We're looking at the Switch too narrowly

[AngryLittleAlchemist]

TheMisterManGuy said:

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

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.

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.

It also depends on the type of game and whether options would be necessary. ARMS for example, supports the Pro Controller because it was designed with eSport play in mind. Thus, letting the player customize the controls based on skill-preference is mandatory for a modern competitive game. Plus, the game's mechanics are simple enough to be easily adapted to different controllers

Adding control options makes less sense for Super Mario Party because it's a casual party game that was designed solely for the Joy-Con requiring motions and scenarios that the Pro Controller simply can't do, thus, the game needs a simple, universal control scheme everyone can identify with, IE, the Joy-Con since they're console's default controller after-all. 

Well, like I said, I don't disagree with your overall point. I just found it was argued fairly poorly to be honest.