• Grangle1@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 months ago

    Nintendo has been more about innovation in gameplay more than graphics pretty much since the turn of the century, and aside from the Wii U it’s paid off for them pretty well, so why should they change that model? Further, this isn’t like the Wii days in which they got only shovelware or severely butchered versions of 360/PS3 games from third parties: the main difference in many third party Switch games compared to their MS/Sony counterparts is mostly just running at 30 vs 60 FPS with no other major graphical or gameplay changes.

    That said, Nintendo has been blessed to have mostly weak competition in the handheld console market up to now, so also hasn’t felt much pressure from outside in the handheld world until recently. Their handhelds have had quite the long lifespans: the Game Boy lasted from the late 80s to the 2000s before the upgrade to the GBA, and even after the Switch released the 3DS was still seeing relatively strong support until the turn of this decade, putting that at around a nine-year life cycle. I mention this because the Switch for many is as much a handheld as a home console. Now the Steam Deck and similar handheld PCs are giving Nintendo their first strong handheld competition since the PSP (among dedicated gaming machines, I don’t include smartphones). That handheld challenge may also be behind fans’ push for a Switch 2 soon and/or featuring more graphical power than Nintendo may have originally been wanting. But even then, they are mostly best off moving at their own pace and not trying too hard to keep up with the competition. It’s when they have tried to keep up that they hit their lowest numbers compared to MS/Sony, such as the GameCube and the Wii U. When they do their own thing and take the time to get it right is when they are at their best.

    • Stovetop@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      the main difference in many third party Switch games compared to their MS/Sony counterparts is mostly just running at 30 vs 60 FPS with no other major graphical or gameplay changes.

      I would disagree on this point.

      Many third party games that release on Sony/Microsoft consoles and Switch do feature noticeably downgraded graphics, even comparing PS4/Xbox One to the Switch. Whether that prevents someone from enjoying those games is entirely down to personal preference, but I think it is disingenuous to say that the framerate and resolution are the only differences.

      Take a look at the Digital Foundry comparison between The Witcher 3 on Switch versus (standard) PS4 and you’ll see a good example of all the optimizations and trimming that they had to do to get the Switch version running at passable framerates. It still runs well, and it’s still a fun game, but if someone is looking for high visual fidelity, they’d be better served with any other platform (and notably, the PS5/Xbox Series received visual enhancements to take advantage of the better hardware for their respective ports of the game).

      It’s not as common as the Wii days, but the Switch still does see neutered versions of some games ported to the system. Kingdom Hearts 3, for example, doesn’t even run on the console. The Switch just streams it from the cloud. So when those servers eventually go down, that’s it, no more game. It’ll be effectively un-released. EA never stopped the old strategy for their FIFA games either (while they still had the rights to that franchise) where the Switch versions of the game were simply missing features available on other platforms for some arbitrary reason.

    • otp@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      aside from the WiiU

      And to lesser extents, the N64 and GameCube.

      And to greater extents, the Virtual Boy and the partnership with Phillips for the CD-i games.