Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo Switch to have VR: the gamepad is also a VR screen.

Tagged games:

Nintendo Switch to have VR: the gamepad is also a VR screen.

Cool idea. 79 56.43%
 
Bad idea. 61 43.57%
 
Total:140
teigaga said:

framerate, resolution, antialiasing can all be achieved to a very high standard on the Switch's hardware. The only reason they wouldn't be is if your visual standard required extensive poly counts, realistic artstyle which require high resolution textures, excessive lighting effect/particle effects etc

Silly me, I forgot you have the detailed system specifications to hand to make such statements on.

Yes, that is sarcasm.



Around the Network
NATO said:
teigaga said:

framerate, resolution, antialiasing can all be achieved to a very high standard on the Switch's hardware. The only reason they wouldn't be is if your visual standard required extensive poly counts, realistic artstyle which require high resolution textures, excessive lighting effect/particle effects etc

Silly me, I forgot you have the detailed system specifications to hand to make such statements on.

Yes, that is sarcasm.

You seem to intentionally ignore my point. From what I gather, any decent hardware this side of the decade can out 1080p, 4x AAA etc. Its a case of balancing this against visual detail like poly count, texture size, txture fx like bump maps,  lighting & shadows, particle fx etc..

2 pages prior I included native 60fps Wii games (which is like 1/100th the Tegra X1 specs) outputting at 1080p (like 8x the games native Wii resolution). I think people grossly overestimate the minimimum graphical requirements for an enjoyable VR experience. No doubt if Nintendo did VR the visuals would be better than those Wii games, but the idea that you need a monster of a machine to deliver VR is based on an expectation of games looking (or trying to look) like modern AAA affair  as opposed to embracing the technical limitations and creating the graphics around what can be achieved when hitting the required performance benchmarks like high res/fps/aliasing.



VR on PC is amazing folks.



nice i will just play with my PSVR lmao



d21lewis said:
My only worry is if this is true (and I doubt it) cheap, shitty VR will turn people off to the idea of good VR! There's a huge difference in immersion between watching a 360 degree VR video and playing a VR game. Not even comparable.

If Sony can do it to platformers, why can't Nintendo do it to VR?



Nov 2016 - NES outsells PS1 (JP)

Don't Play Stationary 4 ever. Switch!

Around the Network
teigaga said:
NATO said:

Silly me, I forgot you have the detailed system specifications to hand to make such statements on.

Yes, that is sarcasm.

You seem to intentionally ignore my point. From what I gather, any decent hardware this side of the decade can out 1080p, 4x AAA etc. Its a case of balancing this against visual detail like poly count, texture size, txture fx like bump maps,  lighting & shadows, particle fx etc..

2 pages prior I included native 60fps Wii games (which is like 1/100th the Tegra X1 specs) outputting at 1080p (like 8x the games native Wii resolution). I think people grossly overestimate the minimimum graphical requirements for an enjoyable VR experience. No doubt if Nintendo did VR the visuals would be better than those Wii games, but the idea that you need a monster of a machine to deliver VR is based on an expectation of games looking (or trying to look) like modern AAA affair  as opposed to embracing the technical limitations and creating the graphics around what can be achieved when hitting the required performance benchmarks like high res/fps/aliasing.

You need 80-120hz for a quality vr experience otherwise the head tracking and delay is jarring , ideally locked at 120hz, running psvr on a PS4 the a ps4pro the immediate difference you notice is the more fluid and natural functionality of the headset, way more comfortable and less motion sickness inducing.

 

1080p at 60hz won't cut it.

 

Only reason psvr on a standard PS4 can get away with it is because the enternal box does frame blending to give the effect of 120hz when the console can't hit that.

 

In addition the display and the optics are sealed, no dust gets in and no crap ends up on your screen or the inside of the optics, having to slot in an external display means the unit isn't sealed, so debris and humidity can enter the unit, and anyone with an early dk1 or dk2 rift will tell you, dust and debris inside the unit is both extremely anouying and jarring, too.

 

I have: psvr, rift, vive, rift dk2 and rift dk1, in my opinion the standard PS4 is on the raggedy edge of delivering an enjoyable vr experience, mainly because of the external boxes frame rate trickery, and we can both agree, quite easily, that the switch isn't going to be as fast as a PS4.

 

And no, if the display on the switch is 60hz, they can't use frame blending to get around it because the display itself will only ever display 60hz, and if they use a 120hz display then you can say goodbye to a sub $300 pricetag.

 

If they go with 60hz the games are going to be both meh and the actual experience of playing them both mediocre and physically painfully for longer periods of time.



I see....The face of Reggie in the video is quite on the nose. Let's see how this plays out.



Chinese food for breakfast

 



Hunting Season is done...

Nop, this is not happening. Is big, is 720p and is clear that Nintendo is not gonna play the VR card this gen.



teigaga said:

If Nintendo made a Metroid VR experience , Made a Pokemon Go/Snap type VR game,  VR Mario Kart experience, VR Splatoon experience. And they do this using the components which already come with the Switch (joycons with motion control & IR, Switch Screen+ Gyro etc) and a $50 headset, the number of active VR users on Switch would outnumber those on other platforms within a matter of weeks.

True thats why the Wii U with splatoon, mario kart etc vastly outsells the Xbox one and PS4