Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@jump While I'm not going to excuse the bugs (although I've personally not encountered any) and poor performance, I feel like I'm a mutant or something for completely ignoring these factors when playing the game. I dunno, but when I get invested in a game world these things just suddenly fall from my radar.

But I'm tempted to agree about the open world. I do still feel that drive to explore, and although I do make a few exciting discoveries now-and-then, I find myself spending an overwhelming amount of time wondering "is that all?". I think the cities are particularly egregious - they're more-or-less just copy-pasted shops with a bunch of NPCs that offer almost nothing of value. How does the largest city in Pokemon history have less to do in it (outside of the academy) than the average city from Red and Blue?

Also, is it just me coming off Persona 5, or are the battles really slow?

Still, much like Sonic Frontiers, I think this title is a step in the right direction and I'd much rather explore a somewhat barren open world of my own accord than have another painfully restricted tour of the region a la Pokemon Sun and Moon.

@Grumblevolcano I totally forgot Advance Wars was a thing, but surely March 2023 isn’t going to be any different to releasing it now? This war isn’t going to end any time soon so weird decision if true.

@jump
IMO the Pokemon games on the DS were generally pretty great and I remember most of the criticism during that era was the continued use of sprites. Which didn't bother me. The 3DS ones had their issues but I think on the 3DS a bit of slowdown was more tolerable given it was a portable system. Sun/Moon in particular were pretty fresh takes super late in the 3DS' life, IMO they felt more limited by the platform than anything

I think the Switch era gets a bit murky. Sword and Shield were just ok. Not broken, not must have entries. Just ok. I enjoyed them but didn't feel compelled to dive into the post game or get the DLC. The Lets Go games I didn't get the appeal of but I'm sure were fine. The Diamond/Pearl remakes I haven't picked up but I'm sure are fine. Arceus has its issues but is enough of a gamble I don't think we can be too critical of it, and it was novel enough that I felt like I got my money's worth from it

But Scarlet and Violet? The Switch is capable enough and has been around long enough that there really isn't much of an excuse. They should have probably spent this year polishing Arceus rather than trying to rush out a "new generation" game

@skywake I think one thing you missed is that SwSh literally didn't have post-games. Like, there was the gym quest (which was short, but still more fun than anything in the main game), a neutered battle tower, and that was it. The only game that had less post-game content than that were gen 1, as they stripped off all the post-game content to put it in the DLC.

Like yes, the DLC fixed those games greatly, but the fact that the DLC blew the base game out of the water isn't a good sign, and even the DLC couldn't fix the fact that the base game they were built on was rushed to death.

Regarding your other post, Splatoon 3 at least feels much better to play than Splatoon 2, despite lacking anything super major. I'm hoping by the end of it's cycle it'll have blown Splatoon 2 out of the water, it's still possible. I do think the game absolutely should have launched with at least 50% more maps though.

@Buizel i miss that when you go a town/city, a NPC would tell you the story of this town/city, it gave the region much more depth, now the NPC just said generic things related to battle.

Bayonetta 2 updated for something.

Crisis Core preorder is up on the eshop, file size is 14.2 GB. A lot of games nowadays are very close to the 16 GB cartridge limit, yes I know there's 32GB carts but virtually no one uses them.

Final Fantasy VII Crisis Core preload is live on the eShop

Standard Version $49.99

Digital Deluxe Version $69.99

Kinda pricey for the Digital Deluxe. It comes with a digital "mini soundtrack" and digital "artbook". Which, for $20 extra, Idk. If it was $10 extra, or if it was a full soundtrack, it would seem more reasonable.

But whatever I'm buying it anyways 🤪

When It Takes Two released, I remember a lot of reviewers trashing the visuals and how it's "typical blurry Switch multiplat fare".

But watching a comparison video, it holds up extremely well. Both visually and performance wise. Even the initial load time is drastically improved over the PS4 version (continuing after death is 15 sec vs 10 sec though, so ever so slightly slower). For all the hoopla over Bayonetta 3 dropping to 50 fps with claims of "technical shortcomings" that are "disappointing", nobody seemed to share those opinions with It Takes Two on PS4 despite dropping all the way down into the 30's. Switch version actually locks 30 flawlessly.

And tbh the Switch version doesn't even look all that different. If you do a 4x zoom it does, and perhaps the cutscenes look rougher, but man. Maybe I'm just crazy but it sure seems like there's overexaggerated criticism with Switch games that doesn't apply to games on other platforms.

I think with the new leader Nintendo is gonna try to play things safe.

@JaxonH acording to the leaked Nvidia data, that could have revealed the Switch sucessor specs, Nintendo is gonna use DSLL 2.0 and Ray-tracing on docked mode(yes Ray-tracing on a Nintendo console) meaning they could use this tecnology to make more demading games much easier to run on Switch sucessor and possibly Nintendo own games too, @Kermit1Pineaple safe in what aspect? i doubt Switch sucessor is gonna be a plain more powerful version of Switch, Nintendo don't work like that, they don't do interate version of a console for it sucessor like Sony/Microsoft did, Nintendo will surely do something no one expected for the Switch sucessor.

@Giancarlothomaz
Don't get excited for raytracing on the next Switch. For one, it's a MASSIVE resource hog. Even PS5 games using it have to cut down reflections to 1080p just to make it viable. For two, it's largely a fad (imo) that doesn't really change how games look. It can in some, when the entire lighting is raytraced rather than just reflections and stuff (I've seen Minecraft and it's wow). But using its full capability in that respect is, as mentioned, a massive resource hog even 9th gen power consoles can't fully utilize.

The other thing is raytracing on Nvidia depends on CUDA cores. As it just so happens, there's something else that depends on CUDA cores- DLSS. And I can almost guarantee you, the next Switch having CUDA cores is not so it can do raytracing, it's so it can do DLSS. Now, that's not to say no game would ever use it for raytracing, but if even power hungry 9th gen consoles struggle with it, it's hard to imagine a portable hybrid system running on 10-15 watts and more in line with 8th gen consoles somehow utilizing it.

Basically what I'm saying is, the CUDA cores will be for DLSS, not raytracing, which won't really be viable on a system of that power level.

@JaxonH ray-tracing is a gen 11 thing

what you can kiss your starter? how about Gadevoir/Loponny the real waifu Pokémon?

@JaxonH i see, for what i obeseved just the fact Switch sucessor will have suficient techinal/graphical power to get most of the games is releasing today is enough for me, no more waiting 6 months/1 year for this game on a Nintendo console and will also help Nintendo get more ambitous games like Bayonetta 3 and others reaching it full potencial, the future for Nintendo next console is bright, i watched severals digital Foundry analysis on PS5 games that feature Ray-tracing and i didnt a major diference on them, Global Ilumination make more diference on games then Ray-tracing.

@Giancarlothomaz Nintendo's done iterate consoles before. NES->SNES, Gameboy -> GBC -> GBA,
DS -> 3DS, Gamecube -> Wii -> Wii U.

Even with gimmicks involved, the majority of their hardware has been very iterate with only a topping of something different.

@link3710 so Switch sucessor will follow this patern?

@kaisu
That's a fair assessment. Either way it's the same concept, so it doesn't really matter in the end for us gamers. That said, they have been using FSR upscaling, and given DLSS is simply a tool that comes with Nvidia GPU's, I see no reason they would try to make their own when it costs them nothing to simply use the tools provided like FSR. Devs also have experience implementing DLSS already so it could potentially be easier for 3rd parties to use if they're already familiar. DLSS also requires the CUDA cores and is fairly advanced technologically speaking. It's taken years for it to advance to the current 3.0 standard. Creating their own from scratch would be a bad move, I think. Unless it's something more basic like FSR.

Either way, it'll be implemented as an option for developers and the end result, for us, will be games achieving 4k that rivals native quality (or at least gets in the ballpark of native) from hardware that can really only push 1080p docked, which is great.

I'm not expecting it to be used in handheld mode though, unless it's to upscale 540p to 720p or at 1080p and supersample. Reason being, that would require a higher res screen than 720p, and even with DLSS, higher res = more power draw and less battery life.

But that's OK. 720p handheld is perfect when games actually hit 720p.

@Giancarlothomaz It seems quite likely, right now we've seen no evidence that would suggest they're planning a massive paradigm shift.

@link3710 Yeah I think it's gonna be the most iterative system they've put out since the GBA. That system's whole thing was that it was a more advanced Game Boy. It was only really a paradigm shift in the sense that it was a massive power jump over the GBC.