Xansies

@NIN10DOXD I played way too much. Methodical is the word, for sure. She's designed as a total punish character. She doesn't really have any approaches and her poke with the bow is kind so slow and predictable that it's a bit bonkers how not great it is. And she is so slow you cant press any button first except Nair and you need perfect spacing on top of that. But, she has four shield breakers and hits like a truck if you can nail the really tight hitboxes on her spear. She's honestly like a much harder to use Marth functionally.

@Smashfan502 I did play her for way too long and she's genuinely not very fun to play for me because she relies on perfect spacing to pull anything off. She's designed as a full punish character. You can't press any button until the other guy does. Again, it's probably because sakurai is obsessive and byleth is from a turn based srpg. I mean, if you can land a one of her like four shield breakers it's a instant kill, but you need to be kinda next level psychic to do it regularly. She's basically functionally a harder to play Marth.

@cryptologous I don't disagree, but yo ucant count chrom or Luci as separate characters the same way you can't count Daisy or dark Samus, they have unique properties, but they are effectively reskins. I also played a lot of the fe characters and because I'm crazy, byleth for like 7 hours straight.

She doesn't really play similarly to chrom and Roy at all, who are straight rush down characters, Or Luci who is a slightly calmer more honest brawler, but she does almost play like a worse Marth. By that I mean that everything has to be spaced perfectly all the time always. She's if Marth and Robin and corrin had a baby. She plays really, really weird. I guess I do disagree, they really don't play similarly at all. Especially byleth whose entire thing is playing midrange and baiting into smash and side bs. She's the pure opposite of Roy chrom and ike at least. Kinda the most like Corrin, but again nothing like Corrin because Corrins also a weirdy. She's basically the most like Ganon, honestly. Which makes no sense at all.

@H3r0oftim3 including or excluding the clones, there are more pokemon and Mario guys

@Zeraki If you can hit a couple down smashes or dairs you'll break a shield and get a free kill with down b. It's not easy, but it makes.me think of rest

@Smashfan502 It's also weird because I don't think these guys really regularly play smash. Byleth doesn't look like a good character, really, because she's too slow to do anything against Pikachu or fox, but she destroys shields making her an absolute monster against slower characters including every other fire emblem character, ironically. I like byleth a lot

@Smashfan502 it's better than that, man. The changed the meta for her. Think about, everyone got bigger shield, why? Her entire kit is built around stalling and breaking shields. She has her Nair, but she's slow Sakurai made a sort of turn based tank. she absolutely sucks against the rush down characters as I'm playing her, but if you're slower than byleth, you're done. If you can land a dsmash, fully charged now, or dair against anyone, it nearly breaks shield. Then a down special is a stock basically no matter what. It's hard, but it's basically puffs rest hard. It's weird and cool. She's got the best gimmick because it plays with a core mechanic rather than making up something new

Oh, right. As much as I've been using that you'd think if remember that.

@Maschinenmensch Well, it's not for you, but three houses was a good turn based strategy game. It's not overrated. Honestly, it's not a genre a lot of people are into

@Giygas_95 Fun fact, it's only used as a sword in two moves: the dash attack and up tilt

@Alpha-2002 so basically nothing. After playing byleth it's clear the only reason everyone got a better shield is because of her dair and nothing else. Her axe is an absolute monster. Like pre-release I'm like her down b is useless. Post release, nope it's just her version of rest.

@RaphaBoss there are 12 maps in genealogy, I think. It's been probably ten years since I played it. They are all really similar so I'd rather there be 3 really giant maps doing the same thing than 12. That's all

@geo-shifter Well, it is over the course of almost 4 years. If you think of it that way it's not really anything. That's also why you should just buy them piece meal. It becomes 6 bucks every, like 3 months. You don't even really notice it. It's kinda insidious in that way.

Man, it's gonna suck when everyone gets pissed at the inevitable pokemon. I mean, it should have those fighting bears from the dlc. There's no real stance character. the Pokemon trainer, maybe, but it'd be cool to have a traditional one. That's definitely my bet. The starters are a bit too boring.

@RaphaBoss I felt the same with the classes. It kinda felt weird by the end game where everyone was basically narrowed into the same four or five classes ajdnall Linda cross trained into playing similarly. It's been a year so o don't really remember too well.

Storywise genealogy is absolutely the best because it takes the war thing the furthest and it is the only one that really feels like you're fighting an actually drawn out conflict (radiant has parts of it, though), but gameplaywise it's just not baked enough and there's only so many times you can play on claim these three castle giant maps. And that number is probably 3, not 12. Of not for that it would be my favorite, I just sort of had enough of it at the halfway point, which is sad considering what happens at the halfway point.

3H mostly lacks that sense of scale, mostly because the post-awakening focus on the feauteless protag. You see Ike develop over the course of the war, you see byleth stop in a Hot Topic for some Manic Panic. I was kinda waiting until the dlc to see if it adds the extra characters classes to everyone. Those extra (what, four?) Classes and characters might help the issues I had at the endgame. I also agree it got too easy in normal and hard, especially at the end, which os the same problem as all the games post-shadow dragon, but maddening gets hard without feeling cheap on basically any map without the death Knight and certain paralogues (so far, especially of you don't consider using the reset the same as "losing" which I definitely do. It just speeds up the process of resetting the whole damn game.. Again, I only kinda started a second playthrough and since o got so distracted that the dlc is right there, I'm just gonna wait it out now) sorry this got long. I got opinions on my fire emblem

@BlueBlur101 Not in singles though? I only read the translation.

@Northwind Byleth comes out with a billion shield pokes and a shield break:

Sakurai: The size of the shield has been increased

@duffmmann The only really awful thing is the recovery, even if it does have a throw like joker's non-arsene up b, but also in the air. The rest, the main issue is that their moves are really slow for how light they are. They seem to have some really useless moves like the bow (because it's sooo slow and linear you should only be able to use it a full map away like a worse pit) and all they're hitboxes are extremely precise (sword and spear — worse belmont/roy) or impossibly Ganon slow (axe and bow). Maybe they'll have some utility, but they look not great on paper. Like they have all the options you need, but severe limitations. It's kinda a jack of all trades situation which is probably exactly what they were designed around. They crib moves from probably the most characters out of the new guys, who all crib a lot from existing moves, but they all seem worse because it's only one or two moves out of everyone's kit without any real gimmick of their own. Which is unbelievably I character for byleth. Sakurai is truly great at thematically designing characters

@HappyMaskedGuy Woah, the character doesn't even use a sword in smash except for two attacks. Okay, technically they use something called a sword in 5 (out of what, 30?) but it's funtionally the Belmonts whip in three of those. They use a sword less than Ganon

@RaphaBoss it's also just a good game. I've play every game in the series and really, honestly, Three Houses is close to the best. I mean, I really have a spot in my heart for Thracia, the Radiant Duo (they count as one to me), and Stones, but it's really close tie between Three Houses and the Radiant games as at the top of the list for the best character based turn based strategy games. Not that it's a huge genre.

@duffmmann He's a range fighter in a rush down type meta. So he's has a lot in common with DDD. Because of that, he also looks not great. Unless there were other nerds and buffs I haven't looked at yet that make byleth make sense.

@Blizzia I mean, Byleth is the protagonist almost the same way as Mark from Blazing blade is a protagonist. That is to say, not at all. Edelgard, Claude, and Naked Snake are the protagonist of the game. Byleth is just the mute chick you play as that has little to no role in the plot except for everyone to brag about how awesome you the player are at doing the game

This whole thing is stupid. People are mad because byleth is from Fire Emblem, but not because they look like a bad character. Shows that most people who complain about Smash don't actually play the game

@Edu23XWiiU Dude, that's just not true. Optimization is a myth. If you have a n64 there is nothing to can do to get a 2019 game to run on it. That's where the switch is. It's on par with a ps3 outputwise. There are limits to what scales. And even if that's how it works, why would anyone try? This is the ridiculous thing about this argument, there isn't a reason for there not to be a more powerful switch. The only argument I hear is that it's good enough now, the problem with that is that it isn't by the merit that there are literally better hardware solutions than what the switch has available right now. Why don't you want anything better? It doesn't cost you any effort, just one day it exists and you buy it. It's weird to not want progress. The switch has obvious limits, it's be great for those limits to be gone. And it's, again, not a weird mythic thing, it could happen this year easily because the shit that could make it happen exists. It's not a hypothetical, there will be a better portable gaming hybrid thing because there simply can be. And I'm gonna get that thing

Duh. It's the best one

Makes sense. The switch is behind. Graphically, games kinda hit a wall, the switch is about a half mile behind that wall. The next gen games to do a lot more with what is presentable on screen at once, mean int war scenes can finally look impressive in a non-rts, but in general games will look noticibky better, but not game changing. The problem is, both graphically and scalewise the switch is stuck at two generations ago I. Terms of output. You see stuff like the switch pro isn't a pro if it doesn't run at 4k. To hell with that, we need on that can run ps4 level games at 1080p first, something the current switch in general cant do at all. Say I'm a dev and have a specific idea for a game, it can't be on the switch either at all or without making a little t of concessions unless it's made on a scale with the switches limitations in mind.

@bluedogrulez Doesn't matter. The iterative thing is only since 2017. No one has released pro versions until this gen

@poudigne Sure, I'm just saying that if a system can run anything at 4k it can also run anything at 1080 at a higher framerate

@poudigne Which you would have. I mean those two aren't mutually exclusive. If you have 4k 30, you also have be default 1080 60.

@Edu23XWiiU Dude, this a weird thing. Why does everyone bring up COD? Literally dozens of great games were made last year that can't run on the switch. A lot from Sony, but there's other third party things like the resident evil remakes and whatever, pick your poison. The point is what more headroom for development means is that Nintendo can make better games. Period. That's all. It doesn't mean Nintendo games are currently bad, but with more capable hardware they can be better. That's not even an argument we should be having. It's kinda an undeniable fact that with a greater hardware comes a greater capacity for imagining things and then doing those things. Right now, there is a limit to what can he done, you like the games, imagine how the games would be without that limit. I don't get why people are against that. It has nothing to do with Nintendo becoming like the other ones, though obvious having more third-party ports isn't a bad thing, its that they can do things on a greater scale whole maintaining their brand. Obviously, you want that. There's no way you can he on games site without wanting that.

@Zidentia That's kinda what I've been saying. The graphics and stuff don't make a good game, but I do feel like not having the limitation on imagination on what is possible that comes with hardware limitations is unnecessary on any grounds except cost savings. I like botw, I'd have liked it more if they could have had more going on in Hyrule at one time or have had the resources for actually cities and and stuff. My feeling isn't on a I like pretty things, it's more that hardware limitations limits what you can physically do with the medium and that should be pushed away as a problem as much as possible. Say, Nintendo wants to make a sprawling city based game with all sorts of stuff going on at once like cyberpunk, it's can't be on the switch because it lacks the juice so they don't make that game. I think that's a shame. Good games don't have to be pretty, but ideas need the necessary tools to become reality. That's where I am with the switch. The games and ideas are good, they could be better now so there's no reason to not upgrade it so that the limitation on ideas is lessened for some time.

Anyway main point is, I want better hardware so someone can have a design idea and make it without restriction rather than have to work their ass off compromising to make something pared down work when they don't have to. Just throw a better SOC in the hunk of plastic and call it a day. There's no reason to work up hill if there's something that exists today that's 20-30% more powerful than what the switch is capable of.

@Edu23XWiiU I mean, here's the thing, would it be nice to play cyberpunk, cod, something like the last of us 2 or the ff7 remake or the myriad of other things that can't run on the switch portably? My argument is yes. The things, the switch is limited to mobile hardware from 2015. Mobile hardware is moving faster than normal fullfat CPUs and apus even if those are also much better now than in 2017, especially since the PS4 and Xbox one X are still using now near decade old memory and cpu solutions.

Anyway the point is, you can make better things with better stuff. That's not a far out there argument. Yes, you can make creative things within the limits you have, but think of it this way, with a higher ceiling, you can be more creative. It's like arguing that gaming never developed Bette rhardware since the snes era, it doesn't make any sense.

Also, I was taking about the new consoles coming out this year which seem to be at least on par for midrange 2020 PC's, again contrary to the last gen where the PS4 and Xbox one were sh*tty compared to 2012 PC's. But it doesn't matter, the point is, there's no reason now that Nintendo can't put out a system that can run every game that's on the other systems portably at 900-1080p 30 with the "dust" am reflections turned off. Why would anyone want to play worse versions of games if they don't have to? What if someone wants to play COD on the switch? That's something that is possible literally today, there's no reason for them not to make it. What if someone wants a non-blurry version of Witcher 3 on a portable? No reason not to have that, the technology exists.

That's my argument. Like it seems like everyone is fine with the switch never upgrading ever, but that seems like a strange suggestion. Yeah, botw was good, but imagine a botw that was more expansive? There can't be one right now, the switch was maxed out from the jump. If you want innovation in games, there needs to be more juice. If you just want better looking games there needs to be more juice. And I don't mean dust and reflex and Ray tracing (which is absolutely a game changer if you look at stuff like control and if you don't see it you're blind or just being contrary), but just basic ass HD so things aren't blurry or having things popping in every 5 feet, things that improve the experience. Better mobile chips exist, they are in your phone now, there's no argument to Nintendo not putting something around a PS4 level in a portable and being able to run everything for the foreseeable future. Literally, the next gen is going to be slightly forward compatible, sh*t on the Series x will work on the X or One, with a slight jump, the variety and quality of games increases, the end, period.

Your argument assume that the switch is on par with the 2017 consoles. It isn't. It's on par with 2006 consoles. That's a huge gap that needs to be bridged. If you want to see Nintendo do something on the scale of Cyberpunk or any game that's not on the switch, there needs to be more juice. That doesn't mean that every game needs to be cyberpunk, but we're basically asking them to work with crayons when color pencils exist. The developers should have the tools needed to make the game they want. The switch could be better, so it should. It's as simple as that

.

@Zidentia I don't know, I still don't feel it. I mean, there's a hard ceiling to what you can do with what you have. It's like asking someone to get, whatever big game just came out, the new modern warfare, to run on an N64. Theres only so much cutting corners, tricks, and programming ingenuity that you can do. The issue isn't that great games can't be made on limited hardware, it's that better games can be made easier on less limited hardware. And that's just kinda obvious. The issue with the switch is that now there are things that weren't viable at the time that are more than viable now that could boost the performance of the thing. Is it entirely necessary because were only looking at most a 20% improvement? No, it's not necessary, but there's definitely a market for it. Personally, I'm playing dq11 right now and even though the switch version is the best version because of the qol improvements, I really get bothered by how blurry it is in both modes. The thing is, that's a problem that is solvable by hardware. Sure there could have been more corners cut, but I'm 100% sure that with the amount of money and time allotted for the thing they did as much as humanly possible with what they were working with.

Which I guess is another thing about the programming thing, yeah you could wizard your way into something working, or just work with a bigger motor. The wizarding thing is of course much more difficult. I mean, what's the actual argument against an upgrade? You don't wanna buy it? That's fine, but I totally do. The two things can exist at the same time. Hell, I think Microsoft is going to start treating the Xbox like the surface series and start releasing one every year in multiple form factors. Less blurry and smoother switch games sound great to me, I honestly can't understand the argument where someone actually wants poorer versions of stuff.

@Edu23XWiiU Absolutely not. Game development depends on hardware. If you want colorful ps3 level games until 2025, fine. Personally I feel like there is no reason to limit developers and videogames as a medium in that way. My argument isn't for bigger, prettier, games, it's for different games. Have you noticed that there's only one artsytle used with the switch because of the resolution limits? I have. It's fine, but I'd rather it be at least possible for other things. The problem with hard hardware limits is that it limits options. I really do appreciate that like with ff12, DQ11 and dmc 3 the ports get exclusive enhancements and all the dlc because if they didn't, sometimes the games are a, while not a huge downgrade, absolutely not worth paying double what you would on another system at the same time. You know what better hardware would allow? Synchronized release dates on games that have "coming to Xbox, PS4, and switch (eventually) as their tagline. Hardware isn't just about pretty pictures and there is hardware available now that could easily allow for the switch to reach at least PS4 level to allow for more or all games to be ported over and still be the switch. I don't see any argument to not want that. Hell, that means more game sales for Nintendo because their form factor offers portability where the others dont. It's of course something they are at least looking into.

Oh, and overwatch runs like ass on the switch. Which is also kinda the point. It doesn't have to. The switch is running 2015 hardware. Bump it up. 100 dollar phones have more juice in 2020. It's the same argument that made the PS4 pro and Xbox one X kinda unnecessary in 2017, but the OG versions are really feeling their age now, which make iterations much better now. The switch is fine right now, but it's on the edge

Tldr if you want more expansive and creative games you want better hardware if you want more PS3 ports, you don't.

@JR150 Fun fact, Awakening didn't introduce the my avatar thing, fe 12 did the game before. Technically, kinda, the gba game blazing blade did. You played as a strategist with zero impact really on the plot. That's where it really started.

@Lockjaw2814 Well, there's some that are expected. I always expected a three houses and gen 8 Pokemon rep. I was surprised there wasn't a Pokemon rep this time, but there for sure will be one this year probably to line up with the dlc. I'm expecting the dlc Kung Fu bears. Obviously if it's anyone it should be them.

@Yosher Here's the thing, can we call the creators sword as it's represented in smash a sword? One, it's only used in 5 moves so it's hardly accurate to call byleth a sword user, but more importantly a lot of the sword moves are ripped from the Belmonts. It's a whip that's called a sword. The uptilt and dash attacks are the only things that use it as a sword, the rest it's functionally a whip.

@JR150 Hell, now 50% of the fe characters don't really use them as their primary thing. Robin, Corrin, and byleth own swords, but that's not their primary weapon at all. Hell, it's a good argument that byleth doesn't have a sword, only a thing called a sword. It's a whip. There's not a single sword move they have (they only have three) that actually uses the sword like a sword. It's all ripped from the Belmonts.

@sanderev I still wish there was a female erdrick skin.

@Silly_G I disagree. I mean from a mechanics point of view Robin and Corrin are much more interesting than, say, Marth and Roy or you know Pikachu or fox. They're not particularly great in the game, but they're moves and gimmicks are fun and creative. That's what I don't get about the fire emblem hate. I mean they have two echos, but really ignoring that there's six of them, that much less than Mario and Pokemon. I don't see how you can complain about Fe and not complain about pokemon. I'm fine with Byleth, three houses sold buckets it makes sense that it would have a rep, but there's also obviously going to be a Pokemon gen 8 rep sometime this year, maybe the bears from the armor expansion. That would be cool to have a stance character, but also, do we need more pokemon?

@Dirty0814 the problem is that the other two switched to a three year cycle. If they wait til 22 then in 23 the next one releases and they're still way behind. Best bet is to just follow the same 3 year cycle. Hell, Microsoft seems to be geared to release one at different price points almost yearly. The environment has changed. If you wait for no competition, you'd be out of luck because that means you'd always be behind the curve.

Oh, with the Microsoft thing, Series X seems to be the model identifier. They seem to be gearing to release a bunch of xboxs in different form facotrs, specs, and price points whenever going forward. The 7year console cycle ended with the ps4pro and one X

@Dirty0814 I disagree. It can't release during the holidays for that reason, but the ideal timing is before the other two. The switch isn't normally a direct competitor because of the form factor, but a switch that's 400-500 bucks would be. The problem is, if the new switch is still mobile it will be much weaker than the Ps5, SX, for the same price for the same audience, that's a hard sell.

Even if it comes after it's a hard sell not only for consumers, but devs. I mean, they are running out of PS3 ports they can do. Honestly the longer they wait the more likely they'll be stuck with a Wii and Wii u situation where there is a drought of games because they can get anyone to work with them to make games just for them and make enough games themselves through first and second part devs. At which point core gamers will leave. That's a lesson they learned with the Wii and Wii u, the nerds are the ones that spend the money gotta keep the nerds around. Literally the best time for them to throw an upgrade out is this summer to circumvent any problems and give what's possible for their system a shot in the arm

That's really the main problem with the switch: it's not that it needs a new version because of graphic and resolution, they are literally running out of games that are possible because they're marketing as a home console, but stuck with hardware with the same capability of a 15 year old system.

@Edu23XWiiU I doubt it. The other two companies moved to a three year cycle. Nintendo would be foolish to not follow that trend or they will be left in the dust. They are already way behind hardware that came out in 2012 while there is hardware that exist right now that can bump them up to at least in between the PS4 and PS4 pro level and still maintain their successful form factor and gimmick. It would be absolutely stupid for them not to put out an upgrade before the next gen comes out not because of customers, but because it'll be harder to find developers willing to just make and publish something for Nintendo when they can hedge their bets by releasing games on all platforms. And before you say, they can just port it, they can't. The current switch can't run the majority of modern games let alone the next gen games. Luckily, the next gens main iteration is Ray tracing. Turn that off and everything that can run on it can be scaled to the current gen. Meaning, all they have to do is make a switch on par with a PS4 and they are golden.

@Sabroni the GameCube as well had a leg up on the ps2, even if it was behind the Xbox. To the point, the Xbox was much more powerful hardwarewise than the PS2 and gamecube, but didn't perform nearly as the PS2 for a lot of reasons. Not being able to get into Japan was one of them. Same exact thing happened with the PS3 and 360. Now this doesn't mean consumers don't care about graphic, only that they care about the games more. There is a limit to what's acceptable and hardware doesn't just limit graphics, but also what kind of things can be made. This was an issue with the Wii that took Nintendo a decade to fix. It made a sh*tton of money, but because developers straight couldn't make modern games on it, the more core gamers ignored the thing and that along with bad marketing contributed to the Wii u flopping. That's why with the switch they are much better about ports and less casual games balanced with there other games and why that strategy can't continue without a hardware upgrade. The switch is too weak to run current gen games, we are now on the next gen, and almost every worthwhile PS3 and 360 game has almost already been ported. Without an upgrade, the switch becomes the Wii again where the only ones that make games are sh*tty d tier devs with licensed games, Nintendo themselves, and just dance.

My point is, hardware doesn't just mean graphics. It's a hard limit on what kind of games you can make. If you want more innovative games, you want a device with more juice.

@StevenG the problem is you aren't most people. Nintendo isn't trying to sell hardware to StevenG, they are targeting the price people are willing to spend on what is really a luxury toy for either themselves or their kids. We've kinda agreed historically that the price for that is between 200-500 with 500 being kind of high. The PS3 was 600. It got a lot of pushback and is one of the things credited for Sony lagging behind that gen.

@sixrings Ray tracing is underrated because people are just like, "Lights and shadows? We have lights and shadows in games now," but it's a total game changer. It makes things look much more realistic. What comes to mind is the phone in Control. Without rsy tracing it's just a hunk of non-descript red, with it it actually looks like a phone. It adds a depth that it's wasn't even clear was missing. Makes close ups much better. Brings things out of the uncanny valley a bit.

The switch needs more power for a reason no one is mentioning: artstyle. Nintendo and second parties use colorful pallettes basically to hide the jaggies and lack of aliasing on a smaller sceeen. All of them do. Name a first party switch game that doesn't have the same cartoon color scheme? You can't because there isn't one. That doesn't mean that I want hyper realistic games on the switch but just more colors besides bright greens, yellows, and oranges

@Marios-love-child The main draw of the next gen consoles is Ray tracing and storage making it so more things can be rendered in a larger area at once (no more 25 people war scenes!) That is next level good. Look at control for an example. But, it's hardly really necessary. Having a portable console at PS4 pro level would be bonkers space magic.

@sixrings I mean, I get kinda annoyed at the resolution for all the current gen consoles because I have a PC with 2019 hardware. It's just kinda irritating to go from crystal clear and zero framedrops to kinda blurry 5 foot draw distances, and really spotty performance. I'm playing DQ 11S after playing the OG when it came out and the QOL improvements make it a better game, but it feels worse in spots (like Italian town and Nautica)

@construx things are made to be scaleable. It's how Witcher 3 runs on the machine. Basically made on an extremely high-end computer and cut down til it runs on the hardware you want. Just cut it down less. It's the exact reason the rumor(I think this is confirmed) that Xbox series x games will work on the Xbox one is possible.