Zekkyou said:
"Switch is proving that graphics are not the driver of success"
Why does the Switch need to prove this? It's been demonstrated to varying degrees every generation, and I can't remember claims to the contrary being common (I actually can't remember ever seeing any, but i'm sure there are some). Good graphics are highly valued by a significant portion of the market, but it's never been the end all of the discussion. I value graphics enough to spend £3k+ on a gaming PC, and have done plenty of bitching about the Switch's hardware (i only use it as a home console, so it's peak levels of potato to me), and even i'll still play and enjoy BotW or SMO because they're good games.
I don't understand why the article paints Sony and MS as graphics obsessed either. The PS4 and X1 made significant hardware compromises in favour of other goals. For the PS4 price, and the ease of game development were given priority. Even the Pro and X1X, which are explicitly designed to help ward off the graphics fatigue that sets in for some, are still quite price conscious and built to be kind to developers. Sony and MS use graphics as a marketing point sometimes (particularly MS right now, for obvious reasons), and they do push their hardware as hard as they can (even Nintendo do), but they've tried quite hard to paint a 'games first' image this gen. Enough so that both their E3's have morphed into a one to two hour gameplay marathon :p
All in all i'd say the Switch is as graphics conscious a handheld as the base PS4 and X1 are home consoles. Where Nintendo hit gold is leveraging that power in a different way, so that instead of it just being a powerful handheld, it was also a workable home console. For those that value portability 'workable' is indeed 'good enough'.
|
Yep. Consumers aren't dumb. It's never been exclusively about the graphics, it's always been about the best value for your dollar. That's why the PS2 won and not the Xbox or Gamecube. A lot of Playstation 2 games look like they could be Gamecube games and vice versa.
I've heard people start saying stuff like"but but PS4 is winning this gen and the base model is the most powerful base console", but even that wouldn't make sense as an argument because the PS4 had more support and was 100$ cheaper at launch. This has never been a case with any console manufacturer, in fact Microsoft have sacrificied visual fidelity for a consistent 60 frames per second this gen, although Sony did try to push graphics a bit with the 3. Sony and Microsoft do focus on graphics, but that's only in relation to Nintendo, and really it's more like Nintendo focuses less on graphics in relation to the entire rest of the market.
I do agree with the articles basic premise that the Switch is succeeding because it's graphics are "good enough", but then again they better be for a device that's selling entirely on being a home console-experience that you can take on the go. So yes, the article is right, and in some ways Nintendo should get credit for making a unique device, but still it's a bit too black and white and basic.
