The future of major third party Switch games will be mid-budget

[Yoshi178]

As someone who has no need of "gaming on the go" the switch offers literally nothing to me. I don't play the switch on a bus, or on the train, in the back seat, because I drive a car. I'm sure the switch is great if you're a kid and your parents are driving you everywhere and constantly hog the TV, but to me its portability is an absolutely useless feature.

ok. that's YOU though. i thought you guys were talking about the console overall and its place in the market as whole?

just because YOU don't give a shit about portability doesn't mean the other 30+ million people out there don't.

and FYI i see way more adults out on the street/on public transport with a Switch than i do kids. if i see kid playing a videogame in public it's just about always a 3DS of some sort.

In swoops the fanboys with the super effective argument "Nu uh!"

Got nothing to debate my point so you'd rather insult me. How clever of you.

 

[Mad World]

It depends on the game. Being "Worse" isn't really a large statement so long as it still isn't too far off from the other versions, and is perfectly playable in its own right. And because the Switch is mobile, then the whole discussion of the Switch version being "Worse" becomes moot, especially if it isn't THAT much worse. Now if its a legitimately bad port, then yes, portability or not, nobody will really play it on Switch.

Very few games absolutely need 60fps. Sure, Fighting games mandate it, and it's recommended for some games. But a lot of people are fine with 30fps as long as its still smooth. 30 frames vs 60 isn't a problem, but Jerky, inconsistent frame-rates that dip below 25 frames does become an issue. Nobody likes it when a game chugs. Fortunately, most Switch ports have been pretty good at keeping the frame-rate consistent.

Most people don't want to settle for "playable." They want the best possible experience. I mentioned the topic of the Switch's mobility. That's a legitimate point for people who desire to play the Switch's games mobile. However, many people don't care about that (such as myself). So, for those people, there is virtually (if not literally) no reason to get the Switch solely for third-party games. In other words, the Switch's claim to fame is its first-party titles, as well as its portability; however, that's it.

With respect to 60 FPS, many people may not care, but many do care. Again, why settle? If you don't care about portability and the Switch's first-party games, don't purchase the (in this case) objectively inferior console. I primarily game on PC, so it's difficult for me to truly describe just how important a high framerate is.

 

[themistermanguy]

Most people don't want to settle for "playable." They want the best possible experience. I mentioned the topic of the Switch's mobility. That's a legitimate point for people who desire to play the Switch's games mobile. However, many people don't care about that (such as myself). So, for those people, there is virtually (if not literally) no reason to get the Switch solely for third-party games. In other words, the Switch's claim to fame is its first-party titles, as well as its portability; however, that's it.

If that's actually the case, then most people would just buy every game on PC. It's leagues beyond consoles, and even mid-range rigs will give you the best experience. Having the best way to play the games is nice, beneficial even. But most people just want something that does its job well. And especially so, if the trade offs/improvements aren't all that noticeable or important.

And in the case of the Switch, you're getting the best portable versions of many of these games, so you can't even make that argument when it can be used in favor of the Switch as well.

With respect to 60 FPS, many people may not care, but many do care. Again, why settle? If you don't care about portability and the Switch's first-party games, don't purchase the (in this case) objectively inferior console. I primarily game on PC, so it's difficult for me to truly describe just how important a high framerate is.

I get that there are people who are all about that high-frame rate life, sure. My point is that most people generally can deal with 30fps games for the most part, so long as the experience is still smooth and consistent. 60fps is nice, and some games practically require it. But for a lot of games, it's more of a nice bonus than a necessity.

 

[Mad World]

If that's actually the case, then most people would just buy every game on PC. It's leagues beyond consoles, and even mid-range rigs will give you the best experience. Having the best way to play the games is nice, beneficial even. But most people just want something that does its job well. And especially so, if the trade offs/improvements aren't all that noticeable or important.

And in the case of the Switch, you're getting the best portable versions of many of these games, so you can't even make that argument when it can be used in favor of the Switch as well.

I get that there are people who are all about that high-frame rate life, sure. My point is that most people generally can deal with 30fps games for the most part, so long as the experience is still smooth and consistent. 60fps is nice, and some games practically require it. But for a lot of games, it's more of a nice bonus than a necessity.

Comparing console to PC is a bit different, as a lot of people are (whether or not it's true) turned off by the seemingly higher entry price of PC gaming. Additionally, setting up a PC (even if the PC itself is pre-made) may intimidate some people. However, it's much easier (and true) to claim that if you don't care about portability and Switch first-party titles, you're better off with an Xbox One or PlayStation 4. After all, the price and setup are virtually identical. May as well get the one that is better for what you want.

And my point is that many can't deal with 30. So, go for the Switch. Even if you're fine with 30 - if you don't care about the first-party titles or playing portable - you may as well get the superior system. Also, I would very confidently state that many people - who don't think that they need more than 30 would - would soon change their minds if they got used to gaming at 60 FPS for a while. It would be hard to go back.

 

[gyrobot_v1legacy]

The only thing that isnt downgraded on the switch so far are the Japanese Games as Sony has decided enoughs wnough and clamped down on sexual content. Omega Labryinth's Console port had to lower the price of the PS4 version because they to cut the sexual content from it.

The question is who will bite for the Switch version

 

[themistermanguy]

Comparing console to PC is a bit different, as a lot of people are (whether or not it's true) turned off by the seemingly higher entry price of PC gaming. Additionally, setting up a PC (even if the PC itself is pre-made) may intimidate some people. However, it's much easier (and true) to claim that if you don't care about portability and Switch first-party titles, you're better off with an Xbox One or PlayStation 4. After all, the price and setup is virtually identical. May as well get the one that is better for what you want.

You could make the same argument for the Switch. Consoles typically require a ton of investment and time to sink into a good game. There's an audience of people who want to play console games, but don't really have the time to park in front of a TV for hours on end all the time. The Switch fills that niche by allowing you play console style games, with the pick-up-and-play nature of a mobile title. And like I said, it's currently the best way to play these games portably, so them being worse than the other versions doesn't mean much of anything if you're looking for mobility, if at all.

And my point is that many can't deal with 30. So, go for the Switch. Even if you're fine with 30 - if you don't care about the first-party titles or playing portable - you may as well get the superior system.

And my point is that the majority of people can deal with 30. Yes, there are many who would rather do 60fps, but they aren't the majority. GoW and Spider-Man are 30fps, and those games broke sales records last year. Point is, while 60fps is nice, isn't not a necessity in a lot of games for most people.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

by the time PS5 and NeXtbox come out the Switch will be almost 4 years old.

by then Nintendo will probably be almost ready with their own next gen system.

Lol, so a $300 device only lasts 4 years in Nintendo's world? And next-gen for Nintendo will be how many gens behind current-gen next time?

As someone who has no need of "gaming on the go" the switch offers literally nothing to me. I don't play the switch on a bus, or on the train, in the back seat, because I drive a car. I'm sure the switch is great if you're a kid and your parents are driving you everywhere and constantly hog the TV, but to me its portability is an absolutely useless feature.

ok. that's YOU though. i thought you guys were talking about the console overall and its place in the market as whole?

just because YOU don't give a shit about portability doesn't mean the other 30+ million people out there don't.

and FYI i see way more adults out on the street/on public transport with a Switch than i do kids. if i see kid playing a videogame in public it's just about always a 3DS of some sort.

Well, you do think Nintendo is in the same market as Sony and Microsoft... [https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.1056597-Will-the-Switch-ever-get-a-Direct-competitor#24288568]

And I see 100x more people playing games on-the-go on their phones than I do on a Switch, not to mention phones got much much better games than the Switch.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

Yes, but not being able to hit 60 fps and having a worse resolution makes it a worse port. If your only defense is "sure the ports are worse but not THAT much worse" then you don't actually have a counter argument to the ports being worse.

Sure, but you seemed to be acting like Switch versions are unplayable, when they're not. They're downgraded sure, some more than others, but they're still perfectly fine in their own right. It's mostly the AAA games that get the most cuts, a lot of the less demanding titles only take modest hits to things like foliage and resolution.

As someone who has no need of "gaming on the go" the switch offers literally nothing to me. I don't play the switch on a bus, or on the train, in the back seat, because I drive a car. I'm sure the switch is great if you're a kid and your parents are driving you everywhere and constantly hog the TV, but to me its portability is an absolutely useless feature. I'd much rather play my games on my TV than on a handheld. Hell, I own a 2DS and I've probably played it for a total of like 10 hours because I don't play handhelds at home, and I don't have time to play them on the go.

Okay, that isn't the same as the Switch being a legitimately bad console though. It just means it isn't for you.

I didn't say that the Switch versions of those games are unplayable. I didn't even say they were terrible, or even bad. What I said was that the Switch versions of those games are the worst versions of those games, and there's no way to argue around that fact. Lowering the resolution, draw distance, and the framerate to make the games work on less powerful hardware makes those games worse than their counterparts on other consoles or on the PC. That doesn't make them unplayable, but the person playing the Switch version of Witcher 3 is getting an objectively worse version of the game.

As far as a console goes, the Switch is a bad console. It's the weakest of the consoles, has the lowest frame rate, has the worst online features, and the worst default controller (you can buy the pro controller to use instead of the joycons but that's extra money you need to spend).

I also don't think that it's very good as a handheld. It's too bulky to put in a pocket so you always have to carry it in a backpack, and it doesn't have a very good battery life so you can't play it for that long. A friend brought his to the airport when we were flying to Japan and ran out of battery before we even boarded.

Of course the switch isn't just a console or just a handheld, it's both, and for a lot of people the fact that it's both completely makes up for the fact that it's mediocre at each of its individual functions. It's more than the sum of it's parts.

For me though, and many others it isn't. When I look at the Switch and its games what I see is lost potential because of concessions that had to be made for it to work as a handheld. Breath of the Wild is a fantastic game, but when I look at it, and compare it to the reveal trailer, I really want the version of the game that was in the reveal trailer.

 

[Mad World]

You could make the same argument for the Switch. Consoles typically require a ton of investment and time to sink into a good game. There's an audience of people who want to play console games, but don't really have the time to park in front of a TV for hours on end all the time. The Switch fills that niche by allowing you play console style games, with the pick-up-and-play nature of a mobile title. And like I said, it's currently the best way to play these games portably, so them being worse than the other versions doesn't mean much of anything if you're looking for mobility, if at all.

And my point is that the majority of people can deal with 30. Yes, there are many who would rather do 60fps, but they aren't the majority. GoW and Spider-Man are 30fps, and those games broke sales records last year. Point is, while 60fps is nice, isn't not a necessity in a lot of games for most people.

You're missing my point. I'm talking about people who don't want mobility. (I've mentioned this so many times.) Lots of people (who don't care about mobility) want the best console experience on their T.V. Lots of those people also don't care about first-party Nintendo titles. Therefore, it makes no sense for them to purchase a Switch.

Same argument for 60 FPS. May as well get the console that allows for it more often. Switch is priced similarly (maybe even more) to the Xbox One and PlayStation. If you don't care about mobility or the exclusive titles, you get less for your money with a Switch. That's a fact.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

ok. that's YOU though. i thought you guys were talking about the console overall and its place in the market as whole?

just because YOU don't give a shit about portability doesn't mean the other 30+ million people out there don't.

and FYI i see way more adults out on the street/on public transport with a Switch than i do kids. if i see kid playing a videogame in public it's just about always a 3DS of some sort.

You know how it is, the standard gaming mantra of "This is does cater exclusively to me, me, me so it is bad!" When you get down to it, most of these games are not somehow magically crippled by the Switch. The Witcher is not some kind of twitch-reflex game despite the real-time combat, it's a game about the exploration, the story, characters, intriguing world. It's times like this where I am glad Nintendo has ignored all the joyless tech porn fetishism rampant in the gaming community.

 

[Mad World]

You know how it is, the standard gaming mantra of "This is does cater exclusively to me, me, me so it is bad!" When you get down to it, most of these games are not somehow magically crippled by the Switch. The Witcher is not some kind of twitch-reflex game despite the real-time combat, it's a game about the exploration, the story, characters, intriguing world. It's times like this where I am glad Nintendo has ignored all the joyless tech porn fetishism rampant in the gaming community.

Except that the person being quoted by Yoshi never stated anything close to this supposed mantra. He made it very clear that it was his personal opinion. Whether or not you consider that relevant to the topic is a different matter.

With respect to the Witcher 3, like others have said - if you don't care about being able to play it portable - it's literally the worst version of the game. That's a fair point. I don't think that they're intentionally disrespecting Nintendo or their work; they're making an interesting observation. It's an observation that could allow people to assist others in making an informed console purchase that's relevant to what they want.

 

[Aiddon_v1legacy]

Except that the person being quoted by Yoshi never stated anything close to this supposed mantra. He made it very clear that it was his personal opinion. Whether or not you consider that relevant to the topic is a different matter.

With respect to the Witcher 3, like others have said - if you don't care about being able to play it portable - it's literally the worst version of the game. That's a fair point. I don't think that they're intentionally disrespecting Nintendo or their work; they're making an interesting observation. It's an observation that could allow people to assist others in making an informed console purchase that's relevant to what they want.

funny how people only bring up "opinion" when their arguments become inconvenient.

 

[themistermanguy]

I didn't say that the Switch versions of those games are unplayable. I didn't even say they were terrible, or even bad. What I said was that the Switch versions of those games are the worst versions of those games, and there's no way to argue around that fact. Lowering the resolution, draw distance, and the framerate to make the games work on less powerful hardware makes those games worse than their counterparts on other consoles or on the PC. That doesn't make them unplayable, but the person playing the Switch version of Witcher 3 is getting an objectively worse version of the game.

Okay, but my point is that saying they're the "worst" version isn't saying a whole lot when these are still good versions that you can take with you. And if the game isn't THAT much worse than the other versions, then it becomes a non-issue.

As far as a console goes, the Switch is a bad console. It's the weakest of the consoles, has the lowest frame rate, has the worst online features, and the worst default controller (you can buy the pro controller to use instead of the joycons but that's extra money you need to spend).

There are flaws with the Switch as you mentioned like Online. But you're really not doing a good job proving that its a bad console. Weakest of the consoles? Well golly gee mister, I didn't know that a 6 in. tablet could possibly be less powerful than a stationary at-home gaming console. Joy-Con? Yeah, they're not the most ideal console controllers, but they're pretty good for a default controller. In other words, what exactly is your point? It's got flaws and has limitations inherent of a mobile device. But how does that equal bad console?

I also don't think that it's very good as a handheld. It's too bulky to put in a pocket so you always have to carry it in a backpack, and it doesn't have a very good battery life so you can't play it for that long. A friend brought his to the airport when we were flying to Japan and ran out of battery before we even boarded.

A.) The Switch is larger than your phone, sure, but it's really not that big. If you have a small messenger bag large enough pocket, you can carry it no problem. It's no bigger than a small tablet really. If you can carry those around, you can carry a Switch.

B.) Either he was playing a very intensive game, or he forgot to make sure its fully charged. Either way, it's not necessarily the Switch's fault, mobile battery tech isn't that great in general.

Of course the switch isn't just a console or just a handheld, it's both, and for a lot of people the fact that it's both completely makes up for the fact that it's mediocre at each of its individual functions. It's more than the sum of it's parts.

For me though, and many others it isn't. When I look at the Switch and its games what I see is lost potential because of concessions that had to be made for it to work as a handheld. Breath of the Wild is a fantastic game, but when I look at it, and compare it to the reveal trailer, I really want the version of the game that was in the reveal trailer.

You want a more powerful system, that's understandable. But how is it Nintendo's fault that the Switch is surprise surprise, bound by its limits as a mobile device? There's no current chip out there that could even deliver equal PS4 power, let alone PS5 power. Nintendo chose to make a mobile device with a dock, so they had to go with a chip that could deliver the best performance possible in a mobile device. It's not like they cut corners on power, they really didn't have any more powerful options readily available to them at the time other than Tegra X1.

Yes, being a hybrid means the Switch has to make compromises to accommodate for both handheld and console play. But the fact is, it does the best damn job at doing what it can within its inherent restrictions, and that's what matters to people.

You're missing my point. I'm talking about people who don't want mobility. (I've mentioned this so many times.) Lots of people (who don't care about mobility) want the best console experience on their T.V. Lots of those people also don't care about first-party Nintendo titles. Therefore, it makes no sense for them to purchase a Switch.

Same argument for 60 FPS. May as well get the console that allows for it more often. Switch is priced similarly (maybe even more) to the Xbox One and PlayStation. If you don't care about mobility or the exclusive titles, you get less for your money with a Switch. That's a fact.

I get what you're saying, the Switch version is the worst by default because its on weaker hardware. I get that. My point is that, unless you don't play games away from home, it's not really a big deal, in fact in many cases its a non-issue. Yeah, The Witcher III on Switch would technically be the worst way to play the game. But so long as its the best way to play it on the go, and is still a good port on its own, then that point is moot.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I didn't say that the Switch versions of those games are unplayable. I didn't even say they were terrible, or even bad. What I said was that the Switch versions of those games are the worst versions of those games, and there's no way to argue around that fact. Lowering the resolution, draw distance, and the framerate to make the games work on less powerful hardware makes those games worse than their counterparts on other consoles or on the PC. That doesn't make them unplayable, but the person playing the Switch version of Witcher 3 is getting an objectively worse version of the game.

Okay, but my point is that saying they're the "worst" version isn't saying a whole lot when these are still good versions that you can take with you. And if the game isn't THAT much worse than the other versions, then it becomes a non-issue.

As far as a console goes, the Switch is a bad console. It's the weakest of the consoles, has the lowest frame rate, has the worst online features, and the worst default controller (you can buy the pro controller to use instead of the joycons but that's extra money you need to spend).

There are flaws with the Switch as you mentioned like Online. But you're really not doing a good job proving that its a bad console. Weakest of the consoles? Well golly gee mister, I didn't know that a 6 in. tablet could possibly be less powerful than a stationary at-home gaming console. Joy-Con? Yeah, they're not the most ideal console controllers, but they're pretty good for a default controller. In other words, what exactly is your point? It's got flaws and has limitations inherent of a mobile device. But how does that equal bad console?

I also don't think that it's very good as a handheld. It's too bulky to put in a pocket so you always have to carry it in a backpack, and it doesn't have a very good battery life so you can't play it for that long. A friend brought his to the airport when we were flying to Japan and ran out of battery before we even boarded.

A.) The Switch is larger than your phone, sure, but it's really not that big. If you have a small messenger bag large enough pocket, you can carry it no problem. It's no bigger than a small tablet really. If you can carry those around, you can carry a Switch.

B.) Either he was playing a very intensive game, or he forgot to make sure its fully charged. Either way, it's not necessarily the Switch's fault, mobile battery tech isn't that great in general.

Of course the switch isn't just a console or just a handheld, it's both, and for a lot of people the fact that it's both completely makes up for the fact that it's mediocre at each of its individual functions. It's more than the sum of it's parts.

For me though, and many others it isn't. When I look at the Switch and its games what I see is lost potential because of concessions that had to be made for it to work as a handheld. Breath of the Wild is a fantastic game, but when I look at it, and compare it to the reveal trailer, I really want the version of the game that was in the reveal trailer.

You want a more powerful system, that's understandable. But how is it Nintendo's fault that the Switch is surprise surprise, bound by its limits as a mobile device? There's no current chip out there that could even deliver equal PS4 power, let alone PS5 power. Nintendo chose to make a mobile device with a dock, so they had to go with a chip that could deliver the best performance possible in a mobile device. It's not like they cut corners on power, they really didn't have any more powerful options readily available to them at the time other than Tegra X1.

Yes, being a hybrid means the Switch has to make compromises to accommodate for both handheld and console play. But the fact is, it does the best damn job at doing what it can within its inherent restrictions, and that's what matters to people.

It's the best hybrid console by virtue of being the only hybrid console, but if you don't care for the hybrid features then it's by far the worst console. It's really that simple, and I can absolutely say that it's nintendo's fault for making a hybrid console instead of a console and therefore not living up to the potential presented in their earlier trailers.

Let's put it this way:

The Ford Pinto is the best car/plane hybrid

But the ford pinto is still a terrible car.

 

[themistermanguy]

It's the best hybrid console by virtue of being the only hybrid console, but if you don't care for the hybrid features then it's by far the worst console. It's really that simple, and I can absolutely say that it's nintendo's fault for making a hybrid console instead of a console and therefore not living up to the potential presented in their earlier trailers.

Even if Nintendo did make a normal console, there's still no way BotW would've looked like that teaser because it still needed to be playable on the Wii U. That teaser wasn't even meant to be a representation of actual gameplay either, it was just a proof-of-concept meant to give people a look at what the new Zelda will be like.

Besides, What choice did Nintendo have? They're not going to compete directly with Sony or Microsoft because that's too expensive and just isn't their style, they were already struggling to keep up two platforms at once, especially with the handheld system becoming more and more like a console, and the mobile market was eating their lunch. They needed to do something to make a comeback. And they settled on the best possible concept they could've come up with.

 

[themistermanguy]

Let's put it this way:

The Ford Pinto is the best car/plane hybrid

But the ford pinto is still a terrible car.

Except the Switch does a decent job at being an actual home console as well. Yes, not every game is well suited to playing it docked, mainly if you own a PS4, and could play a technically better version of a major title on there if you wan to use the TV. But it still works well as a home console, even if you own others as many of its games also feel at home on the TV.

 

[BrawlMan]

To the people complaining about the Switch, you have points, though some of the arguments you are either exaggerating or just straight negative for the sake of it. The Switch is great if you're in to the retro, indie, or niche Japanese games. It's why I have a PS4 and Switch. For the all the supposed power Microsoft boasts about the XBONE, they either lack most of the type of games I like, struggle to run certain games unless you have the upgraded consoles (which you can get better on PC and PS4 some of the time), lack exclusive variety (variety in general), and the console just plain bores me. That does not excuse the Switch's problems either: crappy online, no real cloud saves, and not that good rewards for having the 1 year membership (this hurts when online use to be free). The Switch is great for niche games, and that is why I play mine. I don't take my Switch outside unless I am bringing over to a friend or my brothers to play co-op (which Nintendo is still the king of having couch multiplayer). The portable mode is useful when I am at home, and I want to do something on my PS4 while playing in handheld mode. Like Yoshi said, "you" may not like nor care about undocked mode or the library, but you don't represent over 30 million plus people, so I suggest y'all get over yourselves and stop fussing an unnecessary storm.

 

[Yoshi178]

by the time PS5 and NeXtbox come out the Switch will be almost 4 years old.

by then Nintendo will probably be almost ready with their own next gen system.

Lol, so a $300 device only lasts 4 years in Nintendo's world? And next-gen for Nintendo will be how many gens behind current-gen next time?

1. i never said the next Nintendo console will definitely come out exactly 4 years after release
2. the average videogame console usually only stays on the market for 5-6 years before the next one comes out. the PS4 has been on the market for an extensive amount of time and more than likely due to it's high sales numbers.
3. why the fuck do you care if Nintendo DOES even end up releasing their next system after only 4 years? you're the one that wants a more powerful Nintendo machine sooner rather than later. crying about a short shelf life is just contradicting yourself.

As someone who has no need of "gaming on the go" the switch offers literally nothing to me. I don't play the switch on a bus, or on the train, in the back seat, because I drive a car. I'm sure the switch is great if you're a kid and your parents are driving you everywhere and constantly hog the TV, but to me its portability is an absolutely useless feature.

ok. that's YOU though. i thought you guys were talking about the console overall and its place in the market as whole?

just because YOU don't give a shit about portability doesn't mean the other 30+ million people out there don't.

and FYI i see way more adults out on the street/on public transport with a Switch than i do kids. if i see kid playing a videogame in public it's just about always a 3DS of some sort.

Well, you do think Nintendo is in the same market as Sony and Microsoft... [https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.1056597-Will-the-Switch-ever-get-a-Direct-competitor#24288568]

not really. Nintendo doesn't make TV's or phones like Sony does and it doesn't make PC's and Laptop's like Microsoft does.

it does make videogaming consoles like Sony and MS do though.

And I see 100x more people playing games on-the-go on their phones than I do on a Switch, not to mention phones got much much better games than the Switch.

ok? there are also a fuckload more people using mobile phones than there are people using PS4's or Xbox Ones.
what's your point?
:3

 

[Mad World]

funny how people only bring up "opinion" when their arguments become inconvenient.

I don't know what his intentions were; I'm not psychic. I'm just saying that he was not passing off his opinion as fact. He made that quite clear.

Yeah, The Witcher III on Switch would technically be the worst way to play the game. But so long as its the best way to play it on the go, and is still a good port on its own, then that point is moot.

Yes - if you care about playing on the go. Again, I'm referring to people who don't. Those people - if they also don't care about Nintendo's first-party titles - shouldn't buy the Switch.

 

[Yoshi178]

Yeah, The Witcher III on Switch would technically be the worst way to play the game. But so long as its the best way to play it on the go, and is still a good port on its own, then that point is moot.

Yes - if you care about playing on the go. Again, I'm referring to people who don't. Those people - if they also don't care about Nintendo's first-party titles - shouldn't buy the Switch.

the people who don't care about playing on the go should play on the PC Master Race if all they care about is graphics

why would you waste your money on a console with shitty graphics like a PS4 or an Xbox One when everyone knows that PC literally always has the best graphics?

god guys!