Hacker News Reader

Comment by perardi | Hacker News Reader

I wonder what the game plan is for offering these games in the future. The dual-screen setup obviously doesn’t map to the Switch, so it’s not just a simple eShop port like you’d have for an old SNES game.

I am mostly thinking about Pokémon. They’ve got this rich new Pokémon Home system to transfer between generations, but that’s reliant on having functioning older hardware. Now, there’s a massive pool of functional 3DS systems out there, so it’s not a pressing issue, but eventually, some poor Ash Greninja will be trapped on a 3DS cartridge. (I suppose the answer is: port all the Pokémon games, profit, swim in giant Scrooge McDuck moneybin of coins.)

View on HN

The Wii U eShop sold DS games with a variety of different display options: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCV8Y3lEPr0

The Wii U had a pretty natural default though, with the touchscreen on your lap as the lower screen, and TV as upper screen. That whole model was (rightly) tossed for the Switch, so now any games which really depended on it are a bit of a dead end.

Yup, that's what I'm getting at. It's not an easy 1:1 translation.

It was nice for games like Pokémon; easy access to the inventory, little mini-games on the touch screen, stuff like that. It obviously blew right up in their faces with the Wii U, but it worked for a certain class of game.

Yes, but the Wii U DS eShop emulator supported showing both screens on your TV. They could do the same on Switch. See about 0:40 in the video I linked.

I think perardi is referring to how the touchscreen gimmick of the Wii U wasn't as successful as it was on the DS and 3DS, not to any problems with the emulation.

Maybe they could something like what Drastic/Citrus does and have the two 3DS screens share the Switch/TV screen? I would say the main problem is that it has an effective resolution of 400x240 pixels on the top screen and 320x240 pixels on the bottom screen and the games were designed to look good on the really small displays, not blown up to a TV or even a Switch size display.

There were only a handful of games that really required it. Most people I knew only used the 3D effect as a novelty every now and then.

I wonder maybe a VR 3DS emulator could emulate it the best?

The problem is not just the 3D effect, but more crucially the two screens.

There have been DS emulators for over a decade now.

The context here was for the Switch, where emulation is not a problem but a very wide screen is.

Pokémon Home doesn't support any of the 3DS games; Pokémon Bank does. You can transfer from Bank to Home, but not the other way around.

OK, yes, the Pokémon Home dance is…a tad complex.

https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/pokemon-home-guide-transf...

But still, they finally have what appears to be a canonical place to store Pokémon, and it’ll be a little annoying when 3DS units start dying off and you can’t dance that particular jig.

I'm honestly surprised Pokemon is still around. The first one came out in like 1996, and it was initially addictive because there were a fixed number of pokemon to try to collect (150). But each iteration was basically a carbon copy of the previous gen with some map and monster changes. 7(?) gens later and now there are what 500? 600? More? I just don't understand the motivation to collect something now that you can no longer "catch em all". Is it like Hearthstone or Magic where you just collect what you can knowing certain cards will forever be beyond your reach?

> I'm honestly surprised Pokemon is still around.

I'm honestly surprised chess is still around. It's basically the same game with the same rules from centuries ago.

Chess is not a game based around collecting a fixed number of items.

Pokemon isn't based around collecting a fixed number of items.

There's strategy to pick an ideal team. To ev/iv farm if you're really into it.

There's a story, you can battle friends, you can make trades.

Pokemon isn't pog collecting.

Can you understand how one might believe that the franchise with the slogan "Gotta Catch 'Em All" might be about collecting a fixed number of items?

It's understandable, though not accurate.

IIRC, it was actually possible to collect every Pokémon across all the games released on 3DS. A service facilitated transferring them between games. Several of the rare Pokémon were related to limited time events, but the opportunity was there. I’m sure it’ll be possible to get pretty close to a complete collection by the end of the Switch lifespan as well.

Some people (I know one of them) carry their pokemon from the first generation, so they can still catch'em all. My friend's case is a mix of nostalgia and just knowing what they will get from the experience.

But Pokemon is not just about collecting pokemon, there's the competitive scene for one, where people will welcome new pokemons to shake the meta and not always care about a mon being available or not.

this holds true for new pokemon games, i'd never buy that shit. however sometimes i want to have a good afternoon. no wife, no kids, smokin weed killin time playing and old school pokemon game. sounds delightful haha.

> I'm honestly surprised Pokemon is still around.

I'm honestly surprised baseball is still around. The first game came out in like 1839, and it was initially addictive because it was easy to play. But each season is basically a carbon copy of the previous season with player changes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com