Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 380 posts

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#171

Post by PopsiclePete »

VLM wrote: post #111
VeejayRampay wrote: post #70

If someone can answer that question for me: Why has Nintendo shifted towards producing underpowered consoles? I used to play the Super Nes when I was a kid, and it was the most powerful console of its generation. The N64, the GameCube, the Wii and subsequent offerings were all underpowered in terms of graphical abilities and raw power after that. I hear people say "But the gameplay is what matters", which I agree wit…

The SNES was extremely underpowered compared to my desktop at that time. A 3 MHz 16 bit CPU in the early mid 90s like I had in my 80s home computer, except it was 1994 not 1984 and I had a 40 mhz 32 bit 386 and was playing with this new "linux" thing I downloaded as a series of floppy disks from a local BBS. Nintendo hasn't changed, but the console market has, such that their competitors gave up on the console ideal…

That's great. Except it wasn't until the year 1990 that someone like John Carmack could make a smooth-scrolling 2d platformer that would rival Super Mario Bros in terms of performance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_tile_refresh

SMB was released in 1985.

So yes, please tell me more how an early 1990's PC, without the specialized hardware that consoles had, in the hands of a programmer not-quite-up-to-par in the skills department as John Carmack, would kick the SNES's butt when it came to smooth-scrolling games.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#172

Post by slantyyz »

CamelCaseName wrote: post #154
rodionos wrote: post #79

Speaking purely as a consumer. Have 3 Wii consoles across the extended family. It was good as a gift, but ended up sitting idle given the demographics in our households. Hence - skipping Switch, time better spent outdoors, at the gym.

>outdoors, at the gym Gyms are usually indoor facilities. Also, you could take your Switch to the gym. Use it between sets or watch something while on the treadmill.

I think the parent meant "outdoors and at the gym" as in two separate activities, not an outdoor gym?

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#173

Post by wodenokoto »

vkjv wrote: post #31
nilkn wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just under 3 hours of battery life for a highly demanding game like Zelda seems pretty fair to me to be honest. 6 hours for less demanding games also seems pretty fair.

For me, that's disappointing. It means that a year or two into battery wear you'll be tethered to an outlet. The situation looks even more dire after reading this quote. > ...although we’ve yet to find a battery / cable that can charge the console faster than it drains.

Obviously the dock can keep the machine powered while playing, so there is at least one.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#174

Post by mercer »

debt wrote: post #63

Multiple displays is an theme throughout all at-home consumer electronics. We need a technology that can be streamed to as an external display instantly anywhere that can be any size.

Is that technically possible, especially keeping in mind the need for very low latency?

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#175

Post by rocky1138 »

nilkn wrote: post #100
VeejayRampay wrote: post #70

If someone can answer that question for me: Why has Nintendo shifted towards producing underpowered consoles? I used to play the Super Nes when I was a kid, and it was the most powerful console of its generation. The N64, the GameCube, the Wii and subsequent offerings were all underpowered in terms of graphical abilities and raw power after that. I hear people say "But the gameplay is what matters", which I agree wit…

I actually thought the Switch was more or less breaking that trend. It doesn't seem underpowered when considered for what it is (a tablet).

The portable screen is just 720p, which is not the end of the world. What I found surprising is that even when it's running Zelda on a full display, it only runs at 900p. I think if it can't do 1080p in 2017, it's fair to call it underpowered.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#176

Post by rocky1138 »

PopsiclePete wrote: post #171
VLM wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SNES was extremely underpowered compared to my desktop at that time. A 3 MHz 16 bit CPU in the early mid 90s like I had in my 80s home computer, except it was 1994 not 1984 and I had a 40 mhz 32 bit 386 and was playing with this new "linux" thing I downloaded as a series of floppy disks from a local BBS. Nintendo hasn't changed, but the console market has, such that their competitors gave up on the console ideal…

That's great. Except it wasn't until the year 1990 that someone like John Carmack could make a smooth-scrolling 2d platformer that would rival Super Mario Bros in terms of performance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptive_tile_refresh SMB was released in 1985. So yes, please tell me more how an early 1990's PC, without the specialized hardware that consoles had, in the hands of a programmer not-quite-up-to-par in t…

You're right on the money, there. PC hardware sucked for games until 3d graphics accelerators came along.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#178

Post by mercer »

Spivak wrote: post #159
SimeVidas wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all of us can delay playing Zelda in 900p@30fps for that long. I mean, if I don’t get it on Friday, I will be pissed. Also, note that there’s the Pro controller, which is better for playing on the TV anyway, so at least in that case, this is a non-issue.

Honest question, why not buy it on the Wii U then?

I'm considering just that, but the Wii U version is 'only' 720p, plus from what I hear it might struggle with performance.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#179

Post by swasheck »

slantyyz wrote: post #157
jdcarter wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's precisely why I'll be buying one: my daughter wants a 3DS, but I said let's wait for the Switch instead. Then we'll get to use it on our main TV (replacing our Wii U, which we rarely use) and have games that work in both settings. Win-win.

If your daughter wants a 3DS to play portable games (with nothing specific in mind) then waiting for a Switch instead of getting a 3DS is probably worthwhile. If, however, your daughter wants a 3DS for specific titles, you're still better off getting her the 3DS. For example, if all of her friends are currently playing and trading on Pokemon Sun/Moon, getting a Switch will basically have her feeling left out.

delayed gratification is not always a bad thing.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#180

Post by elsonrodriguez »

VeejayRampay wrote: post #70

If someone can answer that question for me: Why has Nintendo shifted towards producing underpowered consoles? I used to play the Super Nes when I was a kid, and it was the most powerful console of its generation. The N64, the GameCube, the Wii and subsequent offerings were all underpowered in terms of graphical abilities and raw power after that. I hear people say "But the gameplay is what matters", which I agree wit…

The Gamecube was actually more powerful than the PS2. An easy comparison here is to look at Resident Evil 4 on both consoles:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KkKX-nU9fX4

If anything, the fact that the Gamecube's graphical superiority didn't help it much in the market is what made Nintendo make their shift towards innovations instead of clock cycles.

You can't have both because the market has told Nintendo specifically (via the DS, 3DS, and Wii) that it wants unique experiences, not more pixels.

Post reply on HN