Sheikah

I think Nintendo could learn an awful lot from the PS4 UI. Most people generally access just a few things regularly (load a game they recently played or just inserted, see friends online, see trophies or see parties). So long as the UI is structured so that these are very quick to select (a la a 'quick menu'), and the UI is very snappy, I'll be happy. Folders and the like mean absolutely nothing to me. I'll likely not access most of my old games on a regular basis so it's just totally busywork.

I don't know how you can say it has bombed hard when PSVR has been completely sold out here for a while now, so it's not like it could be selling more even if the demand was there. Those original figures also sounded very optimistic given the cost of entry. If anything VR couldn't be receiving more mainstream attention if it tried. Watching BBC's CES 2017 coverage, VR seems to be everywhere and you can tell it's a real crowd pleaser. Given time the devices should become more affordable.

Nice to see you pick out one aspect while ignoring all his other points, because you feel that's an argument you can win. Not that PSN is unstable anyway. It's always people like me and lostmario, i.e. people using the network religiously and so would actually know, that correct you on this! What say you to his points about network and social features, and player base? Even if you ignore all my points, I don't see FIFA as a game that lends itself well to handheld anyway. It feels far more suited to playing on a TV with friends around you while drinking a beer, or playing online on a big screen. I don't even know how the online would work if you took the Switch outside.

Existing friends lists, controls, network infrastructure, graphics...take your pick.

If anyone is moving the goalposts it's you. You said that the graphics of this generation have done nothing really when they have done full-fledged VR. Quite clearly they have done it because you can see the PSVR out now. You're now trying to get out of it by pretending very simplistic VR that might work on Switch means that power hasn't given us anything and that these are comparable. Don't make me laugh.

Exactly my point - and that's with the PS4. All the improvements of the PS4 and it can only just about do it - power is an important factor for VR. Oculus and Vive need impressive rigs.

No it couldn't, the PS4 can only just about do it. The main problem is the very high refresh rate required so that you can map movements to what you see. I'm not talking about the joke VR that was around in the 80s, or cardboard, I'm talking about modern day VR that meets the standards of what is required for a competitive device. Let's not pretend that power hasn't been the primary force allowing the current level of VR tech to happen. Nowhere did I say it was a selling point - Serebii said graphics has not allowed anything new and off the top of my head I said more game models on screen and VR. I see that you have conveniently ignored VR though.

Um, VR has been possible (PSVR), as well as massive numbers of NPCs to create convincing crowds (AC: Unity). Two things off the top of my head that definitely couldn't have been done before... I agree with you that graphics hasn't always been the selling point as if there's something else there that people want, people will buy it anyway. That said, it makes sense that many people would want a graphical upgrade if buying a new system, since technology has moved on in the time since the last console. And if you're a home console only player, I can see why the Switch might not be the upgrade you wanted.

The main reason to care about power is that if a console isn't upgrading power then you wonder why a new console is even necessary in the first place. Power is always the thing people expect to go up considerably because technology is expected to have improved a lot in 5-7 years. It's also not just graphics as we've seen more player models and more sophisticated AI/level design (as well as VR) as a result of power jumps. Of course in the case of the Switch, it brings portability so that's a big plus, and I can see people overlooking power in this case due to the obvious benefits portability brings. That said, if you're only really interested in home consoles you might be able to appreciate why those people could object to not so much of a graphical upgrade with this system.

Also there's about 20 lines of text maximum in Zelda games - that's counting all the "..." as well.

I wasn't saying I wanted cheering, I was saying I wanted awkward yet eccentric Japanese people delivering meme-worthy lines. I believe they can do it.

Who wouldn't want this?

Do they expect it to sell more at launch? Wii U came off the back of the Wii so people had a lot more faith in it.

Never understood this, surely better to order somewhere that doesn't take a deposit? I remember getting my Wii and 3DS early this way too.

Why do you need to be such a defensive fanboy all the time; who even brought up the PS4?

I think you guys were a bit off with your age of ports...here's a 2013 game being ported.

FFXIII-2 is a great game. With regards to the music, I really loved Noel's Theme. Sad as fook. The multiple endings made me think of Chrono Trigger and was rather well done I thought.

That's the wrong question. The real question is, how is Ashley such a saint that Ronnie wasn't banned after 5 posts?

I disagree. For instance, I think that the PS4 is giving people a high number of quality experiences; a large part of this I believe is due to the online aspect of many games and third party support for a variety of fresh ideas. And as a result of these quality experiences, the system sells. People want to share these quality experiences with their friends. Have you played Overwatch, for instance? It is leagues ahead of anything Nintendo have done recently in terms of freshness and social fun, and it perfectly encapsulates that fresh-game, exciting feeling that I used to get from Nintendo's games. And no surprise, it has sold very, very well. Come off it, people aren't daft. They can form opinions based on footage, opinions of friends, and playing it at other people's houses. You can't say that Nintendo's system might be the perfect package but a lot of people just don't know this because they don't have it. A lot of people have bought these games in past generations and don't see enough value in buying another system just to play similar Nintendo sequels. For the semi-casual gamer for instance, who might have Mario Kart on the Wii, it may be that they don't see the value in buying a Wii U to play MK Wii U. Your argument that shit can also sell well is not without merit. But generally speaking, if the Wii U is packed full of games that are the cream of the crop and exciting/must-haves, it should really be selling a lot more. Sure, something that is great might be overlooked, but a whole console of these 'top games'? Clearly the system doesn't have something. In my opinion, they haven't produced many exciting or fresh games and that is ultimately why I haven't enjoyed their content as much.

But what does that even mean? Quality? Isn't a game quality if it elicits enjoyment from the user - isn't that what entertainment is for, after all? And if a game does produce a high level of enjoyment, don't you think it's going to help sell that system? So when I play Destiny with 5 other friends, blowing the lid off a raid in an experience I've simply never had anything close to before, wouldn't you say that that's a quality experience? I would go so far as to say that Nintendo are prioritising all the wrong things if they're more concerned with technical quality above new and exciting experiences. And even that, in my view, that doesn't necessarily constitute a 'quality' game or experience.

For christ's sake man, come on. Even you're not believing what you're typing. The system was the cheapest of the lot, has been for a while. X1 was pitched like total horse shit and has done far better than the Wii U could have ever hoped to have. Marketing and price cannot continue to be the reasons that the staple Nintendo loyalist fall back on time after time to justify the Wii U's poor system sales. Why? Because if it has the games everyone really wants, that they think are the best games worth having, then everyone would want to buy the system. Wii Sports sold the Wii. Minecraft sold god knows how many consoles and PCs. You might want to believe that Nintendo make the games everyone thinks are the best, but I can assure you no amount of reviews are going to change reality. My opinion? Nintendo's games now on the Wii U aren't great. Not by a long shot. What I mean by that is that they're not exciting. I've seen and done most of what they continue to do many times before. Worst of all, I think there's a massive lack of diversity. For instance, I reckon a lot of people who bought SM3DW also bought Mario Kart. I don't think they have enough different kinds of games to draw in other kinds of people who wouldn't buy some of their other games. They make highly polished, structurally and technically sound games that are essentially impossible to score low. You could make a NSM3DW sequel following the exact same formula they used last time with different levels and I can almost guarantee it will score in the top 5-10% of games every time. Yet every time, I would find that game boring.

No I'm asking a simple question. If Wii U had the best games, as in games that most people genuinely people thought were the best (as counter to Serebii's comment about Ashley being an outlier), then why did few people pick the system up to play these games? Can you answer this question?

Can you explain to me why, if the Wii U had the best games ever, why so few people picked the system up? It's something I have trouble wrapping my head around. So far nobody has provided me with a decent answer. I don't know about you, but I've noticed that things that are pretty fucking rad do shift units. I mean, Final Fantasy VII pretty much sold the PS1. And Wii U was a decent price, right? It had a Pro controller option for traditional gamers. Even X1 has sold reasonably well after an initial god-awful pitching of their product so I don't think we can say it's just down to that. Funny that people weren't all clamouring to buy the system when the next predictable and safe sequel released. I've said it before, but Nintendo are a shadow of their former self.

Everyone loved Wii U games, that's why Wii U systems just flew off the shelves.

Not Nintendo's choice, more Nintendo's fault. Do you really think the PS4 ticked many boxes for developers through chance? When developing a console you've got to talk to the developers to make sure it has the features they want. We can only hope Nintendo did a lot of that for the Switch.