By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
d21lewis said:
Conina said:

I love that idea, too. Having some great games always with me at all times is awesome.

But I normally choose games with only minimal downgrades for that (and exclusives of course), not versions which scream "compromise due to mobility" at every corner.

For my dollar, the compromises are acceptable. Especially when you consider how much you had to sacrifice in the part to play your favorite games on the go.

When you compare Gameboy and GBA ports to the home versions of NES-Gamecube games or PSP-Vita ports to the home versions of PS2-PS3 games, the Switch holds up pretty favorably. Especially if it's a game with a 7th gen version.

I actually don't remember HH before Switch really getting something that were really console ports even if PSP and PSV proposition where games Like Consoles, but they weren't really ports, much more games created similar to how consoles had but to be played on the go (some working and others not). Would say Switch is the first to really have the sacrifices being on a level that you really can get several competent ports of consoles.

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

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"

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