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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Fewer Games is Never a Good Thing

Tagged games:

Platina on 21 January 2017

Of course not

but as for games like Titanfall, I don't really care if it's on the Switch. If it's there, great! If not, oh well



NintenDomination [May 2015 - July 2017]
 

  - Official  VGChartz Tutorial Thread - 

NintenDomination [2015/05/19 - 2017/07/02]
 
          

 

 

Here lies the hidden threads. 

 | |

Nintendo Metascore | Official NintenDomination | VGC Tutorial Thread

| Best and Worst of Miiverse | Manga Discussion Thead |
[3DS] Winter Playtimes [Wii U]

Around the Network
StuOhQ on 22 January 2017
zorg1000 said:

Instead of EA supporting Switch with a game like Titanfall or Battlefield, they would be better off supporting it with Plants vs Zombies or Unravel, games that have potential to sell to the 3DS/Wii U audience moving to Switch.

EA is going to be sad to hear that, considering Battlefield and Madden are coming to the Switch.

 

Reggie kinda already spilled the beans on those.



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Top 12: Best Games on the N64 - Special Features, Episode 7

estebxx on 22 January 2017

Absolutely agree.



ShadowSoldier on 22 January 2017
Veknoid_Outcast said:

So it recently came out that Titanfall 2 would be skipping Switch. We saw some Nintendo diehards try to shrug off the news, but listen folks: fewer games is never a good thing.  We also heard that Borderlands 3 will probably never come to Switch. Now maybe you're a Nintendo fan who doesn't care for Borderlands. Well, tough toenails. Borderlands skipping Switch might not have a huge effect on revenue, but it's definitely not a good thing. Why? Because fewer games is never a good thing.

Let me crack an egg of knowledge on you...

Remember when PS4 launched? It had so many games. Sure, most were cross-gen ports, remasters, or "ultimate editions," but think about it. People who never owned a PS3 or X360 now had a chance to play those games. The fact that Flower was playable on PS3 or that Black Flag was playable on WiiU didn't detract from its status on PS4. The important thing is that PS4 supported a lot of games, exclusive or not. Remember: fewer games is never a good thing.

Remember all those Vita critics (most of whom probably didn't own a Vita and never intended to own one) who mocked the system because of all its games were playable elsewhere? Um, who cares? It has a huge library of indie and Japanese "AA" games. The fact that they're available elsewhere is moot. They're also available on Vita, and playable on the go. Would these critics rather the Vita had fewer games? In a world where fewer games is never a good thing, that just doesn't make sense.

Let's go back even further. Remember the Wii launch? Some of you youngins probably don't. One of the big launch games was Twilight Princess, a game that was also releasing on the Wii's predecessor, GameCube (for those of you too young to remember, GameCube was a system with a built-in handle so you could easily throw it in the trash). It turns out most people didn't care that Wii launched with a game due out for GameCube. They were excited about a new Zelda game and excited about the future potential of Wii. Plus folks who wanted a GameCube had long since bought one. Nintendo providing a version of the game to both audiences was kind of cool in an industry in which more games is a good thing, and, conversely, fewer games is never a good thing.

So, this is what I'm getting at: stop defending the indefensible. Switch losing out on games is not something to celebrate. We should ask for more games, even if they're ports, remasters, or "ultimate" editions. We should demand Nintendo secure some cross-gen games, like PS4 and XOne did with Watch Dogs, Destiny, and Call of Duty. Maybe Nintendo could even secure an old game from 2011, like Sony did with DC Universe Online. 

Whatever Nintendo does, it has to do it fast. People won't buy a system with so few games. Fewer games is never a good thing.

Q.E.D.

 

Clapping Rock

 

 

 

 

 

Well Fucking Said. 



Black Women Are The Most Beautiful Women On The Planet.

"In video game terms, RPGs are games that involve a form of separate battles taking place with a specialized battle system and the use of a system that increases your power through a form of points.

Sure, what you say is the definition, but the connotation of RPGs is what they are in video games." - dtewi

Ck1x on 22 January 2017

Fewer games does suck but overall quality and magnitude of the game would mean much more! Instead of people crying about games that had little to no impact, I would much rather Nintendo focus on getting something like Overwatch or mend fences with Rockstar somehow to get their projects on the Switch.

The 3ds didn't have any western support pretty much and it faired pretty okay and the Switch is just so much more of a compelling device than that was. It's also the most polished and extremely well made system from Nintendo than any before.



Around the Network
bdbdbd on 22 January 2017
Soundwave said:

Because the Nintendo ecosystem does lack diversity and availability generally speaking of a lot of key genre types. Sony consoles generally serve a wider demographic of tastes. 

This was not the case during the NES/SNES eras, Nintendo cornered themselves into the situation. 

It's likely too late to change it now, honestly Nintendo probably never really was *that* great at making consoles. It was easy when it was just Sega to compete against and they had a virtual monopoly on third parties. Ever since Sony showed up, Nintendo's never been able to really have control over the console market, if Sony had made a 16-bit system, who knows maybe they beat Nintendo there too. 

Portable is better for Nintendo because people don't expect as many games and for whatever reason, on a smaller screen people seem more accepting of cartoony style games (this extends to smartphone and iOS games too, most of the hit games are in that vein). 

Really looking a the console market as it exists now and looking at Nintendo, they just don't have it in them to connect with that market has become. Hate to say it, but Sony kinda deserves the console market, they're the most "stable" of the three and make the most straight forward decisions and are most intuned with what the market actually is. 

Generally speaking the "we have less games, but we really have some real good ones" formula has never really worked well in the industry. The Sega Master System had great 1st party games but was easily trounced by the NES. The Saturn and N64 tried this against the Playstation and got trounced. 

The only system in like 40 years of home consoles that went on to sell like gangbusters without really high level third party support is the Wii, and that was on the back of a very unique situation with the controller that I don't think can be replicated (certainly not at the snap of a finger). People just don't want to hear the whole "we have fewer games but ours have this specific quality" arguement, they just tune that right out and go buy a Playstation. 

I believe zorg had a point that in a posts like this you just go from one end to another.

Looking at Nintendo consoles, not only did the Wii had huge success, so did Nintendo handhelds - sans 3DS. 

Wii isn't the only console to have a breakaway success without third parties - NES did that too. Third parties generally arrived only late of it's life.

The thing with consoles is, that it's the games that matter. You console is only just as good as the games on it. You see a success like Wii when you have console with games as good as Wii had.

Intrinsic said:
Gotta agree, kinda silly when you think about it. Unless I am missing something.

The NS was first acknowledged by Nintendo since way back in 2014 right? Meaning the have been working on this for at least 4 years.Now the WiiU was no doubt a failure. Why didn't Nintendo just make the the switch BC with all WiiU software? But not just that, digitally have available remastered (even if its just a rez and performance bump) versions of all the best selling WiiU games day one?

Obviously there re a LOT of people that hasn't played them being how poorly the wiiU did, so why not?

The obvious reason why Wii U did so bad is because of the games it had. Wii U BC would sell Switchs as much as Gamecube BC sold Wiis. Also, making the system backwards compatible would just make it more expensive, and it would also require the system to use two screens.



Ei Kiinasti.

Eikä Japanisti.

Vaan pannaan jalalla koreasti.

 

Nintendo games sell only on Nintendo system.

Mr Puggsly on 22 January 2017

While there is validity to the argument, what's most crucial to the Switch is getting notable exclusive software. The core games that sell well on X1 and PS4 probably wouldn't do well on Switch.

I'm kinda disappointed by the lack of ports coming to Switch, but those aren't the reasons I want a Switch anyway. Switch essentailly needs to find its own audience to succeed. If its unique, X1 and PS4 owners may buy it as well.



Recently Completed: 
River City: Rival Showdown for 3DS (3/5) - River City: Tokyo Rumble for 3DS (4/5) - Zelda: BotW for Wii U (5/5) - Zelda: BotW for Switch (5/5) - Zelda: Link's Awakening for Switch (4/5) - Rage 2 for X1X (4/5) - Rage for 360 (3/5) - Streets of Rage 4 for X1/PC (4/5) - Gears 5 for X1X (5/5) - Mortal Kombat 11 for X1X (5/5) - Doom 64 for N64 (emulator) (3/5) - Crackdown 3 for X1S/X1X (4/5) - Infinity Blade III - for iPad 4 (3/5) - Infinity Blade II - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Infinity Blade - for iPad 4 (4/5) - Wolfenstein: The Old Blood for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Origins for X1 (3/5) - Uncharted: Lost Legacy for PS4 (4/5) - EA UFC 3 for X1 (4/5) - Doom for X1 (4/5) - Titanfall 2 for X1 (4/5) - Super Mario 3D World for Wii U (4/5) - South Park: The Stick of Truth for X1 BC (4/5) - Call of Duty: WWII for X1 (4/5) -Wolfenstein II for X1 - (4/5) - Dead or Alive: Dimensions for 3DS (4/5) - Marvel vs Capcom: Infinite for X1 (3/5) - Halo Wars 2 for X1/PC (4/5) - Halo Wars: DE for X1 (4/5) - Tekken 7 for X1 (4/5) - Injustice 2 for X1 (4/5) - Yakuza 5 for PS3 (3/5) - Battlefield 1 (Campaign) for X1 (3/5) - Assassin's Creed: Syndicate for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: Infinite Warfare for X1 (4/5) - Call of Duty: MW Remastered for X1 (4/5) - Donkey Kong Country Returns for 3DS (4/5) - Forza Horizon 3 for X1 (5/5)

KLXVER on 22 January 2017

I think people are more against companies porting an older game to the Switch that would be worse than the original and give the developer an excuse to not porting their new games to it if it fails. More that than the game itself.



bonzobanana on 22 January 2017

When you get a port on PS4 or Xbox one it can often be hugely upgraded, higher res, improved textures, higher or more consistent frame rate, often they chuck in more content, original DLC etc. It gets to be a very appealing package and the price is often quite competitive and if not drops rapidly anyway.

The wii u got a lot of ports which were actually inferior to ps3 and 360 they were often awful versions with many problems and compared to ps4 and xbone versions were utterly pathetic. Hence often these versions sold in tiny numbers and were a huge indicator of how poor the wii u console was.

If anything the Switch has even more obscure and old games than the wii u and the prices are much higher. People will be looking at the Switch library on whether its a console worth buying and clearly be put off by such games. More games definitely isn't better if those games do not appeal to a large number of people. Clearly some people here think just expanding the Switch library is important with no regard for quality or offering new experiences. I guess the people who would want such experiences, perhaps people who have never played games before, perhaps made the long journey back from the caves of Mars would appreciate such games.

Even if you are a Nintendo fan who pretty much is enthusiastic for everything they do you have to think about the wider audience that will need good reasons to spend serious money on Switch hardware and games.

If your playing your Switch at home off the dock then something like Vita remote play gives you access to your ps4 library for free with a technical performance level well beyond Switch.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUw5dQGwJG4

I honestly don't think there are enough people prepared to be milked for cash by Nintendo to make this a viable format and I don't think high price versions of old games most people have forgotten about is going to help Nintendo establish the Switch. How many completely failed console formats of the past filled their ranks with old titles that people never wanted to buy again.



Veknoid_Outcast on 22 January 2017
bonzobanana said:
When you get a port on PS4 or Xbox one it can often be hugely upgraded, higher res, improved textures, higher or more consistent frame rate, often they chuck in more content, original DLC etc. It gets to be a very appealing package and the price is often quite competitive and if not drops rapidly anyway.

The wii u got a lot of ports which were actually inferior to ps3 and 360 they were often awful versions with many problems and compared to ps4 and xbone versions were utterly pathetic. Hence often these versions sold in tiny numbers and were a huge indicator of how poor the wii u console was.

[snip]

Great point. Who really wanted to play an old military shooter like Call of Duty Ghosts or a Gearbox game like Colonial Marines on WiiU? People were interested in evergreen IPs like Mario Kart and new experiences built from the ground up on WiiU like Splatoon. It's not like AAA games are the only ones that count, right? Call of Duty and Borderands didn't help Vita, that's for sure. Nintendo should really try to appeal to the folks whose gaming needs aren't being met by PS4 and XOne. It shouldn't try to be the light beer of AAA gaming.