Support NeoGAF

[Giallo Corsa]

This thread still going .. yet my kid with his friends are still playing MKW multiplayer in the living room together on 3 switch 2s and having a blast.

There's a line we're hate clouds your ability to just play fun games and that's sad.

I really don't get it, your kids having fun doesn't have anything to do with cold, hard facts which in this case is - surprise surprise - Nintendo beating stingy/cheap AF once again with their hardware and no amount of coping or excuses can deny that.

"Having a blast®" has absolutely nothing to do with sub-par hardware.

 

[Scrawnton]

Seems to be DF has a defective unit and they'd rather scream on the internet about how bad switch 2 screens are rather than get a replacement and test it.

 

[FireFly]

Seems to be DF has a defective unit and they'd rather scream on the internet about how bad switch 2 screens are rather than get a replacement and test it.

Other outlets have replicated their findings so there must be quite a few defective screens about.

 

[Minsc]

What looks better to you in motion? Some people are annoyed by OLED being too fast (OLED stuttering).

This is the FFXVI problem in a nutshell, but no it doesn't impact 60fps gameplay for me, OLED all day, every day.

30fps gameplay like XC3 the built-in ghosting has its benefits.

 

[RoboFu]

I really don't get it, your kids having fun doesn't have anything to do with cold, hard facts which in this case is - surprise surprise - Nintendo beating stingy/cheap AF once again with their hardware and no amount of coping or excuses can deny that.

"Having a blast®" has absolutely nothing to do with sub-par hardware.

"cold hard facts". does not produce a 13 page thread. it is just the same people trying to convince either the world (or themselves) that the switch 2 is horrible.

 

[Minsc]

There's really just a large number of Nintendo fans who are unable to separate out a technical, objective comparison from the device being fun, or "good."

The screen can be really poor compared to other screens, but still look good.

Ever get a $50 pair of headphones or a bluetooth speaker? They are flooded with people saying how great they sound, better than $200 ones they've had before. And yet, if they were to be reviewed by audiophiles on a technical review of specs, yeah, they're going to fail miserably compared to $20,000 speakers, or $900 headphones. Doesn't mean the $50 speaker can't be incredible sounding, despite it being shit compared to "better" speakers.

It's just like sound bars. People with expensive speakers will stop at nothing to tell you how shitty sound bars are, and yet, tons of people who have Sonos Arcs swear by how great they sound.

This is simply a technical look at the screen, it doesn't mean if it fails on certain technical aspects it's unusable. Like the HDR sucks on this screen, and I'd never want to showcase any HDR content with it, but that doesn't mean the screen itself is terrible either.

"cold hard facts". does not produce a 13 page thread. it is just the same people trying to convince either the world (or themselves) that the switch 2 is horrible.

This right here is what I'm talking about, Nintendo fans unable to accept something can be subpar on a technical level, which this is, and still be seen as good.

 

[Madserb2023]

As I have said before. My issue is not that some people don't notice it. That's fine. A lot of people claim that 30fps is enough. My issue is that numbers don't lie and Nintendo has a screen with a response time similar to screens 20 years ago and that means its very cheap. I don't blame Nintendo, it is acting like any other company would. Its not a charity. The biggest obstacle now with Nintendo delivering tech that is at least relatively modern in some areas are the fans now. Some people think that if Nintendo released a Switch 3 in the 2030s that it would definitely have an OLED at launch. Why? People are fine with the current display. Nintendo will give by you a display with tech from 30 years ago and it makes complete sense to do so.

 

[RoboFu]

There's really just a large number of Nintendo fans who are unable to separate out a technical, objective comparison from the device being fun, or "good."

The screen can be really poor compared to other screens, but still look good.

Ever get a $50 pair of headphones or a bluetooth speaker? They are flooded with people saying how great they sound, better than $200 ones they've had before. And yet, if they were to be reviewed by audiophiles on a technical review of specs, yeah, they're going to fail miserably compared to $20,000 speakers, or $900 headphones. Doesn't mean the $50 speaker can't be incredible sounding, despite it being shit compared to "better" speakers.

It's just like sound bars. People with expensive speakers will stop at nothing to tell you how shitty sound bars are, and yet, tons of people who have Sonos Arcs swear by how great they sound.

This is simply a technical look at the screen, it doesn't mean if it fails on certain technical aspects it's unusable. Like the HDR sucks on this screen, and I'd never want to showcase any HDR content with it, but that doesn't mean the screen itself is terrible either.



This right here is what I'm talking about, Nintendo fans unable to accept something can be subpar on a technical level, which this is, and still be seen as good.

im not the one who has posted on every page of this thread. I said the screen is bad.

 

[crazyriddler]

I really don't get it, your kids having fun doesn't have anything to do with cold, hard facts which in this case is - surprise surprise - Nintendo beating stingy/cheap AF once again with their hardware and no amount of coping or excuses can deny that.

"Having a blast®" has absolutely nothing to do with sub-par hardware.

The thing is that considering the switch 2 cheap or sub par for a single aspect of one of the components of the console is absurd and an attempt to impose precisely that narrative (which has been carried since before the launch of the console).

Especially when the screen matches handheld PCs that cost almost twice as much (like the ROG Ally X) in every aspect except response time, and even outperforms similarly priced devices (like the Steam Deck LCD) in things like color gamut, resolution, size, refresh rate, and VRR

So, with respect to whom are they being cheap?

 

[kevboard]

Seems to be DF has a defective unit and they'd rather scream on the internet about how bad switch 2 screens are rather than get a replacement and test it.

there have been 2 other independent reports of the screen being slow.

so we are now at 3 "defective" units then I guess lol

 

[Giallo Corsa]

The thing is that considering the switch 2 cheap or sub par for a single aspect of one of the components of the console is absurd and an attempt to impose precisely that narrative (which has been carried since before the launch of the console).

Especially when the screen matches handheld PCs that cost almost twice as much (like the ROG Ally X) in every aspect except response time, and even outperforms similarly priced devices (like the Steam Deck LCD) in things like color gamut, resolution, size, refresh rate, and VRR

So, with respect to whom are they being cheap?

"The narrative"...and this is why people can't take opinions seriously.

But to answer your question, shit , I don't know, the fact that they released a console (which were basically sitting on it for 2 years as to milk the S1 sales even more) for 470 Eurodollars with an LCD screen (and a bottom of the barrel at that) instead of - you know - actually putting a decent one/OLED one in the year of our lord 2025 ? Putting a 5000mAh battery in a 8'' screen device and not going (once again) with HAL effect/TMR sticks after the whole S1 joy-con fiasco ?
Are these facts enough or are you going to go with the "Steam deck was the same"/"X PC handheld was the same"/"The ROG ally only lasts 1 hour"/"Sony and Microsoft don't use HAL/TMR" ?

See, we could present a specific demographic/fanbase with all the facts in the world but they obviously will keep moving the goalposts since the "my kids are happy®" and "THERE'S AN AGENDAAAA AGAINST POOR NINTENDO ® " are the only "facts" that count, am I right ?

And oh, I got a S2 myself, it's just that I had so few expectations going in that I couldn't be dissapointed, difference with me/others though and the fanatics is that we don't like burying out heads in the sand and we're actually aware of all the shortcomings.

 

[Zathalus]

I highly doubt any sort of screen lottery would produce such a variation in response times. It would be one hell of a coincidence that three completely different review outlets on three different continents all got screens that have equally bad response times.

What is far more likely is that some can easily spot it while others cannot. The first wave of LCD TVs and monitors that came to the market all had terrible response times as well, and many users of CRTs and Plasma TVs noticed this very problem, but yet many said the LCDs were great and a fantastic upgrade over other technologies.

Variation in what our eyes can perceive can differ immensely. Depth perception, colour sensitivity, focus speed, and the ability to track minute differences are all things that vary from person to person.

Objective measurement of the screen shows that the response time is bad. This is not up for debate. How it effects you personally is up to your own subjective opinion and what your eyes can perceive.

 

[Madserb2023]

I highly doubt any sort of screen lottery would produce such a variation in response times. It would be one hell of a coincidence that three completely different review outlets on three different continents all got screens that have equally bad response times.

What is far more likely is that some can easily spot it while others cannot. The first wave of LCD TVs and monitors that came to the market all had terrible response times as well, and many users of CRTs and Plasma TVs noticed this very problem, but yet many said the LCDs were great and a fantastic upgrade over other technologies.

Variation in what our eyes can perceive can differ immensely. Depth perception, colour sensitivity, focus speed, and the ability to track minute differences are all things that vary from person to person.

Objective measurement of the screen shows that the response time is bad. This is not up for debate. How it effects you personally is up to your own subjective opinion and what your eyes can perceive.

Exactly this. I remember watching football on an LCD in the early 2000s and could see a trail behind the ball and it was really obvious. Much worse than the Switch 2. It was like a camera with a long exposure. Yet when I pointed it out, half the people watching didn't notice it until I literally put my finger on the screen. I went out that day and bought a plasma. The very success of LCDs relative to plasmas which were vastly superior is testament to this. So the dismissal of the Switch 2 screen is nothing new. Goes along with not being able to notice more than 30fps and needing to have a 50 inch screen to see above 1080p and so on. I just wish Nintendo had a premium version at launch for those who notice it.

 

[SappYoda]

It definetively is one of those things that when you see it you cannot unsee it.

I'll will wait until the oled version to get a switch as that model will also have better battery life.

 

[mnkl13]

It definetively is one of those things that when you see it you cannot unsee it.

I'll will wait until the oled version to get a switch as that model will also have better battery life.

that's only coming if present one is a success. so, if you don't like this one, don't buy it but stop complaining. a better screen is definitely more important in a switch 2 lite.

 

[Mr Moose]

It definetively is one of those things that when you see it you cannot unsee it.

I'll will wait until the oled version to get a switch as that model will also have better battery life.

Yup, like screen tearing.
Fuck you, Titanfall DF video.

 

[Forth]

It honestly doesn't bother me that much but how the hell fid they get away with advertising it with VRR, HDR and 120hz?
Personally I find that absolutely ridiculous and obscene.

 

[Minsc]

It honestly doesn't bother me that much but how the hell fid they get away with advertising it with VRR, HDR and 120hz?
Personally I find that absolutely ridiculous and obscene.

I know - like there's going to be 100s of games running at 120fps, probably not. If they're 60fps I'll be happy enough, not expecting 120fps to happen much at all on that 120hz screen.

It's there just for show, like the HDR. HDR without being able to brighten selected pixels/section and not others is pointless. You have to raise the entire screen's brightness to brighten anything, it isn't like OLED where you can lit the individual pixels. And not only that, standard HDR nits are around 1,000 or more. This falls quite short there too.

The 120hz is really just there for VRR games, in the lower half of that refresh rate. But even then, DF video said quite a number of games that fall below 40fps are not using VRR at all, despite it being on the system.

 

[RoboFu]

It honestly doesn't bother me that much but how the hell fid they get away with advertising it with VRR, HDR and 120hz?
Personally I find that absolutely ridiculous and obscene.

because there are game(s) that do those.. on that screen. but you guys only read headlines. and only the headlines you want to see.

 

[NeoIkaruGAF]

For what anecdotal experience may be worth, this morning I played some Tetris 99 and had absolutely no problem with afterimage during actual use.

That said, I then tried a bit of NES and GB games and compared them with how they run on Switch 1.
I could swear the image is a bit blurrier in movement, but you also have to consider that I use the CRT filter for NES games, and that the bigger screen may amplify the issue beyond the intrinsic properties of the respective panels. For example, I have much less trouble with motion on smaller OLED screens than on OLED TVs.
I should try Taiko no Tatsujin myself, that one seems to be a worst-case scenario example.

Alright, I did the Taiko no Tatsujin test.

Whoever says that the game's "Don"s and "Ka"s aren't blurry on an original LCD Switch is fooling themselves. The definitely are, and the words absolutely aren't clear in motion.
Now, they are blurrier on the Switch 2, but the perception of worse blur may be due to 1) the bigger screen, 2) the game's resolution not adapting perfectly to the different resolution of the Switch 2's screen, or a combination of both.

I have no problem believing that the Switch 2's screen has worse motion, mind. I just think that comparisons should be made using games that run in exactly the same way on Switch 1 and Switch 2, and I don't think that just any random game is fit for this comparison.
Also consider that I don't have an OLED Switch 1, so I can't compare the game's motion on that one.

Btw, doing this test brought me to these conclusions:
1) the Switch 2 is a goddamn chonker, and while the Switch 1 feels cheap after using a S2, it feels much lighter and more comfortable;
2) the sound out of the S2 is leagues better;
3) Taiko no Tatsujin is pure joy, and I could spend hours replaying Offenbach's Overture and performing it terribly and I'd still leave with a big smile on my face.

 

[Minsc]

Yes, the Taiko no Tatsujin music game test is horribly flawed because no one has provided a base image, something without any ghosting/blur yet. There should be a porper standard/goal before a test is given.

 

[kevboard]

Yes, the Taiko no Tatsujin music game test is horribly flawed because no one has provided a base image, something without any ghosting/blur yet. There should be a porper standard/goal before a test is given.

well, there's a comparison with an OLED that was posted earlier...

 

[Minsc]

well, there's a comparison with an OLED that was posted earlier...

Hmm, not seeing it unless you mean the Shovel Knight screens I posted, but that's a totally different game obviously.

 

[kevboard]

Hmm, not seeing it unless you mean the Shovel Knight screens I posted, but that's a totally different game obviously.

I could upload one later when I got time. I have a Samsung S95B

 

[Minsc]

Yes, well for the test to have any meaning it needs to have proof that the individual frames are not internally blurred - so if viewing it on a display like that is still blurred, then the test is not good.

It should be like my Shovel Knight example, where the OLED Switch 1 is capable of displaying the motion without any ghosted frames, but the Switch 2 cannot.

If the OLED captures of this game still cannot show a single frame to not be ghosted then the game just inherently is a poor choice.