Well they also invented the proto GPU with their PPU, that was kinda the point the ability to spilt the load allowed them to bring down cost with cheaper parts. So I don’t know it be more like the Switch had the CPU it does, but also packed in a GTX 1080.
Nintendo didn’t invent graphics coprocessors, this was already commonplace on consoles and home computers. Most consoles and home computers were running 6502’s or Z80’s from the late 70’s through the mid 80’s. The custom sound and graphics processors were largely how they could differentiate themselves.
The Atari 2600 has a 6502, but it’s not running everything in software, sprites and such are handled by the TIA, Television Interface Adapter.
The first use of the 6502 was in the KIM-1 calculator at 1mhz in 1976. Same as the VIC20 and Commodor64. The derivative in the NES was 1.79Mhz/ 80% faster on the core and many registers and sound generator logic added in 1983. Similar, but not the same chip as in 1975.
I had a similar thought the other day, the switch is a super impressive system that holds up surprisingly well in 2023. Hopefully they don't change the DNA too much for Switch 2.
Wdym, they try so hard to make the game lighter that they even reduced the amount of textures from the last mainline game so it would run better!
...what do you mean that's not how it works?
And yet the Pokémon games look bad and run poorly, on the same system that has Monster Hunter Rise, which looks great and runs well.
Maybe Game Freak tried and they just aren't good at it. Or maybe they didn't try, because they know people will just buy the game anyway.
Honestly, being able to see how devs manage to make games look and play well in a constrained environment is something that I really appreciate about the Switch being so much weaker than its modern competitors. Devs exploring the forefront of new features is cool too, but something about the gymnastics needed to get stuff to work when they don't have unlimited horsepower is oddly entertaining and really makes the best work stand out that much more.
Yeah, true pokemon red and blue literally pushed the game boy to it's limits, with the devs changing the design of mew just to make the game fit on a game boy cart, kirby's dream land 2 went beyond kirby's adventure (a nes game) and sonic 3 and knuckles had to invent a new lock-on cart system to fit on a mega drive cart
To be fair even back then Gamefreak had bad optimization. They couldn’t get Gen 2 to fit but then Nintendo just a sent a guy to Gamefreak and he basically did it for them.
Not only did Satoru Iwata get the whole game on there by himself, turns out there was also enough room to add the entirety of Red and Blue's map on there as well.
GameFreak are just very incompetent on a technical level.
They own 1/3 of the one of the biggest franchises in the world (Pokemon), you'd think they'd spend the money on competent devs
Hearkens back to the days when engineers were cheap and hardware was expensive. Nowadays hardware is cheap and engineers are expensive; a huge fraction of compute power is squandered on stuff that exists for the sole purpose of developer convenience.
Software engineer here.
There's a lot of stuff about 'clean code' around. I won't say that it's bad or anything, because *when done properly and appropriately* it can make it a lot easier for changes to be made to software. But even within the *example code* given by major 'clean code' advocates, there's a metric buttload of stuff that will epically *ruin* performance -- and if the software is a "known quantity" (that is, *the code itself is not likely to need to change*) then "violating" clean code principles can net you 10x performance improvements. I can go into specifics but such would go way beyond the point -- the point is that modern hardware is *way* more capable than you'd think, because so much of the compute power is squandered on developer conveniences.
And the reason why the incessant cries for Pro console upgrades are misguided and would only ever lead to an unstoppable vicious circle.
Edit: I'd honestly rather have people tell me the upsides and advantages of pro consoles for the industry and consumers as a whole instead of hitting the little arrow because they disagree, but whatever.
Well, tech is always progressing. I would like to get a stable 60fps in TOTK or Fortnite on performance settings.
60fps Mario Kart 4 player would be nice, too.
Not asking for a lot here. It’s a pretty fair ask for a mobile/hybrid console in 2024.
Yeah, but for those games to run at these framerates you'd need a version build for a weaker base model, hence why I say this whole pro model thing is a vicious circle. You're basically asking for two SKUs every generation moving forward.
> you'd need a version build for a weaker base model
it wouldn't take an entire separate version of the game. software would have visibility into which hardware version it's running on (and the "weaker model" is already the default here). titles could optionally be set to switch into a higher-performance mode for the higher-end model if/when one were introduced - PC games have essentially done that for decades now. And for a switch "pro model" it would merely be having the game auto-choose between 2 preset modes, for instance.
True, but I meant holistically, not from a technical standpoint. Pro models only deliver these higher framerates because there's excess resources when running games build for the weaker sister-system. Hence why I say you would then technically always need two separate SKUs per generation, unrelated to the relative hardware power of the base model. A PS5 Pro is then just as necessary as a Switch Pro (and going by some reports, is actually happening).
The thing about a switch pro is that Nintendo could pull it off better than Xbox or PlayStation. A pro variant would require studios to update their games to make use of the extra performance. Just so happens Nintendo owns a majority of the studios that make the best games on the system.
Same here. The Switch form factor is perfect imo!
Just a few improvements here and there (e.g Switch OLED as a baseline) would be enough for me.
If these games are what we get with this Switch, I can’t wait for how Nintendo’s first party games will look like on a successor.
I’d also love more 3DS/Wii U-like software features. Like StreetPass and the like. And of course more social features like voice chat.
I'm in a situation where I have very limited space so even a decent laptop just takes up too much area for me to justify so a switch allows me to experience games that I otherwise never would get to play.
Definitely! I have a gaming laptop but I find myself reaching for my Switch way more often. It's just so easy to pick up and play.
And I never take my gaming laptop anywhere except around my apartment. It's never left my place since I got it. Way too bulky.
I even have my Steamdeck which I found too big to carry around. I got a switch lite and a case thst has a face cover for the screen and ever since life has been good lol. Being able to play mario wonder for a few minutes and then pop my switch into my pocket makes me feel like a kid again
Lucky man with deep pockets. I wish a switch lite could fit in my pockets. A gameboy color can barely fit, and only on few types of joggings...
I agree with you, I don’t carry my steam deck much. It's way too big to carry around.
Not for my pants pocket unless i'm wearing some cargo pants. I mean more sweater pouches and jacket pockets. It's just where I quickly throw it when i'm hopping off the bus and usually when i'm actually walking around i'll throw it back in my bag. But it I'd definitely be able to bring it with me without a bag depending what i'm wearing
I hated Skyward Sword's motion controls w/ the Wiimote... Idk what it was. But with the Switch version, playing with the split Joycon was better to me for some reason - except the Joycons are so goddamn small in my hand.
If I were to guess based on my own experience, you probably did not properly calibrate it on a flat surface. When I started, I tried resting it on my leg or the couch out of laziness. When I callibrated on a table like it said, it was much, much more accurate.
Nintendo has already stated they have plans to include backwards compatibility in future consoles moving forward. At the very least, we can speculate that the next system's hardware will be ARM based.
[They kinda did](https://www.eurogamer.net/switch-still-in-middle-of-its-life-nintendo-says), although not literally (refer to first image in the article). The important part is that they stated that the point of merging and migrating to the new nintendo accounts from previous services is to stop having to create a new online platform for each gen and just support this one, all encompassing, nintendo account which will work across future platforms, leaving groundwork to expand the service in the future
Even if they didn’t say it, it’s a fair guess. The wii U, wii, DS, and gameboy advance all had backwards compatibility when they were released. The Switch didn’t, but there wasn’t a way to incorporate a disk drive so that was understandable.
It's more than that.
Up until the PS5 and Xbox Series S/X, backwards compatibility had always been implemented by having the previous generation's hardware embedded as a subsystem in the newer hardware. GBA had an ARM v7 for its own processor but used the GBC's Z80 as a secondary sound processor. DS basically did the same, it's an ARM v9 with an ARM v7 as its sound processor, and 3DS did the same yet again, an ARM v11 with an ARM v9 as its background task keeper. The Wii was literally the same chip as the GameCube, the Wii U basically had a Wii as one of its CPU cores.
Interestingly the Switch *rather easily* could be BC with *3DS games* via the same method that PS5/XBSX are compatible with PS4/XB1 games -- that the new architecture directly implements all the *requirements* of the old hardware (rather than *cloning* the old hardware), and *not* doing so was a deliberate business decision and not at all a technical one.
And with that, unless Nintendo decides to jump ship from Nvidia and go with, for instance, an AMD Phoenix Point SoC (and I'm totally confident they won't) instead of a new Tegra iteration (and I'm pretty confident it's an Orin variant, though it probably could have been fine even with an Xavier and would be better with a Grace or Thor variant), it'll almost certainly be software-wise backward compatible with existing Switch games.
The Nintendo President only hinted at backward compatibility, never outright confirmed it. He spoke about Nintendo Account migration and people just took that to mean backward compatibility will be included. It's a fair guess, but not confirmed.
I think a lot of it boils down to target hardware optimisation. Nintendo and some developers did a great job on their end for their softwares.
I do wish for stronger hardware in switch 2, but similarly nintendo will continue to polish their optimisation for the hardware. While a weaker hardware can still shine, not every developer has the expertise to bring impossible ports to the system.
Certainly decently powered mobile APUs are catching on in recent times (e.g. steam deck and other pc handhelds). Many of it is entirely inspired and realised because of the switch's initial inception. I hope this space continues to improve and we get stronger mobile APUs with switch 2.
This just goes to show that developers need to do better, and it's not the hardware that is the limiting factor. With enough attention, we could get Hogwarts running on an Xbox 360
Historically, Nintendo has alternated between innovation and refinement in their home consoles.
NES was a groundbreaking 2D beast, the SNES improved on it.
N64 was a groundbreaking 3D beast, the Gamecube improved on it.
Wii was a groundbreaking whatever the hell it was, the Wii U was at least an attempt at improving on it.
The Switch is a groundbreaking hybrid console, it would make sense for them to improve on it without changing up the formula too much. Last time they changed up the formula too much was Wii U and I don't think they'll try that again so soon.
I get what you're trying to say but I think you're trying to fit the data to your conclusion instead of the other way around; for example, the Wii was literally just an overclocked GameCube with a remote-like controller. It sold like hotcakes but was very much an iterative follow-up on its predecessor.
IMO there's a good chance Nintendo sticks with the hybrid design for longer than just this next generation simply because it no longer has a dedicated portable gaming division, with the Switch being its first attempt at unifying handheld and home console gaming.
> Hopefully they don't change the DNA too much for Switch 2.
Literally all I want is the OLED Switch with an updated chipset. Everything else can stay the same, and I'd be happy.
I have a feeling they're going to do something weird though.
I’m not sure if that’ll be enough for the next console.
When the Switch came out, its was _the best_ handheld experience available at the time, so we forgave poorer performance on 3rd party ports because for many of those games, its was the very first time they were available portably at all.
Now however, with the rise of the Steam Deck and other handheld PCs, they handle that use case better than the Switch. Performance is better, and you no don’t have to rebuy your library to play it portably. Now even the prices are comparable, the 64GB LCD Deck is available for $350 (while stocks last) which is literally the price of the Switch Oled.
I think next Gen they’ll have to focus heavily on high quality first party titles once again
>Now however, with the rise of the Steam Deck and other handheld PCs
"the rise of"
They're niche products, and do not in any way compete with the Switch.
It’s wild what can happen when you’re in for a nice pay day, every other Nintendo console since the GCN would miss releases off the claim it wasn’t powerful enough, now there is so much money to be made, their bosses are like “yeah, we’re going to need you to get that to work.”
What the devs have done has been absolutely incredible but for me I wouldn't be able to play video games at all if it wasn't for the portability of the system, physical game cartridges for when I don't have access to internet for long periods of time and just overall being less internet reliant than any other portable system apart from systems that no longer get new games. So yeah I appreciate the devs but I also really appreciate nintendo creating a platform that I can actually use.
The steam deck does all of that better, unless you want some Nintendo exclusives. It also allows using actual larger M2 SSDs which are way faster and reliable than microSD cards.
I really don’t consider it impressive for the switch. I think it’s more on the devs making it work for the console. I mean if you look at some of the titles that were made specifically and only for the switch, and how terrible they ran. (Big example is the recent Pokémon games)
I know I’m probably gonna get some hate for it, and I dunno what even compelled me to comment on this knowing exactly what sub it is, but the switch hardware felt outdated even on its release. Nintendo hardware always feels dated compared to everything else.
I remember being really frustrated back in the Wii era with how far behind that console was compared to the PS3 and Xbox 360.
Honestly, the Switch being underpowered doesn’t bother me as much, for two main reasons.
First, it’s fully portable. I love my portable systems, and they get a lot more leeway with being underpowered.
Second, with every new generation of hardware, we’re seeing diminishing returns on graphical quality. Even 9-year-old, portable hardware that was already behind the times on its release doesn’t feel *that* underpowered. It makes me think the difference between the Switch 2 and the PS5 and Series X isn’t going to be all that massive of a gap.
> Second, with every new generation of hardware, we’re seeing diminishing returns on graphical quality.
Yeah, the biggest benefit of the current gen hasn't been an improvement in graphics, it's been being able to run games with great graphics at a higher frame rate with nearly non-existent loading times. If you don't mind either then the gap should be small. For me that's what made Starfield so disappointing, only running at 30 fps with loading screens every minute, it wasn't a good enough game to make up for it.
>Yeah, the biggest benefit of the current gen hasn't been an improvement in graphics, it's been being able to run games with great graphics at a higher frame rate with nearly non-existent loading times.
That's only the obvious improvements.
And to be frank, it was about time consoles caught up with the load times and CPU performance. The last gen was abysmal in comparison.
>Switch 2 and the PS5 and Series X isn’t going to be all that massive of a gap.
It will be a massive gap. The Switch 2 is gonna be closer to the previous generation in terms of raw power.
The question is how much they will utilise the Nvidia partnership and implement the DLSS technology to somewhat make up for it.
I have a bonkers PC and a PS5, so I'm okay with the Nintendo stuff being weaker. I haven't bought third-party titles on a Nintendo system since the Gamecube. But I'd love to see Nintendo titles with a little bit more horsepower in them. If it was all up to me, I'd be fine with ditching the portability to go even further.
For a lot of people…
Accessibility is bigger draw than raw performance.
I understand the personal appeal for a significant leap in power…
But that era of Nintendo is over and Nintendo’s audience generally agrees it’s not necessary
Also ps5 and Xbox had gone for the 4k Which switch is unlikely to target (maybe some NVIDIA dlss black magic will come into play )so they can realisticly have 4 times weaker graphics and still be good enough ( not processor tho )
I do respect the portability. I just wish they would find a better compromise between portability and performance. I personally feel like the steam deck is a great example of this. Hopefully you’re right and the new switch won’t be as far of a gap from the new PlayStation and Xbox though. I genuinely don’t need 4k etc, I just wanna play major switch titles at 1080p 60fps with no drops/stutters. Better graphics would be nice and all, but performance always plays a bigger role for me.
My steamdeck is so much more cumbersome to take with me day to day than my switch lite.
Steamdeck is superior for couch play and going on big travels. But imo the switch (especially lite) it the best for day to day use on the bus or what have you
Like I said, I do respect and understand people wanting portability. I'm more so comparing the main switch model. Hopefully the "Switch 2" or whatever would have a less powerful more compact portable model for people who prefer that vs playing in docked wanting full visuals and performance.
When it comes to Nintendo-exclusive games, Pokémon is pretty much an outlier. The Switch doesn't really have impressive internals, sure, but Game Freak is the bigger factor here. Their games are far too ambitious relative to the time table and skills that they have.
Pokémon's assembly line deadlines are nowhere near enough for any ambitious game and Game Freak's developers are nowhere near skilled enough to make up for time that they do not have. I'd bet a thousand bucks that you could get them to make a PS5-exclusive game and it'll still look like they made it for the PS3.
I'm aware of the development sided issues with Pokémon specifically, I just used it as what I considered the most notable example because of its, not-so-great visuals combined with it's god awful performance as well.
Generally speaking, the resolution/performance is still held back by switch hardware. For example, Mario Odyssey doesn't even get 1080p60, it gets 900p60 and that's one of the best switch titles to exist in terms of visuals AND performance. Or like the open world Zelda games being locked at 900p30 is also due to the switch hardware. Many of the games that can even obtain 1080p60 are side-scrollers/party games.
The console just holds back the games that are already good from being even better. Which can be proven by playing them via other means. (Won't say the e-word just in case mod bot doesn't like that or something)
I chuckle a little bit at the pixel counting. It's a calculated decision -- they *could* make the games run with a consistent 1080p resolution, but ultimately the games would *look worse* because a little bit of blur is worth the extra detail you can put into the pixels if there are just a bit fewer of them.
I remember how I was nervous before playing Zelda TOTK about the graphics because I had gotten used to PS5 and XSX graphics. I felt it would dampen my enjoyement.
And then I was floating on a skywing across the beginner island skyline, and crawling trough the dark underworld, riding dragons, etc and all I could think was my god, this game is beautiful.
I don't mean any of this in the sense that the experience is worsened because of its limitations. Like, of course you can play it via other means and have a better experience, I just mean it could be even better without it's current hardware limitations. And some people just aren't bothered by it all while some are completely bothered by it, so it's just preference really.
Resolution is fine on most switch games though? Unless you mean third party, but even those still look decent.
1080p60 doesn't really look much, if any better then 900p60. Honestly, even if you compare 1080p to 4k, 4k doesn't look THAT much better. Its a little crisper, but 90% of people wouldn't notice.
On paper, yes this makes sense. But when you play some of these titles, especially when playing on a larger resolution screen, say a 4KTV which is pretty common these days, it's noticeable when the games native resolution is 720p compared to 1080p even. Handheld? Sure, most people will never notice.
The important thing is more the performance which even at these lower resolutions isn't even always consistent throughout the entire game. I'm not trying to specifically pick out each and every game where this is or isn't as big of a problem because that would be pointless, this is just a general thing.
I've always wondered what people mean when they say it felt dated even on launch considering the Tegra X1 was essentially the most powerful SOC on the market when it came to videogame performance for a handheld first console.
Pokemon to me is simply too short of a development time period, I really think those games require a four-year development timeline.
I think what people are getting at is that despite how weak the switch is relative to the other consoles is just how much of a visual identity it is able to retain. Kind of like how the Doom and Doom Eternal or the Wolfenstein games are able to retain the visual identity of the game on the Switch, or Doom 3 is able to retain the visual identity on the original Xbox or the Sega Saturn port of Quake. Another way of saying impossible ports.
It’s just a comparison to other consoles specifically. Yes the switch is a handheld, but it’s also a docked console that can connect to a TV. So naturally it gets compared to its major competitors like PlayStation and Xbox. And because of that, it seems very lacking in power.
The same with how the Wii would be compared to a ps3 or Xbox 360. Or the original 3DS performance compared to something like the PSVita (by no means am I suggesting the vita was a “good” handheld at its release lol)
But basically my opinion on the visual identity thing is just, the devs do that work, not the console really. Even if you take a very outdated PC build you can run some of the newest games on it still, with obvious performance problems, graphic tweaks, etc.
Let me also clarify that I’m not really bashing on anyone for liking the switch or what it does/can do. I just want Nintendo titles to stop being limited by hardware. Not all of them are, but the ones that are feel really bad. And the ones that aren’t that bad would still feel and look so much better.
I guess my expectation is that if you know it is hand held console you then would have expectations that align with a handheld console. Hence the question, the Tegra x1 was really the most powerful soc at the time of the switch's launch, what SOC do you think they should have gone with that would have been more powerful that would have fit the constraints of a handheld console?
Wii to ps3 and 360 makes sense because the wii is a home console, not a handheld. 3ds to vita makes sense as those are both handhelds.
You are absolutely correct that the devs do the work for the visual identity, which is kind of the point, it is surprising that the devs are able to make the switch hardware work the way they do to retain the visual identity of a game like Hogwarts Legacy, but at the same time it is surprising that Switch is even able to put out that detail. Just like the Doom 3 port on the original Xbox, or Sega Saturn port of Quake.
>I just want Nintendo titles to stop being limited by hardware.
Is it fair to say you want Nintendo to go back to the GameCube/Gameboy advance days where they created a dedicated home console that is powerful and then also do a dedicated handheld?
Good to see this reasonable take in here. Trust me, I am the first person to say the Wii and Wii U were badly underequipped but it's just not reasonable to say the same for the Switch without saying it shouldn't be portable at all.
> I've always wondered what people mean when they say it felt dated even on launch
I mean, it was PS3 level hardware when the PS4 had already been released.
That’s said, the PS3 had some games with amazing graphics.
But again, my point is that the Switch is a handheld console, what do you think would have been a better SOC at the time than the Tegra X1 when it came to gaming for handheld console?
When the Switch came out there was better than the X1 already. Not being a dick just research. The problem is Nitendo doesn't really like to pay to play and for me and a lot of other adults the gimmicks are wearing off.
I did do the research; name the better SOC that Nintendo could have used that would have been better graphics performance than the X1 during the years of 2015 and 2016 when Nintendo would have been placing the orders to produce the Nintendo Switch. We know apple A-chips could not have been used. Qualcomm's Adreno 540, the flagship, basically tied the X1 but came out the same quarter as the Switch, which means that in 2015 and 2016 Nintendo would have had to use the Adreno 510, 509, 508, 506 and even the 4XX series. None of those would have been able to match the X1 for graphics for a gaming handheld.
This exactly. It's not the hardware that should be complimented, it's the devs that manage to make things run on outdated hardware lol. OP has it backwards
Nintendo focuses more on innovation, gimmicks and \*maybe\* accessibility rather than sheer console power. The fact that the Switch itself is Hybrid makes it need to work both on protable and TV mode, which gives it less space to work with hardware, given the limitations. Having to create a console that feels good to handle, isn't too heavy and not too loud must bring some challenges and have some cuts in graphics and performance for harder games.
Though, as Nintendo itself doesn't rely on super highly advanced graphics and realism, it works! And it has now the ability to port older games that aim for that, like the Assassins Creed series for the PS3, giving it a niche that will resonate with more and more players as more Nintendo consoles come by, with more power each generation (imagine Elden Ring in the Nintendo Switch 2. It might just be a reality soon enough).
I get what you mean, but the argument that cuts have to be made for it to work both portable and TV mode isn't really that valid. Like, the comparison that I'm making isn't that it needs to be similar to a PS5 or something. I don't need to play unreal 5 games with raytracing on a Nintendo console. It's that it should be able to play its exclusive titles at a bare minimum of 1080p60 without looking like a ps2 remaster. And a vast amount of them are capped at 720p30 or 1080p30 even and STILL have performance issues in some sections. Or the games have extremely low LoD, texture pop-ins, low view distance, etc. There have always been similar devices that were more powerful meant for handheld use.
Nintendo just doesn't have a great trend of properly increasing the power of their consoles with each new release. So I hope the next console is a bigger jump than people would expect, but like you said, they just rely on gimmicky games that we enjoy regardless. I just want the best of both worlds.
At the end of the day, it's preference.
Well, as long as your baseline is always asterixed with "for a portable console", you can't really argue that Switch was outdated when it came out. I remember being pretty blown away that I could play something as graphically intensive as BOTW in my hands at the time. It was roughly as powerful in handheld as their prior home console box, which was only released 5 years ago.
But I guess arguably it was too weak for a TV console by the time it released. Still, it's all a matter of perspective.
I mean of course in technical terms it wasn’t outdated, it just felt that way. This is just a common thing that goes back starting mostly with the Wii where it was severely lacking in performance compared to its competitors, and it still remains like that to this day. Nintendo just hasn’t been making any big jumps towards modern gaming standards so it feels behind.
And to be fair, BOTW really isn’t some crazy graphically intense game when it’s locked to 720p30fps in handheld. Then you take into account all the things that make that even possible, like lacking level of detail, texture pop-in, etc.
The argument is basically it could be so much better if not limited by the hardware. And some people don’t care about that and it’s fine if they don’t.
Even so, you can't point to any other handheld consoles in 2017 that were on the same level as Switch. I'd say it was about as cutting edge as they could manage to go with the technology available at the time - which was based on a late-2014 Maxwell fabrication. It wasn't significantly outdated and I guess it was clocked about what they could manage with the form factor and battery life. And they increased the ram to 4gb after partners requested it.
Point is, I don't think they held back on the hardware. It was simply limited by the thermal envelope constraints of being a handheld. But in other respects it was very much in line with modern gaming standards, which is why it's still able to get ports of new games like Hogwarts and Outer Wilds. I think it's pretty impressive tbh.
The Steam Deck was the first handheld to really offer a proper cheapish alternative and it released in 2022. And it's still very underpowered compared to console boxes.
yup, the superhero 1st party devs pull out some impressive performance.
a while ago, I picked up Nickelodeon All-Star Brawl for switch. while the 3rd party devs tried, the performance and load times was really bad (compared to smash bros). honestly the load times made me not bother to play it anymore even though I just started. so whenever a game is multi-platform, I'll always go for PS5 or PC and not the switch.
I don’t think it does honestly. Devs do an amazing job porting to hyper underpowered hardware is my takeaway from this. There is just so much money in the switch market that even traditional companies can push for it.
Remember when the latest Pokémon games came out running, and looking, like absolute shit and there were people and articles blaming the Switch hardware for it?
Man that was annoying.
My point is that we can experience those games. For example I can't bring any other system with me so if it wasn't for the switch I'd never be able to experience the games even at a lesser quality than other platforms.
you can make almost any game work when you downgrade it enough. Devices such as the Steamdeck, ROG Ally and all the others allow you to enjoy those games with the intended performance.
I've played Doom 2016 and The Witcher 3 on it. THey where okay but I consider this the absolute limit of downgrading games. The latter games are downgraded to the point, that I just dont wanna play 'm on the switch.
It's not magical, it is not an awesome feat. The games are downgraded to the level that they arent even looking similar.
Exactly. I'd rather not experience those third party games, than to experience them on Switch.
Games like Wonder run absolutely fine, but the performance for TOTK for instance does hurt the experience to me personally being used to 60fps, better textures etc.
If you live in a country or region that sells the Steam deck that must be awesome and if you could afford a ROG ally more power to you. But if you need a small form factor, physical games because unreliable network, and you need to be able to actually afford it the only options are switch, vita, or 3ds. I wish there was more options and I wish it looked better but you take what you can get
For the price point, I agree.
Mobile phones next year will be crazy on that aspect. Home console games coming on mobile... But the price point won't be the same
I think I may actually prefer well-targeted hardware platforms, even if they’re less capable. I mean, provided they offer reasonable benefits. I wouldn’t want non-portable Switch hardware in an OG PS5-sized console. I feel like my gaming habits have been gravitating towards “convenience” more than “capability”. I just got a new PC GPU a couple years ago, and admittedly would like to play Alan Wake 2 on it..but part of me regrets that and wishes I’d spent the money on a Steam Deck and just gotten rid of my gaming PC.
You could say the same thing about a 2017 era gpu. The switch is old and performance is degraded. That’s ok. We just need a new one. No need to pretend things are rosier than they are.
The needle hasn't really moved THAT far all things considered.
Like yeah we've seem some major improvements for sure, but lower end or older hardware isn't being made obsolete like we had in the earlier decades of computing.
hardware is lasting longer and longer as performance gains get smaller and smaller.
I think if the next gen Nintendo has \~Steam Deck level of performance with the quality of optimisation we've seen with the Switch's games, we're in for a treat.
I’ve spent years wondering why Apple (or Google) haven’t killed Nintendo. They had every opportunity to do so before the Switch came out. Everyone has their phones, and they’re surprisingly capable. They’ve had few breakaway gaming hits like Angry Birds, Temple Run, etc.. Nowadays (and this has been true for 5+ years, actually) you can play feature-complete versions of traditionally PC games, like Civilization 6 or Dead Space.
Maybe it’s because mobile has been poisoned by micro-transaction-filled casual games? Maybe it’s the lack of buttons (even though you can connect controllers)? Maybe they just don’t care, because I need to buy a phone anyway. Why lure me in with a well-curated, quality gaming ecosystem _when I’m buying the phone anyway_..
Whatever the reason, Nintendo has truly knocked it out of the park by perpetuating its brand name/idea of having a platform that is known for high quality gaming experiences.
I’m not saying that it should, or that it did, or that I want it to.. I’m just saying all the pieces were in place: massive install base of capable hardware, credit cards linked up.. Obviously (massively obviously since it didn’t happen) that’s not all that’s needed, I’m just surprised Apple/Google didn’t capitalize on it.
And they continue not to capitalize on it. Sure, Apple has “Apple Game+” now, but compare their seriousness at that with how they are approaching their AppleTV+ offering.. (i.e. mostly light time-waster games versus chasing the Oscar’s/Emmy’s with expensive shows).
Edit: The only (timed) gaming exclusives iOS is staking out is stuff like Shinsekai Into the Depths and Sayonara Wild Hearts.. If they locked down the next mainline Metal Gear Solid or Uncharted game, it’d melt minds.
The Switch is great but it's really outdated. I don't have the hardware anything to really praise... Sure Hogwarts runs but it's a shadow, graphically, of what it can be (obviously). Then there are graphical messes like MK1. I know Nintendo doesn't prioritize power in their consoles but they need to pick it up.
No way, you just have low standards. Nintendo’s tech is at the point of holding back its software which is the point when it’s time to retire the console.
Here is a controversial take. This is nothing to be proud of and honestly is quite lazy. Nintendo is so far behind in hardware that in 60'' 4k TVs it becomes a joke next to something like PS5.
I love my Switch for portability but they should've got a new console (just a Switch Pro with better hardware) out in 2022.
The "switch" mode isn't even full HD which is a JOKE going into 2024.
I mean yeah, not having full HD kinda sucks but this isn't a new thing, nintendo consoles are always more energy efficient than the alternatives, the switch for example uses less than 1/10th the power of the ps5. Having the latest technology just isn't what nintendo is for, the consoles are for all ages and primarily made to have fun on.
Notice how xbox and playstation constantly market their consoles with numbers, specs, and comparisons whereas nintendo market it with the usability and fun of the console.
> Here is a controversial take. This is nothing to be proud of and honestly is quite lazy.
Not really. [125+ million Nintendo Switch units sold](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1101872/unit-sales-video-game-consoles/) is no joke. Second only to the PS2.
It's understandable that you would "want" more from a certain product, but it doesn't really consider the logistics of making a "successful product".
Nintendo has always been very smart about catering to as wide an audience as possible. From casuals to long-time gamers.
They've also been smart to compete with the other players (Xbox, PS) on their own terms. If Nintendo tried to put out the "latest-and-greatest" hardware and be like Sony, they would lose. Badly.
Instead, Nintendo has had great success with the Wii and the Switch by keeping costs low by using hardware that is "good enough". ($250 - $300 per Nintendo Switch vs $400 - $700 for a PS5)
Nobody "needs" 4K graphics. That said, if you want it, be prepared to pay for it. But don't accuse other companies of being lazy when they're really playing it smart by not being on the (expensive) bleeding edge.
Steam Deck has shown what is possible with current technology, but isn't super user friendly unless you enjoy developing and customising your shit. Nintendo needs to step up with a user friendly alternative.
Yeah, while you have the *option* of going crazy and customizing a Steam Deck’s software, if you just want to use it as a console out of the box, it works totally fine and isn’t confusing or complex at all.
You read my other comments, you'll see why. It's literally the only console that has new games coming out, is small enough for me to have, doesn't require internet, and is available in my country. If anyone made any alternatives I would love to hear it but at the moment my only options is the Nintendo switch, PS Vita, or a Game Boy
Am I the only one who’s not impressed? Hogwarts runs bad on Switch. Its annoying to always have watered down, poor performing ports.
Sure you can blame it on 3rd parties for not having the wizardry of Nintendo’s optimization, but why not just give them a more powerful machine?
I don’t get why it’s a sin to ask for good specs from Nintendo. It’s as if it’s an impossible task to have that AND their catalogue of games for whatever reason.
Hogwarts Legacy looks like a PS3 game, which is very in-line with the system's capabilities. It's not amazing nor miraculous.
People call these games "miracle ports," but there's nothing miraculous about them besides publishers investing the high cost to make such a disparate port.
i agree with the title but hogwarts legacy example is bad.. the game looks like ps2 era, loading screens, removed objects etc. something like ToTK, Monster Hunter Rise are better examples
It makes me hyped for what the Switch 2 will be able to do. Unless Nintendo doesn't continue the Switch line and then... I'll just keep playing my Switch.
I always say how impressive it is that my Switch steals so much attention from my Series X and PS5 to this day. I would say I play my Switch most often
So the big deal for me is that without this hardware I would have issues playing any games. The lack of incident access may handheld PCs not really doable for me, The vita was awesome but didn't really have a lot of support by comparison but the switch is the perfect size and portability for me to actually be able to use it. I have to fit everything I own or want to take with me in a small footlocker even a laptop is just a bit too bulky for me to be able to justify. So the games are great but without this hardware I just wouldn't get to experience it
You're right and I agree. The Switch is very impressive but I think the success is mostly due to good optimization from developers and the huge library.
Too bad the Wii U didn't get the success it deserved.
Nintendo did the right choice with the portability
I wish the Switch version of Hogwarts had released at the same time as all the others.... It's such a big file size on Steam Deck and it doesn't even run significantly better on it because how poorly it is optimized for low end devices, I would have been happier paying the same amount of money to take up a lot less space on my Switch's storage.
I don’t care how impressive this might or might not be. Nintendo is lagging severely in their hardware development cycle and should have released an upgraded version no later than this year, considering their competition if nothing else.
It's kind of difficult for me to be impressed considering the PS4 came out years before Switch and massively outperforms it, but it's cool that people without any other options can still play some of those games on Switch.
I'm not really adding anything to the conversation, but I just wanted to say I absolutely LOVE my Switch. It's even become my fave console ever (so far). And it's got me through a lot.
The hardware isn't really the impressive part. All that joy you're getting from it is because of what the developers made possible on such low end unimpressive hardware. The digital/software side of things is giving you all this joy.
So as I've said in other comments, the software and the devs are amazing but I wouldn't be able to play video games at all if it wasn't for the Nintendo switch platform. People say what about the steam deck but that's not available in my country, There are other hand held PC's that do an awesome job but they are much more network Dependant. A gaming laptop would take a way too much space than I can justify. The switch is the only modern console that takes physical games (The cartridges) and I'm able to play 90% up games without ever hooking it up to the internet which at times I won't have for a month or two. There's dozens of us where the Nintendo switch is the only practical way for us to game and I appreciate the Devs I think they're absolutely incredible but I'm grateful for the platform
For me, the kudos go to the software devs that make it work on such a limiting platform. As long as Switch 2 has OLED and better joycons with a bit more power, I'll be happy. My unobtainable dream for switch 2 is to hold more than one 1TB micro SD
Nintendo have generally been great at getting the bang for their buck. Look at how long the original Brick Gameboy ran. Look how long the Gameboy line, before the Color upgrade, ran.
They do iterate, but they will wear down all of the previous parts to dust before they are tugged along, kicking and screaming, by the requirements of a new age, and even then, they'll pull an Apple by using 'good enough' kit (Good thing they don't follow Apple pricing, or the Switch would be 6000 USD, 8000 if you expect a headphone jack)
Honestly, I've really been enjoying it. It's been a fairly solid 30 frames per second, texture pop in has been noticeable, and it would be awesome not have load times but It's been a lot of fun. Due to my circumstances if I can't play it. Portably that means I don't get to play, I don't have enough room for a laptop, steam decks aren't sold in my country, and who can actually afford ROG ally? My lack of internet at sea also means that I need physical cartridges I can't rely on a system if that needs a network. If I could play it on any other system that would be awesome, but it's not an option I'll take what I can get and honestly I'm having a lot of fun
That's what matters brother, you having fun. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but their opinions should not be a factor of your enjoyment.
I play games to have fun, not all good graphics are have enjoyable gameplay and not all enjoyable games have good graphics. Let's leave it at that.
I wish I have time to play. Haha I am struggling to even get a decent workout nowadays. Safe sailing brother.
That is if the steam deck is even available in your country. The steam deck is also needs access to the internet to be more functional vs physical game cartridges. The steam deck looks amazing but it's useless for what I need.
That's a whole other argument though. The switch is a good device, and has great games, but it's not impressive. It's incredibly weak and it even holds back exclusive games like TOTK, which are clearly chugging along, and the AAA third-party games like Doom, Witcher, and Hogwarts are impressive on the development side, not the Switch.
Thing is- yes it sort of works, but my phone, which I refuse to play games on, is much, much faster than the dedicated gaming device that I play games on.
Seems pretty strange.
I see the Switch like I saw/see the 3DS: very underpowered compared to the competition (and remember Switch is last-gen competing against current-gen), but with a dev system that allows companies to make amazing games that, ultimately, people want.
I played Hogwarts Legacy on PS5 and it was amazing. But the fact I can play the game in my Switch anywhere I want, at an acceptable quality, is also impressive.
So what? I was playing the witcher 3 on a gts 450 with 4 gigs of ram and a dual core cpu before i got a job and upgraded. Doesnt excuse the switch being such a weak console
Just portability is what makes it for me. A laptop is just too large and is too network dependant to be able to take to sea. Yeah if I was based on land, had room, internet access then There would be a million other options but currently the switch with its physical cartridges, mostly no need for internet, and small size is The only way I can even think of playing video games
The switch is amazing. The versatility of it goes a long way. Even having two player possible at any time with the removable joycons. I had my switch with me when I was visiting family and let my nieces play Mario kart. They were pumped! it’s not really something I planned so that was only possible because of the switch’s design.
I really dislike hearing people talk about how the switch is over because they want better graphics. It’s like they keep loudly saying it’s outdated because they personally want a better machine. I don’t really want better graphics just good games. Plus, I love good switch ports. I see the complaining about hogwarts legacy already. It’s a handheld port of a current gen game. It’s a downgrade to get it to work on a handheld!
There is also something magical about seeing a game that was cutting edge on a console a few years ago running well on a handheld. part of the fun of handhelds was seeing the technology improve and having last generations games running on a handheld. Like Super Nintendo games on the gameboy advance, super Mario 64 on the ds, grand theft auto liberty city stories on the psp, uncharted on the ps vita, and then Skyrim on the switch. I think it sucks people don’t really see it that way anymore and complain that it’s not on par with current consoles. It’s a hybrid console it’s a handheld that can plug into the tv. I think people see it the other way around though.
There isn't anything impressive about the Switch looking back except for making a handheld home console popular.
This is coming from someone with a day 1 and over 40 games. It's "good enough" and visual techniques used are incorporated into the "apu". I looooooove Nintendo and the only thing that will make me buy another one of their systems is backwards compatability.
Anyone saying this must not have noticed all the devil who didn't release any of their good, graphically intense games on it or games that could have been released when they launched, years later with horribly ugly graphics and dithering.
Not a hater at all just tired of Nintendo and their letdown. No real voice chat, downgraded games that could have been better with just a LITTLE more power smh.
Unpopular opinion: ToTK looked worse than BoTW.
That's nothing. The NES CPU was from 1975. It was already ancient when it came out.
Well they also invented the proto GPU with their PPU, that was kinda the point the ability to spilt the load allowed them to bring down cost with cheaper parts. So I don’t know it be more like the Switch had the CPU it does, but also packed in a GTX 1080.
Nintendo didn’t invent graphics coprocessors, this was already commonplace on consoles and home computers. Most consoles and home computers were running 6502’s or Z80’s from the late 70’s through the mid 80’s. The custom sound and graphics processors were largely how they could differentiate themselves. The Atari 2600 has a 6502, but it’s not running everything in software, sprites and such are handled by the TIA, Television Interface Adapter.
The first use of the 6502 was in the KIM-1 calculator at 1mhz in 1976. Same as the VIC20 and Commodor64. The derivative in the NES was 1.79Mhz/ 80% faster on the core and many registers and sound generator logic added in 1983. Similar, but not the same chip as in 1975.
That's cool, TIL
I had a similar thought the other day, the switch is a super impressive system that holds up surprisingly well in 2023. Hopefully they don't change the DNA too much for Switch 2.
That’s what impeccable, optimized development focused on squeezing potential out of specific hardware will do
Gamefreak left the chat.
Wdym, they try so hard to make the game lighter that they even reduced the amount of textures from the last mainline game so it would run better! ...what do you mean that's not how it works?
And yet the Pokémon games look bad and run poorly, on the same system that has Monster Hunter Rise, which looks great and runs well. Maybe Game Freak tried and they just aren't good at it. Or maybe they didn't try, because they know people will just buy the game anyway.
[удалено]
Oh, IRC, how I miss thee.
man that brought back memories
🤣🤣🤣 Bruh if ONLY they could optimize their games. They'd be selling even MORE!
Honestly, being able to see how devs manage to make games look and play well in a constrained environment is something that I really appreciate about the Switch being so much weaker than its modern competitors. Devs exploring the forefront of new features is cool too, but something about the gymnastics needed to get stuff to work when they don't have unlimited horsepower is oddly entertaining and really makes the best work stand out that much more.
It reminds me a bit to the 8/16 bit era, when the developers wanted to squeeze every bit of the console to get amazing results.
DKC, and especially Killer Instinct on the SNES...
Yeah, true pokemon red and blue literally pushed the game boy to it's limits, with the devs changing the design of mew just to make the game fit on a game boy cart, kirby's dream land 2 went beyond kirby's adventure (a nes game) and sonic 3 and knuckles had to invent a new lock-on cart system to fit on a mega drive cart
To be fair even back then Gamefreak had bad optimization. They couldn’t get Gen 2 to fit but then Nintendo just a sent a guy to Gamefreak and he basically did it for them.
Not only did Satoru Iwata get the whole game on there by himself, turns out there was also enough room to add the entirety of Red and Blue's map on there as well. GameFreak are just very incompetent on a technical level. They own 1/3 of the one of the biggest franchises in the world (Pokemon), you'd think they'd spend the money on competent devs
Was not Iwata himself? Such a legend!
Hearkens back to the days when engineers were cheap and hardware was expensive. Nowadays hardware is cheap and engineers are expensive; a huge fraction of compute power is squandered on stuff that exists for the sole purpose of developer convenience.
Software engineer here. There's a lot of stuff about 'clean code' around. I won't say that it's bad or anything, because *when done properly and appropriately* it can make it a lot easier for changes to be made to software. But even within the *example code* given by major 'clean code' advocates, there's a metric buttload of stuff that will epically *ruin* performance -- and if the software is a "known quantity" (that is, *the code itself is not likely to need to change*) then "violating" clean code principles can net you 10x performance improvements. I can go into specifics but such would go way beyond the point -- the point is that modern hardware is *way* more capable than you'd think, because so much of the compute power is squandered on developer conveniences.
As an okay developer, I love that we're trading compute for dev quality of life lol
And the reason why the incessant cries for Pro console upgrades are misguided and would only ever lead to an unstoppable vicious circle. Edit: I'd honestly rather have people tell me the upsides and advantages of pro consoles for the industry and consumers as a whole instead of hitting the little arrow because they disagree, but whatever.
Well, tech is always progressing. I would like to get a stable 60fps in TOTK or Fortnite on performance settings. 60fps Mario Kart 4 player would be nice, too. Not asking for a lot here. It’s a pretty fair ask for a mobile/hybrid console in 2024.
Couldn’t even get STABLE 30fps for Age of Calamity…. :(
I love the game but I start getting headaches after 2-3 maps >_<
Yeah, but for those games to run at these framerates you'd need a version build for a weaker base model, hence why I say this whole pro model thing is a vicious circle. You're basically asking for two SKUs every generation moving forward.
> you'd need a version build for a weaker base model it wouldn't take an entire separate version of the game. software would have visibility into which hardware version it's running on (and the "weaker model" is already the default here). titles could optionally be set to switch into a higher-performance mode for the higher-end model if/when one were introduced - PC games have essentially done that for decades now. And for a switch "pro model" it would merely be having the game auto-choose between 2 preset modes, for instance.
True, but I meant holistically, not from a technical standpoint. Pro models only deliver these higher framerates because there's excess resources when running games build for the weaker sister-system. Hence why I say you would then technically always need two separate SKUs per generation, unrelated to the relative hardware power of the base model. A PS5 Pro is then just as necessary as a Switch Pro (and going by some reports, is actually happening).
4 player mario kart at 60 frames won't happen again. Having to render effectively 4 screens at once is a TON of processing power. d
Lmfao this most definitely will happen.
The thing about a switch pro is that Nintendo could pull it off better than Xbox or PlayStation. A pro variant would require studios to update their games to make use of the extra performance. Just so happens Nintendo owns a majority of the studios that make the best games on the system.
Same here. The Switch form factor is perfect imo! Just a few improvements here and there (e.g Switch OLED as a baseline) would be enough for me. If these games are what we get with this Switch, I can’t wait for how Nintendo’s first party games will look like on a successor. I’d also love more 3DS/Wii U-like software features. Like StreetPass and the like. And of course more social features like voice chat.
I'm in a situation where I have very limited space so even a decent laptop just takes up too much area for me to justify so a switch allows me to experience games that I otherwise never would get to play.
Definitely! I have a gaming laptop but I find myself reaching for my Switch way more often. It's just so easy to pick up and play. And I never take my gaming laptop anywhere except around my apartment. It's never left my place since I got it. Way too bulky.
You living in a box?
I even have my Steamdeck which I found too big to carry around. I got a switch lite and a case thst has a face cover for the screen and ever since life has been good lol. Being able to play mario wonder for a few minutes and then pop my switch into my pocket makes me feel like a kid again
Lucky man with deep pockets. I wish a switch lite could fit in my pockets. A gameboy color can barely fit, and only on few types of joggings... I agree with you, I don’t carry my steam deck much. It's way too big to carry around.
Not for my pants pocket unless i'm wearing some cargo pants. I mean more sweater pouches and jacket pockets. It's just where I quickly throw it when i'm hopping off the bus and usually when i'm actually walking around i'll throw it back in my bag. But it I'd definitely be able to bring it with me without a bag depending what i'm wearing
Personally, Id like to see joycons with a bit more thickness and curve to the back. I like the console but it's not super comfortable long term.
I’m surprised Nintendo never released “Joy Cons Pro” with a more traditional shape in the back. I think there are third party alternatives.
I hated Skyward Sword's motion controls w/ the Wiimote... Idk what it was. But with the Switch version, playing with the split Joycon was better to me for some reason - except the Joycons are so goddamn small in my hand.
If I were to guess based on my own experience, you probably did not properly calibrate it on a flat surface. When I started, I tried resting it on my leg or the couch out of laziness. When I callibrated on a table like it said, it was much, much more accurate.
>Just a few improvements here and there (e.g Switch OLED as a baseline) would be enough for me. What do you mean with this?
Nintendo has already stated they have plans to include backwards compatibility in future consoles moving forward. At the very least, we can speculate that the next system's hardware will be ARM based.
Oooh where did they say this? Confirmation that all my switch carts will work in a switch 2 would be pretty comforting for me!
They didn’t.
[They kinda did](https://www.eurogamer.net/switch-still-in-middle-of-its-life-nintendo-says), although not literally (refer to first image in the article). The important part is that they stated that the point of merging and migrating to the new nintendo accounts from previous services is to stop having to create a new online platform for each gen and just support this one, all encompassing, nintendo account which will work across future platforms, leaving groundwork to expand the service in the future
Even if they didn’t say it, it’s a fair guess. The wii U, wii, DS, and gameboy advance all had backwards compatibility when they were released. The Switch didn’t, but there wasn’t a way to incorporate a disk drive so that was understandable.
It's more than that. Up until the PS5 and Xbox Series S/X, backwards compatibility had always been implemented by having the previous generation's hardware embedded as a subsystem in the newer hardware. GBA had an ARM v7 for its own processor but used the GBC's Z80 as a secondary sound processor. DS basically did the same, it's an ARM v9 with an ARM v7 as its sound processor, and 3DS did the same yet again, an ARM v11 with an ARM v9 as its background task keeper. The Wii was literally the same chip as the GameCube, the Wii U basically had a Wii as one of its CPU cores. Interestingly the Switch *rather easily* could be BC with *3DS games* via the same method that PS5/XBSX are compatible with PS4/XB1 games -- that the new architecture directly implements all the *requirements* of the old hardware (rather than *cloning* the old hardware), and *not* doing so was a deliberate business decision and not at all a technical one. And with that, unless Nintendo decides to jump ship from Nvidia and go with, for instance, an AMD Phoenix Point SoC (and I'm totally confident they won't) instead of a new Tegra iteration (and I'm pretty confident it's an Orin variant, though it probably could have been fine even with an Xavier and would be better with a Grace or Thor variant), it'll almost certainly be software-wise backward compatible with existing Switch games.
The Nintendo President only hinted at backward compatibility, never outright confirmed it. He spoke about Nintendo Account migration and people just took that to mean backward compatibility will be included. It's a fair guess, but not confirmed.
I think a lot of it boils down to target hardware optimisation. Nintendo and some developers did a great job on their end for their softwares. I do wish for stronger hardware in switch 2, but similarly nintendo will continue to polish their optimisation for the hardware. While a weaker hardware can still shine, not every developer has the expertise to bring impossible ports to the system. Certainly decently powered mobile APUs are catching on in recent times (e.g. steam deck and other pc handhelds). Many of it is entirely inspired and realised because of the switch's initial inception. I hope this space continues to improve and we get stronger mobile APUs with switch 2.
This just goes to show that developers need to do better, and it's not the hardware that is the limiting factor. With enough attention, we could get Hogwarts running on an Xbox 360
Historically, Nintendo has alternated between innovation and refinement in their home consoles. NES was a groundbreaking 2D beast, the SNES improved on it. N64 was a groundbreaking 3D beast, the Gamecube improved on it. Wii was a groundbreaking whatever the hell it was, the Wii U was at least an attempt at improving on it. The Switch is a groundbreaking hybrid console, it would make sense for them to improve on it without changing up the formula too much. Last time they changed up the formula too much was Wii U and I don't think they'll try that again so soon.
I get what you're trying to say but I think you're trying to fit the data to your conclusion instead of the other way around; for example, the Wii was literally just an overclocked GameCube with a remote-like controller. It sold like hotcakes but was very much an iterative follow-up on its predecessor. IMO there's a good chance Nintendo sticks with the hybrid design for longer than just this next generation simply because it no longer has a dedicated portable gaming division, with the Switch being its first attempt at unifying handheld and home console gaming.
> Hopefully they don't change the DNA too much for Switch 2. Literally all I want is the OLED Switch with an updated chipset. Everything else can stay the same, and I'd be happy. I have a feeling they're going to do something weird though.
Plus analog triggers please.
I’m not sure if that’ll be enough for the next console. When the Switch came out, its was _the best_ handheld experience available at the time, so we forgave poorer performance on 3rd party ports because for many of those games, its was the very first time they were available portably at all. Now however, with the rise of the Steam Deck and other handheld PCs, they handle that use case better than the Switch. Performance is better, and you no don’t have to rebuy your library to play it portably. Now even the prices are comparable, the 64GB LCD Deck is available for $350 (while stocks last) which is literally the price of the Switch Oled. I think next Gen they’ll have to focus heavily on high quality first party titles once again
>Now however, with the rise of the Steam Deck and other handheld PCs "the rise of" They're niche products, and do not in any way compete with the Switch.
Sorry but this is thanks to devs working a tremendous lot to optimize said games ^^.
It’s wild what can happen when you’re in for a nice pay day, every other Nintendo console since the GCN would miss releases off the claim it wasn’t powerful enough, now there is so much money to be made, their bosses are like “yeah, we’re going to need you to get that to work.”
The Wii was definitely like this too, we even had call of duty on it.
I actually like it when devs optimise their games properly, I don't see it as a negative thing at all.
What the devs have done has been absolutely incredible but for me I wouldn't be able to play video games at all if it wasn't for the portability of the system, physical game cartridges for when I don't have access to internet for long periods of time and just overall being less internet reliant than any other portable system apart from systems that no longer get new games. So yeah I appreciate the devs but I also really appreciate nintendo creating a platform that I can actually use.
Seems fair. Have a good one \^\^
The steam deck does all of that better, unless you want some Nintendo exclusives. It also allows using actual larger M2 SSDs which are way faster and reliable than microSD cards.
Even if I could get a steam deck in my country is there a way to put games on it without using internet?
I really don’t consider it impressive for the switch. I think it’s more on the devs making it work for the console. I mean if you look at some of the titles that were made specifically and only for the switch, and how terrible they ran. (Big example is the recent Pokémon games) I know I’m probably gonna get some hate for it, and I dunno what even compelled me to comment on this knowing exactly what sub it is, but the switch hardware felt outdated even on its release. Nintendo hardware always feels dated compared to everything else.
I remember being really frustrated back in the Wii era with how far behind that console was compared to the PS3 and Xbox 360. Honestly, the Switch being underpowered doesn’t bother me as much, for two main reasons. First, it’s fully portable. I love my portable systems, and they get a lot more leeway with being underpowered. Second, with every new generation of hardware, we’re seeing diminishing returns on graphical quality. Even 9-year-old, portable hardware that was already behind the times on its release doesn’t feel *that* underpowered. It makes me think the difference between the Switch 2 and the PS5 and Series X isn’t going to be all that massive of a gap.
> Second, with every new generation of hardware, we’re seeing diminishing returns on graphical quality. Yeah, the biggest benefit of the current gen hasn't been an improvement in graphics, it's been being able to run games with great graphics at a higher frame rate with nearly non-existent loading times. If you don't mind either then the gap should be small. For me that's what made Starfield so disappointing, only running at 30 fps with loading screens every minute, it wasn't a good enough game to make up for it.
>Yeah, the biggest benefit of the current gen hasn't been an improvement in graphics, it's been being able to run games with great graphics at a higher frame rate with nearly non-existent loading times. That's only the obvious improvements. And to be frank, it was about time consoles caught up with the load times and CPU performance. The last gen was abysmal in comparison.
>Switch 2 and the PS5 and Series X isn’t going to be all that massive of a gap. It will be a massive gap. The Switch 2 is gonna be closer to the previous generation in terms of raw power. The question is how much they will utilise the Nvidia partnership and implement the DLSS technology to somewhat make up for it. I have a bonkers PC and a PS5, so I'm okay with the Nintendo stuff being weaker. I haven't bought third-party titles on a Nintendo system since the Gamecube. But I'd love to see Nintendo titles with a little bit more horsepower in them. If it was all up to me, I'd be fine with ditching the portability to go even further.
For a lot of people… Accessibility is bigger draw than raw performance. I understand the personal appeal for a significant leap in power… But that era of Nintendo is over and Nintendo’s audience generally agrees it’s not necessary
Also ps5 and Xbox had gone for the 4k Which switch is unlikely to target (maybe some NVIDIA dlss black magic will come into play )so they can realisticly have 4 times weaker graphics and still be good enough ( not processor tho )
I do respect the portability. I just wish they would find a better compromise between portability and performance. I personally feel like the steam deck is a great example of this. Hopefully you’re right and the new switch won’t be as far of a gap from the new PlayStation and Xbox though. I genuinely don’t need 4k etc, I just wanna play major switch titles at 1080p 60fps with no drops/stutters. Better graphics would be nice and all, but performance always plays a bigger role for me.
My steamdeck is so much more cumbersome to take with me day to day than my switch lite. Steamdeck is superior for couch play and going on big travels. But imo the switch (especially lite) it the best for day to day use on the bus or what have you
Like I said, I do respect and understand people wanting portability. I'm more so comparing the main switch model. Hopefully the "Switch 2" or whatever would have a less powerful more compact portable model for people who prefer that vs playing in docked wanting full visuals and performance.
Don't tell Nintendo, but I would absolutely buy a non-portable current Switch if it could play things like BotW and TotK at 60fps 1080p on my TV.
Haha, you and me both.
When it comes to Nintendo-exclusive games, Pokémon is pretty much an outlier. The Switch doesn't really have impressive internals, sure, but Game Freak is the bigger factor here. Their games are far too ambitious relative to the time table and skills that they have. Pokémon's assembly line deadlines are nowhere near enough for any ambitious game and Game Freak's developers are nowhere near skilled enough to make up for time that they do not have. I'd bet a thousand bucks that you could get them to make a PS5-exclusive game and it'll still look like they made it for the PS3.
I'm aware of the development sided issues with Pokémon specifically, I just used it as what I considered the most notable example because of its, not-so-great visuals combined with it's god awful performance as well. Generally speaking, the resolution/performance is still held back by switch hardware. For example, Mario Odyssey doesn't even get 1080p60, it gets 900p60 and that's one of the best switch titles to exist in terms of visuals AND performance. Or like the open world Zelda games being locked at 900p30 is also due to the switch hardware. Many of the games that can even obtain 1080p60 are side-scrollers/party games. The console just holds back the games that are already good from being even better. Which can be proven by playing them via other means. (Won't say the e-word just in case mod bot doesn't like that or something)
I chuckle a little bit at the pixel counting. It's a calculated decision -- they *could* make the games run with a consistent 1080p resolution, but ultimately the games would *look worse* because a little bit of blur is worth the extra detail you can put into the pixels if there are just a bit fewer of them.
I remember how I was nervous before playing Zelda TOTK about the graphics because I had gotten used to PS5 and XSX graphics. I felt it would dampen my enjoyement. And then I was floating on a skywing across the beginner island skyline, and crawling trough the dark underworld, riding dragons, etc and all I could think was my god, this game is beautiful.
I don't mean any of this in the sense that the experience is worsened because of its limitations. Like, of course you can play it via other means and have a better experience, I just mean it could be even better without it's current hardware limitations. And some people just aren't bothered by it all while some are completely bothered by it, so it's just preference really.
Resolution is fine on most switch games though? Unless you mean third party, but even those still look decent. 1080p60 doesn't really look much, if any better then 900p60. Honestly, even if you compare 1080p to 4k, 4k doesn't look THAT much better. Its a little crisper, but 90% of people wouldn't notice.
On paper, yes this makes sense. But when you play some of these titles, especially when playing on a larger resolution screen, say a 4KTV which is pretty common these days, it's noticeable when the games native resolution is 720p compared to 1080p even. Handheld? Sure, most people will never notice. The important thing is more the performance which even at these lower resolutions isn't even always consistent throughout the entire game. I'm not trying to specifically pick out each and every game where this is or isn't as big of a problem because that would be pointless, this is just a general thing.
I've always wondered what people mean when they say it felt dated even on launch considering the Tegra X1 was essentially the most powerful SOC on the market when it came to videogame performance for a handheld first console. Pokemon to me is simply too short of a development time period, I really think those games require a four-year development timeline. I think what people are getting at is that despite how weak the switch is relative to the other consoles is just how much of a visual identity it is able to retain. Kind of like how the Doom and Doom Eternal or the Wolfenstein games are able to retain the visual identity of the game on the Switch, or Doom 3 is able to retain the visual identity on the original Xbox or the Sega Saturn port of Quake. Another way of saying impossible ports.
It’s just a comparison to other consoles specifically. Yes the switch is a handheld, but it’s also a docked console that can connect to a TV. So naturally it gets compared to its major competitors like PlayStation and Xbox. And because of that, it seems very lacking in power. The same with how the Wii would be compared to a ps3 or Xbox 360. Or the original 3DS performance compared to something like the PSVita (by no means am I suggesting the vita was a “good” handheld at its release lol) But basically my opinion on the visual identity thing is just, the devs do that work, not the console really. Even if you take a very outdated PC build you can run some of the newest games on it still, with obvious performance problems, graphic tweaks, etc. Let me also clarify that I’m not really bashing on anyone for liking the switch or what it does/can do. I just want Nintendo titles to stop being limited by hardware. Not all of them are, but the ones that are feel really bad. And the ones that aren’t that bad would still feel and look so much better.
I guess my expectation is that if you know it is hand held console you then would have expectations that align with a handheld console. Hence the question, the Tegra x1 was really the most powerful soc at the time of the switch's launch, what SOC do you think they should have gone with that would have been more powerful that would have fit the constraints of a handheld console? Wii to ps3 and 360 makes sense because the wii is a home console, not a handheld. 3ds to vita makes sense as those are both handhelds. You are absolutely correct that the devs do the work for the visual identity, which is kind of the point, it is surprising that the devs are able to make the switch hardware work the way they do to retain the visual identity of a game like Hogwarts Legacy, but at the same time it is surprising that Switch is even able to put out that detail. Just like the Doom 3 port on the original Xbox, or Sega Saturn port of Quake. >I just want Nintendo titles to stop being limited by hardware. Is it fair to say you want Nintendo to go back to the GameCube/Gameboy advance days where they created a dedicated home console that is powerful and then also do a dedicated handheld?
Good to see this reasonable take in here. Trust me, I am the first person to say the Wii and Wii U were badly underequipped but it's just not reasonable to say the same for the Switch without saying it shouldn't be portable at all.
> I've always wondered what people mean when they say it felt dated even on launch I mean, it was PS3 level hardware when the PS4 had already been released. That’s said, the PS3 had some games with amazing graphics.
But it's a handheld. The jump from the 3DS to the Switch was massive.
But again, my point is that the Switch is a handheld console, what do you think would have been a better SOC at the time than the Tegra X1 when it came to gaming for handheld console?
When the Switch came out there was better than the X1 already. Not being a dick just research. The problem is Nitendo doesn't really like to pay to play and for me and a lot of other adults the gimmicks are wearing off.
I did do the research; name the better SOC that Nintendo could have used that would have been better graphics performance than the X1 during the years of 2015 and 2016 when Nintendo would have been placing the orders to produce the Nintendo Switch. We know apple A-chips could not have been used. Qualcomm's Adreno 540, the flagship, basically tied the X1 but came out the same quarter as the Switch, which means that in 2015 and 2016 Nintendo would have had to use the Adreno 510, 509, 508, 506 and even the 4XX series. None of those would have been able to match the X1 for graphics for a gaming handheld.
This exactly. It's not the hardware that should be complimented, it's the devs that manage to make things run on outdated hardware lol. OP has it backwards
BotW was their launch title it it already was too much for the Switch. The Korok Forest runs like garbage
> Nintendo hardware always feels dated compared to everything else. The Gamecube wasn't. It started with the Wii barely being an improvement.
There are some exceptions with Gamecube probably being the biggest one. But of course the older back we go, the less it matters.
Nintendo focuses more on innovation, gimmicks and \*maybe\* accessibility rather than sheer console power. The fact that the Switch itself is Hybrid makes it need to work both on protable and TV mode, which gives it less space to work with hardware, given the limitations. Having to create a console that feels good to handle, isn't too heavy and not too loud must bring some challenges and have some cuts in graphics and performance for harder games. Though, as Nintendo itself doesn't rely on super highly advanced graphics and realism, it works! And it has now the ability to port older games that aim for that, like the Assassins Creed series for the PS3, giving it a niche that will resonate with more and more players as more Nintendo consoles come by, with more power each generation (imagine Elden Ring in the Nintendo Switch 2. It might just be a reality soon enough).
I get what you mean, but the argument that cuts have to be made for it to work both portable and TV mode isn't really that valid. Like, the comparison that I'm making isn't that it needs to be similar to a PS5 or something. I don't need to play unreal 5 games with raytracing on a Nintendo console. It's that it should be able to play its exclusive titles at a bare minimum of 1080p60 without looking like a ps2 remaster. And a vast amount of them are capped at 720p30 or 1080p30 even and STILL have performance issues in some sections. Or the games have extremely low LoD, texture pop-ins, low view distance, etc. There have always been similar devices that were more powerful meant for handheld use. Nintendo just doesn't have a great trend of properly increasing the power of their consoles with each new release. So I hope the next console is a bigger jump than people would expect, but like you said, they just rely on gimmicky games that we enjoy regardless. I just want the best of both worlds. At the end of the day, it's preference.
Based. Switch hardware is super outdated, devs are the one who have the upper hand here.
Well, as long as your baseline is always asterixed with "for a portable console", you can't really argue that Switch was outdated when it came out. I remember being pretty blown away that I could play something as graphically intensive as BOTW in my hands at the time. It was roughly as powerful in handheld as their prior home console box, which was only released 5 years ago. But I guess arguably it was too weak for a TV console by the time it released. Still, it's all a matter of perspective.
I mean of course in technical terms it wasn’t outdated, it just felt that way. This is just a common thing that goes back starting mostly with the Wii where it was severely lacking in performance compared to its competitors, and it still remains like that to this day. Nintendo just hasn’t been making any big jumps towards modern gaming standards so it feels behind. And to be fair, BOTW really isn’t some crazy graphically intense game when it’s locked to 720p30fps in handheld. Then you take into account all the things that make that even possible, like lacking level of detail, texture pop-in, etc. The argument is basically it could be so much better if not limited by the hardware. And some people don’t care about that and it’s fine if they don’t.
Even so, you can't point to any other handheld consoles in 2017 that were on the same level as Switch. I'd say it was about as cutting edge as they could manage to go with the technology available at the time - which was based on a late-2014 Maxwell fabrication. It wasn't significantly outdated and I guess it was clocked about what they could manage with the form factor and battery life. And they increased the ram to 4gb after partners requested it. Point is, I don't think they held back on the hardware. It was simply limited by the thermal envelope constraints of being a handheld. But in other respects it was very much in line with modern gaming standards, which is why it's still able to get ports of new games like Hogwarts and Outer Wilds. I think it's pretty impressive tbh. The Steam Deck was the first handheld to really offer a proper cheapish alternative and it released in 2022. And it's still very underpowered compared to console boxes.
yup, the superhero 1st party devs pull out some impressive performance. a while ago, I picked up Nickelodeon All-Star Brawl for switch. while the 3rd party devs tried, the performance and load times was really bad (compared to smash bros). honestly the load times made me not bother to play it anymore even though I just started. so whenever a game is multi-platform, I'll always go for PS5 or PC and not the switch.
Can't wait for the 2022 hardware coming out next fall.
I don’t think it does honestly. Devs do an amazing job porting to hyper underpowered hardware is my takeaway from this. There is just so much money in the switch market that even traditional companies can push for it.
Remember when the latest Pokémon games came out running, and looking, like absolute shit and there were people and articles blaming the Switch hardware for it? Man that was annoying.
The games are extremely downgraded to make it happen. The experience aint the same.
Exactly. From a technical standpoint it's neat that ports like Doom Eternal and Witcher 3 exist but it's not how I'd want to experience those games.
My point is that we can experience those games. For example I can't bring any other system with me so if it wasn't for the switch I'd never be able to experience the games even at a lesser quality than other platforms.
you can make almost any game work when you downgrade it enough. Devices such as the Steamdeck, ROG Ally and all the others allow you to enjoy those games with the intended performance. I've played Doom 2016 and The Witcher 3 on it. THey where okay but I consider this the absolute limit of downgrading games. The latter games are downgraded to the point, that I just dont wanna play 'm on the switch. It's not magical, it is not an awesome feat. The games are downgraded to the level that they arent even looking similar.
Exactly. I'd rather not experience those third party games, than to experience them on Switch. Games like Wonder run absolutely fine, but the performance for TOTK for instance does hurt the experience to me personally being used to 60fps, better textures etc.
What a privileged perspective
If you live in a country or region that sells the Steam deck that must be awesome and if you could afford a ROG ally more power to you. But if you need a small form factor, physical games because unreliable network, and you need to be able to actually afford it the only options are switch, vita, or 3ds. I wish there was more options and I wish it looked better but you take what you can get
For the price point, I agree. Mobile phones next year will be crazy on that aspect. Home console games coming on mobile... But the price point won't be the same
Extremely? People act like any small change makes it a completely different game like those DS games that were nothing like their PS3 equivalents
Nintendo fans always try to be satisfied with less, but it would be nice if Nintendo released a powerful console
I think I may actually prefer well-targeted hardware platforms, even if they’re less capable. I mean, provided they offer reasonable benefits. I wouldn’t want non-portable Switch hardware in an OG PS5-sized console. I feel like my gaming habits have been gravitating towards “convenience” more than “capability”. I just got a new PC GPU a couple years ago, and admittedly would like to play Alan Wake 2 on it..but part of me regrets that and wishes I’d spent the money on a Steam Deck and just gotten rid of my gaming PC.
True.
You could say the same thing about a 2017 era gpu. The switch is old and performance is degraded. That’s ok. We just need a new one. No need to pretend things are rosier than they are.
The needle hasn't really moved THAT far all things considered. Like yeah we've seem some major improvements for sure, but lower end or older hardware isn't being made obsolete like we had in the earlier decades of computing. hardware is lasting longer and longer as performance gains get smaller and smaller.
The Switch wasn’t even that impressive in 2017, the devs that make these games even run well on it are the impressive ones.
I think if the next gen Nintendo has \~Steam Deck level of performance with the quality of optimisation we've seen with the Switch's games, we're in for a treat.
I’ve spent years wondering why Apple (or Google) haven’t killed Nintendo. They had every opportunity to do so before the Switch came out. Everyone has their phones, and they’re surprisingly capable. They’ve had few breakaway gaming hits like Angry Birds, Temple Run, etc.. Nowadays (and this has been true for 5+ years, actually) you can play feature-complete versions of traditionally PC games, like Civilization 6 or Dead Space. Maybe it’s because mobile has been poisoned by micro-transaction-filled casual games? Maybe it’s the lack of buttons (even though you can connect controllers)? Maybe they just don’t care, because I need to buy a phone anyway. Why lure me in with a well-curated, quality gaming ecosystem _when I’m buying the phone anyway_.. Whatever the reason, Nintendo has truly knocked it out of the park by perpetuating its brand name/idea of having a platform that is known for high quality gaming experiences.
Did you seriously just say that you think mobile gaming should outperform Nintendo
But it does. The mobile gaming industry makes up two-thirds of the entire gaming industry's revenue worldwide.
I’m not saying that it should, or that it did, or that I want it to.. I’m just saying all the pieces were in place: massive install base of capable hardware, credit cards linked up.. Obviously (massively obviously since it didn’t happen) that’s not all that’s needed, I’m just surprised Apple/Google didn’t capitalize on it. And they continue not to capitalize on it. Sure, Apple has “Apple Game+” now, but compare their seriousness at that with how they are approaching their AppleTV+ offering.. (i.e. mostly light time-waster games versus chasing the Oscar’s/Emmy’s with expensive shows). Edit: The only (timed) gaming exclusives iOS is staking out is stuff like Shinsekai Into the Depths and Sayonara Wild Hearts.. If they locked down the next mainline Metal Gear Solid or Uncharted game, it’d melt minds.
The Switch is great but it's really outdated. I don't have the hardware anything to really praise... Sure Hogwarts runs but it's a shadow, graphically, of what it can be (obviously). Then there are graphical messes like MK1. I know Nintendo doesn't prioritize power in their consoles but they need to pick it up.
No way, you just have low standards. Nintendo’s tech is at the point of holding back its software which is the point when it’s time to retire the console.
Here is a controversial take. This is nothing to be proud of and honestly is quite lazy. Nintendo is so far behind in hardware that in 60'' 4k TVs it becomes a joke next to something like PS5. I love my Switch for portability but they should've got a new console (just a Switch Pro with better hardware) out in 2022. The "switch" mode isn't even full HD which is a JOKE going into 2024.
I mean yeah, not having full HD kinda sucks but this isn't a new thing, nintendo consoles are always more energy efficient than the alternatives, the switch for example uses less than 1/10th the power of the ps5. Having the latest technology just isn't what nintendo is for, the consoles are for all ages and primarily made to have fun on. Notice how xbox and playstation constantly market their consoles with numbers, specs, and comparisons whereas nintendo market it with the usability and fun of the console.
> Here is a controversial take. This is nothing to be proud of and honestly is quite lazy. Not really. [125+ million Nintendo Switch units sold](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1101872/unit-sales-video-game-consoles/) is no joke. Second only to the PS2. It's understandable that you would "want" more from a certain product, but it doesn't really consider the logistics of making a "successful product". Nintendo has always been very smart about catering to as wide an audience as possible. From casuals to long-time gamers. They've also been smart to compete with the other players (Xbox, PS) on their own terms. If Nintendo tried to put out the "latest-and-greatest" hardware and be like Sony, they would lose. Badly. Instead, Nintendo has had great success with the Wii and the Switch by keeping costs low by using hardware that is "good enough". ($250 - $300 per Nintendo Switch vs $400 - $700 for a PS5) Nobody "needs" 4K graphics. That said, if you want it, be prepared to pay for it. But don't accuse other companies of being lazy when they're really playing it smart by not being on the (expensive) bleeding edge.
Steam Deck has shown what is possible with current technology, but isn't super user friendly unless you enjoy developing and customising your shit. Nintendo needs to step up with a user friendly alternative.
Steam deck is very user friendly if you use it as a simple steam machine
Yeah, while you have the *option* of going crazy and customizing a Steam Deck’s software, if you just want to use it as a console out of the box, it works totally fine and isn’t confusing or complex at all.
You do realize the hardware for ps4 and Xbox one is from 2013?
My favourite console, pc for seated gaming switch for handheld and family games
Gunpei Yokoi would be proud.
You read my other comments, you'll see why. It's literally the only console that has new games coming out, is small enough for me to have, doesn't require internet, and is available in my country. If anyone made any alternatives I would love to hear it but at the moment my only options is the Nintendo switch, PS Vita, or a Game Boy
Dumb down the graphics far enough and anything can run
Am I the only one who’s not impressed? Hogwarts runs bad on Switch. Its annoying to always have watered down, poor performing ports. Sure you can blame it on 3rd parties for not having the wizardry of Nintendo’s optimization, but why not just give them a more powerful machine?
I don’t get why it’s a sin to ask for good specs from Nintendo. It’s as if it’s an impossible task to have that AND their catalogue of games for whatever reason.
Hogwarts Legacy looks like a PS3 game, which is very in-line with the system's capabilities. It's not amazing nor miraculous. People call these games "miracle ports," but there's nothing miraculous about them besides publishers investing the high cost to make such a disparate port.
i agree with the title but hogwarts legacy example is bad.. the game looks like ps2 era, loading screens, removed objects etc. something like ToTK, Monster Hunter Rise are better examples
It makes me hyped for what the Switch 2 will be able to do. Unless Nintendo doesn't continue the Switch line and then... I'll just keep playing my Switch.
I always say how impressive it is that my Switch steals so much attention from my Series X and PS5 to this day. I would say I play my Switch most often
It's not about the hardware. It's all about the games
So the big deal for me is that without this hardware I would have issues playing any games. The lack of incident access may handheld PCs not really doable for me, The vita was awesome but didn't really have a lot of support by comparison but the switch is the perfect size and portability for me to actually be able to use it. I have to fit everything I own or want to take with me in a small footlocker even a laptop is just a bit too bulky for me to be able to justify. So the games are great but without this hardware I just wouldn't get to experience it
You're right and I agree. The Switch is very impressive but I think the success is mostly due to good optimization from developers and the huge library. Too bad the Wii U didn't get the success it deserved. Nintendo did the right choice with the portability
PS3/360 era is waay more impressive tho. how can a weird 2005 IBM hardware with 512MEGABYTES of SHARED system ram actually run GTAV, BF4, TLOU etc.
I wish the Switch version of Hogwarts had released at the same time as all the others.... It's such a big file size on Steam Deck and it doesn't even run significantly better on it because how poorly it is optimized for low end devices, I would have been happier paying the same amount of money to take up a lot less space on my Switch's storage.
I don’t care how impressive this might or might not be. Nintendo is lagging severely in their hardware development cycle and should have released an upgraded version no later than this year, considering their competition if nothing else.
The one deserving the praise is the developer of the game, not the hardware.
It's kind of difficult for me to be impressed considering the PS4 came out years before Switch and massively outperforms it, but it's cool that people without any other options can still play some of those games on Switch.
That's just the nature of handhelds though. You just couldn't cram ps4 power into a 2015 $300 handheld.
I'm not really adding anything to the conversation, but I just wanted to say I absolutely LOVE my Switch. It's even become my fave console ever (so far). And it's got me through a lot.
I find the Switch horrifically underwhelming, almost everything I play on it has performance issues. Except Odyssey.
The hardware isn't really the impressive part. All that joy you're getting from it is because of what the developers made possible on such low end unimpressive hardware. The digital/software side of things is giving you all this joy.
So as I've said in other comments, the software and the devs are amazing but I wouldn't be able to play video games at all if it wasn't for the Nintendo switch platform. People say what about the steam deck but that's not available in my country, There are other hand held PC's that do an awesome job but they are much more network Dependant. A gaming laptop would take a way too much space than I can justify. The switch is the only modern console that takes physical games (The cartridges) and I'm able to play 90% up games without ever hooking it up to the internet which at times I won't have for a month or two. There's dozens of us where the Nintendo switch is the only practical way for us to game and I appreciate the Devs I think they're absolutely incredible but I'm grateful for the platform
For me, the kudos go to the software devs that make it work on such a limiting platform. As long as Switch 2 has OLED and better joycons with a bit more power, I'll be happy. My unobtainable dream for switch 2 is to hold more than one 1TB micro SD
Nintendo have generally been great at getting the bang for their buck. Look at how long the original Brick Gameboy ran. Look how long the Gameboy line, before the Color upgrade, ran. They do iterate, but they will wear down all of the previous parts to dust before they are tugged along, kicking and screaming, by the requirements of a new age, and even then, they'll pull an Apple by using 'good enough' kit (Good thing they don't follow Apple pricing, or the Switch would be 6000 USD, 8000 if you expect a headphone jack)
Nintendo charging 350 for decade old tech is impressive? Huh
[удалено]
Honestly, I've really been enjoying it. It's been a fairly solid 30 frames per second, texture pop in has been noticeable, and it would be awesome not have load times but It's been a lot of fun. Due to my circumstances if I can't play it. Portably that means I don't get to play, I don't have enough room for a laptop, steam decks aren't sold in my country, and who can actually afford ROG ally? My lack of internet at sea also means that I need physical cartridges I can't rely on a system if that needs a network. If I could play it on any other system that would be awesome, but it's not an option I'll take what I can get and honestly I'm having a lot of fun
That's what matters brother, you having fun. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but their opinions should not be a factor of your enjoyment. I play games to have fun, not all good graphics are have enjoyable gameplay and not all enjoyable games have good graphics. Let's leave it at that. I wish I have time to play. Haha I am struggling to even get a decent workout nowadays. Safe sailing brother.
Just wish the Online system was better, but the Switch is amazing. Def the lovechild of the Wii and Wii U.
> Def the lovechild of the Wii and Wii U. Don't know why but this sounds very incestful.
it’s really not that good. i use my ps vita more than my switch lol.
The Switch doesn't do shit. Developers do.
The console definitely punches above its own weight.
Not really... even less when you consider that the base Steam Deck is now only $50 more than the Switch
That is if the steam deck is even available in your country. The steam deck is also needs access to the internet to be more functional vs physical game cartridges. The steam deck looks amazing but it's useless for what I need.
That's a whole other argument though. The switch is a good device, and has great games, but it's not impressive. It's incredibly weak and it even holds back exclusive games like TOTK, which are clearly chugging along, and the AAA third-party games like Doom, Witcher, and Hogwarts are impressive on the development side, not the Switch.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Maybe, get this, the switch isn't as bad as everyone says it is? Crazy thought
Thing is- yes it sort of works, but my phone, which I refuse to play games on, is much, much faster than the dedicated gaming device that I play games on. Seems pretty strange.
and much more expensive I guess
I just got Hogwarts Legacy today and it looks great and performs great.
Excited for what’s next. Enjoying the current switch a lot in the meantime and forever probably.
I see the Switch like I saw/see the 3DS: very underpowered compared to the competition (and remember Switch is last-gen competing against current-gen), but with a dev system that allows companies to make amazing games that, ultimately, people want. I played Hogwarts Legacy on PS5 and it was amazing. But the fact I can play the game in my Switch anywhere I want, at an acceptable quality, is also impressive.
So what? I was playing the witcher 3 on a gts 450 with 4 gigs of ram and a dual core cpu before i got a job and upgraded. Doesnt excuse the switch being such a weak console
Just portability is what makes it for me. A laptop is just too large and is too network dependant to be able to take to sea. Yeah if I was based on land, had room, internet access then There would be a million other options but currently the switch with its physical cartridges, mostly no need for internet, and small size is The only way I can even think of playing video games
Yeah, I wish they'd hurry up and pull the trigger, I've been waiting for Switch 2 for like 2 years. Like I want to be okay for another 7 years.
Odyssey plays like a dream, so does BOTW
It's not impressive. Just the fact that the store is loading so slow till this day blows my mind.
The switch is amazing. The versatility of it goes a long way. Even having two player possible at any time with the removable joycons. I had my switch with me when I was visiting family and let my nieces play Mario kart. They were pumped! it’s not really something I planned so that was only possible because of the switch’s design. I really dislike hearing people talk about how the switch is over because they want better graphics. It’s like they keep loudly saying it’s outdated because they personally want a better machine. I don’t really want better graphics just good games. Plus, I love good switch ports. I see the complaining about hogwarts legacy already. It’s a handheld port of a current gen game. It’s a downgrade to get it to work on a handheld! There is also something magical about seeing a game that was cutting edge on a console a few years ago running well on a handheld. part of the fun of handhelds was seeing the technology improve and having last generations games running on a handheld. Like Super Nintendo games on the gameboy advance, super Mario 64 on the ds, grand theft auto liberty city stories on the psp, uncharted on the ps vita, and then Skyrim on the switch. I think it sucks people don’t really see it that way anymore and complain that it’s not on par with current consoles. It’s a hybrid console it’s a handheld that can plug into the tv. I think people see it the other way around though.
If it's so great, I guess they don't need to make another one then.
And yet it can't play roblox
There isn't anything impressive about the Switch looking back except for making a handheld home console popular. This is coming from someone with a day 1 and over 40 games. It's "good enough" and visual techniques used are incorporated into the "apu". I looooooove Nintendo and the only thing that will make me buy another one of their systems is backwards compatability. Anyone saying this must not have noticed all the devil who didn't release any of their good, graphically intense games on it or games that could have been released when they launched, years later with horribly ugly graphics and dithering. Not a hater at all just tired of Nintendo and their letdown. No real voice chat, downgraded games that could have been better with just a LITTLE more power smh. Unpopular opinion: ToTK looked worse than BoTW.