• Hey everyone, staff have documented a list of banned content and subject matter that we feel are not consistent with site values, and don't make sense to host discussion of on Famiboards. This list (and the relevant reasoning per item) is viewable here.
  • Furukawa Speaks! We discuss the announcement of the Nintendo Switch Successor and our June Direct Predictions on the new episode of the Famiboards Discussion Club! Check it out here!

StarTopic Future Nintendo Hardware & Technology Speculation & Discussion |ST| (New Staff Post, Please read)

Reader mode
karmitt said:
Small rant. Without naming it, my wife is playing and absolutely enamored with a certain game and its world, and it’s in no small part due to the presentation. There so many things in this world that will absolutely pale in their appeal on the Switch version. Why can’t great modern presentation be coveted? It’s paying dividends here.

Listening to Kit and Krysta’s recent podcast irked me, as it attempted to promote the narrative that more power doesn’t equal better games, a statement that remains both patronizing and screams corporate indoctrination. It’s a Nintendo defense that’s been used since they left the hardware race, and it’s no less true now than it was when the Wii released. They weaken their own argument as they continue, both expressing a wish for games to look as good as PS5, but then stating that they can’t expect that as much from Nintendo.

Gameplay is in fact king, but I wish fans wouldn’t peddle the false narrative that power hasn’t enabled developers to create more enjoyable experiences. From the humble aspiration of ensuring that the details in your world are clean and unambiguous (resolution, texture quality), to the ambitious desire to create a photo realistic or visually dense setting for your game, and having all of the above at scale, the value is absolutely there. At some point in the future, manpower will probably be the limiting factor to reach new ambitions more than hardware, but Switch is just another arbitrary stopping point on that journey.

I find Metroid Prime’s release discourse ironic. It’s being lauded for its visuals, when such visuals (or better) would absolutely have a similar impact if they could be realized on other Nintendo titles that are less confined in their scale. Metroid Prime Remastered and Luigi’s Mansion 3 are like a small window into Nintendo’s future, as the smaller environments mean the team can focus on visuals and presentation, and they’re praised to no end because of what the teams accomplished.

Just being weird and getting this out of my system. Switch is my favorite hardware of all time, but I’d rather not be asked to “relish the generation” in year 7 when I can clearly tell when performance / hardware is an impediment to some of that enjoyment.
Click to expand...
Yes because the game was built with a different target spec and they have to crunch it down. It's possible the Switch port will be really good though, but that remains to be seen.

Kit and Kyrsta's point is you can achieve the same thing with less power, and I totally agree with that point of view.
It has nothing to do with corporate indoctrinaiton, but just stating facts.

That said Switch exists in an industry where there's a push and pull of many things and factors such as target platforms is always a consideration. Because of that, I always advocate for more power and want the Switch 2 to be out ASAP because I want Nintendo to do well (it's why I post on this forum) i don't want them to make the same mistakes they made before when devs moved on and they arrived LTTP. But that has nothing to do with if Switch can have a great presenting game that blows people away. I mean Nintendo just launched an amazing remaster of a classic game that brings it up to modern standards.
 
Dekuman said:
Yes because the game was built with a different target spec and they have to crunch it down. It's possible the Switch port will be really good though, but that remains to be seen.

Kit and Kyrsta's point is you can achieve the same thing with less power, and I totally agree with that point of view.
It has nothing to do with corporate indoctrinaiton, but just stating facts.
Click to expand...

Let's just say hard disagree on most of what you're saying above. You are most certainly not 'stating facts'

Might as well extrapolate your viewpoint to film and say any advancement of computer graphics from arbitrary point in time has contributed nothing to the medium, and that's categorically untrue. Games are more than just inputs and mechanics - it is a visual medium just as much as it is an interactive one. The title in question manages to recreate the aesthetic from the film with striking detail, and I'm sure Switch players will have a good time when they get it, but it will not be 'the same thing.'

I'm not making the argument that Nintendo needs to be at the bleeding edge for console gaming again. Even if Nintendo releases hardware using T239 this year they'll still be a fair distance from the competition on TV. I'm only taking issue with the idea that wherever Nintendo happens to park their hardware capabilities, it's always a sound decision because games haven't meaningfully improved beyond that. I'm staring at an example of why that is false, and it is once again patronizing to tell me otherwise. I can't count the amount of audible 'wow's and gleeful 'look at this!' moments my partner has made since she started playing. The puzzles and gameplay might not change on worse hardware, but the experience would.
 
Last edited:
oldpuck said:
That information is elsewhere in the document for NSO and other services, and in each place, it's just the number that is redacted. In general, these kinds of documents - including this one - are written in a pretty tedious bullet point-per-sentence style, and it's in a paragraph entirely about why NSO has been removed from the relevant market analysis. The redacted portion is almost definitely referring to Nintendos long term plans for availability as they would relate to continued irrelevance. Elsewhere, unannounced services from other companies are mentioned in the analysis, and just the name is redacted.
Click to expand...
I disagree that you can be so definite here. It entirely depends on the phrasing and the source of the info whether they would redact only a number or an entire sentence/clause. There's also pretty much nothing about new hardware that's even relevant to that part of the text.
 
karmitt said:
Let's just say hard disagree on most of what you're saying above. You are most certainly not 'stating facts'

Might as well extrapolate your viewpoint to film and say any advancement of computer graphics from arbitrary point in time has contributed nothing to the medium, and that's categorically untrue. Games are more than just inputs and mechanics - it is a visual medium just as much as it is an interactive one. The title in question manages to recreate the aesthetic from the film with striking detail, and I'm sure Switch players will have a good time when they get it, but it will not be 'the same thing.'

I'm not making the argument that Nintendo needs to be at the bleeding edge for console gaming again. Even if Nintendo releases hardware using T239 this year they'll still be a fair distance from the competition on TV. I'm only taking issue with the idea that wherever Nintendo happens to park their hardware capabilities, it's always a sound decision because games haven't meaningfully improved beyond that. I'm staring at an example of why that is false, and it is once again patronizing to tell me otherwise. I can't count the amount of audible 'wow's and gleeful 'look at this!' moments my partner has made since she started playing. The puzzles and gameplay might not change on worse hardware, but the experience would.
Click to expand...
Yes, diminishing returns is a thing. I can see your point, and i'm in this thread because I want a Switch 2, but your rant about Kit and Kyrsta's point of view is wildly off base. A Switch 2 in anycase would still be much less powerful than any static home console chugging 100watts of power, but it sure as heck can host some amazing content that look very close to the 100w console, while being much less powerful. So their point would still be valid.
 
Last edited:
Dekuman said:
Yes, diminishing returns is a thing.
Click to expand...

Never said it wasn't. But Nintendo's position is not the barometer for this.

I'm starting to hear sentiment shifting, specifically around PS4(Pro) to PS5 not really delivering the major differences of previous generations. Nintendo however has a fair gap before it's part of the 'diminishing returns' conversation.
 
Last edited:
SiG said:
They can't, because they have to also act as buttons, and a +Control Pad has a pivot.
Click to expand...
I wonder how important it is to keep this feature at the expense of better ergonomics. How many people actually use the Joycons as a long-term solution for multiplayer? There are $20-30 controllers that are decent alternatives to the Pro Controller, let alone the Joycons.

At least give us Pro Joycons or something.
 
Last edited:
0
karmitt said:
Never said it wasn't. But Nintendo's position is not the barometer for this.

I'm starting to hear sentiment shifting, specifically around PS4(Pro) to PS5 not really delivering the major differences of previous generations. Nintendo however has a fair gap before it's part of the 'diminishing returns' conversation.
Click to expand...
Yep and the Switch 2 will get Nintendo there.

In anycase, Kit and Kyrsta's comments weren't even about that, it's the fact you can craft perfectly great, playable , impressive looking games with current hardware. This isn't a Wii vs HD twins scenario, the gap is much closer. We'll just have to leave it there since this is a tech discussion and not about Kit and Kyrsta 😆
 
When it comes to hardware I think when developing a game the platform (depending on the target group), screen size, the controls, mobility are far more important in the creative process of creating a game than the graphical power.
 
karmitt said:
Small rant. Without naming it, my wife is playing and absolutely enamored with a certain game and its world, and it’s in no small part due to the presentation. There so many things in this world that will absolutely pale in their appeal on the Switch version. Why can’t great modern presentation be coveted? It’s paying dividends here.

Listening to Kit and Krysta’s recent podcast irked me, as it attempted to promote the narrative that more power doesn’t equal better games, a statement that remains both patronizing and screams corporate indoctrination. It’s a Nintendo defense that’s been used since they left the hardware race, and it’s no less true now than it was when the Wii released. They weaken their own argument as they continue, both expressing a wish for games to look as good as PS5, but then stating that they can’t expect that as much from Nintendo.

Gameplay is in fact king, but I wish fans wouldn’t peddle the false narrative that power hasn’t enabled developers to create more enjoyable experiences. From the humble aspiration of ensuring that the details in your world are clean and unambiguous (resolution, texture quality), to the ambitious desire to create a photo realistic or visually dense setting for your game, and having all of the above at scale, the value is absolutely there. At some point in the future, manpower will probably be the limiting factor to reach new ambitions more than hardware, but Switch is just another arbitrary stopping point on that journey.

I find Metroid Prime’s release discourse ironic. It’s being lauded for its visuals, when such visuals (or better) would absolutely have a similar impact if they could be realized on other Nintendo titles that are less confined in their scale. Metroid Prime Remastered and Luigi’s Mansion 3 are like a small window into Nintendo’s future, as the smaller environments mean the team can focus on visuals and presentation, and they’re praised to no end because of what the teams accomplished.

Just being weird and getting this out of my system. Switch is my favorite hardware of all time, but I’d rather not be asked to “relish the generation” in year 7 when I can clearly tell when performance / hardware is an impediment to some of that enjoyment.
Click to expand...
I'm reporting you.
Not only did you share an unpopular opinion, you also backed it with eloquent arguments.
And to top it all, you also did it in the form of a rant, invoking emotions in the mind of the weaker that may sway them from the rightful path.
You should be expelled from this mind-hive. /s

I agree and I'll add a couple of arguments.

Nintendo has a great platform that appeals to the casual gamer and maybe the retro gamer. Both those demographics may subscribe to NSO and maybe buy 2 or 3 games a year. It also appeals to the indie gamer as well who maybe buys a bit more games but at lower prices.
(Don't mind the categorization, we are all a bit of everything at varying proportions).
But that platform doesn't appeal that much to the enthusiast that buys AAA games every month or spends quite a bit on micro-transactions. That person has multiple platforms and is increasingly choosing the other platforms to buy performance-sensitive games, those that cost the most, or play competitive games, those they spend the most on.
Performance and graphics matters. It caters to the demographic that spends the most money on gaming.
It may also attract a lot of mobile gamers, those that laugh at how their favourite game runs on the Switch.

Then there are third-parties, those that sell AAA games for $60-70 that Nintendo taxes 30% on. More performance also means that it's easier to port those games. Where are our Call of Duties, our Elden Rings, our proper FIFAs or our GTAs? Where is Genshin Impact? Why are there only cloud versions of Hitman, Control or all the Resident Evil remakes? Why are the few relevant titles that come to Switch only coming "later"? I've already bought them on another platform or all the hype would have dried by then.
If it takes less effort to port a game, the platform will attract more publishers. Nintendo wouldn't be so reliant on their own catalogue. They would sit back and collect.

Nintendo are doing OK, but it baffles me how much money they're leaving on the table.
 
Cybergatuno said:
I'm reporting you.
Not only did you share an unpopular opinion, you also backed it with eloquent arguments.
And to top it all, you also did it in the form of a rant, invoking emotions in the mind of the weaker that may sway them from the rightful path.
You should be expelled from this mind-hive. /s

I agree and I'll add a couple of arguments.

Nintendo has a great platform that appeals to the casual gamer and maybe the retro gamer. Both those demographics may subscribe to NSO and maybe buy 2 or 3 games a year. It also appeals to the indie gamer as well who maybe buys a bit more games but at lower prices.
(Don't mind the categorization, we are all a bit of everything at varying proportions).
But that platform doesn't appeal that much to the enthusiast that buys AAA games every month or spends quite a bit on micro-transactions. That person has multiple platforms and is increasingly choosing the other platforms to buy performance-sensitive games, those that cost the most, or play competitive games, those they spend the most on.
Performance and graphics matters. It caters to the demographic that spends the most money on gaming.
It may also attract a lot of mobile gamers, those that laugh at how their favourite game runs on the Switch.

Then there are third-parties, those that sell AAA games for $60-70 that Nintendo taxes 30% on. More performance also means that it's easier to port those games. Where are our Call of Duties, our Elden Rings, our proper FIFAs or our GTAs? Where is Genshin Impact? Why are there only cloud versions of Hitman, Control or all the Resident Evil remakes? Why are the few relevant titles that come to Switch only coming "later"? I've already bought them on another platform or all the hype would have dried by then.
If it takes less effort to port a game, the platform will attract more publishers. Nintendo wouldn't be so reliant on their own catalogue. They would sit back and collect.

Nintendo are doing OK, but it baffles me how much money they're leaving on the table.
Click to expand...
Are they really leaving all that money on the table, though? While I agree that those third-party titles would help, I'm not sure how much they really matter in the grand scheme of things. I kinda feel like this whole third-party thing gets blown out of proportion at times, especially when the Switch has proven itself. Besides, I think that a lot of these games are coming with the Switch 2, anyway, but they won't be as crucial to the system's success unlike the other platforms. I'm not sure if I added anything substantial to the conversation, I just don't agree with some of the points listed beforehand (the "corporate indoctrination" line definitely irked me, felt kinda insulting, considering Kit and Krysta have extensive insight from their years at Nintendo, but whatever).
 
karmitt said:
Gameplay is in fact king, but I wish fans wouldn’t peddle the false narrative that power hasn’t enabled developers to create more enjoyable experiences.
Click to expand...
I feel like this "narrative" rings more and more true as the years go by. Especially when said power is often used for visual fidelity, which isn't bad mind you, but it's not always the end-all be-all. I feel like the only game in this generation that can challenge this school of thought is Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart, due to it's seamless load times.
 
D36 said:
I just don't agree with some of the points listed beforehand (the "corporate indoctrination" line definitely irked me, felt kinda insulting, considering Kit and Krysta have extensive insight from their years at Nintendo, but whatever).
Click to expand...

I’m not their close friend, so I’m not sure why I’d avoid being critical. Perhaps you find the term corporate indoctrination offensive, but it’s not unrealistic, and I’m undoubtedly guilty of it in some respects for my employer of now eight years.

They were literally promoting the same messaging that Nintendo and fandom have pushed for a couple generations now, and it’s not necessarily true. I could remove that line if it suits, but my entire argument stands.

D36 said:
I feel like this "narrative" rings more and more true as the years go by. Especially when said power is often used for visual fidelity, which isn't bad mind you, but it's not always the end-all be-all. I feel like the only game in this generation that can challenge this school of thought is Ratchet and Clank: Rift Apart, due to it's seamless load times.
Click to expand...

If you followed the whole chain you could see that I’m not disagreeing with you on this. PS4 to PS5 has been the smallest leap in gaming yet; It’s been a refinement more than it has been a meaningful jump.

Anyway like I said in the original post it was just a weird rant I needed to get out of my system. I knew it would probably get attention here, but I’m still sorry if it rubbed some people the wrong way.
 
karmitt said:
I’m not their close friend, so I’m not sure why I’d avoid being critical. Perhaps you find the term corporate indoctrination offensive, but it’s not unrealistic, and I’m undoubtedly guilty of it in some respects for my employer of now eight years.

They were literally promoting the same messaging that Nintendo and fandom have pushed for a couple generations now, and it’s not necessarily true. I could remove that line if it suits, but my entire argument stands.



If you followed the whole chain you could see that I’m not disagreeing with you on this. PS4 to PS5 has been the smallest leap in gaming yet; It’s been a refinement more than it has been a meaningful jump.

Anyway like I said in the original post it was just a weird rant I needed to get out of my system. I knew it would probably get attention here, but I’m still sorry if it rubbed some people the wrong way.
Click to expand...
Sorry I misinterpreted your stance, I just don't think the issue of power has hampered Nintendo as significantly as previous generations and I don't think we have much to worry about in the coming years in that regard. Maybe I responded the way I did because I've heard this whole song and dance for years and will probably continue to hear it even if the gap between Nintendo and Sony/Microsoft shortens, again, apologies if I got the wrong idea.
 
karmitt said:
I’m not their close friend, so I’m not sure why I’d avoid being critical. Perhaps you find the term corporate indoctrination offensive, but it’s not unrealistic, and I’m undoubtedly guilty of it in some respects for my employer of now eight years.

They were literally promoting the same messaging that Nintendo and fandom have pushed for a couple generations now, and it’s not necessarily true. I could remove that line if it suits, but my entire argument stands.
Click to expand...
Calling it corporate indoctrination isn't just being critical of an opinion, it's basically saying that it's not a genuine opinion. It's both condescending and accusatory toward what (I assume) was just some benign podcast video -- which also spills over onto anyone here reading this who happens to share those opinions. And the inexplicably charged language here too, "promoting" and "pushing" something that's "not necessarily true." Opinions aren't true or false.

Let's go back to the silly redaction discussion. It's better than this.
 
LiC said:
Calling it corporate indoctrination isn't just being critical of an opinion, it's basically saying that it's not a genuine opinion. It's both condescending and accusatory toward what (I assume) was just some benign podcast video -- which also spills over onto anyone here reading this who happens to share those opinions. And the inexplicably charged language here too, "promoting" and "pushing" something that's "not necessarily true." Opinions aren't true or false.

Let's go back to the silly redaction discussion. It's better than this.
Click to expand...

I was definitely venting, and certainly being a bit of an ass. Apologies. It’s just such a tiring and historied argument that I simply couldn’t and still can’t see it as anything but a Nintendo flavored defense. It largely started when they chose to diverge from the cutting edge, and at the same time served as a means of trivializing or invalidating Sony’s aims.

I’ll drop it. And edit the first post a bit
 
0
karmitt said:
Small rant. Without naming it, my wife is playing and absolutely enamored with a certain game and its world, and it’s in no small part due to the presentation. There so many things in this world that will absolutely pale in their appeal on the Switch version. Why can’t great modern presentation be coveted? It’s paying dividends here.

Listening to Kit and Krysta’s recent podcast irked me, as it attempted to promote the narrative that more power doesn’t equal better games, a statement that remains both patronizing and screams corporate indoctrination. It’s a Nintendo defense that’s been used since they left the hardware race, and it’s no less true now than it was when the Wii released. They weaken their own argument as they continue, both expressing a wish for games to look as good as PS5, but then stating that they can’t expect that as much from Nintendo.

Gameplay is in fact king, but I wish fans wouldn’t peddle the false narrative that power hasn’t enabled developers to create more enjoyable experiences. From the humble aspiration of ensuring that the details in your world are clean and unambiguous (resolution, texture quality), to the ambitious desire to create a photo realistic or visually dense setting for your game, and having all of the above at scale, the value is absolutely there. At some point in the future, manpower will probably be the limiting factor to reach new ambitions more than hardware, but Switch is just another arbitrary stopping point on that journey.

I find Metroid Prime’s release discourse ironic. It’s being lauded for its visuals, when such visuals (or better) would absolutely have a similar impact if they could be realized on other Nintendo titles that are less confined in their scale. Metroid Prime Remastered and Luigi’s Mansion 3 are like a small window into Nintendo’s future, as the smaller environments mean the team can focus on visuals and presentation, and they’re praised to no end because of what the teams accomplished.

Just being weird and getting this out of my system. Switch is my favorite hardware of all time, but I’d rather not be asked to “relish the generation” in year 7 when I can clearly tell when performance / hardware is an impediment to some of that enjoyment.
Click to expand...
I get what you're saying, and yes, absolutely, power has enabled developers to create more enjoyable experiences. But Kit and Krysta are right, though : more power doesn't equal better games. And I'd even argue that, with the new generation of consoles, we're starting to see the limits of the race to power, to the point where more power is actually equal to worst games. Making games that take full advantage of the PS5 and Series X horsepower costs so much money that games can't afford to lose a single consumer, and that leads to stuff like absurd handholding, tutorials that seem to never end, limited game systems, and overall extremely milquetoast stuff (also, more detailed games sometimes are less "readable", so you have to rely on stuff like witcher senses, but that's something that you can avoid).

You mention Metroid Prime, but considering the overall limited appeal of the IP, that game probably would've never been made today if Nintendo was still making the most powerful consoles on the market. With that said, I think the PS4/X1 gen found the sweet spot between graphical power and sustainability of making games, so I wish and expect the Switch 2 to be along these lines.
 
More power clearly equals better games as Karmitt says. And the corollary of that is less power equals lesser games.

In 2017, Nintendo releases their most ambitious titles yet like BOTW and Odyssey. But because they are on Switch, which lacks power, they're seen as second rate.

If only Nintendo had made their own Boxstation instead, BOTW and Odyssey could have turned out in a way that allowed them to be hailed as some of the greatest games ever. Maybe they could have been nominated for GOTY or even won.

But they are forever stuck being lesser games, always in the shadow of their contemporaries never getting the recognition they could have had, because less power equals lesser games.

Hang on a minute.

Okay, so I'm being an ass too, but the incessant graphics snobbery irks me as does the elitism that is often on display what with people humble bragging about their 65" TVs.

A newer more powerful Switch would be great. But while more power can enable better games in some ways, it is merely a component of the overall result.

Some of the most joyous experiences have come from smaller games like recently Shin-chan or L'il Gator Game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Glom said:
Okay, so I'm being an ass too, but the incessant graphics snobbery irks me as does the elitism that is often on display what with people humble bragging about their 65" TVs.
Click to expand...
I never understood why such same people chased prestige and clout in video games by trying to hold them up in the same artform as movies...then would regard Nintendo's titles as "lower art".
 
I think there is such a thing as 'sufficient' power. The Wii U and subsequently Switch were enough steps up to realize some of Nintendo's recent amazing games. It's not like the capabilities between these consoles remained stagnant. The Switch is more powerful than the Wii U and the Switch 2 will subsequently be a leap over the Switch based on what we know. It doesn't need to be as powerful as the PS5 for the better specs to make a difference. I think what Drake is shaping up to be seems sufficient, if not more.
 
Serif said:
I think there is such a thing as 'sufficient' power. The Wii U and subsequently Switch were enough steps up to realize some of Nintendo's recent amazing games. It's not like the capabilities between these consoles remained stagnant. The Switch is more powerful than the Wii U and the Switch 2 will subsequently be a leap over the Switch based on what we know. It doesn't need to be as powerful as the PS5 for the better specs to make a difference. I think what Drake is shaping up to be seems sufficient, if not more.
Click to expand...
I think the COVID/"delay" of a mid-gen/successor console creates this notion that the current Switch would stifle support from developers. I do think titles that have been designed with the system's limitations in mind would be able to create smart concessions given how Retro pretty much showed everyone what the system is actually capable of (even if it did use baked lighting). I just think they would need to get smart with their execution and avoid slipshod jobs where performance isn't where it needs to be when a title comes out, but I guess that's easier said than done given deadlines.

The problems arise when programmers just brute force things with processing power rather than optimizing the program.
 
Glom said:
More power clearly equals better games as Karmitt says. And the corollary of that is less power equals lesser games.

In 2017, Nintendo releases their most ambitious titles yet like BOTW and Odyssey. But because they are on Switch, which lacks power, they're seen as second rate.

If only Nintendo had made their own Boxstation instead, BOTW and Odyssey could have turned out in a way that allowed them to be hailed as some of the greatest games ever. Maybe they could have been nominated for GOTY or even won.

But they are forever stuck being lesser games, always in the shadow of their contemporaries never getting the recognition they could have had, because less power equals lesser games.

Hang on a minute.

Okay, so I'm being an ass too, but the incessant graphics snobbery irks me as does the elitism that is often on display what with people humble bragging about their 65" TVs.

A newer more powerful Switch would be great. But while more power can enable better games in some ways, it is merely a component of the overall result.

Some of the most joyous experiences have come from smaller games like recently Shin-chan or L'il Gator Game.
Click to expand...
they should've made botw for the 3ds
 
Power is a tool you put in the hands of developers.
The better tools you give developers, more chances they have to create something wonderful.
BotW wouldn't have been possible on the Wii, Ocarina of Time wouldn't have been possible on the SNES, because the power... just as Wii Sport wouldn't have been possible on the GC without the motion control tool.
 
Every time I click "show hidden content" in some of the replies here is always the blatantly low-effort concern trolling or just negativity for the sake of being a contrarian. Thanks mods for the ignore feature.
 
Joseki said:
Every time I click "show hidden content" in some of the replies here is always the blatantly low-effort concern trolling or just negativity for the sake of being a contrarian. Thanks mods for the ignore feature.
Click to expand...
Why don't you report the posts then?
 
I would absolutely say more power equals more enjoyable games. Botw was fantastic on Switch, but it was absolutely better when I emulated it and played it at 4k 120fps.

I want to see a Zelda game that rivals final fantasy 7 remake in its presentation.
 
Glom said:
More power clearly equals better games as Karmitt says. And the corollary of that is less power equals lesser games.

In 2017, Nintendo releases their most ambitious titles yet like BOTW and Odyssey. But because they are on Switch, which lacks power, they're seen as second rate.

If only Nintendo had made their own Boxstation instead, BOTW and Odyssey could have turned out in a way that allowed them to be hailed as some of the greatest games ever. Maybe they could have been nominated for GOTY or even won.

But they are forever stuck being lesser games, always in the shadow of their contemporaries never getting the recognition they could have had, because less power equals lesser games.

Hang on a minute.

Okay, so I'm being an ass too, but the incessant graphics snobbery irks me as does the elitism that is often on display what with people humble bragging about their 65" TVs.

A newer more powerful Switch would be great. But while more power can enable better games in some ways, it is merely a component of the overall result.

Some of the most joyous experiences have come from smaller games like recently Shin-chan or L'il Gator Game.
Click to expand...
In 2017 I played BotW on WiiU. I never particularly loved dungeons, meaning I don't share the main criticism of the game (oh, and durability is also good) but I distinctly felt, in a way that I'd never felt for a big Nintendo game before, that the game would have been massively more enjoyable on a more powerful hardware: the massive scope of the game's open map meant that the resolution felt inadequate, the game often lost fps (during combat!) or outright freezed (when using explosives) the empty map reminded me negatively of Wind Waker HD's sea and animals disappearing when hunting them is probably my biggest problem with the game.

Of course you may reply saying the silly devs should have just pressed the "optimize" button, but the same game, on CEMU, didn't have most of these problems.

I'm playing through Dragon Quest XIS on my Switch Lite, a version with worse assets made esplicitly for the Switch, yet running in the open world makes the grass a blurry mess. My first impression of the game was, when arriving at the king's court in the prologue, that the knight without a helmet (and generally all characters not in the foreground in a cutscene) looked like FFVIII's handsome guy.

There are plenty of games that would benefit from a more powerful system
 
neil said:
A next-gen patch for MK8D would be kind of hilarious, I wonder if it would be an 8-player splitscreen mode for 4K TVs.

A Sword & Shield patch also sounds kind of weird

I hope it's all true but believe none of it 🙃
Click to expand...
The post mentions a Switch Pro, so it may have been originally meant for it before the release of Scarlet and Violet
 
Zaimokuza said:
The post mentions a Switch Pro, so it may have been originally meant for it before the release of Scarlet and Violet
Click to expand...
Well, they are also games that today continue to sell a lot, people continue to play and they continue to be used for official tournaments, as pokemon availability is different in each game.


I don't think that if they put a patch on SwordShield (or pkmn games in general), it's something relevant, I wouldn't expect anything other than raising the resolution and stabilizing the fps
 
0
KMStwo said:
* Hidden text: cannot be quoted. *
Click to expand...
Yeah, sounds like guesses that most of us would make. Switch's marquee evergreens and most recent games that strive for great graphics or would benefit from more powerful hardware is literally what we all expect I think.

But there's Xenoblade Chronicles 3 missing as you pointed out(and that one in 4K would be highly marketable jump), Metroid Prime 4 not being mentioned, Sword and Shield being on the list while that makes no sense as S/V and Arceus, the person knowing all first party games that will receive patches but somehow not knowing a single new game to be coming for it...

Sounds like they just compiled all speculation including the "clearly it's running on a Switch Pro!!" reactions to Splatoon 3 and TotK reveal trailers and made a post in a serious and very safe way to sound legit.
 
Kingpin Rogers said:
I would absolutely say more power equals more enjoyable games. Botw was fantastic on Switch, but it was absolutely better when I emulated it and played it at 4k 120fps.

I want to see a Zelda game that rivals final fantasy 7 remake in its presentation.
Click to expand...
That's not happening no matter how powerful Nintendo's systems become. A lavish presentation was never the point of the series.
 
Glom said:
More power clearly equals better games as Karmitt says. And the corollary of that is less power equals lesser games.

In 2017, Nintendo releases their most ambitious titles yet like BOTW and Odyssey. But because they are on Switch, which lacks power, they're seen as second rate.

If only Nintendo had made their own Boxstation instead, BOTW and Odyssey could have turned out in a way that allowed them to be hailed as some of the greatest games ever. Maybe they could have been nominated for GOTY or even won.

But they are forever stuck being lesser games, always in the shadow of their contemporaries never getting the recognition they could have had, because less power equals lesser games.

Hang on a minute.

Okay, so I'm being an ass too, but the incessant graphics snobbery irks me as does the elitism that is often on display what with people humble bragging about their 65" TVs.

A newer more powerful Switch would be great. But while more power can enable better games in some ways, it is merely a component of the overall result.

Some of the most joyous experiences have come from smaller games like recently Shin-chan or L'il Gator Game.
Click to expand...
For me, more power isn't about better games, but about a better gaming and console experience.


The bigger potential upgrades for me personally are things like better load times, bettery battery life, just making the menus smoother and easier to navigate and maybe even a more fleshed out entertainment experience with things like customization and maybe even more entertainment options. Or even in console NSO voice chat. Okay, that last one is asking for too much.

Load times in particular are probably the biggest universal offender. And even if nothing gets a fidelity upgrade it would be very nice to have games hit their 30 fps framerate targets more often.
 
Re: power

Not all movies are Marvel movies. The leap in filmmaking technology between 1980 and 2000 didn’t make American Pie much different from Porkys, but it sure as hell created a difference between Swamp Thing and X-Men.

What’s unusual about video games as a medium, is how dependent they are on the capabilities of the consumer. All I need is a pair of working ears to experience a live concert to its full musical effect. Video games are attached to a platform and it’s an industry still dominated by exclusives.

We can argue about whether gameplay is bound by platform power all day long. By visual expressiveness clearly is limited by power, and saying it isn’t is as silly as saying plenty black and white 8mm movies are stunningly gorgeous. Of course they are. They were made by artists. But put up the dream
sequence in Spellbound - Hitchcock’s collaboration with Salvador Dalí - up against the monolith sequence in 2001: A Space Odyssey, and tell me that color isn’t adding anything to film.

Some video games - some video game genres - are fundamentally about the immersive power of their visual spectacle. Video games are the only medium I can think of where your choice of primary fandom has objective impacts on what other fandoms you can experience and at what level of fidelity.

Being a Marvel fan doesn’t mean committing to watching all other movies in lower quality without buying a second damn TV. I think you can be frustrated about the platform situation in video games without having to defend some extreme position about power=quality.
 
0
My issue with the power apologism is that many Switch games don't even meet the standards you could reasonably expect from Nintendo's previous consoles despite the power gaps. Forget third-party ports, which have a valid reason for mediocre image quality and performance due to being targeted at more powerful hardware - I haven't seen Nintendo's own games look this blurry and chug this hard since the N64.

If Nintendo's own developers can't help themselves from exceeding the Switch's limitations, resulting in worse-playing games, it's hard to argue that we don't need more powerful hardware.
 
Skyward sword definitely needed better hardware back then, it such a shame its amazing art style was held back by the Wii. All I want from the next switch is PS4 tier visual fidelity
 
0
Concernt said:
While perhaps circumstantial evidence, it is curious to me that T239 appears to have gone through validation, production testing and preparation, taping out and finalisation, all on the same timeline as Ada Lovelace cards, all on 4N.

This sort of implies to me, though I could be dead wrong, that even if it isn't Ada Lovelace architecturally, it was treated like part of the Ada family for development purposes and seemingly production. (Fairly accurate Nvidia leaker Kopite7Kimi in fact said it was Ada, but we know now it isn't wholly)

It also has a CUDA version above Ampere, but below Lovelace.

This could all be coincidental but I feel like the evidence is slightly stronger for 4N than 8nm. Personally because of the above, I believe 4N is far, far more likely.
Click to expand...
I'm leaning more towards being a coincidence since various datacentre products from Nvidia (e.g. BlueField-3, Quantum-2, ConnectX-7), which were fabricated using TSMC's 7N process node, were being sampled roughly around the same time Ada Lovelace GPUs and probably T239 were.
 
Dakhil said:
I'm leaning more towards being a coincidence since various datacentre products from Nvidia (e.g. BlueField-3, Quantum-2, ConnectX-7), which were fabricated using TSMC's 7N process node, were being sampled roughly around the same time Ada Lovelace GPUs and probably T239 were.
Click to expand...
all of these were targeted for their respective nodes from the jump, making guessing hard. if Drake really was made for 8nm, then there's pretty much nothing that can change that. not that I think that's likely. the Adreno 740 (the new, ray tracing gpu for snapdragon) has the same number of cores and clocks up to 680MHz on 4nm. that might be what it takes for Drake
 
ILikeFeet said:
all of these were targeted for their respective nodes from the jump, making guessing hard. if Drake really was made for 8nm, then there's pretty much nothing that can change that. not that I think that's likely. the Adreno 740 (the new, ray tracing gpu for snapdragon) has the same number of cores and clocks up to 680MHz on 4nm. that might be what it takes for Drake
Click to expand...
So Maybe 700MHz in Mobile and 1GHz+ docked, ofc on 4N
 
Last edited:
John Omaha said:
My issue with the power apologism is that many Switch games don't even meet the standards you could reasonably expect from Nintendo's previous consoles despite the power gaps. Forget third-party ports, which have a valid reason for mediocre image quality and performance due to being targeted at more powerful hardware - I haven't seen Nintendo's own games look this blurry and chug this hard since the N64.

If Nintendo's own developers can't help themselves from exceeding the Switch's limitations, resulting in worse-playing games, it's hard to argue that we don't need more powerful hardware.
Click to expand...
I don't think that's really the standard we should be using as you're effectively comparing new hardware with one release seven years ago. I also think Nintendo's internal devs have kept the quality quite high generally. Pokemon isn't a core Nintendo IP that needs to be 60fps 1080, it is its own thing.

The standards Switch should be held to is what we saw on the PS4/XBONE generation which saw 30fps, inconsident frame pacing, and compromises to match the ambition of the devs. The prescence of pro consoles that gen certainly muddies the water, but they never sold THAt well and most owners of those consoles played on the base consoles.
 
Reader mode
You must log in or register to reply here.
Please read this new, consolidated staff post before posting.

Furthermore, according to this follow-up post, all off-topic chat will be moderated.
Last edited by a moderator:


Back
Top Bottom