The more I see on this, the less I understand it. It’s like a complex algebra equation, it all seems a little unnecessary and pointless. I loved Skyrim and I love my Switch, but do the two need to be united? Absolutely not. The two are separate entities and can live in complete isolation from one another.
You see, my Switch doesn’t need Skyrim nor does Skyrim need my Switch. Skyrim has had its time, even more so with the recent remake outing, and I loved every single minute of it. But Skyrim fatigue is well and truly in effect; I’ve played enough Skyrim to know I’ve had my fill. There’s nobody out there that hasn’t at least dabbled with it in some variety surely?
The few die-hard Nintendo-only fans out there must (even) have very little interest in this as well. There’s a reason why they buy Nintendo consoles; for their unique experiences. Nintendo offers something different, they don’t conform to the other console cycles or trends. They do their own thing and that’s what Nintendo needs, not to open up the gates to two generation old titles.
Now I’m sure Skyrim will run absolutely fine on Switch and seeing it on a portable platform would be amazing. Sure. But do I need that to justify my purchase by showing how powerful the Switch actually is? I think we all know the answer here. Whichever way I look at it, I just cannot fathom it.
It’s the fact that Nintendo has done the above, by sticking to their guns, that makes them who they are. For better or worse, their loyal fan base will stand by them throughout this as well – I think they’re taking a step away from what they do best though. What I’m saying is: more like Odyssey, less like Skyrim.
It’s not costing them anything to develop Skyrim on their latest console, granted, but surely Bethesda have something better to do with their time as well? You know, like milking us for a re-release of a complete edition of Fallout 4 on PS4/XB1, and not bringing it to the Switch.