A community for everything Nintendo. Games, news, discussions, stories etc.
Game | Date
|
Donkey Kong Bananza [S2] | Jul 17 Drag x Drive [S2] | Aug 14 Pokémon Z-A | Oct 16 Hyrule Warriors: Age of Imprisonment [S2] | 2025 Kirby Air Riders [S2] | 2025 Metroid Prime 4 | 2025 The Duskbloods [S2] | 2026 Rhythm Heaven: Groove | 2026 Tomodachi Life: Living the Dream | 2026 Spaltoon Raiders [S2] | TBA
[S2] means Switch 2 only.
As someone who has recently been playing with the Switch 2 in handheld and docked mode, I have to say I'm surprised about the negativity.
The response time is only very slightly worse compared to playing docked. It's not noticeable at all, even when playing competitive online games.
Playing Switch 2 in handheld is a much better experience compared to playing Switch 1 in handheld. It's a huge improvement.
How does it compare to other handhelds, though? Slower than the original Switch is bad, but if these smaller panels are less responsive in general then I'm not sure I care if they compare poorly to larger PC monitor panels. I am not buying a handheld to compete directly with my PC.
How does it compare to other handhelds, though
It's a significantly more expensive handheld, but I've found a video with a comparison to the ROG Ally and it makes the Switch 2 screen look really bad.
Source is a page on Facebook so I can't vouch for its veracity, but it matches multiple reports we're seeing from trusted sources that the screen is laggy - besides the ones mentioned in the OP link we also got the Digital Foundry guys saying the same in their review.
Apparently it is slower, but to me it just looks and feels better than the screen on my OLED Switch
It's amazing how little noise this got until DF did their review.... Almost like it's a non-issue for most people.
Next up: Nintendo Switch 2 causes cancer in the State of California! Get the pitchforks and torches ready!
Read the Digital Foundry's review about the screen too. Pretty disappointing to be honest. At the very least, it shouldn't be worse than the first Switch.
Why not? If they can cut costs by reducing specs that don't matter to their target audience, that just seems like sound engineering.
On release that may be fine, but it will exist for years. My expectation is that it released with a shit screen so they could normalize that price point and then sell a + version in a year for another $150.
It only costs 500 bucks. And as my friend says, "you're not going to get 4k gaming for a dollar less, let's be honest." So they had to cut back somewhere, apparently.
LCD screen is 1080p...
Dude, I dunno. I'm not a Nintendo apologist. I think the price, and their policies are completely insane.
In what way? Because i too believe they are insane.
Paying for "upgrades" to games someone already owns, the decades of "premium" pricing on everything with no sales, their ongoing war against emulators, modders, etc. One big one for me was when my copy of MySims killed the disc drive in my wii, I RMA'd the system and got back a refurb with the note "yeah, you're gonna have to deal with not having any of your Wii Shop Channel stuff on your own, buddy."
Not a policy, but I'm irked by the weirdly cheap build quality as of late, too. I've got NES, GCN, N64 controllers that still work, and every one of my switch sticks drifts with very little use. Plus the rails on the Switch felt cheap, and the audio quality and input lag are bad.
We are on the same page.
Yeah, I agree, and from those who have used Switch 2 are fine with the screen (anecdotal, from people I know), but that being said, it shouldn't be worse than Switch 1! It just feels bad knowing that 😀
Pretty much the same as the switch 1 tho.
Japan's Chimolog is our second source. Its tests showed the Switch 2's display to be slightly quicker, averaging 17 ms at 60 Hz.
That's quite a huge difference though, about half that of Monitors Unboxed. Would definitely be worth finding out why the results are so different.
Nintendo probably uses more than one screen manufacturer.
Yeah, could be that or the testing methods of either site might have been flawed. In any case the difference shouldn't just be brushed aside like it was in the article.
That doesn't bode well for a high refresh rate screen
Edit - 120hz is only in docked mode and with a compatible 120hz screen, although the screen also supports 120hz at 1080p. I bet that will feel incredibly different than handheld mode per the article's quoted refresh rates of the actual screen.
120hz vs 30 is a massive difference in terms of perceived fluidity.
I don't have a switch. From what I gather, the dock is just an USB C to HDMI dongle with extra USB ports, correct?
Does docked mode performance also trigger when an USB charging cable is plugged in? From what I gather the main issue why handheld mode is lower performance is the battery consumption.
If it does, does it then display 1080p@120hz on the integrated screen?
Can say from experience, its a lot smoother while docked. That said, performance in handheld mode isn't problematic, it's just (unsurprisingly) less smooth.
Thanks for your hands-on feedback!