Apex Legends Switch 2 Performance And Resolution Upgrade Detailed

1080p60 is pretty impressive, I'm glad switch 2 is getting put to use.

And honestly, apex is a pretty fun battle royale. Not sure I'll play it away from my PC enough to warrant 32gb tho

Edit: yeah no shot I'm playing it on switch 2, 78 gigs and I have no SD card 😭

1008p is a very funny resolution.

I've still never tried this. Holy cow - 31 GB?! When's the physical release? Hyuk hyuk.

I hope Overwatch 2 does this soon!

This 1792x1008p for handheld is so unfortunate, obviously the full 1080p were to much GPU load for 60 fps. But why got anamorphic resolutions out of fashion? An 1536x1080p or 1664x1080p could look better due to the matching vertical resolution of the screen, therefore extrapolation only in one dimension (instead of both).

It's kinda weird to see games that perform only slightly better in docked than undocked in terms of resolution and/or image quality.

Anyways, it's good to see this. One of the biggest benefits of Switch 2 will be to play modern multiplayer shooters (not named Splatoon) on a Nintendo platform at 60FPS rather than (a very unstable) 30FPS.

@sevex

Same

These silly resolutions and odd shortcomings wouldn't be a thing if the Nintendo Voice Chat wasn't forced on every developer to have to implement. Otherwise those resources could go to running games at proper resolutions.

Sounds like a nice upgrade! 31 gigabytes is quite a bit, but not unexpected for a free-to-play live service game.

I love the music that plays when you drop in. I might give this a go but it's not really my fave genre.

@DankPeezy Nintendo does no wrong except when they have their own Kinect moment.

78.3 GB actually 😂
Given the space limitations on the Switch 2 at launch and the expensive and scarce Express SD cards, that is quite ridiculous.

I’m guessing this is for higher rez textures? Perhaps they need to tone them down to reduce the install size?

@soimun
Yeah, i downloaded it for the first time a few hours ago and it was 31GB ish, went to start it just now and it prompts to download the switch 2 version from the eshop for 75GB and that i can delete the switch 1 version now. So its like 105GB in order to get this game for me today, pretty insane.

78 GBs? There goes 1/3rd of the Switch 2's capacity.

@Max_the_German No, that would be worse cause you'd have a stretched image. It would make everything look wider than it should be.

Wait. My mouth was agape at 31 GB. It's actually 78?!?!???!!!! That's absurd!

Did they improved also other things as textures, vfx, etc…?

With that file size its a pass from me

Nice. I'm happy with 60FPS. Plus, I can actually use Gyro Aiming. Love it in Splatoon 3, handy in Fortnite, should be handy in apex as well. XP

Will try this later.

78gigs though. Oooof. Big download to even try this out. Do you need to pay for online as well? As you don't with Fortnite

Downloading right now! Im glad that we are getting butter smooth experience and enchanted visuals, making the Switch 2 the best place to play the game.

Is this game dead? Waited 10 minutes and couldn’t find a game

78.5GB?! Pass. EA? Double pass.

@thenikdavies
Free 2 pay games are free to play online, no sub needed, as Nintendo takes a cut of all in game purchases.

@Switching
All the console versions and the PC one are better than switch 2, only console the switch 2 version is better than is the switch 1 version.
That's not to knock it, 1080p 60 on a handheld is great, but lets not pretend that is still not the worst way to play it.

@neil9000 Thanks for the answer

78GB!? Oof. Yet another game I can't download without massive storage cleanup thanks to Switch 2's limited storage solutions. The fact that 1 or 2TB cards are not readily available, and affordable, is extremely frustrating, disappointing, and poorly thought out on Big N's part.

Yeah, that 78GB download is going to be a nope from me, lol. I have the storage, but I don't want to dedicate that much of the internal memory to one game, so I'll be passing on the Switch 2 version.

Going to hold out until larger capacity express cards are both more affordable and easier to get before shopping for one.

I'll give it a whirl since the game is decent enough, especially for free.

@topsekret That’s not the case with anamorphic resolutions.

Nearly 80 gigs? Lordy.. We are going to need 2 terabyte Micro Express SD cards soon here! I just got a 512 gig card(which is the largest they make right now) and just my Switch 1 software alone is eating up over 200 gigs of it..

@vio
They make 1 tb express cards

Almost 80 gigs is insane. With future updates this game may be at a 100 GB or more.🥴

@AllBLK
Or they could optimize it and shrink its size

@LuigiFanno1 Ah, you're right. But they cost 280 bucks. That's far too expensive.

@vio
Then enjoy the 512 gb cards and only have 60 games installed at a time lol

@Max_the_German Let's walk through an example. You mentioned 1536x1080, so let's use that.

We both agree that if you render to 1536x1080 and then scale that to fit a 1920x1080, it will be stretched horizontally, right?

I've never heard of the term "anamorphic" till today, but I think I know what you're saying after reading about it a bit.

The 1536x1080 would look as if you took a 1920x1080 image and then scaled it to 1536x1080. Essentially, it would look squashed. But then if you take that 1536x1080 and scale it back to 1920x1080 it would have the correct proportions?

Of course, for it to be a performance win, the game would have to render directly to a 1536x1080 render target. I do believe you could do some tricky stuff with the transformation matrices to achieve this effect, however, there would still be a loss of quality since you are losing information on the horizontal axis.

Essentially, you are forcing ALL the information loss to be on the horizontal axis, whereas if you render to a proportionally smaller render target, the information loss is distributed evenly between both axes. To me, the latter seems more desirable, though, academically, I am a bit curious to do a side-by-side comparison with both techniques.

@topsekret Unfortunately, I can’t find good examples to show anamorphic resolutions flr video games (for filmic content you find more than enough). The trick is to use non-square pixels.

The best example might be thr dynamic resolution of Call of Duty: It keeps the vertical resolution constant and only scales on the horizontal one. So if the full resolution is 1920x1080 (PS4), then the lowest resolution it reaches is 960x1080, with numerous steps in between. The reason is unclear: Maybe the implementation was easier, but many people say that the dynamic changes are less noticeable for them, and horizontal lines like edges os buildings remain sharp on the screens.

Keeping the vertical resolution has historical reasons. CRTs showed the horizontal lines much sharper, so a reduction in horizontal resolution was the way to go.