By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
curl-6 said:
Soundwave said:

People may not want to admit, but really the truth is the system the Switch has the most in common with is the Wii U, it has more of its a DNA than any other system right down to its two most important games are literal Wii U titles, but that isn't the "sexy story" so it gets spun in every other way but that. 

That just goes to show how important *execution* is to any hardware system. Does a system look like something Batman would use (and thus acceptable to adults and kids will go along with it because it looks "cool" anyway) or does it look like a Fisher Price toy? What are your games in the first 12 months? Do they make people go "wow"? Especailly (yes) core gamers? etc. etc. etc. etc. Half portability isn't actually useful to most people, you need full portability to have a functional piece of hardware that people can look at and go "oooooh, ok, yeah I get it, that is cool". 

Switch does inherit a lot of software from Wii U and does feel like the realization of a hybrid concept that the Wii U was a half-baked version of, but I feel their core philosophy is very different.

The Wii U's problem was that its central gimmick added a barrier to entry rather than removing one. It was inconvenient, unnecessary, a solution in search of a problem. It complicated gameplay input, it complicated multiplayer by adding asymmetry and by each console only supporting a single Gamepad, it got in the way of just picking up and playing games.

Switch on the other hand was all about making it easy and painless to pick up and play whether you were at home, at work, on holiday, on the train, whenever and wherever.  

I mean the Switch controller has just as many "hard to use" buttons and analog sticks as the Wii U does. 

I don't think that's it. The details matter more than people think. Half portability versus full portability is a huge difference in functionality which isn't really all Nintendo's fault (Iwata said they tried to make the Wii U fully portable, it simply was not feasible with the technology of the time). 

There's a huge difference too between Breath of the Wild being your showcase title ... what does that communicate to the audience ... it says that not only is this a portable console, it's a portable console that can even deliver that type of epic, Game of the Year, beautiful open world, type experience ... the type of game you would never dream of getting on a Game Boy or DS or 3DS or even PSP or Vita or iPhone ... you would only ever expect a game like this on a stationary home console, but here it is, and you can play it in your living room, in your van, at the airport, etc. etc. Bingo, bango, bongo, everyone can understand that and get behind that concpet. 

If you tried to sell this concept with say ... New Super Mario Bros. U ... that doesn't work likely any where near as well, that's just communicating "see this same ol' shit you played a few years ago on your DS and Wii? Well here is again like microwaved left overs". That doesn't really get much excitement going.

Ideas also have their time, the Virtual Boy concept would probably work 10000000000000000x times better today (a cheap-ish VR headset) because today it would have full color, reasonably good real 3D graphics and a full HMD. The Wii U was trying to be a hybrid (play portably on a screen or on your TV ... but within a very restricted zone), the technology just wasn't there. Execution is honestly more important that the core idea ... lots of companies, even Sony and MS have plenty of neat hardware ideas, they're a dime a dozen. It's whether you execute properly and have the right software at the right time. 

Last edited by Soundwave - on 09 May 2024