Nintendo's Switch Won’t Run “Zelda” At 1080p

[Hornet]

The Xbox One and PS4 don't even run all games at 1080, so I'm not surprised the Switch can't, seeing as it has less power. I don't think anyone should be surprised about this.

True, and that never stopped people from enjoying those consoles.

When it comes to console hardware, you'll always have to compromise raw performance for other design factors.
You cannot have high end graphics on a device that was design for mobility.

Did anyone expect Nintendo to stick a GTX1080 into a tablet? Common sense would tell you this is currently not possible.

So I'm not sure why anyone is surprised, or outraged. This is probably the best you can currently get out of such a small device.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

well when you base your system on a NVidia Targa platform....what did you expect in terms of performance?

 

[rgMekanic]

 

[Armenius]

Has any Zelda game, ever (at least in the 3D era), ran at 60?

20 on the N64 and 30 on the newer systems has been the trend.

Not that that's a good thing, it's just to be expected.

Wind Waker on the Gamecube ran at 60 FPS, and it was glorious.

 

[HockeyJon]

Cinematic feel, guys!

 

[Terpfen]

I also grew up playing ugly looking games late 80's to early 90's but this zelda playing at 900p/30fps is really offensive in this time and age.

No, it isn't. What's really offensive is how so many people get hung up on exact numbers and don't seem to care if the game is any good.

As long as it's good, the game can run at 480p like Skyward Sword for all I care.

 

[xX326Xx]

Nintendo's hardware has been trailing the pack since the PS1 came out. Why change now?

The only reason they're still around as a hardware company is their exclusive IP that happens to be very popular across a huge range of demographics. Without Mario & Zelda, they'd be done.

Which is why I don't buy Nintendo anymore. We have a NES Classic that can't stay on the shelves, not that many people here would buy one. Nintendo used to be able to say, we have Zelda, Mario, Kirby, Kid Icarus, Contra, from Donkey Kong to Rygar, the list keeps going. I'm not paying $300 for a subpar system with no games with the a Zelda and a Mario game per console cycle is enough these days. It would be nice to play a Nintendo console some time in the future where they step away from gimmicks for a catalog of quality games. I guess Switch isn't what I'm looking for, I'm looking for the successor, Switch Back.

 

[Derangel]

No, they did announce that. During the treehouse live stream they were talking about Mario Kart and its performance.

http://nintendoeverything.com/mario-kart-8-deluxe-always-runs-at-60-fps/

So right there them announcing that is what one game would do mean that is what the system is able to do period.

I did very specifically say they will mention resolution and frame rate on a game by game basis. One game running at 1080p/60 does not mean ALL games will. That's been the case for every HD console ever made. Not every game is going to run at the max possible resolution and frame rate, welcome to gaming on consoles.

It not just the resolution difference. The game looks worse from bother comparisons I seen.

Something to remember about the comparison: The Wii U demo was from E3 last year and who know how old that build is. Also, it seems like that demo was just ported over to the Switch since by reports the Switch demo from the events is exactly the same as the Wii U one from E3, down to frame rate drops in the same areas.

Wind Waker on the Gamecube ran at 60 FPS, and it was glorious.

Wind Waker was 30. You can get it to run at 60fps with the Dolphin emulator, but it's native frame rate is 30.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Which is why I don't buy Nintendo anymore. We have a NES Classic that can't stay on the shelves, not that many people here would buy one. Nintendo used to be able to say, we have Zelda, Mario, Kirby, Kid Icarus, Contra, from Donkey Kong to Rygar, the list keeps going. I'm not paying $300 for a subpar system with no games with the a Zelda and a Mario game per console cycle is enough these days. It would be nice to play a Nintendo console some time in the future where they step away from gimmicks for a catalog of quality games. I guess Switch isn't what I'm looking for, I'm looking for the successor, Switch Back.

wow that's pretty lame if you ask me... Nintendo's First Party titles are second to none and that alone is reason enough to buy their console...

 

[TFchris]

For a handheld, you would think they would focus a bit more on battery life. It's a bit hard going from like two weeks of game play on a gameboy color to only 3hrs on a 3DSXL, and now the switch dries out at 2 and a half hours in some games? I understand the complexity of newer games requires more computing power thus a larger energy consumption, but c'mon... it seems like Nintendo isn't even trying anymore.

It's the other direction you want to move in Nintendo. *waves arms frantically in the other direction*

 

[Derangel]

For a handheld, you would think they would focus a bit more on battery life. It's a bit hard going from like two weeks of game play on a gameboy color to only 3hrs on a 3DSXL, and now the switch dries out at 2 and a half hours in some games? I understand the complexity of newer games requires more computing power thus a larger energy consumption, but c'mon... it seems like Nintendo isn't even trying anymore.

It's the other direction you want to move in Nintendo. *waves arms frantically in the other direction*

Tegras are power hungry and battery tech really hasn't advanced much recently. They could make the Switch much weaker and get more battery life or make it significantly thicker and add bigger batteries, but neither are great options. It's a crappy situation no matter how you look at it.

 

[Phlorge]

post about 900p resolution on a console on a PC gaming enthusiast forum, what did you expect to happen?

people care way too much about resolution and framerate - honestly consoles are what they are the reason people buy them when they have a PC is for the IPs and its worth it generally.

if it was 1080p people would still be bitching its 30 fps.

 

[MavericK]

View attachment 15054

Curse you Reggie!!!1

 

[Bandalo]

Do you blame them the shit still sells.

You don't throw out your cash cow just to keep up with the jones that's how you go bankrupt.

Oh, I'm not blaming them in the least, they've got a business model that works. For now. Eventually they're going to need to work on new IP though. Splatoon was a good start, but they need more. You can't run on nostalgia forever.

 

[Sonicks]

post about 900p resolution on a console on a PC gaming enthusiast forum, what did you expect to happen?

people care way too much about resolution and framerate - honestly consoles are what they are the reason people buy them when they have a PC is for the IPs and its worth it generally.

if it was 1080p people would still be bitching its 30 fps.

I'd rather a higher frame rate to be honest. If they could get the Switch version to render at 720p but with 60fps they should do that instead. I know the other consoles of this generation don't typically run at 60fps but 60 is one of those things that, once you play a game like that, it's weird to go back.

A good example of this is Gears of War on the XBox One.....the multiplayer is 60fps but then switching to any other game type is odd since the other types are locked to 30.

 

[TFchris]

Tegras are power hungry and battery tech really hasn't advanced much recently. They could make the Switch much weaker and get more battery life or make it significantly thicker and add bigger batteries, but neither are great options. It's a crappy situation no matter how you look at it.

I get that, but the physical size of the battery enclosed in a device of that size is laughable. I just look at the 3DS for example, comes with a 1300 mAh battery for a device that is 3x6 inches that is attempting to power not one, but two screens? That is even less battery than Nintendo isn't thinking things through... even the sony PS vita came with a 2200 mAh battery.

 

[Domingo]

...but...but...it's Nintendo! You aren't allowed to criticize them. If you do, you clearly don't understand their vision and you should go back to playing Counter Strike.
[Insert some cliche' phrase about not caring about graphics and only about gameplay]

 

[Deleted member 134608]

wow that's pretty lame if you ask me... Nintendo's First Party titles are second to none and that alone is reason enough to buy their console...

I don't think its remotely enough. I have maybe 5 games for my Wii U because Nintendo's first party titles have narrowed down to Mario Mario Mario Mario Mario.... I bought the Wii U for Zelda and Metroid, plus any other awesome games they came out with. Turns out I never needed to buy a Wii U at all.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

I don't think its remotely enough. I have maybe 5 games for my Wii U because Nintendo's first party titles have narrowed down to Mario Mario Mario Mario Mario.... I bought the Wii U for Zelda and Metroid, plus any other awesome games they came out with. Turns out I never needed to buy a Wii U at all.

Paper Mario
Mario Kart
Mario Bros Wii U
Zelda breath of the wild
Super Luigi Wii U
Star Fox
Donkey Kong Tropical Freeze
Super Smash Bros Wii U
Pinkmen 3
Mario Party
Lego City Undercover (AWESOME time killer)
NES remix 1 and 2
Bayonetta 2
Metroid

 

[Track Drew]

They need a non-switchable switch. Screen-less, battery-less console dedicated to the sitting by someone's TV.

That switch has to be thermal limited, put some actual cooling on it in something even Wii sized, bump up the clocks and go to 1080p, 60 fps.

Screen, battery, and getting to the small form factor have to be huge drivers of cost of this device. There has to be a market for people who are never going to pull it out of the dock.

 

[Derangel]

They need a non-switchable switch. Screen-less, battery-less console dedicated to the sitting by someone's TV.

That switch has to be thermal limited, put some actual cooling on it in something even Wii sized, bump up the clocks and go to 1080p, 60 fps.

Screen, battery, and getting to the small form factor have to be huge drivers of cost of this device. There has to be a market for people who are never going to pull it out of the dock.

I wouldn't be surprised if something like that happened down the line or even a version of the Switch without the dock, but at launch too many SKUs is a bad thing.

 

[Track Drew]

but at launch too many SKUs is a bad thing

Totally agree, maybe holiday 2017...

 

[MavericK]

They need a non-switchable switch. Screen-less, battery-less console dedicated to the sitting by someone's TV.

That switch has to be thermal limited, put some actual cooling on it in something even Wii sized, bump up the clocks and go to 1080p, 60 fps.

Screen, battery, and getting to the small form factor have to be huge drivers of cost of this device. There has to be a market for people who are never going to pull it out of the dock.

It's Nintendo, though. They can't not put some sort of wonky gimmicks into it, they just can't help themselves. Ever since the Gamecube, really...

I actually do like the concept of the Switch but so far the implementation I have seen is very disappointing.

 

[Derangel]

It's Nintendo, though. They can't not put some sort of wonky gimmicks into it, they just can't help themselves. Ever since the Gamecube, really...

I actually do like the concept of the Switch but so far the implementation I have seen is very disappointing.

The gimmick for the Switch seems to be more centered around HD Rumble than the hybrid nature of it. A tablet that can connect to a TV isn't new. Even a dock with ports isn't new.

 

[MavericK]

The gimmick for the Switch seems to be more centered around HD Rumble than the hybrid nature of it. A tablet that can connect to a TV isn't new. Even a dock with ports isn't new.

Well, it's that, and it's the motion controls, it's the "use half a controller per player", it's the touch screen, it's really just sort of everything. It's hard for them to make something straight-forward. The failure of Star Fox Zero exemplifies that...in an effort to use the gimmicky motion controls and tablet of the Wii-U, they competely fucked that game up and pissed off everyone who played the other games, which did not implement any of that.

As we've seen with how popular stuff like Call of Duty is, people don't really want change to their beloved franchises; they want more of the same with new stories, better graphics, and maybe a few small gameplay tweaks thrown in.

 

[Track Drew]

Star Fox

people don't really want change to their beloved franchises; they want more of the same with new stories, better graphics, and maybe a few small gameplay tweaks thrown in

I hate to be one of "those people", but I'd love for a 1080p remake of Star Fox 64 with a normal N64/Gamecube controller. I found my N64 while cleaning last summer and had to fire up Star Fox - not as pretty as I remember it, but game play is still excellent.

 

[Domingo]

1080p/60 and/or 4K/30 versions of my favorite Nintendo titles on someone else's system would be ideal. I don't want motion controls, a dock, a tablet with piss poor touch functionality, or even another console in general.
...or is making a version those games with great graphics and top-notch surround sound also a gimmick?

 

[MavericK]

I hate to be one of "those people", but I'd love for a 1080p remake of Star Fox 64 with a normal N64/Gamecube controller. I found my N64 while cleaning last summer and had to fire up Star Fox - not as pretty as I remember it, but game play is still excellent.

Same here. I'm not saying being one of "those people" is bad, necessarily...and when it comes to Nintendo I think there are a lot of people like that.

 

[Dekoth-E-]

Well, it's that, and it's the motion controls, it's the "use half a controller per player", it's the touch screen, it's really just sort of everything. It's hard for them to make something straight-forward. The failure of Star Fox Zero exemplifies that...in an effort to use the gimmicky motion controls and tablet of the Wii-U, they competely fucked that game up and pissed off everyone who played the other games, which did not implement any of that.

As we've seen with how popular stuff like Call of Duty is, people don't really want change to their beloved franchises; they want more of the same with new stories, better graphics, and maybe a few small gameplay tweaks thrown in.

So much truth in this post.

I don't mind a series trying new things to freshen things up, what I don't like however is Ninteno's insistance of trying to force gimmicks into games that people have made it damn clear they don't want. The Wii sold lots of consoles because the motion control was novel, but more importantly it was CHEAP. Very few people gave a shit about the motion controls after a few months of use. Heck in most games they were a decided disadvantage. When my kids got old enough and I gave them my Wii console, within 2 months with zero prodding from me, both wiimotes had been abandoned in favor of wavebirds. The WiiU tried the whole tablet thing which while ignorable, made the main controller offensively heavy and doubled the price of the system. Even if you ignore the argument about the size and pointlessness of the controller, the Price was the deal breaker. All Nintendo had to do was give up on forcing that terrible idea and sell one with 2 regular controllers and the WiiU would have sold. Unfortunately they chose to not completely abandon the idea and thus we have switch. Now switch is honestly what the WiiU should have been if they were determined to include a tablet. The price is right if it remains true that it is under $300, the tablet isn't required for anything and generally it doesn't try to force anything. The drawbacks of course is we have already figured out it heavily limits the power of the device and while Nintendo isn't expected to outperform the competition I fear the concept of the switch is to late as this console needed to be significantly more powerful. Not being able to do 1080p at this point is inexcusable. The switch is going to sell quite a few more units than the wiiU did on price alone and mostly to people like me who chose to skip the wiiU entirely. However I doubt it will hold a ton of appeal to wiiU owners and unless Nintendo comes out with some really stellar blockbuster titles asap it is going to struggle. Unfortunately one of the bread and butter titles for it already looks terrible and the thing hasn't even released yet.

 

[lostinseganet]

At the risk of being cussed out by rabid Nintendo fans, I would like to highlight the disappointing fact that Zelda will, at best, only run at a resolution of 900p—at 30fps. Okay, so maybe the thought of anything higher would be delusional to begin with, as the Switch is basically just a glorified handheld…it’s just that it’s 2017 and it’d be great to see classic Nintendo characters in higher fidelity already. Aside from a resolution difference (the Wii U version runs at 720p), the Switch edition is supposed to have higher quality sounds, though I imagine nobody will be able to tell the difference (in my experience, developers never really cared that much about actual sound quality).

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild will be launched for both Nintendo Switch and Wii U consoles on March 3. So how do the two versions differ? A report on IGN outlines the differences, provided via a statement from Nintendo. The main improvement for Switch owners is that their game will render at 900p, while the Wii U versions renders at 720p. Both games have a target frame rate at 30fps. The Switch version will also offer "higher-quality environmental sounds," according to Nintendo. "As a result, the sound of steps, water, grass, etc. are more realistic and enhance the game’s open-air feel," said the statement. Certain onscreen icons differ between the two versions. Also, Wii U owners will not be offered the Special Edition and Master Edition.

halo's martin o'donnell cared about teh music

 

[disemboweler]

You need to reread my post son. We cared back then but its not even to the same level as the kids these days. We would play ugly games if they were fun the kids these don't touch anything unless its shiny!

I'm referring to generation that was born in the late 90's and after. All of these kids would have been too young to play on any of your examples.

Haven't you learned yet to avoid the whole "kids these days" argument, or at least, avoid the phrase itself? Haha. Are you trying to sound out of touch?

But you're wrong. Indies are selling gangbusters, and I doubt I'd be exaggerating at all to say a good 75% mostly look & play like NES/SNES games - maybe even 75% literally use the silly "8-bit Pixel Art" retro fad that was cool for the first couple games years ago and quickly got really old, but it is now a great excuse for an untalented developer to do their own art or with too small a budget, or too small a team, in general. But, many of these games are far more profitable, considering investment vs. profit ratio and even add in the (brand) name recognition... some are better than the average AAA title in those regards.

I personally like immersive, open world games and like them to be realistic enough to feel like it's a possible reality somewhere in the multiverse, so I don't get a lot of the popularity of low budget free to play and indie games, but I really like some because they can definitely take more risks than the AAA devs are willing to take these days, so you get a neat surprise. They're almost a different category than a traditional "video game" sometimes, they're a neat interactive experience.

What I'm getting at is these games (counting all indie games, including low budget free to play) are MORE popular with the "damn kids!" these days. It's an entirely different experience for a young person growing up in an iPad/iPhone world to pick up the best AAA PC games and play them - we, those of us around for the 80s and 90s, naturally grew accustomed to the game design habits, evolving controls & controllers, mechanics, graphics, concepts, etc... a new player today would have a rather steep learning curve, compared to the intuitiveness of a touch screen, for example. I've seen it personally many times, and it keeps reminding me that I am naturally able to play and beat any AAA game I want to, with no frustration usually even on hard, because I grew up with the game industry and evolved with it more slowly over a 35 year period. My dad picks up a controller and has trouble moving two sticks at once to move and look, let alone the buttons as well. He even played a bit of NES for a couple years with me as a kid, so he even had more traditional AAA video game experience than someone young today.

(But, seriously, fuck minecraft... I can't stand that POS and the pixel art trend, aside from a couple examples. If I'm going to build something that looks like shit, I'll use legos, dammit!)

 

[disemboweler]

I'm surprised to see so many people on this thread somehow not understanding the concept that Nintendo claiming the Switch will do 60 FPS is just the usual misleading marketing bullshit, but certainly not untrue.

It's like the other consoles, except worse, in that it certainly can do 1080p60 if you're playing something like Minecraft, which might have the worst graphics since before Wolfenstein 3D - but it usually won't aim for much more than 30FPS, especially with a game like the new Zelda is - open world, generally pretty, etc.

Mario kart will likely run closer to 60 FPS, though, since it's a WiiU game and this is more powerful than the WiiU. Not too much more powerful, but side by side, Zelda looks a fair bit better on the Switch than the WiiU, and it's not just 720p vs 900p - it's more dynamic shadows and textures and lots of things that look better.

 

[Exavior]

I did very specifically say they will mention resolution and frame rate on a game by game basis. One game running at 1080p/60 does not mean ALL games will. That's been the case for every HD console ever made. Not every game is going to run at the max possible resolution and frame rate, welcome to gaming on consoles.



Something to remember about the comparison: The Wii U demo was from E3 last year and who know how old that build is. Also, it seems like that demo was just ported over to the Switch since by reports the Switch demo from the events is exactly the same as the Wii U one from E3, down to frame rate drops in the same areas.



Wind Waker was 30. You can get it to run at 60fps with the Dolphin emulator, but it's native frame rate is 30.

I think I see where part of the confusion came from. I did not mean for my comment to come off as ALL games have to run native at those specs, I mean that supported all games could run at 1080p/60 max when docked and 720p/60 in tablet mode. The system will run at 1080p and if the game is only 900p then it is scaled up to 1080p.

And yes not all games will hit the limit. However the problem here is presentation. Lets say I make a new car, and during the demonstration when showing it off to the world first a turn signal gets stuck being on, the hood pops open and then a tire falls off as it starts to drive away. Did I do a very good job making you want to buy my car? The issue with the Wii U was 3rd party support, it was damn near not there. Already people are saying that they will not develop for the Switch because it is too underpowered, that they want to wait to see how well it sells, how well games can actually run on the system... So this means that Nintendo has to show the best they have to show people that you can in fact get a game to run well on the system. Which if you start by showing that a game you made 4 years ago on your last gen system can't run at the best graphical setting what hopes do you have of making somebody think that they should invest the time and money into your system. I mean if the Legend of Zelda is far to taxing of a game for the system to handle, what does that tell people trying to figure out if they want to make a game on the system? Nintendo needs to come out hitting home runs, not getting to first base and maybe being able to steal second. Microsoft is already working to make sure that every game they release on the new version of the xbox will be 4K native, because they want to show that it is possible to get 4K native on the system. That is what Nintendo needs to do in order to get 3rd party support, show what is actually possible with the system. Do you really notice a difference if it isn't 1080p native? No. I play all my Xbox games without knowing what the actual resolution is and I am fine with that.

 

[Derangel]

I think I see where part of the confusion came from. I did not mean for my comment to come off as ALL games have to run native at those specs, I mean that supported all games could run at 1080p/60 max when docked and 720p/60 in tablet mode. The system will run at 1080p and if the game is only 900p then it is scaled up to 1080p.

And yes not all games will hit the limit. However the problem here is presentation. Lets say I make a new car, and during the demonstration when showing it off to the world first a turn signal gets stuck being on, the hood pops open and then a tire falls off as it starts to drive away. Did I do a very good job making you want to buy my car? The issue with the Wii U was 3rd party support, it was damn near not there. Already people are saying that they will not develop for the Switch because it is too underpowered, that they want to wait to see how well it sells, how well games can actually run on the system... So this means that Nintendo has to show the best they have to show people that you can in fact get a game to run well on the system. Which if you start by showing that a game you made 4 years ago on your last gen system can't run at the best graphical setting what hopes do you have of making somebody think that they should invest the time and money into your system. I mean if the Legend of Zelda is far to taxing of a game for the system to handle, what does that tell people trying to figure out if they want to make a game on the system? Nintendo needs to come out hitting home runs, not getting to first base and maybe being able to steal second. Microsoft is already working to make sure that every game they release on the new version of the xbox will be 4K native, because they want to show that it is possible to get 4K native on the system. That is what Nintendo needs to do in order to get 3rd party support, show what is actually possible with the system. Do you really notice a difference if it isn't 1080p native? No. I play all my Xbox games without knowing what the actual resolution is and I am fine with that.

To repeat what I said earlier in the thread: Launch games are never an example of the final power of a system. Zelda not running at 1080p is not the best sign, but who knows what it means in the grand scheme of things. It's a huge world and open world games always run a lot worse than they really should. It could mean the system is a lot weaker than even the Digital Foundry specs lead us to believe, it could also be indicative of a game being developed on early dev kits. My big question is performance. Is it rock solid at 30 or is the event demo actually representative of how the final game performs?

Nintendo definitely needs to hit a home run, though I think they're okay-ish game wise right now. It's not amazing, but it's okay. A couple really big games, some promising smaller ones, and steady releases during the year with more promised to come. However, it's their marketing that needs to hit it. Quite frankly, I have zero faith in Nintendo PR. I'm sure they want to save some big games for E3, but if the Pokemon Stars rumor is true it should be teased before launch. The moment they mention Pokemon on the Switch it will get attention. Sun and Moon are the best Pokemon games in years and have reignited interest in the franchise from people, like myself, that haven't touched it in many years. They can save a full reveal for E3 along with other titles, but if something like that was teased prior to launch you wouldn't be able to find the system on shelves until next year.

 

[BloodyIron]

Well, testing in advance probably won't change anything anyways. Even still, I think Mario Kart 8 at 720p60 on the Wii U looked fucking awesome! Even on a big-wall projector.

I think people are just getting upset over spilled milk or something like that.

720p on the tablet is confirmed and I believe they've said MK8D runs at 1080p/60 docked. Sadly they don't talk specifics with the specs so the actual SOC and how it acts probably won't be known until launch and people have had time to tear it apart and run tests on it. Though the Digital Foundry report is probably correct. At this point I'd be surprised if it used a full fledged X1 or the P1.

 

[TheBlueChanell]

Paper Mario
Mario Kart
Mario Bros Wii U
Zelda breath of the wild
Super Luigi Wii U.....

Adding to this list, you forgot to mention a few titles.

1st/2nd Party:
Captain Toad
Kirby Rainbow Curse
Splatoon
Super Mario 3D World
Super Mario Maker
Twilight Princess HD
Wind Waker HD
Xenoblade Chronicles X
Yoshi's Wooly World

3rd Party / Exclusives:
Hyrule Warriors
Wonderful 101

Out of my XB1, PS4 and Wii U the Wii U definitely has the better catalog of exclusive games. My XB1 is basically moot now because of MS's recent commitment in getting all their exclusives on PC. The PS4 is still worth it for it's exclusives even though there are less and less as time goes on. If you're a PC Gamer 85-90% of game that release for XB1/PS4 also come out on PC, the same can't be said of Nintendo.

That being said, I was/am really bummed that we never got a proper Metroid Prime 4 or even Metroidvania style release on the Wii U. I'm holding out my breath that Retro (or even another studio) pumps out an amazing Metroid game for the Switch, the series is due for an excellent new release.

 

[TheBlueChanell]

I hate to be one of "those people", but I'd love for a 1080p remake of Star Fox 64 with a normal N64/Gamecube controller. I found my N64 while cleaning last summer and had to fire up Star Fox - not as pretty as I remember it, but game play is still excellent.

1080p/60 and/or 4K/30 versions of my favorite Nintendo titles on someone else's system would be ideal. I don't want motion controls, a dock, a tablet with piss poor touch functionality, or even another console in general.
...or is making a version those games with great graphics and top-notch surround sound also a gimmick?

Dolphin does an excellent of upscaling Wii and Gamecube games and allows you to run them in 4K and with things like AA/AF. CEMU is coming along nicely and at an incredibly expeditious pace as far as emulating Wii U games go.

I was bummed when the final Switch specs were announced/released. I know it was probably a pipe dream but I was really liking the idea entertained by some of the original rumors that the handheld/tablet portion would be powered by Tegra like what we ended up with but the dock portion would contain either an AMD APU or even additional ARM cores for added power. You'd get a more traditional console experience when docked. From a programming perspective that probably wasn't realistic especially since if they did use an APU like the early rumors suggested you'd have x86 when docked and ARM when in tablet mode.

 

[Derangel]

Dolphin does an excellent of upscaling Wii and Gamecube games and allows you to run them in 4K and with things like AA/AF. CEMU is coming along nicely and at an incredibly expeditious pace as far as emulating Wii U games go.

I was bummed when the final Switch specs were announced/released. I know it was probably a pipe dream but I was really liking the idea entertained by some of the original rumors that the handheld/tablet portion would be powered by Tegra like what we ended up with but the dock portion would contain either an AMD APU or even additional ARM cores for added power. You'd get a more traditional console experience when docked. From a programming perspective that probably wasn't realistic especially since if they did use an APU like the early rumors suggested you'd have x86 when docked and ARM when in tablet mode.

As cool as it would have been, thinking about it a dual solution was probably never a likely option. It would have made development on the system far too complex. Nintendo got some flack for the Wii U being a pain to develop for and it sounds like the Switch is very easy.

 

[SPARTAN VI]

It may not do it at 1080P @ 60fps, but it can do it at 900P @ 60fps even when I take it out the door and for a mere $300. It's kind of a moot point anyway, I don't expect cutting edge visuals from Nintendo games. Not every game needs to be the pinnacle of gaming graphics technology especially when I'm mobile. I have my PC waiting for me at home when I need that.

 

[Exavior]

It may not do it at 1080P @ 60fps, but it can do it at 900P @ 60fps even when I take it out the door and for a mere $300. It's kind of a moot point anyway, I don't expect cutting edge visuals from Nintendo games. Not every game needs to be the pinnacle of gaming graphics technology especially when I'm mobile. I have my PC waiting for me at home when I need that.

undocked isn't that high of res. Also what you and others say points to yet another fuckup for their marketing. This is not a mobile game system. It is a home console that can be used in a portable way. Just a step up from the Wii U and it's pad. Mobile gaming is meant to stay with the 3ds line.

second is that people are to the point that they don't expect a single 3rd party to make a game for the system as 1st party is all people care about. If you were to say that the next Xbox system was going to release with no 3rd party support people would be talking about it being a piece if shit but since it is Nintendo it is acceptable that they release with no 3rd parry support and people who want 3rd party support are told to fuck off that they are wrong for wanting anything except Nintendo games because you shouldn't think there will be 3rd party games.