And I'm not suggesting that people pay full price for remasters. What I'm saying is that Switch 2 Editions are indisputably better for us as consumers in this cross-gen period than the traditional approach of entirely seperate releases on two incompatible platforms.
Upgrade paths are definitely an improvement for past gen ports, I'll give you that. However, unless you haven't played the game before or really like it enough to start over, that also means you'll probably just play the new content for a few days and then move on. And that's definitely less engaging than a full priced game. So even so you're not really getting a full game of enjoyment there, just a fraction of a game, and that can make the lineup less valuable.
And my main argument in this thread is that, ultimately, what matters to the end user is the availability of games not what tally of titles fit into some arbitrary definition of "games that count"
Again, if these games are available on the past system, that reduces the incentive to upgrade. Because that past system has readily available games too. So even by your metric of availability of games, the Switch 2 isn't much better off than the Switch 1 yet (which isn't too surprising given it's a new console, but the Switch 1 was far better than the Wii U in its first year).
Really, I would describe the gaming utopia as one where purchasing hardware wasn't even required. One where exclusivity didn't exist because you'd just buy the games. Unfortunately that isn't reality. But in the absence of that utopia any mechanism that brings us closer to that is a good thing. Switch 2 Editions, Switch 2 updates, backwards compatibility, cross platform releases. These are all mechanisms that bring us closer to that
In terms of the Switch 2, in my mind it's just the unavoidable requirement to deliver said software. And, frankly, if I was to design my own piece of hardware for playing games it wouldn't be far off what Switch 2 is. Dockable portable, large high refresh rate screen, power efficient SoC. Obviously others will have different ideas of what makes the ideal and clearly Switch 2 isn't perfect. But in my mind Switch 2 is the closest we have to my ideal
Even so, as far as I'm concerned it's little more than a new bit of hardware in the direction I want to see new hardware go. And also not hamstrung in the way that Switch was. And it has software support. Does it have all the games pushing the hardware to it's limit? No. It's new. Buying a console at launch is dumb. But broadly, there's more than enough here and upcoming to have more games releasing than I can buy and play. Which is good enough. Especially given the games which are, unfortunately, exclusives on it are from Nintendo and their partners. Who are pretty clearly world class, or at least I think so
So to me I see little reason for the doom and gloom
The problem with this vision for the industry is that it would lead to stagnation, if you can just have every game playable on every console there'd be less incentive for games to evolve and they would just feel repetitive and samey. You'd be getting a lot more situations like with CoD and NSMB where the new entries all just feel like the same as the last and a lot of people would just get bored.
I would say the ideal hardware upgrade, and the ideal exclusive that takes advantage of said hardware, is one that opens up a new genre, gameplay style, or game mechanic that the older hardware couldn't do. Hell ideally it would be something unthinkable before this hardware even came out. This is why exclusives matter. They're supposed to demonstrate why this console upgrade is necessary by doing something that other consoles, both its predecessor and its competition, cannot.
This is the reason I've been against a largely specs-based concept for a Switch 2, because we've reached the point where specs improvements aren't really driving new game concepts anymore. We're mainly just getting CoD/NSMB scenarios where the games are the same and just look prettier (and not even noticeably so due to diminishing returns). Iwata had it right when he shifted away from the specs arms race and focused on gimmicks and other hardware improvements, he's been 2/3 on that one (the Switch was Iwata's baby, it was conceptualized when he was still alive and he sadly just didn't live to see its reveal/release to the public). Going away from that feels like a massive mistake and Nintendo may be losing its charm and quirkiness that have helped give it the reputation of being innovative.
@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
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.
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?
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 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
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
An opinion is only respectable if it can be defended. Respect people, not opinions
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
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
An opinion is only respectable if it can be defended. Respect people, not opinions
Except there are already titles on Switch 2 that wouldn't have been possible on Switch.
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.
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
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.
If we look at history, I think the picture @Bolt_Strike is painting becomes clearer. Think about the difference in games between these generations:
The "vast technical leap" generations:
NES -> SNES
Game Boy -> Game Boy Color (monochrome to colors + much larger ROM sizes with 2 AA batteries for 10+ hours might not seem like a lot today, but it was a major technical leap)
SNES -> N64
Game Boy Color -> Game Boy Advance
N64 -> GC
For three generations, the improvements were primarily graphical, but these improvements were so significant that it was enough on its own to provide vastly different gameplay systems and mechanics.
The "technical and input mode and display mode" leap in handhelds:
Game Boy Advance -> DS
This one is a bit special because not only was it a significant technical visual leap from GBA to DS, but the input mode and dual screens was a three-hit KO that brought new systems in every single conceivable way.
The "input mode" generations:
GC -> Wii
Wii -> Wii U
Here visual fidelity improvements slowed down somewhat, and weren't enough on their own to really provide significant new gameplay modes and mechanics, but the input innovation in Wii ushered forth the "casual" games market and was an easy sell to customers, because it was so clearly obvious how different it was from GameCube, even if in terms of visual presentation, it was practically the same hardware beefed up just a little.
Wii U we all know the story of; the extra screen was a tremendous gameplay enhancer, but marketing and software support made it a flop.
The "display mode" handheld generation:
DS -> 3DS
The 3DS was quite a significant jump in terms of visual presentation over DS, but its unique selling point was stereoscopic 3D without glasses. It didn't quite stick the landing but nobody were confused about the uniqueness, and comparing DS games to 3DS games side by side made it quite clear that it was a generational leap, at the very least.
Finally there's Wii U + 3DS -> Switch
This combined portable and stationary consoles into one product which itself was a revolutionary concept. We all know the story here.
However, if you now look at Switch -> Switch 2, things become the least differentiated they've ever been between any Nintendo console generation. Even I struggle to see a difference in screenshots and recorded video between Mario Kart 8D and Mario Kart World. In fact in many cases, I'd say 8D can look better because it doesn't need to cater to dynamic lighting and an open world. The difference is patently obvious once I play them back to back, but in trailers and screenshots I can barely tell the difference.
In terms of hardware features the only new features are mouse mode and a 120hz VRR display; the former an existing boring technology available for most consoles already, the latter two highly technical concepts that most developers don't even use. Not even Nintendo themselves.
It is the most difficult hardware generation to explain to non-Nintendo gamers because it looks so similar both in hardware features and in visual presentation, but is such a significant price hike with so many cross-gen games on top. This is the first generation — perhaps second if you consider Wii U tangentially similar — where Nintendo really needed to knock it out of the park with software to clearly depict why Switch 2 isn't just a Switch 1.5 — which it honestly is, but that's a topic for another day.
And so for the topic, I'd say the line-up isn't good enough. Not because it doesn't technically have games (of course it does), but because the games it does have do not do a good job of highlighting its strengths, and for its backwards compatibility often the games highlight its weaknesses. If you come off the Switch OLED, most Switch games look markedly worse on Switch 2 — both because of the screen quality difference, but also because Switch 2 will stretch the image to a much larger surface area without a resolution bump. TotK Switch 2 Edition has a lot of benefits, but the resolution bump then highlights many of the engine limitations, like the extremely clear shadow cascade right beneath Link's feet. Combined with how much of the game takes place in darkness, I prefer playing it on OLED; it just looks better even if it runs better on Switch 2.
There's a lot to like about the Switch 2 — 120hz and VRR were technical reasons for me to upgrade, because the potential is big. And yet only a handful of simplistic indie games support 120hz, and practically no games that I know of use the VRR properly at all. It's bizarre and feels rushed.
@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?
@KraftMicahCheese Same feeling I have. I know if I zoom in and yadayada that Bananza and MKW are both technically more impressive than Odyssey and MK8D, but that's just a minor detail and doesn't help me personally enjoy them. Odyssey and MK8D both ran at flawless 60fps at native resolution in handheld. And they still look great, and are still more fun in my personal opinion. I've played a lot more MK8D after MKW reminded me how good it is.
I've never really complained much about Nintendo in the past. And when I was a happy Nintendo customer I also rarely posted on forums because I was just busy enjoying the games. So for me personally this is a strange new time for me, where I regret buying the Switch 2 and am interacting in online discourse as much to figure out why it and these games miss this mark so much for me as anything else, really.
@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.
"I've spent two years wallowing in misery... and tonight, I just want you to know that tonight, I am happy."
-"Hangman" Adam Page, 7/12/2025
@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).
@Bolt_Strike Good points, and I agree. Nintendo were famously struggling to adjust to HD development during the Wii U, so the fault wasn't necessarily with the hardware, but it also didn't rest on just that aspect.
As for the concept of diminishing returns, that's very true. I highlighted Nintendo just to contrast with the Switch generations, which have now entered into exactly that kind of power game and highlight it within a single generational "leap". Iwata was exactly right, and it's the one thing that made the Switch 2 reveal very disappointing to me: It was just more of the same but slightly better, in non-obvious ways that required long segments to explain why they were improvements. If you have to show side-by-side comparisons of graphic enhancements, the difference isn't big enough. Iwata would never have signed off on that.
For many, this kind of incremental iteration is good enough, as is clear from the fact that PS5 is selling, even if I can't personally find a single reason to get it when I have a PS4 already collecting dust. But for me it means I'm having more fun with indie games that can't compete graphically and aren't even trying, instead focusing on what they can do that Nintendo no longer dares — and those indies are usually not on Nintendo platforms because dev kits are too costly and too rare.
This is why I personally think of the Steam Deck as the spiritual "Switch 2" for me, because while it is also much more capable than a Switch 1, it adds analogue triggers that have haptics, also present on the slide pads and sticks, that combine with programmable input modes to allow you to simulate almost any input mode for any type of game, and "feel" the difference. Put a joystick into "WASD" (four-directional mode), and feel it "click" when you hit the four directions. It's hard to overstate how good this feels and how playable it makes games that weren't even designed for a controller. That and access to the Linux OS underneath gives it powers that make it feel like a real creative leap over Switch 1.
Valve somehow out-Nintendo'd Nintendo with this one, in my opinion. Switch 2 might be slightly better technically in some metrics, but since I dislike the DLSS technology fundamentally (a topic for another thread) it's not the ones that count for me.
@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.
@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.
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.
I think it funny how everyone goes after a 'new' console for games that don't exist yet to buy or are in the dev pipeline. I am pretty old skool since I remember way back when games used to pleasantly sneak up on a shelf of a store and we would actually have to buy (or later rent) to see how the game was. Sure we had gaming mags and a few gaming tv shows but these were shown/available after a games release. IMHO the internet broke some of that gaming 'magic' that it once held for me. As well, I almost always stuck to one console (and PC/Mac...the computer engineer, I) and do space out hardware purchases measured in years (if not decades). Cheapskate, I am. I don't mind playing games X generations back on more powerful hardware...for instance, I am finding No Mans Sky and Hogwarts Legacy on the Switch 2 much more playable and therefore very enjoyable. As an older computer guy who still deals with computers every day, I don't want to 'tweak' systems to work with games and because of this, I don't think the handheld PCs are there yet so the Switch scratches both my wife and I's gaming itches. To each his own, I guess.
Forums
Topic: Current Switch 2 line-up not good enough?
Nintendo Switch 2 is finally here, check out our guide: Nintendo Switch 2 Guide: Ultimate Resource.
Posts 121 to 140 of 222
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic