But you can choose to play this game because you can play it with the touch screen, with a forced TV mode you would't have the choice at all
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
VOEZ is the first Nintendo Switch game to be portable-mode only
- Thread starter LordKano
- Start date
But you can choose to play this game because you can play it with the touch screen, with a forced TV mode you would't have the choice at all
Interfectum
Member
Are you confused by the fact you can't play 1, 2, Switch in handheld mode?
It's the console that you can choose to play the way you like, not the games.
They have the Pro-controller too, that's MY way to play, but I'm not going to get upset if I can't play 1,2,Switch with it.
And indeed this.
Thank you.
MightBeMagic
Member
If its my platform, my product I am trying to sell as a multi use device?
I would never EVER let a game on my ecosystem that didnt support the multiple ways I want people to play.
You can excuse it all you want. But it immediately nullifies everything Nintendo is trying to do. This is why I dont understand why people are defending it.
This is bad for Nintendo, that for a the sake of a small mobile game theyre willing to drop the core idea of their system.
Honestly you tell me this. I have a ps4 and a ipad. If i want to play this game how am I losing out by playing on the ipad. What incentive is there now to buy a switch?
If games can be handheld only. What am I losing? If you like mobile games youd just play on your device you already own. Everyone has devices that can play those.
I would be interested if those mobile games had a tv component, but now we find out they dont need to. So what is the point of the switch.
MightBeMagic
Member
Its a two player game so no. Dont try to be smart it doesnt suit you
Interfectum
Member
So two player games can break your Switch rule but touchscreen only games cannot?
And stop with the personal attacks.
What is worst for Nintendo : not having a game released on their system, or having it in some playable form ?
Seriously, I don't get it. You are actually arguing in favor of a gaming not releasing at all instead of releasing in a playable and fully-enjoyable form, even if it means not respecting the initial concept and yada yada.
It's a mobile game. Nintendo doesn't give a fuck. It won't ever release in retail and a mere few thousand people will but it. It is something that couldn't possibly be released on other consoles, but is playable in some way on the Switch. And you're complaining.
DangerMouse
Member
And here we go...
Sounds kind of like favoritism for the way you want to play and use the system if dock-only undermines it but portable-only doesn't.
The game can be played on the TV or portable. You can play the game on a plane with the person sitting next to you by handing them a joycon. You can do the same docked at home.
MightBeMagic
Member
Dont be obtuse then and pick a tiny part of a rational statement. If you have an opinion share it, dont drive by and be an ass
Interfectum
Member
1,2, Switch cannot be played in handheld mode because of the specific design of the game. Similar to a touchscreen only game can only be played in handheld mode due to the specific design of the game.
Interfectum
Member
Again with the personal insults.
Can't play with the two joycons connected in the traditional handheld style, but the game is still portable and can be played at the park with someone else. Can be played on the TV in your living room the same way. Portable players can play the game...TV players can play the game. I think this is why no one is really upset about it. Take the game on the go, or play at home.
Since I primarily game on handhelds and mobile, I thought VOEZ was an example that Nintendo is not giving up on games that were primarily made for mobile or handhelds by giving developers options in terms of what they want to use from the Switch.
VOEZ is a rhythm game that focuses on tapping the screen at different places and with multiple fingers at the same time like a piano, which is a different from the Hatsune Miku rhythm games which are all button based. They wanted to have the same game on the Switch, which meant that being docked would have lead to a completely different game altogether, which they chose not to do.
Not every game on the Switch needs to be on the same level as Zelda BoTW or Mario Odyssey, and I was hoping that since the Switch is a portable device and home console, we could have both types of games from the 3DS and Wii U existing on the same device.
VOEZ is a rhythm game that focuses on tapping the screen at different places and with multiple fingers at the same time like a piano, which is a different from the Hatsune Miku rhythm games which are all button based. They wanted to have the same game on the Switch, which meant that being docked would have lead to a completely different game altogether, which they chose not to do.
Not every game on the Switch needs to be on the same level as Zelda BoTW or Mario Odyssey, and I was hoping that since the Switch is a portable device and home console, we could have both types of games from the 3DS and Wii U existing on the same device.
MightBeMagic
Member
Yes I am. Understand Nintendo is on life support at this moment. Their last console failed. They really have to try and sell this console to people.
Their concept is great, theyre marketing message is simple: "take your home games and play them on the go"
Its a very effective message. But then to destroy that and go, "hang on, yes you can play at home and on the go but not with this game"
Its only one game yes, but it sets a precedent, it wont be the last.
Its confusing. The message they had was simple and effective. Now its murky. Why are some games exempt? how many games in future will be exempt?
When youre launching a comsole its the worst thing you can do. The message needs to be clear. I expect all games to work both ways.
Interfectum
Member
I mean, people can be upset about not being able to play a touchscreen game on their television but nothing is stopping them from picking the console up and still playing it at home.
My point is 1,2,Switch is proof the idea of using certain modes of the system when needed is already integral to the design of the Switch. Should that game not be made because it can't be used in handheld mode or played with a Pro controller? Should a touchscreen only game be banned from the system because you cant play it on your TV?
Interfectum
Member
The system has three ways of working and they already have graphics on the back of every Switch game to show which modes the game works in.
You don't answer my question though : would you rather not have the game at all, or have the game playable in the only form it can be played ?
If it sets a precedent of games that couldn't be played in TV-mode ported over to the Switch, it can only be great for us. More games on Switch, and games that couldn't be played elsewhere due to their natures.
MightBeMagic
Member
Yes it should. 1 2 switch is different. You have to remove the controllers to play it as its multiplayer. But you can take it with you anywhere and play because it has a kickstand.
This touch game can only be played on the screen, without using controllers and nodock option. Theyre very different use cases
MightBeMagic
Member
I answered you in the last post. I wouldnt allow it.
It already is on all portable devices ipad/iphone etc. Why damage your whole product idea for a game like that.
The switch is a home console first and foremost. If you want a lot of mobile touch games use the devices you already have.
TunaMarshmallow
Member
I don't understand how any normal person could be bothered by this. If you don't want this game (or this kind of game), don't buy it.
I can understand being bothered by this if you work in Nintendo's marketing department and are concerned that this kind of stuff won't be marketed properly. But if you work in Nintendo's marketing department, this NeoGAF thread is not the right place for you to be expressing your concerns. And if you don't work in Nintendo's marketing department, why are you fixated on marketing concerns?
I can understand being bothered by this if you work in Nintendo's marketing department and are concerned that this kind of stuff won't be marketed properly. But if you work in Nintendo's marketing department, this NeoGAF thread is not the right place for you to be expressing your concerns. And if you don't work in Nintendo's marketing department, why are you fixated on marketing concerns?
Interfectum
Member
It shows the flexibility of the system to be able to go from a game like 1,2, Switch to a touchscreen only game to a game like Zelda. To me, that's the entire point of the system. To think the idea gets thrown out the window because some games mandate a touchscreen is absurd, imo.
So, you're asking for games to not be released at all because you absolutely want them to be playable on TV-mode, or else they can get fucked.
You're a video game player, and you're asking to not being able to play a game on a console completely capable to play it, because of marketing reasons.
I think the moment we start asking these kinds of questions we start to muddy the water of what the NS is all about. I know I'm coming off as a little abrasive and that's not my intention, but I want people to look at this from all the angles. The moment we start introducing this sort of thing to the system, then the messaging is not as simple as it was made out to be. I promise you that if we start getting into games being docked only or motion controls only when docked, then there will be people upset about this. The reason 1,2 Switch doesn't get much flack is because it can be played in both settings on a TV or portable. That fits just about everyone's world view as far as how the system is supposed to function.
MightBeMagic
Member
Its not flexibility, its a lack of confidence in your concept.
If they were so sure it was the best way to play things they would mandate it.
Apple restricts a lot of what they let users do. Youd call that inflexible by your logic. But why do they do it? Because they are 100% certain that you get the best experience the way they say things are done on their systems.
Dude. Like, seriously you really need to take a step back and realize what you're ranting about on the internet. I feel like you're going to have a fuckin' aneurysm reading your posts.
It's just a game on a piece of consumer electronics, man.
Interfectum
Member
The flexibility comes from the fact that Switch allows for all types of games to come to their platform. Touchscreen only, console style games, party games, etc. Some games will utilize ALL of Switch's capabilities, some will use only a few. Not many other platforms can do this.
MightBeMagic
Member
Not ranting. I just like discussions. Nothing any of us do here is relevant or necessary but we are all here, including you. If you dont care dont be in the thread
MightBeMagic
Member
The other platforms dont want to do it. If you try to cater to everyone you cater to no one.
I have everything to do all of those things already.
Nintendo are always the best at making sure their users have great experiences. I wouldve thought they ensured there was parity across all their games. Thats why I am so against this.
MightBeMagic
Member
I got approved when the switch messaging started going downhill thats why its so biased towards that.
I've got one ordered so I do actually like it. Just annoyed with the messaging. I had a Wii U and Nintendo really messed it up so I dont want it to happen again. Mario Maker is my game of the generation.
No you are not. You are making a outstandingly big deal out of some niche game that NEEDS touch controls to work, and are acting like this is gonna cause some sort of domino effect with all the other releases.
The12thGripper
Member
I would only care if they started having TV mode only games but I don't like that there isn't something enforcing compatibility with both modes.
MightBeMagic
Member
It may not but neither of us know that. But if theres a chance it does I want to say why thats a terrible idea. I should be allowed to do that.
All my points are sensible and well reasoned. I welcome the debate.
The adverts for the Switch show people using it on the bus, where there is no level surface you would need to play 1,2 Switch in portable mode.
You think it's silly to expect to be able to play that exact game in all situations? You're right. It's totally silly. I wonder to which other game that could be applied...
There isn't a best way to play, that's the point
Waddle Dee
Member
I hope not too many games do this since I'm going to just want to keep my Switch docked for the most part.
Interfectum
Member
I'm guessing this won't be an issue outside of touchscreen games that are impractical to port to controller usage.
calc84maniac
Member
Yes, especially because Nintendo allows games to run in docked mode with the handheld power profile, so there is no effort required as long as standard controls are supported.
SinCityAssassin
Member
I always knew this thread would be carried by a single crazy man.
I care that Nintendo is cool enough to say "Hey, you wanna put your touch only game on our system? Neat, go for it."
I don't see why this destroys the system or the message or whatever you've been ranting about. But apparently this is your windmill, so more power to you.
Xist2inspire
Member
Not really. Right now, Nintendo's main PR spin is that the Switch is more than just a home console, it can also be used for gaming on the go. Thus, having some touch-based games available to be played in handheld mode strengthens the selling point, because it's something you can't do with other systems. However, a dock-only game removes the main selling point, because then you'd have a game that's probably already on other systems...and since it's not portable, there's really no reason to get it on the Switch unless it's your only console.
As I said in the rest of the post you quoted, dock-only games wouldn't be a problem later on in the Switch's life, because hopefully by then there would be enough games to where the selling point of "console that can be used on the go" doesn't need to be pushed so hard. Because the basic hybrid concept is now understood by the public and backed up with a solid library, Nintendo could then expand the hybrid concept and throw graphics/power-focused devs and home-only players a bone by allowing, and making a push for dock-only games. But for now, dock-only games only muddle the messaging and give the detractors more (and legitimate) fuel.
It's somewhat similar to how GBC-only and N3DS-only games came out later in those systems' lifetimes, or how the Micro and DSi dropped GB/GBC (Micro) and GBA (DSi) compatibility when they were released. What's important at launch isn't always as important later on once the library's strong. Touch-based, portable-only games is something Switch can do that PS4 and XB1 can't, so it's good to have them there from the start. Dock-only games are not only something that PS4 and XB1 can do, but they can do it better than the Switch. As such, it's better to wait until later to start making those, once there's enough dock/portable games to make up for a few dock-only ones. Also, a hardware revision could come into play later on.
And at the end of the day, I don't see why we should be concerned about "mixed messaging" with portable-only games when Nintendo themselves haven't really made a big deal of them, or the touchscreen, at all. Their launch messaging has been pretty clear.
DarthButcher
Member
The upside of this is it could lead to 3DS/DS Virtual Console becoming a reality, which wouldn't have worked if everything had to have Console Mode compatibility.
Pssst, I'll let you in a secret. Just because there is game(s) that work only on portable mode and even if there were games that only worked when docked. The platform itself still haves the same functionality, it's just some games that don't. If that "sacrifice" gives more games on the Switch, then it's a good thing. Though I think games that work on both are more appealing, so it's a good incentive for the devs to make it happen. To take advantage of the strenght of the platform. It's not like every Wii game was forced to have motion controls, or Wii U screen to be used as a secondary screen, or am I mistaken? The dual nature of the platform is supposed to be an advantage, not a restraint.