Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@Whitewatermoose MGR is a four-year-old game by the time the Switch releases. Don't see the need for a port of that game. They can't retroactively port every game to the Switch that Nintendo consoles missed out on. They need to focus on the games that are coming out in 2017, get those on board. The last thing you want is that people perceive the Switch as a port and remaster system. Unique and new games are way more important IMO.

I'd prefer new games. Cuz old ports aren't going to sell, and when they don't, the publishers will use those sales as an excuse to not port newer games. Thus, wii u again.

I know I've said it before, but I really hope the (apparently) held off Animal Crossing WiiU will be a launch title for the Switch. Surely it's one of the main franchises to best show case the play at home and on the go element?

Haven't a lot of Animal Cross models etc been HD-afied too? Surely it's a launch year title?

I hope that we have some great new games instead of ports from other develops and Nintendo too. The Switch needs a strong start and the faith needs to be restored (and maintained) throughout the lifetime of the Switch.

@AlternateButtons I don't really see Destiny coming to Switch to be honest. I would imagine that the vast majority of people interested in it already have it, and as an always-online game it wouldn't benefit too much from the added portability. However, who knows?

@ProjectX1991 Animal Crossing for the Switch launch would be a pleasant surprise. TBH, I never saw much of a case for Animal Crossing on the Wii U (save maybe for some advanced online features), considering that Animal Crossing already works so well on the 3DS. But to have the handheld version double as the home version? Seems ideal.

You bring up a very good point. Any games that rely on being always online are just impossible. Considering they're touting portability, it wouldn't make sense for developers of such games to port over. So no games like destiny or final fantasy 14. That's a shame.

@Operative While I personally couldn't give two hoots about always online games, what's the difference between Destiny on a PS4 and Destiny on Switch? Neither of them can be played portably (assuming Switch lacks mobile data), so it's no reason not to release on Switch.

@gcunit while true, when the console is shown as being mainly portable, anyone who buys it for that reason might not care for games that wouldn't be able to play the games while portable. Which would probably dissuade many publishers from putting such games on it. I could obviously be wrong, but I don't see it happening as they're showing it now

Wouldn't surprise me to see Animal Crossing at or near launch just so they can shift all the amiibo that are still sat on store shelves.

@BiasedSonyFan
I think you're over-analysing it. The fact is that BotW is a bigger deal than any of those games that launched on the Wii U in the first year. The 3D Mario game is potentially the same deal. Mario Kart? Well it may be a port but most people haven't played it. As a new Mario Kart it's a bigger deal than all of those games that launched on the Wii U in the first year. Same deal with Splatoon.

When I say its more interesting than the Wii U was in the first year already? I mean it in that sense. The Wii U in the first year had 3D World and Wind Waker as the system sellers. Those were the only two games that got people buying the system. The Switch already has four killer apps. Games that people who skipped the Wii U will be all over. For people who got the Wii U sure there's less on offer but at the same time. Would I get Splatoon on the 3DS if it was announced tomorrow? 100%. I don't see how the Switch is different.

Throw in a few surprises? Like a HD remaster of some GC era game from Tantalus, a new game from Retro or something else from Nintendo's internal studios. Animal Crossing? Metroid Prime HD? Something from Platinum games? This library could get pretty compelling very quickly.

The Wii U didn't get a main series Animal Crossing because one wasn't in development. Splatoon was largely developed by the same team that usually makes AC (though I'm not sure it's the same director/producer).

@BiasedSonyFan
Of course it's all entirely subjective. But if you ask me the most compelling Wii U games in that first year were Pikmin 3, Wind Waker HD and 3D World. And ports or otherwise the four first party games for the Switch that are all but confirmed? They interest me more than those games did.

To put it another way, if I was to rank how hyped I am/was for these 10 games:
1. Zelda: BotW
2. Mario Switch
3. Wind Waker HD
4. Splatoon Switch
5. Pikmin 3
6. 3D World
7. Mario Kart Switch
8. The Wonderful 101
9. Nintendo Land
10. New SMB U

And that's before we know what other games there are. For all we know there's something along the lines of Animal Crossing or Pikmin in the works. There's potentially one or more HD remasters from the GC/Wii era. It's already a more interesting lineup than the Wii U had in that first year IMO. The potential for even more? That's pretty cool.

Just wondering (and I'm sure the tech-savvy among you could probably provide an answer) but do you think it would be possible (or a good idea) for DLC to be downloaded directly to the relevant game cartridges rather than the system?

For example, [insert game title here] is 10 GB and it's on a 16 GB cartridge - future DLC is added into the remaining 6 GB so the complete game is on the cartridge. This would help to free up the system's storage, but is it feasible? What complications could there be, etc?

If it's a daft idea, feel free to tell me. Just a random thought I had.

@Monkey_Balls
It's best not to think of cartridges as writable storage, they can have a section that's writable but most of it is read only. For cost reasons. So when they have a 10GB game on a 16GB cartridge that 6GB isn't available to write on. It doesn't work like that. What they'd have to do is make the game on a 16GB ROM chip and include 8GB of writable flash for patches. Which would push the cost of the game up significantly.

Better to just have patches and DLC put on the system itself rather than the cartridge. It's a far more efficient use of storage. Because for all they know you might not buy the DLC or the DLC might be a bit more than the flash they included in the cartridge. Then you've paid for flash you're not using.

@skywake Ha, so it was a daft idea then. I had a feeling cost would be a factor but was mostly wondering how (if possible) it could be executed and if such a thing was viable. Well explained; thanks.

Gamecube Virtual Console would be way better than remasters.Or,at least,both.There's no way Nintendo will remaster Melee.

I am very curious about the accessories of the Switch. I don't think the Joy-Con and the Pro Controllers are the only control options. There has to be more.

I think it depends on the game. For a game like Melee I'd agree that there's not much point in a remaster. But I think a lot of people would still like access to it digitally. But for other games there's value in a remastered version. Scrolling through the list of GC and Wii games I'd be seriously interested in HD remasters of some of those titles. Skyward Sword, Super Mario Galaxy, The Metroid Prime Trilogy. How about a Pikmin Trilogy? There are some options in there.

Why does it have to be more?

@Therad Cause you can easily swap them out for different control configurations. And it's Nintendo.. Add them together and you get different Joy-Con accessories.

Because Kimishima has pretty much said as much:

.