So, You Don't Like the Nintendo Switch (TheBitBlock Response)

*Insert Captain America Meme Here*

Typically, I don't like to respond to other content creator's work, instead I prefer to take my own approach to a topic. However, today is a rare exception. My favorite Nintendo YouTuber, TheBitBlock, just uploaded a very controversial video titled, "I don't like the Nintendo Switch... But Maybe Someday I will". I mean, a video that divisive is just begging for a response.

Now, I want to make it clear from the start that I do really like the Switch, however, when looking at the system holistically, I have many issues with it, many of which line up with Josh's criticisms of the platform. So, today I want to respond to Josh point-by-point, illustrating what I agree with him on, where we differ, and in rare instance, where I feel he's actually missed the mark. However, while I have taken his points and boiled them down into a single sentence, I do not want to misrepresent him in this post, so please check out his original video (which can be found here) before reading my rebuttals.

Ready? Here we go.

"I Paid for a Feature I Didn't Want"

Josh's opening point is, I feel, one of his weakest. He talks about how he feels somewhat burned by the fact that the Switch is sold as a two-in-one, even if certain gamers (like himself) intend to only use it as a home console. Personally, I find this unreasonable. Where the Switch succeeds as a piece of hardware, in my eyes, is the way that its "gimmick" doesn't feel intrusive. Take, for instance, the Wii. The gimmick of motion control was incredibly intrusive, essentially forcing waggle-control into the lion's share of its games. The Switch's hybrid design allows people like Josh to use the system as a pure home console if they prefer, but also allows for people like myself to use the machine on the go, or simply when lounging in bed. It is a win-win for everyone, whereas Nintendo's past gimmicks can't say the same.

"Too Many Old Games and Ports"

This is one of the places where I agree with Josh on the whole, but I disagree slightly in detail. I do think that Nintendo is putting far too much energy behind porting the entire Wii U library (at least that is how it feels) to the Switch. However, I'm not as anti-port as I used to be. As a Wii U owner, I do feel slighted by how much effort and marketing is being put into these rehashes of old games. But, I don't take umbrage with the principle. In concept, I really don't care if Nintendo ports every Wii U game to Switch. It is undeniably true that the Wii U sold poorly and its games deserve a wider audience.

What I take issue with, is Nintendo positioning these ports as new, tent pole experiences and selling them at unreasonable prices. If Nintendo simply ported Wii U titles over with no new content but released them at, say, $30, I would certainly consider picking up a few titles again. But, to take a game like New Super Mario Bros. U, slap the word "Deluxe" on the title, tweak a few of the game's features, and charge $60 is just disingenuous.

"The Coolest Part of the Switch was Developer Unification, and it hasn't Happened"

Again, I agree with Josh here. The division of resources across handheld and home console development since the Game Boy's inception has always been a bummer. To watch Nintendo refuse to take the opportunity with the Switch to rectify this issue by continuing to drag out the 3DS's slow, inevitable death is strange. While I understand the rationale for many of the 3DS's post-Switch games, the fact remains that Nintendo should be doing everything in their power to make the Switch as exciting a piece of hardware as possible. How do you do that? Release as many fun and creative games on the platform as possible.

"Breath of the Wild is an Amazing Game, but it isn't a Switch Game"

This point is totally correct. Breath of the Wild is a full-stop masterpiece, and one of the best games that has ever been released; Nintendo or otherwise. It also isn't native to the Switch, being primarily a Wii U game. But, I don't think this should be a knock against the game being an integral part of the Switch's library in my opinion, but that is neither here nor there, as Josh really didn't say anything to that effect.

"Super Mario Odyssey is Fun, but is Over-hyped and Lacks Replay Value"

I strongly disagree with Josh here. Super Mario Odyssey is a brilliant game that I have sunk over 60 hours into, and I still revisit often. It has an incredible sense of focus and plays to its own strengths. Unlike Super Mario Sunshine, which Josh touts as the best 3D Mario game, Odyssey doesn't pad the game out with random level designs that feel not only like non-sequiturs,  but at times, totally broken. There is no Pachinko level or Water Melon Festival here in Odyssey. Everything feels to the point and fun while still allowing for unbounded creativity in Kingdom design. I firmly believe that this title is second only to Galaxy in the 3D Mario hierarchy. Sure, the extra moons feel incredibly rinse-and-repeat, but the fun here isn't derived from the moons themselves, but from exploring the kingdoms and playing with the game's excellent mechanics. This is an offshoot of the Super Mario 64/Sunshine mission structure, and it succeeds for reasons different than those two original 3D Mario titles.

"ARMS Feels like a Mini-Game and isn't Worth $60"

I agree, ARMS isn't good. 'Nuff said.

"Splatoon 2 Launched in a Poor State, but is now a Great Game"

Once more, not much controversy here. In fact, I wrote very similar sentiments last year as the game was released and updated. At launch, it simply felt like a rehash of the Wii U original, and it really wasn't until the content updates beginning with Clam Blitz that the game started to feel fresh. Frankly, it wasn't until the release of Octo Expansion back in June that I truly fell in love with Splatoon 2. At this point in time, it is my favorite game on the system, but it took a long time to accrue enough new, exciting content for me to give Splatoon 2 that honor.

"Mario Tennis Aces is Minimal and Empty"

This is totally correct. Mario Tennis Aces is a game with incredibly strong core game play systems, but a severe lack of features. The Adventure mode is incredibly short and poorly designed, the court selection is limited and full of bad gimmicks, and fundamental options like multi-set matches are nowhere to be found. To add insult to injury, the 2.0 update barely improved the game, with incredibly basic one-player mini-games, and online co-op challenges that seem to be forgotten about already, with only ONE challenge since the 2.0 launch in September. Mario Tennis Aces felt totally botched, even if it is still occasional fun in local multiplayer.

"Games as a Service is a New Fad, but Nintendo is Doing it Horribly"

This is a point that I fall somewhere in the middle on. Josh is far more principally opposed to the games as a service model than I am, preferring all of a game's content to the on the disc at launch. Now,  for me, I evaluate this model on a case-by-case basis. Take, for example, the original Splatoon. I bought that game at launch, and was incredibly impressed by its gameplay and world-design. It was just lacking in content--an issue that was rectified as the weeks rolled by with new content drops which kept me engaged with the game week after week.

Now, the argument can be made, as Josh makes it, that a complete game from day-one can be just as fun for just as long. However, I disagree--in some cases. With an online-focused game series like Splatoon, maintaining a healthy player base is integral to the game's long-term success. However, the console-gaming space is full of online multiplayer titles to get lost in, each vying for a player's attention. So, if Splatoon had launched with everything on disc and no post-launch content, regardless of the game's quality, the chance was high that a large portion of the player base would've ditched the game for another that offered constant updates and new content. With that in mind, to maintain the player base, continually dropping new content into the game was imperative.

The other great benefit of this model is the way in which it can help prevent content droughts. This principle extends to all DLC practices generally, but is especially true of games as a service. Nintendo infamously has had issues with game droughts, and releasing game updates is a great way to combat this. Sure, getting a new stage in Splatoon or new pieces in Super Mario Maker is not the same as getting a new game, but a month full of DLC can be just as engaging for the community as a single new title. Games as a service keeps old titles feeling fresh long after they've released, which simply cannot be said for games that ship "complete" on day one.

With that said, calling a games as a service title incomplete is somewhat disingenuous, as is calling these titles' respective DLC updates paid content pieces. In Josh's opinion, these post-launch updates aren't really free, because they're parts of the core game that have been taken out and released down the line. However, I find this weak because that is equivalent to saying that Netflix is incomplete, and the movies that get added to it aren't free. Yes, technically they aren't because you're paying to access Netflix. But, when you buy into a title like Splatoon at launch, much like Netflix, you're buying into a service knowing well that the service will shift and grow as the months pass by. Nintendo isn't hoodwinking us here: it is made incredibly clear that we're paying up front for an ever-expanding experience.

So, while I disagree with Josh on this point fundamentally, I do agree that Nintendo has really bungled the model in many instances. Chiefly, in the case of Mario Tennis Aces. What Nintendo seemingly doesn't understand is that not every game needs to be, or makes sense as, a game as a service. In the case of the Splatoon series, it makes perfect sense. However, in the case of a Mario sports game? Not so much. The legacy of these games is local multiplayer; not as an online one. With that in mind, the focus in design should be to create a compelling local experience, full of interesting unlockables and progression from day one. The strength of series like Mario Kart and Smash Bros. is the way in which they dole out new content for local play, while also including the online component as a bonus for those who want it. However, they aren't letting the presence of an online aspect influence their design philosophy. I can buy into games as a service for an online-focused title. But, when I have to wait five months to be able to play as Birdo in a local-multiplayer match of Mario Tennis with my sister, I begin to take issue with the practice.

"If you've Played Mario Party on the N64 and Gamecube, and you Like Super Mario Party, You've Let your Standards Slip"

Frankly, I think that Super Mario Party is just alright. If you'd like to read my full thoughts, here is the link to my review on Gaming Trend, where I gave the title a 65/100. Super Mario Party Review

"The Nintendo Switch has Crappier Online than the Wii in Every Way"

The Nintendo Switch Online Membership is truly difficult to defend. I do pay for it, but I went in on a family plan with my friends so I'm only paying $4.50 a year. I commend Josh for being principled enough to not buy a service that he doesn't feel is putting Nintendo on a good path, but I simply can't hold out. The problem is, online play is just so integral to how I experience my games. Hell, Splatoon 2 is my favorite Nintendo Switch game. Even beyond that though, so many of my friends are spread all around the country, and if we're going to be able to play games together, we have to pony up the money. So, naturally, we did. But, that doesn't mean I think the service is worth paying for. While I personally enjoy the NES Online offering, the package just isn't compelling. With how shoddy the servers are and how few games support cloud saves, buying a subscription isn't easy to justify.

"I love the Joy-Con Colors, but these Suck"

Personally, I am a Joy-Con fan. My one overarching praise of the controller is how much interesting tech is packed in here. While Josh rebuts this in his video, I think that the versatility of the Joy-Cons and their technological prowess open up so many doors for innovative design. While Nintendo Labo, as a game, felt lackluster, I don't believe that one failed initiative should close the door on Joy-Con based innovation. Even if Nintendo never takes another full Labo sized leap, I truly believe that these controllers have practical benefits for standard games: from gyro to HD Rumble. Where I take issue with the Joy-Con, though, is in some of the different Switch play-styles. In handheld mode, I have no issues with them. When I'm playing in TV mode, I often defer to my Pro Controller, but in some games I've found detached Joy-Con to be the most comfortable option. However, as Josh says, using a single Joy-Con on its side is just bad. The pad is just too cramped, and the SL/SR buttons simply aren't up to the task. On the whole though, I appreciate their modular, tech-heavy design and bright neon coloring.

"All said, Things are Looking Up. Smash and Pokemon are Neat, but to be real, they aren't Actually New"

This is an unfair characterization of both games. Yes, Pokemon Let's Go is a re-imagining of Pokemon Yellow. However, it changes up the fundamental gameplay so much that Let's Go really offers a new experience. And, spoilers for my upcoming review, Let's Go executes on its concepts incredibly well. But, sure, I can concede that Let's Go isn't an entirely new idea. However, the Smash Ultimate point just feels totally unjustified to me. Sure, if Josh had said that Ultimate was somewhere between a port and a new game back in June post-E3, I would've agreed. But, to say this when we have a mechanical overhaul, a suite of new fighters, new modes, a new collectible metagame, a revamped online, and an original Adventure mode feels like selective perception. Yes, all the characters and most of the stages are back. However, that doesn't make Smash a port. Melee reused all of 64's characters and added only a fraction of the content that Ultimate is adding, but that isn't a port. I simply don't understand this line of thinking in a post-Smash Direct environment.

From here, Josh wraps up the video by discussing how he is optimistic for the future with titles such as Animal Crossing on the horizon, and how he'd like to see more unconventional and exciting Nintendo games on the Switch. Again, I totally agree. 2018 was a bad year to be a Nintendo fan, but 2019 is looking up with a barrage of confirmed, exciting titles hitting the system. While I won't rehash that now, you can click here to read my full thoughts about next year's slate.

So, while I found several of Josh's points to be disagreeable or unfair, on the whole, I think that his criticisms were valid. I really wanted to illustrate today how there are multiple, fair perspectives to hold in relation to the Nintendo Switch, because the recent coverage has been overwhelmingly positive, to the point where it feels biased. Outside of creators like Josh Thomas and Arlo, there are few places where I feel that I can turn for honest, unfiltered opinions. As I've stated at the top and my other work has shown, I like the Nintendo Switch, but it has problems. Josh doesn't like the Nintendo Switch, but it has some strengths in his eyes. Both perspectives are equally important if we're going to fabricate a better dialog around the Nintendo Switch.