Talking Point: Would You Want Quality And Performance Options For Nintendo's 'Switch 2' Games?

Yes, as often as possible.
Ideally, performance vs. quality options would be baked into the hardware. But, at minimum, I'd like the option in every game.

None of these matter to me personally. I would just like FUN games. Meaning:

• Not too long, not too short;
• NO Microtransactions
• NO crowded ad filled home page with ''dlc available now''
• Just a fun story, gameplay and great soundtrack.

Nintendo is literally the only modern company I still have respect for, and I do mean ALOT of respect. Sony, Microsoft, Sega, Ubisoft, Disney.. and pretty much 90 procent of all these big wig companies have lost sight of who they were when they started. I pray this does not happen to Nintendo too.

I honestly don't mind the Switch's graphics output... however... my TV isn't all that spectacular. (1080p - 36") So when I'm playing on a friend's gigantic 4k television, the jump from PS5 to Switch can be quite jarring.

60 FPS rules.
Especially for 3rd party kids games.

Nintendo, just keep doing what you are doing. We love you!

Ideally the developer would make sure that the game looks and runs well. But if compromises are necessary, then it's better to let the player choose whether they want more stability or better image quality.

I find answers such as “as long as the game is fun, I don't care” to completely break the purpose of polls.

The topic at hand was whether crisper visuals or higher frame rates are more important, so throwing a sorta cop-out answer like that just makes it so we won’t get the most representative votes to the question at hand. Of course the game being fun is most important, but let’s stick to the main point of the topic.

You guys wrote a headline and then wrote an entire article saying NO to the headline, you could have at least made a little more effort to present both sides. 😂

I don't think Switch hardware will do 4k. Maybe FauxK w/ DSL. Handheld mode won't have a 4k screen so that won't even be an option. This whole 1 sided discussion kind of seems pointless.

Oh, and I hate performance vs quality options anyway, companies tend to come up w/ stupid names, like performance and quality, rather than just saying things 1080 & 60p or 4k & 30p. People can make that choice, we should NOT have to choose between performance and quality. A game is only quality if it can perform, no? 🤷‍♂️

There is literally no reason to NOT provide the option to players, if the visual settings are capable of being trimmed down to provide 60fps then it should be an option. I understand why certain Switch games don't have this since it feels like they're barely eeking out enough to run at a mostly stable 30fps (botw, totk, almost any third party port of a 8th gen console game) but for games that could theoretically reach 60fps just give us the option!!

Monolith Soft might also makw use of that performance option.

Yes absolutely I don't really care about high resolution graphics but high frame rate I value very much

@Altaria_97 "The topic at hand was whether crisper visuals or higher frame rates are more important"

Um, that was not the question at hand, at all. If you are going to comment about other people being wrong you could at least maybe get it right. 🤷‍♂️

The topic at hand could best be expressed as: Since Nintendo is famous for doing it's own thing to do you think they would ever give players options to change settings in a game to suit their personal tastes, and will Switch 2 even have enough power to make those options worth a developers time?

It's not about "what's more important" in the slightest. If you want to read it that way, fine, but don't go critiquing other people then for their own interpretations, which by the way, are probably more accurate than your own. Anyone saying "I just care about game play" is actually answering the question, their answer is "no", they don't want the options.

Consistent framerate is important, but you know what's even more important? FUN GAMEPLAY. I can't stress this enough to all of my friends who claim that FPS and 4K graphics are the most important thing. Excellent game design and fun gameplay are where its at for me. But framedrops can ruin the fun tremendously. So smooth performance is of great importance to ensure that a game plays well.

If it comes close to the steam deck in performance then good but if it falls massively below the steam deck then 👎🏼 as simple as that.

I understand most people won't agree, but I find these "options" terrible. First off, it absolves developers of responsibility for one of the modes not working. Not completely of course, but what would be considered an unplayable game automatically becomes "but yeah, the other mode is decent enough" thing. Secondly, I've been a PC gamer for decades and switched to consoles exclusively because I did not want to choose, tweak, optimize, and then compare results to my friends/co-gamers. Make the game work, and make it work the same for everybody, leveled field. If there are "modes" like resolution, these should be applied automatically based on output/TV, gamer should not have to care about any of this.
(I understand one can choose not to care, but we all know that is not a realistic option.. Apple has made billions removing the choice from otherwise overzealous users)

Doesn't hurt to have but so long as a game's relatively stable I really don't care. Graphics aren't super important to me and I can only even tell the difference between 30 and 60 side-by-side.

I don’t really care as long as the game looks good. Just put graphics/resolution over framerate. As long as it’s stable, consistent, and is 30+ I am good.

I still don’t get why some people would take horrible graphics and resolution for higher framerate. That trade is simply not worth it. Graphics come first, and I believe Nintendo agrees.

Options are kinda silly in my opinion. Other companies can use it if they want to, but Nintendo knows they made their product as it should be. Adding options is basically Nintendo admitting defeat.

It’s literally Nintendo just enjoy the game. As long as it’s not near Pokemon-quality it should be fine.

It should have whenever possible. What is good for me might not be good for you so let the people decide what they prefer.

As long as the framerate is consistent and not a Pokemon-level mess then I don't care if it's 30 or 60fps. The whole conversation is beyond exhausting.

about time switch joins the modern gaming world..

I always thought "quality" vs "performance" modes were just a hack to allow for better-looking marketing. "Performance" is what should be released, but "Quality" lets them claim better visuals without needing to worry about pesky things like gameplay.

60fps priority for me. As long as it plays smoothly, I'm happy to tone down everything else about the graphics.

Just give me the game as Nintendo intends.

And since most of Nintendo's output is 60fps, it's a win all around.

Nintendo's takes such great care with regard to art style, that even at 1080p, it looks great on a 4K TV, so resolution doesn't really matter so much.

I'd say the only thing Nintendo really needs to get on board with is antialiasing.

I am so tired of "Performance" and "Quality" Modes being in games: just pick a performance/visual target and lock to that target.

ASAP and the better the visual the better the game play. Not all games requires 4K/DLSS/RT to be a excellent game take the Mario games they looks just great as they are. So, No not all games require 4K/DLSS/RT/eGPU to have fun gaming. This is so convoluted that it has no real definitions to game is so varied.

No thanks.

Just give me the game as Nintendo intended it.

For PS4 games on my PS5 I always favor Performance mode. For the Switch 2, I would rather have a resolution boost for the bulk of my Switch 1 titles. Games like SWITCHER 3 could really benefit from it.

I love my Steam Deck, but I don't play it nearly as much as Switch. A big reason is because I don't like fiddling with all the performance options and settings. I prefer the game developer to figure out the ideal way to run a game and then just let me experience it without feeling like I'm doing their work for them.

Performance modes are always great to have and it's generally what I choose. That said some games might look better with a visual option, hence why having options is nice.

I never know which to pick on my PS5 games. Whatever the cursor is on by default, typically. I don't know. I wouldn't say I don't care, but I could.
Still, options are nice for people who like them. Have at em.

As long as they keep on their current course as far as 1st party titles I’m gonna stay a really big Nintendo fan. Pikmin and Splatoon are my only meh Nintendo franchises and Xenoblade is my rpg over fire emblem. I’m a huge fan of everything else. And if they keep the current switch quality it will be all gravy.

@Maubari I completely agree with this and I would add that I don’t love the idea of normalizing performance vs graphics mode because I think it lets developers off the hook. I was disheartened when I saw that Eiyuden Chronicles was getting these options because I thought, “this means they’re giving up”. Yeah maybe in a theoretical perfect where all developers were doing the best they could this would be a purely beneficial option but in the real world this will be another way for developers to avoid really finishing and polishing their games and then they’ll try to pass this off as a “feature” they’re offering us.

Yeah for sure, I didn't even want to get a switch 2 if I can't at least play every game at 60fps.

I really don't want to tweak anything, I don't like thinking about it while I'm playing. Like if I run into a performance issue I just think that's how it is! If I had options I think I'd be upset everytime I ran into a performance issue and have to go in and fix it.

Please keep it simple for the novis, not hardcore crowd.

What İ want from Nintendo Switch 2 is more powerful and much better visuals like PlayStation 5 and the Xbox Series X/S.

Yess 60FPS is very important to but İ will go for more better visuals.

Games from PlayStation 5 and the Xbox Series X/S looks so beautiful and modern with beautiful visuals. İ like that more.

I am really of two minds here. First, let the gamer select which way they prefer. Some times for some people depending on the game, prefer to enjoy the visuals vs frame rate. I expect it's rare, especially as most games have action and reaction time (low input lag) are preferred, but there are some games, or at least some spots in games where you just want to appreciate the visuals.

Buuuuut, there's also a lot to be said to enjoy the game the way the game maker intended. A lot of work goes into bringing a vision to life. This is a little philosophical I guess, but it's not nothing either.

Its a hybrid system. Gotta manage expectations. Youre not getting performance and quality options unless its a previous gen port (i.e 360/PS3 or Switch 1 level ) bearing in mind the raw power will be around PS4 level.

For current gen games its just not a realistic expectation to have. Its a possibility on 1st party titles designed from the outset to have these modes in mind, but doing so would mean the simulation and visuals couldnt be too demanding in either mode so the vision could be compromised for the sake of their inclusion.

I have 2 very good current Switch examples in mind :

GRID Autosport had the option, and I preferred playing at 60 with visual cutbacks.

Darksiders: Warmastered Edition also had a 60FPS option with cut back resolution. I much preferred the higher refresh rate there too.

I want shorter games with worse graphics made by people who live in states with sane cost of living, and I'm not kidding

I have zero expectations that Nintendo Switch 2 will have enough power to offer two options. If it's running good enough and the game is fun, I'm happy.

Give me good games that capture my imagination. The lineup will sell the console for me, just like Zelda BOTW did with the Switch.

Absolutely! Provided they don’t sacrifice Backwards Compatibility for it

They should always provide options to the consumer, that way everyone is happy with their preferences.

I lean more towards 60FPS when available these days, but 30FPS isn’t bad and I can happily play a title this way since I’ve spent most of my gaming life playing games at that FPS, especially if it’s the only option.

But, there’s something about a stable 60FPS frame-rate that not only makes a game feel nicer to play - but the smoothness and fluidity helps a title to visually appeal more in a rather bizarre way.

In my experience when testing out both options on the PS4/5 and a select few titles on Switch you lose waaaay too much and gain very little for the graphics preference. The thing is, it’s not like the game turns into a blurry mess when graphics options aren’t selected either, if anything games become much clearer, cleaner and less cluttered to navigate. Arguably they often actually look better without the additional visual feast on top.

Having played The Thousand Year Door Remake for a substantial amount of time has led to me conclude that Nintendo made the wrong choice here to prioritise the sweet visuals (and, they are utterly gorgeous). But, for me this comes at the expense of a slightly blurred FPS shimmering, further drops when the screen is cluttered with hundreds of enemies, and timing is much more tricky to nail down on battles. These are all things I was hoping wouldn’t be impacted (and were impacted) - and this came at the expense of things like glossy mirrored set pieces - a very neat effect but an unnecessary & distracting one all the same. It’s a shame overall, but the game is still completely playable / enjoyable, just not a definitive as it could have been now I can properly compare.

Of course, the ideal solution to the debate would be 60FPS and 4K graphics. But what amount of console games truly offer this? Even on PS5 / Series X?

I can't imagine Nintendo offering these options given that they really don't prioritize hardware specs at all. They'd opt for the framerate every time.

Anyone expecting Switch 2 to be a technical behemoth is going to be sorely disappointed.

This kind of option tells me that the developers aren't confident enough in what they have created to present it in a single finished form.

I don't really know honestly. I guess both options are good. But this is something I don't really think about all the time, too deep, or anything.

Framerate for me will always be superior. What use is "better graphics" if it's all choppy and ghosty.

I literally couldn't care less how many FPS my games are, as long as they aren't dropping and rising repeatedly. That gets annoying.

I doubt most of their studios would even consider it. Giving you that option means compromising one aspect for the benefit of the other, and their best teams tend to polish both until they're completely satisfied, while the worse ones seemingly struggle to hit a decent standard on either. Really, Switch games already have something similar between their portable/docked modes, but as far as I know, none of them let you pick between those settings freely.

I would love 60fps options.

Personally, it’s a big deal to me. I may be in the minority, but that’s my preference. I like smooth frames.

My Switch is just for first party Nintendo games. Most third parties I play elsewhere because of performance.

Personally, no. I want games to be optimized for the system they are on. Nintendo doesn’t make multiplats so imo whatever they make should be the best that they can as governed by the limits of the system they are working with. Those limitations often inspire Nintendo to use cool artstyles.

Otherwise I feel devs should limit their ambitions and focus on getting a game that runs well out of the box instead of two versions. I would like Nintendo to go back to helping their closest partners though. Good Feel for instance, has been having framerate issues (where there is actual slow down) since the wiiu. Nintendo should help them better understand the dev kit.

I don't care, as long as we finally get Halo.

No.

They should focus on new games.

If these old games can run the same way the already are, it is ok for me.

@JohnnyMind
yeah as mentioned regarding the switch 2 im hoping that BC will be similar to playing 3ds games on a "new 3ds" in which certain games with performance issues ran a lot smoother.

would be cool to see some games get an upgrade patch similar to what happened with some 360 games on xbox one (sonic unleashed being a big example, the performance patch it got was a massive improvement when you gotta go fast)

as for choice i agree that its definitely nice when feasible and really just hope that each option is stable.

on the subject of "options" though one thing i do hope is standard is control options on a game-by-game level. let players choose HOW they control a game, at the very least its a comfort option, at the very most its a big part of accessibility.

I just want them to be class and beautiful

I don't care about framerate as long as it's mostly stable and the graphics as long as they look decent.

Yes yes yes yes yes! Always yes when it comes to giving the player options regarding performance.

We're already at the plateau for realism in gaming graphics and Nintendo and most japanese games in general are VERY stylized as is, rendering the concern of graphics moot outside of visual incompetence.

So yeah, if I get an action game, or a "thinking game" with action elements, I'm of course gonna make 60FPS a mandate. Turn based games that are as classic as they come don't need it as much, but they still look better when you can see every nuance of the animations at higher frame rates.

I'd prefer to have the option to change the experience so I can find my own personal preference, but it's not necessary. I'm a Nintendo fan, so it's been a long time since I've been picky over my graphics.

As I always say... give me the choice instead of forcing me to play a certain way. Yes I want a Perf vs Quality mode on every game.
The poll results proves this is needed

Switch 2 in general? Of course!
Nintendo's games in particular? No. They would never do it anyway, and if I had a magic wand I wouldn't want them to change a thing about their own games.
A lot has been said about performance on the Switch, but you have to admit that the one company which gets that right every time is Nintendo. The article calls out TOTK but that is really reaching. It may not be 60fps but it's an utterly flawless experience technically.
Nintendo's attitude is that if you can't achieve a good balance of unimpeachable performance and best-possible visuals on a single locked-down hardware target, you're not trying hard enough. That's an approach that I can only applaud, and wish that competitors took as much pride in. If you're giving us two options, you're admitting that both of them are flawed.

Don't we already get this on Switch? GRID has a performance and visual mode.

Isn’t having performance and quality options against the point of owning a console? Everybody runs the same hardware so developers can optimize for performance and graphics on one set of specs, unlike PC gaming where every player has different specs, which is why every PC game has those options. Options to mess with performance on a console isn’t a bad thing, but it’s just unnecessary if the developer knows everyone is running their game on the same hardware.

more options the better, but i feel 1st party games can get away with doing this less? since their games are made for the hardware specifically, chances are theyre running the best they can already

but given the 30fps ttyd controversy, im sure some people would appreciate it. im more conscious toggling quality options on pc games since you gotta make it fit your hardware

its weird, nintendo is kinda like the iphone of consoles. they have less options to tinker with cause they already cater the experience in a way thats easy to understand. more options probably wouldnt upset people cause they wouldnt be touching it in the first place

Nah, i'm pretty much right there with you. The very fact that there are options at all just smacks of imperfect optimisation. Imagine if you were playing Metal Gear Solid on PS1, and you could only have music OR voice acting, but you couldn't have both?

@rjejr Title of the poll is “Given the choice between crisper visuals or a higher frame rate, which is more important to you?” Seems pretty direct to me based on what I said.

I also didn’t ever say anyone was wrong, just that the poll seemed a bit pointless due to the added option. You’re titled to your own opinion, but don’t put words that people didn’t say in their mouths and act like you’re proving them wrong.

Edit: I see now you’re referring to the article as a whole. I was only referring to the poll which only specifies two options.

I think this will be the next industry trend that Nintendo won’t quite “get” for a bit. That said, Nintendo tends to inherently optimise their games as well as they can for their hardware.

As much as, in general, more choices and options are always welcome, in this particular case I don't want more options and settings, I just want to start the game and play.

Having this defaulted in the system settings or in each of the game settings, why not. Now please don't ask me to create an account, read a bunch of user agreements and policies, or choose between two different ways to show me the game, I bought it, it's mine, I just want to play now 😄

@Maubari You have A LOT of respect for Nintendo??? I mean I get it on a Nintendo site but this is the company that's openly against fanmade content, they refuse to make older games accessible, and they continue to release hardware that is known to fail.

I always thought these options were stupid because they’re offering the player an option to make animation in their animated medium look worse, in exchange for slightly more resolution. Terrible trade off, and to make matters worse some games have the “”quality”” mode as the default!!

Very un-Nintendo idea, very contrary to the ethos of craftsmanship, and it sure doesn’t speak well of their game if the developer doesn’t care what speed you experience their work at. Imagine a film director or editor not caring if every 2nd frame of their movie could be missing.

@IceClimbersMain 7 year old Switch running fine and dandy. 2014 8GB white Wii U which is fine too. 20+ year old Gamecube running like a dream with zero issues…got a fully functioning SNES as well somewhere.

@rjejr
Until recently, I mostly agree with you on this. However, sometimes I like to enjoy the scenery more.

I quite enjoyed the ability while playing through SW Jedi Survivor and it played really well on PS5 (I never felt the pain PC players experienced).

When I was wandering around an environment and defeating lesser enemies I liked the quality at max, but during the difficult battles, I'd switch it to performance for the higher frame rate and response time. Especially useful for the higher difficulty settings.

Still, for Switch 2 exclusives, I probably still agree. Optimize for the hardware you are targeting and just let me play...

For a while some games will release on both the Switch and Switch 2, so I guess there will be a low-quality or low-performance option (or both) for everyone that buys the Switch version?

So long the game is good It doesn’t matter to me

Gameplay always first.
60fps preferred for me overall.
I would rather have 1080p at 60fps
Than 1440p or 1800p at 30fps.

Though it all depends on level of detail and texture resolution etc.
I mean the current Switch could run Asteroids at 4K 60fps though graphics wise it’s extremely basic.

@IceClimbersMain

And yet they keep making games on their own pace, don't include ludicrous ads into the starting screens of their games and (most of the time) ask for fair prices of their games. Then there's the consistent quality of said games too.
Sure, they may not be perfect and their anti-fan attitude has got to stop, but compared to the likes of modern Sony and Microsoft.. they really are the best and most trustworthy.

Also, what hardware continues to fail?? I literally do not understand. If you're talking about the Joy Cons, well.. ***** happens to everyone everyday. In seven years and with three Switch consoles I have NOT seen a single JC fail so far. Not even a drift. Makes me believe people blow this up just to make Nintendo seem bad.
Meanwhile, I've lost two Playstation controllers and THREE xbox controllers in the last five years; and I'm considered one of the most careful people in my group.. So if you have any complains about ''failing'' hardware, please take it to the Playstation or Xbox site, where such criticism is deserved. Not here. I apologize if I come off as a bit of a fanboy, but I won't be tolerating unneccesary slander. You're of course welcome to your own opinion - and Nintendo does need to ease up a bit on their fans a bit - but just spouting nonsense about ''faulty'' hardware is just plain ridiculous. If you disagree, well.. I guess everyone has their ''opinions'' these days.

The only "quality" IS performance. The other one is a game developer's psychosis, believing some graphics things matter more than performance.

So for Rocket League, they have this on switch, and when playing handheld I didn't notice much of a difference, but when I made the graphics "Prettier" when docked, it looked like an entirely different game. It was so beautiful to me.

I agree with others that I actually think it should be BOTH on the new switch. It should be powerful enough to make Rocket League look pretty AND play at 60fps

Assuming we are getting a 'Switch 2' I just want it capable of playing more games.

It needs to play the big games natively (no cloud business) and while I'd love 60fps I totally understand if that is sacrificed for portable play.

With all that said, who knows what Nintendo will pull out the hat for the next console. Could be anything.

I just don't want blurry visuals anymore, and want native resolution games over FPS everyday of the week.

I'm really shocked and disappointed that so many people prioritise FPS over visuals. If a game looks terrible, why would I care if it's 6fps? I'd go and play something that doesn't look like a dogs bottom.

Blurry sub-resolution games are the real tragedy of modern gaming – not stable 30fps.

F that crap. I'l play it as they intend, don't put on me the responsability of how the game should be played.

Most of nintendo own games on switch runs at 60 fps, with some exception like zelda botw and totk, even splatoon run 60 fps on its shooter stage, so I rather play the games as nintendo intended.

We just need more options in general. Button mapping and audio control are always glorious.

For example, Splatoon. I love Splatoon and it has great music. However, after thousands of hours playing all three Splatoon games, the music can GO. I've heard every track innumerable times and having the option to turn the music off to focus on the game's vital combat sound cues, or put on different music, would enrich the gameplay SO much.

People forget PC ports have those options because they can't predict what kind of build you'll have.
I play a lot on PS5, and outside of a handful of games (mostly first party, crossgen titles), performance options are there to hide how poorly optimized a game is. Like Jedi Survivor. "It is 4K!" (At an unstable 30fps) "It is 120fps!" (At 1080p).

I will always prefer we get the options rather than being forced to play a particular way, and I will more often choose a smoother consistent framerate over super flashy visuals.

More options in general are better, and as others have said, not just for performance, but for controls and music and difficulty.

No, I don't want annoying options like this. I would just be switching between the modes constantly. We didn't need it before, we don't need it now.

As for the whole 60 fps 4k resolution thing, it's a collective psychosis among gamers with OCDs. The only games that are better running at 60 fps are racers and FPS games, and such Nintendo games already achieve that.

Cinematic adventure games actually look better running at 30 fps. Same goes for movies since directors make them run at 26 fps intentionally.

It's bizarre how many people here are opposed or even angry at the idea of graphics options. Yes, options are good. If I want to reduce the quality of the shadows to get a faster frame rate, let me do that.

@WiltonRoots My Wii U got the nand failure long before anyone else, wouldn't play certain courses in MK8 and other games wouldn't even boot. My copy of Super Mario Maker 2 has corrupted data and completely stopped working on any Switch I've tested it on even though the contacts look good and I took care of it. I've had two Joycon with drift and another one with a faulty ribbon cable placement meaning it was slowly tearing over time unbeknownst to me, and finally broke after the warranty expired.

Don't get me wrong when I say I love Nintendo, I also have a Gamecube and all that good stuff but I've never had a game or system or even a controller fail from any other company. Nintendo's got it all set in the games, I mean Sony can barely convince people to buy a PS5. But when it comes to the hardware and the legal side of things, the company definitely struggles.

@Maubari You can read my other comment just above but I've personally had a Wii U pretty much brick, a Switch cartridge die after a few months, and multiple Joycon with drift, and one even had a problem I've never seen before; which means it's not a problem with the parts, it was an error in production (which I personally think is worse). So it's not an "opinion" it's over $500 worth of hardware from the past decade just failing. Not broken due to a drop, battery leak, whatever. Hardware failure. Never had a problem with an Xbox or Playstation controller, game, or system and to be honest, those controllers get tossed around in my box. My Joycon stay on the switch or even in their own case for Pete's sake and they still break.

I wish console games were console games again, NOT PC games. The only options should be the difficulty and invert Y/X for camera preferences.

Ideally I would want the option to choose between 30fps and 60fps for almost every game. However, I understand and accept the Nintendo ecosystem, so at the very least, I want the Switch 2 to prioritize clean resolution and stable frame rates, regardless of where each game lands.

Why some over here don't want to be able to get these options on Switch 2, is mind boggling. Why the hell wouldn't you watch to be able to run all games in 60fps???

We don't even know the specs of the system. Now if there's an option to play Switch 1 games with enhanced performance on the Switch 2, then that's another story.

@KayFiOS was going to say the exact same thing. I so hope we get some Switch 1 games patched to unlocked Switch 2 power assuming b/c compatibility.

Please dont make Nintendo 2 just another PC...

I would like those for Switch 1 games.

More options = longer development time and contributes to rising prices in games.

If it means that people will FINALLY shut up about their 60 FPS garbage then sure give them all the options in the world!
Sorry if I sound mean but I’m just so sick and tired hearing people complain about games being 30 FPS even if it’s locked in with no dips. (Seriously there’s people out that actually prefer games having an unstable frame rate if it’s 60 FPS)

At least 1080p & 60 fps, I will be happy.

All I want is for gaming corporations to stop attacking gaming. So I want Super Switch to be an open system where I can buy stuff from Nintendo's eshop, but I can also install whatever other games I like. Just like I can do on my laptop and Steam Deck. I'm so sick of hearing about Nintendo and Sony attacking gaming that I won't give another dime to them until they change their behavior.

Sounds like a computer game option.

I don't care about resolution or 60 fps, I just want a stable frame rate.

@aaronsullivan If this were a PushSquare poll I'd go w/ having the options, you don't need to push 4k or even Faux4 if you are gaming on a 1080p tv, so let me have the 60fps. But on Switch 2, just make it work at 1080p 60fps, whatever it takes, don't even bother to mess around w/ 1440, nobody's tv does 1440.

@rjejr If everything just ran at 60fps, then this whole topic wouldn't matter to... at least 84% of us, according to the poll! And if everything was 1080p60 specifically, then that'd probably go up to 99%.

We never hear people complaining about Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, because it looks great and runs smoothly. What more could you want?

It depends on the hardware.

As long as framerate is stable, I cant tell the difference between 30 and 60 so I always take quality.

If the hardware can only support one way though, Id just prefer nintendo to optimize one path. They make games that play well, why change that.

The graphics kind of take a backseat when it comes to a good game. Yes,I want it to work well but the gameplay to me is more important. Also NO DLC/microtransactions and maybe a return to 2d graphics.

I don’t see this for many games Nintendo does themselves. They like accessibility and not having to worry about digging into options.

I’m very much looking forward to seeing what the new Switch 2 is capable off. I’d like it to be able to run games like Dead Island 2 natively, I mean the current model can run Dying Light. I think it’ll be more powerful then proper think especially if it has a DLSS trick up its sleeve.
I think graphics settings are ok, depends on the game though but a smooth 60FPS would be very much appreciated.

Yes would love this! Especially considering the Switch 2 will probably have a 90-120hz screen since we are in 2024 and the console has to last awhile. For games that are easier to run or benefit more from it the option to run on performance would be amazing!

Say you have a 120hz TV and Splatoon 4 comes around. I would absolutely play that at a lower resolution for the more responsive/fun experience!

That said I disagree with the people who said 60fps is always better. I am fine with 30fps too for some games if it makes sense. (This is coming from someone that's a strong advocate of 240hz-480hz QD-OLED/W-OLED displays. Not everyone needs or can see that speed. Even if it is incredible for PC games like Overwatch and will be game changing for VR one day. In my opinion high motion clarity OLED 480fps/hz is around the point screens stop looking like screens and start looking like windows in real life.)

I'm gonna say yes, but not for why you would expect. I think it would be good to optimise for gameplay purposes but I think it would be also great to be able to drop fidelity AND performance to increase battery life for when you really need it.

If a game can't be made with quality AND performance at the same time perhaps they need to make a different game or make it for a different system?

@Maubari Great comment, I so agree with all that you say and also share the same love for Nintendo.

I will pray with you...

@dew12333 Thanks! It really is how I feel about the current situation with pretty much every piece of media. Movies, songs and games of course just don't feel as original or good as they did, say, 10 years ago. With Nintendo being the only singular great one being left.. for now. But who knows? Sony and Microsoft might bounce back from all this

@120frames-please Really! do you think sony and nintendo attack the gaming industry. I see the PC as the one attacking gaming, trying to move in and take a piece of the pie.

What makes you feel that way?

You can't mandate performance/quality mode options if developers don't want to or are unable to do so.

I would prefer not to have the option.
I would much rather developers make the game the best they can, with the best performance and the best graphical quality they can get without the performance dropping off.

I hate being given the option because it just leaves me feeling I am missing out. If I play in performance mode I know that the game could look better but if I play in quality mode I know that the game could run better and more smoothly, so it is the worst of both worlds!
Far better in my opinion to not have the option and let the devs do the best they can with the hardware.

@Maubari I don't see anyway back for sony or microsoft, corporations as so self serving nowadays. They merely paint a picture of care and concern for their customers in order to keep taking their money.

I do have a little concern with Nintendo as I feel the overall build quality with regard to switch and their own brand peripherols has been shaky this generation. I have had one issue with a joycon drfiting, one procontroller just stopped working, and also my day one switch console just got clunky and didn't run games properly. Previously I bought a gamecube, Wii, WiiU, Gameboy, 3DS, GBA, all on day one and never had the need to replace any of them.
I am hoping they going to address this for the next console.

A quality and performance toggle would've been good for Paper Mario the Thousand Year Door. I think a lot of players would've been okay disabling some of the higher visuals to get to 60 fps. This could really benefit people who played the original on Gamecube and don't want to lose muscle memory due to the frame rate change. Whereas more new players and those who love the high visual style of Orgami King (like me) can keep that and play at 30.

@WheresWaveRace That would be great!

I don't really like needing to have the option, but since game companies are going to ignore fps otherwise, I like having the choice. Graphics are cool and all, but I just want a steady 60fps.

@smoreon " We never hear people complaining about Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, because it looks great and runs smoothly. What more could you want? "

Mario Kart 9? 😂

Sorry, I couldn't resist, I've been waiting for like a decade now since I bought it day 1 on Wii U.

@dew12333 Nintendo attacks gaming and/or gamers almost as a weekly activity. Either taking down Youtuber's videos, attacking sites that host 40 year old games, spewing lies about "unethical" and "unlawful" actions, or in some other way they make known their extreme displeasure about stuff. I love their games, but like a youtuber I watch, I hate the corporation. Nerrel has some great youtube videos eloquently explaining the poor decisions Nintendo makes. Nerrel also has helped out with making games like Majora's Mask more beautiful and fun than ever before.
Also, this stuff is not of concern to most gamers. I get that, and hope people just enjoy gaming!

@rjejr Ah, you got me!

I can't blame you, though. I also got the original MK8, and it's a little tiring to see that same game being milked for so long.

And I'm well acquainted in general with the pain of waiting for sequels! F-Zero GX (released 21 years ago) is one of my all-time favourites, and I've also made the unfortunate decision to play and become fond of Beyond Good and Evil (also 21 years), Metroid Prime (17 years since the last), Legacy of Kain (21 years), Banjo-Kazooie (16- er, I mean, 24 years), Shenmue (enough said), and many others!

Nah, just give us the typical base experience, but the switch games can have an update to better framerates and quality.

@smoreon Some of those games weren't series though. BG&E is just 1 game. Nintendo put out a new Mario Kart game every few years for 20 years. 8 in total. Then they just stopped and milked 8 for a decade.

1992 Super Mario Kart SNES
1996 Mario Kart 64 Nintendo 64
2001 Mario Kart: Super Circuit Game Boy Advance
2003 Mario Kart: Double Dash!! Nintendo GameCube
2005 Mario Kart DS Nintendo DS
2008 Mario Kart Wii Wii
2011 Mario Kart 7 Nintendo 3DS
2014 Mario Kart 8

In fairness to them some were handheld and some console but since Switch is both it still should have gotten a new game by now. Porting 8 was a no brainer, but MK9 should have released by 2020 or 2021. Next year will be 11 years, if we don't just get MK8 Deluxe Complete instead. Which I reluctantly would buy at this point. 😝

Metroid has had a couple of 2D games, and that talking crying 1 which I owned but never played, Other M, and the soccer game Federation Force, since 3. Maybe you're better off if Nintendo never makes another Metroid game. 😂 Showing that 4 logo was obviously a huge and stupid mistake. I waited a decade for Pikmin 4, they screwed the pooch on that 1 as well but at least it finally released and was good.

F-Zero is just some torturous experiment Nintendo is doing to it's fanbase. I'm not sure why they are doing you all like that. 🤷‍♂️

@rjejr

• I'd have been fine with BG&E being one and done, as that's a great way to encapsulate a great experience, finish strong, and not sully its reputation later... if only it hadn't ended on a cliffhanger!
• Yeah, I've thought about the Mario Kart release timings, among other franchises- we were really spoiled back in the day, when you think about how rapidly we would get quality sequels (also Zelda: 1998, 2000, 2002, 2006, not even counting the handhelds)! And that's a great point about Switch being both systems in one... wasn't one of the upsides supposed to be that we'd get more games, since devs could focus on one system? Somehow, we're getting fewer than the console line or the handheld line used to!
• I don't trust Nintendo EAD or Team Ninja to do 3D Metroid, but I do trust Retro. I think?
• Thanks for the sympathies regarding F-Zero. 😂

@smoreon " wasn't one of the upsides supposed to be that we'd get more games, since devs could focus on one system? Somehow, we're getting fewer than the console line or the handheld line used to! "

The Switch is both full of games but lacking new games at the same time. Though it isn't just a Nintendo thing. Sony's State of Play had almost nothing new, just Astrobot, and the 2 hour Summer Gamefest had a 16 bit Power Rangers game and a Lego game. 🤷‍♂️

For historical comparison, PS 1 had FF7, FF8 and FF9 in three consecutive years, 1997, 1998, and 1999. Now it's taking them 6 years to re-release just 1 of those, FF7. 😂

I don't need a new game in any series every year, or even 2 years, but I would probably like a new 3D Zelda or Mario every 3 or 4 years. At the rate it's going soon the entire gaming industry will just be free-to-start live service stuff. And I can't even count on indies to save us, I've been waiting on "The Plucky Squire", announced in June 2022 for a 2023 release, for awhile now and it's gone silent.

Personally, I'm just getting old, and whether it's games, movies or TV shows I'm kind of sick of the whole "roadmap for the next 3 years" thing. Nothing should ever be announced more than a year out, I never should have to ask 'Which June is it releasing, '24, '25 or '26?" If isn't coming out in the next 12 months I don't want to know it exists, b/c it doesn't. Like Beyond Good & Evil 2.

@rjejr
Games take 4-6 years to make nowadays and Nintendo only has one active platform rather than two, you'll never see the same rate of game output as in the past ever again because of this increase in development times and lack of redundancy (this goes for the entire industry, not just Nintendo).

I have epilepsy, I can't play 60FPS without getting horrible motion sickness, so games that allow me the option of upping the flare for a locked 30FPS experience are a Godsend, they really are, and I can't think of a reason why a voluntary option you can simply ignore if you want is such a sticking point. If you wouldn't use it, it wasn't made for you, but someone else, possibly someone you know in person or in real life, is having a blast because those options allow them to.

They should be as common as accessibility options and broad enough to suit every kind of player, which might sound like a lot, but believe me it isn't. PC gamers can already cap the framerate of almost every game they play through their graphics card, this should be standard across all home consoles.

@120frames-please I tend to see what your referring to as 'gamers attacking Nintendo'.
But I am well aware of both sides of this, so I refer to your last paragraph which I couldn't agree with more. Different opinions, so what!, let's us enjoy it the way that we want too.

@dew12333 Yeah, I guess I'd just say that gamers probably felt attacked by Nintendo, then responded. De-escalation is usually tricky. Hope it happens soon!

@dew12333 Related to this topic I just watched MVG's video about Nintendo erasing their history. It's an excellent video from a Switch dev. I completely agree with him that "Nintendo can't be trusted"

@westman98 " (this goes for the entire industry, not just Nintendo) "

That is sadly true. But also:

"Games take 4-6 years to make nowadays "

It's been 10 years since the last new Mario Kart and almost 6 years since the last 3D Mario, so apparently new games take a lot longer than that even. Unless it's Splatoon, then it's a new game every 2-5 years like you said.

@rjejr
It's not like Mario Kart went on complete hiatus after 8 or 8 Deluxe, Tour released in 2019 followed by the Booster Course Pass in 2022. Once it became clear that 8 Deluxe was going to sell as much (or in this case, a lot more) than any previous new Mario Kart title, releasing Mario Kart 9 on Switch became completely redundant, it'll surely be a Switch 2 title instead.

The same applies to 3D Mario, Bowser's Fury launched in early 2021 and the next entry is surely a Switch 2 release.

@westman98 While all of that is true, so were my points, 10 years and 6 years. And Bowser's Fury, which I played w/ my wife, was barely 6 hours long. OK for DLC, but I wouldn't call it a new "game", and to their credit neither did Nintendo, it released as part of a port.

In contrast, Super Mario Galaxy released in November 2007, the full game sequel Super Mario Galaxy 2 released in May 2010, only 2 1/2 years later, on the same Gamecube console.