Hacker News Reader

As a gamer, why should I explicitly care about the hardware? If the experience is good, I don't care what is inside it. The graphics appear to be "good enough".

Do you care about framerate?

Not the same games but Uncharted 4 multiplayer is 1080p 60fps and silky smooth. That's not even talking about PC games - it's dirt cheap to run CSGO at 90 fps and 1440p these days.

Bad performance detracts from the experience and it also limits what Nintendo can do with the console over the next three or four years.

Bad games detract from the experience.

I (and many other people) want to play Mario, Zelda, Mario Kart, etc., not silky smooth PC games.

I agree that performance is a pretty integral part of the experience. But I think the way it's being brought up in this thread is a bit disingenuous. Most people that are doing so seem to be glossing over the fact that the stutter is

1) rare

2) mostly resolved by the day 1 patch that Nintendo released

I own the game. Framerate drops are still very common

In prerelease reviews, there was talk of very occasional drops to below 30fps, sometimes even 20fps. It's my understanding that, post-launch that a lot of people (reviewers and people on Reddit, etc) are reporting that this happens a lot less. Rose-tinted glasses?

> Not the same games but Uncharted 4 multiplayer is 1080p 60fps and silky smooth.

Uncharted 4 is only 900p 60fps in multiplayer, and 1080p 30fps in single player (on a regular PS4)

But regardless, if your going to switch up the games, Fast RMX runs at 1080p 60fps on the Switch, even in multiplayer mode.

Yeah, the Switch does not hit the performance of a PS4. But the Switch has just 1/3rd the power draw of a Slim PS4. (Roughly 30 watts average for the Switch, compared to roughly 80 watts average for the Slim PS4). It's not bad hardware at all, when you consider the power budget it's required to operate under, in order to be portable.

That's the thing. The experience is either 720p or 900p, at barely 30fps. Dropping to 20 and below many instances, WHILE DOCKED. The graphics are fine, the performance is unacceptable for a brand new console.

On Zelda. A launch title ported from another system. It's also overblown as an issue.

No one gives a shit anyway. If people cared they wouldn't ever bother with consoles.

People do care, it's just that when it comes to Nintendo, it's apparently expected. Other native Zelda games on the previous consoles, ran poorly as well. Nintendo needs to be a triple A third party developer for other consoles, and give it up with their gimmicky hardware.

Clearly they don't need to do that if the switch is exceeding their expectations.

I'd rather have their stuff than crappy pseudo-PCs.

So you're happier with an even crappier pseudo-pc. Got it.

LOL

No, I'm happier with a console that just does it's own thing. Nintendo doesn't build shitty watered down PCs. They just build a thing to play some games on.

That really makes no sense. Are you suggesting that because the Switch launched nearly featureless, that is POSITIVE? For less than the cost of the Switch you can buy a "shitty watered down PC", that has MUCH greater performance, plays Blu-Ray, Netflix, and whatever else you want. I understand there is hardcore Nintendo fanboyism, but come on.

Can you play it anywhere on the go? Can it play the nintendo games?

The only reason to get a console these days, besides the switch, is for the exclusivity. With the switch you also get a handheld console in addition to exclusivities.

> For less than the cost of the Switch you can buy a "shitty watered down PC", that has MUCH greater performance, plays Blu-Ray, Netflix, and whatever else you want.

Can you link me to where I can buy this other portable gaming console which apparently even has a Blu-Ray player despite the small form factor?

BOTW absolutely does not 'run poorly' or anywhere even close to it. I'm approaching 70 hours with the game and haven't come across a single performance issue.

I'm not going to argue with you. Day One reports were issues with serious frame rate drops, specifically with the docked version of the game. This has been discussed, analyzed, and recorded to death. Breath of the Wild has framerate issues.

Digital Foundry covered this extensively

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhoiGxl6bnE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gpqaTdflkNU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yFON2UON3k

Yes, it has been covered extensively, to the tune of nearly a hundred reviews, averaging to a score of 97 on a 100-point scale: http://www.metacritic.com/game/switch/the-legend-of-zelda-br...

If you're going to pretend to make authoritative statements on the basis of "it's been discussed to death", then you should say, "Breath of the Wild, whatever its issues, is one of the best games ever made".

See how unconvincing this approach is to someone who disagrees?

What's the argument?

It can be one of the greatest games ever made by subjective and objective measures and suffer performance issues.

The only way BotW does not have performance issues is if you consider sub-30 fps acceptable.

>What's the argument?

If you can't see one, why assume one exists just out of sight?

>The only way BotW does not have performance issues is if you consider sub-30 fps acceptable.

The popularity of the game implies that most people do.

holy shit you are annoying as fuck. go back to reddit with this grade school trolling. even if you had a point it is long over shadowed by your tone and lack of reading comp.

I'm not sure what you're arguing here. Are you giving me proof that there are no performance issues, based upon the overall metacritic scores being high? Just about every Nintendo game I can remember has had performance issues, remember the NES? "Nintendo slowdown" was part of the game play! I gave proof above, I didn't say I was authoritative. Stop your condescending attitude.

That the "it's been covered extensively, see how these random internet people have written at length about the viewpoint I agree with" line of argument goes both ways, but more against you than in favor.

The only condescending statement here is the one you made: "This has been discussed, analyzed, and recorded to death. Breath of the Wild has framerate issues."

No, that actually is a fact. With proof from multiple sources, and frame rate graphs. Until you show me otherwise, it's objectively factual. While on the other hand, game scores are ENTIRELY subjective. Of course, game scores have absolutely nothing to do with the performance issues, so I still don't understand your argument.

Next you'll tell me humans never landed on the moon. I'm done!

The framerate itself is an objective measurement, but the word "issues" is a subjective assessment.

If you want to provide facts, say what the framerate is, don't say that there are framerate issues. To continue my comparison, it is a fact that a certain reviewer assigned the game a certain score. Whether that is indicative of the quality is opinion, as are the reviews themselves.

I did say what the framerate is, right at the very root of this thread from which this all started. I'm sorry I even brought it up at this point.

People have been saying this at least since the Gamecube era and Nintendo was already over a century old by that point. People also said that the PS2 would sink Sony because of the rocky launch and the myriad production issues they faced in the first year. And that Microsoft didn't understand this industry and that the Xbox would be a brief sojourn into it.

Suffice it to say, gamers tend to have poor crystal balls.

Lol no please. I love nintendo games, and I bought the switch for the games. If I want graphics or VR, I buy a desktop computer not a console.

The fact that it's Zelda and not some mediocre third party title is all the more concerning. First party means all the hardware nuances are pretty well known to the developers.

Except that development ostensibly originally started for WiiU in or before 2013 when the game was announced. The difference in architecture between the WiiU and Switch is significant enough to make porting it a non-trivial affair. When combined with the other evidence that the Switch was rushed to launch (e.g. lack of browser, Virtual Console, etc.) even if you consider the "hardware nuances [to be] pretty well known to the developers" it's doubtful that they had the time to work around the differences between the two platforms as well as they should have.

You do realize that other games have been in similar circumstances before, like FF7, and they have coped with it much better.

My sources all tell me it is because the hardware is woefully underpowered (I don't think I can share any details), not because the software engineers were rushed (most game development is done under what you would consider "rushed" timelines, compared to the rest of the software industry as a whole).

Yes, I do. Though I disagree that FF7 is a good example of a game in similar circumstances.

Although FF7 began life on the SNES game, both that and an N64 version were completely scrapped before work started on the PSN version. I'd submit that starting an engine from scratch is a more straightforward task than getting partially through development on one platform, then having to port the engine and ensure it works reasonably well on both the old platform and a new one.

Regardless of whether or not FF7 is a good or bad example, I agree with the general sentiment that there are other developers that have done a better job porting games across disparate platforms.

My comment was merely to point out that having knowledge of hardware nuances isn't the same as being aggressive in optimizing for those nuances.

I also don't consider a Tegra X1 to be woefully underpowered in the Switch's form factor. Given that and the other evidence of a rushed launch, it seems more likely to me that insufficient optimization is to blame.

But I look forward to additional details, post-mortems, etc. becoming available (from you and others) as NDAS and such expire.

Yes, I agree with you about FF7, and although I have more interesting things to say, I don't think I can discuss this any further, sorry.

Understandable. Any idea when this info might come out, given that folks abide by their agreements?

Just like the Wii, the 5th best-selling console of all time? The console that outsold all other consoles of its generation, except the Nintendo DS?

The Wii was unique, and will not happen again. It was the right place, the right product, and the right time to capitalize on the exploding definition of "Games" and "Gamer". That's over. People have either moved on to their phones/tablets, or they're the type who are still playing with their Wii.

The assumption that those many new gamers would behave like a "core" market was laughably wrong.

As for the portable, Nintendo is the best in the game, benefited from being up against Sony (the worst in the mobile game... they practically assassinated their own platform), and they have the benefit of a built-in market at home.

The Switch isn't a DS... it's not a pocket gaming platform. It isn't as useful as an iPad. It's as powerful as a console. What is it exactly, other than some kind of massive compromise rendered on substandard hardware?

Edit: left out the "isn't".

IMO the Wii was unique, but a gimmick. The Switch is the real deal, the sales will probably reflect that in December for Christmas.

I hope you're right; this is a situation in which I'd be more than happy to be look back in a year and eat my words. I grew up with Nintendo, and was a loyal customer through the Gamecube. I still love their mobile offerings.

I would like an excuse to come back to a console, but so far this isn't it, for me.

Is the battery life really worse than an iPad? iOS devices will last a long time if it's mostly idle, but when playing high-end games they generally only last an hour or two.

Did you even bother to look at Wii sales numbers? They did nothing like that.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wii_sales

Sales fell off a cliff?? Are you aware the Wii is the 5th highest selling game system of all time? http://www.vgchartz.com/analysis/platform_totals/

I'm not sure what you mean by the hardware is mediocre - are you expecting a desktop class GPU in a tablet form factor? What is your comparison? The Nvidia SOC is quite powerful, and handles 4k output just fine on the Nvidia Shield. I've had no complaints beyond the kickstand and I am loving my Switch so far.

It's pretty obvious why he's saying the hardware is mediocre. It can't run a 1ST party launch title consistently @ 30FPS, the console industry standard of minimum acceptable performance for probably at least a decade. I've heard lots of people say the drops in frame rate don't bother them. That's great, but lots of people are bothered by it. In my experience, 30FPS seems barely acceptable and when games randomly fall below that performance feels very choppy.

It's not enough to make me not want a switch. I'm planning on getting one as soon as I can find one, but I'm frustrated by the fact that there's no way to play BOTW smoothly on any system, and when it does play smoothly it will likely be in an emulator on a PC.

It's not just about how Zelda plays, it makes me concerned for the long term viability of the Switch.

>the battery life is abysmal compared to an iPad

Okay...in a vacuum, the battery life complaints sounded ridiculous. But this...this is straight up bonkers to me. Are there any widely played Ipad titles that are an apples-to-apples comparison to BOTW?

> the screen scratches if you put it in the dock too forcefully

as this actually happen to anyone?

> it's mediocre hardware > the battery life is abysmal compared to an iPad

I cant comprehend your comment, it's the best handheld console on the market. For TV console, it's an experience focused on the game. If I wanted something for the graphics I would have bought a desktop computer not a console in the first place.

> the game selection is arguably worse

for a launch console no

> Then sales will fall off a cliff, just like they did with the original Wii

wat