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

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
Screenshot_2024-01-11_23-45-51.png

neendendough.png
 
Baraka Obama said:
PS Vita and PS TV.
Click to expand...
Wasn't the PS Tv just some kind of streaming device? It was so irrelevant I barely remember it. I do remember that it was released long after the Vita and was basically a separate product, which isn't quite what I was suggesting.

IDanceonTrannyGraves said:
Straight up portables are dying because of phones. That's why Nintendo made the Switch in the first place.
Click to expand...
If you agree with our friend Ness, the Switch itself is just a portable device with a tv connection. If you ascribe to that thought, then portables aren't dying because the Switch is living proof that they still have an audience, making this statement oxymoronic.

However, even if you don't consider the Switch a traditional handheld console, the success of the Steam Deck, and other devices like it such as the Asus ROG Ally, prove that there is in fact still a living, viable handheld market. It just has to compete at a premium level of power, and leave the low end of gaming to phones.

SSj_Ness said:
Your claim was Switch can play "the exact same games" as PS5, "just with lower graphical settings" and "worse FPS". Guess exactly was 3DS/Vita could do? Exactly that, play "direct ports" from contemporary home consoles, but you said they "couldn't be expected" to, incorrectly insisting they "had to have their own completely separate libraries made for them alone".
Click to expand...
Except those examples you pointed out weren't 1-to-1 ports; they were built on weaker engines by different teams, and one of those games was criticized because it lacked content compared to the console game. As I've said multiple times now, they were built to play very close their console relatives, but they were still noticeably different from them. They weren't the exact games, just built to play as closely as possible to them.

SSj_Ness said:
On this point I'll press no further as it's self-evident that I'm objectively correct.
Click to expand...
Except you aren't correct, you just misunderstood my entire argument.

SSj_Ness said:
Except that's different, NES and even SNES weren't the GBA's contemporary home console counterparts.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of that. My initial statement, had you bothered to read it, was specifically pointing out that late ports weren't some massive achievement, and its no big deal for a handheld to play ports of years old games that predate it.

SSj_Ness said:
In contrast, DS & 3DS were technically capable of this, and PS handhelds all the moreso.
Click to expand...
You pointed out, what, two or three games to somehow make the argument that the DS and 3DS were technically capable of running games from the same console, overlooking how they had to be rebuilt for it specifically? Or how the number of games that actually were ported in such a fashion were exceedingly small in number?

SSj_Ness said:
There's a lot of reasons for that, none of which are what you originally claimed.
Click to expand...
You don't think technical limitations played a role in those handhelds having their own separate libraries? Because that would line up with my claims.

SSj_Ness said:
I don't have to, the existence of these games proves I'm right.
Click to expand...
About what exactly? That there were two or three times where companies went out of their way to build a 3DS specific version of a game that played close to the original? What exactly is your argument at this point? You know what, don't answer that. We'll just need to agree to disagree at this point.

SSj_Ness said:
not even Steam Deck can run every current game,
Click to expand...
That's mainly due to the fact that the Steam Deck is run on a version of Linux, which some games don't have support for and can't be made to support via Proton, not due to technical limitations regarding the hardware itself.

SSj_Ness said:
It needs fewer, less harsh concessions generally speaking, but they're not "minor", lots of people bitch about it.
Click to expand...
I consider a loss of some framerate and the lowering of some graphical settings to be minor in the grand scheme of things. Yes, people still complain, but these concessions are still minor compared to the "concessions" and outright impossibility of ports on older handhelds.

SSj_Ness said:
In Vita's case, they even had crossplay in many cases, a much promoted feature
Click to expand...
Cross-play was rare, and it was mainly found in smaller games, usually PSN titles, like Backgammon Blitz, Alien Breed, Duke Nukem 3D: Megaton Edition and Bombing Busters, that were basically the DSiware of the Playstation games. Outside of PSN games, Cross-play between the Vita and either the PS3 or PS4 was limited, with only a few standouts; it was apparently possible between the Vita and PS3 versions of Dragon's Crown and Everybody's Golf (two smaller titles) as well as Street Fighter x Tekken, apparently it was possible between the PS3/PS4/VITA versions of Dynasty Warriors 8 (though to what extent I don't know) Terraria Warriors Orochi 3 Ultimate, and Helldivers, and it was possible between the PS4 and Vita versions of God Eater 2 and Skullgirls 2nd Encore. Note the games; no major AAA titles. Smaller games, mainly indie titles, that wouldn't have required much effort for even the Vita to render, with some AA titles like Dynasty Warriors and God Eater 2 thrown in For good measure. All are games that could easily be downgraded or were already visually unimpressive enough that even the Vita could run them with no concessions. Cross-play was stronger among the PS3 and Vita games, though that is down to the PS3 being a previous generation system, and the Vita being designed with cross-play in mind.

SSj_Ness said:
They were quite common on PSP & Vita, less common on DS & 3DS, not only due to less power but other factors such as inferior controls compared to Sony's and the fact Sony really wanted there to be an ecosystem between their handhelds & home consoles, whereas Nintendo did not try to push that angle much, especially with DS.
Click to expand...
I will say that the Vita was far more capable of doing something closer to a straight port and got a decent handful since Sony basically wanted it to be a premium handheld (too bad it failed), but the PSP was more limited. But the DS and 3DS being "less common" is an understatement; they were rarely attempted, even by Nintendo themselves.

SSj_Ness said:
I think you're vastly overestimating the competency of Sony, especially modern Sony which is essentially looking like 90's Sega-lite at this point.
Click to expand...
I want to at least give them the benefit of a doubt. Maybe that's two much, but sanity may prevail.
 
SSj_Ness said:
Doesn't this imply that Switch 2 won't be backwards compatible? That's not good if true.
Click to expand...
I think it just implies that Nintendo has limited shelf space and needs to make room. These all look like games that have run their course, like everyone who cares about them already has them (Mario Odyssey) or they want to focus on the newest release (Pikmin 3, WarioWare Get It Together). Engage is surprising though.
 

Finished the Switch port of Bioshock 2 last week. A pity the audio bugs, or the subtitles sometimes not displaying properly, present in the PC version weren't fixed by Virtuous.
Bioshock Infinite as a game itself is rather painful to play by comparison of the two previous titles, even if the Switch port has been alright so far.

Two Dollars said:
Engage is surprising though.
Click to expand...
Engage was one of my favourite games last year and a much better Fire Emblem than Three Houses, that I've played afterwards, which was ultimately more an ADV (visual novel)/sim game than a tactical strategy. My personal guess it was just too Japanese (and not "mature-looking" enough too) for the usual individuals in the West who fooled themselves FE wasn't Japanese.
 
IDanceonTrannyGraves said:
I don't think Nintendo would be stupid enough to forego BC given how popular the Switch is.
Click to expand...
Nintendo Switch is their best selling console besides the DS, and is only thing they've released since the Gamecube in 2001 that didn't have some form of backward compatibility.

Hopefully they don't take away the wrong lesson from this.
 
BananaSplit² said:
My personal guess it was just too Japanese (and not "mature-looking" enough too) for the usual individuals in the West who fooled themselves FE wasn't Japanese.
Click to expand...
Fire Emblem is one of Nintendo’s most weeb-y franchises. Who would think it’s not Japanese?
Never Scored said:
Nintendo Switch is their best selling console besides the DS, and is only thing they've released since the Gamecube in 2001 that didn't have some form of backward compatibility.

Hopefully they don't take away the wrong lesson from this.
Click to expand...
I don’t think forgoing the ability to play Wii U discs on their cartridge-based hybrid was a difficult decision. I’ll just repeat myself from a while back:
Two Dollars said:
What’s with the recent idea that Nintendo doesn’t do backwards compatibility? Nearly every system they’ve made, at least for the first SKU, has been natively backwards compatible with the previous generation due to the hardware having a similar architecture, even with the DS where they went out of their way to add a GBA cartridge slot. The only systems that weren’t backwards compatible are the Switch itself (for many reasons, the biggest being the change from full-sized optical discs to cartridges), Gamecube (change from cartridges to discs), SNES (time constraints), Virtual Boy (does that count?), and N64 (probably the only time where they simply didn’t feel like it). Given the Switch’s massive success, the Switch 2’s (presumably) hybrid nature that will keep the same style of cartridges, and the fact that it’ll probably still be another Nvidia SoC… I’ll say it again, I’d be shocked if it weren’t backwards compatible.
Click to expand...
 
IDanceonTrannyGraves said:
I don't think Nintendo would be stupid enough to forego BC given how popular the Switch is.
Click to expand...
Backwards compatibility is pretty much a guarantee on the successor, but I do hope Nintendo doesn't plan on bringing back region-lock as its absence has been one main reason I heavily invested on the Nintendo ecosystem for the first time: accessing to games not available in my region (mainline EDF games, Legend of Heroes, Ys and VNs for example) and avoiding localized products.

Nevermind the low value of the yen giving me the possibility to buy a first-party title at nearly half the euro price and it still remains multi-language, which is cool for anyone in my circle who wants to play or try out.

Two Dollars said:
Fire Emblem is one of Nintendo’s most weeb-y franchises. Who would think it’s not Japanese?
Click to expand...
You tell me. Then again, Nintendo of America has a long record of squelching the Japanese games from their parent company like an overzealous puritan and attempting to make the brand some kind of american cartoon company (alike to Disney).
 
BananaSplit² said:
Backwards compatibility is pretty much a guarantee on the successor, but I do hope Nintendo doesn't plan on bringing back region-lock as its absence has been one main reason I heavily invested on the Nintendo ecosystem for the first time: accessing to games not available in my region (mainline EDF games, Legend of Heroes, Ys and VNs for example) and avoiding localized products.
Click to expand...

It makes absolutely no sense to region lock consoles nowadays, given how many importers there are buying titles for Nintendo systems.

That said, I never thought they'd do it for the 3DS. The outcry would be massive if they did it though.

I mean, over half my library is easily imports and I know people that have over 1000 (yes really) titles because they buy all the imports as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom