| curl-6 said: I guess that's the thing; the 3DS aged like a banana left in the sun, yet they still gave it 6 years before they replaced it. People don't buy the Switch for its graphical capabilities so it won't matter so much if it falls further behind. |
That's just it. We compare the 3DS against other mobile platforms... And in such comparisons, the 3DS doesn't seem as nearly as dated.
Same should go for the Switch.
...But once you start pitting it against the Xbox One/Playstation 4/PC, then its' limitations quickly becomes apparent... And that is perfectly fine.
| Miyamotoo said: To be fair so big resolution don't have real benefit of screen of size of around 6". |
I disagree. The human eye doesn't see in terms of pixels anyway.
1440P just looks significantly sharper... My phones for the last 3-4 years have all had 5.7" 1440P displays or better... And the resolution uptick is certainly noticeable over 1080P, especially when it comes to HUDs/Text.
| Miyamotoo said: 1080p would be well enough, also its point that we talking about full console 3D games runing on small device, so they need to paid attention to battery life and heating |
My phone with it's 2960x1440 display gets better battery life than the Switch when playing Fortnite.
The displays inherent technology can have just as big influence on battery life than the resolution of the display itself.
In-fact when Samsung increased it's phones displays from 1080P to 1440P in it's mainline Galaxy devices they also had an increase in battery life. Why? Because the newer display technology was more efficient.
| Miyamotoo said: If you want to say but phones already have 2K or even 4K resolutions, phones are totally different thing, they constantly competing with each other to include better specs even half of them dont make too much sense of such a small devices, phones dont play full console 3D games and most of mobile games dont even support highest resolution on phones, also phones with best specs are like 3x more expansive than Switch. |
Completely disagree.
However... If you really wish to go down that rabbit hole... There are plenty of cheap crappy chinese tablets on the market with 1080P IPS displays, clearly price isn't the issue.
With that said, you don't need the GPU or CPU power to render games natively at the displays resolution to see the benefits of a higher resolution display... To me, 720P is obsolete, it shouldn't even be a thing as we enter into 2019, not even on a $150 netbook.
1080P is low-end... And 1440P should be the baseline.
| mZuzek said: Resolution doesn't have an effect on storage, but 4K textures do, and heavily so. You know they'll be doing 4K textures if they push 4k, so, there. 720p point is exactly what I'm trying to say. By keeping 1080p as the cap on a more powerful system, it is likely that an increasingly vast majority of the games do run at 1080p while boasting better graphics than they would if they had to render at 4K with 4K textures. |
4k Textures were in some 7th gen games. (As in 4096x4096). That is despite most games only operating at 1280x720 output resolution or lower, texture resolution isn't 1:1 with display resolution.
Compression allows textures to take up a fraction of the space... Current 8th gen titles seem to be spending a ton of storage budget on uncompressed 7.1 Audio.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
