Author Topic: Nintendo Switch Presentation - January 12th  (Read 184877 times)

that's bad
This console is something completely different. It's basically the next generation of Nintendo's handhelds with the ability to output to TV. People keep thinking of it like a standard console that goes portable, but it's completely the other way around.

In order to prevent the power draw from being RIDICULOUS and the heat output from being loving HOT and the weight from being a TONNE, concessions in the physical hardware have to be made, just the same as how laptops work. Naturally, this means intensive games are going to have to receive cutbacks when you try and push them beyond what the hardware was designed to naturally do.

If you want the full render, go for the Wii U's increased-fog, decreased-details edition (which would otherwise also need to run at 900p if it attempted to have the same fidelity at the Switch Edition). Nintendo is notorious for efficiency and squeezing whatever they can out of the smallest amount possible, so you just know that this is the best that anybody could achieve on brand new hardware.

Just remember that the Switch itself is a 720p device with a 6.5" screen that needs to be able to run 60FPS intensive-3D worlds on battery. Point to me any currently existing mobile device that can do that well (I know for a fact that not a single iPad has that capability as my app failed to certify due to the low memory of the devices).

Just remember that the Switch itself is a 720p device with a 6.5" screen that needs to be able to run 60FPS intensive-3D worlds on battery. Point to me any currently existing mobile device that can do that well (I know for a fact that not a single iPad has that capability as my app failed to certify due to the low memory of the devices).
The Surface can do that pretty well. Dunno how long the battery lasts during 720p gaming though.

The Surface can do that pretty well.
Potentially the Surface 4, if you got the $1300+ versions with a minimum i5+4GB RAM, which costs significantly more and makes use of the pithy Intel HD/Iris intergrated graphics chip.

Ultimate Skyrim will be a good game to compare the two platforms, but I have a feeling I know which is going to run better.

EDIT: It was suggested to me that you can run GTA V in this lowest-settings state on a beefy Surface, but I wasn't told the framerate.
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 07:18:54 PM by McJob »

i don't care about the gamepads resolution. theres no groundset for a portable game device because they've been all over the place, unlike actual console play which tries to stay 1080p. if nintedos idea is to make a console setting more like a portable setting instead the other way around, then they have made a huge mistake

if nintedos idea is to make a console setting more like a portable setting instead the other way around
That's not at all what I said.

What I said is that the Switch is a portable device with the ability to output video, potentially to a TV as if it were a full console. Both the Xbox One and PS4 also make resolution concessions for quite a few games, so you can't exactly claim it's some hard and fast standard (especially when it's first party titles that are guilty).

Even before this generation, the Xbox 360, PS3 and Wii, and even before those, were not outputting full resolution for every title. Many console games used smart rendering techniques to "fake" the full-screen rendering (I believe Ratchet & Clank is one such example).

I like how people complain about the switch slightly lowering resolution, when literally every console does that. Be loving happy it can do 720p or 1080p at all.

I like how people complain about the switch slightly lowering resolution, when literally every console does that. Be loving happy it can do 720p or 1080p at all.
i don't think you understand how stupid it is to sacrifice a standard for a launch title.

nintendo has been behind for years just so they can kick off another gimmicky feature.

i don't think you understand how stupid it is to sacrifice a standard for a launch title.
ill say it again, portability isnt a gimmick, its a feature.

i don't think it's fair to compare a console like the ps4 or xbox one to a portable device like the switch. for reference, the 3DS has a technical resolution of 800x240 (400x240 for each eye). on top of the obvious space limitations of having a small, all-in-one portable device as opposed to a dedicated, stationary box hooked up to an external display, nintendo also has to think about battery life and make thermal considerations (i'm assuming the switch is passively cooled)

the switch's dock is literally just HDMI passthrough for convenience
« Last Edit: January 15, 2017, 08:23:49 PM by otto-san »

ill say it again, portability isnt a gimmick, its a feature.
We'll have to see how sales hold up to see if the general population thinks it's a gimmick or not.

i don't think you understand how stupid it is to sacrifice a standard for a launch title.
"sacrifice a standard"

oh no it's not 1080p, wah call the cops! Just because it isn't 1080p doesn't mean the game is automatically stuff. If you think that then you shouldn't even consider getting consoles at all, because it's rare that even flagship consoles support 1080p. At least it's 900p which is higher than 720p. It's a mobile platform.

nintendo has been behind for years just so they can kick off another gimmicky feature.
Having a console be able to be fully mobile and work on the TV seamlessly, along with having the controllers themselves be pretty damn good is not a "gimmick," it's a feature.

it's a console. Of course not every game is going to be 1080p, even the PS4 and Xbox One don't run 1080p 24/7, and those have more power than the switch.

sacrifice a standard
i'll link it again for mcjob

Both the Xbox One and PS4 also make resolution concessions for quite a few games, so you can't exactly claim it's some hard and fast standard (especially when it's first party titles that are guilty).

most of those games are made by companies who make subpar optimisation decisions.

One thing is certain, the new zelda better kick some serious ass if the switch is to even have a chance.

most of those games are made by companies who make subpar optimisation decisions.
Do you even know what the word "optimisation" actually means, outside of a gamer buzzword? And even so, how can you make such a giant assessment? What do you know about those companies there?