Jumpin said:
Your fanboyism is showing; it's not an unfair reward for failure, it's the fact of the matter. You're trying to draw up rules that don't fit the facts to justify a flawed position. Plus, you completely ignored the original post that I was commenting on which already refuted your entire argument. The problem with the ports on PS4 was that that was the provided content; a slight enhancement to visuals is trivial and doesn't change the fact that it's the same people playing the same games. Meanwhile, Switch led off with original heavy hitters like Breath of the Wild and Super Mario Odyssey. Whether you like it or not, low sales of the Wii U are a factor - as it means the audience of those titles was limited. By releasing them to the Switch, you're presenting content for the first time to a mostly new audience. |
PS4 had lots of new games in its first year and a few remasters. You are basing your entire argument on heresay on the internet, the PS4 has no games argument didn't hold water even in 2014. PS4 remasters of PS3 games don't just look marginally better but way better with twice the resolution, higher framerates, better lighting, textures, details.
There are no rules to remasters so it doesn't matter if the original audience of a game was 15 million or 80 million because if the games had that kind of sales potential to begin with where they were constrained by hardware sales the Wii U would have sold more than 15 million. There is no other way to put it Nintendo is relying on remasters and moreso than Sony. Sony only had TLOU R in its first year while Nintendo has Mario Kart 8 Deluxe and Bayonetta 1 and 2 already. Name calling doesn't make your argument any stronger, I'm fine with these ports myself but calling out the hypocracy of others who criticise one and defend the other for doing the same thing such as yourself.
