Quantcast
Would You Like to See a New Dedicated Handheld from Nintendo?

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Would You Like to See a New Dedicated Handheld from Nintendo?

Would You Like to See a New Dedicated Handheld from Nintendo?

Yes, within the next year or two 138 12.96%
 
Yes, but not for a few years yet 120 11.27%
 
No, hybrid consoles from now on 633 59.44%
 
No, I don't like/use handhelds 174 16.34%
 
Total:1,065

Yeah. I'd prefer a switch like that focuses on being a handheld but I'd also like external saves so... shit creek. Paddle-less.



 

Everything in the above reply is my opinion, from my own perspective and not representative of reality outside of my own head!

-Android user, please be gentle with critique on my spelling.

Around the Network
Mar1217 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

That does not even make sense. But ok. 

P.S. I do think Switch is a hybrid, it just is literally a handheld device. 

Yes, it is. Just as it can also be used as a home console only device. It's a pratical middleground for both and that's fantastic for people who wants this kind of flexibility.

Ok. And I don't disagree with any of that. You're kind of just saying it isn't a handheld device but a hybrid, while I'm saying it's literally a handheld device but acts as a hybrid. You can keep saying it isn't one but at the end of the day it doesn't seem like we disagree all that much. 



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
Mar1217 said:

Yes, it is. Just as it can also be used as a home console only device. It's a pratical middleground for both and that's fantastic for people who wants this kind of flexibility.

Ok. And I don't disagree with any of that. You're kind of just saying it isn't a handheld device but a hybrid, while I'm saying it's literally a handheld device but acts as a hybrid. You can keep saying it isn't one but at the end of the day it doesn't seem like we disagree all that much. 

Yeah, kinda like disagreeing for nothing since our opinions are seemingly alike.



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

Mar1217 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Ok. And I don't disagree with any of that. You're kind of just saying it isn't a handheld device but a hybrid, while I'm saying it's literally a handheld device but acts as a hybrid. You can keep saying it isn't one but at the end of the day it doesn't seem like we disagree all that much. 

Yeah, kinda like disagreeing for nothing since our opinions are seemingly alike.

: ) No problem then. I guess I'm too caught up on what "Dedicated" means.



Mar1217 said:
benji232 said:

Then where are all the games lol? Where is our unified library? In 2018, we got ……………………… A Kirby platformer and Mario tennis. Sick Unified library Nintendo... Nah, I'd prefer get 2 platforms since were obviously netting way less games then before.

So we're gonna purposefully forget about what's coming in the near future with SMP, Pokémon Let's Go and Smash Ultimate and the line up we got so far for 2019 just for your own egostistic self-entitled view on game developpement ?

Five Nintendo exclusives in a whole year (of which most are mediocre) and a few lazy ports and a horrible online service. That's not what I call an impressive output for a company as big as Nintendo with dozens of internal and 2nd party studios that had the opportunity to make great games for Switch since way back before Switch was even announced. Nintendo made more games when it was supporting two systems at the same time. So why would you want one system with less original games than even Wii U?



Around the Network

Switch already serves this purpose right.



 

benji232 said:
Yes. Nintendo's output so far on switch in 2018 is a testament to why they need a budget handheld device. Their game releases has been laughable in 2018. I am a huge Nintendo fan and I purchased 1 first party switch game in 2018 (LOL, I don't even think that ever happened even for wiiU) and it's Mario tennis which is a third tier franchise (LOL again). They're trying to camouflage their poor output of games with a bunch of full-priced ports which is inexcusable and are essentially punishing people who supported them through and through in the wiiU days.

So why does all of this matters? Because a budget handheld would allow them to release games on a more frequent basis due to the need for smaller teams and cheaper budgets. This would allow Nintendo fans like myself to not have to wait 4-6months (or more, we haven't had a AAA Nintendo release since October 2017 which is ridiculous) between each major Nintendo first party releases. In the wiiU and 3ds days, it was almost always the case of when there was nothing to play on wiiU, something would release on 3DS and vice-versa which in the end means more money for Nintendo. Not to mention, a budget handheld device would almost certainly sell very well for them.


/end of rant

You know, I think the idea that Switch has a disappointing library is a lot more respectable than most on this forum. It's pretty sad that this kind of reception to the Switch is practically outlawed or laughed at immediately. However, a lot of your comment is pretty unreasonable. 

You're absolutely right that the "unified library" is taking a lot longer to really show it's claws, but making a separate platform is not the answer. Firstly, because the generational leap between the 3DS and the Switch would be such an awkward middle phase. It would be like the Vita, with very few of the benefits of a dedicated Nintendo handheld (low cost for games and thus faster development times), and bad quality "console-like" experiences. Having something between a 3DS and Switch that would stand out when the Switch is already released would be hard, because it wouldn't have any of the real advantages of low cost handhelds or high cost hybrids (which already aren't really "high cost" as it is). We already see that Switch games can run on 3DS when they are dumbed down far enough (Fire Emblem Warriors), and we've already seen that phone-quality assets that are cheap to produce can look fairly pleasing to the eyes on a console (Pokemon Let's Go). What would a compromise between a 3DS and a Switch offer? With all due respect to their developer prowess, Nintendo titles are already incredibly cheap in comparison to most other AAA devs. 

Secondly, ports on Nintendo handhelds have a long history. Look at the Gameboy Advance: It's considered by many to be one of the best consoles ever made, yet it's best selling titles consist of the likes of Mario ports, a Mario Kart game that is practically a port (from what I know, could be wrong), Zelda ports, and third party collections. And is it a coincidence that during the Gameboy Advance era we saw the first Pokemon remake instead of a second new mainline title? Or how about 3DS? With it's ports, remasters, half-sequels, etc. Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D, Star Fox 3D, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask 3D, The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds, Yoshi's Wooly World, Hyrule Warriors, Fire Emblem Warriors, Mario Party Top 100, Metroid: Samus Returns, Yoshi's New Island, Smash Brothers for 3DS .... when you cut all that out, yeah, you could make the exact same point for GBA and 3DS. Is it really fair to say that Nintendo didn't have problems supporting consoles and handhelds in the past before the Wii U and 3DS era? Because really, I don't see it. The Game Boy lasted 12 years and didn't hit the peak of it's stride till well after release. I imagine there were times where people had little to play in the span of 12 years. The DS had the most bountiful library of any Nintendo handheld, but at the cost of the GBA's lifespan. It had great 3rd party support because it was an innovative device ... but it's hard to say if we'd ever get something like that again. 

You're right that you'd probably get more out of two Nintendo consoles in one year exclusive-wise than what you'd get from Nintendo with the Switch. However, that has more to do with release schedules than content. When Nintendo has to support two systems, they rush out projects sooner. That's why 3DS has so much unoriginal content or re-used concepts. Switch ports are just more upfront and apparent. But you still had large spans of time where nothing came out in the past. With the release schedule right now, we can assume that while there are going to be some dry months as far as exclusives go, we won't have near entire years like we with the Wii U and even the Wii (or the 3DS, which got to the point where there would only be one big original game from Nintendo near the end of it's life). The Switch is supposed to have a consistent release schedule that results in a longer life span, and unfortunately that might mean some titles get pushed back. 

To summarize once and for all, if your criteria is how much you have to play, then I have to call into question why you think past console cycles were that much better. There were more games ... but for consoles like GBA and 3DS, that metric relies heavily on the same kind of titles you complained about (ports, half-sequels, etc). Not only that, but those systems were at their peak when they were put next to the Gamecube and Wii U, which are infamous for being at times barren. The Gameboy was next to both the NES, SNES, and N64 .. but it hit it's most popular point when the N64 was out, a system which also had a very barren release schedule. The first few years of the DS and the Wii was a near perfect combo, but look at how poorly Nintendo supported the Wii in the last 2 years (you could argue even 3). If you brought up major third party releases maybe you could make a point, but you didn't.  This has always been a problem for Nintendo, it's just now the solution isn't to pay for two consoles. 



I do, I love my 3DS serves a different purpose than my Switch.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:

You know, I think the idea that Switch has a disappointing library is a lot more respectable than most on this forum. It's pretty sad that this kind of reception to the Switch is practically outlawed or laughed at immediately. However, a lot of your comment is pretty unreasonable. 

(...)

The idea is laughed at for three main reasons:

1. Comparisons between Switch and other consoles usually are LTD for Switch vs. lifetime of other consoles.
2. Quality of released first party games is deemed to be of little to no relevance.
3. Third party support gets conveniently ignored.

Regarding your other argument that Switch as a hybrid is a handheld device, it's pretty obvious that a hybrid needs to be of a size that allows it to be legitimately portable. How else do you imagine a hybrid?

On topic: Pretty clear poll results so far. Most people grasp that spending money on only one piece of hardware leaves more money for games.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

Not right now. I think their next gen should be a re-imaging of this hybrid style. A single development platform sure. But rather where games can be played on a dedicated handheld or a dedicated console neither being top of the line super expensive.

But maybe that is asking too much from Nintendo and their fans.  I personally find the switch to be way too big and have such poor battery life that I would never consider it for dedicated handheld gaming.  A sentiment that is not shared by the vast majority apparently.

Last edited by dharh - on 01 October 2018

A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of his first breath to the moment of his last.