@Bread_or_Decide said:
@jaydan said:
@Bread_or_Decide said:
@Random_Matt said:
People who buy third party just because it's on a Nintendo platform. It is a downgraded port like the rest of them, 100% pointless in buying it. Switch is a exclusive game platform, that's it.
Weird, then why do I own so many third party games on switch? Weird.
The same people that say garbage like this are the same people that complained how older Nintendo consoles lacked 3rd-party games. These people can't make up their goddamned minds. Now that Nintendo finally has a console with a viable lineup of 3rd-party games that is only continually growing, now it's "why play 3rd-party games on it?"
No one here says a Switch 3rd-party game has greater performance or graphical fidelity than a competing console or PC; however, most 3rd-party Switch games have shown to be quite viable for the system nonetheless and the reason why 3rd-party games can sell on the system, and the biggest draw - most of these games were never offered for a handheld until now.
And believe it or not, some 3rd-party Switch games ARE better than what's on other platforms. Take Dragon Quest 11, for example. It's going to have more content and different offerings for gameplay than any other version of the game. It ultimately comes down to how a game offers different content and expanded ideas that can make a Switch version superior, not whether or not it has prettier graphics.
And games like south park TFBW are identical. And now we have MK11 day n day with the other versions.
I've been saying this for a long time, but the emphasis on graphical superiority is probably one of the greatest disservices in gaming. Graphical evolution IS important - because just look at how far we've come along from the Atari days; however, leaning on pixel superiority that an average gamer leans on for deciding on a better game, is a mass disservice to the craft and build of gameplay as a whole.
Over the years I've grasped a motley selection of gaming consoles that range between companies of Sega, Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony. Interestingly so for some odd reason I always found myself gravitating towards a handheld experience such at the Gameboy and DS for whatever reason. I feel like partially, handheld developers largely 'get it' when it comes to gameplay design, largely because they always had to deal with far greater technical limitations than the average home consoles for their respective generations. While we've had our Xbox's and Playstation's always battling it out over prettier graphics, many of these pixel-pushers have become forgotten to the generations that followed.
Handhelds, though, they never had to worry so much about graphical boundaries, simply because they never pushed these boundaries to begin with. So what made handheld games compelling? I guess it really boils down to gameplay and design, and whether or not the games themselves are fun.
Nowadays we have things called "walking simulators". All I gotta say is "wow" to that one. These games certainly have impressive visuals but they just don't have the lasting value of being compelling games. It's funny even the people in this thread that love Hellblade are coming to terms there's no reason to replay it.
Now I love a game with some pretty visuals as well, but as long as it's got the compelling gameplay to back it up as well. I can easily go back and play an old PS2 game I might have missed, given the opportunity there's great gameplay design I missed out on. I can be equally immersed in an older game as much as a new one with gameplay satisfaction.
At the end of the day, your average consumer does not hold image slides of an Xbox One, PS4 or Switch game, painstakingly analyzing each pixel behind them. That's just a form of insanity exclusive to the niche angry crowds that exist on internet forums.
Log in to comment