Paperboy_J said:
I never understood this. I'm a handheld gamer. I do most of my gaming on handheld systems. But in my 20+ years of being a gamer and active member of the gaming community, I've noticed that haldhelds are almost universally regarded as significantly less important than home consoles. Why is that?
It's a video game system, built from the ground up for gaming. It has its own library of games that you buy, plug into the system, and play. It has its own buttons, features, the whole nine yards. The only difference is you hold it in your hands instead of plugging it into your TV. So why are they seen as inferior? If anything, they're better than home consoles because you can take them anywhere!
Am I wrong? Am I crazy? Did I miss something? What are your thoughts on this? Why are handhelds seen as inferior? Why is it when the Vita failed, it's no big deal, but when the Wii U failed, it's the end of the world? Do YOU feel handhelds are inferior? If so, why?
Side note: Please understand that when i say "handheld," I'm talking about dedicated gaming systems such as the Vita and 3DS, not devices that can play games like smartphones or tablets.
|
It's quite simple really. Consoles remove one of the major factors in design because it doesn't have to be limited by battery capacity or a portable screen. In that sense, consone games are seen to be more able to "push the envelope" with a greater availability of processor, gpu and storage resources.
I agree, and you're not wrong here. If console history has taught us anything, it's that extraordinary games can be made on hardware seen to be more limited in capability. Also, the portability factor adds to the immersion for some titles in particular. It shouldn't be seen as "inferior", more like "Apples and Oranges".
I think with the recent success of Pokemon Go, Nintendo might be looking to make handhelds make more use of their....portability. Then we'll see the distinction between portable and console titles become a lot more noticeable.