| Mar1217 said: Nah, due to the number of complaints it certainly means a level of revelancy has been achieved, but is it overblown ? Yes. Like pretty much every conflict in this community is. |
It's a $60 party game. Of course people are going to care about small issues that you think are "overblown".
Anyways, the OP is incredibly ironic. He's essentially calling others narrow-minded but then saying that it's ok for one of Nintendo's biggest games of the year to only support one controller. Uh, irony. Not only that, but he mentions that almost every Switch game supports all styles of play, so he doesn't understand why people are upset about this game not doing so. You answered your own question. People expect consistency from Nintendo, especially when it comes to their big games. Even Arms, a game almost exclusively promoted as a joycon movement based experience, gave options for regular control schemes.
Also: "Besides, Super Mario Party is already selling really well despite its lack of Pro Controller and Handheld support, so all those complaints are irrelevant to most Switch owners."
I've never understood the argument that x is selling well already so consumers don't care about y. Most of the time, it's about features or restrictions that people literally have no idea about until they actually play the game. AngryJoe didn't even know Halo 5 lacked splitscreen until he got the game. Why? Because that game isn't advertising it's lack of splitscreen. In reality, there are probably a few people that were disappointed after the game came out by the lack of Pro support, sales numbers don't automatically mean otherwise.
I actually agree with you too, funnily enough. The Switch has so many capabilities with it's joycons, I wouldn't mind something that restricts the players to just joy cons if it's done well. But the way you argued it was ... bad.
