You clearly havnt played those games. Mario Galaxies used the motion to collect star bits. Wasnt ground breaking but a fun feature nonetheless. It would have been dumb down on fun factor if released on PS4 and XB1. Try playing Zombi on PS4/XB1 than play the WiiU version. Miles better experience on WiiU.

My point is Sony and Xbox release the same games every year which almost play identical to the last. Nintendo atleast try to change your gameplay experience. I garentee you if the Switch was nothing but a powerful console like the other two, i wouldnt be buying one.. at all. I already have a PC for visusls.

I've played all of those games, removing pointing your dumb IR cursor to collect your starbits wouldn't be even a blip on the radar to Mario Galaxy. I wasn't saying they don't use them at all in any capacity, I was saying the games wouldn't be affected in any significant way, they'd still be great games. I'm amazed that you think starbit collecting was a fun feature though.

When it comes to ZombiU you may have a point, but really I feel that after the Wii Nintendo is just trying to force these "gameplay innovations". I'm not sure what you see in the Switch that will change the way we play games! Rock Paper Scissors IR? How many Ice Cubes are in my Controller?

The most loved games on the Switch will be the ones that would not be compromised in the slightest by not having these "innovations" present. And equally the most hated will no doubt be the shovelware trash that forces the use of HD Rumble and whatever else they can to justify the meaningless innovations that for the most part don't improve gameplay in the slightest.

The Switch isn't going to be loved because of games like 1-2-Switch, people are going to enjoy it because of Zelda, Mario Kart, Animal Crossing... all games that work fine without all these extra features they tacked on to try and recapture what they did with the Wii.

These forced "innovations" are not what I want to see in gaming.

I agree with him that Nintendo shouldn't go third party. Nintendo's integration of hardware and software can be a huge asset, but only under the right circumstances.

There are some really fascinating scientific studies as to when integrated hardware and software (Nintendo, Apple, etc.) can be harnessed to become highly successful and when they are more of a liability:
If a new technology is *not yet good enough* for customers the company with integrated hardware and software almost always becomes the market leader and reaps in insane amounts of profits (NES, Gameboy, Wii, touchscreen DS). But once technology becomes "good enough", integration of hardware and software ceases to be important - instead, competition revolves more around price and customisation of a product - the integrated company suddenly falls behind its competitors.

And this makes so much sense when you think about it! When was Apple most successful in its history? In the early Mac, iPhone, iPad, iTunes, iPod, iMac (internet computer) days - when the technology wasn't "good enough" yet and integration of hardware and software gave them a boost in quality over competing products. When did Apple's success slow down? Whenever a product category matured and customers thought the products were "good enough".
When was Nintendo the most successful? During the NES, Gameboy, DS (touch / dual screen) and Wii (motion control!) days --> the more mature a technology is the worse Nintendo's products do.
Nintendo going back to motion control and going for a hybrid design (new "technology" in a broader sense) is perfect for them because motion controls aren't "good enough" yet and hybrid consoles are just nascent right now. Nintendo has to use the advantages of an integrated hardware and software approach, instead of competing with Sony and Microsoft in their home turf. Then they can be wildly successful.

Joysticks aren't controllers?

The HD Rumble and the IR in the Joy cons are pretty interesting so I'm curious to see how they'll be integrated in the future. But these features aren't the main concept for the Switch anyway, it's the portability of home console experiences. I really don't like that we're assuming all this is trash, especially when we've been hearing more positive things from those who actually used them during the hands-on impressions. Let developers utilize these features if they want (various Japanese devs appear to think so). Just like having that touch pad on the DualShock 4 (which is kinda weird to have, imo, as I really don't see how anyone could use that thing gameplay-wise compared to motion controls or something).

There's nothing wrong with having these features, it's just the way they push them. Having a better more accurate rumble, that's great. But they develop software that are basically tech demo's like 1-2-Switch to justify it and take it to the extreme. They try and make a bigger deal out of it all then it needs to be. They'll make one or two games that force it in to say it was a worthwhile addition, then carry on and make games like normal. They create software to justify their innovations existing when they should just be creating the best games they can with what they have.

HD rumble is an innovation! It's an improvement to regular rumble. Stop talking down about it, just because nintendo is doing it. It's going to become a standard.

Please don't assume that's the reason at all.

Yes HD Rumble is an improvement, you literally can't say it's bad, it's objectively better. I just wouldn't really regard it in itself is really "innovative". It seems more the gameplay they're trying to create with it is the "innovation". The 'how many ice cubes are in your controller' minigames I couldn't care about in the slightest.

It's a nice feature, but it's not something I feel should have any affect on HOW we play, that just feels completely forced.

Yeah, it's a sustaining innovation (like improved CPU power, Blu-Ray compared to DVD or multitouch compared to resistive touchscreens). SI's are not inherently "innovative" as in game-changing, they just allow developers to create better / more immersive experiences and need the right software. So I guess you two guys actually agree with each other, you just talk about different kinds of innovation (sustaining vs disruptive). 

Don't listen to Reggie's lies!