Switch game poblems

[SuperNova]

So, as you must know I have been using the forums as a place to find games I would like to learn se good switch games to play.

I am getting a switch in December and I have already two things for sure FE and pokemon for the switch. The problems are

• Xenoblade 2, I am thinking of getting it with the console or should I get sth like Zelda or Splatoon and get Xeno 2 latter?
• And last but not least FE warriors it will also come for the new 3ds family as well as the switch. I already have a new 3ds and I can get it on release and with 3d (which I got to love with xeno and FE SoV) or the switch version will be better and will be worth the wait?

[Godot]

Mario Odyssey, Pokken, and Mario + Rabbids all seem legit.  They aren't out yet.  but I am excited.  (well pokken technically is... it's my most anticipated Nintendo game next to Metroid coming this year.)

[Another Felix]

If looking from Hyrule Warriors, the Switch version will be better graphically and play smoother, as well as have different/better animations (In HW Legends on 3DS, Giant Boss gauge breaks didn't have unique animations for the characters). But whichever version comes out later will probably have more DLC.

[Maelstrom]

Yeah, they'll probably have different switch bundles when you get it around Christmas time. I'd suggest going for the one with the newest-released game you want and buy older games like Splatoon and Zelda individually, since they should be on sale for cheaper by then.

 

As far as FE Warriors, I'd wait to see about the online coop situation, or if it'll be local/couch only. If there is online coop, I'd go 3DS because far more people have it than people who own a switch, including members of this here community. So, even if I did own a switch, I'd still probably opt for the 3DS version. It'll just be a bit nicer on the switch graphically. I am curious as to the control comparison though. Maybe motion controls would make for a better experience if it supports it.

[Gentleman Jaggi]

On 18.8.2017 at 11:37 PM, Maelstrom said:

It'll just be a bit nicer on the switch graphically

The 3DS can't really the amount of enemies running around in a Warriors game. I tried the Hyrule Warriors Legends demo on a New 3DS and the number of enemies it loaded was downright pitiful. In a game series that lives on mowing down huge numbers of enemies I'd call that a big issue.

[Maelstrom]

29 minutes ago, Gentleman Jaggi said:

The 3DS can't really the amount of enemies running around in a Warriors game. I tried the Hyrule Warriors Legends demo on a New 3DS and the number of enemies it loaded was downright pitiful. In a game series that lives on mowing down huge numbers of enemies I'd call that a big issue.

 

Well, I've really only played Hyrule Warriors as a spinoff, because for me number mowing means almost nothing if those enemies didn't present any sort of challenge or a unique element to beating them. It's a one button game, really. Have you ever just stopped and stood still to see what these hordes of enemies actually do? They sit and stare at you. I've always been of two minds about hyrule warriors. It has some fun elements, and then it just stops being fun after a while or if you look closely at it.

 

So if there are fewer enemies on the screen, it wouldn't take away anything from the game for me.

[Gentleman Jaggi]

10 hours ago, Maelstrom said:

 

Well, I've really only played Hyrule Warriors as a spinoff, because for me number mowing means almost nothing if those enemies didn't present any sort of challenge or a unique element to beating them. It's a one button game, really. Have you ever just stopped and stood still to see what these hordes of enemies actually do? They sit and stare at you. I've always been of two minds about hyrule warriors. It has some fun elements, and then it just stops being fun after a while or if you look closely at it.

 

So if there are fewer enemies on the screen, it wouldn't take away anything from the game for me.

I haven't played any other Warriors games either actually. Yeah, the mooks mostly don't really do a whole lot (they do get more active on higher difficulties), but if they all actually moved like they're seriously trying to kill you it would make the game unreasonably hard. It is very much a game series about mowing down hoards of enemies to cut your way through to the next enemy officer you need to take out. You're in the middle of a war and the hoards of enemies are there to reinforce that.

Even if you personally don't care much for the killcount, there's still the issue that at the very least HW had missions and mechanics/extras that required killing a large number of enemies and that just gets unreasonably difficult when there aren't a lot of enemies around. Ever played HW's coop as Player 2? The game prioritizes spawning enemies for Player 1, so if you're on a "Kill X Enemies" you're pretty much unable to do much besides hacking down half a dozen guys here and there.

 

Besides, sometimes it's just fun to see a crapton of NPCs all fighting over the same fort. Nothing quite like your HQ getting sieged by two enemies while close to falling and absolutely swamped with mooks and officers all beating the crap out of each other.