Are people really that upset that Switch is referred to as a hybrid?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Nintendo Switch
  3. Are people really that upset that Switch is referred to as a hybrid?

User Info: DiscostewSM

DiscostewSM
1 year ago#61
DaLagga posted...
DiscostewSM posted...
And we know this.....how? Because of rumored clock speeds? Please don't give in to the Mhz myth, especially you of all people who have taken PCs to heart.


Yes, rumored clock speeds that do tell us a lot about the hardware. And please, stop with the "Mhz" myth. If you knew anything about hardware at all you'd know that clock speeds are FAR from irrelevant. Especially when comparing the same basic hardware that is simply running at different clock speeds. For example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PABR7JHOyhs

Where's your "Mhz myth" now?

This is your counter point? A comparison of the same exact CPU at differing clock speeds, when the Mhz Myth is all about differing hardware? And here I thought you were smart.

BTW, I never said clocks speeds were irrelevant.
I'm gonna enjoy playing Nintendo games, and you can't stop me.
http://tinyurl.com/p9gk8xg - http://tinyurl.com/nnff2sk

User Info: yummychop

yummychop
1 year ago#62
DaLagga posted...
Saying that people are "upset" comes across as some rather desperate fantrolling to be honest. Nobody is upset about the terminology. However, it is fair to point out that calling it a hybrid misrepresents the device and not only how it will be used but also what kinds of games will be developed for it. Ultimately, it really is nothing but a handheld with a charging bay that allows the GPU to run at a higher frequency while docked. That's it. And it does mark the first time in over 30 years that Nintendo will not have a real home console on the market.

The trouble of course is the fact that handheld games are designed very differently from home console games. It's not just about having to limit the scope of game worlds and graphics to accommodate weaker handheld specs, but the larger issue has to do with intended playtime. It's no secret that compared to console games, handheld titles tend to be very simplistic and light on actual content and gameplay depth and there's a very good reason for that. Handheld games are designed to be played on the go in short bursts much like mobile iOS games, albeit not quite to the same degree. They also sport relatively small screens which makes detailed menus with complex UI's very difficult to manage so most of that is usually kept to a minimum as well - typically at the expense of yet more gameplay depth.

As a result, most games for the Switch are almost certainly going to be designed for the system as if it were a handheld with little more than a resolution upgrade for when the system is docked. So while games will look a little better in "console mode", they're still going to be constrained by the limitations of handheld game design. Otherwise, you'd be left trying to play a full blown console title on a tiny screen with intended gameplay sessions that take far longer than what most people expect on a mobile device.

Very informative post, lots of good info in this.

I do, however, respectfully disagree. You make the assumption that developers will make games focused around it being a hand-held, where it could very well be the other way around. Take for example all of the games we know of so far, they are all full console games.

I think you are also discounting how much information you can see on a 6.2" screen, anyone with a Wii U who regularly plays off-screen can tell you that the games play very well. The only exception I can think of is MH3U with it's tiny text, but the text was just as tiny on a TV.

On another related note, one of the things that annoy me are people who say that Nintendo are doing this to charge console game prices for hand-held games, which until we actually see the games and prices, is just wrong.

User Info: jedinat

jedinat
1 year ago#63
DaLagga posted...
jedinat posted...
Your example is a 3rd person shooter on a system with one analog nub that came out 5 years ago, lol. iOS games are phone games meant to be controlled with fingers; I don't even know why you brought that up. The "limitations" that you seemed worried about will literally not exist on the switch. A 6 inch screen held less than a foot away from your face will probably need similar font/UI dimensions to an HDTV half-way across the room. The differences will be no more remarkable than console to PC ports.

Practically none of my 3DS games feel particularly designed for short burst gameplay sessions (anymore than any other games I play on PC or whatever). People have phones for that.


I used RE:Revelations because it seems like a good example since it was a highly praised dedicated handheld title that absolutely sucked on consoles despite the ports being far superior to the 3DS version. It wasn't just bad controls that hampered the game but the whole thing was just dumbed down and clunky across the board. It's a classic example of how handheld standards are very different and, in a direct comparison, vastly lower than console standards. So if you have a better example of a highly praised handheld title getting ported to consoles, I'd appreciate it.

As for the rest of your argument, can you provide any examples? Pretty much every handheld game I've ever played is indeed very simplistic compared to your typical console or PC title. Most of the more notable handheld games are just cheap JRPG's that would have been considered cheap back in the SNES ear and Pokemon games that are designed for kids (mindless collect-a-thons without much real depth or meat on their bones).

Monster Hunter series is massive and the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of "pick-up-and-play" style of gameplay. Super deep weapon/combat system, massive boss battles against large beasts that can last an hour or more. Online co-op. Etc..

Honestly it sounds to me like you aren't much of a handheld gamer and are just s***ting on what you don't know.

I mean sheesh, you can't say Majora's Mask has anything "portable" or cheap about it and it's port to handheld somehow survived the transition without imploding...

User Info: Waluigi1

Waluigi1
1 year ago#64
It's a hybrid. End of story. There is nothing to argue.
3DS FC: 4983 4925 5121
NNID, PSN, and GT: Waluigi1

User Info: slyman19

slyman19
1 year ago#65
forte posted...
slyman19 posted...
forte posted...

What is a smart phone? It is a hybrid of a tablet computer and a phone. Do you even know what hybrid means?

A smart phone is not a hybrid. It's its own category. It's not two categories combined, which is what a hybrid is.

A phone is for calling people
A tablet is for running simple programs, surfing the internet and taking pictures/video

A smartphone IS the perfect example of a hybrid...just because people decided to call it a smartphone doesnt mean it isnt by every definition a hybrid device. Clearly you are thinking very narrowly. Just google "Hybrid".....that might open your eyes a lil kiddo.

Maybe you dont remember the world before smartphones...so you think phones always did all the junk they do now.

Tsk tsk. I do remember the world before smartphones. Those phones WERE hybrids. Smart phones are not since they are a category of their own.
NNID: WoodFall64

User Info: DaLagga

DaLagga
1 year ago#66
DiscostewSM posted...
This is your counter point? A comparison of the same exact CPU at differing clock speeds, when the Mhz Myth is all about differing hardware? And here I thought you were smart.

BTW, I never said clocks speeds were irrelevant.


First off, it's still not completely irrelevant when comparing different types of hardware depending on just how much difference there is. A 1.8ghz i5 in a laptop for example isn't going to be anywhere near as fast as a 3.0+ghz i5 in a desktop, even if the laptop processor is from a much newer generation. Second, we are already almost certain that the Switch is based on the Tegra X1 architecture but heavily downclocked. As a result, it is going to be a lot slower. There's no getting around it.
#67
(message deleted)

User Info: Lan915

Lan915
1 year ago#68
I'm just going to tell people that it's an Nvidia Shield on steriods.
A true man puts the name of his waifu in his sig.
Waifu - Nozomi Toujou from Love Live

User Info: DiscostewSM

DiscostewSM
1 year ago#69
slyman19 posted...
DiscostewSM posted...
So you gonna tell us that clock speed is everything, after all these years, even after trying to say that Switch is an extremely underpowered handheld when most handheld devices made nowadays have a hard time trying to pull off Wii U performance?

Most handheld devices are restricted by Android, drop that gluttonous resource hog and a lot of devices would kill the underpowered Switch.

And yet, for how optimized iOS is for Apple devices on devices like the iPhone 7, they have yet to pass Wii U's performance, which even Switch has shown to surpass while undocked.
I'm gonna enjoy playing Nintendo games, and you can't stop me.
http://tinyurl.com/p9gk8xg - http://tinyurl.com/nnff2sk

User Info: DaLagga

DaLagga
1 year ago#70
jedinat posted...
Monster Hunter series is massive and the COMPLETE OPPOSITE of "pick-up-and-play" style of gameplay. Super deep weapon/combat system, massive boss battles against large beasts that can last an hour or more. Online co-op. Etc..

Honestly it sounds to me like you aren't much of a handheld gamer and are just s***ting on what you don't know.

I mean sheesh, you can't say Majora's Mask has anything "portable" or cheap about it and it's port to handheld somehow survived the transition without imploding...


The last Monster Hunter game I played was MH3 on the Wii and I found the game to be massively dumbed down and overly simplified. It was just a grindfest with a very poorly designed world, spammy combat that is based more on gear than person skill, and unbelievable amounts of repetition. Something like Dragon's Dogma is infinitely superior and that game wasn't exactly amazing.

And no, I'm not much of a handheld gamer. I've played a number of handheld games and have never found one even up to par with console standards so why would I bother with handhelds? By design, handheld games are much more simplistic than what I typically like to play. If I want to game on the go, I'll just bring a laptop which offers horsepower dramatically in excess of the Switch while also having all the functionality of a PC anyway. It's a bit bigger to carry than a handheld, but is still very portable and well worth the extra effort for the superior games and extra functionality.

So for me and most people, handhelds are useless. They fill a niche that is rapidly shrinking and the sales figures prove it. If most people want to play a real game, they'll do it on a console or PC. And if they want to game on the go, they'll just play something on their phone. So it makes little sense for me to try to get into handheld gaming when it's a dying breed. What makes even less sense is why Nintendo would stake the future of their company on such a device.
  1. Boards
  2. Nintendo Switch
  3. Are people really that upset that Switch is referred to as a hybrid?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived