A review is always more subjective by essence than objective.
A single review of a single game is. A counting of aggregate scores across an entire library is not. The Switch has more games than the Wii U >90%, >80%, >70%, >60% and in total. So I don't care what you're whine is, it has an objectively bigger and better reviewed library now than the Wii U has at EOL.
Another point to add, the autonomy is better on WiiU than Switch(almost double) and if you go with the 2550mAh battery then you basically triple the autonomy of the Switch.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The battery life of the Switch is pretty similar to the Wii U GamePad. And if you're adding battery packs to the Wii U to expand its life I don't know why you're not considering the same for Switch. In any case, it never mattered much for the Wii U for me because it was always a console to be played at home. I was always near the charger because it wasn't very portable at all.
For the Switch? I guess it does matter more because it's actually portable. But I carry battery packs and a USB Type C charging cable anyways so it has never been an issue. It was the same deal with the 3DS which had a comparable battery life. The only difference with 3DS is that because of it's proprietary charger it was much easier to be out of luck. If you ask me in terms of battery life and ease of charging? The Switch is the most portable console Nintendo has made since the DS Lite (which I barely remember having to charge at all).
@EvilLucario
Excellent points, for sure. It's definitely not as simple as any of us are making it out to be, but that's just because none of us have the time to write out thesis papers on the topic lol We could talk about the changes in game design for years and not cover it all, in my opinion. I'm just trying to address what I believe is the main factor for my distaste of a lot of modern games in the way they treat collectibles and gameplay/game time.
Something else I think: take your Zelda 1 example as gamers always wanting freedom. I played that game in the late 80s. Bought it as a birthday present for my dad (with my mom's help of course - I was only a kid). And honestly, I wouldn't think of it as an "open-world" or even "non-linear" game, to apply modern terms to it (of course we didn't really have those terms back then). I didn't think of the game that way back then and I still don't think of it that way now.
I think part of that is, like I said, the technology restraints. Zelda 1 had 16x8 screens of the overworld (quick Google search), some of which are just fairly small, corridor-like or boxy stretches with not much going on (starting screen, for instance). But no matter how you look at it and even if every single screen had something important in it, that's pretty small. And that's pretty much due to the tech limits of the time (and the fact that devs had to leave data for the dungeons as well). But because of those tech limits, the game has always felt "tight" and "controlled" to me, even when compared to BotW using the "open world" term.
In Zelda 1, some of those screens held really cool secrets. The content was much more dense than what you find in BotW due to the smallness of the world. Therefore, at least for me, the game retains a bit of that linear feel because really, though technically you're just plopped into the game to go off wherever you want, there aren't many places you can actually go. And I think that's a GOOD thing. BotW went WAAAAAAY too far. Sure, you can say the world is littered with Korok seeds and shrines, but good god - the seeds especially, what's the point? They don't add meaning to these vast stretches of land that have nothing else to them. And to go back to my previous post, the reward doesn't change your gameplay at all. (Ugh...the more I write this the more sad I am that Zelda as I knew it/loved it is most likely gone for good.)
Sorry for long post. In short, I totally agree with what you're saying, and there are many layers to this. Ultimately, I think publishers (and therefore some devs) are caving to this pressure that modern games must offer insanely high playable hours. Just look at what happened to Mario Aces. Even if the gameplay is solid and fun, that's not enough anymore. Even though logic would tell most people they could wait for a sale if they personally don't feel the total game time is worth their money at the moment, they still must attack it and spread "shade" about it to the point where it may not do well. I mean, ugh, at least here in the U.S., games have pretty much always been about 60 bucks regardless of length. I subscribe to the idea of a game being "good" based purely on its gameplay, not its game time. But now, AAA games (perhaps more) simply CANNOT offer "only" 8-10 hours of engagement; it'll get eaten alive. Your game will get torn apart online by reviews and forum-goers like us. So what happens? We get endless skins and collectibles and ridiculous, redundant gameplay loops to creative an illusion of length. "Innovations" in games like CoD when they added single-player ability progressions and such? Ha! Nope - just a simple system designed to make players grind for abilities/contemplate menus that could push the campaign hours. Woo ok, I need to stop haha
@rallydefault I would argue that Zelda 1 is still pretty non-linear. You can enter dungeons in whatever order you want, provided you have certain tools like bombs and such, but even some stuff like the sword wasn't even needed. This would later become the basis for experimenting with the idea in A Link Between Worlds, then taken to its logical extreme with BotW.
And honestly, even non-linear games have some of structure to them. Even BotW has some form of structure - after the Great Plateau, you're encouraged to go to Kakariko Village, then you may stumble on Zora's Domain, then do the rest of the Divine Beasts, then beat up Ganon while you explore from Point A to Point B. You CAN go any other direction, but if you follow the game's guidance you'll eventually find the most comfortable path from beginning to end. Odyssey has different levels that progressively get harder and harder, and the main path is mostly linear with not much exploration, with only a tiny bit of exploration needed to progress through the kingdoms. And there's more examples like Super Metroid still having one "real" path before you factor in speedrunning routes despite how non-linear the game can be.
So yeah, I stand by Zelda 1 being the prototype open-world game before the open-world genre would really land its feet on the early days of PC.
As for modern games employing their own type of gameplay loops, it clearly works. Odyssey is a weak example because only Galaxy 1 and 2 provided any reward for 100%. 3D Land/World, 64, and Sunshine all gave you chickenfeed for going beyond their normal star/shine count, so Odyssey also giving you barely anything is pretty par the course for 3D Mario. It's all about the journey, and Odyssey's level design and focus on exploration allow that pretty well. For BotW, while Korok seeds do fall off after the 400th something one, shrines always remain relevant for hearts/stamina. Finding new weapons and stuff to replenish your worn-down equipment (at least before mid/late game when you have too MUCH weapons) is also a part of the world as well.
How much is too far in terms of stuff? Well if you ask me, let's flip that around: how little is too little? I think the answer to that is just as nebulous and doesn't really answer the question meaningfully imo. Different people will have different reactions to games provided to them. You can ask multiple people what they thought of Odyssey and just as you may get people saying "dude I love how much Moons there are, I love exploring", you'll also get people saying "there's too much clutter and filler".
Regardless though, I MUCH prefer this conversation compared to the usual "X is in a pickle" subject. I much prefer just talking about games, their design, and what they accomplish or fall flat on.
@Yorumi Yeah I love short games too. Shorter games allows the developers to really polish up every facet of the game to top-quality. Shovel Knight and Sonic Mania are fantastic examples of that in modern times. Replayability is also generally pretty high on my priorities, so in terms of gameplay I really value that in my games. Bayonetta and Doom 2016 are also those type of games that seem to just get better and better the more playthroughs you do instead of just wearing thin, for example.
But long games I also really love. To me, there can exist "too much a good thing" in a positive connotation. Mostly multiplayer games like Smash fall into that category, but RPGs in particular I really love diving deep into for an extended period of time. Odd examples can also pop-up time to time like Hollow Knight, which is like 50+ hours on your first playthrough if you want to 100% everything, and that's a Metroidvania! Metroid games generally only need 15-20 hours max (with 2D games maxing out at 10 hours per playthrough), and Castlevania was around 20-30 hours.
But yeah, back then games were harder (or cheaper depending on your point of view) on average so that increases time spent. Back then, it would take hours to beat a Mario game when you can just breeze through those same games today in like 1-2 hours if you know what you're doing. Mega Man, same deal, and all that. It's why there was the term "Nintendo Hard" in the first place.
@Cobalt You’re welcome, glad my reply was helpful for you!
Also have you played some of the acclaimed indies, like Celeste and Hollow Knight? IIRC they aren’t on other consoles and are probably better on a Switch (Home plus portable) than a PC. Plus there are other games like Arms which you should try out if you haven’t already.
But I agree, while I haven’t played Xenoblade Chronicles 2 it does seem strange that it doesn’t do so great in portable mode. But as others have said it’s probably the only major game on Switch with that problem, and its performance in handheld mode is still better than the previous two games in their “handheld” incarnations as another poster mentioned in this thread.
"A counting of aggregate scores across an entire library is not. The Switch has more games than the Wii U >90%, >80%, >70%, >60% and in total. So I don't care what you're whine is, it has an objectively bigger and better reviewed library now than the Wii U has at EOL."
_There is a hype factor that you (on purpose ?) don't take into consideration. If Super Mario Odyssey was a WiiU title instead of Super Mario 3D World and vice versa for example, I can tell you that 3D World would be "the best Mario eva... etc..." and Odyssey on WiiU would be a "not bad Mario".
Now, the way you present the fact that the Switch has MORE games above 90%, 80%, 70% etc... is really tricky. Let me refresh your mind a little :
_ The Switch librairy is composed by dozen of Wii U games ! ^^ So duhhhh, there is more on the Switch because basically you add the WiiU games + the Switch games.
With your way of thinking, I can say that the Wii U has more 90%, 80%,70% games than the Switch because I have to add the Wii games then in the final count. Yeah the Wii U plays instantely the Wii librairy... Period !
_skywake wrote :
"I'm not sure what you're talking about here. The battery life of the Switch is pretty similar to the Wii U GamePad. And if you're adding battery packs to the Wii U to expand its life I don't know why you're not considering the same for Switch."
I talk about the fact that I could play 4:20 hours of breath of wild on the WiiU gamepad(almost 7:00 with the 2550mAh batterry) and if I wanted to do the same on the Switch, it was simply impossible because after 2:15 hours the battery was empty.
The Wii U gamepad can be even improved because you can open the back to put a better internal battery if you want. However the Switch is not made to be improved directly, except if you plug on it an external battery which is not really portable anymore... ^^
Yeah, I played Celeste and Hollow Knight on PC because better price !
I'm not a fanatic when it's about portable, it's nice but not a primary thing for me.
I tried Arms but I didn't like it. I'm more attracted by old school fighting games. King of Fighters '98, Street 3.3, Mark of the wolves etc... and just a few 3D titles like Tobal 1 and 2 for example. ^^
Ow, and there is no "handheld version of Xenoblade X". If you wanna say Xenoblade X on the gamepad, I can confirm to you that it runs awesome on the gamepad, really really really better than xenoblade chronicles 2 on the Switch.
There is a hype factor that you (on purpose ?) don't take into consideration. If Super Mario Odyssey was a WiiU title instead of Super Mario 3D World and vice versa for example, I can tell you that 3D World would be "the best Mario eva... etc..." and Odyssey on WiiU would be a "not bad Mario"
I was one of the biggest defenders of the Wii U library while it was struggling. I am a massive fan of Super Mario 3D World, I loved Pikmin 3 and Super Mario Maker is how 2D Mario should be handled going forward. So you completely misunderstand where I'm coming from if you think I'm riding on a wave of hype here.
The simple fact is that the Wii U library's only strength was Nintendo's first party exclusives. Early on it did get a handful of last-gen ports but these dried up pretty quickly. But the Switch is also getting solid first party titles like Odyssey, BotW, Arms, Splatoon 2, Xenoblade, Pokemon, Smash, Mario Tennis. Ontop of that the indie and third party support is not only present but it's significantly stronger.
Yes the Switch is getting Wii U ports but I don't see that as a negative given that the Wii U didn't have anything along those lines at all. Other than Twilight Princess HD I don't remember seeing any ports of Wii games on the Wii U. It would have been a significantly better library if it had got Metroid Prime 3 HD, Super Mario Galaxy HD etc. Hell, at the time I would've gone nuts for ports of 3DS titles. A token Animal Crossing that was just New Leaf with higher resolution assets? I would've been all over that if it had come to Wii U.
I talk about the fact that I could play 4:20 hours of breath of wild on the WiiU Gamepad and if I wanted to do the same on the Switch, it was simply impossible because after 2:15 hours the battery was empty
Which is only something that gives the Wii U an advantage in very specific scenarios. It is true that if you are playing a game like BotW specifically the Wii U will last longer without a charge. But that's not true for less graphically intensive games because the GamePad battery life is the same regardless of content. With BotW the battery might last longer on Wii U but for Donkey Kong or Mario Tennis the difference would be significantly smaller. With a super light indie game I wouldn't be surprised if the Switch battery outlasted the GamePad.
But all of this is academic anyways given that:
1. When your battery life goes low you get a charge cable, it's not hard
2. Switch displays games at 720p with zero compression. The GamePad looks VERY average by comparison
3. Longer theoretical battery life means nothing if you leave it at home. I never took my Wii U out of my house, I got it home, set it up and it sat under my TV until I packed it up recently. It's just way to much hassle to setup and too much to take with you especially if you have physical copies of games. So I used to take my 3DS, now I take my Switch. It's not Mario Kart 8 vs Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, it's Mario Kart 8 Deluxe vs Mario Kart 7
The Wii U gamepad can be even improved because you can open the back to put a better internal battery if you want. However the Switch is not made to be improved directly, except if you plug on it an external battery which is not really portable anymore.
I really don't know how you can convince yourself that the Switch with an external battery is not portable at all. To the point where it's completely useless as a portable gaming device entirely.
and yet somehow the Wii U is because you can install a larger battery in the GamePad
I for one have never seen anyone play the Wii U on a train
Please read again my previous post because there is something that you missed apparently.
Or it's bad faith, or it's a missunderstanding... ^^
PS : saying that "Switch displays games at 720p with zero compression", man you have balls because you probably don't understand the difference between " the Switch displays games at 720p with zero compression" and "theoretically the Switch can display games at 720p with zero compression".
How many games drop to 342p, 360p, 480p, 576p Xenoblade 2, Doom, Wolfenstein, Y's VIII etc...
You make a kind of Switch propaganda, I dunno if it's on purpose or not but man wake up, it's not because the screen of the Switch can display 720p that the games run at 720p...
@Cobalt
If I didn't quote something it's because I thought it didn't add anything to your argument. Also your new whine about the Switch not hitting 720p sometimes is laughable. The Wii U Gamepad was always 480p and always compressed. It didn't matter whether it was BotW or SMB. It was also less capable on the TV than the Switch is in portable mode. The Switch isn't flawless but compared to Wii U there is no contest. Especially off TV
@JasmineDragon Don't forget that 3DS also had the first Xenoblade. And the screen is nearly the same size.
I'm not sure which comment you're responding to. I have Xenoblade Chronicles on 3DS. It's a lot of fun, and it's impressive that it can even run on the NN3DS at all, but it definitely shows the limitations of the hardware. Not trying to knock the 3DS, I love that system and have put a lot of hours into it, but a graphical powerhouse it is not.
Ironically, XC2 also hits the Switch's limits, but the Switch is much, much more capable of running this kind of game overall, to the point where the general attitude is no longer "OMG I can't believe this is running on a handheld!" but "the frame rate drops drastically in certain areas, so you'll probably want to play this mostly in TV mode for the best experience".
Switch FC: SW-5152-0041-1364
Remind yourself that overconfidence is a slow and insidious killer.
@EvilLucario
Yea, there definitely is non-linearity in Zelda 1. I'm just saying that that non-linearity is curtailed to a certain point simply due to its relative smallness because of tech restrictions of the time.
Pretty much all the games you mentioned (Shovel Knight, Doom 2016, Sonic Mania) I LOVE. I've replayed Shovel Knight dozens of times, and Sonic/Doom a few times each. Those games, for me, are the pinnacle of design. Engaging gameplay that CHANGES significantly based on the player's time investment. Very few "collectibles" in most of those games are purely cosmetic, and they add actual value to the time a gamer puts in. And, even in a game like Shovel Knight, there aren't insane amounts of stuff to collect. The games aren't bloated. For me, it's enough to have a game like Sonic Mania that's just fun to play. You don't need (and in my opinion, should not) to add "Collect 30 widgets per level" to make me feel the game is good.
For those games that I consider "good," it's just like the devs knew they had quality gameplay on their hands and trusted in the replayability and engaging achievements to justify the price. For me, that's the game design I want.
On a side note, one HUGE exception to my preference for linearity is World of Warcraft. If pressed, I would have to say that is my favorite game of all time, and it's definitely the one I've put the most time into. I don't know why, and it really makes no sense based on my preferences lol
I'm not sure if Nintendo rests on its laurels or not. I definitely think they get to a point where if they have a successful system, they rely on word of mouth and their reputation rather than spend a ton of cash advertising, but maybe this is what any company would do.
So far I think they're being sensible with the Switch. They took advantage of releasing the likes of MK8, Pokken, Hyrule Warriors, Captain Toad etc again, which gave the impression of a well stocked first year, but likely didn't cost them much compared to making new versions of those games from scratch.
Year 2 has been OK with the innovative Labo (which I still don't own), but third parties have been picking up the slack with games like Octopath Traveler, Wolfenstein, Harvest Moon, Shining Resonance, Monster Hunter, Dark Souls, Team Sonic Racing. Meanwhile, Nintendo is working on Pokemon and Smash Bros for the end of the year.
Overall, off to a great start in year 1 and year 2 has focused on Labo and other developments and will be a reasonable year IMO.
2019 is probably critical for them. Online will have got started a few months before 2019, probably with a surge of initial interest, and they will need to keep that interest and momentum going.
@skywake said : "If I didn't quote something it's because I thought it didn't add anything to your argument. Also your new whine about the Switch not hitting 720p sometimes is laughable. The Wii U Gamepad was always 480p and always compressed. It didn't matter whether it was BotW or SMB. It was also less capable on the TV than the Switch is in portable mode. The Switch isn't flawless but compared to Wii U there is no contest. Especially off TV"
What is laughable is that you can't understand the point.
I wasn't doing a comparison between the resolution of Switch VS the Gamepad, I was telling you that your argument that the Switch displays 720p without any compression wasn't correct.
If you prefer, the way you explained your point made a statement for 720p sort of. There is a difference between "displaying 720p" and "can display with a maximum of 720p".
Basically, you play with words to avoid the real fact that when a game is displayed on the screen of the Switch is not always in 720p... Xenoblade 2 can go even below the Wii resolution which is 480p. There are moments in Xeno2 where the resolution goes to 342p...
I hope you get the point now. ^^
If you know that the SPECS of a WiiU is basically a tech of 2007 ( GPU radeon 4650, 1Go for the system, 1Go for the games), and that tech is able to display 1080p/720p on the TV and 480p on the gamepad, the less that I can say is that the Switch is not doing better in the absolute. The tech on the Switch is one of the latest mobile GPGPU from Nvidia + 4Go of ram. Don't you think that there is a problem when you say " the Switch is better..." ? ^^
@Cobalt
You were litterally making direct comparisons between Wii U and Switch. I'm just highlighting how absurd the idea that the Wii U wins in that comparrison. Because the Switch is more portable, higher spec and has a cleaner image with higher resolution display. This is before you even start talking about the software library.
The Switch at it's worst displays a clearer and higher resolution image than the Wii U did on the Gamepad. The Wii U could only ever get a compressed 480p for crying out loud! And at it's worst, in portable mode, it still out performs the Wii U at it's best. Just look at any of the Wii U ports where the resolution and framerate on Switch is improved. The Switch is a better piece of hardware, no question about it. In addition it has a stronger library and is more portable. You have no argument here and no amount or random criticisms of the Switch you can make can counter these facts.
Forums
Topic: Is Nintendo resting on its laurels?
Posts 161 to 180 of 543
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.