Topic: Nintendo Switch --OT--

@KALofKRYPTON @johncalmc Playing with the Joy-Cons is fine. Button mapping is all the same. Never tried single Joy-Con though, nor do I want to.

As for the chat problem, the Nintendo Switch Online app still only supports Splatoon 2 for Voice Chat so...you aren't using that, not does it feel like you need to.

@KratosMD Yeah, I guess you are right. Even companies when I was a kid were "brainwashing" gamers into thinking that graphics we're what made a game, 16bit over 8bit. SNES can display more colors then Sega Genesis etc. It's sad really though that it has become a benchmark as it seems that even companies use that benchmark now, which is one of my biggest complaints with the Final Fantasy series, but that's another subject for another day. As I said I rather take a good story over graphics cause that's just me.

@Tasuki I think within a console generation and in the interests of pushing technology, a graphics/power race is quite useful.
Often it would just boil down to the notion that 'X' multi-platform game performs 'better' on one console than another - but beyond that, there is always the scope to create new gaming experiences.

While 'better graphics' may feel like a crude way to denote better games; the ability to render more detailed environments, characters and objects, display more objects and richer locales all contribute massively to an enhanced experience.

Sometimes, the experience of gaming changes unrecognisably. In the 16/32bit transition when PlayStation emerged as the new king - 2D games of any sort lost favour massively. Even the basic genre of platforming was overwhelmingly represented by 3D games; at this point, across platforming, action and puzzle games our 'gaming sense' changed. No longer were the 2D, sometimes parrallax planes all we needed to concern ourselves with. We had to hunt for corners and turns and become adept navigators in 3D spaces. It's par for the course to see a 'pixel art' game lauded now - but 2D games really did struggle for legitimacy and an audience for a while.

@Tasuki I'd say it's actually less true today. If a small developer releases a simple pixel-style game, everyone is fine with it. If you tried releasing an 8-bit game during the 16/32-bit era, your game would've been ignored completely.

Some people like classic cars, clothes, technology, whatever. Gaming is no different. It's just an issue of taste.

Some people even buy, play and enjoy Call of Duty annually. Figure that one out.

@KALofKRYPTON @kyleforrester87 Right I get what you all are saying but I guess I just find it shallow of people to right away dismiss a game because it has below par graphics were elseware story, game play etc. it's above and beyond. But I guess it's in the same vain of people saying that movies from the black and white era are bad because they they don't have the technology that movies of today do.

@Tasuki I can watch a black and white film but it's not as easy for me to get into as a modern film. I caught the original Dunkirk a few weeks ago and after 20 minutes I was in to it. My girlfriend thought I was nuts though.

It's like when you're dating, if what you see doesn't hook you from the off, you are less likely to stick around to get to know the person on the inside. It's just the way people are lol.

Now I personally think people who are dismissive of games because of (alleged) poor graphics are absolutely mad, but as I say there is no accounting for taste and it's not really worth a second thought I guess.

@Tasuki
I think the issue for a lot of games now, like films in a way - is that something that looks of poor quality, it probably is poor quality - rather than previous generations of struggling against technical limitations or being one of hundreds of shovelware titles (here's looking at you, Wii, DS, PS2).

There genuinely was a time when a game that looked bad, probably was bad.

In fact, I struggle to think of much that I played that looked great but really played badly...🤔

@kyleforrester87 Right it's a psychological thing as we as people are obssesd with things that look good which is why the make up, excersise etc industries make so much money a year. It's why they play teeth whiting commericals all the time. I guess video games are no different.

Games and technology are directly linked. Graphics - which is a combination of colours, resolution/pixel count, frame rate, polygon count, textures/lighting etc etc are a 'mark' of the technological advancement as well as the artistry of the developers.
The fact that games looked and played like they did was down to the technology of the day and, had they been conceptualised today, would probably be very different games. The fact that technology has moved on has enabled developers to tell 'stories' with dialogue and real character development, enabled games to have 3D worlds to explore etc. The reason that we see B&W or only 1080p SDR now seems to be for either artistic or financial reasons. The same is basically true for games - its either for artistic reasons or financial that they are not offering the same 'quality' of visuals that AAA games offer.
Game-play is subjective too - what some one enjoys another may find monotonous or tedious. If you don't like racing games for example, it doesn't matter how good/bad the visuals are - whether that's Forza/GTsport or some PS1 era visuals. That being said, if you do like racing games, the modern technology allows for so much more than just pretty looking cars - but impactful (not cosmetic) weather, accurate tracks (admittedly some of that is helped by visuals too), realistic physics, better AI and more cars on tracks etc. I would rather play a racing game in 4k HDR 60fps than 480p upto 30fps with low polygon count, poor texture and low draw distances etc. I am willing to be that games like Wolfenstein 2 wouldn't be half the game it is had it also been another 'maze' game with the visuals of the original - would have been difficult to tell the story.
The fact is that nowadays you can have great games with great visuals and most people would buy a game that has both. Given the choice of playing say Forza 7 or some PS1 era racing game that offers the same basic game-play, I know which one I would pick. Its not the one that looks very dated by modern standards...

@BAMozzy but then given the choice between Final Fantasy 13 and 15 or 6,7 and 9 and I know which I'd pick - ya know? Or a modern 3D Sonic game versus Mania. Or Resident Evil 6 versus 1.

Im not saying awesome graphics can't be great, certainly in some cases they help support an already good game and in other cases they lift what is otherwise a mediocre game to a higher level. But equally you simply do not need modern graphics for a game to look, play and sound great while also telling a wonderful story. Nier has, in general, serviceable graphics that do the bare minimum.. but the game is the best game I've played this gen.

@kyleforrester87 That's up to you but more often than not, technology and the advancement of that has helped transform games for the better. Great visuals enhance games - just like good audio can too. Those FF games you mentioned were also pushing technology of their day and its not the 'visuals' that let modern FF games down. Resident Evil 6 went away from the atmosphere and 'horror survival' of RE1 but IF RE and those FF games were made today, it would be much more in keeping with the visual of today - and much better camera angles/controls too in the case of games like RE.

You may not 'need' games to look, play or sound great but they all add to the experience and enhance the experience. Poor visuals, poor audio and poor performance all detract from a game too and it doesn't matter if the story is 'good' because if it looks, sounds and plays badly, no-one will get to the end of it.

@BAMozzy but then "if it looks, sounds and plays badly" is an opinion isn't it? Look at Underworld. It has what you'd probably describe as "poor graphics and music" but its acclaimed. Personally I think it wouldn't be the game it is with modern graphics and sound.

Hotline Miami - better in 3D, 3rd person? No chance.

Again, this isn't about which is better. It's about my firm belief that everything has its place. I simply couldn't dismiss a game because of how it looks.

To throw my oar in, an upgrade in graphics is, to me, important when it brings with it new gaming and gameplay abilities. The leap from between gens has typically revolutionised home gaming in different ways. 32 era games were different from 16 but in that you couldn't physically do a lot of things in 16bit you could in 32.

However, for me, the current leap between last and this gen has been incremental rather than revolutionary. Games look phenomenal and can build better worlds but few really offer a fundamental break from what last gen did. This is why I think the downgrade on Switch doesn't bother people. I played some doom on Ps4 and Switch. They play the same. One looks and performs better but adequately mirrors gameplay. It is not like a Snes trying to play tomb raider.

@kyleforrester87 I agree that dismissing a game purely on visuals doesn't make sense - I wouldn't have bought Mass Effect:Andromeda if I based it on just visuals alone. That being said, if I have the choice of playing the same game at say 4k/60 or 720/30, I would go for the 4k/60 version every time.

I understand that maybe some may not get as much time to play games on a TV and may prefer to play a game like Doom or Wolfenstein on the go and therefore the 'best' they can play that game is then the level at which the Switch offers. If the 'best' level at which I can play Sony's games at is the Pro for the foreseeable future, then I would rather play those games than not. I bought an Xbox One X because it enhances the visuals and (in some cases) the performance of games and therefore, I can't see myself buying a multi-platform game on PS4 in the near future because I want the 'best' I can. If 'visuals' didn't matter, we would still be gaming on old systems and Sony/MS wouldn't have bothered with a Pro/X. AMD and nVidia wouldn't need to worry about more powerful GPU's to deliver much higher visual quality - not just resolution but polygon counts and all the visual features (shadows, lighting etc) that combine to make games look as incredible as they do.

Games are more than just the sum of their parts and visuals are a 'part' but not the sole and most important factor. Great graphics can and do enhance the experience just as poor visuals can also be distracting and take away from the experience - seeing textures/objects pop-in, poor facial animations etc can take you out of the game, distract you from the dialogue or moment.

I don't think anyone is saying graphics aren't important, far from it if I've read everyone's comments properly. Just not THE most important thing when it comes to enjoying games and definitely not worth magnifying the differences that some media outlets seem obsessed with recently.

For example I played Horizon Zero Dawn and Axiom Verge last year. Did I enjoy HZD more because it has better graphics? No, I can't say I did. I got just as much enjoyment from Axiom Verge despite having graphics inspired by something on a SNES.

@BAMozzy The most powerful console does not necessarily translate to having the best experience though. Just look at PS3 and 360. Multi platform games consistently performed better on the 360, despite being less powerful than the PS3.

It's Rocket League on the move, so it's great. It's harder to tell the tragectory of a long ball and at certain angles I have made more mistakes than on the ps4. That's because of the lower resolution and misjudging the direction. Playing at 30fps is a tough ask when your used to the ps4 so I use the performance mode but the trade off is the games harder to judge. If you have been playing RL for years you are best sticking with the ps4 for high end play but it's still fun on switch. @KALofKRYPTON

It's not just the graphics though better specs mean more things are going on in the background. Better graphics can make a better experience using your hzd example, if that game looked worse it would be worse as the graphics and wow moments are the game rather than intricate gameplay mechanics of something like Rogue Legacy or Fez. That said I agree with the sentiment and whenever I see a digital foundry review for the latest graphics card or 8k gaming it bores me to tears. What's the point when the best looking games are on console. A better resolution on a bad game is trying to shine a poo. @JohnnyShoulder

Your game can look great and be a festering pile of disappointment.

The Order 1886.

@YummyHappyPills
The Order 1886 was great.
I don't know anyone IRL who actually played it and didn't like it.

The 'disappointed' crowd are largely the foaming-at-the-mouth hoards of professional moaners.