The Road to 160m+ for Nintendo Switch

[Mnementh]

The_Liquid_Laser said:

RolStoppable said:

This thread is now a week old and there has been hardly anyone who disagreed with Switch hitting 160m+ in its lifetime. That in and of itself is pretty telling how good the chances are.

I think the recent Nintendo Direct did a whole lot to convince people of the 160m+ argument.

Mnementh said:

I feel kinda wrong inside, if people talk about graphic and mean tech. Because that what it is. To separate it, people have started to talk about graphic and art-style as different entities. That as a precursor, just something to note, that when you say graphics in your post, you actually mean graphics tech.

I am an old gamer. Really old. I remember games that were praised for their tech, and years later they seemed old. That is the point. If all you have on offer is the newest tech, then you have a timer on the value of your game. It will become obsolete.

As an example: Doom and Quake were pushing the technological envelope of their time a lot. Really a lot. And back then they were praised for that. Now, don't get me wrong, these games have value beyond tech. They both nail gameplay and they have absolutely banging music. Really, I love especially Doom music, but also Quake is great. But in one regard they both fall flat: they both are butt-ugly. And they were back then. Yet still they had the best "graphics" at their time. How does that fit? Because "graohics" refers to the tech, and yes, that was bleeding edge. But if you play these games today, the main reason is their gameplay and music, not their tech, as you have newer more advanced games readily available.

Even back in the day I loved Duke Nukem 3D more, even though it did not push the tech as much. The reason is, that Duke Nukem has recognizable locations and settings. Which makes the game more enjoyable and immersive, even today. I recently played Heretic for the first time, and it used Doom tech, but put effort into recognizable locations. That pays off, even in todays standards.

I don't care about being one or two or seven gens behind in a game, because I play games from the 2020s at the same time as games from the 1980s. If the games from age old have more to offer than an advantage that will spoil over time, when they offer as much enjoyment as a recent game. So that means, I don't really care if Switch tech is one or two or more gens behind, what I care about is if it can offer me great gaming experiences. And as long as it does, I can wait for the next console.

Yeah, I agree.  

I also have to wonder what is the earliest tech Minecraft needed to be developed on.  It's clearly not pushing the cutting edge in technology, and yet it's the most popular game in the world.  I think a single player version could have been made on PS1, although maybe it requires PS2 because of all of the blocks that need to be rendered.  And then there is the multiplayer aspect.  So, I'm guessing Nintendo DS for the wireless multiplayer?  That is the minimum tech required for Minecraft I think.  

The most popular game in the world is essentially a Nintendo DS game.  That is how much the average gamer cares about cutting edge technology.

Showing a high number of objects can bog down Minecraft performance and also it needs RAM for that. So I don't think Minecraft is *that* easy.

Although performance at least could be improved, by using a tile-based 2D-sprite approach. The original UFO (X-COM in the US) used 2D sprites, yet allowed 3D gameplay. That was, because it was tiled in 3D, meaning each tile had not only a width and length, but also a height. You could switch layers with your characters by climbing or with the flight suit. This is not so differently to Minecraft I think, so I guess it would've been possible with much slower hardware. Still you would need enough memory to hold the environment, as everything can be changed and replaced. So I guess early consoles are not possible, but on PC it would've worked probably. Still, someone needed to have that idea, and that didn't happen.