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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - New (S)Witcher 3 gameplay, from Nintendo

DonFerrari on 26 August 2019

S.Peelman said:
People say one should get it on more powerful systems. The thing is, I have a PS4, beside a Switch, and obviously it would look and run better there. But, there’s a much bigger chance I’d actually play such a big game all the way through on Switch, because it’s just more convenient. There’s a higher chance that I pick it up and play in handheld mode any time of the day than play on tv, It’d be a shame if I ended up wasting the money on a game on PS4 I’ll end up barely playing. All the graphics in the world wouldn’t make up for that. On Switch there’s just a higher chance that I’ll get my money’s worth. It’s happened time and time again; I have RDR2, obviously a good game, but I barely get around to playing it, I think I still only have about 3 or 4 hours. Meanwhile I got Mortal Kombat 11 on Switch, looks like crap but I played that ten times more by now. Playing on Switch is just more convenient, and that is worth a lot.

Not to say that I’ll buy Witcher 3 on Switch. I don’t know yet, and if I do it’d be an impulse-buy, but at least, this has been my reasoning when it comes to multiplats.

I don't see myself or many others enjoying playing this type of game on 15min slots to take use of all the "but I would play it everywhere anytime while on TV I wouldn't play it at all". Even more for people that live in places you either don't sit to commute, you have to keep atention to your whereabouts to not lose the station and are at risk of robbery.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
S.Peelman on 26 August 2019
DonFerrari said:

S.Peelman said:
People say one should get it on more powerful systems. The thing is, I have a PS4, beside a Switch, and obviously it would look and run better there. But, there’s a much bigger chance I’d actually play such a big game all the way through on Switch, because it’s just more convenient. There’s a higher chance that I pick it up and play in handheld mode any time of the day than play on tv, It’d be a shame if I ended up wasting the money on a game on PS4 I’ll end up barely playing. All the graphics in the world wouldn’t make up for that. On Switch there’s just a higher chance that I’ll get my money’s worth. It’s happened time and time again; I have RDR2, obviously a good game, but I barely get around to playing it, I think I still only have about 3 or 4 hours. Meanwhile I got Mortal Kombat 11 on Switch, looks like crap but I played that ten times more by now. Playing on Switch is just more convenient, and that is worth a lot.

Not to say that I’ll buy Witcher 3 on Switch. I don’t know yet, and if I do it’d be an impulse-buy, but at least, this has been my reasoning when it comes to multiplats.

I don't see myself or many others enjoying playing this type of game on 15min slots to take use of all the "but I would play it everywhere anytime while on TV I wouldn't play it at all". Even more for people that live in places you either don't sit to commute, you have to keep atention to your whereabouts to not lose the station and are at risk of robbery.

Maybe, maybe not. Doesn’t matter to me though. I actually play my Switch, or any handheld, at home. On occasion I bring one with me on holiday, but never to commute.

I usually play Switch handheld, rarely tabletop, occasionally on tv, for ‘normal’ lengths of play. One hour, two, maybe three if I’m really into it. Though once I played Twilight Princess HD on WiiU’s Gamepad, so off-tv, for 11 hours straight lol. It’s a combination of it being an easier and more casual way to just pick up a handheld and start playing, tv’s being occupied, people being in the room period (and as such not wanting to start such a big distraction in the middle of the room) and me not wanting to sit alone in a room away from other people in the house.

So if it involves a multiplat this factoid is a huge part of my decision making, and more often than not I’d rather play something with mediocre performance and graphics all the way through, than barely playing something at all and having wasted my money. The graphics and performance have no inpact whatsoever on the chance of me actually playing a game I own.

Like I said though, this doesn’t necessarily relate to Witcher 3, it’s my general way of thinking, just saying that there’s a market for people buying “lesser” versions, for whatever reason.

Obviously though, if a port is a terrible broken mess, the logic goes down the drain. I still have some standard.



DonFerrari on 26 August 2019
S.Peelman said:
DonFerrari said:

I don't see myself or many others enjoying playing this type of game on 15min slots to take use of all the "but I would play it everywhere anytime while on TV I wouldn't play it at all". Even more for people that live in places you either don't sit to commute, you have to keep atention to your whereabouts to not lose the station and are at risk of robbery.

Maybe, maybe not. Doesn’t matter to me though. I actually play my Switch, or any handheld, at home. On occasion I bring one with me on holiday, but never to commute.

I usually play Switch handheld, rarely tabletop, occasionally on tv, for ‘normal’ lengths of play. One hour, two, maybe three if I’m really into it. Though once I played Twilight Princess HD on WiiU’s Gamepad, so off-tv, for 11 hours straight lol. It’s a combination of it being an easier and more casual way to just pick up a handheld and start playing, tv’s being occupied, people being in the room period (and as such not wanting to start such a big distraction in the middle of the room) and me not wanting to sit alone in a room away from other people in the house.

So if it involves a multiplat this factoid is a huge part of my decision making, and more often than not I’d rather play something with mediocre performance and graphics all the way through, than barely playing something at all and having wasted my money. The graphics and performance have no inpact whatsoever on the chance of me actually playing a game I own.

Like I said though, this doesn’t necessarily relate to Witcher 3, it’s my general way of thinking, just saying that there’s a market for people buying “lesser” versions, for whatever reason.

Obviously though, if a port is a terrible broken mess, the logic goes down the drain. I still have some standard.

Understood. In my house usually I have free domain of the TV and play as much as I want =]



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

curl-6 on 26 August 2019

There's also the novelty factor to consider.

Being able to play these massive, AAA open world experiences on a handheld is still a relatively new and therefore novel thing. I reckon this was a major reason why Skyrim on Switch was such a big deal. 

I mean, imagine if, back in 2015 when Witcher 3 launched, you predicted that in 4 years we'd be playing in on a handheld. Most people wouldn't have even taken you seriously. Yet here we are.



Hynad on 26 August 2019
Radek said:

I thought you were aware there's going to be downgrades to get PS4 games running on the Switch?

That's the reason Capcom, EA, Ubisoft, Activision, Rockstar and others don't do it, because first you have to downgrade the resolution and graphics and then you have to make a decent port, and some developers are just too lazy to do that.

This  game wasn't meant with Switch in mind, it was meant to push big consoles and PC as far as they could (at the time) that's why it might be more blurry than say Zelda or Dragon Quest XI.

Considering the way the industry works, laziness is one of the last words that should be applied here.



Around the Network
HoloDust on 27 August 2019
curl-6 said:

There's also the novelty factor to consider.

Being able to play these massive, AAA open world experiences on a handheld is still a relatively new and therefore novel thing. I reckon this was a major reason why Skyrim on Switch was such a big deal. 

I mean, imagine if, back in 2015 when Witcher 3 launched, you predicted that in 4 years we'd be playing in on a handheld. Most people wouldn't have even taken you seriously. Yet here we are.

Honestly, the way Apple is chasing high performance in their devices, I would've guessed that more publishers would try to milk that particular market, but yeah, not sure I would've guessed Switch would get TW3, for various reasons.