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

Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 380 posts

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#241

Post by mbel »

JoshTriplett wrote: post #234
mbel wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3DS has a browser and a built-in reliable controller. I haven't heard about any HTML game for 3DS.

The 3DS used a relatively deficient browser engine, with much less support for web standards; it didn't support anything a non-trivial game might need. A browser based on current WebKit or Blink, with full hardware-accelerated support for WebGL, a fast JavaScript JIT, WebAssembly, fullscreen, joysticks, and other such standards would make a compelling platform.

Well, the point stands: browser and integrated pad is not enough for third party browser games to emerge. Nintendo would also have to provide relevant APIs, some of which aren't commonly used by regular websites (e.g. WebGL).

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#242

Post by braveo »

muro wrote: post #150
TYPE_FASTER wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly don't really care about a browser or NetFlix, because I've never used NetFlix with our Wii U. The two things that have disappointed me about the Wii U have been: * Lack of games * Reliability Reliability especially...the drive has pretty much stopped reading any discs, even when there aren't any scratches. The console randomly stops with a fatal error. I don't really want to pay to get it fixed, since new…

I can't tell whether it's scratched disks or broken drive. So happy Nintendo went with cards for the Switch.

Me too, but mostly for the lack of load times. I remember the move TO optical and I've hated load times ever since.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#243

Post by braveo »

SimeVidas wrote: post #74
treehau5 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well if you weren't sold on waiting for the next release, you should be now. I was super excited about getting one of these, but now I will probably hold out for the Switch "S". At the very minimum, wait to see if the buggy left joy cons are being shipped with this initial batch.

Not all of us can delay playing Zelda in 900p@30fps for that long. I mean, if I don’t get it on Friday, I will be pissed. Also, note that there’s the Pro controller, which is better for playing on the TV anyway, so at least in that case, this is a non-issue.

I thought it was going to be 60fps on the Switch, did that change?

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#244

Post by [deleted] »

Chardok wrote: post #184
danso wrote: post #101

As a late Wii U owner, I'm willing to wait until the Switch proves to be a success. The horror stories of the Wii U's launch, combined with lackluster support and signs that Nintendo didn't know how to adapt to the Internet age haven't exactly been mitigated by what we know of the Switch so far: no web browser, no Virtual Console nor movie services like Netflix at launch. Everything smells rushed...in the meantime, I…

I agree with your points and wanted to add some more as to why I am wary in looking in a new Nintendo console. 1. Wii and the Wii U especially never truly lived up to their potentials. They release small minigames (Nintendo Wolrd is a good example) that were amazingly fun and utilized the dual screens, but then developers almost completely forgot about what differentiated the consoles and it became merely inconvenien…

[deleted]

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#245

Post by M_Grey »

MAGZine wrote: post #131
M_Grey wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a bit of a darker side as well. The Wii was so unbelievably successful, and profitable that it seems to have created a kind of corporate-level of addiction, and subsequent profit-seeking behavior. The Wii was underpowered, quirky, but just happened to hit all of the notes that a ton of people who hadn't played games before (and would later move on to playing on phones and tablets) were looking for. Mo…

Nintendo has a history of doing quirky things, in an effort to differentiate themselves. They've always been innovative. - Directional Pad (NES) - Shoulder buttons on controller (SNES) - third handle on a controller and controllers with expansion slots (N64) - portable gaming systems (starting with gameboy, which didn't even have a backlit screen) - subsequent iterations that included: folding designs (SP), Touch scr…

You can really divide that list into two distinct eras:

Era 1: Nintendo is the head of the pack in software and hardware, and not afraid to try new things.

-NES

-Gameboy

-SNES

-Partly N64

-DS

Transitional period: Gamecube. At this point it's pretty clear that Sony is bringing things to the table that Nintendo is struggling to match. It's not a bad console, the GC, and it ends up being almost laughably affordable, but it's the slowpoke of the gen.

Era 2: Wii->Present.

-The Wii, as you say a pretty quirky and novel take on interfaces. This is the period when Nintendo makes a huge part of the fortune they're sitting on today, and expands to a truly staggering userbase. Traditional Nintendo fans (i.e. people who want Mario and other key franchises) are happy, new gamers are happy, people who want one console are not.

-WiiU, frankly stunk. It didn't do what anyone really wanted it to do, it wasn't as inexpensive and cheaply fun as the Wii or GC. The WiiU tried to be the Wii, and a mainstream console, and it wasn't.

-3DS. Not a bad thing, but I'm yet to meet anyone who really gives a shit about the 3D. Another gimmick that gets forced into things, but ultimately the portable brand is full of such incredibly good games that it doesn't matter.

-Modern portable: ... Fantastic. It's hard to argue against Nintendo's mastery of this aspect of gaming. Underpowered, still too focused on gimmicks instead of perfecting the core experience.

-Amiibo... brilliant business move, it's hard to argue against how happy it made some people, but it was also a manipulative money-grab. It was a case of Nintendo understanding how to maximize a fad, but it brought nothing of value to games.

-"Second Screen Experience"... again, it was something you could work with, but it mostly got in the way of developers and ended up being underwhelming.

Nintendo has lost sight of doing something simple, extremely well. The Gameboy was great because it was just a portable gaming machine, and it kept on that way until two screens and 3D gimmicks, and multiple iterations of largely the same handheld started to muck it up.

Hardware has made Nintendo rich, but it's the software that made them great. Mario as a concept and a game was much better than the NES platform and interface. The more Nintendo has made money on hardware, the more their software has suffered.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#246

Post by vlunkr »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #4

The wired review is much more negative, if you want a contrasting view: https://www.wired.com/2017/03/review-nintendo-switch/

I know the author of that is huge Nintendo geek too, so that doesn't bode well for it. Although he does say most of these issues could be ironed out soon.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#247

Post by M_Grey »

pidg wrote: post #170
lotyrin wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, they can readily afford to make these bets though. If Switch turns out not to be another Wii, but rather a WiiU, that's no sweat to them and they can easily figure something else out.

"Nintendo have $10.5 billion in the bank – enough for it to take a $257 million loss every year until 2052." http://nintendotoday.com/nintendo-not-doomed/

Them and Apple... two companies so swaddled in money that they can't even hear their consumers anymore.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#248

Post by braveo »

bartc wrote: post #163
saltvedt wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You forgot the quirkiest thing of all, the Nintendo Power Glove [0] released in 1989. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_Glove

And the NES robot, R.O.B. ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R.O.B .

And Virtual Boy :)

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#249

Post by myko »

Xixi wrote: post #204
Jweb_Guru wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The SNES, N64, and the GameCube were not really behind technologically (they were different from their competitors, but not behind ). The Wii was the first Nintendo console that was clearly just flat out technically inferior to all of its competitors.

I think the GameCube was actually ahead of the PlayStation 2 and behind the XBox in terms of raw power. But it might have had other limitations that I'm unaware of.

I think people mistakenly believe it was less powerful due to its small size and cutesy shape.

Personally I love the GameCube shape but I recall people complaining about it looking like a child's toy.

Re: Nintendo Switch review: pure potential

#250

Post by BinaryIdiot »

PopsiclePete wrote: post #156
VeejayRampay wrote: post #70

If someone can answer that question for me: Why has Nintendo shifted towards producing underpowered consoles? I used to play the Super Nes when I was a kid, and it was the most powerful console of its generation. The N64, the GameCube, the Wii and subsequent offerings were all underpowered in terms of graphical abilities and raw power after that. I hear people say "But the gameplay is what matters", which I agree wit…

Nintendo can't really afford to sell hardware at a loss, for years, just to build-up market share, like Sony/MS can. Sony/MS can just do some Excel accounting magic to hide those losses under the giant umbrella of all their other businesses, but Nintendo - they have to make a profit, period. Also, yes, gameplay is what matters. I have a PS4 Pro/VR combo and I can't say the games are that much more exciting than what…

> Nintendo can't really afford to sell hardware at a loss, for years, just to build-up market share

Not really. It's old but back in 2014 we saw Nintendo could run at a lose for many decades if necessary and still be fine because they were sitting on almost $11 billion in cash [1]. Today I thought I read that it's higher but not sure how to look it up.

> like Sony/MS can. Sony/MS can just do some Excel accounting magic to hide those losses under the giant umbrella of all their other businesses, but Nintendo - they have to make a profit, perio

The PS4 sold for a profit from day one. I'm not sure if the XBox One was similar or not but they're likely making a profit as well.

Selling at a loss isn't as common in the latest generation.

> We're plateauing quickly in terms of graphical fidelity. The PS3 was an easy sell, a huge upgrade over the PS2, but the PS4 - not so much. "It's kinda like the PS3, but crisper!" is how I'd describe it to a non-hard-core gamer.

Problem is you're only thinking in terms of graphical power. The PS4 has easily a better network for online gaming along with a ton of great games. Don't forget about PSVR being a really nice, mid-level entry into the market and is currently the leader as far as all currently released numbers indicate.

Being an easy sell or not is going to depend on the person you're selling to but I wouldn't dismiss the PS4 as just "crisper" than the PS3.

[1] http://nintendotoday.com/nintendo-not-doomed/

Post reply on HN