Nintendo Switch (Currently Plagued) - Here we shit post about the new Nintendo console, The Switch

[The Pulverizer]

Shit's been going on since the Game Boys, man.

Your hands weren't supporting a damn tablet in Game Boy era. Besides, the Game Boy Advance wasn't a flat rectangle.

 

[Calandrino]

Name one.

With custom jobs, your only limit is your imagination. Who wouldn't whip out this beaut on a first date, once the conversation slows down?

Your hands weren't supporting a damn tablet in Game Boy era. Besides, the Game Boy Advance wasn't a flat rectangle.

The SP was. Switch is the most ergonomic handheld I've ever laid hands on, but 1) I've never touched a steam deck 2) it's HUEG so it's got an unfair advantage over anything that fits in a pocket.

 

[The Pulverizer]

Switch is the most ergonomic handheld I've ever laid hands on

I don't know what kind of meds you were on. All I know is that you should start taking them again. This whole debate is pointless anyway because the joycons are pointless. I don't think anyone in their right mind would play the Switch without the pro controller.


Now this is a true classic. That's what I would say if Microsoft didn't come up with this design 3 years before the Switch. I can't really blame them for copying the Xbone controller because it works pretty damn well with 3D platformers.

Microsoft invested over $100 million into refining the controller design for the Xbox One.

It's about the only thing Microsoft got right with the Xbox One.

 

[NerdShamer]

Your hands weren't supporting a damn tablet in Game Boy era. Besides, the Game Boy Advance wasn't a flat rectangle.

Game Boy SP was kind of too narrow for it to be ergonomic. The DS line essentially was an flat rectangle that'll eventually cut off circulation to parts of hands. The 3DS was almost the same type of deal, with the 2DS being the most retarded thing that they've came up with.

But the only exception would probably be the Game Boy Advance, but that was mainly an victim of another issue that we take for granted, nowadays

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

I can't see Nintendo adding a new gimmick. There's no point. The Switch design has shown itself to be solid enough on its own, and Nintendo has already been stung by bad unnecessary gimmicks before. If its not broke, why try to fix it? Which, of course this being Nintendo, trying to fix what isn't broken is exactly what they will try to do because doing the least logical thing in any given situation seems to be their MO.

There is a point, because Nintendo wants to give customers a “fresh and surprising experience”. That's quite literally the only point there needs to be, but I think it's smart if it's something subdued. Something intrusive and bad and limiting and expensive like Wii U's gimmick was a bad idea. An optional gimmick like 3D was a good idea. That's it.

So it's not about fixing something not broken, it's about being unique and different, fun. A mere boost to specs alone is boring and only puts them in closer competition to Sony/MS, which isn't something they seem to want to do (if they did they'd just release a strong traditional home console, and I think they could pull it off if they wanted).

Many key third party games have simply skipped the Switch entirely (Red Dead Redemption 2, Elden Ring, Ace Combat, Tekken, Soul Calibur, Yakuza, Armored Core, Baldur's Gate, etc.) simply because there was no way it could handle them.

If Switch can handle Mortal Kombat, it can handle Tekken, and as was pointed out before, Tekken 6 was on PSP & PS3, if developers want to they can port these games to Switch with few caveats, it just takes more resources to do so properly or else you end up with a bad port like the aforementioned MK rather than a good one like Witcher 3 (which was praised as a good port, not sure what you're talking about, but I've not played it myself).

Baldur's Gate doesn't even push hardware limits at all by the looks of it, so I'm surprised it's not on Switch. Yakuza was on the damn Wii U in Japan, who knows why it's not on Switch, maybe it sold like shit. There's more than just the power of the Switch to consider, I'm sure.

As of now, if you want a full gaming experience, the Switch can't be your only gaming device

That's always been true throughout every generation since at least gen 3, and applies to the others system manufacturers too. PS5 can't be your only gaming device any better than Switch can unless you yearn for woke AAA flops like Forespoken and FF16 that badly, but then you're missing out on a far superior catalogue of Nintendo exclusives.

One of the Switch's biggest advantage has been its low price. All this talk about better hardware reminds me of the Steam Deck's initial pricetag.

That's why they'll keep Switch 1 around as the budget friendlier option, as they been apt to do the past. It'd be especially wise to do a Switch Mini, especially if they can make it cheaper.

Switch is the most ergonomic handheld I've ever laid hands

It must be the only one, then. It's the least ergonomically designed handheld I've ever used, causing my fingers to cramp and go numb in surprisingly painful ways. Steam Deck feels incredible but weighs a million pounds, I only hope they can shave some of that weight off with SD2.

I recall PSP and GBA being very comfortable, and Vita isn't too shabby either, especially compared to 3DS.

 

[Celebrate Nite]

I don't think anyone in their right mind would play the Switch without the pro controller.

Regarding fighters, i would NOT play them without a pro-controller.

Tried playing Special Champion Edition on the Nintendo Plus Subscription Genesis collection on my switch lite, and the fucking D-Pad is WAY too small and close to the analog stick to get any kind of motion going, including charge moves. Then again i don't have baby hands so that's probably why. I can only imagine how much worse it is on the joycons.

I dealt with that shit on the 3DS with Super Street Fighter 4 because at least you could use the touch screen for instant special moves, but I can't deal with this.

 

[Baraka Obama]

Regarding fighters, i would NOT play them without a pro-controller.

Tried playing Special Champion Edition on the Nintendo Plus Subscription Genesis collection on my switch lite, and the fucking D-Pad is WAY too small and close to the analog stick to get any kind of motion going, including charge moves. Then again i don't have baby hands so that's probably why. I can only imagine how much worse it is on the joycons.

I dealt with that shit on the 3DS with Super Street Fighter 4 because at least you could use the touch screen for instant special moves, but I can't deal with this.

I'm not into fighters but I have done this for a couple platformers:

Genuinely the best dpad available in handheld mode and its more comfortable than it looks (it looks retarded).

There are a few different HORI options with decent dpads but not quite the crispness of a proper Nintendo dpad.

 

[Gravemind]

I don't know what kind of meds you were on. All I know is that you should start taking them again. This whole debate is pointless anyway because the joycons are pointless. I don't think anyone in their right mind would play the Switch without the pro controller.

View attachment 5613882
Now this is a true classic. That's what I would say if Microsoft didn't come up with this design 3 years before the Switch. I can't really blame them for copying the Xbone controller because it works pretty damn well with 3D platformers.

It's about the only thing Microsoft got right with the Xbox One.

They hated him because he spoke the truth.

 

[Neurotypical Mantis]

i got my lite customized with buttons, shell, screen protector, the works. only thing is the kind people customizing it accidentally formatted it because they thought it was one they were going to sell as-is. so i lost all my data and hundreds of hours of gameplay. they were so nice that they actually refunded me 100% and now that new games have come out it doesn't matter as much to me. they did recommend you backup all your shit just in case and i didn't, so partially on me at least my switch looks rad

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

See this is where you're very wrong. Not releasing these games on Switch was a business decision, not a technical one. Know how I know that? Ace Combat works just fine on a PS2, so does Armored Core and Tekken and Soul Calibur. Tekken 6 famously came out on both PSP and PS3.

This is a shit argument. So because these series started on weaker Hardware, like say PS1, means that these games will run on Switch now? Ace Combat 5 was built from the ground up to run on PS2. Ace Combat 7 was built to run in HD, 60 FPS on PC, Xbox Series, and PS5, with all kind of weather effects and shit that wouldn't have been possible on PS2 hardware. No way in hell the newest Armored Core could run on Switch without looking and running significantly worse. It is very much about technical limitations. It would take far more effort for them to get these games running on Switch, just to get an overtly inferior product. So most developers just don't bother. Yes, you could probably gimp Final Fantasy XV to run on Switch, but it would look and run like ass, at like minimal settings.

There's no reason if they wanted to they couldn't have aimed for Switch specs in the first place to make a cross platform release, and you see many developers going that route for example with the recent Star Ocean 2 remake -- it's designed for Switch first and ported from there not the other way around.

Most of these companies aren't going to gimp their own games and make them look like shit just to get them to run on Switch. That would be fucking stupid. They didn't do that for the Wii; they just produced Wii specific games that looked like Gamecube games, which was easy to do because the Wii wasn't an HD system, so developing for it didn't demand much in the way of resources. The Switch requires far more resources to develop for, still can't match its competitors, leaving it in a weird middle zone.

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

So it's not about fixing something not broken, it's about being unique and different, fun.

The Switch is already unique and different. Its the only hybrid on the market, and its unlikely to face any similar competition from either Sony or Microsoft. That's what I mean "If its not broke, don't try to fix it." Nintendo has already carved out a niche with the Switch; they just need to refine it.

Tekken 6 was on PSP & PS3,

Tekken 6 was an impressive one off, but the PSP version looked nothing like the other versions. It played the same, but it looked completely different. They basically built an inferior version from the ground up that had the same gameplay. And this was back during the early days of the HD era, and the PSP was a weaker, non-HD console, meaning cheaper development.

As I said before, they did the exact same thing with the Wii versions of games, and a few cross-generational titles, like Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter. If you look at the SD versions of those games for the older consoles or Wii, they are basically completely different games, in many cases made by completely different development teams. The Switch versions of games are straight ports of the versions seen on PC and other consoles. Companies don't have the resources to split creating a Switch specific version. The Switch is still an HD console, which means time consuming, expensive HD development. You're not going to get a Switch specific version of a game like Tekken did for the PSP or Ghost Recon did for the PS2 versions of Advanced Warfighter, or Call of Duty did for their Wii "ports".

Witcher 3 (which was praised as a good port, not sure what you're talking about, but I've not played it myself).

The Witcher 3 was impressive in the fact that they got the game running on the Switch at all, but only by making concessions on graphical settings. Its still impressive what they were able to accomplish, however, to get the experience similar to what you can experience on other consoles, but it also speaks to amount of extra work that has to go in to making a Switch port. Keep in mind, as well, that the Witcher 3 came out in 2015, and was well optimized even on the PC version. Its not as graphically intensive as a lot of modern day games are.

Yakuza was on the damn Wii U in Japan, who knows why it's not on Switch, maybe it sold like shit.

To be fair, the Wii U was a lot closer to its own contemporaries in technical specs than the Switch is to its contemporaries.

That's always been true throughout every generation since at least gen 3, and applies to the others system manufacturers too.

But it doesn't have to be, is my point. And it shouldn't be.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

The Switch is already unique and different.

Obviously I meant Switch 2 compared to Switch 1, not compared to the competition.

Nintendo has already carved out a niche with the Switch; they just need to refine it.

But that's not their opinion, as I cited. They're not aiming for a boring iterative approach like PS4 to PS5, they want to be innovative. That's the exact opposite of innovative, quite literally the antithesis thereof.

I'm not sure why you're opposed to them trying a simple gimmick to see what sticks. There's the risk of them doing it poorly, but I think they learned a harsh lesson in moderation from Wii U.

Tekken 6 was an impressive one off, but the PSP version looked nothing like the other versions.

...So what? It looked good for what it was and played well. That's all anybody expects, otherwise DS, 3DS, and Switch wouldn't have received all the ports they did.

Yeah, Sonic Racing on DS didn't look as good as the PS3 version. I'm quite sure everybody was super surprised a system which was basically PS1-tier didn't match the PS3 version. But really, all anybody wanted was a competent version in the context of the DS, and it delivered.

They basically built an inferior version from the ground up that had the same gameplay.

I'm too lazy to look into it but Wikipedia states it was a port, specifically.

Its still impressive what they were able to accomplish, however, to get the experience similar to what you can experience on other consoles, but it also speaks to amount of extra work that has to go in to making a Switch port.

It certainly takes more resources to account for a Switch version sometimes, that's why they don't always happen. Nobody necessarily contested that, I don't think.

To be fair, the Wii U was a lot closer to its own contemporaries in technical specs than the Switch is to its contemporaries.

Not that it matters in Yakuza's case. Wii U is weaker than Switch and got still Yakuza games. Even the latest Yakuza which hasn't yet released is still for PS4 (that gen really won't ever die, will it?), they could even put it on Wii U if they wanted to for some crazy reason. But it's not coming to Switch, none are, and it's just a business decision, I'd guess it's a demographics issues if I had to, which probably applies to other games too.

Like I said, it probably sold like shit on Wii U and they wrote off Nintendo for the series.

But it doesn't have to be, is my point. And it shouldn't be.

I suppose, but it always will be, unless Sony decides to put its games on Nintendo platforms and Microsoft does it far more often (or, God forbid, Nintendo goes 3rd party).

 

[Betonhaus]

It certainly takes more resources to account for a Switch version sometimes, that's why they don't always happen. Nobody necessarily contested that, I don't think.

It works as a form of gatekeeping. If you are unable or unwilling to put the work into making you grame work on the Switch, you're probably a shitty developer.

Is there many games on Switch that have story writing from Sweet Baby Inc?

 

[The Pulverizer]

Tried playing Special Champion Edition on the Nintendo Plus Subscription Genesis collection on my switch lite, and the fucking D-Pad is WAY too small and close to the analog stick to get any kind of motion going, including charge moves. Then again i don't have baby hands so that's probably why. I can only imagine how much worse it is on the joycons.

As much as I hate Snoy, I like that they place the D-pad above the left analog stick.

That's why they'll keep Switch 1 around as the budget friendlier option, as they been apt to do the past. It'd be especially wise to do a Switch Mini, especially if they can make it cheaper.

I think the Switch will be kept around as the handheld option to their next upcoming home console. I don't know why all you Nintendo nerds think hybrids are the future of gaming.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

It works as a form of gatekeeping. If you are unable or unwilling to put the work into making you grame work on the Switch, you're probably a shitty developer.

Is there many games on Switch that have story writing from Sweet Baby Inc?

Good point. I'm glad Baldur's Gate isn't on it lol

I think the Switch will be kept around as the handheld option to their next upcoming home console. I don't know why all you Nintendo nerds think hybrids are the future of gaming.

You're crazy, I like you.

 

[The Pulverizer]

You're crazy, I like you.

I am willing to bet money that the next console won't be the Switch 2.

 

[Celebrate Nite]

As much as I hate Snoy, I like that they place the D-pad above the left analog stick.

Not only that, but their D-Pads feel really nice compared to everything else

It's why to this day I still use the DualShock 2 for gaming

 

[The Demon Pimp of Razgriz]

But that's not their opinion, as I cited. They're not aiming for a boring iterative approach like PS4 to PS5, they want to be innovative. That's the exact opposite of innovative, quite literally the antithesis thereof.

That was Nintendo's mentality when Iwata was in charge, sure. The whole "Blue ocean" strategy and all that. But that strategy completely backfired on them with the Wii U. The Switch was the last product that Iwata really had any hand in. Now, we've got a new CEO in charge, or to co-opt a Bible quote stating a similar concept, "a Pharaoh who knew not Joseph". A new head honcho means a new path for the company. He's going to be going with his own ideas about how the company should be run. What that looks like, per se, we don't know yet, because the guy hasn't been in charge that long. But just like how Iwata's tenure looked nothing like Hiroshi Yamauchi's tenure as Nintendo's President, this new President will have to carve out his own path forward for the company. It would be naïve to assume it looks just like Iwata's path.

I'm not sure why you're opposed to them trying a simple gimmick to see what sticks. There's the risk of them doing it poorly, but I think they learned a harsh lesson in moderation from Wii U.

I'm not against it, necessarily, but we've all been down this road. We know where it leads. And so does Nintendo. It would make perfect sense for them to play it safe in that regard, and it arguably would be the smartest thing for them to do. There is no reason for them to try to reinvent the wheel, and I'm not even sure how they could reinvent the wheel in a way that wouldn't be disruptive. Its just not necessary.

...So what? It looked good for what it was and played well. That's all anybody expects, otherwise DS, 3DS, and Switch wouldn't have received all the ports they did.

It looked good, for a PSP game. But that was the expectation; a PSP game. Nobody was expecting a PSP game, a DS game, or a 3DS game to perform or look like their console counterparts. But a Switch game has to actually look comparable to the other consoles and PC. Its an HD console, and people are expecting a crisp HD experience. Its expectations are different compared to the handhelds of old, because its a hybrid, not a pure handheld. Its supposed to be able to function as a reasonably capable home console, as well as among the most powerful handhelds we've yet seen. So the expectations for its capabilities are higher than those for its handheld predecessors.

I suppose, but it always will be, unless Sony decides to put its games on Nintendo platforms and Microsoft does it far more often (or, God forbid, Nintendo goes 3rd party).

I could definitely see Microsoft putting their games on Switch. I mean, they've already started doing that. As they downplay the Xbox console experience more, they'll probably push for that at some point. I think they've already approached Nintendo about Game Pass integration, which Nintendo shot it down. It will be interesting to see where that goes in the future.

Not that it matters in Yakuza's case. Wii U is weaker than Switch and got still Yakuza games. Even the latest Yakuza which hasn't yet released is still for PS4 (that gen really won't ever die, will it?), they could even put it on Wii U if they wanted to for some crazy reason. But it's not coming to Switch, none are, and it's just a business decision, I'd guess it's a demographics issues if I had to, which probably applies to other games too.

Like I said, it probably sold like shit on Wii U and they wrote off Nintendo for the series.

I have no doubt that business decisions also play a role here. Maybe more in the case of Yakuza, it was mainly about the personal taste from the series original director/producer, who is no longer with the company. But Sega themselves don't have a problem with putting games on the Switch. Which is why I'm leaning more towards technical limitations here. Same with other companies like Square Enix and Bandai Namco, who both put plenty of games on the Switch, though not necessarily their biggest and best titles.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

That was Nintendo's mentality when Iwata was in charge, sure.

It was Furukawa who said that, I think, I believe the article I cited was relatively recent.

I'm not against it, necessarily, but we've all been down this road. We know where it leads

As I said, they surely learned their lesson, they proved it with Switch.

Nobody was expecting a PSP game, a DS game, or a 3DS game to perform or look like their console counterparts. But a Switch game has to actually look comparable to the other consoles and PC. Its an HD console, and people are expecting a crisp HD experience.

It's not an HD system, it's an HD capable system, and only when docked, which not even every model is capable of. PS3 was HD capable too, but people didn't expect "a crisp HD experience" just because of that.

And in Switch's case it's a portable game console, which people have naturally lowered expectations for in terms of performance. I'm sure Switch 2 will be stronger and I hope it had a 1080p screen, but we'll see.

Its expectations are different compared to the handhelds of old, because its a hybrid, not a pure handheld.

Connecting to a TV shouldn't magically raise people's expectations. I'm not saying it doesn't, but it shouldn't.

I could definitely see Microsoft putting their games on Switch. I mean, they've already started doing that. As they downplay the Xbox console experience more, they'll probably push for that at some point. I think they've already approached Nintendo about Game Pass integration, which Nintendo shot it down. It will be interesting to see where that goes in the future.

I agree. I got it happens, I'd love to see the husk of Rare do something for Nintendo again just for the sheer nostalgic value.

GanePass is an interesting thing on Nintendo from a business perspective, I like doing armchair analyses, but this is one I can't tell whether or not its in Nintendo's favor from their own perspective to have it or not, but I lean towards it not.

But Sega themselves don't have a problem with putting games on the Switch. Which is why I'm leaning more towards technical limitations here.

Almost anything on PS4 can be put on Switch with enough resources thrown at it, we have enough examples of that, it's just a question of if it is worth it.

Switch 2 just needs to be strong enough to warrant wider support by making porting easier to make and to improve parity with other consoles. It doesn't need to be a portable PS5 or anything.

Same with other companies like Square Enix and Bandai Namco, who both put plenty of games on the Switch, though not necessarily their biggest and best titles.

Business decisions again. It's not like Dark Souls 2 is too hard for Switch to run, they probably just didn't see a good enough return in investment of Dark Souls Remaster to warrant further ports of that caliber.

Same for Square, they didn't even bother porting Kingdom Hearts over properly. Technical limitations aren't holding many games back, these companies just don't want to invest because of other reasons, namely resources and demographics.

 

[Baraka Obama]

Not only that, but their D-Pads feel really nice compared to everything else

It's why to this day I still use the DualShock 2 for gaming

The PS2 dpad is probably the worst dpad they've ever made, maybe excluding the PSP-1000 one. The pressure sensitive buttons give everything a lack of sensitivity, you need something like a 50% firmness press to get a basic button input. They fixed this with DualShock 3 thankfully.

But really what you want is a DualShock 1, preferably a last-rev PSone controller. The dpad there is excellent. I'm using one right now on PS2 through two brook converters because the game I'm playing only works with DualShock 2 natively; I really hate using DS2 for just about everything except Metal Gear.