Dang it Nintendo. I'm hoping that Gamestop gets events like this. All of those are way too far away 
. And I'd love to try one out.
. And I'd love to try one out.
Nintendo NX / Switch Discussion
- Thread starter eastman23
- Start date
Dang it Nintendo. I'm hoping that Gamestop gets events like this. All of those are way too far away
I live between Boston and NYC, it makes no difference because even if you went you probably would never get to try the system out. I'm sure there will be in store demos, but I am curious to how they will work.
Yea good point. I am too, I want to see how sturdy it is system and control wise.
I hope Switch demos are better than the WiiU ones. Those Gamepads always died at Best Buy.
The 3DS demos the consoles barely moved so you couldn't use the 3D. It actually made me wait 1-2 more years until I played Animal Crossing on a friend's console.
Eurogamer reveals Nintendo Switch CPU and GPU clock speeds
Spoiler: Lower than expected, but not exactly a surprise.
Overall, the hardware infrastructure skews typically Nintendo - very conservative on specs, with impressive performance yields to be expected (emphasis on optimization).
Spoiler: Lower than expected, but not exactly a surprise.
Overall, the hardware infrastructure skews typically Nintendo - very conservative on specs, with impressive performance yields to be expected (emphasis on optimization).
I see they're all melting down because they expected XB1 or PS4 specs out of this. 
It's like they've never heard of Nintendo before.
It's like they've never heard of Nintendo before.
Word. And as long as it is built well and is well vented. That's what matters to me more than graphics, spec wise.
I see the Switch as a successor to the 3DS and I don't give a crap about AAA Western games, so I'm thrilled with these specs. The Switch is going to have Nintendo's entire output on it, a strong library of Indie games, and close to 100% of Japanese third party support. That's pretty much "best system ever" to me.
I don't understand the specs, and anyone who thought this would be a PS5 or an Xbox Too should be slapped for their stupidity. I don't want a portable Call of Duty. I don't give a damn about those useless boring shit shooter games.
The Wii U was a massive failure game wise (Number of games, not quality), and ad wise and everything wise. If Nintendo can learn their mistakes with the lack of Wii U ads the Switch will be fine. Nintendo is combining their two systems into one which should mean combined gaming force.
The Wii U was a massive failure game wise (Number of games, not quality), and ad wise and everything wise. If Nintendo can learn their mistakes with the lack of Wii U ads the Switch will be fine. Nintendo is combining their two systems into one which should mean combined gaming force.
But does it have Blast Processing?
Here's the thing, I don't care about power (too much). I know if you say that in certain circles you're labeled a Nintendrone or whatever term the haters like to use, but I don't care (not that you guys are like that though).
I was thinking on this, and this isn't the first time a Nintendo system was only slightly more powerful than it's predecessor. The Wii was just a Gamecube with motion controls, and that thing did just fine. I already have a list of wants for the system and they're primarily first party releases, with the exception of Stardew Valley, I really like the look of that game.
I just gotta wonder, why do peopl want Nintendo to replicate the PS4 or Xbone? What will they achieve by doing that? People who want powerful machines already have those, are they really going to drop another 400 (at minimum) dollars on a Nintendo console that runs exactly the same? If Nintendo wanted to do that they would have, but they know they can't really compete at this stage, so they're going for innovation, which I say more power to them. The WiiU didn't work out, but that doesn't automatically mean the Switch won't be a hit.
I was thinking on this, and this isn't the first time a Nintendo system was only slightly more powerful than it's predecessor. The Wii was just a Gamecube with motion controls, and that thing did just fine. I already have a list of wants for the system and they're primarily first party releases, with the exception of Stardew Valley, I really like the look of that game.
I just gotta wonder, why do peopl want Nintendo to replicate the PS4 or Xbone? What will they achieve by doing that? People who want powerful machines already have those, are they really going to drop another 400 (at minimum) dollars on a Nintendo console that runs exactly the same? If Nintendo wanted to do that they would have, but they know they can't really compete at this stage, so they're going for innovation, which I say more power to them. The WiiU didn't work out, but that doesn't automatically mean the Switch won't be a hit.
My guess is that these "hardcore" gamers loved Nintendo as kids, but as teenagers and young adults they've moved onto the more mature and narrative-driven games on the PS and Xbox. Of course, that old school Nintendo nostalgia never dies, so they would desperately love for Nintendo to release a beast of a console and start making M rated Zelda games. Nintendo isn't for them anymore, and they really don't like that.
We're not talking about "people," we're talking about "hardcore gamers," who masturbate over clock speeds and DRAM e-peens. Because those are the kinds of folks who buy Nintendo consoles, right?
It might shock people to learn that Nintendo has rarely been on the cutting edge of technology. The original NES was by no means impressive compared with the technology of the day. The SNES was a bit more of an exception--it may be the one time Nintendo had a technical edge over its competitors.
But look at what followed: N64, GameCube, Wii, Wii U. The N64 was quickly eclipsed by the rapidly-maturing graphics hardware on PCs (and the N64 itself was, as I recall, years late hitting the market). GC was even less ambitious, and the Wii was all about motion controls, with graphics designed to be adequate, not mind-blowing. Likewise, the Wii U's main attraction was the gamepad, not hawt graphics or CPU power--it was essentially previous-gen hardware under the hood, too.
This is to say nothing of handhelds, where Nintendo has always been pretty conservative on the hardware side. Look how long it took them to bring color graphics to the Gameboy series! Seems to me the one time they put out a technically ambitious handheld--the 3DS--they fell flat on their faces with poor sales.
I think people who complain about the graphics side of things forget what, exactly, the purpose is of amping up graphics hardware all the time. Ultimately, you want to push up three things: the number of polys on the screen, the sizes of the textures you apply to them, and the number/complexity of shaders you lay over the scene. All of this is generally in service to making graphics more realistic.
Considering the types of games Nintendo is best known for, are realistic graphics a major concern? No. And trends in the gaming industry are seeing a lot less in the way of realistic graphics--a resurgence in pixel art, not to mention a move toward very colorful, "cartoony" 3D graphics, which require less in the way of complex textures and shaders. These trends benefit a modest-spec system like the Switch, and I think Nintendo is making the right choice there.
Of course, none of this means anything without a library. Good specs but a dull library killed the Vita. The point was made earlier that Nintendo had an impressive third-party lineup prior to the Wii U launch, which amounted to fuck all once the console flopped at market. So really, Nintendo needs to hit a convincing price point ($250 on down?), have a decent launch library, retain third-party support, and build that up in order to sell a bunch of units next Christmas. Which seems totally doable, assuming the market isn't already saturated (which is always a possibility; you don't know what people want until you start selling it).
