Was Nintendo right to opt out of the graphics arms race?

[Chrkeller]

burninmylight said:

OdinHades said:

For me pesonally, yes, absolutely. I stopped caring about graphics about ten years ago. Because I can't see a friggin' difference anymore between low and ultra details. Sure, I can watch some digital foundry video that shows me a still image with 16x zoom to show me some detail that looks slightly better than in last gen or something. But I prefer to spend my time with actually playing games. Graphics have gotten good enough for me to not care about small details anymore. I used to be impressed by something like Crysis or Killzone 2 when those games initially released. But today when I see something like AC: Shadows or whatever the hell might be the shiniest game right now, I just think "looks nice", and that's it. Graphics just don't impress anymore as the jumps have gotten too small to really make a huge difference. That also applies to Pathtracing and stuff. Yes, the lightin in pathtraced Half-Life 2 looks gorgeous. But it's still Half-Life 2 and I kinda forget about the lighting or other stuff when I'm 30 minutes or so into a game.

Nintendos route lead to a portable system, which is absolutely fantastic for someone like me who travels a lot. Because in a train, on a plane or in a hotel room, my Switch 2 is indeed infinitely more powerful than my PS5 Pro that is sitting at home doing nothing. Yes, I know the PS Portal is a thing, but I don't like streaming with all the compression, lost connections, delay and stuff.

I prefer to get games on Switch 2 when they are available, although I do have a PS5 Pro. Portability beats the slight graphics upgrade any day of the week for me.

I'm a firm believer that most people will never notice the difference between 1080p and 4K images/video until you tell them that there is a difference. Or the difference between a game running on PS4 vs. PS5 unless there is an obvious contrast in lighting and FPS. Graphics have advanced so far now that generational leaps just aren't what they used to be, and untrained (or uncaring) eyes have to really squint to make out fine details. I'll readily admit that I'm one of those people.

So many times I'll read message boards or comment sections on how much better a game on Switch runs on other platforms and have reservations about a game. Then when I go watch gameplay in motion or a DF comparison, I come out afterward thinking it's good enough for me; if a resolution downgrade and some extra slowdown and pop-in here and there means I don't have to pay an extra $400 and make room for an extra box, so be it.

I largely agree.  1440p vs 4k, at least on a 65 inch tv, no difference for me.  

I can tell the difference between 90, 60 and 30 fps.  Anything above 90 fps doesn't have much impact.  

And likely I am more sensitive to the above things than an average gamer.  

So no doubt going price above power was the right move for Nintendo.  

DLSS has really helped significantly and that tech just keeps getting better.

Only reason I do not go S2 for third party is the 30 fps limit on most games.  Too slow and too much latency.  I love Nintendo push 60 fps (so far) on their first party titles.