By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Wyrdness said:
Zippy6 said:

How so? Literally every Nintendo handheld has been backwards compatible with the previous one except the Switch. Making DS games post 3DS is still making content for the 3DS, even if it says DS on the box. I would consider buying a 3DS today, I would never buy a WiiU because there's zero reason to when the Switch exists.

3DS to Switch is unique from any other handheld transition in that is the first time games have continued to be developed and not be playable in any form on the handhelds successor.

BC doesn't dictate whether a platform is the successor every PS console had BC until the PS4 after all, Switch not having BC is also plain common sense as the form factor is different with it not having two screens this means that straight BC can't happen as games that heavily require the second screen would be able to function. 3DS to Switch is not the most unique transition from Nintendo either as the is also G&W to GB.

Using BC as a merit is like asking why isn't GB backwards compatible with Game and Watch games if it's a successor.

I've never said Switch wasn't a successor to 3DS so I'm not using BC as a measure to dictate if it is a successor or not. It's a successor to both but more a direct replacement of the WiiU than the 3DS, even though it replaces them both.

I think it's best to leave it here otherwise we'll talk in circles for hours. Switch made the WiiU redundant, it didn't do the same to 3DS. Switch was priced like the WiiU, Switch shares more games with the WiiU, WiiU support was completely dropped with the launch of the Switch, etc etc.

Switch succeeds both WiiU and 3DS, but WiiU is the device that Switch directly replaced and made completely irrelevant and redundant in the process.