Topic: Nintendo Switch --OT--

My comment about laptops was that I have heard the exact same arguments before. Laptops are underpowered, you can't do much on them, the control inputs are worthless, I must lug around a mouse with it, small screen etc. All those things didn't stop it from being the form factor of the future. In practice, for everything except 'hardcore gaming' you can use any laptop.

And this is also true for switch, it might not have the best controllers out their, or the biggest screen or the biggest resolution. But it does enable experiences that has never before been seen in an handheld form factor.

The joycons might not be well suited for FPSs. So I can agree with you there, if you are a primarily FPS-player you shouldn't buy this. But then again, I don't understand why anyone would play FPSs on a console (PC gamer, remember).

But that is one genre. But the joy-cons could be used for a game like rocket league, mario kart, platformers, fighters, party games etc. There are many games/genres that could benefit from this.

And you can sit comfortable in a sofa with the switch, in fact you can also be in bed, on the loo at the beach, at your grandma, at your friends. Comparing tabletop mode with split-screen is just wrong, tabletop mode is for when you are not at a screen, it has a docked mode for when at a screen. It opens up possibilities but it comes at a cost of power.

And if you are not into the portability it will seem really expensive. But then again, you have other options. IMHO Xbox and PS¤ do overlap quite a bit though. And PC eclipse everything.

And it is fine that you don't want it. Not every product needs to cater to everyone. For example, I don't think apple products are for me. For me switch (and Wii U for that matter) has less overlap with my other gaming habits. Just being able to let my daughters use it in the car is big step upwards. Or in our summer house for that matter.

@KratosMD I don't really want to turn this into a discussion about the Exclusives etc. 2015 could have been quite different for Sony had Uncharted 4 and R&C not been delayed into 2016. Had these made their initial 2015 schedule, that could have been a closer fight for MS in terms of 'exclusives' but 2016 would have seemed 'light' with Last Guardian possibly the biggest. 2017 also saw Horizon release after being delayed and fortunately, a lot of the Japanese games have also arrived this year too.

Had Scalebound not been cancelled, I think MS would have seemed a bit more competitive. Add in Halo Wars 2, Sea of Thieves, Crackdown 3, State of Decay 2, probably a new Forza Motorsport (if they follow their usual pattern), Voodoo Vince Remastered, Phantom Dust, Cuphead (highly anticipated by many) and of course Scorpio, it wouldn't have seemed necessarily a 'bad' year for MS. E3 could be a 'make or break' time for them. Its no point selling a 'powerful' console if they don't have some decent games to take advantage of it. Its all very well having Gears, Forza Horizon etc patched to increase resolution and/or performance but most people will have finished those games and looking for 'new'.

Its true that Sony have some 'big' games in development - games like Days Gone, Spider-Man, God of War, Wild, Dreams, Hellblade but none of these have release dates. We could be waiting into 2018 even 2019 for some of these. Horizon:ZD came out nearly 2yrs after its reveal and was show-cased in a similar way to H:ZD so maybe we won't see that until Q1 2019.

I can't say that MS's exclusives are GotY material or always likely to appeal. Halo seems to have lost what made it special, Gears was good but something was missing, Forza Horizon is great but Motorsport is just a case of Same Game, different number on the box - a bit like Fifa in that respect but still polished and often wins 'best' racing game. Quantum Break and ReCore didn't exactly live up to the expectation but they are playable. Dead Rising 4 is 'fun' too if nothing 'special' but these games also show that MS has more than Halo, Forza and Gears. Ideally I would prefer to see MS have studio's set up more like Sony - free to make their big franchises like Infamous, Uncharted and Killzone but not locked into those like the Coalition (Gears) and 343 (Halo) etc. GG and ND have given us the Last of Us and Horizon and arguably gave them more strength. If GG wants to make another Killzone, the experience of Horizon could make Killzone 5 an edge over other shooters, change it up.

Its possible that Sony's investment into games for this generation are really only coming to fruition now. Its just that they are all coming in one lump rather than a 'steady' stream of games year on year like MS have had. 2017 wasn't 'just' Scalebound and now its cancelled, they have nothing but by the same token, they don't have as many as Sony do this year.

@Therad Yes I am complaining to a degree, as stated just imagine a Mario platformer on PS Pro for instance.

I understand what Nintendo are doing and good for them, its a pseudo handheld with multiple options for use. However the one use I personally want is Console gaming with my family. Not my kids faces wrapped in yet another tablet which is what it is as the switch onto a 4k tv is crap. Some of my favourite memories are sitting with my son ploughing through Mario Bros on the Wii U. It was awesome in a blurry washed out way. I hated that washed out look, its horrible.

They are trying something new and its not sour grapes from me, my youngest son wants one for his birthday - at least I will get the chance to play BOTW. Im not that bothered on the price, Im not too fussed that there are so few new games (I actually prefer this as you can keep up with the Jones') But I am bothered that Nintendo had the most powerful console in the Nes, Snes, N64 and Gamecube and now they dont offer squat in comparison to Sony. The components are cheap and nasty and its not the Nintendo I grew up with.

@themcnoisy How are the components cheap?

@Octane The reviews I've watched online; the stand, switch dock, cartridge holder and screen are cheap.

To be fair I should get my hands on a switch first; at this point after launch there's no excuse not to and I really should before posting again.

But my original comment stands that I do want Nintendo to make a powerful console.

I think it feels durable. Definitly more than the tablets I bought to my daughters. I can sort of understand if someone thinks a plastic screen is cheap, but it fills 2 functions. 1. it doesn't crack if you happen to drop it. 2. less reflections on the screen, which I feel is important for a console.

From what I have read, the overall console (at least the tablet portion) feels quite solid. The kick stand feels somewhat cheap and flimsy. The railings to slot the joycons in are metal in design and the screen itself, whether plastic or not, is capable. The dock is somewhat lacking and the slot to fit the switch in offers minimal protection. Its as if they expect you to use the console primarily as a handheld and the dock occasionally - more to charge.

I do agree with @themcnoisy that I had hoped Nintendo would have made a more competitive 'home' console. I am not arguing its the most powerful handheld console but the reality is, its only competing against the Vita and 3DS in that area. With modern day electronics, its hardly difficult to beat both of those.

Its not 'just' resolution at all but with 4k TV's becoming increasingly popular in peoples homes, it means that the picture will need to be stretched at least 4x its size to fit the screen and in the case of Zelda at 900p, it needs to be blown up 600% to fit. This will show up the lack of Aliasing. Its akin to releasing a 'standard definition' console as everyone is beginning to move into HD. As I said its not just the number of pixels that are being drawn either. Extra power can improve the visual settings (shadows, lighting, particle effects etc), aliasing, draw distances etc. Extra Power can also improve the performance of games without sacrificing visual quality. The more 'simplistic' the visual style the easier it is to hit 60fps.

As a PC gamer, @Therad must know about having to optimise games for the hardware. Whether you can increase the quality in one area without having too much of a negative impact in another. Its not always about pushing up the resolution to the standard of the monitor but what level of shadows, lighting, textures etc and virtually every increase brings down the performance. In some cases, depending on hardware, it maybe that you drop 'resolution' down a notch or two to maintain a minimum frame rate and keep the visual settings at a high-max level but increase the GPU power, you can push the visuals and/or performance further - not necessarily the resolution. Most GPU's are tested at varying resolutions and with the settings maxed out and it seems that most PC gamers want 'native' 4k, at least 60fps and as many of the settings set on Max as possible and are 'not' content to have to play at 1080p (or less). The amount of PC gamers I see mocking the PS4 Pro because it can't (always) offer 'native' 4k. Its even worse when it comes to 'frame-rates' with games that run at 30fps on consoles - more power would mean less performance issues whilst maintaining a decent resolution and visual settings. Power for 'just' resolution isn't necessarily the most important but it is important.

Incidentally, I doubt the Switch would be 'good' for fighting games with its Joycon d-pad - so not good for FPS, probably 3rd person action adventure/shooting games in fact most/all '3D' movement games where one analogue stick controls the camera/aiming etc and the other the movement etc in Split screen. Yes it maybe 'OK' for games like Mario Kart, Mario Bros 2D old school games, relatively simple party games etc. Maybe that's fine and enough for some...

The only reason to spend £20 more on a game that looks and/or performs worse on Switch, really comes down to whether or not you want to be able to play that game on the go. Why buy Skyrim (for example) on Switch? Its not because you want local MP on a rooftop or at a convention? The 'cheaper' console/PC versions will look better (not necessarily just resolution - but draw distance, textures/lighting, foliage etc etc) if not play better too. The only benefit is 'portability'. I bet games like Fifa will offer some form of link to other Switch users - I wouldn't want to play split-screen on a 6.2" screen with half a controller but I doubt it will be as complete or expansive as the 'cheaper' PC/XB/PS version and 'more' fun online. If I was not disabled, I would prefer to meet my mates for a proper kickabout in the park than meet up to hook up a couple of Switches to play Fifa. I would rather play online from the comfort of my home and chat with friends in a Party. I would rather invite friends round than meet up in 'public' to play games and its not as if no console games offer couch co-op...

I've played a friends Switch when remote (not docked) and it is a nice little system. I don't think the build feels any less than a mid range tablet or any other handheld.

I played a little of BOTW and while it looks like an ace game, coming off the PS4 Pro to the Switch, I felt the stepdown was really noticable and I wondered how it would fare when docked on a larger tv. What I think it means for games is that developers are going to have to develop for the Switch rather than offer any kind of port. Power isn't everything but I felt like it was an amazing handheld but a limited home console.

I still quite want a switch - I like portable gaming and I quite like the idea of playing Skyrim for the first time on the move and having that full console experience. But, I think I want to see the quality of third party support first.

Regarding the kickstand, it's also designed to snap off in case you try to dock the system and forget to fold the kickstand back. However, I do think a second kickstand and a different viewing angle would've been more useful. I think that should solve most of the issues people have with the kickstand. And yes, minimal screen protection in the dock is a weird decision..

@KratosMD Doesn't mean the game will be flawed. It just means optimisation, and that takes time. Nintendo is very good at this, their games [read: file size] are very small compared to other games.

I would say most will not be able to play 4k@60fps at full detail. Sure, this should be the gold standard, but most won't be able to achieve that. See: http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/
If you look at what people actually have in their PCs, you see that most people have a gpu older than 2 years and those simply can't output the best 'graphics' for the newest games. It is simply the brag factor at play. It is the same as Xbox/PS4 players are doing towards Nintendo fans. I think fans should try and have a more critical eye towards their 'own' brand, because they all do things the makers should be called out for.

Tinkering with graphics settings is something I both miss and don't miss with consoles. Sometimes they have too many options on PC. I wish the consoles had at least some basic settings, something like a slider between performance and graphics. Generally speaking, fast-paced games should have higher frame rates, strategy games is usually better with higher resolution, and the rest should be balanced. And all should have as much details as they can muster at their target.

I do question 4k for most living rooms though. Most people who buy it are going to buy something that is overkill since their sofas are too far away from the TV. Most people just assumes 4k is better since that is what they have been told. When PC-gaming, you sit far closer to the screen, so you will get out the most of your screen.

You can do a simple test to see if your TV are at a optimal viewing distance. Have a 4k (or 1080p if you have a fullHD TV) picture on the screen, not something that moves. Stand close enough that you can easily see individual pixels. Then slowly back off until you can't see them. Here is your optimal viewing distance and where your sofa should be placed, tailor made for your eyes, regardless if you have bad eye-sight or not.

But I would say that even if you don't get the resolution benefit from a 4k, 4k TVs often have better panels in them and tech such as automatically adjust brightness on the screen depending on the surrounding light, they have HDR etc.

_{Language -Tasuki-}

The kickstand should have been centered at least. That is a bit of a bummer.

That was one of my main complaints about carts. Simply put, you can press a DVD/bluRay for cents, while a cart needs to be loaded. Most indies will probably be digital only, but nintendo might subsidize some of them to pad out physical release I imagine. The binding of Isaac is a physical release if I remember correctly.

@Therad I have a 4k TV - in fact its also a HDR TV and whilst 'bigger' than the 'average' at 55" (the average being 48") its still regarded as 'small' for the distance I sit - around 2m away. That being said I can 'clearly' see the difference between 1080p and 4k resolution. Its FAR more obvious with gaming than it is with TV/Film but the difference is still very noticeable.

With TV/Film, the focus is often in the 'foreground' with close ups on the actors/action and often there isn't to much difference between 1080p and 4k. Things like hair for example look sharper - especially when at an angle - not vertical or horizontal. However as objects move further away, at 1080p, the details are lost. Fur/hair/pin-stripes etc stop looking like individual strands - even disappear altogether. A lawn looks 'flat' for example but at 4k still retains its 'texture'.

The overall effect is one that's sharper and more defined with better 'colour' accuracy as less 'mixing' or averaging has to be done. This can be seen more with things like Hair/fur for example. Even clothing like denim which is not all made up of the same 'blue' threads. A blue and white thread will end up looking like a blurry light blue and lose the texture.

In gaming, the difference is far more noticeable because the image is generally much sharper than film. If you own a PS4 Pro, you can play games like Horizon at 4k (albeit checkerboard) and 1080p and the difference is easily obvious. Its more obvious than the difference between 900p and 1080p (unsurprisingly). You don't have to see the individual pixels to get the benefit.

As I said, I have a 4k screen and have SkyQ too. I can compare the 4k films/TV etc to 1080p versions and the difference is obvious. Often I watch something in 4k and see things I didn't notice at 1080p - it may only be small things but they are still noticeable. Whether its a Cats whiskers, the veins in leaves, the individual threads in clothes or more detail and texture in objects further away, its still a noticeable difference. It may not be the 'optimum' difference but its still a very clear difference.

What you are also not taking into consideration though is the upscaling of content and the effect that can have. Something that matches up to the resolution - ie the 720p of the handheld mapping 1:1 with the game looks 'sharper' than 720p on a 1080p screen - even if it was the same size or if you calculated the 'distance' equivalent from a larger screen. People with a Pro and 1080p screen will also tell you that a 'downsampled' higher resolution image is 'better' than a native 1080p image.

Maybe most PC gamers are using 'older' GPU's to game but I bet you if they could afford a better one, they wouldn't hesitate to swap it out. Its not 'cheap' to upgrade their hardware as soon as something better comes out. Last years TitanX cost $1k yet beating in benchmarks by this years 1070 for $400. Does that make those with TitanX's want to upgrade to this years Titan or will they make-do with their current Titan until they can afford an upgrade in 2-3years. In 3-4years time, if they carry out a 'new' survey, I bet most gamers will still have GPU's around 2-3years old meaning that they will have upgraded at some point but still won't have 'the latest and greatest'. I doubt many PC gamers have GPU's that struggle to run games at 1080p with some graphical settings on medium at best at struggle to maintain a 30fps at that level. I bet very few have Radeon 7870's - the equivalent to the PS4 or even a 7770 or 7790, the equivalent to an XB1 GPU - let alone a 'desktop' equivalent to Switch or 4GB RAM at ~26Gb/s bandwidth. I would be very surprised if any offer less than 1Tflop - unless gaming really isn't that important. I bet most of those with 3+yr old GPU's will be thinking or wanting to upgrade in the near future.

Granted not 'everyone' wants or needs a GPU that can handle 4k/60 with the settings at Max. Most probably only have a 1440p monitor at best and don't yet have either the finances or need to upgrade to the 'best' on the market. For some, having to upgrade the monitor, GPU and maybe CPU, RAM, cooling etc is just to much at the moment but I bet given the choice, opportunity etc, they would...

If budget allowed, you wouldn't find many people opting to go out and buy a PC with equivalent specs to a Switch or an XB1/PS4 for that matter for gaming and they certainly wouldn't expect it to last a 'generation' (say 4-5yrs) with that spec.

Ok, so amazingly, I've been given a Nintendo Switch by my work as a thank you for a recent bit of extra effort (clearly my gaming passion is obvious).

My wife is exhilarated at having yet another console in the house.

So I am in a unique position of having a new console but not having paid for it. I'm intrigued if this will make a difference on how I play. For a start, I want to finish Horizon before I move on to Zelda. Still, will crank it out tonight and see what its like.

@Rudy_Manchego Obviously you have a generous employer. Switches are pretty hard to find at the moment.

@Ralizah Yes, I am pretty lucky and treated quite well (I have been doing 10 hour days for a good few weeks now on something). Unless they have acquired it from the back of a lorry!

I'm thinking about picking up a switch now MK8 is out, both Zelda and MK8 have been given amazing reviews and with Mario Odyssey due out at Xmas I'm unsure if I can resist picking one up anymore.

Should I or shouldn't I?

@themcnoisy If you can afford it and don't have a Wii U, I'd say go for it. I would.

@themcnoisy Both games are available on WiiU and MK8 is literally just a port of this version. Digital Foundry were a bit disappointed that it really doesn't add anything - apart from an increase to resolution, no Anti-Aliasing for example. When compared to the WiiU version its identical apart from that resolution. That being said, they did say its by far the best Hand-held version of any Mario Kart game. So far, the Switch is the only Nintendo Console not to have a 'new' Mario Kart game.

Of course buying a WiiU for these is not necessarily a good decision either. It maybe ok for the current situation, the WiiU has an OK back catalogue but it won't be getting Mario Odyssey or what ever new releases come.

Whether you should get one or not, only you can answer that. Regardless of how good Zelda is, I have no interest in yet another Mario Kart and 3D Mario game, no interest in mobile gaming etc so for me, its a definite NO but my situation is different to yours. I don't know how much use you will get out of it, how much these games are worth it to you. Will you get to play Mario Kart with friends/family as that can make a difference. I would never say to someone that they must/should spend that much on a console and a couple of games at all.

@themcnoisy Hmm tough one. I have a Switch and from a hardware perspective, the system is sound and it works. The form factor is good, I like that it just works docked and not docked.

Software side, Zelda is a very good game if you like huge open worlds and complete freedom. I am not sure it is worthy of the best game ever moniker but it is very good and will give you lots to do for the money. Other than that, there are a few indies and retro titles which are all pretty expensive compared to other systems. MK8 is out this week which looks great but other than that, not many other major releases until Arms and then Splatoon 2 in the summer. Mario Odyssey will be the big system seller towards the end of the year.

I think, if you like Nintendo systems and portable gaming then the Switch is a great buy, I like it a lot. That said, the device and all accessories are expensive as are the games. You'll need an SD card, carry case etc. My advice to a few friends on the fence is to maybe wait till later in the year and see what other titles people like. Up to you - i think the system will be a big seller personally, it really is pretty nice tech. Good local mp too for friends /kids!