gaming Switch third party support.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Kai-rouken said:

^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.

Except I'm not agreeing with you left and right. Show me how I am.

[Kai-rouken 146]

Just now, Key Sharkz said:

Except I'm not agreeing with you left and right. Show me how I am.

All I can say is reread the initial post I wrote. You were constantly making points that I would cover either later in the same post, or that I was directly implying. There is way too much stuff for me to list here as it was literally like 90% of the things you quoted lol. Two good examples off the top of my head are your/my assertion that Nintendo fans are satisfied with the Switch and that Nintendo doesn't care about the minority.

Anyway, I'll be back here later to cover your other post, and @ignore pls's too. Right now my brain is too cognitively impaired due to lack of adequate sleep lol.

[long gone 8,929]

2 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

All I can say is reread the initial post I wrote. You were constantly making points that I would cover either later in the same post, or that I was directly implying. There is way too much stuff for me to list here as it was literally like 90% of the things you quoted lol. Two good examples off the top of my head are your/my assertion that Nintendo fans are satisfied with the Switch and that Nintendo doesn't care about the minority.

Anyway, I'll be back here later to cover your other post, and @ignore pls's too. Right now my brain is too cognitively impaired due to lack of adequate sleep lol.

The Switch wouldn't be selling as well as it is if people weren't satisfied with it.

[Kai-rouken 146]

51 minutes ago, ignore pls said:

The Switch wouldn't be selling as well as it is if people weren't satisfied with it.

^This is precisely what I've been saying since my very first post within this thread. Why do you and @Key Sharkz act as if I am not in agreement with you on this point? I cannot comprehend how this fact seems to elude the both of you. I have been directly stating and/or implying this almost 10 times so far (including the post you just responded to @ignore pls) You want proof and aren't willing to go back two pages to fact check my posts? Fine, let me go quote every post in which I have mentioned this thus far, please refer to the emboldened, underlined text for your convenience:

 

 

On 6/9/2018 at 5:45 PM, Kai-rouken said:

Wii U had better third party support in all honesty.  I'm sure the Switch will pick up steam in the next few years though, even if the ports need to look severely downgraded to accommodate the extremely anemic hardware. At the end of the day, third party developers want to know their games have a good chance at selling to a large consumer base, which the Wii U sadly lacked. Switch has already outsold the Wii U's lifetime sales one year after it released, so I see no reason third parties will hold out for much longer.

^IMPLICATION

On 6/9/2018 at 8:23 PM, Kai-rouken said:

You guys realize that the Wii U had plenty of Indie games too right? 

The Switch is an abomination as far as I am concerned. A true insult to the long time supporter of Nintendo products. Admittedly, it's a pretty cool handheld, but as a console, the thing just fails in all aspects. If ONLY Nintendo decided to market it exclusively as "an HD gaming handheld you can hook up to your tv; the successor to the 3ds line", then I wouldn't be so quick to hate. But the fact that they went for this "hybrid" bullshit pretty much means all my hopes for a PROPER competent Nintendo gaming console (which can compete hardware-wise with the CURRENT gen of consoles) is now thrown our the window...

I am honestly very jealous of gamers who cherish Sony and Microsoft intellectual properties. Horizon Zero Dawn, Uncharted 4, Detroit: Become Human, Forza Horizon 3, Quantum Break... <-- THAT is how I wish all my precious Nintendo franchises looked. Imagine a Legend of Zelda game with the gameplay of Breath of the Wild but the graphical quality of Horizon Zero Dawn. Or a Mario game with the lush vibrant detailed environments of Uncharted 4. I'm not saying the games need to have the same art style as those games or the same world design, but the actual polygon count, environmental complexity, level of detail, texture resolution, ambient occlusion, etc, etc. Mario Odyssey and BotW look like super fun games, but WHY must they look like they came out over a decade ago? These games would look at home on an Xbox 360... It's 2018 people! like wtf!?

"Graphics aren't everything" <--- Yeah, I know! That's why I'm so upset here. If I only cared about graphics, I could just go and play all those games I mentioned and be satisfied. The problem is that I like Nintendo games above all else, (most) Sony/ Microsoft games just don't do it for me from a gameplay perspective. Zelda, Mario, Pokemon, Mother, F-Zero, Mario Kart, Pikmin, Fire Emblem, Kirby, DKC, Metroid, Yoshi's Island <-- these are the type of games I enjoy. But it seems as a long time Nintendo fan who greatly values excellent gameplay AND superb graphics, I am just not allowed to "have my cake and eat it too" >.< Literally every other modern Nintendo gamer I have met is completely dismissive to the Wii, Wii U, Switch, and 3ds' lackluster graphics. It is obscenely frustrating to say the least, but judging by past experience, I imagine this post will also fall upon deaf ears, so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

^DIRECT STATEMENT

On 6/9/2018 at 9:08 PM, 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. Being cartoony doesn't mean needing to sacrifice on cutting-edge graphical technologies. Just look at the amazingly cartoony, yet still technologically groundbreaking Ps4 Ratchet & Clank Reboot, or Xbone Sea of Thieves for example. Those games certainly ain't photorealistic, BUT they look utterly beautiful from both tech and art perspectives. That is the same treatment I wish Nintendo would implement in their main IPs. But this is sadly just not possible on such weak hardware as the Switch. 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. 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. 

^DIRECT STATEMENT

On 6/10/2018 at 1:51 PM, 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? 

 

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.

 

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

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.

^IMPLICATION

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. 

 

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:

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

^DIRECT STATEMENT

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

18 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. 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.

^DIRECT STATEMENT(s)

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"?

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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

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

 

^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.

^IMPLICATION

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.

 

^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

 

^ 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.

^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

3 hours ago, Kai-rouken said:

All I can say is reread the initial post I wrote. You were constantly making points that I would cover either later in the same post, or that I was directly implying. There is way too much stuff for me to list here as it was literally like 90% of the things you quoted lol. Two good examples off the top of my head are your/my assertion that Nintendo fans are satisfied with the Switch and that Nintendo doesn't care about the minority.

^DIRECT STATEMENT

Anyway, I'll be back here later to cover your other post, and @ignore pls's too. Right now my brain is too cognitively impaired due to lack of adequate sleep lol.

 

I really, really hope you guys are attempting to troll atm, because if you aren't your utter lack of reading comprehension is disconcerting to say the least >.>

My issue isn't admitting the Switch is financially successful, nor me admitting I'm in the minority of people who are not satisfied with what it's offering. My issue is Nintendo fanboys acting like company-to-consumer integrity is not important. I'm very sorry, but "financially successful" and "fans being satisfied" does not equate to "being a good product". Just look at the Twilight book series/ movie series by Stephenie Meyer, for instance.

Edited June 11, 2018 by Kai-rouken