Topic: The Nintendo Switch Thread

@link3710
I believe @FishyS is working under the assumption, which I also think is how it'll pan out, that a lot of these "cross gen" games will be more like Pokemon Gold/Silver on GBC than Twilight Princess on Wii. i.e. the same physical release but when you drop it in new hardware it branches into a new code paths that maybe changes some graphical and performance settings. As opposed to a full port of the game to the new platform

That wasn't really possible for DS/Wii which is why those games were ported like that. There's no real technical reason to believe Switch 2 will be the same

Just going to add my 2c to the never ending meme that is the "Nintendo be Nintendo" bit people seem to always push. Basically this sentiment:

I think this is a misreading of Nintendo's philosophies in hardware and software design. Fundamentally there are two major ideas that have dominated Nintendo's approach. The Gunpei Yokoi inspired "lateral thinking with withered technology" and the mid-to-late 00's push by Satoru Iwata for uncaptured gamers via a Blue Ocean Strategy

I would argue that until Iwata took over Nintendo's home console and portable divisions were at odds. The portable side of the business experimenting with the ideals of Yokoi and the home console side just making hardware they could use to showcase their games. In my mind I would argue that the NES, SNES, N64, Gamecube and to some extent the GBA (which was post Yokoi and pre Iwata) are all very much standard consoles. The advances they brought are largely as a result of general technological advancement over time. And sure, people like to point to the N64 controller, "look how odd it is". I'd argue that those kinds of things were less about innovation and more just a reflection of the industry in general trying to figure things out

But then we come to the DS. The DS marked the beginning of Nintendo's Blue Ocean Strategy that would end with the commercial failure of the Wii U. Of course there were "gimmicks" all across this era, it was the main feature. But these tricks existed in an effort to lower the barrier of entry. The Wii Remote is called a Remote and is shaped the way that it is because people are already comfortable with the idea of a TV Remote. Touch controls were brought in for a similar reason and 3D was brought in due to a desire to make 3D platformers easier

But then we get to the Switch which, I would argue, didn't try to appeal to non-gamers. Of course it's a fairly simple message, console for home and on the go, but it is at its core a console for gamers. No tricks, no gimmicks, just a traditional controller and a screen. It launched with big gamer games and has always been marketed in that way. And while it isn't technically impressive today when it launched back in 2017, while not insane, it was pretty solid for a portable gaming device. Certainly more advanced for its time than the GB was back in the late 80s

Now of course, Nintendo are first and foremost expert craftsmen. Skilled developers of games. And that has been the case across all of the platforms they have released. I'm sure this will continue. But, IMO, I would argue that the NES, SNES, N64, GC, GBA, Switch and upcoming "Switch 2" all follow a simplistic strategy. Where the hardware itself isn't the reason to buy into the platform but is rather just a shell they can use to deliver their quality works

So yeah, tldr, I don't think Switch 2 will offer something "out of the ordinary". I think people expecting this have completely misread the history of Nintendo. I think it'll be largely just a shell to deliver great software. Like the Switch has been and all of their home consoles were throughout the 90s were. And that's fine by me

@link3710 Splatoon and Animal Crossing seems to be one or other so a New Leaf remaster would fill in the Animal Crossing drought caused by Splatoon 4. Also it at least seems on the surface that the New Leaf vs. New Horizons debates are very much like the classic Paper Mario vs. modern Paper Mario ones so a New Leaf remaster would have a similar effect as the TTYD remake.

My idea with Splatoon 1 campaign remaster was about 10th anniversary celebrations. 1st game's campaign remastered and some details on Splatoon 4 releasing in 2026 on the game side of things.

Regarding Luigi's Mansion, I think the strategy will be to get the whole franchise on Switch before LM4 releases on Switch 2. Considering Battle League released in June 2022, October 2026 sounds like a reasonable guess for LM4 and it's close to the 25th anniversary of the franchise.

As for Legends Z-A, I think it'll be the only November release considering November 2017 was all about the 3rd party support. Could go either way regarding Switch 1 only vs. crossgen but I think it'll be treated as crossgen because it'll end up running better on Switch 2.

@Grumblevolcano Is the AC / Splatoon link really true still though? Animal Crossing New Horizons and Splatoon 3 only shared a handful of artists on staff, and none of the managers / coders. It looks like Nintendo may have split those IPs up since they're both top selling IPs. I know it used to be the case up through Splatoon 2, but it seems like Nintendo's changed tactics.

I would love a Splatoon 1 campaign remaster, but it's nowhere near large enough to be a retail game. I'm just confused if you expect it to be an eshop release or DLC? Or do you think it'll be expanded into a full size game?

Regarding LM4, Battle League was only done by a subset of the Luigi's Mansion 3 developers (which is why it was lacking content. Person who did the analysis said about 40% of the staff). NLG has to have had another game in development since LM3 came out, which was 5 years ago now. I highly doubt it'll take two more years to finish it, even with part of the team on another project. I'd expect a 2025 release at the absolute latest.

On Legends Z-A, I don't think GameFreak's developers have the time to implement a cross-gen release. They don't have the space to finish the games before releasing them on even a single platform release. But I'll admit I could just be jaded at this point.

@skywake
Uhm... what...?

You wouldn't consider the Switch an appeal to non-gamers? You wouldn't consider the Switch a creative, even "blue ocean" piece of hardware? The Joycon, the dock... all standard, core gamer stuff right there, eh?

With as straight a face as I can muster after your many failed misreads of Nintendo in the past, I can say that your opinions are certainly your opinions.

But anyway, back to the riveting discussion of which remasters from the last five years we already want to see on the sparkling new console that will be exactly like the current one just maybe with some 4k and magnetic Joycon rails lol

@skywake To add on, the blue ocean strategy was really only successful with DS and Wii. I'd argue that strategy failed with 3DS, as the 3D effect was turned off by most and many games, including some of Nintendo's own, didn't use it at all. People largely bought the system as a next gen Nintendo handheld to play their games.

@rallydefault The Switch is definitely not a blue ocean product. It's a system that is largely sold off the backs of traditional games designed for gamers. Nothing about it is designed to capture people that never played a video game system in their lives the way DS and Wii were. The hybrid form factor was simply their solution to the problem of split development resources in the HD era.

@link3710 With Splatoon 1, what I had in mind was either DLC for Splatoon 3 (that game does a lot with the number 3, the 1st DLC is Inkopolis and the 2nd is Side Order so Splatoon 1 campaign could be 3rd) or a NWC style release where its a cheaper digital release and then some physical stuff gets added to the physical version.

I don't see LM4 releasing close to 3D Mario so I definitely think it would be 2026, I went with October considering Halloween is October and the original game released in September 2001.

@skywake See, I'd believe that if PS4 -> PS5 actually worked like that, but they all need separate releases to take advantage of the PS5's power. I don't see why that wouldn't also apply to the next Switch.

@IceClimbers
Yea, 1-2 Switch, LABO, ARMS, Snipperclips, Sushi Strikers, all of that early 1st-party stuff on the console was very core gaming.

The only reason we can say Switch was built off "traditional" games is because of the wild success of BotW. BotW is the reason Switch became successful, so it overshadows (perhaps thankfully) the fact that Switch and the majority of its initial 1st-party offerings were indeed outside-the-box approaches.

The problem is you guys have blinders on when it comes to the terminology you're using. You say Wii and DS were the only "blue ocean" hardware strats Nintendo used? What about the GameBoy? Back at that time, was portable gaming of that caliber not practically unheard of and a huge risk to take to tap into a market that may or may not have existed?

@rallydefault
I'm not sure you understand what the blue ocean is if that's your reply. The Switch may be familiar and convenient to us but it is very gamer forward. Of course there are a couple of Switch games you could argue are "blue ocean" plays, but it's not really central to the hardware

And if you think I'm unhinged here look at the initial reveal of the Switch vs the 3DS, Wii and Wii U to see it. The Switch reveal trailer spent half of its runtime following around a guy playing Skyrim on a plane and Karen playing Odyssey on the roof. The Wii U reveal was all video calls to your friend's dog and games of Othello with that Zelda tech demo at the end being almost an afterthought

edit: and you're now throwing out GB now as if it's some kind of great counter point when I explicitly excluded it from my list. So good job there. To be clear I don't think GB was a deliberate play for the Blue Ocean in the same way Wii was. It was a different time and so targeted a different kind of "non gamer" for one. But more to the point I think the goal was to make it cheap and efficient, that it appealed to non-gamers was just a nice side effect

@IceClimbers
I'd argue that the Blue Ocean is still part of Nintendo's broader strategy. But they're mostly trying to grab those users via mobile, movies, theme parks etc. And while it still pops up in the occasional title (Switch Sports, Ring Fit) it's not really integrated into the hardware itself. With DS, Wii, 3DS and Wii U it was very much central to the hardware pitch

And the fact that they've slowed down significantly on the mobile front says a lot I think

@rallydefault GB was the natural evolution of Nintendo's Game & Watch series, in the same way that the NES was an evolution of arcade cabinets. Sure Tetris (and to a lesser degree Vegas Stakes) definitely tapped into a chunk of what we'd now call Blue Ocean consumers, but that wasn't anywhere near the focus of Nintendo's software development or advertising. The term 'blue ocean' specifically means targeting people who wouldn't normally play any sort of games at all, not just casual gamers.

As for their software output... the ratio of casual games to games focused on gamers is significantly different on the Switch than the Wii, I think that much is clear. Even things like Animal Crossing added crafting, a feature that is the antithesis of blue ocean design. Out of the 85 games they've published as of last January, only 15, or 3/17, are blue ocean. We haven't even gotten a Nintendogs or Tomodachi life, two of their biggest blue ocean style IPs. Sure they're doing it, but it's by no means a focus or the foundation for the system.

(My count was 4 Labos, 2 1-2 Switch, Go Vacation, Big Brain, Brain Training, 2 Fitness Boxings, Snipperclips, Sushi Striker, Clubhouse Games, Tetris 99)

@skywake
I think it's pretty clear we don't agree on a great many things. Also, slow your roll - the GameBoy example had nothing to do with you. I completely forgot you even mentioned it, to be honest - you type dissertations lol I didn't even tag you in my last post, either, even though I did say "guys" at the end, so my bad if that made your spider sense tingle.

@link3710
That to me is just such an Italian hoagie way of approaching "evolution" and "blue ocean." By your logic, you can say almost anything is just an evolution instead of a blue ocean idea. The NES as an evolution of arcade cabinets? But your definition of blue ocean is getting non-gamers? How do you rectify that? The NES definitely tapped into an audience of people who didn't frequent arcades for numerous reasons.

@link3710 Ring Fit and Labo are the games I would put most out-there on Switch. And perhaps Game Builder Garage. Ring Fit was definitely made partially for the non-gamer (often parent).

I feel like the fact that 1980s/90s-era Tetris recruited a ton of non-gamers was more by accident than design. My mother held onto her gameboy with nothing but Tetris for ages. But she basically never played any other games either before or after. 😆

@skywake honestly as a Nintendo fan since day 1, I get some of the “Nintendo gonna Nintendo” talk. In their history they have made some very unnecessary decision that only they would make. Recent example, instead of the conventional voice chat solution, they decided to give us an app. It sounds good in theory due to everyone having modern phones. However, the standard solution is built into the system and going against that is off putting to developers. Also, there unwillingness over the years to be competitive for a technical standpoint. I hated what AMD was doing for them. The partnership with Nvidia was the best decision they’ve made maybe ever, IMO. Nvidia isn’t going to allow them to neglect the tech side because they have a ”gimmick” they feel will change the way we play. Nvidia has a brand to protect and they have some of the best tech available. Hopefully the switch 2 is the first Nintendo console that prioritizes the tech and graphical capability, along with whatever “gimmick” they might have. They never need to lead the tech and graphics race but they need to be able to compete and make a console developers are able to bring their vision of games to without significantly downgrades.

@Qwertyninty
I feel like there are two main things at play. On the one side there is the broader business strategy that Nintendo applies to one console or another. Like being cost competitive or trying to target a specific audience. That's where you get things like the Blue Ocean Strategy through the Iwata years or the push for a low price point and low power draw with the original GB

But then there's also the conservative side of Nintendo. The risk averse and slightly insular Nintendo. Where they're not quite aware of industry trends or are just reluctant to adopt new things. Which is where you get the friend code system, the slow to develop online infrastructure and so on. And also things like the lack of storage in the Wii or the withdrawal from the Nintendo PlayStation deal

But I think the main thing to note about Nintendo is that they make games. As in software. And while their hardware design is often not bound by what others are doing it, fundamentally, is all about servicing the games they want to make

My main point here is that people far to often misread Nintendo. They think it has to be gimmicks and weak hardware. I just don't think that's true

@skywake I get what you are saying but as a consumer that could care less about buying multiple consoles Nintendo makes it hard. They have to understand some gamers want to buy their system and have the option to play COD, GTA, etc without having to buy another console. Whether they see it this way or not (I don’t think they do) it seems like they don’t take that seriously. Like hey if you want “X” third party game better go buy another piece of hardware. In previous generations it seems like they didn’t even consult third party developers. Like hey here is our system either make your game work on it or don’t. Seems like the switch 2 might be the first system where (I think with help from nvidia) they said what architecture and specs do we need to make sure third party developers will want to bring their games to our system no matter what we are doing.

@Qwertyninty
Yeah, I don't really agree with you there. I think Nintendo are well aware of what developers want, probably more than any of the other players. If you don't agree ask yourself if you owned a small studio would you rather be bought out by Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo? There's an obvious answer to that I feel

Honestly, Nintendo's main problem with third parties is mostly just that during the Wii/Wii U eras they were chasing after a different audience. Their priorities weren't really aligned with what a lot of developers, particularly western developers, were trying to achieve. And now with the Swtich they're, effectively, all in on portable hardware and so are inevitably behind on spec. Which means games targeting the high end require more effort to port across

I don't think that's a case of Nintendo "not listening" to developers. And it's certainly not true that Nintendo doesn't want those games to come to their hardware. I mean, you only need to look at how quickly Nintendo came into save Bayonetta from not existing at all to see that

@skywake
There is evidence in front of us on the daily to directly refutes what you are saying and lends credence to "Nintendo will be Nintendo."

There are people on Youtube, social media (ugh), etc. who have worked at Nintendo and now freely offer their opinions. Real, legit people who have been there in various departments in NOA and even Japan. One of the many things these people consistently say is that Nintendo does NOT, I repeat - NOT - view themselves as in competition with Sony and Microsoft.

Another thing they say is that Nintendo, if given the chance between affordability or power, flexibility or power, will NEVER pick the power option with their hardware. And people behind the scenes are seeing that play out with their new hardware right now.

So yes, to a certain extent, their hardware has been "gimmick" (if you want to use that word) over power, at least in the modern era. I get that it's cool to make fun of stuff people say and say that you know better, but there is a reason WHY people say certain things - because it's been proven over and over again. Sometimes it's just so simple that it really is the correct answer.

So, again, yes - there will be a "gimmick" with the new hardware, I think, and it's not going to be the magnetic Joycon rails. I'm excited to see what it's gonna be!

@rallydefault
I feel you're trying to refute points I am not making. I never said anything about Nintendo "competing" with Sony or Microsoft. I have no idea where you've pulled that from. I don't think they see themselves in that way and you're putting words into my mouth to suggest as much. I would argue that they see themselves as a company that sells entertainment and that they compete with entertainment more broadly. They sell toys and art. They compete with Sony and Microsoft of course, but not directly. They compete with them in the same way that Netflix competes with YouTube or the latest album by Pond competes with a true crimes podcast

In terms of your power/flexibility/affordability triangle? It's an interesting thought, it doesn't quite work but. Because there are certainly cases where Nintendo has gone for premium components. The OLED screen in the Switch OLED for one. Also lets not forget the refusal to use optical media through the N64 at great expense but almost purely out of a belief that the load times on CD were not acceptable. Hell, even the Switch itself at launch wasn't a low end mobile device and, from what we know, the Switch 2 doesn't appear it will be either. Nintendo definitely goes for premium components if they feel it can improve the player's experience

Honestly, the point I was trying to get across and especially in reply to @Qwertyninty, wasn't that Nintendo going to suddenly chase after a spec. They won't. My point is that at their core Nintendo are a fantastic software development company with a lot of talent behind them. They know what developers want because they are developers. And post-Switch especially they have enough momentum that they'll be able to build a great portable platform which will not only be a platform to further flex their talent and IP but also somewhere that third parties can do the same

And while you are totally fixated on what the "hook" will be with the hardware? All I'm saying is that they don't need a hook. The hook will be the software. For most gamers it always has been. And the hardware spec can and will serve that. What can the company who built TotK do with almost an order of magnitude more power, 3X the RAM, 10x the storage bandwidth and hardware accelerated file decompression? A fair bit I'd think. Nintendo knows how to graphics. And that's exciting

You are confusing gimmick with appeal. The appeal of the Switch is its hybrid concept, in addition of course to first party games, which is always going to be the case. The hybrid concept appeal is not going away anytime soon and remains as strong as it was the day the Switch was released. Nintendo doesn't need to invent new gimmicks to grab people's attention, it has already grabbed their attention by the hair and isn't letting go.

During the past, Nintendo had to switch strategies and gimmicks between consoles because they didn't have the people's attention. Game Cube wasn't successful, so Nintendo chose to stop investing on power and tried something new. The Wii motion controls were pretty great at first, but people got bored of them pretty quickly, so Nintendo was forced to try something new. Wii U was a huge failure, so obviously something needed to change. The Switch is the biggest win of Nintendo ever, and you are trying to convince me that they are looking for a new gimmick, when they have the goose with the golden eggs? Nintendo has made more money during the Switch's lifetime than they have made before with all their previous consoles combined.

When your console's appeal is wide and established you don't go around looking for new gimmicks, you stick to your guns and reinforce them, and this is what Nintendo will do. Of course a few bells and whistles will be added for marketing purposes, as it always happens with technology products, but the main product will remain largely the same.