Topic: Should Nintendo release more 'Deluxe' games on Switch?

My other consoles are basically just gathering dust - even my PS4 (haven't played it since February!)

I barely need to touch my PS4. Just the eject button to change game discs so while it is gathering dust, it still remains regularly played.

No.

Deluxe games AND new games please.

You asked why people who want these Wii U games don't buy a Wii U. I gave you a reasonable answer. With the Wii U having sold poor and now being discontinued? I don't think asking people to buy a Wii U is reasonable. I also don't think them wanting these games on Switch impacts you or Nintendo negatively.

Pretty much. It only makes sense when you think about it. They'd thrown Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Mario, Pikmin and Bayonetta at it. They had a new IP on the horizon in Splatoon and they'd shown footage of a brand new Zelda that people were raving about. People still didn't buy Wii Us. And to make things even worse the 3DS was starting to lose some momentum.

So they had to say something to investors, they couldn't just let the people backing them assume that they're were tied to the fate of Wii U and 3DS. So they announced they were working on some mobile games and that they had a console in the works. At this stage they couldn't damage the Wii U's chances because it had already blown its chances and the 3DS had already peaked. So yeah, the Wii U was effectively done before they started talking NX.

I'm sorry but I disagree. I'm a 3d Mario fan (or more accurately I'm a fan of good games) and I want those games to surprise me and show me new ideas implemented in novel ways. I also want them to retain the twitchy essence and timing of a platform game - to be an accessible game that rewards skill.

Yes there needs to be secrets and the game needs to reward poking around in odd spaces but "exploration" isn't something I particularly care about in my Mario games. Story and the thematic presentation are nice but, honestly, I don't care about those at all either - I'm actually glad that 3d World basically did away with them all.

Again, missing the point. It's not about whether or not there was any evidence of a sandbox Mario game coming, it's about wanting a Mario game that appeals to their interests, which 3D World did not. And yes, Galaxy did start to trend away from that, but it still retained elements of the old formula, you had multiple levels to select, you had some exploration based gameplay, you had the unique story and setting, etc. The linearity is about the only thing it DOESN'T have in common with 64 and Sunshine. Hence when you see people talking about 3D Mario they usually associate Galaxy more with 64/Sunshine than 3D Land/3D World. 3D Land/3D World was just a step too far for that audience, it threw away pretty much everything else Galaxy kept and went full on NSMB in 3D.

Again I disagree.

Firstly you almost always have multiple levels to choose from in 3d World. The world map in Galaxy 2 is far more of a throwback to Mario 3 than the one in 3d World is. There's so many fun little things hidden in the 3d World maps.

Secondly there are plenty of big levels in 3d World that feature lots of exploration and plenty of small levels in Galaxy 1 & (especially) 2 that feature no exploration, a relatively fixed camera and act as pure tests of platforming skill. Like the bits of Mario Sunshine where you get sucked into that alternate dimension and lose Fludd (i.e. the bits that everyone actually liked in Sunshine).

Thirdly 3d World has a story and a very disciplined way of telling it. It's not as thematically interesting as Galaxy 1 or 2 (although 2 has far less impressive set dressing) but it's there.

I think your disparaging comment about NSMB is telling though. That series has (wrongly IMO) got a reputation for being bland and unimaginative and people assume that Mario 3d World is an attempt to be a 3d version of the NSMB series (released at a time of NSMB fatigue). It's not - my point is that it's a much much closer experience to Galaxy 2 than it is to NSMB and the failure to communicate that is a marketing failure on the part of Nintendo.

It's more than that. One of the larger issues surrounding 3D World and the Wii U in particular was the lack of a big, open world type of experience. The IPs that we typically saw to fill that niche either trended away from exploration gameplay (3D Mario, Metroid) or just didn't have a game out to fill it (BotW, which came too late to help the Wii U). The only game on Wii U that really fit that bill was Xenoblade Chronicles X. So that audience really had little reason to buy Wii U. Nintendo just didn't do a good job appealing to its audience in that area, most of its lineup was either recycled ideas from previous generations, spinoffs no one wanted, or otherwise underwhelming and half-baked ideas.

I think we can both agree the Wii U had more than one issue!

Personally I don't think the game selection was one of them in the end so much as the timing of their key releases and their failure to identify a clear market for their console at the onset.

Anyway, as far as the actual possibility of a 3D World Deluxe, I don't think there's many people that want it that don't have a Wii U and don't already play the 2D games. 3D World is just preaching to the choir of classic 2D fans. It'd be better to stick with 2D Mario in 2018/2019 and then maybe a new 3D linear game later on.

I think there's millions of people who'd want a 3d World Deluxe if they knew about it. If nothing else it's the perfect Mario game for families (and there's a huge, huge audience out there that's never played it or even realised it exists and is fantastic).

@StuTwo Again, you're still not getting it. There's essentially two different audiences in the main series, the traditional linear platforming crowd that likes the 2D games and 3D Land/3D World, and the sandbox platformer crowd that likes games like 64/Sunshine. They're almost entirely different games with different appeal. The controversy was that in 8th gen they went all in on the linear platforming fans and offered nothing to the sandbox fans, we hadn't had anything that remotely resembled that style since 2010 whereas the linear platforming fans had 4 games within a 3 year span in that time.

As far as NSMB, I've played several of those games and yes, they were pretty bland platformers that did little to push the series. Pretty much all the NSMB games do is throw in a powerup or two and create new levels and that's it, it's exactly the same as every other game otherwise. 3D World follows this same mentality. There isn't any big new ability that radically changes the game, or a new style of level design, or a change in the progression formula, or anything on a large scale. It's just regular Mario gameplay with new levels and some powerups. The only thing it does better than NSMB is it has better level gimmicks, that's it, but that's not enough for some people in this fanbase and it definitely pales in comparison to the things games like 64, Sunshine, and Galaxy have done to evolve this series. So no, those games definitely deserve their reputation for being bland and unimaginative. They're so painfully formulaic that it's easy to see people getting bored of them.

Deluxe re-releases don't prevent new games from being made. And if there were no re-releases, new games wouldn't come out faster or have more content. They may well come out slower and have less content due to less funding available that the re-releases bring in.

@Bass_X0 But remasters are easy to scapegoat, especially if I've already played them on the last sytem! What about my ignorant self-interest? When will Nintendo think of me?

I would gladly buy more "Deluxe" games. I missed out on the Wii U for the most part and wouldn't mind getting a chance to play a few of its gems.

Like it or not the market is there.

We have different opinions independently formed. We can discuss them, debate the relative merits of our opinions and explain where our views come from in a way that's, hopefully, informative and/or entertaining. Hopefully that's why we're all here.

This isn't a forum where we bash people around the head until "they get it" (which in this instance seems to mean "agree with my interpretation and opinions"). At least I hope it isn't!

There's essentially two different audiences in the main series, the traditional linear platforming crowd that likes the 2D games and 3D Land/3D World, and the sandbox platformer crowd that likes games like 64/Sunshine. They're almost entirely different games with different appeal.

I love both linear platforming games and exploratory ones. I don't buy that they're two completely separate audiences or that Nintendo sees them as such. If they did there wouldn't be substantial 2d sections or sections that are effectively 2d in the Galaxy games (or even in Sunshine) and nor would there be methodical and labyrinthine ghost houses filled with secrets in the 2d Mario games.

The controversy was that in 8th gen they went all in on the linear platforming fans and offered nothing to the sandbox fans, we hadn't had anything that remotely resembled that style since 2010 whereas the linear platforming fans had 4 games within a 3 year span in that time.

Was it really a controversy though? From my perspective they delivered a 3d game that was very much like Mario Galaxy 1 & 2 with a less "epic" thematic set dressing, a less flexible camera to allow 4 players at one time and some concessions to move set to make the game generally more accessible (but the game world was built around the skills provided so this doesn't really matter anyway).

It was a great, great game that was very badly marketed. It might not have been the game you personally wanted if you wanted something that hewed more back towards Mario Sunshine with massive levels but to me it felt like a logical next step for 3d Mario games when I played it in 2014.

As far as NSMB, I've played several of those games and yes, they were pretty bland platformers that did little to push the series. Pretty much all the NSMB games do is throw in a powerup or two and create new levels and that's it, it's exactly the same as every other game otherwise.

I disagree that they're bland platformers. I think they subtly but effectively re-imagine what it means to create a 2d Mario platformer in the modern era. There are some amazing and ingenious level designs in all of those games (often in the back third) and I really appreciate the quality of those level designs more after playing a lot of Super Mario Maker.

The art style is completely bland though. I wish they'd bring back sprites personally.

3D World follows this same mentality. There isn't any big new ability that radically changes the game, or a new style of level design, or a change in the progression formula, or anything on a large scale. It's just regular Mario gameplay with new levels and some powerups.

Multiplayer does radically change the game. It's not a minor addition or an afterthought that's just been bolted on - it dictates everything else - and it works incredibly well. I can understand why they won't be pursuing that angle with Odyssey but that's why I'd personally like to see 3d World released on Switch.

Mario 3d World sits alongside Mario Kart 8 as one of the best games every released for a family audience in my opinion.

And they are free to do so. But for what it's worth, Nintendo lump the Galaxy games in with 3D Land/World. The four games as a whole are labelled 'Course Clear' style 3D games, with label 64, Sunshine, and apparently also Odyssey labeled as 'Miniature-Garden Exploration' style 3D games (which might be translated a bit more naturally as 'sandbox' [though this is potentially ambiguous as the term often implies the game has some sort of user creation engine at heart]).

Really I think it's more of a spectrum from 'linear' to 'open and explorative'. The actual 2D games - if we were to count them - would obviously be the most linear, probably followed by 3D Land, then World, then Galaxy 2, then Galaxy, and... I'm not sure what order to put 64 and Sunshine in, but they're obviously the least linear and most explorative. But anyway, that's Nintendo's own categorisation, and part of their reason for making Odyssey more open ended. We've seen a definite shift towards 'course clear' style games since the Gamecube, especially if you include Mario Run and Mario Maker. Miyamoto even said in an interview that he thought they'd pretty much 'done enough' for the casual fans he associated with the more linear style (at least enough to move back to exploration games for the time being).

I'm glad to hear this, but I still think 3D World had a right to exist, and that the main thing it did wrong was to launch amongst a sea of linearity. I wouldn't be surprised if the Wii U had more 2D platformer retail releases than any 3D-capable console in history.

I think it's complete codswallop to say that 3D World was "just the NSMB series in 3D" though. It's an easy statement to make, as there were clearly a lot of elements borrowed, but the end result still felt very much like its own game. Quite a lot more so than 3D Land, in my opinion, which I never felt never really worked out what it was supposed to be. 3D World had a very clear sense of identity, and (in the latter half at least), some really fantastic level design that was distinct from any of the 2D or 3D games released previously. It also pulled off single screen multiplayer 3D Mario for the first time ever, and with some success.

I'm glad we're moving back to a more explorative style, but I'd stand with @Stu_Two in defending 3D World's right to exist, and its imagination and quality (overlooking some of the blander 'finding your feet' levels in the early stages).

I doubt we're going to hear about it for some time, if ever, but I think it would be a good fit for a Deluxe version (or possibly just a bog standard port) given the Switch's position as a rare console capable of handling portable multiplayer on a single console.

I meant that you weren't understanding the point I was making, not that you should agree with it.

Nintendo might think this, but that doesn't mean they're right. If anything, the split online indicates that there is a schism in the fanbase between these two styles. And it makes perfect sense, the two styles are very different in what they try to accomplish, almost to the point of being completely different genres. So you have to imagine that some people prefer one over the other depending on what their preferences are. The linear games are more about athletic, obstacle based platforming, whereas the sandbox games are more focused on free roaming. So someone who likes an arcade style challenge would like the linear platformers and not the sandboxes, but someone that likes an exploration game would gravitate towards the sandboxes. And there might even be a few people who like both.

This is exactly the problem though. It's not exactly the "next logical step" if it's only catering to half of the fanbase.

Dictates everything else? When you can easily play the game without other players? Yeah no, that's a tremendous exaggeration. Multiplayer dictates the game in a game like TriForce Heroes or Federation Force. You actually need multiple characters for that. Multiplayer isn't an essential part of 3D World in the slightest.

Like I said to StuTwo, just because Nintendo thinks so doesn't make it right.

There's definitely some middle ground here, I agree with that much. Galaxy is probably the closest to a hybrid formula we've gotten.

All of those things won't really matter in the grand scheme of things though, especially from the business side of things where you're looking at who's buying what Mario game. 3D World would basically just be preaching to the choir, there's not a lot of people that would buy that game that wouldn't already be buying Odyssey or a potential 2D title. It's just not the type of game to bring in new audiences and it probably won't be beating Odyssey in sales either. So there's no real business incentive to bring back 3D World. If they want another linear 3D title they'll probably just make a new one after they're done with Odyssey, otherwise the 2D games will accomplish everything they'd want with 3D World but with higher profit.

Also, it's either Wii U or 3DS holding that record for 2D releases. The 3DS had its fair share of linearity as well, maybe even more than Wii U. But 8th gen in general was tons of linearity and no sandbox for sure.

If Nintendo had made Mario Kart 9 we wouldn't be getting Arms. So the stupid thing is that remakes are a positive for everyone.

Wii U owner here that will probably play most of the Wii U gems before getting a Switch.

Yes, as many ports as possible please.

They open the games up to a larger audience, meaning less game droughts, more people buying a Switch, and thus more games (especially third-party games) produced as a result.

Also, the portable aspect of the Switch means that even games that are completely unchanged, simply ported from Wii U to Switch, have a major feature in portability. That alone makes many ports worth buying again.

And if you don't want them? Don't buy them. But so many people weren't aware of the Wii U and its games that it's beneficial to everyone that ports occur. Plus most of the time they are handled by other studios, so Nintendo can focus on more unique games besides the umpteenth iteration in Smash Bros or Mario Kart.

If they weren't aware of the Wii U, why would they be aware of the Switch? I don't remember the the Wii U getting less exposure upon its release than the Switch is right now.

Most people will only look at content for platforms that they own. And you're kidding yourself if you think the Switch is on par as the Wii U in terms of exposure. If you put "Nintendo" into google trends from 2004 and highlight months based on which home console generation was most in play? This is what you get

There are 161 months in that list and the first clearly "Wii U era" appearance is at #83. That was for the launch. The Switch launch generated twice as much interest in Nintendo. The Switch reveal trailer and pre-launch show generated more interest in Nintendo than the Wii U launch did. Last month? That was about on-par with the highest point during the Wii U era in terms of interest in Nintendo.

And lets not forget that the 3DS was hogging most of the spotlight during that period. The Switch alone has given Nintendo more exposure than the 3DS and Wii U combined.

Smash Bros DX seems to be considered a shoe-in by many, but I wouldn't really see the point in porting Smash Bros. I mean, let's be honest, the next Smash Bros game will basically be the same (but with a Splatoon stage) anyway. Just wait for that instead. It's not like porting a Zelda game, which are all relatively unique experiences. Like there'd be no point in porting Splatoon 1 to Switch because Splatoon 2 completely fulfils that role. It would seem very short-termist to port Smash 4, then release Smash 5 on a console that already has an identical looking Smash Bros on it. In fact, it will be interesting to see, if Nintendo does release a Mario Kart 9 on Switch, whether its impact is severely diminished by the fact that they've already blown their Mario Kart Switch beans with MK8DX. I mean, historically these franchises have only ever had 1 release per console, which has kept them special/evergreen.

@Haywired I think there's a good chance that MK8 DX is the Mario Kart for the Switch.

I think so too

@Octane @FGPackers
I think that would be a good idea.

I understand your point completely. I just disagree with it.

I don't agree with your assessment of the facts and I don't think your subsequent logic is sound.

My point is simple - in terms of its game structure and level design 3d World is essentially Mario Galaxy 3. The significant differences are concessions to the camera angle and level design to fit 4 characters on screen at once, a difference in thematic dress and a few changes to the moveset (that are reflected in the level design). Nintendo failed to effectively communicate that - leading to confusion as to whether it was a HD port of 3d Land, a '3d version of the NSMB games' or even just a HD version of Mario World or Mario 3.

If they'd tagged it "Mario Galaxy 3 + Multiplayer" and changed a few cut scenes to features stars instead of sprixies it would have been much better received. Nintendo communicated what they had badly.

I don't think that Sunshine was as much of a sandbox game as you seem to think either. You were - in almost all cases - locked into chasing a specific shine when you entered a level and you couldn't get the 6th shine in a level until you'd collected the 1st 5. A fair proportion of those shines were very linear (most obviously the 'abstract world' levels without FLUDD but many others too). The levels were huge and gave a feeling of exploration but they were artificially fenced off.

To me the Galaxy games and 3d World were a refinement of that concept that simply removed more of the bloated vestigial remains of free roaming. Structurally I don't think they're that much different.

Regardless however, I don't think it's fair to assume that linear platformers are devoid of "exploration" or creativity - it's simply exploration and creativity that's expressed slightly differently. Aside from the Galaxy games and 3d World the Yoshi's Island and Yoshi's Woolly World are linear platformers that are far more densely packed full of secrets than any open ended 3d platformer.