Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@MarcelRguez All of your Smash ideas could just be put in a Smash 4 patch and/or DLC. There's absolutely no reason for a Smash 5 to exist.

I can't say that the Nintendo Switch is going to be like Wii craze, but I know that people have been wanting to have a home gaming on the go console for a long time. I will buy it, but may be not on day one. I'll keep my eyes on it for 2-3 weeks after the launch or when the January Direct is convincing enough to make it a day one purchase.

@MarcelRguez Well Hyrule Warriors Legends is an example of what you're describing. It was basically a "complete" version in the way of all the Wii U content (except challenge mode which was only not included due to hardware constraints) being on the cart from day 1 with some extras and then there was a season pass which added even more new content.

The bigger question would be if the Smash port on Switch gets more content, how much if any comes to the Wii U version.

You're reading someone drawing a conclusion about something I said. I never said that, like everyone else @RR529 apparently also misunderstood what I meant. In generations past new versions of games had to be rebuilt entirely because of the massive changes in hardware. Could they have ported those games? Sure. But the game would have looked very out of place if they did. So they build the game from the ground up for the new system instead. And inevitably they make different design choices during that process.

With your specific example? Mario Kart DS wouldn't have worked on the Wii. The Wii wasn't a powerhouse but it was a significantly more capable machine than the DS. It also had a radically different control schemes. So they were going to rebuild the game anyways. And with the different requirements? Of course the mechanics changed. Especially with how heavily the drifting mechanics were being exploited in Mario Kart DS online.

Now compare that to the scenario Nintendo finds themselves in now with getting Mario Kart on the Switch. They already have a Mario Kart game build for a system with a similar spec. It's a game that was built with online play in mind, it's a game built for a system that could be played on the TV or on a smaller screen. It's a game built to be played using pretty much the exact same control scheme. The game they have would work on the Switch, why not just port it over and add extra content?

Why is it crazy? The alternative is to waste resources by unnecessarily rebuilding the game. And anyways, Nintendo using their games as a platform is kinda their thing lately. Most of the Wii U's online focused releases had regular content updates. Some paid, some free. Why wouldn't they continue that?

Well call it that then. I don't know about other posters on this side of the thread but I don't care what it's called. I even made more or less the same point you're making here a few pages back. This isn't a discussion about whether or not these games will be worth getting. Certain people in this thread wanted a debate on black and white definitions for something that couldn't really be pinned down even if we did know all the details.

Wouldn't surprise me if they just call it Mario Kart Switch. Avoid the numbers 8 and 9 altogether.

Well it doesn't matter on multiple levels. For a start you're talking about a hypothetical game that wasn't going to happen. Mario Kart Wii was not a note-for-note copy of Mario Kart DS because of the vast hardware differences I outlined. The kind of differences that are not as pronounced in the jump between Wii U and Switch. So that's one thing.

Secondly, what does it matter what they call it? I don't care if they call it Mario Kart 9 or Mario Kart Switch. They can call it Mario Kart Wii U Switch Special Edition if they want. It'd be a marketing mess but as far as the game is concerned what does it matter? The end result is the same.

What I said they should do is take the Wii U versions of these games and get them working on the Switch as is. Then while they're there they should rightly change some things that they think need changing. Lastly they should include new content and continue to support them going forward. That's all I want them to do for these games, I'd be fine with that. If they do that? They can whatever they want want. I won't be spending any time gazing at the box art.

@skywake Super Mario Kart Super Circuit 6478 DS Wii Ultra Turbo Edition GX

I think adding new gameplay mechanics to their franchises is what has kept Nintendo games fresh(-ish) for 20-30 years. If they just release new levels and new characters to existing games - what's the point? Is Mario Kart 8 with 1000 tracks and every Nintendo character fun and interesting? Aren't people getting tired of New Super Mario Bros? I think that would get pretty stale. When the Mario Kart 8 DLC came it - it was fun, at least for me, for a few goes but by then I had played enough of the game.

I think Nintendo has recognized that their franchises are becoming stale, ie, the need to shake up Zelda. Hopefully, they also recognize that new franchises (ie, Splatoon) can sell well and expand their audience. People (non-hardcore fans) might be tired of the main franchises as it doesn't sound "new". They may think, "oh, I've already played Mario on Wii, why bother buying it again?"

That being said, I don't mind if Nintendo ports Wii U games to Switch - if we do get new-fresh iterations of main franchises at some point. IIRC, Nintendo is hoping to sell 20 million Switches annually, which in just over half a year would top Wii U. So, it makes sense to get those great games to more people. It expands the library, leverages and re-coups costs from games that didn't sell as many units as I'm sure was expected. In doing that, they would have to offer enough new games so Switch isn't a port-heavy console. I'm sure they will but it may take 6 months to a year after launch to get enough of those fresh games.

Just my take, fwiw - not saying I'm right and others are wrong. Only 45 days or so to the full Switch reveal - guess we'll get our answers then (or sooner if LKD gets some more info)!

@MarcelRguez
I quoted the major point you were making in full context and responded to it. That second paragraph doesn't really change the discussion. If at some point in the future they need to start from scratch for one reason or another? Then they should do that. All I've said is that for the Switch there are a bunch of Wii U games they've released that are a solid base for them to build on. I haven't really been talking about what they should be doing beyond that. I mean, this is the Nintendo Switch thread is it not?

@BiasedSonyFan
I find it amusing that you are having a go at me for overlooking parts of @MarcelRguez's post. Because immediately after saying that you do the same to me. In the first post where I talked about hardware changes being a reason for rebuilding a game I actually made three points. Since then you've been obsessed with only one of them. Those three points were:

1. The hardware gap between the Wii U and Switch isn't as big as generations past
2. Games can now be patched and can therefore gradually change into something else
3. The games we're talking about are in a mature state, they don't really need radical overhauls

Really of the three points I made above the only one that is a bit shaky for some of the games we're talking about would be the third. Specifically Splatoon which as a new release with the amount of depth it has they could do a lot more with it. But because those games have been patched and updated over time? It's less true than it would have been. Splatoon now is in a far more mature state than it was at launch. And if they continue to patch the Switch release it will continue to improve over time.

Compare that to the transition you seem most obsessed about, Smash Bros Melee. The jump from N64 to GC was huge in a lot of different ways. They needed to make a lot of changes if they were going to take advantage of those differences. That's where one of the biggest changes in Melee came about. Cramming the disk with nostalgia. On the second point obviously games couldn't be patched. So changes they wanted to make to the N64 release were all delayed until the GC release. And lastly the original was never seen as a system seller, it was built as a Japan exclusive novelty fighting game. So of course the next release was a massive overhaul.

@BiasedSonyFan
You literally said I was ignoring large parts of people's posts before going on to ignore large parts of my post. Now you're berating me for making it personal and are therefore making it personal. Don't lecture me about things that you go on to do in the same paragraph.

Anyways, of the three things I said were different about the Wii U -> Switch transition? All three of them line up for a lot of the games we're talking about. Minor adjustments and content additions can be made outside of a new release. These games are largely in a mature state where not much really needs to be added. And thirdly the hardware jump isn't as big as it has been in the past. Those three things combined make this a different scenario than new consoles have been in the past.

You had a long explanation of how Smash Bros couldn't have been patched into Melee. This is true. But the fact that it couldn't technically be patched at all meant the jump between versions was larger than it otherwise would have been. You dismiss the third point entirely as an opinion. But I think most would agree that the original game was in a fairly embryonic state. And lastly the hardware changes meant they could do things with Melee that weren't possible on the N64.

But the point I made earlier about this discussion is still true. You aren't interested in a discussion you just want to win an argument. Though at least now you're responding to the full point I'm making even if it's just to casually dismiss each point in isolation. So that's some kind of progress. I guess.

@BiasedSonyFan
If you want to actually discuss the thing I wanted to discuss then maybe you should do that. Explain how I am wrong to suggest that this console transition is different than previous generations. How I'm wrong to say that the hardware gap isn't as vast as it has previously been. That I'm wrong to say that software is no-longer a static product that doesn't change after day 1. That saying these Wii U releases were largely feature complete compared to previous generations games is just an opinion.

Specifically argue that those three things combined to varying degrees don't mean anything. That Smash on the N64 is entirely analogous to Smash on the Wii U in this respect. That I'm barking up the wrong tree when I say you can't use that as an example because of how different the current scenario is. If I am as wrong as you claim I am this should be an easy task. The reason it's not easy is because when you look at what I'm saying in its entirety it's not as crazy as you've been arguing it is.

Alternatively you can continue to do what you're doing in that last post of yours. Quote one sentence out of context in an effort to ignore entirely the points I'm making. And then construct a counter-point in such a way in order to accuse me of doing the thing you're literally doing in the very same post. The choice is yours.

@BiasedSonyFan
You asked whether or not I could respond without making it personal. A question which you can only answer by taking it personally. If I had answered it you'd get what you wanted. So instead I gave you the opportunity to go back to the topic and actually explain how I'm wrong. As opposed the usual bit in this thread where you take one sentence and respond to it in isolation.

But as I said, you don't want a discussion. You want to be correct. So now you're complaining about how I didn't respond to your question about whether or not I can respond without taking it personally.

The core mechanics of Smash change drastically with each new entry. The best game in the series is arguable, but no game in the series ever becomes obsolete. It's not just about adding new content in the form of new characters, stages and game modes. It's also about creating a unique gameplay experience that looks and feels fresh.

I think Smash will lose a part of its prestige, if DLC extensions are the future for the series. You can go from 4.0 to 4.1, but you're not going to see a sudden change that turns it into 5.0. It's not like they have to reinvent the wheel with a new entry, because SSB4 at its core is not as perfect as the wheel.

Ubisoft has high expectations for Switch, “helps expand the possibilities of fun”

This week’s issue of Famitsu contains a two-page interview with two of Ubisoft’s executives. EMEA boss Alain Corre was included in the conversation.

During the chat, Famitsu asked a question about Switch. Regarding the upcoming platform and Ubisoft’s support, Corre responded with the following:

“We have big expectations for the innovative Nintendo Switch. Our Just Dance franchise, for example, is one that people enjoy with families. With the Nintendo Switch in hand, children, their parents, or even their grandparents, would be able to dance out in the backyard on holidays. Doesn’t that sound exciting (laughs)? The hardware really helps expand the possibilities of fun, people of all ages will be able to play games anywhere. We hope to have a wide variety of software available, but we’re unable to go into details just yet. Sorry (laughs).”

Ubisoft has been talking a bunch about Switch, even before Nintendo formally revealed the system last month. When it was still known as NX, Corre himself said that it “will recapture a lot of the lapsed Wii players.”

http://nintendoeverything.com/ubisoft-has-high-expectations-f...

@MumboJumbo
But just because that's how things have been doesn't mean it's the better way of doing it. Games have historically been limited by a fairly static release schedule. Further compounded by the fact that every five years or so you get dramatically different hardware. By the time the next version can be released so much has changed.

Compare that to some other software release models. For example websites or mobile phone apps. Massive UI changes aside sites like Facebook don't necessarily have major updates that change everything all at once. Usually features just appear. For example with Facebook in the last few years they rather quietly added comment threads, video calls, live video and reactions. There's no obvious point where it goes from one version to another.

Because the circumstances are different now I don't see why these games can't have a more agile development model. To use your version number point if Smash on the Wii U was v4.0 at launch? After all the DLC and other free updates it's now at what I'd call v4.5. They can port it over to the Switch with some extra stuff and call that v4.9. In a year we might call it v5.0. There isn't any technical reason why they can't do that and there's no downside for us as consumers. So why not? Early release, regular updates

Well that may be wrong but it's not what I've been saying. I never said that previous versions of these games were expansion packs. Because obviously that's not the case. The huge gap between the original Smash Bros and Melee makes Melee a sequel. What I've said time and time again is that they don't necessarily need to use that model anymore. That's it.

You guys keep trekking back to what happened with these games in the past. As if the way these games have always been released is the only way to do it. That any other type of model couldn't possibly work. But it could work and the Switch is in a unique position for it to work. To repeat the three points I made earlier again. And again, and again. There's not the hardware gap between the Wii U and the Switch as there has been before, there's a system in place for new content to be added post launch and these games are also not in a fairly primitive state. It's not the same as it was for the launch of the Gamecube (or Wii, Wii U, N64 etc)

Nintendo could release a port of Smash Bros 4 on the Wii U and just continue to support it with content. We wouldn't be losing out on anything if they did that. And as I argued from the start we'd probably gain a lot more than we could possibly lose. Less time spent making new versions of already great series means more time for other content. I don't think this is an unreasonable position and so far you seem more interested in arguing against me than what I'm saying. So far from being wrong this army of strawmen you've created says to me I must be onto something.

I don't think ports are replacing their regular upgrades. They are a way to recoup some loss and to give the switch a bigger launch lineup. That's it.

And I still think mk switch has a larger gap between it and 8 in features than between 7 and 8.

@Therad
The issue is that if they do make enhanced ports of these Wii U releases would people buy the next version? What reason would you have to buy the next games? Unless you skipped the first ones or were a super-fan who buys everything. And based on the trailer it does look like they are going that route for at least a couple of their multiplayer focused releases. So this isn't just a hypothetical.

Maybe it's just me but when I first get a console I'll try to build a library for it. I know I'm going to get these enhanced ports purely so I can have something to play on the console. But the more games I get the more picky I'll be. Once I have a Mario Kart for the Switch why would I buy another? The only way I know they'll get me to buy the game twice on the Switch is via DLC.

Why would anyone even want 8 in that case since it is basically a new coat of paint over 7? Just to have it on a new console? Why would anyone even consider to buy the next battlefield, the next cod or the next fifa? Or mario galaxy 2...

You buy stuff just to have them? I would never buy a game just because I want to build a library. I buy games I want to play. I don't know if I will buy mk8 on the switch, unless it has a boatload of new stuff. Heck, I don't know if I buy the switch either since I don't know if it will be worthwhile for me.

If the ports would be the only versions on the switch (which I seriously doubt), I think Nintendo would have a hard time convincing people to keep investing in Nintendo.

@Therad
Well, yeah. Pretty much. You just make it sound more pointless than it is. Why get a console without games? Without a library it's just a doorstop. So early on you'll buy games you otherwise wouldn't. But once you have those games? Well, unless you're really into it you won't buy the second release.

So yes. People would get the port and then skip the "proper sequel". In the same way that people actually did did skip SMG2. It's a thing.