Nintendo Switch has sold 4.7 Million units to date.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT
 

Phoenixmgs:

Johnny Novgorod:
The opportuny cost of buying a Nintendo console is immense because you miss out on most games... If I had to choose between a Switch and another platform my thought process would be: Do I want to play Breath of the Wild, or do I want to play everything else?

That's exactly what I've been trying to tell Yoshi, they don't get it.

Well, he'll get there someday, don't sweat over it.

Phoenixmgs:

I play board games at least once a week and they are pretty great (I also work GenCon). However, comparing video games to board games and saying devs don't know how to make gameplay is definitely along the lines of apples to oranges. Video games usually strive for real-time action gameplay vs board games turn-based nature, thus the vast majority of the time a board game and a video game are trying to scratch a different itch. A video game is player skill in aiming or timing dodges vs a board game is rolling dice to determine hits/misses or just plain the decision making of a worker replacement. It's actually sorta the difference in physically playing baseball vs managing baseball. I will agree with you that video game devs are severely lacking when it comes to balancing, they can't even balance normal guns in a shooter when its so very easy. Lots of RPGs have horrible balancing/broken mechanics like say Witcher 3. If Witcher 3 was PnP RPG, it would be dropped faster than 5th Edition. No DM in their right mind would even allow a level 1 Geralt in their game.

Yeah, assuming you're playing 'Ameritrash' board games... which focus on luck and dice rolling, rather than reduced luck mechanics that rely on deception, fixed value adjustment, etc ...

Take Netrunner, for instance. I was playing NBN ... late game. No longer had Jackson Howard to recycle agendas out of my hand by overdrawing and archiving them back into my R&D. I had two agendas in HQ. I decided to dump one into a remote that would help me win the game protected only by a simple rezzed sentry (fast advance + minor schorched earth Sync deckbuild) and an unrezzed ICE I put down as my third click after advancing the agenda once.

Now those unrezzed cards (face down installed card) to that runner could have been anything, and they defnitely needed that shiv to get past the ICE beyond it that was rezzed.

Now I knew I couldn't score out that agenda that turn, but I could advance it once and put down another piece of ICE protecting it. The Runner on their turn can chance running that remote server but then their shiv would be gone. They had largely gone through most of the recursion cards I could tell from how much they had recycled cards. Suddenly there's six possibilities. I've advanced an agenda and possibly put down another sentry, faking that I put down another sentry/agenda, that I've put down a trap, or it's an agenda I plan to score out the very next turn, or that it's merely a bluff and that it's merely a feint for me to score out unguarded cards in the rest of the remote servers I've put down and hoping they won't run, or just a useful (advanceable) asset and I'm hoping they bleed out their programs ... or any combination of the above, etc.

The information is fixed (how many creds we have, how many cards in our hands, what exactly is in play, etc), the choices for that runner is myriad and their chances of success and the results of their actions already decided depending on whatever they do. No dice will save you. The closest active randomness is psy games... but even that is based on how many creds you have, how many you want to sacrifice, etc. You have zero creds, easy to tell how much you're going to gamble in the psy game.

So it's not dissimilar. Even talking about Ameritrash heavy luck based games, earliest computer games took inspiration from it. As well as basically half the boardgame/PNP genre. But keep in mind a game like Netrunner has no RNG beyond card draws. You choose what servers to run, what to install, what to rez, what to do why ... but even that is a mechanic given you have set rules abut deckbuild, and nothing but the jankiest decks rely simply on drawing the correct card at the correct time.

Netrunner is simply a better game than nearly any videogame I have played. Probably better full stop. Its gameplay is simply that good, and there's no conceivable reason why videogame devs couldn't learn by trying to nail mechanics and gameplay first before anything else. Then you might not have fucking Hearthstone as the most popular electronic 'card game' on thd market.

Tell me what games have given you that breadth of personal choice? Is there any excuse for not providing such level of choice? IEven games like Uplink that could have conceivably provided this idea of emergent gamplay with strange aspects of integration of player choice, active 'exploration', active engagement with fixed values and nuanced game theory that is based on changing situations. Being good at Netrunner is being good at two very different types of gameplay. Whether as the deceptive corporation, or the very nearly openly handed Runner but has more direct agency over the 'playing field'... and I haven't seen that in a videogame that I can think of.

Real time and turn-based are misconceptions. In that in a really good board game which packs in a large number of options and working to a reasonable deadline (time/round limits ala tournaments) isn't going to feel *slow* and often outside rigid turn structures (ala Avalon).

I don't really think a video game is going to be able to deliver the type of social qualities found in the more complex board games. Most (probably all) of the social type of games Nintendo systems have had since the Wii are basically the equivalent of board game party games like Codenames or Telestrations; simple, quick, and fun for just about everyone. The main reason board games with such great gameplay work in their medium is because they really can't be done well in the video game medium. You wouldn't have the screen space to play like Twilight Imperium on a screen the size of a portable or even the Switch. Some games do work very well in video game form like Sentinels of the Multiverse. One game I could see translating really well to the Switch along with having a great social aspect is Captain Sonar as then each player's screen would be their station. And even then most party games are pretty light on the material required and rather cheap purchases so someone bringing Telestrations or Captain Sonar to a party/hangout is much simpler than 1) everyone going having a Switch and 2) them all bringing their Switch to with them.

Absolutely. Or even things like co-operative tactical turn-based games. But there's no reason why the switch can't facilitate new ideas of emergent gameplay. There's some interesting takes on new gameplay social games like that defusing bomb game of which the name escapes me at the moment. Co-operative local action adventure titles with puzzle segments (like 4 Swords, Monster Hunter, etc). I could imagine a fun game which makes use of the roaming function that allows you to identify other gamers playing that game ala Bravely Default, and create new ways to wreck their shit in game, like imagine Spy vs. Spy esque app for $10 that forms a better 'raid' mechanic.

I mean the cool thing is the people raiding you aren't merely random names floating above a character but much actively be people griefing you in a very specific geographical area of the world. Which I think is kind of a cool idea as long as it comes with a big arse notice; "Please don't use your real name."

There's plenty of augmented reality options there that can be uniquely Nintendo strongholds of gaming, and arguably already are, they're just not making the best use of the technology...

If you ask me what the problem with videogames is, is that they exchange complexity for streamlined activity, which while on the surface creates agency and freeform activity to engage mechanics (even ehen done well) ultimately means there's always an easy way to approach a situation. The best "puzzle" or "dungeon" in Breath of the Wild is Eventide Island and the Sword Trials. It gives you immediate structuralism (resources of the island and its obstacles you must be prepared for using said resources), but doesn't give you any *easy* answers. Merely predictive analysis based on observation. Even a game that pretends to have depth like MGSV by assuming (pretending) having a buttload of missions, 'open world', and numerous tools to use is equivalent to meaningful choice ends up having very little complexity or depth because facets of it only emerge as contextually made available. Whereby you unlock sniper rifle and never be challenged again by abusing slo mo. The slo mo mechanic in the beginning was like this "You made a booboo, but we'll forgive you"... where the tension is somewhat fairly high with a pistol.

The gsme may tell you you did poorly, but what the fuck does it know? I killed 10 dudes in under 2 minutes. That seems better than taking and being bullied by your other mechanics for 5 minutes pretending like there isn't a better metagame available *that you (the game) keep giving me the option of*... When I think of games, I think of interactive puzzles .... you know, where you aren't needlessly punished by a game simply because you discovered a better way to use its mechanics.

Maybe if people stop pretending to hate on the player, but hate on the game mechanics for not rewarding actively emergent gameplay that by itself offers as rewards for playing it how it feels youy should play it for arbitrary reasons maybe video game developers might actually fucking learn game mechanics and make them universally interesting to explore ... not fucking stupid.

Hence why Soulsborne games don't need a difficulty level and feel on the whole fairly balanced ... allowing players to pick what they like and experiment, and only masochistic idiots scream "Captain Casual" when you decide to play the game using more than your Deprived's loin cloth and a fucking soup ladle.

Take Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy ... apart from some moralistic trash of getting your force choke and force lightning on, gleefully flinging and zapping people off Bespin's platforms and in the end racking up the same kill quota you would have had regardless (hooray for videogame """narrative"""), it didn't then turn around and decide you were arbitrarily a bad player for choosing to engage how you wanted to with the world. Not that JK:JA was balanced, but fuck it was fun.

Phoenixmgs:

Yoshi178:
Way to completely miss the part where i said THE MAJORITY of it's games. nice cherry picking there.

Who says a majority of PS4's games don't run at 60fps? Pretty much all PSN games run at higher resolutions and framerates and they also probably out-number normal AAA releases. And, AAA releases aren't going to run at 1080p/60fps because devs prefer getting more detail vs the 1080p/60fps. The choice of how high the resolution and framerate the game runs at is decided by the devs, not the hardware. Very few games are actually fast-paced enough to benefit from 60fps anyways like Zelda. The Last of Us played no different at 60fps or 30fps because Naughty Dog's camera is too slow for 60fps to improve aiming anyways.

People keep talking about how the Switch and how the Wii U was also underpowered and while it may technically be true that both of these consoles may be a little bit weaker than the PS4 and Xbox one, the difference between the picture quality is hardly noticeable and isn't anywhere near the same as other huge gaps in graphics with seen over the year like 32 bit to 3D and SD to HD where the difference is instantly noticeable. these days sure 4K looks better than HD if you sit the pictures next to each other, but gaming has gotten to a point where if most people just stepped into an electronics store, most people wouldn't even be able to tell the difference between Full HD and 4K tv's without the signs telling them

Sony and Microsoft keep boasting about how powerful their consoles are like what they're doing at the moment with the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X, But how many PS4 Pro and Xbox One X games do we know run at a smooth consistent 4K resolution 60fps? i highly doubt there are many.

Like Chiguy's video said. Devs should focus on maintaining 60fps and getting that smooth animation first rather trying to push 4K just for the sake of pushing 4K.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Snip

Like I said, video games and board games are (mostly) trying to do two completely different things. It's the difference between playing a sport (video games) and coaching a sport (board games). I don't know what depth you think MGS5 is trying to have, all stealth games are easy. It's not hard to wait for a guard to walk off to the side and headshot them while they're standing still. The "depth" in a stealth game is how many options you have to use against the AI, which MGS5 is chalk full of. You can turn off the slow-mo mechanic in MGS5, I never used it myself. Just about any game has a way to play cheap or exploit the AI, it's your choice to do that or not do that. Many games are about player creativity, watch any StealthGamerBR Dishonored video and you'll totally look at that game in a different light or the ridiculous combos you can do in a game like Bayonetta. There's loads of depth in your normal multiplayer shooter when played at its highest level, you have the pure gun skills that come into play obviously, but the games are really about positioning on both a micro (a lean, a crouch, a sidestep, a slide, a roll, a cover swap, etc.) and macro level (map positioning). If you and your opponent both have equal aim, then you need to find every single way to tip that 50/50 gunfight in your favor, that's where the depth is, it really is much like a cat and mouse game a pitcher and hitter have. It isn't that much unlike Netrunner where you are trying to anticipate and counter your opponent but in fractions of a second. I'm not saying video games can't learn some things from board games but the experience a video game is going for is usually something that you don't find in board games like say the feeling from stringing together a great run in Mirror's Edge.

Yoshi178:
People keep talking about how the Switch and how the Wii U was also underpowered and while it may technically be true that both of these consoles may be a little bit weaker than the PS4 and Xbox one, the difference between the picture quality is hardly noticeable and isn't anywhere near the same as other huge gaps in graphics with seen over the year like 32 bit to 3D and SD to HD where the difference is instantly noticeable. these days sure 4K looks better than HD if you sit the pictures next to each other, but gaming has gotten to a point where if most people just stepped into an electronics store, most people wouldn't even be able to tell the difference between Full HD and 4K tv's without the signs telling them

Sony and Microsoft keep boasting about how powerful their consoles are like what they're doing at the moment with the PS4 Pro and Xbox One X, But how many PS4 Pro and Xbox One X games do we know run at a smooth consistent 4K resolution 60fps? i highly doubt there are many.

Like Chiguy's video said. Devs should focus on maintaining 60fps and getting that smooth animation first rather trying to push 4K just for the sake of pushing 4K.

The Switch isn't just a little less powerful than the PS4/Xbone. The difference is noticeable immediately. Even after the Watch Dogs graphical downgrade fiasco, the game was such a step-up from PS3/360 gen, it was like playing an open world game with graphics the very best linear game (say Uncharted) from PS3. Watch Dogs (PS4) and GTAV (PS3) are a night and day difference graphically. Just read any PS3/360 review of Watch Dogs/Shadow of Mordor/Dragon Age Inquisition and there's major differences, those versions are basically gimped versions of those games.

Sony and Microsoft aren't pushing 4K (it's just a marketing), PCs can't even run games in 4K. Those machines aren't doing native 4K by any stretch, they are doing something called checkerboarding. What's wrong with giving the consumer the option of how they want to play the game as the PS4 Pro gives YOU the option to run at a higher framerate or get more detail? The devs literally have nothing to do with whether you play a game on the PS4 Pro in 4K (checkboarded) or at 60fps. Wouldn't you like the option to play Zelda at less detail but at 60fps?

Phoenixmgs:

Like I said, video games and board games are (mostly) trying to do two completely different things. It's the difference between playing a sport (video games) and coaching a sport (board games). I don't know what depth you think MGS5 is trying to have, all stealth games are easy. It's not hard to wait for a guard to walk off to the side and headshot them while they're standing still. The "depth" in a stealth game is how many options you have to use against the AI, which MGS5 is chalk full of. You can turn off the slow-mo mechanic in MGS5, I never used it myself. Just about any game has a way to play cheap or exploit the AI, it's your choice to do that or not do that. Many games are about player creativity, watch any StealthGamerBR Dishonored video and you'll totally look at that game in a different light or the ridiculous combos you can do in a game like Bayonetta. There's loads of depth in your normal multiplayer shooter when played at its highest level, you have the pure gun skills that come into play obviously, but the games are really about positioning on both a micro (a lean, a crouch, a sidestep, a slide, a roll, a cover swap, etc.) and macro level (map positioning). If you and your opponent both have equal aim, then you need to find every single way to tip that 50/50 gunfight in your favor, that's where the depth is, it really is much like a cat and mouse game a pitcher and hitter have. It isn't that much unlike Netrunner where you are trying to anticipate and counter your opponent but in fractions of a second. I'm not saying video games can't learn some things from board games but the experience a video game is going for is usually something that you don't find in board games like say the feeling from stringing together a great run in Mirror's Edge.

And that's needless divisions on player agency.

In my Rex example, I explained how a player beat me by simply being a better human (and why this hurt more, but also will stick with me longer than most videogame deaths you can imagine). In that they lied better than me and use human skills to influence my capacity to assess the very reality of the game we were mutual playing, in that she had already won simply because she created a false narrative I bought into. It turned out I had lost because we weren't actually playing the same game. In the same way you needlessly define ideas of 'positioning', I could explain the myriad of ways she lied to me. For example, in Netrunner I could describe that seemingly innocuous thumb rub against one person's held cards, before their eye quickly skirts to a specific place on your rig... that they pretend that you wouldn't notice or take into account.

Also take in that situation when bad guys in Avalon Resistance start accusing themselves of being bad guys, and slowly building up that latent aspersion in a 'goodie' in order to try to rouse Merlin from outing himself to the potential strike by the Assassin, or secure how one of the bad guys is on the final quest. Oh definitely ... that 18th reskin of Call of Duty is truly complex and deep.

Where in videogames, that option boils down to simply to numbers, and broken game mechanics that exchanges complexity of ideas that social video games could provide through consoles like the Nintendo Switch if and when we decide video game devs should master mechanics and gameplay first. Even the phenomenal Breath of the Wild is paint by numbers when you look at it critically. The sad reality is that it's still brilliant in comparison.

Keep in mind, I have no problem with CoD ... but I don't want a console that can actually transcend gameplay capitulate to the stupid mewlings of people wanting Nintendo to take money out of looking at new ideas of gameplay to simply create another underpowered PC like every other console.

The reason why I say turn-based and real-time is truly a misconception is games like Xenoblade Chronicle X. Timed attacks, deep characterisation, plenty of experimentation capacity, and intuitive new ideas of timing, space and attack patterns of other characters. And thus I sunk more time into it than anything on PS3 I had at the time. Now imagine if you can bring this alltogether with social gaming aspects that encourages experimentation.

(edit)Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about. Imagine a game on a portable that you play where you have a living sandbox world of sorts. Like a Cyberpunk action adventure game ... but occasionally players can fuck with the hacking parts of the singleplayer game ... maybe a passing switch player with the same game running in sleep mode. That by them attacking the same servers learn of your gamerID through passing by your switch, and now they're partly in "your" game world, and they might possibly be fucking with your game directly by hacking the same computer at the same time you're hacking it ... meaning either you or them might accidentally trigger a security subroutine and it actively works against you even in your "singleplayer" game?

Now you can do the Soulsborne thing of selecting 'offline' ... but if you do go 'online' mode ... maybe particularly quick players running into their separate but similar activities might be ablle to open up a chatbox and communicate in real time to tackle online challenges ... and the gamble that players will actually share information with you if you decide to actively subvert that systems operator while they (you or them) download information.

Maybe a cool idea would be, even if you're not playing at the same time and they're in sleep mode and the random event generator selects their machine and yours to be 'linked' by your mutual efforts attacking the same server, that they may leave a 'trail' they can use to figure out your gamerID tag and through that help or hinder you on future hacking forays? You could even have social gaming rivalries and friendships emerge of players using varying means to try to get into a server faster without being caught, or trying to set up triggers for them to run into and they themselves getting caught by the sysop and getting killed/having to jack out.

Maybe they might even leave 'digital gifts' through emails, like single use programs or credits? With a fleshside date, time, and a game location, with a quick invite message like; "Up for it? You'll need this..." Of course, you don't actually know whether or not they're on the level and not simply trying to get you killed to reduce competition in a shared market with shared objectives and you're just making it harder for them, where up to four players and their equipment purchasing habits, their activities, and the like are shaping your "singleplayer" gameworld. Making black market items scarcer, more expensive, or increasing corporate security.

Players could use various means to circumvent security problems, like hiring mercenaries to storm a corporate front operation, buying custom programs, or building their better rigs ... People who meet via these random connection events might even decide to meet eachother in the flesh and connect! Play active co-operative adventures in the game space ... possibly organise to set challenges for themselves in a structured environment that simply gives you the tools and puzzles, and suitable rewards for the victors ... like a 3 person free for all race to getting sufficient dirt on an executive.

That's the type of social gaming trends I want to see, personally. Active means to influence 'shared' worlds. I want to see this ideaof augmented reality tweaked. By basing it on passing Switch players rather than some randos on the server that you've never run into in the flesh and may never see again, instead by basing it on geographical locations you're currently in and people you may have passed on the subway give it this idea that, yeah ... you could potentially meet up, but also the ideathat the game world 'cityscape' is being actively shaped in some ways by the players who might be in your apartment complex.

Not only that the idea that because of that potential very local interference, if you or them are running at odds with eachother, you might need to kill their character. Which resets that connection and nulls their further activities in your gameworld. Right up until you possibly run into their character (with a different server tag, thus maintaining that unnerving anonymity) after a fortnight down the track and suddenly new friendships or rivalries are born once more as your gameworld feels like it's being invaded by another protagonist out there. That you can actively look for them, investigate their actions, and actually set up traps for them ... or perhaps you might extend that olive branch by leaving them a hidden message in game someplace?

Of course by doing that, you run the real (ludonarrative) risk that suddenly they know "who" "you" are and thus can start fucking with you either just cos or because they're bored and prefer competition to co-operation.

The kind of cool thing I want to note is that by almost simulating a lan party, or communicating with players through emails or other indirect means in active gameplay, is the gameplay itself might actually create new types of languages thatwe see in MMORPGs ... so it's almost as if a social experiment, that through necessity you have this divergent mother tongue shaped to meet in game challenges which means the systems of gameplay and social gaming itself influence the culture and even language of the players involved until I string of incomprehensible acronyms and contractions becomes its own descriptive lexicon of incredibly complex gameplay interaction.

If you could deliver evolving ludonarrative structures like that, I'd be in 100%.... and imagine how awesome the lexicon would be after a few expansions introducing new means to influence the world, new locations, new corporations to fuck with ... and all new challenges, equipment, hireable mercenaries, new rig components? It'd be great. Moreover we might actually get a game like that through a device that doesn't need a thousand people working on achieving 4K graphics, pretty shader effects, and rdiculous fucking polygon counts ... rather than joining the 21st century and looking at evolving means of communication and the techno-isolationism.

Videogames might even start to be able to tell a story of the human condition by interweaving it with natural human desires of escapism from people who might only be next door to you and deliver next generation interactive ludonarrative actually befitting the hardware and technological capabilities we do have to create very human stories. Not merely contained on a game disk but extended to others around us as we wallow in hollow escapism to find meaning through what are, in the end, fucking pixels and mechanical sounds. Devoid only momentarily, only fleetingly, only whimsically, only pathetically meagre moments of the true abyssal loneliness that would otherwise be between us if we couldn't otherwise connect and know of eachother's efforts or existence without said game as we haplessly cross paths on the street without knowing one of us just nullified 3 hours of "progress".

You know ... like real life.

Pretty powerful message if you ask me. It's like Inception to the power of 8. Anyways call me when videogames, that have that capacity to deliver such a critique on our humanity, decide to make that jump. The cool thing is that despite the futuristic setting, you could almost be making a critique that we're almost living the future they envision in game when compared to the punkish interpretations of the future from narratives written in the 80s. This idea of 'Future Imperfect' ala the Star Trek episode... player driven world exposition in a world where 'theme' and 'story' are almost 'lost' in the crushing normality of existence that we suffer in the ever-present, and the slings and arrows of romantic escapism itself being hollow and ultimately pointless.

Johnny Novgorod:

Phoenixmgs:

Johnny Novgorod:
The opportuny cost of buying a Nintendo console is immense because you miss out on most games... If I had to choose between a Switch and another platform my thought process would be: Do I want to play Breath of the Wild, or do I want to play everything else?

That's exactly what I've been trying to tell Yoshi, they don't get it.

Well, he'll get there someday, don't sweat over it.

its fantastic then that we don't have to make that choice of only being able to choose one console. we can buy whatever we want.

i have my Xbox One and i have my Switch and i love that they both do different things nor would i ever change that.

capitalism is a beautiful thing.

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Snip

A lot of what you describe of bluffing in Netrunner is present in a good MP shooter at the top level of play. The majority of players (over 90%) have really no clue how to play as they are either camping for kills or playing the game like kids playing soccer (how kids all run to the ball) as the players that actually do play the objective just blindly run to the objective. Whereas playing with and against the best players, there's so many things going on with everyone trying to anticipate what everyone else is going to do on both macro and micro levels. I purposefully try to deke players many times a match with some of those successes being the key play to win a match. And COD is the worst example of shooters.

How did Xenoblade Chronicles X accomplish any of the great things you mentioned because of Nintendo's console ideas? Every idea you mentioned can be done just fine on really any platform. My problem with Nintendo's ideas are that they are bad ideas. What's the point of motion controls when they are less accurate than what we currently have? Even the PS3 bowling game High Velocity Bowling was a better bowling game (just using PS3 sixaxis) than Wii Bowling.

Yoshi178:
its fantastic then that we don't have to make that choice of only being able to choose one console. we can buy whatever we want.

i have my Xbox One and i have my Switch and i love that they both do different things nor would i ever change that.

capitalism is a beautiful thing.

Everyone has money and time limitations. Some people only have the money for one platform. Some people have the money but not the time. The fact is the Switch will not be anyone's primary platform, thus there's literally no reason for a publisher to put a multiplatform game on the Switch because every gamer will have another platform that they will buy the game on. That's not even considering the work it will take to downgrade said game for the Switch. Sure some Switch games can be sold on it being a portable version of say Skyrim and that could be the selling point, but that is limited to last-gen games because of the Switch's underpowered specs. Sure some people might love being able to play RDR2 on the go, but that game won't be able to run on a Switch thus it won't be getting any current-gen ports.

Phoenixmgs:
the Switch will not be anyone's primary platform

it's already my primary platform so that statement is already false

Phoenixmgs:
there's literally no reason for a publisher to put a multiplatform game on the Switch because every gamer will have another platform that they will buy the game on.

Street Fighter II already passed Capcom's test and it sold well above what they expect and now they literally just confirmed that they've started working on bringing more of their games to Switch. what they'll be, who knows? there has been resident evil switch rumours floating around so thats a starting point.

Phoenixmgs:
some people might love being able to play RDR2 on the go, but that game won't be able to run on a Switch thus it won't be getting any current-gen ports.

No, that game won't run on Switch is because Rockstar doesn't have a good relationship with Nintendo and doesn't want to do any more business with them. at all. when GTA Chinatown wars sold badly on the DS that was pretty much the final nail in the coffin for those 2 companies doing business with each other.

Phoenixmgs:

A lot of what you describe of bluffing in Netrunner is present in a good MP shooter at the top level of play. The majority of players (over 90%) have really no clue how to play as they are either camping for kills or playing the game like kids playing soccer (how kids all run to the ball) as the players that actually do play the objective just blindly run to the objective. Whereas playing with and against the best players, there's so many things going on with everyone trying to anticipate what everyone else is going to do on both macro and micro levels. I purposefully try to deke players many times a match with some of those successes being the key play to win a match. And COD is the worst example of shooters.

Yeah, no ... not unless you're particularly bad at Netrunner or with hidden ID/hidden objective board games. For starters, like all good board games you're not playing against a mutual game state, but rather trying to change the game one or the other people are playing. There's structure, but the structure exists simply to stop it transforming into; "I shot you first--" "No I shot you first, nyaa!" There is no MP shooter or strategy game I hve played on a computer which utilises the same degree of deception, mind games, or level of deduction necessary as a good board game. There's also no video game I have played that demands so much of you as a good board game.

The problem of video game complexity, is that the objectives are clear and the means to achieve them are sound and true. A good board game will inevitably have an million ways to achieve a desired objective state. Likle a sniper-like Chronos Protocol deck that kills individual cards in a Runner's grip to reduce their capacity to run certain servers or build a good rig, or a butcher shop NBN deck that murders you instantly as soon as yu run the wrong server and get hit with tags. The methodology and game mechanics are the same. Causing damage to the Runner ... but those mechanics say nothing as to what that damage means, what that damage does.

The win state of the game is fixed.

Corp runs out of cards to draw on their turn, either Runner or Corp get 7 Agenda Points, Runner takes more damage than the number of cards they can trash out of their grip (hand). But the objectives are player centric ... they merely use the win state as a tool to win ... not simply as an objective in and of itself. Because it's less about achieving those objectives, and more about how you're going to use those objectives to destroy the competition. To display why this is so divergent, one Jinteki corp ID card Harmony Medtech: Biomedical Pioneer, and its special ability is simply that for both players can achieve victory with 6 Agenda points rather than 7. That sounds barmy as it seemingly gives both players the benefit of the ability, but it's probably one of the strongest Jinteki ID cards in the metagame.

Bad/new Netrunner players keep losing until they realise that golden lesson. It's also why Magic is shit but still good because it was Garfield's and because it's old. This is why I say video game devs should learn from board games about the idea of perfecting mechanics and gameplay first and foremost. Because frankly they call it the 'Golden Age' of board games for a reason. Board games continue to impress me at the rate of evolution and divergent gameplay with cardboard.

Whereas as much as I love CoD4, I can't bring myself to like most current shooters because .... ehhh. To elabourate why in an example, the same reason why Battlefield 1 is annoying and required every gun to be a semi-automatic/automatic .... they had a chance to have new, emergent gameplay styles. Ones to suit the environment and theme of the time period that is direly unrepresented in the virtual space. Instead they made a WW1 Battlefield skin. In board gaming that would be considered a cardinal sin.

Well, decent board gaming that is. Not Hasbro garbage.

Board games have achieved human-centric ludonarrative greatness, and they will achieve that example of a videogame I gave you an example with first just looking at the speed and evolution they're changing at. Whereas videogames won't ... primarily because nailing gameplay and mechanics of it are separate from polygon counts and shader effects.

That example of a ludonarrative driven living, human-activity centric cyberpunk game I gave? Can you think of any game like it to date despite it being incredibly doable with the budget AAA titles get? Can you think of any means it will be achieved for as long as we pretend that videogames have to be pretty or emulate storytelling formats in traditional entertainment media forms that seem at best as if interactive B-Movies experiences precisely because they attempt at every turn to make the player and the protagonist separate identities?

There is better 'stories' told through my games of Netrunner I could formulate through what happens simply through ludonarrative and the stupidly high amount of choices I can make. From deckbuilding and the cards I put in, to how those cards are drawn, to my opponent's deck, and their cards they've drawn, and how the game is thus played... modified by very human skills of deception, trickery, deduction, environmental interaction, exploration and also just a bit of luck (or unluck) on my side. Every second I'm playing it's not about me having options, but whittling them down through personal agency. I always have choice and total immersion with the gamestate, I can even appreciate (or suffer) the flow and thrum of the minutiae of my interactivity.

And that's with cardboard.

Videogames are wasting their potential. Put it this way, as much as I love Splatoon, all shooters should be trying to evolve their gamestates to a similar degree. Hidden objective, player centric objectives, that are not universally known. The greatest failure of shooters is the idea that there are uncreative modes ... it surprises me how this continues and persists to be a thing in videogames ... of specific, locked objectives in games that tout 'customization' and pretend to have evolving ideas of gameplay. Games shouldn't be telling you how to win, they should give you tools to create your own means of victories. You should merely know of the ways to win, not being told how to win.

As I put forward with my game idea ... winning should be as nebulous as the means yu want to engage with other players ... whether trying to murder them off in "shared" game worlds, ability to set traps in their "singleplayer" game world by putting fake jobs and boobytrapping servers they need to break into if they accept, seeking active co-operation with emergent gameplay styles, using in game messenger systems to actively deceive, invite, or advertise your presence to other players and the means to share information, items or money, etc. Social games that make the best use of player agency in a game space that takes advantage of the wired world we live in to allow them to becme truly ruthless affairs of deadly competition or co-operation.

Pandemic Legacy tells a better story just by ludonarrative and emergent gameplay states than almost all videogame stories I can think of. And that's not even taking into account just how simple, yet great, the gameplay is.

How did Xenoblade Chronicles X accomplish any of the great things you mentioned because of Nintendo's console ideas? Every idea you mentioned can be done just fine on really any platform. My problem with Nintendo's ideas are that they are bad ideas. What's the point of motion controls when they are less accurate than what we currently have? Even the PS3 bowling game High Velocity Bowling was a better bowling game (just using PS3 sixaxis) than Wii Bowling.

Um .... what?

For starters those two points are utterly unrelated. I used XCX as an example to debate your point of how real-time and turn-based function, and debate that they are merely misconceptions on timing and pacing. That XCX transcends turn based ideas with fun character development options and equipment ... that it is turn based despite not having turns. The player can determine exactly how the 'turns' play out with a level of nuance and game state changing aspects that are really exploratory in how you want to change up every battle. Thus I spent more time playing it than anything that had been out for years priors or years since on various videogame platforms.

Even my beloved Monster Hunter series, I probably sunk more hours into that one game than any one Monster Hunter.

Ditto how in good board games, turn structures aren't as rigid a concept as people think they are given a good board game and a good player of a good board game must by necessity still be acting not merely through their times of direct agency but also through their opponent's.

Sometimes this turn structure is utterly irrelvant despite having turn based aspects, like Avalon: Resistance. One can also apply this to games that have a masterful idea of mechanical flow, ala the Soulsborne series.

Netrunner has distinct, asymmetric turn based structures (Corps get three clicks, Runners get 4), but any Netrunner player worth their salt will still be playing through their opponent's turns through the options they create to do so. With the hypothetical game I described before...? With "shared" "singleplayer" worlds, you play into... that chsnges through other player actions even if you're not there? Asymmetric ludonarrative storytelling. Infinitely better than sny B-movie experiences you get with videogames now. The Switch would br the perfect platform for such social videogames. Pretty graphics need not apply.

Casual Shinji:
I'll be interested though to see how it'll continue to exist alongside the 3DS, which Nintendo seems to be very strict about keeping seperate. Because I think the only thing that'll give the Switch any sort of long lasting appeal is its portability. So how are these two portable devices going to exist next to eachother?

Nintendo is already making more money on Android and iOS, wouldn't surprise me if they ended up discontinuing the DS family. Keep the paywall crap like Super Mario Run and Pokemon Go on mobile and the ports "games" on Switch.

I really wish Nintendo's games were as good as their cultists claim. If they were, maybe we wouldn't be plagued with circle-jerk garbage threads like this all over the web, as they'd be playing games instead of justifying their loyalty.

Yoshi178:
it's already my primary platform so that statement is already false

Phoenixmgs:
If you are a gamer and don't have any platform, you're not going to choose a Switch for your first console (besides the Nintendo fanboys) because you'd be missing out on over 90% of the games.

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:
there's literally no reason for a publisher to put a multiplatform game on the Switch because every gamer will have another platform that they will buy the game on.

Street Fighter II already passed Capcom's test and it sold well above what they expect and now they literally just confirmed that they've started working on bringing more of their games to Switch. what they'll be, who knows? there has been resident evil switch rumours floating around so thats a starting point.

Nintendo fans buying games based on nostalgia is sorta what they do. The latest Street Fighter isn't going to come to the Switch. Where's a list of current gen multiplatform games the Switch is getting?

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:
some people might love being able to play RDR2 on the go, but that game won't be able to run on a Switch thus it won't be getting any current-gen ports.

No, that game won't run on Switch is because Rockstar doesn't have a good relationship with Nintendo and doesn't want to do any more business with them. at all. when GTA Chinatown wars sold badly on the DS that was pretty much the final nail in the coffin for those 2 companies doing business with each other.

RDR2 like just about all AAA current gen games just can't run on the Switch because it's just not powerful enough. Rockstar could have the best relationship with Nintendo conceivable, and RDR2 wouldn't be on the Switch. Do you not get that you can't just simply put a game on an underpowered system? I said this before, look at the PS3/360 versions of Watch Dogs, Shadow of Mordor, and Dragon Age Inquisition; they are gimped versions of those games. What makes you think the Switch can do something the PS3/360 can't do?

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Snip

I wasn't debating how real-time and turn-based function. I was saying video games are USUALLY concerned with execution from the very beginning with Pong, Asteroids, Galaga, Donkey Kong, arcade fighters, platformers to your present day shooters (with arena shooters being even more execution heavy), spectacle fighters, etc. Whereas board games are USUALLY about decisions, strategy, and overall thought process because you have more time between actions. Both are striving for 2 very different things (for the most part), not that there isn't crossover.

Again, your comparing apples and oranges with comparison of each medium's "stories". Both are striving for very different things. There's no board game that can tell a story like Metal Gear Solid (regardless of your opinion of its quality). Spector Ops is basically the board game version of Metal Gear Solid and the "story" you'll get from playthrough may be better in your opinion, but its also so different in nature its really incomparable. I don't find one type of story inherently better than the other as they are 2 very different experiences.

You're short changing shooters based off what are the most popular shooters and what's most popular is usually lowest common denominator. Some shooters have modes that are very well done with loads of different ways to get more points than your opponent (much like most board games). For example, MGO2 has a game mode called Team Sneaking where a legit strategy on offense is to literally have your team purposefully get killed on offense all at once while totally not trying for the objective of the round but for the objective of getting the most points over 2 rounds. And board games have reskins too; X-Wing/Attack Wing.

Lastly, MGS5 does have FOB mode, which is pretty much that shared single-player world you're describing. Sure, it's not as full-featured or fleshed out as your ideal game but I put money on that being more than what any Switch will be able to accomplish towards your vision. The social interaction with people playing games on the Switch is basically party/mini games. The fact that you have to use a phone app to all this online stuff is really cumbersome.

Phoenixmgs:
If you are a gamer and don't have any platform, you're not going to choose a Switch for your first console (besides the Nintendo fanboys) because you'd be missing out on over 90% of the games.

i could just as easily say only Sony fanboys choose to have the PS4 as their Primary Platform or only Xbox Fanboys have the Xbox One as their Primary platform.

that argument is stupid and based on nothing but you're own personal bias.

Phoenixmgs:

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:
there's literally no reason for a publisher to put a multiplatform game on the Switch because every gamer will have another platform that they will buy the game on.

Street Fighter II already passed Capcom's test and it sold well above what they expect and now they literally just confirmed that they've started working on bringing more of their games to Switch. what they'll be, who knows? there has been resident evil switch rumours floating around so thats a starting point.

Nintendo fans buying games based on nostalgia is sorta what they do. The latest Street Fighter isn't going to come to the Switch. Where's a list of current gen multiplatform games the Switch is getting?

where's the latest Street Fighter on Xbox One? oh right. it's not. it's not even multiplatform. Sony bought the exclusivity rights or at the least timed exclusivity rights to that. or maybe Capcom just only wants to sell Street Fighter on a Platform where they think it will make them money, like oh i don't know, the platform with over 50 million hardware sales rather than the platform with only about 20 something million hardware sales.

is Xbox One not getting Street Fighter because it's "underpowered" too is it?

Phoenixmgs:

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:
some people might love being able to play RDR2 on the go, but that game won't be able to run on a Switch thus it won't be getting any current-gen ports.

No, that game won't run on Switch is because Rockstar doesn't have a good relationship with Nintendo and doesn't want to do any more business with them. at all. when GTA Chinatown wars sold badly on the DS that was pretty much the final nail in the coffin for those 2 companies doing business with each other.

RDR2 like just about all AAA current gen games just can't run on the Switch because it's just not powerful enough. Rockstar could have the best relationship with Nintendo conceivable, and RDR2 wouldn't be on the Switch. Do you not get that you can't just simply put a game on an underpowered system? I said this before, look at the PS3/360 versions of Watch Dogs, Shadow of Mordor, and Dragon Age Inquisition; they are gimped versions of those games. What makes you think the Switch can do something the PS3/360 can't do?

i never said the Switch can do something the PS3/360 can't do if you're talking about "gimped" versions of modern games. there is absolutely no reason why Rockstar couldn't make a "gimped" version of RDR2 for the Switch if they wanted to, but the fact is they won't because they have a bad relationship with Nintendo. that has nothing to do with being "underpowered" at all

Yoshi178:

where's the latest Street Fighter on Xbox One? oh right. it's not. it's not even multiplatform. Sony bought the exclusivity rights or at the least timed exclusivity rights to that. or maybe Capcom just only wants to sell Street Fighter on a Platform where they think it will make them money, like oh i don't know, the platform with over 50 million hardware sales rather than the platform with only about 20 something million hardware sales.

is Xbox One not getting Street Fighter because it's "underpowered" too is it?

i never said the Switch can do something the PS3/360 can't do if you're talking about "gimped" versions of modern games. there is absolutely no reason why Rockstar couldn't make a "gimped" version of RDR2 for the Switch if they wanted to, but the fact is they won't because they have a bad relationship with Nintendo. that has nothing to do with being "underpowered" at all

Street Fighter is multiplatform because it's on PC too.

Rockstar doesn't do gimped. They have no reason to do that anymore as all the major platforms can now basically have the same development. If anything the PS4/Xbone version are the gimped versions because the PC is so much more powerful.

But take any other company that has had good relationships with Nintendo in the past. Where's the Switch version of Assassin's Creed Origins? Call of Duty WW2?

I really don't think you understand the level of work it would take ANY studio to make a completely different version of a game just to make it work on a weak console. Fact of the matter is this, the Switch will only ever get ports of current console games if those games already have a compatible art style. Disgaea 5 for example, uses pixel sprites and still artwork for everything, so a Switch post was easy because none of the core game had to be altered in order to run acceptably.

But you are absolutely dreaming if you think you are going to get big AAA experiences from anyone outside of Nintendo's developers. Unless of course they outright BUY games to be made like Bayonetta 2 or Mario+Rabids. While those are 3rd party games, they are only Switch games, which should prove to you that multiplatform gaming is going to be a hard thing to make happen on the Switch.

Can it work? Sure. But not for anything current gen. It just wont happen.

Phoenixmgs:

I wasn't debating how real-time and turn-based function. I was saying video games are USUALLY concerned with execution from the very beginning with Pong, Asteroids, Galaga, Donkey Kong, arcade fighters, platformers to your present day shooters (with arena shooters being even more execution heavy), spectacle fighters, etc. Whereas board games are USUALLY about decisions, strategy, and overall thought process because you have more time between actions. Both are striving for 2 very different things (for the most part), not that there isn't crossover.

Again, your comparing apples and oranges with comparison of each medium's "stories". Both are striving for very different things. There's no board game that can tell a story like Metal Gear Solid (regardless of your opinion of its quality). Spector Ops is basically the board game version of Metal Gear Solid and the "story" you'll get from playthrough may be better in your opinion, but its also so different in nature its really incomparable. I don't find one type of story inherently better than the other as they are 2 very different experiences.

Which is precisely my point. Videogames constantly are facing continued schisms between theme, environment, pacing and gameplay that there is active ludonarrative dissonance. Their gameplay does nothing to illustrate the conceptual 'rules' or theme of the players and the gamestate which makes them ultimately separate from identitifcation with whatever protags they "control" in the game.

You're short changing shooters based off what are the most popular shooters and what's most popular is usually lowest common denominator. Some shooters have modes that are very well done with loads of different ways to get more points than your opponent (much like most board games). For example, MGO2 has a game mode called Team Sneaking where a legit strategy on offense is to literally have your team purposefully get killed on offense all at once while totally not trying for the objective of the round but for the objective of getting the most points over 2 rounds. And board games have reskins too; X-Wing/Attack Wing.

Which is odd, why not use Warhammer/40K? Massively popular wargaming board game, and I think its mechanicsare fucking garbage. it's worse than a lot of video games out their mechanically. Much worse. But then again that wasn't the point I was making and board games aren't actively attempting to be like W40K, though if only in terms of gameplay if not total profitability. But once again, not the point.

Lastly, MGS5 does have FOB mode, which is pretty much that shared single-player world you're describing. Sure, it's not as full-featured or fleshed out as your ideal game but I put money on that being more than what any Switch will be able to accomplish towards your vision. The social interaction with people playing games on the Switch is basically party/mini games. The fact that you have to use a phone app to all this online stuff is really cumbersome.

No ... no it's not.

Let me tell you what I think will deliver that game experience I'm looking for. A psychology or sociology student looking at the dismal rates of pay with their post-doc/etc, their massive student debts, etc, being in love with the possibility of the research capable through it. Wanting to team up with that computer studies student and that visual arts student also looking at their respective various jobs markets they'll be going into and finding nothing substantial.

For different reasons they'll link up to give us a new type of game where they can profit. Basically using gamers as both a strange mix of guinea pig as well as being almost research project confederates in a way. All as they participate in these "shared" "singleplayer" worlds with eachother, with planned and divergent, almost chaotic, global event triggers that ultimately assess how humans create mechanially observable means to influence other humans around them in real time. Whether they are playing the game or not, as they introduce additional environmental factors and triggers.

Each of these otherwise desperate people for different reasons collecting realtime human data in terms of things like psycholinguistics research and exploring the evolution of language (also how much it can be manipulated in real-time), or looking at mechanics of human interactivity and capacity for deception. And making a few dollars down the way.

Not any traditional video game dev at the moment.

And while you're technically accurate that I'm far more liable to see such a game on specifically Android, or PC ... that doesn't mean the Switch or 3DS wouldn't be seen as a perfect platform for it due to its portability alone. That through that natural roaming of people and that portability alone, without unnecessarily complex and expensive reason to do bullshit like deliver stupidly high polygon counts and shader effects, makes it a fantastic tool for such research.

All vwhle traditional video game devs are simply interested in, as you keep repeating without actually debating my argument, that video game devs keep wanting to give videogames something other than ludonarrative storytelling and keeping players at arm's length of doing anything but merely responding to the gamestate all in predictable means with fixed objectives, as opposed to shaping it themselves. With an inherent lack of true human deception, mindgames and achieving asymmetrical 'warfare' gameplay states.

The cool thing is that you could have relatively simplistic individual macro building elements that players can use some game tools, macro them into effective combinations to deal with specific servers in game or attacking various other players .... so it's less rock-paper-scissors, but actively seeing indepthly how the gamers will deal with the various trends of challenges in game world.

Sounds fun, right?

Hell, I could even see some militaries and intelligence outfits making that type of ideal game well before any video game developer at the moment ... to examine psychology and sociology in a world of evolving the ideas and models of 20th century warfare research into geostrategy and human ecology, and porting it into creating models of examining behavioural psychology and sociology in the borderless (yet still intimate) frontiers of (what might be called) 'future engagement theory' that is, and will come of, the internet.

That's the future potential of video games. Also what I'd solidly label as 'social gaming'. And honestly, they just flat out sound like way more fun. Giving players tools to adroitly create their own winning gamestate. Not simply because the game tells you flat out how to win, and you keep practicing to win precisely how the game tells you to win.

And you've yet to show me a videogame which has broken this mold. Last I checked I couldn't play a character that simply said; "This deathmatch game? It's now Capture the Flag.." after all players have selected their kit, like you can effectively do in a good board game. In a great board game, it's more akin to everyone playing Deathmatch, but secretly you've made it a CTF game and you make everyone else lose, including supposed allies, because you managed to pull that off.

And you can put story in quotation marks, but I've yet to have a teeth grindingly bad "story" that I can't see play out in front of me in a Netrunner game that is equal to something as atrocious and threadbare as MGSV or Fallout 3... how did they score again? Oh, that's right ... averaging 85%+. Despite blatant copypasta missions and events, little to no well honed multiplayer, nonexistent or just flat out intelligence insulting plots that destroy the writing and plot in their actual good games in the franchise, and for what?

Just like camera and lighting are crucial to film and tv, maybe videogames should stop pretending to be interactive movies and instead focus on ludonarrative being just as crucial? If videogame developers want to create human stories, why not give them ludonarrative and social gaming and see where that leads? There's better stories of betrayal, conspiracy, and trickery in Avalon: Resistance than in MGS4 or 5... not only that, but by default of having real humans be the real antagonists and giving them a wide scope of naturally human means to fuck eachother over or co-operate as being viable strategies, they're actually far more clever and mindfuckingly good displays of play-acting and gameplay combined.

Pla a game of Avalon: Resistance and imagine things like active hacking, setting traps, in-game messaging (whereby you need to investigate to privately contact someone) and co-operation, all for shared world information and resources, and a game that doesn't just stop because you do. You might need specific bits of information on servers to complete your not readily apparent objectives separate from ther people ... which means you could withold other information files you have rather than selling them for public consumption, so that you have something vital for exchange.

That people can literally destroy your character and potential progress, or make you more powerful, in the background without you even realising it when next you jump in ... and realise it is all your fault. You could even set background tasks when you sleep your console and "log off" like spending necessary time buying up resources when available at specific price points, building a better rig, modifying your safehouse, coding new programs or makeshift constructing new field kit to decrese this feeling like you're doing 'nothing' during your downtime.

But then again, instead of challenging this and the point I make that videogames need not be so derivative ... you'll trot out the same horse of 'apples and oranges' and 'modern videogames are like, deep, because I can strafe and stuff...', right? Maybe I want more from videogames that are eminently doable, with a console that is eminently capable of it being good at delivering. It's got a fairly good touchscreen, it's plenty powerful enough to deliver good games that aren't just pretty ... but, you know ... good, and it's a fantastic console for you to involve anyone into the gameplay with because of its portability and roaming potential. People can whine as much as they like aboutthe possibility of game porting, but I'll still be here playing Close Combat: ABTF (circa 1997) occasionally at uni in my downtime.

Pretty good game ... doesn't seem to have ports.

Still waiting for videogames to grow up, apparently.

It's wasted potential.

CritialGaming:
But take any other company that has had good relationships with Nintendo in the past. Where's the Switch version of Assassin's Creed Origins? Call of Duty WW2?

Hell, they're not even getting Kingdom Hearts 3 or Ni no Kuni 2, whose kiddy-friendly vibes should be right up Nintendo's alley.

Johnny Novgorod:

CritialGaming:
But take any other company that has had good relationships with Nintendo in the past. Where's the Switch version of Assassin's Creed Origins? Call of Duty WW2?

Hell, they're not even getting Kingdom Hearts 3 or Ni no Kuni 2, whose kiddy-friendly vibes should be right up Nintendo's alley.

Not to mention that Square Enix and Level 5 are both buddy buddy with Nintendo. Which only means that the Tech in the Switch cannot hold up to the requirements for those games. Ni No is actually contracted by Sony to be exclusive so it kind of doesn't count. But Square has been confirmed to be making a Switch JRPG, it just will be design specifically for the Switch. Which is telling to me. Games on the Switch have to be made FOR the Switch, and just porting current gen games is more work than any publisher is going to bother with.

CritialGaming:

Yoshi178:

where's the latest Street Fighter on Xbox One? oh right. it's not. it's not even multiplatform. Sony bought the exclusivity rights or at the least timed exclusivity rights to that. or maybe Capcom just only wants to sell Street Fighter on a Platform where they think it will make them money, like oh i don't know, the platform with over 50 million hardware sales rather than the platform with only about 20 something million hardware sales.

is Xbox One not getting Street Fighter because it's "underpowered" too is it?

i never said the Switch can do something the PS3/360 can't do if you're talking about "gimped" versions of modern games. there is absolutely no reason why Rockstar couldn't make a "gimped" version of RDR2 for the Switch if they wanted to, but the fact is they won't because they have a bad relationship with Nintendo. that has nothing to do with being "underpowered" at all

Street Fighter is multiplatform because it's on PC too.

Rockstar doesn't do gimped. They have no reason to do that anymore as all the major platforms can now basically have the same development. If anything the PS4/Xbone version are the gimped versions because the PC is so much more powerful.

But take any other company that has had good relationships with Nintendo in the past. Where's the Switch version of Assassin's Creed Origins? Call of Duty WW2?

I really don't think you understand the level of work it would take ANY studio to make a completely different version of a game just to make it work on a weak console. Fact of the matter is this, the Switch will only ever get ports of current console games if those games already have a compatible art style. Disgaea 5 for example, uses pixel sprites and still artwork for everything, so a Switch post was easy because none of the core game had to be altered in order to run acceptably.

But you are absolutely dreaming if you think you are going to get big AAA experiences from anyone outside of Nintendo's developers. Unless of course they outright BUY games to be made like Bayonetta 2 or Mario+Rabids. While those are 3rd party games, they are only Switch games, which should prove to you that multiplatform gaming is going to be a hard thing to make happen on the Switch.

Can it work? Sure. But not for anything current gen. It just wont happen.

Pretty Sure FIFA 18, WWE 2K18, Sonic Force's Lego Worlds and Rocket League are all current gen games and Switch is getting versions of all of those.

that doesn't mean Switch is going to get EVERYTHING. as i said earlier, Nintendo needs to build back trust and confidence with 3rd Parties before more 3rd Party games start coming back to Nintendo platforms. and after the Wii U sales, can you really blame 3rd Parties for not wanting to risk wasting shitloads of money just to bring an "AAA" quality multiplatform game over to the Switch? 3rd Parties are clearly just testing the waters at the moment.

Nintendo will never build trust with third-party game makers for the simple fact that they treat them as competitors, not partners. That approach is what allowed Sony to walk right into a market that so many others had failed in. Nintedo user expernsive media that they controlled production of and made third parties bend the knee to be accepted as members of the "Dream Team", SEGA withheld libraries and techniques from licensees for up to a year, hobbling Saturn developers, but Sony worked with their licensees to help make things easier, because they knew a system with no games isn't going to be worth owning. Hell, two of the most successful first-party series on PS1, Crash and Spyro, were actually originated by Universal Studios but impressed Sony enough that they partnered up to publish them to make sure they reached the biggest audience they could.

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:
If you are a gamer and don't have any platform, you're not going to choose a Switch for your first console (besides the Nintendo fanboys) because you'd be missing out on over 90% of the games.

i could just as easily say only Sony fanboys choose to have the PS4 as their Primary Platform or only Xbox Fanboys have the Xbox One as their Primary platform.

that argument is stupid and based on nothing but you're own personal bias.

No you can't. If someone prefers consoles over PCs, then the option is really just PS4/Xbone if they want to have access to the vast vast vast majority of games. Then, they might consider getting a Switch afterward. I don't even like Sony's main franchises like Uncharted, God of War, Killzone, etc.

Yoshi178:
where's the latest Street Fighter on Xbox One? oh right. it's not. it's not even multiplatform. Sony bought the exclusivity rights or at the least timed exclusivity rights to that. or maybe Capcom just only wants to sell Street Fighter on a Platform where they think it will make them money, like oh i don't know, the platform with over 50 million hardware sales rather than the platform with only about 20 something million hardware sales.

is Xbox One not getting Street Fighter because it's "underpowered" too is it?

Sony did make some deal for console rights with Capcom for SFV after looking it up as I don't play or know much about fighters. Getting a near 25-year old game isn't something to celebrate and point to as 3rd-party support. Where's the Switch version of the latest BlazBlue, Mortal Kombat, Tekken, Injustice, etc.? Just face it, the Switch isn't getting versions of current-gen games.

Yoshi178:
there is absolutely no reason why Rockstar couldn't make a "gimped" version of RDR2 for the Switch if they wanted to, but the fact is they won't because they have a bad relationship with Nintendo. that has nothing to do with being "underpowered" at all

Yes, there is, the reason being it isn't worth the resources to put RDR2 on the Switch. It won't sell on the Switch because every gamer (that's not a full-on Nintendo fanboy) games on a different platform as well and will buy RDR2 on another platform. Look how poor the sales of Batman Arkham City, Mass Effect 3, and Watch Dogs went on Wii U because just about everyone that wanted to play those games already played them on another platform.

Yoshi178:
Pretty Sure FIFA 18, WWE 2K18, Sonic Force's Lego Worlds and Rocket League are all current gen games and Switch is getting versions of all of those.

Those are all games that don't require the power of current-gen hardware, we already went through this...

Addendum_Forthcoming:
Snip

I was just using MGS5's FOB mode as an example for the shared single-player world, not that it was amazing or anything. MGS is my favorite game series probably, and I haven't even bothered to finish MGS5, that pretty much tells you how I feel about MGS5 generally. I don't see a Switch game ever even reaching something like that yet exceeding it due to the cumbersome nature of Nintendo's online service along with Nintendo themselves never really developing games with online features as the core of the game along with probably being one of the most derivative devs themselves.

The problem with your ideas is that most players I don't think would be down to play games like that. There's a reason board games are board games, because they are far cheaper to make and thus require much fewer sales to be profitable because the people interested in such games is much smaller than that of video games. If there was shooter had a mode similar to what you say, everyone thinks it's DM and realizes it's CTF instead, just about all the players would quit out. I agree video games are very young still and even devolving at times, there's still really great games out there that can only exist as video games. I say this as someone who didn't give a game an 8+/10 for basically 3 straight years (between TLOU and Dishonored 2) and even calling Witcher 3 a bad game because it failed horribly at gameplay even though the writing and questing were probably some of the best ever seen in the RPG genre. And, yes, professional video game criticism is a joke, just about any gaming Youtube channel has better game criticism than any professional video game outlet at this point.

I don't get what people want from video games with regards to story and presentation. I just want actual good writing at this point, then we can move past that. Others say you shouldn't have cutscenes but you sorta need NPCs to talk and isn't it better to have a properly framed conversation rather than letting the player loot random cabinets/drawers while an NPC is delivering key plot or emotional dialogue? Video games can integrate storytelling elements from all mediums along with creating new elements to tell a story in the best possible way and saying you can't do this or that is in itself limiting.

Phoenixmgs:

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:
If you are a gamer and don't have any platform, you're not going to choose a Switch for your first console (besides the Nintendo fanboys) because you'd be missing out on over 90% of the games.

i could just as easily say only Sony fanboys choose to have the PS4 as their Primary Platform or only Xbox Fanboys have the Xbox One as their Primary platform.

that argument is stupid and based on nothing but you're own personal bias.

No you can't.

Too bad i just did.

Getting a near 25-year old game isn't something to celebrate and point to as 3rd-party support.

Getting sales from a near 25 year old game that has been sold at full price now IS something to celebrate though.

Capcom has said that because it exceeded sales expectations they have now started developing more Switch games which, LIKE I SAID, clearly shows that they were testing the waters on Switch before fully committing to developing games for it.

Yoshi178:
Capcom has said that because it exceeded sales expectations they have now started developing more Switch games which, LIKE I SAID, clearly shows that they were testing the waters on Switch before fully committing to developing games for it.

It doesn't mean Capcom going to be making anything for the Switch outside of selling more 25-year old games to Switch gamers, I mean suckers, for $40 and laughing their way to the bank. Is the Switch that hard up for games that you guys are spending $40 for games that old?

Phoenixmgs:

Yoshi178:
Capcom has said that because it exceeded sales expectations they have now started developing more Switch games which, LIKE I SAID, clearly shows that they were testing the waters on Switch before fully committing to developing games for it.

It doesn't mean Capcom going to be making anything for the Switch outside of selling more 25-year old games to Switch gamers, I mean suckers, for $40 and laughing their way to the bank. Is the Switch that hard up for games that you guys are spending $40 for games that old?

i don't know i didn't buy it. i feel bad for all the suckers who bought Ultra Street fighter II on PS4 and Xbox One as well though who also made capcom laugh all the way to the bank.

CritialGaming:

Johnny Novgorod:

CritialGaming:
But take any other company that has had good relationships with Nintendo in the past. Where's the Switch version of Assassin's Creed Origins? Call of Duty WW2?

Hell, they're not even getting Kingdom Hearts 3 or Ni no Kuni 2, whose kiddy-friendly vibes should be right up Nintendo's alley.

Not to mention that Square Enix and Level 5 are both buddy buddy with Nintendo. Which only means that the Tech in the Switch cannot hold up to the requirements for those games. Ni No is actually contracted by Sony to be exclusive so it kind of doesn't count. But Square has been confirmed to be making a Switch JRPG, it just will be design specifically for the Switch. Which is telling to me. Games on the Switch have to be made FOR the Switch, and just porting current gen games is more work than any publisher is going to bother with.

Switch is basically gaming's bitchy vegan friend of a friend who shows up after lunch is all planned out and suddenly you need to think of two menus. It's double the effort and practically nobody cares or wants it, but hey, there's that one person.

Yoshi178:
i don't know i didn't buy it. i feel bad for all the suckers who bought Ultra Street fighter II on PS4 and Xbox One as well though who also made capcom laugh all the way to the bank.

Street Fighter II is $10 on PSN...

Johnny Novgorod:
Switch is basically gaming's bitchy vegan friend of a friend who shows up after lunch is all planned out and suddenly you need to think of two menus. It's double the effort and practically nobody cares or wants it, but hey, there's that one person.

Haha, and without any cool powers...
image

Johnny Novgorod:
It's double the effort and practically nobody cares or wants it, but hey, there's that one person.

practically nobody cares or wants it yeah (except maybe the 4.7 million people that have already bought a Switch in the first 4 months it's been out) BUT APART from those people then sure i'd agree with this :)

Phoenixmgs:

Yoshi178:
i don't know i didn't buy it. i feel bad for all the suckers who bought Ultra Street fighter II on PS4 and Xbox One as well though who also made capcom laugh all the way to the bank.

Street Fighter II is $10 on PSN...

that just makes it even more impressive that Capcom was able to sell a crapload of a $40 physical version of it on the Switch then. i mean after all, nobody gives a crap about the Switch or Nintendo apparently...

Phoenixmgs:

Johnny Novgorod:
Switch is basically gaming's bitchy vegan friend of a friend who shows up after lunch is all planned out and suddenly you need to think of two menus. It's double the effort and practically nobody cares or wants it, but hey, there's that one person.

Haha, and without any cool powers...
image

And veggies are now hard to come by due to artifitial scarcity, and everybody sees through it except the vegetarians, who go "think of the poor farmers!" :P I think I found my favorite analogy for Nintendo's place in the world.

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:

Yoshi178:
i don't know i didn't buy it. i feel bad for all the suckers who bought Ultra Street fighter II on PS4 and Xbox One as well though who also made capcom laugh all the way to the bank.

Street Fighter II is $10 on PSN...

that just makes it even more impressive that Capcom was able to sell a crapload of a $40 physical version of it on the Switch then. i mean after all, nobody gives a crap about the Switch or Nintendo apparently...

That reasoning is faulty.

It could be the case that Switch owners are desperate enough to get new games that they're willing to pay a jacked up price. On the other hand, the PSN price would reflect the fact that Ultra Street Fighter II has to compete with so many other titles that they need to have the price at $10 to sell well.

You're letting your biases fill in blanks without any evidence to support your assumptions over any other hypothesis.

Yoshi178:
that just makes it even more impressive that Capcom was able to sell a crapload of a $40 physical version of it on the Switch then. i mean after all, nobody gives a crap about the Switch or Nintendo apparently...

I guess $40 for a game doesn't seem so bad when you're used of paying $30 for a piece of plastic with costume DLC attached to it.

Avnger:

You're letting your biases fill in blanks without any evidence to support your assumptions over any other hypothesis.

Welcome to the Escapist Internet.

Phoenixmgs:

Yoshi178:
that just makes it even more impressive that Capcom was able to sell a crapload of a $40 physical version of it on the Switch then. i mean after all, nobody gives a crap about the Switch or Nintendo apparently...

I guess $40 for a game doesn't seem so bad when you're used of paying $30 for a piece of plastic with costume DLC attached to it.

amiibo's cost $15...

Avnger:

You're letting your biases fill in blanks without any evidence to support your assumptions over any other hypothesis.

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2017/07/28/capcom-planning-boost-support-nintendo-switch-titles/

here's my evidence. where's yours? you know, your evidence about people only buying street fighter II because they're desperate and have nothing else to play on it?

oh and what's this?

https://www.polygon.com/2017/8/1/16075038/resident-evil-revelations-revelations-2-nintendo-switch-ps4-xbox-one-release-date

BAM! 2 more Capcom games confirmed coming to Switch

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:

Yoshi178:
that just makes it even more impressive that Capcom was able to sell a crapload of a $40 physical version of it on the Switch then. i mean after all, nobody gives a crap about the Switch or Nintendo apparently...

I guess $40 for a game doesn't seem so bad when you're used of paying $30 for a piece of plastic with costume DLC attached to it.

amiibo's cost $15...

My fault, I don't know what they cost, I just looked up one and it was this one and it's $35. Still $15 for DLC that would cost a buck or two anywhere else is highway robbery.

Yoshi178:
oh and what's this?

https://www.polygon.com/2017/8/1/16075038/resident-evil-revelations-revelations-2-nintendo-switch-ps4-xbox-one-release-date

BAM! 2 more Capcom games confirmed coming to Switch

Really?!?! LAST-gen games on a NEW system is something to celebrate? That's just a remaster/port. That's like saying a PS4 is totally worth it because of TLOU/Uncharted/Skyrim/Bioshock/GTAV/etc remasters.

Phoenixmgs:

Yoshi178:

Phoenixmgs:

I guess $40 for a game doesn't seem so bad when you're used of paying $30 for a piece of plastic with costume DLC attached to it.

amiibo's cost $15...

My fault, I don't know what they cost, I just looked up one and it was this one and it's $35. Still $15 for DLC that would cost a buck or two anywhere else is highway robbery.

Yoshi178:
oh and what's this?

https://www.polygon.com/2017/8/1/16075038/resident-evil-revelations-revelations-2-nintendo-switch-ps4-xbox-one-release-date

BAM! 2 more Capcom games confirmed coming to Switch

Really?!?! LAST-gen games on a NEW system is something to celebrate? That's just a remaster/port. That's like saying a PS4 is totally worth it because of TLOU/Uncharted/Skyrim/Bioshock/GTAV/etc remasters.

Look, the guy has a fucking Nintendo avatar and started a jackoff thread about Switch sales numbers. Maturity and realism are clearly not things he has any involvement with, so don't expect him not to have a double standard when it comes to ports if they are coming to a Nintendo system.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here