@Therad I'll never understand the mindset withpc these days that mods are important to make the game complete. If the game isn't complete as is, it's a bad game. If consumers have to add the rest of the game for free as unpaid staff, that's pitiful. Mods were once about adding completely original ideas using the games resources, or adding totally off the wall differences, not completing unfinished games, fixing bugs, and adding essential components.
@Therad I'll never understand the mindset withpc these days that mods are important to make the game complete. If the game isn't complete as is, it's a bad game. If consumers have to add the rest of the game for free as unpaid staff, that's pitiful. Mods were once about adding completely original ideas using the games resources, or adding totally off the wall differences, not completing unfinished games, fixing bugs, and adding essential components.
I don't say it is necessary, I say it enhance the game. The game works perfectly fine without it. It is more about personalizing the game rather than bug fixing.
@Therad@NEStalgia I loved mods in the Duke Nukem 3D and FIFA 2000 era! After that I never really cared anymore. Key message of this reply? "Oh my I'm getting old..."
@FaeKnight People keeping up the backlash regarding Nintendo Switch Online is a good thing. As soon as the service of current quality is accepted, it will be an incentive not only for Nintendo not to improve but for Sony and Microsoft (especially Sony) to make their own services worse. We've already heard about the PS+ selection of games getting worse starting in March 2019, is this perhaps a side effect of Nintendo Switch Online being a poor service?
Exactly. Every system ever has been full of ports. In the 16-bit days the balance between new games and ports might have been slightly different but games were a lot less expensive and time-consuming then. Since the Gamecube and XBOX launches every system has been dominated by ports, it’s a fact of life. Yet you will get people complaining. Do they want every system to only have exclusives meaning much fewer games and publishers going out of business? Do they want to deny others the chance to play these games, as if they have that right?
You get similar demands for third party exclusives on Switch when why’re hardly an occurrence on any system anymore, for obvious financial reasons. In reality third party exclusives are bad news for gamers, I’m glad the days of Sony and MS moneyhatting games like Vice City and Rise of the Tomb Raider seem to have gone. As long as a system can run it, put the games on it.
@Grumblevolcano I'm not disputing that the offered services seem a bit lackluster in a few regards. Most notably voice chat and it relying on that stupid app that only works with 4 games currently. Or at least it will work with 4 games once the paid service launches tonight. But I worry that the people trying to incite riots over ports and Nintendo finally launching the paid service they told us would be coming from day one will end up ruining things for everyone.
There's a difference between valid criticism and rabid attacks on the company. And the valid complaints keep getting drowned out by the rabid hate mongering going on. If Nintendo listened to all the ranting that is constantly going on regarding ports and online play, they could end up deciding to remove every port and only accept brand new games in the future while completely removing online capabilities.
(edit: Removing every port btw would include almost the entirety of the Indie games list, almost all the 3rd party games from major publishers, and most of the 1st party games. That would cripple the system due to there being barely any games on it)
After all, the free service that Wii U had and that's been available till now appears to be dumped on for not being robust enough with a lack of 'needed' features. But equally the paid version that will be able to fund improvements to the service is getting bashed for being 100% 'inferior' to the competitors. And with the ever increasing list of what people want to make the price 'justified', I suspect it'll always be considered a "bad value" by the people nerdraging over this.
Criticize, yes. Complain about problems, go for it. But dumping on the entire thing on the thinly veiled grounds of I hate you, you're asking for money and wanting money makes you evil" is wrong. As is attacking anyone with a dissenting opinion or who is advocating you take a deep breath and calm down due to the hate and rage not helping anyone's cause.
@Grumblevolcano completely agree. Competition is good and hope nintendo gets stronger with this service and not hand it on a plate to sony and Microsoft reducing their great service.
I’m getting the sub and like me I’m sure a lot of people can’t find the value even if it’s cheap. It just makes Nintendo look really lazy and greedy.
3 decades of games with drm. I hope it makes Nintendo stronger
I think there’s a few things at work here with the Online Service.
1. People who will jump on any chance to bash Nintendo. They haven’t had much to bite on recently and to be fair, Nintendo have gifted them an open goal.
2. They’ve missed the chance to rid themselves of the reputation for being backwards when it comes to the internet. It’s stuck since the Gamecube and Iwata dismissal of Online gaming. They could catch up anytime they wanted but have chosen not to.
3. They’ve got momentum. They’re pulling in lapsed Nintendo fans and adults galore. A fully fledged Nintendoflix service with a few games from every Nintendo system represented could have been huge.
They’re offering the bare minimum to test the market and see how little customers will pony up for. Their choice but I think it could damage them.
Anyway, the debate will die down. I don’t get the (tongue in cheek, I know) talk of ‘the mob’ and ‘riots’. It’s the hot topic of the minute and of course it’s going to generate attention and discussion. Soon it’ll be something else.
@electrolite77 The fact that until fairly recently Nintendo's top execs viewed online capability for video games as a fad or short term gimmick means they haven't had as much time to actually figure out what they're doing with online services. Microsoft had an advantage in that they'd been providing internet services for years on PC, so knew what sort of infrastructure would be needed. Sony took a while to figure out what they were doing though. PS2's online capabilities were laughable and left entirely in the hands of game developers and 3rd party server companies like Gamespy. But even that taught Sony some valuable lessons.
Nintendo is only recently learning those lessons. The Wii mostly just used the internet for an online game store, to my knowledge. The DS and 3DS have a bare bones online capability, and again mainly put the responsibility in the hands of the game publishers. The Wii U apparently was a step in the right direction, but was still pretty bare bones. Just an online store and online multiplayer in a few games. Which means the Switch is Nintendo trying to finally figure out what the heck they're doing.
I suspect that the reason first party multiplayer titles like Splatoon 2 are peer to peer instead of central server based is because of the focus on being capable of local wireless multiplayer. This then would indicate the Nintendo App came about as a way to give these games voice chat despite them not having a central server. It's a weird and sub-optimal way of doing things. But it may have been the best that Nintendo could come up with.
Considering Nintendo is coming into the race late after having a board of directors that considered online play to be a fad that would die out, I think they aren't doing too bad. As such I'm willing to cut them a bit of slack. I'll still call out their missteps, but I'd rather not throw out the baby with the bath water.
They’re a profit-hungry, cash-rich multinational corporation, not some little corner shop that’s just opened up. If they don’t have the expertise they could pay somebody who does and achieve parity with the competition whenever, even if it was a decision that needed to be made in 2015. Instead they’ve decided to see how little users will accept in return for handing over their cash.
@electrolite77
Previously exclusive PS4 games are coming to Switch left and right. It's amazing. YS VIII, you can now play that game on Switch. Disgaea 5, you can now play that game on Switch (and soon Disgaea 1, which would have been exclusive), Final Fantasy X and XII, you'll soon be able to play on Switch. Fairy Fencer F, World of Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest Builders...
Celebrate that. Celebrate games being ported multiplatform. Not just because any game getting a hybrid version is awesome, but because that's fewer games bolted down by exclusivity
They’re a profit-hungry, cash-rich multinational corporation, not some little corner shop that’s just opened up. If they don’t have the expertise they could pay somebody who does and achieve parity with the competition whenever, even if it was a decision that needed to be made in 2015. Instead they’ve decided to see how little users will accept in return for handing over their cash.
Each console company uses a different OS. Xbox uses a variant of Windows, I think. Which makes sense considering who makes xbox and windows. Thus why it's so compatible with Windows 10. Sony uses their own OS, thus had to code online stuff to work with their OS. Nintendo created their own OS too. So it's not just a matter of "hire someone who can drop preexisting networking code into our system." They would have to write the netcode from the ground up. Thus they'd have to learn things about how their OS works with the netcode and how to optimize it. These are lessons that Microsoft and Sony already learned and are now adding media features. Nintendo on the other hand likely had to start from scratch both with Wii U and Switch.
I was initially annoyed with the ports, similar to how I was annoyed with the PS4 and xbox one's first years mostly being re-releases of games that came out barely even a year prior. But with the Switch I just see it as a good thing. In particular, the more grindy games such as the Final Fantasies coming out are absolutely perfect for me on the Switch since it'll no longer require a full TV to play during the more mundane parts of those games.
Also, at this rate they might as well port over the rest of the Wii U exclusives, it's not fair that a game like Luigi U gets a second chance that it didn't even need when games like Tokyo Mirage Sessions or Xenoblade X would probably benefit the most from the expanded Switch audience.
I loved all the ports on PS4 and X1. I was snatching them up left and right. In fact, I think 2/3 of my PS4 library at one point was ported games. And I took no issue with that. Still don't.
And that was just ports that didn't really have any value added. Same game, still TV only. How much more then will I be excited for those which do have value added. Hybrid play, HD handheld, motion, touch support, HD rumble...
Ports to me are a mixed bag. Getting them on a console is a good thing, IMO. But if I've already got the game the port is likely to be kind of meh to me. Especially if I can play it on the console already due to backwards comparability. I mean, why get the remastered Dark Souls for XB1 when I have it as a XB360 game and it's backwards compatible. Or the Darksiders games? You generally only need one copy of a game after all.
But I may consider getting them for Switch. And I'm definitely interested in the FF titles for Switch. Well, most of them. That's because I either don't have the game already, or I have it but my PS2 is starting to show it's age.
Complaining about ports is the dumbest thing in the world, because, with a few exceptions, PORTS DON'T TAKE DEVELOPMENT RESOURCES AWAY FROM NEW GAMES. Saying you want fewer ports is literally saying you want fewer software releases overall, which makes no sense however you look at it.
Unfortunately, people conflate a lack of new releases (a valid complaint) with a system having "too many ports" (a nonsensical complaint).
No, the reason there's so few new games released each year now when compared to the 80's and 90's is because the cost and time to develop games has gotten so large. Instead of weeks to months, it takes years to make a game. Instead of a team of 2 or 3 people, it now usually takes a team of 50 or more to make big budget games.
Forums
Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread
Posts 32,001 to 32,020 of 69,719
Please login or sign up to reply to this topic