7 ms·

> I would instantly buy this Why? Will it make the games more fun to play? Does it enable more fun games? I don't see it. Nintendo has always thrived on underp

by Tepix 3y ago

> I would instantly buy this Why? Will it make the games more fun to play? Does it enable more fun games? I don't see it. Nintendo has always thrived on underpowered hardware.

epolanski 3y ago
By your logic, why move past the Wii U or Wii or any console before it? The machine I descrive is already quite underpowered compared to Nintendo's competition by magnitude of orders. This limits my enjoyment of Nintendo games and I prefer emulators. Anyway hardware limits are already apparent and yes some games aren't as enjoyable due to very low stuttering performance.
- Jorengarenar 3y ago
  > By your logic, why move past the Wii U or Wii or any console before it? They said "underpowered", not "outdated" or "ridiculously weaker"
doix 3y ago
A lot of games get limited to 30 fps (and even dip lower) on the switch which makes them unplayable for me. I don't care about graphics at all, I'd rather play in some extremely low poly/low texture mode at 60 fps (ideally higher) than at 30 fps. If they released a new version with a 120hz display that could actually run games at 120hz, I'd be ecstatic. I don't even mind the 720p resolution, it's fine on such a small screen in my opinion.
- orloffm 3y ago
  That's not really an issue for the stakeholders. Zelda is probably the only game that has this problem. Most hits - Mario Kart, Smash, Splatoon - run at 60FPS.
  - kenhwang 3y ago
    On the other hand, the 5th and 7th best selling Switch games (Pokemon SS and SV) were notorious for being unable to maintain 15fps. A lot of the workarounds made the game legitimately awful looking (downscaling shadows on the fly for demanding scenes, very reduced draw distances, slowing down and synchronizing background animations to slideshow speeds during battle). It seems like the Switch is unable to have more than a handful of moderately complex animated objects at a time. It's a problem for Pokemon because they wanted to show a lot of different Pokemon doing different things, it's a problem in Breath of the Wild with just too many trees, and it's certainly a problem with all the Dynasty Warrior clones because the whole appeal of those games is hack and slashing through a big hordes of enemies.
    - Shared404 3y ago
      To be fair, the last two Pokemon games were atrociously optimized cash grabs. They look like Gamecube games honestly, and are generally not impressive from a technical standpoint. I don't necessarily disagree with the overall point, but BotW and Dynasty Warrior clones are probably a better argument over all.
- mysterydip 3y ago
  What makes them unplayable that a doubling of framerate would fix?
  - nicolaslem 3y ago
    For most people there is a threshold somewhere around 50 fps that is the distinction between choppy and smooth enough.
  - moonchrome 3y ago
    Have you played games at 30 and 60 FPS ? I'm not one of those competitive 120+Hz gamers but try setting your desktop refresh rate to 30Hz - you can see mouse trailing and text delay while typing. 30FPS for an interactive experience is really bad. And them saying some regions are locked to 20 FPS - holly shit that's a slideshow. I used to game on budget PCs when I was a kid, I rarely got to play at 60 FPS, but going down to 30 was just "OK I'm not playing that".
    - goosedragons 3y ago
      Yes. After like 30 seconds it's barely noticeable unless the animation/physics are tied to the framerate. Some genres benefit from it but I'm not sure Zelda really needs it. Ocarina of Time ran at 20 FPS on N64, not in SOME demanding scenes, everywhere. And it's still a beloved, fantastic game. I also regularly play games capped at 30 FPS because it greatly increases battery life in the Steam Deck in a lot of titles and not everything really needs it.
      - Jochim 3y ago
        The problem with "SOME demanding scenes" is that inconsistent frametimes are much more noticeable and irritating than a lower, but consistent framerate. BOTW feels bad in certain areas because rapidly switching from 30->20 causes noticeable stuttering. Even once it settles you're likely to be aware of animations and interactions behaving differently.
      - moonchrome 3y ago
genocidicbunny 3y ago
> Nintendo has always thrived on underpowered hardware. Correction, Nintendo has more specifically thrived on cheap hardware, which is often correlated with 'underpowered' but does not mean the same necessarily. The Wii's remote wasn't 'underpowered', but it was relatively cheap and added an interesting feature. > Why? Will it make the games more fun to play? Does it enable more fun games? These are not the only (though they are important) factors to consider. With a portable platform, battery life, size, weight, heat, all matter much more than with a stationary console. A 2x more powerful Switch with the same power envelope as the original would be able to play games for longer using the same battery due to being more efficient. If you're playing a significantly demanding game, that might mean the difference between only being able to do short sessions on battery, and being able to play for a satisfying amount of time. Or it might mean that you can play it with the screen at a higher brightness, and thus make the game accessible in more environments. And if the games are have performance issues, having more powerful hardware can make those problems less frequent and more bearable. You can argue that gamedevs need to do a better job, but that doesn't eliminate reality where most people just want to play the game and don't particularly care about the specifics of how to get the best experience.
- aikinai 3y ago
  Nintendo calls it “Lateral Thinking with Withered Technology”[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi#Lateral_Thinking_with_Withered_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi#Lateral_Thinking_...
- Jorengarenar 3y ago
  > The Wii's remote wasn't 'underpowered', but it was relatively cheap and added an interesting feature. I'm not sure why you mention the controller or how to measure its power, but the console itself was definitely underpowered compared to PS3 or X360. Heck, it was comparable to 6th rather than 7th gen.
  - genocidicbunny 3y ago
    That's my point exactly - you can't measure it's power, yet that one feature made the Wii sell like hotcakes, and caused both Microsoft and Sony to try making their own versions.
zirgs 3y ago
Yes, a game that runs smoothly is more fun to play.
KptMarchewa 3y ago
Nintendo has always thrived _despite_ underpowered hardware.
X0Refraction 3y ago
Always is a bit strong isn't it? Prior to the Wii their consoles tended to be similar to their contemporaries in processing power. I certainly experienced areas in BOTW which took a heavy FPS hit and it sounds like TOTK is similar. Such an FPS drop does take me out of the game so if the console was powerful enough to avoid that then you could argue it would allow more fun games
- nopenotthat 3y ago
  [dead]
- Jorengarenar 3y ago
  > Always is a bit strong isn't it? Prior to the Wii their consoles tended to be similar to their contemporaries in processing power. Yup, you could say Nintendo always thrived on underpowered (compared to competition) hardware. NES was twice less powerful than SMS; GameBoy didn't even have a color display; SNES vs SMD similarity as NES vs SMS; GBC was weaker than Neo Geo Pocket or WonderSwan; GBA didn't have competition (although, if we count N-Gage...); Wii had hardware from previous generation; NDS was way worse in raw numbers that PSP; 3DS analogically with PS Vita; Switch isn't even comparable to PS4/X1, let alone PS5/XSX; What all of those Nintendo consoles have in common? Being their the most successful. Whereas when Nintendo focused more on being on par in hardware power during 5th gen. (N64) and 6th gen. (GameCube), they didn't sold nearly as much as other generations. The exception to the pattern are Virtual Boy and Wii U. The former was poorly designed then sacrificed as "filler"; the later flopped due to bad marketing (and naming) + poor decision on betting on "casuals". In conclusion: as we can see, there is a clear trend, not a rule, but a trend nevertheless.
  - DerekL 3y ago
    The SNES wasn't at all underpowered compared to the SEGA Mega Drive. In fact, it was better in many ways.
    - Jorengarenar 3y ago
Jochim 3y ago
Yes. Older consoles could get away with much more. There's a Dynasty Warriors style Zelda game on switch called "Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity"[0]. It struggles with the hardware to the point that the choppiness of the frame rate makes the gameplay thoroughly unenjoyable. Even Breath of the wild is infamously laggy in certain areas. [0] https://www.nintendo.co.uk/Games/Nintendo-Switch-games/Hyrule-Warriors-Age-of-Calamity-1838129.html https://www.nintendo.co.uk/Games/Nintendo-Switch-games/Hyrul...
ilyt 3y ago
60fps in action game does make it more fun to play
aeoliun 3y ago
>Why? Will it make the games more fun to play? Yes. Movement in an action game feels inherently better at 60fps than at 30fps. Metroid Zero Mission (2004), and Metroid Dread (2021) both feel extremely crisp and precise compared to Metroid: Samus Returns (2017) which runs at 30fps. The biggest complaint that Bloodborne gets, outside of not being available on PC, is that it's locked to 30 fps. I can't think of a single reason where a game at 60fps would be more fun at 30fps.
- CoastalCoder 3y ago
  I'm confused because the last sentence seems to directly contradict the rest of the post. Mind clarifying?
  - aeoliun 3y ago
    Might've worded it poorly. Just meant that a game running at 60fps is always better than that same game running at 30fps. In the worst case scenario, they're the same game.
    - Narishma 3y ago
      Not always better. A 30 fps game that you can play twice or three times as long before having to recharge the battery may be better.
      - ganoushoreilly 3y ago
        Depends, some might be willing to make that trade. I think most consoles are making that option of performance or visuals these days. As an option, letting the user choose seems to be more the norm these days. If i'm playing plugged in I would want better visuals (as the switch allows with the dock) the primary reason being more power available.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
josephg 3y ago
> Why? Will it make the games more fun to play? I played Zelda: Breath of the wild through on switch. It was one of the launch titles, and it was fantastic. The slow loading times were the #1 complaint I had about the game. They really broke the immersive experience. Whenever I died, teleported between zones or entered & left shrines the loading time was long enough that I fell briefly out of the zone while playing. I assume loading times haven't gotten any better for Tears of the kingdom, given the hardware hasn't changed. I'd probably buy the new zelda game instantly but when I think back to breath of the wild, my strongest visual memory is that black and red loading screen.
- art0rz 3y ago
  IIRC load times were improved in a later update (although that update came too late, imo)
incahoots 3y ago
Something to note is Nintendo makes profits on their hardware where as the other two (Microsoft & Sony) typically take a loss on their hardware, until about midway point of the console's life. I believe the other two make up the loss on the hardware with licensing rights on the software side of things. https://www.gamesradar.com/unlike-playstation-and-nintendo-xbox-still-loses-money-when-it-sells-a-new-console/ https://www.gamesradar.com/unlike-playstation-and-nintendo-x...
msh 3y ago
I liked playing their AAA ports like the witcher 3 on the go. A more powerfull console would make such ports easier, so I would hope to see more of them. It rather have a switch than can play nintendo games plus some AAA games, than a steamdeck or something like it.

by Tepix 3y ago

> I would instantly buy this Why? Will it make the games more fun to play? Does it enable more fun games? I don't see it. Nintendo has always thrived on underpowered hardware.

epolanski 3y ago

By your logic, why move past the Wii U or Wii or any console before it? The machine I descrive is already quite underpowered compared to Nintendo's competition by magnitude of orders. This limits my enjoyment of Nintendo games and I prefer emulators. Anyway hardware limits are already apparent and yes some games aren't as enjoyable due to very low stuttering performance.

Jorengarenar 3y ago
> By your logic, why move past the Wii U or Wii or any console before it? They said "underpowered", not "outdated" or "ridiculously weaker"

doix 3y ago

A lot of games get limited to 30 fps (and even dip lower) on the switch which makes them unplayable for me. I don't care about graphics at all, I'd rather play in some extremely low poly/low texture mode at 60 fps (ideally higher) than at 30 fps. If they released a new version with a 120hz display that could actually run games at 120hz, I'd be ecstatic. I don't even mind the 720p resolution, it's fine on such a small screen in my opinion.

orloffm 3y ago
That's not really an issue for the stakeholders. Zelda is probably the only game that has this problem. Most hits - Mario Kart, Smash, Splatoon - run at 60FPS.
- kenhwang 3y ago
  On the other hand, the 5th and 7th best selling Switch games (Pokemon SS and SV) were notorious for being unable to maintain 15fps. A lot of the workarounds made the game legitimately awful looking (downscaling shadows on the fly for demanding scenes, very reduced draw distances, slowing down and synchronizing background animations to slideshow speeds during battle). It seems like the Switch is unable to have more than a handful of moderately complex animated objects at a time. It's a problem for Pokemon because they wanted to show a lot of different Pokemon doing different things, it's a problem in Breath of the Wild with just too many trees, and it's certainly a problem with all the Dynasty Warrior clones because the whole appeal of those games is hack and slashing through a big hordes of enemies.
  - Shared404 3y ago
    To be fair, the last two Pokemon games were atrociously optimized cash grabs. They look like Gamecube games honestly, and are generally not impressive from a technical standpoint. I don't necessarily disagree with the overall point, but BotW and Dynasty Warrior clones are probably a better argument over all.
mysterydip 3y ago
What makes them unplayable that a doubling of framerate would fix?
- nicolaslem 3y ago
  For most people there is a threshold somewhere around 50 fps that is the distinction between choppy and smooth enough.
- moonchrome 3y ago
  Have you played games at 30 and 60 FPS ? I'm not one of those competitive 120+Hz gamers but try setting your desktop refresh rate to 30Hz - you can see mouse trailing and text delay while typing. 30FPS for an interactive experience is really bad. And them saying some regions are locked to 20 FPS - holly shit that's a slideshow. I used to game on budget PCs when I was a kid, I rarely got to play at 60 FPS, but going down to 30 was just "OK I'm not playing that".
  - goosedragons 3y ago
    Yes. After like 30 seconds it's barely noticeable unless the animation/physics are tied to the framerate. Some genres benefit from it but I'm not sure Zelda really needs it. Ocarina of Time ran at 20 FPS on N64, not in SOME demanding scenes, everywhere. And it's still a beloved, fantastic game. I also regularly play games capped at 30 FPS because it greatly increases battery life in the Steam Deck in a lot of titles and not everything really needs it.
    - Jochim 3y ago
      The problem with "SOME demanding scenes" is that inconsistent frametimes are much more noticeable and irritating than a lower, but consistent framerate. BOTW feels bad in certain areas because rapidly switching from 30->20 causes noticeable stuttering. Even once it settles you're likely to be aware of animations and interactions behaving differently.
    - moonchrome 3y ago

genocidicbunny 3y ago

> Nintendo has always thrived on underpowered hardware. Correction, Nintendo has more specifically thrived on cheap hardware, which is often correlated with 'underpowered' but does not mean the same necessarily. The Wii's remote wasn't 'underpowered', but it was relatively cheap and added an interesting feature. > Why? Will it make the games more fun to play? Does it enable more fun games? These are not the only (though they are important) factors to consider. With a portable platform, battery life, size, weight, heat, all matter much more than with a stationary console. A 2x more powerful Switch with the same power envelope as the original would be able to play games for longer using the same battery due to being more efficient. If you're playing a significantly demanding game, that might mean the difference between only being able to do short sessions on battery, and being able to play for a satisfying amount of time. Or it might mean that you can play it with the screen at a higher brightness, and thus make the game accessible in more environments. And if the games are have performance issues, having more powerful hardware can make those problems less frequent and more bearable. You can argue that gamedevs need to do a better job, but that doesn't eliminate reality where most people just want to play the game and don't particularly care about the specifics of how to get the best experience.

aikinai 3y ago
Nintendo calls it “Lateral Thinking with Withered Technology”[0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi#Lateral_Thinking_with_Withered_Technology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunpei_Yokoi#Lateral_Thinking_...
Jorengarenar 3y ago
> The Wii's remote wasn't 'underpowered', but it was relatively cheap and added an interesting feature. I'm not sure why you mention the controller or how to measure its power, but the console itself was definitely underpowered compared to PS3 or X360. Heck, it was comparable to 6th rather than 7th gen.
- genocidicbunny 3y ago
  That's my point exactly - you can't measure it's power, yet that one feature made the Wii sell like hotcakes, and caused both Microsoft and Sony to try making their own versions.

zirgs 3y ago

Yes, a game that runs smoothly is more fun to play.

KptMarchewa 3y ago

Nintendo has always thrived _despite_ underpowered hardware.

X0Refraction 3y ago

Always is a bit strong isn't it? Prior to the Wii their consoles tended to be similar to their contemporaries in processing power. I certainly experienced areas in BOTW which took a heavy FPS hit and it sounds like TOTK is similar. Such an FPS drop does take me out of the game so if the console was powerful enough to avoid that then you could argue it would allow more fun games

nopenotthat 3y ago
[dead]
Jorengarenar 3y ago
> Always is a bit strong isn't it? Prior to the Wii their consoles tended to be similar to their contemporaries in processing power. Yup, you could say Nintendo always thrived on underpowered (compared to competition) hardware. NES was twice less powerful than SMS; GameBoy didn't even have a color display; SNES vs SMD similarity as NES vs SMS; GBC was weaker than Neo Geo Pocket or WonderSwan; GBA didn't have competition (although, if we count N-Gage...); Wii had hardware from previous generation; NDS was way worse in raw numbers that PSP; 3DS analogically with PS Vita; Switch isn't even comparable to PS4/X1, let alone PS5/XSX; What all of those Nintendo consoles have in common? Being their the most successful. Whereas when Nintendo focused more on being on par in hardware power during 5th gen. (N64) and 6th gen. (GameCube), they didn't sold nearly as much as other generations. The exception to the pattern are Virtual Boy and Wii U. The former was poorly designed then sacrificed as "filler"; the later flopped due to bad marketing (and naming) + poor decision on betting on "casuals". In conclusion: as we can see, there is a clear trend, not a rule, but a trend nevertheless.
- DerekL 3y ago
  The SNES wasn't at all underpowered compared to the SEGA Mega Drive. In fact, it was better in many ways.
  - Jorengarenar 3y ago

Jochim 3y ago

Yes. Older consoles could get away with much more. There's a Dynasty Warriors style Zelda game on switch called "Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity"[0]. It struggles with the hardware to the point that the choppiness of the frame rate makes the gameplay thoroughly unenjoyable. Even Breath of the wild is infamously laggy in certain areas. [0] https://www.nintendo.co.uk/Games/Nintendo-Switch-games/Hyrule-Warriors-Age-of-Calamity-1838129.html https://www.nintendo.co.uk/Games/Nintendo-Switch-games/Hyrul...

ilyt 3y ago

60fps in action game does make it more fun to play

aeoliun 3y ago

>Why? Will it make the games more fun to play? Yes. Movement in an action game feels inherently better at 60fps than at 30fps. Metroid Zero Mission (2004), and Metroid Dread (2021) both feel extremely crisp and precise compared to Metroid: Samus Returns (2017) which runs at 30fps. The biggest complaint that Bloodborne gets, outside of not being available on PC, is that it's locked to 30 fps. I can't think of a single reason where a game at 60fps would be more fun at 30fps.

CoastalCoder 3y ago
I'm confused because the last sentence seems to directly contradict the rest of the post. Mind clarifying?
- aeoliun 3y ago
  Might've worded it poorly. Just meant that a game running at 60fps is always better than that same game running at 30fps. In the worst case scenario, they're the same game.
  - Narishma 3y ago
    Not always better. A 30 fps game that you can play twice or three times as long before having to recharge the battery may be better.
    - ganoushoreilly 3y ago
      Depends, some might be willing to make that trade. I think most consoles are making that option of performance or visuals these days. As an option, letting the user choose seems to be more the norm these days. If i'm playing plugged in I would want better visuals (as the switch allows with the dock) the primary reason being more power available.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

josephg 3y ago

> Why? Will it make the games more fun to play? I played Zelda: Breath of the wild through on switch. It was one of the launch titles, and it was fantastic. The slow loading times were the #1 complaint I had about the game. They really broke the immersive experience. Whenever I died, teleported between zones or entered & left shrines the loading time was long enough that I fell briefly out of the zone while playing. I assume loading times haven't gotten any better for Tears of the kingdom, given the hardware hasn't changed. I'd probably buy the new zelda game instantly but when I think back to breath of the wild, my strongest visual memory is that black and red loading screen.

art0rz 3y ago
IIRC load times were improved in a later update (although that update came too late, imo)

incahoots 3y ago

Something to note is Nintendo makes profits on their hardware where as the other two (Microsoft & Sony) typically take a loss on their hardware, until about midway point of the console's life. I believe the other two make up the loss on the hardware with licensing rights on the software side of things. https://www.gamesradar.com/unlike-playstation-and-nintendo-xbox-still-loses-money-when-it-sells-a-new-console/ https://www.gamesradar.com/unlike-playstation-and-nintendo-x...

msh 3y ago

I liked playing their AAA ports like the witcher 3 on the go. A more powerfull console would make such ports easier, so I would hope to see more of them. It rather have a switch than can play nintendo games plus some AAA games, than a steamdeck or something like it.