GunSmith1_basic's forum posts

Avatar image for GunSmith1_basic
GunSmith1_basic

10548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

32

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#1 GunSmith1_basic
Member since 2002 • 10548 Posts

I have fallen out of love with those "AAA" series. I'd prefer having them than not, but I'm more than happy with the Switch library.

I should say I'm a traditional Nintendo gamer. I'm hooked on Nintendo series. I'm more hyped for the new Metroid than Red Dead 2 or whatever else is coming on the other consoles.

Avatar image for GunSmith1_basic
GunSmith1_basic

10548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

32

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#2 GunSmith1_basic
Member since 2002 • 10548 Posts

Labo was never meant to sell large quantity. It is a niche product meant to make a quick buck, and let's be real. This thing's profit margins are through the roof.

Avatar image for GunSmith1_basic
GunSmith1_basic

10548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

32

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#3  Edited By GunSmith1_basic
Member since 2002 • 10548 Posts

there may be some genuine anti-progressives out there, but imo it is over emphasized, and an insignificantly tiny sliver of the population.

In general, gamers hate it when any kind of idea is shoe-horned into a game without enough care to make it seamless. In games and movies, often progressive themes are accompanied by lazy writing.

There could be some mis directed hate also because progressivism and anti-free speech go hand in hand (often in the guise of anti-hate speech) so perhaps some pro-freedom people will oppose anything when they detect progressive themes because they don't trust the source and would rather not risk manipulation.

And like was already said, it seems like many game reviews will dock points for not being progressive enough. For me, I'm not sure it is a problem because I'm all for games including lots of different kinds of people (more of an aesthetic thing than a moral imperative though), but just know that it is only a matter of time before game reviewers start docking games for having guns in them. I agree that this is ridiculous today, but just add 5 or 10 years and we'll see.

Avatar image for GunSmith1_basic
GunSmith1_basic

10548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

32

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#4 GunSmith1_basic
Member since 2002 • 10548 Posts

I don't think anyone really connected these real life events with the release of Far Cry 5. I'd even suggest that maybe this story would be pushed by Ubisoft in order to farm some controversy. Then again, I'm pretty jaded and hardly ever cared about the anti-gun protests at all, and I'm not even pro gun.

Having said that, I'm really enjoying FC5 and I feel it is a very worthy sequel in the series. Great setting, great concept, great changes to the game engine, etc

Avatar image for GunSmith1_basic
GunSmith1_basic

10548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

32

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#5 GunSmith1_basic
Member since 2002 • 10548 Posts

Nintendo has always been serving their consumer worse than the others. I love Nintendo but it is true. Nothing shows this more than their pricing. It takes so much longer for their games and hardware to fall in price, while it seems the other companies and PC gaming have a whole schedule of how a game price will fall. Sony and MS also have a philosophy that the lower the hardware price, the better, because then you can make up that cash with higher game sales. Nintendo doesn't have to believe the same philosophy as other companies, and can do whatever works for them, but it is true that the end result is anti-consumer

I also feel like their anti-piracy moves in the Switch went too far. They should have allowed saves and data on their game carts. It's just sad when you see over half of a game's size coming by update, and then that update data not even being on the cart. To me that is unacceptable.

It seems like the Switch could have been a great consumer-centric device but they largely rejected this idea.

Avatar image for GunSmith1_basic
GunSmith1_basic

10548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

32

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#6 GunSmith1_basic
Member since 2002 • 10548 Posts

I like that this poll doesn't have a "both" option. Make people pick a side.

And imo it depends on how you view gaming. If gaming is defined by hardware to you, then it is a portable with docking capability. If gaming is defined by software to you, then it is a home console with portable capability.

It is a tablet. That's just a fact, and functionally the same as the Vita, which could also hook up to a TV. (although, the Switch gives a much smoother TV experience)

However, the strength of the Switch is that it is taking the main console software line from Nintendo, and gives the main console experience on the go. The Vita had rough approximations of the main console experience, but it wasn't the real thing.

Avatar image for GunSmith1_basic
GunSmith1_basic

10548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

32

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#7 GunSmith1_basic
Member since 2002 • 10548 Posts

Nintendo's pricing has always been high, and they also don't let their games fall to bargain prices very often. It is frustrating. I love Nintendo gaming, but it's just a small part of the complete picture, and I vastly prefer how Sony and MS do things in terms of how games are priced at new, and the way they have a progression towards the bargain bin over time.

Avatar image for GunSmith1_basic
GunSmith1_basic

10548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

32

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#8  Edited By GunSmith1_basic
Member since 2002 • 10548 Posts

@storm_of_swords:

there is a limit to how much you can "cheap-ify" the Switch. You could tank the resolution, and even the frame rate, but the system would still have to run every Switch game smoothly. Also, making the system smaller will add cost to the system. All added, there wouldn't be all that much cost savings you could get for a version of the Switch that is portable-only. Hooking the Switch to a TV is not what piles on the costs. It's not like the 2DS situation

Also, I don't think Nintendo ever had a problem where they were spread thin by having to develop for two systems simultaneously. Nintendo's game devs can be as big or small as the market allows them to be. Developing a game for the DS didn't 'steal' game development for the GC or Wii. The 3DS didn't steal from the WiiU or Switch. The end result of Nintendo eliminating the handheld division and focusing everything on the Switch would be that they would make less games total considering that the scope of the market they are aiming at would be that much smaller.

Besides, with Nintendo's handhelds being successful, and with the Switch being a success, both systems will get plenty of 3rd party support. Being spread thin isn't much of an issue.

Avatar image for GunSmith1_basic
GunSmith1_basic

10548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

32

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#9  Edited By GunSmith1_basic
Member since 2002 • 10548 Posts

@storm_of_swords: The 3DS should be discontinued in a year or two, but for a new handheld, not just moving towards the Switch. The Switch is not in the same market space as the handhelds. The main issue is cost.

@Coolyfett: A stripped down 2DS approach to the Switch would be a good idea but the costs would still be too high. Even with the lower hardware costs (that would still not be low enough), that still wouldn't address the different software expectations. Right now Nintendo has their handheld section separated from the rest. Their handheld games are cheaper and simpler. It fits with the cheaper and simpler hardware of the 3DS. Nintendo knows that they can't merge their two fundamentally different gaming divisions without risking their market reach.

I have little doubt that the 3DS will have a successor.

This is how I could see it being a good compromise with what people might want:

=make a 3DS successor that is basically a beefed up new 3DS (with no 3D screen). Make that system cheaply, and make it backwards compatible with the 3DS.

= make all games for this new system playable on the Switch. The Switch probably won't be able to play 3DS games but if you design the new portable with this Switch connection in mind, it wouldn't be that hard. Maybe, there could even be a way that the Switch could upscale those portable games.

This would create a unique situation, where the software sales would outstrip the hardware sales, but it would preserve the separation while giving extra support to the Switch.

And btw, if your fantasy was to have all current 3DS devs make AAA home console experiences for the Switch, that is just not realistic at all. These devs don't have the resources.

Avatar image for GunSmith1_basic
GunSmith1_basic

10548

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

32

Followers

Reviews: 21

User Lists: 0

#10 GunSmith1_basic
Member since 2002 • 10548 Posts

I get that as a gamer, you might want to say yes. That's if you own a Switch of course. If you're a 3DS gamer without a Switch, you would say no.

But objectively, just as a market decision, Nintendo would be fools to abandon their dedicated handheld division. And yes, I get that many see the Switch as a handheld, but the problem is that it is too high-end as a handheld. It truly is a home console, and Nintendo sees it that way too, and markets it as such. It is a hybrid, but in terms of cost and software strategy it has nothing in common with their handhelds.

The handheld market is more than just about portability. It has cheaper, simpler software and hardware.

Not only that but as a gamer myself, I don't see why the Switch needs it. The Switch is a success. It should have no problem attracting software. There's no need to destroy a whole section of their market just for the sake of the Switch.