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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Bethesda about Switch support and development

routsounmanman said:

At the top is the original conversation between me and Mbolibombo. He argued that Namco Bandai is a solid supporter of the Switch, and I replied, in turn. I think one can clearly understand that I'm comparing Namco Bandai to Capcom, while "the worst" part is me arguing that Capcom is THE worst of ALL publishers on Nintendo's platform. Then, you mistakenly understood that I was talking about Konami, thus the clarification, and even called my wording "extremely bad". Please consider not being rude next time, English is not everyone's native language.

Apparently there's a vast difference in opinion here. Calling Capcom support on the platform anything other than bad is, to use your words, ridiculous. Rom dumps, very old games, butchered by either not being on the cart, no physical versions, coming months later, even cloud versions. Meanwhile, other platforms get RE7, Street Fighter, Marvel vs Capcom, etc (note that I'm not expecting new, modern games like RE2, all the above games are within Switch's capabilities). Xbox / PS4 got MH World on the same day worldwide, and even though I'm willing to accept that it might not be possible to port to the hybrid console, we didn't even get Generations until almost a year later, full price. If you're content with being treated like that, kudos.

And are you honestly calling Okami the best game on the platform? Even if that's true, I've played this game to death already. PS2, Wii, DS (Okamiden). I know and acknowledge that a good game is always great, but when 95% of your offerings on a platform (MM11 being the exception) are generations old, something's definitely wrong.

I don't really see how that's rude ... especially when you basically just said I was right:

"while "the worst" part is me arguing that Capcom is THE worst of ALL publishers on Nintendo's platform. Then, you mistakenly understood that I was talking about Konami,"

Wait ... what? You're saying the worst part is you arguing that Capcom is the worst of all publishers, then say I mistook you for thinking you were talking about Konami? How does that make any sense ... if you're talking about all publishers that includes Konami, which was my ENTIRE POINT from the get go. 

I've already dispelled this but you're free to repeat it again and again like Curl did before. Tons of the games are not old. Tons of them are not "rom dumps" (which would literally only describe the Mega Man collections and maybe the Street Fighter stuff, which is true for all platforms not just Switch). None of those are cloud versions because I didn't include RE7 in Japan, which would actually strengthen my point, because while it's not optimal ... it's better than nothing, and that country has the infrastructure to support it. This is crazy. routsounman: I listed the games for you. You don't have to do the work. I did it for you.

The problem becomes when you expect every individual game to fit ALL these criteria. To not be old at all, to not have any rom games available on the platform, to not have any possible download required. THAT'S when you see a publisher as entirely irrelevant or useless ... and honestly, while I agree with some of the criticisms, I'd rather actually enjoy the games and appreciate the support than just go on and on about a publisher who's treated the platform better than most. I'm going to say something to you that might sound crazy, but bear with me: games coming as half downloads, is not a problem. People complain about it because they like to complain. Most of the fault is on Nintendo for not including more storage from the get go ... since this is a common thing on PS4 and Xbox even with games that can fit on blu ray discs. Would it be great if it all came on a cart? Absolutely, but at this point you're just using any criteria to downplay what has been pretty good support. It could be better, and there are certainly issues but I'm tired of seeing people act completely pessimistic on the subject. There's a difference between thoughtful critique and acting like these publishers are the worst of the worst - when really they're offering some of the most relevant, quality titles on the system. Whether that says more about the Switch or the companies themselves is up to you to decide, however given the circumstances of overall third party support thus far, I think it's the former. 

I don't even see why some of the stuff you listed is negative anyways. Resident Evil Revelations 2, Monster Hunter Generations, and Mega Man 11 are not old games, no matter what platform the former two have been on. It's not like Capcom is just funding the Neo Geo collection. They're providing titles that fit well on the platform, whether they are backlog games or not. Which ... should be the goal of pretty much every developer? All the games fit well, and enough of them are new that I don't feel cheated like with some other publishers. I'm failing to see the argument against them being a good publisher for the system other than just word dressing. Word dressing is fine if you can explain why it's relevant. 

...I didn't even say best game on the platform I said it's the best handheld game on the platform. 4 hour battery life, beautifully aged graphics, touch controls. I don't think that part could be any more clear ... 

Edit: At this point I don't really care ... we can just agree to disagree I guess. 

Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 06 November 2018

Around the Network
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
routsounmanman said:

At the top is the original conversation between me and Mbolibombo. He argued that Namco Bandai is a solid supporter of the Switch, and I replied, in turn. I think one can clearly understand that I'm comparing Namco Bandai to Capcom, while "the worst" part is me arguing that Capcom is THE worst of ALL publishers on Nintendo's platform. Then, you mistakenly understood that I was talking about Konami, thus the clarification, and even called my wording "extremely bad". Please consider not being rude next time, English is not everyone's native language.

Apparently there's a vast difference in opinion here. Calling Capcom support on the platform anything other than bad is, to use your words, ridiculous. Rom dumps, very old games, butchered by either not being on the cart, no physical versions, coming months later, even cloud versions. Meanwhile, other platforms get RE7, Street Fighter, Marvel vs Capcom, etc (note that I'm not expecting new, modern games like RE2, all the above games are within Switch's capabilities). Xbox / PS4 got MH World on the same day worldwide, and even though I'm willing to accept that it might not be possible to port to the hybrid console, we didn't even get Generations until almost a year later, full price. If you're content with being treated like that, kudos.

And are you honestly calling Okami the best game on the platform? Even if that's true, I've played this game to death already. PS2, Wii, DS (Okamiden). I know and acknowledge that a good game is always great, but when 95% of your offerings on a platform (MM11 being the exception) are generations old, something's definitely wrong.

"while "the worst" part is me arguing that Capcom is THE worst of ALL publishers on Nintendo's platform. Then, you mistakenly understood that I was talking about Konami,"

Wait ... what? You're saying the worst part is you arguing that Capcom is the worst of all publishers, then say I mistook you for thinking you were talking about Konami? How does that make any sense ... if you're talking about all publishers that includes Konami, which was my ENTIRE POINT from the get go. 


You specifically mentioned Konami though, that's why I focused on them so much. Anyways, I indeed believe they are worse than Konami. Quality and effort are equally important to me.

 

I've already dispelled this but you're free to repeat it again and again like Curl did before. Tons of the games are not old. Tons of them are not "rom dumps" (which would literally only describe the Mega Man collections and maybe the Street Fighter stuff, which is true for all platforms not just Switch). None of those are cloud versions because I didn't include RE7 in Japan, which would actually strengthen my point, because while it's not optimal ... it's better than nothing, and that country has the infrastructure to support it. This is crazy. routsounman: I listed the games for you. You don't have to do the work. I did it for you.

Where are the "tons of games"? Am I missing something? RE:R is old (and butchered). Megaman X and Megaman Collections are old. Street Fighter Collection, same, Okami old. MH Generations is old, late and expensive. The sole new game from Capcom is MM11. If it weren't for the whole not physical fiasco, I'd give them credit for that.

 

The problem becomes when you expect every individual game to fit ALL these criteria. To not be old at all, to not have any rom games available on the platform, to not have any possible download required. THAT'S when you see a publisher as entirely irrelevant or useless ... and honestly, while I agree with some of the criticisms, I'd rather actually enjoy the games and appreciate the support than just go on and on about a publisher who's treated the platform better than most. I'm going to say something to you that might sound crazy, but bear with me: games coming as half downloads, is not a problem. People complain about it because they like to complain. Most of the fault is on Nintendo for not including more storage from the get go ... since this is a common thing on PS4 and Xbox even with games that can fit on blu ray discs. Would it be great if it all came on a cart? Absolutely, but at this point you're just using any criteria to downplay what has been pretty good support. It could be better, and there are certainly issues but I'm tired of seeing people act completely pessimistic on the subject. There's a difference between thoughtful critique and acting like these publishers are the worst of the worst - when really they're offering some of the most relevant, quality titles on the system. Whether that says more about the Switch or the companies themselves is up to you to decide, however given the circumstances of overall third party support thus far, I think it's the former. 

I don't even see why some of the stuff you listed is negative anyways. Resident Evil Revelations 2, Monster Hunter Generations, and Mega Man 11 are not old games, no matter what platform the former two have been on. It's not like Capcom is just funding the Neo Geo collection. They're providing titles that fit well on the platform, whether they are backlog games or not. Which ... should be the goal of pretty much every developer? All the games fit well, and enough of them are new that I don't feel cheated like with some other publishers. I'm failing to see the argument against them being a good publisher for the system other than just word dressing. Word dressing is fine if you can explain why it's relevant. 


I can give you that the games fit the platform much more than Bethesda's, for example. But maybe that's precisely the reason I want them to try more. Capcom has some amazing IP, very well suited to Nintendo, and the Switch. 

I cannot accept the fact that you defend their splitting of the games (cart and download). That's some serious bullcrap. They are obviously cheaping out on the cart costs, meaning that I am being treaded like a second rate citizen. It's not even about wether they CAN fit on the cart, it's them being stingy / stupid. Capcom is obviously (thus far) treating the Switch like a cash grab, only to fund their real efforts on other platforms.

And I love collecting my games in physical form. In fact I even bought Dead Cells, a game I love to death, physical. It hurts to constantly change the cart, but it means a LOT to me to have a hard copy. I bought MM11, I love it as a game, but feel mistreated because I wasn't given the option to buy at the shop, while other platform owners were.

...I didn't even say best game on the platform I said it's the best handheld game on the platform. 4 hour battery life, beautifully aged graphics, touch controls. I don't think that part could be any more clear ... 

Yeah, that's my bad. A slight mistype. Although, again, a game 2 generations old. And late. 



 Oh god ... do I actually stop replying and agree to disagree like I said, or do I continue? The hard decisions that a VGChartz user must make ... 

routsounmanman said:

"You specifically mentioned Konami though, that's why I focused on them so much." 

So wait a minute ... you basically try to make me look like a dick by pulling the "not everyone on VGC is an english speaker" card, say in the same reply the exact thing I've been saying this whole time, and then quietly admit to that in the next reply after I point it out? Uhh ... I think it's best we just drop this specific point No hard feelings hopefully in either direction.

"Anyways, I indeed believe they are worse than Konami. Quality and effort are equally important to me."

What the heck are you talking about? Konami literally only has one game on Switch (according to their own website) and it wasn't exactly a lot of effort on Konami's part. The only thing that was really commendable about it was that they improved some things with updates and added some content, but Super Bomberman R is the only game they even have on the system and it's not saying much considering both the kind of game it is and the fact that Konami is not even a player in the games industry anymore. That's nothing compared to the multiple titles Capcom offers ... this has to be the hardest downplaying imaginable at this point. 

"Where are the "tons of games"? Am I missing something? RE:R is old (and butchered). Megaman X and Megaman Collections are old. Street Fighter Collection, same, Okami old. MH Generations is old, late and expensive. The sole new game from Capcom is MM11. If it weren't for the whole not physical fiasco, I'd give them credit for that."

...........You consider games that were only released a few years ago "old"? ... I'm starting to think that no matter what Capcom does, they wouldn't be good enough for you. Didn't we already go over the fact that pretty much none of their new releases besides Resident Evil 7 would even be reasonable to expect on Switch? I could have SWORN you wrote something along the lines of saying that you don't expect any of their recent games except RE7. Maybe that was Curl or maybe I'm going crazy. Anyways, I'm talking about Resident Evil Revelations 2, Monster Hunter Generations, and Mega Man 11. Which, whether you like it or not, are pretty recent games. Labeling them as "old" to try and play semantics is silly. Because again ... it's not like these ports by Bethesda aren't "old", or "late". They're more recent and commendable than Revelations 2 and Generations Ultimate, but they're still "late" and "old" all the same. The three Capcom games are recent, just like the Bethesda ones are. The reason I said "tons" is because I was making a list, and using repetitive wording to emphasize a point is usually how lists are used in an argument. But also because 3 recent releases out of ... what ... 11 games from Capcom ... is a "ton", that's actually a pretty great track record.

"I can give you that the games fit the platform much more than Bethesda's, for example. But maybe that's precisely the reason I want them to try more. Capcom has some amazing IP, very well suited to Nintendo, and the Switch."

I think it's time to get some more realistic standards. I can say this as someone who loves Monster Hunter World and DOOM, there are quite a few reasons why MHW would be harder than DOOM to port. Although, Resident Evil 7 should be doable and if they try really hard then maybe Resident Evil 2 Remake ... but isn't that the entire problem with this discussion? You're standards are essentially Capcom stepping up to the plate and being, by far, the best supporter on Switch. If they ported RE7, MvC, REmake 2, and MHW, along with what they've already ported they'd be far and away better than Bethesda, wouldn't even be a contest. And yet, you're sitting here acting like that should be the standard when it's not even close to the norm. What Bethesda is doing is the best result currently and what Capcom is already doing right now is above what 99% of publishers do on Switch. This is the big elephant in the room that you're just not addressing. I'm basing my standards on ... you know ... reality. Not a fairy tale. And in that sense Capcom is one of the best publishers on the platform. 

"I cannot accept the fact that you defend their splitting of the games (cart and download). That's some serious bullcrap. They are obviously cheaping out on the cart costs, meaning that I am being treaded like a second rate citizen."

I have to admit that it's going a little too far to say that it's not a problem at all. But considering this discussion has just devolved into a back and forth where any possible excuse is given to say that Capcom is the worst publisher on Switch, I guess it's just hard to want to try. Let me rephrase it. I have complained about it in the past, it's an inconvenience and annoying. However, is it a serious problem for most people? No. Let's just be honest, and try to be objective here before going all "but but physical!" 99% of people who are complaining about this are not doing it because it's a serious issue, they're doing it because they're making it a bigger issue than it actually is due to putting preferences above critical thinking to a silly degree. I buy physical most of the time, but if a game I want requires me to download a portion of it, guess what? You still get the cart and the box, and i'm pretty sure for every Capcom title available on Switch, you're saving storage space because only some of the games are download only (for example Revelations 1 is on cart I believe and Revelations 2 isn't). That's already a lot of advantages for the physical edition. It's quite honestly a minor inconvenience at best. It's not the big issue you make it to be. 

Also, you aren't being treated as a second class citizen ... like .. at all. Playstation 4 and Xbox One games usually require the entire game to be downloaded from a disc at best, and nowadays usually parts of the game are not included in the disc even if the game takes up less storage than what is available on a Blu ray disc, which means yet again downlaods are required. None of this is even getting into updates which are becoming more and more important for main consoles. PC already is 99% digital anyways. So yeah .. the biggest hardcore gaming platforms, Playstation 4 and PC, pretty much experience the same physical editions, that Switch gamers throw a fit over when they get them occasionally, only they get them a majority of the time/all the time. I hardly think that Anne Frank was concerned about whether or not she was able to have a full game on a cart ... by the way ...

"Yeah, that's my bad. A slight mistype. Although, again, a game 2 generations old. And late. "

If there was any doubt in my mind that, at the very least, you are unintentionally just making this into a "try to downplay Capcom as much as possible to prove a point" discussion, it is now gone. Do you even remember the original point of me writing that? It was to just show how well tailored Capcom's games are for Switch, and how even old games can show off a system in different ways. But apparently somehow you took away from that - "I should respond as if he said that porting a 2 gen old game late is impressive!" Yeah, not my point at all with that part of the comment ... 

 Also are we just going to completely drop all the points I brought up that were just ignored completely? What about the fact that even GameFreak didn't think the Switch would be a success? That seems pretty important to your "how could Japanese publishers not know! how could they not have faith!" point. What about all the leaps of faith Japanese publishers would have to make to have initially supported the Switch? We're just going to drop that too? Because obviously that stalled these publishers for a long time ... in fact a couple of those concerns are very real even after the success of multiple third party titles. And it still hasn't been addressed that your bar for Capcom just being good is essentially being the best possible publisher for Switch ... and that somehow they're the worst simply because they haven't put more big games on the Switch, and not because they have put less than other publishers ... which is just some of the most obviously flawed logic. 



AngryLittleAlchemist said:
routsounmanman said:

The only new game in the list is Mega Man 11, and they managed to botch it. It's ridiculous seeing an XboxOne physical version of 11 in stores and no Switch version.

Besides, I was talking about Namco Bandai being better than Capcom, not Konami.

Writing "the worst" when you are only talking about two publishers is extremely bad wording, especially when all your previous comments were talking about multiple publishers ... and basically the state of support from an entire country. It hardly even makes sense anyways since you weren't making a direct comparison between Namco Bandai and Capcom, you were merely listing Capcom as belonging to an alternative category ("the worst") compared to Namco Bandai. On that front, Capcom is far from one of the worst publishers on Switch ...

Capcom is one of the best publishers the Switch has. They carry a selection of titles that fit the platform well, and mean something to the Switch audience. Mega Man. Resident Evil. Okami. These are names that have weight with supporters of Nintendo's consoles. Which is probably why despite all of their games being "old" (except Mega Man 11), they've still most likely sold more software on Switch than Bethesda has, even excluding their one new game. Bethesda basically just has one super successful title on Switch. I'm not about to look a gift horse in the mouth, DOOM and Wolfenstein were successful enough to warrant some follow ups. But these aren't games that actually mean much to a large portion of the Switch fanbase - that much is clear. And isn't it ironic that the best selling Bethesda game on Switch by far is an old one which detractors were saying wouldn't sell because it's been ported time and time again, and released ages ago. Yet when we hear about why Capcom is so bad, the lack of new games is brought up as a reason? It's almost like old ports are cheaper to produce, and don't need to sell a lot to be considered a massive success. 

When I see comments like the ones that you posted earlier in this thread, I'm at a loss for words on how to describe them. I almost want to say entitled, but I complain about multi million dollar companies more than anyone and it's perfectly fine to do so. I want to say ridiculous but at the very least there is some basis for criticizing these publishers. So the best I can do is unreasonable. 

I mean ...

"And it's not just mediocre support, it's abysmal. You snooze you lose, I guess." 

Yes, Capcom being one of the only publishers to port big quality games to Switch has "abysmal" support for the system because .... the games aren't new. Ok. Maybe if this was the Playstation 4 and not the Switch that would be true. But alas ...

"There's no reason for games that gravitate heavily towards the Japanese market not be on the Switch (Jump Force, Ni No Kuni 2, etc). "

Well besides the fact that Ni No Kuni 2 probably has an exclusivity deal and that Jump Force is just graphically impressive enough to be a hard port (which wouldn't be an excuse had it released like two years ago, it's not even out yet) 

Think about it ... why is it that in these discussions the only companies that are talked about are Japanese ones? Because Japanese publishers are the only ones that are expected to do anything with Nintendo platforms. That already sets off alarm bells for the relationship that Nintendo has with third parties. The reason why Japanese publishers didn't instantly support the Switch is plain as day. You can not sell product specifically tailored to a Japanese audience and get the major sales you once could. You need to market to a global audience, and globally Switch is not the main console for gamers like it is in Japan. Of course, Playstation and Xbox's audience heavily skews towards buying third party content as well, which isn't true for Nintendo systems. Do you see the connection? The only games recently that have been able to create triple A sales while containing their popularity almost exclusively to Japan are Yokai Watch, Dragon Quest, and Monster Hunter, and Monster Hunter became wildly more successful when it ended up appealing to a western audience. Basically, asking Japanese developers to support the Switch early on/from the get go was asking to put faith in the fact that third party sales would be better, to put faith in the idea the Switch would sell well, to put faith in that if all else fails Japanese sales would carry the weight of multi-million dollar triple A products that would take a significant amount of time to port, to put faith in the idea that late ports would still sell well, to put faith in the idea that third party productions would have some kind of standing in the West ... it was incredibly risky. Honestly, they're making more money by sticking with Playstaton and overseas Xbox so hard. 

Oh ... and none of that is to mention that even the boss of Pokemon didn't think the Switch would be a success.   What were you saying? " Why on Earth would a Western company, Bethesda no less, have more faith in a Nintendo platform than a Japanese one like the aforementioned?" So much for all the "but but they're Japanese so they should have definitely been on Switch for sure! How could they not see the Switch success coming???" arguments.  Even in that same interview he says people shouldn't overestimate Switch. 

It's commendable that Bethesda had so much faith in the Switch, but honestly, most of that was probably blind ... or risk-taking on their part. They are the exception, so I have no idea why you act like they should be the rule. I somehow doubt that Japanese third party companies had the same amount of resources to throw around as Bethesda, not that they couldn't afford ports, but it would be an even bigger risk for them comparatively. Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you do it. And honestly ... it's perfectly reasonable and fair why it's taken so long for Japanese publishers to jump on board. Do I hope they improve? Yes, but that doesn't mean they're automatically atrocious because they aren't perfect. Capcom's support for Switch is fairly similar to their support for Wii and Wii U, I honestly do not understand why all the sudden people are acting like it's far worse. I have my complaints about them too though ... I just find this notion really obnoxious. These publishers are doing fine by Switch owners, they could do better, but they'll improve slowly but steadily. There are better publishers than Capcom though (Bethesda, possibly Ubisoft and Square too ... although while they made new exclusive games, both of them don't showcase their main franchises on Switch, unlike Capcom which basically has every one of their key franchises represented on the system .. which is extremely important imo). 

Also, just personally, fast paced FPS games are not what I want to play on a weak console like Switch. Okami for example also shows off the Switch similar to DOOM, but in a very different way. Whereas DOOM shows both the power and lack thereof of the Switch, Okami has a four hour plus battery life, great motion controls, and even better touch controls. It's basically the most versatile triple A game on Switch right now, and while it began as a PS2 game, it's aged beautifully. It's probably the best handheld game on Switch. 

You have to understand that after what happened with Monster Hunter World and when many people started calling Capcom Crapcom, it's not going to be easy to accept the fact that Capcom's support has been better than most other companies and eat up your words.



"The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

- Single-player Game

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

 Oh god ... do I actually stop replying and agree to disagree like I said, or do I continue? The hard decisions that a VGChartz user must make ... 

routsounmanman said:

"You specifically mentioned Konami though, that's why I focused on them so much." 

So wait a minute ... you basically try to make me look like a dick by pulling the "not everyone on VGC is an english speaker" card, say in the same reply the exact thing I've been saying this whole time, and then quietly admit to that in the next reply after I point it out? Uhh ... I think it's best we just drop this specific point No hard feelings hopefully in either direction.

"Anyways, I indeed believe they are worse than Konami. Quality and effort are equally important to me."

What the heck are you talking about? Konami literally only has one game on Switch (according to their own website) and it wasn't exactly a lot of effort on Konami's part. The only thing that was really commendable about it was that they improved some things with updates and added some content, but Super Bomberman R is the only game they even have on the system and it's not saying much considering both the kind of game it is and the fact that Konami is not even a player in the games industry anymore. That's nothing compared to the multiple titles Capcom offers ... this has to be the hardest downplaying imaginable at this point. 

"Where are the "tons of games"? Am I missing something? RE:R is old (and butchered). Megaman X and Megaman Collections are old. Street Fighter Collection, same, Okami old. MH Generations is old, late and expensive. The sole new game from Capcom is MM11. If it weren't for the whole not physical fiasco, I'd give them credit for that."

...........You consider games that were only released a few years ago "old"? ... I'm starting to think that no matter what Capcom does, they wouldn't be good enough for you. Didn't we already go over the fact that pretty much none of their new releases besides Resident Evil 7 would even be reasonable to expect on Switch? I could have SWORN you wrote something along the lines of saying that you don't expect any of their recent games except RE7. Maybe that was Curl or maybe I'm going crazy. Anyways, I'm talking about Resident Evil Revelations 2, Monster Hunter Generations, and Mega Man 11. Which, whether you like it or not, are pretty recent games. Labeling them as "old" to try and play semantics is silly. Because again ... it's not like these ports by Bethesda aren't "old", or "late". They're more recent and commendable than Revelations 2 and Generations Ultimate, but they're still "late" and "old" all the same. The three Capcom games are recent, just like the Bethesda ones are. The reason I said "tons" is because I was making a list, and using repetitive wording to emphasize a point is usually how lists are used in an argument. But also because 3 recent releases out of ... what ... 11 games from Capcom ... is a "ton", that's actually a pretty great track record.

"I can give you that the games fit the platform much more than Bethesda's, for example. But maybe that's precisely the reason I want them to try more. Capcom has some amazing IP, very well suited to Nintendo, and the Switch."

I think it's time to get some more realistic standards. I can say this as someone who loves Monster Hunter World and DOOM, there are quite a few reasons why MHW would be harder than DOOM to port. Although, Resident Evil 7 should be doable and if they try really hard then maybe Resident Evil 2 Remake ... but isn't that the entire problem with this discussion? You're standards are essentially Capcom stepping up to the plate and being, by far, the best supporter on Switch. If they ported RE7, MvC, REmake 2, and MHW, along with what they've already ported they'd be far and away better than Bethesda, wouldn't even be a contest. And yet, you're sitting here acting like that should be the standard when it's not even close to the norm. What Bethesda is doing is the best result currently and what Capcom is already doing right now is above what 99% of publishers do on Switch. This is the big elephant in the room that you're just not addressing. I'm basing my standards on ... you know ... reality. Not a fairy tale. And in that sense Capcom is one of the best publishers on the platform. 

"I cannot accept the fact that you defend their splitting of the games (cart and download). That's some serious bullcrap. They are obviously cheaping out on the cart costs, meaning that I am being treaded like a second rate citizen."

I have to admit that it's going a little too far to say that it's not a problem at all. But considering this discussion has just devolved into a back and forth where any possible excuse is given to say that Capcom is the worst publisher on Switch, I guess it's just hard to want to try. Let me rephrase it. I have complained about it in the past, it's an inconvenience and annoying. However, is it a serious problem for most people? No. Let's just be honest, and try to be objective here before going all "but but physical!" 99% of people who are complaining about this are not doing it because it's a serious issue, they're doing it because they're making it a bigger issue than it actually is due to putting preferences above critical thinking to a silly degree. I buy physical most of the time, but if a game I want requires me to download a portion of it, guess what? You still get the cart and the box, and i'm pretty sure for every Capcom title available on Switch, you're saving storage space because only some of the games are download only (for example Revelations 1 is on cart I believe and Revelations 2 isn't). That's already a lot of advantages for the physical edition. It's quite honestly a minor inconvenience at best. It's not the big issue you make it to be. 

Also, you aren't being treated as a second class citizen ... like .. at all. Playstation 4 and Xbox One games usually require the entire game to be downloaded from a disc at best, and nowadays usually parts of the game are not included in the disc even if the game takes up less storage than what is available on a Blu ray disc, which means yet again downlaods are required. None of this is even getting into updates which are becoming more and more important for main consoles. PC already is 99% digital anyways. So yeah .. the biggest hardcore gaming platforms, Playstation 4 and PC, pretty much experience the same physical editions, that Switch gamers throw a fit over when they get them occasionally, only they get them a majority of the time/all the time. I hardly think that Anne Frank was concerned about whether or not she was able to have a full game on a cart ... by the way ...

"Yeah, that's my bad. A slight mistype. Although, again, a game 2 generations old. And late. "

If there was any doubt in my mind that, at the very least, you are unintentionally just making this into a "try to downplay Capcom as much as possible to prove a point" discussion, it is now gone. Do you even remember the original point of me writing that? It was to just show how well tailored Capcom's games are for Switch, and how even old games can show off a system in different ways. But apparently somehow you took away from that - "I should respond as if he said that porting a 2 gen old game late is impressive!" Yeah, not my point at all with that part of the comment ... 

 Also are we just going to completely drop all the points I brought up that were just ignored completely? What about the fact that even GameFreak didn't think the Switch would be a success? That seems pretty important to your "how could Japanese publishers not know! how could they not have faith!" point. What about all the leaps of faith Japanese publishers would have to make to have initially supported the Switch? We're just going to drop that too? Because obviously that stalled these publishers for a long time ... in fact a couple of those concerns are very real even after the success of multiple third party titles. And it still hasn't been addressed that your bar for Capcom just being good is essentially being the best possible publisher for Switch ... and that somehow they're the worst simply because they haven't put more big games on the Switch, and not because they have put less than other publishers ... which is just some of the most obviously flawed logic. 

First of all, you did insult me and my wording and you were indeed rude; moreover, you still fail to get my point, so I think we have to draw a line here and accept to disagree. You obviously have different standards than me and are oblivious to the ones I present. Good day, sir. I want to (still) like you.

Last edited by routsounmanman - on 06 November 2018

Around the Network

Victory!



"The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

- Single-player Game

WhatATimeToBeAlive said:
Victory!

Constructive, are we?



routsounmanman said:
WhatATimeToBeAlive said:
Victory!

Constructive, are we?

I think AngryLittleAlchemist can handle it.



"The rumours of my death have been greatly exaggerated."

- Single-player Game

Well the copy and paste OPs isn't something we usually do here, but since the material is good =]

And yep they were able to have good port because they were already aiming it.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

routsounmanman said:

First of all, you did insult me and my wording and you were indeed rude; moreover, you still fail to get my point, so I think we have to draw a line here and accept to disagree. You obviously have different standards than me and are oblivious to the ones I present. Good day, sir. I want to (still) like you.

No, I just said your wording was bad. We all have bad wording sometimes, it is really not something worth making such a big deal over. 

So you basically just don't have any points then? 

When I was replying to both you and Curl I'm pretty sure I said quite a few times that if it's just your opinion that it's fine, but that I expect good arguments to back them up when we are having a discussion. So no, I am not really oblivious to your "different standards", you just can't actually argue them. Which is fine, you don't have to, but you shouldn't have tried if that was the case. 

My opinion of you has not changed one iota because of this discussion. 

Good day. Bye. 

Last edited by AngryLittleAlchemist - on 06 November 2018