Topic: Does anyone else feel like this is more "Switch U" than Switch 2?

@BonzoBanana Would be a very stupid move (marketing wise) to skimp on optimisation and deliver an "unacceptable quality" game, because they also have Duskbloods as an exclusive title for Switch 2 in the works slated for next year. Let's wait for the game to be released before jumping to conclusions.

@jfp

It's a curious situation when a publisher allows gaming journalists to play the game in this state. Maybe it will be fixed before launch or maybe a patch will come much later with improved frame rates but it is still a strong possibility that this is near enough final code and what we are getting. The docked experience is good enough. It's launching in 2025 so not many months left unless of course the publisher says not good enough and delays it until 2026. They will miss the Christmas period though which is more important to Nintendo sales compared to other consoles because of the lower age of ownership of Nintendo consoles generally. I can see some people happy to play it docked and then play it portably when a patch comes later.

I think Nintendo forgets they did buy Shiver Entertainment and could send them in as a third party support team.

I wish they'll use this to help with Arkham Knight I wanted to buy that series so much but 24 bucks (which is already 3x pricier than when the other platforms got when on sale) for 2 games is a bit oof.

I counted 2 since Knight freeze/crash a lot on Switch 2 from what I researched.

@BonzoBanana Not too interested in the game myself (though I heard good things about it), but would be a shame because I can imagine that portability is one of the main draws of this particular version. So fingers crossed they can still turn it around. But some damage is already done, going public with this version …

Elden Ring is a game that runs well on less powerful PC hardware, albeit at rather less than impressive graphic settings, so I'm pretty sure that they can get it working. It'll probably just be a question of striking the right balance between performance and visuals. If they've already sorted it out docked that's probably half the battle.

@Bolt_Strike There's a tricky balance for info as the game is a Switch 1 game releasing months after Switch 2 launch but also being treated as a next gen graphics showcase for Switch 2. I think considering what Nintendo's trying to do, waiting on showing later game areas until a few months before launch makes sense though personally I'd say treating games as next gen graphics showcases are a mistake.

From Software games are notorious for not being well optimized at all, their games are popular because of the gameplay loop and notorious difficulty, not because of the technical prowess. It's telling that the smoothest way to play Elden Ring - even to this day 3+ years after launch - is to play the PS4 version of the game on PS5. I'm sure Elden Ring on Switch 2 will perform better when it actually launches, but I'd be stunned if it ran at a locked frame rate because it has never done so on any platform ever.

I don't think anyone should use this to judge the Switch 2 platform as a whole.

FromSoftware games are the Japanese Bethesda games.

Take yonks to come out, held together with glue, tape and thoughts and prayers, and sell well and gain critical acclaim.

Yeah the Switch2 performance of ER is really disappointing.... as well as utterly baffling, considering it runs really quite competently on the Steamdeck.

Whilst I wouldn't agree in calling FromSoft the 'Japanese Bethedsa', for sure they have suffered a few performance issues with some titles

The crazy thing is though - all they really needed to do was achieve a steady/locked 30fps, with decent-enough graphical settings, and put the game on a physical cartridge. This would have basically printed money, and help permeate an otherwise untapped market for this game! (referred to those that are Switch-exclusive)

Cyberpunk is probably the best benchmark and blueprint for how a third party should aim to port. Get the framerate and performance in working order, performance/quality options if possible, and ensure the graphical fidelity is fine-tuned in so far as feasibly possible. The physical was the icing on the cake.

The Steamdeck is a lot more powerful in CPU resources than Switch 2. Remember the Switch 2 is a lower power ARM based device. I seem to remember the CPU performance of Steamdeck with regard passmark score was about half that of Z1 Extreme so maybe around 12,000 passmark (cpu tests only) where as Z1 Extreme was around 25,000 passmark (cpu). The Switch 2 CPU resources are just above PS4 at about 1900 passmark. The older Razer Edge android tablet is more powerful. That had 3 ARM A78 cores at 2.4Ghz, an X core at 3Ghz and 4 A57 cores I think at 1.6Ghz. So even the Razer Edge is considerably more powerful than Switch 2. Lets not forget the Razer Edge Snapdragon chip is at 5Nm too.

From memory so admittedly some figures maybe a bit out;

Switch 1 - 600
Switch 1 modded/overclocked - 1200
PS4 - 1400-1700
Switch 2 - 1900
PS4 Pro - 2000-2200
Razer Edge - 4000-5000
Steam Deck - 12000
Z1 Extreme - 25000

I can't think about any other portable handhelds to compare in CPU performance but you get the idea the Switch 2 has low CPU resources, still over 3x that of the original Switch but will need careful fixed platform optimisations to get good performance out of it in CPU terms.

As for portable graphic performance the Steam Deck, Switch 2 and Razer Edge are all fairly similar around 1.2-1.4 Teraflops. However for any portable system these are peak figures really and may not be sustained performance due to battery life optimisations etc. Probably all three dip below 1 Teraflop in reality. However only the Switch 2 gets fixed platform optimisations.

I personally think the amazing DLSS upscaling of the Switch 2 will enable it to punch above its weight graphically for sometime with the ability to render as low as 640x360 and upscale to 720p or more with great results. However the low CPU resources will surely cause some issues. However DLSS is not without some CPU burden so I guess games where they want the maximum CPU performance may not use DLSS. Nintendo used FSR upscaling with Donkey Kong which has very low CPU requirements.

I'm expecting the Switch 2 generally to produce high quality versions of older titles but struggle with newer game engines so Elden Ring is very confusing it should have been a very high quality game easily beating the Xbox One and PS4 in my opinion. It does so graphically just the frame rate is terrible but it may simply be they haven't reduced the graphic fidelity enough for portable mode.

It feels like Elden Ring may do as much damage to the Switch 2 perceived performance level as Cyberpunk did the opposite with impressing everyone about the Switch 2 performance level.

It's also just going to be the usual story we see every generation: some devs will be more proficient than others, and in general as time goes on, everyone will get a bit better at programming for it.

@BonzoBanana Thanks for the comprehensive response, which you evidently put a lot of effort into - much appreciated.

I must confess, 'cards on the table', I am absolutely not technically fluent - and many elements of your post went over my head! (regarding specification nuance etc)

However, having seen first hand how beautifully S2 can run Cyberpunk... surely the machine has enough "oomph" to create a pleasant Elden Ring experience? I guess this is perhaps a lack of willingness via FromSoft to put in the time/energy/resources to really dial in the optimisation? I just for the life of me can't understand why they would choose not to do this!

@CJD87 From Software has never been good at optimization, even with exclusives (funny how the '30fps is unplayable' crowd still tends to venerate the clunky mess of a game that was Bloodborne lol). Whereas CDPR seems to be pretty good at eventually getting games into a good place technically. Cyberpunk would likely have been a technical mess without using DLSS on Switch as well, and I'm pretty sure no version of Elden Ring makes use of that form of upscaling.

@BonzoBanana
I think your numbers are off here. Benchmarks I've seen have Switch 2 at 1/2 in single threaded and 1/3rd in multi thread tasks vs Deck while your numbers here, pulled from where I don't know, have it at less than 1/6th. A notable advantage sure, pretty significant even, but I think you're seriously overstating it

But the real kicker here is that most games are GPU bottlenecked. And on The GPU side they trade blows with Switch being theoretically slower but with more efficient tricks possible..... except when it's docked when boosts above Deck

As far as Elden Ring goes, doesn't matter how good the hardware is if the software isn't well optimised. And poor game optimisations are generally more likely to be CPU bound. Like, oops were accidentally doing this expensive thing once for every item in this list, for every item in the list. Or oops, we could calculate/load this thing once and store the result in memory but instead we're doing it repeatedly. That kind of thing. I expect poorly optimised games will perform worst on Switch 2 for this reason

But even so, generally, most games are not CPU bound

Cyberpunk 2077 is simplified on Switch 2 with less people and cars on screen compared to even the lowest quality settings on PC etc but its clear graphically the Switch 2 is doing very well thanks to rendering at a resolution as low as 640x360p and upscaling using DLSS. It's been carefully crafted to play to the Switch 2 strengths and compensate for its weaknesses in CPU terms. Eden Ring seems to have none of those carefully crafted optimisations so far. However the Switch 2 seems powerful enough to run it docked with ok performance.

We don't know what future multi-platform games we will get on Switch 2 we will only get a subset of those games same as the original Switch because commercially such games sell poorly on Nintendo consoles typically and we are a few years away from building up a large userbase of Switch 2 owners when such games become a bit more commercially viable.

I've pointed out the low CPU resources of Switch 2 but lets not forget its still more powerful than PS4 in your hand, its got better graphic architecture, more memory, faster storage and is an amazing platform for Nintendo's games. I just think we need to be realistic about CPU performance though, it only has 8 ARM A78 cores and they are run at 1-1.1Ghz extremely low speeds. They are only fabricated on a dated 10/8Nm process and 2 of them are taken by the operating system. The Razer Edge has only 3 ARM A78 cores but they are run at 2.4Ghz which works out but 3x2.4Ghz is 7.2 and 8x1Ghz is 8 and then the Razor Edge has a X core at 3Ghz which is 50% more powerful than than the A78 by mhz so that is like another A78 at 4.5Ghz so 4.5 Switch 2 CPUs. Finally it has low power cores which I don't believe are in a BIG.little arrangement so that is 4xA55 or A57 at 1.6Ghz which is about 50-70% more powerful than the original Switch on its own. The Razer Edge I guess is still the most premium android gaming handheld and significantly less powerful than the linux/windows based gaming handhelds typically. Nintendo has designed/configured the Switch 2 with a higher level of graphic resources compared to CPU resources. This likely is the best option for typical Nintendo games but not ideal for running multi-platform games.

I'm writing this on a old HP all in one PC in my bedroom. It's running an old i5 4440 CPU and the passmark CPU score for that is about 5200 so roughly 3x that of Switch 2 and that CPU came out I feel in maybe 2013. It has integrated graphics and those are only around 400 Gflops so I guess the complete opposite of Switch 2, high CPU performance and much lower GPU performance. Of course compared to a Z1 Extreme chipset that is only about a fifth of its CPU performance. Perversely I was running a similar CPU many years ago when Cyberpunk came out with a RX 480 or was it RX 580 GPU and getting around 60 fps. I remember it being a good experience after the initial patches, perhaps a few months after launch of the game.

I do think on a lot of modern games, CPU resources are wasted on minor visual improvements like ray tracing etc. Skyrim on the original Switch is still a decent experience. It's been paired back a lot visually but the majority of the game is still there. Less grass and other minor graphic issues don't destroy a game I think. Where as the freedom to play a game wherever you want with decent controls is a great freedom to have.

I am interested in how game systems vary in their performance but that doesn't mean I think a more powerful consoles is always the best experience or most desirable product. My love of Nintendo designed games is more important to me than Playstation or Xbox exclusive games. I'm pretty much a PC gamer mainly now with really on the Nintendo consoles worth having in addition to that. So many Playstation and Xbox games are on PC now.

Sorry for the length of my post. I'm fast typist and before I realise it its a wall of text.

This thread is dumb on the basis that Nintendo's only games after launch for like 8 months were New Super Luigi U and Game and Wario. New Super Luigi U. Game and Wario. This is what Nintendo had for you.

You don't even need a second reason. By the end of this year, partially thanks to cross gen to be fair, massive difference between them by any reasonable standards.

Nintendo cannot even hope to be as greedy now and (subjectively) overhyped as they were poorly planned and stupid for the Wii U. They could try to fail on purpose and still succeed notably better than Wii U.

Honestly, the console that comes to mind the most regarding Switch 2 at the moment is PS5. Initially, 1st party support was mostly next gen only (only 2 crossgen games in each case when considering launch window) meanwhile 3rd party support was mostly crossgen but you wonder whether beyond the 7 month mark will go more heavy on crossgen for 1st party. With PS5, the change turned out to be deception ("We believe in generations" followed by announcing PS5 exclusives for PS4) meanwhile with Switch 2 it was that Nintendo announced 2026 Switch 1 games before the Switch 2 Direct.

Both consoles used paid upgrades to upgrade to the next gen version of crossgen games and in some cases, there was also exclusive DLC for the new console. Backwards compatibility is handled the same with PS5/Switch 2 which means that some last gen games run better than on the original hardware meanwhile others run worse.

In terms of communication, both consoles were focused on the short term. While there were some delays on the PS5 side where 2021 games became 2022 games, all the 1st party games for PS5 in the 2020 showcases were originally announced as 2020/2021 games meanwhile all the 1st party Switch 2 Direct games are releasing by June 2026.

In terms of pricing, both consoles started a price increase for games ($70 for PS5, $80 for Switch 2) and somewhat masked the price increase by providing limited time hardware bundles. Also outside factors means the launch window may be the cheapest pricing for the console itself.

@Grumblevolcano

PS5 is a great console for sure but the fact they push a digital only version more and there are so few exclusive games on the console means I'm happy to stick with PC. From memory there isn't a single exclusive first person shooter game for the console and I love single player scripted first person shooting games. Nintendo consoles are full of exclusive games some of which are the best game experiences you can buy and it feels like a console worth having but PS5 vs PC seems to be much more in favour of PC. The games are cheaper, there are more of them, they are customisable, you get to own the game longer, there are no online costs, the PC can run a lot more stuff including emulators. I struggle to see the point of PS5 for me personally and see even less point in the Xbox this generation. However I feel I will pick up a PS5 when super cheap perhaps sub 200 pounds just to play around with and see how my PS4 game library runs on it.

I personally don't think Switch 2 is worth buying yet it needs to build up more exclusive software and to be honest the hardware needs to be better with a better display and longer battery life but you just know that maybe 12-18 months it will be a compelling option when there are half a dozen must have games exclusive to the system.

i agree
<-- you probs know how i feel about switch 2