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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo Switch Turns Four!

 

Rank the Switch as a console!

10 25 25.77%
 
9 33 34.02%
 
8 26 26.80%
 
7 7 7.22%
 
6 2 2.06%
 
5 0 0%
 
4 2 2.06%
 
3 2 2.06%
 
2 0 0%
 
1 0 0%
 
Total:97
curl-6 said:
IcaroRibeiro said:

Third parties are mostly multiplat nowadays, we can't really espect them to release as many exclusives as way back in time. The only way to have a door comparison is comparing first parties and second parties 

The last Nintendo console with as many good first and second party games as Switch was SNES

Unless maybe you are thinking on Game Cube, I never had one, so I have no opinion about it. But Switch stomps N64, Wii and Wii U very easily 

I would actually put Wii and N64 well ahead of Switch-to-date in term of high quality 1st and 2nd party games.

I mean, if I were to list the great-or-close-to-great ones I'd go:

Wii: Mario Galaxy 1 & 2, Twilight Princess, Skyward Sword, Metroid Prime 3, Xenoblade, DKCR, Mario Kart Wii, Sin & Punishment 2, The Last Story. (10)

N64: Mario 64, Banjo Kazooie + Tooie, F Zero X, Ocarina of Time, Starfox 64. (6)

Switch: BOTW, Mario Odyssey, Splatoon 2, Xenoblade 2. (4)

Wow, that's not a good look for Switch, if you ask me. BotW is certainly a contender for the best game on the system... But it's also a Wii U game, and probably one at heart, too. Odyssey is okeish, Splatoon 2 is nothing out of this world and Xenoblade 2 is quite the bad game. Really, I'd say Three Houses is the better title compared to those three, even if it also has its red flags, but its massive scope really puts it on another level entirely. Probably Luigi's Mansion 3, too, thanks in great part to those gorgeous visuals, but I didn't finish it nor did like it. 



My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first. 

Around the Network
Metallox said:
Shiken said:

If Torna is not a stand alone prequel game, what can I walk into walmart and buy a physical copy, and play it without the need of to own or play Xenoblade 2?

DLC is content added to a game, Torna is its own game with its own 30-40 hour length.

Your Link's Awakening logic is fine as long as you look at Miles Morales and Demon Souls as DLC and a remaster as well.  (you probably do though, which is fine).

Your preference of WiiU ports is your opinion.  I enjoyed the new content more and I did not even have a WiiU for games outside of the Zelda ports, so we will have to agree to disagree here.  You have every right to that stance, it is the people who never even owned a WiiU or Switch saying it that comes off as reaching downplay.

You 100%ed Torna in 30 hours? That's way too long, I'd say. 

Too long in what way?  If you think 30 hours is a long game, I assume you must not play JRPGs in general.

But if you mean to say that you think I spent too much time in the game...

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=60782

As you can see it lines up with what is expected from Torna.  Hell the main story alone clocks in at 17 hours if you ignore as much side content as possible.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

curl-6 said:
Mnementh said:

You should say: quality first party games you like. Because you left out a lot of actual quality 1st party games, like Animal Crossing, Super Smash Bros, Fire Emblem, Luigis Mansion. That is the thing, Switch doesn't have a weak first party library compared to previous gens. It may not have the games you desire though. But the games actually released sell millions each, so I guess these are games a lot of people enjoy.

Games I like and games I consider quality are one and the same. Quality is a subjective perception. And sales are a non-factor in what constitutes quality to me. 

I would disagree here. Now, quality is a very broad term. And I would consider a thing possibly having multiple qualities. And yes, some of these are more subjective. But many qualities are objective, and this is also true if you reduce it to games. So it is one quality, how much the game is freed of bugs and glitches. You can easily say that you like a game, but it has shitty quality in this regard. The original UFO: Enemy Unknown is one of my most beloved games, but the original version had quite some serious bugs to the point that it just could crash in some sequences. I think many like Skyrim and still see it as a glitchfest. Or you could consider the amount of interesting content. In this regard you just have to look at Smash Ultimate and marvel at the amount of fun content, even if you not into fighters or Smash in particular.

Another thing is: if you say these lists you made are completely subjective, then they are completely pointless. Because the count of games will differ wildly based on personal preferences in genre. But I think such list of great games for each platform still can be made, if you consider more objective criteria. Sales are actually an important factor, because they may not be a measurement of quality for you, but big sales actually mean that for many people the value of the game exceeded it's price. So sales are a very indirect measurement of the perception of quality for bigger amounts of people. I just have to accept that I am not the only person deciding which games are great. If Mario Party sells big numbers, even if I don't like it, I have to accept that it offers great value for many other people. So I have to take a step back and accept that maybe this game is overall a good game, even if I don't like it.



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

curl-6 said:
Mnementh said:

You should say: quality first party games you like. Because you left out a lot of actual quality 1st party games, like Animal Crossing, Super Smash Bros, Fire Emblem, Luigis Mansion. That is the thing, Switch doesn't have a weak first party library compared to previous gens. It may not have the games you desire though. But the games actually released sell millions each, so I guess these are games a lot of people enjoy.

Games I like and games I consider quality are one and the same. Quality is a subjective perception. And sales are a non-factor in what constitutes quality to me. 

Quality is actually objective.  Gameplay preference is completely subjective however.  I will use myself as an example...

I absolutely despise Red Dead Redemption 2 and feel it ia heavily overrated.  However I would not say it isn't a quality product.  The game is oozing of quality for those that like it.

I also think TLoU2 is a very average game with an average story that plays well enough, but fails to keep me hooked for much more than half the game.  That does not change the fact that it is a quality product.

On the flip side, I loved Orphan Scion of Sorcery as a kid.  Even back then, I knew the game was trash.  But something compalled me to beat it multiple times.

More recently, on PS3 there is a JRPG called Cross Edge.  That game has so many problems with it, that it could be called anything BUT quality.  I however really enjoyed it because it also had aspects that I liked.  In no way would I call it a quality game compared to other big JRPGs.

It is completely possible to recognize what is quality and what isn't, even when it does bot line up with your gameplay preference.  By definition, quality is indeed objective in every sense.

I will agree however that sales are not a measure of quality either.  For example Cyberpunk, while a great game in of itself, WAS NOT a quality product at launch...or even now.  Yet it sold millions on hype.

On the flip side, games from your own like like the Msteoid Prime games did not blow up sales at all, but they are indeed quality games.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

Quality is only objective if you only use objective metrics to measure it like the number of bugs, stable framerates, polished graphics and textures, good resolution, good controls and camera, good sound editing, good physics, good voice acting, quality of life additions, etc. There is an overall agreement and common sense about those. I've never met anybody saying that likes to play a game with unstable framerates or clunky controls, so I see those metric as objective 

But when evaluating arts we also include subjective metrics: What makes a OST good, what make art direction good, what makes a story well written, what makes a good design character, what is good level and world design, what even a good gameplay supposed to be? Those as more subjective criteria, there is no proper answer for any of that

That's make quality of games indeed subjective 



Around the Network
Shiken said:
Metallox said:

You 100%ed Torna in 30 hours? That's way too long, I'd say. 

Too long in what way?  If you think 30 hours is a long game, I assume you must not play JRPGs in general.

But if you mean to say that you think I spent too much time in the game...

https://howlongtobeat.com/game.php?id=60782

As you can see it lines up with what is expected from Torna.  Hell the main story alone clocks in at 17 hours if you ignore as much side content as possible.

I finished everything in about 20 hours while the main story lasted me less than 10. I goofed around continuously beating superbosses and the clock ramped up to the 37 I have right now. The main wall in this game is the Community requirements, but I was sure to complete them ASAP, but I don't feel I rushed the game that much. It's short (for an RPG of this category), but sweet. 



My bet with The_Liquid_Laser: I think the Switch won't surpass the PS2 as the best selling system of all time. If it does, I'll play a game of a list that The_Liquid_Laser will provide, I will have to play it for 50 hours or complete it, whatever comes first. 

IcaroRibeiro said:

Quality is only objective if you only use objective metrics to measure it like the number of bugs, stable framerates, polished graphics and textures, good resolution, good controls and camera, good sound editing, good physics, good voice acting, quality of life additions, etc. There is an overall agreement and common sense about those. I've never met anybody saying that likes to play a game with unstable framerates or clunky controls, so I see those metric as objective 

But when evaluating arts we also include subjective metrics: What makes a OST good, what make art direction good, what makes a story well written, what makes a good design character, what is good level and world design, what even a good gameplay supposed to be? Those as more subjective criteria, there is no proper answer for any of that

That's make quality of games indeed subjective 

I believe the problem here is too many people misuse the word "quality" when they are trying to talk about their own personal preference, which is not covered under the term "quality".  Your first paragraph is spot on, but your second is more like personal taste and perspective than quality.

Example one of my favorite games is Chrono Cross.  I love the story and themes used in the game, and understand what the game is trying to convey perfectly.  However that does not change the fact that the pacing is objectively bad, despite my personal taste.  Certain key parts of the plot are missable, leaving plot holes if you don't follow a specific path or talk to a specific optional NPC.  There are giant info dumps at the end of the game that tie everything together, then rip itself apart, and put it back together again with yet another info dump BY OPTIONAL CONVOS right before the final boss.  It is a very good plot with a lot to offer, but the delivery of said plot lacks objective quality.

The same applies the other way around as well.  Just because I do not like the narrative or what the game is trying to convey, that does not mean it is not objectively well written.

So in summation, quality =/= personal preference in any sense.  People just incorrectly use the word "quality" as a blanket term when it is not meant to be used that way.  At least that is how I have always seen it.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261

Shiken said:
IcaroRibeiro said:

Quality is only objective if you only use objective metrics to measure it like the number of bugs, stable framerates, polished graphics and textures, good resolution, good controls and camera, good sound editing, good physics, good voice acting, quality of life additions, etc. There is an overall agreement and common sense about those. I've never met anybody saying that likes to play a game with unstable framerates or clunky controls, so I see those metric as objective 

But when evaluating arts we also include subjective metrics: What makes a OST good, what make art direction good, what makes a story well written, what makes a good design character, what is good level and world design, what even a good gameplay supposed to be? Those as more subjective criteria, there is no proper answer for any of that

That's make quality of games indeed subjective 

I believe the problem here is too many people misuse the word "quality" when they are trying to talk about their own personal preference, which is not covered under the term "quality".  Your first paragraph is spot on, but your second is more like personal taste and perspective than quality.

Example one of my favorite games is Chrono Cross.  I love the story and themes used in the game, and understand what the game is trying to convey perfectly.  However that does not change the fact that the pacing is objectively bad, despite my personal taste.  Certain key parts of the plot are missable, leaving plot holes if you don't follow a specific path or talk to a specific optional NPC.  There are giant info dumps at the end of the game that tie everything together, then rip itself apart, and put it back together again with yet another info dump BY OPTIONAL CONVOS right before the final boss.  It is a very good plot with a lot to offer, but the delivery of said plot lacks objective quality.

The same applies the other way around as well.  Just because I do not like the narrative or what the game is trying to convey, that does not mean it is not objectively well written.

So in summation, quality =/= personal preference in any sense.  People just incorrectly use the word "quality" as a blanket term when it is not meant to be used that way.  At least that is how I have always seen it.

Your whole essay about CC plot and pacing is highly debatable. I don't find the passing bad, I only find the story confusing (and it's very confusing, I've only fully understand it many years later after reading internet articles) and I agree it's objectively unclear and can end being full of plot wholes for an average gamer 

But still, we can't just ignore all the subjective elements that compose a piece of media like games, because the subjective side is exactly where are the most important key elements of any game. If we start studying about game design, you will see there are very few guidelines of how to make a good game design

Instead that are exemples of why people think games X or Y have a good design and then essays explaining why the author think the game design is good or why such game design worked with a specific demographic of players. This is the subjective nature of video games in making, because the answer will fall into the personal preferences of people who enjoyed the said "well defined" games 



I give it a solid 7. AMAZING library, but very bare bones when it comes to the Switchs, like, interface and online features. I mean come on Nintendo, please add things like themes, messaging, rating games on eshop etc etc.



IcaroRibeiro said:
Shiken said:

I believe the problem here is too many people misuse the word "quality" when they are trying to talk about their own personal preference, which is not covered under the term "quality".  Your first paragraph is spot on, but your second is more like personal taste and perspective than quality.

Example one of my favorite games is Chrono Cross.  I love the story and themes used in the game, and understand what the game is trying to convey perfectly.  However that does not change the fact that the pacing is objectively bad, despite my personal taste.  Certain key parts of the plot are missable, leaving plot holes if you don't follow a specific path or talk to a specific optional NPC.  There are giant info dumps at the end of the game that tie everything together, then rip itself apart, and put it back together again with yet another info dump BY OPTIONAL CONVOS right before the final boss.  It is a very good plot with a lot to offer, but the delivery of said plot lacks objective quality.

The same applies the other way around as well.  Just because I do not like the narrative or what the game is trying to convey, that does not mean it is not objectively well written.

So in summation, quality =/= personal preference in any sense.  People just incorrectly use the word "quality" as a blanket term when it is not meant to be used that way.  At least that is how I have always seen it.

Your whole essay about CC plot and pacing is highly debatable. I don't find the passing bad, I only find the story confusing (and it's very confusing, I've only fully understand it many years later after reading internet articles) and I agree it's objectively unclear and can end being full of plot wholes for an average gamer 

But still, we can't just ignore all the subjective elements that compose a piece of media like games, because the subjective side is exactly where are the most important key elements of any game. If we start studying about game design, you will see there are very few guidelines of how to make a good game design

Instead that are exemples of why people think games X or Y have a good design and then essays explaining why the author think the game design is good or why such game design worked with a specific demographic of players. This is the subjective nature of video games in making, because the answer will fall into the personal preferences of people who enjoyed the said "well defined" games 

My biggest problem with the pacing of CC is the part where the story basically stops completely for a glorified fetch quest (getting the Dragon's blessings), that does nothing to advance the plot at all.  And mind you this is right after the Dead Sea, which was fantastic, so the wind is almost completely taken out of its sails halfway through the game.

This would have been better handled if they used that chunk of gameplay to flesh out the info dumps we recieved at the end of the game.  The reason Chrono Cross is so confusing is because the big reveal just throws too much info at the player at once, and then follows up with immediate plot twists that contradict what was just revealed before the player can even process what was given to them prior.

There was also good potential right after Terra Tower is raised, as this is where the endgame side quests come into play.  There were a few that were well done, such as the Orphanage of Flame or the whole Karsh and Dario sequence, but most of them were rather small.

Then the whole solution on how to even get to Terra Tower was just kind of random too.  Like it literally felt like a random thing that had no real plot relevance at all (Starky).

And don't even get me started on how little the Chrono Cross itself was explained.  Had I not looked it up, I would have never known how to properly use it to get the true ending.  The little hints were awesome, the problem is that there was nothing given to the player to suggest that there was even anything to look for in the first place.

Sorry for all that, I really hate tearing into one of my favorite games of all time, but I felt the need to clarify what I meant about the pacing.  It started off well up till after the Dead Sea, then comes to a complete stop, then bombards the player with too much stuff to process.  It is bad pacing at its finest.  It is almost like they got to the end of the game and realized, "shit we forgot to put all this important stuff...lets just shove it all onto disk 2 and call it a day!"

Last edited by Shiken - on 06 March 2021

Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Animal Crossing NH Dream Address: DA-1078-9916-3261