Are last gen graphics really that bad for switch?

I don't get all the moaning the switch will be more powerful than a Xbox 360, PS3 correct? Would a Gears of War, Uncharted or Crysis 3 on a tablet really bother you?

For a tablet, I think they're great graphics. For a home console, just standard HD is not enough. I'm really hoping the power is at least good enough to get Xbone/PS4 ports, that's all that matters to me.

Eh... It's got Zelda. Graphics are what Nintendo gives us....

I'd always prefer graphics to be better.

@PCgameruk: The performance is terrible for a home console launching in 2017. Many people don't care about the portable capabilities of it. Also, Crysis 3 was made available on last gen consoles, but it did not compare to the proper PC version in terms of graphics or performance. So, let's leave Crysis 3 out of it.

@BassMan:

Woah! Careful there!

I definitely care about the portable aspect of the system. I enjoy playing games on the go and it will make local multi-player way easier.

That is why I said many people, and not all people don't care. :)

For a home console launching in 2017, yes.

@BassMan:

I don't know man. I've seen a lot of people who are excited about the portability too.

Like you said the performance is bad for a home console but Switch is not exclusively a home console. For those who don't care for the portability, it's fair to assume they don't enjoy gaming on the go, which in turn just means Switch isn't for them. Not really a negative to sacrifice power for portability in my opinion.

No theyre not bad, Switch has amazing artistic capabilities for such a balanced machine.

Considering it's a hybrid... Not really.

They certainly pushed the home console aspect hard in their announcement video. Deep down we all know it is just a tablet with accessories and a display dock to hook it up to a TV. However, for those who only care for a home console from Nintendo, it is hugely disappointing. Neither the Wii U or Switch are impressive and they don't present any other worthy option. So, this means that their top franchises like Zelda will continue to be held back by the hardware.

@BassMan:

Well that's not what it is, right? It's a console that can be taken on the go. Nintendo are marketing it not as a home console but a home console that can be taken on the go. Nintendo are not exclusively pushing Switch as a home console. They are very transparent that portability is a major selling point of the system.

Again, this means that if you would like a Switch, the 'on the go' part is still an aspect of the selling point. If people want a traditonal home console, there are a number of great models of two already available.

The message I seem to get from Switch skeptics seem to come from people who see Nintendo marketing Switch as a home console but from what I have seen, Nintendo are marketing the Switch as a home console with portability. As a home console it is weaker than the other offerings but has the benefit of being portable. Nintendo is not pushing power in their campaign, they are pushing portability. The home console aspect of their marketing campaign comes from demoing home console like experiences with games like Zelda on Switch. Perhaps it is not as powerful but Nintendo are not saying this. Their communication to the audience for a home console is not power but the types of games one would typically play at home. Open world games like Zelda and Skyrim that are portable on Switch.

Like I said, Nintendo is not giving people any other options if they are only interested in the home console experience. I am not denying that they are marketing it as a portable console. If you want to play Zelda and Mario, you have to buy their hardware, and there in lies the problem... The hardware is shit, which in turn limits the quality of the games. I don't care about Nintendo hardware and I don't give a shit about consoles in general. I only care about the games that these companies make.

If it was up to me, all games would be on the open PC platform. There could still be consoles with target hardware specs in this ecosystem for people that want an easy and simple solution. This would make all games available to everybody (eliminating exclusives). Microsoft is already leading the way with their Play Anywhere initiative. If only the others would get on board. It is certainly not going to happen any time soon (if at all) due to corporate greed.

Considering they can't even do 64 player BF on last-gen specs, yes it is a bad thing. That kind of CPU and RAM limitation is terrible for the breadth of gameplay that developers could offer.

Developers do derive gameplay from technology. Look at the increased used of lighting and shadows in stealth games, destructible environments in a multitude of genres, voxel worlds. Basic stuff like streaming content to make seamless worlds also requires a proper amount of hardware just to pull off.

Replacing your home console line with some weak mobile platform with a dock is dumb and it's going to hamper developers in the worst way. The only thing that lest Nintendo get away with this is that there are enough fans of their IPs that they are forced to buy Nintendo hardware just to play them.

But you have to compromise. You cant expect everything to push the limit. This device doesnt need to be a 500w PC. Its fine being a 10w device. If you need more, then go buy more. Plenty of options in the world.

Yes. They are releasing a console which won't do anything different compared to the WiiU other than being portable. We can't call it next gen, we can't even call it next Nintendo gen. However, had it been marketed as a portable tablet that can play on a TV, it's not bad at all. But for most people that owns a WiiU and want a new home console from Nintendo, it's not worth it.

Its 2017 and we're dealing with 2009 specs. You tell me if its a bad thing or what.

I understand that Nintendo hasn't been in the dick measuring contest since the N64 and I never expected the Switch to be on the same level as the Pro. But the fact that it's actually weaker than consoles that came out 3 years ago and were already using outdated and unimpressive hardware even back then sure speaks volumes of just how out of touch Nintendo has become. I don't understand why people are excited that Nintendo is putting out a 3rd party friendly console when it's quite clear that The Switch is just going to get watered down versions of multiplats and shovelware. When they announced the Switch I was excited and interested in the concept but then they announced the specs and my interest went right out the window.

@dexeit: Were not looking for watered down dudebro games. We want Nintendo third party games.

@iandizion713: No one cares what you're looking for. I mean, if Nintendo wants to remain in the game they shouldn't care about what people like you want. They should bite their tongue and follow what's working. Good Nintendo 1st party games with serious 3rd party support would make Nintendo dominate again.

@dexeit: The dudebro game? I dont think theyre too concerned about that one. Dudebros dont buy Pokemon, Zelda, or Mario. If it aint got blood, bad words, or boobs, they dont really care.

@BassMan:

I don't see it as a problem. If people don't want a home console that is also portable, then the Switch isn't for them and they can choose a system that better suits their needs. There are plenty of them.

Software exclusivity is an entirely different beast and effects gamers across all platforms. This isn't Nintendo's fault, it's just an anomaly of the gaming industry. With Xbox One and PS4 almost entirely identical, there is nearly no reason why the video games can't be the same too. That's just how the industry works. It's inappropriate then to blame Nintendo for releasing the Switch and having their own exclusive games. Sure, the hardware is weaker but it's not weaker for no reason. It's weaker because it is portable and this is the selling point that makes up for it. If that isn't want people want, then the product simply isn't for them. We all know there are alternatives. In fact, portability might prove to be a better approach for Nintendo in the long run as a number of their exclusive titles have been split across home console and portable for quite some time now. One system that brings these together would be great for me, personally.

I guess it just comes down to that though. If you want a traditional home console: buy a PS4 or Xbox One. There are alternatives to The Legend of Zelda and Mario. If you really would like to play those games, however, Nintendo are offering a weaker system but it offers gamers the chance to play these games anywhere. It's really as simple as that. :/

Personally, this is only speaking from my perspective, I am much happier having at least one console taking a different approach than having three very similar consoles differentiated primarily by a handful of exclusives.

The hardware package is bad enough for me to avoid the system for several years just to see where it ends up.

As long as it's equal to/better than Wii U, I really don't give a shit.

MK8, Splatoon, Smash and shit still look great graphics wise.

I would like them to be better for sure. I don't think the power will be a deal breaker for me personally. I like portability. The idea of having docks in different rooms, makes this appealing to me. I'm just hoping it gets some decent 3rd party support, and I don't mean ports of games that have been out for a year on other platforms already. As of right now, I am up in the air on the Switch, but will probably pick one up to play with the family. My wife and I are big MK8 fans.

Ever since the Wii launch in 2006, Nintendo has been a generation behind in graphics. As their systems now output HD, the generational gap isn't a big deal. Not to mention nearly every Nintendo IP doesn't require the best of the best graphics, though a graphic powerhouse Zelda would be welcome.

For a handheld the specs are really good, and along the lines of what I expected.

For a console, it'll have a tough time competing in a few years. Performance means jack sh1t the first couple of years, but after a while devs will abandon the system because it'll become a hastle to develop for.

Sure, they could make the thing more powerful. But it'll be worthless as a handheld then, overheating with all that power, and draining the battery in less than an hour...

its grand. for nintendo the performance point is fine. yes new gameplay can be derived from increased horsepower (though very very few games use that this gen). sure it would be nice to have a higher graphical fidelity. but nintendo havent had new gameplay derived from increased horsepower since pikmin on the gamecube (good luck getting all those pikmin running nicely on an N64 or even 3DS...new 3DS could probably do it mind). nintendo are also very capable of getting great results out of poor hardware. many games on the wiiu dont look great for a wiiu game. they look great....end of story. nintendo can also squeez out stable and consistent performance from said hardware.

so for playing nintendo games and games from their partners in japan (like capcom with monster hunter) its fine and it keeps development costs in check. its strong enough to make nintendo games look great and offer a stable and consistent level of performance, i do hope the new GPU will allow nitnendo to have things like AA and decent AF (a surprising issue this gen on all consoles) in all their games without impacting performance. its a couple of areas that could do with tidying up from the wiiu.

they just need to get that price right. if they think they can charge 350-400 bucks for it then they will be in for a rude awakening. they really need to get it under 250 and ideally have a good pack in game with it.

@BassMan: the graphics don't matter wiiu had many games that sold well and switch looks to be 2x better than wiiu

All jokes aside, it doesn't not matter.

@PCgameruk said:

I don't get all the moaning the switch will be more powerful than a Xbox 360, PS3 correct? Would a Gears of War, Uncharted or Crysis 3 on a tablet really bother you?

The performance being better than the 360 and PS3 is yet to be seen. I would not be surprised if it isn't.

I'd say yeah. It basically means the console is D.O.A as a home console. It could have some niche audience as a tablet, but only if it's priced cheap like the 3DS to account for the cheap hardware. This thing aint an IPAD. Nobody is going to want it if it's $299 or $399. It needs to be like $199. MAYBE $249.

If it starts out $349 like the Wii-U, then it will sell like the Wii-U (maybe even worse). If it sells that badly it might not even get all the great games the 3DS eventually got. The bright side in that scenario is that Nintendo would have almost no choice but to go 3rd party or to sell themselves to more competent owners.

If it's as weak as it sounds like it's going to be, developers might not even bother with the big games. It's hard to see it getting Mass Effect or Elder Scrolls style games. Unless we are talking last gen port of Skyrim, if they even follow through on that. But it is incredibly unlikely it gets very many of the upcoming AAA games.

Best case is that the portable developers currently focusing on 3DS games will want to keep doing those style of games for Switch. Their development costs may go up, but not nearly as much as to develop AAA games for PS4. Though many of the best 3DS games lately weren't exactly tied to Nintendo (i.e. Dragon Quest, Shin Megami Tensei, etc). These franchises could just as easily abandon Switch entirely if sales aren't where they want them. Though I would assume series like Ace Attorney and Monster Hunter will probably stick with Nintendo at least unless it's a total failure.

For a handheld it probably will do well, but as a console it probably wont. What really concerns me is that the last gen graphics will hinder third party and we see them abandon the switch like the wii u. Something on par with the competition would give a stronger case for ports

@iandizion713: "for such a balanced machine."

? =(

@PSP107: Yep, yep.

As a stand alone main console, yes the specs are bad.

As a console to compliment a PS4 Pro or Scorpio that can also go into a portable mode. Not to mention unique Nintendo games. I think at a 250 price tag, it would be acceptable.

People are way too obsessed in the power gig. Well, that is until Scorpio outshines the Pro. Then it is back to the games matter. Funny how that works for Sony, yet not Nintendo.

@iandizion713:

What is this balance you speak of? From all we know so far, the Switch seems like a powerful portable that probably won't be able to play Red Dead Redemption 2.

@PSP107: What about it? You cant have such a machine to play Red Dead Redemption 2 and be portable.

As long as the textures look somewhat decent I'm fine with it- but it needs to be able to run these games at a steady framerate, and that's what has me concerned.

This is their 3DS successor, so the graphics will be fine.

Its not their new console, no matter what they tell you. After the Wii U disaster Nintendo is done with dedicated home consoles. The TV out feature on the Switch is just throwing a bone to those that supported the Wii U.

Not happening. This will get 3DS level support. Which means a good amount of both Nintendo 1st party and Japanese third party games. This is not the system for people who prefer Western styled games.

@PCgameruk: is that tomb raider in that picture of switch?

Nintendo giving up on home consoles after the Wii U, Lol. Its like they threw in the towel.

@PCgameruk: It depends on how much it costs. Paying for exceptional graphics at launch is expensive and is risky. For example, the PS4 has great graphics, but it didn't exceed the PS3 or Wii, which are both graphically inferior. Also, the market for consoles is even greater now, so you'd expect it to win out anyway...

It's only a subset of gamers who play shooters and open-world games etc. that value graphics beyond a reasonable point. Also, these people aren't even targeted by Nintendo because they realize that they're a fickle audience.

Consoles have had last gen graphics compared with PC forever and they're doing fine, so as long as the Switch is able to offer good games along with portability, it should be ok.

As a PC gamer, it's the only console that has me interested because it will provide a different way to play (on the go) as well as a robust library of games that can't be found on PC. Can't say the same thing about Xbone or PS4, which only look like shitty PCs with too few interesting exclusives to me.

4GB RAM... The CPU/GPU are okay, its in between the x360 and X1 in performance but THE RAM pretty much disqualifies the majority of games ever being ported.

4GB VRAM is a minimum but when its shared with the system who knows how much will be available... 3GB... 2GB?... Nah, not enough for current games let alone for future tittle.

I think we will see a LOT of Sub 1080p games for this thing.

@iandizion713: "What about it? You cant have such a machine to play Red Dead Redemption 2 and be portable."

You brought up balance. What is the balance.

I mean are you thinking that Red Dead Redemption fans already have a PS4/Xone so it wouldn't make sense for Rockstar/Nintendo to even consider a Switch port. I understand that logic but come on.

@PSP107: Balance is finding the center between graphics, accessibility, and fun. Balance is Nintendo. Nintendo is life.

With 13 million sold you can't blame them.