|
On January 24 2017 02:47 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 02:09 andrewlt wrote:
AAA Western titles are overrated. The 3DS is still outselling everything else and mobile phone games are outgrowing traditional console games. There's a huge, largely untapped market of people who just want fun games and don't care about the graphics rat race. Such a silly attitude. The Console/PC gaming is still growing, still profitable, and for the most part is independent of the mobile gaming market. Phone and handheld games can't and won't replace games on larger platforms for the foreseeable future, even if it's purely from physical limitations. There's no reason to cannibalize one market for another.
Not sure how his attitude is silly, if anything it's realistic. Western AAA titles tend to be more focused on graphical fidelity and scope. That is why you see so many open world games and games that pride themselves on pushing the hardware they are given to the limits. Unfortunately, with the Switch, its own hardware limits it severely for games that require a large amount of processing power for textures and stuff. I think they are releasing Skyrim as a benchmark as to what the system can do, but I don't think that this type of accommodation they are looking for with the Switch.
In the end, Nintendo is a Japanese hardware company struggling to maintain a foothold in console gaming. Nintendo used to be a juggernaut across mobile and console, and whilst they still manage to benefit from success with 3DS and other successful mobile apps, they want to recapture console marketshare. The Switch is something they aim to achieve cross-pollination with. They want to be able to allow gamers to benefit from both a system that allows you to utilize portability to play it on the go alone, or have couch co-op with, which is good.
Nintendo has to take the necessary steps to focus on creating games that are good at the core and don't rely on trying to produce a shiny product. Games like Mario Party, WarioWare, and more could be revived to great success with the joyconn controllers and multiplayer capabilities, and that is Nintendo's responsibility to intelligently figure out paths they can take with first-party titles. Third party developers need to stray away from the idea that their games can only be this competition to be the most shiny. And since openworld games and large, western AAA games seemed to be more heavily criticized recently due to the saturation of similar titles in the market, there could be a brief window where Nintendo could break through a little bit. But it'll be a very difficult journey.
|
There's a pretty distinct difference between the 3DS' market and the mobile gaming market. The former is still home to $39.99 full-length titles that are essentially AAA games scaled down to a more modest system (and with similarly modest development costs), while the latter is largely dominated by F2P games and $5-$15 indie games They don't really hit the same audience.
The onus will be on Nintendo to set standards for what a Switch game that can sell looks like, and by extension the development costs for developing a Switch game. I don't think the Switch is going to make a lot of headway trying to get ports from other home console games, but if the installed base is large enough and development costs low enough, developers will be willing to develop for the system. It's not like you got a ton of ports on the 3DS, but 3rd party developers were willing to make games for the system because when you're essentially developing for hardware several generations old, it's fairly easy to keep costs down.
|
These days I find myself finding about every modern game "beautiful enough". I really don't follow that quest for more pixels and more photorealism that will continue to sell Sony and Microsoft's hardware.
What I am after is good and smooth gameplay, and I think that's what appeals in Nintendo for people like me. They present other game experiences than the usual stuff (also helps that I'm also a big PC player).
|
I like how these arguments always devolve into graphics snobs, like that's the only factor involved here. There is a lot more between a console and a mobile device then just graphical fidelity.
Skyrim is a wonderful example how things will probably go wrong right from the start, because it's a game just full of brown and grey colours, puzzles/interactions that are basically pixel hunts, UI clutter, all on a small mobile screen. Oh, and a company that's fairly notorious for not making playability improvements.
Nintendo's problem with consoles has never been graphical power, it's unworkable gimmicks that push developers away. GameCube used whatever backwards discs it had instead of CDs/DVDs, Wii had the remote gimmick, WiiU had the handheld gimmick. The talk of bridging mobile and console in a single device sounds nice in concept, but this is assuming that non-Nintendo developers are going to put in the time and effort to make games look and play well on both. And considering that devs still can't adapt between XBoxOne and PC without cutting corners or not even bothering...well, good luck on that.
|
The Playstation and Xbox consoles are basically simplified, underpowered PCs that are trying to be glorified Netflix players at the same time. That's why I asked why Nintendo would want to compete in that market. If you want to play AAA multiplatform western titles, the PC is the best platform to play them in.
Nintendo had success tapping a more casual, non-graphics obsessed audience with the Wii. It was the best selling console of its generation. They're very successful tapping an audience that wants AAA level length and complexity without fancy graphics with the 3DS. Atlus has even shown that players would be willing to pay an Atlus tax on certain games. Paying console prices for games with handheld graphics and AAA gameplay is just the next incremental step.
Nintendo is better off targeting both the 3DS and Wii audiences rather than the PS/Xbox audiences with the Switch. A potential successor to the 3DS that can play those games on a large screen? A new console that can play the Wii's party games? Those are better niches than being a third console maker making a third PC wannabe.
|
On January 24 2017 03:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I like how these arguments always devolve into graphics snobs, like that's the only factor involved here. There is a lot more between a console and a mobile device then just graphical fidelity.
Skyrim is a wonderful example how things will probably go wrong right from the start, because it's a game just full of brown and grey colours, puzzles/interactions that are basically pixel hunts, UI clutter, all on a small mobile screen. Oh, and a company that's fairly notorious for not making playability improvements.
Nintendo's problem with consoles has never been graphical power, it's unworkable gimmicks that push developers away. GameCube used whatever backwards discs it had instead of CDs/DVDs, Wii had the remote gimmick, WiiU had the handheld gimmick. The talk of bridging mobile and console in a single device sounds nice in concept, but this is assuming that non-Nintendo developers are going to put in the time and effort to make games look and play well on both. And considering that devs still can't adapt between XBoxOne and PC without cutting corners or not even bothering...well, good luck on that.
I like how you start with "graphics snobs", then all you talk about is graphics. Because yes, that's basically the only thing hindering the Switch this time. There is no gimmick. If you want to ignore that Rumble HD thingy they have in the controllers, sure, ignore it, it's just an extra feature like the good use of rumble packs on standard controllers.
Again, that console is as simple as it gets, it's a tablet, with a clever controller attached to it (the controller is btw, just a standard controller split in half). There you go. Why can't you port your Andromeda, your CoD and your Witcher 3 on it? Because it's not powerful enough, it's a tablet. Why isn't it powerful enough? Because of, *tadam*, 3D hardware requirements, aka mostly graphics.
non-Nintendo developers are going to put in the time and effort to make games look and play well on both. And considering that devs still can't adapt between XBoxOne and PC without cutting corners
See, you get it too. Graphics. Very few of the porting issues between one platform and the other are not graphics related.
I'm not saying people are wrong for wanting state-of-the-art visuals. What I'm saying is, there is a market for people who have been content with video game graphical fidelity for about 10 years now, and just want to get good full-fledged games on-the-go.
|
Problem with the Wii was, again, 3rd party developers and lack of game releases. The console itself sold really well, and the in-house games mostly sold well. But other companies didn't want to do Wii exclusives, and didn't want to learn some new gimmicky platform to program on.
So, again, it's nice talking about how Nintendo should target some hybrid 3DS/mini-console market. Reality is that probably isn't a market, because other companies don't want to essentially double up on a lot of their development to make a game work well on both at the same time.
Really nothing stopping Nintendo from biting back into the console market. Playstation shoved its way in between the established Nintendo and Sega market. Xbox came in the middle of the Sony and Nintendo market. And the Xbox really has poor market reach outside of North America (and PC itself is not even a market in Japan).
But really, the important thing is that Nintendo just keeps half-assing their attempts at rejoining the console market.
|
On January 24 2017 04:52 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 03:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I like how these arguments always devolve into graphics snobs, like that's the only factor involved here. There is a lot more between a console and a mobile device then just graphical fidelity.
Skyrim is a wonderful example how things will probably go wrong right from the start, because it's a game just full of brown and grey colours, puzzles/interactions that are basically pixel hunts, UI clutter, all on a small mobile screen. Oh, and a company that's fairly notorious for not making playability improvements.
Nintendo's problem with consoles has never been graphical power, it's unworkable gimmicks that push developers away. GameCube used whatever backwards discs it had instead of CDs/DVDs, Wii had the remote gimmick, WiiU had the handheld gimmick. The talk of bridging mobile and console in a single device sounds nice in concept, but this is assuming that non-Nintendo developers are going to put in the time and effort to make games look and play well on both. And considering that devs still can't adapt between XBoxOne and PC without cutting corners or not even bothering...well, good luck on that. I like how you start with "graphics snobs", then all you talk about is graphics. Because yes, that's basically the only thing hindering the Switch this time. There is no gimmick. If you want to ignore that Rumble HD thingy they have in the controllers, sure, ignore it, it's just an extra feature like the good use of rumble packs on standard controllers. Again, that console is as simple as it gets, it's a tablet, with a clever controller attached to it (the controller is btw, just a standard controller split in half). There you go. Why can't you port your Andromeda, your CoD and your Witcher 3 on it? Because it's not powerful enough, it's a tablet. Why isn't it powerful enough? Because of, *tadam*, 3D hardware requirements, aka mostly graphics. Show nested quote +non-Nintendo developers are going to put in the time and effort to make games look and play well on both. And considering that devs still can't adapt between XBoxOne and PC without cutting corners See, you get it too. Graphics. Very few of the porting issues between one platform and the other are not graphics related. I'm not saying people are wrong for wanting state-of-the-art visuals. What I'm saying is, there is a market for people who have been content with video game graphical fidelity for about 10 years now, and just want to get good full-fledged games on-the-go.
Except not graphics at all?
See Skyrim example. Not a graphics issue, not a hardware issue. Skyrim is old enough that the Switch should handle it just fine. Entirely a design issue, because Skyrim simply does not work on a mobile platform because of UI choices that Bethesda will probably not bother to fix anything.
PC port to XBoxOne issues, not graphics at all either. See Skyrim again, PC port had shitty console menus. That's not graphics, that's design and effort. Most of the big porting disasters of 2016 had nothing to do with graphics either, just a complete lack of effort in actually programming for the different platform.
I mean, I get what you're saying. You don't need good graphics power to have fun games. But graphical power is a maximum, not a minimum. Which really just leaves the Switch in the same place as the last couple Nintendo console platforms: neat gimmick utilized almost entirely by the in-house teams, and a limited 3rd party library that's shared by the competition. Or, I guess, a mobile game platform that trades a big price tag for some console game support.
|
The Wii sold almost as many games as the PS3 and Xbox 360 combined. Is your criticism "I don't like Nintendo's library", in which case you're entitled to your opinion, or "the Switch will fail", in which case you've provided no proof?
Yes, the Wii U was a big failure. But it had nothing to do with the specs or hardware gimmicks, it just had a terrible game line-up. Notice that its most successful period ever was when Mario Kart 8 was released; an actual fun game. Before 2014, it was entirely dependent upon Super Mario games. It never had a traditional Zelda game (except the Wind Waker re-release).
|
On January 24 2017 04:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Problem with the Wii was, again, 3rd party developers and lack of game releases. The console itself sold really well, and the in-house games mostly sold well. But other companies didn't want to do Wii exclusives, and didn't want to learn some new gimmicky platform to program on.
So, again, it's nice talking about how Nintendo should target some hybrid 3DS/mini-console market. Reality is that probably isn't a market, because other companies don't want to essentially double up on a lot of their development to make a game work well on both at the same time.
Really nothing stopping Nintendo from biting back into the console market. Playstation shoved its way in between the established Nintendo and Sega market. Xbox came in the middle of the Sony and Nintendo market. And the Xbox really has poor market reach outside of North America (and PC itself is not even a market in Japan).
But really, the important thing is that Nintendo just keeps half-assing their attempts at rejoining the console market.
You're right, the Wii had to deal with people not wanting to programs for the non-standard controller with fewer usable buttons and motion controls. Switch doesn't suffer from that. The Switch doesn't have a gimmick that makes games difficult to make on it. If anything, developers can just follow tried and true methods they used in the past and make games that will sell on smaller budgets. The only issue is whether or not the glitsy fireworks 3rd party games will work on it - but that's largely in the territory of "It looks better on the PC than any console anyway."
Nintendo won't be forcing a console/handheld market, they are melding them together. People will buy Nintendo consoles for 1st party games and not be concerned about Call of Honor: Battle Ops 3. 3rd party developers love making games to Nintendo's handhelds. It only makes sense for Nintendo to combine those. Saying "Oh, but they can't port from the other consoles." is missing the point, they won't need to. Nintendo isn't making a console here, it's making a high end handheld.
|
On January 24 2017 04:52 WolfintheSheep wrote:
Problem with the Wii was, again, 3rd party developers and lack of game releases. The console itself sold really well, and the in-house games mostly sold well. But other companies didn't want to do Wii exclusives, and didn't want to learn some new gimmicky platform to program on.
So, again, it's nice talking about how Nintendo should target some hybrid 3DS/mini-console market. Reality is that probably isn't a market, because other companies don't want to essentially double up on a lot of their development to make a game work well on both at the same time.
Really nothing stopping Nintendo from biting back into the console market. Playstation shoved its way in between the established Nintendo and Sega market. Xbox came in the middle of the Sony and Nintendo market. And the Xbox really has poor market reach outside of North America (and PC itself is not even a market in Japan).
But really, the important thing is that Nintendo just keeps half-assing their attempts at rejoining the console market.
Finances are stopping Nintendo from doing so. The Playstation and Xbox are being sold at a loss. Sony used the PS3 to try to make blu-ray the default standard for movies before online services wrecked that market. The PS4 still has a huge market that is mostly using it as a glorified Netflix and blu-ray player and TV box. MSFT shareholders despise the Xbox division and there was pressure to get rid of it during the Ballmer to Nadella transition.
Nintendo doesn't have the non-gaming divisions that can profit off of their gaming division. Or in the Xbox's case, a parent company that is printing money. The Xbox division is a rounding error in MSFT's financial statements.
If 3rd party developers don't want to develop games for a console with a large install base like the Wii, it's their loss really. There are plenty of indie studios that are willing to take up the slack. Development costs aren't an issue. Go research the astronomical development costs of AAA games nowadays. Wouldn't surprise me if 90% of the budget nowadays is because of graphics and physics, something you don't need for pokemon or fire emblem type games.
|
On January 24 2017 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 04:52 ZenithM wrote:On January 24 2017 03:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I like how these arguments always devolve into graphics snobs, like that's the only factor involved here. There is a lot more between a console and a mobile device then just graphical fidelity.
Skyrim is a wonderful example how things will probably go wrong right from the start, because it's a game just full of brown and grey colours, puzzles/interactions that are basically pixel hunts, UI clutter, all on a small mobile screen. Oh, and a company that's fairly notorious for not making playability improvements.
Nintendo's problem with consoles has never been graphical power, it's unworkable gimmicks that push developers away. GameCube used whatever backwards discs it had instead of CDs/DVDs, Wii had the remote gimmick, WiiU had the handheld gimmick. The talk of bridging mobile and console in a single device sounds nice in concept, but this is assuming that non-Nintendo developers are going to put in the time and effort to make games look and play well on both. And considering that devs still can't adapt between XBoxOne and PC without cutting corners or not even bothering...well, good luck on that. I like how you start with "graphics snobs", then all you talk about is graphics. Because yes, that's basically the only thing hindering the Switch this time. There is no gimmick. If you want to ignore that Rumble HD thingy they have in the controllers, sure, ignore it, it's just an extra feature like the good use of rumble packs on standard controllers. Again, that console is as simple as it gets, it's a tablet, with a clever controller attached to it (the controller is btw, just a standard controller split in half). There you go. Why can't you port your Andromeda, your CoD and your Witcher 3 on it? Because it's not powerful enough, it's a tablet. Why isn't it powerful enough? Because of, *tadam*, 3D hardware requirements, aka mostly graphics. non-Nintendo developers are going to put in the time and effort to make games look and play well on both. And considering that devs still can't adapt between XBoxOne and PC without cutting corners See, you get it too. Graphics. Very few of the porting issues between one platform and the other are not graphics related. I'm not saying people are wrong for wanting state-of-the-art visuals. What I'm saying is, there is a market for people who have been content with video game graphical fidelity for about 10 years now, and just want to get good full-fledged games on-the-go. Except not graphics at all? See Skyrim example. Not a graphics issue, not a hardware issue. Skyrim is old enough that the Switch should handle it just fine. Entirely a design issue, because Skyrim simply does not work on a mobile platform because of UI choices that Bethesda will probably not bother to fix anything. PC port to XBoxOne issues, not graphics at all either. See Skyrim again, PC port had shitty console menus. That's not graphics, that's design and effort. Most of the big porting disasters of 2016 had nothing to do with graphics either, just a complete lack of effort in actually programming for the different platform. I mean, I get what you're saying. You don't need good graphics power to have fun games. But graphical power is a maximum, not a minimum. Which really just leaves the Switch in the same place as the last couple Nintendo console platforms: neat gimmick utilized almost entirely by the in-house teams, and a limited 3rd party library that's shared by the competition. Or, I guess, a mobile game platform that trades a big price tag for some console game support.
Skyrim console menus rank pretty low among porting disasters. It's just a bit inconvenient. What happened with whichever Batman Arkham is way worse, and is definitely 3D performance related.
hybrid 3DS/mini-console market.
You're right that it doesn't exist, but it's something larger that the Switch will target ideally. Just straight-up portable gaming, something that already exists successfully with the 3DS. If I buy the Switch it will be as a successor to that. I see absolutely no disadvantage for the Switch compared to a 3DS (people are saying stuff like "I can't put a Switch in my pocket", well I doubt you could put a 3DSXL or a 2DS in pockets either, yet here we are, those 2 outsold the basic 3DS when they coexisted). As I see it, playing your Switch on TV is a nice bonus that stems from the decent resolution the Nvidia tablet provides (720p, 1080p). That's basically it.
Edit: Again, I don't see the gimmick. If you choose to see the Switch as a portable console with a dock, it's everything the 3DS (a commercial success) was, plus a bit more. And that "bit more" isn't gimmicky at all, it just amounts to projecting your screen on a TV, which any mobile device does in 2017. So to succeed really, the Switch only really needs to bring the games people love back, bring all the portable games people were already producing for the 3DS before, and maybe just a touch of cool AAA 3rd party releases, like Skyrim, or those sports game or maybe something even more impressive. It doesn't need to replicate the PS4...
And about Skyrim, I don't know why you declare it a failure before it's even out on Switch. It has very good chances to work just fine.
Wouldn't surprise me if 90% of the budget nowadays is because of graphics and physics, something you don't need for pokemon or fire emblem type games.
Maybe even more. It's just incredibly costly to produce all those high def 3D assets for every single little thing in your free-roaming open world blahblahblah. That's also why small indie studios now rely on procedural generation a lot more to give the illusion that they provide a vast and diverse world. It's not because procedural generation is intrinsically cool. It's just because it's wayyyyy cheaper.
|
On January 24 2017 05:13 LightSpectra wrote:
The Wii sold almost as many games as the PS3 and Xbox 360 combined. Is your criticism "I don't like Nintendo's library", in which case you're entitled to your opinion, or "the Switch will fail", in which case you've provided no proof?
Yes, and out of about 900 million game sales to date, about 300-400 million of those are just the top 15 sellers made by Nintendo (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_Wii_video_games), which is amazing for Nintendo, but for 3rd party developers is a really low device to software conversion rate. Basically showed that despite the Wii console's sales, the actual gaming base didn't change much.
For individual game releases from 3rd party developers, sales were about the same as they would be for the PS3 and Xbox, except a lot of those games were cross platform on everything but Wii (and PC), which is basically where the game library saw problems.
On January 24 2017 09:00 ZenithM wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2017 05:11 WolfintheSheep wrote:On January 24 2017 04:52 ZenithM wrote:On January 24 2017 03:49 WolfintheSheep wrote:
I like how these arguments always devolve into graphics snobs, like that's the only factor involved here. There is a lot more between a console and a mobile device then just graphical fidelity.
Skyrim is a wonderful example how things will probably go wrong right from the start, because it's a game just full of brown and grey colours, puzzles/interactions that are basically pixel hunts, UI clutter, all on a small mobile screen. Oh, and a company that's fairly notorious for not making playability improvements.
Nintendo's problem with consoles has never been graphical power, it's unworkable gimmicks that push developers away. GameCube used whatever backwards discs it had instead of CDs/DVDs, Wii had the remote gimmick, WiiU had the handheld gimmick. The talk of bridging mobile and console in a single device sounds nice in concept, but this is assuming that non-Nintendo developers are going to put in the time and effort to make games look and play well on both. And considering that devs still can't adapt between XBoxOne and PC without cutting corners or not even bothering...well, good luck on that. I like how you start with "graphics snobs", then all you talk about is graphics. Because yes, that's basically the only thing hindering the Switch this time. There is no gimmick. If you want to ignore that Rumble HD thingy they have in the controllers, sure, ignore it, it's just an extra feature like the good use of rumble packs on standard controllers. Again, that console is as simple as it gets, it's a tablet, with a clever controller attached to it (the controller is btw, just a standard controller split in half). There you go. Why can't you port your Andromeda, your CoD and your Witcher 3 on it? Because it's not powerful enough, it's a tablet. Why isn't it powerful enough? Because of, *tadam*, 3D hardware requirements, aka mostly graphics. non-Nintendo developers are going to put in the time and effort to make games look and play well on both. And considering that devs still can't adapt between XBoxOne and PC without cutting corners See, you get it too. Graphics. Very few of the porting issues between one platform and the other are not graphics related. I'm not saying people are wrong for wanting state-of-the-art visuals. What I'm saying is, there is a market for people who have been content with video game graphical fidelity for about 10 years now, and just want to get good full-fledged games on-the-go. Except not graphics at all? See Skyrim example. Not a graphics issue, not a hardware issue. Skyrim is old enough that the Switch should handle it just fine. Entirely a design issue, because Skyrim simply does not work on a mobile platform because of UI choices that Bethesda will probably not bother to fix anything. PC port to XBoxOne issues, not graphics at all either. See Skyrim again, PC port had shitty console menus. That's not graphics, that's design and effort. Most of the big porting disasters of 2016 had nothing to do with graphics either, just a complete lack of effort in actually programming for the different platform. I mean, I get what you're saying. You don't need good graphics power to have fun games. But graphical power is a maximum, not a minimum. Which really just leaves the Switch in the same place as the last couple Nintendo console platforms: neat gimmick utilized almost entirely by the in-house teams, and a limited 3rd party library that's shared by the competition. Or, I guess, a mobile game platform that trades a big price tag for some console game support. Skyrim console menus rank pretty low among porting disasters. It's just a bit inconvenient. What happened with whichever Batman Arkham is way worse, and is definitely 3D performance related.
Skyrim isn't an example because it was a failure and disaster. It's an example because it's exactly the kind of time and effort developers need to put in to make the mobile screen work, and exactly the kind of thing that developers don't do.
And Batman was terrible (along with Assassin's Creed, NMS...), but they ran worse on PCs that had more power than XB1s. Again, not a system limitation problem, entirely a developer work and effort problem.
You're right that it doesn't exist, but it's something larger that the Switch will target ideally. Just straight-up portable gaming, something that already exists successfully with the 3DS. If I buy the Switch it will be as a successor to that. I see absolutely no disadvantage for the Switch compared to a 3DS (people are saying stuff like "I can't put a Switch in my pocket", well I doubt you could put a 3DSXL or a 2DS in pockets either, yet here we are, those 2 outsold the basic 3DS when they coexisted). As I see it, playing your Switch on TV is a nice bonus that stems from the decent resolution the Nvidia tablet provides (720p, 1080p). That's basically it. Edit: Again, I don't see the gimmick. If you choose to see the Switch as a portable console with a dock, it's everything the 3DS (a commercial success) was, plus a bit more. And that "bit more" isn't gimmicky at all, it just amounts to projecting your screen on a TV, which any mobile device does in 2017. So to succeed really, the Switch only really needs to bring the games people love back, bring all the portable games people were already producing for the 3DS before, and maybe just a touch of cool AAA 3rd party releases, like Skyrim, or those sports game or maybe something even more impressive. It doesn't need to replicate the PS4... And about Skyrim, I don't know why you declare it a failure before it's even out on Switch. It has very good chances to work just fine. Show nested quote +
Wouldn't surprise me if 90% of the budget nowadays is because of graphics and physics, something you don't need for pokemon or fire emblem type games.
The gimmick is the $400 price tag for something that's not quite a console and basically a suped-up handheld. And with a basic knowledge of wires, you can already plug your 3DS and Vita into a TV and get a big screen. But it should still sell, because it's Nintendo, and Nintendo has enough beloved brands that people will always buy their stuff. The question is more if the Switch will draw back some of the console base that Nintendo has lost.
|
The answer is it probably won't, but Nintendo doesn't need that base for the Switch to be successful, and is probably not targeting the "traditional console audience" in the first place.
|
And Batman was terrible (along with Assassin's Creed, NMS...), but they ran worse on PCs that had more power than XB1s. Again, not a system limitation problem, entirely a developer work and effort problem.
Point is, the problems are still about game engine (mostly graphics), I wasn't even talking about hardware. PC, despite being way more powerful, gets shitty laggy ports mainly because of a bad port of the engine, as you rightfully say. For me it quite logically follows that the Switch, being way LESS powerful, will never get good ports of graphics-intensive games.
Light UI problems like the console-style inventory for Skyrim are non-issues as far as ports for Switch go. The graphical engine just has to run sufficiently well.
|
I think the Switch should be compared to an ipad rather than a console or PC. Given that there are already joypads out for the ipad, what kept nintendo from developing just a separate controller for the ipad and a gamecenter-like app that functions like your profile/gamestore? Games like Oceanhorn show that Zelda would be very possible on a device like this.
This way, Nintendo just does what it did before - confine its market to people who are willing to invest in a device that's only good for Nintendo games. That's not me, unfortunately.
|
On January 24 2017 14:49 aseq wrote:
I think the Switch should be compared to an ipad rather than a console or PC. Given that there are already joypads out for the ipad, what kept nintendo from developing just a separate controller for the ipad and a gamecenter-like app that functions like your profile/gamestore? Games like Oceanhorn show that Zelda would be very possible on a device like this.
This way, Nintendo just does what it did before - confine its market to people who are willing to invest in a device that's only good for Nintendo games. That's not me, unfortunately.
Because an iPad can't run BotW.
|
Mexico2170 Posts
And even if it could, people wouldn't pay for it, cause they can play clash royale for "free", and that's enough for people invested in that market.
|
My last console was the Nintendo gamecube. I had a ps2, a gameboy advance and PC.
These days, I game on my phone (only f2p, i played way too much candy crush, or gacha games) a lot, because no more time to invest console gaming (family and work...). i still play blizzard game on PC occasionaly, but my last AAA game bought on PC was skyrim, and i didn't even play more than 25 hours.
But today, i'll buy the switch without a doubt. I hated the wii, hated the wiiU. I don't really have an explanation as to why i'm so excited about the switch. Maybe it's been so long since i had a console ? I don't know. But i want zelda, i want mario kart. I'm not buying the switch because i need to play on the go or whatever. I just want nintendo games i used to play when i was young. I have PC and phone for other games.
I really really hated the wii. I wanted a real controller, real games that are not fucking developped to be played with a wiimote or anything. I hated that you could aim your bow with your wiimote. I hated that i had no friends or girlfriend and lived alone and i felt the wii was not meant for guys like me. I wanted classic nintendo gaming. I kinda feel they're back to that area with the switch.
I see a lot of ppl complaining about the price. I'm kinda wtf about that. People are ready to pay 900 dollars for a fucking phone. How 350 is high for a device that will still deliver hours and hours of solo AND group fun ?
Anyway, i don't want to seem like a fanboy or anything, i'm surely not, but i like where this switch is going and maybe it's a mistake, but i'll buy it.
|
On January 24 2017 16:42 [Phantom] wrote:
And even if it could, people wouldn't pay for it, cause they can play clash royale for "free", and that's enough for people invested in that market.
Mobile market =/= handheld market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
