'Skyrim' for Switch Looks Like a Waste of Time

Occupying the shortest spot in Bethesda’s conference, the Nintendo port looks like a dud in waiting.

This is a companion discussion topic for the original entry at https://waypoint.vice.com/en_us/article/skyrim-for-switch-looks-like-a-waste-of-time

Waste of time is too strong but it’s the porting of a popular franchise early into a nintendo system’s life just like the Wii U did with Assassin’s Creed 3, Darksiders 2 or Mass Effect 3. Third party support from western companies is very lukewarm, they know they have no advantage to gain by being the first to get into the switch, and they don’t have much momentum to drive by porting a 6 yo game.

I fell it’s going to be a great offering for a casual audience, though, even without extensive marketing. I really don’t think the story DLC of Zelda is going to be a competition in any way, imo.

hm. I definitely thought it was odd there wasn’t even a release date. That being said I doubt it’s costing Bethesda all that much to do. The idea of handheld Skyrim is still compelling, even if it comes way, way after the vernacular has moved past that game. Maybe it hits Switch when there’s still not a wealth of titles. Everybody is done with Zelda, Mario is out but Skyrim fills a different need.

Low risk, low reward?

At this rate we’re gonna end up with a port of Skyrim to the Mac II and C64 before we get TESVI

1 Like

I was surprised not to see any key or memorable moments from the game; main quest, side quests (theive’s guild), or otherwise more iconic locations. It’s an old game it’s okay to show that much at this point. But instead it was just “adventurer running around environment… fighting things… look a giant!”. No conversation trees, no menu’s, no map, just really vague. Made the showing feel empty and ghost-town-y.

Frankly I don’t think it matters all that much to either Nintendo or Bethesda how well Skyrim does on the Switch.

For Nintendo, when they were launching the system, they wanted an established brand that would draw eyes and attention for third-party support and also hopefully entice gamers to buy the system. Well, enticed they were apparently, since it’s become so difficult to find a Switch anymore. At this point, then, Nintendo doesn’t really need Skyrim to sell that well. They’re establishing their user base, and third party devs will flock to that base once it’s big enough. The sales of a 6 year old game won’t factor into their decision whether to support the system or not.

As for Bethesda, Skyrim is an older game at this point (6 years, see above). It’s sold about as well as it’s going to sell in its lifetime. The addition of Link armor isn’t going to really turn heads or get people to open up their coin purses. And the users who want to play Skyrim have probably already played Skyrim. And if it, they’ll want to do it on a machine much more powerful than the Switch.

The union was a good idea at the time, but right now Nintendo doesn’t need Skyrim and Skyrim doesn’t need Nintendo. And that’s ok.

1 Like

I’ll just repeat what I said on Twitter:

Did people really expect a lengthy presentation on a port of a game from what, 2011?


I can understand why it seem like kind a “why bother” port at this point. When the Switch was first announced it seemed pretty obvious from when the online would be ready and a lot of the game release windows that were available that they kinda sorta meant for the Switch to come out this fall but pushed it ahead (like the Saturn :open_mouth: ). Now though, when it comes out, like, is anyone picking up a Switch this Christmas going to get Skyrim instead of Breath of the Wild or whatever else is out?

With how badly Black Ops 2, Injustice, etc. did on the Wii U at launch I can understand people wondering what the point even is. But realistically the point is that hey, monster-super-publisher Bethesda supports the Switch.

If nothing else it’s probably a good bug test for porting stuff over and optimizing controls.


I was fairly excited for this when it first was announced… then this trailer killed any excitement for it. It just hasn’t aged great. Beyond which, I don’t feel like this is “Oh we have updated the game for a new console” like the special editions did… I feel like this is a bad handheld port. Looking at the video it reminded me of announcements where they ported PS3 games to the PSP and you look at the jagged edges and shitter framerate and go… okay I mean I guess if you don’t have a choice that is a way to play it.

And I don’t even care about graphics generally, but this isn’t a good foot forward. It’s skyrim, they are trying to get people to buy the game again and there is just no incentive provided.

that’d be pretty fuckin’ dope though

That’s my hope too. I’ll probably check it out and hope that enough do so that it signals to Bethesda we are interested in seeing their future stuff on Switch. Plus, its been years since I played that game, so might as well drop back in on portable mode.

I doubt the Switch can even run Bethesda’s newer games so I’m not really sure that Skyrim on Switch will mean much at all

My desire to replay Skyrim is evergreen so having it on the Switch sounds great to me.

I think you hit the nail on the head in the last paragraph dude, minus the specifics about the loo. I put about 200 hours into Skyrim on 360, modded it to hell for a few dozen on PC, skipped over it for PS4 but definitely want to pick it up on Switch. That portability man, it’s such a selling point. As long as the load times aren’t ridiculous (see 360/PS3) then it’s a great game to just play for an hour every now and then, for months or even years.

You’re right about the motion controls by the way, bugger that.

Anyone else finding Mike’s takes a bit overly harsh at the moment? The election bollocks is getting to all of us here in the UK though, so I kinda understand…

I was all Skyrimmed (eeewwww) out back in 2011 but the switch version basically gives us a portable version of that game, which is kind of incredible. No interest to play it with all the motion controls however…