Fair enough, it's still better than any game I've had published, would also defend her by saying it was a couple of years ago.
My point was that we often hear how bad Nintendo is to develop for but if the SDK is more industry standard and the hardware isn't weird (like the PS3 was) then it shouldn't be hard for companies to port games.
Saying the Joy Con isn't too small is her opinion, so she's not wrong. I have heard that if you use them as a controller sideways-on then you're gonna get a fair bit of cramp if you have larger hands which is a shame but to be honest I can't imagine playing with them that way very often, they'd be in a grip or I'd be using them when connected to the side of the console.
With the HD rumble it's like trying to explain VR, you just need to experience it, you're almost better not trying sometimes but I thought Nintendo did an okay job in the presentation to get across the concept. It won't be a big thing in every game but I bet we see something similar in the next consoles from MS and Sony.
Personally I think in the grip looks very bad also. It's very square on with the location of the buttons. There is a reason why every other controller changed shape years ago. The kind of squarest edge with controls and sticks above/below each other directly that I can think of was the Dreamcast controller.
Basically the closer your hands get together the less straight you want your wrists to be for comfort. Tiny controller is just bad full stop, normal controller is better but you still want wrists angled. At the distance your hands are apart when holding the switch is frankly the only time the joycon design makes sense to me.
As for the developing. The issue isn't how easy hard it is to make code work on a given platform. It's the case of, it's easy to write some C++ code, it's easy to write some Java, but rewriting something you wrote in C++ into Java isn't the same thing. Choices you made because you were writing in C++ must be changed and worked around to move the code to Java. But that is only one side of it, if you designed it for a base performance of 1.2tflop and a base CPU power, then when it comes to decisions you make like world size, texture size, effects, physics capabilities of the engine, etc, that is all somewhat backed in by what you want the game to run on. There is a fundamental, large performance drop off between a Xbox One and a Switch.
That means not only are you porting, rewriting a bunch of code and putting time and money in, you then might have to redesign the game world, add features in for better streaming of textures, go back and rework all the artwork for lower res, higher compressed, smaller textures, then spend a lot of extra time and money optimising the game to get it to run on a lower end platform. Ease of coding is one thing, but porting is a very different issue.
I think the Switch will get a lot of games, but I think it will be more in the Bomberman, Has been heroes and Fast RMX. A lot of pretty basic games, now if there is a market for that, great. But it's not really my bag and I certainly wouldn't buy a console specifically for them. The higher end/higher priced titles from PC that are coming to Switch are Dragonball game which to me, looks crap, and Skyrim, which is somehow taking well over a year to port despite being a 'headline' title for Switch and to showcase it can get ports, then Fifa(360 engine version afaik) and NBA(probably an older engine again?).
It's the Mass Effects, Assassin's Creed, Uncharted and the rest that brings most buyers to a console, then you mop up with the smaller simpler games(that are supposed to be cheaper Nintendo) in between the major launches. To me you need enough of the AAA games to make you want the console then enough of the cheaper filler games for between big game launches.
For me Switch lacks anywhere near enough of the AAA games to make you buy or keep the Switch and the lack of AAA ports from the other consoles is to me that reason.
