Switch Discussion Thread

[MrPopo]

The NES was built using very old, well known components. The fact that it was the most powerful console on the market at the time was more an indictment of just how underpowered the previous generation was.

[isiolia]

I'd say the SNES was more of a tradeoff, especially when you consider that the Genesis was on the market for a couple years before it launched, and could still do some things better.

IMO, the only time Nintendo really pushed ahead was the N64, even if it was kind of a mixed bag overall. Pretty much was outsourced to SGI, and brought accelerated 3D graphics home at a time when consumer PCs were only just starting to get them. Mario 64 was amazing at the time.

The Gamecube wasn't on that level, relatively speaking, but it certainly wasn't using old tech either.

On the handheld side though, I'd say they really have stuck to older/cheaper tech until the Switch. As has been brought up, while it may not compare that well as a home console, it's set to be a crazy good portable.

[Reprise]

while it may not compare that well as a home console, it's set to be a crazy good portable.

I still can't understand why people aren't seeing it from this perspective. Maybe it's because people are seeing it as the successor to the Wii U and not the 3DS. Maybe it's because, from a mainstream perspective, "no one" cared about the Vita. Or maybe it's because handhelds and tablets are already fairly powerful and have held a monopoly on casual, handheld gaming increasingly over recent years.

To me, it seems like Nintendo will create a crazy powerful portable console, that will sacrifice some power for its portability, but will hopefully be a good enough compromise in terms of power, that will mean it will still fulfil its duties as a home console. It doesn't need to be as powerful as the PS4 or XBOne, in my opinion, as long as it's not too much behind those consoles and isn't too difficult for developers to create games for it or port multiplats to it.

[Sarge]

The Gamecube wasn't as powerful as the XBOX, sure, but there were benefits that came from using PowerPC versus x86 architecture, and the whole thing was set up very efficiently. It was a powerhouse, especially compared to the difficult-to-code-for PS2. In many ways, the PS2 was that generation's Saturn, but the market penetration ensured that devs would code for it anyway.

The SNES was definitely a tradeoff. Sure, the CPU was underpowered compared to the Genesis (or TG-16, for that matter!), but the PPU definitely was leaps and bounds ahead of either. And of course, you get the occasional SA-1 game on SNES like Super Mario RPG and Kirby Super Star that really shows what you can do with a beefier processor in there. (The SA-1 was basically another SNES CPU with some additional abilities, and clocked at over 10 MHz.)

[ElkinFencer10]

The Gamecube wasn't as powerful as the XBOX

Yeah, I just double checked release dates, and for a beautiful, glorious two months, the Gamecube was the strongest console on the market (as long as you take the Gamecube's 09/01 Japanese release and the Xbox's 11/01 North American release).

[BogusMeatFactory]

I also find it very silly that people are expecting the NS to be as powerful as a modern PC, be portable AND cost $300.

I am curious to know if the 4GB is what is available to use, or is what is in the system. As isiola stated, there is a huge difference there as the PS4 and Xbox One only had 4 GB available for use as the rest was for running their OS and background functions. We will see!

[Sarge]

I also find it very silly that people are expecting the NS to be as powerful as a modern PC, be portable AND cost $300.

Welcome to the modern gaming era.

Actually, many people just don't have a feel for tech, and the tradeoffs that necessarily have to occur. Especially when you're miniaturizing things. Either that, or it's a blazing sense of entitlement.

Yeah, let's go with that.

[Reprise]

I also find it very silly that people are expecting the NS to be as powerful as a modern PC, be portable AND cost $300.

This 100%.

[darsparx]

Maybe it's because, from a mainstream perspective, "no one" cared about the Vita. Or maybe it's because handhelds and tablets are already fairly powerful and have held a monopoly on casual, handheld gaming increasingly over recent years.

See and the vita market scares me now. So many good games that we will never get, and games I'll never be able to afford due to the super limited release almost every really good game got for someone who loves physical games like I do....

I also find it very silly that people are expecting the NS to be as powerful as a modern PC, be portable AND cost $300./quote]

True I guess, but 4gb in 2016(let alone 2017) just seems like an awfully small amount of ram. Especially when it seems most games at least on pc and otherwise recommend double at least from what i've seen...and still have issues at that level XD

[alienjesus]

Maybe it's because, from a mainstream perspective, "no one" cared about the Vita. Or maybe it's because handhelds and tablets are already fairly powerful and have held a monopoly on casual, handheld gaming increasingly over recent years.

See and the vita market scares me now. So many good games that we will never get, and games I'll never be able to afford due to the super limited release almost every really good game got for someone who loves physical games like I do....

I also find it very silly that people are expecting the NS to be as powerful as a modern PC, be portable AND cost $300./quote]

True I guess, but 4gb in 2016(let alone 2017) just seems like an awfully small amount of ram. Especially when it seems most games at least on pc and otherwise recommend double at least from what i've seen...and still have issues at that level XD

The Wii U has 2GB of RAM, half of which is used for the OS. 4GB is a step up for Nintendo.