32 Gigabyte internal SSD capacity is not realistic. New Doom is now 75 gigs. Halo 5 is 100 gigs+. They cannot limit the console that way IF they want a download store of any kind. "Cartridge only" would solve the problem, but I highly doubt they go that way.
4 Gigs of Ram is also questionable.

Well a lot of it can run right off the cartridge probably. It may also support memory cards or something, we'll have to see.

There are a variety of compression methods to retain the quality and keep the footprint small. Based on those specs, I don't think that Nintendo is going to be competing with Sony and Microsoft in a direct technological fight which they haven't done since the Wii.

There seems like that there are more third parties interested in the console and hopefully they'll make games for it but also hopefully those games will sell.

The Switch looks neat and I know I'll pick one up at some point.

It's not only a "technological" fight. It's about multi platform titles coming to this console as well. If developers can't port your new game to the new console because of the console's limitations, there is simply one less reason to buy the console. This leads to people declaring "no games for this console" which makes even less people buy the console. This leads to developers becoming less interested in developing for the console. And the circle continues.

The exclusives like Zelda and Mario are the prime system sellers and I hope they have a killer Lineup for launch this time around. Spreading many consoles as early as possible will be key for this thing.

Still too early for me to say what I think about Switch.

Also, is it gonna be backwards compatible with Wii U games?

I like it. The best part for me - if this takes off - is the end of the distinction between handheld games and home console games. You can play any game on your TV or on the portable, as need be (I know someone will be happy for an eventual new Monster Hunter playable on TV), plus Nintendo should be a lot more productive now that they don't have to split their development resources between handheld and console divisions.




Pretty sure it's just one size at this point.



Just a change of resolution probably. 720p on portable mode vs 1080p TV output. There is some speculation that the system will run at a higher clock speed when docked to allow a boost in resolution, but that's completely unconfirmed.



I think the rumor was that this is much easier to develop for. Anyway, 3rd-parties are on board for the moment, at least:





Hmm, not sure. Nvidia said "Nintendo Switch is powered by the performance of the custom Tegra processor. The high-efficiency scalable processor includes an NVIDIA GPU based on the same architecture as the world’s top-performing GeForce gaming graphics cards." Same architecture as top GeForce cards would seem to imply it's Pascal-based, rather than Maxwell. We'll see I guess. I sure as fuck hope that the bit about 32GB drive space is not true... though of course, that would be a very Nintendo thing to do.



Highly unlikely, since it's cartridge-based and doesn't have a disc drive. I guess it could maybe support digital Wii U games... It seems probable that Nintendo wants a clean break with the old architecture though.

Yeah those specs are 100% unconfirmed, they're just strongly rumored.

Glad to hear it!

Well Nintendo Switch looks thoroughly unimpressive, sorry if I don't cheer from the rooftops and bless Miyamoto on this one.

^that

So it's a handheld you can plug into your TV? AMAZING GUYZ, gonna totally revolutionize the world of video games as we all know it, definitely the best way to blow $300-400.


Only thing I liked was the ad was exclusively aimed at adults. A Nintendo first?

Ah, I see. I won't need to spend some cash on Wii U games before they leave the shelves, then. Good.

Too early for me to form an opinion on Nintendo Switch. More 3rd party support? Well I guess this means I won't need to get certain games for PC. And with Bandai Namco apparently willing to develop games for it, maybe we'll see Tekken on a Nintendo console lol. That'd be nice since I'd like to play Tekken competitively someday without being forced t buy a Sony console. And Namco seems allergic to the PC market.

The console design seems quite original but a hybrid portable+domestic console isnt' really much of a shock. The Wii U controller already was a prototype of this. Except you couldn't take it with you out of the house and play.

I wonder what will Nintendo do with the 3DS now. How long will it continue it? So far they've only released one New 3DS exclusive game, Xenoblade Chronicles.

Commercial aimed exclusively at adults? Well you only see adults playing on it, yes, but it's not like they're playing games people stereotypically associate with adults. They were playing Zelda and Mario Kart. But I guess the Wii U's low sales sent a warning to Nintendo. Also, they probably have been trying to build a new fanbase since the Wii days and have been waiting for the newer generations of players to grow up before targeting a new console at adults again.

Well I'd say it seems to be more like a home console that you can take anywhere with you, which yeah, would be pretty revolutionizing. I don't think the portability aspect looks like some arbitrary gimmick, which sorta seems to be what you're implying.

I'm hoping this means unified support for one console. The idea of having Nintendo support one console with all their games is very appealing and should eliminate software droughts.

Plus another Splatoon title. Excite!

The real revolutionary thing is that they took a step back and focused on gaming again.
It's not a multimedia machine, at least it's not advertised as one. Compare this to the PS4/XBOX One which tried to be everything (even platforms for TV shows exclusively produced for the system) and ended up being underpowered limited PCs.

Well, I can hook up my PC to my TV and have a superior gaming system and multimedia station, both in terms of power and possibilities plus the additional lower cost (in the long run).
What I can't do is have an amply powered system specifically for gaming that I can use on the go and seamlessly transition to TV play. I tried various combinations in that regard. A gaming laptop is very clunky and cumbersome to transport and certainly awkward to use in some situations, some of which are cleverly advertised in the Switch reveal video.
A phone or tablet connected via the usb port or wifi to TVs has the problem of unacceptable input lag in the case of ALL technologies except MHL 3.0. Even if you use MHL 3.0 there's the more serious issue that games for phones are 90% geared towards touch input rather than use with a bluetooth controller (not an issue with emulation software for android by the way).

With this thing, you now have a portable system which can be used with a solid input device and hooked to the TV or other monitors as well. The controller is designed with that use in mind. More importantly, games are being developed specifically for it, without the developers having to adhere to some "special nintendo thing" like motion controls or second screen, which makes third party support easier. All the gimmicks are handled "internally" and porting games to it shouldn't be a hassle.

What interest me the most is this: Can I take this thing WITHOUT the docking station to a friend and play on his TV? This is an option I have with my phone and two simple cables. In other words: what does the docking station do exactly? Is it just a big TV adapter or does it unlock more performance in order to go from, say, 720p to 1080p, as was suggested here and in other places before?

And, as I already stated in a previous post: how powerful will the hardware be to ensure continued support for games releasing in the next years? I thought about this and if it runs Skyrim and the amazing looking new Zelda game, there should be "enough" performance to compete with the other consoles in that regard. Competing with PC hardware is of course impossible, but that goes for the other consoles as well (yes, also the pro versions and scorpio of course).

My prediction is that Sony and Microsoft are shooting themselves in the foot with their new generation hardware because it makes people question even more why they're not just going for a PC instead if those two companies want you to buy new, expensive and closed hardware every few years anyway.
This is where Nintendo can jump in with the switch and focus on the gaming stregths consoles were famous for and even combine them with the strengths of portables.

And on a more personal note, I simply have this feeling of "Oh god I just HAVE to own this just for the sake of owning it" (a thing I call the "Apple Reflex", the reaction of naturally gravitating towards a new gadget, named after Isaac Newton).

The only thing that would make this go away would be the reveal that the batteries are not interchangable and only last for 2 hours or so

This is a major difference compared to Wii and Wii U. With the Wii I was like "that's gimmicky like the eye toy for ps2" and the Wii U was more like "what's that even supposed to be??".

Err... the Xbox One, very specifically attempted to be a multimedia machine what with it's cable box plug ins and shit. The PlayStation 4 is just a game console. Just because they signed up some exclusive content and it just happens to play video doesn't mean it's a "multimedia machine." Video playback functionality is a given on a console in 2016.

I agree that the PS4 is more of a traditional gaming console than the Xbox one tried to be, but they still both ended up being underpowered and restricted PCs.
Edit:
To further explain and make it more clear. The Wii U was also an underpowered and restricted PC. The switch would also be an underpowered and restriced PC, were it not for the well thought out feature of portability. My only point is that they found a niche in the market that is ACTUALLY useful, a product that could make a difference between console and PC that's not just "It's inferior".

Jesus fucking Christ, Nintendo... No new announcements about games or specs until next year.




No, the dock is what supports the TV output. In Nintendo's words: "The main function of the Nintendo Switch Dock is to provide an output to the TV, as well as charging and providing power to the system." It's unclear what the difference between "charging" and "providing power" is supposed to be...



It's most probably not going to be as powerful as an Xbox One, and it shouldn't be surprising that Nintendo isn't going to try to compete with the other two in terms of power. They haven't tried to do that since the Gamecube era. And that's fine, their strength is their games. The "amazing looking new Zelda" runs on Wii U anyway.



A fairly straightforward console with a very solid library?

That genuinely sucks. Makes it look like they have something to hide.


Yeah that's why I said it should have "enough" power. Maybe newer games have to be toned down in graphical fidelity for the system, but that's easier than developing some arbitrary stuff like motion controls or second screen specifically for one console port of a potential multi platform title. Better have a graphically toned down port of a new game for a console than not have one at all, right? PS4 and Xbox one users are also content with toned down versions of games that are available for PC, so that can't be that big of a problem. The portability is in the end what it comes down to.


Yes, it is. I own one, also a Wii. I was talking more about my initial reactions to it. They both turned out to be consoles with some very good titles.

All consoles are under-powered and restricted PCs. Not sure I get your point.

Consoles have always had more restricted environments with hardware that is powerful for a period of time before being eclipsed by PCs -- it just happened earlier in this cycle because they chose to build with parts than are less expensive and allow developers to do more, easily.

Yes, they are. That's why I'm so thrilled about the Switch, it actually offers the hybrid functionality which a pc can't offer. It has one advantage over the pc, other consoles currently have zero advantages when it comes to what you can do with the hardware.

As I explained in my long post, not even mobile devices can offer that properly.

^How many people actually carry around their consoles and also play them in public though? Mobile gaming is understandable because everyone needs to use them to call/txt/message/internet, but who actually needs to use a large nintendo gaming brick?

The whole idea of a console on the move is cool in theory but home consoles are 'home' consoles for a reason.

Playing Civ 6 tonight... better and fuller than Civ 5 at release, but there are still a fair number of issues, especially with the AI and UI, lack of keyboard control, and it lacks important bits of info (like how many turns until city expansion, and the likely hexes involved).

i agree to a certain extent. It definitely won't make sense on daily commutes, especially if we are dealing with large groups of people, but I can see if working on flights, intercity bus or train journeys.

In order to test out the practicability of an extra mobile device I ordered this thing just now:

https://www.amazon.com/Nyko-Smart-Clip- ... eklip&th=1

I will use it with emulators running on android with an Sony Xperia Z5 (SNES games, Sega Genesis, N64, NES, Gameboy advance, all of those systems run very well).

For TV use at home I will use an MHL 3.0 adapter like this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-MHL-3-0- ... .0+adapter

...and a PS4 Controller which can be used with the Sony Xperia line of devices. This should give me a pretty good idea how much I want/need portable or hybrid gaming. Just a test run, probably to decrease my own hype.

Agree with this assessment. The UI feels less intuitive than Civ V's, and the AI still needs bonuses to compete with humans. I played my first game as Germany on King difficulty and won with not to much trouble. The main issue I had was that I wasn't sure where all the info I was used to in V was, but that could be just not knowing where to go. That being said, my impression initially is that it's a much more in depth game than V was at launch, I mean, I can't think of a single major mechanic from Brave New World that isn't included in VI, and districts and the civics tree adds a whole other layer of strategy. I'll be interested to see what DLC they release for it down the road.

So the other day I started playing Dark Souls II SotFS, I wanted to know what all the fuss was about and man, this game is hard, it's extremely frustrating and most of the times I just Alt+F4 out of it out of pure anger, but for some reason I keep coming back, I can't help it.

"There is no shame in deterrence. Having a weapon is very different from actually using it." -Gandhi commenting on my army in Civilization 6, as he plots to drop nukes on my empire ~400 turns later.

This looks absolutely gorgeous.

Yeah, I'm digging the old cartoon style of that one, I hope the gameplay is as good though, for we all know what happens when a game looks gorgeous but the gameplay is boring cough NMS cough

DSII is an odd place to start since (even with the SotFS revamp) some of the balancing and mechanics are a bit odd. Normally I'd advise playing DS1 first, but I'm glad to see you've found it as addicting as I (and many others here) do.

Yeah, I had to resort to many combat tutorials on Youtube though, you'll undertand that with Skyrim being one of my main games, DS2 ment a huge difference in difficulty level.

Uh, that was my first Souls game too, bought for curiosity's sake and cheap price
..and it was a nightmare.

I wanted to play in an old school fashion without a guide and i figured how to upgrade weapons at about the Iron Keep, after giving up with the first boss there

I rarely get PC games but this has made the list.

The DS3 DLC boss is pwning me

I've got a super-long shift today, but also a day off tomorrow, so Thursday it's going to be DS3 DLC time for me. Very much hyped, stayed away from spoilers except for the trailers. I'll be going in with an endgame build that hasn't rolled over into NG+ yet, so I might be a teensy bit overleveled for this unless the DLC is balanced for endgame, but either way, I'm game to jump right in when I get the chance.

I have an end-game build and the overall mobs aren't that bad except for one or two enemy types, but the end boss is ouuuuch.

Also: wolves hunt in packs!

Gandhi was the most trigger happy nuke user in all the past Civilization games, wasn't he? Glad to see that hasn't stopped.

So on a whim I picked up Quantum Break a few days ago. While I found Alan Wake to be awful in pretty much every way except 'atmosphere' (seriously some of the most retarded combat in a AAA action game I've played and a tedious, boring story with a few good characters here and there), Remedy's first two games are inarguable masterpieces of story-based action gaming.

So where does Quantum Break fall? Well, I'm only about halfway through, but it's pretty promising so far. The story is essentially Alan Wake with the paranormal elements swapped for sci-fi/conspiracy claptrap which suits me far better, and they've removed most of the painful forced attempts at comic relief that dragged down Alan Wake every time it started to be halfway interesting. Even the budget TV show that comes packaged with the game (for some reason) isn't too bad, with some great acting from Lance Reddick and Aiden Gillen, although make no mistake, the game is most definitely not worth it for the TV show.

What Quantum break is worth it for is the combat. Holy shit, the combat. Unlike most modern third-person shooters, Quantum Break's combat is about keeping mobile. There's no snap-to-cover, even on Hard you can soak up a lot of bullets before the screen turns red, fairly early in the game you get semi-big arenas filled with tons of bad guys that you have to figure out how to take down and, best of all, your magic powers have extremely fast recharge rates and most of them only work when you're moving around. So what you basically get is the slick, smooth gunplay from Max Payne 3 but without the "realistic" movement system and annoying cover mechanics that kneecapped that game's best features. Oh, and Quantum Break is an enjoyable sci-fi romp that doesn't take itself so goddamned seriously all of the time, unlike Rockstar's stab at a sequel to the best action games of the early 00's.

So yeah, buy Quantum Break if you like 3rd person shooters and can play it.