Currently Online 
Slownenberg said:
I'm really confused by this statement. You're saying PAOerfulone is wrong?? ummm, huh?? Everyone knows they shipped S/V as a buggy messy. Game Freak has refused (so far) to give themselves more time to make the mainline pokemon gen games despite moving from weak handhelds to the Switch. So unfortunately when they went to try to make a big open world game that meant their schedule was way too short and they released a mess. Had nothing to do with the Switch, had everything to do with the fact that they didn't have enough time/resources go into the game. If that game had released year later like it should have been it wouldn't have had the issues it had. I don't get what you are even referring to as a "baseless assertion" or "never happened". Dude just accurately described the pokemon situation, a situation everyone is well aware of. |
I am saying that given more powerful hardware, Violet/Scarlett would run better.
And it does.
See: Emulation, Switch overclocking.
The bugs would obviously still exist as that's far removed from hardware performance, that a developer competency issue.
But even outside of Gamefreak there is a long list of Switch games that run poorly unless... You overclock your console or throw it through an Emulator on PC.
See: Digital Foundries countless analysis on the topic with titles like Breath of the Wild, Tears of the Kingdom showcases marked performance improvements.
| curl-6 said: 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. |
I would argue a large percentage of all consoles share a common userbase as games like Fortnite, Roblox and Minecraft etc' tend to dominate play time on each console.
It's also a poor argument that "sales means people are fine with it".
I am a Switch owner, I own multiple Switch consoles, I am a Switch owner, I contributed to the Switch being one of the best selling consoles of all time... And I am not fine with it's hardware capabilities, in-fact even before the console released I wasn't happy with it, it could have been 50% faster and use the same amount of power by adopting Pascal instead of Maxwell for it's GPU architecture.
I am happy with the hardware feature set and it's efficiency, I am not happy with it's total performance.
That doesn't mean I don't enjoy the console or haven't had a blast with some games like Links Awakening, Breath of the Wild and so forth... But if the only criticism I can level against a platform is poor performance? Then that's a small list of complaints in the grand scheme of things having gamed on consoles with notoriously poor performance in games like on the Playstation 3, Nintendo 64, Xbox One etc'.
Having separate devices means that I don't need to compromise graphics in order to include features that I will never use like: A dock, Joycons, Display, Battery and more. - They can use that extra budget for faster hardware... Or even offer a lower price.
More choice is NEVER a bad thing for consumers.
| SvennoJ said: And yet I haven't touched the Switch since finishing TotK... |
It goes to show it's a legitimate issue for many gamers considering HDMI "upscalers" exist to try and clean up the Switch's poor output.
www.youtube.com/@Pemalite
