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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - DF: More Wii U Ports Heading To Switch! Is This A Good Thing?

Aeolus451 said:
Miyamotoo said:

I think I was very clear about reasons: easy profit, more diverse and stronger lineup of games (filling gaps comes with this point). Its win-win situation in any case.

Whatever version suits ya, I don't care. Still, we don't have access to nintendo's inner workings.

You dont need to have access to Nintendo's inner workings, just use common sense and it's very obvious why they are doing that.



Around the Network
Miyamotoo said:
Aeolus451 said:

Whatever version suits ya, I don't care. Still, we don't have access to nintendo's inner workings.

You dont need to have access to Nintendo's inner workings, just use common sense and it's very obvious why they are doing that.

Again, whatever floats your boat. It's not all obvious because their MAIN reason for doing it could be somehing you're not expecting. Nothing wrong with not assuming you know every possible outcome but being open to them. Why did respond to me in the first place? Just to correct me or something?



Yes, it is. It increases the library of games and those who skipped the Wii U can still play these gems.



Intel Core i7 8700K | 32 GB DDR 4 PC 3200 | ROG STRIX Z370-F Gaming | RTX 3090 FE| Crappy Monitor| HTC Vive Pro :3

TallSilhouette said:
I just hope whoever praises these ports wasn't criticizing 8th gen's or vice versa.

It is a bit different though, it is more like a PS2/PS3 game getting ported to the Vita.
It was a console game but now it is a handheld game.
Very much worth it in most cases, much better than a slightly better looking version of the same game.

Though I do enjoy remasters, remakes and ports in all forms.



HintHRO said:
Nuvendil said:

Ah yes that dizying mountain of 2 ports from Nintendo and their direct partners is just a diabolically CRIPPLING strain on their resources.

Nintendo has far more new 1st and 2nd party offerings coming to the Switch in its first 10 months than ports.  Zelda (crossgen, not the same), ARMS, Splatoon 2, Fire Emblem Warriots, Mario+Rabbids Kingdom battle, Super Mario Odyssey, and Xdnoblade 2 are all retail new first and second party offerings in these first 10 months.  And that doesn't include Bomberman, which is a third part exclusuve.

What third parties do is mostly beyond Nintendo's control.

Zelda, MK8, Pokken, Lego, Dragon Quest X, and LOTS of indie-games are already on Wii U and these games make up a big part of the Switch library. Now rumors have emerged Nintendo is working on even more ports and PG is apparently working on Bayonetta 1 and 2 and W101 ports. If true, it's ridiculous. New generation consoles are made for new games, not for full-priced last gen ports or more expensive downgraded indie-ports.

I don't get why everybody is coming with the exact same list of new games. Those are only a few games in 10 (!) months. Even when assuming every single Switch owner is planning to buy all those games (I as a future Switch owner am most certainly not), it's still not a lot of content. When asking 320 euro's for you console with last-gen hardware you better offer a lot of games for a lot of different gamers. Not every Switch owner has to have the exact same library.

Zelda is crossgen, which is not the same as an after-the-fact port.  The ONLY after the fact ports - that is, non new games - Nintendo has had ANY HAND IN in these first 10 months is Mario Kart and Pokken.  Period.  Everything else you listed was other devs that Nintendo has no control over.  What other devs do other devs do.  This is hardly the first time ports have been aggressively pushed onto new hardware.  Hell, that was SOP for this gen, the Xbone and PS4 got numerous late-7th Gen ports.

And I was listing only first and second party efforts, not all the games.  Otherwise the list would be much longer.  It's a better list in ten months than in the first 12 of the PS4 or Xbone or Wii U.  To have that many significant retail 1st and 2nd party offerings in the first 10 months of a console, handheld or home, is impressive, especially when three of them come from powerful franchises.  Usually first and second party rosters this strong show up in year 3 or so.  



Around the Network
StarOcean said:
RolStoppable said:

The PSP lasted more than eight hours? It lasted four.

I pray that you meant to type DS because it's missing in your list.

DS is among it. And my PSP Go lasts 8hrs. Well, dunno about reg models. My only evidence is my PSP Go lasts an 8hr flight it dies at the end of the flight unfortunately

Then why put the PSP on the list of consoles that can go for over 8 hours, something that was pretty advanced for its time and came out ~4-5 years before the PSP...
That's like me saying in ~4-5 years that the Switch lasts for 8+ hours because my New Switch Mini lasts for that long.



StarOcean said:
A

It's a shit handheld. Battery life is absolute garbage. That on top of it being a weak console and you got yourself a system that can do a lot but nothing particularly well. Im a handheld enthusiast. But I cannot recommend something that can barely go further than the Wii U gamepad without a charge. 3-4hrs is fucking sad. The Switch is a decent idea but poorly executed. It'll continue to be a fucking pathetic excuse of a handheld until it can last at least 8hrs without a charge. As for the console part, there are better options. I have my PS4 and PC for games on my TV. I'd only use it as a handheld. But since it fails at even that, it really has no use until they fix the battery. And no, I won't buy a 3rd party battery to make it work the way it was intended. 

Name me those handhelds with over 8 hours of  screen-on battery while running games and I'll salute you. I even challenge you to include smartphones in this list for your convenience.



Aeolus451 said:
Miyamotoo said:

You dont need to have access to Nintendo's inner workings, just use common sense and it's very obvious why they are doing that.

Again, whatever floats your boat. It's not all obvious because their MAIN reason for doing it could be somehing you're not expecting. Nothing wrong with not assuming you know every possible outcome but being open to them. Why did respond to me in the first place? Just to correct me or something?

Because you try to find reason that doesn't exist, you aiming that something was wrong so that's why Nintendo is doing some Wii U ports of on Switch, while you completely ignoring fact that today ports and remaster are common thing today. Why Sony done so many PS3 ports on PS4!? Obviously, easy money and more diverse and stronger lineup.  And Nintendo is releasing just two Wii U ports on Switch this year, its not like we have them 5+.



Miyamotoo said:
Aeolus451 said:

Again, whatever floats your boat. It's not all obvious because their MAIN reason for doing it could be somehing you're not expecting. Nothing wrong with not assuming you know every possible outcome but being open to them. Why did respond to me in the first place? Just to correct me or something?

Because you try to find reason that doesn't exist, you aiming that something was wrong so that's why Nintendo is doing some Wii U ports of on Switch, while you completely ignoring fact that today ports and remaster are common thing today. Why Sony done so many PS3 ports on PS4!? Obviously, easy money and more diverse and stronger lineup.  And Nintendo is releasing just two Wii U ports on Switch this year, its not like we have them 5+.

No, I'm open to possible reasons behind the ports. I'll go with your question. Why has sony done so many ports? To make more money and possibly for other reasons such as filling in holes in the release schedule. Hopefully the practice doesn't pull resources from other new games. You take this shit a little too seriously.

Personally, I'd rather these fuckers (yes, sony is included in that) just produce new IPs and release new additions to the established series. Ports are good for the companies but that doesn't put a new IP in my hands.  

*shrugs



Aeolus451 said:
Miyamotoo said:

Because you try to find reason that doesn't exist, you aiming that something was wrong so that's why Nintendo is doing some Wii U ports of on Switch, while you completely ignoring fact that today ports and remaster are common thing today. Why Sony done so many PS3 ports on PS4!? Obviously, easy money and more diverse and stronger lineup.  And Nintendo is releasing just two Wii U ports on Switch this year, its not like we have them 5+.

No, I'm open to possible reasons behind the ports. I'll go with your question. Why has sony done so many ports? To make more money and possibly for other reasons such as filling in holes in the release schedule. Hopefully the practice doesn't pull resources from other new games. You take this shit a little too seriously.

Personally, I'd rather these fuckers (yes, sony is included in that) just produce new IPs and release new additions to the established series. Ports are good for the companies but that doesn't put a new IP in my hands.  

*shrugs

But you dont have any other possible reason behind great ports from failed Wii U console that just very limited number of people had, remasters that not just are definitive versions but they offer full handheld mode, that will make Switch lineup more diverse and stronger and that will feel gap, and offcourse on those ports Nintendo will earn load of money.

You need to realise that port is not equal new game, port can be done in few monts with little resources, new games require much more time and much more resources, so it's not like that instead TLoU Remastered we could have TLoU 2 or instead MK8D we could have MK9, Sony said that TLoU Remaster was done in 6 monts, while they will be working few years on TloU2.