Current Events > Is harping on the Switch's performance issues a waste of time?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Well?

I just cant relate because performance issues dont bother me. Maybe because I still play a lot of old games.

an odd mix of the first and last answer. the consumer deserves better, especially for how long some of us have supported nintendo, but realistically, we'll just get (laughs in japanese) as the not-Switch comes out with a worse gimmick instead of improving on what makes the Switch any good

A switch successor was all but confirmed to be planned but fell through due to the pandemic causing all sorts of shortages so I'm of the "won't change anything" camp

We're in a console dark age where everything drift.
On topic: In games, optimization is key.

Part of the problem seems to be that a lot of people don't understand what are issues actually caused by the Switch being outdated hardware, and what are issues being caused by lazy/rushed developers and poorly optimized games.

Like there's people utterly convinced that Scarlet and Violet would be good games simply if there was a more-powerful Switch console they could be played on...and that's like the furthest thing from the truth.

The Xenoblade franchise really showcases what the switch is still capable of.

viewmaster_pi posted...

an odd mix of the first and last answer. the consumer deserves better, especially for how long some of us have supported nintendo, but realistically, we'll just get (laughs in japanese) as the not-Switch comes out with a worse gimmick instead of improving on what makes the Switch any good

Well you summed up my response better than I could have.

I wouldnt call performance issues minor. But I would say the quality of the game outweighs the performance issues. Regardless of your opinion of Nintendo as a company (I hate them like anyone else), they still continually release bangers on an antique tablet and thats more than can be said for Sony and Microsoft

On one hand, as long as a Switch game works within the requirements of the console, there's no problem here. If a game runs well then who cares if its underpowered?

However, when we get a game like the new Pokemon games, which run quite poorly, that's a very valid complaint to make, because something a little stronger would probably run that game with little issue.

And that's a totally different issue from something like JoyCon drift, though idk if that would really fall under "performance issue" or "hardware issue"

Proto_Spark posted...

If a game runs well then who cares if its underpowered?

Bayonetta 3 runs well but you can see the performance constraints that are in play.

Proto_Spark posted...

On one hand, as long as a Switch game works within the requirements of the console, there's no problem here. If a game runs well then who cares if its underpowered?

However, when we get a game like the new Pokemon games, which run quite poorly, that's a very valid complaint to make, because something a little stronger would probably run that game with little issue.

And that's a totally different issue from something like JoyCon drift, though idk if that would really fall under "performance issue" or "hardware issue"

On the note of games like Pokmon, they run like shit because of lack of optimisation and polish. On a stronger console theyd just bump up the graphics a bit and it would still run like shit. Thats a criticism of the developer and not the console IMO

Proto_Spark posted...

However, when we get a game like the new Pokemon games, which run quite poorly, that's a very valid complaint to make, because something a little stronger would probably run that game with little issue.

This is just objectively wrong. The Switch hardware isn't the reason those games consistently torpedo to 10-20 fps all the time.

Proto_Spark posted...

On one hand, as long as a Switch game works within the requirements of the console, there's no problem here. If a game runs well then who cares if its underpowered?

However, when we get a game like the new Pokemon games, which run quite poorly, that's a very valid complaint to make, because something a little stronger would probably run that game with little issue.

And that's a totally different issue from something like JoyCon drift, though idk if that would really fall under "performance issue" or "hardware issue"

Idk if I'd blame Pokemon's terrible performance on the hardware. Tears of the Kingdom is a way bigger game and runs significantly better.

MC_BatCommander posted...

Idk if I'd blame Pokemon's terrible performance on the hardware. Tears of the Kingdom is a way bigger game and runs significantly better.

This

There are a decent number of games that are graphically better than pokemon that run better too.

Will_VIIII posted...

A switch successor was all but confirmed to be planned but fell through due to the pandemic causing all sorts of shortages so I'm of the "won't change anything" camp

This.
I think PS5 is finally getting produced in decent numbers (and that's what... 3years after release?).

I don't think anyone can produce a "next gen" console right now.
Too bad, because Switch is going to be 7 years, and we're due for (at least an announcement of) the next Nintendo system.

If more developers utilize FSR it'll help

Kloe_Rinz posted...

On the note of games like Pokmon, they run like shit because of lack of optimisation and polish. On a stronger console theyd just bump up the graphics a bit and it would still run like shit. Thats a criticism of the developer and not the console IMO

I think it's a criticism of the developers not working within the confines of the console. Some of the towns in SV are grander than 90% of what's in say, TotK, which took like 4 times as long to make. I think GF mostly just made the game they wanted to make, and then hoped the Switch would handle it, which I'd consider a flaw of both GF and the Switch hardware.

I judge performance issues based on how well the software developed for it used the hardware available rather than the hardware itself or raw graphical fidelity.

Like I knew the Switch was underpowered when I bought it. I did it anyway. I was never expecting some incredible cutting edge visuals from it.

BotW/TotK are good examples of games that use the hardware available well. They are polished, they look nice despite not having incredible graphics, and they run very well considering the sheer scope of the game.

As a more middling example, Fire Emblem Three Houses runs well. It's not buggy or broken, but the game is ugly. And you know the Switch could allow for better.

Then you have the example of being just bad. Pokmon SV. It runs terribly. It has basically no polish and it doesn't even look particularly good. People try to blame the hardware for it but, there are enough games that show what the Switch can handle that you know it's not a hardware problem. Game Freak just isn't capable of optimizing for hardware. It's basically like when a console game has a bad PC port with insane hardware requirements. Everyone knows that the game should be playable on less but the developers just didn't try.

It's a valid point, but if performance is a big issue you should be playing on PC anyway

Sort of

I knew what I was getting into when I bought a Switch, but when I play a game like TotK, I can't help but think how much better it would be on another console.

Nothing wrong with wanting Ninty's next console to have more technical muscle. But everyone knows exactly what the Switch is by now, so continuing to grouse about it is pointless.

The Switch was pretty outdated when it launched but that didn't stop a lot of developers from taking advantage of its power. At this point Nintendo really needs to put out a successor with better hardware, but unless you're a lazy developer you can still work magic with it.

This is the same platform that competently plays Doom 2016/Eternal whereas a major Pokemon game looks like something from the PSP.

Anyone who complains about the Switch hardware limitations ain't exactly the brightest bulb in the box. It's a $300 handheld from 2017, and they're comparing it to a giant box you plug into a wall released in 2020

The Switch hardware was very impressive when it came out. It was impossible to find a comparable $300 handheld that could run a BotW-tier game (graphically) for 3 hours straight on a battery. Even today, you would be hard-pressed to find a $300 portable that could run a BotW-tier game for 6 hours straight on a battery

The Switch was absolutely not "underpowered at launch" and anyone who claims this has no idea what they're talking about

CRON posted...

The Switch was pretty outdated when it launched but that didn't stop a lot of developers from taking advantage of its power. At this point Nintendo really needs to put out a successor with better hardware, but unless you're a lazy developer you can still work magic with it.

This is the same platform that competently plays Doom 2016/Eternal whereas a major Pokemon game looks like something from the PSP.

Lol.

Kyle1022 posted...

Anyone who complains about the Switch hardware limitations ain't exactly the brightest bulb in the box. It's a $300 handheld from 2017, and they're comparing it to a giant $500 box you plug into a wall released in 2020

The Switch hardware was very impressive when it came out. It was impossible to find a comparable $300 handheld that could run a BotW-tier game (graphically) for 3 hours straight on a battery. Even today, you would be hard-pressed to find a $300 portable that could run a BotW-tier game for 6 hours straight on a battery

The Switch was absolutely not "underpowered at launch" and anyone who claims this has no idea what they're talking about

The Switch and the Wii U don't seem like they're too different performance-wise. The Wii U was competing at PS3/360 spec and the Switch hasn't done a whole lot to push beyond that.

Criticize what you like. Good luck trying to be productive talking about video games online. We're all here to discuss our personal opinions.

Solid_Sonic posted...

The Switch and the Wii U don't seem like they're too different performance-wise. The Wii U was competing at PS3/360 spec and the Switch hasn't done a whole lot to push beyond that.

Sure. That's the price of having portable hardware. Look at how big the PS5 and Series X are in comparison. Even the Series S which is a super efficient machine is too big and power hungry to be a handheld.

EndOfDiscOne posted...

I just cant relate because performance issues dont bother me. Maybe because I still play a lot of old games.

I legit cannot play Dragons Dogma because of performance. I downloaded it on ps5 and it's all I can focus on.

Will_VIIII posted...

A switch successor was all but confirmed to be planned but fell through due to the pandemic causing all sorts of shortages so I'm of the "won't change anything" camp

Honestly, if there was a successor, Im kind of glad it feel through I dont want to buy a new system yet The switch still has so much it can have on it Thats how I feel, at least

Punished_Blinx posted...

Sure. That's the price of having portable hardware. Look at how big the PS5 and Series X are in comparison. Even the Series S which is a super efficient machine is too big and power hungry to be a handheld.

I'd be more receptive to that point if Nintendo hadn't already done this in the past and in that case it wasn't a handheld. Even the Wii U was a generation behind (it's just no one cared because no one owned one). So Nintendo seems more content to build up a gaming audience through methods not related to system specs. Not necessarily a bad tactic in a vacuum but when it comes to what people want out of their hardware it kind of puts people who buy in on an island.

Wii U being a generation behind did matter which is one of the many reasons as to why it flopped.

But people are clearly willing to make compromises for a portable system. It gives a reason for non-Nintendo games to exist on the platform. People like using the system itself to play games.

People were also willing to compromise for the Wii due to the motion controls and cheaper price. There's always gotta be a hook to draw people in.

Solid_Sonic posted...

The Switch and the Wii U don't seem like they're too different performance-wise. The Wii U was competing at PS3/360 spec and the Switch hasn't done a whole lot to push beyond that.

Again, the Wii U was a home console with a giant power brick that needed to be plugged into a wall

The Switch is a portable the size of a (large) phone that can play BotW-tier games for six hours on a battery

They are not comparable. If you don't personally value the fact that the Switch is a portable, that's fine. But to say it was underpowered when it came out is factually incorrect

Bio1590 posted...

Part of the problem seems to be that a lot of people don't understand what are issues actually caused by the Switch being outdated hardware, and what are issues being caused by lazy/rushed developers and poorly optimized games.

Like there's people utterly convinced that Scarlet and Violet would be good games simply if there was a more-powerful Switch console they could be played on...and that's like the furthest thing from the truth.

This.

The Switch is fine. You don't need cutting edge hardware to make good games, and if a game company thinks it does, its game probably just sucks.

Games that aren't given enough time in the oven just typically won't be very good quality, no matter what kind of hardware they're on.

I recently bought a switch to play the Xenoblade series and the performance is embarrassingly bad. I don't care that much about graphics, but at the minimum a current gen console should be able to play the games on it at 1080p/60fps.

Its a 6 year old console that was unlike anything we had seen upon release. It was simultaneously a weak home console and the greatest portable device ever created. Complaining about the Switch in 2013 is like complaining about your iPhone 7 or Galaxy S7 being slow compared to the 14 Pro or S23 Ultra.

stage4saiyan posted...

Its a 6 year old console that was unlike anything we had seen upon release. It was simultaneously a weak home console and the greatest portable device ever created. Complaining about the Switch in 2013 is like complaining about your iPhone 7 or Galaxy S7 being slow compared to the 14 Pro or S23 Ultra.

Seriously. Does my Witcher 3 port look worse than it does on my PS4? Absolutely, but I can't unplug my PS4 to play Witcher on a bus or a plane so what do I care if the graphics are a little smudged and the game might stutter every once in a while? This machine cost me like $250 years ago and I've gotten way more hours of enjoyment from it than my PS4 in that time, and it's "underpowered."

Criticism is always valid. Bitching isn't.

Example of valid criticism:
Tears of the Kingdom is a great game but it is hindered by the hardware, which is a shame because a game this good shouldn't be brought down by poor performance and textures. It highlights that the switch is long past its expiry date for future AAA titles.

It was weak from day 1 they had to take out features from the Wii U version of Botw because it was better in everyway except graphics compared to the switch version

stage4saiyan posted...

Its a 6 year old console that was unlike anything we had seen upon release. It was simultaneously a weak home console and the greatest portable device ever created. Complaining about the Switch in 2013 is like complaining about your iPhone 7 or Galaxy S7 being slow compared to the 14 Pro or S23 Ultra.

What exactly made it like nothing we had ever seen before? The Vita was playing full console ports before the Switch came out.

Some game developers are lazy / incompetent.

They just want to use engines to make their games for them and lack the skills to properly optimise games for their respective consoles.

SHRlKE posted...

Some game developers are lazy / incompetent.

They just want to use engines to make their games for them and lack the skills to properly optimise games for their respective consoles.

What? Devs that use their own engines are the least lazy.

I got the Switch late, but I knew what I was getting into and figured that for most games the performance wouldn't be a problem. And I think Odyssey being the first major game I got for the system really reinforced that. Odyssey runs exceptionally well. Just a very smooth game across the board.

MH Rise has been the main problem. I got Rise after enjoying the demo, but I had no idea I would enjoy it so much that I'd sink 600+ hours into. The game is noticeably superior on PC. Problem is, Capcom is very adamant about not having cross-save, and that alone prevented me from moving over to PC. But now that I know I really like Monster Hunter, I'll just purchase any future game on PC.

As for Tears of the Kingdom, it would no doubt be nicer if it was on a platform where performance was better. But the game's so good I can ignore the performance sucking 99% of the time.

So complaining about it might be a waste of time in the sense that I don't think Nintendo gives a shit. They are obviously carried by their main IPs, and I don't want to give up Mario or Zelda even if I have to play on a toaster. Would be nice if they made a console that wasn't shit though.

Irony posted...

What? Devs that use their own engines are the least lazy.

Irony posted...

What? Devs that use their own engines are the least lazy.

Sorry I mean they lack the ability to optimise them or they just dont care. There are some good games that look great on the switch. Any issues with performance is mostly down the the devs not knowing how to optimise their code or reusing other peoples engines and not bothering to optimise. This is especially true with ports from other consoles but not limited to obviously.

Obviously that becomes less of a problem if the console has more power.

Bio1590 posted...

Part of the problem seems to be that a lot of people don't understand what are issues actually caused by the Switch being outdated hardware, and what are issues being caused by lazy/rushed developers and poorly optimized games.

Like there's people utterly convinced that Scarlet and Violet would be good games simply if there was a more-powerful Switch console they could be played on...and that's like the furthest thing from the truth.

Yup.

TOTK looks quite a bit better while doing so much more AND running a better framerate with less pop in.