I guess I'm getting this on PC now...

You know, power isn't everything. But it sure would be nice for this to stop being the case, where IF Nintendo gets a port of a third party game at all, it is typically THE inferior version.

I heard a guy on Youtube saying the Switch looks like garbage... I wonder when we're gonna see direct feed footage.

I don't really think Sonic needs 60 fps... Is it a fast platformer? Sure, but the controls seems to be as bad as any other Sonic... You're just going around jumping like a maniac and not having proper control of anything... There's no precision... It's a 3D Sonic game, it's gonna be crap anyways, 60 fps or not.

i guess im getting it on ps4 then. i hope sonic mania for switch is a constant 60fps at least

Sun Jun 25 17 12:27am
Rating: 2

I played Sonic Adventure 1 on Dreamcast at 30fps. I don't see why I couldn't play this at 30fps.

The Dreamcast isn't on par with today's tech which runs games at 60, 1080p/4k graphics. So to see an underwhelming port of the game on Switch is worrying.

Yeeeaaah... but is Sonic Forces on par with today's games?

A crap-load of PS4/XB1 games run at 30fps, and are only upscaled to 1080...

99% of PS4 and Xbox One game don't run at 60 fps.

Hell, the new Crash game is 30 fps.

Tech has NOTHING to do with framerate. Framerate is a choice the developer... SEGA could have the game running at 60 fps... And with better graphics... We ALL know this is just a cheap crap fast port they are doing.

Nintendo are so used to crap that they are all like: "who care if it is a shitty port? It's better than nothing".

Just like that Mighty N. 9 guy...

And yet, not every ps4 game runs at 1080p/60.

Sun Jun 25 17 01:22am
(Updated 1 time)

Considering that this game features a ton of side scrolling action, which SA on the Dreamcast didn't feature, it's not an apples to apples comparison. It's far more detrimental to fast paced side scrolling platformers than ones that aren't. Not only does it make it more difficult to play, it can also be very hard on the eyes to see the screen scroll quickly at a low frame rate like 30fps. Colors and Generations were unplayable to me personally.

I'll raise you by saying I played Sonic Colours on Wii at 30FPS, and it works wonderfully!

Ok...so let me get this straight.

The Switch runs a Tegra engine which is a very powerful card that can pretty much help third parties port their games on Switch with the same framerate whatsoever and yet...for games like this....still can't maintain 60fps????

Even Nintendo is able to make THEIR games run at 60fps. Come on SEGA....

It doesn't run a Tegra engine, it runs a Tegra chipset. And that is NOT considered a powerful chipset by a longshot. It is however, a very decent MOBILE chip. But you have to take into account that Nintendo reduced the clockspeeds on this thing by quite a margin to optimize battery life. What's left in a decent handheld, not the most powerful handheld out there by a longshot, but a decent one none the less.

The Switch in its handheld form is 1/8th the power of an Xone, 1/11th the power of a PS4, and just for good measure; 1/40th the power of a Xone X.

And Nintendo's own games are
1. Not that graphically impressive. BotW is graphically speaking a very unimpressive bland game with crappy textures and lacking shaders (art and polish is where Nintendo shines to make games look nice)
2. They are build from the ground up for Nintendo BY Nintendo, they know their hardware better than anyone.

I was referring to how atleast Nintendo often runs their games smoothly for the most part. Yeah sure, they weren't that great in the graphics department even during the SNES era( some SNES games tend to have slowdown) and they always never will be.

But by that logic, how is it that third parties are finding the Switch impressive if its not very powerful?

But by that logic, how is it that third parties are finding the Switch impressive if its not very powerful?

Those that do are probably referring to the fact it's really easy to develop for due to the simple ARM setup it uses and thus its compatibility with many commonly used engines (like Unreal and Havoc) as well as APIs like OpenGL and Vulkan.

Also, it's basically as powerful as a Xbox 360, but in the form factor of a giant PSP. It has the promise of being a family friendly console and does some nifty multiplayer things with the Joycon. It basically inhabits a corner of the market that's not quite home console, but not quite mobile either, meaning there's the potential of money to be made. That's why developers are curious about the Switch.

I am pretty sure a closer estimate based on the specs would be 1/2 to 2/3 the power of an standard XB1.
The Wii U was already more powerful than the PS3/360.

Wii U; 176gflops
X360: 240 gflops
PS3: 192 gflops

XOne: 1.3 tflops
PS4: 1.84 tflops
Switch handheld: 152 gflops
Switch docked: 393 gflops

So no. Wii U wasn't more powerful than the PS3 and X360. And Switch isn't even in the same ballpark as Sony and MS.

Sun Jun 25 17 12:15pm
Rating: 1

It's pretty clear you don't understand tech specs because there is more to the power of a console than flops. The PS3 was by far the most powerful console of it's generation but not because of flops SMH

Sun Jun 25 17 12:42pm
(Updated 1 time)

Edit: I will debate you on this if you wish, because I don't agree with that statement. But if you're being childish of the bat like that it's going to be very difficult. Change your comment if your want a serious answer from me.

Sun Jun 25 17 01:06am
Rating: 2

.......Is there a reason everyone is taking this E3 demo as definitive? For all we know the Switch version could be the last one they optimize considering its odd for it not to be able to run this game at 60fps. I wouldn't be surprised if it did stayed at 30, but I just find it weird everyone is just taking it as definitive considering the game isn't out for months.

Not to mention this source is just confirming their experience and not releasing facts straight from SEGA anyway. We have definitive proof the demo ran at 30 fps with no actual facts about how it's technically running other than guesses. Let SEGA themselves say handheld mode is preferred so this had to be done, otherwise I'm going to get the game and not assume either way if I can't even tell in the end.

I'm not sure if I'll get Sonic Forces on any system, but if I do, it'll be on Switch due to its portability.

And I honestly don't think I'll notice that the game runs at 30FPS versus 60. As long as a game doesn't have frequent drops and doesn't "feel" choppy, the framerate doesn't cross my mind or bother me.

Sonic Colors, if I remember correctly runs at 30 fps and it was one of the best sonic games I have ever played and the controls were tight and spot on. This is not bad but I hope there is a frame-rate patch in the future

I was watching E3 videos of Sonic Forces and when I first saw the Switch version I thought it looked fantastic. Ran just as well as Sonic Generations and looked pretty much on par with the other versions. It wasn't until I watched a comparison between Switch and PS4 that I noticed the difference in frame rate. I don't think its that big of a deal and if I decide to get the Switch version I would be perfectly happy with it.

I'll take the Switch version, but I would've preferred more graphics downgraded with 60 fps...

Oh noooooooes graphics and fps oh noes. Im fine with this

Wonder how many dips from 60fps that DigitalFoundy will find this holiday?
But now I know which version to buy (Ps4)

Sun Jun 25 17 05:54am
Rating: 2 (Updated 1 time)

Do the people hating on this know what the difference between 30 fps and 60 fps is? Apart from one number being larger than the other?

FPS stands for frames per second. The number of frames (or images) the system has to render and display per second.

It's not a flip of a switch to make a game go from 30 to 60 fps.

Take a look at an example of a game (Witcher 3) and look at what GPU can pump out 30 fps and then look at what GPU is required for 60 fps at the same graphical fidelity.

If Sonic Forces is running at a solid 30 fps (with some texture reduction) then if you want to see it run at 60 fps then be prepared for significant fidelity reduction.
Going from 30 to 60 fps and keeping the same graphical fidelity, simply requires more power. Sure some code optimisation might grab a few more fps here and there but if anyone thinks a game can just magically go to 60 fps misunderstands the basics of computation.

Oh and guys, BOTW runs at........30 FPS ZOMG what a crap game no buy!

Sun Jun 25 17 06:43am
Rating: 2 (Updated 1 time)

For anyone saying 30FPS is good enough here... did any of you actually play Sonic Generations on console?

When sonic is moving in the 3D sections, it's fine, but 30FPS in fast, side-scrolling gameplay, which this look to have a lot of, is just not good enough. The shuddering of the screen in motion at that frame rate makes everything blurry and indistinct, if you are sensitive to frame rate it's absolutely painful...

Would love to get this on Switch, but I know it's going to be the worst way to play the game.

I played a bit of Generations on console, unfortunately. Thing is, that game was not at a locked 30, it was aiming for 30 with severe dips, making the "2D" sections almost unplayable.
A better comparison would be Sonic Colours, which was also at 30, but at least it was locked and never dipped below that, making for a smooth gameplay experience.
Would I have wanted 60 for a fast-paced platformer? Sure! Is 30 bad? Not at all! That is, as long as it actually nails that target. I play Generations on the PC instead thanks to the more pleasant experience.

I sure did, and that's why I'm avoiding the Switch version with a ten foot pole. Played on PS3 after years of hearing good things only to find that the whole game felt clunky and imprecise in a way I couldn't quite pinpoint. Upon reading some E3 previews of the other versions and hearing how tight the controls were, I suspect the framerate and floaty controls both contributed to it being a trainwreck to control. Generations felt like a game fighting against you while giving you eye candy in hopes you wouldn't notice.

Heck, I'll even go as far as to say the 3DS version controls better, despite how awful that version is when it comes to content

Sun Jun 25 17 07:48am
(Updated 1 time)

A Sonic game at 30fps. Surprised


Today's VIP

inverterbat's avatar
Joined: June 2017

Social Services

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!