AlfredoTurkey said:
RolStoppable said:
Your age only shows in the way that you are going senile.
The only console generation without ports was the Atari 2600 era, and even that is arguable because games from the arcades were ported to it.
The NES was full of ports of older arcade games and PC games. The SNES obviously got ports of NES games. Super Mario All-Stars is one of the best-selling games of its generation, so your statement that "we didn't want games from old systems" is laughably wrong.
Throughout the entirety of console history, there have been ports. Today's consoles have a higher number of ports than previous consoles for the simple reason that publishers today have access to a higher number of legacy titles than ever before.
Ports being present is a given, so the only real argument can be about the amount and pedigree of new games. Switch has no problem to be one of the best consoles in video game history when it comes to new games released through year 1. Switch's status won't change for the worse in comparisons that go through year 2.
You can get someone like curl-6 to agree with you, because both of you tend to use an emotional perspective instead of an analytical perspective. Both of you disregard games that you are not interested in, but such an approach has only a tiny chance to be remotely close to an objective statement.
|
When you think of the NES, what do you think when you think software? Now do the same for SNES, Genesis, PS1 etc. Did a fucking PORT come to mind? I'm guessing not.
And why do you think that is? Is it because back then, ports were treated by gamers like a case herpes? Is it because game companies back then knew that they were third-hand titles that not many people wanted and kept them in the background?
The answer to both is yes. We didn't WANT ports. They were scoffed at and dismissed.
|
Games like Donkey Kong, Pacman, and even Tetris were ports and people LOVED them
