Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

I just remember playing wcw nwo world tour on n64 and thinking... this is it, were at the height of graphics in gaming lol.

I actually remember calling my dad up to my room and showing him how damn good it looked.

We’ll never be at the true height of graphics. They will always be able to improve. But the average increase per unit time is decreasing, as has been for over a decade now. Like an infinite series function, it’s approaching a limit. It’s convergent, not divergent. And every additional term in the series grows smaller and smaller and smaller.

That’s exactly what we see with graphics as a function of time. It will impress less, and less, and less.

Hellblade II on the Series X (graphics from 9th gen power)

Hellblade on Xbox One (graphics from 8th gen power)

Hellblade on Switch (graphics from 7th gen power)

Excerpt of a reddit post from a video game artist at Guerrill...

@JaxonH I think the Wii is why 7th gen lasted so long. Sony and Microsoft had their usual "most powerful console" battle but Wii was so successful that instead of releasing 8th gen around 2010 they created Wii-like devices then instead (Microsoft's Kinect and Sony's PS Move) leading to 7th gen lasting a bit longer. Of course the reason why 8th gen has lasted so long is the mid-gen revisions (XB1X and PS4 Pro).

@Grumblevolcano
There may be some truth to that but I think if you get to the heart of the issue, it’s because it takes longer for technology to make the same leap. So generations now need 7-8 years instead of 5-6, and they need mid-gen refreshes just to keep the consumer engaged, because the graphical leap is so much smaller.

Naughty Dog and a few other companies will turn out a handful of utterly amazing-looking games each gen that show off the true potential of each hardware jump. For 90% of other developers, though, the games won't look significantly different from the kinds of stuff they were outputting last gen.

Versatility and other potential benefits of next-gen hardware will become increasingly important over time as hardware butts up against this ceiling of decreasing polygonal returns. This is already starting on PS5, actually. Sony is making a lot of noise about "instant" loading of games on the PS5's SSD and 3D audio. They know they're going to need a way to differentiate their hardware from Scarlett.

@linq Please. By the time we get multiplatform games actually developed with PS5/XB1 in mind, it's going to be late 2021, early 2022. At that point, Nintendo's better off coasting the last few years of the Switch's life and coming out with the Switch 2 or whatever to play those titles than releasing a Switch pro. The Switch Pro would just divide the install base if it's needed for multiplats, which isn't economically feasible that late in the system's lifespan (It'll be 5 years old by then.) Better to announce the next console at the beginning of the 6th year of life, and have it out around when it's turning 7.

@link3710
Agreed.

As we encroach ever closer to the limit (never actually reaching the limit, but eternally closing the gap with incrementally smaller advancements), the gap between handheld and console will grow ever smaller. In this case, calculus really is the best comparison (which is why we learn these things- we use math to describe the world around us- it betters our understanding).

Nintendo is 1 generation behind due to the hybrid approach. 2 at the changing of guard for gen 9. So let’s just look at a simple equation, with n representing the generational power of home consoles, and n-2 representing Nintendo at 2 generations behind. The ratio of the hybrid’s graphics to that of home consoles as each generation passes can be described by a function, and we can take the limit of that function to see the end behavior.

2/4 is 50% of the way there, but 8/10 is 80% of the way there- meaning the Switch successor should be about on par with PS4/X1, and provide graphics that are 80% as good as 10th generation home consoles. The bigger n gets, the closer the ratio gets to hybrid systems having graphics that look 100% as good, and in practice, I reckon the average person won’t even be able to tell a difference once it gets in the 85-90% range. With each passing generation, the closer the hybrid will approach the power consoles, until eventually there won’t be any noticeable difference left. And that should definitely happen in our lifetimes. But even if it doesn’t, the gap will be so small nobody will care anyways.

I just buy new gaming hardware because that’s where new games are available. Obviously improvements with stuff like lighting effects, draw distances, character models, reflections, foliage density etc... open up creative possibilities, but once photorealistic trees, for instance, become an industry standard, the wonder and amazement wear off.

It’s really the art direction in games that matters in the end. You can use high quality assets in a cutting edge game engine to make a rather mediocre looking game.

A 60 fps standard for console AAAs (if possible) and “no” loading times on the PS5 would be nice. That would be forward momentum in my book, perhaps moreso than the improvements in graphics.

Honestly, I find it funny that one of the only true "next-gen" games was Breath of the Wild with its intricate and crazy physics and game design that truly facilitated open-ended gameplay. And that is a Wii U game.

A lot of other games I love this gen could have been done in previous generations with weaker graphics. Bloodborne, for example, could have been a 360/PS3 game, for example, since it doesn't do much different from Dark Souls aside from changing a few numbers (which is every From Software game, though I mean that in a good way because it just shows how strong the core foundation is for every Souls game if they just need to change some numbers to make it feel pretty fresh between games).

Although of course, you do need better hardware to be more ambitious. Xenoblade X, for example, with its extremely fast loading times and seamless gameplay with a stable framerate, would never be possible even on the 360/PS3. So there's that.

@EvilLucario
lol yea I was thinking that exact same thing about BotW - it's a WII U game at the end of the day lol

It's the poster child for what I'm saying, though. Tech has been at an excellent level for the last couple generations where most devs probably don't feel shackled or constrained. I'm sure limitations are still there in terms of power, but yea, the sky has been the limit for quite some time now. I think it's really up to the skill and imagination of developers moreso than the power of the machines.

@NintendoByNature
I find that a flawed anecdote, though. Because really, even at the time, sure that stuff looked good, but did it look "photorealistic"? I remember booting up Mario 64 and calling my family into the room, too - dang that looked awesome. But did I think it looked just like everything else I could see in the real world? lol no of course not! It looked good for a video game. There's a big difference: looking real and looking good for a video game. We're at the point now where games are basically looking real and in my opinion have been for at least one generation.

If we're talking about games that show what the extra power can do, the first thing that comes to mind for me is Spiderman. PS2 and PS4 Spiderman set out to do the exact same thing. And while there wasn't a PS3 outing, I'd point at Infamous as probably the closest counterpart. If you look at the three games in a row like that, it's pretty easy to see the improvements in the cities themselves, the AI, the fluidity of combat, the cutscenes and facial expressions etc that have been afforded by more powerful hardware.

@rallydefault I'm just saying for the time, it looked really good and the closest thing to real life I had seen in a video game, at that time..sure looks rough now though haha.

Cutscenes and facial expressions yes, but fluidity of combat and AI is just a result of practice makes perfect, standing on the shoulders of what developers had previously accomplished. You could make a game with the exact same fluidity of combat and AI on a PS3. A good example is Batman Arkham Asylum, which was doing that sort of thing over a decade ago. I think 99% of game releases could be done on a PS3 or 360. They wouldn’t look quite as polished and they probably couldn’t have as many NPCs, but aside from that they would be pretty much the exact same game. Rise of the Tomb Raider is a good example.

Of course, games downsized to hardware of that power will never look or run as good (see The Witcher 3). But if it’s built ground up for the hardware, it’s amazing what can be done on PS3/360/Wii U/Switch level of power. Assassin’s Creed Rebel Collection is such a great example, and it looks so good, too. Because the game was built with that level of hardware in mind.

We’re sooo close to having a hybrid that can run anything. Next gen is gonna be so exciting. Not PS5/SX. That’s moderately exciting just because all new consoles are to some extent, but I can’t say looking at the improvements from those Hellblade screenshots has me too enthralled. I’m talking about the next generation Nintendo console. The next hybrid. The generation that sees PS4/X1 level of power condensed into a hybrid form factor. Most any game can run on 7th gen Power, but every game will be able to run and look great doing it on a hybrid of 8th gen power.

@JaxonH while there's no question what you said is true to a degree, growing AI complexity limits the number of characters you can have on screen at once. Obviously there are ways to optimize this, but I doubt any solution out there has a complexity of 1. So more powerful CPUs not only make the upper bound higher, but more importantly allow for less time to be spent optimizing the AI to eat up less clock cycles and more time spent on improving it's quality.

Obviously being CPU bound has generally been less of an issue than being GPU bound lately, but to make this comparison simpler, could you imagine implementing Spiderman PS4's AI on SNES? N64? GameCube almost certainly could be done (Wii with it's coprocessor as well), but the question is at what price, when the CPU on that is limited as it is.

Probably an unpopular opinion here, but I don't think there's any less talent involved in creating something ''photo-realistic'' versus something ''cartoony''. Getting something to look realistic requires skill and creative use of the hardware as well. In fact, if you don't do it ''right'', it will look off, and the uncanny valley is stronger for realistic looking games. In the end it's like realistic art and abstract art, neither is superior, and just another way of expressing something.

Though the irony is that even cartoony games are chasing realistic graphics. Just look at the lighting for example. Ever noticed the texture on characters versus 10-20 years ago? Mario used to be a flat texture, but now his hair and clothes are textured like real hairs and clothing.

Anyway, I'm looking forward to next gen, if only because it will bring a massive boost to VR. PSVR is fine, but it definitely looks last gen, so there's a lot of improvement. And then there's some VR stuff that high-end PCs are currently able to do, with complex physics. I don't expect any of that right away, but that's something to look forward to, even though it will probably take another generation for that to become industry standard in VR.

Hell, Devil May Cry helped perfect action on the freaking PS2 and PS3 lol. It's very telling that DMC5 on PS4/etc is as good as it is because it's literally like DMC4 but with actual content and a ton of awesome QoL updates.

This gen pretty much gone completely into aesthetics, which made this gen really boring and unexciting as a whole for me unfortunately. Just wasn't very interesting until recently.

This gen seemed to focus heavily on open world for the sake of open world and massive grinds that promote a monetization system (e.g. loot boxes, battle passes, other microtransactions). Neither happened much on the Nintendo systems front (BotW for the former, a few Free to Play games for the latter) but Nintendo's approach to mobile this past year has been very heavy on the latter so it may seep into their main games more in the future.

I don’t see that seeping into Nintendo’s main games. They’ve made it pretty clear there is a distinct line drawn in the sand between their mobile monetization tactics and their dedicated hardware. They know more than anyone the kind of backlash that will bring for a fully priced AAA title. They might experiment with DLC and some might have more value than others, but at the end of the day, we are not going to see microtransactions in 1st party games unless it’s a free to play title. But even if they did they’d learn real quick people won’t stand for it. Not the Nintendo fanbase. Not for paid 1st party titles. Guarantee you the backlash would hit them so hard they’d still be feeling it next generation.

@linq I mean, all the interviews about Labo VR don't seem to have anyone at Nintendo thinking it's the future of VR, just a cool curiosity that people would be interested in. Ignoring their competition when it comes to graphical capabilities is fine so long as they're focused on making their systems portable in some fashion. I mean, the numbers don't lie, more people have always bought the less graphically impressive portable console than their home consoles. That's where they succeed, and I don't see them embracing it. And quite frankly, I doubt they spend all that much on lawyers compared to what they spend on R&D, likely a very small fraction. C&Ds don't exactly cost much to send out.

But what I 100% agree on is that Nintendo's stance on poor internet services has to change. From what we've heard, it appears to be on purpose too. They want their console to appear family-friendly and seem to think that sabotaging their internet capabilities is necessary to accomplish that. What I don't think they've realized is that the parents these days more and more are actually from a generation who gets electronics, and don't consider the internet unconditionally bad for kids, so much as something that they need control over (which Nintendo does do well). While VC gets a horrid rap on other consoles (I can't imagine Nintendo will ever implement VC in Splatoon for example) and will probably always be handicapped by Nintendo, there's plenty of other features that are totally viable to bring over like messaging assuming they can be restricted (which they surely will).

Nintendo has been thriving in this industry since the late seventies, and is one of Japan's wealthiest and most successful companies. They clearly know what they need to do to survive.

Anyway, I'm fairly certain that the amount of money Nintendo spends on corporate lawyers is entirely irrelevant when considering the amount of money they put toward R&D.