Nothing else left really makes sense to remake. I guess 5 and 6 if they are going "in order". But they should have started with a (re)remake of the original before going down that remake path. Maybe they can finally do 0 and the original.

"Open world" games have been in existence for decades. GTA Vice City "ran" on PS2 (it's performance was just garbage). Any game CAN be ported even to Switch if you give up enough. It's just a matter if the devs can achieve HD resolutions and stable frame-rate.

Of course sometimes it just isn't worth it for devs to spend the time optimizing, just because it's too far from the current target. That actually looks to be the case here. Seems like a pointless port since it's a clear downgrade. Although if framerate is tolerable it might not be a horrible experience. Whether they really did a good job I guess depends on how it's performance compares to the likes of Skyrim and Red Dead on Switch.

I had to turn off the 3D on so many 3DS games. I like 3D movies, but the stereoscopic 3D just doesn't work for me in video games. It worked OK in starfox or for slower moving games. I'd even say some of the more simplistic and retro 2D games where the foreground popped were the most cool. A gimmick, but a pretty cool gimmick. Anything fast moving or w/ lots of stuff going on the screen it would constantly cause me double vision, the 3D would go out of focus for me, so I'd either have to turn off the 3D real quick or it would probably cause me to crash/die. Ironically the 3D worked best for me in games with a 2D aesthetic.

I play my Switch hooked to the TV 90% of the time, so a 3D screen would do absolutely nothing for me. That would emphasize the handheld aspect of the device even more than it already is - something i'd prefer they not do (not unless they go back to making it a separate product for home console, probably not likely). If it's going back to a dual screen that would be very weird. It would be cool if you could use the Switch tablet screen while also playing on the big screen (for maps and other features, ala the Wii-U). Maybe even going back and forth for certain things. There are wireless technologies that should make that possible. I didn't think the tablet screen on the Wii-U was a horrible idea, even if clumsily/cheaply executed. Obviously the Wii-U flopped (and not all devs made use of it). But using a higher quality device for level maps and inventory management should be a no brainer in many games. I wouldn't mind that as part of a Switch 2. The one issue is the poor battery life issue is likely inescapable, especially if you are sending a wireless video signal to a TV (likely even more of a battery drain). I appreciate that the pro controllers last a good amount of time on Switch.

The initial price is a joke, but obviously not all gamers had a PS3/360 or maybe even if they did, might have skipped the game. The Switch port actually makes sense as I'd bet a higher % of Switch players never played the original. Switch version probably got the most it could out of the port as well, considering it's almost on par with the PS4. PS4 version is a bit more questionable, just because it probably had more room for substantial upgrades and Rockstar pretty much only did the bare minimum.

All the assets and draw distance/pop-in are basically identical to the 360 version. So no, it's not a "remaster", it's just a port. Both the Switch and PS4 versions are ports. I guess for Switch it's good that it actually runs smoothly and almost matches the PS4 version. That makes the PS4 version lazy.

If it only streams from PS5 and has zero unique library, it's almost more of an accessory rather than it's own handheld.

Seems dumb. Streaming games from PS5 could be a feature for a handheld (just as it was for streaming and crossplay PS4 games to Vita). But if that's all it can do, it's pretty much DOA.

XBOX for the first couple of years while the overpriced PS3 struggled and developers put out crappy ports. PS3 once the PS3 slim came out, from 2009 on PS3 pretty much dominated.

Yes. It's stupid as hell. Battery life on a controller should be measured in weeks, not hours. I don't get the battery drain on the controllers when in prior gens it would last far longer (Dualshock 4 also had this problem, but Dualshock 3 lasted for days and days of straight gaming sessions before needing a charge). I assume it's the touchpad driving most of the drain? I really don't get it.

Most people have two controllers anyway. So I guess it's managable pretty easily to just rotate controllers. But it's still a slight gameplay interrupting nuisance that shouldn't be there. Also if you play alot of local multiplayer or co-op then you need 4 controllers instead of 2 to rotate.

EA is trash.

When they acquired Codemasters I figured it would only be a few years before they killed off Dirt/Grid franchises and ruined F1. It really is like they acquire studios just for the purposes of destroying their franchises. It's uncanny. I assume they'll keep making F1 games, and if Codemasters is in charge of the WRC game then maybe it will just feel like Dirt with a new licensed branding. Dirt was always kind of all over the place anyway (generally very good, sometimes moving a bit too much to the arcadey/x-games style).

Had never played the Project Cars franchise and didn't even know EA had acquired it. Seems that one is just straight up to remove a competitor from the market since that probably competes more with Need for Speed.

It's not.

But it really shouldn't be comparable to native PS5 vs Series X games running at 120fps. It's more of just a better perk to their backwards compatibility.