Nintendo Switch – a controversial console

A reader attempts to counter some of the criticisms against Nintendo’s new console, and argues that graphical power shouldn’t matter.

Wow, there has been a lot of backlash since the Nintendo Switch announcement last week.

I do see people’s point for the most part, but how about looking at it from this angle.

The hardware looks like a gorgeous bit of kit. The feedback on the actual device has been mostly positive. The controllers are innovative, whether you state it as a gimmick or not. Everything that’s not classed as a standard in a console is regarded as a gimmick. Yet Nintendo’s way has shaped the gaming industry in many ways based on trying new ideas.




Like it or not the standard console controller set-up has several features once deemed a gimmick that Nintendo made popular among the masses.

The graphics on current gen systems are impressive. But with installations and updates that fill your hard drive meaning that the average owner has to delete a 60+ GB game to install a new one, this leads to having to book in advance what you want to replay in the future.

A mate from work said his nephew got an Xbox One for Xmas and spent the first several hours staring at the screen, waiting for updates and installations before he could play Goat Simulator and Minecraft.

The Switch is cartridge based. This means that not only will the games load quickly, they probably won’t need installing because it doesn’t use discs. Something that seems a rarity these days.

If you want/need to download on the Switch and need some extra space as it’s 32GB internally (as are many modern SSD storage-based £400+ laptops). Grab an SD card that’s probably lying around the bottom of your wardrobe. If not, a 64GB SD card costs less than a tenner off the Internet, and I bet that SD card takes longer to fill up than a PS4 500GB hard drive.

Graphics however, are important to be attractive. In reality though, do they really need to be so incredibly impressive for it to become a great game? Transformers 2 comes to mind. At the beginning it’s a spectacle of mind-blowing, cutting edge visual special effects. By the end of it, I really didn’t care. I was desensitised by them and the film was still rubbish. Now look at the latest Zelda trailer. Fan or not it’s hard to disagree that this 13.5GB game looks fantastic. That’s a game designed for old hardware. It will also probably be a strong contender for game of the year. As good as it looks though do you think it will be graphics that will carry that game?

High end tech does not have to consist of CPU, GPU, teraflops and 4K. In fact, I bet most gamers never even heard of a teraflop before Microsoft announced the Scorpio.



In fact, how has the current gen of gaming improved over the last gen out of the box besides graphics?

I see the Switch as a console that’s a similar size to a DVD case, that has convenient versatility with the potential to have pretty much its highly acclaimed back catalogue playable, whilst keeping local multiplayer very much alive.

The fact Zelda is a launch title could possibly restrict other games wanting to compete against it on day one. Even Nintendo doesn’t want to. If it wasn’t a launch title everyone would moan. Then again you could throw out a flurry of mediocre games with one or two decent ones as well for launch. You know, so the consumer can have choice even though they will have one game set in their mind. The most anticipated one.

When you first saw the Switch trailer, did it look like it was going to be dirt cheap? It was only until rumours of a cheap price emerge that people assumed it was going to be. One retailer had a premature price point for it for £200, which didn’t help. A high end 32GB smartphone costs in excess of £700, or a price plan that will set you back over a grand. It’s tiny compared to other home consoles. You can even have a LAN style experience with mates and you don’t need to gather extra TVs and big consoles riddled with wires to do so.

If you don’t like the idea of the Switch but want something new get the PlayStation VR. If you already have a PlayStation 4, great. But bear in mind, it will set you back about £550+ with a game to have the optimal experience. Not to mention to gain the ultimate experience you will need the PS4 Pro. Just don’t forget your 4K TV.


I know I sound like a massive Nintendo fanboy bit it’s hard to put a point across like this and not sound otherwise. I really enjoy my PlayStation 4 (don’t own an Xbox One) and there are some excellent games on the current gen as a whole. VR also interests me a great deal, but I can’t help but feel that gamers are so spoilt to the point where gaming is pressured to play safe, look good, and be cheap or die.

It could also be a result of free games being thrown at us left, right, and centre. Whether it be part of a subscription or from an app store, making a majority of games to be tested rather than explored. We also tend to have the need to want it now and cheap despite the man hours, cost, and passion that goes into making games for some of them only to get canned (RIP Scalebound).

‘How dare they not bring out a portable 500GB 10 teraflop 4K console with a library of launch games that includes Mario, Zelda, and Metroid for £200! Laura Kate Dale and Forbes told me it would be! I am not pre-ordering this tripe, take that Nintendo!’

I could be wrong. Maybe gaming is all about high-end processing, high frame rates, realistic trees, 1080p, and 4K – as well as annual sport sims and shooters. What do I know? I’ve only been a fan gaming for 30 years.

Also, someone needs be devil’s advocate, regardless of what flag you wave!


By reader Harmful Dazmos (gamertag/PSN ID/NN ID)

The reader’s feature does not necessary represent the views of GameCentral or Metro.

You can submit your own 500 to 600-word reader feature at any time, which if used will be published in the next appropriate weekend slot. As always, email gamecentral@ukmetro.co.uk and follow us on Twitter.