Something to keep in mind is that launch games always end up being the games that look/run the worst on a console, because devs are still learning the hardware.
They usually run decently. They're supposed to show off the capabilities of the thing even if they haven't been mastered yet. A port of a game running like that is odd. But if locked in at 30 with no fluctuations then it is alright.
nah. Compare Call of Duty 2, which was an Xbox 360 launch game, to say, Halo 4, which was released near the end of the 360's life. If you didn't know, you would say those were different consoles.
CoD 2 was a PC game a month before it was a port to the 360. Not really the same thing.
Crazy rigs? You can build a cheap system from 2011 and run Skyrim at High 60fps.
But obviously the Switch is handheld, and I get that. I just think if the hardware can't push 1080p then they obviously felt strongly enough about the "mobility" aspect to cut the shit out of performance.
All I am saying is, I feel like we're about to get taken for a ride here and run the same damn route the Wii U did.
Sure, the base version. But how well will it run the remastered version (DOES PC have Skyrim remastered? If not, replace with HD texture mods).
It does; everyone on Steam got it for free when it came out if they already owned the base game.
I'm really not trying to compare it to the PS4 or PC. I am taking it for direct value compared to the previous console they released.
I find the two strikingly similar in several ways and when I say 'taken for ride' - I worry we're gonna end up in the same situation with the Wii U and that after next year we're gonna see game releases dried up in the way the Wii U has been for a few years.
As a Nintendo fan, I don't need to sell myself on Nintendo games. Zelda, Mario, etc. My favorite IP's by far and large in the universe. In that spirit I am willing to eat whatever Nintendo feeds me because I just want more of it.
This part is important here, and I am not trying to be a 'doom and gloom' kind of guy: I'm not concerned for the roughly 9 million Nintendo fans that stuck with the Wii U this whole time and are totally stoked for it. I'm concerned for the other 50+ million people that won't buy this console or RETURN IT and we start seeing game sales get hamstrung and we're back to another 5 years of 'cotton mouth.'
First, sorry if anything earlier came across as personal. I certainly didn't intend for it to be. Tone can be tricky to convey through text.
I don't think there's any need for concern here. Zelda games on the N64 and Gamecube didn't run at 60 FPS either, and both of those systems were noticeably more powerful than contemporary Playstations. Breath of the Wild looks to be the most ambitious entry the series has attempted. It's not surprising that a big open world game like that might be locked at 30. It's completely possible that it might be able to hit 60, but with dips now and then, and so they instead are opting for a locked consistent framerate.
It's fair to be a bit apprehensive after the Wii U. I just don't think this particular thing is any sort of omen.
What are the odds that in order to release Zelda at Switch launch they compromised on optimizing performance and that is why it's going to run at 900p 30FPS locked even in home console mode.
I really enjoyed this game on Wii U (though it was balls hard), but I didn't get the DLC. Will gladly re-buy for improved visuals, portability, and 30 tracks compared to the original 16.
Something to keep in mind is that launch games always end up being the games that look/run the worst on a console, because devs are still learning the hardware.
They usually run decently. They're supposed to show off the capabilities of the thing even if they haven't been mastered yet. A port of a game running like that is odd. But if locked in at 30 with no fluctuations then it is alright.
nah. Compare Call of Duty 2, which was an Xbox 360 launch game, to say, Halo 4, which was released near the end of the 360's life. If you didn't know, you would say those were different consoles.
CoD 2 was a PC game a month before it was a port to the 360. Not really the same thing.
Ok, find, look at Perfect Dark Zero. That game still looks terrible compared to Halo 4 on the same console. The 360 also only ran at 720p at launch, and was later software upgraded to 1080p. The point remains that launch games are always the worst games for optimization and graphical quality on a platform, and usually by a wide margin.
Something to keep in mind is that launch games always end up being the games that look/run the worst on a console, because devs are still learning the hardware.
They usually run decently. They're supposed to show off the capabilities of the thing even if they haven't been mastered yet. A port of a game running like that is odd. But if locked in at 30 with no fluctuations then it is alright.
nah. Compare Call of Duty 2, which was an Xbox 360 launch game, to say, Halo 4, which was released near the end of the 360's life. If you didn't know, you would say those were different consoles.
There are early PS3 titles (look at some of the Gundam franchise)--not even launch titles--that look like PS2 games at slightly higher resolutions. There's a lot of fluctuation in that early period.
Crazy rigs? You can build a cheap system from 2011 and run Skyrim at High 60fps.
But obviously the Switch is handheld, and I get that. I just think if the hardware can't push 1080p then they obviously felt strongly enough about the "mobility" aspect to cut the shit out of performance.
All I am saying is, I feel like we're about to get taken for a ride here and run the same damn route the Wii U did.
There are several big Switch games that do run at 1080/60.
Breath of the Wild looks pretty ambitious. It running at a locked 30 really isn't surprising. Getting this bent out of shape about it just seems beyond silly.
I guess translation through text is an issue - but I wish people would stop telling me I am over-reacting or 'bent out of shape' because I don't like the forecast being projected by the Switch in it's current state.
Honestly, it's a given that people are going to have different opinions here so can we focus on the subject matter at hand and stop with the personal judgments?
I think most people are trying to explain that 1080/60 is already not that common on PS4/Xbox One. Expecting a device that was never going to be quite as powerful as those to achieve what they can't does feel a bit unrealistic. You're entitled to your opinion of what the device should/shouldn't be able to do, of course, but there's no way this thing was ever going to be stronger than a PS4 or Xbox One.
Even if it COULD do Zelda at 1080/60 (I would find it unlikely), Zelda was always built with 30fps in mind because of the Wii U. It's definitely a port. Raising the resolution to 900p is pretty straightforward. Changing the target fps to 60 would be a bit harder. I am a little disappointed that it's not just 1080p/30, myself, but honestly 900p is fine, in my opinion.
Hey, if this information was in the thread I missed it, but what does it run at in handheld mode? 720p/??fps? One wonders if the change in resolution would alter that framerate somewhat. Not that I care one way or the other, honestly.
0
Options
BRIAN BLESSEDMaybe you aren't SPEAKING LOUDLY ENOUGHHHRegistered Userregular
edited January 2017
1080p/60 is a thing that developers are hitting with current-generation consoles more and more these days (as people have said, people are getting used to the tools), so it's not unwarranted to expect better over time.
That said, the only open world game I saw on consoles hitting 1080p/60 was Metal Gear Solid V and that game was developed by people who were essentially wizards and warlocks. As long as the Switch keeps its framerate at a consistent lock (the WiiU footage shown at TGA was not promising), I'd be happy with it.
Games like Forza proved that you can have a super-enjoyable experience at 30 as long as you don't have drops and your frame-pacing is tight.
People need to stop making excuses for the storage on the Switch. 32GB is absurdly low. End point. At the volume companies like Nintendo buy flash memory modules, going from 32 to 64GB would have cost *maybe* 1.50 per unit. One dollar and 50 cents. We're not talking the same kind of markup you see on SD card pricing at best buy here. Companies like nintendo usually place orders for millions of modules at a time, and they get them for a couple dollars a piece.
32GB is inexcusable on a device that, in theory, should be lasting someone 5+ years. Even if you want to buy games physical only today, there's still DLC, digitial only titles, software updates to physical titles, so many things.
the ability to expand it via microSD is all well and good, but that does not excuse the lack of storage on the device.
*looks up microSD prices*
Nah
I will continue to make excuses for the included storage, thanks
People need to stop making excuses for the storage on the Switch. 32GB is absurdly low. End point. At the volume companies like Nintendo buy flash memory modules, going from 32 to 64GB would have cost *maybe* 1.50 per unit. One dollar and 50 cents. We're not talking the same kind of markup you see on SD card pricing at best buy here. Companies like nintendo usually place orders for millions of modules at a time, and they get them for a couple dollars a piece.
32GB is inexcusable on a device that, in theory, should be lasting someone 5+ years. Even if you want to buy games physical only today, there's still DLC, digitial only titles, software updates to physical titles, so many things.
the ability to expand it via microSD is all well and good, but that does not excuse the lack of storage on the device.
*looks up microSD prices*
Nah
I will continue to make excuses for the included storage, thanks
Being forced to buy external storage because the company cheaped out instead of getting even something as cheap as 64gb internal is still ridiculous. You shouldn't defend them for poor decisions even if there are relatively cheap ways to negate them. It's still a poor decision.
My priority is just being able to dock it or take it with me to a friend's house. If the games are fun, don't mind lower FPS. I'm pretty excited. It's the same feeling I got when my dad surprised me and my bro with an NES back in '88.
People need to stop making excuses for the storage on the Switch. 32GB is absurdly low. End point. At the volume companies like Nintendo buy flash memory modules, going from 32 to 64GB would have cost *maybe* 1.50 per unit. One dollar and 50 cents. We're not talking the same kind of markup you see on SD card pricing at best buy here. Companies like nintendo usually place orders for millions of modules at a time, and they get them for a couple dollars a piece.
32GB is inexcusable on a device that, in theory, should be lasting someone 5+ years. Even if you want to buy games physical only today, there's still DLC, digitial only titles, software updates to physical titles, so many things.
the ability to expand it via microSD is all well and good, but that does not excuse the lack of storage on the device.
*looks up microSD prices*
Nah
I will continue to make excuses for the included storage, thanks
Being forced to buy external storage because the company cheaped out instead of getting even something as cheap as 64gb internal is still ridiculous. You shouldn't defend them for poor decisions even if there are relatively cheap ways to negate them. It's still a poor decision.
I would be forced to anyways, because 64 is also gonna be too small most likely
I had to buy a new HDD for my PS3
And my PS4
And my 360
Bought an external drive for the Wii U
And an upgraded microSD for the New 3DS XL
If you're any sort of enthusiast you're likely going to end up spending more money on additional storage
I don't expect Nintendo or anyone else to shoulder that cost because I'm a crazy person
They put exactly what it needs in there to get it out the door, at a reasonable price, that will likely be fine for a large number of, if not most of, the consumers
How does Fast compare to Redout? Because Redout is amazing.
I haven't played Redout, wasn't aware it was already a thing on other platforms.
Sounds like Redout has some additional gameplay mechanics like equipping powerups, plus other gametypes that Fast lacks. Fast's primary racing mechanic is that you switch your color between orange and blue in order to go over boosts or jumps of that color, so you have to stay cognizant of what's coming up next at all times (or purposefully ignore some jumps, if you think the other path is faster or easier). You also collect orbs for boost power that's utilized like in F-Zero, which is another thing to consider, possibly taking a slower path or the outside of a turn for more orbs. Fast is graphically more realistic and less stylized polygonal than Redout, which is up to personal preference.
At a casual glance I would say Fast skews more F-Zero and Redout skews more Wipeout. Do you know if Redout has weapons or attacks? (Fast doesn't IIRC)
In general though I feel like there's always more room for futuristic hover racers!
"Both have a frame rate of 30fps."
"On a TV, the Nintendo Switch version of the game renders in 900p while the Wii U version renders in 720p."
"The Nintendo Switch version has higher-quality environmental sounds. As a result, the sound of steps, water, grass, etc. are more realistic and enhance the game’s Open-Air feel."
That seems odd. Also no mention of difference in texture quality, which is visible in comparisons. I suppose it's possible that the texture quality has improved since E3 and there isn't a difference.
Yeah this. I was just watching Gamexplain's raw footage and the improvement was *noticeable* since e3. Some of this can be attributed to polish but I have a hard time believing all of it is. At the very least, Switch seems to have a MUCH better draw distance.
I really hope this is the case. Nice to see Konami actually calling it out there themselves. At $60 there is no way I'm getting that game. But like, $30 or less? Day one purchase.
I had a rediculous amount of fun with Bomberman 64, which is the last Bomberman game I've played. Can't wait for this.
I never got a HDD for my WiiU, even though I generally go digital elsewhere. The discount from Amazon is real strong here, since Nintendo's games are never on sale.
I will probably do more digitally since anything I want to play handheld I want on the system always, as my 3DS purchasing was entirely digital. The one thing I hope they do is add the ability to hook a HDD up to the dock, and then use that to manage your game installs and saves between the hard drive and the switch's memory. Even say nothing will run if it's not on the switch to prevent issues with picking it up and having it not work, but just allowing me to keep the installs locally and not have to download 15GB any time I wanted to play something would be much appreciated.
Hey, if this information was in the thread I missed it, but what does it run at in handheld mode? 720p/??fps? One wonders if the change in resolution would alter that framerate somewhat. Not that I care one way or the other, honestly.
This is just my assumption, but I would guess that games in handheld mode will all run at 720p, as that will be the resolution of the screen. It will be interesting to see if that has an impact on framerates, and what that impact will be.
I never got a HDD for my WiiU, even though I generally go digital elsewhere. The discount from Amazon is real strong here, since Nintendo's games are never on sale.
I will probably do more digitally since anything I want to play handheld I want on the system always, as my 3DS purchasing was entirely digital. The one thing I hope they do is add the ability to hook a HDD up to the dock, and then use that to manage your game installs and saves between the hard drive and the switch's memory. Even say nothing will run if it's not on the switch to prevent issues with picking it up and having it not work, but just allowing me to keep the installs locally and not have to download 15GB any time I wanted to play something would be much appreciated.
I don't have a source right now but I remember seeing that they mentioned this. At launch there won't be HDD support because they're aware of potential issues but it's something they're aware of and are looking into a solution. I also would really like that capability.
Hey, if this information was in the thread I missed it, but what does it run at in handheld mode? 720p/??fps? One wonders if the change in resolution would alter that framerate somewhat. Not that I care one way or the other, honestly.
This is just my assumption, but I would guess that games in handheld mode will all run at 720p, as that will be the resolution of the screen. It will be interesting to see if that has an impact on framerates, and what that impact will be.
Yeah I'd assume 720p as well, just big question marks on the fps in handheld mode. I know there were some early rumors that Zelda ran better in handheld mode than tv mode because it didn't have to push resolution as hard but that could be bullshit.
Hey guys, this is almost certainly not happening and not a rumor or anything but just an idea I had in my head.
I was thinking about playing Switch in "relaxed mode," where the joycons aren't slotted into anything and you can just lounge with your controller behind your head or whatever you want.
How would you feel if in a game like Breath of the Wild, if motion-based sword slashes weren't like a default configuration or anything like Skyward Sword, but if you could optionally choose to do a good, solid swing with one joycon and it would attack? Ideally something you could turn off.
I like the idea of thinking "I really hate this guy, I'mma finishing blow him for real."
Alternatively: if you finish a combo with a real slash, it deals extra damage?
Hey guys, this is almost certainly not happening and not a rumor or anything but just an idea I had in my head.
I was thinking about playing Switch in "relaxed mode," where the joycons aren't slotted into anything and you can just lounge with your controller behind your head or whatever you want.
How would you feel if in a game like Breath of the Wild, if motion-based sword slashes weren't like a default configuration or anything like Skyward Sword, but if you could optionally choose to do a good, solid swing with one joycon and it would attack? Ideally something you could turn off.
I like the idea of thinking "I really hate this guy, I'mma finishing blow him for real."
Alternatively: if you finish a combo with a real slash, it deals extra damage?
I didn't actually mind the waggle in Twilight Princess. There wasn't a functional difference between a shake of the controller and a press of a button so it translated to gameplay just fine for me. I think the problems you might have with that kind of configuration is that the thumbstick on the right hand side might be hard to use.
In all seriousness, an 'hd' rerelease of Skyward Sword would sit just fine with me. They could even do some magic with the new joycons to make the position sensing even better and add HD haptics so you can feel it every time Link drinks a glass of ice water potion.
People need to stop making excuses for the storage on the Switch. 32GB is absurdly low. End point. At the volume companies like Nintendo buy flash memory modules, going from 32 to 64GB would have cost *maybe* 1.50 per unit. One dollar and 50 cents. We're not talking the same kind of markup you see on SD card pricing at best buy here. Companies like nintendo usually place orders for millions of modules at a time, and they get them for a couple dollars a piece.
32GB is inexcusable on a device that, in theory, should be lasting someone 5+ years. Even if you want to buy games physical only today, there's still DLC, digitial only titles, software updates to physical titles, so many things.
the ability to expand it via microSD is all well and good, but that does not excuse the lack of storage on the device.
*looks up microSD prices*
Nah
I will continue to make excuses for the included storage, thanks
Being forced to buy external storage because the company cheaped out instead of getting even something as cheap as 64gb internal is still ridiculous. You shouldn't defend them for poor decisions even if there are relatively cheap ways to negate them. It's still a poor decision.
I would be forced to anyways, because 64 is also gonna be too small most likely
I had to buy a new HDD for my PS3
And my PS4
And my 360
Bought an external drive for the Wii U
And an upgraded microSD for the New 3DS XL
If you're any sort of enthusiast you're likely going to end up spending more money on additional storage
I don't expect Nintendo or anyone else to shoulder that cost because I'm a crazy person
They put exactly what it needs in there to get it out the door, at a reasonable price, that will likely be fine for a large number of, if not most of, the consumers
You didn't "have" to buy anything for those others. You can fit quite a few games on a PS4 without upgrading the hard drive.
The Switch seems like once you stick Zelda on there, welp, hope you weren't planning on anything else. You might be able to fit zelda on there twice if the OS isn't too big. That's enough space for a single game and some screenshots? That's ludicrous. The price being reasonable is quite debateable and anyone planning to use that space will inevitably have to get an SD card at some point. Even if you go all physical, save/patch data and screenshot storage are severely limited by that amount of space.
Wanting more space isn't being crazy in the slightest. I absolutely expected Nintendo to roll that cost in here. Hell, sell two SKUs if it's that big of a deal.
32gb on a modern device like this is 100% a mark against them. It is silly.
I didn't actually mind the waggle in Twilight Princess. There wasn't a functional difference between a shake of the controller and a press of a button so it translated to gameplay just fine for me. I think the problems you might have with that kind of configuration is that the thumbstick on the right hand side might be hard to use.
I didn't either, but you can't just go around the internet saying that motion control can be fun.
That's an interesting point that the right stick could be awkwardly placed for playing like that. The thing that made me think about it again was this video, where one of the guys says he actually prefers holding the joycons separate instead of even a pro controller (but he has small hands):
How does Fast compare to Redout? Because Redout is amazing.
I haven't played Redout, wasn't aware it was already a thing on other platforms.
Sounds like Redout has some additional gameplay mechanics like equipping powerups, plus other gametypes that Fast lacks. Fast's primary racing mechanic is that you switch your color between orange and blue in order to go over boosts or jumps of that color, so you have to stay cognizant of what's coming up next at all times (or purposefully ignore some jumps, if you think the other path is faster or easier). You also collect orbs for boost power that's utilized like in F-Zero, which is another thing to consider, possibly taking a slower path or the outside of a turn for more orbs. Fast is graphically more realistic and less stylized polygonal than Redout, which is up to personal preference.
At a casual glance I would say Fast skews more F-Zero and Redout skews more Wipeout. Do you know if Redout has weapons or attacks? (Fast doesn't IIRC)
In general though I feel like there's always more room for futuristic hover racers!
Redout has powerups equipped before a race, or none in a Pure Race. The game's primary mechanic is its physics, in which the right analog stick is used heavily to work through. Because you are floating on the track but not on it, players strafe opposite of the turn to keep the back of the car facing the exit of each turn. This includes inclines and declines, which can cause redout and blackout to your vision if not properly braced. Scraping the sides hinders your speed badly enough that AI or human players will blaze past you.
idk, 700 dollar cell phones ship with 32gb of memory.
the only people it matters to are power users, and they will buy sd cards. the majority of people buy physical. obviously i would prefer more memory, but 32gb base isn't the end of the world or anything, especially with such an easy upgrade mechanism as micro SDXC. I already have multiple 64gb cards sitting around, and I'll probably just pick up a 128 at some point when I feel the need. Given the relatively smaller size of Switch games so far, that'll probably be fine for me.
How does Fast compare to Redout? Because Redout is amazing.
I haven't played Redout, wasn't aware it was already a thing on other platforms.
Sounds like Redout has some additional gameplay mechanics like equipping powerups, plus other gametypes that Fast lacks. Fast's primary racing mechanic is that you switch your color between orange and blue in order to go over boosts or jumps of that color, so you have to stay cognizant of what's coming up next at all times (or purposefully ignore some jumps, if you think the other path is faster or easier). You also collect orbs for boost power that's utilized like in F-Zero, which is another thing to consider, possibly taking a slower path or the outside of a turn for more orbs. Fast is graphically more realistic and less stylized polygonal than Redout, which is up to personal preference.
At a casual glance I would say Fast skews more F-Zero and Redout skews more Wipeout. Do you know if Redout has weapons or attacks? (Fast doesn't IIRC)
In general though I feel like there's always more room for futuristic hover racers!
Redout has powerups equipped before a race, or none in a Pure Race. The game's primary mechanic is its physics, in which the right analog stick is used heavily to work through. Because you are floating on the track but not on it, players strafe opposite of the turn to keep the back of the car facing the exit of each turn. This includes inclines and declines, which can cause redout and blackout to your vision if not properly braced. Scraping the sides hinders your speed badly enough that AI or human players will blaze past you.
That sounds pretty cool. I'm glad it's coming to Switch, but I have absolutely zero confidence in Nicalis not to fuck up every single release they do in some way.
I continue to hold that Onechanbara Wii had the best motion controls for sword fighting and brawling; it's a safe claim to make because nobody else ever bought the thing and therefore can't actually disprove it.
Thinking about it reminded me that part of the reason they worked out so well was that it made good use of the Wiimote speaker to give feedback. Do the joycons have speakers built-in?
idk, 700 dollar cell phones ship with 32gb of memory.
the only people it matters to are power users, and they will buy sd cards. the majority of people buy physical. obviously i would prefer more memory, but 32gb base isn't the end of the world or anything, especially with such an easy upgrade mechanism as micro SDXC. I already have multiple 64gb cards sitting around, and I'll probably just pick up a 128 at some point when I feel the need. Given the relatively smaller size of Switch games so far, that'll probably be fine for me.
we had this discussion a few pages back. The pertinent question is when was the last time you installed a 13+ GB game/app on your phone? We're talking apples and oranges here.
And again, we now know that physical copies of Zelda will require a 3GB install to the Switch. 32GB will not go far if that is anything approaching the norm.
idk, 700 dollar cell phones ship with 32gb of memory.
the only people it matters to are power users, and they will buy sd cards. the majority of people buy physical. obviously i would prefer more memory, but 32gb base isn't the end of the world or anything, especially with such an easy upgrade mechanism as micro SDXC. I already have multiple 64gb cards sitting around, and I'll probably just pick up a 128 at some point when I feel the need. Given the relatively smaller size of Switch games so far, that'll probably be fine for me.
we had this discussion a few pages back. The pertinent question is when was the last time you installed a 13+ GB game/app on your phone? We're talking apples and oranges here.
And again, we now know that physical copies of Zelda will require a 3GB install to the Switch. 32GB will not go far if that is anything approaching the norm.
idk, 700 dollar cell phones ship with 32gb of memory.
the only people it matters to are power users, and they will buy sd cards. the majority of people buy physical. obviously i would prefer more memory, but 32gb base isn't the end of the world or anything, especially with such an easy upgrade mechanism as micro SDXC. I already have multiple 64gb cards sitting around, and I'll probably just pick up a 128 at some point when I feel the need. Given the relatively smaller size of Switch games so far, that'll probably be fine for me.
7.6GB Hyrule Warriors
6.3GB Mario Kart 8
6.1GB Need For Speed: Most Wanted
6.0GB Metroid Prime Trilogy
6.0GB Monster Hunter Ultimate 3
5.7GB Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed
5.6GB ZombiU
4.5GB Pikmin 3
3.0GB Mario Party 10
2.8GB Kirby and the Rainbow Curse
2.7GB Nintendoland
2.3GB New Super Mario Bros. U
1.8GB Splatoon
1.6GB Super Mario 3D World
1.2GB Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker
Not on that page: Wind Waker HD is 1.8 GB, Twilight Princess HD 4.5 GB.
If I get a 128 gig SD card, I can hold 25 copies of Mario Kart 8, or 35 copies of Pikmin 3, or 69 copies of new Super Mario Bros. U.
I can't imagine that Splatoon will have bloated the size of its resources too much, even as a sequel. I could hold 88 Splatoons.
Also how the hell is 3D World a full gig smaller than NSMBU?!
Posts
CoD 2 was a PC game a month before it was a port to the 360. Not really the same thing.
Oh, sweet. I should check that out!
Steam: pazython
First, sorry if anything earlier came across as personal. I certainly didn't intend for it to be. Tone can be tricky to convey through text.
I don't think there's any need for concern here. Zelda games on the N64 and Gamecube didn't run at 60 FPS either, and both of those systems were noticeably more powerful than contemporary Playstations. Breath of the Wild looks to be the most ambitious entry the series has attempted. It's not surprising that a big open world game like that might be locked at 30. It's completely possible that it might be able to hit 60, but with dips now and then, and so they instead are opting for a locked consistent framerate.
It's fair to be a bit apprehensive after the Wii U. I just don't think this particular thing is any sort of omen.
Nintendo ID: Incindium
PSN: IncindiumX
At the same time, a lot of people probably prefer nicer visuals and locked 30 FPS.
I really enjoyed this game on Wii U (though it was balls hard), but I didn't get the DLC. Will gladly re-buy for improved visuals, portability, and 30 tracks compared to the original 16.
Ok, find, look at Perfect Dark Zero. That game still looks terrible compared to Halo 4 on the same console. The 360 also only ran at 720p at launch, and was later software upgraded to 1080p. The point remains that launch games are always the worst games for optimization and graphical quality on a platform, and usually by a wide margin.
There are early PS3 titles (look at some of the Gundam franchise)--not even launch titles--that look like PS2 games at slightly higher resolutions. There's a lot of fluctuation in that early period.
I think most people are trying to explain that 1080/60 is already not that common on PS4/Xbox One. Expecting a device that was never going to be quite as powerful as those to achieve what they can't does feel a bit unrealistic. You're entitled to your opinion of what the device should/shouldn't be able to do, of course, but there's no way this thing was ever going to be stronger than a PS4 or Xbox One.
Even if it COULD do Zelda at 1080/60 (I would find it unlikely), Zelda was always built with 30fps in mind because of the Wii U. It's definitely a port. Raising the resolution to 900p is pretty straightforward. Changing the target fps to 60 would be a bit harder. I am a little disappointed that it's not just 1080p/30, myself, but honestly 900p is fine, in my opinion.
That said, the only open world game I saw on consoles hitting 1080p/60 was Metal Gear Solid V and that game was developed by people who were essentially wizards and warlocks. As long as the Switch keeps its framerate at a consistent lock (the WiiU footage shown at TGA was not promising), I'd be happy with it.
Games like Forza proved that you can have a super-enjoyable experience at 30 as long as you don't have drops and your frame-pacing is tight.
*looks up microSD prices*
Nah
I will continue to make excuses for the included storage, thanks
Being forced to buy external storage because the company cheaped out instead of getting even something as cheap as 64gb internal is still ridiculous. You shouldn't defend them for poor decisions even if there are relatively cheap ways to negate them. It's still a poor decision.
Nintendo ID: Incindium
PSN: IncindiumX
Selling Board Games for Medical Bills
I would be forced to anyways, because 64 is also gonna be too small most likely
I had to buy a new HDD for my PS3
And my PS4
And my 360
Bought an external drive for the Wii U
And an upgraded microSD for the New 3DS XL
If you're any sort of enthusiast you're likely going to end up spending more money on additional storage
I don't expect Nintendo or anyone else to shoulder that cost because I'm a crazy person
They put exactly what it needs in there to get it out the door, at a reasonable price, that will likely be fine for a large number of, if not most of, the consumers
I haven't played Redout, wasn't aware it was already a thing on other platforms.
Sounds like Redout has some additional gameplay mechanics like equipping powerups, plus other gametypes that Fast lacks. Fast's primary racing mechanic is that you switch your color between orange and blue in order to go over boosts or jumps of that color, so you have to stay cognizant of what's coming up next at all times (or purposefully ignore some jumps, if you think the other path is faster or easier). You also collect orbs for boost power that's utilized like in F-Zero, which is another thing to consider, possibly taking a slower path or the outside of a turn for more orbs. Fast is graphically more realistic and less stylized polygonal than Redout, which is up to personal preference.
At a casual glance I would say Fast skews more F-Zero and Redout skews more Wipeout. Do you know if Redout has weapons or attacks? (Fast doesn't IIRC)
In general though I feel like there's always more room for futuristic hover racers!
I had a rediculous amount of fun with Bomberman 64, which is the last Bomberman game I've played. Can't wait for this.
Resident 8bitdo expert.
Resident hybrid/flap cover expert.
I will probably do more digitally since anything I want to play handheld I want on the system always, as my 3DS purchasing was entirely digital. The one thing I hope they do is add the ability to hook a HDD up to the dock, and then use that to manage your game installs and saves between the hard drive and the switch's memory. Even say nothing will run if it's not on the switch to prevent issues with picking it up and having it not work, but just allowing me to keep the installs locally and not have to download 15GB any time I wanted to play something would be much appreciated.
This is just my assumption, but I would guess that games in handheld mode will all run at 720p, as that will be the resolution of the screen. It will be interesting to see if that has an impact on framerates, and what that impact will be.
I don't have a source right now but I remember seeing that they mentioned this. At launch there won't be HDD support because they're aware of potential issues but it's something they're aware of and are looking into a solution. I also would really like that capability.
Yeah I'd assume 720p as well, just big question marks on the fps in handheld mode. I know there were some early rumors that Zelda ran better in handheld mode than tv mode because it didn't have to push resolution as hard but that could be bullshit.
I was thinking about playing Switch in "relaxed mode," where the joycons aren't slotted into anything and you can just lounge with your controller behind your head or whatever you want.
How would you feel if in a game like Breath of the Wild, if motion-based sword slashes weren't like a default configuration or anything like Skyward Sword, but if you could optionally choose to do a good, solid swing with one joycon and it would attack? Ideally something you could turn off.
I like the idea of thinking "I really hate this guy, I'mma finishing blow him for real."
Alternatively: if you finish a combo with a real slash, it deals extra damage?
You didn't "have" to buy anything for those others. You can fit quite a few games on a PS4 without upgrading the hard drive.
The Switch seems like once you stick Zelda on there, welp, hope you weren't planning on anything else. You might be able to fit zelda on there twice if the OS isn't too big. That's enough space for a single game and some screenshots? That's ludicrous. The price being reasonable is quite debateable and anyone planning to use that space will inevitably have to get an SD card at some point. Even if you go all physical, save/patch data and screenshot storage are severely limited by that amount of space.
Wanting more space isn't being crazy in the slightest. I absolutely expected Nintendo to roll that cost in here. Hell, sell two SKUs if it's that big of a deal.
32gb on a modern device like this is 100% a mark against them. It is silly.
I didn't either, but you can't just go around the internet saying that motion control can be fun.
That's an interesting point that the right stick could be awkwardly placed for playing like that. The thing that made me think about it again was this video, where one of the guys says he actually prefers holding the joycons separate instead of even a pro controller (but he has small hands):
Redout has powerups equipped before a race, or none in a Pure Race. The game's primary mechanic is its physics, in which the right analog stick is used heavily to work through. Because you are floating on the track but not on it, players strafe opposite of the turn to keep the back of the car facing the exit of each turn. This includes inclines and declines, which can cause redout and blackout to your vision if not properly braced. Scraping the sides hinders your speed badly enough that AI or human players will blaze past you.
the only people it matters to are power users, and they will buy sd cards. the majority of people buy physical. obviously i would prefer more memory, but 32gb base isn't the end of the world or anything, especially with such an easy upgrade mechanism as micro SDXC. I already have multiple 64gb cards sitting around, and I'll probably just pick up a 128 at some point when I feel the need. Given the relatively smaller size of Switch games so far, that'll probably be fine for me.
That sounds pretty cool. I'm glad it's coming to Switch, but I have absolutely zero confidence in Nicalis not to fuck up every single release they do in some way.
Thinking about it reminded me that part of the reason they worked out so well was that it made good use of the Wiimote speaker to give feedback. Do the joycons have speakers built-in?
we had this discussion a few pages back. The pertinent question is when was the last time you installed a 13+ GB game/app on your phone? We're talking apples and oranges here.
And again, we now know that physical copies of Zelda will require a 3GB install to the Switch. 32GB will not go far if that is anything approaching the norm.
that's just to the Wii U as far as I've heard
// Switch: SW-5306-0651-6424 //
Yeah, this is definitely something to consider.
Switch may see some file size bloat, but keep in mind Wii U's game sizes.
7.6GB Hyrule Warriors
6.3GB Mario Kart 8
6.1GB Need For Speed: Most Wanted
6.0GB Metroid Prime Trilogy
6.0GB Monster Hunter Ultimate 3
5.7GB Sonic & All-Stars Racing Transformed
5.6GB ZombiU
4.5GB Pikmin 3
3.0GB Mario Party 10
2.8GB Kirby and the Rainbow Curse
2.7GB Nintendoland
2.3GB New Super Mario Bros. U
1.8GB Splatoon
1.6GB Super Mario 3D World
1.2GB Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker
Not on that page: Wind Waker HD is 1.8 GB, Twilight Princess HD 4.5 GB.
If I get a 128 gig SD card, I can hold 25 copies of Mario Kart 8, or 35 copies of Pikmin 3, or 69 copies of new Super Mario Bros. U.
I can't imagine that Splatoon will have bloated the size of its resources too much, even as a sequel. I could hold 88 Splatoons.
Also how the hell is 3D World a full gig smaller than NSMBU?!
It's a small world, after all?