Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@JaxonH I think the new Paper Mario will struggle to match the sales of Super Paper Mario simply because the latter is a all out platform/adventure game whereas the latest is potentially more turned based focus which could put a lot of that casual audience off. But will see how things pan out when Nintendo reveal more about the game.

@FragRed Super Paper Mario also released on a system that struggled to attract sales for games aimed at core players compared to casual titles, while the Switch doesn't have that issue. I'll go out on a limb and say so long as it's not a disaster upon release it'll be the best selling title in the series.

@Grumblevolcano
Oh ya, forgot about the Wii U VC release too.

Regardless, botched or not the game sold over 1 million copies on Wii. That's 1 million core JRPG fans who already played. And another what, 500k on New 3DS? And maybe another 100k on Wii U?

That's alot of people who already played.

edit
Gosh, I love the sound of the “pop” and “clink” from the coin you get when Paper Mario stomps on enemies’ heads. It has so much weight! I have this strange addiction to just rewinding the video and listening to that pop/clank.

Pop-clink! ... Pop-clink! ... Pop-clink!

Ion Fury console port analysis.

The game is downsampling from 1080p in handheld mode on the Switch, lol.

Apparently if you enter the Konami Code, it unlocks the framerate cap on Switch(!).

@Ralizah
It always gets me when people recommend other versions over Switch because of higher res/framerate. Like, if you’re just looking to play the game with the best performance/res, then totally. But if that’s the default criteria then Switch is never going to be recommended, ever. It’s kinda like saying, if you only care about res and framerate, buy the versions that prioritize res and framerate. Switch will never match in performance, but it’s value lies elsewhere. Recommendations rarely factor in that other value- solely emphasizing performance as the end all be all. And for a lot of gamers, it probably is. But at the same time for a lot of gamers it’s not. It’s a question of, “is the compromise in performance worth an extra handheld version that instantly cross saves with the console version?”

Idk. Just a pet peeve of mine. The community has been conditioned (brainwashed, even? No that’s too harsh... subconsciously steered) to only place value on absolute peak performance, at the expense of all else.

People are now brainwashed zombies cause they want higher framerates in their games. That’s rich.

@MsJubilee
That’s a poor response.

I said nothing of wanting higher framerates. Everybody wants higher frame rates in their games. You do, I do, there’s not a person on this planet doesn’t want that.

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said. I urge you to re-read my post until you come to a more thorough understanding of what I was communicating. It has nothing to do with wanting. It pertains to exclusively prioritizing at the expense of all else, and how the industry has conditioned the community to do so over time.

That's not what he said at all. And really, the sentiment isn't too off-base. Today's video game market is so full of cloned garbage that I pity anyone who has started gaming in the last decade and thinks this is the norm. The market is so glutted and reliant on open-world, F2P, and battle royale clones that anything even slightly different is a breath of fresh air.

And just look at any major new release. Aside from the reviews, what are the articles that come out? Yup, frame-rate and resolution analyses. Side-by-sides, console comparisons, blahblahblahblah. And people eat it up. Those videos get insane amounts of views, and then the PC/Sony/Xbox wars begin anew with personal insults and people who don't even know each other just ripping on each other because one version of the game sometimes drops to 30fps.

And nobody stops to acknowledge the biggest problem with modern games: most of them either have terrible gameplay or are iterative to the point of utter boredom.

And that's how we've now arrived at the newest source of drama and controversy: Xbox's next-gen "gameplay" reveals not looking all that impressive. And now you have internet talking heads pretty much writing off the entire generation because of one thing: graphics.

Graphics have always been a key element of video gaming, but gameplay is the essential fun factor and challenge factor that drove the medium beyond just some technical demo.

@JaxonH Performance (and, to a lesser extent, image quality) absolutely matters. Gaming is an interactive medium, and you want your games to be responsive and smooth. With that said, what platform I ultimately end up opting for depends on the type of game it is, the severity of the performance deficit, etc. Some games don't benefit all that much from being able to be played away from a TV. Some games don't necessarily benefit all that much from a higher framerate. I think it's absolutely legitimate to say that you don't want to play a twitchy FPS at 30fps with dips if you can grab it on another platform, but you don't mind making that sacrifice to get a portable version of, say, a turn-based JRPG, or a strategy game, where the performance difference is easier to swallow.

With that said, performance is a sliding scale from PC on down, usually, and it irritates me we never talk about making the "Xbox One sacrifice" or the "PS4 sacrifice" when those platforms also frequently see severe hits on big games. If anything, I'm inclined to be a lot more forgiving of Switch ports: the "Switch sacrifice" nets me a fully-functioning handheld game that I can play anywhere. I get nothing for making the "PS4 sacrifice" apart from access to some Playstation-specific trophies. Even my old rig runs rings around the current-gen home consoles when it comes to performance, but I don't make a point of going onto Playstation forums and crowing about how much better and smoother and prettier my 60fps version of The Witcher 3 is, y'know? So I also get irritated by performance snobbery, especially from people who are in no position to be acting that way in the first place.

@Ralizah
It definitely matters. Without question. Anyone who says otherwise is lying.

But it’s not the only thing that matters, and as long as it meets a bare minimum threshold of playability, The opportunity cost of further gains must be properly weighed against the marginal benefit it brings. And that will vary from person to person (some, perhaps yourself included, aren’t ok with 30fps in exchange for hybrid format, whereas others, such as myself, see that as a fantastic tradeoff, provided it’s not dipping so low as to irritate enjoyment... and that’s not to say I and others don’t value 60fps- as a matter of fact I’ve come to value it more and more since I bought my new gaming PC, but that value has a limit, especially when the alternative is a reasonably steady 30). Wonderful 101 is a great example. Regardless of what any analysis or numbers on a page might lead one to believe, The game feels great to play on Switch, fluid, to the point I can hardly tell the difference from my locked 60fps Steam version. Visuals are remarkably comparable as well. So it’s a no brainer that I prefer the Switch version. Because the advantage or disadvantage in practice, actually playing and experiencing the game, diverges from what numbers on a page seem to indicate it would be (which is, btw, case in point for why letting technical analysis monopolize opinions on the final verdict of a game is a tragedy).

And that’s not always the case with every game. Certain games- Witcher 3 for example, DOOM for example, are truly best played on PC with gyro in 4k. Because the sacrifices are just, so extensive, the value of hybrid just doesn’t quite top the incredible experience on PC. I would not, however, value the PS4 or Xbox versions over switch. No gyro drops the appeal considerably, and without full native 4k 60 Ultra Settings, they just can’t top the value offered by a 30fps hybrid version, even if it does have lower res and look a bit ugly by comparison. But for W101 it certainly was worth it.

And, I should add, even for games where I do feel the value on PC trumps the hybrid advantage (which is not for many games, but there are some), that doesn’t mean I have no interest in a Switch version. Provided it needs a bare minimum threshold of playability, I will often buy that version on the side so I can get the best of both.

I think you pretty much nailed it with your second paragraph. You always did have a way of phrasing things in such a way to get a point across in one paragraph that would take me no less than three.

The above conversation was an interesting read and made me think about which games I have played on Switch that took enough of a hit in performance to push me back to PC. And over a library of games of about 100ish on Switch, at least 30 or so also on PC (although in most cases I did not double dip) only one game comes to mind, and then, only after the DLC was added. Civilization 6.

I adore the game, I really do. But after the DLC was added, I cannot finish a game any longer. In the late game because of the number of units, cities, upgrades, resources and everything else, the game chugs to an extreme extent. To the point that a single turn can take 10+ minutes while all the AIs do their thing. Add to that it ends up outright crashing about every 3 turns. After several attempts I gave up, returned to PC and noticed that, to a far lesser extent, the same issues exist in the PC version. Though my PC is older it's still a desktop gaming machine.

I found Cities Skylines perfectly fun on Switch, but the lack of DLC a valid reason to stick to PC. Though in that case I can enjoy either version.

Effectively every other game I have played on Switch that is also on PC I have had no issue with. The "Switch sacrifice" that people talk about is a rare thing in my mind. Downscaled graphics do not bother me unless there are MASSIVE cutbacks. But I've simply not run into that. So long as a game functions well on Switch, I prefer it on Switch.

@Heavyarms55
Great thing Civ VI has cross save, so you can just hop over to PC if needed. That said, I heard they patched it? If someone else has more info please, chime in.

Same for Witcher 3. I adore having that game on Switch Lite. But you better believe whenever I’m playing on the TV, it’s in 4K 60fps Ultra Settings. I couldn’t believe it when they added cross save in that update. We were literally just talking about how great that would be. It was totally playable on switch on the TV, but nothing about it impressed. When I play on my PC it’s absolutely gorgeous and that does add to the experience quite a bit. At least for a game like Witcher 3, anyways.

Divinity Original Sin 2 also offers cross save. I’m sure XCOM 2 will as well.

@JaxonH They did patch it to fix some issues a while back. But unless there has been another patch in the last 3 weeks, the problem is still there. I haven't tested it, but I suspect if I played on a smaller map it would run better. But I've always preferred large maps in Civ games. Having loved the series since Civ 3 when I was in jr. high.

Hey what is the resolution on the Lite? Some sources say 1280x720. Some 720x480. Thanks

I used to buy 3rd party games on the Switch for the play anywhere nature though while coronavirus is still a threat "play anywhere" is pretty much meaningless so I have been questioning whether to pick more 3rd party games up on XB1 instead. I guess the major advantage Switch has at the moment is that Microsoft still refuses to embrace gyro (as shown by the Elite Series 2 and Series X controllers) which pretty much means developers won't bother with gyro outside of PC and Switch versions.

Where says 720x480, @Switchliter .... ? It's the same 1280x720 as original model Switch

It's Digital Foundry though. The whole premise of their output appears to be performance analysis so it's to be expected that when they're concluding an analysis they're going to go with performance recommendations. To do otherwise would undermine the central purpose of their videos. It would be a bit odd if they concluded that video by saying "So while the PS4 and Xbox One versions will offer a smooth 60fps once patched, trumping the Switch with its 30fps lock, we'd still recommend the Switch version because... those colourful joy-cons are just adorable, and nothing beats playing on the toilet".

@gcunit
I dont think that's an unreasonable argument but I still disagree.

Technical analysis can and should remain their focus, but analyzing performance shouldn't automatically equate to objectively valuing it above all else. I dont think they should specifically recommend Switch either. Because that's also coming down to preference. I just think the facts should be put on the table and let the user decide.

It's that final step of saying "therefore we declare THIS to be the version to buy, we really cannot recommend this other version though because it doesnt win the arms race" crosses the line between providing technical analysis to inform the viewer, and interjecting their own preferences for the viewer. All of whom value performance, but not necessarily exclusively so.

@JaxonH So in short, they should just omit the recommendation line? Sure, I can agree with that.

@gcunit
Right. Just stating the facts and letting the user decide means gamers aren't being told they should buy a specific version based on the priorities they've already decided for everyone else, which by itself may seem innocuous but, as part of the greater picture, it's yet one more outlet of the industry telling gamers how they should think. When everyone in the industry continually repeats this, eventually you sway the herd. It's basically indoctrination, even if not necessarily intentional (although in many cases I absolutely believe its intentional).

Worst of all, the constant reiteration that technical analysis is the be-all end-all deciding factor of which version to choose (at least, as long as it's Switch vs PS/Xbox... the minute the better performing PC is mentioned, suddenly the worse performing PS/Xbox versions become "good enough") nurtures a widespread mindset of inferiority for any game that's not the absolute best performing version. Which of course, will absolutely never be on Switch. And that kind of superiority mindset is what fuels the flames of console wars and trolling.

I think each version should either be recommended not based on a comparison to other versions, but on it's own competence and ability to provide enjoyment. Or, just don't recommend any version over another. State the facts. This one performs best. This one is next. This one is half the framerate because it's on a hybrid handheld. You decide which is best for you.