Discussion in 'Game/Console Discussion' started by RedLion, Oct 20, 2016.
Wait, the games are already on shelves?
Yodobashi Camera mega-store in Akihabara have game display boxes for most consoles.
Oh. I see.
That's a lot of space to go wild with box art, especially as it doesn't have a top banner, but just a tile.
As an handheld, it's more than great, I have to recognize. But it's not really a two-in-one. It's an handheld that tries to be a console, as it's not really equipped for.
As far as you don't put it in the dock ( third party gaming in mind ) and don't go for digital download ( 32 GB is not enough, even if it is extensible ), you'll be fine. if you dare to try to treat it as a console, you'll run into a lot of concerns, at a moment or another.
I don't know if it is a good move from Nintendo. I would have preferred a real handheld accompanied with a real Nintendo console, the two being compatible with the same cartridges. Or even, an "active dock" ( containing a second CPU and/or a second GPU and an HDD ), not only for charge and TV output, so you have a real full console in the end.
Nintendo can't continue to blatantly ignore how the market evolve, specifically if they still want to compete with Microsoft and Sony. At least for me, that's what they do. Time will tell anyway.
For me nintendo has never competed with Sony/Microsoft i have always picked up the nintendo console for the nintendo games along side a playstation since the first playstation. For me its PC/Playstation and Nintendo living in the same house.
From the creators of Oceanhorn, a tweet about the power of the Switch.
Yes, Oceanhorn will head to #NintendoSwitch later this year. Will run beautifully on the powerful Switch.
Fantastic portable hardware with lots of potential when coding right. Keeper between PS4 & Xbox.
They say that it has a lot of power and potential when coding right. I am not sure if they place it between xbox and ps4 regarding power with proper coding, nevertheless they seemed impressed by it's power while they ported Oceanhorn for it.
The OG xbox then?
Against the previous K1.
The Shield and Switch have a X1.
Not sure about the cpu but on the GPU side I can say that this will be powerful
When the dev said "keeper between PS4 and X1" I was wondering if he meant literally, physically. As in "it's worth owning, alongside the PS4 and X1". Not in term of raw power. And if the Switch does indeed have 512gflops, it's for sure not between the X1 and PS4 in term of raw power. It would have approximately half the raw power of the X1.
Still, 512 would be higher than what the Wii U is said to have (around 350). Which seems true, based on the information released on Zelda and Mario Kart.
Pokemon Sun&Moon in 4K confirmed.
All that only depends how you see it. Nintendo is selling it as a console/all-in-one machine but people just see a tablet, a new 3DS. If you belong to that group is worth getting it but if you belong to the rest of us you can only facepalm.
I'll decide that for myself
Btw weren't you posting a lot of videos about tablets and their capabilities and how impressed you were with what they could achieve? How come you hate them?
Samor Foundry talking the #FACTS. That's the way it should be.
I don't hate it I just see a console not a Tablet/Handheld unlike many of you and because of that i'm disappointed. I wanted a Nintendo console not a Handheld otherwise i would be known as a 3DS lover but as we know gaming Handhelds are non-existent to me and they can die for what i care as i categorize them as kid toys but thats just me
I praised the improvements of Tablets for what they are and how they evolved. Nintendo is a different category to me and i freaking love them but as I said.... i'm disappointed.
What concerns? Memory cards are cheap (like stupid cheap) and if your hoard your downloads your going to attract ants.
If this design forces developers to focus on shrinking the sizes of their games, something the PS4 and XB1 have blown way out of proportion (lol at Call of Duty costing over 100 gigs) then this is a move the industry needs.
Modularity is a good thing in gaming, streaming from the PC to the living room made a lot of people happy, being able to treat your XB1 as a netflix machine has become the default for many folks, but at the end of the day it's a giant hunk of shit sitting in your living room struggling to get 1080p. Oh you want 1080p? Then buy this upscaling 4K poverty box and replace that expensive thing you already bought.
The evolution of the console market is make your shitty hardware obsolete quickly and keep you subscribing to purchasing new hardware that does games. Badly.
There hasn't been a console since the PS2 that has offered such insane value and experiences and it was a skinny bitch that lasted a long time. The only real positive innovation that consoles have introduced has been streaming, but they aren't the only devices that do that well.
The Switch is a novel idea that gives you options and that is good. It's selling well through pre-orders which is good. It's massively underpowered when compared with two other machines which are basically identical save for a handful of exclusives and have cornered the market and are in direct competition.
Consoles have always been poverty hardware that struggle to perform well at a technical level. At least nintendo have tried to do different things and not conform to the same practices as two other companies. The Wii was goofy and because of that it was great. The Wii U was a mess but it did some interesting things with streaming technology that I found to be very interesting and ended up enjoying exclusives more than the XB1 and PS4. Yes these are personal anectodes, but since we're using our own experiences to judge these consoles then the Switch is something that is right up my alley.
The thing is as much as I like what both the PS4 and XB1 offer, they are so similar in execution, services and hardware, having to blow nearly a grand to enjoy the software exclusives is a major blow to this expensive hobby. By offering a properly different experience, the Switch has poised itself to almost warrant it for its different feature set alone.
The only thing I get by adding the XB1 alongside my PS4 is 4k disc playback, halo and gears. By adding the Switch I get a dockable handheld that blows both the aging Vita and 3DS out of the water, good tv out with a ready to go controller solution, out of the box multiplayer that isn't overtly complicated in its systems and has a low competency requirement to get into, and finally Nintendo's unique game offerings that are so different to what the other two offer.
The lack of increase in power should also keep game size down. Textures often lead to stupidly large install size. Fallout 4 next patch bringing an optional 58gb texture pack is an example of this. This isn't 58gb for every texture in the game (Low, Medium, High, Ultra). This is 58gb for a single texture setting, the new highest setting.
But the Switch won't have 8gb Vram, so we can expect textures to remain small. I think one of the largest game at first will be Skyrim, it should be a good example of what the largest games on the Switch will look like.
People were surprised when Yoshi on the Wii U weighted around 8gb ram, it was much larger than the other Nintendo games. Like 2gb for Super Mario 3D world and Splatoon. Or 5gb for Mario Kart.
And none of those required an installation, all would run directly from the disc. So big games should remain an exception.
(I'm still installing the 58gb texture pack for Fallout 4 on day 1, come on, I have a 8gb card for a reason)
Is that patch going to be a mandatory thing? My biggest gripe with steam updates is how it hampers software usability until a patch is installed. Doom became unplayable for me as I wasn't prepared to leave my PC on for a day to download the updates, and 60gb is hilariously large for my peasant connection.
I'm pretty happy that they are offering this to players.
I'm hoping it's released as a DLC. That's how the High-Resolution Texture Pack for Skyrim worked, it's listed as being a separate product (DLC) which can be added and downloaded/installed separately.
If they don't do this, the game will go from 34gb (my current Fallout 4 install with DLC but no mods) to 92gb. I did dislike the way they handled Doom's updates. I think they rolled the DLC (regardless of the player having them or not) into mandatory updates, so now my Doom's install is 77gb. It was originally on my SSD and it refused to update as there wasn't enough space to do so.
It's best when the company separates the biggest downloads into optional downloads: Ultra textures, DLC, alternate language/audio.
We don't have to spend as much time downloading and it takes less space on our drives. I'm guessing Steam doesn't charge them extra for the bandwidth used, otherwise they'd be more careful.
58GB for a single texture setting? 8GB of VRAM and I'm here with 64MB?
This is a goddamn arms race.
Things have gone insane though... A Game for the OG Xbox was on average, 4GB. I thought THAT was huge.
2 generations later, and games are typically 5 times that.(I think) Wow.
I can't have more than 4 games installed on my 256gb main ssd.
Looks like I will have to buy a separate hdd If I want more games at the same time.
Those 4GB Ram though...
Separate names with a comma.