I think touchscreen controls take it even if that is not an option. The DS released before smartphones with large touch screens was a thing. There are quite a few games I newer want to play without that feature.
Of the options present I choose the hybrid function of the switch. The first time I felt owning only one console was enough for my gaming. But I see it more as a convince than something vital, It generally does not add something to the gaming experience for me.

I really miss the dual screens in some Switch games this generation...

The stereoscopic 3D just gave me a headache even if it was pretty cool in Super Mario 3D Land.
The hybrid feature is the most important. It completely changed my playing habits.

Dual screen was nice, but I like one screen more

3D was useless. I played if with turned off most of time

Motion controls are trash

Gamepad was clunky as fuck


Hybrid is the only possible choice

While Switch's hybrid functionality is pretty cool, it's ultimately just the fusion of two things that have worked for a long time already. So at best it can take the third spot in the Nintendo list.

Second place goes to the analogue stick of the Nintendo 64. A central hardware feature that seems so normal today that people don't even remember what a game changer it was. 3D games were able to have fluid controls instead of the rubbish clunkiness they had before. 1996's hit games Super Mario 64 vs. Tomb Raider, it was like two games from different generations if you were there at the time. Nintendo's competitors didn't lose a minute to rush their own controllers with analog sticks to the market.

First place goes to the NES and it's d-pad. Even more forgotten than the analogue stick, but there was a time when video games were played with crappy joysticks. The d-pad survived the analog stick revolution, but the joystick didn't survive the uprising of the d-pad.

I beg to differ that the joystick did not survive, I never stopped using them on PC for Flight simulator and Star Wars games.
Elite Dangerous is best play with this



3D printing is getting creative as well


Vectrex had the first analog stick in 1982

Not even close for me, hybrid nature of the switch. I love being able to play and if the kids want the TV, I can undock and keep playing. This is resulted in a massive increase in my playing time. I play way more than I used too.

I think conceptually the Gamepad might be my answer. I really love its usage in Nintendo Land and Game in Wario. I think it could have really worked well if they had the right software... but they didn't.

That being the case, I'll go with motion controls. If I had to choose between that and hybrid functionality, I'd go with motion controls. I care more about features that directly impact gameplay than those that are more for convenience.

In this context, I guess the SNES would be... 4 face buttons? Shoulder buttons? Both set a standard that continues to be standard to this day. Look at any mainstream modern controller and you're essentially looking at an SNES pad with two analog sticks added.

Gamecube though... the handle? lmao

I liked 3D when used for certain games - that was cool as fuck. Although, in a classic case of social herd mentality it was a highly demonized by the tabloid/yellow media. Although, I do admit, the tech was premature in the early 3DS, but some games are graphically enhanced considerably by the 3D. Look at the parallax Sega remasters, they’re fucking phenomenal looking. So I liked it, but unfortunately it was a massive flop.

AR was a bigger flop on 3DS, but I think there’s a big future in it. It’s literally in every science fiction show now when in the 1990s it was like magical anime tech.

Hybridization and motion controls, I believe, are going to be the two enduring innovations. Especially since VR hasn’t died (and has a future), and AR is a potential future and motion will have a future there. Hybridization and Motion are the two innovations that resurrected Nintendo after mistakes.

Although, I’m not sure if Wii U was so much a fumble as it was a stop-gap between the Wii and Switch. The Wii U and 3DS did have some innovations that fed forward… Higher resolutions were an important step because of quickly changing standards.
The main thing, IMO, is the EShop, making ALL games digital was a step on the digital distribution started on Wii, the Switch continued the model by unifying everything… To digress from the main point:, I think they can go further, if a game is on Nintendo Online, it should be on the EShop — they can probably jack the prices a little too, SMB3 could be 10-12 USD instead of the usual 5-8 for that tier of games. I also think they can vastly expand the catalogue library and include ALL games up (licensing issues aside) on the EShop, and maybe tiered system with different channels you can add to your NSO. The Wii U and 3DS heavily expanded on the WiiWare initiative to focus on the indies. The 3DS had Streetpass games, which I think would be cool to throw on Switch, I miss that feature.

Back on topic: the Wii U did some damage, losing some devs from the Wii era. But unlike the N64, there weren’t entire genres that all but vanished from Nintendo consoles because of the Wii U. Yeah, some FPS companies dropped support, but FPS as a genre is still widely available on Switch, despite it not being as much of a focus as it was on Wii and N64. Gamecube didn’t really damage Nintendo, most of the companies that left for that generation occurred because of Microsoft buyouts and damage done in the N64 generation. But making a PlayStation-like console was a dead end strategy. If anything, Wii U continued the increase of genres like RPGs and 2D platformers that had started to come back on the Wii after two generations of relative absence on home consoles. I think digital distribution was a major part of that, the Virtual Consoles, WiiWare, and the EShop fixed one of the most massive issues that 2D Platformers and RPGs were having: distribution channels. Also, genres like graphical adventures and indie games were helped a great deal, and catalogue classics were given exposure.

Anyway, what I’m trying to say is that Nintendo has basically been successful in building and improving their foundation, despite the relative commercial failures of the Wii U and 3DS.

Just to clarify, the N64 had some good feature additions, but it also had some bad bits; my point is that the platform itself did more to damage the Nintendo foundation more than it helped. Some of which had to do with how Nintendo conducted business at the time: Dream Team elitism was a big failure, but so were cartridges. Also, the N64 controllers lacked durability - and this wasn’t a case like the Joycons that could be cleaned and working 6+ years later, N64 controllers would literally wear out.

While I mentioned the Wii U innovations, I found the Gamepad screen to be more of a detriment than a help. Looking back and forth between the TV and Gamepad screen was HIGHLY intrusive to the experience. It was completely unlike the DS experience where the screens are side by side and I’m the field of vision.