Saturday, May 13, 2017

No replacement for travel

It's been literally three months since I went anywhere outside the county. I worked a job (part time of course) for a while but now I don't. And I've played games, some of which were better than others.

How has this affected? Well, lots of ways but one of the more subtle things was that I lost all inspiration to make custom content for city building games. I've hardly gone on a trip since 2005 without thinking that there was something interesting worth doing, and as alluded by my original review it was primarily motivated by traveling in the past, and well, the past. I know I've fantasized about things that are still technically impossible in SC4 (or Cities: Skylines) like making malls with entrances on two levels due to sloping parking lots, or railroads really close to roads. The railroad had long been abandoned in 2005 (though not quite to the point today), and I'm sure the potential rebuild of the bridge, which they want to incorporate rail on (apparently, there was a recent incident where they had to unload steel from the train to vehicles, making one wonder why the rail was abandoned in the first place), though I'm sure the rebuild will have rail farther away from the vehicular traffic. And of course, many other buildings from skyscrapers to schools (including university buildings) to restaurants to friends' houses to items of historical interest.

The other thing is that Cities: Skylines just wasn't as good as I wanted it to be. The building sizes are too small, ruining proportions, and it's not even good either, for example, you can add dedicated left turn lanes in your intersection quite easily and have two lanes going left but you can't have a dedicated left turn signal, something that has been fairly standard in at least the last past 27 years.

So instead of city simulators, I tried out a new game that I felt might be worth it and provide some escapism...American Truck Simulator.

I don't pirate games, I usually try to go with a demo if I can find it. Good thing I did, because American Truck Simulator was a massive disappointment. I do not drive an eighteen wheeler nor am licensed to, but it must be great to take control of the real vehicle of the roads, and find new roads. And, because it's set in California, makes it possible to see things I hadn't before (I wouldn't know how it represents Texas or my own home city).

Because it's a truck, the handling isn't right if you're used to driving a car (or driving a car in a video game), because I crashed all the time, rarely stayed in my lane, and had to go dead slow to make a turn, which was all the time. The thing that bothered me the most was how boring the cities were. For comparison purposes, let's do San Francisco since that was the first city I started out in. Sure, San Francisco had all those hills but in reality they were just generic rowhouses with an occasional sign for a pharmacy, at least what I assume what the green plus signs were everywhere.

I guess there needs to be something to account for scale, as driving 35 miles per hour in the city still feels incredibly slow, but the cities just aren't up to snuff. I'm reminded of Vette!, a game from 1989 by Spectrum HoloByte, which (accurately) recreated the city of San Francisco with a full map.

Box of scraps, indeed.

The graphics are incredibly dated by having buildings as untextured walls, but you could only do so much with just 1.2MB in disk size and half of that in RAM. We have the ability to use Google Maps and GPS and modern technology to create and render quickly an accurate representation of the city. You don't even need to create ersatz logos, you can just blur out problematic elements.

I'm glad that I didn't spend money on this, because everything just seems disappointing. Railroad crossings, for instance looks like they could be a challenge. Trains are just one engine, and mods to fix this don't work properly (there's one video I saw where some hopper cars just appeared and disappeared on a road with no tracks).

What I really want to do is not necessarily drive an 18-wheeler around, but ideally have a game that would let me pick any vehicle I want and go anywhere. Start at my place of residence and then just go. The freeway's less than two miles away. What if I just went south and see where that took me? (a dead end where there used to be a railroad crossing). What if I went north? (a truck stop's parking lot). What if I turned right from every street at the end, or turning around from cul-de-sacs, starting from the alley? (caught in a loop in a subdivision in town, if not, an infinite loop on 610 in Houston through an extremely roundabout way).

Point being, American Truck Simulator fails in what I wanted it to be, and unfortunately I have yet to find anything close to what I really want. I looked at The Crew and it did have a demo, but the game (not sure about the demo) needed a "Uplay" account (Ubisoft's distribution system), and the demo was 25GB. I wouldn't mind a game with an even closer scale to reality to reality, something where they could cut out miles of empty space and residential sprawl without compromising most highway sights and exits. But you know what? The root problem isn't that.

The best thing I need is a job again. Yeah, I realize it means less time but that's less time wasted, not less time (I did things more effectively when I had a job and wasn't depressed and miserable all the time). I thought I had an interview lined up in Louisiana, and while I admitted the town was not what I wanted (to put it mildly), I thought the route was interesting enough with Interstates, floating one lane pontoon bridges (yup), and unprotected railroad crossings. But in the end it fell through, probably a blessing in disguise.

Maybe I just need a vacation...there's just no replacement for the smells, wide open spaces, and the reality images of other places.

Monday, March 27, 2017

Did Ben Rivers Listen?

Wow, it's for the Vita, too? That's dedication.

In my last update of Carbon-izer, I added three new "reviews" to my increasingly growing list of game pages, all ones I had played in the last 12 months. One was good, one was average, and one bad. The first was Batman: Arkham Asylum, which I loved, Retro City Rampage which was average due to the fact that there were a lot of good ideas mixed in with a lot of bad ones, and one I hated Home, which I mercilessly ripped into while describing its flaws. But a funny thing happened, as I had posted the Home review to Steam about the same time as I published the website, and guess what happened? Home got its first update in a year with a minor patch coming very soon afterward. There were some things that I mentioned that got covered, including the following: "screenshots now work consistently", "fixed a couple of instances where the story got confused about something you'd seen", and the most intriguing entry that I have yet to see for myself, "changed one of the opening titles to mention speakers as well as headphones". That was one of the things I specifically lambasted.

So what does this mean? Well, it means my "hack" to get the "walk away" achievement no longer works. But the more important thing is that even though the "story" is still a mess, I actually feel like Benjamin Rivers read my review and took it to heart, though he'd probably never admit it. Very few active game developers have done that, especially one as old as Home is (it was made five years ago). Does this mean that Home is a better game than I gave it credit for? No. It's still got major flaws, and my review still largely stands as-is. But now, I feel like despite all that, I feel like I may have been overly hard on Benjamin Rivers and my opinion has been raised slightly. I believe that if he did fix all the things I pointed out, then he probably read the rest too and can use that to improve other games. I will link to this blog post when Carbon-izer 22 is posted.

Monday, February 6, 2017

Back to the Future: The Game: The Review: Part III

"Wait, in 2017, Donald Trump is President of the United States? You sure we didn't mess up the timeline, Doc?"

The final page of our trilogy, last picked up nearly six months ago, when we covered the remaining part of the Back to the Future: The Game review that wasn't covered in the original review. the the end of the game has Marty back home in 1986 and several alternate older Marty McFlys (voiced by Michael J. Fox, who makes a cameo in one of the later episodes, and it's apparent he can't quite pull off his own voice), including one dressed like Griff from 2015 come out of different DeLoreans and all start arguing. Then the credits roll, and there's a "To Be Continued" in case they decide to make another set of 5 episodes (unlikely). But in this "New and Improved" timeline, Kid and Edna have hooked up (in prison, apparently...I guess through letters), and Edna serves as a "good" stepmother for Biff instead of Gertrude, who was unseen screechy voice in the second movie. But that would also undermine the plot of the original movie, which largely hinged on Biff being an asshole. It would also make Principal Strickland his uncle. Basically, the damage it would do to the original timeline is incalculable.

If they were going to write themselves into a corner, they should take a ridiculous way out and have the further meddling of the timeline destroy the time-space continuum.

To be fair, the movies played pretty fast and loose with the way time travel worked, one of the most glaring ones being from the first movie where Marty returns home yet is bewildered by the changes at the McFly household, whereas his the rest of his family thinks he's nuts. When Marty goes to 2015, even if it's assumed that Marty will return home and become Old Marty in 2015, but there's never been a case where multiple characters of the same age come up to one timeline, nor where things radically change but old remnants show up, or how they got so many copies of the DeLorean. It just doesn't make sense, at all. At least the movies had their own sort of convoluted logic where the inconsistencies were few and others could be hand-waved away, but not this.

You might argue at this point I've been too hard on Back to the Future: The Game because the point wasn't to write Back to the Future Part IV, it was to make a licensed game of Back to the Future that wasn't completely awful, which is better than what a lot of licensed games can claim. And that should be enough. Or should it?

Even Back to the Future for the NES was better than this.

The desire to actually make an extended fan fiction of Back to the Future forced gameplay to take a back seat, and combined with Telltale's dumbing down of adventure game elements (part of the fun of LucasArts games was the madcap scenarios and the great writing) it made for a slogging experience. Most of the story was propelled through dialogue trees, not snappy cutscenes, and there are far too many things I can't work out yet (like resolving the issue how the 1885 saloon was owned, or at least built by, a Tannen).

It turns out that the game has been adapted (rather faithfully from the preview images I've seen) into a comic book series called Back to the Future: Citizen Brown. I'm not going to buy it, but in retrospect, reading it probably is a good alternative to playing the game.

Like I said, through all of its problems the story is engaging enough to keep through to the end (looking at when I wrote the review, it's possible I played the other episodes only because of a rather debilitating injury to one of my fingers, making it difficult to play more intense games), but the numerous problems make it hard to recommend, even if you really liked the movie. Part of the problem was the fifth episode, which was scored the lowest by critics and rushed the conclusion. Part of the problem I guess was trying to mirror III's trip back to the Old West, but it would've almost been more interesting to see the "real" Hill Valley 2015. It was already hinted that our reality is the BTTF reality (Doc uses a modern video game controller at some point, which he admits to borrowing from his son's "early 21st century video game systems" or something along those lines), so maybe seeing the "real" 2015 would be nice. But to make that work, you'd have to see the prominent Burger King at 545 Victory Boulevard, Burbank, California (and in 2015 it looked very similar to its 1985 counterpart)...but given how they treat every brand name as toxic waste, even ones that would be relatively easy to procure, it just wouldn't work, and even if they did make the effort (and become a rare positive example of product placement, that there would be Western Auto (not "Eastern Auto"), JCPenney, Robinson's, and others...then it would make the blatant disregard of the universe's rules that more obvious (and in case it wasn't already obvious, the story was written by three people, none of whom worked on the original films).

Point is--it's a great budget-oriented licensed title. As a full stand-alone game that happens to use the Back to the Future license, it sucks. The truth is always somewhere in the middle.

Pictures from this post are from GameInformer and Wikimedia Commons, respectively

Monday, January 16, 2017

Details on the Nintendo Switch: A Real Turn-Off

Despite some strong games, I don't think these two will be able to save the Switch. [source: DarkChapolin, DeviantArt]

Obviously I must admit that my fantasy of Nintendo Switch being secretly Steam compatible was just that--a fantasy (though one that I still hold was plausible), but I didn't expect the Nintendo Switch "Treehouse" event to be as awful as it was. Any attempts to "win back the crowd" have gone out the window and instead Nintendo tries to further alienate fans (and ex-fans).

It's like they took every bad idea from the last two generations and then combined into one console.

There's an online feature, which is like Xbox Live, but worst--at this rate, your console will stay offline unless you want to buy presumably the same Virtual Console games for the second, third, fourth time, and even the "free" Xbox Live allows things like voice chat and basic online play.

The Miis are back per a screengrab from Mario Kart 8 DX, though likely in a lessened capacity.

No Nintendo mainstream console has disallowed backwards compatibility since the release of the Nintendo GameCube in 2001, and we see how that performed, despite a fairly strong line-up of titles and many of the same third party titles the PS2 and Xbox received, and no handheld has disallowed backwards compatibility ever. But since this does seem to be a hybrid device, maybe we could count the Virtual Boy, and we all know what happened to that.

Rather than an exclusive launch title game that showcases what the console is capable of, we get 1-2 Switch, basically a collection of mini-games to see who can time the button the best. I guess it's fitting that the launch title didn't really focus on the actual graphics. And what could easily pass for a tech demo or at least part of a pack-in game will be $50 at launch.

ARMS looks to be the next-gen "Wii Sports" of the Switch (at least boxing), with its more accurate motion controls than anything the Wii had to offer, but to be honest, although it is somewhat of a creative idea, it still feels like Nintendo is nostalgic for the Wii rather than its older, more successful consoles. It was mentioned that the game will have traditional controls rather than forcing motion controls, so we don't need to be up in ARMS over that, but it looks far too bland to be anything close to resembling Punch-Out!!, with the actual character names being case in point: "Spring Man and Ribbon Girl".

What about some pun-based name based on the fact that his hair looks like cupcake frosting, or perhaps toothpaste?

Besides, what the fans want to see (the ones that keep buying Nintendo products despite the fact that since the N64, every console gets worse and worse) is the fifth iteration of Super Smash Bros..

I never played Splatoon but I heard it was fun. Hell, even Yahtzee liked it well enough despite some rather obvious shortcomings. Splatoon 2 on the Switch sounds looks like it might be a fun party game but again, it's not a launch title. Furthermore, I expect that if you have to pay for online (and Splatoon was mostly online multiplayer), there can at least be more than two teams, which is all I saw in the trailer. A third & fourth team could be good, so if you had three friends over, all of you can be on one team or all playing separately.

Snipperclips: Cut It Out, Together! actually looks pretty fun and would probably be one of those intriguing little indie games that come out on Steam from time to time had it not been on the Switch. We'll see how that goes.

The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild again looks fine and will take the same way that The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess went for the GameCube and the Wii. That went well for both consoles, but the Wii also seemed to be exploding with new game concepts and ideas that could take it even farther. Not so much with the Switch.

Super Mario Odyssey looks great, and I have to say it looks to be as good as a Mario game as the first Super Mario Galaxy. Probably this is because it's the first 3D Mario game since Super Mario Galaxy 2, which I never played due to the fact that I hadn't finished the first one (yet) and without an overarching story like SMG one was just felt like an overpriced expansion pack (which it was originally supposed to be). But I couldn't help but get these Sonic Adventure vibes out of it (someone else noticed). It's like we're going full circle back to '99, Nintendo becomes Sega and Sears becomes Montgomery Ward. But unlike SA, SMO won't come out until the holidays, and even then I don't think it could carry the console.

You can't just say, "Well, the games look great," because consoles have shown a collection of great games in and of themselves do not make a console successful. The Dreamcast definitely had a line-up of exclusive and decent games, as well as actually (for 1999 at least) being better than anything else on the market, yet it was discontinued just after less than three years on the market.

It's still underpowered per other consoles (especially at the storage size, just 32GB) and far overpriced for a handheld (especially one that can't play any other games). Basically, they either need a dramatic price drop or some other huge feature that hasn't yet been revealed to really sell it properly.

The good news if the Switch fails (let's hope so), it might mean Nintendo finally going to computers, as for years, they've refused (admittedly, 1980s and 1990s PCs were not on par with console games and far less friendly, but that's different) and only allowed licensed tripe like Mario Teaches Typing or whatever. And no, Silhouette doesn't count, I think there's ample evidence that Silhouette is a hoax perpetuated by early Snes9x developers.

Like the Dreamcast, the Switch will probably be technically impressive, get a lot of mileage out of hacking, and will probably have some really neat exclusives, but ultimately it won't last. Call me back in four years and tell me I'm right.

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Discussing Product Placement

I'll have you know that I went through several versions of this blog post before finally settling on what I really wanted. First, I had this page to discuss urban games, and why they tended to have brown-filtered color palettes (it was inspired by an actual drive through Houston, with there being an overcast and a distinct yet rare "pollution" smell), then it became why urban games are so gritty, and then realized that while I was doing it hard to finish the review because I actually own no open-world games at all as of this writing.

I actually do like exploration yet I'll know that a recreation of "reality" in a video game is impossible because part of what makes it really special is the branding I'll see along the way. I'm currently working on my new US-290 website which replaces an older page on my blog, and recreating a drive through to inner Houston would be great if there was a game that represented it, but I know it will never happen. Part of the fun is all the great things to see along the way. Unfortunately, seeing as most of them are copyrighted brands, that will never happen.

Back in the late 1990s/early 2000s (remember, the Dreamcast had a pretty short life), there was a Dreamcast demo of Crazy Taxi at the local Target. One of the reasons why Crazy Taxi made a bit of impression on me was not necessarily because I relished the idea of driving like an idiot (my driver's license was years away, and there was no way I was able to buy a Dreamcast either), it was that it was the fact that there were "real" brands in there, like KFC, which made it seem more "real" even though it was clearly in a fictional world.

The later rereleases omitted these brands but their distinctive building shapes still remain.

Just like in real life. You realize I have a whole section of my real website dedicated to this, right?

Here's the thing about Crazy Taxi, though, it was not bankrolled by Yum! Brands (or Tricon Global as it was known as back then), they actually had to get permission from the company. At the time, product placement like that was pretty rare. Short of whole games starring corporate mascots (like Cool Spot or M.C. Kids) or other oddities (the Pepsi can in Maniac Mansion), paid advertisements were almost unheard of. A notable exception is the PAL release of Biker Mice from Mars where the whole game turned into a Snickers advertisement.

Of course, we all know what product placement is and it is almost always jarring, because they actually have to show it or talk about it. Filming, however, is fair game. You can clearly see a Chevron sign in the last part of "Comfortably Numb" in The Wall, and I'm sure it was probably unintentional. If you're reconstructing things in a video game, you can't just model the same stuff, otherwise you'll risk a visit from lawyers, which is why developers might choose to make knockoffs instead, and often swap out certain words for others, like "Eastern Union" or something.

Somewhere along the lines, though (looks like early as 2002, though by 2006 it was hitting fever pitch), corporations started to actually pay to get into games by paying them. This I have mixed feelings about.

The first big problem is that it has to be contextually appropriate. Billboards are an easy one and anything in an urban environment is fair game. Yoot Tower, which I will cover at my website in due time (soon, I hope) features billboards for GameWorks, which you could also place as an actual item inside your megastructure. Where it is not appropriate is inappropriate settings, most notably Battlefield 2142, an FPS set in the far future (bonus points for the fact that within a few years of its release, Pepsi radically altered its logo).

Video games are for getting away from politics. If they pulled this during the ugly 2016 election and the two "pick the lesser of two evils" candidates, then this would've been trashed.

The Sims series was another series that used product placement quite well, frankly. I like SimCity, but I never really played the full The Sims games. I did tool around with the vanilla version of the first The Sims game, but I tired quickly of it and got to the point where I eventually grew tired and frustrated of my rapidly deteriorating family unit and put them in a tiny room with almost nothing until they starved. (It may seem cruel and to some extent it is, but don't deny it, everyone who played The Sims did that sooner or later. I suppose expansion packs and downloadable content could've stretched that out (and The Sims did have plenty of that) but if the vanilla game is that bad, then there's little DLC can do besides just wasting time and money.

However, The Sims was a runaway hit for Maxis and EA and work began on an online version. This time, companies like McDonald's and Intel actually paid to be in it, a far cry from the "pay or permission" style of games even just a few years prior.

Unfortunately, The Sims Online was not a success, partly because the environment was so different from what players were accustomed to in single player (rather than a family with a growing income, a single Sim that must grind for money), and there was nothing Maxis could do to fix it. A single glitch in 2005 that created more money than it should've (I'd like to cite it but the only reference is the Wikipedia article itself) destroyed the economy and in 2007, to breath more life into the game (with its subscriber levels in the toilet) and fix the broken economy, EA allowed user-made content into the game, and like Second Life just became a wasteland of whorehouses before shutting down a year later.

...and EA never learned their lesson in terms of "Online Sim games that no one asked for" [image source]

Still, The Sims did well offline and greenlit a sequel. At this point, the series was a cash cow for EA and not only did EA release EIGHT expansion packs, they also released cheaper "Stuff Packs", which were sold in stores, and after five of these, released a branded version, the H&M Fashion Stuff Pack, which included clothing items and H&M-related items (perhaps for use with the "Open for Business" expansion pack).

Problem is, as some snarky reviewers noted, you're buying an advertisement, and unless you really, really love the brand, there's probably just as good mods that do the same thing. This is the sort of thing that should make a good promotional thing, a digital download to be found in stores, coupons, mail-in rebates, and all that. There was also an IKEA stuff pack released a year later.

"Look, sweetie, I know you think it's very comfortable, but we need to go home soon. The sink and oven don't work, and people are staring at us." [img source: Softpedia]

The second big problem is even when you've got a context-appropriate game, you run the chance of ruining realism. If you've got your urban game (or whatever) and strike a deal with McDonald's (or whatever, but we'll use McDonald's for this purpose), it's unlikely anyone else is joining the party. In a "real" environment, there will be plenty of McDonald's restaurants, but there will also be things like Burger King, Wendy's, Whataburger, In-N-Out Burger, Carl's Jr. (or Hardee's), Sonic, and Jack in the Box. It's unlikely but possible all of those exist in your town, but even two of those appearing in a game would be unheard of.

Even if you could scrounge up sponsorships/permissions for everything you could want, the result would look like you completely sold your soul to advertising.

Remember, this exists.

On top of all that, product placement usually requires specific rules on what you can do with it. Going back to the "sandbox" and the Battlefield 2142 example, product placement will do anything to make their product look good. The Gran Turismo series mentioned in that same article will not let you damage cars, despite running into things. Any brands will always use their most recent logo, prototype, and products, so you won't find a "red roof" Pizza Hut if they were to sponsor a game today. It's probably why product placement isn't found in things in most urban sandbox games.

The general idea in all of them is that you're either a criminal or a cop, living in a world of crime. You can play with those moral choices a bit. Playing as a criminal could mean you're as evil as they come or an anti-villain who just was thrown into the wrong circumstances. A player character who is a police officer (usually in a "clear my name" plot) can either fairly uphold the law and harm no one, or is the type that would put a bullet in the neck of a petty thief who just robbed a convenience store. No corporation would want something where you could walk in and damage or steal things. They wouldn't want you to essentially recreate the 1984 San Ysidro McDonald's massacre or rob a 7-Eleven.

But, what if there's another choice? If you really wanted to explore a virtual world where you wanted to see real world brands, why not add it yourself? In my SimCity 4 review, you could see that there's a Days Inn, and that was not sponsored, endorsed, or associated with Cendant Corporation (which owned the Days Inn brand at the time).

Yes, I suppose you could. Since game mods make no money according to EULAs anyway and I can't remember any company actually going after a modder, it seems that this is the more "acceptable" choice. You could try to improve open-world games with real brands but all you'll end up with is just texture swaps and you'll be lucky if half of them are contextually correct and properly scaled, but sometimes it can be done right only if most of the assets were originally intact, which they were.

But even so, the demand for games that actually can use product placement for a betterment of the product is diminishingly small. So far we've identified that only simulation and sandbox/driving games can really use it effectively (and even that is fairly dubious), everything else is just an annoyance that needs to be purged.

Sunday, October 23, 2016

A Nintendo Switch to Steam Power?

Some years ago I watched the Nintendo E3 event and saw them unveil the Wii U for the first time, and I wrote about it in the blog. Although the writing seems amateurish today, I was not impressed. The Nintendo Switch, which promises to meld the console and handheld experience, is at least a cool idea but to me it still misses the point of why Nintendo became good in the first place before its fall from grace.

The reason why the NES did very well in the marketplace is that it had brilliant games no one else had, and not necessarily because of its exclusivity contract. Better graphics, better game play. In NES games at least compared to the Atari 2600 and its contemporaries, a higher level didn't mean the "the same but more" or "the same but faster", but a whole new experience. New layouts. New bosses. New music. The Sega Master System was more expensive, arrived after the NES had hit the stores, and did not even have a solid line-up of first-party titles. Ask anyone to name some "solid SMS exclusives" and you'll probably get Alex Kidd or Phantasy Star.

And you thought the U.S. box art for the first Mega Man was terrible.

The Super NES fought off stronger competition with once again a superior system with superior games. Their decision to push better games instead of finicky add-ons cemented their place in history. The excellent book Console Wars makes note of the day that, although it isn't explicitly stated in the book, the functional end of Sega as a serious competitor: November 21, 1994. On that day, Sega released the Sega 32X, and Nintendo released Donkey Kong Country. To borrow from a less-successful console from that time period's marketing, "do the math".

It was the Nintendo 64 where Nintendo started to lose track of the industry, by focusing on what they wanted to do and not where the market was going, and that cost them dearly, even if the games would still be good in that period. Fast forward twenty years from 1996 to 2016, and the big problem is that Nintendo's still trying to play by its own rules while the games department is running on fumes. When was the last good Mario, Metroid, or Zelda game made? About a video game generation ago, that's when (at least).

I should point out that Nintendo started doing backwards compatibility for its products only when things started to go wrong. I don't think the Wii would've done nearly as well if did not accept GameCube discs, and the problem with the Nintendo Switch is it won't seem to do Nintendo 3DS games or Wii U games at least out of the box, and given the state of both third parties and first parties these days that's a slim chance that it could do well, and even if it was officially announced, would you drop a high amount of money to play a remastered version of Skyrim? And with the output of Mario's games lately, what will another game look like after Nintendo has hooked up Mario to the milking machine again?

However, Nintendo has stated that it won't replace the Wii U or Nintendo 3DS and will be a new thing, either as insurance policy (like the Nintendo 3DS) or if they really want to be a third column thing (invoking Virtual Boy). And if it carries neither of those products, it will only cut into sales and shelf space of their other products and really harm the company as a whole.

BUT, rather than viewing it as a failure in the making (I'm sure that they'll be a small but vocal segment who will buy it and extol it), what if it totally is different? Watching the video shows it to be a quite large screen compared to the Nintendo 3DS and its contemporaries. I am sure that if this was the case, it would cause more disruption than an Election Day result, but probably also announced by now...if it was compatible with Steam.

While it may sound like wishful fanboy thinking, and to be honest it is, I think some of it does make sense.

1. Why would Bethesda not confirm Skyrim for the Switch but for everyone else? The first explanation would be still waffling if the Nintendo Switch would be a failure or not, which bodes poorly for the system, but the second is if the Switch isn't exactly a stand-alone console, it's a Nintendo-branded PC.

2. Nintendo's willingness to try mobile games may be a prelude to them actually doing a full PC launch. Pokémon Go was a huge hit, making $250 million in a few weeks, while the Wii U loses money on every unit sold and its software sales aren't a whole lot better. It's the 3DS that really carries the company, and even sales for that are slowing down.

3. People have complained for years as to why Nintendo does not make games on the PC, especially as digital distribution makes it easier than ever. Recently, I posted that SMACH Z was doomed for failure because it was hardware based had no software inherent to itself. If it was Nintendo making it, they could pair Steam re-releases with the console, as well as adding exclusives via physical media that may or may not eventually make it to digital distribution later. A well-timed launch will make a massive impact, as it would let people who wanted a handheld Steam device get one, PC gamers pick up "official" copies of games that doesn't involve mucking around with Ice and adding non-Steam games (think about how relatively successful Final Fantasy VII and Final Fantasy VI releases on Steam were), and add incentives for non-Nintendo diehards to purchase one. It would be perfect for everybody.

Buying Super Mario Bros. again may be a tough sell. Maybe if it had extra features somehow...

4. The controller snap-ons. If you had a dedicated home controller for playing at home to just pick up (which it seems to have have and not the derpy snap-together controller that looks like a dog, you don't need to detach the controller pieces every time if you're coming to play back home. The idea would be different snap-on designs for different types of games. Imagine one more designed for FPS use while one designed with a solid NES-style D-pad. The controllers could be the ones that make money.

5. The final reason is that Nintendo has so much to lose if it fails. The system itself is going to incompatible with the 3DS and Wii U without additional hardware (and hardware add-ons have never really worked in market saturation) and there is absolutely no other hardware (announced or rumored) in the pipeline, and neither Pokémon Go nor Super Mario Run will save Nintendo. The only thing that kept Sega running was a $692 million infusion of cash from the late Isao Okawa's personal fortune shortly before the company was acquired in 2004 by Sammy Corporation. If the Nintendo Switch is a success, Nintendo can keep making hardware even if it plays others' software, and still maintain an exclusive group of IPs, keeping the brand alive and in good standing in hearts, minds, and wallets of consumers, as well as continuing to be a promising hardware manufacturer, even after Miyamoto dies someday. If the Nintendo Switch is a failure, that's it. The Game Boy/Nintendo DS line will die with the 3DS, and while they might license out their IPs or make new games, they're finished. I wouldn't bet on them making third party titles unless they have the resources to even do it. Keeping with the Sega example above, the Dreamcast still sold 9.2 million units in its lifetime. That's less than the Wii U's numbers, but they sold 9.2M units in about eighteen months, while it took Wii U two years to reach that number, and that was only because they got a third Christmas, something the Dreamcast never saw.

Even if those reasons made sense on some level to you, the bigger reason still stands. If this was some sort of thing involving Steam, why didn't they say so to begin with? I think the answer is simple--they wanted to focus on the hardware. If they immediately focused on Steam, they would've faced more criticism for the design as well as immediately raising the white flag in terms of the company's console making presence. Here they can trot out the console with no games just to get people intrigued and used to the idea, and they can do a second reveal that will really build excitement for the console. After all, I'm sure that the Nintendo Switch will be able to access Netflix and such, and they didn't show any TV shows of that sort of thing.

If the Nintendo Switch is just an intriguing idea but little to back it up beyond the usual suspects (Zelda, Mario, Pokémon, and the newer version of Splatoon teased), then there's little reason to pick it up, just like the Wii U. But if, if it does have Steam, then it will sell well. After all, Steam functionality would be the "killer feature" the Switch needs, it would provide to a huge audience, and most importantly, it will win back the crowd.

I would buy it.