curl-6 said:
Pemalite said:
I 100% disagree.
Having a mobile SoC with just higher clocks is not efficient... The Switch has demonstrated this.
Remember a TV is a larger canvas than a mobile display, you see the limitations in the visual effects far more readily, thus you do tend to need more than just higher clockspeeds to translate it better to a bigger display.
You need more functional units, more bandwidth, more everything... The Switch doesn't do that, so more often than not, Switch games tend to look exactly the same as portable mode, but just at a higher resolution, but still often sub-Full HD... So they look soft, muddy and lack detail.
Sony and Microsoft realized this last generation, hence the Xbox One X and Playstation 4 Pro... And continued down that path with Xbox Series X and S and the Playstation 5/5 Pro.
You do need more than just clockspeeds. |
The audience for a PS/Xbox console isn't the same as for a Nintendo device though. The fact the Switch is one of the highest selling consoles ever shows most folks are fine with it. Investing all the R&D, money, and other complications of a whole separate system just to output the same games with better settings would be a waste of resources, because the people who care about better graphics are already well served by Playstation and aren't going to buy another console just to play portable games in 4K. A hybrid already provides both TV and portable play, having separate devices for both is just unnecessary. |
And yet I haven't touched the Switch since finishing TotK...
I would buy a standalone version and more games for the system if it looked less 'fuzzy' on TV.
