Another question for you guys, why are the load times so horrendous for being a cartridge based console?
With advancements and technology they should be much less faster than the N64, but the loading times are just horrible, sometimes even worse than the ps5. What gives?
Edit: this is not hate per say, this is confusion and a little annoyance
I preface this with saying: I’m neither a developer nor expert on the Switch, but there’s some general things to consider:
The splash screen is probably mostly a (DRM) check of the cartridge and maybe initializes a few other things, especially the player selector.
The switch is essentially an aging Android tablet on steroids. The SoC used is the successor to the SoC used in Nvidias Shield gaming tablet. (By comparison, you could compare the PS5 to a current mid-tier gaming PC in terms of pure hardware specs)
Even if the Switch is small, games still run ideally at 720p up to FullHD resolution, this might not show on the small screen but it still means that character-, environment, etc. models all have a certain size.
The Switch is very limited on RAM so there is probably quite some swapping going on.
Especially since you compared it to the PS5, one important thing you have to realize is, that if you buy a game on BluRay for any modern console, they usually load most, if not all of the data to run the game onto internal storage, while the physical disc is basically only a hardware license key afterwards, to check that you still “own” the game. Therefore you must observe:
The switch has NAND storage, whereas the PS5 has enormously fast NVMe storage (and also way more RAM and VRAM) to load all game data way faster.
I don’t know which exact role patches play in this equation but you also have to realize, that the Switch, when running a game from cartridge is most likely pulling data from both the cartridge and internal memory or the MicroSD card, wherever patches are installed.
Finally, the Switch is a mobile handheld console, same as why a gaming laptop will never come close to the performance of a gaming (desktop) PC, the former is built with tighter TDP limits and considerations for battery life, whereas thermals are pretty much the only limiting factor for a desktop PC and those can be adjusted way easier by using a larger case.
If you look at simple 2D games, for the switch, take, for example, Crypt of the Necrodancer, or Dead Cells, you’ll see that they run and load about as fast as on any other console/PC, simply by everything about them being way less data and computationally intensive.
In comparison to older consoles (i.e. N64), you have to also appreciate the fact that many titles, these days, are written for some game engine like Unreal or Unity which then translates it with the click of a button to all the platforms a developer wants. While I’m sure they do the best they can to optimize their engines well for all platforms, there sure is a lot of performance left on the floor as compares to "the old ways"™ where games were “handcrafted” (as in written in the platforms Assembly language), for each platform they were released in.
So, I hope I didn’t write any total nonsense amongst all these points, they are just a braindump of IT knowledge, compared with things I’ve watched/read/learned over time, so take them with a grain of salt. Still, I think it should give you an intuitive idea of why the Switch has those “horrendous” loading times. :)
Simple version: it’s not actually “loading” anymore. It’s loading (pretty fast), decompressing (not very fast), and in many cases precomputing (potentially very slow). Current cartridges are storage for the same kind of data that was found on CDs and other media, just in solid state form.
OG cartridges, as was pointed out by someone else, were not doing any of those things. They weren’t even always exactly just storage, they were basically a black-box addition to the logic board. In fact, some cartridge games included entire additional processors that were looped into the logic to provide additional processing power for graphics or audio. That’s what Super FX on the Super Nintendo was: a math coprocessor in the cartridge that helped handle 3D graphics.
The old cartridges held the data uncompressed. In read only memory that slotted directly into the system bus. There was no loading the game after pushing the cartridge in.
Modern systems have data with multiple compression formats. Held in hierarchical file systems accessed through separate devices on the system bus. That don’t have the speed or latency of system memory. And even compressed modern games still take up to 3 million times more space than old cartridge games.
I’ve often wondered that as well. I can copy a file the size of an entire game cartridge across my home LAN in the time it takes some games to load the welcome screen.
This sentence seems contradictory. The PS5 and latest Xbox don’t even run at 4k for most games. Why would you expect something with older hardware to be able to do it?
When Nintendo came out with the OLED model, we all figured I’d come with a resolution and quality upgrade too, but then they said I’d only be the screen that’s better and nothing else well, that’s another flop. Most people will still play this on a TV and still look like a Wii u
I can’t speak for the OLED model but the Switch has outsold both the PS5 and Xbox. Hardly a flop. Guess people don’t care as much about graphics as you think they do.
I wasn’t calling the console itself a flop, hell I bought one, I was saying flop that the newer model did not increase resolution or picture quality at all, that was the flop
The newer Switch models use a smaller node for the APU. Nintendo had a lot of available overhead but they chose to keep the system down-clocked and more than double battery life. A long battery life is more important to a handheld console than higher resolution.
Even with the downclocking the newer systems actually have better performance than the original models.
Why would they do either of those things? Old games probably wouldn’t be able to take advantage without a game update and then they’d have to handle old and new Switches. Doesn’t seem worth it for anyone involved because most people who already had a Switch aren’t going out to buy the upgrade. Then, if you did those things the battery life is going to be much worse.
PS4 Pro doesn’t have to worry about battery life. The Switch need to limit itself to 15 watts or less to avoid overheating and battery life would be so short that it would be useless as a handheld console.
Add comment