Support NeoGAF

[crackajack]

The last time Sony released a bleeding-edge console was PS3. [...] there's nothing bleeding-edge about the [current gen] tech.

Of course no current console will have quantum computing stuff, or whatever experimental stuff is around, in them, but Zen/RDNA are/were bleeding edge. Considering that the lastest RDNA release was rather lukewarm, releasing some additional months later with those newer parts would have changed almost nothing.
Also both SSDs were definitely bleeding edge althouth it did not take long until PC caught up and got them too. Consoles are usually limited by the cooling and size and handhelds by battery life, so while more power is always better, the limits are there and all use bleeding edge/ the best available technology for these limits. Some just ask more with a bigger margin for themselves, while others need to sell a game as well before it brings profit. The perceived value on a Switch is a bit odd though especially with its age but same as Vita it uses/used some nice parts with acceptable battery life.

The PS3 had an outdated GPU and a GPU based on a Series 8 would have been in theory possible. So also not really bleeding edge according to your definition of what really bleeds or cuts.

 

[KungFucius]

My guess is that they had a hard time maximizing battery life and actually made a system that is less profitable than those that came before. That's OK though because they jacked the price of controllers and made them so shitty you'd have to buy several over the life of the system. FFS Nintendo even made 2 flavors of the joycon holder to milk people for a charger.

 

[JordiENP]

That's not how game development works, Hellblade Senua's Sacrifice looks way better than breath of the wild and tears of the kingdom, but it's definitely not more expensive than those games. I can give you more examples of you want.

 

[Fafalada]

How complicated can it be to keep things simple ?

In an industry that's been self-indulgently obsessed with 'raising the bar' for decades? Very.
Not to mention 'keeping things simple' in organisations that scale over 100 people is basically a losing battle - none of the products that are built by teams ranging from 100+ into 1000s are what you could describe as 'simple' or 'elegant' in terms of how they solve problems, it's a throw $$$ at the problem type of approach at that point.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

Not everyone's a graphics whore. Sadly, most devs haven't figured this out yet and continue adding pixels to their clouds and trees.

That’s because of this:

Companies like Sony are now basically forced to keep pushing graphics further and further because that's what they've gotten their audience used to. That's why you have people going crazy analyzing puddles in Spiderman despite it still looking better than 98% of games on the market.

SSM, ND, Guerrilla and a few others have pixel-painted themselves into a corner. They were tasked to take out the best out of PS hardware and did, but now they are doomed to keep raising the bar. The people spoiled by pretty graphics take it very seriously and personally when their expectations aren’t met. It’s got even worse since console exclusives crossed the border into PC land and now they also have to deal with the PCMR crowd.

On the other hand, a PS360 game keeps selling a decade after release and it’s now one of the top selling games of all time. GTA is proof that you don’t need cutting-edge tech to sell millions. Even those awful “remasters” have sold well and will continue to do so for a while. But some parts of the industry didn’t get that memo - or rather, some of them have, but just can’t afford to lower the bar they’ve set because that would damage their reputation.

 

[Fafalada]

GTA is proof that you don’t need cutting-edge tech to sell millions.

You might need to tell R* that because I don't think they've seen that memo either. Their spend outpaces just about everyone else combined save for maybe StarCitizen - and that battle is still undecided.

 

[Shut0wen]

Well okay, I get this. Like Bayonetta 3 is super modern or whatever. But in the end, since all of these games run on a shitty console, visuals are so comprised that the games simply look worse than the previous entries. And not by a slight margin, they are super bad, blurry as hell, with awful drops etc...

Bayo 2 looks ten times better than 3
Xeno X is crisp while Xeno 2 has ridiculous resolution drops
SMTV looks like a bad joke
BotW and TotK are low res, low framerate
Hyrule Warriors BotW is a complete joke while the original looks just fine
Etc...

To me, these modern games fail at understanding the hardware they are running on. You should not have a super costly rendering pipeline if the hardware is simply not up to the task. How complicated can it be to keep things simple ? I wonder. Metroid Prime Remastered shows us that it is possible though...

Wtf are you smoking? I know for a fact XCX doesnt look anywhere near as good as XC2, and XC2 has twice as many shit going on then XCX, sure XC2 looks dire in handheld mode (like a majority of games on the switch) but docked is totally different, plus frame rate drops arnt even that bad in XC2 as they were on launch, theres like 2 areas where it drops as low as 20-25 frames, while XCX has a way to many drops, bayo 2 looks exactly like the first game while 3 looks better graphically, hyrule warriors is literally 30fps from start to finish on switch while wii u version is awful, 3ds version is even worst, botw hyrule warriors game frame drops again no where near as bad as they were when it first came out, not sure if your actually talking about handheld or docked because everything ive stated is the switch docked, only games i ever play on handheld is indie games because yeah the switch as a handheld is pretty fucking awful

 

[Boy bawang]

The switch is a hybrid console and was plenty powerful for its time. You could hardly make a better machine for a price of $300. The next switch will be the same: something about 1/2 a series S which will punch above its weight thanks to DLSS.

 

[cireza]

Wtf are you smoking?

It depends. Different day of the week, different flavor. I like variety. I can recommend a few things if you want.

Not a single mention of the abysmal resolution in all the games you listed. Hyrule Warriors is 1080p on Switch I believe, and tries to be 60fps. The BotW spin-off barely reaches the Game Boy resolution and runs at something like 15fps. Play some Twilight Princess or Wind Waker on Wii U, both are 1080p. They look gorgeous. BotW looks like a blurry mess. Not commenting on the others, it is pretty much the same situation anyway.

People have the right to be happy with super blurry games and low framerates, that's fine.

 

[Hugare]

Nah, this is an excuse for selling cheap hardware with premium price

Consoles arent being made with proprietary tech like CELL processors and etc. anymore. They are as simple as any PC out there since the PS4/XOne era

 

[Doctor Hades]

The topic title is a good question... it could be one reason why Nintendo is happy to let their hardware slip further and further behind the competition. I mean Nintendo still don't use anti-aliasing or anisotropic texture filtering in most of their first-party games and those are technologies that have been around for over 30 years now!

Obviously, the main reason the Switch is so underpowered is because it is a handheld, first and foremost, and a console second. I am fine with a hybrid console but I really hope that Switch 2 comes with an improved dock that actually features additional chips (tensor cores?) to render the games at 1080p-1440p with some kind of hardware upscaling such as DLSS because most Switch games look absolutely awful on a large screen TV such as my own 55" OLED. The lack of AA and AF combined with sub-1080p rendering makes for a nasty jaggy image even when viewed from a distance. Which is a shame because the art work itself is superb and often timeless and you can really appreciate that when you play Nintendo games via emulation, e.g. Cemu - Breath of the Wild looks amazing at 4K and 60 fps with AA, AF and improved shadows, draw distance, etc.

The potential problem for Nintendo is that if they slip too far behind tech wise versus Microsoft and Sony then it could result in less and less third-party support as developers struggle to port the latest games over to their systems. Not sure how many people care about this though - I mean I personally own a Switch OLED just for the exclusives - but for people on a budget the Switch could be their only gaming platform so the lack of third-party games could become an issue.

 

[SmokedMeat]

No doubt the budgets for their games is a fraction of what Sony’s is.

By keeping with such simple graphical styles for all of their first party games, there’s no need for higher end hardware. It also helps that their primary focus is gameplay over graphics.

 

[daclynk]

That's one of the reasons, Iwata said so ages ago iirc.

But... Have you seen the quality of materials in Zelda and Xenoblade games? If it wasn't for texture resolution, they'd look just as good as any other modern day game.

When you work your textures on Substance Painter (standard texturing software), you don't save time, money nor any other resources by making the assets at smaller resolution, the results have infinite resolution due to the nature of its internal functioning and that can't be changed no matter if it's for next Kirby game or for RDR3, that's just the way it works.

If anything, you'd probably be using more resources because the assets have to be manually downscaled depending on your production pipeline and tools.

Also, creating stylized assets isn't inherently cheaper or easier, or even less demanding on hardware.

Using Substance again as an example, you'd actually have to be very good and spend extra time in order to make non-realistic textures on it since "realistic" is the default easier way to produce them.

Zelda BOTW and TOTK don't make less calculations in their lighting tha your average AAA game either, they actually do way more than any 7th gen game and are more comparable to 8th gen games due to using full PBR pipeline, realtime lighting at big scale and manage many variables for temperature, reflections, specularity level, etc. just for materials to be shown properly.

Same for Xenoblade, the difference between Xenoblade X and Xenoblade 2, save for resolution, are like half or full generation apart due to lighting and materials alone. Xenoblade X used same old PS360 graphic pipeline while Xenoblade 2 used full PBR pipeline which is more akin PS4/Xbone.

Their games are probably cheaper to make not because of the hardware though, they are because they don't waste time making horses balls shrink on cold and instead prefer the cold to actually affect the gameplay or just not do it at all. They don't bloat their games, they go straight to the point and work on the actual meaningful stuff.

They're the epithome of "less is more" in a very functional and effective way.

 

[Ozriel]

3ds games have better looking 3d assets then the console can actually display,
mario odyssey would be the best looking game ever made running on the ps5.

Emulators exist. You can run Mario Odyssey on hardware significantly more powerful than the PS5, at multiple times the original resolution. Still not anywhere near ‘best looking game ever’

 

[Astray]

Nintendo are all about downside protection, their entire motto when designing a product is "how do we make sure we still have a roof over our heads if this product somehow flops?"

As such, they try very hard to not let production and materials costs balloon and make the projects have to have sky-high revenue targets to make the money back.

It's basic value investing but in game design form.

The other thing Nintendo does is rely majorly on in-house brands and IP, that way they can reap all the benefits if the product has a long tail (see the new Mario movie for example).

 

[justiceiro]

Yes.

However, look at the state the last pokemon game released. It's not like they got all figured out.

It's sad, but just because they used a better package this time, people thought it was worth the nasty price this thing is sold for. Presentation matter for stupid people, and we are not running out of stupid people any time soon. It got to the point I hope Nintendo don't release any console for a few more years so at least some people understand that current the current price of the console is unreasonable.

 

[EverydayBeast]

Power doesn’t devalue Nintendo hardware.

 

[tr1p1ex]

Switch is a handheld at the tail end of the generation that started in early 2017 so I wouldn't say they are keeping the hardware less powerful.

 

[Chuck Berry]

If the games are so cheap to make then how come they don't ever drop in price?

Im sure Odyssey has made back its production costs almost 7 years later.

 

[kvltus lvlzvs]

gc/ps2/xbox was the best 3d era from an ease of production vs graphics standpoint. better graphics not only consume more processing power, but also significantly more production time from a human standpoint. Games became more expensive, and publishers became less inclined to experiment.

Since then, sony and ms have been on an arms race towards crossing the uncanny valley (they havent) and nintendo has been printing money by idling in the same general graphical fidelity zone (except for the wii u lmao)

 

[SHA]

Can you take Mario physics seriously?, you don't need a complex cpu instructions set like avx-512 for Mario's mobility, it's the same forever.

 

[zeldaring]

Nintendo doesn't need powerful hardware cause they are not making realistic looking games. I'm playing zelda TOTK in handheld and it looks great. cartoony games don't need powerful hardware to look great thats just the reality.

 

[DeathGuise]

Because they're awful, malevolent people and Sony and Microsoft are beautiful paragons of morality. But Nintendo is bad. They're very bad.

 

[zeldaring]

Nintendo is gonna make cheaper games regardless of hardware because the cartoony graphics can accomplish a lot more with less, and the fans love it. Nintendo makes less powerful hardware cause they wanna make profit from day one, everyone knows this.

 

[Redneckerz]

one advantage of having not too powerful hardware is not having to push the graphics too hard

like we have seen pubslishers complaining that games became very expensive to make because you push more graphics and everything
would that be the reason why nintendo prefers cheap hardware that makes them profit from day 1 and the games aren't hard to make?

when i say cheaper is cheaper to make, they are still scamming us with games that cost same as day one years later after release

Scamming, haha.

Nintendo believes in efficiency which is why the Switch is just modern enough to recieve broader support. Like the Wii U and the Wii before them, they don't target high-end visuals: They target a efficient, fun and optimized balance between gameplay and graphics.

This is known for atleast 15 years, going from consoles to even handhelds. Why are people in 2023 still surprised by Nintendo's output regarding this? It has been about Efficiency for years.

Well okay, I get this. Like Bayonetta 3 is super modern or whatever. But in the end, since all of these games run on a shitty console, visuals are so comprised that the games simply look worse than the previous entries. And not by a slight margin, they are super bad, blurry as hell, with awful drops etc...

Bayo 2 looks ten times better than 3
Xeno X is crisp while Xeno 2 has ridiculous resolution drops
SMTV looks like a bad joke
BotW and TotK are low res, low framerate
Hyrule Warriors BotW is a complete joke while the original looks just fine
Etc...

I wonder why Nintendo sells so many Switches then considering the grunt of their games look trash.

If you know the answer then you know this kind of opinion you put out doesn't sway anyone.

To me, these modern games fail at understanding the hardware they are running on. You should not have a super costly rendering pipeline if the hardware is simply not up to the task. How complicated can it be to keep things simple ? I wonder. Metroid Prime Remastered shows us that it is possible though...

Funny enough MP Remastered uses similar techniques than all of the games you mention, but its design and gameplay is from the Gamecube era. Its easier to achieve + Retro's Rude Engine has a penchant for high fidelity gaming.

This is also the comparison you keep on making, namely: remakes/remasters of GC-era titles with native Switch games.

It depends. Different day of the week, different flavor. I like variety. I can recommend a few things if you want.

Not a single mention of the abysmal resolution in all the games you listed. Hyrule Warriors is 1080p on Switch I believe, and tries to be 60fps. Play some Twilight Princess or Wind Waker on Wii U, both are 1080p. They look gorgeous.

Lets see here:

• Twilight Princess on Wii U is mostly a texture upscale and its a Gamecube-level game, so 1080p is not guranteed (Because architectural differences/code) but is do-able
• Wind Waker HD on Wii U has a new lighting system but like the original benefits massively from its artsyle.

The BotW spin-off barely reaches the Game Boy resolution and runs at something like 15fps.

Game-Boy resolution is pretty hyperbolic and you will have to specify whether you are talking portable or docked. Digital Foundry.

• In portable mode it is inbetween 540p and 720p
• In docked it is inbetween 720p and 900p.

BotW looks like a blurry mess. Not commenting on the others, it is pretty much the same situation anyway.

People have the right to be happy with super blurry games and low framerates, that's fine.

You would be right if you would mean Wolftenstein or Doom Eternal, because those games are indeed blurry.

BotW is a ton more ambitious though than previous Zelda's and runs at 648p-720p in Portable mode and 810p-900p in Docked. What defines blurry for you? ToTK uses AMD's FSR1.

If you are going to execute that tired trope that is super blurry/low FP without any proper merit beyond just trust me bro atleast do it well.

 

[FoxMcChief]

I think Nintendo is doing what Nintendo wants.

 

[cireza]

I wonder why Nintendo sells so many Switches then considering the grunt of their games look trash.

It seems that a game looking good is not a necessity.

its design and gameplay is from the Gamecube era. Its easier to achieve + Retro's Rude Engine has a penchant for high fidelity gaming.

This is also the comparison you keep on making, namely: remakes/remasters of GC-era titles with native Switch games.

Yes, and ? These games have a much better picture quality and look great.

Lets see here:

• Twilight Princess on Wii U is mostly a texture upscale and its a Gamecube-level game, so 1080p is not guranteed (Because architectural differences/code) but is do-able
• Wind Waker HD on Wii U has a new lighting system but like the original benefits massively from its artsyle.

Yes, and they look great. Again.

Game-Boy resolution is pretty hyperbolic and you will have to specify whether you are talking portable or docked. Digital Foundry.

• In portable mode it is inbetween 540p and 720p
• In docked it is inbetween 720p and 900p.

It's not native anyway which is the very first cause of bad picture. What's the point of having a 720p screen if you can't even reach that resolution ?

What defines blurry for you? ToTK uses AMD's FSR1.

It can use anything you want who cares ? The picture quality is super bad, with blur, shimmering etc...

 

[Redneckerz]

It seems that a game looking good is not a necessity.

Its almost as if Nintendo is striking a balance between fun gameplay and graphics.

Speaking of graphics, not that i expect you to care given your attitude but perhaps interesting for the thread it self is a deep dive in what BotW does on a technical level. Its an old ERA link from my end but it is worth it. Sadly a lot of the imagery is broken, but it does highlight what the tech does.

PS: Don't want to give ERA a click? Its also on Reddit.

Yes, and ? These games have a much better picture quality and look great.

That's exactly the point. You are comparing Gamecube-era/grade games to native Switch titles and then act surprised that the latter runs worse, thereby ignoring:

• Technical complexity
• Gameplay ambitions
• They are literally generations apart

It is to be expected that a game from the PS2 era can run better on more modern hardware. I say expected because hardware isn't vis-a-vis 100% transferable in terms of code.
The games you mention are from the Gamecube ERA (Thus are technically less complex) and/or have distinctive artstyle that ages better than say BoTW or ToTK.

Yes, and they look great. Again.

Well if by now you still aren't getting the point, i have to ask you if you are either obtuse or simply not understanding.

It's not native anyway which is the very first cause of bad picture.

Define bad picture.

And while you are at it, look up Game-Boy resolution and hyperbole.

What's the point of having a 720p screen if you can't even reach that resolution ?

In the same way no current-gen console comfortably does its job at 4K because most games don't target 4K but 1800p to begin with? You want to extend your argument to include these consoles aswell or?

It can use anything you want who cares ?

Its successor looks sharper than BotW because of it.

As for who cares, well, you are the one making the kind of comment intended to be provocative.

The picture quality is super bad, with blur, shimmering etc...

What defines blurry for you?

 

[zeldaring]

Scamming, haha.

Nintendo believes in efficiency which is why the Switch is just modern enough to recieve broader support. Like the Wii U and the Wii before them, they don't target high-end visuals: They target a efficient, fun and optimized balance between gameplay and graphics.

This is known for atleast 15 years, going from consoles to even handhelds. Why are people in 2023 still surprised by Nintendo's output regarding this? It has been about Efficiency for years.

I wonder why Nintendo sells so many Switches then considering the grunt of their games look trash.

If you know the answer then you know this kind of opinion you put out doesn't sway anyone.

Funny enough MP Remastered uses similar techniques than all of the games you mention, but its design and gameplay is from the Gamecube era. Its easier to achieve + Retro's Rude Engine has a penchant for high fidelity gaming.

This is also the comparison you keep on making, namely: remakes/remasters of GC-era titles with native Switch games.

Lets see here:

• Twilight Princess on Wii U is mostly a texture upscale and its a Gamecube-level game, so 1080p is not guranteed (Because architectural differences/code) but is do-able
• Wind Waker HD on Wii U has a new lighting system but like the original benefits massively from its artsyle.

Game-Boy resolution is pretty hyperbolic and you will have to specify whether you are talking portable or docked. Digital Foundry.

• In portable mode it is inbetween 540p and 720p
• In docked it is inbetween 720p and 900p.

You would be right if you would mean Wolftenstein or Doom Eternal, because those games are indeed blurry.

BotW is a ton more ambitious though than previous Zelda's and runs at 648p-720p in Portable mode and 810p-900p in Docked. What defines blurry for you? ToTK uses AMD's FSR1.

If you are going to execute that tired trope that is super blurry/low FP without any proper merit beyond just trust me bro atleast do it well.

Come on now. wii was not balanced and same goes for WiiU they were pieces of crap hardware wise. wii was a gamecube when hardware coming out was like a 20x jump it was pathetic on Nintendo part. Wiiu was weaker then 360 it was joke, nothing balanced about those consoles. switch though actually offers a great mobile experience and is about efficiency.

 

[cinnamonandgravy]

yes, nintendo has mentioned multiple times the cost of moving to "hd games" is something they dont like.
during the wii/x360/ps3 days, "hd game" development costs worried them.
during the wii u days, they mentioned they underestimated hd game development costs.
during the switch days, nintendo mentioned costs were continuing to rise, and it's getting harder and harder to estimate how much money it'll take to make a game that meets player expectations.

all in all, nintendo mentions/complains about this stuff quite a bit.
plus nintendo has a long history of loving money, and they're very protective of their cash.

They want to turn a profit on every console sold day one, this is how they design their consoles. Cheap components is how they achieve it. They have been doing this since the NES/Famicom days.

nintendo has sold consoles at a loss (gamecube, wii u).
to your point though, they're much less willing to sell consoles at a loss than sony/ms/sega.

 

[Redneckerz]

Come on now. wii was not balanced and same goes for WiiU they were pieces of crap hardware wise.

They were balanced for what Nintendo wanted, which was, efficiency.

What you are doing is directly comparing Nintendo hardware to Sony/Microsoft. That's not the philosophy of Nintendo by any means.

wii was a gamecube when hardware coming out was like a 20x jump it was pathetic on Nintendo part.

I am sure Nintendo really cared considering the Wii sales.

Wiiu was weaker then 360 it was joke, nothing balanced about those consoles.

The Wii U was in some ways better than X360 and it was very power efficient. It was, however, a PS360 level device released 7 years later than the PS360, so the best it could do was (in general) be at parity. There are some standout titles though.

 

[zeldaring]

They were balanced for what Nintendo wanted, which was, efficiency.

What you are doing is directly comparing Nintendo hardware to Sony/Microsoft. That's not the philosophy of Nintendo by any means.

I am sure Nintendo really cared considering the Wii sales.

The Wii U was in some ways better than X360 and it was very power efficient. It was, however, a PS360 level device released 7 years later than the PS360, so the best it could do was (in general) be at parity. There are some standout titles though.

I disagree those home consoles should have been more powerful. switch actually was very powerful for a mobile device. Now i'm not asking them to chase Sony/Microsoft but wii had no business being that weak in a era where the jump was 20x. They didn't even try. same for WIIU which was just mess of a console they at least could have upgraded those consoles to at least reasonable levels where at the very least wii shoudl have been 5x gamecube and wiiu 3x 360. They were just being cheap bastards like the OP is saying.

 

[Puscifer]

That is one of the consequences. I think their overarching goal is to make as much profit and milk fans as much as possible. They never lost money on a sale ever since the Wii.

Just remember TotK was $70. If the only goal was to make it cost less with subpar graphics then they would not have increased price at the last second. Nah, they are greedy corporations just like everybody else.

It also has a physics system beyond any other game on the market. GTA 6, if that budget is real, should have something like it because if I can't tear down a building with long term effects what's the point.

 

[zeldaring]

It also has a physics system beyond any other game on the market. GTA 6, if that budget is real, should have something like it because if I can't tear down a building with long term effects what's the point.

I could care less about the physics rdr2 was perfect except for thr fact the combat sucked. Give me a great combat system over physics any day. Cause the world in rdr2 was perfection.

 

[cireza]

Its almost as if Nintendo is striking a balance between fun gameplay and graphics.

That's awesome and I agree with this. My point never was about games being good/bad or whatever, by the way, but strictly about how games look.

that ages better than say BoTW or ToTK.

I see zero reason for the art style of BotW or TokT to age badly. These games could look excellent in 1080p@60fps with high quality textures.

And while you are at it, look up Game-Boy resolution and hyperbole.

I mastered hyperbole a long time ago, so I don't have to look for either of these.

Define bad picture.

Lower resolution than native. FPS below 30fps. Framerate drops. Shimmering. Movement blur. Artifacts. Pop-in.
Everything you get in games I have listed as example.

In the same way no current-gen console comfortably does its job at 4K because most games don't target 4K but 1800p to begin with? You want to extend your argument to include these consoles aswell or?

And this is why 4K is dumb. But any 1080p TV will give excellent results. This is why on any console, there should at least be a 1080p target. Anything below is absurd nowadays and will look blurry because of the scaling that happens, and comes on top of the already blur-inducing techniques we get in many games. People will come and tell you "oh my god this technique is AMAZING it does miracles !". All I see are artifacts, blur and various defects.

As for who cares, well, you are the one making the kind of comment intended to be provocative.

It is not provocative, I am expressing my opinion. You don't have to accept it.

Again, if people are happy playing games that look like Hyrule Warriors BotW TotK and whatever, then that's awesome. I also have a right to express how I find these results unappealing, and the argument of a game being from a previous gen, or doing incredible technical stuff, totally flies over my head. Because what matters to me, is looking at a good quality picture, native, 60fps with clean visuals. So yes, in my opinion, Virtua Racing on Switch looks 100 times better than BotW. Same for Doom 3, the game looks much better than Doom 2016. I don't care at all about the "alleged" complexity of modern games, because this doesn't make a game better. I'd rather exchange all of this for games that look clean, are smooth, and do simpler things.

 

[tr1p1ex]

Come on now. wii was not balanced and same goes for WiiU they were pieces of crap hardware wise. wii was a gamecube when hardware coming out was like a 20x jump it was pathetic on Nintendo part. Wiiu was weaker then 360 it was joke, nothing balanced about those consoles. switch though actually offers a great mobile experience and is about efficiency.

They are about new ways to play. They weren't trying to make the fastest hardware possible. They didn't fail at making faster hardware and had to settle. They designed a system around a new way to play...in both cases.

Nintendo doesn't get enough credit, at least in recent times, for the innovative hardware in their systems. There is more to hardware than just the fastest chip.

The tech in the wiimote. Motion control. The sensor bar. The speaker in the wiimote. The slot disc drive. The small size, quiet performance and pricepoint.

With the Wii U, it was using a customized version of wifi direct to get lag free wireless game streaming on the GAmepad which was perhaps a first. The Gamepad has many innovations as a game controller including the touchscreen and being able to play games on it instead of on the tv, its use as a 2nd screen in games, tv remote control feature, etc.

 

[tr1p1ex]

That's awesome and I agree with this. My point never was about games being good/bad or whatever, by the way, but strictly about how games look.


I see zero reason for the art style of BotW or TokT to age badly. These games could look excellent in 1080p@60fps with high quality textures.


I mastered hyperbole a long time ago, so I don't have to look for either of these.


Lower resolution than native. FPS below 30fps. Framerate drops. Shimmering. Movement blur. Artifacts. Pop-in.
Everything you get in games I have listed as example.


And this is why 4K is dumb. But any 1080p TV will give excellent results. This is why on any console, there should at least be a 1080p target. Anything below is absurd nowadays and will look blurry because of the scaling that happens, and comes on top of the already blur-inducing techniques we get in many games. People will come and tell you "oh my god this technique is AMAZING it does miracles !". All I see are artifacts, blur and various defects.


It is not provocative, I am expressing my opinion. You don't have to accept it.

Again, if people are happy playing games that look like Hyrule Warriors BotW TotK and whatever, then that's awesome. I also have a right to express how I find these results unappealing, and the argument of a game being from a previous gen, or doing incredible technical stuff, totally flies over my head. Because what matters to me, is looking at a good quality picture, native, 60fps with clean visuals. So yes, in my opinion, Virtua Racing on Switch looks 100 times better than BotW. Same for Doom 3, the game looks much better than Doom 2016. I don't care at all about the "alleged" complexity of modern games, because this doesn't make a game better. I'd rather exchange all of this for games that look clean, are smooth, and do simpler things.

BotW looks great. As does TotK.

There are always some people that find something unappealing or profess to.

 

[Redneckerz]

I disagree those home consoles should have been more powerful.

By whom's standards? Yours? Or Nintendo's? The Wii proved weak hardware barely mattered to Nintendo.

Its fine if you don't understand their philosophy, because this is what i am referring to. You are still unconciously comparing them to better performing parts.

switch actually was very powerful for a mobile device. Now i'm not asking them to chase Sony/Microsoft but wii had no business being that weak in a era where the jump was 20x. They didn't even try.

And history shows it didn't matter for them when it comes to sales or games.

They were just being cheap bastards like the OP is saying.

If that's your perjorative to dislike Nintendo i am not going to sway you. I don't really care tbh, all i am saying is both Wii/Wii U were built according to effiency for Nintendo's use case.

That's awesome and I agree with this. My point never was about games being good/bad or whatever, by the way, but strictly about how games look.

Ah i see. Well yes, at 4K, they would look better. Or at 1080p. That doesn't mean they look as bad as you say at lower res.

I mastered hyperbole a long time ago, so I don't have to look for either of these.

Then i have to wonder why you are using it in the first place. Is that part of the GAF playbook?

Lower resolution than native. FPS below 30fps. Framerate drops. Shimmering. Movement blur. Artifacts. Pop-in.
Everything you get in games I have listed as example.

So basically, most games?

It is not provocative, I am expressing my opinion. You don't have to accept it.

Its not an opinion if its cheap hyperbole. Going by this answer, you know how to step your tune and provide a more detailed response, so hence why i wonder why you have to resort to that in the first place.

Maybe its part of the daily posting, but i don't post daily and i don't like such answers to begin with.

the argument of a game being from a previous gen, or doing incredible technical stuff, totally flies over my head.

But that's what should matter, because if not, you are doing at best a unfair comparison or provide a simplistic view, or at worst, are deliberately obtuse.

Because what matters to me, is looking at a good quality picture, native, 60fps with clean visuals. So yes, in my opinion, Virtua Racing on Switch looks 100 times better than BotW. Same for Doom 3, the game looks much better than Doom 2016.

So i take it Sega Model 3 games would easily best most Wii games in your eyes, because 60 FPS. Right?

I don't care at all about the "alleged" complexity of modern games, because this doesn't make a game better. I'd rather exchange all of this for games that look clean, are smooth, and do simpler things.

So basically, artstyle is your preference. Glad we cleared that up.

 

[CuteFaceJay]

Don't think OP seen eshop game prices.

 

[Horseganador]

Nintendo abandoned the technological race with the gamecube, since then it only makes cheap and not very powerful hardware Wii, WiiU, DS, 3DS, Switch (at a high price...), which allows it to have minimal development costs and very large profits, if Sony or MS came in 2023 with graphics like Pikmin 4 or Mario Wonder they would be destroyed on the networks for very good games (which they are).

 

[cireza]

But that's what should matter, because if not, you are doing at best a unfair comparison or provide a simplistic view, or at worst, are deliberately obtuse.

Absolutely not. It's only obtuse because you have different standards. It doesn't seem to me to be rocket science to understand what a clean smooth picture is, nor is it unbelievable that some people such as me place this at a high priority in what make games enjoyable.

basically, most games?

On Switch almost all of them yes. On Series X I am running almost all of my games at 1080p@60fps.

So i take it Sega Model 3 games would easily best most Wii games in your eyes, because 60 FPS. Right?

Virtua Racing is not a Model 3 game, but clearly any Model 3 game running at 1080p@60fps will look much better than the usual offerings we get on Switch.

So basically, artstyle is your preference

It is not a matter of artstyle. It is about having games not running like poop. Artsyle is not the issue here.

 

[Davevil]

I don't know what's worst... the underpowered HW or the gimmick controller
Hopefully the next iteration get rid of one of them

 

[Hudo]

Yes. And the strategy works. Tears of the Kingdom only cost about 77 million Zimbabwe Dollars to make.

 

[DDTT-878]

Why cares about power when the weakest console ended selling more?
The Wii was the weakest console from 7th gen and outsold the PS3 and Xbox 360

 

[Redneckerz]

Absolutely not. It's only obtuse because you have different standards.

I prefer a native versus native approach rather than taking a remaster from a older generation ran on current-gen hardware and comparing it with a entry mean't for native hardware.

That's like saying you prefer the Ratchet & Clank HD collection on PS3 more because it runs smoother and looking better than the native PS3 entries, which is technically the argument you are making here.

It doesn't seem to me to be rocket science to understand what a clean smooth picture is, nor is it unbelievable that some people such as me place this at a high priority in what make games enjoyable.

Sadly millions disagree with that if we just look at sales. But i take it that BoTW and ToTK won't be the Zelda's you play if there are older entries available on Switch that run smoother and look better in terms of image quality.

On Switch almost all of them yes. On Series X I am running almost all of my games at 1080p@60fps.

So what you are doing is downsampling them from their actual resolution. Yes that gives you a cleaner look but its also at the whims if developers/creators allow this in the first place. Its not the native res by any means however.

Virtua Racing is not a Model 3 game, but clearly any Model 3 game running at 1080p@60fps will look much better than the usual offerings we get on Switch.

Which again, is an outing of artstyle. I get that, because that arcade look is mighty clean and especially with Model 2/3 hardware which were designed for 60 fps to begin with.

It is not a matter of artstyle. It is about having games not running like poop. Artsyle is not the issue here.

You list Twilight Princess and Wind Waker. The latter looking so good is primarily artstyle first and formost.
Lest i say that most Nintendo games run on 60 fps, so i am sure you will find some that run good (But then again they would look blurry to you)

 

[cireza]

That's like saying you prefer the Ratchet & Clank HD collection on PS3 more because it runs smoother and looking better than the native PS3 entries, which is technically the argument you are making here.

My argument is about games looking better than others while retaining 1080p@60fps. It doesn't require games being remasters, even if it is often the case with these indeed.

Sadly millions disagree with that if we just look at sales.

Again if people are happy, then great. I personally don't care about sales, and I am simply sharing my point of view here, not enforcing anything.

Lest i say that most Nintendo games run on 60 fps, so i am sure you will find some that run good (But then again they would look blurry to you)

There are some that are fine, but they will either be a bit low-res or not 60fps. Outputting at least 1080p@60fps certainly doesn't sound unreasonable to me.

 

[Kataploom]

On Switch almost all of them yes. On Series X I am running almost all of my games at 1080p@60fps.

Oh, a console gamer shitting on Switch because of performance. Cute.

Sorry but all consoles are for budget gaming. All of them, no exceptions. Upper mid range PCs can play current gen games at 2K/4K and 70+ fps with better settings these days but once that's mentioned, it doesn't matter to Nintendo haters, like these people are the only ones that must set the standard for what's "good enough", not the actual Switch owners enjoying the console or some very elitist PC players. No, because that doesn't bode well for platform shitting.

If that's so important to you, just don't play the games that don't run to your standard and call it a day. I, for example won't play SMTV on current Switch but will play Metroid Prime remaster, not only the later looks amazing even in my TV but also runs great. Emulate them if for some reason you can't live without the games in question or whatever (tho make sure to pay for them at least).

 

[cireza]

I, for example won't play SMTV on current Switch but will play Metroid Prime remaster, not only the later looks amazing even in my TV but also runs great.

Yeah, this is exactly what I was saying in my previous post.

Did you even read the thread ? Cute.

SMTV looks like a bad joke

Metroid Prime Remastered shows us that it is possible though...

Sorry but all consoles are for budget gaming.

Alright, excuses accepted. For this time.
You can game on a budget and have a decent experience, by the way.

If that's so important to you, just don't play the games that don't run to your standard and call it a day.

This is exactly what I do.

 

[Kataploom]

Yeah, this is exactly what I was saying in my previous post.

Did you even read the thread ? Cute.






Alright, excuses accepted. For this time.
You can game on a budget and have a decent experience, by the way.


This is exactly what I do.

You can have a great experience picking the games that are properly made, you can't tell me Smash or Xenoblade 3 are unplayable on Switch, and that applies to any platform, I refused to get a console last year when A Plagued Tale Requiem came out and it didn't have 60 fps mode, for example, so opted to upgrade my PC instead. Similar to playing TLOU on PC due to how horrible that port is, so if I don't upgrade before getting a PS5, I'll get it there.

Simple math.

 

[Akuji]

The Switch was decently powerful for a $299 handheld back in 2017.
The reason they haven't updated the hardware is because there hasn't been any need for it as the system has continued to sell incredibly well through the years.

Also the visuals in their games seem more like a design decision than something related to the hardware. I actually doubt TotK would look substantially better if the Switch was more powerful, you'd just get some better textures and the game would run at 1440p 60fps instead of 900p 30(ish)fps. Nintendo makes games people actually want to play because of their gameplay and design instead of just graphics.

Not to mention that getting the physics of a game like TotK to run on the Switch was probably the opposite of "an easy to make game"

they cheaped out on the maxwell chip even in 2017.
The Pascal chip wouldve been nearly twice as powerfull and way more power efficient.

The Chip architecture is pretty much the same as the Maxwell 750ti. I just checked. February 2014.

You can like what nintendo did with the system and playing around limitations with artstyle etc but when it comes to hardware, they got slamdunked by Nvidia. Locking them into the shitty old architecture because they had plenty of it left. Probably gave them a good price for the first ones or something. But if you sell over 100million devices. The 100k chips Nvidia had left over dont mean much. Especially handheld mode wouldve been MUCH more powerfull with the WAY more power efficient Pascal chip.