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

291–300 of 380 posts

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#291

Post by __david__ »

k__ wrote: post #252
__david__ wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And don't forget the rumble pack on the N64. It cracks me up that Sony still calls their controller the "DualShock", since that was a direct "2 is better than 1!" response to the N64 rumble pack. On the other hand, Sony's one-upmanship also added the 2nd analog joystick to controllers and that turned out to be incredibly important.

Well, when they added it, it was rather useless. I think I only played one game on the PSX that really used 2 sticks and that was Ape Escape. Only when FPS became a thing on consoles, the second stick was finally used in more than a few games. And when did this become the case? With the XBox?

There were FPSes on PS1 and PS2 but they were not good and didn't use modern control schemes (though maybe Red Faction used it?).

I would credit Halo more than XBox for inventing/popularizing the good controller scheme for FPS games.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#292

Post by jackvalentine »

WillPostForFood wrote: post #272
rocky1138 wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By that standard, the ps4 and xbox one are also underpowered because some games on those platforms also run sub-1080p. Every game makes performance tradeoffs. Some games on Switch will support 1080p, others will opt for other visual bells and whistles.

The PS4 and Xbox One came out in 2013.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#293

Post by nickik »

iamatworknow wrote: post #108
danso wrote: post #101

As a late Wii U owner, I'm willing to wait until the Switch proves to be a success. The horror stories of the Wii U's launch, combined with lackluster support and signs that Nintendo didn't know how to adapt to the Internet age haven't exactly been mitigated by what we know of the Switch so far: no web browser, no Virtual Console nor movie services like Netflix at launch. Everything smells rushed...in the meantime, I…

Lack of a virtual console I can understand, but are you really being dissuaded from purchasing a Switch based on its lack of web browser and Netflix -- two things that run on half a dozen or more devices that the typical HN reader probably already owns?

I usually have a phone, and sometimes also a laptop. If a added the Switch it would be add a far superior viewing experience when I am sitting in the train and watching.

Also, when Im playing video games and want to look up something, I would like it to be 2 clicks away and not on a different device.

I think Nintendo could just sell these as tablets that are specially good for gaming. The people who already carry around tablet will not drop theirs until the Switch supports common stuff, and they will not buy a Switch because why add another device of the same size.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#294

Post by trump2016 »

kibwen wrote: post #290
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…

It's not just a costs thing. I have never, ever, ever, ever noticed a loading screen in any Nintendo game in my entire life, which is astounding. Lower-fidelity assets must be partly attributable to this, along with clever design to effectively hide whatever loading screens they do need. I have plenty of time to ponder this curiosity while waiting for Bloodborne and FFXV to load...

You have clearly never played super smash bros brawl. Idk about the Wii U version cause after braw I went back to Melese for good but I assume it's the same.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#295

Post by brandon272 »

btschaegg wrote: post #213
slg wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure that analogy works because an unmaintained Netflix isn't a blinking eyesore like an unset digital clock. I setup Netflix on my PC and on my tablet which casts to my TV. Other devices, like my Xbox or my TV itself, are no worse for having never been setup with Netflix.

On the other hand, I am perfectly fine with a console that just plays games, because that's what I buy it for. There were plenty consoles that came with a plethora of features but had no good games at launch - if Nintendo does it the other way around, I don't have a problem with that. Also, if you look at it from Nintendo's perspective: If Netflix is everywhere, it certainly won't be the feature that actually sells t…

Nintendo seems strongest when they are focusing purely on the gaming experience. Adding web browsers and Netflix because you can is just a distraction and not where their core competencies and interests are.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#296

Post by flycaliguy »

throwaway91111 wrote: post #224
nilkn wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Switch is basically a high-powered tablet with proper gaming controls. I'd love it if it could actually replace "real" tablets. As it is, we're going to have two separate classes of tablets: those that are actually good at gaming (Switch), and those that are good at everything else (iPad, etc.). That said, it's easy to see why Nintendo's focusing on gaming: it's their core competency, nobody else in the tablet sp…

I already have a tablet. I certainly don't want to browse anything with shitty Nintendo software. They should focus on games. Hell, this is the best sign yet that the switch will have SOME value beyond "you can play the latest Mario here"

Can I just say that the Wii U browser wasn't a "power user" browser or anything, but was totally charming and fun. I loved it.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#297

Post by joshschreuder »

crooked-v wrote: post #239
anthony_romeo wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I recall, a number of studies showed that most people mostly play their portable gaming devices at home. I suspect the portability of the Switch for big games like the Legend of Zelda are largely about accommodating this use case (comfort, extra screens in the home, multitasking).

I think it's also hard to overstate the parental appeal of "you can get the TV back at any time without the kid whining about an interrupted game".

Or SO can watch TV while you kill some Moblins :)

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#298

Post by rasz_pl »

SimeVidas wrote: post #74
treehau5 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you weren't sold on waiting for the next release, you should be now. I was super excited about getting one of these, but now I will probably hold out for the Switch "S". At the very minimum, wait to see if the buggy left joy cons are being shipped with this initial batch.

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.

>Not all of us can delay playing Zelda in 900p@30fps for that long

cant tell if sarcasm or gneuine console user

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#299

Post by agumonkey »

matthewmacleod wrote: post #280
OD_ wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SNES is not underpowered compared to the genesis if you compare them as a whole and not just spec for spec like comparing mhz on a CPU. Console hardware is made for running games and are not general computing devices. The snes hardware had many hardware supported graphical modes that allowed it to push the envelope without relying on a beefier CPU, the most famous of which is Mode 7 which allowed the pseudo 3d yo…

The SNES is not underpowered compared to the genesis if you compare them as a whole and not just spec for spec like comparing mhz on a CPU. This is literally what the parent said phrased differently.

I didn't want to state the obvious and be too detailed but yes that's exactly what I meant. And is what people were trying to assess above too: what are the reasons behind Nintendo hardware. And to phrase it again differently, Nintendo tries to be vertical for "entertainment", doesn't really matter how, as long as they achieve quality fun.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#300

Post by agumonkey »

OD_ wrote: post #260
agumonkey wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SNES CPU was underpowered compared to the Genesis. But the overall system yielded better gaming experience. It's similar to Apple lesser RAM numbers compared to the market, yet iPhone are still smoother globally.

The SNES is not underpowered compared to the genesis if you compare them as a whole and not just spec for spec like comparing mhz on a CPU. Console hardware is made for running games and are not general computing devices. The snes hardware had many hardware supported graphical modes that allowed it to push the envelope without relying on a beefier CPU, the most famous of which is Mode 7 which allowed the pseudo 3d yo…

Yes, but the Genesis came one year before and had quite a more beefy CPU (even two IIRC). This makes the SNES "processing" power a bit tame in a way. Otherwise I agree, visual and musical capabilities were vastly more important for gamers. Lots of games looked magical on a SNES but rusty on a Genesis.
Post reply on HN