5 ms·

Having taken a look at a Switch, I'm a bit surprised that a brand new portable console has such a low resolution screen. If Nintendo is trying to compete with m

by copperx 10y ago

Having taken a look at a Switch, I'm a bit surprised that a brand new portable console has such a low resolution screen. If Nintendo is trying to compete with mobile phone gaming, wouldn't it be logical that they offer a better screen (or at the very least comparable with a mid-end phone)?

ploxiln 10y ago
There's more to graphics than pixels - framerate, latency, color etc. And besides, there's more to gaming than graphics - notably, input/controls. That other stuff is important enough to make the Switch easily better than any higher-resolution phone for serious games.
- grogenaut 10y ago
  I found myself mezmerized by a twitch stream on a computer 2 desks over today for about 3 minutes. I have good eyes but that's like palm pre resolution at that distance. Pixels don't matter as much as engaging game play, engaging graphics or interesting style, or story. Whatever argument you come up with I'll just counter with books and tetris.
- michaelmrose 10y ago
  You are so so right about input
twotwotwo 10y ago
Console-level graphics can be demanding; my wild guess is, this was their compromise to allow 60fps + complex scenes + OK battery life. Makes more sense to me as a factor than panel cost/availability (like you say, there are cheap devices with denser screens) or some hard CPU/GPU limitation (since it can output 1080p docked). Maybe in a year or two, with a revised GPU or the next process node or whatever, they do a Switch HD that delivers the better resolution, maintaining battery life. (Or they go for no-glasses 3D like the 3DS. That would be pretty counter to mobile gadget trends, but this is Nintendo.)
- ekianjo 10y ago
  Zelda does not run at 60 fps.
  - twotwotwo 10y ago
    Ah, I see, and reading more it sounds like Zelda only outputs 900p rather than 1080 docked. So maybe there's also an element of the hardware really not being up to doing demanding game scenes well at a higher res at all, and it's not just that doing it would draw too much power. Huh.
CoolGuySteve 10y ago
It's 237 PPI which is completely adequate for something held at arms length. And considering console games are more fill rate dependent than most phone apps it makes sense to have a lower res. I think a more interesting question to ask is why are phone manufacturers so insistent on burning battery life on 400 PPI and higher displays that add little benefit for most people. These high res phones make for nice VR displays but I can't believe that's more than a small niche.
- ido 10y ago
  same reason why CPUs were advertised on their Mhz rates in the 90s - a nice big number makes for good marketing, especially if it's more than your competitors.
  - Sammi 10y ago
    And why cameras are markedet almost only with the megapixel count, even though it's not a definite measure of camera quality.
givinguflac 10y ago
As someone who has done a lot of casual gaming on phones and iPads, the switch does wayyyyy more than just compete with mobile games. I was originally also concerned about 720p screen, but it's a great quality panel. 90% of my switch use has been undocked, and I love it. Sure it does look better docked, but it blows any mobile gaming experience before it (including mobile nvidia shield which I own both versions of) out of the water. And while I do enjoy several non-Zelda games on the switch, I'd be just as happy if it was a $300 Zelda machine because that game is just that good. For me I wasn't very unhappy with the Wii U screen so this is a big upgrade comparatively for display quality and not just resolution. And the input methods for switch are objectively better than anything before it in mobile gaming imho.
joshschreuder 10y ago
Have you taken a look at it in person, or just the specs? I can see how a 720p resolution might seem low, but if you try it out in person it's actually quite remarkable, particularly if you've tried other portable gaming systems like the 3DS or Vita. It's leaps and bounds above them.

by copperx 10y ago

ploxiln 10y ago

There's more to graphics than pixels - framerate, latency, color etc. And besides, there's more to gaming than graphics - notably, input/controls. That other stuff is important enough to make the Switch easily better than any higher-resolution phone for serious games.

grogenaut 10y ago
I found myself mezmerized by a twitch stream on a computer 2 desks over today for about 3 minutes. I have good eyes but that's like palm pre resolution at that distance. Pixels don't matter as much as engaging game play, engaging graphics or interesting style, or story. Whatever argument you come up with I'll just counter with books and tetris.
michaelmrose 10y ago
You are so so right about input

twotwotwo 10y ago

Console-level graphics can be demanding; my wild guess is, this was their compromise to allow 60fps + complex scenes + OK battery life. Makes more sense to me as a factor than panel cost/availability (like you say, there are cheap devices with denser screens) or some hard CPU/GPU limitation (since it can output 1080p docked). Maybe in a year or two, with a revised GPU or the next process node or whatever, they do a Switch HD that delivers the better resolution, maintaining battery life. (Or they go for no-glasses 3D like the 3DS. That would be pretty counter to mobile gadget trends, but this is Nintendo.)

ekianjo 10y ago
Zelda does not run at 60 fps.
- twotwotwo 10y ago
  Ah, I see, and reading more it sounds like Zelda only outputs 900p rather than 1080 docked. So maybe there's also an element of the hardware really not being up to doing demanding game scenes well at a higher res at all, and it's not just that doing it would draw too much power. Huh.

CoolGuySteve 10y ago

It's 237 PPI which is completely adequate for something held at arms length. And considering console games are more fill rate dependent than most phone apps it makes sense to have a lower res. I think a more interesting question to ask is why are phone manufacturers so insistent on burning battery life on 400 PPI and higher displays that add little benefit for most people. These high res phones make for nice VR displays but I can't believe that's more than a small niche.

ido 10y ago
same reason why CPUs were advertised on their Mhz rates in the 90s - a nice big number makes for good marketing, especially if it's more than your competitors.
- Sammi 10y ago
  And why cameras are markedet almost only with the megapixel count, even though it's not a definite measure of camera quality.

givinguflac 10y ago

As someone who has done a lot of casual gaming on phones and iPads, the switch does wayyyyy more than just compete with mobile games. I was originally also concerned about 720p screen, but it's a great quality panel. 90% of my switch use has been undocked, and I love it. Sure it does look better docked, but it blows any mobile gaming experience before it (including mobile nvidia shield which I own both versions of) out of the water. And while I do enjoy several non-Zelda games on the switch, I'd be just as happy if it was a $300 Zelda machine because that game is just that good. For me I wasn't very unhappy with the Wii U screen so this is a big upgrade comparatively for display quality and not just resolution. And the input methods for switch are objectively better than anything before it in mobile gaming imho.

joshschreuder 10y ago

Have you taken a look at it in person, or just the specs? I can see how a 720p resolution might seem low, but if you try it out in person it's actually quite remarkable, particularly if you've tried other portable gaming systems like the 3DS or Vita. It's leaps and bounds above them.