I feel like another part of it is that the switch seems to be much closer to a conventional console. So proviso in that I dont own one. But many friends do, I’ve used it and I recently got the new Zelda playable on emulation.
Now with breath of the wild your emulating the Wii u version of the game but I think it still works as an example of what I’m getting at. The previous Zelda game is apparently pointless to impossible to emulate, as you basically need the original controller/input hardware to make it playable. The new one, even though there are still motion controls and 2 screens there’s really nothing there that can’t be easily emulated with the standard PC inputs and some remarkably simple software tricks with an Android device for motion. Those more complicated additional bits are only neccisary if you want to hit every shrine, And care about amiibo. All the important gameplay functions essentially identical to any other system.
So from a design standpoint the game is far, far less focused on Nintendo’s hardware gimmicks than headline games for the previous 2 systems. And there are design elements built off competing open world games. A “zoned” world with escalating difficulty, maps unlocked by climbing towers. Crafting, equipment/loot, And progression systems much more similar to western rpgs and open world games.
From what I’ve seen and experienced of the system as a whole and some of the other games that’s much more broadly the case than with either Wii or Wii u. It should be a system that fits better with what the bulk of the market sees as “gaming”. And it should be less effected by any rise of fall in interest in its central gimmick. Which is an easier push to begin with. It’s a full powered portable you can plug into your TV.
There’s a general sort of “it’s all dying!” apocalyptic tick to video game press over all.
But the coverage of Nintendo over the last few years was prompted by some legitimate problems. Falling stock prices. Financial loses stemming from the Wii u. It was never particularly plausible that Nintendo was gonna OH MY GOD COLLAPSE. But the Game Cube never had a deep catalog of quality games. And struggled at various points. Wii had some trouble once the initial wow of motion controls wore off. And 3rd party/cross platform started to dominate. With a couple periods where it looked like a sink in Nintendo’s profits. Wii u was short lived mostly a failure, And seemed to lose money for some pretty big chunks of time. So there was a clear trend there. It’s just that Nintendo was profitable over all due to other things. The DS primarily. Later amiibo. Things like the classic consoles and Pokemon go more recently.
There was always something to offset, or out sell the seeming failures, even when they turned out to be actual failures. Nintendo’s got a fairly risky approach to individual consoles. The focus on first party, limited game catalogs. And innovative inputs/tech what have that can often just come off as gimmicks. While limiting longevity, backwards compatibilty, And portability of their software. Well it means when things hit they’re very profitable. But when they don’t. Or fade fast. It looks pretty bad money wise. Thus far there’s been something to cover all that. And I think the big successes currently point to that. Switch is building off the way portables covered the rough patches in their consoles. The collectibles bring us amiibo and classic consoles. And mobile games to acknowledge the fact that mobile kind of ate portables.
The overall sky is falling tone of much of it, till the successes come. Is sadly typical of media coverage of gaming as a whole.
Just look at coverage of PC games over the last. I dunno 20 years. Your favorite genre is dead. Single player is dead. PC gaming as a whole is dying. It’s all about to end. Console, software as service, micropayments, multi-player, loot boxes, mobile, are going to destroy/replace x, y, or z.
But during the worst of it PC sales in dollar amounts were almost always about as big as any one of the consoles. And a lot of the time represented a full 3rd of the market. With consoles splitting the remaining 2/3rds among themselves in various ways. (mobile turning out to be sort of a separate but huge market). Even as PC sales over all tapered. Gaming PCs and equipment continued to grow. The Indy market, exports, digital distribution, And graphic development were driven by PC. And not mobile or console. And the consoles have increasingly become just highly specialised PCs.
So as this was all going on. PC as a venue for video games was DYING it was the death of the PC! PC is ending y’all! And that story was pushed primarily by the PC industry and PC games media. Until suddenly “It’s a PC revolution!”. But like I said PC never seemed in danger from a money or numbers perspective. And there was a fairly clear trend towards a better more stable platform. Innovation. And identifiable growth. The entire time. That “boom” had clearly been going for years before press started to comment on it.
