Oh god ... do I actually stop replying and agree to disagree like I said, or do I continue? The hard decisions that a VGChartz user must make ...
| routsounmanman said: |
"You specifically mentioned Konami though, that's why I focused on them so much."
So wait a minute ... you basically try to make me look like a dick by pulling the "not everyone on VGC is an english speaker" card, say in the same reply the exact thing I've been saying this whole time, and then quietly admit to that in the next reply after I point it out? Uhh ... I think it's best we just drop this specific point 
No hard feelings hopefully in either direction.
"Anyways, I indeed believe they are worse than Konami. Quality and effort are equally important to me."
What the heck are you talking about? Konami literally only has one game on Switch (according to their own website) and it wasn't exactly a lot of effort on Konami's part. The only thing that was really commendable about it was that they improved some things with updates and added some content, but Super Bomberman R is the only game they even have on the system and it's not saying much considering both the kind of game it is and the fact that Konami is not even a player in the games industry anymore. That's nothing compared to the multiple titles Capcom offers ... this has to be the hardest downplaying imaginable at this point.
"Where are the "tons of games"? Am I missing something? RE:R is old (and butchered). Megaman X and Megaman Collections are old. Street Fighter Collection, same, Okami old. MH Generations is old, late and expensive. The sole new game from Capcom is MM11. If it weren't for the whole not physical fiasco, I'd give them credit for that."
...........You consider games that were only released a few years ago "old"? ... I'm starting to think that no matter what Capcom does, they wouldn't be good enough for you. Didn't we already go over the fact that pretty much none of their new releases besides Resident Evil 7 would even be reasonable to expect on Switch? I could have SWORN you wrote something along the lines of saying that you don't expect any of their recent games except RE7. Maybe that was Curl or maybe I'm going crazy. Anyways, I'm talking about Resident Evil Revelations 2, Monster Hunter Generations, and Mega Man 11. Which, whether you like it or not, are pretty recent games. Labeling them as "old" to try and play semantics is silly. Because again ... it's not like these ports by Bethesda aren't "old", or "late". They're more recent and commendable than Revelations 2 and Generations Ultimate, but they're still "late" and "old" all the same. The three Capcom games are recent, just like the Bethesda ones are. The reason I said "tons" is because I was making a list, and using repetitive wording to emphasize a point is usually how lists are used in an argument. But also because 3 recent releases out of ... what ... 11 games from Capcom ... is a "ton", that's actually a pretty great track record.
"I can give you that the games fit the platform much more than Bethesda's, for example. But maybe that's precisely the reason I want them to try more. Capcom has some amazing IP, very well suited to Nintendo, and the Switch."
I think it's time to get some more realistic standards. I can say this as someone who loves Monster Hunter World and DOOM, there are quite a few reasons why MHW would be harder than DOOM to port. Although, Resident Evil 7 should be doable and if they try really hard then maybe Resident Evil 2 Remake ... but isn't that the entire problem with this discussion? You're standards are essentially Capcom stepping up to the plate and being, by far, the best supporter on Switch. If they ported RE7, MvC, REmake 2, and MHW, along with what they've already ported they'd be far and away better than Bethesda, wouldn't even be a contest. And yet, you're sitting here acting like that should be the standard when it's not even close to the norm. What Bethesda is doing is the best result currently and what Capcom is already doing right now is above what 99% of publishers do on Switch. This is the big elephant in the room that you're just not addressing. I'm basing my standards on ... you know ... reality. Not a fairy tale. And in that sense Capcom is one of the best publishers on the platform.
"I cannot accept the fact that you defend their splitting of the games (cart and download). That's some serious bullcrap. They are obviously cheaping out on the cart costs, meaning that I am being treaded like a second rate citizen."
I have to admit that it's going a little too far to say that it's not a problem at all. But considering this discussion has just devolved into a back and forth where any possible excuse is given to say that Capcom is the worst publisher on Switch, I guess it's just hard to want to try. Let me rephrase it. I have complained about it in the past, it's an inconvenience and annoying. However, is it a serious problem for most people? No. Let's just be honest, and try to be objective here before going all "but but physical!" 99% of people who are complaining about this are not doing it because it's a serious issue, they're doing it because they're making it a bigger issue than it actually is due to putting preferences above critical thinking to a silly degree. I buy physical most of the time, but if a game I want requires me to download a portion of it, guess what? You still get the cart and the box, and i'm pretty sure for every Capcom title available on Switch, you're saving storage space because only some of the games are download only (for example Revelations 1 is on cart I believe and Revelations 2 isn't). That's already a lot of advantages for the physical edition. It's quite honestly a minor inconvenience at best. It's not the big issue you make it to be.
Also, you aren't being treated as a second class citizen ... like .. at all. Playstation 4 and Xbox One games usually require the entire game to be downloaded from a disc at best, and nowadays usually parts of the game are not included in the disc even if the game takes up less storage than what is available on a Blu ray disc, which means yet again downlaods are required. None of this is even getting into updates which are becoming more and more important for main consoles. PC already is 99% digital anyways. So yeah .. the biggest hardcore gaming platforms, Playstation 4 and PC, pretty much experience the same physical editions, that Switch gamers throw a fit over when they get them occasionally, only they get them a majority of the time/all the time. I hardly think that Anne Frank was concerned about whether or not she was able to have a full game on a cart ... by the way ...
"Yeah, that's my bad. A slight mistype. Although, again, a game 2 generations old. And late. "
If there was any doubt in my mind that, at the very least, you are unintentionally just making this into a "try to downplay Capcom as much as possible to prove a point" discussion, it is now gone. Do you even remember the original point of me writing that? It was to just show how well tailored Capcom's games are for Switch, and how even old games can show off a system in different ways. But apparently somehow you took away from that - "I should respond as if he said that porting a 2 gen old game late is impressive!" Yeah, not my point at all with that part of the comment ...
Also are we just going to completely drop all the points I brought up that were just ignored completely? What about the fact that even GameFreak didn't think the Switch would be a success? That seems pretty important to your "how could Japanese publishers not know! how could they not have faith!" point. What about all the leaps of faith Japanese publishers would have to make to have initially supported the Switch? We're just going to drop that too? Because obviously that stalled these publishers for a long time ... in fact a couple of those concerns are very real even after the success of multiple third party titles. And it still hasn't been addressed that your bar for Capcom just being good is essentially being the best possible publisher for Switch ... and that somehow they're the worst simply because they haven't put more big games on the Switch, and not because they have put less than other publishers ... which is just some of the most obviously flawed logic.
