Topic: Current Switch 2 line-up not good enough?

@skywake
@OmnitronVariant isn't gonna flex, man. They're just gonna keep saying (ironically) they're being persecuted... in a gaming forum lol And now they're on a high horse kick of accusing everyone else of being "mean" or something like that, I don't know. They accuse you of gatekeeping, but there is literally no gate to even keep around here. It's a free public forum.

And @Bolt_Strike is just doing the usual "the way I think is the way everyone else thinks... except for you, but I've decided to not like you" fallacy, and they seem pretty committed to the bit, so... yea. I just don't think you're gonna get very far with either of them right now.

@bixente
How dare you come here with facts and stats. Begone! (lol sorry j/k)

I wonder if the real issue isn’t so much the lineup itself, but the lack of a clear incentive to see the Switch 2 as a huge leap over the original. And that's what's bleeding into the general impression of the console.

Whenever new hardware launches, I think we all expect to be a little wowed, but the Switch 2’s upgrades feel pretty modest so far - a bigger screen, a nicer tactile feel. The rest such as game chat, webcam features, mouse mode, etc comes off more like gimmicks that don’t add much in practice. I can totally see the comparisons to Wii U here in the sense it's really not the big evolutionary jump we expected.

Ultimately, Nintendo will probably need to start phasing out support for the original Switch if they want the new system to stand on its own, but for obvious reasons that’s easier said than done.

@rallydefault
That be how it be. I just have a bit of a habit of being fairly chill, broadly optimistic but blunt and prone to simplifying problems. Which serves me well in the real world..... but seems to infuriate those who like to create forum drama to no end

Switch 2 is a huge leap over the Switch in terms of hardware power. I've seen it most actually with the third party ports - Star Wars Outlaws an open world adventure with Ray tracing! Cyberpunk 2077, another terrific port. Compare WWE 2K25 with WWE 2K18 on Switch -

@Bolt_Strike
The thread topic is whether or not there are enough games for the Switch 2. I would note that the OP counted Kirby, Metroid, Pokemon and even Galaxy. The point I chimed in was when you were starting to play the age-old gaming forum rule-in/rule-out game. This game counts as a Switch 2 game, this other game doesn't count etc, etc

All I'm saying is that the only things that matters are whether or not the game is available on the platform, whether or not it is new or offers anything new to the user on the platform and how much the user has to pay to make it available on that platform. To me Metroid Prime 4 is a Switch 2 game, because I'll be buying it for the Switch 2. To me TotK Switch 2 Edition is a deluxe edition not unlike DK:TF or Mario Kart 8 on Switch, just not at full retail

In terms of the incentive to upgrade the hardware, whether you like it or not, it is specs and features. And this can be something like an IR camera, improved haptics, motion controls, mouse mode. It can also be more RAM, more game storage, more CPU cores, a faster storage subsystem and tensor cores. And yes, ultimately it does have to be games taking advantage of those specs and features which is what we actually buy. But the thing is, these improvements don't have to be fully utilised for every game

Ultimately what upgraded hardware does and should do is open up more options for games. For some games that might mean simply running at a higher resolution and framerate. For some it might mean removing artificial loading zones. For others it might mean adding support for mouse-mode or doing something interesting with GameShare. For some, like cross-platform ports and exclusives, it might just mean that the game is even possible

.... but there are also games which won't need any of the new features at all. Even if they can use some of them. For example, I don't think anyone gains anything from Metroid Prime 4 being a Switch 2 exclusive. I consider it a Switch 2 game because that's where I'm getting it and I consider the higher IQ and framerate to be worth the $20AU upgrade fee. But you don't, and you can choose to not engage with the improved features and still play the game on the older hardware. That ability for both of us to choose, I don't see how that's a negative for me, you or Nintendo. Because the end result of it is both of us paying for and enjoying the game

The second and third points are major issues and where the most debate is. The pricing issues have been well documented, and the second point is the reason why cross gen ports are so questionable, if they're not doing anything new with the game on the new platform is it really all that worthwhile?

The issue is that eventually, Switch 1 support is going to stop and we'll all be FORCED to buy Switch 2 to keep playing Nintendo games. There are no "options" long terms aside from competing platforms made by other companies, in a few years the Switch 2 will be the only Nintendo platform on the market. This is a mandatory upgrade, basically a $450 tax to keep enjoying Nintendo games. If they're not going to be making games that take advantage of the hardware, or if there's no hardware upgrades to take advantage of, what is even the point? It's planned obsolescence.

The kind of sales model consoles are operating under, where you have to buy a new one every few years to play the new games, is not one that's compatible with a wealth of options like you want. It's designed more for continual evolution where the next console is outright better than the last and can serve as a replacement. And the issue is I'm seeing little to no evolution in the jump from Switch 1 to Switch 2 to justify such a sales model. I'm just seeing a tech company that wants another $450 from us for no other reason than wanting more money.

@Bolt_Strike
You're having it both ways. You complain that it's a bad thing that the Switch 2 library is dominated by cross generation and cross platform releases. That there's not enough there for you to want to upgrade. But then when I point out that this is good because it allows you to choose when you upgrade you complain that, eventually, they'll move on from Switch and you will be "forced" to upgrade to experience these new compelling Switch 2 exclusives

These are contradictory opinions, they can't both be true at the same time

Can't really agree with the premise of this thread, the Switch 2 software lineup for this year has been quite good and next year looks even better assuming nothing is delayed. Obviously, Switch 2 is missing a new 3D Zelda and 3D Mario in its launch year which is a negative compared to Switch 1 in 2017, but those IPs will obviously come to Switch 2 eventually (and there is DK Bananza for those who want a similar kind of platformer from the 3D Mario developers).

@skywake It's not a contradiction. The cross gen releases, by virtue of running on past platforms, don't do the job of showing how the new generation is an evolution of the previous gen. But the exclusives might not either, especially when the hardware doesn't really do much to evolve from the Switch 1. So if you have exclusives that are largely similar to Switch 1 game, then you're getting into the stagnant planned obsolescence territory. It's not just enough to have exclusives. You need exclusives that provide a noticeably better experience from past gen exclusives. Otherwise it makes you wonder why they felt the need to make a new console in the first place.

@Bolt_Strike
Except there are already titles on Switch 2 that wouldn't have been possible on Switch. Meanwhile other hardware transitions which you hold up as being comparatively better in this regard never really had that. What could Switch do that Wii U couldn't? Honestly, not much

The argument doesn't stack up

They sure don't look the part. Graphics need a microscope to tell the difference and they're going for the same open world style gameplay we saw from Switch games.

Kind of, but at least the Switch had the feel of doing something new with the open world games even if the Wii U technically could've done them and simply chose not to. Which also tied into the system's core concept because it showed "Hey, you can get console scale games on the go, making it the best of both worlds of console and handheld". So it's not ideal either, but it worked well enough. And that trick doesn't work twice.

Really I would say that console generations in general aren't really necessary anymore. We're not getting that quantum leap in graphics that we used to get from performance increases 20-30 years ago, developers aren't really coming up with ideas that feel unthinkable from what we saw from 7th/8th gen games, and the increase in power is doing more harm than good due to the constant increase in dev time/manpower/money needed each gen. It feels like the industry has been grinding to a halt the last 10 years or so in just about every way with the sole exception of Nintendo merging console and handheld gaming. And again, to really drive this next gen replacement model you need constant evolution, a stagnating industry experiencing diminishing returns is not a convincing argument for why you need to spend hundreds of dollars on a shiny new box and throw out your old one every few years, it feels more like we should be able to afford to hold onto our current gen devices for 10-15 years at least.

@OmnitronVariant completely agree. I wish I kinda held off on buying a Switch 2, and that's my fault. Playing any of these new games or even previous Switch 1 games on the Switch 2, I can barely even tell if there's any quality upgrade. Donkey Kong Bananza has the same visual quality to me as Mario Odyssey did on Switch 1. And let me tell you this: Mario Odyssey never lagged. Both docked and undocked, Donkey Kong Bananza lagged a ***** ton on my Switch 2.

Again my biggest complaint: Where are the Gamecube games??? That's what sold me at first. I need something else to sink my teeth in. None of these upcoming releases I'm interested in except maybe Tomodachi Life.

Again, maybe it's my fault for buying this system on release, but I don't really see many advantages it has over the Switch 1 (so far). But, would I really be a Nintendo fan if I didn't complain about something while also buying their product regardless?

@OmnitronVariant I really get where you're coming from. I'll admit that I don't have a Switch 2 yet since I don't have the funds, and I got a PS5 last December and don't have time to manage both. But I only really want one to have it early so my backlog isn't insane when I do get it. It feels... manageable at best. There are games to play, but the ones that would really get me to bite (Star Wars Outlaws and Cyberpunk) are games I have on PS5. I mostly play docked, and I don't have any intentions of double dipping. All the interesting indies are available on other platforms, and I got them there since they run poorly on the Switch.

It also doesn't help that I'll probably buy the damned thing before the year ends so I can avoid paying extra in tariffs on the thing. That makes it feel like my hand is being forced a little.

@OmnitronVariant Pretty much this, but there's a few things here I don't find completely accurate.

For one, while the Wii U was more focused on new input modes, it also tried to be a technical leap. It was the first HD console after all. However, I would say it failed to demonstrate why it was a generational leap because it continued to focus on casual genres and because of the growing pains in adjusting to developing HD graphics, so you couldn't really feel that this was HD Nintendo with bigger and better games. The Switch I feel had a better concept of what kinds of games would be suitable for both the HD era and the unique hybrid concept, so I think that's a factor in why the two consoles had vastly different fortunes.

Second, I have played consoles other than Nintendo, and when you look at Playstation and Xbox which have been more consistent in playing the power game, the differences have been gradually becoming less pronounced. For example, PS1 -> PS2 was a major leap, PS2 -> PS3 is still noticeable but not quite as significant, PS3 -> PS4 is barely noticeable, and PS4 -> PS5 looks practically the same. This is what diminishing returns means, the differences are smaller and smaller over time. When you look at what the competition's been doing with power then you start to understand WHY the difference between Switch 1 and Switch 2 feels so minute, because each leap in power is offering less and less than the last.

I think Iwata had the right idea with the Wii when he wanted to stop chasing power. Power doesn't really have much to offer anymore and I think input modes are a much more fertile ground for noticeable improvement. It's a shame the rest of the industry doesn't seem to get it and keep chasing power despite the minimal changes, despite the increasing amount of resources leading to more layoffs and dev closures. They're like lemmings marching straight off the cliff. And now sadly Nintendo seems to be following them (albeit a bit further behind the pack).

@OmnitronVariant
I agree with your sentiments here, and it's quite literally why I think the cross-gen period has value. Not all games need the extra power. But I find it odd that you would make these points given in other threads you have gone at lengths to complain about the lack of performance and poor image quality of certain titles. Or gone on rants about how Nintendo is going to be screwed over by emerging competition who will deliver higher spec hardware. The Switch hardware revision was long overdue

In any case, in my opinion it's just hardware. And I'm not sure what either of you are actually advocating here. What would you have liked to see? I know @Bolt_Strike seems to be advocating for a perpetual life for the Switch. And I know you're just lashing out because you purchased stuff without researching it. But outside of those cycles of nonsense, what actually do you think they should have done?

Because, as far as I'm concerned, Switch 2 is basically just like buying a new GPU for my PC than it is a new console. It allows some games that weren't possible before, it allows existing games to run at higher settings. And, frankly, I think that's a good thing. Because new console generations suck and there was nothing that really needed fixing in terms of what the Switch was. It was just hopelessly outdated

I think the library is pretty strong if you're into single player games. Unfortunately for me, very rarely do I ever find myself interested in a SP game. The Switch 2 is my first Nintendo console since the GameBoy, and I went into it assumming that MP would be a thing.

As of right now, aside from Pokemon Scarlet and Splatoon 3, I don't really have anything else to play. So, IMO the current line up is pretty niche and only caters to one type of gamer.

@skywake
I think @Bolt_Strike is now saying Nintendo should have gone the gimmick route like the Wii and stuff rather than chasing power. But at the same time the Switch 2 games so far aren't showing the power enough. So that's a "double rawr" in internet speak.

@OmnitronVariant is acknowledging that most of what is being said here applies to the other gaming consoles as well, and the Steamdeck has been officially crowned by them as the actual Switch 2 due to the clickiness of the WASD mode, which is infinitely more creative than anything the Switch 2 is offering. Also Linux, which rules the school.

Jury is still out on the actual thread topic lol

@skywake In general what I'm advocating for is to stop going for power increases with new hardware. The current hardware specs feel sufficient for pretty much anything anyone would want to develop. Now that doesn't necessarily mean just stick with the Switch forever (although that's one option), there are other ways they could accomplish that, but I do think we've reached the end of an era where a Switch 2/Switch 3, PS5/PS6, etc. really offer anything of substance. Besides just lengthening hardware generations, the other option is to go for more "sidegrade" console gens that add something other than power as Nintendo did with the Wii and Switch. Find some other way to evolve gaming than "lol better graphics because reasons". In particular, I think until we get to the point of full body motion controlled VR gaming (maybe by then we'll have reached gaming's final form and then you could say there's no more need for new generations), new forms of control/input will always be a more fertile ground for innovation and evolution and that's where they need to be focusing their next gen ideas on.

Nothing is more creative than using one of the most common operating systems in the world!

Which thread are we in again? The wii u one? I see the term wii u was used 11 times on page 7 of this thread. Oh wait, we're on the 'Switch 2 has no games' thread.

Counterpoint: Switch 2 has games.

As Skywake said awhile ago, Switch 2 has far more decent looking games than I can actually afford to buy. Although I can certainly commiserate with the people just impatiently waiting for animal crossing.