Games

Assassin’s Creed Shadows on Switch 2: why handheld looks blurrier and what can improve

28 December 2025
Nintendo Switch 2
12 min.
WhatsAppMessengerLinkedInRedditPinterestBufferSMS
Assassin’s Creed Shadows on Switch 2: why handheld looks blurrier and what can improve

Summary:

Handheld blur in Assassin’s Creed Shadows on Nintendo Switch 2 has become one of those tiny talking points that grows legs, mostly because you notice it immediately. You pick up the console, you start moving through a busy scene, and the image can look softer than you expected. In a recent interview, Ubisoft’s tech leads addressed that exact complaint and their answer was blunt: handheld mode is already pushing both the GPU and CPU very hard, and there isn’t much headroom left without taking significant risks. In other words, the softness is not a simple “flip a switch” problem. It is a result of how the game budgets its limited performance room in portable play, where power, thermal limits, and stable frame pacing all matter.

The key phrase is balance. Ubisoft describes the GPU as being heavily filled with compute workloads, which helps explain why raising resolution is such a tough sell. More pixels are not just “more sharpness” – they are more work every single frame, and that can bite you in the places you care about most: combat, crowded city areas, and fast camera movement. The good news is that the team also left the door open to natural improvement. If more optimisations are found over time, those gains can flow into higher dynamic resolution. That does not promise a miracle patch, but it does explain the path forward. Meanwhile, we can also be practical: understand why handheld looks softer, learn what upscaling and dynamic resolution are doing, and use a few simple settings and play habits that reduce the blur feeling right now.

What Ubisoft’s tech leads said about handheld resolution of Assassin’s Creed Shadows

Ubisoft’s own explanation for the handheld softness is refreshingly direct, and it lines up with what players feel in their hands. The team said handheld mode is already pushing both the GPU and CPU very hard, with very little headroom left without taking significant risks. That’s not marketing fluff – it is a way of saying the portable profile is already tuned close to the edge where performance can wobble, stutter, or fall apart in the most demanding moments. They also called out something more specific: the GPU is heavily filled with compute workloads. If you have ever tried to carry too many grocery bags at once, you know the feeling – you might be able to add one more item, but that “one more” is the exact moment a bag handle snaps. Ubisoft is basically saying the handheld profile is already carrying its bags with white knuckles, and a clean resolution bump is the kind of extra weight that can make the whole thing slip.

Why handheld can look blurrier than docked on Switch 2

Handheld and docked modes are not twins wearing different outfits. They are often two different performance budgets with different priorities, especially on modern hybrid hardware. In docked play, a game can lean into a higher internal resolution, more stable reconstruction, and sharper-looking output because the system has a different power profile and is typically aiming at a higher display resolution. In handheld play, the priorities usually shift toward stability, responsiveness, battery life, and thermal limits, because nobody wants a console that turns into a pocket toaster after fifteen minutes. That is where the “blur” perception shows up. The game may drop internal resolution more aggressively, rely more heavily on reconstruction, and apply temporal techniques that smooth the image to keep motion stable. If you are sensitive to sharp edges and fine detail, you notice that softness immediately, especially in foliage, rooftops, and busy city scenes where tiny lines and patterns are everywhere.

Dynamic resolution is doing constant damage control

Dynamic resolution is the game’s way of constantly negotiating with reality. Instead of locking a single internal resolution, the engine adjusts it on the fly to stay within a frame time budget. The moment the scene gets heavier – more NPCs, more complex lighting, denser geometry, thicker effects – the internal resolution can drop to keep performance from dipping below its target. That can look like blur, but it is really the game choosing “keep motion smooth” over “keep every pixel crisp.” Technical analysis coverage of the Switch 2 version has described docked internal resolution often hovering around the mid-600p range before upscaling, while portable can sink lower, with handheld readings described as dropping as low as around 400p in demanding moments and sitting higher when the scene allows it. That range matters because it explains why the image can look fine one minute and noticeably softer the next. It is not random, it is the engine making a trade every frame.

Why the GPU gets “filled” with compute work

When Ubisoft says the GPU is heavily filled with compute workloads, they are pointing at the invisible part of modern visuals that still costs real performance. Compute is used for lots of tasks that are not simply “draw the world,” such as certain lighting calculations, reconstruction and upscaling workloads, post-processing, and simulation-style rendering tasks that modern engines lean on to look current-gen. If the GPU is already spending a big chunk of its time on compute work, raising resolution does not just add “more pixels” – it can also make those compute tasks more expensive, because many of them scale with the amount of data being processed each frame. So even if handheld resolution sounds like an easy win on paper, the GPU might be boxed in by the very techniques that help the game look good at lower resolution in the first place. It is a little ironic, like using a ladder to reach a shelf, only to realize the ladder itself is blocking the cabinet door you need to open. That is why “no headroom” can be a very honest technical answer rather than a dodge.

CPU pressure is not just frame rate, it’s world simulation

Players often blame blur entirely on graphics, but Ubisoft explicitly mentioned CPU pressure too, and that matters for an open-world game with lots of systemic behavior. The CPU is not just pushing frames, it is running the world: crowd behavior, animation logic, physics interactions, streaming in world data as you move, mission scripts, and all the small systems that make the environment feel alive instead of like a cardboard diorama. Ubisoft has talked about Shadows being filled with intricate simulations across a massive world, and that kind of design can put sustained pressure on CPU time. When CPU time is tight, you do not always “see” it as blur, but you feel it as hitching, uneven frame pacing, or sluggish responsiveness. That is why a resolution bump is not only a GPU question. If the CPU budget is already close to max, any change that increases overall workload can create new bottlenecks, even if the change seems purely visual on the surface.

GPU pressure is where image clarity gets traded away

The GPU side is where blur becomes a visible symptom, because the most direct lever the engine can pull is internal resolution. Ubisoft’s Switch 2 work has been described as involving smart cuts and substitutions to keep the experience intact, including swaps like replacing ray-traced global illumination with baked global illumination and making changes that reduce the cost of certain visual features. Those choices are not about making the game look worse for fun – they are about keeping the frame budget predictable. But even with those cuts, the portable profile can still be expensive, especially in scenes with complex geometry, heavy foliage, lots of transparency, and dense lighting. When the GPU is under pressure, the engine protects the target frame rate by lowering internal resolution and leaning on reconstruction. The result can be a softer image, especially in motion, because temporal techniques often prioritize stability over razor-sharp edges. If you have ever tried to take a photo while running, you already get the vibe – you can chase sharpness, or you can chase a shot that does not smear everywhere.

The trade-off being protected: fluidity over pixels

Ubisoft’s wording makes it clear what they are protecting: an overall balance between resolution and fluidity. That is a fancy way of saying they are aiming for gameplay that feels steady, not a slideshow that happens to be sharper in still frames. It is easy to demand higher resolution when you are staring at screenshots, but games are lived experiences. You are swinging weapons, turning corners, sprinting through crowds, and reading motion cues to react in combat. If performance becomes unstable, the whole experience feels mushy in a different way – not just visually, but mechanically. That is why “significant risks” is the phrase to underline. Risks can mean frame rate drops in hotspot areas, inconsistent frame pacing, higher input latency, more aggressive streaming hiccups, or even stability issues over long play sessions. Nobody wants a sharper image if it comes bundled with a constant fear of stutter at the worst possible moment, like a car that looks amazing in the driveway but coughs and dies every time you accelerate onto the highway.

What “additional optimisations” can actually change over time

The most hopeful part of Ubisoft’s answer is also the most realistic: if additional optimisations are found over time, they would naturally result in higher dynamic resolution. Notice what is not being promised. There is no commitment to a fixed handheld resolution target, and there is no guarantee of a dramatic clarity leap. Instead, Ubisoft is describing the typical lifecycle of a big port, where performance tuning continues after launch and small wins accumulate. That kind of improvement can come from better compiler behavior, tighter CPU scheduling, more efficient streaming, reduced overhead in certain effects, or smarter allocation of GPU time between rendering and compute tasks. Ubisoft also talked about the Switch 2 demanding a different optimisation mindset than PC-based handhelds, which implies there is platform-specific work involved that can get better as teams learn the hardware’s quirks. If you have ever optimized anything in your life – a morning routine, a work setup, even the way you pack a suitcase – you know the pattern. The first version works, the next version wastes less time, and eventually you wonder how you ever lived with the old one.

The kinds of wins that raise dynamic resolution without chaos

The safest path to higher dynamic resolution is not “push more pixels,” it is “make the same frame cheaper.” That can mean shaving milliseconds off the frame time by reducing the cost of expensive passes, cutting redundant work, or improving streaming so the GPU and CPU spend less time waiting. If the GPU is heavily loaded with compute tasks, efficiency gains there can matter a lot, because they free up time that can be spent on higher internal resolution without changing the overall performance target. Similarly, if CPU time is tight, improvements in streaming latency and simulation scheduling can reduce hitches and keep the frame budget more stable, which can let dynamic resolution sit higher more often. Ubisoft has also discussed keeping certain key features intact, such as virtualized geometry style approaches, which can be expensive but also help with visual stability. The point is simple: the patch path that makes sense is incremental, boring, and effective. It is not flashy, but it is the kind of work that quietly turns “it runs” into “it runs and looks cleaner.”

What you can do right now to make handheld look clearer

Even if Ubisoft does not plan a big handheld resolution bump, there are still practical ways to reduce the blur feeling today. First, it helps to reset expectations about what you are actually seeing. If the internal resolution is dropping dynamically and reconstruction is doing heavy lifting, the image will look softer during heavy scenes. So pick your comparison moments carefully. A quiet area or indoor scene will look cleaner than a chaotic street run with effects and crowds. Second, pay attention to how you move the camera. Rapid camera pans make temporal reconstruction work harder, and that can exaggerate softness. Slowing down your camera sensitivity by a notch can reduce perceived smearing without changing any performance settings, and it costs you nothing but a tiny adjustment period. Third, if the game offers any image options like motion blur toggles or sharpening controls, those can shift perception a lot, especially on a small screen where edge clarity is what your eyes latch onto. The goal is not perfection, it is comfort.

Display and console settings that help more than you’d expect

Handheld play is also affected by how your screen and your eyes handle contrast and sharpness. On the system side, make sure you are not stacking extra processing that fights the game’s reconstruction. If your display settings include an overly aggressive “smooth” or “soft” profile, switch to something more neutral. If you play docked sometimes, check your TV’s settings too, because some TVs add smoothing or noise reduction that makes reconstructed images look worse, not better. A simple “game mode” preset can improve clarity by disabling extra processing and reducing latency. Also consider your viewing distance. It sounds silly, but it matters: holding the screen slightly closer can make fine detail easier to resolve, while holding it farther away can make the same image feel hazier. Think of it like reading small text – the letters did not change, but the distance did. The same principle applies to reconstructed game visuals in motion.

How to judge a patch when it lands

If Ubisoft ships future optimisations, judging them properly is all about consistency, not cherry-picked moments. Start by testing the same locations and the same actions, because dynamic resolution can vary wildly depending on what you are doing. Use a repeatable loop: run through a crowded city area, do a combat encounter, sprint while rotating the camera, and then open menus and map screens to see if responsiveness improved. Also pay attention to when the blur feels worst. If the game’s dynamic resolution sits higher more often, you will notice fewer moments where the image drops into that soft zone, especially during movement. You do not need tools to feel that difference. Your eyes will catch it when small details stop dissolving into mush during pans, and your brain will catch it when the game feels steadier in the heavy hotspots. The most honest test is not “does it look sharper in a still frame,” but “does it look cleaner while playing the way you actually play.”

The bigger picture for Switch 2 ports after this one

Ubisoft’s comments also tell a wider story about what Switch 2 ports look like when a team pushes for feature parity instead of a simplified version. Shadows did not arrive as a tiny spin-off – it arrived as a current-gen open-world experience that needed careful trade-offs to fit the hardware, especially in portable mode. The handheld softness is part of that trade, and Ubisoft is being upfront that there is no easy headroom to reclaim without risk. At the same time, the door is open to gradual improvement as optimisations are found and platform support matures. That matters, because it sets expectations for other demanding games too. If you want big worlds on a handheld, you are going to see reconstruction, dynamic resolution, and smart cuts. The question is not whether those tools exist, it is whether they are used well enough that you stop thinking about them five minutes into a session. When the balance is right, you do not sit there counting pixels. You just play.

Conclusion

Ubisoft’s answer about handheld blur in Assassin’s Creed Shadows on Switch 2 boils down to a careful, practical stance: the portable mode is already pushing GPU and CPU limits hard, the GPU is packed with compute work, and a straight resolution bump is not sitting there waiting to be turned on. The softness you see is a symptom of the game protecting stability through dynamic resolution and reconstruction, especially in demanding scenes. The upside is that optimisations can still raise dynamic resolution naturally over time, which is the most realistic way handheld clarity improves without sacrificing performance. Until then, the best approach is to understand the trade, tweak the few settings that change perception, and judge future updates by how consistently the game holds a cleaner image while you actually move through the world.

FAQs
  • Is Ubisoft planning a handheld patch to raise resolution significantly?
    • Ubisoft’s tech leads said handheld is already pushing GPU and CPU very hard with little headroom, so a major resolution increase is unlikely unless future optimisations naturally allow higher dynamic resolution.
  • Why does handheld look softer than docked on Switch 2?
    • Handheld typically runs under tighter power and thermal limits, so the game relies more on dynamic resolution and reconstruction to protect stable performance, which can look softer during heavy scenes.
  • What does “GPU filled with compute workloads” mean in plain terms?
    • It means the GPU is spending a lot of time on compute-heavy tasks like reconstruction and other processing, leaving less spare time to push higher internal resolution without affecting performance.
  • Can optimisations really make handheld clearer without changing targets?
    • Yes, if a patch makes each frame cheaper to render, dynamic resolution can sit higher more often, which can improve clarity without raising risk to stability or frame pacing.
  • What can we do right now to reduce the blur feeling?
    • Use repeatable test spots to understand when softness appears, consider reducing camera sensitivity for cleaner motion, disable extra TV processing when docked, and use neutral display settings to avoid added smoothing.
Sources
WhatsAppMessengerLinkedInRedditPinterestBufferSMS