Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@TomJ
Yeah, she announced it on her twitter. It seems it is only her though, and not the rest of Let's Play Video Games.

Well, you explained what you wanted Nintendo to do with these releases. You didn't once explain how what you were talking about was any different to what I was talking about. You just asserted that a port with additional characters/tracks/stages/modes would be a bad idea. Because it's a port.

The way I see it the only difference between a port and a sequel for a multiplayer focused game is on the box. One usually gets a bigger number on the box, the other doesn't. So really I don't see what the argument here is for. We both agree that Nintendo should take Mario Kart 8 and add to it. Include new modes, tracks, characters, mechanics etc. The only difference is that you will only be happy if it's called Mario Kart 9.

To weigh in on this, I would argue that the passage of time and advancement of technology during that time leading up to what we now have with the Switch, combined with the high quality that these games already were on Wii U, I think that it would be incredibly unrealistic to expect an advancement so apparent that we saw with Smash 64 to Melee or Mario Kart Wii to 8.

Even setting aside rumours that these versions will be improved, and in significant ways such as the implementation of what has been long requested for Mario Kart at least in a return to form battle mode, but even without that I find it hard to feel anger or any such strong emotion(s) should the ports of say Mario Maker and Xenoblade Chronicles X be pretty much as they were on Wii U. Those were recent games, well reviewed and generally well received but limited by the hardware they were exclusive to. As a fan of these games I'm glad they're getting another chance, and that more people will get to play them.

We shouldn't really be worried about this being the norm for this system I don't think. Monolith Soft are working on a new game, Reto apparently on a brand new IP and I wouldn't be surprised to see one or two supposedly 'dead' franchises getting new instalments on the Switch, provided it takes off enough for Nintendo to be comfortable greenlighting a new Kid Icarus or Metroid or something. These ports will only help that I feel, and to argue against their existence I feel it is not only somewhat hypocritical considering remasters have been normalised for years in regards to 'AAA' games but it also works against anyone's chances of getting a new F-Zero, because if no one buys the system to play Mario Kart at launch because it doesn't exist, then how can you still insist that you be indulged with your favourite franchises that have never been big sellers?

People need to take a chill pill and not feel so insulted by remasters.

And now they've found their happy medium with Smash 4. There's no reason to change the gameplay mechanics now; doing so would just be changing things for the sake of changing things.

Here's the problems with making a completely new Smash entry:

a) The game wouldn't release for another 4-5 years.
b) The series has reached the point where it's strenuous to essentially redo the work for a bunch of veteran characters. There would inevitably be TONS of character cuts for minimal newcomers, which would disappoint many, many fans.

Therefore, it makes absolutely ZERO sense to make an entirely new entry when they could release an enhanced port of Smash 4, set it up as a "game as a service", and release the few newcomers there would be in a new entry as DLC. It would be out much sooner and would avoid the disappointment.

Yeah, these games would be better to have enhanced Switch ports than sequels:

• Mario Kart 8
• Super Smash Bros. for Wii U
• Splatoon
• Super Mario Maker
• Pokken Tournament
• Mario Tennis Ultra Smash (if they enhance it to the standards of previous Mario Tennis games)

The other Wii U "exclusives" getting Switch ports only make sense from a business approach (i.e. makes up for small Wii U install base). I'm talking about games like BotW, XCX, LCU.

We saw new features for the Mario kart game. In fact, we saw more changes in feature set than between 7 and 8. So if that is true, does it really matter if they call it 8.5 or 9?

And don't forget that they are trying to sell switch to other than Wii U owners, people that haven't had the chance to play those games. It makes sense to port games to recoup the loss from Wii U. Ports can also be handled by external studios, so the big guns can do other stuff.
New buyers get loads of things to play, and returning customers get to new games faster, it is a win win situation.

@MarcelRguez Nobody is saying they need to become platforms for all their coming consoles. In the case of the Switch, it's probably better this way. There's no way that Nintendo could get a new Splatoon, Mario Kart and Smash done in time for the Switch launch. I'm all for a new version for their next console, but at the moment, I don't really care whether they release Mario Kart 8.5 or 9 for the Switch, as I think that the end result would be practically the same, it's just that one saves them a lot of time and the other one doesn't.

@MarcelRguez He said it doesn't need to be rebuild from scratch every few years, and I agree (even more so in the case of the Switch). Still, an enhanced port, given enough time is put into it, can also feel like a different game.

@MarcelRguez Well technically we don't even know that Nintendo will have a console after Switch. Maybe Switch does well enough that Nintendo decides to go down the incremental upgrade route (like PS4 Pro / Xbox Scorpio) or maybe Switch does bad enough that Nintendo goes 3rd party and there's plenty of other alternate scenarios.

Why are you talking about what these games have done in the past? I'm not talking about whether or not the previous releases were sequels or ports because they were obviously sequels. I'm talking about whether or not they should, to put it in your terms, modify the very mechanics of these games for the Switch. I don't think they should. For a few reasons.

Firstly the jump between the Wii U and the Switch isn't as massive as previous generational leaps. It's a radically different business model but fundamentally it's a Wii U crammed into a slimmer GamePad. We're also at the stage where there are diminishing returns for graphical improvements. Online is also not a new thing anymore and the Switch isn't going to radically change the controller. This isn't like the jump from the N64 to the GC, GC to Wii or Wii to Wii U.

The second thing that's different is that now games can be patched. There can be new content added either for free or as DLC throughout the life of a game. As a non-Nintendo example and I think the best example of this we have Overwatch. Since launch this year they've added new characters, new maps and new modes. Do I expect a sequel in 3-4 years? Well no, I don't. But I don't expect the game to be the same as it is now either. Something that was also true for the games we are talking about here. Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Splatoon and Mario Maker on Wii U are not the same games now as they were at launch.

And lastly, what was wrong with the Wii U releases that needs to change? Mechanically those games were all pretty solid. The discussion has now turned into talk about how Mario Kart and Smash Bros changed between GC and Wii. I'd argue the same point there. Why did it need to change? Would Smash Bros Brawl have been a worse game if it had been more of an "enhanced port" of Melee? I'd argue not. Changing the mechanics of these games isn't always a good thing. Especially if they want to win fans in competitive scenes.

Well yes, I happen to think that's the case. What makes you think that's not the case? The leaked list of games for the first year as we know it includes new Mario and Zelda and ports of Xenoblade, Smash, Kart and Splatoon. If they had gone the other way and not done ports I doubt we'd be getting 6+ big releases in the launch year. But go ahead, spin it the other way if you wish.

Also I think it's odd that you're talking about wasted resources. I'm saying they should port these games over and just continue supporting them via patches and DLC. You're saying they should port these games over AND THEN develop sequels before supporting those with patches and DLC. One of these approaches will give us, as consumers, more content. I think we both know which one that is.

@skywake
The resources it would take to develop 1 single new game over the course of 3 years, could alternatively be used to do six 6-month ports. And with 6 ports, you could fill the first year of Switch will the 6 highest rated games of the last generation- games which the vast majority of gamers haven't played- games which for most people will be brand new, and among the best the industry has to offer.

People complaining about having these ports are basically arguing that it's better to have one extra game as opposed to six of the latest and greatest cherry picked from a mostly untapped and unplayed reservoir of a failed console.

It could take the Switch years to get 5 games equally as riveting and compelling as these Wii U ports. And by the time that happens the console could already be doomed from lack of interest. For the negligible cost of one new game they can give Switch a library of top rated gems that takes most consoles several years to accumulate.

To complain about that is to not understand the marginal cost versus the overwhelming benefit. One new game (which for all we know may turn out mediocre and flop anyways) versus six games new to most, all of which are among the best there is.

@JaxonH I understand it is cheaper and easier to port an already done game than to make a new one. I just don't see how games that didn't sell people on the Wii U are supposed to sell people on the switch, and how the lack of new games is a good thing. We are looking at 5-7 ports and maybe 2 new games for the first 6 months. There could be more, but we don't have any information suggesting that, and so we can't just assume there will be something for people that already own these games or were more interested in sequels rather than ports.

@BiasedSonyFan
Do you want to have a discussion or do you want to win an argument? Because you keep shifting what I said to something else before claiming that you never said those things. Well ok, but I never said those things either.

I didn't say that graphics was the defining feature of what makes a game a sequel. I simply said that changes in hardware in previous generations made ports impossible. And historically changes in graphical capabilities has been the defining change across generations. Something that has been less and less true because of diminishing returns. Additionally the fact that Nintendo can now patch their games and add DLC? That means games can have features added over time. Wii U -> Switch is not the same as N64 -> GC.

And ignoring most of the rest of your post because I don't have much to say about all that. I don't want to cover the same ground over and over again. But that last point of yours dances around the point entirely. From the start I've said that porting these games and going on from there is the way to go. These games don't need reboots and the resources they save could be put towards other games. Your counter to this point? .... You said "not exactly" before saying you will wait for the sequels.

Personally, I'd rather the "sequels" never come. Smash Bros and Mario Kart don't need to be re-invented. Just give me new content on the platforms they've already created. I'd rather Sakurai make me another Kid Icarus game rather than Smash Bros 5, now with a smaller roster and slightly different game physics

@DefHalan
Well as to lack of new games, I would make a point to separate that issue from the ports because the ports aren't going to be the culprit behind lack of new games. Like I said you could get six ports for the cost of one new game. But pertaining to new games we don't know the lineup yet. We've seen a small list of leaks and that's it, so I think it's premature to start complaining about that just yet. That's not to say that won't be a problem because it's very possible, but we just don't know enough at this juncture.

But the idea that simply because a great game was on a failed system, it means that great game will not appeal to people on a new system... that's an error in judgment. Just because the system failed doesn't mean it was the games' fault, and doesn't mean those games won't help make another system successful. For all we know people who didn't buy a Wii U were saying "I'd love to play Mario Maker, but I don't want to spend $300 on a 4 year old Wii U given everything I know about the system- the clunky UI, the complete abandonment of 3rd parties, the sub HD display limited to 30 foot range, etc". And yet those same people might see Mario Maker on a $250 launch Switch, along with a new Zelda, and say "ya know, here's my chance to play that game I've been wanting, and get a system with a full life ahead of it and with portability for all my games, this time without any range restriction, this time on an HD screen, and this time cheaper at launch than Wii U was at the end of its lifespan".

Great games are great games, and great games always have appeal regardless of whether or not the system they were on failed. And great games can always help sell another system. They might not have been enough on their own to make a person purchase the Wii U, but the Wii U had a lot of other baggage pushing people away. Now, they very well could help push people beyond the tipping point to purchase a Switch. Just because the Wii U failed doesn't mean the games suddenly have no appeal.

@BiasedSonyFan
"I'd rather have one extra great video game that's brand-new instead of six that I already played. It's a really simple concept"

I'm sure you would. But they're not putting the games on the system to sell you on a Switch, they're putting the games on the system to sell the 9/10 gamers who didn't already play them.

"What will most likely make or break the Switch's sales success is the concept of the console, not the console's launch lineup"

No, they will equally make or break the Switch's success. You can't have one and not the other. You need both. We're not talking about another Wii. Casuals are gone indefinitely. We're talking about gamers. People who actively play games as a hobby. Those are the people who will sustain Switch, not Wii casuals. And gamers care about the games.

@JaxonH that is a lot of hope to place on those games. Switch having a ton of ports and a lack of new games will be an issue, it will look just like the Wii U again. That doesn't mean the Switch will sell the same as the Wii U but I think all these ports aren't a good sign. Sure, you can get more ports than new games, since they are easier and cheaper but it isn't great marketing. Sony and Microsoft (and 3rd parties) had the benefit of the 360/PS3 games that they ported were successful on the previous systems. Nintendo has barely been supporting the Wii U for years and so far, the best we have heard for the Switch is getting ports. Where are the new games? Where are the new experiences? What is the draw for people that already own these games? Feel free to be optimistic but looking at the facts, we really have no idea what we are getting and plenty of people think that isn't good, especially since these rumors and unconfirmed facts are making people draw conclusions about the system. I have had plenty of conversations where I had to remond people that there are no confirmed games for the Switch yet (Outside of Just Dance, Breath of the Wild, and maybe Sonic) and no exclusive games yet.

This is like the Star Wars marathon for episodes 1-7. Some fans would gladly pay to see the first 6 movies in theatres again for a different experience. While other fans have seen the first 6 movies far too many times to care. They only want to see episode 7 or something new in theatres.

It's just a matter of personal preference. There's no right or wrong here. Both sides are still fans of the series. There's absolutely nothing wrong with paying for a rerelease if you feel like you're getting value from it. I don't think anyone can tell you how much value you are going to get from a purchase apart from yourself.

People need to quit complaining about the ports. If Nintendo doesn't have at least a decent amount of good first party titles in the first year, then that would just be stupid, and no one will be able to argue that fact if it turns out that way. But to say that ports are bad is just denying the fact that that's how the gaming industry works. Nintendo is not special here. Literally everyone else ports their games as well.

A lack of first party titles would be something to complain about. Ports are not. They are perfectly fine, and can only help. I can speak for a lot of people when I say that I would have happily played a lot of Wii U games if the Wii U wasn't just a dismal failure that was doomed from the start, and was never going to have a long lifespan. I'm happy that I'll be able to play those games on the Switch, which I'm sure can at least do somewhat better than the Wii U, if not a lot better.

@DefHalan
Again, premature to be making assessments like that without all the facts. Once we have the actual confirmed lineup and you still have an issue then make your case. But you're making an entire argument predicated upon incomplete facts and assumptions. We have no idea how many games are going to be on Switch its first year.

That's people's problem right there. Drawing conclusions without the full set of facts. And if people choose to be ignorant enough to do such a thing then they can wallow in their own misery as far as I'm concerned. We've been given a January date where we will learn more. Just because people are impatient to the point they refuse to wait for the facts, doesn't mean their conclusions are anything more than worst-case fear-induced speculation. Nintendo's exclusives and new games are held tight to the chest. Those are the games that don't get leaked. Those are the games that nobody finds out about until they want people to find out about them. Zelda TP? Leaked. All these other Switch ports? Leaked. But new games? How often are those leaked? Hardly ever. So the data we have is skewed, not to mention incomplete. And skewed data (particularly incomplete skewed data) is worthless for predictions.

@BiasedSonyFan
"they'd probably be just as happy playing a great launch video game that features a less-famous Nintendo IP as long as the concept of the Switch appeals to them"

And I say you're dead wrong. People buy systems for the games they can play. Concept is only as good as the games that utilize it.

"I'm merely ranking these factors in order of importance"
So am I. They're equally important. And there's a lot of other factors too, such as price, aesthetic appeal and UI, online, etc.

"Nintendo is absolutely trying to sell the Switch to casuals as well as gamers"
Of course they are. I never claimed otherwise. What I said was the gamers would sustain it, not the casuals.

There's absolutely no debate about it. Even if Switch sold to every Wii owner alive, they would soon abandon it two years later. Sustenance lies in core gamers, and that fact rings true no matter how many quotes you post from GameStop corporate shills.

@JaxonH that argument can go both ways. I am making my current opinions based on the information out there. When that information changes, my opinion may as well. But I am not going to pretend that 5-7 ports within the first 6 months and 1-2 new games is strong list of software.

Then stop changing what I've said in order to counter it. If you want to have a discussion based on facts? Well lets start with this point once more, where you continue to deliberately miss what I'm saying....

Once more. When I brought up the vast graphical differences between generations past? I wasn't talking about the difference between a port and a sequel. I was instead talking about what impact that rapidly changing hardware had on development. You couldn't really port the original Smash Bros to the Gamecube because the Gamecube was a huge graphical leap. The same was true for multiplayer games going from GC to Wii. They had to put effort into making those games work online. They had to put effort into making the games look modern. If they did not then they would have been torn to shreds. If they're going through all that? They're basically building the game from scratch anyway. So ports were not an option, this is less true now.

In addition to that not being as big a thing with this transition? We also have had a generation of consoles where games can be patched. The 3DS has a bit of a clunky solution to it, the Wii U is better, the Switch will likely be better again. Games can change over time. Particularly online multiplayer focused releases like Splatoon, Mario Kart, Mario Maker, Smash Bros, Rocket League, Overwatch etc, etc. Games are not static, they get new modes, new characters, new stages and are re-balanced over time.

I did not bring up this point to add to some sort of debate about the semantics. I couldn't care less whether or not you call these games ports or sequels. All I was saying was that even if these are "just" ports? They won't be ports in the same way that we would have described it in generations past. There's no huge technical leap that's going to make Wii U games suddenly look old on the Switch. Additionally there's the unavoidable fact that games can and do change over time.

You want facts and evidence? There's your facts and evidence. I look forward to your next response further glossing over my points. Because despite your posturing about not wanting to "win an argument" you seem only interested in trying to disagree with me.