Well we know of 30 locations on the map, and 2 of those have 2 different tracks to make up the 32 courses for the 8 cups. Crown City is apparently used in both the Mushroom Cup and Shell Cup but it's a different course, basically it's the same location on the map but it's two different tracks (though both are just called Crown City).

Personally I'm not expecting there to be any additional tracks at launch which aren't on the open world map, if the open world was only new tracks I might think that we'd get a load of retro courses that are just separate from the open world but the map has retro tracks on it so I don't think so.. I think we are just getting the 32 tracks at launch. It would be a nice surprise if you are correct.

i worry that the day i play a game at 120fps, I’ll only ever want 120fps lol. If there’s a 60fps mode, I’ll set it to that. (30fps is nauseating; 60fps is more than enough; 120fps is the glutton in me craving for more.)

1440p/60 vs 1080p/120

I would choose the former.

120 is way better than 60, but 1080p is a resolution I would never, ever return to. Unless DLSS can upscale that to 4K and keep 120, which is likely never going to happen. 

Nintendo prioritizing resolution and framerate over graphics is nice for a game like this though for stuff like the next 3D Mario I hope they push the visuals hard since with how long it's been since Odyssey I want it to look really beautiful.

I can't stand 30fps now but I'm still fine with 60 after experiencing 144. 60 does look choppier now but I can get used to it quickly so I'd recommend trying 120 since the smoothness feels really nice. 

Nintendo becoming the champion of 120 FPS games wasn't on my bingo card, lol.

Honestly this could be a thing for a lot of Nintendo IP ... bumping the frame rate to 90-120 FPS effectively spends the Switch 2's powerful hardware without incurring a massive cost for really extreme graphical fidelity (which would result in a much bigger budget requirement most likely). 

I could see 120 FPS modes for games like Animal Crossing, Smash, 2D Mario, etc. because why not. 

I have a monitor with 165hz of refresh rate and i just feel a lot of difference when I play Overwatch 2, Doom Eternal, Forza Horizon 4 and Final Fantasy XIV, but in others single player games 60 fps is ok for me.

Smash and 2D Mario will be nice, but I dont think Animal Crossing needs a 120 fps mode.

Given that the bottleneck for Switch 2 hardware was looking to be the CPU from the leaked specs we were getting, this would be very good news.

Aiming for high frame-rates typically is a CPU-bound workload.

It's difficult to find specific benchmarks for the RTX 30350 laptop that show 4K DLSS performance vs 1440p native I guess it's not the sexiest GPU so didn't attract a lot of coverage), though generally the consensus seems to be that using DLSS is highly recommended for the GPU precisely because of it's underwhelming specs...

Here's Cyberpunk benchmarks using DLSS on a RTX 3050 (desktop version, obvs a bit more powerful). It shows a significant increase in frame rates when using DLSS no matter the resolution.

I'm admittedly no expert but in what scenario would it not be beneficial to use DLSS? In it's recent iterations there's negligible visual degradation/artifacting unless the gulf in native vs output res is big.

For MKW, even forgetting 4K DLSS Performance, why would it not be better to run the game at 1440p DLSS balanced (1080p internal) than native 1440p, then free up headroom for upping environmental density or whatever? Genuine question.

If I remember correctly TOTK used FSR on S1... If S1 can handle upscaling surely S2 should find it a breeze.

Can you show an example where any GPU has worse performance when using DLSS vs native? (again, genuine question, trying to figure all of this stuff out)

Could it be Nintendo just being Nintendo & inexplicably ignoring the feature, just like AA?