Topic: Disappointed by the lack of new exclusives

@chipia
I have both Nintendo and PlayStation machines (Switch & PS4) and i picked any games from either Nintendo or PlayStation that i have interest to play them regardless of their status 1st party or 3rd party exclusives or 3rd party multi consoles or ports from other machine or remaster, whatever. I pick them all as long i have interest to play them.
Their game status (1st party / 3rd party / exclusives / ports) don't even bothering me at all.
Get some games and play, why even bothering their games status ?

Edit: Except for OG XBOX and XBOX 360 games, i have decided to only pick until 10 OG XBOX games with 6 games are exclusives on OG XBOX (DDR Ultramix 1 - 4, Carve, Fuzion Frenzy) + 4 games of 3rd party multi consoles to make it until 10 ten games by total.
For XBOX 360 games, i have decided to get 5 XBOX 360 games with Normal play (DDR UNIVERSE 1 - 3, Zoo Tycoon, Sneak King) + 15 Kinect XBOX 360 games. Just only 20 Exclusive XBOX 360 games by total and that's quite enough to entertain me.

@chipia There are still plenty of exclusives though, just not necessarily 1st party exclusives. I don't really get why there needs to be a distinction between the two to be honest. What difference does it make if the game is made by Nintendo in-house or by somebody else as long as its a good game?

The system gets plenty of high quality exclusives (moreso, for example, in 2021 than either of the competing platforms), but on a pure first-party front, I could see why someone would be disappointed with Switch coming off the Wii U and 3DS.

Of course, how much a given release appeals to someone is going to differ. Nothing Microsoft has released this year does anything for me, but a lot of Xbox owners seem happy at the moment. Meanwhile, I'm sure the influx of JRPGs, remasters, and arguably more niche releases like Astral Chain, Metroid, etc. doesn't do it for a lot of people, but I've been pretty happy with the overall output on the system, even if most of that isn't attributable to the efforts of first-party Nintendo developers.

@faint Thank you. If you want to look at a Nintendo platform that was a port machine, see the GBA. There were so many less original games (especially from the major, well known IPs, although to be fair the GBA had less IPs to choose from than the Switch) and tons of NES/SNES remakes. There wasn't even an original Mario game for crying out loud! There were remakes of 3 different Mario games (and a 4th "Mario game" that was called a Mario game but really a spinoff that began the Yoshi series), but no original, built from the ground up main series Mario game. 10 year old me enjoyed the GBA because I didn't know at the time that many of those games were remakes (I started with the N64, so I did not know the NES and SNES' lineups), but looking back at it now knowing that many of these games previously existed on older consoles, I have a less positive opinion of the GBA (still a good one, just less good).

@BlueOcean The Metacritic list? Yeah no, because it's not comprehensive and what ranks high or low is still an opinion, just an aggregated opinion. Also, you're putting a lot of weight on certain IPs being developed by non-Nintendo developers, which doesn't really matter all that much. Nintendo still owns the IPs so they're Nintendo games, they're just seeking outside help because their internal studios aren't big enough to work on all of their IPs. Which is something Microsoft and Sony do too, Nintendo is not unique there.

The list you really need to be looking at is this one:

I might've missed a few super niche titles here, but this is fairly comprehensive. Other than that, this is all, 100% fact, anything further than this is just opinions.

Are you okay? This is sure a lot of random talking points piled into one post that don't seem to be directed at anybody in particular.

Anyway, you're allowed to be disappointed with Nintendo. We're allowed not to be. And, if you post your grievances, we're allowed to respond.

You're going to get dialogue if you post in an open forum. Just like I would if I went onto PureXbox and posted about how much I think Microsoft's output still sucks.

The main issue isn't about there being no worthwhile exclusives. But Nintendo has a reputation of people buying them because they like playing Nintendo games, and Nintendo itself has not really released much notable software on the Switch compared to every past console. Switch does have games, some are exclusives, there's reasons to own and enjoy the system, and no one here is really saying otherwise. What we're disappointed in and confused about is a strong lack of actual Nintendo content that is unique for the Switch and not a port, not an HD makeover on an otherwise DS or 3DS game (that would otherwise have sold for $40-50 max, not $60).

Would I buy a Switch for SMTV, MH:Rise, Bayonetta, Astral Chain, etc? Sure, but that's Sega, Capcom, and Platinum, not Nintendo, complicated rights ownership and publishing duties aside. For the same reason that 2K/Rockstar "owns" Max Payne, but it's not their game, it's Remedy's. The criticism here isn't if other parties are making good games for Switch, the criticism is what Nintendo is, or rather isn't doing. Most of the list of Switch exclusives remains a list of basically HD 3DS games, and really low effort, small games. Top quality "indie" scale games would be welcome if they were also indie scale prices. But they're charging full console prices for "indie" scale games, many of which are themselves of dubious quality (the Camelot games especially, that half hearted Kirby game, etc. ) Even on the 3DS games like Triforce Heroes and Federation Force were decidedly "B" tier games that didn't live up to the library's best, but we're lead to believe Mario Tennis and Mario Golf are "A" tier games on Switch.

To take that page 8 list of Original Titles:
ARMS (Big game)
Xenoblade Chronicles 2 (Big game)
Splatoon 2 (Directly built onto the WiiU game. And half the content was added after launch. A common Nintendo theme. Funny, EA, Ubi, and CDPR get lambasted for that practice.We'll count it. )
Fire Emblem Warriors (Tecmo-Koei, and a Warriors game, to boot. Not Nintendo output. Filler.)
Super Mario Odyssey (Big game)
Kirby Star Allies (This would barely be a footnote for 3DS at $50 let alone Switch.)
Mario Tennis Aces (This is barely a footnote for any platform and inferior to prior entries. Also Camelot, not Nintendo.)
Super Mario Party (It's a long running series, we can count it, problems aside.)
Smash Ultimate (Best of its series, we'll include it as big game, but it's Sora/HAL, not Nintendo.)
Yoshi's Crafted World ( I adore the game, but it's an HD 3DS game, and steps back from Wooly World. Also, not Nintendo, it's Good Feel. )
Super Mario Maker 2 (Literally the content from the WiiU game people demanded but never got because we called it back before NX was named they were moving it to the NX.)
Fire Emblem: Three Houses (Technically not Nintendo, but easy to count as big game.)
Luigi's Mansion 3 (Technically not Nintendo, studio purchased later, and clearly an HD 3DS game that was originally for WiiU in the devs own words.)
SwSh (Problems aside, and it's not actually Nintendo, but we'll count a major non-remake Pokemon.)
Astral Chain (Platinum, not Nintendo. Nintendo purchased the rights to the IP after release.)
Animal Crossing: New Horizons (Divisive, controversial, truly an HD 3DS game. Begrudgingly, I'll count it.)
Paper Mario: The Origami King (Technically not Nintendo, we'll count it.)
Ring Fit Adventure (an accessory dependent minigame.)
Hyrule Warriors: Age of Calamity (Tecmo Koei, not Nintendo, awkward repetitive content, very much a "B-side", definitely filler, no matter how much one may enjoy it, nobody buys a console to play reskinned Musou, let alone on hardware that's actually ineffective at playing Musou games. )
Mario Golf: Super Rush (Ok, this is just objectively bad and incomplete. Also Camelot, not Nintendo.)
Warioware: Get It Together ("Microgames", it even says it right on the cover. IT may be fun, it may be cool, and I understand the appeal, but this is a collection of less-than-phone games wrapped in a pretty bow. I like that it exists, I like that it's not full price, though it's still too much for what it is. Very much a B-side. Nobody would pay $50 for this on a PS5, that's for darned sure. Steam players might buy it for $15. Only in Nintendo's walled garden is this a $50 game. )
Metroid Dread: (Not Nintendo. We'll count it because it's Metroid, but this is not Nintendo's Metroid.)

So if we're highly generous we can say there's 12 "big" unique games "published" by Nintendo. With the caveat that most of these are in fact not made by Nintendo. And with the caveat that we're treating Nintendo specially with counting games that would never fly as big games on any other platform, at all. At the same price as the big games on other platforms. So that's less than 3 a year of major games only loosely qualified as first party, mostly on a scale below what is normal in the industry now.

And that's the catch. We can say we like these games, but these are smaller games than industry normal, in line with very polished indies with a brand premium attached. It's no longer going head to head with the industry and demonstrating superiority, it's going head to head against indies and charging 3x more for a bit more polish. It would be easier to praise these games if they were $40, maybe $50 in line with their A, AA, indie type roots instead of price-matching massive, open games including those that are also available on Switch from other publishers (but play worse on Switch hardware than other hardware.) These games aren't Skyrim, Doom Eternal, Immortals: Fenyx Rising in scope. But they are in price. That's just buying a brand premium like buying a Mac, where you can buy a 2013 laptop for top-of-the-line 2021 laptop prices.

The other big thing to notice in this list is, it now seems like Nintendo essentially has bowed out of game development almost entirely. Of the games in that list, 9 are actually made by Nintendo, and several of those are very small b-side projects that doubtfully consisted of teams bigger than a few people. A true indie project (at or near full price.) And most of that list was from near launch and probably started on WiiU or 3DS. Including Sushi Striker (not on that list, but was a tiny project by the person that produced TMS#FE.) Most of the real content is really just third party games Nintendo licenses IPs out to.

And that's where a lot of the complaint probably comes into play. We're getting extremely little actual Nintendo made content anymore, they've turned into a brand holding company that licenses content out under strict image protection controls and budgetary constraints to due the minim required to sell commercially. It's no longer a Nintendo that strives to produced the best possible games. It's a Nintendo that strives to contract and license Brand for delivery of marketable commercially successful SKUs at the most efficient prices. Even their biggest (sales) games like Splatoon and AC very visibly use as much recycled content as possible. Those games are now iterative instead of fresh. Sure, big games from MS and Sony use a lot of recycled content like GoW Ragnarok, and Forza Horizon 5....but look at the sheer scope and breadth of those games for the same price and you really start to wonder just how cheaply Nintendo is doing almost anything?

It's not a complaint about hating all the games in the list, or not having things on Switch (from companies not Nintendo) worth playing. It's a complaint about just what is Nintendo the studio doing, how cheaply they're doing it, and how little of it they're doing, where a Nintendo fan that likes Nintendo games....isn't seeing a whole lot of what they were buying in for. Mario is missing....

Just to chip in (and apologies if this has already been brought up), but as much as I love all the games that have been released so far for the Switch (and I have a decent backlog growing!), I am genuinely curious what’s going on with the Mario and Zelda teams:

• BotW — a brand new Zelda game, the first open world game the team ever made and the first HD Zelda they ever made, took them 5.25 years judging by how Skyward Sword was released in 2011 (and it was arguably done by 5 years at least but was delayed for the Switch launch).

BotW 2, a game reusing assets already made in the first BotW, on a system they already developed for, is taking them … also 5.25 years, if not more.

Why is a game reusing assets from a previous title taking just as long, if not longer, than making a ground up open world game for the first time in HD?

• Another example: Mario Odyssey. It came out 4 years after Super Mario 3D World, and was a sandbox game on a brand new system. It’s been 4 years, and so far … no games from the team. Why is it taking longer than 4 years to make a new game when the team took four years to make a brand new sandbox game on a brand new system they didn’t have much experience with at the time?

Not complaining at all, I’m not familiar wirh game development so I understand these things take time and I’d rather they take their time and make a masterpiece than rush things. But comparing the previous games’ timelines to now, especially with the consolidation of teams, makes me scratch my head as to what’s going on.

@BlueOcean
You are and have always been the king of assumptions, my friend. And if you consider Odyssey a "small" game (again - what a ridiculous term in the first place), you are officially off your rocker in my book. But you seem to get your jollies from this, so follow your passion or whatever they say these days.

@NEStalgia
Again, what in the world is a "small" game according to you people?

You bring up indies. Guess what? Let's hypothetically say I consider Hades a "small" game because it didn't take me long to beat. But I have a feeling you'd disagree with me because of the unlockables and the true ending to achieve. But how many of these so-called "small" Nintendo games fit into exactly the same mold? Warioware, for instance, you can beat in under five hours easily. But it will take you scores of hours to actually unlock everything.

Furthermore, what gives you the ground to say a game like Warioware (or Dread, or whatever crazy stuff you're throwing out there) didn't have long dev times and incredible efforts from everyone on the dev team?

This is one big head scratcher to me.

@shadow-wolf It's important to remember that the pandemic has probably radically thrown off their schedule. They may have intended for BotW2 and Odyssey 2 to release in 2020/2021 but the pandemic added a year or two onto their development time. Odyssey 2 might also have been extended because of Super Mario 3D World + Bowser's Fury, they might have taken some time away to work on the Bowser's Fury mode.

For games like Luigi's Mansion 3, Metroid Dread, etc. why is it so hard to understand that top tier Nintendo directors are involved? It's not all that different than in-house development, just with a different staff of capable artists and coders. No discredit to Next Level Games or Mercury Steam but if Nintendo says yes it's yes and if Nintendo says no it's no. In-house or not doesn't matter in the slightest.
Should Nintendo invite a 100+ man team to Japan for 4 or 5 years for basically the same results, just so they're "in-house"?
I don't get it.

And furthermore, if in-house Metroid Dread isn't good enough it gets cancelled. And it gets restarted. Over and over again until acceptable results come in. That's exactly what happened in the 19 years of time since Metroid Fusion's release. Even Koei Tecmo's Other M was better than in-house Dread.
Why is in-house such a huge deal?
In-house always was reserved for just mainline Mario and Zelda games, and "innovations" for the mass market.

Do all those self-titled long-time fans have amnesia? I want to hear about one Nintendo console where things were actually different.
Thing is, you cannot name one single Nintendo console where this kind of stuff was significantly different.
If you do a side-by-side comparision, cherry-picking all in-house titles it would open your eyes that Switch's release ratio of in-house games is just the same as it's always been.

I find these discussions on Switch's lack of exclusives always boil down to excluding x game for arbitrary reason y. If the same amount of scrutiny was applied to previous consoles as is applied to the Switch, would we also not end up with pathetically small lists of games? What "big" games have Nintendo developed in-house that aren't just Mario, Mario Kart and Zelda in the past 20 years? (seeing as people are willing to exclude just about everything else at this point)

Good point, well made.

You know who should really be mad? The folks who sold their Gameboy Pocket to buy a Gameboy Color when it launched.

I think this thread just useless to complain about lack of specific 1st party exclusives on Nintendo Switch.
I mean you still disappointed by the current release 1st party games and what exactly are you looking for ?
Still feeling salty for not having a lot of 3D Mario and Zelda games and complaining their status (ported / originally on Switch) ?
Are they just the only games you want to play and deny the other 1st party games and 3rd party games ?
Dude, try to mix it up !
Play other games that you have never played before, expand your gaming horizon.
Don't just stuck on Mario or Zelda games only !

@rallydefault To attack me personally without a clue, that's typical of a fanboy/troll. You don't have any arguments. I didn't say "Super Mario Odyssey is a small game", so the ridiculous words are not mine but yours, as usually.

@Bolt_Strike I don't use Metacritic as a ranking system but as a database to not forget the games that Nintendo have developed exclusively for Switch, as I explained to Antimatter, who usually gets things wrong. Your list includes all the games not developed in-house, that list of yours is "opinion" (using your word) on this thread, because it's not objectively addressing the issue that's being discussed. Anyway, the games in your extensive list are well categorised by @NEStalgia on his comment below yours so I don't need to add anything else.

@Ralizah Everybody has the right to say what they think. There is a difference between me and the people I addressed. I'm not bothering you or anyone else because of their opinion, your opinion being "Xbox sucks" (using your words) and I'm not even bothered by your provocative and personal comment addressed to me. The only times I replied to you were to politely give you information when you asked something about Xbox but I don't know why do I do that if you don't like Xbox, thanks for letting me know so I don't waste any more time on you (and what do you do on the Xbox Thread if Xbox sucks?).

Answering your sarcastic question, I feel great, indeed, because I posted exactly what I and the sensible people living on Earth think. People like you are not just Nintendo fans but (also?) Switch zealots in denial that contribute to the childish reputation of Nintendo and their fans that is only matched by PS's radicals. I hate talking about fans like this but you leave me no choice.

@shadow-wolf Basically, that's the topic, what is Nintendo doing as a developer? Very little, very slowly. The pandemic is used as an excuse as that happened last year and not before, it didn't affect just Nintendo and many developers have explained that they were able to work just fine at home.

@SKTTR To have a director involved doesn't mean that they get the same results and they don't. Metroid Dread had a lot of content cut once the project was nearly over and Metroid Prime 4 was totally rebooted after a long while. My memory is working perfectly and, because of that, I can assure that from SNES until Wii U, before it was abandoned and the projects moved to Switch, Nintendo was credited as developer in many more important games than on Switch. If you check the list of games developed by Nintendo since then, you'll find out you might be the one forgetting things.

100% true.

Exactly. They outsourced their games and, yes, what they control is the content, cutting a lot of content if necessary (Metroid Dread), with low salaries (Metroid Dread) and with a premium price tag (Metroid Dread). The same can be said about the pricing of the small in scope and budget games that Nintendo market and sell as AAA games, like those featured in Bolt_Strike's list. Nintendo is doing great as a publisher that sells overpriced content inside a walled garden to suckers (like me) but Nintendo is doing an awful job as a developer and that's the thing that matters, at least on this topic. Let's write threads about Nintendo's shares if that's what really matters to gamers.

It's not really the same. Nintendo developed a lot of games for SNES, fewer for N64 for some reason, many for NGC, including the last Wave Race game we've seen, tons for Wii and even for Wii U, considering the short life Nintendo gave it. On Switch, the list consists of few (relevant) games developed by Nintendo and tons of Wii U/3DS ports. Does it matter? For the OP it does. For those that skipped Wii U/3DS, the selection is much more interesting, of course. The two important conclusions on topic are, first of all, the lack of exclusive games developed by Nintendo for Switch and the disappointment of some people like the OP and others that follow with the quality of them (Animal Crossing, etc.). Secondly, what have Nintendo been doing as a developer since Switch, or before, because Wii U didn't get games developed by Nintendo for one year before the Switch released? The conclusion is that Nintendo have done very little as a developer since 2016 and, the games that they have developed since then are divisive (for fans, not for the media): Breath of the Wild (lack of dungeons, changes in gameplay, lack of interesting quests, reused assets for shrines and enemies...), Super Mario Odyssey (level design), Animal Crossing New Horizons (lack of content), Splatoon 2 (Wii U expansion), Super Mario Maker 2 (Wii U expansion) and so on. Okay, they also made Arms, Snipperclips, WarioWare and Sushi Strike.

@BlueOcean But this is where "arbitrary reason y" comes in. Divisive? Maybe amongst some crowds online.

Breath of the Wild is divisive? So were Majora's Mask, Wind Waker, Twlight Princess, and Skyward Sword.

Super Mario Odyssey I've heard relatively less criticism about...but also not everyone loved 3D World, the two Galaxy games, or especially Sunshine. I wouldn't call it anymore divisive than any another game in the series.

I'll give you Animal Crossing - however as divisive as it may be amongst some die-hard fans, it was the first game in a while to truly shake up the formula, and it's also the farthest reaching in the series.

And where do we draw the lines between true sequels and "[insert console here] expansions"? I can understand reuse of assets being a bit factor here. But then I also saw someone earlier dismiss Luigi's Mansion 3 as an HD 3DS game. If that's the case how is Paper Mario TTYD not an updated N64 game? How is Super Mario World not a prettied up NES game?

@Buizel Super Mario World has an original flawless level design, it's not just prettier. I get what you mean now about arbitrary reasons but that's why I separated the conclusions into fewer in-house games, divisive games and what have been Nintendo doing as a developer. I only added the divisive argument because it was discussed from the beginning. Some people suggested that the Switch entries are the best in their respective franchises and some people chimed in to say they are not. They truly are not if you ask me. Super Mario Odyssey is not the best Mario 3D game, Breath of the Wild is not the best The Legend of Zelda game (and it's a Wii U game, anyway), New Horizons isn't better than New Leaf and so on. Splatoon 2 and Super Mario Maker 2, you can't deny they're basically Wii U expansions using the same assets and adding few things that could have been added to the Wii U entries via DLC. Even the battle mode (the only new thing) of Mario Kart 8 DX should have been added as DLC to the original game because that battle mode was better on SNES, N64, CG and Wii than on Wii U so something was missing right from the start, as noticed by reviewers and fans.

@BlueOcean
"New Horizons isn't better than New Leaf"

ACNH is waaaaaay....much better than ACNL.

@Anti-Matter That's what I said if you ask me. If I ask you, New Horizons is the best Animal Crossing game and I don't complain about that opinion of yours whenever you say it. Your main argument on this thread is that there are other games to enjoy but, firstly, that's not the topic and, secondly, you don't apply the same logic when talking about the Xbox library.