Nintendo Switch successor

[JPF997]

On 1/6/2024 at 4:00 AM, RARusk said:

Yes, but can it play Doom?

I think the real question is can it play Crysis 😎

[roots.genoa]

36 minutes ago, JPF997 said:

I think the real question is can it play Crysis 😎

Well, the Switch can already play Crysis so...

[JPF997]

1 minute ago, roots.genoa said:

Well, the Switch can already play Crysis so...

Your not seriously confused about this are you... i was just responding to a sarcastic post with another sarcastic post, it was a joke get it?

[Tanooki]

That old one is a meme at this rate because it's funny what it gets put on.  Many compared don't even think about out or care about Crysis, so it's not funny, nor a joke, so yeah, you got it making the joke and it fell on deaf ears/blind eyes otherwise.

[Radio F Software]

There's a specific name for the phenomenon of technology to advance further and further until it eventually hits a point where doubling/tripling polygons every generation becomes impossible. Games are already true to life on modern high end consoles. I doubt a hypothetical PlayStation 6 would bring anything new to the table that the PS5 did not other than slightly improving the system specs.

 

I kinda feel like Nintendo can use that to their advantage here. We're approaching the "end game" of sorts with console gaming. There's no real reason to replace the Switch because it seems unnecessary. Replace it? With what? If Nintendo does something like the Atari 7800 with their "Switch 2" then that would probably lead to a score. Something that brings updated technology to the table to allow for bigger games while also being completely backwards compatible with the original Switch. Ignore the fact that the Atari 7800 did not perform well financially, that was just an analogy...

 

On 1/5/2024 at 10:00 PM, RARusk said:

Yes, but can it play Doom?

Not only can it play Doom but if you link your Bethesda account to Doom II you can download a buttload of WADs both official and ones that were popular in the fanmade level community.

[JPF997]

13 minutes ago, Radio F Software said:

There's a specific name for the phenomenon of technology to advance further and further until it eventually hits a point where doubling/tripling polygons every generation becomes impossible. Games are already true to life on modern high end consoles. I doubt a hypothetical PlayStation 6 would bring anything new to the table that the PS5 did not other than slightly improving the system specs.

 

 

I disagree slightly, we haven't fully reached the era where peak graphics are achieved ( but we're getting there ), modern consoles still struggle to run triple A games at 8k resolutions and 120 fps + ( like it was advertised on the PS5 box ), only when the PS6  and the  new Xbox come out will we finally reach peak graphic fidelity,  I think by the time the PS7 comes out that is when no one will care about better graphics anymore since it will be virtually impossible to increase them, finally everyone will  focus on what really matters, gameplay ( as it should be ).

Edited February 21 by JPF997

[Radio F Software]

8 minutes ago, JPF997 said:

I think by the time the PS7 comes out that is when no one will care about better graphics anymore since it will be virtually impossible to increase them, finally everyone will  focus on what really matters, gameplay

So you're telling me gaming in the year 2078 as predicted by Sony won't be happening???

 

 

😆

[Tanooki]

Radio -- I think you're on track with the 7800 comparison there, but i guess you don't follow Nintendo much in the past?  Switch at its core is a handheld, their handheld division historically has always been the glue to hold them together since the Pokemon birth era of the later 90s.  They realized it would be a bad idea to crap the bed and run off gamers of their pocket toys, so they kept BC backwards compatibility going line after line until it became a poor idea.  GB went to a GBC, same cart housing but the system has 2 the CPU speed, 4x the ram and some other sorts added DMA, color.

 

From there the GBC chip ended up a coprocessor inside of the GBA keeping even 1989 Tetris (Game #1 packin) playable into the mid 00s.

GBA then when it got outdated that thing ran an ARM processor and that ARM was slaved to a better one and superior hardware in the DS which gave GBA games a life extension finally dropping 8bit.

Eventually the 3DS came along, and it did the same so it runs DS stuff.

 

 

The Switch was the first dedicated handheld that didn't suck up something from the last go around the block, so logically speaking, especially with a base that took down the monster sales of old Gameboy/Color would make no sense not to extend the existing compatibility another 7+ years into the future.

 

Also knowing what little bits I've been told, they have the hardware in waiting because what is here now just won't slow down so they see no reason to shoot themselves in the foot until consumers bail or third parties bail, or a mix of the both.  The future hardware uses the nvidia tegra family of chip again, another custom like switch but of better larger more modern spec yet has the instructions to run the old games.  The games will be on the similar cards again, that tech is their own and it already was when switch arrived capable of doing what never released 64GB cards because it would have made the games like $80 which would have set people off.  Years later now the prices are far less, they could do this, and most modern games don't have 64GB except for like those triple density blu ray game discs (they're 100 give or take.)  They also know the key to the switch was as much the portability, dockability, and shareability out of the box with the pop off joycons for instant 2P games.  Some stuff just won't go away because it draws people to the hardware still in large numbers.

 

[roots.genoa]

10 hours ago, Radio F Software said:

There's a specific name for the phenomenon of technology to advance further and further until it eventually hits a point where doubling/tripling polygons every generation becomes impossible. Games are already true to life on modern high end consoles. I doubt a hypothetical PlayStation 6 would bring anything new to the table that the PS5 did not other than slightly improving the system specs.

Currently, hardware makers don't try to increase the number of polygons indeed, but work on a lot of techniques, using AI for instance, to improve resolution (since 4K content takes too much space) and framerate. That's where the Switch 2 could actually shine, benefiting from techniques that were not necessarily ready yet for the Xbox Series X and PS5. Coupled with the art direction of Nintendo games, it could have very pretty games even compared to more powerful systems.

[zzip]

17 hours ago, JPF997 said:

A games at 8k resolutions and 120 fps + ( like it was advertised on the PS5 box )

Wait, what?  I don't recall any such promise.   Yes it was talked about that SOME games might be able to hit 120fps,   and maybe PS5 could do 8K video.   I don't recall any talk about 8K games.    It was going to be native 4K without the checkerboard rendering 'cheats' used by the PS4 pro.

 

But these are moving targets that can never be reached.   Last generation 60fps was the gold standard and many console games were doing 30.    Now that the hardware is beefier, 60 isn't enough, it has to be 120!   Same with resolution never good enough!   

 

Framerates are always a trade-off with graphic details,  AAA developers prioritize graphic detail because it looks better in trailers and screenshots.

 

When I play a console in a living room setting, I can barely tell a difference if a game is 4K or 1080p.   Sure 4K is a little sharper, but you stop noticing once the game is in motion.

 

We do too much spec-chasing instead of focusing on evolving the games.   The worst thing about the PS5 is so many games feel like slightly enhanced PS4 games instead of taking gameplay to another level.

[Tanooki]

Well said...both of you.

 

Switch has a nice space to work in where that new model will do 4K but with what has been learned, their style, their art direction and designs will largely benefit to everyone who cares.

 

And yeah, I don't remember 8K either other than buzz word bs thrown around.  I do remember clearly PS5/XB were talking about having higher frame rates, more consistency in play, being rock solid(so called) unlike the PS4/Pro generation did where it wobbled aorund like a drunk trying to do 4k with lousy fps and even worse frame time causing inconsistencies.  The issue as you said, the hardware is there now to do a solid job at 60 but being marking morons they want to flount 120 and you get the same crap work at even a higher setup which makes you question WTF man!

 

1080p/4k  you barely see a difference until you high a large enough screen to make it obvious which I believe is around/closer to the 50" size.  Even under it's slightly sharper, but those details largely are lost with the smaller sized screen just not capable of making the higher finer details really visible in a cramped space.  But in either case, put it in motion, you just really do not notice unless it's a slow walk through somewhere where you can stop and take in the scenery, say like an open FIELD on an RPG say like going to Cocoon on FF13.  If they'd care more about consistency than pie in the sky bs to pull in more suckers things would be better off.  Nintendo does this, they push lesser hardware in solid ways to emphasize the game over getting a e-boner over high spec shenanigans.

[zzip]

12 minutes ago, Tanooki said:

And yeah, I don't remember 8K either other than buzz word bs thrown around.  I do remember clearly PS5/XB were talking about having higher frame rates, more consistency in play, being rock solid(so called) unlike the PS4/Pro generation did where it wobbled aorund like a drunk trying to do 4k with lousy fps and even worse frame time causing inconsistencies.  The issue as you said, the hardware is there now to do a solid job at 60 but being marking morons they want to flount 120 and you get the same crap work at even a higher setup which makes you question WTF man!

I've come to the conclusion that humans like to have things boiled down to numbers that can be quantified and argued about.   Resolution and framerate is perfect for this.   The amount of detail in a scene (which I'd argue is more important to how a game looks than the resolution) can't be quantified as easy.

 

It doesn't help that marketing people want to keep selling you more hardware so they are happy to fuel these arguments and create new meaningless specs to argue about.  And the PC guys want to maintain their superiority over consoles so they'll raise the bar for what the minimum res/fps is required for a good gaming experience as soon as consoles catch up

 

19 minutes ago, Tanooki said:

But in either case, put it in motion, you just really do not notice unless it's a slow walk through somewhere where you can stop and take in the scenery, say like an open FIELD on an RPG say like going to Cocoon on FF13.  If they'd care more about consistency than pie in the sky bs to pull in more suckers things would be better off.  Nintendo does this, they push lesser hardware in solid ways to emphasize the game over getting a e-boner over high spec shenanigans.

I have to laugh when I see Digital Foundry videos where they'll compare two versions of a game side by side,  pause the action and zoom in so they can show you a minor difference in the quality of a shadow.   These are the tiny differences people argue about online.   Once the game is in motion, you don't notice these things like at all.  

 

What I want to see are open world games where the world is more interactive and most things don't simply feel like props.   I should be able to walk into that open field,  chop down any tree,  pick any plant (not just the ones marked with icons, dig holes and bury stuff and dig it up later.  Pour water and make mud-  any number of things like that even if it isn't needed for the game.    But I feel like they spend all their effort on graphical splendor and not enough evolving game mechanics.

[Tanooki]

@zzip No argument there, even us as kid/teens did the same crap with the vile marketing trickery of the 16bit era.  WHOA a 20MB cart holy crap it's a big number game must be better obviously.  Sadly we haven't grown beyond that where then it was a number for more storage of assets or more abilities (FX chip branding on box), or pushing CDs for audio and storage.  Yet for then it didn't cause really bad compromises to the base game.  Now though it does and it's bullshit, a curse of all curses.  Hey my system supposedly does 4K at 120fps and my stuff rocks and your last gen that struggled at 60fps and 1080 so it sucks.  It goes to that old Nathan Fallon meme from firefly of the look, point, uhh... because yeah, moron, that's what your new hardware is doing still but you ate the numerical hype like a good suckerfish that took the worm.  I caught onto this long ago and kept reaffirming it.  I got a new computer about 2mo ago now, the last one was 9 years old an i7 with a 980GTX inside, 8GB ram on it, 16 in the system.  My system running the identical games on PS4Pro/XB would run a rock solid 1080p with more stuff cranked up than the walled garden (pc) consoles would do...a  nearly decade old pc of all things.  That reaffirmed the stupidity of the masses eating the numbers caring more about resolution and framerate on paper/print/gossip rags than actual real world performance.  My so called laughably dated PCs spanked the crap out of those things, that said all it needed to for me.

 

So when I upgraded i did the same thing again, i9 13XXX series chip, 64GB of ram, 4060RTX chipset, you get the idea... I'll be spanking/matching PS6pro/PS7 console performance in another 9 years given it doesn't fail.  I'm in the weird gray area of your comment about the console guys and PC master race guys.   I don't get into the e-peen thing, so pc master whatever, and I'm over buying dated shit low performing consoles because marketing losers want to push it too hard.  I'm getting the CORRECT console gaming environment that works right, but on a PC, using a console controller (oem xb360 usb pad) to do it.  F both sides.

 

 

I was eluding to DF in that last post about frame rate vs frame time.  The most famous one I can think of which really pissed off the console fanboys, Dark Souls Remastered.  GO watch that one.  They mocked the hell out of the PS/XB consoles because they wobbled like a drunken sailor, then gave the gold star to the SWITCH because it was locked at 30FPS.  That 30FPS lock kept the frameate and frametime 99% of the time at a solid 30fps.  They said if you can get over yourself and your 60fps boner, you'll find a game that moves consistent visibly, but frame time wise, MOVES 100% consistently too making it easier to time your dodges, blocks, and strikes on bosses in that game so you don't get murdered by bad performance.  That's where it comes down to why Switch and a Switch 2 will be a winner, they go for managed performance and expectation, not pie in the sky bs and looking for suckers to lie to.

[JPF997]

2 hours ago, zzip said:

Wait, what?  I don't recall any such promise.   Yes it was talked about that SOME games might be able to hit 120fps,   and maybe PS5 could do 8K video.   I don't recall any talk about 8K games.    It was going to be native 4K without the checkerboard rendering 'cheats' used by the PS4 pro.

 

It's right there on the upper right side of the box , all the promises that Sony made that were never fulfilled 

 

 

 

Edited February 22 by JPF997

[zzip]

30 minutes ago, JPF997 said:

It's right there on the upper right side of the box , all the promises that Sony made that were never fulfilled 

 

 

 

That's marketing trying to confuse people.   Yes technically the PS5 can output an 8K signal,  and yes it can do 120fps if the graphics load is light enough.  But it doesn't say that would be the gaming norm.  I followed the development of these consoles closely and they never made promises like that.  

[zzip]

1 hour ago, Tanooki said:

I was eluding to DF in that last post about frame rate vs frame time.  The most famous one I can think of which really pissed off the console fanboys, Dark Souls Remastered.  GO watch that one.  They mocked the hell out of the PS/XB consoles because they wobbled like a drunken sailor, then gave the gold star to the SWITCH because it was locked at 30FPS.  That 30FPS lock kept the frameate and frametime 99% of the time at a solid 30fps.  They said if you can get over yourself and your 60fps boner, you'll find a game that moves consistent visibly, but frame time wise, MOVES 100% consistently too making it easier to time your dodges, blocks, and strikes on bosses in that game so you don't get murdered by bad performance. 

I don't understand the 30fps hate.   I quickly get used to whatever framerate a game serves up and adjust to it.   I beat Dark Souls Remastered on a PS4.  If it has a wonky framerate, it never affected me.    I also played DS3 which was locked to 30fps and Bloodborne which supposedly has a frame pacing issue.  I also went and replayed DS3 on PS5.   If it now has 60fps and 4K on PS5, it didn't really improve the game for me.   

 

Souls games are great because they are Souls games, not because they are 30fps, 60fps or some wobbly framerate in-between    If I went back and played Dark Souls Remastered on the Switch, the 30fps would probably not annoy me (but playing it with joycons might)

 

[roots.genoa]

3 hours ago, Tanooki said:

oem xb360 usb pad

oh ffs buy at least an Xbox One pad. Xbox 360's controller's d-pad is the worst ever. 🤦‍♂️

3 hours ago, Tanooki said:

The most famous one I can think of which really pissed off the console fanboys, Dark Souls Remastered.  GO watch that one.  They mocked the hell out of the PS/XB consoles because they wobbled like a drunken sailor, then gave the gold star to the SWITCH because it was locked at 30FPS.

Well, too bad the Switch version is unplayable to me because they decided to mess up the button layout for menus. 😔

Edited February 22 by roots.genoa

[Tanooki]

Well at least we're in agreement on petty hate over 30fps.  I get it entirely when you're closer to 20 than thirty you can feel it, you can really begin to see it as much too as it gets bad on games.  There's a point when the thing slides in chunks the eyes and hands feel and it gets in the way, but the whining about 30 just feels like an overblown sense of entitlement and drama stirring for the fake need to seek attention.  I've played through the first 3D gen of consoles, largely on N64, but some on PS and lesser on a Saturn.  I get it when things chunk along, had a crap PC for a point where old original Guild Wars would wobble down to 15fps when online instead of being usually around 30 or better and you'd visibly stutter if not teleport -- that sucked.  Console side you don't need the explanation we've been there.  30 is just that sweet spot that works for fluid play on hands and eyes, and to denigrate it is petty.

 

I got the usb 360 pad at least 5 years ago or more it was on sale and I got it for 3D games.  I've for years have had some solid USB based 2D controllers so there wasn't a need, largely wanted them for old games/emulators.  Gravis Pad Pro which is a SNES/PS1 hybrid that's rock solid, and in recent years with the fail on the shitty analogue dock, I have a 8bitdo SN30pro pad wired which is SNES with dual sticks at the bottom and that d-pad is #1 in 2D play, nothing beats it, so I retired my gravis to a storage bin.  I'd just use the SN30 but some games are whiny little babies about the normal way of YX/BA vs the xb way of reversing those goes and it messes with me on prompts.

[zzip]

1 hour ago, Tanooki said:

Well at least we're in agreement on petty hate over 30fps.  I get it entirely when you're closer to 20 than thirty you can feel it, you can really begin to see it as much too as it gets bad on games.  There's a point when the thing slides in chunks the eyes and hands feel and it gets in the way, but the whining about 30 just feels like an overblown sense of entitlement and drama stirring for the fake need to seek attention.  I've played through the first 3D gen of consoles, largely on N64, but some on PS and lesser on a Saturn.  I get it when things chunk along, had a crap PC for a point where old original Guild Wars would wobble down to 15fps when online instead of being usually around 30 or better and you'd visibly stutter if not teleport -- that sucked.  Console side you don't need the explanation we've been there.  30 is just that sweet spot that works for fluid play on hands and eyes, and to denigrate it is petty.

I can feel a difference between 30 and 60, but I don't think 30 makes the game unplayable.    I don't understand what people mean when they say 30 is "like a slide-show".   Some gamers either have eagle-eyes or pretend they do if they claim stuff like this or small differences in graphic detail or resolution bother them.

 

Yeah on the old systems 30 was no guarantee especially when it came to early 3D games.   I remember so much hype over Flight Simulator II,  but it ran at maybe 2 fps on an 8-bit system?  I found it unplayable,  other flying games that could hit 5 fps or so felt smooth by comparison!   

 

[Austin]

21 hours ago, roots.genoa said:

oh ffs buy at least an Xbox One pad. Xbox 360's controller's d-pad is the worst ever. 🤦‍♂️

It depends on the model/era of controller. The early wireless ones had terrible d-pads. However, some of the later wired ones (like the one I have), the d-pad is perfectly fine. I have no issues using it. I also prefer the shape over the Xbox One/Series controllers. Due to there being no battery pack slot, the wired 360 pad is less bulky.

 

Re: 30 vs 60fps. 

 

Games should be 60 when at all possible. The games simply feel better at that framerate. They are also easier on the eyes and are more responsive. 30 is by no means "unplayable"--anyone saying that is ridiculous--but games should strive to hit higher than that when at all possible, as it only improves the experience. Touching on the Dark Souls Remastered example, playing it on the Series X at 60 and then moving over to the Switch version at its inconsistent 30, takes some adjusting. And it's not just because of the choppier look, but the timing on various moves such as the parry are way more strict because you have a much smaller window of opportunity to get the timing right.

Edited February 23 by Austin

[Tanooki]

8 hours ago, zzip said:

I can feel a difference between 30 and 60, but I don't think 30 makes the game unplayable.    I don't understand what people mean when they say 30 is "like a slide-show".   Some gamers either have eagle-eyes or pretend they do if they claim stuff like this or small differences in graphic detail or resolution bother them.

 

Yeah on the old systems 30 was no guarantee especially when it came to early 3D games.   I remember so much hype over Flight Simulator II,  but it ran at maybe 2 fps on an 8-bit system?  I found it unplayable,  other flying games that could hit 5 fps or so felt smooth by comparison!   

 

Yeah I mean I do too, but over 60 I think it's just psychological really.  Yet as you said, same here, the game is just as fluid, responsive, and key ...not lacking to where to fouls up the gaming experience.  There is no 'like a slide show' which I'm so so fed up seeing written.  It's like that meme of the PC Master Race, some loser sitting there with a smug sense of self importance with the flowing hair with nose up high acting like 30fps is a desecration of gaming that makes it hard to play if not impossible.  They seem if anything to have a big need to get some mental health check.  It's just a sheep rag, morons piling on and me-too'ing the utter lie.  It bothers them because they allow it to, not because it's functionally broke, defective, or lacking.

 

I remember how flight sim could get nasty the more you cranked up the detail the games allowed.  I used old V5 back in the day quite a bit and going from one hardware to the next it went from a ticky 32/64bit console (mid 90s) experience of 10fps here, about 30ish elsewhere...but we were used to it, THAT was normal, and we played it.  It just was when it hit that 2fps you said, when you get really close or under 10 when you are just being a masochist.

[Video]

I don't mind frame rates that are whatever, even much slower ones. What I do need is stability. I can deal with 8 or 15 frames per second perfectly fine, BUT, the game has to maintain that frame rate. You can become attuned to a framerate, even a louse one, but there is no compensation to said frame rate jumping around, especially if it does so constantly. LOL, constantly inconsistent.

 

People saying 30 is unusable are blowing it out their ass. I'd be interested to know how many of those people realize that 24 fps is still the standard for making movies to this day. Sure more frames can be smoother, but there's a limit, your eyes refresh at 72 hz, so would you gain anything going from say 60-120?

 

I find most people that complain about this stuff are just looking at numbers, and don't take into account perception, and don't know either technical or practical specs of any of the hardware being used, including themselves.

[Tanooki]

I've felt the same and the rates they're whining for the eye can't even keep up with so it's just psychological warfare with someone playing with their idea of ammo being nerf.  All bark, no bite.   You're right about consistency.  N64 games that would run around 20 or 25 in this game or that game felt smooth because that's just how they ran and you only knew it that way and it was made that way so it was fine.  Ever try one where some emulator force it up to a faster than hardware possible rate...it gets weird.  People whining about 60 is just a numbers and mind game, perception at best, and I don't mean honest perception that 30 is rotten as it's objectively not.  Consistency means everything.

[zzip]

On 2/23/2024 at 8:45 PM, Tanooki said:

Yeah I mean I do too, but over 60 I think it's just psychological really.  Yet as you said, same here, the game is just as fluid, responsive, and key ...not lacking to where to fouls up the gaming experience.  There is no 'like a slide show' which I'm so so fed up seeing written.  It's like that meme of the PC Master Race, some loser sitting there with a smug sense of self importance with the flowing hair with nose up high acting like 30fps is a desecration of gaming that makes it hard to play if not impossible.  They seem if anything to have a big need to get some mental health check.  It's just a sheep rag, morons piling on and me-too'ing the utter lie.  It bothers them because they allow it to, not because it's functionally broke, defective, or lacking.

My PC monitor can do 144 fps,  but I never feel the need to run it over 60.     Perhaps I'm a little afraid of getting "used to it" and becoming one of those that can't tolerate "slide show" framerates anymore 

 

I think you're right, it's psychological.   What fun is it to shell out $1000 for a high-end PC GPU if you can't lord it over people?  It's classic human tendency to flaunt one's status.   Spend money they probably didn't really have to cover up insecurities.  

 

I remember watching videos of "blind tests" where they'd run the same game on PC, PS4 and Xbox One side-by-side and ask people if they can tell which is which.   Almost everybody got it wrong.   The games are now so close it's not immediately obvious if one port is superior to another, but people argue as though the differences are massive.

[Tanooki]

@zzip  Same here, this new gaming high end laptop is running the same 144hz/fps style panel as well.  I just don't feel it.  I had it initially running annoyingly at 60 because of the dual chip setup it has like a common desktop/tower would with the intel on board, then the nvidia 4060.  It refused to use the nvidia like I wanted unless a game pulled it or manually set it up which was causing some blu ray playback stoppage.  I ended up calling tech on this one to see how to re-work it, disabled the onboard video and went to nvidia which clocked it up to 144.  I ran one, then the other, and I don't feel more silky smooth at that rate so I think it is just a snobby perception thing, maybe it's more exclusive to FPS hardcores and the sheep who ride that story.

 

I think it is as you're agreeing, it's a mind game, mental gymnastics, and e-peen gooning qualifying that absurdly priced video card.  I stopped at a 4060 because it had a lot for little money more than a 4050 and the jump to the 4070 was asininely more costly compared to the other two.  Usually as you said the differences are minor, you kind of have to know what you're looking for say between SONY & MS, and it's not some immediate WHOA moment unless one version ended up being busted or glitched in design, minor stuff, not massive.

 

 

You know I want to add this for fun, it's related if you follow the mind games angle.  Late January my car was in an accident, totaled out mid this month.  A week ago now I got a new (actually new, since used costs nearly the same now due to supply) car, a 2024 Subaru Impreza.  I came off a Honda Civic, Accord before, and a mid 00s Jetta before that.  We looked into another civic and impreza.  The one thing the subaru was knocked for, sluggish performance in acceleration.  I'm used to the last few cars I drove, and well given the whiny YT comparisons from experts touting how great the car is but... comments, their bs isn't reality.  My civic was a grandma off the line, slow like an overheavy car for the engine bad like an old 2002 PT Cruiser I had acted since it was a teeny Neon on a heavy frame for it.  The new car takes off better than the accord even too, it's near or exceeding the Jetta 2.5 I had.  It takes little toe on the pedal to get up to 45 on the street off mine in moments, no fears of being rear-ended by some chump being personal about no one in front of them antics.  So I guess since it didn't have a turbo charger or race package, or the more sporty 2-4 doors subaru has they fantacized it chugs, it doesn't.  They perceived bs, me being fresh question it and perceive them as full of crap.  Kind of a round about to the video card e-peening bs about fps.  Guard what you care about you paid too much for because the 'lesser' 'cheaper' one can do it as well -- huh.

Edited February 26 by Tanooki