By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Hardstuck-Platinum on 15 June 2025
Edit Thread
Biggerboat1 said:
Hardstuck-Platinum said:

I would agree it's a good showcase of the Switch 2's hardware efficiency and improvement over Switch 1, but a good precedent? I'm not sure. Based on this performance can we be sure that Path of exile 2, Witcher 4 and Elder scrolls 6 will run on here? Not everyone likes Nintendo first party games so I'm sure others will want to know too. 

Handily beating Series S? Cmon now lets not exaggerate here. Switch 2 is well designed and well priced and clearly very popular, but CP 2077 I think is a warning shot of it's limitations. You hear the story that Nintendo didn't send out Switch 2's to big journalists to be reviewed early? maybe this game was why. 

Whether it's a good precedent entirely depends on what your expectations are for the system. I'd suggest that a game as demanding as CP2077 running acceptably (overall reviews are positive, including from digital foundry) bodes well for many other games on the PS5 & Series X.

I'm not saying that the S2 handily beat the Series S, I'm saying that that's what your comments imply are your expectations of the system in order for it to be adequate.

Can you explain in more detail what your expectations are for a mobile device at the price point of Switch 2 & how you arrived at those expectations?

For me, as I've said before, I'd have rather paid 50 dollars more and got 16gb ram, a lovelace version of the GPU & a uniform bezeled OLED display. That'd have been a near 10/10 for me. As it stands I'd maybe give the S2 hardware a 7/10.

Even if Nintendo had delivered my 10/10 option I still wouldn't necessarily expect every single current gen game to run on it (well) because I'm somewhat aware of the tradeoffs you make when going mobile.

With the CPU it currently has, especially with it being clocked at 1GHZ, more RAM and better GPU would be a waste I think. Nintendo has done a great job with the GPU that when using DLSS gets close enough to XBSS and has also done better than XBSS on usable RAM. It's the CPU that's the issue. The thing is, I don't see the point in matching the XBSS on GPU and RAM if the CPU is 3-4x slower. People then say that is was necessary to hit the 10w power limit, but then I'd say you would need a different design with a higher power draw. They needed to find a way to match XBSS power is all I'm saying. They should have included a mode where, if you connect an external power bank it unlocks a high power mode that is as powerful as XBSS in CPU too

Pemalite said:
Hardstuck-Platinum said:

I would agree it's a good showcase of the Switch 2's hardware efficiency and improvement over Switch 1, but a good precedent? I'm not sure. Based on this performance can we be sure that Path of exile 2, Witcher 4 and Elder scrolls 6 will run on here? Not everyone likes Nintendo first party games so I'm sure others will want to know too. 

Why wouldn't it? It's able to showcase visuals and performance that is competitive with the Series S on launch day, even if it has to use DLSS to get there.

Path of Exile 2 is using an engine based on the first game.
Witcher 4 uses Unreal Engine 5.
And Elder Scrolls will be using a variant of the Net Immerse turned Gamebryo turned Creation Engine.

These games are all scalable across a myriad of hardware configurations.

Path of exile 1 ran great on a PS4 until you got into more hectic areas and fights, and that exposed it's weak CPU and made it borderline unplayable. 

Witcher 4 using UE5 isn't good for Switch 2 because UE5 is notorious for being CPU intensive. 

Starfield was a demanding game and lots of people had issues getting to run well. So I just assumed it would be the same for ES6