By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - What happened to "portable games for portable a console"

Tagged games:

RolStoppable said:
This notion was already on its way out when Ocarina of Time 3D became a multimillion seller. It was exposed as being nothing more than the political correct way to explain why Nintendo beat Sony. It really has nothing to do with whether games are perceived as home console or handheld games, it's a simple question of game quality.

Nintendo makes much better games than Sony and third parties, that's all there is to it.

A lot of game developers rely on production values to sell their games. If the "wow" from production values gets removed (which happens when a game is made for a portable console), then there's commonly not much of a selling point left. The result is that mediocrity gets recognized as mediocrity which stands in stark contrast to the hype-driven home console software market. It is not coincidence that AAA third parties have a hard time being successful on portable consoles.

Thank you.

 

I like pointing out when people change their stance on things. Be it "paid online" or "resolution doesn't matter". I know mobile gaming has taken up a lot of the portable market but quality always shines through. Even on PSP and Vita, RPGs (especially FF Tactics) dominated my time. Same as Zelda games on most Nintendo devices. They were never just "jump in and play games". Just GOOD games.

 

With that said, I've probably used the "smaller games are just better for portable consoles" argument, myself. Even then, those usually weren't there games I was playing.



Around the Network

Zelda has its shrines for easy jump in jump out, Mario Kart is short races, Odyssey will have a lot of moons to collect and won't force you out of a level. Get a moon or 2, put switch to sleep and pick up and continue when you got a few mins. Nintendo have done a great job of making there big console games great on the go.



Turkish said:

2. timing: Switch has the hardware to deliver console graphics at a good enough resolution, neither PSP nor Vita were ready. Most Vita games didn't even run at its native 540p something screen.

Wrong, most Vita games run in the native resolution of the display.



RolStoppable said:
A lot of game developers rely on production values to sell their games. If the "wow" from production values gets removed (which happens when a game is made for a portable console), then there's commonly not much of a selling point left. The result is that mediocrity gets recognized as mediocrity which stands in stark contrast to the hype-driven home console software market. It is not coincidence that AAA third parties have a hard time being successful on portable consoles.

I'd love to hear a few examples of this. IMO the Gears of War franchise has always been mediocrity wrapped up in good graphics. 



d21lewis said:

I bought a Switch on day one. Love it. Everybody should buy one.

 

With that said, I already own a ton of games--many of which are full console games. It's awesome. That console experience on the go--you can't beat it!

...but wasn't that the reason why the Vita failed? Why the DS best the PSP? Those consoles offered "console experience on the go" titles and we all said "Nope. Nintendo understands the portable market. They know people want portable experiences!"

 

What changed? An I rewriting history? Discuss.

Erm,Switch is getting a lot of Vita like games and indies at retail that pretty are the perfect portable games. Switch has both.



Around the Network

I love my Vita. I still use it all the time. Just came here to say that.



PSN: GripnRip

Always up to game.


Get your Portable ID!

Cerebralbore101 said:
RolStoppable said:
A lot of game developers rely on production values to sell their games. If the "wow" from production values gets removed (which happens when a game is made for a portable console), then there's commonly not much of a selling point left. The result is that mediocrity gets recognized as mediocrity which stands in stark contrast to the hype-driven home console software market. It is not coincidence that AAA third parties have a hard time being successful on portable consoles.

I'd love to hear a few examples of this. IMO the Gears of War franchise has always been mediocrity wrapped up in good graphics. 

Gears WAS certainly so much more than just graphics, it did the cover shooting very well, the campaign was long enough (in that time period atleast) with enough variety + having the ability to play it co op was popular aswell, and at many friends it felt very rewarding, one of my favourite games to get kills in the game + imo the best entertaining way of reloading your weapon.  We can't also forget the multiplayer that was imo excellent. 7-8 years after its release their were still people playing online.






Cerebralbore101 said:
RolStoppable said:
A lot of game developers rely on production values to sell their games. If the "wow" from production values gets removed (which happens when a game is made for a portable console), then there's commonly not much of a selling point left. The result is that mediocrity gets recognized as mediocrity which stands in stark contrast to the hype-driven home console software market. It is not coincidence that AAA third parties have a hard time being successful on portable consoles.

I'd love to hear a few examples of this. IMO the Gears of War franchise has always been mediocrity wrapped up in good graphics. 

One of the best series of campaigns, "meta" humor before it was cool that was self-aware but not overly stupid, character arcs that work about as well as the PS3 Uncharted games but without the pretention, revolutionary cover system, fun unique weapons, cool character designs, best co-op experience, a great competitive community, and a revolutionary Horde mode?

 

...yep, definitely just graphix.



d21lewis said:

I bought a Switch on day one. Love it. Everybody should buy one.

 

With that said, I already own a ton of games--many of which are full console games. It's awesome. That console experience on the go--you can't beat it!

...but wasn't that the reason why the Vita failed? Why the DS best the PSP? Those consoles offered "console experience on the go" titles and we all said "Nope. Nintendo understands the portable market. They know people want portable experiences!"

 

What changed? An I rewriting history? Discuss.

I think it's in the marketing. In the past, "console experience on the go" meant similar games on a handheld but not the same.

The Switch is different. The game is the same whether on the big screen or on the handheld. This was made very clear in the Switch's reveal trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f5uik5fgIaI

No, you're not getting gimped console games on this new handheld, you're getting the SAME GAME.

 

That and the ability to switch back and forth between the two so easily is pretty great. I can continue playing whether on the toilet or at work or in bed or in my backyard or traveling.



d21lewis said:

I bought a Switch on day one. Love it. Everybody should buy one.

 

With that said, I already own a ton of games--many of which are full console games. It's awesome. That console experience on the go--you can't beat it!

...but wasn't that the reason why the Vita failed? Why the DS best the PSP? Those consoles offered "console experience on the go" titles and we all said "Nope. Nintendo understands the portable market. They know people want portable experiences!"

 

What changed? An I rewriting history? Discuss.

It's all about the games. The Vita was never interesting for me. The only gameI was interested in really was Gravity Rush. Sony ended up moving the series to home console. Besides that - everything seemed to be dumbed down console experience, from Uncharted Golden Abyss to Assassins Creed Freedom (was that the name?). And nothing to stand out, nothing distictive that defined the console.

The PSP on the other hand was interesting for me and I was near getting one. The difference: Loco Roco, Patapon, Monster Hunter. That defined the console, made it stand out.

I think a portable cannot survive with adapted multiplats. They always feel like the lesser version, because on home console they offer a greater experience. They need some own games.

Switch, well. For one it is not a big step down to current consoles. It gets fucking Doom. I'm interested how that holds up if the next gen from Sony and MS comes. Will the Switch get multiplats then or own versions, like the Vita did?

Obviously the Switch also gets great exclusives. All big Nintendo-stuff now is on Switch, and it gets quite a few exclusives from 3rd-party.

But I do actually miss the portable experience. Don't get me wrong, stuff like Zelda is awesome. But I miss something like Etrian Odyssey, Denpa Men, Dillons Rolling Western, Patapon, Loco Roco, Bravely Default. I guess Project Octopath Traveler might offer this. Maybe later on Pokemon - or it turns into the first home console Pokemon. We'll see.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]