Nintendo Switch Technical discussion [SOC = Tegra X1]
- Thread starter Alucardx23
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nintendo nintendont
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Mario Odyssey looks terrible in the city area and Nintendo should bring the whole area down for how ugly it looks. After GTA IV in the PS360 (IV, not even V) that thing looks like an indie title.
The rest of the game looks between okay and mediocre, as in it looks like a PS360/WiiU game.
The rest of the game looks between okay and mediocre, as in it looks like a PS360/WiiU game.
It's okay, they needed to wait a while for nvidia to engrave different numbers and letters onto all those existing TX1 chips.
Thanks. So that's perhaps not too surprising where the CPUs are low clocked to begin with & there are fewer available.
It's a 60fps title, isn't it?
Last edited:
Its just one more example, but yes, this is pretty much inline with what was always expected. Compromises, and not impossible. The argument was never that compromises wouldn't be required for a Switch port, but that they would be possible if the developer/publisher wanted to do it. I have advocated that 60fps games would be the most accessible for developers, as dropping to 30fps from 60fps is a huge reduction in required resources.
I personally think its obvious that publishers are looking at Switch as not a third pillar to console gaming, but as its own unique market. Ubisoft pitching Mario+Rabbids is an awesome sign that they want to work with Nintendo and support the platform, but realize the market is very different. Indies are desperately trying to get on the platform, Nintendo has ditched the open door policy of the Wii U and is being more selective on the content being offered on the eshop. The least expensive game on the eshop is $5, and has gotten favorable reviews.
Switch is a home console for Nintendo, and a portable for all other publishers. Its powerful enough to support what Nintendo does, but AAA developers are going to find it problematic to the point where return on investment looks poor.
@ToTTenTranz
I too feel the City level in Mario Odyssey looks rather "meh". From the trailers I have seen, there are levels that looks superb, and others that look pretty rough. The game will be a blast, so I can forgive this grievance, but the visuals seem to be hit and miss depending on the world.
I'm not sold on this being "a different market." With the Wii/DS, it focused more on non-gamers, but I feel like the Switch is aimed towards teens/young adults with busy but social lives. If I were publishers, I'd at least start bringing enhanced versions of older core games to the system to see how the market reacts. Dragon's Dogma would have been a good one. Skyrim might be a good one as well, though I fear that they may have milked that cow a little dry already so I'm not sure how Switch owners will react. I think games like Diablo III would have been a good fit, especially since local multiplayer could be implemented.
As for that Dragonball game, it's really hard to say. Some companies put a lot of effort into ports, some don't. Namco Bandai has a mixed record (at least from a PC player prospective). It's kind of a port sent to die now that a far better game has been announced.
As for that Dragonball game, it's really hard to say. Some companies put a lot of effort into ports, some don't. Namco Bandai has a mixed record (at least from a PC player prospective). It's kind of a port sent to die now that a far better game has been announced.
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
Poorly most likely. With most games being released on just about every platform what are the chances of people A) not having played that particular game yet and B) want buy it a second time for another platform?
If devs/pubs want to have a good idea of what the market is like they should come up with a quality new game or at least a port of a game released at the same time as other platforms. Not some warmed up leftovers from years back.
It's never a good idea to try to recycle a game on a new platform, because people don't have a single gaming device, but usually a few of them, so they have already bought the game if they were interested, plus people who might not have will not purchase it at a higher price than what's available on competitor's platforms...
In the end, just don't recycle games unless you can significantly enhance them (gameplay rather than graphics wise) or they are rather new still.
In the end, just don't recycle games unless you can significantly enhance them (gameplay rather than graphics wise) or they are rather new still.
According to DF, the new Sonic only runs at 30fps on Switch vs 60fps for the PS4/XB1 : http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=241604832&postcount=31
It was the undocked version though, but i really doubt that it will run at double the framerate when docked.
It was the undocked version though, but i really doubt that it will run at double the framerate when docked.
Not sure if this is the thread for this, but it seems like this may sour third party developers on the Switch platform, mostly it's stupid rules dealing with patches and other artificial technical limits.
From NeoGaf post: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=241647960&postcount=1 with quotes from the Reddit:
From NeoGaf post: http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=241647960&postcount=1 with quotes from the Reddit:
Under normal circumstances I'd totally agree with you, but the Switch brings in a new variable to that table that most systems don't. Like I said, I think it targets people that are young adults that are on the go, so older games that could be played with friends in a social setting world be worth bringing over (Diablo III being a good example). The system is also good for people who travel, and aren't able to play games as much as they'd like. Consoles have always been stationary, a lot of people may have skipped a generation due to lack of time to play.
I'm not saying port every single game of course, but I think a lot of the gems of last generation might be worth it especially if they had local multiplayer.
Rootax
Veteran
I really think it does not represent a lot of people. IMO, Switch was bought by Nintendo fans, but not by a untapped new audience...
Silent_Buddha
Legend
I think you might be surprised. There's a lot of non-Nintendo fans that want to get it. Me for one. TotalBiscuit for another. Some of my RL friends who have never owned a Nintendo device. Some of which aren't even interested in any of Nintendo's games.
Regards,
SB
Nah, I have seen first hand that there is a much broader appeal that extends well beyond the few million hardcore Nintendo fans. My wife and I were at the Tattoo parlor today, and I took my Switch. Multiple artist were talking to me about how they want one, but haven't been able to find one. One guy mentioned how he just bought a PS4 to enjoy on his new large HDTV, but that he still wants a Switch as well. Switch has this "neat gadget" appeal, and even for people who already have a PS4 or X1, the Switch is so different that many of those gamers will still want a Switch. At its core, the Switch is not a good replacement for the PS4, and the PS4 isn't a good replacement for the Switch. You could look at an Ipad and say you could have gotten a more powerful PC for less money, but that comparison is pretty flawed.
Even if you pay attention to these forums, its not hard to find non Nintendo fan boys who are interested in the Switch. People who had no interest in the Wii U or even the 3DS are expressing interest in the console.
Rootax
Veteran
I still don't believe it 
Or it's a Wii effect and it will be a dust collector for a lot of people. Third party are already moving back from it despite the good initial sells. The "No real Monster Hunter for you" will have a really bad effect IMO. And some "gamers" are already not happy with the lack of triple A (it's was obvious for a lot of people with the specs, but anyway...) games from third party. Around me the opinion is like "it's nice, but they're is no game I want on it". Basically they wanted a Xbone/ps4 on the go. Not a WiiU on the go. Eh, we will see...
Or it's a Wii effect and it will be a dust collector for a lot of people. Third party are already moving back from it despite the good initial sells. The "No real Monster Hunter for you" will have a really bad effect IMO. And some "gamers" are already not happy with the lack of triple A (it's was obvious for a lot of people with the specs, but anyway...) games from third party. Around me the opinion is like "it's nice, but they're is no game I want on it". Basically they wanted a Xbone/ps4 on the go. Not a WiiU on the go. Eh, we will see...arijoytunir
Regular
switch - 1st party portable nintendo machine
Ps4 - 1st party sony machine plus 3rd party
Xbox - lackluster exclusives but big on indie and 3rd party ...
microsoft has the oppurtunity to make a big splash with a portable 3rd party games machine . They could design the hardware by profiling the game engines just like they did for xox .
Ps4 - 1st party sony machine plus 3rd party
Xbox - lackluster exclusives but big on indie and 3rd party ...
microsoft has the oppurtunity to make a big splash with a portable 3rd party games machine . They could design the hardware by profiling the game engines just like they did for xox .
tongue_of_colicab
Veteran
In other words: Never? You can barely buy a 3ds for that money and games (at least the Nintendo ones) don't sell for 20 or 30 dollars either.
Blazkowicz
Legend
I believe too there's some big market, I don't know how large, of people who only have a combination of desktop, laptop and/or phone. Most wouldn't know or bother about putting an Xbox or something on the desk, plugged into the mediocre 21.5" LCD monitor.
Console gaming on the living room's TV was what they experienced in childhood living with mom and dad. Now much more "computer" time is spent on non-gaming - web browsing and "social" and video, there's some gaming but it can be limited : spend $1000 on PC upgrades, or spend $1000 on TV + console + second controller + games? can be less but I think you get my point. It's not that desireable to all young adults etc.
If they're like me, they don't know what's "Monster Hunter". Some third party anime-looking Pokemon clone?
If not $150 Switch, this'll have to wait for $199 Switch at least.
Console gaming on the living room's TV was what they experienced in childhood living with mom and dad. Now much more "computer" time is spent on non-gaming - web browsing and "social" and video, there's some gaming but it can be limited : spend $1000 on PC upgrades, or spend $1000 on TV + console + second controller + games? can be less but I think you get my point. It's not that desireable to all young adults etc.
If they're like me, they don't know what's "Monster Hunter". Some third party anime-looking Pokemon clone?
If not $150 Switch, this'll have to wait for $199 Switch at least.
Last edited:
Thats what I thought until this years E3. Thats when I saw it was being released on Xbox One/PS4 with what seems to be support for XBOX/4Pro enhancements and also on the PC. Then I thought so much for that game series being a reason to get Nintendo hardware.
http://kotaku.com/new-monster-hunter-coming-to-ps4-1796039892
Anyways, from a technical perspective there isn't much that is not known about the hardware. More of my questions are like AlNets that are around the SDK, like did Nintendo put in any sort of restrictions or other oddities that a pure Nvidia Shield SDK wouldn't have. Also, how close to the metal do the Switch devs get? Would they be hampered by it if they improved the hardware in 3 years or is Nvidia's SDK forward compatible.
More informations about Sonic : https://www.sonicstadium.org/2017/06/sonic-forces-on-nintendo-switch-e3-impressions/
- 30fps
- Lower settings
- Seems to run at a lower resolution than 1080p (docked)
(the final version might be different)
- 30fps
- Lower settings
- Seems to run at a lower resolution than 1080p (docked)
(the final version might be different)
Last edited: