Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nintendo Switch

nintendo.co.jp

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

401–410 of 431 posts

Re: Nintendo Switch

#401

Post by Mithaldu »

Mindless2112 wrote: post #396
Mithaldu wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> battery life: potentially only 2.5 hours? Really not good enough for a handheld. Whoah, can you source that? If that number is even remotely true the thing is completely useless as a handheld due to requiring 2-3 extra batteries for any longish trip.

The battery is not user-replaceable [1]. Having USB-C charging means that do you have a variety of external batteries to choose from though. [1] https://www.engadget.com/2016/12/27/you-wont-be-able-to-upgr...

Well yeah, that's the implicit default assumption in the current hardware climate. :)

Re: Nintendo Switch

#402

Post by iagooar »

Aaargh20318 wrote: post #349
iagooar wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which both games? There will be plenty of games coming out. And if not, Skyrim is pretty much a game you can play forever (and people, including me, still do).

Zelda and "1 2 Switch" are the only real launch titles, there's some filler crap to be sure but no one cares. Skyrim is not a launch title.

Well, in April Mario Kart 8 Deluxe is coming out. Enough to keep me busy for months.

You just can't make some people happy, they seem to be in an ever-negative spiral...

Re: Nintendo Switch

#403

Post by blakeyrat »

masklinn wrote: post #182
fsloth wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As years go by the less I'm convinced that the platform with the fastest hardware is the best. With consoles, on the technical front, I want constant fluid framerates and predictability. For instance, I fail to see how PS4 Witcher 3 could be better than Witcher 3 on XBox one by any standard I care about when gaming (and I'm a professional graphics programmer). That said, yes, it seems Sony is winning this generation…

> As years go by the less I'm convinced that the platform with the fastest hardware is the best. It's never been the case. The GC was the most powerful console of its generation, the PS2 was by far the least powerful one (with the possible exception of the Dreamcast, not quite sure where that one was).

> The GC was the most powerful console of its generation,

That's not true. The Xbox was far more powerful CPU/GPU-wise, and had far more storage (the 8 GB HD was pretty amazing) so games could install themselves to HD and use virtual memory to increase their performance.

Re: Nintendo Switch

#404

Post by eridius »

TillE wrote: post #308
throwaway1892 wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Typically the best games on the whole platform. Also perhaps the only worthwhiles games on Nintendo's consoles.

The 3DS has some excellent third party exclusive games, mainly RPGs. I really can't think of anything comparable on the Wii or Wii U that I feel I'm missing out on, except for the first party titles.

A lot of people consider Bayonetta 2 to be a console-seller (though personally, I've only tried it for a few minutes and the intro to that game is super confusing). There's also some other great games that, while aren't exclusive, do have unique features on Wii U (e.g. leveraging the gamepad), such as Rayman Legends. As for RPGs, there's Xenoblade Chronicles X.

Re: Nintendo Switch

#405

Post by blakeyrat »

mustacheemperor wrote: post #316
inDigiNeous wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh man, games like F-Zero GX, you just don't get this stuff on Sony or Microsoft consoles. Also Metroid Prime, Super Smash Bros Melee! Stuff of legends. 4 player support on the same couch? Damn. Gamecube might have been the best console from Nintendo in my view.

>you just don't get this stuff on Sony or Microsoft consoles. Well, now you don't really get it on Nintendo consoles either. Out of the series you named only one has had a remotely recent installment, and the metroid IP had only been used for taking down fan projects since Other M. That's why, as of now at least, there's no way I'm buying one of these. I can play all the best games from Nintendo's library in Dolphin,…

> on the same PC I run Skyrim on. I don't really see how that game is still supposed to be a selling point.

It seems embarrassing for Nintendo:

"We finally have the game you've been playing on every other console for literally 6 years!"

But it's a huge boost for Bethesda:

"Skyrim's so goddamned popular that Nintendo approached us about putting it on their new console 6 years after it came out!"

Re: Nintendo Switch

#406

Post by gshulegaard »

kdamken wrote: post #327
Raphmedia wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you really need more than 2.5 hours of battery power? I can imagine myself playing on the dock in the morning, taking the train and using the battery for 1 hour, working/school, taking the train with the battery for 1 more hour and then dock it back on.

Um, yes? 2.5 hours is terrible. Besides a daily commute, many flights are more than 1 hour. Also, it'd be nice to not have my device die immediately if I forgot to charge it three times a day.

To be fair, USB-C connector may allow you to charge it in use from an external battery pack.

Besides, this seems fairly on par with other portable gaming devices currently.

Re: Nintendo Switch

#407

Post by eridius »

blakeyrat wrote: post #393
eridius wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> rehashing the same game titles over and over again (the Switch is getting a Zelda title and a Mario title? What a shocker!) You say that like this is a bad thing. Nintendo isn't just making the same games over and over again. Every new Mario game, and every new Zelda game, brings something new to the genre. For example, Super Mario Galaxy was a very innovative and award-winning game that had a very unique and well-…

> You say that like this is a bad thing. Probably because I believe it is a bad thing. > Nintendo isn't just making the same games over and over again. Let's say I haven't owned a Nintendo console in a long time (which is true-- the last one I bought was a GameCube, which was a piece of crap so I sold it to my step-sister), how would I be able to tell that 2017's Mario is any different than 2014's Mario is any differ…

They're not remakes. There's a difference between using the same characters in brand new games, and remaking old games. Your entire comment reads as though you consider them to be literal remakes, and that's completely wrong. People aren't also just buying them for nostalgia. After all, they're new games, it's hard to be nostalgic about new stuff. People are buying them because they're really really fun. And you'll note that kids, who definitely don't have nostalgia for the old games, also consider them to be really really fun, so it's really not just because people liked the previous games.

Re: Nintendo Switch

#408

Post by __david__ »

abdulmuhaimin wrote: post #232
__david__ wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The innovations they've been doing lately have mostly had diminishing returns. Super Mario Galaxy, for example, was an alright game, but it was nowhere near as innovative as Super Mario 64 was. I don't even remember if I finished it or not, but I remember that SM64 Bowser boss fight to this day. I don't know if anyone ever argues that Nintento's first party games aren't the best games on their consoles. It just for m…

this one certainly doesnt need to occupy your HDMI slot.

To play it on my nice TV it does.

Re: Nintendo Switch

#409

Post by gshulegaard »

agd wrote: post #231
ericzawo wrote: post #42

That[1] was masterful marketing of an upcoming videogame console on all fronts. From the beginning it emphasises mobility with a (hopefully good!) smartphone app to manage online/local wifi matches, as well as multiple levels of play while on the go. It's reasonably priced (matches current generation in total at the register) and has an incredibly diverse range of titles to be excited about this calendar year. It man…

'Nintendo absolutely killed it' I'm afraid I have to disagree. Here's why: - price: much more expensive than most people were expecting (£280 vs for example, £200 for a PS4 with a game) - battery life: potentially only 2.5 hours? Really not good enough for a handheld. - storage: only 32gb, will run out very quickly - online offering weak vs ps4/xbox as only NES/SNES games and you only get them for a month - very few…

Funny, I thought the price was really cheap, I was more worried about the relatively high prices on accessories.

Battery life is on par with portable gaming devices currently so I am not sure if your expectations are a bit unrealistic. That said, it's 2.5 - 6 hours depending on the game. Something like Pokemon on the go might be a lot longer than 2.5 hours for something like Legend of Zelda.

Storage is probably ok. First, it's a cartridge based system so I don't expect game installs to take as much space as something like the PS4. Moreover, as others have pointed out, you can expand it by adding an SD card fairly cheaply...which is more than can be said for most consoles currently.

Online offering is pretty weak and I am disappointed that the industry has now made it "normal" for users to pay for online play in the console world...but oh well. On the other hand, local multiplayer and up to 8 device LANs is awesome!

Titles at launch are limited...but to be honest Zelda at launch will probably be enough to carry them through.

Regarding your killers, consider that the Switch has a USB-C connector so it may be possible to charge it on the go with a portable battery (perhaps even during use). That is huge when compared against the limitations of most gaming laptops (I am not familiar with other gaming portables though). Price is price, but I would focus more on the accessory costs than the console cost itself.

Re: Nintendo Switch

#410

Post by theandrewbailey »

jerf wrote: post #320
martin_bech wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel the exact same way.. Its basicly a Nintendo 2DS XXXL, with awful battery, a stand HDMI, and next to no games. And its pretty much priced as a PS4 PRO, with 1 tb storage. The games are on cartridges.. what year is this?

"The games are on cartridges.. what year is this?" Assuming you are referencing optical media: A year in which optical media is actually having a hard time keeping up with cartridges in capacity and size and gets blown away on random read speed. (Possibly raw read speed too, depending on the specs.) In the PS1/PS2 era, the optical media advantage in size and price per MB was clear. In the PS3 era it was possibly less…

> Plus as I understand it, very few games even now fill a DVD, let alone fill a Bluray.

On average, yes, but that's because "indie" and mobile games are quite small. An average big budget Activision/EA/Ubisoft game has been Bluray sized for years.

http://www.game-debate.com/news/14795/average-game-download-...

Post reply on HN