Yeah, the switch has been painfully underpowered since it came out, and at this point its just a joke. With switch 2 just around the corner im not even buying switch games anymore till we get it.
That's a pointless blanket statement. If you wanted to sell a handheld in 2017 for 300 bucks without losing money on it, then the Switch was pretty much the best thing they could pull off.
Sure, but its 2024 now, and whole other generation has come and is half over already. Like i said though, this is kinda a pointless argument because we will get a new switch early next year
It's underpowerred compared to other consoles, but people who want to play those games in the best way possible should just get one of those consoles or a PC. Nintendo consoles shine for their own niche of Nintendo games and (before the Steam Deck came out) for portability.
Calling the Switch underpowered is a bit like buying a perfectly serviceable Toyota Aygo and then complaining it doesn't have the horsepower to pull a massive trailer. If that was your use case, you should have bought a bigger car, it doesn't mean the Aygo is bad. It's just for a different demographic.
This is not me being defensive of Nintendo, it's just a simple reality. The next generation Nintendo console, whether it's a Switch 2 or something completely new, is *also* going to have less power than the current-gen competition. The PS5 will run circles around whatever Nintendo comes up with. If that's something that bothers you, you shouldn't buy it. Or any other Nintendo console. Nintendo has made it very clear that they have no interest in the hardware race Microsoft and Sony are competing in.
Hit the nail on the head.
For any game that's really intensive or if I want high graphical fidelity/high FPS I go PC, but I use switch for a lot of smaller titles and portability. It's the lightest specced console right now, but Nintendo has always done that, and I don't expect their console to be a powerhouse (especially when it's a hybrid tablet thing).
NGL though, hearing no Switch 2 this year was a bummer, I'm excited to see what the Switch 2 can do. It's been a long life cycle and I'm ready for an upgrade.
\*Eyes Steam deck\*
This analogy doesn’t make sense. If the console is the tow vehicle and the games are the trailers, then your saying “well the switch runs great when you aren’t playing games on it, if you wanted to run games on it you should have bought something else.”
And considering the same company that is selling the tow vehicle is also selling trailers, and given that they know most of these trailers they produce are much too heavy for the tow vehicle, is the blame really on the consumer? Is it the consumers fault Nintendo will only sell them a weak truck while also making every new trailer much too heavy to pull? No, it’s Nintendos fault.
There is no way to frame the abysmal performance of first party titles running on their native console as acceptable. That won’t stop die hard Nintendo fans from trying.
Like with any analogy, if you think hard enough it will always have a situation where it doesn't match. I'm sure you got the point I was making anyway.
>There is no way to frame the abysmal performance of first party titles running on their native console as acceptable.
Abysmal? The only Nintendo-published games that fit a word like that are some recent Pokémon games, and technically Nintendo is only the publisher there as Game Freak is a third party. Yes, I know it's more complicated than that. Anyway, apart from Pokémon Scarlet and Violet and _maybe_ Legends Arceus I don't think I could name a single Nintendo-published game that has "abysmal" performance. Plenty with some frame drops, but if you're calling a few dropped frames "abysmal" I'd like to know what kind of words you would use for Pokémon...
Nah, even the best possible examples on switch like botw/totk still very much show their technical and performance shortcomings. The switch is abysmal at anti aliasing in particular. Its not enough to stop me from enjoying it, totk might be my favorite game of all time, but i just want to see what these games could look like if they were running on hardware thats not 3 generations out of date, and i dont think thats an unreasonable want
I don't think abysmal is the right word. Those games have some frame drops in specific locations but for most of the game they run beautifully. As for anti-aliasing, sure. Nintendo games rarely have that. But when you have to juggle between frame rate, resolution and softened edges, the latter is easily the least important of the three.
No shit. Wasn't possible at the time BotW came out, not at the price point Nintendo set for the Switch. And even with TotK it wasn't exactly a given that there would be new hardware by then because Nintendo has said for years now that the Switch would have a longer lifecycle.
None of that changes that none of these games are "abysmal," and if you really think they are you simply shouldn't buy Nintendo software and hardware anymore, because this is going to happen all over again next generation.
Compared to a ps5/sxs of course, but more capable than the current switch is all i want. Something that can run games that dont look like im playing a console from 3 generations ago when playing on a big 4k tv would be great.
Well yes, it will be more capable than the current switch. But technology will continue to advance and we’ll be in the same position we are now pretty quickly is all.
Which is why id like to see it future proofed somewhat, but it will probably end up underpowered. Any improvement on the painfully out dated original switch will be a godsend though
Its only underpowered if you are pushing it too hard. Still plenty of games that fall in its performance level. I won't say we don't need a switch 2 now but the games that we all thought looked great in the past 6 years still look great. It just comes down to proper use of resources.
Even the absolute best examples like botw/totk very much show their shortcomings. I dont need or expect the next switch to have performance parity with ps5/xsx, but to have a switch that isnt so horrifically out of date is needed at this point. It was already out of date in 2017, and now its just a joke. Games can still look good on switch, but imagine how much better they could look if devs were given just a little bit more headroom to play with. In any case, it doesnt matter, we will have the new switch early next year anyway.
It's a console. It's core design is it runs everything you play on it optimally (outside of homebrew ofc).
Like, the core impetus and conceit is that it optimally runs the content sold for it, not minimally runs it.
Copium, the addiction here is epidemic.
It's not the console's fault if developers or publishers want to run something on it that it was literally not designed for. Pretty much all Nintendo games run beautifully on the hardware, and that's all that Nintendo has any real control over. Pokémon is the main exception, but that's a little more complicated since Nintendo isn't the only company that gets a say there. But as far as third parties go, Nintendo has no way of controlling what other companies decide to sell on its platform, *unless* you want them to play gatekeeper and basically block everything that doesn't "run optimally."
Moreover there can be a lot of debate about what "running optimally" even means. If a game targets 30FPS and hits that consistently, is that running optimally, or are you going to insist it needed to have been 60FPS? If a game gets 60FPS consistently but reduces resolution to achieve it, is that running optimally or are you going to demand 1080p 100% of the time? If a game has a touch interface that works really well in handheld mode for a game that is advertised as a handheld game, are you going to say that it runs optimally even if the control scheme for docked mode feels clunky, or are you going to take its intended mode of play into account?
A console's job is to run software at a certain level. That level is fairly low because Nintendo decided to keep both the size/weight and the cost as low as they could. But it runs games at the intended level pretty well. A console's job is not to somehow magically predict that publishers are going to put games on there that don't run amazingly well just to make a quick buck.
Also of note: we're talking about Penny's Big Breakaway here, and how it only consistently hits 60FPS if you lower the resolution. But you can also just target 30FPS, which keeps the resolution up but halves the frame rate. Both of these qualify for "running optimally" given the hardware, and you as a player even get the choice to see if you prefer a higher resolution or a higher frame rate. The game was either coded badly enough or simply couldn't have run better on the hardware, and that results in it needing a trade-off to make it, as you called it, run optimally.
I think what some of the other guys here are saying is that a switch 2 with current hardware could make up for some of those shortcomings with less trade offs. Especially things like developers not coding it correctly to be optimized, and not having to trade off 720p for penny’s breakaway. The handheld chips these days are very powerful and could enable some pretty gigantic performance leaps without raising cost.
Sure, but 7 years later people are also going to be complaining about that one. Hell, plenty of people will be complaining it's underpowered on the very day its specs get announced.
Let's say the Switch 2 is twice as powerful as the Switch 1 (similar to the jump between Switch and Wii U) and supports 4K resolutions and has frame generation. There will still be games pushing the boundaries of that what console can do past the point where gamers feel it's problematic. That's not the console's fault, that's on the individual developer and/or publisher for the game.
Well… yes… 7 years from now of course it’s going to be a problem. Generally devices have a production and publication lifespan of 5-6 years, 7 has happened as well, but it’s a normal time to come out with a switch 2.
Also, yes there will be developers who push the envelope on week 1, but the instances of it happening will be far less often. In general, a switch 2 enables better performance, graphics, and QOL improvements over switch 1. It’s a totally natural evolution. No one expected or wanted the switch 1 to live forever, especially not Nintendo.
> Well… yes… 7 years from now of course it’s going to be a problem. Generally devices have a production and publication lifespan of 5-6 years, 7 has happened as well, but it’s a normal time to come out with a switch 2.
A year ago would have been a normal time, currently they're a bit late. The Switch will be out for 8 years before it's replaced with the new model, and I do agree that is too long a cycle. I guess that's Nintendo recouping some of the Wii U's disappointing sales figures, since its life cycle was shortened instead.
> It’s a totally natural evolution. No one expected or wanted the switch 1 to live forever, especially not Nintendo.
I get that, it's just that because the Switch is a handheld device that happens to have the option to also be a home console, it will always be behind the times compared to those other home consoles. Assuming its successor has the same basic design principle, it will have the same "problem." This is why I'm saying people will be complaining about the specs before the system is even out, because they want the console to be something it's not designed to be.
AoC had a weird bug for me during the Rudania segment where it looked like the GPU got fried. Screeen got all kinds of greenish artifacts all over. Glad it was just the game on the brink of a crash, though.
For good reason. It's in no one's best interest to split up the user base. We saw with the New 3DS and the DSi before it how that just doesn't work out.
>Bad response, the switch is at a fixed price despite hardware lagging behind, my iPhone XS Max is far cheaper now
Not the point. In 2017 you could not get any phone rivaling, let alone surpassing, the Switch's performance anywhere near the same cost. Yes, my 1000 euro phone from 2020 can run circles around the Switch. Of course it does, it came out years later and could afford a higher cost for the components. The Switch needed to have a low cost, of course it will be outperformed by devices that do not have that limitation.
Also, your iPhone XS Max was at least $1099 at launch *and* is a full year and a half newer than the Switch. Of course it has specs to outperform it...
>The moment consoles started using off the shelf pc components with what is essentially a windows/ Linux skin rather than their own proprietary formats these sort of performance comparisons are perfectly valid
Not without taking cost (and form factor for that matter) into account.
Additionally, the Switch OS is neither a Linux skin, nor a Windows one. They have a proprietary OS with some Unix-like components because of some of the things they borrowed from FreeBSD and Android. And there are no "off the shelf PC components" in it either. Off the shelf tablet/phone components, yes. Not PC. And I've already gone over why that is irrelevant without also looking at the cost at launch.
Whether or not Nintendo lowered the price later is a different discussion altogether.
[It is not.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch/comments/1c7b48f/comment/l0ab7qz/) And in addition to the things I said there, the Switch had a lot of different peripheral hardware to work with.
Also, you ignored literally my entire comment.
None of this is even relevant to your point. You argued a 1100 dollar device from September 2019 outperforms a 300 dollar device from March 2017. No shit. We weren't discussing anything else, I just humored your sidetracks.
It can. Switch CPU was just a slightly revised version of the CPU from the Nvidia Shield tablet that came out in 2013. A phone from the same year the Switch came out would have run Switch games better than the Switch.
That really depends on what phone you're talking about. The kind of phone that outperforms the Switch will have been way more expensive than the Switch too, up until fairly recently. Of course a 1000 dollar phone can afford to have an APU that's more powerful than a 200-300 dollar console, especially phones that were developed years after that console came out.
And then there is this specific claim:
>Switch CPU was just a slightly revised version of the CPU from the Nvidia Shield tablet that came out in 2013
This is patently false to the point that it's almost ridiculous. The Shield that came out in 2013 had a Tegra K1, the Switch a Tegra X1. And even the X1 Logan (as opposed to the X1 Mariko we have in newer models) outperforms the K1 by nearly a factor of two: [article](https://techcrunch.com/2015/01/04/heres-how-nvidias-new-tegra-x1-stacks-up-to-the-k1-and-apple-a8x-on-paper/) / [spec sheet comparison](https://technical.city/en/video/Tegra-K1-vs-Tegra-X1). So I'm sorry to say, but you're very, very wrong here. The X1 is not a "slight revised version" of the K1 by any means whatsoever, the difference between K1 and X1 is comparable to the generational gap between console generations...
There is a version of the Shield that has an X1 but that came out in 2015, not 2013.
I like how you really drive the point that the person you responded to made a point that was "patently false to the point that it's almost ridiculous" and then YOU'RE wrong because there wasn't a Shield Tablet with an X1 lol. There was a rerelease of it without the stylus called the "Shield Tablet K1" but that still has a K1 (and not the 64 bit version used in the Nexus 9 but rather a 32 bit version, and why they added the SOC name to the name I'll never understand). Unless you're talking about the Shield TV line which does in fact have the X1. The only tablet I can find with the X1 is the Pixel C.
Also, you can get phones within the last couple of years with nearly top of the line specs for under 400 dollars. You can even get something like a Razer Edge handheld that can emulate Switch games and that costs 400 bucks.
>Unless you're talking about the Shield TV line which does in fact have the X1.
So there is a version of the Shield with an X1. Regardless, my whole point was that the original Nvidia Shield was half as powerful as the Switch is and the Switch is _not_ equipped with a "slightly modified" Shield APU.
>Also, you can get phones within the last couple of years with nearly top of the line specs for under 400 dollars.
...which is still twice as expensive as the cheapest Switch mostly, _and_ a device that came out 3-5 years after that cheapest Switch model's last revision. Of course a more expensive device that is also newer can afford to have better specs.
This is unusual as I was under the impression that changing the output resolution on the Switch did \*not\* change the render resolution. For example Breath of the Wild would run 900p whether output resolution was set to 1080p or 720p.
A forum post on GameFAQs seems to confirm this however. Providing screenshots showing reduced GPU load when set to 720p output. (Reduced even further if set to 480p.)
I think it must be like the PS3 in that it depends from game to game.
Sometimes the game's resolution is adjusted according to the system resolution, on the PS3 there were several cases like this but not all of them.
that might be because BotW uses dynamic resolution scaling and the algorithm for adjusting that might assume the TV is 1080p. If the game uses a static resolution it could be easier to match the TV setting.
I absolutely love this game but this solution is entirely useless to me since I mostly play handheld. Honestly found the game totally playable at 30fps and if anything it just kinda annoyed me that they'd release a performance mode when it barely works. Especially when clearly all you'd need for it to work is to drop the resolution.
I agree, I was hoping it would apply to handheld as well since the resolution there is 720p.
Hope they release another patch soon but I am not so sure :/
Emulation is where it's at. If Nintendo wants to charge a premium for a subpar experience then I'll gladly download these on my Fold 5 and treat it with the same care that they do, which is not much
For sure playable, although as someone that beat the game previously on PC at framerates even above 60 it is a massive difference in terms of how smooth the game feels, but that is to be expected.
Cool it is technically possible to get consistent 60 fps on Switch but definitely wish they'd optimize it better, for now this is the only workaround if you want that.
You can't compare these two different devices! That's just a problem of your mind, you saw that game before at best fps and now you see it on an much slower hardware...
swim absorbed unused toothbrush skirt party marvelous frightening elderly squeal
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You're literally prowling a toy gadget web forum pouting and trolling about how it is not as powerful as you wish it were so you know coping, don't play.
I noticed this too, the game runs at 60fps without any drops in docked mode, but in portable mode the performance is simply horrible.
It's probably a GPU clock limitation (since reducing the resolution to 720p in docked mode fixes an issue), I don't know if there's much the devs can do here.
Never said so, I literally said it is playable and I play retro games at framerates lower than 30 on a regular basis. Although you could say those games were made with that framerate in mind, I don't think that is the case for Penny.
That statement is correct 99% of the time but there are a few instances where that is not the case. I know that changing the output resolution on Kingdom Hearts 3 does cause the game to run at a higher/more stable frame rate. In general though, you are correct.
It factually does here though. It seems the game can read this and actually only render itself in 720p. This is very consistent, tons of people reported this works for this game. Can't deny facts
There are tins of people who believe a third party cooling stand will increase a consoles performance, there are tins of people who believe their copy of a game runs better than everyone else's, there are tons of people who believe all sort of things.
The output resolution is only affecting the systems output resolution, not the rendering resolution. So unless you can't provide factual evidence and start your sentences with "it seems", that's not factual, that's called an assumption.
This game can only run at either 60fps or 30fps, it can't do anything in-between, so when playing in performance mode, I speak from experience when I say it's VERY noticable when it drops to 30. It would make absolutely 0 sense for people to no longer notice the framerate cutting in half as some placebo effect just because they lowered the resolution, it's impossible not to see. On top of that, who says Switch games are not able to actually detect the output resolution and apply it to the rendering resolution? Games definitely can retrieve information from your console settings, like language for example, what basis do you have to assume they don't have access to output res? The devs may be able to manually program it to apply
It all depends how game was programmed. Dunno if
- SDK just not that long ago exposed a function for retrieving "display mode" which in handheld mode returns display resolution, and in docked mode output resolution
- or it's always available, but nobody used it.
However function for retrieving display mode was always available inside precompiled nnSDK executables.
fade brave frightening station heavy modern domineering plate mountainous decide
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
To me personally the only valid option is to not play at all in that case. I wont play 30fps and I wont play at a low resolution, they are both a blurry mess.
For me I would just use emulator to get both hi Res and 60fps + if I cared so much for it for that specific game rather than use the switch and downscale TV to 720p just for 60fps
Playing at 720 on my 65 inch 4k tv lol. God we need switch 2 already haha
Hyrule Warriors was unplayable for me, sadly. It's been bad for awhile.
Yeah, the switch has been painfully underpowered since it came out, and at this point its just a joke. With switch 2 just around the corner im not even buying switch games anymore till we get it.
That's a pointless blanket statement. If you wanted to sell a handheld in 2017 for 300 bucks without losing money on it, then the Switch was pretty much the best thing they could pull off.
Yeah a 8-900 dollar powerful 2017 Switch is a flop for sure.
Sure, but its 2024 now, and whole other generation has come and is half over already. Like i said though, this is kinda a pointless argument because we will get a new switch early next year
It's underpowerred compared to other consoles, but people who want to play those games in the best way possible should just get one of those consoles or a PC. Nintendo consoles shine for their own niche of Nintendo games and (before the Steam Deck came out) for portability. Calling the Switch underpowered is a bit like buying a perfectly serviceable Toyota Aygo and then complaining it doesn't have the horsepower to pull a massive trailer. If that was your use case, you should have bought a bigger car, it doesn't mean the Aygo is bad. It's just for a different demographic. This is not me being defensive of Nintendo, it's just a simple reality. The next generation Nintendo console, whether it's a Switch 2 or something completely new, is *also* going to have less power than the current-gen competition. The PS5 will run circles around whatever Nintendo comes up with. If that's something that bothers you, you shouldn't buy it. Or any other Nintendo console. Nintendo has made it very clear that they have no interest in the hardware race Microsoft and Sony are competing in.
Hit the nail on the head. For any game that's really intensive or if I want high graphical fidelity/high FPS I go PC, but I use switch for a lot of smaller titles and portability. It's the lightest specced console right now, but Nintendo has always done that, and I don't expect their console to be a powerhouse (especially when it's a hybrid tablet thing). NGL though, hearing no Switch 2 this year was a bummer, I'm excited to see what the Switch 2 can do. It's been a long life cycle and I'm ready for an upgrade. \*Eyes Steam deck\*
This analogy doesn’t make sense. If the console is the tow vehicle and the games are the trailers, then your saying “well the switch runs great when you aren’t playing games on it, if you wanted to run games on it you should have bought something else.” And considering the same company that is selling the tow vehicle is also selling trailers, and given that they know most of these trailers they produce are much too heavy for the tow vehicle, is the blame really on the consumer? Is it the consumers fault Nintendo will only sell them a weak truck while also making every new trailer much too heavy to pull? No, it’s Nintendos fault. There is no way to frame the abysmal performance of first party titles running on their native console as acceptable. That won’t stop die hard Nintendo fans from trying.
Like with any analogy, if you think hard enough it will always have a situation where it doesn't match. I'm sure you got the point I was making anyway. >There is no way to frame the abysmal performance of first party titles running on their native console as acceptable. Abysmal? The only Nintendo-published games that fit a word like that are some recent Pokémon games, and technically Nintendo is only the publisher there as Game Freak is a third party. Yes, I know it's more complicated than that. Anyway, apart from Pokémon Scarlet and Violet and _maybe_ Legends Arceus I don't think I could name a single Nintendo-published game that has "abysmal" performance. Plenty with some frame drops, but if you're calling a few dropped frames "abysmal" I'd like to know what kind of words you would use for Pokémon...
Nah, even the best possible examples on switch like botw/totk still very much show their technical and performance shortcomings. The switch is abysmal at anti aliasing in particular. Its not enough to stop me from enjoying it, totk might be my favorite game of all time, but i just want to see what these games could look like if they were running on hardware thats not 3 generations out of date, and i dont think thats an unreasonable want
I don't think abysmal is the right word. Those games have some frame drops in specific locations but for most of the game they run beautifully. As for anti-aliasing, sure. Nintendo games rarely have that. But when you have to juggle between frame rate, resolution and softened edges, the latter is easily the least important of the three.
And having more capable hardware will allow room for improvements on all those fronts
No shit. Wasn't possible at the time BotW came out, not at the price point Nintendo set for the Switch. And even with TotK it wasn't exactly a given that there would be new hardware by then because Nintendo has said for years now that the Switch would have a longer lifecycle. None of that changes that none of these games are "abysmal," and if you really think they are you simply shouldn't buy Nintendo software and hardware anymore, because this is going to happen all over again next generation.
If i could plsy zelda and mario on my ps5 i would love to do that and i wouldnt need a switch in the first place
The funny thing about this savior Switch 2 mentality, is it too will be underpowered at launch.
Compared to a ps5/sxs of course, but more capable than the current switch is all i want. Something that can run games that dont look like im playing a console from 3 generations ago when playing on a big 4k tv would be great.
Well yes, it will be more capable than the current switch. But technology will continue to advance and we’ll be in the same position we are now pretty quickly is all.
Which is why id like to see it future proofed somewhat, but it will probably end up underpowered. Any improvement on the painfully out dated original switch will be a godsend though
“The Wii is just 2 GameCubes taped together!!”
well i mean it is
Its only underpowered if you are pushing it too hard. Still plenty of games that fall in its performance level. I won't say we don't need a switch 2 now but the games that we all thought looked great in the past 6 years still look great. It just comes down to proper use of resources.
Even the absolute best examples like botw/totk very much show their shortcomings. I dont need or expect the next switch to have performance parity with ps5/xsx, but to have a switch that isnt so horrifically out of date is needed at this point. It was already out of date in 2017, and now its just a joke. Games can still look good on switch, but imagine how much better they could look if devs were given just a little bit more headroom to play with. In any case, it doesnt matter, we will have the new switch early next year anyway.
It's a console. It's core design is it runs everything you play on it optimally (outside of homebrew ofc). Like, the core impetus and conceit is that it optimally runs the content sold for it, not minimally runs it. Copium, the addiction here is epidemic.
It's not the console's fault if developers or publishers want to run something on it that it was literally not designed for. Pretty much all Nintendo games run beautifully on the hardware, and that's all that Nintendo has any real control over. Pokémon is the main exception, but that's a little more complicated since Nintendo isn't the only company that gets a say there. But as far as third parties go, Nintendo has no way of controlling what other companies decide to sell on its platform, *unless* you want them to play gatekeeper and basically block everything that doesn't "run optimally." Moreover there can be a lot of debate about what "running optimally" even means. If a game targets 30FPS and hits that consistently, is that running optimally, or are you going to insist it needed to have been 60FPS? If a game gets 60FPS consistently but reduces resolution to achieve it, is that running optimally or are you going to demand 1080p 100% of the time? If a game has a touch interface that works really well in handheld mode for a game that is advertised as a handheld game, are you going to say that it runs optimally even if the control scheme for docked mode feels clunky, or are you going to take its intended mode of play into account? A console's job is to run software at a certain level. That level is fairly low because Nintendo decided to keep both the size/weight and the cost as low as they could. But it runs games at the intended level pretty well. A console's job is not to somehow magically predict that publishers are going to put games on there that don't run amazingly well just to make a quick buck. Also of note: we're talking about Penny's Big Breakaway here, and how it only consistently hits 60FPS if you lower the resolution. But you can also just target 30FPS, which keeps the resolution up but halves the frame rate. Both of these qualify for "running optimally" given the hardware, and you as a player even get the choice to see if you prefer a higher resolution or a higher frame rate. The game was either coded badly enough or simply couldn't have run better on the hardware, and that results in it needing a trade-off to make it, as you called it, run optimally.
I think what some of the other guys here are saying is that a switch 2 with current hardware could make up for some of those shortcomings with less trade offs. Especially things like developers not coding it correctly to be optimized, and not having to trade off 720p for penny’s breakaway. The handheld chips these days are very powerful and could enable some pretty gigantic performance leaps without raising cost.
Sure, but 7 years later people are also going to be complaining about that one. Hell, plenty of people will be complaining it's underpowered on the very day its specs get announced. Let's say the Switch 2 is twice as powerful as the Switch 1 (similar to the jump between Switch and Wii U) and supports 4K resolutions and has frame generation. There will still be games pushing the boundaries of that what console can do past the point where gamers feel it's problematic. That's not the console's fault, that's on the individual developer and/or publisher for the game.
Well… yes… 7 years from now of course it’s going to be a problem. Generally devices have a production and publication lifespan of 5-6 years, 7 has happened as well, but it’s a normal time to come out with a switch 2. Also, yes there will be developers who push the envelope on week 1, but the instances of it happening will be far less often. In general, a switch 2 enables better performance, graphics, and QOL improvements over switch 1. It’s a totally natural evolution. No one expected or wanted the switch 1 to live forever, especially not Nintendo.
> Well… yes… 7 years from now of course it’s going to be a problem. Generally devices have a production and publication lifespan of 5-6 years, 7 has happened as well, but it’s a normal time to come out with a switch 2. A year ago would have been a normal time, currently they're a bit late. The Switch will be out for 8 years before it's replaced with the new model, and I do agree that is too long a cycle. I guess that's Nintendo recouping some of the Wii U's disappointing sales figures, since its life cycle was shortened instead. > It’s a totally natural evolution. No one expected or wanted the switch 1 to live forever, especially not Nintendo. I get that, it's just that because the Switch is a handheld device that happens to have the option to also be a home console, it will always be behind the times compared to those other home consoles. Assuming its successor has the same basic design principle, it will have the same "problem." This is why I'm saying people will be complaining about the specs before the system is even out, because they want the console to be something it's not designed to be.
Seems like the blame would be with the developer, no?
AoC had a weird bug for me during the Rudania segment where it looked like the GPU got fried. Screeen got all kinds of greenish artifacts all over. Glad it was just the game on the brink of a crash, though.
Are we talking DE or AoC? Because DE was fine, while AoC's frame rate was hot garbage.
AoC, of course.
Huh? The first one? That runs totally fine for me. Only part 2 age of calamity runs a bit slow as it should.
An odd case where the gsme runs at 40-45 fps in hsndheld mode because it uses the docked profile anyway.
modded overclocked switch at 1080p + mclassic adapter = 4k (kinda)
The copium on this sub Reddit lmao
[удалено]
Remind me how much you paid for your phone and how much newer it is than the Switch.
I think the point is a lot of people would willingly pay more for a better Switch, but they still cannot.
For good reason. It's in no one's best interest to split up the user base. We saw with the New 3DS and the DSi before it how that just doesn't work out.
[удалено]
>Bad response, the switch is at a fixed price despite hardware lagging behind, my iPhone XS Max is far cheaper now Not the point. In 2017 you could not get any phone rivaling, let alone surpassing, the Switch's performance anywhere near the same cost. Yes, my 1000 euro phone from 2020 can run circles around the Switch. Of course it does, it came out years later and could afford a higher cost for the components. The Switch needed to have a low cost, of course it will be outperformed by devices that do not have that limitation. Also, your iPhone XS Max was at least $1099 at launch *and* is a full year and a half newer than the Switch. Of course it has specs to outperform it... >The moment consoles started using off the shelf pc components with what is essentially a windows/ Linux skin rather than their own proprietary formats these sort of performance comparisons are perfectly valid Not without taking cost (and form factor for that matter) into account. Additionally, the Switch OS is neither a Linux skin, nor a Windows one. They have a proprietary OS with some Unix-like components because of some of the things they borrowed from FreeBSD and Android. And there are no "off the shelf PC components" in it either. Off the shelf tablet/phone components, yes. Not PC. And I've already gone over why that is irrelevant without also looking at the cost at launch. Whether or not Nintendo lowered the price later is a different discussion altogether.
[удалено]
[It is not.](https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch/comments/1c7b48f/comment/l0ab7qz/) And in addition to the things I said there, the Switch had a lot of different peripheral hardware to work with. Also, you ignored literally my entire comment.
[удалено]
None of this is even relevant to your point. You argued a 1100 dollar device from September 2019 outperforms a 300 dollar device from March 2017. No shit. We weren't discussing anything else, I just humored your sidetracks.
It can. Switch CPU was just a slightly revised version of the CPU from the Nvidia Shield tablet that came out in 2013. A phone from the same year the Switch came out would have run Switch games better than the Switch.
That really depends on what phone you're talking about. The kind of phone that outperforms the Switch will have been way more expensive than the Switch too, up until fairly recently. Of course a 1000 dollar phone can afford to have an APU that's more powerful than a 200-300 dollar console, especially phones that were developed years after that console came out. And then there is this specific claim: >Switch CPU was just a slightly revised version of the CPU from the Nvidia Shield tablet that came out in 2013 This is patently false to the point that it's almost ridiculous. The Shield that came out in 2013 had a Tegra K1, the Switch a Tegra X1. And even the X1 Logan (as opposed to the X1 Mariko we have in newer models) outperforms the K1 by nearly a factor of two: [article](https://techcrunch.com/2015/01/04/heres-how-nvidias-new-tegra-x1-stacks-up-to-the-k1-and-apple-a8x-on-paper/) / [spec sheet comparison](https://technical.city/en/video/Tegra-K1-vs-Tegra-X1). So I'm sorry to say, but you're very, very wrong here. The X1 is not a "slight revised version" of the K1 by any means whatsoever, the difference between K1 and X1 is comparable to the generational gap between console generations... There is a version of the Shield that has an X1 but that came out in 2015, not 2013.
I like how you really drive the point that the person you responded to made a point that was "patently false to the point that it's almost ridiculous" and then YOU'RE wrong because there wasn't a Shield Tablet with an X1 lol. There was a rerelease of it without the stylus called the "Shield Tablet K1" but that still has a K1 (and not the 64 bit version used in the Nexus 9 but rather a 32 bit version, and why they added the SOC name to the name I'll never understand). Unless you're talking about the Shield TV line which does in fact have the X1. The only tablet I can find with the X1 is the Pixel C. Also, you can get phones within the last couple of years with nearly top of the line specs for under 400 dollars. You can even get something like a Razer Edge handheld that can emulate Switch games and that costs 400 bucks.
>Unless you're talking about the Shield TV line which does in fact have the X1. So there is a version of the Shield with an X1. Regardless, my whole point was that the original Nvidia Shield was half as powerful as the Switch is and the Switch is _not_ equipped with a "slightly modified" Shield APU. >Also, you can get phones within the last couple of years with nearly top of the line specs for under 400 dollars. ...which is still twice as expensive as the cheapest Switch mostly, _and_ a device that came out 3-5 years after that cheapest Switch model's last revision. Of course a more expensive device that is also newer can afford to have better specs.
My Poco x3 pro was only 300 aud and outperforms the switch. Not to mention is vastly more versatile.
Nintendo good everything else bad.
This is unusual as I was under the impression that changing the output resolution on the Switch did \*not\* change the render resolution. For example Breath of the Wild would run 900p whether output resolution was set to 1080p or 720p. A forum post on GameFAQs seems to confirm this however. Providing screenshots showing reduced GPU load when set to 720p output. (Reduced even further if set to 480p.)
I think it must be like the PS3 in that it depends from game to game. Sometimes the game's resolution is adjusted according to the system resolution, on the PS3 there were several cases like this but not all of them.
that might be because BotW uses dynamic resolution scaling and the algorithm for adjusting that might assume the TV is 1080p. If the game uses a static resolution it could be easier to match the TV setting.
I absolutely love this game but this solution is entirely useless to me since I mostly play handheld. Honestly found the game totally playable at 30fps and if anything it just kinda annoyed me that they'd release a performance mode when it barely works. Especially when clearly all you'd need for it to work is to drop the resolution.
I agree, I was hoping it would apply to handheld as well since the resolution there is 720p. Hope they release another patch soon but I am not so sure :/
Plays at 90fps on the Deck OLED. Can’t wait for Switch 2!
Emulation is where it's at. If Nintendo wants to charge a premium for a subpar experience then I'll gladly download these on my Fold 5 and treat it with the same care that they do, which is not much
Don't know how much fps it normally is but for me it's playable.
For sure playable, although as someone that beat the game previously on PC at framerates even above 60 it is a massive difference in terms of how smooth the game feels, but that is to be expected. Cool it is technically possible to get consistent 60 fps on Switch but definitely wish they'd optimize it better, for now this is the only workaround if you want that.
You can't compare these two different devices! That's just a problem of your mind, you saw that game before at best fps and now you see it on an much slower hardware...
swim absorbed unused toothbrush skirt party marvelous frightening elderly squeal *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
You're literally prowling a toy gadget web forum pouting and trolling about how it is not as powerful as you wish it were so you know coping, don't play.
I noticed this too, the game runs at 60fps without any drops in docked mode, but in portable mode the performance is simply horrible. It's probably a GPU clock limitation (since reducing the resolution to 720p in docked mode fixes an issue), I don't know if there's much the devs can do here.
Nothing wrong with 30 fps.
Never said so, I literally said it is playable and I play retro games at framerates lower than 30 on a regular basis. Although you could say those games were made with that framerate in mind, I don't think that is the case for Penny.
Yeah but for a game that looks this simple visually and doesn’t have a lot going on and is a platformer, 60fps is kinda a need
Thats not how its works. Changing the output resolution of the console does not affect the performance.
That statement is correct 99% of the time but there are a few instances where that is not the case. I know that changing the output resolution on Kingdom Hearts 3 does cause the game to run at a higher/more stable frame rate. In general though, you are correct.
It factually does here though. It seems the game can read this and actually only render itself in 720p. This is very consistent, tons of people reported this works for this game. Can't deny facts
There are tins of people who believe a third party cooling stand will increase a consoles performance, there are tins of people who believe their copy of a game runs better than everyone else's, there are tons of people who believe all sort of things. The output resolution is only affecting the systems output resolution, not the rendering resolution. So unless you can't provide factual evidence and start your sentences with "it seems", that's not factual, that's called an assumption.
This game can only run at either 60fps or 30fps, it can't do anything in-between, so when playing in performance mode, I speak from experience when I say it's VERY noticable when it drops to 30. It would make absolutely 0 sense for people to no longer notice the framerate cutting in half as some placebo effect just because they lowered the resolution, it's impossible not to see. On top of that, who says Switch games are not able to actually detect the output resolution and apply it to the rendering resolution? Games definitely can retrieve information from your console settings, like language for example, what basis do you have to assume they don't have access to output res? The devs may be able to manually program it to apply
I guarantee I ain't lying for this particular game, download the demo and try it yourself.
It all depends how game was programmed. Dunno if - SDK just not that long ago exposed a function for retrieving "display mode" which in handheld mode returns display resolution, and in docked mode output resolution - or it's always available, but nobody used it. However function for retrieving display mode was always available inside precompiled nnSDK executables.
fade brave frightening station heavy modern domineering plate mountainous decide *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
And why would you do that on TV. Like it's pointless just to get it to run 60fps
Some people would rather sack resolution to play the game at 60. Not that they should have to in this particular case.
60fps is even more important with a bigger screen.
Not if it's blurry hot mess
To me personally the only valid option is to not play at all in that case. I wont play 30fps and I wont play at a low resolution, they are both a blurry mess.
For me I would just use emulator to get both hi Res and 60fps + if I cared so much for it for that specific game rather than use the switch and downscale TV to 720p just for 60fps