Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@NEStalgia Oh, I definitely agree. By ambitious, I just meant making games that are filled with eye candy and 4K resolution. In other words, games that rely on powerful hardware to be impressive. That was just a poor choice of words on my part.

But yeah, I like that Nintendo is pretty old school compared to a lot of the other companies. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy games like Uncharted and The Last of Us that are basically interactive movies, or flashy games like Horizon, and I'm glad that those niches in the market are filled, but I also really enjoy Nintendo's approach where they make actual games where the gameplay is the draw, rather than the story or eye candy.

@KirbyTheVampire Ahh, yeah. Same, I do enjoy them, but for me those kinds of games are kind of a rare indulgence rather than staple gaming. We tend to think of PSXBox as "mainstream" but it's "mainstream entertainment" rather than "mainstream gaming". I.E. it's played by a lot of people that don't actually really play games, just engages with entertainment experiences, really a different market entirely. PC is big, but what percentage of PC gaming is made up by blockbusters versus games like DOTA, Overwatch, simulations, spreadsheets-as-games, MMOs, RTSs etc? PC is as weird niche as Nintendo is at the heart of it, and more Nintendo-like than Playstation-like for a good majority of it's base. PSXBox certainly has the "interactive movies" thing down. It reaches more people, but I wonder if you were to run a survey among actual "dedicated game players" versus "consumers who have purchased video games in the last 2 years", if you'd find the majority of responses lining up on Nintendo/PC more than PSXBox and the AAA factories. It's a "niche' but it's a niche with its wallets open for decades at a time

@NEStalgia I'm sure that is the case for PC and Nintendo gamers, PC especially. After all, most people wouldn't build/buy a gaming PC unless they wanted to play games at least semi-regularly.

In what way is Horizon a ''flashy'' game though? It has one of the most satisfying combat systems. If the game was half the resolution, I'd still play it from start till finish.

I also disagree on The Witcher 3, that has to be one of the most ambitious games ever made.

@Octane
I think he means "flashy" in that the graphics are heavily emphasized as a selling point toward the consumer. And to be honest, the graphics are very nice in that game. Beats the heck out of BotW.

And yea, we have to defend Witcher 3 here. It is one of the most well-done games of the last decade by an awesome company. But personally, I'm done with the same-y combat style a lot of these open world games have had for also the past decade, but you have to give credit to Witcher 3 for its content and the way they crafted that world.

@rallydefault HZD is a good looking game, but sometimes it feels as if people think visuals and gameplay are mutually exclusive. There's a lot more to HZD than just pretty graphics. It is very much a video game in the same way BOTW is a video game. If people are buying HZD any game because it looks good, then they're buying it for the wrong reason IMO.

I also think that a non-realistic game can look good. I think ARMS is visually very impressive, but I don't think they're selling it on graphics alone. And I'm not going to suggest they should tone down the visuals or anything like that.

@Octane
I agree 100%. In all honesty, I just find all three: Witcher, Horizon, AND BotW kind of disappointing when it comes to gameplay. Very same-y with what you mostly see on consoles these days. I do lean toward Zelda because, admittedly, I've loved the series my entire life, but just little touches (like jumping, the seemingly limitless physics possibilities, quirky characters, light dungeon puzzle solving) push it slightly above the other two in terms of "fun" for me.

But to be clear: I think adventure/action console gaming is getting very stale and repetitive. I'm sick of crafting pouches. I'm sick of scaling towers to reveal map portions. I'm sick of collecting 50 boar tusks to make serving of Boar Soup. Mass Effect, Witcher, Horizon, Tomb Raider, BotW, and many more: all guilty of this. I find it very frustrating as a fan of adventure games. I long for gameplay more like the original Tomb Raiders where you can ADVENTURE and explore cool locations without having to manage an inventory/crafting/recipe system that makes you feel like you're playing a restaurant manager simulator.

@rallydefault I think I had a bit more expectations for a Zelda game than Horizon or TW3. I still played it for more than 100 hours and I completed it, so I can't say I didn't enjoy the game, but I have my own issues with the game.

I don't feel that item management is too big of a problem these days. I've pretty much ignored crafting in TW3 I think. I don't recall ever needing to hunt down a certain part. It was just more stuff to sell. Zelda had some fetch quests (the 50 mushrooms was pretty annoying and disappointing at the same time). I think that as long as it's not mandatory to hoard items, I'm OK with it. But if you don't need it, then it also makes me wonder what it's still doing in the game. I guess it gives a sense of realism/immersion; Being able to pick up and collect, craft and sell all sort of items.

I get what you're saying though. And it's also refreshing that you don't need to worry about most of that in a game like Mario Odyssey. That still counts as adverture-y, right?

Most games that aren't linear have some kind of item management these days I think.. Mario and Gravity Rush are the only two examples I can think of right now that don't have them.

@Octane
Heck yea, Odyssey is looking awesome in terms of what I'm looking for (I would definitely consider it an adventure title based on what we've seen so far). It is tough to think of other modern adventure games that don't do much of the inventory extravaganza... kind of the first Tomb Raider reboot, actually. There were lots of items to find, but most were just for zone completion percentages, and things like animal parts and such were pared down to just a few categories. I was totally fine with that.

Yea, it's just a reality in modern gaming, I suppose. I just hate it lol

I guess it can add immersion for most gamers. Like, "Oh! Not only did I just kill that rabbit, but I can skin it too! AND keep its pelt! Look, ma! It's in my inventory and everything!" yay - fantastic, lol. Now go gather 20 more rabbit pelts to upgrade your armor to level 2.

I've just never found inventory management a compelling gameplay mechanic, but that's just me. I've always been more fond of games where you're just plopped into the action and set off at a blistering pace, relying on reflexes rather than inventory.

Right on. Nights of Azure 2 is getting full parity with PS4 version via Limited Edition from NIS Store, just like Disgaea 5 and Touhou Kobuto V: Burst Battle.

Thank you NIS. You support me, I will gladly support you. Preordered.

http://store.nisamerica.com/nights-of-azure-2-bride-of-the-ne...

There seems to be problems bringing Steep to Switch.

I've still to see a switch anywhere at retail, even with restocked I've yet to get a glimpse of one save for a friends (honestly if I hadn't seen his Id swear everyone in the world was having the same crazy fevered delusion).

I have to rewind here to HZD for a moment. I've only played about an hour of it, so can't speak for the game in general, but it's shortcomings as a game compared to BotW are definitely apparent in that first hour, having already played BotW.

BotW almost immediately opens up the game and sets you free on your adventure. HZD sets you off almost on rails, and then constantly interrupts you with trigger-point dialogue (sometimes talking about something that you haven't seen) and extended cutscenes.

Skyward Sword gets blasted for the length of its introduction, but HZD feels almost as bad, except with a higher visual fx budget.

HZD keeps you on virtual rails once you're out in the open, nagging you to keep up with the dude etc., and when you think you've got a bit of slack to experiment with the environment, you approach some rocks to climb them only to discover your character is incapable of anything other than walking surfaces.

HZD feels like a 5-10 year old game in a high fidelity skin. That intro section has totally crapped on my hype for that game, and based on that limited play time I can see why HZD is an 85 while BotW is a 95.

@gcunit There's an introduction area and you're free to do whatever you want, but you can't leave until you've completed a certain amount of tasks. Now guess what game I'm talking about? Surprise, it's both! I don't see the difference TBH. It's pretty standard stuff for an open world game to have some kind of introduction area. The Witcher did the same thing, Infamous did the same thing. Heck, even Gravity Rush restricts how much you're allowed to explore until you unlock more of the world.

@Octane 'You control a character and you move about fighting things and completing tasks until you complete the ultimate task' - guess the game

To me there was a very apparent difference between the first hour in each game.

I'd never judge a game on its first hour. If I did that, Twilight Princess wouldn't even come close to my top 10 best games of all time list.

@NEStalgia Great posts.

I always find it quite interesting that Sony is really a media and media platforms company. They came into video games from a music and film publishing background and they have always (for better and worse) treated video games as something emergent from or complementary to music and film. Their marketing reflects this and it suits them for the industry to line up nicely into that mould.

Microsoft came into video games from a different angle. They see video games from a technology platform standpoint, helping to plug people into a technology ecosystem. Hence the focus from the very beginning on online infrastructure and competition online.

Nintendo by contrast is a toy company. They still see video games as a high-tech toy - it's in their DNA.

@StuTwo Spot on! For better or worse, Sony tapping film and music for gaming, especially in the PS2 era fundamentally reshaped the future of gaming. It did reach a new, bigger audience but it was an audience looking for something other than what gaming had always been. At their heart most of the "console wars" are really clashes between the ideologies of games being games/toys, and games being a movie-like experience. Though, it's with a great bit of irony that Mr. "games don't need stories" himself, Miyamoto, is the one who first invented the concept of having stories in games to begin with with the original Donkey Kong cabinet (the artwork on the cabinet told part of the story, but it was the first game to have a progression of levels that actually developed the story of events, primitive as it was.) So even Sony's story driven view of games, really still comes back to Miyamoto (even if he hates the idea now...)

I think most of the rest of the industry lining up with Sony was largely a mixture of Sony's PS2 success becoming the driving focus for third party, mixed with most of the artists/creators in the industry REALLY wanted to work in Hollywood (and get Hollywood pay...) and since gaming was the best they could get, they ran with their Hollywood thinking creating what they wanted to create...which was film. The current AAA studio model is a "studio" in the 1920's sense of the word. MGM, Columbia (now Sony), Universal.

Nintendo, Miyamoto's even described himself as a toy maker, specifically, before. However, I think that's simplistic. I'd argue that "sandbox games" are more of toys than what Nintendo creates. Those are games where there's no real structure, you create your own fun with the objects provided, with a bit of guidance. When I think of a traditional toy, Fallout 4 and GTA are much more a toy than ARMS and Fire Emblem and Mario Odyssey. Nintendo hardware comes across toy-like, but I think the focus on their software rolls off the tongue a lot worse: "systems-driven." They excel in creating very tight, controlled systems. Specifically systems that form gratification loops and addictive behavior. Moreso than a toymaker, Nintendo's games represent that OTHER meaning of the word "gaming"....gambling devices. Except, where gambling machines are designed to compel the player to part with as much money as possible, Nintendo gives the same gratification loop without the cost. Pure entertainment through the interaction, versus a more passive interactivity with a narrative media. In that context the nature of the two couldn't be more opposite.

Though what's interesting is the heart of PC (not the "woohoo I have a 3-way SLI and can run Batman in 8k with maximum details I'm so much better than you because I spent $4500 on this!" crowd that are just tech enthusiasts), but the bulk of dedicated PC players, the MMOs, the DOTA, SCII players, etc, and, interestingly, mobile gaming (bad as it is) employs the Nintendo concept of "gaming" more than the Sony concept, leaving the film/music model as, in actuality, the smaller niche.

The difference with mobile being, of course, it's more of an ACTUAL casino, being actual cash driven, and the systems are generally far more simplistic to the point of being mostly automated (virtual slot machines vs. pachinko.)

Microsoft....that's the complicated one, and their market position reflects it. Nintendo were expert toymakers turned expert "games(gambling style, sans the expense/risk)" makers. Sony were film/music producers that merged games into their template. Microsoft was just an OS maker who held a pseudo monopoly on the dominant 3D API (DirectX), which enslaved most games to Windows versus rival OS platforms. They were seeing their control eroding as Sonys star was rising, and put together XBox (1...meaning not One...but..1...ugh...) to stem the losses and reinstate DirectX as a mandatory API for the industry, thus securing Windows lock on gaming (and moving Windows into the living room as convergence was beginning as a concept.) As such, their main contribution/template was in bringing what had traditionally been PC style gaming to the console space. Shooters, especially. But the problem is their own experience even in PC gaming was awful. Microsoft Game Studios was a disaster of an operation that was canned (then resurrected in name in the XBox era, but really just as a name.) Prior, in the PC world, big simulations, especially Flight Simulator was their main output. But that wouldn't fly on consoles and was already cancelled on PC. AoE was a masterpiece, but they had already disbanded Ensemble. They tried to buy FASA and it was a disaster in motion, all but annihilating the Mech Warrior/Battletech franchise games forever more. Trying to bring that kind of "expertise" into the console space ended predictably, with Phil's infamous "1st party isn't all that important" outlook, and the dearth of exclusive games on their current platform. They brought PC gaming to the console space, but once that also moved to other platforms, they lost their hook and don't have much expertise in related fields to have a unique hook. They're down to, as you said, the ecosystem focusing on online infrastructure and online, molding it mostly because it fits the company's overall new direction as primarily a cloud services company, though their flagging sales relative to expense on maintaining the ecosystem shows the cracks in their model. The online-focused ecosystem isn't going to generate the revenues the film-focused ecosystem will, but costs way more to make than the lower-sales but lower-cost "Nintendo" (gambling) style games. 1X is a classic Microsoft solution "have problems? Buy a more powerful computer!" They're desperately searching for their "hook" and "better online" is working only because Sony inexplicably can't figure out how to not do it wrong. Most of their contributions to the industry have thus far been easily clonable by Sony because none of them stemmed from having a particular expertise in a field but were merely the fruits of being a monopoly, while their actual field expertise has no real synergy with gaming/entertainment other than as a hardware/infrastructure provider. XBox is kind of the closest answer to the question "What if Bell Telephone made a games console?" (I mock it in jest only. I don't like their online focus as I hate online gaming overall, but I gravely dislike Sony's burgeoning monopoly in gaming, so I'd like XBox to find their hook, even if they do have to be thrown out of Microsoft to do it.)

Make that 10 hours instead. You would also have to pretend OoT didn't exist for this game to be considered a great game. It's ok.

I'm very weird; I greatly enjoy the starting/tutorial areas of most games, even those that last an hour or a even a few. There's just something wicked fun about building up to the adventure to come and "learning the ropes" before you're set loose.

To this day, the Kokiri Forest and Deku Tree are some of my favorite parts of Ocarina, and sometimes I'll go back and start new files to play JUST that section. I've finished the game probably a dozen times or so, but I'll still do this.

(I'm hopelessly addicted to this in WoW - I'm that guy who creates new characters all the time, levels up through the starting zone, and then abandons the character.) I just love those beginning experiences, even stuff like Twlight Princess (herding and all).