So, like many on here I'd assume, I've been casting around looking at articles and their comments about Switch ahead of the launch. A few comments stick out to me as simply wrong - but widely believed. Facts that aren't factual, myths, the currency of the post truth world.
I thought it might be a bit of fun to start a thread where you can post a myth you've seen repeated about Switch (or Nintendo in general) and just analyse it a bit.
Or in other words: Mythbusters Nintendo!
Nintendo always used to make powerful consoles until the Wii
I've seen this one quite a bit and it's nonsense.
The NES was a powerful console. In 1983. And even then it was using what you could describe as "mature silicon". By the time it made it West in large numbers from 1986 onwards it was up against the Sega Master System which was technically superior in just about every way (and by quite a distance).
The SNES had a fantastic sound chip, a great colour pallet, it could handle lots of colours at one time, was good dealing with multiple parallax scrolling layers and had some cool sprite scrolling effects like mode 7 built in. Overall it was probably was a more powerful console than the Sega Mega Drive...
...but it had an absolute pig of a processor - archaic it launched. Arcade games on the SNES - particularly in the early days - were well known for experiencing severe slow down. The Mega Drive processor was much faster and it had the Master System processor in there as a secondary co-processor.
The N64 did have more pure power than the original Playstation. In some ways. But it also had some serious bottlenecks in the hardware. People say that the N64 failed purely because it didn't adopt CD's but even if N64 cartridges had been able to offer unlimited, cheap storage the games would probably have appeared muddy and blurry because of limits on how the console could deal with textures.
Out of all past Nintendo consoles the only one I'd say was even approaching "bleeding edge" in the home console world on release would be the Gamecube. The Gamecube was an incredible achievement - really well balanced technically, more powerful than the PS2 and much cheaper to manufacture.
Of course Microsoft released the more powerful XBox at around the same time so even the Gamecube was never actually the most powerful console on the market.
The truth is Nintendo has never chased cutting edge power - they've always prioritised making a cost effective machine that allows them to make the games they want to make at a price point with the potential to reach a mass audience. Switch is, if anything, more powerful than I'd have expected from a Nintendo handheld.
Old games can't sell new consoles
Another one that comes up regularly in regards to the Switch - particularly with regards to Mario Kart 8. "If it wasn't good enough to sell the Wii U then why should it do any better on the Switch?"
I saw @JaxonH argue the case for this in the comments of a front page article earlier and I think his line of argumentation was bang on. To quote him:
The market is complex... not as simple as "it didn't sell system A so it will do nothing for system B". Mario Kart 8 is a great game, but the clunky controller and UI of Wii U, the reputation, the region locking, the poor marketing... all of these things can hamper a game'so ability to sell a system. People may have wanted Mario KART 8, they just didn't want to buy Wii U for it. Yet those same people may look at Switch and say ok, now this I can do.
...
But yes, usually it's not one game but multiple games, each helping appeal. Which is exactly why it's ridiculous to say Mario Kart couldn't sell Wii U so it won't help Switch, because as you just said, it's the full picture that matters. Mario Kart, combined with other Wii U games and the system itself, wasn't popular. But that doesn't mean it's a waste to put Mario KART on Switch.
I'd go one step further than @JaxonH though - some games particularly suit a particular format like a glove and find only modest success until they find that match.
Tetris was a pretty popular PC game throughout the mid 80's. By the time the GameBoy launched it was more than 5 years old. When Nintendo launches the "GameBoy Mini Classics Edition" they'll sell millionshowever many they decide to manufacture again purely because it has Tetris on it - however old Tetris happens to be at the time.
Monster Hunter and its first sequel were PS2 games and whilst I'm sure they sold well in Japan, when the games went handheld on the PSP - 18 months after the original - they single-handedly sold millions of consoles.
Those are two obvious examples but I'm sure there's loads more times when "old" games have "sold" large numbers of people on new consoles (including a few examples the other way around - jumping from being handheld games to home console experiences without changing much but finding greater success in the transformation).
It's rare to find people who make this sort of sense.
Being able to live through a lot of Nintendo's gaming history, this is spot on. Nintendo has virtually never been the most powerful hardware. But it has always been the most efficient in using it. Even the Wii U was efficient if a bit clunky.
What has and always mattered is the games. The Switch has them in its first year alone. This console is going to be very popular if Nintendo keeps up the good work
I agree with the point about Mario Kart 8 and "old games" in general. The Wii U wasn't a console that reached a large audience, Mario Kart 7 sold almost 2x the number of copies 8 did. I think it's fair to say that there are a fair number of people who are interested in Mario Kart 8 but never owned a Wii U. User bases don't neatly overlap.
But the other point about horsepower? I think it's more complicated than that. You could always point to one aspect or another and say that one console was better than the other to suit your argument. And it meant something. So it was clear what the advantages of the SNES was vs the Mega Drive but not very clear which one was "more advanced". While these days it's very clear which platforms are more capable but you have to look at a comparison video to actually see the difference.....
Some playlists: Top All Time Songs, Top Last Year
An opinion is only respectable if it can be defended. Respect people, not opinions
But the other point about horsepower? I think it's more complicated than that. You could always point to one aspect or another and say that one console was better than the other to suit your argument. And it meant something. So it was clear what the advantages of the SNES was vs the Mega Drive but not very clear which one was "more advanced". While these days it's very clear which platforms are more capable but you have to look at a comparison video to actually see the difference.....
I know. In practice the SNES was probably more "advanced" than the Mega Drive on balance but the point of my post was twofold:
1 - It wasn't as clear cut as it's often portrayed by the "Nintendo always used to release graphical powerhouses but they don't anymore since the Wii" myth would have it. In some ways (i.e. processor speed) the Mega Drive was superior technology despite being released 2 years earlier.
2 - Even with the Nintendo consoles that most consistently provided significantly more attractive games than its direct competition (which I'd say was the SNES vs the Mega Drive - though this has a lot to do with colour pallets and much better artistic design on the SNES) there was a big compromise on power.
Just because Nintendo could potentially offer much more in their hardware they don't always do it and that's not a new thing - it goes right back to the NES and the SNES.
@StuTwo you make some very valid points. We should also not forget than the SNES was also up against the Neo Geo, TurboGraphics and the Sega 32X/Sega CD by the time Donkey Kong Country was beibg made.
Another oft repeated myth I've thought of (please if anyone has any more then feel free to add them - just give some justification of why it's a myth)
Nintendo doesn't understand "online"
This is such a big topic with so many facets. At its core it's a complaint that Nintendo isn't offering an Xbox Live or PSN esq online multiplayer system with user accounts, a persistent online presence, online chat, your friends able to see whether you're online & invite you into a game, publicly visible "achievements" etc. Basically a fully fledged social network tied to your console of choice. Nintendo doesn't offer those things therefore they have archaic beliefs about the internet.
But it's a myth based in the belief that there is only one right way to do things, only one right approach and Nintendo must be judged "modern" or "out of touch" based on how feature complete their online offerings are against XBox Live.
That belief is wrong. What's more I think that Nintendo not only understands "conventional" online play (though they very deliberately choose not to ape it) but that they've given online play in a more general sense more thought and development in some ways than Sony or Microsoft.
There are a few games I'd bring up here. The first is Wind Waker HD. I loved the online integration of that game, it was seamless. I don't know anyone else IRL with a Wii U but playing Wind Waker HD and chasing down those message bottles really gave me the feeling of playing through a game with a group of friends who were all experiencing everything at roughly (but not exactly) the same time. Helping others (and being helped) with the pictograph side quest became a meta game in and of itself.
The second is game I'd bring up is Super Mario Run. That game quietly did a few really progressive things - firstly it linked to existing social networks to fill your "friends list". Yes there were a few complaints but in practice the vast majority of people playing anything online will be friends with everyone they want to play online against on Facebook or Twitter.
Super Mario Run also nailed it when it came to Toad Rally. I got really into the asynchronous competitive online multiplayer - when I lost I usually felt like I had to have an instant rematch. Crucially, without words or any kind of communication I often felt like I got a little feeling of the personality of the person I was "racing" against. I also found the match making in Toad Rally to be fantastic - I never felt like I was winning every match with ease and I never felt like I was being trounced every time.
The third is New Super Mario Bros U. The online features there may seem slight but they are important - you can post a "Super Play" when you ace a level by getting all three coins in one go. It's a reward for excellent play that recreates the experience of a skilled player in an arcade "making his mark".
None of those things could have happened by accident - they're all by very careful and deliberate design and they indicate that Nintendo very clearly understands what they want to achieve with online gaming - at this moment in time they prioritise asynchronous, anonymous and ultimately optional online experiences.
The one thing that's been bugging me is some "journalists" going out of their way to manufacture issues with the switch. I know it's not necessarily a myth more click bait but still annoying. That cnet video about the kickstand failing. He spends 10 minutes pushing it over and handling like a man wearing boxing gloves and then says it's not fit for purpose. Then you've got the joycon issues that can only be recreated if you put you hand over it or put it behind your back. Who plays games like this? The less that can be said about the sun article the better!
Am I the only one whom finds the title of the thread pretentious?
My tongue was firmly in my cheek. It's hard to find just the right tone on any forum - I just want to help facilitate some good natured discussion in a focused way.
Some solid points for sure. In terms of image and marketing I think this article gives some insight into how Nintendo was able to tailor its marketing more in the earlier days, and how this may have lead to an image of Nintendo being more of a beefy, power-pushing company in the West. Often the same games were marketed completely differently to different regions, and the pixelated style left the 'true' image largely up to the user's imagination. You might not agree with with every claim made in the article, but the box arts alone are very telling (and worth scrolling down to if you can't be bothered reading the whole thing).
I always amuses me watching some of the old shouty American ads, with some dude yelling about the consoles being power-houses and Mario being the most hardcore thing since bullet sandwiches. That's the some Mario people think of as a cuddly kids' character now.
Also, didn't MK8 sell more Wii Us than almost any other game?
Forums
Topic: Nintendo Switch in a post truth world
Posts 1 to 15 of 15
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.