Nintendo should just make a powerful console.

Why do we give Nintendo a pass for not making a powerful console like Sony and Microsoft? Why do we let them be different for the sake of being different? A triangular wheel is different, but that doesn't make it useful.

If Nintendo wants to get third party support, they need to make a powerful console. It's as simple as that.

And if they're not terribly concerned about third-party support?

Why is this needed? The Switch is one of the most popular consoles on the market.

What are you smoking?

We give them a pass because they're not trying to make the biggest most powerful console, they're looking to do their own thing and leave the epeen measuring to Sony and Microsoft.

VG_Addict:
If Nintendo wants to get third party support, they need to make a powerful console. It's as simple as that.

No they don't. Overwatch just released on the Switch, and it works just fine.

Nintendo's handhelds have always done very well for them and are an essentially uncontested market; Sony tried to compete a couple of times and made a mess of it on both occasions. The Switch is an extremely savvy bit of design which is at the perfect compromise point between something that's small enough for people to carry round while still having enough hardware oomph to look nice when hooked up to a TV. With it, Nintendo don't need to worry about competing with Sony, Microsoft, or the PC market; instead, they can sell Switches to people who already own one of their (non) competitor's machines. I have a PC. I don't need a Playstation or Xbox, and at the moment I can't foresee any circumstances in which I'll go back to playing games on console instead of PC. A Nintendo handheld, though, can do things my PC can't, and while the Switch is a bit out of my price range at present, I will probably pick one up one day.

Au contraire- Nintendo should stop hardware development altogether and focus 100% on making games!

Riddle me that!

VG_Addict:
Why do we give Nintendo a pass for not making a powerful console like Sony and Microsoft? Why do we let them be different for the sake of being different? A triangular wheel is different, but that doesn't make it useful.

If Nintendo wants to get third party support, they need to make a powerful console. It's as simple as that.

Here's the thing. What do they really have to gain by directly competing with the other big two? Nothing. They'll have to spend tons of money, sell the console either at a prohibitive price like the others or take a big loss on each unit sold.

For what? The chance that MAYBE, they might possibly overthrow one of the other two and be the dominant console? Or maybe they'll just fail and not get as many of their games into people's hands as they'd like and the generation will be a "Waste" for them. That's a big gamble to take.

Instead they've focused on their two strengths. Innovation (Ie, doing something wild to get attention, and trying to do that wild thing WELL. Sometimes mixed results like the WiiU, sometimes killer bank like the Switch), and the power of their IPs. They know that as long as their system is reasonably strong, and that they pump out enough quality games, AND that the price is in the ballpark of reasonable, people WILL pick up their console as a secondary option, so they can have that sweet sweet Zelda/Smash/Mario/etc action as well as the "big" games on other consoles.

Nintendo knows the business better than anybody. If they've decided that direct competition isn't the best idea, I'd be inclined to trust them (although they ARE very slow to adapt, for better and for worse).

09philj:
Nintendo's handhelds have always done very well for them and are an essentially uncontested market;

Also this. They're the kings of quality handheld gaming. Leveraging that niche is wise for them, especially with the Switch being a hybrid.

The Switch is an extremely savvy bit of design which is at the perfect compromise point between something that's small enough for people to carry round while still having enough hardware oomph to look nice when hooked up to a TV.

Ah, there it is. Man do I love the system. :P It's such a smart idea.

I have a PC. I don't need a Playstation or Xbox, and at the moment I can't foresee any circumstances in which I'll go back to playing games on console instead of PC. A Nintendo handheld, though, can do things my PC can't

Exactly this.

Most of the big games from other companies come to PC eventually, where I can mod them, or get them on sale, or any number of PC-only perks (up to and including total freedom of controls, I can use the mouse or basically any controller as I please). Nintendo games, however, don't leave Nintendo consoles, outside of illicit means. Also, Having Slay The Spire or Fire Emblem, or Stardew Valley or Smash be playable on the bus is legit awesome. :P

To conclude: The Hare mocked the Tortoise at it's peril. Especially here. Because I've SEEN the Nintendo Tortoise. He's massive, has spikes on his shell, breathes goddamn fire, and even when he goes down, it's never for long. I'm puttin' my money on him in the long run. Seems only prudent.

The Eupho Guy:
We give them a pass because they're not trying to make the biggest most powerful console, they're looking to do their own thing and leave the epeen measuring to Sony and Microsoft.

aegix drakan:
Here's the thing. What do they really have to gain by directly competing with the other big two? Nothing. They'll have to spend tons of money, sell the console either at a prohibitive price like the others or take a big loss on each unit sold.

Sony and Microsoft aren't trying to make the most powerful piece of hardware, they're using cheap AMD mobile chips. All it takes to play games on PC is a $100 Ryzen with integrated graphics. Sure, they're gonna market the specs as "most powerful" but neither are using cutting-edge tech, they just using the most powerful cheap and readily available chipset.

PS4s were profitable at launch. Tech is cheap enough that there's no reason to sell consoles at a loss anymore. Even 1TB SDDs are under $100 and next-gen is going to SSDs.

IceForce:

VG_Addict:
If Nintendo wants to get third party support, they need to make a powerful console. It's as simple as that.

No they don't. Overwatch just released on the Switch, and it works just fine.

What about the 100s of other major releases that aren't?

09philj:
A Nintendo handheld, though, can do things my PC can't, and while the Switch is a bit out of my price range at present, I will probably pick one up one day.

An $80 phone already has a better game library than the Switch + you can use Steam to stream your PC game library to your phone.

Outside of being a Nintendo game "converter", what does the Switch actually do?

VG_Addict:
Why do we give Nintendo a pass for not making a powerful console like Sony and Microsoft? Why do we let them be different for the sake of being different? A triangular wheel is different, but that doesn't make it useful.

If Nintendo wants to get third party support, they need to make a powerful console. It's as simple as that.

They will make a powerful console again when it is cheap enough for them to do it, so roughly 3-4 years after the PS5's launch.

Because.. so many people are.... asking for a powerful console from Nintendo?

I don't really get your issue; People like the Switch, it's selling well, the games on it are generally praised, and I can't say there's a sentiment among the gaming public that these games run like shit because lack of power. Yeah sure, they could always run better, and if the Switch had a.. switch on it that made it 10 times stronger everyone would flip it, but nobody is really craving for Nintendo to finally get buff.

And why would Nintendo even need third-party support now when they're drowning in a ocean of indies? Seriously, being a handheld the Switch is, like, the most insane indie machine right now. I think they're good for third-party support.

I have a better question.

Why does this conversation keep getting brought up?

Edit:

Phoenixmgs:

An $80 phone already has a better game library than the Switch + you can use Steam to stream your PC game library to your phone.

This conversation has been had, as well. A bunch of quick, cheap flips of board and card games to digital doesn't qualify as a gaming library to anybody without a myopic view of videogaming.

SupahEwok:
I have a better question.

Why does this conversation keep getting brought up?

because:

image

image

Nintendo don't compete on hardware power because they don't need to. Their first-party games are the main draw for their consoles, and it's been like that for a long time. As mentioned above, the Switch also has a lot of indie games, and most of the people I know would rather play those than have yet another machine that has the new Call of Duty.

For better or worse, Nintendo's never been one to follow industry trends, and right now, that's for the better.

OT: Because power isn't everything. Design trumps raw power 9 times out of 10, and Nintendo have famously strong in-house design.

They lag behind in third-party support, but even there the Switch has improved hugely on the previous console.

Phoenixmgs:

An $80 phone already has a better game library than the Switch + you can use Steam to stream your PC game library to your phone.

This is hilarious nonsense. The mobile market is a saturated wasteland of hyper-monitized simplistic puzzle games and low-cost, low-effort nonentities. It's a market where the very worst game industry practices are in complete overdrive. It lacks even a tiny fraction of the design that any of the big 3 (or the PC market) have.

And the ability to stream games from Steam, so that I can enjoy them with a shoddy, limited control scheme and a minuscule screen on my phone, is not attractive in the slightest. I've literally never seen anyone do that, ever, whereas I see people play the Switch on train journeys etc.

leet_x1337:
image

Nintendo don't compete on hardware power because they don't need to. Their first-party games are the main draw for their consoles, and it's been like that for a long time. As mentioned above, the Switch also has a lot of indie games, and most of the people I know would rather play those than have yet another machine that has the new Call of Duty.

For better or worse, Nintendo's never been one to follow industry trends, and right now, that's for the better.

Agreed to all. Didn't we do this thread two months ago?

SupahEwok:
I have a better question.

Why does this conversation keep getting brought up?

Edit:

Phoenixmgs:

An $80 phone already has a better game library than the Switch + you can use Steam to stream your PC game library to your phone.

This conversation has been had, as well. A bunch of quick, cheap flips of board and card games to digital doesn't qualify as a gaming library to anybody without a myopic view of videogaming.

TRUTH.

Why? Nintendo's marched to its own drum since the N64. Hasn't always worked, but it's working at this point in time.

I'd much rather Nintendo become a third party developer, but that's another issue.

Hawki:

I'd much rather Nintendo become a third party developer, but that's another issue.

Fuck that shit! I actually like having Nintendo around, despite their own sets of problems. They still make creative and unique games. They don't always hit the mark, but their games are still fun. I still play Donkey Kong tropical freeze. It and Rayman Legends are the best 2D platformers of the 2010s. Besides, that's never going to happen. They messed up with the Wii u, but they have enough money to last them for over 40 years. Because of the success of the Switch, that number has now tripled.

The N64 was actually the most powerful console on the market at the time, just with limited memory compared to disc storage. It also lost the console "race" by a considerable margin.

It was also the last time I really cared about owning a Nintendo console, although I did buy a Wi for the gf and her family back then. The hardware is a secondary issue; what matters to me most is how developers are able to utilize it. The N64 revolutionized 3D gaming, but Nintendo went in a different direction ever since everyone else caught up. Apparently it's worked for them pretty well, but with their current focus I probably won't care again until my kid is old enough to.

Casual Shinji:
Because.. so many people are.... asking for a powerful console from Nintendo?

I don't really get your issue; People like the Switch, it's selling well, the games on it are generally praised, and I can't say there's a sentiment among the gaming public that these games run like shit because lack of power. Yeah sure, they could always run better, and if the Switch had a.. switch on it that made it 10 times stronger everyone would flip it, but nobody is really craving for Nintendo to finally get buff.

And why would Nintendo even need third-party support now when they're drowning in a ocean of indies? Seriously, being a handheld the Switch is, like, the most insane indie machine right now. I think they're good for third-party support.

Nintendo needs to get the big third party games, not a bunch of indie games nobody but hipsters care about.

VG_Addict:

Casual Shinji:
Because.. so many people are.... asking for a powerful console from Nintendo?

I don't really get your issue; People like the Switch, it's selling well, the games on it are generally praised, and I can't say there's a sentiment among the gaming public that these games run like shit because lack of power. Yeah sure, they could always run better, and if the Switch had a.. switch on it that made it 10 times stronger everyone would flip it, but nobody is really craving for Nintendo to finally get buff.

And why would Nintendo even need third-party support now when they're drowning in a ocean of indies? Seriously, being a handheld the Switch is, like, the most insane indie machine right now. I think they're good for third-party support.

Nintendo needs to get the big third party games, not a bunch of indie games nobody but hipsters care about.

If you want to deliberately deprive yourself of some of the best games being released these days, that's your problem. Part of the reason I like PC is that such a comprehensive library of indie games is available.

VG_Addict:
Nintendo needs to get the big third party games, not a bunch of indie games nobody but hipsters care about.

I hope this is sarcasm.

I'm sorry, who are you again? And why are you bringing up this of all topics like it hasn't been done before and a little research can't give you your answers?

Edit: Not to mention you brought this up in 2019 regarding 3rd party support and also had the exact same thing to say about indies as quoted here:

2020

VG_Addict:
Nintendo needs to get the big third party games, not a bunch of indie games nobody but hipsters care about.

2019

I don't see how the Switch's third party support is any better than the Wii U's. It's not getting the big games, like CoD, Madden, KHIII, and RDR2. I don't see how getting a bunch of last gen ports and indie games that nobody but hipsters care about means the Switch has better third party support.

And then even further regarding their choice of media format as shown here... And it was also compared to the Wii U for 3rd party support here... And as a spicy top up, you also stated it (for some reason) also needs KH III and RDR2 here a year previously from your 2019 comment of the same nature as well.

Dude, I think we get it. It's not your thing. You don't like the Switch. You've been given your answers at least half a dozen times. So maybe your new years resolution should be to stop seeking validation for your opinions that answer themselves.

... Or not. And we can come back to this next year so we can keep collectively sighing as you bring this up yet again while the Switch continues to be a runaway success

Why does it need to be powerful?

Phoenixmgs:

An $80 phone already has a better game library than the Switch

And shitty controllers. I'd rather give myself carpal tunnel with motion controllers than having to play action games with just the touchpad.

IF there is something that the Switch has is ports from old games. Ports, ports, ports. The Switch sure is a "port"-able console in more ways than one...

SupahEwok:

Phoenixmgs:

An $80 phone already has a better game library than the Switch + you can use Steam to stream your PC game library to your phone.

This conversation has been had, as well. A bunch of quick, cheap flips of board and card games to digital doesn't qualify as a gaming library to anybody without a myopic view of videogaming.

CoCage:

TRUTH.

Why don't you try them, mechanically they have so much more going on that a AAA release. Go play Terraforming Mars, far better competitive game than any shooter released in the last 10 years.

CaitSeith:

Phoenixmgs:
An $80 phone already has a better game library than the Switch

And shitty controllers. I'd rather give myself carpal tunnel with motion controllers than having to play action games with just the touchpad.

IF there is something that the Switch has is ports from old games. Ports, ports, ports. The Switch sure is a "port"-able console in more ways than one...

You can connect a regular controller to Android via Bluetooth, better than the damn joycons. If you want a bigger screen, you can buy a tablet for less than half the price of a Switch. Or you might already have a tablet. One reason I haven't gotten a Switch is because the asking price is way too much for that tech + plus I'll have to buy a pro (aka real) controller on top of the $300.

CoCage:

Hawki:

I'd much rather Nintendo become a third party developer, but that's another issue.

Fuck that shit! I actually like having Nintendo around, despite their own sets of problems. They still make creative and unique games. They don't always hit the mark, but their games are still fun. I still play Donkey Kong tropical freeze. It and Rayman Legends are the best 2D platformers of the 2010s. Besides, that's never going to happen. They messed up with the Wii u, but they have enough money to last them for over 40 years. Because of the success of the Switch, that number has now tripled.

Nintendo going 3rd party won't make their games any less creative and unique. If anything, being able to focus 100% on the games alone would probably make them even moreso.

Squilookle:

CoCage:

Hawki:

I'd much rather Nintendo become a third party developer, but that's another issue.

Fuck that shit! I actually like having Nintendo around, despite their own sets of problems. They still make creative and unique games. They don't always hit the mark, but their games are still fun. I still play Donkey Kong tropical freeze. It and Rayman Legends are the best 2D platformers of the 2010s. Besides, that's never going to happen. They messed up with the Wii u, but they have enough money to last them for over 40 years. Because of the success of the Switch, that number has now tripled.

Nintendo going 3rd party won't make their games any less creative and unique. If anything, being able to focus 100% on the games alone would probably make them even moreso.

Barely. I like that they do their own thing. It does not always work out not will I agree with everything, but compared to what Microsoft, and sometimes Sony does, I'll take it.

Look, I've heard every stupid excuse, backhanded compliment, and "expertise" from "Analysts", know-nothing-know-it-all "game journalists or YouTubers", and anti-Nintendo fans. They're all spouting the same bullshit. And I am not implying you're exactly like them, but I heard all the same doom and gloom talk before, but it's nothing wild mass guessing, and asinine bullshit from feelings and not logic. Usually, the bad use of devil's advocate to seek attention and nothing else. When imbeciles like that are proven wrong, they'll do anything to extend the goal post than rather admit it.

I already lost one Japanese console maker, me, my brother, and many other gamers are not losing another. For all of Nintendo's faults, I'll happily take them over Microsoft. Even Sony acknowledged, and Microsoft of all companies, Nintendo needs to exists. Think about that for a moment. Especially when Sony said that back when the Wii U was out. I have nothing else to say on this. Don't bother to convince me otherwise.

Phoenixmgs:

CoCage:

TRUTH.

Why don't you try them, mechanically they have so much more going on that a AAA release. Go play Terraforming Mars, far better competitive game than any shooter released in the last 10 years.

[

1. I don't do competitive shooters. Period. Even the supposed or legit "great" ones.

2. We already had conversation like this back in mid 2019.

3. I've said this before and I'll say it again: You have your taste and I respect that (even if go too far to be contrarian), your way of gaming does not you superior to everyone else's.

4. Not in to mobile gaming, and the mobile gaming market has many, many issues making it no different from the bullshit AAA pulls off. So no dice. YMMV, but that's life.

The last time they did the PlayStation outsold it 3 to 1.
Most people ask for better third-party support than just plain old hardware power anyway.

They need better online capabilities. It would be perfect.

leet_x1337:
image

Nintendo don't compete on hardware power because they don't need to. Their first-party games are the main draw for their consoles, and it's been like that for a long time. As mentioned above, the Switch also has a lot of indie games, and most of the people I know would rather play those than have yet another machine that has the new Call of Duty.

For better or worse, Nintendo's never been one to follow industry trends, and right now, that's for the better.

It's not even just that; if power were such a concern, then why are so many third parties scrambling to put stuff on the Switch? Ports or no, companies like Warner Bros, Square-Enix, Bethesda, CDPR, 2K, CAPCOM, Bandai-Namco, Sega, Activision-Blizzard etc are bringing over titles whether they were late to the party or day-one. At this point, the only people not making any kinds of games for the Switch are morons (hey, EA!)

And the thing is, we've kept having this conversation time and time again and it's been proven wrong time and time again, with only tech addicts and bad faith actors pushing it. And if there's one thing I've learned it's that no amount of power will ever be enough for those kinds of people. There is no point in catering to them.

Aiddon:
And the thing is, we've kept having this conversation time and time again and it's been proven wrong time and time again, with only tech addicts and bad faith actors pushing it. And if there's one thing I've learned it's that no amount of power will ever be enough for those kinds of people. There is no point in catering to them.

On that note, what's the point of catering to zealous fans (such as yourself), since you're going to like anything they do?

Phoenixmgs:

SupahEwok:

Phoenixmgs:

An $80 phone already has a better game library than the Switch + you can use Steam to stream your PC game library to your phone.

This conversation has been had, as well. A bunch of quick, cheap flips of board and card games to digital doesn't qualify as a gaming library to anybody without a myopic view of videogaming.

CoCage:

TRUTH.

Why don't you try them, mechanically they have so much more going on that a AAA release. Go play Terraforming Mars, far better competitive game than any shooter released in the last 10 years.

I have actually played Terraforming for Mars, at a board game night at a friend's a couple of months ago. It was fun, and neat. But the statement that a boardgame of economic competition is a "far better competitive game than any shooter released in the last 10 years" is so ungodly stupid that I don't even know what to do with it. You've at least heard of this idiom called "apples to oranges", right? If I wanna go digital for some visceral headshooting, flag capturing, rocket jumping action, the fuck is Terraforming for Mars gonna do for me?

Squilookle:

CoCage:

Hawki:

I'd much rather Nintendo become a third party developer, but that's another issue.

Fuck that shit! I actually like having Nintendo around, despite their own sets of problems. They still make creative and unique games. They don't always hit the mark, but their games are still fun. I still play Donkey Kong tropical freeze. It and Rayman Legends are the best 2D platformers of the 2010s. Besides, that's never going to happen. They messed up with the Wii u, but they have enough money to last them for over 40 years. Because of the success of the Switch, that number has now tripled.

Nintendo going 3rd party won't make their games any less creative and unique. If anything, being able to focus 100% on the games alone would probably make them even moreso.

I'd argue that that's actually, factually wrong. Nintendo's software and hardware departments don't exist in separate vacuums like at Sony and Microsoft. They are tightly intertwined and collaborate. The Wii's motion controllers weren't some corporate top mandate to chase a trend, the software and hardware guys agreed that they wanted to develop and use this technology for their games. Giving up their hardware development destroys an immense portion of Nintendo's unique voice and talent.

This is Nintendo's unique placement in the industry: they are the only devhouse who can shape the course of the very architecture their games are built on in order to accommodate the vision for their games. Put aside the perceived merits of Labo: is there any other developer in the world who, even if they conceived the idea for that game, could have actually been able to make it?

Valve has spent years trying to position themselves in that same spot, and their struggle should amply demonstrate how difficult it is to get there even with immense cash flow.

People think that Nintendo would be better off without their gimmicks without realizing that Nintendo's inspiration is infused by them. I haven't been in a position to buy a Nintendo game for years now, and really I've never been that huge of a fan of their tentpole properties, but from a creative, technological, and industry-driving standpoint they are hands-down my top developer. They are the only company in videogaming whose sudden loss would, I think, be a real tragedy that undercuts the development of the medium. Almost everybody else is largely replaceable, as the endless series of corporate buyouts, mergers, shutterings, and IP reboots of the last 20 years demonstrates.

SupahEwok:
I'd argue that that's actually, factually wrong. Nintendo's software and hardware departments don't exist in separate vacuums like at Sony and Microsoft. They are tightly intertwined and collaborate. The Wii's motion controllers weren't some corporate top mandate to chase a trend, the software and hardware guys agreed that they wanted to develop and use this technology for their games. Giving up their hardware development destroys an immense portion of Nintendo's unique voice and talent.

This is Nintendo's unique placement in the industry: they are the only devhouse who can shape the course of the very architecture their games are built on in order to accommodate the vision for their games. Put aside the perceived merits of Labo: is there any other developer in the world who, even if they conceived the idea for that game, could have actually been able to make it?

Valve has spent years trying to position themselves in that same spot, and their struggle should amply demonstrate how difficult it is to get there even with immense cash flow.

People think that Nintendo would be better off without their gimmicks without realizing that Nintendo's inspiration is infused by them. I haven't been in a position to buy a Nintendo game for years now, and really I've never been that huge of a fan of their tentpole properties, but from a creative, technological, and industry-driving standpoint they are hands-down my top developer. They are the only company in videogaming whose sudden loss would, I think, be a real tragedy that undercuts the development of the medium. Almost everybody else is largely replaceable, as the endless series of corporate buyouts, mergers, shutterings, and IP reboots of the last 20 years demonstrates.

Amen to that. They are always the company I look towards with the most excitement, and always have, because their next consoles or handhelds were always the ones being different. Especially nowadays where consoles just feel like lesser PCs with a different OS slapped on it. At least Nintendo is unique, and I find that exciting. And some of their hardware gimmicks do hit the mark in my opinion. I can't imagine a game industry without Nintendo or the way that they constantly evolve and change, rather than pursue the exact same thing everyone else does. There's a reason I don't have a Xbox One of any form, and that's because most of Microsoft's stuff is on PC, so the console is completely worthless to me. But Sony and Nintendo stick to their guns, and that's why they get my money

CoCage:

Phoenixmgs:
Why don't you try them, mechanically they have so much more going on that a AAA release. Go play Terraforming Mars, far better competitive game than any shooter released in the last 10 years.

1. I don't do competitive shooters. Period. Even the supposed or legit "great" ones.

2. We already had conversation like this back in mid 2019.

3. I've said this before and I'll say it again: You have your taste and I respect that (even if go too far to be contrarian), your way of gaming does not you superior to everyone else's.

4. Not in to mobile gaming, and the mobile gaming market has many, many issues making it no different from the bullshit AAA pulls off. So no dice. YMMV, but that's life.

I only mentioned shooters because of how popular they are. I realize you're into fighting games. I'm personally on the extreme fringe in regards to fighting games but both seem to have similarities in the direction they're moving (generally). Like how easy it is to do the "Daigo Parry" in SFV. I've actually been recently watching Tekken 7 matches (I watched one and more just appear on the Youtube feed) and I wouldn't want to play that game at all; it's all about identifying an opening or deking a player into an opening to do a long combo string 2 or 3 times to win a match. When you think about it, shooters aren't very different with regards to the "head" game when your playing the best of the best. But anyway, you're probably pretty contrarian for liking the newest Samurai Showdown so much from the little I know of fighting games and their popularity. The best stuff is rarely popular regardless no matter the genre or medium.

I'm not referring to standard mobile gaming that does indeed have the worst aspects of gaming but the games you pay a singular price for and can play however much you want just like the good old days.

SupahEwok:
I have actually played Terraforming for Mars, at a board game night at a friend's a couple of months ago. It was fun, and neat. But the statement that a boardgame of economic competition is a "far better competitive game than any shooter released in the last 10 years" is so ungodly stupid that I don't even know what to do with it. You've at least heard of this idiom called "apples to oranges", right? If I wanna go digital for some visceral headshooting, flag capturing, rocket jumping action, the fuck is Terraforming for Mars gonna do for me?

I'm fully aware that they're completely different games obviously. I used to play shooters basically 24/7 but the new ones are shells of their former selves. Why am I going to play some new game that ain't nearly as good as something made 10 years ago? Terraforming Mars is a much better game of its type of game (it's far more than economic competition) than [insert any shooter made in the last 10 years] is of shooters. You play competitive games to outplay other players and for me it doesn't matter if it's a video game or a board game or playing a sport. I've gotten into them all at some point in my life and I feel you play any competitive game for the same reason. The fact I've played the Terraforming Mars 100+ times in my board gaming group and other players keep cards that they think I want that I totally couldn't care less about speaks volumes of the different ways to play and the skillgap the game has. Slay the Spire is considered one of the most innovative video games of 2019 while its ideas are 10 years old in the board game world. It used to be the other way around, board games used to be "bored" games (stuff like Monopoly or Catan or Munchkin are shit games) and video game were where it was at (same thing with TV and movies switching places). I'd love all of gaming to constantly be knocking it out of the park.

 

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.