Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@BiasedSonyFan there are a couple of key differences. Nes was the market leader with the highest install base. Wii U is among the worst selling of all time.
It was also a much harder effort to port a game at the time. There was no common APIs to use or game engines. The console market was still maturing. Today we have common engines, common graphics chips, common overall system architecture.
You also didn't gain an automatic gain in horse power, you needed to redo all assets. Higher horse power today means you at least gain more frames per second or higher resolution for free.

And you don't need to worry, the top producers at Nintendo won't get less resources if they outsource porting. It is a pretty safe operation. It would be a waste if they indeed do the ports themselves. Unless they use it to find new talents in the company. Even Miyamoto had to start somewhere.

And we still don't know the launch lineup of the switch.

@BiasedSonyFan You're comparing Wii U -> Switch to a very different scenario.

NES to SNES was a massive upgrade. The increased power allowed greater complexity in not just graphics, but gameplay. This was very much a time where gameplay was limited by how powerful a system was. Therefore game companies would prioritise making new games for the SNES, as they were less restricted compared to the NES.

Power-wise, the jump from Wii U to Switch isn't going to be that great. The difference we're looking at is potentially higher quality lighting, textures, and effects, or better resolution/FPS. Gameplay-wise, power is not an issue. Multiplayer experiences like Smash Bros and Mario Kart have been improved over a number of instalments. The jump between Mario Kart 8 and the next Mario Kart isn't going to be like Super Mario Kart to Mario Kart 64, for example. More likely, Nintendo are going to slightly tweak the core gameplay in Mario Kart 8 and add some extra features.

Just because they are ports, it doesn't mean the games have nothing new to offer. They are new to anyone who hasn't had a Wii U. They can add new content. And of course, and perhaps most importantly to me personally, they give people the opportunity to play the games on a brand new system, which is portable. Surely that counts for something? Didn't you say a few posts ago that the console itself being the most important factor of a purchase?

@BiasedSonyFan You're treating this like it is black and white: that you either want remasters or you want new games. In reality, new games are a priority, yes, but many people will also buy remasters. Sure, I'd love to play Super Mario Sunshine on the go. But I'm also excited for a new Mario game and whatever else Nintendo have in store. Why can't we want both? Why can't Nintendo do both? As @JaxonH was saying, ports are a minimal effort for high return (on Nintendo's part). Then why is it unreasonable to think that Nintendo will give us both remasters and new titles?

A nice opinion to have except for the fact that you're entirely wrong. The Gameboy had plenty of NES ports, the GBA had plenty of SNES ports. Nintendo made a bundle with Pokemon by selling two separate versions of largely the same game. But you didn't see it from Nintendo outside of these examples because in the 90s and early 2000s porting was quite a task. Hardware was vastly different and graphics varied dramatically. So if they were going to put that much effort into a game why not make it a new game?

But as tech has improved the gap between generations has shrunk. At the same time development costs have gone up and consumers are buying more games. We also have consoles with fairly decent amounts of internal storage, enough for new content to be pushed to them over the internet. It's a completely different environment. This isn't just an opinion of mine it's how it is. Nothing I've said here is even remotely debatable.

In this new environment I don't look at Splatoon on the Switch in the same way that I would have looked at a game in the 90s. It's foolish to do so. I'm not buying a game, I'm buying a generation long subscription to the Splatoon platform on the Switch. This is how it has always been when you buy a game technically. It's just that now the tech has caught up to this legal reality. It's also the same reason why I'm strongly opposed to the idea of paying a subscription for online.

@BiasedSonyFan But again, you're addressing this in a black and white, all or nothing way.

Just because remasters/ports sell, it doesn't mean publishers are going to get away with selling those alone. Look at Square Enix - how many times have they rereleased and remastered the same Final Fantasy games? Yet look at how much they've invested into Final Fantasy XV. Look at the Final Fantasy spin-offs we've been getting. This generation had a pretty slow start, with loads of remasters. Yet PS4 is getting loads of original titles these days - currently one significant title a week.

@BiasedSonyFan
I'd rather Nintendo actually spend time making brand new video games as opposed to what you're suggesting. Which I regard as creating unnecessary work for themselves in order to satisfy some arbitrary definition of port vs sequel. Online multiplayer games are a service. Don't bother starting from the beginning, just open the doors to that service again. Spend that development time saved on giving us actual content rather than just a new graphical engine and game mechanics for what is essentially the same game anyways.

@BiasedSonyFan You're missing the point entirely. What @skywake and the rest of us are saying is that making an enhanced port of Smash/Mario Kart/Splatoon and setting it up as a "games as a service" is better than making new entries in those series because the time and resources spent on those new entries are better spent on new entries in other series or even better, new IPs.

As you said, time and resources are finite. We want Nintendo to be creative. However, Smash, Mario Kart, and to a lesser extent Splatoon don't need it. Other series do. We're saying that making these enhanced ports allows Nintendo to focus their efforts and creativity elsewhere - on series that actually need it and new IPs.

Anyways, I should point out that Laura herself said that her list was just what she knows about, and is far from a complete list. Her sources come from Ubisoft and NoE. She doesn't have access to info from other third parties and quite a few of Nintendo's studios as well. A couple of the things, such as the Xenoblade X port, are only single sourced so they should be taken with a larger grain of salt.

Emily Rogers did say a while back that Retro's project as well as a new IP were coming in year 1 as well.

So in year 1, we could have: 3D Mario, Zelda BotW, Pokemon Stars, Pikmin 4, Mario Kart, Smash Bros, Splatoon, Xenoblade X, Super Mario Maker, Retro's project, a new IP, and Mario RPG: Invasion of the Rabbids among others.

That's a KILLER year 1 lineup (though I feel like the Xenoblade X port would be better in year 2, but whatever). How about year 2? That could look something like this:

Kirby, Animal Crossing, Mario Party, Fire Emblem, Mario Golf/Tennis, Pokemon Mystery Dungeon, Mario & Luigi, and ports of Pokken Tournament and Bayonetta 2. Maybe even Pokemon Gen 8.

@IceClimbers Wasn't the Retro project the same as the new IP?

@Grumblevolcano Emily listed them separately. Also, I believe it was clarified at some point that "Retro making a new IP" meant a new IP for them, not necessarily a new IP all together. So a StarTropics reboot, for example, would still fit seeing as how they've never worked on the series.

What's with you and strawman arguments? We're not saying these games have hit a dead end and shouldn't be taken any further. We're saying that the Wii U releases are a solid base to build on. I don't necessarily want a Mario Kart 9 with brand new everything. I just want new tracks, new characters and new modes. And if building on Mario Kart 8 to get there means more content overall? Then that's a better way to go both for us and Nintendo.

As I asked this question a couple of pages ago and you glossed over it. What from these games do you actually want that couldn't be done with DLC or an enhanced port? Because historically the only other change with sequels other than new content and modes has been the visuals, mechanics and story. For the games we're listing here the visuals are fine for the Switch, the mechanics are modern enough and there is no story. So what's the issue?

An install base of 90 million consoles does not necessarily mean 90 million unique gamers. There would have been a console purchase overlap in the 4th generation, with gamers owning 2 or more consoles.

Titles like Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr., Excitebike, Ice Climber and Balloon Fight had arcade versions which were released as early as, if not earlier than the NES versions. Gamers had several years to play those games, and they did not need to own a console to do so.

The actual number of gamers who never had a chance to play those NES games wouldn't have been anywhere close to 30 million. Nintendo never ported those games to the SNES because it would have been a waste of time and resources.

@BiasedSonyFan

In regards to Smash, I know that you're saying that historically speaking, a brand new Smash game would mechanically play different than the previous entry. What @Skywake is saying however, is that those mechanical differences largely stemmed from the power jump and/or wildly different control scheme inbetween the N64 to GCN, GCN to Wii, and Wii to Wii U.

However, the jump from Wii U to Switch is different. In terms of power, it's not so great that the Switch will be able to do anything notable that the Wii U couldn't (on a mechanical level), and the control input will remain similar.

Thus, while a brand new entry would likely result in some sort of mechanical difference, the similar capabilities of the two systems means that those changes likely wouldn't differenciate much (if at all) from current Smash U any more than a rebalanced port would.

Then, if the gameplay isn't going to change much whether or not you create a new game or port, why not do the port, which costs less, and allows them to add more new characters & stages than a new game would (since they wouldn't have to spend as much time on veteran characters)?

What from these games do you actually want that couldn't be done with DLC or an enhanced port?

There's honestly a lack of major 1st party characters left to have as newcomers at this point. Inklings, King K Rool, Isaac, and a Gen 7 Pokemon (Decidueye?) would be the obvious ones. Who do you go to after that without removing ATs?

That's covered with an enhanced port with extra DLC. Still no reason for an entirely new entry.

@IceClimbers: They'd have to expand their boundaries a bit to include current assist trophies and more obscure characters, but I can think of plenty. Skull Kid, Ridley, E. Gadd, Toad (if you gave him a bit more attitude like Peach), Kid Icarus characters like Hades/Madusa/Viridi (which is honestly a series Sakurai should revisit), Zant, Girahim, Groose, Midna, Toon Zelda.

As for 3rd party characters, they could have Amaterasu, Shovel Knight, Shantae, Sora, Dr. Wiley, Sonic characters...

I guess the question is, do we want it to be that crowded?

I guess the question is, do we want it to be that crowded?

Two points that resonate with me here.

To start with the latter: Smash is getting a bit crowded, yes. Sure, I'd love to see more characters, but I don't think any additions will have the same appeal as newcomers did in Melee, Brawl or Smash 4. That's why continuous update approach seems to make more sense.

As for the former: During development of Smash 4 we frequently learnt about how burnt out Sakurai was from the whole experience. Rather than pushing for a Smash 5, which we may not even get until 2020, I'd rather see his creative efforts to go towards something different. In particular, I'd love to see a new instalment in the Kid Icarus series, as the 3DS entry showed so much potential.

On a previous page I said "Doom Guy" would be a good new character. That wasn't a throw away line. With Bethesda and maybe other third parties on board with the Switch... why not?

It'll be interesting to see what approach they take when it comes to revisions/upgrades.Their handheld's usually see revisions fairly soon and sometimes upgrades later on but their home consoles not really.I can only think of the Wii Mini and that was a downgrade if anything.With the Switch being both,what route do you think they'll take?I can't imagine they'll release an XL version when it's already big enough.A Swich mini is unlikely too because of the set up with the Joy-cons.Possibly a Switch + with 1080 screen and a little more grunt in a couple of years?

Apologies if this has been discussed in here before.

@OorWullie, A Switch mini has been mentioned briefly I think, but until I see what size a normal Switch is it's hard to say if a Switch mini would work.
As for general Switch hardware revisions, if it is a success, I can only see Nintendo copying Apple, Google etc, with incremental upgrades after a couple of years. Sony and Microsoft have gone down this route with the PS4 pro and Xbox one S.
Again it's hard to talk about a Switch hardware revision as we don't know the full specs apart from rumours.