Your analogy doesn't work either. Who gets the blame for the bridge collapsing because there was too much weight put on it? It's not the drivers going over the bridge. It's not the manufacturers of the vehicles. It's not the distance over the river that's at fault. Either the bridge was poorly designed or it was poorly constructed. Either way the fault lies with the bridge and those who made it.

Like the wind in a given area or the distance to cover over the crossing point, the console spec is the spec. That's the environment the dev is working in. It's not going to change. Developers can't just ignore it, push on with the game then blame the console spec when the game runs poorly.

This could get a bit ranty and is a bit off topic so my brief reply to the bit in bold.

Yes it's the designers fault (the designer of whoever is moving the game to the new system to be clear). Every system has constraints. These constraints are known on consoles because the spec is fixed. If a designer says they can make their design work on a different system (and the fact the game is released says they did) and it ends up running like crap then it's the designers fault. Blaming the console spec is like blaming the wind for a bridge collapsing.

This is not to say consoles cannot be criticised by devs. Of course they can. Every console, handheld and PC has it's issues and things to improve on for the next version. But those issues are not going to go away for the current console. It is what it is. Devs have to work to that.

For the bit highlighted in bold: It should though.

Console games have indeed had performance issues. Those are usually examples of poorly made console games (i was playing the old TNMT nes game recently and....yikes konami :S).

But if a game is being made for a console then the developer really should be tuning it so it hits the devs target framerate at all times. Of course that can mean that some effects are paired back or some other compromise is made. If that's what needs to be done then so be it.

Just like there are plenty of badly performing console games, there are also many examples of console games running at their target framerate just fine, no matter how weak the console is.

Same with ports. If a port is performing poorly on it's target hardware then it's a poor port. It's not the consoles fault. Either the port house screwed up or (more likely) the publisher just wanted a quick and cheap port.

A more powerful Switch will, make existing ports run better (assuming Nintendo don't have some weird "Switch Mode" where the Switch 2 basically becomes a switch 1 for switch 1 games). But then poor ports targeting the Switch 2 will still have inconsistent framerates. Hardware won't solve that problem.

Going back to the BG3 debacle around Co-Op on the XSS. Everyone blamed the console for it's specs. But it's not the console: the fault there lies with Larian. They knew they were bringing the game to Xbox. They knew it was a requirement that all Xbox games be able to run on the XSS and XSX. They also knew that feature parity was a requirement. But, for whatever reason, they only found out late in development that the Co-Op feature wouldn't work on the XSS. Not the consoles fault. Not MSs fault. Larian made a mistake.

In fairness any issues with framerates on the switch (or any console) are a developer issue. The spec is fixed. It's a known quantity. Console games really should not be having framerate problems.

As for the rumour: if true, it will be interesting to see what it offers over other systems to tempt people to choose it.

I think it will definitely be a case of the system running existing games and upcoming PS5 games in the works. Maybe it will be a case that existing games will need patching for the new system (like older PS4 games for the PS4 pro). I don't see sony making a system that is so different that it needs it's own games basically. They can't support 2 systems at the same time.

So, other than the PS brand and seamless integration into the existing PS ecosystem (which will have value for some), what will it offer to set itself apart from other handhelds on the market I wonder?

I think it would basically have been a Vita shell with PSP-ish specs and would have connected to TVs using the old scart connector basically. Best case. Would it have been successful? Hard to say....maybe.

Mobile tech has sorta just about hit the upper echelons of a hump where it's powerful enough to make games look decent on bigger screens. Still hasn't fully crossed it yet (and certainly not in 2017 when the switch released). Sony tried a Vita console before but, although Vita games looked great on the vita, when blown up onto a bigger screen they were blech. It was far worse for the PSP.

In saying that....The Nintendo PSP basically....could have been very tempting alright. So many games.

Would I have preferred them to go down that route instead of the Wii and DS? Absolutely not. Probably a very unpopular opinion here: but I love the Wii and DS. I thought they were great. So many great and interesting games across both systems. The industry is all the lesser due to a lack of variety in systems now. I'd love to see a proper Wii2. I'm secretly hoping the Switch 2 is bringing the DS thing back too somehow (and the 3D!!).

If Nintendo decided to dip their toes back into a console and basically made a mini PS5 with Wiimote and nunchuck 2.0 (more functionality and fixes the issues with the first version)....sign me the F up. I'd much rather that in a console instead of "It's the same thing we did 20 years ago with the same ol controller but just more pretty and Services!!!!"

Fallout 3 (just entered the pitt) and maybe some Shogun 2 total war.

Gods dang it many more games coming up that i want to play. Homeworld 3, GOT, Horizon 2. Summer sale osan0....summer sale.

The 3DS is definitely a better portable device in many ways. Smaller so easier to stick in a pocket (though not the ideal size. GBA SP did it better). I also loved the 3D and am hoping (though not expecting) to see it again on the Switch 2. On the new 3DS especially it's great. It also had cool features like streetpass and some AR games which added nicely to the systems portable nature.

Games wise I give the nod to the switch though. I definitely have more Switch games compared to 3DS games. Both systems have many greats though.

Controls are also better on the Switch. Trying to play something like Donkey Kong Country using the slide pad on the 3DS is a pain. The dual screens were an interesting idea but rarely added much sadly. The touch screen could be very accurate for shooters though.

.....now I want a GBA SP sized handheld with a 3D screen.

Actually technically such a device mostly exists (no 3D screen) but I don't think we can talk about the company here. They're...em....a bit dodge. Some cool hardware though to their credit.

*Sniff* I miss E3. No E3 Logo :(.

That's the answer as to what's missing right? :P

Anywho I just hope for a nice surprise. The unexpected.

Good for Capcom well deservedOHCRAP!

I need to get back into Rise (Havent even started the expansion) and finish off world before Wild comes out! And I have Generations Ultimate on the switch too.

.....Do I have too much Monster Hunter content? Never!!

Was the MP a big component for it or more a tacked on after thought? I haven't played the game at all so I have no idea.