*** Nintendo Switch ***

Cryfreeman said:
Imagine what Zelda or Mario would be like with having the power of a ps4 pro behind it, this is what has let me down. Seems the Switch can't even manage Zelda at 1080p so it's running at 900p@ 30fps in TV mode. That's pathetic for a 2017 console come on guys :(
Click to expand...

Umm, You have to remember that Switch is also a handheld, it's not realistic to expect PS4-like specs on a device like this considering what's in the Joy-cons, the screen, battery etc.

There's far more to visual appeal than pixel counts, but if it makes you feel any better Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and FAST RMX are 1080p 60fps docked.

I get why many prioritize higher specification devices, especially around here, but...

  • Portability (hyrbid nature of device)
  • Nintendo's development teams merged for 1 platform
  • Focus on local multiplayer content

...these things are just as, or more important to many people.
 
Raymond Lin said:
The New 3DSXL was launched at like £200.

Why would a console with a larger screen with hand held capability, higher res and higher power be launch cheaper?
Click to expand...

They launched the first 3ds at $250 and what under 5 months later it was $170.

3DS, each and every one of them, was absolutely horrendous quality for the money. The hardware was years and years out of date, the resolution weak. They were massively overpriced to the tune that Nintendo had zero problem dropping the price almost 40% a few months after launch. There is massive margin in the cheap hardware Nintendo has always done.

I didn't factor in Nintendo, or the 3DS, what I stated was in what cases not being able to do 1080 at 30fps wouldn't be embarrassing. Zelda is a cell shaded game as pointed out, it's a very specific design that is generally excellent for performance. But that also means it should run fantastically, that it doesn't is a joke on hardware that costs more than much more powerful consoles that could run that at well over 1080p/30fps.

Nintendo's terrible pricing on past and new consoles doesn't change what hardware is available for what pricing. It merely highlights how they were ripping you off with the Wii, the Wii U, 3ds, the new 3ds and now Switch.

Phate said:
It is a cell shaded game. It would look the same on the PS4 :/
Click to expand...

Right, of course, cell shaded means the same graphical quality in every case, every single cell shaded game looks identical? Is that a serious response? If it was designed for a platform that had 3-4 times the graphical power it would be designed to look a lot better.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Right, of course, cell shaded means the same graphical quality in every case, every single cell shaded game looks identical? Is that a serious response? If it was designed for a platform that had 3-4 times the graphical power it would be designed to look a lot better.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The style it is designed with means that it would look the same, regardless of whether or not it was on the PS4/XBO or the Switch. Just because a console has more power than another does that mean the game with automatically be designed to use/match that? errr nope.

A style of the game was decided and chosen. The game is then designed to run on the switch platform with that style.

It's already been mentioned about Wind Waker which was an incredibly beautiful game to play but its textures are "basic"

Just because a game would be on another platform 3 or 4 times more powerful does NOT MEAN it would automatically be 3 or 4 times more of a game.
 
Broken Hope said:
So Wind Waker on the Wii U looks exactly the same as Wind Waker on the GameCube?
Click to expand...

Not exactly a comparison is it. The gamecube was around way before anyone uttered the letters "HD" :p

It was the same game, with a higher resolution for current day TV's.

BOTW runs in an HD resolution.
 
drunkenmaster said:
Oh wait, I have a PS4, I just chopped the controller in half, then found a bit of cheapo plastic to stick each side to, so it works as one controller.... but now I call it two controllers.

The Switch has one controller, Nintendo marketing and selling it as two is a disgrace and anyone silly enough to call it 2 is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

This is so funny, I forgot to laugh. Really DM, you really have missed the point. Missed as in missed by many light years away from Earth.

It can act as one controller, or 2 controllers, dependent on the game in question. So in your context, the the SNES controllers are only half of a controller?

Each Joy Con is a smaller SNES controller, with an analogue stick, instead of a D-pad. Which works great for games like mario and mario kart. There are many different types of controller types. Many games don't require all the buttons and sticks on all controllers. Likewise, PS controllers and Xbox controllers are not the 'de facto' of controllers.
 
drunkenmaster said:
They launched the first 3ds at $250 and what under 5 months later it was $170.

3DS, each and every one of them, was absolutely horrendous quality for the money. The hardware was years and years out of date, the resolution weak. They were massively overpriced to the tune that Nintendo had zero problem dropping the price almost 40% a few months after launch. There is massive margin in the cheap hardware Nintendo has always done.

I didn't factor in Nintendo, or the 3DS, what I stated was in what cases not being able to do 1080 at 30fps wouldn't be embarrassing. Zelda is a cell shaded game as pointed out, it's a very specific design that is generally excellent for performance. But that also means it should run fantastically, that it doesn't is a joke on hardware that costs more than much more powerful consoles that could run that at well over 1080p/30fps.

Nintendo's terrible pricing on past and new consoles doesn't change what hardware is available for what pricing. It merely highlights how they were ripping you off with the Wii, the Wii U, 3ds, the new 3ds and now Switch.

Right, of course, cell shaded means the same graphical quality in every case, every single cell shaded game looks identical? Is that a serious response? If it was designed for a platform that had 3-4 times the graphical power it would be designed to look a lot better.
Click to expand...

The Wii was £180?

You call that bad pricing? At the same time the PS3 was launched at like £500? Oh yes, you'll bring "but it has a bluray player built in!"

The Wii was CHEAP, everyone back then and now thinks it was cheap, it was why it sold like hot cakes. It was a easy number to stomach on a whim.

Exactly re 3DS, the resolution is low and but it doesn't affect my point, it is £200 at launch (talking about how much it is 6 months later is moot, we are not 6 months after the launch of the Switch now are we?). So to say a new Switch to launch at £180 is not going to happen.

But then in your logic, £180 is expensive anyway for a console.
 
Switch price point and lack of games makes it a no for me . I will wait and see how it pans out. Probably will pick up post MARIO release as I don't like Zelda games.
 
Raymond Lin said:
The Wii was £180?

You call that bad pricing? At the same time the PS3 was launched at like £500? Oh yes, you'll bring "but it has a bluray player built in!"

The Wii was CHEAP, everyone back then and now thinks it was cheap, it was why it sold like hot cakes. It was a easy number to stomach on a whim.

Exactly re 3DS, the resolution is low and but it doesn't affect my point, it is £200 at launch (talking about how much it is 6 months later is moot, we are not 6 months after the launch of the Switch now are we?). So to say a new Switch to launch at £180 is not going to happen.

But then in your logic, £180 is expensive anyway for a console.
Click to expand...

You keep saying this.

The PS3 wasn't nearly £500.
 
Last edited:
This is how the Switch sits in that list. It's not the cheapest but never the most expensive. Look to be smack bang in the middle for a launch price?

lRnrIHu.png


I highlighted the word launch for a reason, there is no point putting a console price that has been out for a few years. You might as well argue with the price of the PS3 slim if you are going to do that.
 
Raymond Lin said:
This is how the Switch sits in that list. It's not the cheapest but never the most expensive. Look to be smack bang in the middle for a launch price?

lRnrIHu.png


I highlighted the word launch for a reason, there is no point putting a console price that has been out for a few years. You might as well argue with the price of the PS3 slim if you are going to do that.
Click to expand...

Yeah but the launch PS3 had various card slots, a Blu Ray drive when they were new and the cell processor costs while being high spec and rechargable wireless controllers (a bundled first). Tech wise it was a head of the game in some areas. The Switch isn't ahead in any tech wise.
 
RedStarRiot said:
Yeah but the launch PS3 had various card slots, a Blu Ray drive when they were new and the cell processor costs while being high spec and rechargable wireless controllers (a bundled first). Tech wise it was a head of the game in some areas. The Switch isn't ahead in any tech wise.
Click to expand...

Are we going to list things that the Switch can do but no other current home consoles can do?

And the Switch isn't £425. It is £150 less.

The only thing I will say it is the most expensive Nintendo Console ever made but it is hardly the most expensive console in history, far from it and think of the inflation.

£425 was 10 years ago.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom