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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Would You Like to See a New Dedicated Handheld from Nintendo?


Would You Like to See a New Dedicated Handheld from Nintendo?

Yes, within the next year or two 138 12.96%
Yes, but not for a few years yet 120 11.27%
No, hybrid consoles from now on 633 59.44%
No, I don't like/use handhelds 174 16.34%
Mar1217 said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Ok. And I don't disagree with any of that. You're kind of just saying it isn't a handheld device but a hybrid, while I'm saying it's literally a handheld device but acts as a hybrid. You can keep saying it isn't one but at the end of the day it doesn't seem like we disagree all that much. 

Yeah, kinda like disagreeing for nothing since our opinions are seemingly alike.

: ) No problem then. I guess I'm too caught up on what "Dedicated" means.

Around the Network
Mar1217 said:
benji232 said:

Then where are all the games lol? Where is our unified library? In 2018, we got ……………………… A Kirby platformer and Mario tennis. Sick Unified library Nintendo... Nah, I'd prefer get 2 platforms since were obviously netting way less games then before.

So we're gonna purposefully forget about what's coming in the near future with SMP, Pokémon Let's Go and Smash Ultimate and the line up we got so far for 2019 just for your own egostistic self-entitled view on game developpement ?

Five Nintendo exclusives in a whole year (of which most are mediocre) and a few lazy ports and a horrible online service. That's not what I call an impressive output for a company as big as Nintendo with dozens of internal and 2nd party studios that had the opportunity to make great games for Switch since way back before Switch was even announced. Nintendo made more games when it was supporting two systems at the same time. So why would you want one system with less original games than even Wii U?

Switch already serves this purpose right.


benji232 said:
Yes. Nintendo's output so far on switch in 2018 is a testament to why they need a budget handheld device. Their game releases has been laughable in 2018. I am a huge Nintendo fan and I purchased 1 first party switch game in 2018 (LOL, I don't even think that ever happened even for wiiU) and it's Mario tennis which is a third tier franchise (LOL again). They're trying to camouflage their poor output of games with a bunch of full-priced ports which is inexcusable and are essentially punishing people who supported them through and through in the wiiU days.

So why does all of this matters? Because a budget handheld would allow them to release games on a more frequent basis due to the need for smaller teams and cheaper budgets. This would allow Nintendo fans like myself to not have to wait 4-6months (or more, we haven't had a AAA Nintendo release since October 2017 which is ridiculous) between each major Nintendo first party releases. In the wiiU and 3ds days, it was almost always the case of when there was nothing to play on wiiU, something would release on 3DS and vice-versa which in the end means more money for Nintendo. Not to mention, a budget handheld device would almost certainly sell very well for them.

/end of rant

You know, I think the idea that Switch has a disappointing library is a lot more respectable than most on this forum. It's pretty sad that this kind of reception to the Switch is practically outlawed or laughed at immediately. However, a lot of your comment is pretty unreasonable. 

You're absolutely right that the "unified library" is taking a lot longer to really show it's claws, but making a separate platform is not the answer. Firstly, because the generational leap between the 3DS and the Switch would be such an awkward middle phase. It would be like the Vita, with very few of the benefits of a dedicated Nintendo handheld (low cost for games and thus faster development times), and bad quality "console-like" experiences. Having something between a 3DS and Switch that would stand out when the Switch is already released would be hard, because it wouldn't have any of the real advantages of low cost handhelds or high cost hybrids (which already aren't really "high cost" as it is). We already see that Switch games can run on 3DS when they are dumbed down far enough (Fire Emblem Warriors), and we've already seen that phone-quality assets that are cheap to produce can look fairly pleasing to the eyes on a console (Pokemon Let's Go). What would a compromise between a 3DS and a Switch offer? With all due respect to their developer prowess, Nintendo titles are already incredibly cheap in comparison to most other AAA devs. 

Secondly, ports on Nintendo handhelds have a long history. Look at the Gameboy Advance: It's considered by many to be one of the best consoles ever made, yet it's best selling titles consist of the likes of Mario ports, a Mario Kart game that is practically a port (from what I know, could be wrong), Zelda ports, and third party collections. And is it a coincidence that during the Gameboy Advance era we saw the first Pokemon remake instead of a second new mainline title? Or how about 3DS? With it's ports, remasters, half-sequels, etc. Donkey Kong Country Returns 3D, Star Fox 3D, The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D, The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask 3D, The Legend of Zelda: A Link Between Worlds, Yoshi's Wooly World, Hyrule Warriors, Fire Emblem Warriors, Mario Party Top 100, Metroid: Samus Returns, Yoshi's New Island, Smash Brothers for 3DS .... when you cut all that out, yeah, you could make the exact same point for GBA and 3DS. Is it really fair to say that Nintendo didn't have problems supporting consoles and handhelds in the past before the Wii U and 3DS era? Because really, I don't see it. The Game Boy lasted 12 years and didn't hit the peak of it's stride till well after release. I imagine there were times where people had little to play in the span of 12 years. The DS had the most bountiful library of any Nintendo handheld, but at the cost of the GBA's lifespan. It had great 3rd party support because it was an innovative device ... but it's hard to say if we'd ever get something like that again. 

You're right that you'd probably get more out of two Nintendo consoles in one year exclusive-wise than what you'd get from Nintendo with the Switch. However, that has more to do with release schedules than content. When Nintendo has to support two systems, they rush out projects sooner. That's why 3DS has so much unoriginal content or re-used concepts. Switch ports are just more upfront and apparent. But you still had large spans of time where nothing came out in the past. With the release schedule right now, we can assume that while there are going to be some dry months as far as exclusives go, we won't have near entire years like we with the Wii U and even the Wii (or the 3DS, which got to the point where there would only be one big original game from Nintendo near the end of it's life). The Switch is supposed to have a consistent release schedule that results in a longer life span, and unfortunately that might mean some titles get pushed back. 

To summarize once and for all, if your criteria is how much you have to play, then I have to call into question why you think past console cycles were that much better. There were more games ... but for consoles like GBA and 3DS, that metric relies heavily on the same kind of titles you complained about (ports, half-sequels, etc). Not only that, but those systems were at their peak when they were put next to the Gamecube and Wii U, which are infamous for being at times barren. The Gameboy was next to both the NES, SNES, and N64 .. but it hit it's most popular point when the N64 was out, a system which also had a very barren release schedule. The first few years of the DS and the Wii was a near perfect combo, but look at how poorly Nintendo supported the Wii in the last 2 years (you could argue even 3). If you brought up major third party releases maybe you could make a point, but you didn't.  This has always been a problem for Nintendo, it's just now the solution isn't to pay for two consoles. 

I do, I love my 3DS serves a different purpose than my Switch.

Around the Network

Not right now. I think their next gen should be a re-imaging of this hybrid style. A single development platform sure. But rather where games can be played on a dedicated handheld or a dedicated console neither being top of the line super expensive.

But maybe that is asking too much from Nintendo and their fans.  I personally find the switch to be way too big and have such poor battery life that I would never consider it for dedicated handheld gaming.  A sentiment that is not shared by the vast majority apparently.

Last edited by dharh - on 01 October 2018

A warrior keeps death on the mind from the moment of their first breath to the moment of their last.

Not specifically a Nintendo fan but personally I think they need a true handheld as well because in all honesty the Switch is not very portable and not feasible for the majority of situations. I enjoy my Switch but in all honesty I cant carry it around with me without a laptop bag or something similar where my PSVita could just be put in my pocket. But I am personally a bigger fan of the Switch than the 3DS, the 3DS screen resolution was just to low for me. But my fiance prefers the 3DS to the Switch because of its portability. She takes it with her to college and plays it on her downtime between classes, she does not want to lug the Switch along with her as she already has to take so much.


I am not going to vote due to this primarily being a Nintendo fan discussion. Just thought I would put in my 2 cents as a Switch/3DS owner. (I own a 2DS and a New 3DS)

RolStoppable said:

The idea is laughed at for three main reasons:

1. Comparisons between Switch and other consoles usually are LTD for Switch vs. lifetime of other consoles.
2. Quality of released first party games is deemed to be of little to no relevance.
3. Third party support gets conveniently ignored.


I agree with 1-3, which were actually arguments I put against the person I replied to (I said 1 when I explained that Switch is focusing on a length vs. short term release schedule which means a console that lasts longer and has more content at the end of the hardware's life, and I said 3 when I explained that unless you are including third party titles the release schedule on switch is actually pretty similar to that of a handheld + home console lineup of the past, especially when you cut out the unoriginal content on both sides), except for 2 which I think just speaks for itself given the status of Odyssey and BOTW. Seems like we agree but you just cut out the first part of my reply, which I really only used to sympathize with the person's perspective. For example in the next point you make you say "regarding your other argument", when in fact the first part you are replying to is not even an argument. My argument is everything you cut out, which is conveniently the part you agree with. 

Regarding your other argument that Switch as a hybrid is a handheld device, it's pretty obvious that a hybrid needs to be of a size that allows it to be legitimately portable. How else do you imagine a hybrid?

Of course that is a no-brainer. My point is that the concept of a "hybrid" more so lives in the plane of practicality and not so much in the literal sense. In the literal sense, the Switch is already a handheld device. Whether or not it's "dedicated" is up for debate I guess, but it is portable. If a new Switch released that was catered more towards the portable crowd then it would still most likely have dock capabilities, even if it released without a dock. It would still be a portable device because everything needed for the system to work is in the handheld. But with how people actually use it in their day to day lives, yes, it is a hybrid. 

Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 01 October 2018

RolStoppable said:

I skimmed most of your post that opened with sympathy, because it started on the wrong foot. Yes, we agree for the most part, but don't make people believe that they have sort of valid points when they are posting rants, because it will put yourself in a position where you have to type essays to refute an argument. The one crucial point I didn't see you address is that Switch has yet to enter the phase where it is Nintendo's only console. The 3DS saw continued good support throughout 2017 and into 2018, so many of Nintendo's development teams had yet to begin development of Switch software in earnest.

The second half is semantics. 'Dedicated' in the context of video games refers to a device that is about playing video games, but that's not a point I touched on in my previous post. I think we are better off by agreeing that all these semantics won't be worth the time it would take to dissect them.

I think that most opinions regarding entertainment are not "valid or invalid" though. That's why I opened my post with sympathy. Hell, I've had many times where I thought the Switch was trash. Mine was collecting a lot of dust until very recently (and the process of rehabilitation only started because certain users were kind enough to gift me a game). It's all about the arguments and how well you support them. And really, that user didn't support his points well. His reception of the Switch isn't inherently wrong, his way of trying to rationalize and back up those sentiments just used faulty arguments. 

And I should have made that point. I actually meant to but sort of forgot, took a while to write that reply. However if you see the list of games I showed for 3DS and GBA that were also ports/reimaginings/remasters/collections I mention Mario Party Top 100 and Metroid: Samus Returns. It should kind of be self evident then that a big factor is support for the 3DS, although I'm sure he already knows about that and doesn't care.

We don't even have to discuss it, the work is done. Look at my Mar127 reply chain. 

Entirely possible to have Switch variants that are mobile only and console only.
But if they release a mobile-only variant, I hope they at-least include a decent display this time.

--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--