Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@BLP_Software It's not a western or AAA thing. You cannot expect third parties to trim their games down to a size that's comparable to Nintendo's games, because they are less experienced with the Switch's hardware than Nintendo themselves. I mean, yes they could work on it for another year or so, but you get my point, that's not economically viable.

Then there's the issue that a multi-platform game needs to be optimised for multiple systems, giving the developers far less time to devote as much time and resources on a single platform as they could've done if the game was an exclusive.

We also need to take things like voice acting (sound in general) and more complex textures into account, these take up a lot of space and can also contribute to a bigger file size. Even the difference of compressed midi files or a fully orchestrated soundtrack can make a difference. Doesn't apply to all games, but it's still something to take note of.

That being said, 5GB for a save file is absolutely ludicrous, and I can't fathom why they need that much space for a single save file.

@Octane I wasn't complaining about the size of the game. Third party file sizes I just roll with now. Unless its a Titanfall 40GB of uncompressed audio thing.

I was complaining about the save file. Why, regardless of the game, is a save file the same size as Nintendo's holiday flagship release?

@BLP_Software It's a 2K thing. And like I said, I have no idea...

The first half of 2018 lineup will probably be Kirby, Yoshi, Fire Emblem and some Wii U ports. Say for example something like:
January - Nothing (releasing games in January is pointless, if you can't make it December then delay to February or later)
February - Kirby
March - Smash 4 port
April - Fire Emblem
May - Super Mario Maker port
June - Yoshi

@Octane Also, did you actually read my post, where I explicitly state, several times, it's the save file I'm bringing point to? Would have saved you all that time writing up about the size of the game.

I'm going to do some more digging. Regardless of how much needs to be saved, it shouldn't be gigabytes. There are far more efficient ways of storing data like stats.

@BLP_Software I know. But you did ask specifically if ''western'' development was inefficient, and I've seen more people talk/complain about large file sizes in general, not just the save file. So it was partly a general response to the this thread. In short: Large file sizes make sense, to a degree; however, 5GB for a save file does not.

It's just how announcements usually happen. Well maybe not the exact timing but Nintendo have made quite a point of announcing stuff within about a year of release. I mean think about it, what upcoming games do we know about for the Switch and how many of those are scheduled for release in the next 9 months or so?

So to that end I think it's fair to say that as we get through the big games for the end of this year they'll start talking about the games for the first half of this year. And then once we have those games in our hands they'll start talking about the end of 2018. And when we get past those we'll start hearing about early 2019 etc

Yeah. We don't have info on Switch's 2018 release, so we will probably get a Direct on November to lay the ground work for next year.

Idk about a direct in Nov... feels like they wrapped up the year and that's too soon....january sounds more strategic or December.

They could always do another Direct, going over XC2 one last time, giving dates for DOOM and Rocket League, and any indies still to come, as well as WWE, and then announce stuff for early 2018 for Switch and 3DS and give solid dates on all of that, such as Kirby Star Allies, show off Fire Emblem for the first time, and more of Yoshi.

January is too close to February to announce a game, and you give too little time to retailers to put up preorders and different things.
If it were an eshop only game, sure, but a retail game is going to need more time.

Maybe the first half of December, because after Christmas people is basically thinking of new year, not on new games.

@BLP_Software I'm not sure Nintendo should do that with Xenoblade Chronicles 2, not after the moaning from the extended trailer in the last direct. They will be better just saying nothing about that game and merely release a launch trailer for it's release.

@FragRed Well, it's obvious from that reaction that Xenoblade will perpetually be niche. So do a quick reminder its coming December, introduce some new characters, show the inevitable giant robots, and boom, move on.

@FragRed I think the reaction would've been the same even if Mario Odyssey was put in that spot instead. Following up a significant amount of time spent on 3DS with a Switch game we already know a lot about is a bad idea. If they had to have an extended trailer straight after the 3DS section, Octopath would've been a better fit.

Because sequels take more development time than ports and for some games a port would be good enough. It really depends on what kind of game it is and whether you've played it before. For some users a port of a game you never played isn't really any different to a new release. For some games we play them as if they were a service rather than a single release so having access to it on a new platform is something you might want.

@Spoony_Tech Despite the comparisons Retro are a completely different beast to the Rare that Rare was in the 90s.

Remember Rare developed an unbelievably high percentage of all NES games (far more than Nintendo themselves). They were able to be prolific in the N64 era because they were already a huge development house by the standards of the time.

Retro are modestly sized by the modern standards. Maybe they can make 2 games at once but I wouldn't bet anything on 2 big games from Retro arriving in the same year.

Like @skywake said - some games are basically 'platforms' in and of themselves. They don't need to be fundamentally reworked (& their fans wouldn't tolerate it) - they just need to be available with incremental updates.

They're incredibly important though because these are games where some people might play almost nothing else. If you don't bring these 'games as platforms' over those fans will stick with their existing consoles. It makes these games much more important to the prospects of a console than single player RPGs or 'one and done' games like Pikmin.

Nintendo has a few games that fall into this category. Mario Kart, Animal Crossing, Smash, Splatoon, Mario Maker & Pokemon.

Aside from those games there is another category of games for which people want ports. These are games that were great but which wouldn't necessarily justify a direct sequel in the same vein. So things like Mario 3D World or Tropical Freeze.

Those games were fantastic and should always be in circulation to new players but if there are sequels they'll be completely different so there's still merit to having the originals available.

@StuTwo I'd think Monster Hunter falls in that platform part as well, probably FIFA as well.

As for Wii-U games, the argument I hear the most, is that the Wii-U didn't reach all that many people, so it'd be nice to give those games another shot.

@UmniKnight Definitely Monster Hunter & FIFA but also Rocket League & Minecraft too which is why it's so important Nintendo has secured versions of those - even if they're not necessarily the best versions.

It's also why Madden, COD, Overwatch & Hearthstone would all be welcomed with open arms (again - even if they're not the all bells and whistles versions).

@StuTwo Agreed, but Overwatch and Hearthstone wouldn't compromise anything. Since there's a F2P moba on, Hearthstone should work in the monetization aspect as well. I really hope though, that Nintendo secures an MH down the line.