Yes, they can be a personal device like a game boy, but they can also be a shared device.
The regular Nintendo Switch (and I think the OLED one) can be played handheld or docked (aka. plugged into the TV). I’d recommend this version.
The Nintendo Switch Lite cannot be plugged into the TV, and is also harder to play multiplayer with other people in the same room. So avoid the “Lite”.
The controllers on the regular Nintendo Switch are removable. This means that you can buy a console and have two controllers for some games. Some games require more buttons, so each player would need a pair, but some simpler games like Mario Kart or Mario Party can be played with just one half (aka. Joy-Con).
The games are generally sharable between consoles and within consoles.
Between consoles: The cartridges will work no matter how many consoles you swap it between. Only the console with the game inserted will be able to play the game. However, the saved games (progression in a game) are usually saved to a console, not the cartridge.
(The same holds true for digital games only if the account that bought the game is connected to a console. Accounts can be connected to multiple consoles. An account can only be logged in to one console at a time, so ALL digitally-owned games on that account are locked to one console at a time…but if they aren’t logged in, then the another console can log in and play the digital games. So no multiplayer, but taking turns playing the digital game on different consoles. Saves might be shared here, though)
Within consoles: Almost every game allows each profile on the console to have their own saved game. So you could buy one Pokemon game, and up to 8 people can have save files for that game. Depending on the game, they may not be able to play simultaneously (e.g. trading), but they can all have their own save files with their own progression.
So, what you suggested is overkill. Here’s my advice:
If you want family game time, you just need…
One OLED Switch (connects to TV)
Buy games physically if you foresee anyone wanting their own console in the future, or digitally if not
Check if the games you’re buying can be played with a single Joy-Con. If so, the console comes with 2. If a player needs 2 Joy-Cons each, you have 1 controller with the console. Buy enough Joy-Cons or Pro Controllers (which are equivalent to a pair of Joy-Cons, but can’t be “split”) so that you have enough for all your players.
This console can still be played handheld whenever someone wants solo game time or when someone else wants the TV.
This will allow everyone to play single-screen multiplayer games on your TV together. Note that most games allow up to 4 players at once. More is rare.
Or, if you’ve got older kids who want their own individual games that they’ll play independently at the same time, it gets more complicated. But here’s what I’d suggest.
Get at least one dockable (non-Lite) Switch in the family. This Switch “gets” access to the TV, but may also have to “share” for family multiplayer time.
Get Switch Lites for anyone who REALLY needs to be playing something else independently when the TV/“main” Switch is in use
Get physical games: Any kid can play it in any console, and as long as they’re on the console that has their profile, they can continue their saved game. You DON’T need multiple copies of any game except in very rare scenarios.
Having extra consoles is rarely necessary to play games together. The only time they’d need It is if they’re playing games online together and the game doesn’t offer split-screen. Maybe Fortnite? But then they can take turns, unless you really want to buy separate consoles, lol
Please ask any follow up questions you have. I’d be glad to help clarify anything! Typing this up was surprisingly fun, lol
Get Switch Lites for anyone who REALLY needs to be playing something else independently when the TV/“main” Switch is in use
Obviously only if the budget allows, but if your kids are at the age where they’ll take their Switch when they visit friends or family, then the version with detachable controllers is probably better.
The Switch has a built in kick stand, and some games, like Mario Kart, let you disconnect the controllers and have one each for a two player game. It’s handy for keeping the kids quiet for a bit, and you don’t need to carry loads of stuff.
If the kids regularly go somewhere, like your parents perhaps, you can buy an extra dock to plug into the TV there, and the non lite Switch can use it in exactly the same way as the one at home. There’s nothing special about the dock, it essentially just connects the Switch to the TV.
It’s a great little console with some fun, if sometimes expensive games. I play mine probably as much as my kid plays theirs 🙂
Great addition! I was trying to keep budget in mind, but truthfully, I don’t know the price difference.
It’d be good for OP to know the different capabilities of what the Lite vs. the other consoles can/can’t do. But I think my comment was long enough as it is! Haha
I personally stick to only physical games since they cost the same, but are stored on the cartridge, meaning I don’t have to upgrade my switch’s measly 32GB of storage.
The Switch is an insane device to me. It’s been underpowered before it launched, but 32GB storage? I had flash drives twice that size when the Switch came out. What the fuck?
I also prefer physical games. I have very few digital games on my Switch – only for massive digital-only sales, or for games that had limited physical runs that I missed. Or when I didn’t know a game had a physical release, lol
Some people prefer digital games, and I get it. Especially with kids who might break, lose, or “trade” physical games.
Back in my day I had to share a single console with my siblings. We had to take turns playing single-player games. This can be fine, and can even be a bonding activity. I’m not sure if it’s “ideal”, but nothing is. Most likely your kids will outgrow the Switch soon anyway, or they could not even like it to start with, so don’t go overboard buying them each a console. You can decide in the future to buy more if you want, but the new Nintendo device is also on the way, so that’s something to think about.
That makes sense! I was picturing a scenario where each kid was begging for a Switch.
If there are two kids who each want to play their own games independently (or niche cases like they really want to trade Pokemon together or play games online together that can’t be played with couch co-op), then having multiple devices would be important. Of course, it depends on where the budget is, lol
Buying two SNES consoles would be crazy. Buying two Game Boys probably happened in some households.
Yeah, good point. The Switch isn’t just a console. I guess that’s probably why it’s portable; to sell one for each child. We did each have our own Game Boy in my household, mostly I think to make road trips less hell.
I mean, it’s like a hobby. If you are unlocking them with a program you’re just cheating on yourself. If you feel like you need to cheat to make yourself feel better about something that doesn’t impact anyone else, then I think you should reflect a bit on that and ask yourself why you wanted it in the first place.
But that’s just like, my opinion, man. It doesn’t really harm anyone in the end. I just think achievements are used as carrots on a stick, exploiting the human psyche of “number go up = dopamine” to make the player think the game has more value than it does, or is “worth the price” because you got so many hours out of it (grinding for those last shitty achievements).
I think it’s fair for someone to want to cheat in achievements of this nature. OP put over 100 hours into this game and is only 0.1% of the way there. If I put 100 hours into a game, I would also want to fast track past these two middle fingers the devs threw in
The subscription hike is something, but U.S./U.K. inflation from 2008 to 2022 is about 40%, and that’s not accounting for any changes in corporate taxes. Its… well, it’s kinda mad that WoW hasn’t increased the subscription price that whole time, if that’s true, but that’s partially because they sell expansions, right? And those probably creep up with inflation.
The problem is the choices they’ve made with that money, aka shoving more aggressive monetization into the game instead of keeping it simple, which was so central to its appeal long ago. Of taking short term profits instead of investing in R&D, new game development, and deeper development for Runescape. This is the real corporate greed. Making money is fine, but just taking it as pure profit at the expense of long-term health is destructive, greedy, unfair to the employees and wrong.
Also, I played Runescape ages ago, and well… I just got tired of the game. I feel like thats why many people left, and I also think it’s kinda mad expecting most players to play the same game forever.
Well, I mean wow was already at $15 a month back in the day. When it came out in 2004, It was like paying $25 per month today. It was damn pricey back then. At this point I think they’re getting all the money out of it that the market will bear. Yeah the expansions help but I suspect they’re running leaner now than they were.
I doubt anyone knows how much of the playerbase it makes up, but the WoW subscription effectively went up to $20 a month for anyone that’s using in-game gold to fund it.
And it was something people were hoping would save the game. But, it’s unfortunately more confirmation that Bethesda can no longer produce quality games.
he’s saying “they” haven’t improved since 76 came out. i don’t know what else he could possibly mean by that, especially since 76 itself has improved immensely since coming out
So Bethesda is good because Starfield might be worth playing 10 years after it was released? You’re obviously not understanding the point here.
It doesn’t matter that they improved '76 after the fact. It matters that they keep releasing top dollar garbage that needs years of work after the fact to even be playable.
Like imagine if you bought a brand new car that broke down immediately after you drove it off the lot. You take it back to them and they tell you “We understand you’re disappointed, so if we get time we’ll fix it for you and should have it back to you in a year or two.” Are you going to be satisfied with no car and no money for that long? Does it really make it better if they do actually fix it at some undetermined point in the future?
Is that my “line of thinking” when I never said anything of the sort? I don’t think so.
I’ve never played Cyberpunk 2077 nor No Man’s Sky and have zero opinion on them, but you bringing them up out of nowhere as some sort of ‘gotcha’ screams “my argument is based on emotion and not fact.”
what is factually wrong about 76 being improved after release? that’s the entire thing, i’m not the one convienently ignoring those facts because it doesnt support my argument 😂
For the fourteenth time, it’s completely irrelevant to the discussion.
You talk about conveniently ignoring things while you’re ignoring the whole topic so you can keep talking about some updates to Fallout '76 as if that has any bearing on Bethesda trending toward doing worse and worse with each new release. You’re making a completely separate argument to the rest of us.
actually its only the 6th time, not 14th. how can i trust your word now?
and 76 has gotten new releases pretty frequently. they are called content updates or dlc, which are free on that game. i think bethesdas only released 2 other games since 76, redfall, which was done by a different studio, and starfield
This is a puzzle-driven metroidvania with a simple retro-inspired aesthetic that aims to teach you how to interact with it wordlessly, and it usually succeeds at it. I’m honestly not sure how to fill out the rest of this blurb without ruining the intended experience, but while I wasn’t this game’s biggest fan and wasn’t interested in digging into its secrets post-credits, I did enjoy my time with it.
I’m really happy with my few hours in it. I was afraid it’d be another Rain World situation where I can tell I like it and admire the craft but don’t actually feel the need to play it much, but I do find it enticing still.
This game got me good. The atmosphere and way it drips out puzzle after puzzle is so rewarding. I drew maps. I wrote down a litany of notes on my iPad to keep track of. I tried to solve everything I could on my own until I just couldn’t any more. It felt like playing games as a kid where you had to have paper handy and wrote down passcodes.
Pouring over every inch of the map was so fun, and while I do think there will be copy cats to this game pop up in the next year, I don’t think anyone will be able to capture the magic of this again. It’s like its own singular entity that no one else has ever done. Not in this way.
For that, it’s my game of the year. Astro Bot is my second, since it’s a technically near perfect game. But it’s also simply peak platformer. Animal Well is novel. It’s just built different.
I wanted to love it, but I just liked it. I was hoping it’d be more similar to TUNIC, where I can do 99% of the game solo. Idk if this is controversial, but I hate the community-based puzzles with a passion.
There’s nothing fun about the game, and you see people streaming it, it’s just building. That’s all they are ever doing. Just building crap.
To be fair, that’s always been a reasonable description of games like Sims, Minecraft, and most other simulation style games, depending on personal preference. Maybe the fact that you’re choosing to use it now means you aren’t as interested in that style of game, or even video games in general, as you used to be. Maybe not, but I think it’s worth considering at least.
That’s how I’ve felt about The Sims since the first one. It was so boring making my Sim go to work, come home, eat, go to bed, shower, etc. I bounced off it hard and never went back. If someone likes it, good for them, but I’ve never gotten it.
To be fair, that’s always been a reasonable description of games like Sims
I disagree with you here. You’re making it out to be that this is the extent of it, and that’s not true. Sims 3 had a HUGE amount of content aside from Building. There were quests/tasks, lineages for families, hidden objectives, you could wander around your entire city/neighborhood. None of these are possible in Sims 4. Every “neighborhood” has like 5 housing plots. Some have more than that, one of the Vampire ones has literally 4 homes, you can’t scroll over or have your sim walk next door and make a new friend nope. If you/others haven’t played Sims 3, seriously… Go try it, try to 100% it by experiencing all it offers, especially the Future DLC. It’s insane, really. Every S4 DLC by comparison is hollowed out and has like 5 things to do total. Most of the traveling ones, the university ones. They slashed the content in Sims 4 by 75% and kept the price for the DLC the EXACT same. It’s criminal.
I’m not saying it’s not possible that the Sims franchise has gotten worse. I’m just saying that lots of people would have described every Sims game in the same terms OP did. I’m also saying that your tastes and preferences can change over time. It’s possible, but certainly not the only option, that these two things are more true than it is that Sims is getting worse.
Because the gunplay is really good. I never had a shred of interest in the story.
I don’t still play because the level and enemy design tanked when they went into expansion treadmill mode, but “a path forward” was never something I cared even a little bit about. “The path forward” is what killed my fun.
The gunplay is SO good. There’s just something about the way it feels that makes it so distinct from any other shooter.
I haven’t touched Destiny in two years. And every shooter I played (first person and the gears of war third person), nothing has yet scratched my Destiny 2 itch.
I could pop cabal heads with [insert high impact scout, bonus if firefly] for days. Hell, I pretty much did on D1. Then D2, in addition to all the other bad design stuff to satisfy live service, also decided they wanted to try to dictate your gun choice in certain game modes with all the bullshit seasonal modifiers on untouchable enemies without specific perks.
All I want to do is run strikes on the basic races by myself. But they can’t milk me for money like that.
Generally shorthand for animation, sound, and somewhat game balance. As for what’s good about it I couldn’t tell you because I came into the game jaded. IMO the visual design is nothing standout and the aim assist on mouse aim makes the entire experience sleep inducing.
Confirmed. The gunplay is amazing. I haven’t played for a year or two but I would jump back in today if The Final Shape included all the catch-up/prior DLC packs.
I like the DualSense controller. Yes, it’s “for playstation” but all controllers work on PC nowadays. Especially on Linux, the driver for PS controllers is in the kernel, and they can work both wired and via Bluetooth.
It even supports using the special features of the DualSense in some games, like the adaptive triggers when playing Rift Apart or Forbidden West.
And the touchpad works as a mouse, which is handy.
I had a Dualsense and I loved it. it served me well until it met its end to a can of Soda and my Cat. Now I use my Childhood DualShock 3 to game. It has no where near as many QoL features as its younger brother (like the touchpad). But it’s so fucking durable.
The 2d platforming world and top-down world have smashed together. You control one hero from each dimension, who share the same space in the levels. You switch between platformer and top-down modes and must get both characters to the goal. The boss levels are hard but very cool, combining action and puzzles.
Also features local 2-player co-op and a generous assist mode.
Why does this billion dollar company not do exaxtly what I expect them to😡 They made great games because those are the ones I like and now they make shitty games because I dont like them.
I percieve them as different to your run of the mill EA or Ubisoft, so I expect more from them. That’s on me I guess. I’m not angry though, just disappointed.
Artifact has good scores from critics, as does CS2, nothing from Zombies. Not sure one game from 20 years ago says much when it’s just 1.6 with bots. The game isn’t bad, people just expected more than that.
Because, as I said, it is the same game with bots on top. The game isn’t suddenly bad because of that, so look at reviews of 1.6 instead of cherry picking convenient information. Artifact was review bombed, which I also mentioned.
Again (third time), it was review bombed. Steam reviews, if you actually look at them, are generally positive, except for people who “played” it for 0.1 - 0.3 hours, or over 100 and jokingly clicked to not recommend. CS was 1.6, and thus obviously not a bad game.
bin.pol.social
Ważne