Chebucto Regional Softball Club

So, repeatedly buy and return games?

You can obviously decide to buy whatever you want. My point is that their legal team doesn't seem to impact their product development team much at all. Nintendo develops their IPs pretty consistently, so you're unlikely to get into a situation where they just sit on something and sue the crap out of anyone who tries to use their stagnant IPs. Compare to Disney, who is _more_ litigious and doesn't do a lot with their core IPs (when's the last time you saw Mickey Mouse star in a high profile film or game?). If you like Nintendo products, the good news is they'll continue creating them. The bad news is mostly around preservation, Nintendo _really_ wants you to hang on to old hardware if you want to play old games. They're also _very_ touchy about how their IPs are represented in the media, so be _very_ careful when you use them in a YT video or something.

I think it's important to separate Nintendo's legal department from product development. While the products are expensive, they are high quality and are generally enjoyed by their target demographic. Their legal department is a supervillain, sure, but that's a separate thing entirely from the product development side IMO.

> "Leslie never decided what game he wanted to make," says Jamie. "There was no coherent direction". And that's the issue. GTA games are successful because they have consistent direction. Each game is basically the same as the previous one, just with new characters and story, and a gameplay tweak or two. Starting from 3 as the base to compare against (I haven't played anything earlier): - Vice City - added motorcycles and swords and shifted setting to something like Miami from something like NYC - San Andreas - added gang warfare, powered aircraft, and RPG elements (weight, speed, etc), and shifted setting to something like LA - GTA IV - changed vehicle physics to be more realistic and added a dating sim, setting returned to something like NYC - GTA V - added swapping between three playable characters, stock buying, and heists (missions only), setting returned to LA-like - GTA VI - no firm details yet, but it looks like two playable characters and a shift back to a Miami-like setting; the they'll probably add some gameplay elements as well, but core gameplay will be samey GTA knows what it is and what it's trying to be, and they don't change their formula very much between games. The best games are ones that know what they're trying to be and fill that niche really well. Look at Celeste, Hollow Knight, or Balatro, they do one thing really well and not much else. It sounds like this guy tried to stuff a bunch of ideas into one game, that didn't go anywhere, so he changed gears to something different and didn't give the team enough vision as to what that different direction was. The negative reviews show exactly what I expect from that, an unoptimized mess with derivative gameplay because they didn't perfect what makes their game special. The description throws warning bells as well, since it says the game well evolve, which means they haven't finished it yet.

Eh, I think GTA games are fun. I haven't played 1&2, but the rest are fun as a crime sim. Stealing cars, running from cops, and gun fights are fun, and GTA games offer that both in the narrative and in the sandbox. I do agree that the hype is ridiculous though. GTA games are fun, but IMO not worth the asking price at launch, and certainly not something I play much beyond completing the story. Killing people and running from the cops gets old after a while. I get far more value from 4x games and city builders than GTA since there's far more interesting choices due to variance for each play through. That doesn't mean GTA is bad, it's just a one-note game that scratches a particular itch.

No. Games can offer whatever modes they want. That said, I probably won't play a game without a decent PvE mode, because I generally prefer playing solo. So if they want my money, they should offer it.

The Steam Deck and the Switch target very different demographics, to the point where comparing them doesn't make much sense. I wouldn't get a Steam Deck for a young child, but I would get a Switch, because the Switch is a much simpler experience. I bring up the Steam Deck only to talk about value. People complain about Nintendo gouging their customers, and that's absolutely true for their games, but their hardware has almost always been good value. Performance is similar (of not strictly better) to the Steam Deck, which is already incredible value, and they add some extra value with removable controllers, better refresh rate, etc, all with similar battery life. If you like/want the Switch 1 and are considering whether the Switch 2 js a worthwhile upgrade, there's your answer. It plays Switch 1 games, often with a perf upgrade (e.g. higher-framerate lock), and it can play current gen titles at respectable framerates (e.g. Cyberpunk on Switch 2 is better than the Steam Deck). But that's where the comparison should end, because they're very different ecosystems with different target markets. The decision tree is very simple: - if Nintendo first party titles or games "just working" is a top priority for you and you're fine with a smaller selection and paying more for games, the Switch 2 is a great option - if you don't mind or even like tinkering a bit and you'd consider doing small repairs/upgrades yourself if provided a guide, or even if the vast back catalogueof PC games excites you, the Steam Deck is a great option There's not a lot of overlap in those two groups, so the comparison is only relevant to get an idea of performance category. I own a Switch 1 and a Steam Deck and I'll likely get a Switch 2 at some point. Why? I have kids, I like Nintendo first party games, and I like playing casual couch games with friends and my kids. If I didn't have kids, I probably wouldn't value playing couch games with friends (we'd just play online), and I probably wouldn't get a Switch and just emulate the handful of games I want to play (mostly Zelda games). My Steam Deck is for my personal time, the Switch is for time with my kids and friends.

I don't think it is, it's $500 w/ Mario Kart, $450 without, and if we compare to the Steam Deck at $400, it has: - better screen resolution, faster refresh rate, and a larger screen (almost an inch bigger) - is lighter, thinner, and overall smaller - has better performance, at least in Cyberpunk 2, with generally better graphics - plays Nintendo first-party games The Steam Deck has been the handheld to beat. Some are faster, but no PC handheld is anywhere near the Steam Deck in terms of value (price for performance). The Switch 2 beats it in performance, and is a similar price, which is pretty awesome. The games, however, are really expensive, but we're talking about hardware value here.

Its the same form factor but a lot better hardware.

Ah, that's where non-credible defence gets its source material...

Mad respect!