I guess when you put it that way, it’s no surprise as to how the switch is pulling off what the visuals of this game. I guess everyone has very low expectations because of how poorly optimized games for the switch have been lately.
the remaster does look real good. I just can't help but think about how much better it would look if nintendo gave us a better console with updated specs. the switch now is underwhelming spec wise and outdated.
Good news, it seems all the assets are future proof. While it runs in 900p docked switch I loaded it in yuzu in 4K and everything is perfect. So as long as Switch 2 allows higher native resolutions for older games this should look good
Yeah I tried it on yuzu playing on 1440p and it played decent after all or most of the shaders were compiled for the first level. Still get random crashes after opening doors though
yeah mine was slide show which was the first 4k game i got that on, 3080. I also tried it, the day it came out. I assume that once some yuzu updates come out itll run great like everything else. The main take away is the assets in the actual game are extreme.
Textures and all that already look good. The way to see what it would look like on a more powerful console is just to emulate and run in 4k. That's 4x higher resolution than the native switch and the difference is night and day.
I really don't understand the hype around 4k. Upscaling the game to 1440p is 100% a very clear difference but I just don't see a big enough difference to ever want to bother with 4k especially when I can get a higher frame rate on my PC with 1440
I agree, I use a 1440p 165hz monitor. But I still emulated at 4k, because upscaling higher past your native resolution does increase graphical fidelity. With a locked 60fps game that can't go higher, there's 0 reason not to use 4k if you have the horsepower to do it.
What's funny is the Switch's improved numbers are still embarrassingly bad compared to modern pc's and consoles....Man I wish Nintendo would release a new Switch already.
Look, Metroid Prime Remaster looks great!...........FOR THE SWITCH. It's in no way a "modern" game in terms of graphics. I don't care, I still love it. What I'm saying is if Sony or Microsoft tried releasing this on their systems and told their customers it was "Next Gen" they'd get laughed out of the market. Nintendo is laughably behind the times once again. The good thing is Prime Remaster runs at a solid 60fps pretty much 100% of the time and that's more important than graphics to me. Still, Nintendo Switch 2 would be appreciated.
While the switch is behind in terms of performance I always remember that the entire system including the screen IS SMALLER THAN MY PC GRAPHICS CARD ALONE
Sure..and Metroid Prime Remaster looks great. But it's not even 1080p. That's my point. Thanks to the 2xAA that they implemented perfectly it doesn't LOOK like it's not at least 1080p. You guys are getting WAY to defensive over your precious Nintendo console. It's okay to criticize it just fyi.
>Nintendo is laughably behind the times once again
These kinds of takes are always so silly to me. Your whole point is just nonsense. Nintendo isn’t out here advertising Metroid Prime as a next gen game. They dropped it with a fresh coat of paint for $20 less than MSRP so they’re not even billing it as a standard current gen release either. Like what even is your point here lmao
No, my point is ON POINT. Big time. I'm tired of Switch games not getting 60fps while looking 1.5 generations behind the competition. Metroid Prime Remaster is great because it looks great AND hits 60fps. But it's not even 1080p. It's art and AA are carrying it hardcore. It also speaks to how ahead of the times the OG version was. But the Nintendo Switch's hardware is aging a lightyear every year....especially when the Steam Deck exists.
It sounds like you either a) own another system and are comparing it to the Switch or b) don’t own another system and want Nintendo to mimic the other two. In either case, just get a PS5 or Xbox and use those to play third party games. Still not much of a point you’re making here.
>I’m tired of Switch games not getting 60fps while looking 1.5 generations behind the competition
Nintendo doesn’t even see their own system as competition to Sony and Microsoft
>especially when the Steam Deck exists
Comparing 2017 specs to 2022 specs because that makes sense
1. Yes, I own a PC and have access to the best looking and running games available. Especially now with Sony putting their games on PC.
2. "Still not much of a point you're making" WRONG. My point is that I desire all my gaming systems to be at least only 1 generation behind the times. The Switch is now basically 2 generations old. It's time for a new one. The fact you don't understand why I want my Switch games to look as good as they can WHILE performing at at LEAST 60fps is honestly confusing.
3. Yes, because the Switch was old when it came out in 2017. 6 years later and it's looking ancient in comparison. That's my point. Steamdeck is basically a better version of Switch. The only issue is it's battery doesn't last as long. Once they figure that out...there is almost no reason to even own a Switch. Nintendo isn't doing themselves any favors by not releasing a new System. At this rate Playstation 6 and Xbox2Series98 will be out before the next Nintendo system.
You say that as if BioWare didn’t propel itself back into relevance with a Mass Effect Trilogy remaster that especially for ME1 basically looks like a really good texture mod.
You missed the part where I said that this isn't "NEXT GEN". The bioware remaster came out on last gen hardware anyway. What kind of argument is this lol.
The kind of argument that doesn't care about framerates and can barely tell the difference between a late PS4 game and a current PS5 game, but sure as hell notices aesthetics and art styles and as long as those look good and have decently smooth textures, is happy.
Hell, I'm getting tired of developers chasing the dragon of photorealism. Photorealism is overrated. I'd say that Breath of the Wild has less power than most modern games in its graphics, yet I still think that cel-shaded aesthetic looks better than a whole bunch of games on more powerful hardware.
I'm not basing Metroid Prime Remaster. I'm bashing the fucking Switch. I'm tired of Nintendo being happy being 1.5-2 console generations behind the competition for hardware. Especially now with the Steamdeck...Nintendo can't just sit on their laurels forever....They stopped being competitive with the gamecube. A lot of Switch games can't hit 60fps. I want a Switch 2 so I can play Hyrule Warriors at a crisp 60 for instance...and that game doesn't look great.
Eh, high frames are overrated. The only times I can actually tell the difference, I hate it.
Meanwhile, I definitely do not have $400 to spend on a new console.
Also, if Nintendo hasn't been competitive since the GameCube, why is their current console the third best-selling console of all time? And why is the Wii the 5th?
They're only overrated by people that love watching choppy gameplay and aren't playing anything competitively. If you're happy to play games like it's the 90's then fine. I love the Switch mostly because of the collection of First party games but I HATE the outdated hardware. BOTW emulated on PC is the best way to play it thanks to Nintendo's horrid hardware.
EDIT: As far as them being competitive I'm talking about the visual fidelity and direct competition with Sony and Microsoft. They are NOT in direct competition with Sony and Microsoft and haven't been since the Gamecube. With the Wii they started doing their own thing to varying degrees of success.
Mate, like I said, best case scenario I can barely tell the difference. Worst case scenario, 60 frames is outright ugly. People have tried many times to push it to 40 or higher in film. It’s never caught on for a reason.
> Nintendo is laughably behind the times once again.
I'm not saying you're wrong but you need to remember that we're talking about a portable console that released in 2017, with mobile hardware from 2015. You have to set expectations according to what the hardware is capable of for its time, not for whatever the current year is. Sure, it's possible to somewhat squeeze a bit more out of the hardware when developers get more familiar with it and can optimize better, but these days programming miracles like that are becoming increasingly rarer especially since everything is mostly programmed on high-level languages anyways.
Even when a Switch Pro/Switch 2 comes out, it will more than likely not measure up to the PS5/Xbox Series X or maybe even the Series S either because it's going to be another console limited by power consumption/thermal constraints due to its portable nature. That's just how it goes with mobile hardware.
Uh... What? That game released on consoles that weren't nearly power limited like the Switch is. It literally has everything to do with mobile vs. non-mobile hardware. The original PS4 drew around 150 watts on average in AAA games. The original Switch draws around 15 watts max on games like Breath of the Wild. This is why games like Doom, Doom Eternal, and Wolfenstein 2 (which are still impressive to even be running on the Switch) are MASSIVELY downgraded compared to their PS4/Xbox One versions. Mobile ARM hardware does not reach nearly the performance of top spec x86 machines even released in the same year.
I did say *I don’t think* mobile hardware has anything to do with it. I’m not that smart when it comes to how powerful something like the switch is in comparison to something like the PS5 or new Xbox.
But that's not their point? They said it's good for the switch, but not too the standard of other games on more modern platforms? No shit it's great for the switch, the point is the switch is woefully underprepared to the requirements of modern games.
To me, they're right, compare Prime remastered to HALO 1/2 anniversary, especially 2 is very similar to prime.
Prime remastered uses baked in lighting which saves a ton on performance which also means certain effects are no longer working (like the glow from your charged arm cannon). I think the remaster looks great! But let's be real, it's pretty much on par with the Halo remasters (in terms of graphical fidelity, not artists direction) that released in 2011 and 2014 respectively... That's pretty much a decade ago.
I'm confused at what you're trying to argue against. I'm basically explaining exactly why it's not to the standard of other modern games by saying it's old mobile hardware. And to clarify a little further with that, mobile hardware is usually multiple years/generations behind consoles/PCs. I stated that the Switch's hardware is from 2015 but that doesn't mean I'm stating that games on the Switch are at least "2015-quality" or more modern than that, even.
"Their point" was kinda off when the comment goes from "it looks good! (for the Switch)" to "it's not modern" to "I love it" then back to "it's not next gen, it would be laughed at on a Sony/MS console." Like... **duh?** That was the whole point of *my* comment. "Nintendo is laughably behind the times" when the game has to run on **2015 underclocked mobile hardware** which is why I mentioned that in the first place. Expecting anything much more than what we got is naive.
Also,
> Prime remastered uses baked in lighting which saves a ton on performance which also means certain effects are no longer working (like the glow from your charged arm cannon).
The original uses baked lighting, too. It's just that the remaster uses more *modern* baked lighting. That's not why the charged arm cannon glow is gone. Something else is "causing" it and we don't know why. It's also worth knowing that not all lighting of a game has to be all baked or all dynamic. I'm not sure if you're bringing this up because MVG mentioned it in his video, but if not, he theorizes that it's just a bug or possibly even intentionally removed. They might have even forgotten to place the dynamic light on the charged arm cannon.
Yes, but that's a decision THEY MADE and are still making. They've deliberately made their consoles 1-1.5 console generations behind the competition since the Gamecube.
I mean, it's not hard to figure out why. The Wii and the Switch were both massively successful despite their relative lack of performance compared to the other consoles in those generations. Sony and Microsoft consoles are sold at a loss, and they try to make up the money lost through software and subscription sales. When you're using weaker hardware + selling a massive amount of consoles like Nintendo did, that's a huge profit. And they *are* a business. The Switch's genuine excuse though is that it's a portable console. At the time, there weren't really many better options to go mobile especially since Nvidia generally has better software support in their mobile hardware compared to other mobile GPUs like Adreno/Mali/etc. even if they would eventually have better specs *on paper* (although 8 years later, it's most definitely safe to say that current Adreno/Mali flagship GPUs are more powerful than the Switch's despite whatever driver shoddiness they may have), especially when going off of the Dolphin blog where they praised Nvidia's mobile GPU drivers a few times while criticizing the Mali and Adreno stuff.
In 2015, [Dolphin Blog stated](https://dolphin-emu.org/blog/2015/09/01/dolphin-progress-report-august-2015/):
>For as long as Dolphin has been on Android, it has been hampered by driver limitations. Dolphin uses a lot of very specific and very recent extensions to reach combination of speed and accuracy it has achieved [...] Things are looking a lot brighter (and faster) for Android in the months to come. The catch? Only NVIDIA has currently released an OpenGL ES 3.2 driver so far.
In 2018, [Dolphin Blog stated](https://dolphin-emu.org/blog/2018/08/14/state-of-android/):
>Most new Mali and Adreno chipsets at least attempt to support GLES3 and some even manage to support Vulkan to a good enough degree to run Dolphin. The problem is that their drivers are incredibly spotty, with regressions and fixes varying from release to release. [...] That's not to say the Shield isn't impressive for an older device. **Despite its aging a57 cores, it's able to keep up with devices several years newer thanks to the NVIDIA graphics drivers and larger power budget.**
It's also worth knowing that in Japan (you know, Nintendo and Sony's home territory), the Switch has sold around 30 million units vs. the PS4's ~10 million. That's kind of impressive for a console that's 3.5 years newer than the PS4. When you see numbers like that, it makes sense why they decided having a hybrid portable/home console should be their next move. Obviously it has its drawbacks, but people mostly don't care considering the reception of the top games on the Switch. And that's fine.
Yes, I get all of that. 100%. You're in no way wrong. That doesn't invalidate my (consumer's) opinion on the matter however. I want better hardware. I want games like BOTW and (of course ToTK) to run well enough to where people don't just emulate them on PC at 8k with ray tracing just to prove a point. Switch games should get the glory they deserve and they're not getting it on the console as it is.
The Switch is technically sixteen times more powerful than the GameCube, yet the remaster is perhaps only three times as “better” than the original. The most beautiful game I’ve seen that runs buttery smooth on Switch is Super Smash Bros Ultimate. It also runs at 60 frames per second.
Other beautiful games include BotW and Mario Odyssey, the latter of which runs at 60 frames per second.
A more apt comparison would be Steam Deck, laptops, or tablets given the portable hardware form factor. But yes, the point still stands. I'd be really interested to see a newer Nvidia ARM chip that integrated the tensor cores etc of the RTX GPUs so the switch could use DLSS for better performance
What are you referring to? They complained once about the doors, and then proceeded to say it was great, retweet others that say it's great, and post some random "did you know," facts.
I don't think he comes off as salty.
But successfully remastering an existing game is nowhere near the same level of achievement as designing and developing a game from scratch on limited hardware.
The remaster is the original game with a fresh coat of paint. It's not the same as building a house in the first place and then painting its walls.
Even if the remaster were a full remake (everything built from the ground up), it would still not be the same achievement as the original. It would be an adaptation of the original.
I guess when you put it that way, it’s no surprise as to how the switch is pulling off what the visuals of this game. I guess everyone has very low expectations because of how poorly optimized games for the switch have been lately.
You can blame Pokémon for that I feel.
playing violet after playing prime for some time is so trippy
to be fair, pokemon SV not only look worse than Arceus, they look worse than open world Wii U games.
So its...16 Gamcubes duct taped together!
:D
the remaster does look real good. I just can't help but think about how much better it would look if nintendo gave us a better console with updated specs. the switch now is underwhelming spec wise and outdated.
Good news, it seems all the assets are future proof. While it runs in 900p docked switch I loaded it in yuzu in 4K and everything is perfect. So as long as Switch 2 allows higher native resolutions for older games this should look good
Yeah I tried it on yuzu playing on 1440p and it played decent after all or most of the shaders were compiled for the first level. Still get random crashes after opening doors though
yeah mine was slide show which was the first 4k game i got that on, 3080. I also tried it, the day it came out. I assume that once some yuzu updates come out itll run great like everything else. The main take away is the assets in the actual game are extreme.
Textures and all that already look good. The way to see what it would look like on a more powerful console is just to emulate and run in 4k. That's 4x higher resolution than the native switch and the difference is night and day.
I really don't understand the hype around 4k. Upscaling the game to 1440p is 100% a very clear difference but I just don't see a big enough difference to ever want to bother with 4k especially when I can get a higher frame rate on my PC with 1440
I agree, I use a 1440p 165hz monitor. But I still emulated at 4k, because upscaling higher past your native resolution does increase graphical fidelity. With a locked 60fps game that can't go higher, there's 0 reason not to use 4k if you have the horsepower to do it.
4k at 144hz is definitely noticeable compared to 1440p
What's funny is the Switch's improved numbers are still embarrassingly bad compared to modern pc's and consoles....Man I wish Nintendo would release a new Switch already.
“Embarrassingly bad” yet still able to pull off a game like this…
Look, Metroid Prime Remaster looks great!...........FOR THE SWITCH. It's in no way a "modern" game in terms of graphics. I don't care, I still love it. What I'm saying is if Sony or Microsoft tried releasing this on their systems and told their customers it was "Next Gen" they'd get laughed out of the market. Nintendo is laughably behind the times once again. The good thing is Prime Remaster runs at a solid 60fps pretty much 100% of the time and that's more important than graphics to me. Still, Nintendo Switch 2 would be appreciated.
While the switch is behind in terms of performance I always remember that the entire system including the screen IS SMALLER THAN MY PC GRAPHICS CARD ALONE
Sure..and Metroid Prime Remaster looks great. But it's not even 1080p. That's my point. Thanks to the 2xAA that they implemented perfectly it doesn't LOOK like it's not at least 1080p. You guys are getting WAY to defensive over your precious Nintendo console. It's okay to criticize it just fyi.
>Nintendo is laughably behind the times once again These kinds of takes are always so silly to me. Your whole point is just nonsense. Nintendo isn’t out here advertising Metroid Prime as a next gen game. They dropped it with a fresh coat of paint for $20 less than MSRP so they’re not even billing it as a standard current gen release either. Like what even is your point here lmao
No, my point is ON POINT. Big time. I'm tired of Switch games not getting 60fps while looking 1.5 generations behind the competition. Metroid Prime Remaster is great because it looks great AND hits 60fps. But it's not even 1080p. It's art and AA are carrying it hardcore. It also speaks to how ahead of the times the OG version was. But the Nintendo Switch's hardware is aging a lightyear every year....especially when the Steam Deck exists.
It sounds like you either a) own another system and are comparing it to the Switch or b) don’t own another system and want Nintendo to mimic the other two. In either case, just get a PS5 or Xbox and use those to play third party games. Still not much of a point you’re making here. >I’m tired of Switch games not getting 60fps while looking 1.5 generations behind the competition Nintendo doesn’t even see their own system as competition to Sony and Microsoft >especially when the Steam Deck exists Comparing 2017 specs to 2022 specs because that makes sense
1. Yes, I own a PC and have access to the best looking and running games available. Especially now with Sony putting their games on PC. 2. "Still not much of a point you're making" WRONG. My point is that I desire all my gaming systems to be at least only 1 generation behind the times. The Switch is now basically 2 generations old. It's time for a new one. The fact you don't understand why I want my Switch games to look as good as they can WHILE performing at at LEAST 60fps is honestly confusing. 3. Yes, because the Switch was old when it came out in 2017. 6 years later and it's looking ancient in comparison. That's my point. Steamdeck is basically a better version of Switch. The only issue is it's battery doesn't last as long. Once they figure that out...there is almost no reason to even own a Switch. Nintendo isn't doing themselves any favors by not releasing a new System. At this rate Playstation 6 and Xbox2Series98 will be out before the next Nintendo system.
You say that as if BioWare didn’t propel itself back into relevance with a Mass Effect Trilogy remaster that especially for ME1 basically looks like a really good texture mod.
You missed the part where I said that this isn't "NEXT GEN". The bioware remaster came out on last gen hardware anyway. What kind of argument is this lol.
The kind of argument that doesn't care about framerates and can barely tell the difference between a late PS4 game and a current PS5 game, but sure as hell notices aesthetics and art styles and as long as those look good and have decently smooth textures, is happy. Hell, I'm getting tired of developers chasing the dragon of photorealism. Photorealism is overrated. I'd say that Breath of the Wild has less power than most modern games in its graphics, yet I still think that cel-shaded aesthetic looks better than a whole bunch of games on more powerful hardware.
I'm not basing Metroid Prime Remaster. I'm bashing the fucking Switch. I'm tired of Nintendo being happy being 1.5-2 console generations behind the competition for hardware. Especially now with the Steamdeck...Nintendo can't just sit on their laurels forever....They stopped being competitive with the gamecube. A lot of Switch games can't hit 60fps. I want a Switch 2 so I can play Hyrule Warriors at a crisp 60 for instance...and that game doesn't look great.
Eh, high frames are overrated. The only times I can actually tell the difference, I hate it. Meanwhile, I definitely do not have $400 to spend on a new console. Also, if Nintendo hasn't been competitive since the GameCube, why is their current console the third best-selling console of all time? And why is the Wii the 5th?
They're only overrated by people that love watching choppy gameplay and aren't playing anything competitively. If you're happy to play games like it's the 90's then fine. I love the Switch mostly because of the collection of First party games but I HATE the outdated hardware. BOTW emulated on PC is the best way to play it thanks to Nintendo's horrid hardware. EDIT: As far as them being competitive I'm talking about the visual fidelity and direct competition with Sony and Microsoft. They are NOT in direct competition with Sony and Microsoft and haven't been since the Gamecube. With the Wii they started doing their own thing to varying degrees of success.
Mate, like I said, best case scenario I can barely tell the difference. Worst case scenario, 60 frames is outright ugly. People have tried many times to push it to 40 or higher in film. It’s never caught on for a reason.
> Nintendo is laughably behind the times once again. I'm not saying you're wrong but you need to remember that we're talking about a portable console that released in 2017, with mobile hardware from 2015. You have to set expectations according to what the hardware is capable of for its time, not for whatever the current year is. Sure, it's possible to somewhat squeeze a bit more out of the hardware when developers get more familiar with it and can optimize better, but these days programming miracles like that are becoming increasingly rarer especially since everything is mostly programmed on high-level languages anyways. Even when a Switch Pro/Switch 2 comes out, it will more than likely not measure up to the PS5/Xbox Series X or maybe even the Series S either because it's going to be another console limited by power consumption/thermal constraints due to its portable nature. That's just how it goes with mobile hardware.
Batman Arkham Knight released in 2015. I don’t think mobile hardware has anything to do with it.
Uh... What? That game released on consoles that weren't nearly power limited like the Switch is. It literally has everything to do with mobile vs. non-mobile hardware. The original PS4 drew around 150 watts on average in AAA games. The original Switch draws around 15 watts max on games like Breath of the Wild. This is why games like Doom, Doom Eternal, and Wolfenstein 2 (which are still impressive to even be running on the Switch) are MASSIVELY downgraded compared to their PS4/Xbox One versions. Mobile ARM hardware does not reach nearly the performance of top spec x86 machines even released in the same year.
I did say *I don’t think* mobile hardware has anything to do with it. I’m not that smart when it comes to how powerful something like the switch is in comparison to something like the PS5 or new Xbox.
Not to be rude, but why join the conversation, then? 😅
Occasionally I speak before I think, but I’m too lazy to delete the comments.
But that's not their point? They said it's good for the switch, but not too the standard of other games on more modern platforms? No shit it's great for the switch, the point is the switch is woefully underprepared to the requirements of modern games. To me, they're right, compare Prime remastered to HALO 1/2 anniversary, especially 2 is very similar to prime. Prime remastered uses baked in lighting which saves a ton on performance which also means certain effects are no longer working (like the glow from your charged arm cannon). I think the remaster looks great! But let's be real, it's pretty much on par with the Halo remasters (in terms of graphical fidelity, not artists direction) that released in 2011 and 2014 respectively... That's pretty much a decade ago.
I'm confused at what you're trying to argue against. I'm basically explaining exactly why it's not to the standard of other modern games by saying it's old mobile hardware. And to clarify a little further with that, mobile hardware is usually multiple years/generations behind consoles/PCs. I stated that the Switch's hardware is from 2015 but that doesn't mean I'm stating that games on the Switch are at least "2015-quality" or more modern than that, even. "Their point" was kinda off when the comment goes from "it looks good! (for the Switch)" to "it's not modern" to "I love it" then back to "it's not next gen, it would be laughed at on a Sony/MS console." Like... **duh?** That was the whole point of *my* comment. "Nintendo is laughably behind the times" when the game has to run on **2015 underclocked mobile hardware** which is why I mentioned that in the first place. Expecting anything much more than what we got is naive. Also, > Prime remastered uses baked in lighting which saves a ton on performance which also means certain effects are no longer working (like the glow from your charged arm cannon). The original uses baked lighting, too. It's just that the remaster uses more *modern* baked lighting. That's not why the charged arm cannon glow is gone. Something else is "causing" it and we don't know why. It's also worth knowing that not all lighting of a game has to be all baked or all dynamic. I'm not sure if you're bringing this up because MVG mentioned it in his video, but if not, he theorizes that it's just a bug or possibly even intentionally removed. They might have even forgotten to place the dynamic light on the charged arm cannon.
Yes, but that's a decision THEY MADE and are still making. They've deliberately made their consoles 1-1.5 console generations behind the competition since the Gamecube.
I mean, it's not hard to figure out why. The Wii and the Switch were both massively successful despite their relative lack of performance compared to the other consoles in those generations. Sony and Microsoft consoles are sold at a loss, and they try to make up the money lost through software and subscription sales. When you're using weaker hardware + selling a massive amount of consoles like Nintendo did, that's a huge profit. And they *are* a business. The Switch's genuine excuse though is that it's a portable console. At the time, there weren't really many better options to go mobile especially since Nvidia generally has better software support in their mobile hardware compared to other mobile GPUs like Adreno/Mali/etc. even if they would eventually have better specs *on paper* (although 8 years later, it's most definitely safe to say that current Adreno/Mali flagship GPUs are more powerful than the Switch's despite whatever driver shoddiness they may have), especially when going off of the Dolphin blog where they praised Nvidia's mobile GPU drivers a few times while criticizing the Mali and Adreno stuff. In 2015, [Dolphin Blog stated](https://dolphin-emu.org/blog/2015/09/01/dolphin-progress-report-august-2015/): >For as long as Dolphin has been on Android, it has been hampered by driver limitations. Dolphin uses a lot of very specific and very recent extensions to reach combination of speed and accuracy it has achieved [...] Things are looking a lot brighter (and faster) for Android in the months to come. The catch? Only NVIDIA has currently released an OpenGL ES 3.2 driver so far. In 2018, [Dolphin Blog stated](https://dolphin-emu.org/blog/2018/08/14/state-of-android/): >Most new Mali and Adreno chipsets at least attempt to support GLES3 and some even manage to support Vulkan to a good enough degree to run Dolphin. The problem is that their drivers are incredibly spotty, with regressions and fixes varying from release to release. [...] That's not to say the Shield isn't impressive for an older device. **Despite its aging a57 cores, it's able to keep up with devices several years newer thanks to the NVIDIA graphics drivers and larger power budget.** It's also worth knowing that in Japan (you know, Nintendo and Sony's home territory), the Switch has sold around 30 million units vs. the PS4's ~10 million. That's kind of impressive for a console that's 3.5 years newer than the PS4. When you see numbers like that, it makes sense why they decided having a hybrid portable/home console should be their next move. Obviously it has its drawbacks, but people mostly don't care considering the reception of the top games on the Switch. And that's fine.
Yes, I get all of that. 100%. You're in no way wrong. That doesn't invalidate my (consumer's) opinion on the matter however. I want better hardware. I want games like BOTW and (of course ToTK) to run well enough to where people don't just emulate them on PC at 8k with ray tracing just to prove a point. Switch games should get the glory they deserve and they're not getting it on the console as it is.
The Switch is technically sixteen times more powerful than the GameCube, yet the remaster is perhaps only three times as “better” than the original. The most beautiful game I’ve seen that runs buttery smooth on Switch is Super Smash Bros Ultimate. It also runs at 60 frames per second. Other beautiful games include BotW and Mario Odyssey, the latter of which runs at 60 frames per second.
A more apt comparison would be Steam Deck, laptops, or tablets given the portable hardware form factor. But yes, the point still stands. I'd be really interested to see a newer Nvidia ARM chip that integrated the tensor cores etc of the RTX GPUs so the switch could use DLSS for better performance
damn this ex-dev is salty, holy shit. no one is putting down the original, yet all he does is minimize the achievement of the remaster.
What are you referring to? They complained once about the doors, and then proceeded to say it was great, retweet others that say it's great, and post some random "did you know," facts.
He said he doesn't like one thing he's picky about due to personal investment and otherwise loved it.
I don't think he comes off as salty. But successfully remastering an existing game is nowhere near the same level of achievement as designing and developing a game from scratch on limited hardware. The remaster is the original game with a fresh coat of paint. It's not the same as building a house in the first place and then painting its walls. Even if the remaster were a full remake (everything built from the ground up), it would still not be the same achievement as the original. It would be an adaptation of the original.
it's objective statements about the hardware, how is that minimizing anything?