| DonFerrari said: Every Nintendo or even from any of the 3 is perfectly viable sole option if you prefer what is available there. Plenty of options to keep you gaming. And I would have to say that the thread premise was made in a way that would be just circle jerk since it only needs to agreeing with OP when you remove any possibility of personal taste. Most of the games are third parties, most of the sales are as well, and both are much smaller in Switch or any console of Nintendo since N64. So all Nintendo consoles could be primary or sole source of gaming as long as you just care about their games, and couldn't be even a choice if you don't care about Nintendo games. And I'm pretty sure OP would be pissed on a thread about Nintendo being unnecessary to the industry using basically the same arguments he is using with people being perfectly fine playing games without Nintendo being around (or any of the big 3 or even some publishers). Also OP says he wants to stay away from list war, but that is what he is using to answer. Even worse is that he basically list every thing possible to reply to someone that listed about 5% of what he could. |
Actually the data says, that most third-parties sell better on Switch than on XB1. That is, if they are released. If you include games not released on Switch, you are right. But what you are saying is basically: unreleased games don't sell. Well, yes Captain Obvious. But released games do well on Switch, depending on genre.
LudicrousSpeed said:
That was my point, that if you remove all subjective factors, as the OP is requesting, then even a massively high priced, short lived console with a very mediocre game library like the 3DO could be a viable or even only gaming device. So of course a console like the Switch would also fall into that category, it's superior to the 3DO in every aspect. The worst consoles in existence are all perfectly viable as primary or only devices. The only requirements are one, that it works; and two, that it has some games to play. Done. It's essentially the "PS4 has no gamez!" argument and defense. Where people made that claim based entirely on subjective reasons, and people tried to defend the PS4 using literal reasoning. "PS4 has no games? Sure it does, look at this: *list of games*". I mean, sure, technically, that person is right, but what the two sides are saying are not the same thing. Or am I mistaken? OP says the offenders know who they are. Is there a large group of people on teh Chartz claiming that the Switch objectively and factually cannot be viable as someone's primary or, gasp, only gaming device? Maybe I just am out of the loop. |
Yeah. I don't think anyone does say it that clearly, but many are insinuating it or insinuating something along the lines. Ask yourself this: was at any time the need for PS-fans to explain why the Vita was a sound gaming device because of attacks of Nintendo fans declaring the device as unusable for a 'real gamer'? I mean, the Vita was attacked for expensive memory cards and lackluster sales, but never was insinuated the only one buying a Vita are mindless Sony-drones.
Now compare to Switch. How many times did you hear 'Only the Nintendo hardcore will buy it'? Or 'Only kids'? Switch-fans have to explain that this is a real and usable gaming device you can have fun with. This is the difference I assume lead to the creation of the thread.
| bananaking21 said: If you are content with missing most major console games releasing in a year it is viable. But most say it's not viable because majority of big third party games don't release on it |
Well, the thing here is 'big third party games' is kind up to definition. If you only consider games in genres you like, sure, you're right. But look outside, and the image changes. For instance, if you're a fan of classic adventures, most consoles are boring. PC is great. But in the console space the Switch is close to that.
First of all we should replace big third-party with big game. Because it really doesn't matter if a game is first or third-party. It is usually done to detract from Nintendo consoles, only because the other manufacturers aren't even close in producing great games. Then usually on this site PC-centric or mobile-centric games are excluded. Civilization or Hearthstone are big games, but are usually ignored by the community on this site.
So we are: you miss most content of big games of companies excluding the one that makes many great games for Nintendo consoles, and in the genres I like, and that are mostly console-centric, then Switch is missing out. A true scotsmen.
| Nozz-A-La said: In general the switch is not a very good choice as a primary console. You want to play the biggest single player games (GTA 5, RDR2) everyone is talking about even outside of gaming media? Impossible with a switch You want to play the biggest multiplayer games of the generation?! You will miss out nearly every game You want to play high budget jrpgs? You will miss out nearly every game And what about high budget rpgs in general? You will nearly miss out every game You want to play on the go but don't want to carry around a bag? Smartphones have a huge game libary that are perfect for short gaming sessions You love nintendo games and don't have a problem to have only a limited choice of AAA games in each genre? The switch is a very good primary console You travel alot and take long rides? The switch is a very good primary console You love indies more than AAA games? Get a switch (or a vita) |
Yeah. So depending on tastes a PS4 can never be the primary console for some.
Also, big games everyone is talking about outside gaming media.... does not include Pokemon, Smash, SMO and Breath of the Wild?
And why single out RPGs with two points? Why not singling out Platformers... oh. Well then Metroidvanias... oh. OK, but what with adventures... oh.
