We're looking at the Switch too narrowly

[TheMisterManGuy]

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

TheMisterManGuy said:

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. 

Yeah, I should've clarified that in the OP. But my point was never to argue for less options when necessary. I was simply arguing that not every Switch game needs to work in every play style. Diversity of play requirements is equally as important as controller options.