Lengthy care post incoming, but to put some context: This thread was made because of comments posted in
this thread.
Its time to put this stuff to a closing.
You know, its alright to be in the wrong. Just don't go out of your way making a thread about it
You can attest to Witcher 3 being good, but Dying Light gets no pass, yet they run on completely different engines, yet you expect DL to be atleast the same as Witcher. The fact its a 30 fps game and does so well, on a engine not designed for the Switch, on hardware a order of magnitude weaker makes your stance go haywire. People can find things geniunely impressive when they are: You don't have to share that sentiment. But neither should you present your opinion as fact, which is what you are doing here.
You go ham on the word ''
Switch'' and that it should mean it should be doing well at both, when
practical consensus is that the ''
hybrid'' fares better at portable play. Making false equivalencies and arguing semantics is just poor.
Also OP if your stance is anything to go by, who are you trying to convince here? You won't be swayed by people staying how certain ports are impressive, and you yourself have wished for a more performant Switch.
Your solution is quite literally the Steam Deck. Its the same thing as a Switch in that it can output to TV and be portable, but its a heck of a ton more powerful. Have you ordered one yet?
Everything else you are doing is just variations on the semantics game. Is it more of a console? Is it more of a handheld? What needs to be more preferred?
Never have i thought that introducing multiple ways of play and thus being flexible generates such complaints.
So, I just don’t accept the narrative that switch is primarily a handheld device. Because it obviously is not, it’s in the name *Switch* and it isn’t “Nintendo’s handheld device that can also be played on the tv”.
The name suggests what you are saying (the former), but the marketing for the device is the latter. Perhaps its there where your disharmony arises? That the marketing does not actually match the name?
People here, as well as those at digital foundry seem to call it a portable console as a way to deflect criticism from its docked performance.
OP, the fact that you say things like these (And even call it
cute deflecting) tells me you didn't pay attention the last time. See this post
here where it is stated that some ports are not that great to play because they actually affect playability. Other ports, fare better.
Yet if we look at the launch of the console, we saw games made by Nintendo that prioritized use of the joycons on a home display ; i.e. arms, and 1 2 switch. The joy cons themselves are for home play primarily.
Says who? The marketing actually suggests you use it as a tabletop with friends, outside. There is no home play there. So who to believe? See how using the same kind of logic against your own argument isn't holding up?
Did you know PSP could do video output too?
Even better,
the PSP Go was essentially a Switch before the Switch ever existed.
The hardware is mobile hardware so I don't get why there is even a discussion.....
It's a handheld with an optional docked mode.
Exactly. Despite the marketing calling it a
switch implying (correctly) it can
switch inbetween Docked and Portable, due to the hardware it works best in portable play. It pains me to see the OP state the opposite since that's completely against Nintendo's own marketing.
It’s called *switch*, not DS.
So was n64 a cgi workstation because it had that hardware in it?
Well, technically...
But this is a false equivalency.
This is not a why people buy a switch thread.
This is about the docked experience being no less of a focus, and that developers focus just as much (if not more depending on the title, as I mentioned) on the docked experience vs. portable.
We all know switch is more so successful because of the handheld aspect. It’s not the point. That’s personal preference.
Then what is the point? Because clearly developers take both docked and portable into account. Its that
due to the nature of the hardware the Switch is best suited for portable play. That's literally all there is to it.
Its literally in the hardware Majora. Its used in tablets! The entire Switch SoC is centered around mobile play first and for most.
The docked experience is superior, that’s the general rule. It’s not some secondary meaningless option.
You first correctly say that docked and portable get equal attention, and then you go say that the docked experience is superior. How? Why? Yes, it carres a resolution uptick, but it also has to do that on screens that aren't 1280x720, or 1600x900. In portable play, the resolution is usually more so fixed, and things that are apparent on a bigger screen are less noticeable on portable.
Sir, you seem to only want to talk about this minus the reason WHY it might happen bud. That isn't a "coherent conversation".
I think OP misunderstands the marketing focus of Nintendo for the Switch and that it should be more focused on the device
as a console rather than
as a hybrid or
as a portable.
Lol. Read the posts in the thread and look at the poll results. Almost half the people think it's primarily a handheld device, much to logic's chagrin. If anything i've been proven correct in how a lot of people view switch.
Almost 60 procent think its as much a home console than it is a portable. Gee, maybe Nintendo called it a
hybrid for a reason?
The 40 procent people would well be swayed in the 60 procent group because your question is flawed:
- By fact is the Switch both a console and a handheld, as is evidenced by the fact you can play it on TV with a separate controller, and play it on the go using its own screen.
- Given it uses mobile hardware, many are then concluding that the hybrid is more suited for portable play, because that's what it is by its very nature. Its mobile hardware, so ofcourse people are going to say it works better for portable play. Why is this an issue?
- What i can judge from your point, is that you rather want a more powerful Switch that makes more sense as a console. That's one way of looking at it, but that's not how Nintendo is looking at it and most of the almost 100 million Switches sold to consumers also aren't seeing it. They see it as a hybrid that works best in portable play, but can alsoplay on Docked.
- You however, insist that Docked play should be getting equal attention. But that's quite literally not the marketing pitch of Nintendo.
- If you don't want to accept that, feel free for it, but don't continue this narrative that Nintendo should have taken a different road and instead focus more on a pro-console machine. But hey, perhaps the Switch Pro will fill your needs?
