General gaming discussion

Thargor

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The second year of the Switches life is pretty anaemic compared to the first year but you have to remember how amazing that first year was and how poor the PS4 and Xbox One were at the same point in their life cycle. Also while E3 was smash focused Nintendo have announced big titles on directs that release in 4 months so I expect that will probably happen again.

I think you're wildly exaggerating this amazing first year for the Switch there, for the vast majority there was Zelda: BotW and errrr... Skyrim? Now granted BotW is one of the best games ever made but still...

Retr0gamer

Thargor wrote: »

I think you're wildly exaggerating this amazing first year for the Switch there, for the vast majority there was Zelda: BotW and errrr... Skyrim? Now granted BotW is one of the best games ever made but still...

There was also super Mario odyssey, one of the best games ever made. Splatoon 2 was a delight. As was the xcom tinged Mario and rabbids. You also had Xenoblade 2 which is an incredible open world rpg. I also had a lot of fun with the likes of snippet clips and blaster master zero. Arms was a great competitive fighter and it had done good wiiu conversions like the definitive version of Mario kart 8.

People tend to forget the lesser releases but there was a hell of a lot more than just botw. Even this year it wasn't so bad. People forget the likes of Kirby star allies.

Now compared to the established consoles like the PS4 it seems only OK but that console is 5 years old any only just is worth investing on recently. The highlight of the first year of PS4 was trading it in for a wiiu because it was awful.... second year had bloodborne which was worth the price of admission alone.

TitianGerm

Thargor wrote: »

I think you're wildly exaggerating this amazing first year for the Switch there, for the vast majority there was Zelda: BotW and errrr... Skyrim? Now granted BotW is one of the best games ever made but still...

Odyssey, Splatoon 2, Arms, Xenoblade 2

johnny_ultimate

Thargor wrote: »

I think you're wildly exaggerating this amazing first year for the Switch there, for the vast majority there was Zelda: BotW and errrr... Skyrim?

And Super Mario Odyssey, Arms (wildly underappreciated), Splatoon 2 (a good few notches above the mere Splatoon 1.5 I feared) and Mario + Rabbids. Personally, the five big exclusives were all winners and an extraordinary launch year for the console... if I hadn't had a WiiU it would have been even better with the likes of Mario Kart 8 Deluxe.

ERG89

Deleted User wrote:

Absolutely agree with both of you 100%. Nintendo don't see themselves in direct competition with Sony/Microsoft, so it's not a good comparison at all.

It's a game console. I'm sorry but Nintendo are in the video game business whether it's handheld or their mobile tat. Them saying they aren't in competition is like WWE saying they're Sports Entertainment it's simply said to make them feel better about themselves.

Retr0gamer wrote:

There was also super Mario odyssey, one of the best games ever made. Splatoon 2 was a delight. As was the xcom tinged Mario and rabbids. You also had Xenoblade 2 which is an incredible open world rpg. I also had a lot of fun with the likes of snippet clips and blaster master zero. Arms was a great competitive fighter and it had done good wiiu conversions like the definitive version of Mario kart 8.

Ah here, it might be one of the better 3D Mario games but it is not even near the best Mario game ever made. It's a very solid 8/10 in particular cause most of its best content is in the post game.
Thought a lot of the first party stuff varied in quality.
Mario Kart 8, Bayonetta & snipperclips were a ton of fun.
But ARMS after the online test I thought it was a bit much to stretch it out to a full game, Xenoblade 2 just felt rushed out to market too fast & Splatoon 2 felt like an annual sequel more than a fully fledged second entry which is very un-Nintendo, the online events give it life but it's not exactly revolutionary.

Mario Oddysey for me provided that rush of wow I hadn't experienced in a game for well over 10+ years

It's that good

And I have barely done any of the endgame yet

Notorious

ERG89 wrote: »

It's a game console. I'm sorry but Nintendo are in the video game business whether it's handheld or their mobile tat. Them saying they aren't in competition is like WWE saying they're Sports Entertainment it's simply said to make them feel better about themselves.

It’s not that simple. Nintendo are most definitely in the video games industry, that we all agree on. But their market is different to the market Sony engages with.

Sure each market intersects and has like minded customers. But the Switch appeals more to a family unit or those in a younger age group.

To the person who wants to play the latest FPS, Sony and Microsoft will appeal to them.

I know more people who own both a Switch and a PS4 or Xbox, than people who own both a PS4 and an Xbox. While Sony and Microsoft are in direct competition, Nintendo are on the fringe.

wilfinity wrote:

I am curious about this though... so you would both consider the Switch as a handheld primarily? So it's a handheld you can plug into a TV?

It depends on which game I’m playing. With Zelda, I’d primarily use the TV. For Stardew Valley it’s handheld. It’s the versatility of the Switch that I adore!

Jerichoholic

The first time I saw ARMS I groaned, I groan now now when I hear it mentioned. It looks like absolute dirt.

johnny_ultimate

Jerichoholic wrote: »

It looks like absolute dirt.

Have you played it? I have, and it’s one of the most enjoyable, intense multiplayer games I’ve played - especially local multiplayer. Thoroughly clever and well designed gem of a game.

TitianGerm

Jerichoholic wrote: »

The first time I saw ARMS I groaned, I groan now now when I hear it mentioned. It looks like absolute dirt.

Just because it's not for you doesn't mean it's a bad game.

I think COD looks and plays like dirt, with a TTK of nano seconds. It's still one of the biggest sellers every single year and has a huge following.

gimli2112

I got Black Ops 3 a couple of weeks ago. Played 10 minutes of the campaign , had one online session which was admittedly pretty fun but only because I played with a friend and deleted it. Just had no desire to play it.
There's something about the map design that puts me off since Blops 2. I'd happily play MW2 through to MW3 if there was a decent player base, even on PS3.
Waiting 10 minutes for a tdm isn't fun.

TitianGerm

gimli2112 wrote: »

I got Black Ops 3 a couple of weeks ago. Played 10 minutes of the campaign , had one online session which was admittedly pretty fun but only because I played with a friend and deleted it. Just had no desire to play it.
There's something about the map design that puts me off since Blops 2. I'd happily play MW2 through to MW3 if there was a decent player base, even on PS3.
Waiting 10 minutes for a tdm isn't fun.

MW3 went back compatible on Xbox last week. Was meant to be 70000 players online at one point.

gimli2112

TitianGerm wrote: »

MW3 went back compatible on Xbox last week. Was meant to be 70000 players online at one point.

Funny you mention that it's started to seriously cross my mind to get one because of this. Particularly with the rumours of MW2 remaster not having MP. I have a PS3, 4 and Pro under the tv. There's too many wires to add an x-box

TitianGerm

gimli2112 wrote: »

Funny you mention that it's started to seriously cross my mind to get one because of this. Particularly with the rumours of MW2 remaster not having MP. I have a PS3, 4 and Pro under the tv. There's too many wires to add an x-box

Why do you have a PS4 and a Pro

Ditch the 4 and buy a One S seen as GameStop are doing good trade in deals. Then you'll have a 4k BlueRay as well as an added bonus.

CatInABox

CatInABox wrote: »

Yeah, I'm dying to get one. Seems like the perfect console for one TV families. I get kicked off the Xbox regularly enough that a switch would be absolutely great for me.

I'll get one when I can, but that's another while away yet

Another couple of years and you'll be streaming xbox games to your switch :-)

Jerichoholic

johnny_ultimate wrote: »

Have you played it? I have, and it’s one of the most enjoyable, intense multiplayer games I’ve played - especially local multiplayer. Thoroughly clever and well designed gem of a game.

Naw I'm not interested. Just looks really dumb to me. I'm sure it's fine but I've zero interest in it.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

Absolutely agree with both of you 100%. Nintendo don't see themselves in direct competition with Sony/Microsoft, so it's not a good comparison at all.

If you're going to compare them at all, compare their approach/ideas instead of their hardware. Perhaps it's Nintendo fanboy in me, but I think Nintendo are the only ones to really try new things. While Sony and Microsoft iterate, Nintendo innovate.

I am curious about this though... so you would both consider the Switch as a handheld primarily? So it's a handheld you can plug into a TV?

To me it's the opposite; it's a console that I can take with me. But I guess it depends on how it fits into people's life styles. For me it will remain a console first, handheld second.

To me the Switch is a pick up and play console, it's a table with a controller attached and all the better for it. I've not used it docked in almost a year as for me it's at its best when I'm laying on the couch or in bed and just want a game to play for awhile that I can turn off and then pick up the next day.

I can see them trying to compete with Sony and MS a little more once the Switch 2.0 is released. The Nvidia tech is improving and they could do something with the dock to offer a little more processing power so that gameplay and games are not drastically affected by going docked.

ShadowHearth wrote: »

I got my switch last year and I played it a good bit, but never went back to it after getting xbox one x.
Dont understand me wrong, its cool console, but I think it suffers from same issue wii u did. After playing some fortnite it was clear that hardware is underpowered.
I bought it for portability and using it on tv is really meh. Its ashame when you play portable it takes a massive performance hit, considering its week already.
The only reason I bought 3ds before were Monster Hunter and Fire Emblem games. Got switch in advance for those games, but MH came out on other consoles...

Now I cam bet my knickers on Nintendo releasing more powerful switch later on. Like 3Ds new. Might even sell my one right now while it still has some value.

Is it underpowered, only in that it doesn't have the processing power of the PS4 or Xbox One but it has never intended to be a direct competitor to either.
To me the Switch is a handheld, it's not a console so to speak but rather as I've said before a tablet for gaming. I've not played Fortnite on the Switch and doubt I will to me the port is more in line with mobile devices than console/PC.

I think that if you buy a handheld for portability and it also has the option to be used on a TV then you really can't knock it for looking bad on a TV. I see docked mode as an extra, like what Sony does with remote play.

K.O.Kiki

Deleted User wrote: »

The Nvidia tech is improving and they could do something with the dock to offer a little more processing power so that gameplay and games are not drastically affected by going docked.

Switch uses Nvidia Tegra X1 which has been available since Q2 2015 (i.e. 2 years before Switch came out).

Tegra X2 came out at the same time as the Switch IIRC

K.O.Kiki

K.O.Kiki wrote: »

Switch uses Nvidia Tegra X1 which has been available since Q2 2015 (i.e. 2 years before Switch came out).

Tegra X2 came out at the same time as the Switch IIRC

That is what I mean, the improved tech will most likely result in an upgrade device. Would have been great to see the newer tech in it but cost and development most likely made it impossible.

gimli2112

It's kind of like kill cams from COD which were nothing but rage inducing as the game would present to you a series of events that hadn't occurred on your screen.

Kiith

J. Marston wrote: »

Blizzard are patenting the play of the game system from Overwatch.

Shame, it's a nice feature that would've been cool to see in other mp games, even if all it boils down to is stroking your own ego for a few seconds!

They are trying to patent it. Application was filed in 2016 apparently.

Reddit wrote:

This article is patently false.

The patent application was filed on 9 Dec 2016 and published on 14 June 2018. It has still yet to be examined for formalities and patentability -- checking the USPTO Public PAIR lists the status as "Docketed New Case - Ready for Examination" (App. No. 15/374523). It still has years of prosecution left (and potential amendments) before being granted (if it isn't considered an abstract idea).

Mickeroo

gimli2112 wrote: »

It's kind of like kill cams from COD which were nothing but rage inducing as the game would present to you a series of events that hadn't occurred on your screen.

Remember in MW3 when you could hear the voice of the guy you just killed during their kill cam

gimli2112

Used to be hilarious. It was a snippet. You'd just hear enough to be called "YOU cheating ****"

Maxpfizer

Deleted User wrote: »

I am curious about this though... so you would both consider the Switch as a handheld primarily? So it's a handheld you can plug into a TV?

I'm in the same position as others in that I own a Switch and a PS4. I wouldn't say it's as simple as "a handheld that can plug into a TV" or "a console that can be taken on the go".

I think some games are suited to being played on the TV and being able to take them on the go is a bonus (Skyrim, Doom, BotW, Mario Odyssey). A pretty big bonus, I think.

Then some games are just "Docked Mode Only" for me such as Arms, Mario Kart and Mario Tennis. The main reason being I will usually be playing these as multiplayer games and we need the big TV for split screen.

Then other games are really "handheld only" for me and that's more of the retro style indie games that don't scale up so well to the big screen. Also I'd be more inclined to play DK:TF or Mario Rabbids in handheld.

For me this versatility would be the reason I would have to choose the Switch over the PS4 if I were forced.

The downside is that events like E3 are showing off the actual "cutting edge" of gaming and the Switch is just not part of that conversation unfortunately.

TitianGerm

Maxpfizer wrote: »

I'm in the same position as others in that I own a Switch and a PS4. I wouldn't say it's as simple as "a handheld that can plug into a TV" or "a console that can be taken on the go".

I think some games are suited to being played on the TV and being able to take them on the go is a bonus (Skyrim, Doom, BotW, Mario Odyssey). A pretty big bonus, I think.

Then some games are just "Docked Mode Only" for me such as Arms, Mario Kart and Mario Tennis. The main reason being I will usually be playing these as multiplayer games and we need the big TV for split screen.

Then other games are really "handheld only" for me and that's more of the retro style indie games that don't scale up so well to the big screen. Also I'd be more inclined to play DK:TF or Mario Rabbids in handheld.

For me this versatility would be the reason I would have to choose the Switch over the PS4 if I were forced.

The downside is that events like E3 are showing off the actual "cutting edge" of gaming and the Switch is just not part of that conversation unfortunately.

Handheld mode is great for Indies. But saying that 95% of my play time has been handheld mode when herself is watching TV and I'm playing BOTW, Zelda or something else.

Potential-Monke

Nintendo was never really part of the cutting edge since the N64 days. But they don't need to be. They have their own audience which is massive, and they create excellent games, and a lot of choice out there. Nintendo haven't taken on the big 2 directly, instead showing them that it's not all about graphical power. The Switch was a genius move, as they will eventually only have 1 device to create games for, and covers both the home and handheld market!

Kiith

I'm assuming the Switch will replace the 3DS from now on, right? Wouldn't make any sense to have two handhelds (even if one is a hybrid).

Retr0gamer

Potential-Monke wrote: »

Nintendo was never really part of the cutting edge since the N64 days.

The Gamecube was a far superior machine to the PS2 and in ways the Xbox. That was the flop that really turned them against competing in the hardware arms race.

Kiith wrote: »

I'm assuming the Switch will replace the 3DS from now on, right? Wouldn't make any sense to have two handhelds (even if one is a hybrid).

Nintendo first party are no longer supporting the 3DS. Some second party and Nintendo published third party games are still coming but winding down and outside of end of console stalwarts like Atlus the system is really winding down now and being replaced by the Switch.

Potential-Monke

Retr0gamer wrote: »

The Gamecube was a far superior machine to the PS2 and in ways the Xbox. That was the flop that really turned them against competing in the hardware arms race.

Isn't that always the way though? GameCube was by far the better console, but back then, Nintendo had the young/teen image and PS/Xbox was being marketed more towards the 'older' audience, ie: mature. Completely wrong looking back, but it's all down to marketing. The Dreamcast was also far superior, but marketed badly and let down by a lack of support. Same more or less happened the GameCube imo.

But, Nintendo were dead right to do what they did, because they basically have a market now with no competition as such.

Jerichoholic

Dreamcast didn't have DVD support just a weird GCD thing, so in that sense it had nothing to do with marketing or support, just a bad design choice.