How will be Switch 2 performance wise?

[Soundwave]

h2ohno said:

Soundwave said:

That's not a different class of hardware, especially if the latter also has the benefit of being able to be played portably. 

A Dreamcast is a different class of hardware from an N64 (and that was a 2 year difference in hardware back then), not like going into a PC a going from Low to Medium settings and bumping resolution from 1080p to 1440p and I'm supposed to fall over in amazement over that, lol. 

Even when comparing to past really you need a 5-6x leap in hardware to really be in a different class entirely, 150% performance uptick over like a Super NES back in the day wouldn't magically give you a "different class of hardware" ... it would just be a SNES class of hardware even back then. 

Today that's even worse with most these chips ending up using most of their performance overhead just on resolution and frame rate basically alone (and ray tracing makes it even worse). There's no actual difference in the base assets as there might have been in games of the past because it costs so much time/money to make the actual assets (models, textures, etc.) today. 

If Nintendo released a version of Breath of the Wild that runs at 1080p or even 1440p/60 fps am I supposed to fall out of my seat in amazement? No, I wouldn't. It's more like "oh ok, that's nice". It's not mind blowing though, not even close. And then on top of that if you had to lose portability to get that performance ... nah, forget it. I'd rather buy BOTW at 900p + only 30 fps but with the upside of being able to play it anywhere I want. 

I agree with the bold part.  While higher resolutions are nice and a consistent framerate is vital for gameplay, when it comes to the actual graphics it's the assets themselves that really matter to me.  I'd rather see improved base assets than a jump to 4k or 120 fps.

When it comes to the Switch 2, the main thing I want to see is a generational leap over the current Switch.  I want to see Mario look a generation above Odessey, Zelda a generation above Tears of the Kingdom, Metroid a generation above Prime Remastered, etc.  In addition, I want the 3rd party ports to be as high quality as the Switch ports of Doom, Doom Eternal, Witcher 3, Nier Automata, Crysis, Persona 5, etc.  If it has to top out at 1080p to do that I don't care.

It's not like you get nothing out the trade off on a hybrid. The huge addition is you're getting a portable version of every game that you can play anywhere you want. 

Frankly, that's a much bigger deal to a lot of people than having a resolution bump + 60 fps. 

Want proof? Anyone dumb enough to claim a Switch that was not a hybrid but could run all its games like BOTW at 1440p + 60 fps would sell anywhere close to the current Switch? 

It wouldn't. It probably would have trouble selling even over 20 million units instead of the 150+ million the Switch is going to finish at. A lot more people are interested in a Breath of the Wild at 900p + 30 fps AND portable + home play versus a version that would be maybe 1440p + 60 fps but losing the portability. 

There's no game I've ever played in my life that was ugly or not fun to play at 1080p + 30 fps that suddenly became good looking and fun to play at 1440p + 60 fps. 

It's a nice to have. It's not a generational shift or even close to that though. And also funny how we don't have every PS5 thread flooded with people saying the 4090 is a much, much better piece of hardware and you shouldn't enjoy PS5 games because they can't possibly run as well as they could on a 4090 and PS5 is clearly a generation behind a 4090, etc. etc. etc. Every game on the PS5 that's available on PC, a 4090 can run it at a better resolution and better frame rate than a PS5, but no one seems compelled to have to put that into every PS5 discussion. Interesting how the gate keeping only applies to one console and one console only. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 13 February 2024