gaming Switch third party support.

[long gone 8,929]

22 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

Just look at the amazingly cartoony, yet still technologically groundbreaking Ps4 Ratchet & Clank Reboot, or Xbone Sea of Thieves for example.

why do you keep using bad games as examples lmao

 

25 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

The Switch being so successful is exactly what I take issue with here because it is leaving consumers like me with the short end of the stick. Since the Switch is a hybrid console, and also financially successful, this means Nintendo has NO REASON to want to release a proper technologically competitive console any time soon.

So this is about you and your own desires for a console, and not Nintendo's base. Could the Switch be more powerful? Yes. But is it successful without being as powerful as the base Xbox One? Yes. Would it be nice to have a Switch as powerful as a base Xbox One? Yes. But, is it necessary? No.

 

27 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

I'm talking in the CONSUMERS' collective interest, not the corporation.

Corporations do not care about the "consumer's collective interest". They only care about their own interests. Sorry.

[Here No Longer 5,277]

"Switch has no better third party support than the Wii U"

http://www.player.one/nintendo-switch-games-list-third-party-titles-include-fifa-skyrim-and-dragon-quest-578579

The Switch had 80 third party titles in development AS OF JANUARY OF LAST YEAR, MONTHS BEFORE IT EVEN CAME OUT. Pretty sure the Wii U had far less than 80.

 

 

 

 

 

[Twilight Luna 31,422]

I don't think the Wii U had any third party support because of how Nintendo made the console so difficult for other companies to adapt their games to.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

You guys... I want Nintendo games to continue to use the same, aesthetically-pleasing, cartoony art-style. Go look at Inside Out or Zootopia, then go look at Toy Story or A Bug's Life. There is a very, VERY massive difference in the graphical detail.

Bad comparison. Those are movies built on some of the highest end computers out there and all pre-rendered when they hit the theater. Naturally they will look a thousand times better.

7 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

Being cartoony doesn't mean needing to sacrifice on cutting-edge graphical technologies.

Okay, and?

7 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

ust look at the amazingly cartoony, yet still technologically groundbreaking Ps4 Ratchet & Clank Reboot, or Xbone Sea of Thieves for example.

>Sea of Thieves

>Technologically groundbreaking

You're kidding right?

7 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

That is the same treatment I wish Nintendo would implement in their main IPs.

They are? Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild are the most graphically ambitious of their franchises. Just because they are not Pixar levels doesn't mean they are not changing their franchises.

7 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

But this is sadly just not possible on such weak hardware as the Switch.

Not true, but I'm sure you don't understand how hardware works to a full degree do you? You do realize that screaming system spec numbers doesn't inherently mean better looking games or performance right? Every year Samsung brags about how they have octi-core processors and 6GB of RAM and whatnot, but when it comes time to do the benchmarks they are still getting smoked by iPhones which have "lower specs". Do not be fooled by numbers, they do not translate to better graphics just the possibility.

7 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

The Switch being so successful is exactly what I take issue with here because it is leaving consumers like me with the short end of the stick.

You're apparently in the minority so you will always be left with the short end of the stick because that's business. You appeal to the majority of customers.

7 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

Since the Switch is a hybrid console, and also financially successful, this means Nintendo has NO REASON to want to release a proper technologically competitive console any time soon.

Why bother trying to do that and push the system to its limits and thus make games buggier, choppier and have longer loads when what they are already doing is working? There is no reason to do what you're saying also because it's just a waste of time. Studies are proving time and time again that gamers don't really care about how insane the graphics are. No one bought a game more because they made an engine that renders every strand of hair in real time, or because they can see the freckles on a character's face.

At the end of the day, the gameplay is keeping the games moving, and Nintendo is still delivering good gameplay.

7 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

NIntendo is a business, and as a business they will try to expend as little resources as possible while making as much money as possible. That is no doubt wonderful... IF you work at Nintendo or invest in their stocks, but I'm talking in the CONSUMERS' collective interest, not the corporation. 

Consumers are enjoying the Switch though.

[Kai-rouken 146]

14 hours ago, ignore pls said:

So this is about you and your own desires for a console, and not Nintendo's base. 

I am a part of Nintendo's base. And I am also a large consumer of Nintendo products. I have purchased nearly every Nintendo system to date (spanning from the original NES to the Wii U, from the Game Boy to the 3DS). The only Nintendo gaming platforms I have not purchased are the Virtual Boy, Game and Watch handhelds, and the Nintendo Switch. Why do you act as if my desires do not matter? 

 

14 hours ago, ignore pls said:

why do you keep using bad games as examples lmao

The inherent quality of the titles I mentioned (Ratchet & Clank Ps4, and Sea of Thieves) is irrelevant. I agree that Sea of Thieves is a "bad" game, and Ratchet & Clank is somewhat mediocre, but these are my subjective opinions of the quality of the gameplay. That is not the point. The entire reason I brought them up is due to these games possessing cartoony art styles while simultaneously being quite impressive from a technical graphics angle. Theses games look current gen. They can compete with realistic titles in terms of polygon counts, texture res, lighting effects, etc. Nintendo games, while also possessing cartoony art styles, simply do NOT line up with the modern tech we have available. BotW, Odyssey, Xenoblade 2: these games are reminiscent of the graphical tech we had available nearly 10 years ago. Are Odyssey and BotW still awesome games? Well I have yet to play them, but I am almost 100% sure they are stellar titles based on the footage I have seen. That aspect is not up for dispute. My issue here is the graphical offerings within these titles (while stylish) are very regressive.

 

14 hours ago, ignore pls said:

Corporations do not care about the "consumer's collective interest". They only care about their own interests. Sorry.

^Yes, this is precisely what I said in my previous post:

14 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

Nintendo is a business, and as a business they will try to expend as little resources as possible while making as much money as possible. That is no doubt wonderful... IF you work at Nintendo or invest in their stocks, but I'm talking in the CONSUMERS' collective interest, not the corporation. 

My point is that the consumers of Nintendo products should care about the consumers' collective interest. Why defend the mediocrity of a company? Whether you are satisfied with the Switch or not, there is no dispute that Nintendo COULD be giving the consumer so much better in terms of capable hardware. And yes, that goes for a portable system too. With the current tech we've got, Nintendo could have put a budget mobile GPU in the Switch like the 1050ti (which is a mere $140 MSRP component btw) and the Switch would literally be at least twice as powerful. 2x the power means more overhead for better graphics, higher framerates, and higher native resolution. Full scale ports of games like Red Dead Redemption 2, Final Fantasy 15, and Kingdom Hearts 3 would be possible on such a card. Nintendo chose not to do this. They chose to give the consumer very dated, and very cheap internal hardware. That is good for Nintendo since they can turn a greater profit. But it is giving the consumer a lesser product for literally no other reason than Nintendo being cheap. The GTX 1050ti is used in a huge variety of budget laptops. It is not a difficult component to cool. The thickness, size, and overall form factor of the Nintendo Switch more than accommodates such a GPU to be housed within its internal composition. 

 

7 hours ago, Key Sharkz said:

Bad comparison. Those are movies built on some of the highest end computers out there and all pre-rendered when they hit the theater. Naturally they will look a thousand times better.

I am not comparing these movies to real-time graphics of today. I am comparing them to each other. Inside Out and Zootopia are both cartoony movies and they look far more graphically complex than either Toy Story or A Bug's Life. All 4 of these movies are cartoony, this is my point. Within the space of cartoony visuals, there can be much technical graphical progress. Technologically impressive graphics and cartoony art style are not mutually exclusive to one another.

Also, as far as real-times games have come in the past 20 or so years, we have finally managed to reach the point were Toy Story grade graphics are achievable, and in some areas surpassable:

 

7 hours ago, Key Sharkz said:

>Sea of Thieves

>Technologically groundbreaking

You're kidding right?

Sea of Thieves may be a subjectively garbage game, but that environmental lighting detail and complexity of the water simulation is objectively visually groundbreaking within the space of real-time 3D graphics:

https://youtu.be/mRnJmWmdkDI?t=3m34s

^Just watch this for a minute or two to see what I mean.

Sea of Thieves certainly isn't perfect graphically, mind you. The wonky character models and occasionally stark island locales leave a lot to be desired. But the rest of the game is truly a sight to behold, even when played on console.

 

7 hours ago, Key Sharkz said:

They are? Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild are the most graphically ambitious of their franchises. Just because they are not Pixar levels doesn't mean they are not changing their franchises.

Not true, but I'm sure you don't understand how hardware works to a full degree do you? You do realize that screaming system spec numbers doesn't inherently mean better looking games or performance right? Every year Samsung brags about how they have octi-core processors and 6GB of RAM and whatnot, but when it comes time to do the benchmarks they are still getting smoked by iPhones which have "lower specs". Do not be fooled by numbers, they do not translate to better graphics just the possibility.

Mario Odyssey and BotW are most assuredly the most visually complex of their respective series. I agree with you there 100%. However, when you compare these (cartoony) games to other (cartoony) games like Ratchet & Clank Ps4, or Sea of Thieves, or Kingdom Hearts 3, it becomes immediately apparent that there is quite a large visual gap. It's like comparing a Ps3 game to a Ps4 game. Why can't Nintendo produce games on par with the complexity of those aforementioned titles? Well, there exist a variety of potential reasons. Maybe their dev teams aren't competent or creative enough to transform their simple low detail character/ environmental models into something more graphically impressive? Maybe they are worried if they add details to simplistic iconic characters it will form a disconnect between the attachment fans feel for these beloved characters/ game worlds? Maybe they are just too lazy/ cheap to put in the effort/ resources to make this possible? Maybe they know their fans will defend whatever they release as long as it plays well and looks marginally better than the prior iterations? Maybe they just don't want to, and know they'll make more money without going to that extra trouble? All of these are possibilities.

But, the Nintendo Switch being as underpowered as it is, completely prevents them from releasing something on par with those aforementioned games even if they wanted to. The Nintendo Switch possesses the original Nvidia Tegra X1 SoC (which is essentially a combination of a GPU and CPU on a single chip). SoC's are rather common for integration within console hardware as they cut costs for the manufacturers. The Xbox One, S, X, Ps4, and Pro all contain their own unique SoC's. The problem with the Switch is that their Tegra X1 SoC runs at obscenely low clock speeds while simultaneously being unable access the potential of high shader core counts which are exclusive to high end consoles and consumer grade components like the Nvidia GTX line and AMD's own Radeon line. Due to the hardware deficit detailed above, it would be impossible to run games like Ratchet and Clank Ps4 or Sea of Thieves with the same graphical settings as the Ps4 and Xbox One respectively on the Switch unless they ran at sub 5 frames per second (which is obviously completely unplayable). The hardware makes a MASSIVE difference to the overall computational power of a videogame console. No amount of denial will change this fact. Does hardware optimization exist? Most assuredly. If it wasn't for optimization, games like Horizon: Zero Dawn would be absolutely impossible on a base Ps4. But there is a limit to what is possible via hardware optimization. The Switch is far less capable than even a base Xbox One, let alone the Ps4. Which is disturbing considering those consoles released back in 2013 and they were considered disappointing technologically-speaking all the way back then. For the Switch to release in 2017 packing less under the hood than even these consoles did in 2013 is absurd.  Even as a hybrid console that is capable if being played in handheld form, these specs are abominable. Please refer to my above response (within this same post) to the member @ignore pls for further clarification regarding this issue.

 

8 hours ago, Key Sharkz said:

There is no reason to do what you're saying also because it's just a waste of time. Studies are proving time and time again that gamers don't really care about how insane the graphics are. No one bought a game more because they made an engine that renders every strand of hair in real time, or because they can see the freckles on a character's face.

At the end of the day, the gameplay is keeping the games moving, and Nintendo is still delivering good gameplay.

I cannot argue with facts. Nintendo consumers of today simply do not care about extreme graphical fidelity. Throughout my entire life as a loyal Nintendo customer and prior Nintendo fanboy, I really enjoyed the graphical aspect of Nintendo games, in addition to the unique and inventive gameplay mechanics. Technically impressive graphics in conjunction with aesthetically pleasing art styles fuctioned to pull me into the gaming experience and truly immerse me in these incredible worlds. This is back when Nintendo cared about matching or even surpassing the offerings of their competition within the graphical space. It was a true "zero-comprimise" gaming experience. With modern Nintendo, while they finally seem to be back on track incorpoating ambitious game design into their mainline franchises (as in Odyssey and BotW for example), the experience is no longer devoid of compromises. While it may not bother many other Nintendo fans, I myself simply cannot stomach the insane loss of potential Nintendo's current actions embody. I dream of the day when Zelda will be visually on par with The Witcher 3 at max settings, exploring the world of Hyrule with such beautiful, robust, and technologically astounding visuals would absolutely floor me. I would be in utter ecstasy if this was the case. But, unfortunately for me, Nintendo (my personal favorite videogame company) is one of the few that outright refuses to stay current with their tech.

At the end of the day it boils down to the fact that I cannot "Have my cake and eat it too". Which is truly a shame since that cake would be so damn delicious Q.Q

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

I am a part of Nintendo's base. And I am also a large consumer of Nintendo products. I have purchased nearly every Nintendo system to date (spanning from the original NES to the Wii U, from the Game Boy to the 3DS). The only Nintendo gaming platforms I have not purchased are the Virtual Boy, Game and Watch handhelds, and the Nintendo Switch. Why do you act as if my desires do not matter? 

 

Because I have done the exact same as you and bought the Switch, as have many others, so clearly you're in the minority in disliking the Switch as a Nintendo fan.

3 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

My point is that the consumers of Nintendo products should care about the consumers' collective interest. Why defend the mediocrity of a company?

Because right now you're in the minority, so you're not part of the collective interest. Most Nintendo fans are happy with the Switch, more so than the Wii U and the sales are showing that.

4 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

Whether you are satisfied with the Switch or not, there is no dispute that Nintendo COULD be giving the consumer so much better in terms of capable hardware.

That's true of every company, but ultimately irrelevant if the majority of customers are satisfied, which they currently are. Look at Microsoft, giving people 6 Teraflops of GPU power along with 12GB of RAM and yet... The X is not selling so well.

5 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

With the current tech we've got, Nintendo could have put a budget mobile GPU in the Switch like the 1050ti (which is a mere $140 MSRP component btw) and the Switch would literally be at least twice as powerful. 2x the power means more overhead for better graphics, higher framerates, and higher native resolution. Full scale ports of games like Red Dead Redemption 2, Final Fantasy 15, and Kingdom Hearts 3 would be possible on such a card. 

You clearly understand very little about hardware.

A GPU even for a laptop such as the 1050Ti would not work well in a unit as small as the Switch. Game consoles often have to be modularized and downsized to reduce power footprints and increase optimization. The 1050Ti would use a lot more power than the Switch's Tegra X1 custom and thus would require a bigger battery and compromises in other areas, and further cooling unless Nintendo downsized it and modularized it and eventually evolved it into a SoC, which is not that easy to do and very expensive of an endeavor. There is a lot more to hardware than numbers and to make the Switch portable these things are all factors.

Also it's very rare that game consoles run on current gen hardware (which the 1050Ti technically is) as it would be very expensive and people wouldn't be willing to pay the prices.

Also you run into issues such as to get these games at the graphic fidelity you're talking out many of them will exceed the storage space of the Switch game card and thus require a ton more internal memory for the Switch and they would have to switch from Flash storage reliance which would make keeping it a handheld even more complex. The short version is, you can't look at specs in terms of numbers and expect that to be an accurate explanation of Why A is B and why C is D, etc.

11 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

They chose to give the consumer very dated, and very cheap internal hardware.

Just like Sony and Microsoft? Literally the PS4 and Xbox One were running on hardware that was as powerful as 2 gens ago for PCs and they sold well.

12 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

That is good for Nintendo since they can turn a greater profit.

Again you show your ignorance, game consoles actually have a very low profit margin, Nintendo is only making a little over $40 per Switch made as they cost $257 to assemble. Meaning, if they gave you the things you are asking for they would either have to raise the price or sell them at a market loss. It's actually good for the consumer that they chose lower end hardware because it makes the system affordable and it slows down developers from trying to push every game to the next gen of hardware so quickly which effectively makes consumers have to shell out more money.

Forcing devs to optimize on older, weaker hardware is better on the consumer's wallet rather than telling them to go ahead and make owning the latest and greatest graphics card every 6 months is a good idea.

15 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

The GTX 1050ti is used in a huge variety of budget laptops. It is not a difficult component to cool. The thickness, size, and overall form factor of the Nintendo Switch more than accommodates such a GPU to be housed within its internal composition. 

You clearly understand very little about hardware assembly and gaming. I'll leave it at that.

16 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

I am not comparing these movies to real-time graphics of today. I am comparing them to each other. Inside Out and Zootopia are both cartoony movies and they look far more graphically complex than either Toy Story or A Bug's Life. All 4 of these movies are cartoony, this is my point. Within the space of cartoony visuals, there can be much technical graphical progress. Technologically impressive graphics and cartoony art style are not mutually exclusive to one another.

Also, as far as real-times games have come in the past 20 or so years, we have finally managed to reach the point were Toy Story grade graphics are achievable, and in some areas surpassable:

Yes, I'm familiar with Digital Foundry, but something you need to realize: Toy Story came out in 1995 and we are JUST NOW reaching a point where games can look that good. Over 20 years later. In other words, your expectations are far too high.

17 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

Sea of Thieves may be a subjectively garbage game, but that environmental lighting detail and complexity of the water simulation is objectively visually groundbreaking within the space of real-time 3D graphics:

 https://youtu.be/mRnJmWmdkDI?t=3m34s

^Just watch this for a minute or two to see what I mean.

Sea of Thieves certainly isn't perfect graphically, mind you. The wonky character models and occasionally stark island locales leave a lot to be desired. But the rest of the game is truly a sight to behold, even when played on console.

Sea of Thieves is a good example of how focusing on graphics and detail of something doesn't make a better game. Despite its water detail the game ended up as garbage.

17 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

Mario Odyssey and BotW are most assuredly the most visually complex of their respective series. I agree with you there 100%. However, when you compare these (cartoony) games to other (cartoony) games like Ratchet & Clank Ps4, or Sea of Thieves, or Kingdom Hearts 3, it becomes immediately apparent that there is quite a large visual gap.

Again, you're acting like this is a problem and that it's harming the enjoyment of said games.

18 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

hy can't Nintendo produce games on par with the complexity of those aforementioned titles? Well, there exist a variety of potential reasons. Maybe their dev teams aren't competent or creative enough to transform their simple low detail character/ environmental models into something more graphically impressive? Maybe they are worried if they add details to simplistic iconic characters it will form a disconnect between the attachment fans feel for these beloved characters/ game worlds? Maybe they are just too lazy/ cheap to put in the effort/ resources to make this possible? Maybe they know their fans will defend whatever they release as long as it plays well and looks marginally better than the prior iterations? Maybe they just don't want to, and know they'll make more money without going to that extra trouble? All of these are possibilities.

Or the simple explanation: the demand is not high enough to invest extra time and money to make graphics that high because they have clearly found that the return is not worth the effort. Their fans are already happy with what they are getting, why spend more money and resources when the demand for higher end graphics is so minimal?

19 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

But, the Nintendo Switch being as underpowered as it is, completely prevents them from releasing something on par with those aforementioned games even if they wanted to. The Nintendo Switch possesses the original Nvidia Tegra X1 SoC (which is essentially a combination of a GPU and CPU on a single chip).

I'm familiar with a SoC thanks, you however seem like you need to do a bit more research...

20 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

SoC's are rather common for integration within console hardware as they cut costs for the manufacturers.

There are more reasons than that...

21 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

The problem with the Switch is that their Tegra X1 SoC runs at obscenely low clock speeds while simultaneously being unable access the potential of high shader core counts which are exclusive to high end consoles and consumer grade components like the Nvidia GTX line and AMD's own Radeon line.

Except here's the thing you seem to not be getting in all your google searching: specs versus real world use are often totally different. Something in theory and in numbers doesn't inherently mean it will be noticable in real world use.

22 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

Due to the hardware deficit detailed above, it would be impossible to run games like Ratchet and Clank Ps4 or Sea of Thieves with the same graphical settings as the Ps4 and Xbox One respectively on the Switch unless they ran at sub 5 frames per second (which is obviously completely unplayable).

See here's the part you're not getting. There is a difference between running a game at the exact same settings and running it at a level that looks similar/close/almost the same to the human eye. Removal of minor things that save on resources often results in a picture that looks very very very similar to the untrained eye or even the trained eye. It's not about running at the same settings, it's about running it well enough that the differences aren't noticable by regular play. I can have Ambient Occlusion on or off and most people won't be able to see the difference unless they are looking for it.

24 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

The hardware makes a MASSIVE difference to the overall computational power of a videogame console. No amount of denial will change this fact. Does hardware optimization exist? Most assuredly.

Well duh, but again: if the developers are good at optimizing this isn't inherently a problem. The PS4 and Xbox One are considered horribly underpowered by PC developers and that doesn't stop them.

25 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

If it wasn't for optimization, games like Horizon: Zero Dawn would be absolutely impossible on a base Ps4. But there is a limit to what is possible via hardware optimization. The Switch is far less capable than even a base Xbox One, let alone the Ps4. Which is disturbing considering those consoles released back in 2013 and they were considered disappointing technologically-speaking all the way back then. For the Switch to release in 2017 packing less under the hood than even these consoles did in 2013 is absurd.  Even as a hybrid console that is capable if being played in handheld form, these specs are abominable.

Except the consumers are responding well to it and recognizing that portability comes with sacrifices. You appear to be in the minority in terms of people who are upset by this as the Switch is selling fast.

26 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

I cannot argue with facts. Nintendo consumers of today simply do not care about extreme graphical fidelity.

I can tell you that very few people buy diehard fanboys of any console do.

26 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

It was a true "zero-comprimise" gaming experience.

There has never been such a thing, ever. Literally. Every game has had to make compromises to get a market share.

27 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

But, unfortunately for me, Nintendo (my personal favorite videogame company) is one of the few that outright refuses to stay current with their tech.

Well again: you're in the minority, sorry. I'm not trying to be a dick, but it's the harsh truth.

[Celli 4,339]

31 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

but that environmental lighting detail and complexity of the water simulation is objectively visually groundbreaking within the space of real-time 3D graphics

You seriously think that? The visuals are complete garbage for a game like it.

[long gone 8,929]

31 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

My point is that the consumers of Nintendo products should care about the consumers' collective interest. Why defend the mediocrity of a company? Whether you are satisfied with the Switch or not, there is no dispute that Nintendo COULD be giving the consumer so much better in terms of capable hardware. And yes, that goes for a portable system too. With the current tech we've got, Nintendo could have put a budget mobile GPU in the Switch like the 1050ti (which is a mere $140 MSRP component btw) and the Switch would literally be at least twice as powerful. 2x the power means more overhead for better graphics, higher framerates, and higher native resolution. Full scale ports of games like Red Dead Redemption 2, Final Fantasy 15, and Kingdom Hearts 3 would be possible on such a card. Nintendo chose not to do this. They chose to give the consumer very dated, and very cheap internal hardware. That is good for Nintendo since they can turn a greater profit. But it is giving the consumer a lesser product for literally no other reason than Nintendo being cheap. The GTX 1050ti is used in a huge variety of budget laptops. It is not a difficult component to cool. The thickness, size, and overall form factor of the Nintendo Switch more than accommodates such a GPU to be housed within its internal composition.

That's not how this works. The GTX 1050 Ti would consume way too much power for the Switch to have any reasonable amount of battery life. Why do you think it's in laptops, which typically have batteries in the tens of thousands of mAh range, rather than just the thousands of mAh range like a phone or, y'know, the Switch?

 

Because of that 75W TDP. The Switch, like other mobile devices, has a SoC (Tegra X1) with a TDP below 20W. Even then, it has a lowered CPU and GPU clock speed (1.9GHz > 1.02GHz CPU, 1GHz > 300 - 768MHz GPU) to reduce power consumption further. Point is, with something like the Nintendo Switch, power consumption matters, and the GTX 1050 Ti would consume way too much power. Sure, it'd be more powerful. But let's be realistic here, you are not putting a 1050 Ti into a handheld. TDP and power consumption are both way too high for one.

Are you just googling hardware and acting like ya an expert? Because you're arguing with a PC enthusiast and all I see is someone talking a lot of shit they don't understand.

[CastletonSnob 3,079]

Why can't Nintendo just make a powerful console? It feels like they're being different for the sake of being different. I mean, triangular wheels are different, but that doesn't mean they're useful.

Why would someone buy a watered down version of a game on the Switch when they can buy a better version on the PS4 or XBone?

[Celli 4,339]

2 minutes ago, VG_Addict said:

Why can't Nintendo just make a powerful console? It feels like they're being different for the sake of being different. I mean, triangular wheels are different, but that doesn't mean they're useful.

Why would someone buy a watered down version of a game on the Switch when they can buy a better version on the PS4 or XBone?

Did..... Did you just ignore everything said? 

POWER 👏 ISN'T 👏 EVERYTHING 👏

[Guest]

1 minute ago, VG_Addict said:

Why can't Nintendo just make a powerful console? It feels like they're being different for the sake of being different. I mean, triangular wheels are different, but that doesn't mean they're useful.

Why would someone buy a watered down version of a game on the Switch when they can buy a better version on the PS4 or XBone?

Because people want portability. Portability requires sacrificing power. This strategy also merges their 3DS fanbase with their home console one so they can get those loyal handheld players they have always had to also invest in their home console. In other words it gets people invested in both platforms at once so they are more inclined to buy on Nintendo because they already have the hardware.

[CastletonSnob 3,079]

1 minute ago, Celli said:

Did..... Did you just ignore everything said? 

POWER 👏 ISN'T 👏 EVERYTHING 👏

No, but power does matter. That's part of why people buy new consoles, because they're more powerful than previous consoles. 

[Celli 4,339]

1 minute ago, VG_Addict said:

No, but power does matter. That's part of why people buy new consoles, because they're more powerful than previous consoles. 

No 👏 it 👏 doesn't!

[CastletonSnob 3,079]

Just now, Celli said:

No 👏 it 👏 doesn't!

Yes it does. If power didn't matter, we'd still be playing NES.

[Celli 4,339]

1 minute ago, VG_Addict said:

Yes it does. If power didn't matter, we'd still be playing NES.

You don't GET it! People buy new consoles for new games! NOT power!

[Guest]

Just now, VG_Addict said:

Yes it does. If power didn't matter, we'd still be playing NES.

You oversimplify the point to absurdity. What Celli means is that being more powerful is not inherently that important. Remember in the past the consoles that were the most powerful never came out on top:

PS1 Vs. N64 Vs. Saturn: N64 was more powerful, PS1 destroyed it.

PS2 Vs. Xbox Vs. Gamecube: Gamecube and Xbox were more powerful, PS2 destroyed them.

Wii Vs. PS3 Vs. Xbox 360: PS3 was most powerful and it got its ass handed to it by the weakest system of the bunch.

SNES Vs. 32X/Sega CD: Despite the 32X and CD bringing the Genesis power well above the SNES, it STILL dominated the market.

 

People buy new consoles mostly to get better and new experiences. All console gens will inherently come with a power upgrade but being as powerful as the competitor is not that important if the quality of games is high.

[long gone 8,929]

9 minutes ago, VG_Addict said:

No, but power does matter. That's part of why people buy new consoles, because they're more powerful than previous consoles. 

People buy new consoles so they can get new games. Also, if power does matter, why is the Switch kicking the Xbox One X's ass in sales?

 

I'm a PC gamer and guess what? Specs don't always matter. Sure, it'd look better on paper. Like, let me use an example. I own a Gigabyte Aero 14 laptop. It has an i7-7700HQ, GTX 1060, 512GB SSD and 16GB DDR4 RAM. Very powerful machine. It can run Doom for a grand total of 45 minutes on battery before I need to charge it again. For comparison, the Switch can run Doom for 3 hours on battery before I need to plug it in. If I were on a long car trip, like... 4 hours, I'd prefer playing the game on my Switch, even though it's not as pretty as the PC version my laptop runs and runs at a quarter of the pixels of my laptop's screen. Why? Because I can play it for way longer.

 

This is why the Switch is the way it is. People want portability. 45 minutes of gameplay on battery before needing to plug it in is not portable. 3 hours of gameplay on battery before needing to plug it in is. It's that simple. Stop being so dense.

[Envy 6,202]

I've been bested in this argument before, but I still can't help but feel that the Switch is still missing out on a heck of a lot of third party titles that it should be getting. But I think it is still objectively better than the Wii U. I don't think that makes it good, though.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Envy said:

I've been bested in this argument before, but I still can't help but feel that the Switch is still missing out on a heck of a lot of third party titles that it should be getting. But I think it is still objectively better than the Wii U. I don't think that makes it good, though.

Titles such as?

Big news, Tales of Vesperia Definitive Edtion confirmed for Switch, one of the most desired titles from last gen that was previously an Xbox 360 exclusive. This is a huge win for JRPG and Tales fans for the Switch. Vesperia is considered one of the best games in the entire series and this version will include content previously not released in the US.

So that's yet another big third party title that will be arriving on Switch to join the likes of Dark Souls, Skyrim, Doom 2016, Wolfenstein II, etc.

[GrimGrimoire 4,973]

3 hours ago, VG_Addict said:

Why can't Nintendo just make a powerful console? It feels like they're being different for the sake of being different. I mean, triangular wheels are different, but that doesn't mean they're useful.

Why would someone buy a watered down version of a game on the Switch when they can buy a better version on the PS4 or XBone?

Why can't you go be like everyone else instead of just being you?

Nintendo does a lot of things some people hate, and a lot of things some people love... but at the end of the day, Nintendo does Nintendo. They could throw the money at their consoles and probably put out something that would make Sony and Microsoft wet themselves and even make the PC flinch if they really wanted to... but honestly why? Everyone can go back and forth and compete to be the fastest, the strongest, the smartest or whatever... and that will never be necessarily enough to make anyone like you. There is a massive list of incredible hardware and games out there that look amazing... but unless you are just looking for wallpaper for your computer or something, you won't find much more useful than that. I mean if you and a buddy are playing 2 different games on two different systems in a room together, and he looks over his shoulder and says "Dude, this game is awesome, level 17 hell yeah! I am having a blast!" and the best you can come back with is "Mine is prettier!", you'll probably find yourself shutting yours off and sneaking peeks at his wishing you had made a different choice in gaming purchases.

Nintendo has been at the top of the dogpile, and at the bottom of it... they've made big mistakes, and they've overcome expectations. Nintendo does what they do, they do it very very well, and they know how to do something at lot of developers and publishers constantly lose sight of in their race to say "Look how tough, violent, fast, insane, heavy, detailed etc.." we/I am... and that is make games that are easy to pick up, easy to play, fun to play and extremely addicting. Sure there are some games that will be multi platform that if you already have another system that can run them better you will do so... but Nintendo has been doing exclusives long enough to counter that in their sleep.

Of course the Switch could always be better... everything could always be better. As a consumer you get to try to fix that by making your voice heard. Graphics are important, and for some people they do mean almost everything, but Nintendo knows they are hardly the only thing, and making something simple, addictive and just plain fun will trump graphics and sound any day for a majority. So yeah, Sony and Microsoft are leaning over them bragging about how they are so powerful and Nintendo and their fans should "get with it", but sadly for them, Nintendo and their fans can't hear them because they are busy having fun. Imagine that.

[Kai-rouken 146]

@Key Sharkz literally every point you made in your post in which you quoted me like 20 times (with the exception of one that I will address in a moment) is agreeing with points I made in my post. I don't understand why you are taking what I have stated, changing the words slightly and then using it yourself as if it's going against my stance. It is perplexing to say the least. Throughout the entirety of my post I was lamenting the fact that I am in the minority of Nintendo fans and that Nintendo, as a business does not care about the minority. I am however still a potential consumer for new Nintendo products, so once again I fail to see why my desires suddenly do not matter. Even if Nintendo doesn't care as they are satisfied with the level of financial success the Switch is netting them, even if many other Switch owners are happy with what they've got, it doesn't change the fact that my criticisms hold a large deal of merit as they are both true and a potential barring factor for non-Switch owners who DO want more power. The opposition to my stance within this thread seem to constantly chant "you are the minority; you don't matter" it is quite offensive and disrespectful. I am already aware that "I don't matter to Nintendo" since I stated this in my previous post, but how come you insinuate that I also "do not matter.... period"?

 

6 hours ago, Key Sharkz said:

A GPU even for a laptop such as the 1050Ti would not work well in a unit as small as the Switch. Game consoles often have to be modularized and downsized to reduce power footprints and increase optimization. The 1050Ti would use a lot more power than the Switch's Tegra X1 custom and thus would require a bigger battery and compromises in other areas, and further cooling unless Nintendo downsized it and modularized it and eventually evolved it into a SoC, which is not that easy to do and very expensive of an endeavor. There is a lot more to hardware than numbers and to make the Switch portable these things are all factors.

Also it's very rare that game consoles run on current gen hardware (which the 1050Ti technically is) as it would be very expensive and people wouldn't be willing to pay the prices.

Also you run into issues such as to get these games at the graphic fidelity you're talking out many of them will exceed the storage space of the Switch game card and thus require a ton more internal memory for the Switch and they would have to switch from Flash storage reliance which would make keeping it a handheld even more complex. The short version is, you can't look at specs in terms of numbers and expect that to be an accurate explanation of Why A is B and why C is D, etc.

6 hours ago, ignore pls said:

That's not how this works. The GTX 1050 Ti would consume way too much power for the Switch to have any reasonable amount of battery life. Why do you think it's in laptops, which typically have batteries in the tens of thousands of mAh range, rather than just the thousands of mAh range like a phone or, y'know, the Switch?

 

Because of that 75W TDP. The Switch, like other mobile devices, has a SoC (Tegra X1) with a TDP below 20W. Even then, it has a lowered CPU and GPU clock speed (1.9GHz > 1.02GHz CPU, 1GHz > 300 - 768MHz GPU) to reduce power consumption further. Point is, with something like the Nintendo Switch, power consumption matters, and the GTX 1050 Ti would consume way too much power. Sure, it'd be more powerful. But let's be realistic here, you are not putting a 1050 Ti into a handheld. TDP and power consumption are both way too high for one.

Are you just googling hardware and acting like ya an expert? Because you're arguing with a PC enthusiast and all I see is someone talking a lot of shit they don't understand.

Within the confined space of the Nintendo Switch housing there is absolutely more than enough room to house a GTX 1050 ti, a cheap but capable CPU, an ample (larger) battery, and a more robust cooling system. I am not asking for the impossible here, folks. It's not like I want a GTX 1080 and an 8700K in this thing >.> And again, the MSRP is $140 which is more than low enough, especially considering Nintendo receives hefty manufacturer discounts as well as discounts for buying in bulk. Just because the 1050ti is a 45W component doesn't mean it is impossible to accommodate it with a higher capacity battery. The Switch has enough internal volume to house about the same battery as a Macbook 12, for example.

I never Google my arguments. The only times i use Google is to fact check whether or not all the numbers I provide are 100% accurate. Over the past 2 years I have done extensive research of gaming laptops (as I like to be informed before making a purchase). Youtubers like Dave Lee, Mobiletechreview, Linustechtips, Digital Foundry, and websites like Notebookcheck are where the majority of my knowledge is derived from.

 

6 hours ago, Key Sharkz said:

Again you show your ignorance, game consoles actually have a very low profit margin, Nintendo is only making a little over $40 per Switch made as they cost $257 to assemble. Meaning, if they gave you the things you are asking for they would either have to raise the price or sell them at a market loss. It's actually good for the consumer that they chose lower end hardware because it makes the system affordable and it slows down developers from trying to push every game to the next gen of hardware so quickly which effectively makes consumers have to shell out more money.

Forcing devs to optimize on older, weaker hardware is better on the consumer's wallet rather than telling them to go ahead and make owning the latest and greatest graphics card every 6 months is a good idea.

Nintendo used to sell their consoles at a loss. They would make up the loss via software sales. They very easily could have done this with the Switch, but they did not. It's great for them, but not-so-great for consumers who care about this sort of thing.

 

6 hours ago, Celli said:

You seriously think that? The visuals are complete garbage for a game like it.

I think that water simulation is truly awe-inspiring especially for such utterly trash hardware as the base Xbone. 

 

6 hours ago, Key Sharkz said:

See here's the part you're not getting. There is a difference between running a game at the exact same settings and running it at a level that looks similar/close/almost the same to the human eye. Removal of minor things that save on resources often results in a picture that looks very very very similar to the untrained eye or even the trained eye. It's not about running at the same settings, it's about running it well enough that the differences aren't noticable by regular play. I can have Ambient Occlusion on or off and most people won't be able to see the difference unless they are looking for it.

https://youtu.be/MWuRlgFpVIQ?t=10m49s

^Check that grass at 11:30. That is a massive difference.

 

6 hours ago, VG_Addict said:

Why can't Nintendo just make a powerful console? It feels like they're being different for the sake of being different. I mean, triangular wheels are different, but that doesn't mean they're useful.

Why would someone buy a watered down version of a game on the Switch when they can buy a better version on the PS4 or XBone?

5 hours ago, Celli said:

Did..... Did you just ignore everything said? 

POWER 👏 ISN'T 👏 EVERYTHING 👏

5 hours ago, VG_Addict said:

No, but power does matter. That's part of why people buy new consoles, because they're more powerful than previous consoles. 

5 hours ago, Celli said:

No 👏 it 👏 doesn't!

5 hours ago, VG_Addict said:

Yes it does. If power didn't matter, we'd still be playing NES.

5 hours ago, Celli said:

You don't GET it! People buy new consoles for new games! NOT power!

^Celli... wth, dude? Please respect the people you are debating with. You are currently conducting yourself in an absurdly juvenile manner. We have already established that MOST Nintendo fans of the modern era do not care about graphics. It is a sad reality for me since it means I will not be getting what I desire any time soon, but it is what it is. However, there are plenty of people who game only on Ps4/ Xbox/ PC who might be tempted if Nintendo released a powerhouse of a console.

If the Nintendo Switch was less technically capable than the 3ds, I think 95% of consumers (Nintendo fan or not) would be up in arms over it. Perceivable improvement to graphics from generation to generation is not merely wanted, it is expected. If tech was going backwards, pretty much no 3rd parties would, or even could port their games to the system. Claiming that improvement to specs is irrelevant within the console/ handheld gaming space is simply untrue from every angle imaginable.

 

5 hours ago, ignore pls said:

People buy new consoles so they can get new games. Also, if power does matter, why is the Switch kicking the Xbox One X's ass in sales?

 

I'm a PC gamer and guess what? Specs don't always matter. Sure, it'd look better on paper. Like, let me use an example. I own a Gigabyte Aero 14 laptop. It has an i7-7700HQ, GTX 1060, 512GB SSD and 16GB DDR4 RAM. Very powerful machine. It can run Doom for a grand total of 45 minutes on battery before I need to charge it again. For comparison, the Switch can run Doom for 3 hours on battery before I need to plug it in. If I were on a long car trip, like... 4 hours, I'd prefer playing the game on my Switch, even though it's not as pretty as the PC version my laptop runs and runs at a quarter of the pixels of my laptop's screen. Why? Because I can play it for way longer.

 

This is why the Switch is the way it is. People want portability. 45 minutes of gameplay on battery before needing to plug it in is not portable. 3 hours of gameplay on battery before needing to plug it in is. It's that simple. Stop being so dense.

^This is actually one of the laptops I was researching about a year ago. It is an awesome laptop at a pretty reasonable price. The main factor preventing me from purchasing it was lack of a high-res, glossy screen (personally can't stand matte lol). Also, thank God the Switch has a glossy IPS display, just saying.

Anyway, back to my point. According to my research from a year ago, I have concluded your 45 minute assertion for gaming off battery is inaccurate. Unless you have a faulty system, that is. Please check my sources for yourself. The average battery life for playing modern AAA titles at max settings is around the 2 hour (aka 120 min) mark for the Kaby Lake refresh of the Aero 14:

https://www.notebookcheck.net/Gigabyte-Aero-14-7700HQ-GTX-1060-Laptop-Review.211666.0.html

https://youtu.be/CCQ8NJUz2Ss?t=1m44s

 

1 hour ago, GrimGrimoire said:

So yeah, Sony and Microsoft are leaning over them bragging about how they are so powerful and Nintendo and their fans should "get with it", but sadly for them, Nintendo and their fans can't hear them because they are busy having fun. Imagine that.

^ I AM a Nintendo fan, they are my FAVORITE gaming company, and I find it utterly deplorable how Nintendo is giving their consumers objectively underpowered hardware.

1 hour ago, GrimGrimoire said:

a lot of developers and publishers constantly lose sight of in their race to say "Look how tough, violent, fast, insane, heavy, detailed etc.."

^I hate all those overly violent, gritty games. How come it's largely only these "tough, violent" type of games that get to have technologically groundbreaking graphics? There are some exceptions sure, but 90% of the more "kid friendly" type of games have bargain bin visual offerings. All I want is Nintendo games with Ps4 Pro-tier graphics, yo T^T

Edited June 11, 2018 by Kai-rouken

[Here No Longer 5,277]

7 hours ago, VG_Addict said:

Why can't Nintendo just make a powerful console?

It feels like they're being different for the sake of being different. I mean, triangular wheels are different, but that doesn't mean they're useful.

Why would someone buy a watered down version of a game on the Switch when they can buy a better version on the PS4 or XBone?

You mean why can't they make another Xbox One? BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T STAND OUT. Obvious enough.

Your analogy is totally off. Nintendo in this case are the only round wheels around. The other consoles are the triangular wheels in this case. The only reason it's sort of working for them is simply because running games on PC requires too much of them.

By that logic, there's literally NO reason to buy a PS4 or an Xbox One, because why not just buy a PC instead of playing a worse port of PS4 or Xbox One when they release almost no exclusives? Kind of not working for you.

[long gone 8,929]

4 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

Within the confined space of the Nintendo Switch housing there is absolutely more than enough room to house a GTX 1050 ti, a cheap but capable CPU, an ample (larger) battery, and a more robust cooling system. I am not asking for the impossible here, folks. It's not like I want a GTX 1080 and an 8700K in this thing >.> And again, the MSRP is $140 which is more than low enough, especially considering Nintendo receives hefty manufacturer discounts as well as discounts for buying in bulk. Just because the 1050ti is a 45W component doesn't mean it is impossible to accommodate it with a higher capacity battery. The Switch has enough internal volume to house about the same battery as a Macbook 12, for example.

You're forgetting something very important here. Here's the Switch motherboard.

 

 

Tell me, where's the room for a GTX 1050 Ti, and the GDDR5 VRAM chips? There is none. Also, putting a big battery in such a tight space is a very bad idea; didn't the Galaxy Note 7 teach you anything? Reality disagrees with your fantasy.

 

4 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

Anyway, back to my point. According to my research from a year ago, I have concluded your 45 minute assertion for gaming off battery is inaccurate. Unless you have a faulty system, that is. Please check my sources for yourself. The average battery life for playing modern AAA titles at max settings is around the 2 hour (aka 120 min) mark for the Kaby Lake refresh of the Aero 14:

With BatteryBoost (which limits performance and caps the frame rate at 30FPS) enabled, sure. Point is, the Switch still provides more battery life, and in a more comfortable form factor than trying to play a game on my laptop in my lap. Plus it puts less heat strain on my legs. Eugh.

[Guest]

9 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

@Key Sharkz literally every point you made in your post in which you quoted me like 20 times (with the exception of one that I will address in a moment) is agreeing with points I made in my post. I don't understand why you are taking what I have stated, changing the words slightly and then using it yourself as if it's going against my stance. It is perplexing to say the least.

That is 100% not true. For example I was explaining how putting a GTX 1050Ti in a Switch could not work and you were under the impression that it could.

9 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

Throughout the entirety of my post I was lamenting the fact that I am in the minority of Nintendo fans and that Nintendo, as a business does not care about the minority. I am however still a potential consumer for new Nintendo products, so once again I fail to see why my desires suddenly do not matter.

And this is further proof that I am not just "changing your words slightly and using it as going against your stance" because I am stating your desires don't matter and you're stating they do. I am explaining to you why the things you want won't work. Please explain how I am just rephrasing your own arguments against you, and provide examples because it sounds like you're just talking nonsense and hoping I fall for it. I see nothing of the sort, please provide evidence of this ridiculous claim.

Your desires don't matter because you are in the minority. That's business, it's always been that way and you have to learn to get used to it.

9 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

Even if Nintendo doesn't care as they are satisfied with the level of financial success the Switch is netting them, even if many other Switch owners are happy with what they've got, it doesn't change the fact that my criticisms hold a large deal of merit as they are both true and a potential barring factor for non-Switch owners who DO want more power.

Except why chase the little money when you can chase the big money? Your criticisms clearly affect a minority of people, so they are not worth investing in.

9 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

The opposition to my stance within this thread seem to constantly chant "you are the minority; you don't matter" it is quite offensive and disrespectful. I am already aware that "I don't matter to Nintendo" since I stated this in my previous post, but how come you insinuate that I also "do not matter.... period"?

Don't take it all personal. It's business and I'm explaining to you how a business works, if you are not a big source of money then you are not important. Sorry, but the majority disagree with you and that's not offensive, it's life. Get used to it. When you are in the minority you often don't get what you want.

9 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

Within the confined space of the Nintendo Switch housing there is absolutely more than enough room to house a GTX 1050 ti, a cheap but capable CPU, an ample (larger) battery, and a more robust cooling system. I am not asking for the impossible here, folks.

Except you are. It doesn't work like that.

You are arguing with people who went to school for this stuff such as myself and @ignore pls . What you are asking for simply isn't going to work not without major changes to the Switch.

9 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

And again, the MSRP is $140 which is more than low enough, especially considering Nintendo receives hefty manufacturer discounts as well as discounts for buying in bulk. Just because the 1050ti is a 45W component doesn't mean it is impossible to accommodate it with a higher capacity battery. The Switch has enough internal volume to house about the same battery as a Macbook 12, for example.

Except you are going to be creating heat risks cramming everything together so tightly also you will need to change the housing to accommodate all that heat which will raise prices, You will need significantly more battery, etc. There are a myriad of reasons as to why that won't work...

9 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

I never Google my arguments. The only times i use Google is to fact check whether or not all the numbers I provide are 100% accurate. Over the past 2 years I have done extensive research of gaming laptops (as I like to be informed before making a purchase). Youtubers like Dave Lee, Mobiletechreview, Linustechtips, Digital Foundry, and websites like Notebookcheck are where the majority of my knowledge is derived from.

Yeah that's neat and all, but you are arguing with people who went to school for this stuff and laptops are not the same monster as a portable gaming device like the Switch, so you're using information that was designed for another platform and applying it here like it will magically work and we, people who are actually informed on the subject are telling you that it won't work.

9 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

Nintendo used to sell their consoles at a loss. They would make up the loss via software sales. They very easily could have done this with the Switch, but they did not. It's great for them, but not-so-great for consumers who care about this sort of thing.

 

Except selling at a market loss should be avoided as much as possible because it's a bigger risk.

9 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

^Check that grass at 11:30. That is a massive difference.

 

Again I stress my point the AVERAGE consumer is not going to notice. Do you honestly think the average person puts games side by side to look for such details? No. You are looking at games from an enthusiast level not realizing that the average consumer is much less demanding.

9 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

All I want is Nintendo games with Ps4 Pro-tier graphics, yo T^T

Can't happen on a portable without a lot of changes, sorry. You are asking for too much.

 

I stress this not to be an ass but to point out to you something you're clearly not getting: your little "research" is not enough. You are arguing with people who are certified to handle these kinds of topics and they are telling you flat out why your ideas simply won't work and you're using some laptop research you did on your free time and youtube videos to say they are wrong when they aren't.

 

[Kai-rouken 146]

4 hours ago, Key Sharkz said:

That is 100% not true. For example I was explaining how putting a GTX 1050Ti in a Switch could not work and you were under the impression that it could.

14 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

@Key Sharkz literally every point you made in your post in which you quoted me like 20 times (with the exception of one that I will address in a moment) is agreeing with points I made in my post.

^LMAO, that was the exception I was referring to, dude xD I literally followed up with it directly after that first paragraph. I'll respond to the rest of your message later though, too tired right now lol.