Handheld Gaming Update: ROG Ally X vs. the Switch 2

 Well much has gone on in this weird space of "video game devices you can hold in your hand." In prior posts I talked about my experience with the Asus ROG Ally, the Steam Deck, and the Lenovo Legion Go. Since then, I have ditched the Asus ROG Ally and Legion Go, selling both to cohorts who found good homes for them. For the Steam Deck I have my original, but last year I upgraded to the Steam Deck OLED model, which was a nice improvement in terms of screen quality and battery size. 

And then....I picked up the Asus ROG Ally X, about a month or so back, when I saw it on a bit of a sale, and just last week wandered into a Target and found a Switch 2 on the shelf. So no sooner had I pared my handheld collection down than I reboosted it back up. This does mean that I have been exploring the advantages of the Asus ROG Ally X more or less in tandem with the Switch 2, and have some thoughts for those interested. 

Right off the bat, I'll just state this: if you want the best overall handheld device with the most flexibility, I think the Ally X is the best choice. It has superior screen quality and processing power to the Switch 2; it has better battery life; it does rest on a Windows 11 platform but I understand you can load up Steam OS for Linux if you see fit. While a Xbox themed ROG Ally X is on the horizon, that doesn't appear to do much that this one doesn't other than provide a streamlined Windows experience. I have been running plenty of "play anywhere" Xbox titles on the Ally X already with excellent results, so not sure how much better the branded edition will be.

The Switch 2 does have some cool features going for it, though. They are very specifically as follows: you can play most of the original Switch games on it, so backwards compatibility in like 95% of cases so far; it is a smaller "footprint" and weighs less than every other handheld except the original Switch and Switch Lite; it runs all those Nintendo games you like (well for me that's the Xenoblade games, Metroid, and I dabble in the Zelda titles but never get far in them). It's got gorgeous visuals compared to the original Switch, and a surprising number of older games run better on it, which is good because not many Switch 2 games are out yet, certainly not enough to merit a purchase on their own. If you get a Switch 2, grab Fast Fusion, it is easily the cheapest and best tech demo for the system yet (at only $15 USD it is much cheaper thank both Cyberpunk 2077 and Mario Kart World, both of which are also good tech demos for the machine).

Both systems have some downsides. The Ally X is still a Windows environment, and that can be annoying. It's a much smoother experience now than when the original Ally came out, however. They also fixed the MicroSD card problem, so that's a positive (don't even try using a MicroSD card in the original Ally unless you want to heat-kill it). The Ally X is a bigger device, so its a bit chonkier (not as chonky as all those Legion models, though).

Meanwhile the Switch 2's downside is that if you compare games on it to equivalent games on the Ally X, you will immediately realize that the best Switch 2 can do right now is at best mid-tier for what the Ally X can do. I was running Gears 5 and Starfield on the Ally X and it was a smooth experience for Gears 5 and pretty good for Starfield, but if you load up Cyberpunk on the Ally X and compare it to the Switch 2, you will notice that the Switch 2 version is doing some tricks to make it work, while the Ally X is just a better overall experience, with more options to tweak the graphics to suit to taste (Switch 2 have quality and performance mode, that's it).

EDIT: should mention price. While the Ally X goes for around $800 base model or $900 for a model with more storage, the Switch 2 of course is $450, which many news outlets have been complaining about. As price goes, its actually pretty reasonable. It's not 2017 anymore, unfortunately; a $300 original Switch is simply not going to hold a candle to the Switch 2. I feel like I got my money's worth, in other words.

For owning both systems I am content to have them, and they both have their use cases. For travel I kind of prefer the Ally X overall, but the Switch 2 continues to allow you the ability to play games without having to check in on the internet (unless you've set it up that way), and has a smaller print when it comes to packing and portability. It also is built for multiplayer experiences, and can handle that easily. The Ally X makes up for that by letting you access any of your PC gaming libraries on the go. Both seem to have decent battery life, as far as handhelds go; but you want to tweak Ally X to improve overall performance. I haven't tried running them both down yet, but I have gotten more time of the Ally X overall on an unplugged playthrough.  

Cypher System Rising

 As the weeks have gone by I've begun to settle on a system with consistency: Cypher System. I mean sure, I've run this plenty in the past, but I've honestly not run it in a good while and I think maybe now it would be the ideal solution to my doldrums. 

Cypher System does have some warts, though. It's a player-roll facing system, meaning the GM never really needs to roll dice except maybe for some random cypher charts or something. 99% of the time the players roll to attack, roll to defend, roll to take action, etc. So this does mean that the core conceits of the system depend on player honesty and understanding of this mechanic. A player who unfaithfully does not report a roll of a 1 which incurs a GM intrusion, for example, is defeating a key story-telling element of the game. 

The second issue with Cypher is really user-dependent: the system's dice pool methodology has some "numbers that mean other numbers, and ways of making tasks reduce in difficulty that also mean converting to numbers" sort of approach that can seem simple enough to some, and can be oddly baffling to others. I know that when I first got Cypher System I sat on it for like a year or two because the core conceit of the system seemed so counter-intuitive to me, and felt like it would be a real hassle to teach people. I eventually pushed past that (long, long ago) and quickly grokked and loved the mechanics for what they are, but this has always proven to be a problem for at least two of my regular players. One of them has actually expressed keen interest in playing it though, despite my recalling she was very frustrated with the system in the past.....so maybe she (like me) suddenly grokked it. 

The third and final issue I have always had with Cypher (and other players of the system as well) is that XP gain is pretty quick, and the rules as written make it that way. Your characters advance over 6 tiers of play, the system's version of leveling and in each tier you have four advances which cost 4 XP. In addition, there are a range of temporary and circumstantial benefits that can be gained by spending XP. In the past, and this tends to reflect the first edition of Cypher, it was easy to see PCs gain power creep by advancing fairly quickly in tiers (especially if they horde XP for long term advancement, as that only takes 16 XP to hit a tier cap). This led to a problem where the PCs were improving overall power level faster than the GM could readily account for it (a polite way of saying that you could plot out threats that in a matter of sessions become trivial and inconsequential for the players to overcome). 

My first few campaigns of Cypher System (all in the first edition) ran into this issue, as I would tend to hand out enough XP through GM intrusions along with 1-2 XP at the end of the session, and the players hoarded XP so they tended to tier up every 4 sessions or so. After 20 sessions the PCs were approaching tier 5 and the storyline (and my newbie GM experience at the time) meant my plot was pacing for a group about half that power level, and they were already hitting what felt to me like godlike levels of performance with boosted Edges, talent pools and effort levels. In Cypher System, higher stat values often simply mean that difficult tasks at tier 1 by tier 4-6 often become "descriptive sentences in which the GM explains how cool you are" as you step past a task...unless of course the GM wants to drop an intrusion on you.  

Under the Revised rules there's more wiggle room baked in to how one goes about handing out and allowing XP to be spent, so I think this will pose less of an issue. The new rules emphasize options such as requiring players to spend XP awarded in-game to be spent in game, and XP between sessions (so end of game, for goals met, story arcs progressed, etc.) to be retained for tier advancement. The GM can award XP at a slower pace as well by focusing only on XP gained through character arc advancement, and between-game awards amending that total for specific "group/plot" goals. They give the GM a lot of leeway, in other words.

In addition, as the group levels up I have since wrapped my own head around the idea that higher level threats and concerns in Cypher System are (and should be) more about discovery, cosmic revelation, and existential threats of unusual nature, and the things which were of dire nature at tier 1 are now just footnotes along the way. 

Either way, I am looking forward to this planned excursion, and I have been pretty exclusively focused on what I can do with Cypher next. I am still mulling over the idea of Numenera vs. one of the Cypher genre settings (or maybe Magnus Archive which is rather cool), but its definitely going to be this.