So all new games on Switch should cost more than on PS4 and X1 since they get are only console mode. And the cross purchase that you can do on PS4+PSVita and Play Anywhere for X1+PC should cost over 100 USD per your logic right?
And it is BS to defend Nintendo looking at ports as brand new games when they aren't, and for the case in point it's a very basic port. While Activision releases 3 Crash, fully remade for 40 and in Switch will be playable dock and undock...
Also, please tell us what differences are between the full handheld version and the full home console mode?
It is almost like a collection of several GOTY games made as one.
You are falling for the fallacy "I think it's prettier so it must be more demanding", without looking at the console load you can't be certain of it.
You could have 100 games you think is better or prettier or more demanding than one specific game, but in the end that one is the more demanding one.
No, I dont say that but definitely have extra value compared to Wii U, especially when we compare same game. PS4 offers only home console mode, Switch offers full handheld mode and full home console mode, its fact. PS4+PSVita and Play Anywhere for X1+PC is not same like what Switch offers, Switch is just one console and it works with evre game without additional hardware, costs or requirements (like internet).
I dont defend them I just saying whats their point of view, they act like Wii U didnt exist beacuse its failure with very limited user base and they looking on Wii U ports like brand new games, and in way they are if you didnt had Wii U, Switch months ago already passed Wii U install base.
"Tell us"!? Most people knows difference, I really cant help you if you dont know main difference between handheld and home console play.
You talking nonsense, I never said anything about whats more prettier, its simple DKTF 2D platform game cant be more demanding than 3D action game like Bayonetta 2 or racing game like MK8D.
You are confusion value with price and cost. But please entertain me on how a game that you buy once and can play in 3 platforms have "less" value than a game you buy once can only play in one device but the device itself plays in more options?? So should PC games be more expensive since ever you could buy on Steam and play in multiple HW and/or use a notebook to play on the go, or on the power outlet or plugged to the TV? And since we are at it, should the games on Wii and WiiU cost less than in PS360 and X1PS4 because they had lower performance? Or should the games on Switch cost more than on X1PS4 because you can play on the go and docked? Or should games on X1PS4 cost more because you can also play them on X1X and PS4Pro?
Nope, no one here would be able to explain the difference between the HH and the Console mode of DK, because they don't exist. It's a single game that you can play docked or on the go.
Nope, not talking nonsense, If it wasn't you, it was someone with the very same discourse about "simple" vs "complex", "2D" vs "3D", etc. More demanding game is related to how much of the processing power the games drains from the system, it may seem like being 3D, fast paced, photorealistic should be more demanding, but that doesn't make it be the case everytime. I believe this discussion was made on a Doom Switch thread where someone was defending that a game running at sub-720p and 30fps was more demanding than a game at 1080p60fps on the same HW, which is obvious, because if the first wasn't utilizing all the resources then it would have space for more res or frames... but the other person was talking about the other game genre, collor pallete, etc saying it was more demanding (which is the confusion between perception and reality).
You may say otherwise, but all you have done in your post is defend them.
Ah, I see. So it’s blending the pixels. E.G. if you had a screen of 5 pixels across, but the image was 6 pixels, 3 blue, 3 brown, the supersampling would essentially blend the middle pixel to be blue and brown.
Is that correct?
I think what threw me off is the word "render"
It is actually rendered at the higher resolution. That's why it takes such a taxing hit to hardware. You need more video memory and bandwidth than what makes sense at native resolution making it hard to even do to begin with on a locked spec'ed device.
To be fair supersampling on 6.2" screen loose purpose, not to mention that rendering at higher resolution would kill battery even faster.
I'm not advocating its use on Switch, merely explaining what it is as some were confused how you can render above a screen's native resolution.
The pixel density is already high enough that most AA is irrelevant anyway. A 4K gaming monitor also would not need as much AA for the same reason. And yes, as I mentioned before, that would take a big hit to the battery (and frame rate).
The pixel density is so high.... that even cellphones with smaller screen present resolutions higher than fullHD...