Discostew

@GameOtaku There's just a lot of complications to deal with in order to do something even as simple as that, unfortunately. For example, systems nowadays have to load their game code into RAM on boot so they can execute them (unlike systems like the GBA mentioned earlier where code is executed directly on the carts themselves). To load both game's code on boot would require they be compiled together as one game, but that not only requires having the source code of both to do that compiling in the first place, but such combining also leads to resource issues and conflicts between the games themselves that it may take far too much time for it to be a worthwhile investment of time and money to resolve them.

It's just unfortunately not nearly as simple and worthwhile these days than it was back in the day.

@GameOtaku except on the GBA, games are executed by simply directing to their location as a memory address. Everything is as if they were already loaded into RAM, as cartridges of that time were basically extensions of the system RAM. Game code is executed directly on the cartridge itself. Basically, drop the game in, point to it, and you're done. This is not what one can do with more recent systems because the games do not reside in locations that can be accessed directly by memory locations.

@GameOtaku "on (gameboy) advance" actually doesn't nix my argument, if you understand how the GBA works with regard to code and game assets.

Just to inform people who still believe this is a USB-C issue, it is not. The "bricking" is due to damage to the Power IC M92T36 component in the Switch, which handles proper power negotiation between the Switch and the dock. Damage to this results in improper handshaking that causes no HDMI output and intermittent charging issues. Replacement of this component fixes these problems. This is not a charging port issue as there's no damage to the USB-C port itself.

https://www.reddit.com/r/NintendoSwitch/comments/8ejghg/fixed_my_third_party_dockbricked_nintendo_switch/

@Piersen I think the "universal" descriptor isn't that it's meant to work with everything regardless of how a company would use it as many believe it to be, but that it can be adapted to just about anything with how a company wants it to be adapted. Probably why so many companies use USB in such non-standard/compliant ways.

@AlbertXi it's not an adapter. It's a port replicator, and the good ones tend to be more expensive.

But anyways, this idea of going cheap on a dock is kinda silly when you're spending a good amount on the Switch, its games, controllers, etc in the first place for a "quality" experience.

Using Switch's more modern features can easily reduce the file size outside of duplicate asset reduction. As another mentioned, the change to encoded videos is a plus. Wii U uses AVC/h.264, whereas Switch can use HEVC/h.265, providing equal quality at roughly half the bitrate. Textures converted to native Switch formats like ASTC will see a drop in size too.

This is just retailers pricing it at $60, right? I didn't see anywhere on Nintendo's own site that it would be $60 (they've set no price yet, not even for digital like they did with Kirby), and retailers are known for putting placeholders on things they don't know the price for but want to get going on pre-orders. From a business point of view, it's logical to set the placeholder at typical MSRP because if it's lower, they can simply reduce the price and no one will fuss. If they were to make a guess and price it lower for pre-orders when it's supposed to be more, they'll either end up honoring the lower price (Amazon at the very least would because of pre-order price guarantee) which would either reduce their profits or cause them to lose them, or they might lose customers for forcing an increase in price.

@smashboy2000 unless I'm mistaken, Hulu is on Switch, giving reason that Nintendo may not be the ones holding back anything regarding streaming services.

@westman98 Technically speaking, the first MMLC is not a set of ROM dumps. Digital Eclipse Software (the folks who made that) said they decompiled the originals and rebuilt them for modern systems with their Eclipse Engine. Same one used for the Disney Afternoon Collection. They aren't emulated, even if they mimic what the originals did on the NES, like flickering and whatnot.

This brings up another point, and a possible explanation for this situation. The two collections weren't made by the same company. Already mentioned who made the first, but Capcom handled the second. Both run on completely different code. The porting of these two probably are not handled by the same company either, since it would cause some conflicts, whether that's more time needed beyond the deadline or something else.

@mowerdude It may just be the PS4 version regarding that save file. Still odd to have such a big save file. Like, what exactly is it needing to save that's greater than the games themselves?

@mowerdude where did this 7GB save file come from? And how pathetic must a dev be to end up having a save file bigger than the game it's used for?

Anyways, MMLC2 is actually over 1GB less on XBL than it is on PSN (though MMLC1 is slightly bigger on XBL than on PSN), but if Ubisoft can cut Rayman Legends down to less than 3GB on Switch when other versions are a good number of GB bigger, then I could see Capcom being able to fit both MMLCs onto a single 4GB cart.

If it wasn't for the limitation of what was allowed on the SmileBasic servers (copyright and all), I probably would have ported over MM2PTC onto it for the 3DS (though it lacked palette animation, and the original game and project heavily used that). I imagine the same will be for this version.

Seriously, if Capcom were to localize XX, then most people would accept the loss of not having World.

@PlywoodStick About loading periods, the previous games had rather quick loading between sections, and to me, that's likely because it's already loaded into RAM. It's why the monsters can do things outside of your current area. Things like prepping the area for rendering are what I think the loading points are for. Many of the other things can be reduced or turned off, like having lower texture quality, AA turned off, etc. Even the models themselves could be reduced. The creation of such games are made with such detailed assets that no system currently can actually run them, so the games themselves all get downscaled, some more than others. Previous MH games had multiple monsters (not just the small ones) in the same zones at the same time. MHW's difference on that is basically allowing the monsters to fight each other, which really isn't anything special.

No one expects PS4/XB1 quality on the Switch.

@PlywoodStick I'm not convinced by their explanation. Complex inclines? Jump down cliffs? These are all scripted events with markers for when the monsters reach those parts so they can execute them. There's nothing complex about them. When a monster runs away, they take a pre-determined path.

Forgive me, but I'm finding this "explanation" to be rather poor on their part. If the Switch is truly incapable of running MHW decently, then why not say it? Why all this running around with talk of console characteristics and adapting to them? That never stopped previous titles, did it? There's already a MH game on Switch, yet for whatever reason, it hasn't been localized unlike previous entries. The 3DS has seen so many entries, localized, and it's a handheld.

The more I hear of these "explanations", the more I think the leak from long ago to be true, that someone paid to prevent further developments of these games from happening on Switch.

@superguy123 It would add power, at least on the GPU side. Having a 50% increase in GPU performance is good, but its main improvement is 2x RAM bandwidth. This alone would probably allow a number of games to actually hit 1080p@60fps because they are currently bandwidth starved.

So, just how accurate is it? I propose a test with at least two cases. Speedy Gonzales and Air Strike Patrol. Why? These two games cannot run fully on an emulator except the most accurate. Speedy Gonzales incorporates a rare hardware edge case in Level 6-1, where if not properly handled, causes a deadlock. Air Strike Patrol uses a mid-scanline raster effect to handle the aircraft's shadow, a technique that's extremely resource intensive on emulators.

@Yasaal MK8D with 3+ players was effectively 1080p @ 30fps, but technically 60fps with alternating render updates on 2 of the 4 views every frame, same as on Wii U.

@YummyHappyPills Where the first one looked clay-like but also 2D.

@kobashi100 Your welcome. There is one other thing though that could possible explain why there isn't a bump in resolution that I either missed or was never mentioned in any articles about the ports. Who is handling the ports? Platinum Games (the original developers), or is it outsourced? This can be important because we all know what happened with the PS3 port of Bayonetta. With these ports from Wii U, having a rather unique architecture and component design, an outsourced porting team may find it a little hard.

Having said that, there are games like Fast RMX which made an incredible jump from FRN on Wii U at 640x720@60fps with consistent dips in single player to a full 1080p@60fps with no dips in single player, making at least a 4x jump in buffer writing, and FRN had a decent number of post-process effects that were handle all on the Wii U's eDRAM that Switch is doing with its main RAM. Both were by Shin'en who push the crap out of the hardware when they can, and to finally add, Shin'en themselves said that they could get even more from the Switch had they not been dealing with a port, so they're expecting a lot more with whatever game they make exclusively for Switch.

From what I understand, B2 utilizes a LOT of transparency effects that can cover the entire screen. Such large-screen effects eat away at RAM bandwidth because it has to constantly manipulate the buffers. On Wii U, the buffers generally were held in eDRAM, which was capable of 500GB/s+ bandwidth (but there was only 32MB of it). Switch's RAM is only capable of 25GB/s, yet that's still greater than Wii U's main DDR3 RAM that operated at around half that. So, Wii U could do somethings better in a few aspects, but only if it weren't limited by the rest of the process. Switch is certainly capable of processing a LOT more when it doesn't have to keep referencing RAM, but this scenario with B2 is limited by RAM bandwidth.

If Switch had 32MB of eDRAM like the Wii U or even some special small section of RAM that doubled/tripled up on bandwidth, then we would be seeing a LOT more 1080p@60fps games.

Seriously, if the urmor is true and MS does buy EA, it won't really affect Nintendo, but it will most certainly hit Sony hard because of their reliance on 3rd-parties. To be honest, I could actually imagine MS not having a problem bringing EA games to Switch because of its portability, as MS doesn't seem interested in having their own portable, just a very strong home console.

@joey302 Probably because when they began development on Worlds, Switch wasn't even a thing. That seems to be what Capcom says anyways. But, even with it selling well in the West, it's still quite the Japanese game, and I'd imagine that Capcom is either figuring out how to get it ported to Switch (since that is especially flying off shelves in Japan as well as everywhere else), or make some other MH game for it beyond XX.

I do have to ask. What exactly does Worlds do that people believe would prevent it from coming to Switch even if it were downscaled? I'm looking at game footage of the game, even in 4K, yet I don't really see what would prevent a Switch version at something like 720p @ 30fps with reduced visuals, particle effects, etc, but nothing to indicate that it would ruin the experience or feel of Worlds.

@SLIGEACH_EIRE OS take a hit? That's not how it works on consoles and handhelds. It utilizes the "game" resource allocations, not the "OS" allocations, which on Switch if it came to it, would be provided 3 of 4 CPU cores, 3GB+ of RAM, and majority of the GPU. Certainly you don't think Netflix on an o3DS used the OS in a fashion that hindered it when the OS only ran on 30% of a single 268Mhz core, right?

My bro was always playing these sort of games via emulation back in the day because he just wanted to play and ignored knowing all the Japanese. For me, however, I held off, but even with english translations I still hadn't played them. I stuck with Final Fantasy.

So, is this similar enough to the old-school Final Fantasy games that someone such as myself can just pick up and play like the good ol' days?

I've worked at a Amazon Fulfillment Center for the past week, and as far as I understand, the last point where anyone knows what's in a package is when a packer puts an order together into a box, where each item is scanned for correctness. If an item is missing or incorrect at that point, they do what is called an AndOn and notify someone of the issue, where they do a thorough investigation to resolve it. No one in the facility can easily walk out with an item from the work floor, especially with something that big and/or heavy. Not saying it's impossible, but I feel it is highly unlikely.

368p is the lowest they recorded, but from what is understood, it doesn't happen often. In all honestly though, I think there is still more polishing they could do, because it seems weird that portable mode has dynamic scaling but docked mode does not. Plus there is the frame drops that can temporarily be relieved through a system restart (which has happened with some Switch games lately prior to patches). They should also allow user-adjustable settings, like toggling the filters.

I have the game, but have yet to play it because I just haven't had the time (started work at a new Amazon Fulfillment Center, and they had us doing 12hr shifts at the start of peak season. This week is 10hr hopefully).

I got a Labyrinth vibe from the beginning sequence.

So, has anyone actually tested the update and compared it to performance/loading at launch?

@ShadJV considering that the 3DS got hacked through multiple ways, including through save files, Nintendo may have possibly done something with Switch saves that goes beyond just keeping them in internal storage. We don't know, and they won't tell us. They don't need to. To say it should be easy is like saying it should be hackable.

@maruse @sillygostly Let me make a note that after investigating the game L.A. Noire on PS3, this seems less about being cheap and more about following how the game was designed. According to the Playstation Store for the PS3 version, you download the 13GB initial portion (16.67GB for Complete Edition) containing the Traffic and Patrol case desks, and then there's 11GB+ that contain Arson, Vice, and Homicide case desks, all separately downloadable for free. Looking at the PS4 version on the store, it says "18GB minimum save space", which suggests to me that it follows the same parallel with it being the initial case desks. You tally up the Complete Edition stuff, and the PS3 version comes real close to the overall size of the Switch version digitally. This suggests to me that the physical version on Switch is using a 16GB cart that contains the Traffic and Patrol case desks.

So, what we need to know is how the physical version of the PS3 is laid out, and maybe even the PS4 version. Do they both come with all case desks, or just the initial ones? someone elsehwere took a screencap of the PC version that showed 13.5GB, but nothing was mentioned on whether that was for just the initial case desks, or everything.

A lot of people are assuming it is easy because "these other platforms do it, so why not Nintendo?", but can anyone say for a fact how Nintendo Switch saves are designed so as to give an opinion on how easy it would be to back them up? Heck, even now, people have issues doing the drag-and-drop method with game data when moving to a larger microSD card even to the point where games have to be redownload entirely. Imagine doing something like that with saves, and it doesn't properly backup or reinsert themselves?

All I'm saying is we can't assume we know things about the Switch design to know something can be done a certain way.

One thing in favor with Amiibo is that they aren't as restrictive. Amiibo unlock things among many different games (mostly cosmetic) and increase in value each time a new game supports them. With these other toys-to-life, they are restricted to a single game (or iterations of the same game), sticking to the typical DLC model that doesn't see a benefit to any other game.

@Kayfios 30 seconds is likely the buffer size, so while it only supports dumping this amount to a file right now, it can lead to streaming of larger video lengths either into a file on your storage media or through a network.

The thing about this is that the system may have been doing this buffering ever since launch, but only now does it export into a file. Capture screenshots likely take from this (which may explain the poor quality and not simply because they are JPGs), and to assume it is now active vs having been active since launch would suggest that this will negatively affect battery life in portable mode, which could be tested because spending a good 2-3 hours in a game portably with video buffering should show a difference in battery % from before.

Not included in the patch notes, but support for USB audio is included. So, those with headsets that only have the USB connection can use them. Also, wireless headsets with USB dongles too.

As far as this guide is concerned, it is a little cheaper per GB to get a 128GB card than it is per GB for a 200GB card (and far cheaper than a 256GB card), but one thing to also take into account is convenience of not having to swap cards, specifically 128GB vs 200GB. Personally at prices of $44.90 for a 128GB card and $78.57 for a 200GB, I'd choose the 200GB so I can put it in and basically forget it. Chances are I'm not going to purchase so many digital games that will fill up that card, and even if I do, by that time, card costs may drop.

And an off-note, chances are you don't have an internet speed that allows you to download as fast as the card can be written to, so those newer cards with 90MB/second write would go to waste. Read speed is all that really matters for the Switch.

@JaxonH @Lord Yeah, it's basically manufacturers advertise that 1KB is equal to 1000 bytes (and 1MB is equal to 1000KB, etc), when under computer terms, 1KB is equal to 1024KB. So, take the number of GBs you have, convert it to MB by manufacturer's advertised size by multiplying by 1000, then to KB, then to bytes. Now, reverse it by converting to KB by computer terms by dividing by 1024, then convert to MB, then GB. 200GB is actually only ~186.26GB.

The narrating in the video reminded me of Treebeard.

"Gnawing, Biting, Breaking, Hacking, Burning!

Dat zoom-in, lol.

I've had one issue in the past with a LAN adapter. At one time, it just stopped working, but just before I contacted Nintendo thinking it was a Switch/dock issue, it started working again, and worked ever since. I really wish that Nyko dock had an ethernet port on it. That would have been a no-brainer to get, and that is small enough to put into a carry case.

@Nincompoop A triple-A game is nothing more than a game with a higher budget. It doesn't say anything about the quality.

Outside of a little bit of audio differences, the two games I hear that seem to have changes off the top of my head are Contra 3 with the bomb effect and Yoshi's Island in the Fuzzy levels where when you touch one, the background disappears for a second.

If this is due to altered ROMs in the classic, could the original ROMs replace them for the more authentic feel?

It's interesting how it was done graphically. You may see parallax background scrolling of multiple layers, but there's only one actual background layer since the NES only supports one layer. The actual layer is only ever updated once, and that's at level start. It just repeats the same sequence over and over with changing those good/bad icons you collect. For the part that looks like it's part of a separate layer, that's simply updating a small collection of background tiles each frame that the layer references. You can tell at around time index 2:04 where 3 tile entries corrupt with the wrong color palette and it just repeats itself.

The only other game to make use of this graphical trick that I can recall is Sword Master.

@MegaTen 28.4GB installed, or 28.4GB space needed before downloading is allowed? Typically, space is needed temporarily as it downloads so it can then install.

Anyways, I'm recalling Rime, where for such a small-sized game, it still tacked on an extra $10 for the Switch version. It was also found out that Tantalus was responsible for the port, not the original team. Makes me wonder if this "outsourcing" is what's causing the Switch versions to tack on extra cost rather than the cartridges.

@BlueOcean @electrolite77 Not suggesting a 32GB cart is priced just like a 50GB Bluray. There is certainly a extra cost because of how it is manufactured, but this idea that it's over $20 per cart for devs is ludicrous. Even $10 more is just not likely.

@electrolite77 Which wouldn't be any different from PS4/XB1 physical games.

One thing to bring into this discussion is Rime. A game that is just over 4GB installed on PS4, yet it's to be $10 more for the Switch version assuming it uses an 8GB cart, which I think is the standard for Switch cart sizes (so any less may actually cost more). What we know about Rime is that the devs who made it are not the ones porting it over. Tantalus is. That's where I think the extra cost is coming from, to pay them because it was a last-minute decision to bring them on board.

What if Rockstar, for instance, is not the one porting over L.A. Noire to Switch?

"In industry circles, it is said that these cards actually cost more than $20 per cart to the publisher."

I honestly don't believe this, even if that was limited to the 32GB Switch carts. How much does a 32GB microSD cost? Let's take a look at the Samsung EVO 32GB U1 card with adapter. That's currently $13 on Amazon. It features 95MB/s read, 20MB/s write. That 95MB/s read speed is already far faster than what the Switch carts offer (when comparing physical and digital game load times). That 20MB/s write speed? Doesn't matter, because Switch carts are read-only. That's a thing to note. This is a comparison of rewritable flash media vs write-once flash media.

So, $13 on Amazon, where Amazon has already bought in bulk for a cheaper price per unit as a means to make some profit via retail markup. How much of a discount? I don't know, but let's assume they bought each one for $10 after bulk discount. That's already half as much as is estimated from "industry circles" regarding Switch cart prices that are not only slower, but are also read-only.

I wouldn't be surprised if 32GB Switch carts were no more than $5.

@Elanczewski SE is indeed giving a lot of support to the Switch (far more than the Wii U ever got), which is why I find it odd that the SoM remake isn't coming to it and the collection isn't localized. One can't expect everything of course, but I just don't see the logic behind this decision when Switch is truly perfect for it.