Nintendo Switch Topic; #byebyenx

[TomGuycott]

Not everybody wants to invest in a PC as well as consoles. For example, I have a very basic laptop. It can run certain things that I like, but something like Skyrim would probably run super slow.

I personally don't find myself computer literate enough to fix a compatibility problem if I was to run into one installing something on a computer. I know that these days it's a lot easier than it used to be, but having a version you can just pop into a console and play feels better to me.

[Koh]

That's fine, and there will be people like that. I'm just talking about the majority here; the PC gamer market is vast and pretty competent; they know what they're doing. If most people have a choice of getting just the game for their PC they already have for $40, versus buying the Switch for...I dunno $300 + $50 for the game itself, what do you think they're going to choose?

Basically, if all the 3rd party support is just multiplatform stuff, that won't incentivize people to GET the console. If you're already planning to get the console for Nintendo's 1st party stuff, the multiplatform stuff is just a bonus for you.

[Kriven]

In my experience, multiplatform games have the absolute worst PC ports. A game designed for PCs and exclusive to PCs, I can usually get that to run without an issue (provided it isn't designed for DOS or something) on even weak machines. Anything which is also out for XBOX or PlayStation tends to be just absolutely riddled with bullshit and never runs reliably.

[Koh]

I've had the opposite experience myself. Console versions gimped, and or not just getting some content because they don't have free updates and such. It depends on the game. Sometimes they're the exact same, but largely the PC version is superior. In the old days of PS1/Saturn/PC multiplatforms, it was a 50/50 tossup, lol.

[TomGuycott]

What games were really multiplatform on console and PC in the PS1 era? If anything, back then the PC versions would have been superior rather than a 50/50 toss up.

Some multiplatform games are also poorly optimized for PC, like that Batman game recently (I think it was Arkham Knight). It ran decently on consoles, but the PC ports were atrocious.

What it boils down to is games that were designed with PC in mind are likely to run best on PC or get the most support on the PC versions, or have access to modding communities and the like. Speaking from an entirely personal standpoint, I like the console versions better.

Also related to Skyrim, I have yet to play it, but I have a lot of console options, not only it's recent rerelease, but now on a console I plan to get in the future that may have unforeseen features. For me this is a potentially good thing.

[Koh]

Games like Doom, Tomb Raider and Puyo Puyo and so on. PC version was the best for the former, and for the latter PC ports...while the graphics got higher resolution upgrades, these versions didn't have as much content as other console versions. 50/50 tossup in that era.

The Batman game was indeed poorly ported; it actually feels like PC was the afterthought and the consoles were the main target. If they're intending for PCs right out of the gate with other consoles too, then there's no doubt it'd be fine first for all of them. Modding does indeed extend the life of things, which is mostly only possible on the PC versions half the time. For my preference, I prefer the version that has the most content and will keep me busy longer, which more often than not is the PC version.

Yeah it'll be able to reach out to those kinds of people. I think the Skyrim craze is all but over at this point though; it'll have about the same effect as any other HD remaster out there, since most people have already played it at this point.

This is why I'm emphasizing that what will really help the console sell, third party wise, is if there will be any exclusives only available on the Switch. The PS3, for example, has a game that's highly acclaimed, but is only available on that console: 3D Dot Game Heroes. Definitely not 1st party, but also an exclusive. I still want to play that game, buuuuut that and about 2 or 3 other games are all I want on the PS3, so I skipped out, lol.

[Zero Kirby]

I'm in the "love the concept but want to see the games" wagon.

The Wii U was definitely a disappointment. (So much so that I rarely even bother to plug it back into my TV after each Smash Night.)

If Nintendo can actually provide the games, then I'm on board. But they promised a lot of developer support during the lead-in to the Wii U as well, and see how that turned out. I'm afraid the same thing is probably gonna happen to the Switch since I highly doubt its power is very competitive with the PS4 and Xbone. Something had to be sacrificed to get this "hybrid" gimmick to even be feasible. And power matters a lot to a number of developers.

[Koopaul]

Do you think I'm really so petty that lack of a single franchise is all it takes for me to diss an entire console library?

You'd be surprised by how many people bitched that there wasn't a Metroid game. And declared the Wii U a bad system over that a lone.

I merely was not impressed with as many games as you were, that is all.

Well your original post sounded like you were stating a fact that Nintendo did not release good games on the Wii U. You made it sound like it failed mostly because of that. When in reality most people who own a Wii U and stuck with it, were actually satisfied with what Nintendo released.

I'm geniuniely curious as to what Nintendo games you wanted to see on that system that weren't there. (not thrid party) You said there were only four good games, what were those? I'd like more of an elaboration on why you weren't impressed with the games. And that goes for anyone else who was dissatisfied with what Nintendo made for that system. If you don't elaborate I'm going to make assumptions about you that may not be true.

[psychospacecow]

I've found the compatibility issue bit to apply to consoles as well nowadays. You can't go through downtown Boston in Fallout 4 without 15 frames on PS4.

[Jermungandr]

I'm geniuniely curious as to what Nintendo games you wanted to see on that system that weren't there.

That's not really how I think about game consoles. I don't say "okay I want this console to have this game, this game, and this game, and if I won't be satisfied unless I get at least most of them". Rather I prefer to look at the library of games we DID get and quantify them based on how many of those games I found satisfying. The more games I can claim I enjoyed, the better the console is worth. That is really all there is to it.

In the case of the Wii U, there simply wasn't very many titles, period. Let alone ones I found to be satisfying or I think will have a lot of future replay value, which is a factor I personally feel is important in quantifying a game. That makes it feel less valuable than past consoles such as the SNES, which had a huge collection of great games; which is not great when you're paying significantly more for the console itself.

[Koopaul]

Third parties was the main problem then because Nintendo released and published just about as many games as they normally would for a console.

When I buy a console I usually only get around 15 games for it... and the Wii U had that.

I don't know, it kinda bugs me when someone claims that Nintendo didn't make any good games for the Wii U. I feel like people didn't even give half those games I listed a chance. It undermines the good work Nintendo actually did.

I mean. How many of those games I listed did you actually play? I was always under the impression that people bought Nintendo consoles mostly for the Nintendo games. That's the biggest appeal of a Nintendo console, to play Mario and Donkey Kong and Zelda and Smash, etc. If that's not good enough, then did you like any Nintendo console after the N64?

[Koh]

I dunno, for Nintendo fans that may be the case. But in the eras of like NES/Master System, SNES/Genesis, N64/PS1 and GBA/PSP...do you realize how large the 3rd party support was for these systems? Many people played some of the first party titles, but they mostly played 3rd party stuff. Final Fantasies, Dragon Quests, Crash Bandicoots, Rareware games, Streets of Rages, Double Dragons...like, the nostalgia is linked to the console because of the games they played, not because of the system itself really. So when these kinds of titles are scarce on Nintendo consoles in modern times, it's hard to appeal to the other types of gamers that want stuff like that to play again, and not just Mario, Zelda and Kirby. Of course the DS/3DS didn't suffer from this, because they have all sorts of games like what I'm talking about, beyond Nintendo's 1st party stuff, and so they can reach more people.

[Koopaul]

Right I agree. Nintendo needs more than 1st party. That's one of the big factors to why the Wii U suffered. But Nintendo games themselves are still a huge draw. You can't get Mario or Kirby on any other system.

Anyway what was I originally talking about? Oh yeah Nintendo's own Wii U games. I think they were some of the best in years. So its a shame when someone says Nintendo didn't make any good games on the Wii U.

[Zero Kirby]

I'm of a mind that the lineup on Wii U was very disappointing in comparison to previous consoles, even considering only the first party.

What they did come out with has a few golden gems like DK and Wonderful 101, but also had garbage like Amiibo Festival and Star Fox Zero, and a lot of "meh" titles.

Compared to the GameCube which had SO MANY good games published by Nintendo. Even the Wii may have had about the same number of games as the Wii U but I'd consider them higher quality.

[Koopaul]

With the exception of Star Fox Zero and Amiibo Festival I think most of the games Nintendo made were great on the Wii U. We had the first 4-Player 3D Mario game. We had the best Yoshi game since Yoshi's Island. A new original competitive shooter. A game where you can make your own Mario levels and share them online. And probably the best Mario Kart in the series.

I don't get it. I had so much fun with the Wii U. Maybe its because a lot of the time these were multiplayer games and they aren't as good when played single player. I had an amazing time with my friends and family playing Nintendo Land, but playing it by yourself is kinda lame.

Either way. I hope the Wii U will be looked upon like the Dreamcast. A failure that still had some great games that shouldn't be forgotten. In fact I'm going to be very sad if the Switch doesn't have a way to play Wii U games. I hope the Switch atleast offers people to download them the same way the Wii U had Wii games to download.