Are last gen graphics really that bad for switch?

so you are fine with a home console released in 2017 being on par with a console released in 2005?

I glad they are making the switch.. hopefully when it fails tremendously Nintendo will lose so much money that they will be forced to do software only like Sega... THEN WE ALL CAN PLAY ZELDA AGAIN!!!! HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Switch Zelda Bunduru for $149.99 and sure, no problem. :P

@ShepardCommandr:

A home console that can be played on the go. ;)

I am for sure. It's more powerful than the Xbox 360. 360 wouldn't be able to run UE4 and Switch is.

While this is a good guess, we can't say that for certain yet until we see the conference next week. I'm guessing that western third party support will be weak at first due to the uncertainty of the console but if it sells well, I can see third parties making the Switch.

@bowserjr123: The physical size of the system limits its performance. With the Pro and Scorpio opening the gate for higher end performance and resolution, support from Western third parties for their multi platform games is almost guaranteed not to be ported to the Switch.

The system doesn't need to have Pro and Scorpio levels of performance since games will still be able to be played on the OG Xbone and PS4. All it needs is comparable performance to the latter systems and high consumer interest to generate sales. Think the PS2 era, PS2 was weaker than GCN and Xbox and it had the best third party support. Sales for third party games would also be a lot higher if the games had exclusive content (think the Link addition in Soul Calibur II), which is what Nintendo should be striving to do rather than making another wannabe PC.

I need to see a list of all the announced games and official specs until we can make this judgment for certain.

@iandizion713: "Balance is finding the center between graphics, accessibility, and fun. Balance is Nintendo. Nintendo is life."

I'm talking game library. Nintendo has been lacking in this category since N64.

Where has performance been confirmed?

@bowserjr123: The Switch is no way comparable to Xbox One or PS4 based purely on the size of the device and price constraint. We don't need to wait on official specs for that. There is real physical limitations based on the current technology that inhibits its performance. If we are to consider the rumors the system is weaker than the an Nvidia shield which was weaker than the Xbox 360. No one who is looking forward to the Switch should expect comparable performance to the current generation, that is a false expectation. Just like strong third party support for multi platform games that would be on the Switch is a pipe dream.

@IMAHAPYHIPPO:

It hasn't been. I'm just going by assumptions and rumors. I would be impressed if it's as powerful as the Xbox One but I'm not imagining it will be.

@PCgameruk: Actually the GPU (when undocked) runs WORSE than the X360 [If the spec runors turn out to be true]. Thats a pretty big deal IMHO. And I'm curious as to how Ninty plans on creating a balance in performance from the dock/undocked games. I was SUPER excited about the switch until i heard this.. we'll see on the 13th.

If you're going to throw rumors into the mix, you should consider this one too:

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/54978/porting-games-over-nintendo-switch-easy/index.html

No way comparable? Again, I need hard facts and confirmed specs until such a claim can be made. In terms of comparable graphics in portable mode, yeah I'm expecting 720p but we don't know about docked mode specs. The conference next week will be the final determination of this.

It's fine as both a portable and a handheld. As a handheld the capabilities are fine, best we've seen to date. As a console, I'm not concerned one bit about the power as I don't see this system as competing for me to purchase third party multiplats on it like the AAA western third party games, I already have an XB1 and PS4 for those. What the Switch will offer me on the third party end is the kinds of games that will be developed for it as a handheld, which will likely come from Japanese third parties. Many people are enamored with the PS4 because aside from Sony's internal development and western multiplats, it's basically the default system for Japanese RPGs on consoles. Well, my experience gaming on the DS/3DS is that it offers substantially more on that end since the Japanese market has shifted to further support handhelds over consoles. There's a lot of great games there that have never touched the consoles that I'd love to be able to play on a TV as well as on the go. I'd love to once in a while maybe fire up the next Ace Attorney or Project X Zone or the next Shin Megami Tensei game Atlus makes when I'm not wanting to play on the go.

One conundrum I've been thinking about occasionally has to do with the reason the Japanese have moved to handhelds. We look at the PS2 days and it was well supported with tons of Japanese third party games. I think it was the big changes with the Xbox 360, PS3, and Wii that really pushed handheld support and drop of support for consoles. Of course, Japanese aren't going to care for Xbox anytime. But, there was a problem with PS3 and Wii, the Wii didn't really have great consumer support for third party games, and the PS3 was too costly and time consuming to program for, which really put Japanese developers/publishers in a bad place there, who usually made their games on smaller budgets. It's an interesting consideration, whether Japanese consumers adopted handhelds more and the market shifted to cater to them, or whether the market could only afford to produce smaller/cheaper games on handhelds and the consumers followed. I'm curious what having a more capable handheld means to development costs and such and whether the Japanese handheld market can follow, since the conditions that's kept their heads above water will still work in the new market environment.

@bowserjr123: You make a valid argument.. but recent history disagrees with you. The N64/GC/Wii/WiiU ALL struggled with 3rd party support. And with the Switch being [arguably] worse than the X360 in some ways.. I dont see that changing. The ONLY thing that would save it would be 3rd parties approaching the switch like they approach EVERY Nintendo handheld.

@bowserjr123: You are setting yourself up to be disappointed. The Switch is not going to be comparable to the Xbox or PS4 farless their upgrades. All of this would be made clear next 2 weeks.

Unacceptable.

@Heil68: Wrong, it's acceptable when Nintendo does it.

I made it clear in my guess that western third party support will be weak at first and will be stronger if sales and interest are there so I have my expectations in check. I'm still excited for the system because it looks to be innovating in different ways the Wii U failed to do and is way better than it so far. I skipped out on the Wii U and want to be able to play games like BotW and Super Mario Switcharoo (or whatever the hell the new 3D Mario will be called).

If western third parties don't support, I'm fully ready to get a PS4 since the PS3 has been great for me and I still play it.

@BassMan: Why arent you in charge?Though my idea is a single open console that plays all games and eliminates exclusives.

GCN had solid third party support (definitely not as great as PS2's but good regardless). Tales of Symphonia, TimeSplitters 2, Prince of Persia, Rogue Squadron, Super Monkey Ball, Soul Calibur II, a bunch of sports titles, Viewtiful Joe, Resident Evil 4, and Beyond Good and Evil are good examples of this. N64, Wii, and Wii U I'll definitely agree with, especially the latter. Wii had a lot of third party games, but they were mostly shovelware titles or gimped versions of the HD twins so not the right kind.

Switch worse than X360? As I've mentioned in earlier posts, I need official specs until I believe this since that seems laughable. The portability is definitely a solid selling point and handheld (3DS) third party support is expected at minimum. The fact that it's being marketed a lot better, will most likely have a strong first party lineup (consolidating console and handheld titles), and has an actual selling point to it (portability) are already saving it and making it better than Wii U. The real question is what third party support will look like in the long term.

Switch info PSA....

http://www.gamespot.com/articles/nintendo-switch-release-date-and-price-leaked-poss/1100-6446696/

No they are not. Honestly yes having better graphics makes a game slightly prettier but it comes down to the games. At least it should. If you are playing for graphics only I suggest watching a movie on the best tech TV instead.

I look forward to playing the mightiest handheld ever made... I kind of hope they go their own way with and forge some incredible handheld/console experiences...

I will not be happy with a repeat of wiiu sequels. It'll be a total missed opportunity if they simply try and just compete with the other two clowns with a hook of, "well you can take it on the road!"

Dig into your history, your talented devs and make games that augment the hardware...

That did not happen with the Wii, why do you think it will happen with the Switch? What innovating in different ways are you referring to? How is this device innovating or innovating contrary to the WiiU?

Wii was a system heavily marketed to the casual market with a low software attachment rate while also being more difficult to develop for compared to the HD twins without gimping. Again, we don't know where Switch's specs land power-wise and how easy it is to port games for it not to mention that it supports UE4.

The fact that the system is a true hybrid bringing both their home console and handheld markets together which the Wii U didn't do and having detachable controllers allowing for portable local multiplayer make it innovative in my opinion. Also, whatever other features the system may potentially have (VR, gyro, etc).

We don't know where the Switch specs land powerwise but I know where it doesn't land. Its not on the level of Xbox One or PS4. The Switch supporting UE4 is meaningless. I don't know why people think that it translates to something meaningful. UE4 supports mobile devices does that mean something for mobile gaming?

Its not really bringing home console and handheld markets together. Its more of a handheld device than a home console even though Nintendo is trying to market the device as their next home console. This system is unacceptable as a home console but excels power wise as a handheld device. This system would not be capable of VR. Thats another pipedream. History has shown time and time again that Nintendo has not released a powerful systems in decades. Expecting things to change with a device this small and thin is detaching oneself from reality.

Its safe to say that you are overly optimistic about the Switch and I am very pessimistic. Nintendo has not demoed anything that alleviates the concerns that has plagued them for such a long time. This system being more of a handheld device pretending to be home console is proof of this. Couple this with the concern that the system is not going to have a standalone controller packed in is more proof that this device is not meant for home use. With the rumor price clocking in at $250 without a standard controller is going to move this into a higher price range than the PS4 and Xbox One and this is despite the reality that the system is going to be weaker and support less games than the other two consoles.

I expect power below Xbone but above X360. Supporting UE4 is not meaningless, it brings the potential for games like FFVII remake and it already has DQ XI confirmed for it. It is heavily popular in today's market and is just another additional tool that can entice third parties.

It is definitely bringing both markets together, you can choose to play the system docked the entire time you use it so it's really up to how you want to utilize it. I don't see Nintendo supporting the 3DS much longer and if they make games exclusively for Switch, it's going to have an impressive first party library.

I'm uncertain about whether or not it'll have VR and I'm not personally interested in it but recent patents have hinted at it. I'm not expecting Nintendo to release a powerful system, but as long as the architecture is easy to develop for, that's more important in the long run. Yes, ideally I would want Switch to have PS4/Xbone levels of power or greater but it would kill the battery and drive up the price point which makes it less marketable.

I am definitely optimistic about Switch unlike the Wii U which was a failure from day one in my eyes but I can see why you're pessimistic about it. If the Switch didn't look appealing to me or show that it has a lot of potential/things going for it, I would be as pessimistic as you are.

Not demoed anything? You must have missed the Jimmy Fallon showing of the Switch, BotW was running very smoothly compared to the Wii U version which was full of frame rate drops.

Not for home use? Again, you can choose how you play the system. Go buy a pro controller if the Joy Cons bother you so much, that's what I plan on doing. I'd say that $250 is a great price and if it's so high for you, don't buy it. If you were expecting anything below $200, you're only fooling yourself since the 3DS XL still sells for $199.

It may have less games, but it's going to be the exclusive content that really sets it apart as well as having good enough third party support which we'll see whether that premise is met come next week.

Regardless of graphics, bad tech stifles creativity and innovation. That is just a fact, there's only so many things you can do when your hardware is miserably dated. I can play and appreciate a game with good gameplay and art, don't get me wrong, but at a certain point I'd like to see things like advanced NPC interaction, advanced vehicle and terrain destruction, etc., to enhance the flavor and uniqueness of each gameplay session. Those sure as **** won't be happening anytime soon on Nintendo's miserable hardware record.

All I am going to say is that the Switch is going to be WiiU 2.0. And you missed the point with the pricing.

I disagree about it being Wii U 2.0 but whatever you say man.

At least Switch has similar hardware feature set as DX12 class GPUs and quad core ARM A57 at 1 Ghz with 128 bit SIMD per core is better than 3 core PowerPC G3 at 1.2 Ghz with 64bit SIMD per core.

NVIDIA's CEO Jen-Hsun Huang

"The quality of games has grown significantly. And one of the factors of production value of games that has been possible is because the PC and the two game consoles, Xbox and PlayStation, and in the future - in the near-future, the Nintendo Switch, all of these architectures are common in the sense that they all use modern GPUs, they all use programmable shading and they all have basically similar features."

From http://www.tweaktown.com/news/54978/porting-games-over-nintendo-switch-easy/index.html

Intel and AMD would have their new tablet APUs in 2017 with similar features.

AMD's Raven Ridge APU scales down to 4 watts. AMD Vega scales from 4 watts to Vega 10 X2 with 300 watts and it's the same with NVIDIA's GPUs.

PC GPU architectures has won the war.

It's 100% guaranteed not to have comparable performance to the XB1 and PS4. It has a much weaker GPU, less ram and lower memory bandwidth. The CPU would have been decent if it weren't clocked so freaking low compared to a stock Tegra X1.

Wow, you have fallen, after the reveal! I told you not to trust Super Metal Dave 64 and OBE1

Fallen? Nintendo is the one that has fallen as a console maker. Their reputation as a console maker is probably crap now. Its not about SMD or OBE1 its about Nintendo.

I bet you'll still end up getting a switch, not at launch but later through the life span

I don't trust the Switch and don't know how it will do.

Before it was absolutely that last gen graphics are that bad for Switch.. now after pretty much learning that Scorpio will be having a Zen/Vega APU, even more so.

If people on here haven't realised that Nintendo are looking for the Japanese mobile market and couldn't give a rat's behind about what the superficial Yanks want then there is no hope for them. Only people with small willies care about whether a game is in 4K or not. It is all about the gameplay not the graphics.

But of course Americans cannot even entertain the fact that everything is not about them.

Nintendo know they will sell the Switch to certain people outside Japan but they are really concentrating on the home market. Last time I looked Pokemon had sold about 3 million and the 3DS about 2 million last year.

Depends.

As i said and predicted long ago , if Nintendo trying to market Switch as a console, yes it is an issue BIG time. Because its like saying from the get go that massive amount of next-gen AAA multiplatforms will be missing from the system AND that Switch might not hold as good in the near future when games will become more and more demanding like in 2019 and beyond for example when the system will be only 2-3 years old.

So do you want a console that will play games that will look seriously outdated , missing major titles etc with a big chance for the system to end up being in a life support as a console ? No you dont. Nooo hell you dont !

IF on the other hand , Nintendo stops this idiocy of promoting/marketing Switch as a real 2in1 system and BS like that , nothing is wrong with Switch and its power as a handheld that can be plugged on a TV.

So it really depends how you see Switch. A 2in1 gaming machine like Nintendo says or a handheld >?

Looks great because of the cartoonish style that is pleasing in the eye and aging really well. Even GC games like Zelda wind Waker looking great graphic wise as we speak because of that and so many other games that are like 10 years old or something.

Now imagine Witcher 3 or Metal Gear Solid 5 on Wii U ... something wouldnt be right , right ?

Hey now , few years back all Nintendo fans of this board let alone everywhere else on the internet was wishing for NX to be a traditional console power wise , having NOTHING fancy like motion controls and fancy controllers etc and for once , system to finally have as good 3rd party support as competition.

And what we get ? A fancy "console" that is not a console at all if you ask me , a very weak product hardware wise considering its release in 2017 and there are fancy stuff about it all over the place ... Handheld that can be plugged on TV, pads that can be detached , cartridges etc ..

Its not obsession with power imho , its what hardware evolution supposed to be. I mean , last generation lasted 8-9 years and literally i got bored to death with consoles because games started look and play exactly the same over and over ... when Wii , the winner by far , went into life support in its 3rd year like wtf !! Wii U followed those steps and it did way worse.

You think hardware specs didnt have nothing to do with that for those systems to go into life support so early ? Imho there has to be a balance and in Switchs case theres none. The only thing that "saves" Switch is that people , finally, start considering it as a handheld even when i said so on Switchs first reveal they were about to eat me.

So , as a handheld , its a good system. As a console ... ill give it till 2019.

@AzatiS: Sure, but as long as I have a PC, I don't really give a shit about that either. I'd actually rather have the Switch quite weak so that it doesn't cost so much. Having Switch expensive to make it be able to run Witcher would be extremely unnecessary and money wasting for me as I wouldn't use the Switch for such games.

Cheap and fun is what Nintendo should do. What lots of idiots on here are asking is that Nintendo goes head to head with Sony and MS in power, which wouldn't help Nintendo at all. They can't do that. People don't buy an expensive Nintendo console instead of a Playstation to play CoD, Witcher, Mass Effect, etc.

"Forced?" Being a little ridiculous here, aren't we? I'm sure there are more Nintendo fans that are willing to buy the system for Nintendo's games and NOT wanting to see history repeated again for the third time (See: Atari and Sega, even though we're already seeing the early results in their mobile departments).

"Forced" implies that Nintendo is holding their IP's hostage, a mentality from those that think "going third party" is a good idea, when it's far from it.

-_-

IF it was following the standard form factor forumular then you would have a point.

Still I think people should Accept this is a Portable Console, that is able to function as a stationary console.

Power-wise ... there will probably be a SWITCH XL / PRO or something in the future.

I'm not that worried about the power, playing Skyrim Remastered would be nice.... but 2 nindeno systems librarys and other niche japanese support (that will likely jump ship from the VITA ... because the VITA is s*it in comparison) opens up a different library to the other consoles.

You got a point there though that makes switch a secondary option once more isnt ? Wasnt that something that "hurt" Wii U , being a secondary option in the long run ?

Cheap and fun , yes why not. But cheap and "dead" after 2-3 years like what is really happening the last 3 generations for Nintendo consoles? Wont do for me even if its cheap. I want to have fun in the long run as well not for a year or two.

With that being said , Switch is a handheld , thats what im considering it as since day 1 , so i guess is a way more viable product to be called secondary this time around than Nintendo consoles before it.

the one thing that seems to be getting looked over here is the cost. having less horsepower (as long as the games still look good which they will) is ok if it has the games and the price is right.

at the reveal next week nintendo can boast that its a hybrid and they can show games X, Y and Z which will be released but if they then show its going to sell for 350 bucks then itll be DOA.

it needs 2 critical things:

1) it needs to be priced right. 250 with a game included at most. ideally getting it under 200 would get it much closer to impuse buy territority. nintendo needs momentum.

2) it needs a selection of games with a broader appeal than the wiiu and those games need to be exclusive. japanese developers working on the 3DS should certainly shift their focus soon enough (i cant wait for monster hunter on the switch) but nitnendo needs to be working with more developers from around the world. games, not specs, sell hardware.

priced right and with a compelling launch line up it could go on to be quite a successful device.

Even though it's what I'd ideally want, I'm not expecting performance on par with XB1 and PS4 but rather something in between X360 and Xbone. Obviously on the portable side of the house, XB1/PS4 levels are unrealistic but we'll see how it changes when docked. I'm more concerned about making sure it has architecture that makes it easy to port over games for. Running UE4 and Unity strongly hints at this. Also, I've yet to see an official specs sheet with all of the rumored statistics regarding its power.

The thing is, you point out the cost of more power, but ignore the cost of the form it's in. The screen, rechargeable batteries and added complexity of the removeable controllers also add to the cost. Also, without the restrictions of the portable form, additional processing power is actually much cheaper. While you may not want to play modern, western multiplats on the Switch, can you really say you wouldn't want better looking Nintendo games? There's quite a few people that don't want or don't have the opportunity for gaming on the go, and for this market, with the Switch always docked and a pro controller being used, all that expense of the screen, batteries and removeable controllers offers no benefit for the cost.

That never happens even with top of the range tech. When was the last time we really saw an advancement in AI decision making or terrain destruction that served to make a unique game-play experience?

Disregarding Nintendo, very few developers are taking advantage of technology other than pushing what they can do in the graphical department. Even performance is disregarded for graphics.

If anything, the most creative ideas I have seen from video games haven't come from decision making algorithms, vehicle destruction or complex physics. They have come from just having a unique idea and game-loop or games that think outside the box. I know that advancement in technology can lead to impressive emergent gameplay sessions and memorable moments.

By definition, sure the more tech you have, the more you can do with your game. It would put a cap on how you can innovate but all the amount of procedural generation algorithms and advancements in physics and AI behaviors will not make a fun game. A game needs to be designed well to be fun and creativity doesn't need good technology to exist.

You can make a creative and unique game out of paper. You don't need the latest technology.