[Megathread] Nintendo Switch

[Zenfoldor]

https://dualpixels.com/will-pokemon-...mon-game-ever/

Found the "Predictions" heading interesting.

[Jester Joe]

True, but as I said I think. I am not entirely true if it was Nintendo making the offer or a 3rd party.

Otherwise I can't recall Nintendo or The Pokemon Company dropping prices of games.

Let's go Pikachu and Eevee went on sale over the holidays. Mystery dungeon team has gone on sale before too.

Haven't seen a single sword and shield sale though.

[CastletonSnob]

"Nintendo shouldn't make a powerful console to directly compete with Sony and Microsoft, since the N64 and GameCube, both powerful consoles, failed!" Here's the thing: The N64 and GameCube didn't fail because they were trying to compete against Sony and Microsoft, they failed because Nintendo made stupid decisions with those consoles, like sticking with cartridges and using mini-DVDs.

[Zenfoldor]

"Nintendo shouldn't make a powerful console to directly compete with Sony and Microsoft, since the N64 and GameCube, both powerful consoles, failed!" Here's the thing: The N64 and GameCube didn't fail because they were trying to compete against Sony and Microsoft, they failed because Nintendo made stupid decisions with those consoles, like sticking with cartridges and using mini-DVDs.

Nintendo is unpredictable. Their un-predictableness is unpredictable. They may come out with a Switch 2 next gen that just upgrades this one in every way....or they may make something completely random/out of left field.

That's one reason they are so great.

I can't make a formula that tells me what Nintendo would do. If I did, that formula certainly wouldn't have inspired them to invent the Switch. I could give you a whole bunch of bullcrap about how Nintendo like to use tested hardware, like the mac folks, but I won't. Nintendo is strange and interesting.

Graphics don't matter that much, honestly, I am surprised more people don't realize that. I think they get caught up in the next gen marketing. Look at Hades on Switch. WOW that game was ugly, but one of the best games ever made. When a game is really good, and not just a tech demo or just hype or whatever, when a game is really a 10/10 quality game, graphics won't get in the way of that, they never did. The GAME is the thing, not the graphics.

Just look at the Switch. Look at Metroid Dread.

If Nintendo does what many expect, they will release a more powerful Switch 2. They probably won't do what most people expect.

The Switch hardware was already pretty dated, iirc, when Nintendo picked it. That is PROBABLY the result of the Wii-U failure. Remember, Switch wasn't an evolution from the very sucessful handhelds, it really was an evolution of the controller for the Wii-U. It was a huge risk, with, iirc, some market analysts predicting 16 million lifetime(they sold > 1m for multiple weeks this holiday iirc). This thing was a HUGE risk, there was probably little appetite for expensive bleeding edge tech and high up front costs to the consumer and low battery life...kinda glad they picked this SOC.

[SavoirFaire]

Nintendo is unpredictable. Their un-predictableness is unpredictable. They may come out with a Switch 2 next gen that just upgrades this one in every way....or they may make something completely random/out of left field.

You’re speaking on unpredictable on their consoles. Their portables have always done well, if not slow starters.

Note that the switch really had no gimmick. No 3D, not much in the way of motion control, obviously not the odd controller of the Wii-U. I think the days of the Nintendo gimmick may have passed us, unless one considers the dual nature of the Switch is the gimmick.

[RobertoCarlos]

Nintendo is unpredictable. Their un-predictableness is unpredictable. They may come out with a Switch 2 next gen that just upgrades this one in every way....or they may make something completely random/out of left field.

That's one reason they are so great.

I can't make a formula that tells me what Nintendo would do. If I did, that formula certainly wouldn't have inspired them to invent the Switch. I could give you a whole bunch of bullcrap about how Nintendo like to use tested hardware, like the mac folks, but I won't. Nintendo is strange and interesting.

Graphics don't matter that much, honestly, I am surprised more people don't realize that. I think they get caught up in the next gen marketing. Look at Hades on Switch. WOW that game was ugly, but one of the best games ever made. When a game is really good, and not just a tech demo or just hype or whatever, when a game is really a 10/10 quality game, graphics won't get in the way of that, they never did. The GAME is the thing, not the graphics.

Just look at the Switch. Look at Metroid Dread.

If Nintendo does what many expect, they will release a more powerful Switch 2. They probably won't do what most people expect.

The Switch hardware was already pretty dated, iirc, when Nintendo picked it. That is PROBABLY the result of the Wii-U failure. Remember, Switch wasn't an evolution from the very sucessful handhelds, it really was an evolution of the controller for the Wii-U. It was a huge risk, with, iirc, some market analysts predicting 16 million lifetime(they sold > 1m for multiple weeks this holiday iirc). This thing was a HUGE risk, there was probably little appetite for expensive bleeding edge tech and high up front costs to the consumer and low battery life...kinda glad they picked this SOC.

Graphics are clearly important.

Thats why Naughty Dog spent 1/3rd of their budget on crash bandicoot 1 just on crash's model alone. Instead of 2d pixel characters like Donkey Kong and Mario

And i'd say that was quite a big leap in gaming because then people could start getting behind the character and immerse themselves into that world and even compare it to a saturday morning looney tunes show.

Graphics DO matter. Nostalgia/enjoyment of a genre can look past graphics but it doesnt mean they are unimportant.

[Zenfoldor]

Graphics are clearly important.

Thats why Naughty Dog spent 1/3rd of their budget on crash bandicoot 1 just on crash's model alone. Instead of 2d pixel characters like Donkey Kong and Mario

And i'd say that was quite a big leap in gaming because then people could start getting behind the character and immerse themselves into that world and even compare it to a saturday morning looney tunes show.

Graphics DO matter. Nostalgia/enjoyment of a genre can look past graphics but it doesnt mean they are unimportant.

Look at Crash now vs Donkey Kong and Mario. They matter for short term marketing, but don't really fool anyone once the shine has worn off. I can name a million great games with bad graphics, but I can't name one bad game that was made good because of the graphics. ALL graphics now will be bad in a few years. Graphics are a moving target, and they are by far the least important aspect of any game. They are the font of a book, and their relevance is fleeting. IMO.

In your example you mentioned games that took place before we hit diminishing returns with graphics in 3d worlds. Once diminishing returns were achieved respectively in pancake 2D/3D gaming, graphics mattered even less.

Imagination will always beat better graphics, and engaging the imagination happens more frequently with gameplay, narrative, sound design, ect, imo. That's not to say that "better graphics" isn't a ubiquitous industry. I'm a consumer there. I'm just saying that they are really not as important as I like to pretend they are, just so I can arbitrarily have something to look forward too or get excited over. Graphics alone will never make the game. Poor technical implementation can certainly hurt a game though.

Early Acreus review, spoilers of course:

https://www.consolecreatures.com/rev...egends-arceus/

[Darththeo]

Graphics are clearly important.

Thats why Naughty Dog spent 1/3rd of their budget on crash bandicoot 1 just on crash's model alone. Instead of 2d pixel characters like Donkey Kong and Mario

And i'd say that was quite a big leap in gaming because then people could start getting behind the character and immerse themselves into that world and even compare it to a saturday morning looney tunes show.

Graphics DO matter. Nostalgia/enjoyment of a genre can look past graphics but it doesnt mean they are unimportant.

The reason people say graphics are unimportant is that it doesn't matter how good the graphics are if the game is crap. Graphics can make a good game better and a bad game worse, but that is pretty much. While there is some impact, it is less than everything else.

Graphics just have to be good enough not to take away from the experience. But even if you put the best graphics in the world on a crappy game, you still have a crappy game.

Think of it this way: Would you rather have a dirty gem or glittery dog droppings?

[Zenfoldor]

Maybe that other review wasn't early. Metacritic:

https://www.metacritic.com/game/swit...legends-arceus

It's performing exceptionally well, but I imagine that IGN Italia review is dragging it down some. How does IGN Portugal give it a 90 and IGN Italia give the same game a 50? Don't answer that, I know how, but it's awe inspiring. Reviews are PLENTY good for most Pokemon fans I'm sure.

[Yunru]

Maybe that other review wasn't early. Metacritic:

https://www.metacritic.com/game/swit...legends-arceus

It's performing exceptionally well, but I imagine that IGN Italia review is dragging it down some. How does IGN Portugal give it a 90 and IGN Italia give the same game a 50? Don't answer that, I know how, but it's awe inspiring. Reviews are PLENTY good for most Pokemon fans I'm sure.

Italy has to much water 7.8?

[Tech614]

Maybe that other review wasn't early. Metacritic:

https://www.metacritic.com/game/swit...legends-arceus

It's performing exceptionally well, but I imagine that IGN Italia review is dragging it down some. How does IGN Portugal give it a 90 and IGN Italia give the same game a 50? Don't answer that, I know how, but it's awe inspiring. Reviews are PLENTY good for most Pokemon fans I'm sure.

It's not a weighted score so it's not holding it down much at all. Only main IGN is a weighted score and they haven't reviewed it yet. Gamespot with a weighted 80 basically guarantees it to stay in the mid 80s, it would need some weighted 95+ scores to overcome that and get much higher. If another weighted publication like IGN or EDGE comes in with an 8 it will drop way lower then a non weighted place giving it a 50.

That's the big difference between metacritic and opencritic. OC is an average of all reviews, MC is only big boys matter and the rest of the reviews are here for cosmetic reasons.

[Poppincaps]

I read/watched a few reviews and they reminded me a lot of the reviews from Sword and Shield. Hopefully it's better than Sword and Shield, but several people have mentioned "It's not perfect, but it's something new" which as someone who thinks the old Pokemon formula was fine, I don't really care about how new it is, only how good it is.

- - - Updated - - -

Unfortunately, I doubt most of the critics of Sword and Shield got review codes, so I'll just have to see for myself.

- - - Updated - - -

This review got me a lot more hyped especially since he spoke on some of the things I care about particularly and seems to have a deeper knowledge of Pokemon.

[saixilein]

Yeah but look what they did to my son

It looks like it is smoking to much weed the whole day and dont even notice anything around him.

[rarhyx]

Look at Crash now vs Donkey Kong and Mario. They matter for short term marketing, but don't really fool anyone once the shine has worn off. I can name a million great games with bad graphics, but I can't name one bad game that was made good because of the graphics. ALL graphics now will be bad in a few years. Graphics are a moving target, and they are by far the least important aspect of any game. They are the font of a book, and their relevance is fleeting. IMO.

In your example you mentioned games that took place before we hit diminishing returns with graphics in 3d worlds. Once diminishing returns were achieved respectively in pancake 2D/3D gaming, graphics mattered even less.

Imagination will always beat better graphics, and engaging the imagination happens more frequently with gameplay, narrative, sound design, ect, imo. That's not to say that "better graphics" isn't a ubiquitous industry. I'm a consumer there. I'm just saying that they are really not as important as I like to pretend they are, just so I can arbitrarily have something to look forward too or get excited over. Graphics alone will never make the game. Poor technical implementation can certainly hurt a game though.

Early Acreus review, spoilers of course:

https://www.consolecreatures.com/rev...egends-arceus/

while I agree on the point graphics is not everything I must say:
if you release a game in 2022 with the graphics of 2003 you deserve all the shit you get for graphics
you didn't do your homework and clearly dont care for your product and have only money before your eyes

[Traveler Voltin]

i always love the graphics are important people because i can simply bring up Minecraft and their argument becomes moot.

[Poppincaps]

i always love the graphics are important people because i can simply bring up Minecraft and their argument becomes moot.

I think graphics are important, but only insofar as they support the style of the game. Final Fantasy 7 is an example of a game where the graphics completely ruin the game. I'm sorry but blocky chibi Sephiroth running around stabbing people is just not intimidating at all. Whereas in Final Fantasy 7 Remake they were really able to bring Midgar and the characters to life with the enhanced graphics. Ultimately, art direction is what matters, not really the raw fidelity of a title.

I think Legends Arceus looks fine. It doesn't really add to the experience, but I don't think it really detracts from it either.

[Video Games]

I think graphics are important, but only insofar as they support the style of the game. Final Fantasy 7 is an example of a game where the graphics completely ruin the game. I'm sorry but blocky chibi Sephiroth running around stabbing people is just not intimidating at all. Whereas in Final Fantasy 7 Remake they were really able to bring Midgar and the characters to life with the enhanced graphics. Ultimately, art direction is what matters, not really the raw fidelity of a title.

I think Legends Arceus looks fine. It doesn't really add to the experience, but I don't think it really detracts from it either.

Not a fair comparison. Ff7 had hardware limitations, but they made the cgi cutscenes to show what the game is really supposed to look like and you're supposed to imagine the game looking like that. Dont look at it through the lens of 25 years of tech advancements

[Lahis]

i always love the graphics are important people because i can simply bring up Minecraft and their argument becomes moot.

Minecraft has an aesthetic it sticks to.

It is low fidelity aesthetic but it works really well.

Pokémon doesn't have good aesthetic and just has bad graphics.

[Poppincaps]

Not a fair comparison. Ff7 had hardware limitations, but they made the cgi cutscenes to show what the game is really supposed to look like and you're supposed to imagine the game looking like that. Dont look at it through the lens of 25 years of tech advancements

I mean FF8 and FF9 look just fine and they run on the same hardware. I'm just saying I think FF7 graphically has aged the worst of any game I've seen and the art team should've known that the chibi 3D models would clash against the realistic looking 2D backgrounds. Obviously I forgive them as 3D games were relatively new during that time, but it doesn't change my opinion that the game has aged atrociously.

[Video Games]

Oh what could have been