PixlBit

Hmmmm. I believe all the Switch has actually proved is that people are down with the NINTENDO console experience on the go. No evidence this would translate to Sony or MS as well.  These are all different brands, Nintendo more different from the other two than the other two are from each other. One of these things is not like the others, so it follows that what works for one of these things would not or might not apply to the others.

I think the way that SonySoft would attack this is to double down on hardware power. But this is a simple minded strategy that has proven to be unsuccessful in the handheld market.  There are other factors to consider like presentation/packaging, ease of use, software environment, brand reputation and perception, etc.  Would they pursue a "badass" presentation and "multimedia center" concept instead of the "light and fun" presentation that, at least I believe, suits the handheld market better? The centerpiece games on the Switch so far are two colorful, lighter hearted games, (BotW relatively so, but LoZ has always been a bit "darker" than Mario) not the DOOMs and Skyrims, which I consider "support" software, like Contra and Castlevania were to Mario and LoZ. They are there to provide the necessary variety alongside the centerpiece games.

Still, I could see this doing well enough to at least not be a financial loss. Switch level success, nah. I think the best approach, economically, would have some kind of WiiU like screen/control that not only transmits games from the consoles, but of course also has their own media drives. But all that other multimedia crap MicroSony like to fool with would be a pointless resource and financial drain. Keep it simple, keep it light. And other things like having different colors that present a less "aggressive" profile.

Or maybe I'm wrong and going in a more aggressive dircection would provide an alternative to Nintendo's profile that would attract its own large audience. But I see Sony taking that direction in the past and it hasn't worked out for them, although I think PSP had a quite a good number of good games.

Commenting on various comments.

You make a strong case for the system. With a Switch and my PC, I would be missing out on very little. Just some of the From Software games, really. Especially with all these Japanese games coming out on PC. I just bought the first Zwei game on Steam. We are living in a great time for video gaming across the board.

I hope Nintendo gets the stick out of their ass about side scrolling Mario. The last couple NSMB games were half assed. They deserve the same effort and production as the 3D games, especially seeing as how they sell more. 3D platforming does not replace 2D. Two completely different design paradigms are involved. A top tier 2D Mario adventure would only increase Switch sales. Let WayForward or Retro do it then. Would probably way more interesting than anything N could do now.

I feel the same about Metroid. I loved the first Prime, it's one of my top 10, but again side scrolling Metroid is a whole different feel. Samus Returns doesn't quite cut it. I want top tier production values. So hope to see that on Switch some day. Doubtful.

Want to know the best thing about Switch? Cartridges. Physical media. And the packaging looks awesome. I walked by the Switch section in Walmart, and the boxes popped off the shevles. Go over to Sony and Micro sections and the box art is stale as hell.

People underestimeate how monumental 1998 was. They aren't seeing things from a historical perspective. Part of that is they aren't accounting for PC gaming or are unaware of what was coming out on that side. Another part is that it's not just about games being "good". That's not enough. There was nothing in 2017 that wasn't already established in previous decades. 1998 was paradigm shifting. That is the reason it's been considered the great year for so long.

LCD screens tend towards cooler light I believe. Plus you have a higher color gamut in a lot of those older 2D games.

Fundamentally, most RPGs, east or west, are still just Ultima and Wizardry. Old hat. I didn't think Divinity: OS2 lived up to the praise unless you ignored the past 20 years of WRPGs. There are so many ideas and possibilities that developers could draw from pen and paper RPGs since they are so complex and limitless, but I don't think anyone is looking beyond what has already been done. We only get a handful of electronic interpretations The upcoming Pathfinder game will probably just be Baldur's Gate redux. Persona 5 and Nier are still basically as limited as JRPGs from 30 years ago.

On the other hand, I have to give Nintendo credit. With BotW, they've finally stepped out from under the shadow of Ocarina of Time. And also from the shadow of current open world design. Taking the right things from the original LoZ and other early open worlds. Exploration is not really exploration if everything to find is sign-posted, it's tourism. And it felt more RPG than any of the "proper" ones that came out since you could structure your own adventure. BotW is rightfully the GotY ( in the AAA sphere. I enjoyed Nex Machina and Hollow Knight more). Nothing else even came close from what I can tell.

Hitman isn't that kind of stealth, unless you are caught trespassing. Even then NPCs don't aggro immediately, they try to question you first. If you can walk away and break line of sight they will stop following you.

I may try Risky's Revenge afterwards. Then the original if I like that one.

I'd say most people who play games wouldn't know the term. Forums don't represent the larger gaming populace. I see these indie games on Steam where the developer advertises their games as a metroidvania and I think they are limiting themselves to the hardcore. Maybe they're ok with that.

It was an epic journey. They really pulled out all the stops to make that action-adventure.