Tears of the Kingdom is far from the only Switch game with performance issues. Off the top of my head, the newest Pokemon games (and the next newest, to a lesser extent) run like shit on the Switch. I've heard complaints about other games too.
It was underpowered when it was released in 2016, so it really shouldn't be that surprising.
And if we are going to start counting frame drops as argument against focusing on gameplay instead of triangles per second, there is no safe platform then.
I don't think the number of games in the catalogue matters in this discussion? There are hundreds of Switch games that perform great, and I don't care because I will never play them.
When I play a game and there are frame drops, stuttering, lag, dropped inputs, etc., it reduces my fun just as much as if the game were poorly designed. Maybe that's not the case for you, maybe you don't care, but I do, so do others.
I don't think Nintendo should make a console that rivals the best machine money can buy. I do think they took too long to refresh the hardware in the Switch lineup and their customers are worse off for it.
It's not "safe from any frame drops" vs. "has frame drops." How often they drop to what framerate for how long is what makes up the experience. (Similarly, I don't need games on my Switch to look as high-fidelity as my 4090 renders them on my PC, but more textures/reflections would still be welcome over less.)
That's why I agree with what some others in the thread have said-- we'll need to wait for either numbers or, absolutely, some real-world experience to know how big of an improvement we can actually expect to get from an upgrade.
Tears of the Kingdom is far from the only Switch game with performance issues. Off the top of my head, the newest Pokemon games (and the next newest, to a lesser extent) run like shit on the Switch. I've heard complaints about other games too.
It was underpowered when it was released in 2016, so it really shouldn't be that surprising.
Again, from how many?
And if we are going to start counting frame drops as argument against focusing on gameplay instead of triangles per second, there is no safe platform then.
I don't think the number of games in the catalogue matters in this discussion? There are hundreds of Switch games that perform great, and I don't care because I will never play them.
When I play a game and there are frame drops, stuttering, lag, dropped inputs, etc., it reduces my fun just as much as if the game were poorly designed. Maybe that's not the case for you, maybe you don't care, but I do, so do others.
I don't think Nintendo should make a console that rivals the best machine money can buy. I do think they took too long to refresh the hardware in the Switch lineup and their customers are worse off for it.
3 replies →
It's not "safe from any frame drops" vs. "has frame drops." How often they drop to what framerate for how long is what makes up the experience. (Similarly, I don't need games on my Switch to look as high-fidelity as my 4090 renders them on my PC, but more textures/reflections would still be welcome over less.)
That's why I agree with what some others in the thread have said-- we'll need to wait for either numbers or, absolutely, some real-world experience to know how big of an improvement we can actually expect to get from an upgrade.
Why do people by a Switch? Mario (Kart), Zelda, and Pokémon.
Those three franchises represent a huge percent of sales. 70%?
People that hardly know Nintendo yes.
People that know Nintendo, buy those and plenty of others.