Hohoho, if you are in Taiwan when going on a train, bus, or subway. Nearly everyone is using their phone.
Yeah, but I was talking about Japan... I think.
The only PS4 game I want for now is NieR:Automata and that's pretty much it. I might as well buy the PC version.
If you aren't in to Nintendo games that's perfectly fine. But as for me Switch is definitely a better choice when it has most of the games I want.
Bloodborne is the best game I've played since Symphony of the Night. Definitely worth checking out, totally validated my PS4 purchase. Also, since I don't have a gaming PC, I've been really enjoying GTAV as well. Odin Sphere is pretty cool if you like Vanillaware. Guilty Gear and Blazblue are best played on PS4 due to the community. And I'm looking to pick up Doom, Gravity Rush 2, and Nioh soon.
I wouldn't argue against the Wii U's library being quality, but it was either so derivative, safe and bland, unnecessarily obtuse, or soon to be surpassed by the next iteration I don't understand why it gets as lauded as it does. It's fine, and for many companies it would be well above average, but frankly I find it BY FAR the least resonating library of a Nintendo console. I think every other Nintendo console since the NES provided us with software that pushed the envelope more and had a greater impact than the Wii U's offerings.
The only exceptions (imo - and not counting BotW) are Splatoon, Super Mario Maker, and maybe Nintendo Land (which Nintendo mishandled). And as far as legacy goes, I don't see any games other than the former two being widely canonized. Like in 10 years, how many Wii U games do you think are going to make "greatest games" lists?
I don't think that's exclusive to Taiwan...
Glad I didn't have to be the one to say it. Barring Smash Bros, the only games I truly enjoyed on WiiU were 3rd Party. Deus Ex Directors Cut, Bayonetta 2, and MonHun 3 Ultimate.
A lot of the other 1st party felt very underwhelming for one reason or another. They were good. But they weren't WOW. WiiU in general just had a very underwhelming library, which is why I'm so salty about it being taken out back and shot in the head. Yeah yeah, "4 year cycles," but with a **** library.
This leads to a core question on what exactly is a true gamer? Are only those who play video games daily on PC, handhled, and home console count as a gamer? Or just simply play any video games occasionally is a gamer?
Myself I think I am between, as a dude who just likes Nintendo games I am a gamer, but that doesn't mean I won't try something new. I will love playing with motion controls and tradition control as long as I play with the games I like.
I'll let Nintendo themselves do the explaining:
The distinction between "casual" and "gamer" isn't something we came up with. It's something Nintendo themselves established with their Blue Ocean Strategy, For a more detailed reading on this, I recommend you google it, they have an entire book where they explain it all.
"Gamer" refers to anyone withing the "red ocean." People who are invested in the happenings of the industry, have been playing video games for a long time, are enthusiasts of home consoles, buy a variety of different games, and are interested in AAA titles. I don't need to really explain this any further, you KNOW exactly what sort of people I'm talking about. People who CARE about video games. Whether they play CoD or FIFA casually with your friends, or are a competitive gamer who plays LoL or Starcraft, or a guy with a collection of over 1000 games, and reviews stuff on Youtube. Typically, this refers to people between the ages of 10 and 40 who own one or more consoles, and buy a variety of games on them to play either alone or with friends, and pay attention to the happenings and news within the industry.
"Casual" on the other hand is an all-encompassing term for the "blue ocean." The untapped market of people who are generally not interested in games, and generally never have been. Soccer moms, grandparents, businessmen, etc... Nintendo made a bunch of QoL games like the Wii Sports/Party/Fit series, and Brain Age to try to reach out to a new market, outside of the industry. Hence the blue "untapped" ocean. QoL games generally don't appeal to people within the red ocean, as they're not what they've come to expect for videogames, and not why they're even playing videogames in the first place. It's not what we grew up with, and not what we like about this industry. QoL games, are effectively changing the definition and purpose of videogames to branch out toward a new market. In fact, at the peak of all this, Nintendo was even a little condescending toward the Red Ocean market, sniding online play, and VR experiences as "lonesome" and "not what they aim to do."
So when I say the best selling games on Wii and DS are "casual games" I'm referring to the Blue Ocean strategy and the QoL games. These games were intentionally aimed toward people outside the usual market, and thus, both of those can be seen as an outlier, as that group of people, didn't stick around for the next generation.
Oh boy, indeed worst selling handheld for Nintendo themselves, not the worst handheld EVER for sure. Not sure why you put this up.
Because of this:
Whereas PS and Xbox are doing nothing to be innovative, besides VR for PS.
VR IS innovation. It's the future of gaming in fact. I fail to see how that "doesn't count."
Uh...no Vita didn't, if you are mentioning PS TV, that didn't go well, so is the Vita. The Switch TV gameplay can seamlessly port to the Switch tablet when taking it out of the dock, and you can also try out many different ways to play. I don't remember Vita can do that. Don't get me wrong though, I think PS Vita being able to play on the TV is still a decent concept, just how would you think that Vita did the concept better than the Switch?
The Switch isn't doing anything new. Vita was one example, but tablets and phones have been able to stream to a TV through the likes of Chromecast for years now.
Hell, you can even plug a Bluetooth or USB controller or keyboard to your phone or tablet, while streaming it to you TV and play games, watch netflix, youtube, google docs, etc... ALL wirelessly in fact. For adults who own a phone or tablet, the Switch isn't anything revolutionary or exciting. Chromecast costs like $40, and works much better than the Switch, and allows you to seamlessly program all your devices to it so you can stream to your TV and transition between them.
In the same vein, I made the comparison to Vita, because like the Vita, the Switch is also a portable console. It's not a hybrid, and Nintendo themselves have never used that term to refer to the Switch. Ever. And I can't be inclined to call it a Hybrid when the dock is just a glorified HDMI output. If the dock had additional hardware to boost performance, then yes, it would very well be a hybrid, but it doesn't and thus it's not. It's no different from my ability to plug my laptop or my Cintiq to my TV through the use of its HDMI out, which ALSO works seamlessly. This isn't innovation. It's been a laptop/tablet standard for years now.
And it can't be a home console either as the hardware inside the Switch is portable, using mobile chips and a small SSD. the ecosystem of the Switch was also built with portability in mind. Thus, by all definitions, it very well falls under the category of a portable console, and a successor to the 3DS once it gains momentum.
As far as I'm concerned, Nintendo officially ending production of the WiiU, with no true successor, means that Nintendo has effectively, but silently dropped out of console-making. They only make portables now.
No offense but your thoughts on Nintendo are similar to a Youtuber that I just unsubbed called Blunty who shares nearly the same thoughts, like you and him both insist that Switch is more of a handheld rather than a console. And that's totally fine, but what made me unsubbed him is because in his video he put up too many subjective opinion and bringing up uncertain information. Like Nintendo's online pay for example, what made me even bumped is how he comment those who disagrees with his thoughts. He seems to be a cool dude in his video, but when it comes to Nintendo, he's sure a toxic brat.
I think you should learn to handle opinions you don't agree with, with a little more open-mindedness. Shielding yourself from ideas you don't like isn't very good. Learning to disagree with others, and effectively defend your point of view is an important skillset. So long as people are being polite, there is nothing wrong with discussing opposing points of view.
The only way you'll ever be able to defend your own ideas properly, is by listening to the opposition. I don't like the Nintendo Switch for example, but I'll happily listen to GameExplain, Arlo, and what other Nintendotubers have to say about it. In fact, it's because I listen to them that I'm able to construct such well-founded arguments.
I am a bit curious on why would you feel frustrated... are you one of the Nintendo investors? That's the only reason I can think of. If Nintendo just don't do what you think they should do then I wouldn't even bother.
As such, many thoughts and solutions you put up aren't bad, just aren't the things that Nintendo will do.
I don't have to be an investor to feel emotionally invested in a videogame company that I've been following since 1990 and is responsible for my entire childhood. I've owned every single Nintendo console up to the WiiU, and I remember the golden days of the SNES and Rare. When Nintendo used to be top dog. So yeah, I'd definitely feel a little frustrated over a brand I used to like a lot, who used to make great stuff, disregard its core audience and fanbase, and make bad decisions over bad decisions again and again.
