I hope Nintendo doesn’t actually go and do that … but considering the Switch you never know.

Even with Oculus and the Vive at 2k, VR is not there yet.

http://wccftech.com/interview-amd-liquid-vr-guennadi-riguer/

You have ADM saying how 16k per eye at 144fps would give the best possible VR experience on other side there’s Nintendo (or whoever came up with the patent) thinking 720p would be enough … hopefully that’s not the case, but as stated previously, I wouldn’t be surprised. To not even talk about the visuals or the framerate of the “games”.

That’s how I think.

There’s more, Nintendo has filled a patent for VR in the like of Google Daydream. Can you imagine how would look like a 6,2″ screen with 720p resolution for VR? Devs are already complaining about the screen resolution on Vive and Rift, and then Nintendo comes with this great solution.

Just to remind, Switch is a dedicated gaming machine (or it’s supposed to be), no excuses for that VR, this is not a multipurpose device like a smartphone.

Almost aside the point, and recently i have been playing older systems as a friend of i mine i caught up with still has the oldies.

I tested the uber expensive HTC Vive first time there. It was awesome, then quickly had a bout of smash Bros N64, 1v1, had more fun on that against him.

I haven’t played a COD since BOps2. And honestly, the game ultimately sucked. I hope the CODs generally have improved.
In perfect Dark N64 (hardware with 100MHz CPU, 8MB total RAM)
You could should guys in the foot and leave ’em limping away. Gun rounds could knock weapons from their hands. Get to close, enemies would melee you, blurring out your vision. If skilled enough you could swipe weapons from their hands. Unlike games like Deus Ex of today, in PD, if an enemy spotted you, they had to call for help, if they didn’t getaway, you maintain your ‘stealth’. Deus Ex, an enemy catches glimpse of you in corner of his eye, even if you kill him instantly, everyone is automatically alerted with alarms going off…

Detail detail detail, all on the devs behalf, doesn’t take next gen performance to put brains into a game

Agreed.

Nintendo has been like this from the Wii success days, they’re trying (too) hard to get back to the sales numbers of the
aforementioned console, by rereleasing something they think will catch on. They do not care (apparently they never did according to various devs) about how much work will that entail for 3rd party days, nor if the games will sell or not – something that has been the case since the Wii days and we all know how well that turned out.

Releasing a console with 500Gflops – in comparison the xb1 has 1.3 and the ps4 1.8TF – and half the RAM of its competitors (Sony/MS) is not a smart thing to do when aforementioned competitors have and are releasing new and upgraded HW. Prime example the Pro, but more so in comparison with the Scorpio (supposedly 12GB of RAM and a 6TF GPU).

More importantly, there are quite a few articles from devs saying how current tech isn’t where it needs to be for their vision to come true – Todd Howard talking about TES6, dying light dev about an undisclosed IP, but I’m sure there are more. Perhaps referring to current iterations of consoles and perhaps even the mid-gen releases, but and closely related to the HW, it’s quite possibly about the game engines – UE 4.xx, CE5.7, Id Tech 7, Unity 6 etc. (it’s not just about the visuals) … so what does that say about the Switch?

When you have game engines that are getting more complex, but Nintendo decides to go with a “Wii U Pro” in tablet form, expecting for publisher and devs to make separate engines for a single (very under-performing) platform with an unsure future … well it doesn’t sound like a good idea.

Nintendo could have announced it as a 3DS replacement, with more than 100x the computational power (3DS – roughly 4GFlops) and perhaps without the dock and with a price tag around $200 if not under, it would have sold much more than it is or will be, imo.

However classifying this as home console in 2017 with such meager specs expecting future triple A titles (when you see a
Titanfall 2 dev laughing at the prospect of having the game on the Switch) is nothing more than wishful thinking.

You live in another dimension.

That’s all. Go play Modern Warfare on Xbox 360 and then play on the Wii.

So, power doesn’t matter it’s a lie.

I know games running on hardware with not 1% of todays machines offered more challenge, demanded more brain wrenching thinking skills, and generally provided more fine detail features than a lot of trite out today.
Power requirements is an excuse.

Once upon a time hardware rendered 3D graphics blew everyones mind,
then high def came and suddenly all previous games were supposed trash.
Then 1080P came, now you can throw the original ‘The Last Of Us’, ‘Metal Gear 4’, ‘Metroid Primes’ all in the bin, they couldn’t possibly entertain.
Now here’s 4K, so time to write off the PS4/XB1 and their entire games library off. The Forzas, Halo5, Uncharted 4, Ratchet n Clanks.. all useless, meaningless games that could never appeal to anyone attempting to buy ’em.

Come the day the next 3D render teqnique comes along more accurate shadow mapping..
Just sell your PS4provs and Scorpios on the spot.
Don’t even bother trying to consider ’em relevant…

90% of a game comes down to design, purely and solely on a devs ability to imagine an intelligent, entertaining game.
Many of the most engaging and popular titles never ran on high end hardware. You can run Minecraft on a GTX 1080 if you like, it’ll still be the same (highly beloved) game.

Chess as a game has stood up for centuries with still competitive popularity today. Because its a smart design.
Not cause someone rendered a digital version on DX12

Yeah they should atleast have launched at an even price, or lower than their competition

Who says those liberties shouldn’t exist? I’m talking about freedom, to build worlds, tell stories, create imaginative ways to interact with the gamer, all with less limitations.

If you build something that compromises this and then you sell your bull to people that power doesn’t matter, it’s just a lie. Nintendo doesn’t get thirds because of this, because they don’t want to deal with 4 ARM cores plus another 4 slower ARM cores, they don’t want to deal with this matter in freaking 2017. They don’t want to compromise what’s been built already, they don’t want to make a separate game with dumber AI, simplified characters, no 7.1 sound.

Nintendo builds consoles with their games in mind. Can you imagine how freaking great would Mario look in a powerful machine? Like CGI? Zelda with that Wii U CGI trailer? So, there, they envisioned something and had to compromise the game because of what?

No, one that enjoys liberties beyond dual analogues we had since PS1 days