@BlueOcean Sorry, I clearly made the mistake of talking to you like you're a rational adult and not the sad internet troll you clearly are (or have become). We've interacted in the past, so I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but obviously that was a mistake.
@BlueOcean Sorry, I clearly made the mistake of talking to you like you're a rational adult and not the sad internet troll you clearly are (or have become). We've interacted in the past, so I wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, but obviously that was a mistake.
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?
Good point, well made.
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.
You really lose credibility when you insist on calling objectively amazing games, with huge sales and critical acclaim as divisive, even if only for the fans. It seems that you are mistaking ''fans'' for a vocal minority on the internet or older gamers that only want the classic stuff they are used to. There is nothing divisive about games such as BOTW, Super Mario Odyssey, and Smash Bros Ultimate (which you previously mentioned in this thread offers nothing new except from more characters), those games are some of the best games in their respective franchises. It doesn't matter if you disagree with this for whatever arbitrary reason you choose, such as being too different from the classic formula (BOTW and Super Mario Odyssey), or being too identical with the classic formula (Splatoon 2, Mario Maker 2), as it is obvious you are just not happy with the state of the Nintendo developed games during the Switch era for subjective reasons, yet you are trying to present those reasons as objective.
You keep on labeling everyone that disagrees with you as Nintendo fanboy just to support your claims, in an effort to invalidate other people's arguments. I am 30 years old and I haven't played video games for over 10 years, with the exception of Hearthstone on mobile. And from 10 - 20 years old I mainly played games on PC. Yet I was instantly hooked by Nintendo's first party games for Switch, in-house or not made. Nintendo may used to produce more in-house games but the quality of its games is still objectively excellent.
Quite often I wonder where those Switch warriors are coming from, would they defend platforms like GameCube or Wii U or Dreamcast if they happen to be around at the time when those platforms needed such support from the community?
And most importantly why they feel like Switch as a platform needs such a 'blind faith' defensive attitude from them?
I mean it sold nearly 100 millions by now and it's not loosing the momentum, why it even needs to be defended in the first place - it's already on the top, no objective (or subjective) criticism is able to do any harm to it.
So in the end, instead of having a constructive and mindful discussion about how Nintendo could improve during current gen, what went wrong and what could have been better, these people start to fiercely defend company and their shortcomings no matter what. They throw lists and metacritic scores at you, they try to build the most objective of objective opinions while there's no such thing as objectivity to begin with and all we ever needed is your personal view on the things which matters much more than any kind of collective mind "objective" point of view.
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).
So what is the criteria for what makes something an "HD 3DS" game? Because I would not agree that games like Luigi's Mansion 3, Yoshi's Crafted World, and Dread belong in that category. They feel appropriate in size and scope to me.
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.
Again, what does it mean for it to be "their" game? Because if a a company legally owns a certain IP, that's a pretty strong argument in favor of it being "their" game. Even a first grader could tell you if you own something, it's yours.
Ultimately, it doesn't matter who makes the game as long as the games feels like a Nintendo game. Is the game being developed
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.
I'm sorry, but who said that those weren't "B tier" games? No one's saying games like the Mario Sports games for example hold a candle to something like BotW, Odyssey, or Smash Ultimate, just that the games exist.
And again, what is your criteria for "A tier" and "B tier" games? It's not clear and it's very subjective.
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. )
In what way? Because it doesn't have level gimmicks you liked? That doesn't make it an "HD 3DS" game, and while it may not have had quite the creative level gimmicks like Woolly World, it did actually build on the Yoshi formula by making the levels more 2.5D, having flip side levels, and allowing Yoshi to free aim (IMO it seems pretty clear that Yoshi is taking baby steps into 3D similar to what Kirby did). And frankly, I'd rather have a Crafted World situation where they actually build on the formula in new ways which makes the gameplay more fresh instead of Woolly World which is basically the same old formula and whose premise and level gimmicks are basically Kirby's Epic Yarn: Yoshi Edition.
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.)
It's a level designer. The tools are naturally going to have to be carried over from the first game to the second. You need to adjust your expectations accordingly, if this becomes a long running series then it's never going to be one where they start from scratch with totally original assets because that doesn't make sense for this type of gameplay style. The new ones are going to have to be defined by how much more you can do over the last one, not how much they carried over from the original.
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.)
Again, the game world is much larger, maybe even larger than 1 and Dark Moon put together, and they greatly expanded Luigi's moveset in this game. There might be a problem with Luigi's Mansion as a whole because the first two games felt too short for a 3D exploration game if you still think 3 isn't big enough, but it seems fine to me and it was a huge leap forward compared to the first two.
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.
Would they really not count as "big games" on other platforms? I'm not convinced. The only thing that's really "bigger" about the other platforms' games seem to be the pixel count whereas the actual gameplay content seems to be about the same.
These games aren't Skyrim, Doom Eternal, Immortals: Fenyx Rising in scope. But they are in price.
Those games are also 3D adventure games, and 2 of them are open world. So your complaint is not enough open world? I think there's plenty of games like that on the Switch, and only 1 of them (BotW) is a port. You want to talk about lacking those types of games, neither the Wii U nor the 3DS had any kind of game like that, in fact that was a large part of why I didn't buy the Wii U in the first place. They had Xenoblade, they had Zelda remasters, and then at the very end of the lifespan they had BotW. That's it. All throughout the Wii U's lifespan I was asking "Where's the sandbox platformers (like Mario 64/Sunshine, hell, I'd have even taken Galaxy because it at least had some of the gameplay elements of the sandboxes even though it was more linear)? Where's Metroid Prime 4? Why am I still waiting for BotW as almost the only remotely explorable game and why is it constantly getting delayed?". Games like that never showed on the Wii U, its lineup was primarily linear platformers and linear combat games. Whereas the Switch comes out of the gate with more explorable open world games and has more and more now. And multiple of their franchises are heading more and more in that direction on the Switch. Mario Odyssey is far larger and more open than any 3D Mario to date, and Bowser's Fury is an experiment in full open world gameplay for Mario. Pokemon had a Hyrule Field-esque area in SwSh and is going almost completely open world in Legends Arceus. Kirby is going 3D, Yoshi as I said is dabbling in 2.5D and may be going 3D in the future. We are seeing more of a push towards vast, open-ended gameplay on the Switch the likes of which I've not seen on Nintendo since the N64 when 3D sandbox mascot platformers were all the rage.
@BlueOcean Clearly you don't know the difference between fact and opinion so I guess I have to explain it for you. Facts are concrete, indisputable pieces of information based on logic and reason. In this case, that would be which games were made on the Switch, when they were released, who made them, and whether or not their content first existed in other games. My list only had that kind of information. Anything further than that, whether or not something is a "big game", an "HD 3DS game", or any similar category is opinions, you're using personal and debatable criteria to exclude certain games you don't like. So no, Metacritic's rankings and NEStalgia's list are not objective, Metacritic is ranking the games based on an aggregate of user's opinions of the games and NEStalgia is using opinionated reasons to filter out games he and you don't like.
I don't think anyone here is questioning Odyssey or BoTW as the kind of games Nintendo should be putting out on Switch. Divisive among fans or not, I'm pretty sure we can all agree that flaws or not, that was an example of Nintendo putting its most creative focus forward. The problem is, that's a WiiU game, not a Switch game, so Odyssey and XC2 remain the only big AAA games from Nintendo for the whole Switch generation, with a lot of A and AA games priced the same in between.
Someone will no doubt say "you can't exclude Smash! The biggest bestest game of all time!." That's indeed a big Switch seller. Problem is it's not a Nintendo game, a point people seem to miss. It's as much a Nintendo game as Insomniac's Spiderman game and EA's Jedi: Fallen Order are Disney games. It's a game made with licensed characters and settings. Smash is made by Sora, Ltd. and HAL Laboratories with assistance from Bandai Namco. Smash was created by Sakurai and Iwata back when Iwata was Sakurai's boss, before he worked at Nintendo. Sakurai does not work at Nintendo and never has. It's completely a 3rd party game using licensed Nintendo characters. Nintendo is the publisher, the same way Devolver is the publisher of Fall Guys, and Rockstar is the publisher of Max Payne. They don't make the games, they just hold distribution and marketing rights. The conversation is about Nintendo's studio output. Smash isn't Nintendo's studio output. Neither is Mario Golf/Tennis. Neither is Fire Emblem, neither is Luigi's Mansion 3 (but 4 will be since they now own the studio), neither is Metroid Dread (all prior major Metroid games other than the maligned Other M were.) Which is the point. The only major non-port games to come out of Nintendo's own studios have been BotW (WiiU) BotW2 (TBD), MK8 (WiiU), XC2, Odyssey, Splatoon 2 (launched incomplete as 1.5), ACNH (same team as Splatoon, launched incomplete for a year and a half - EA gets taken to task if they try that), SMM2 (an extended port by any other name), Splatoon 3 (TBD - tell me it's not just enhanced Splatoon 2, and I guarantee dollars to donuts it launches incomplete, that's the team's M.O.). And that's it. That's really all the major games they've put out since 2016 or so from their internal studios, which used to be one of the very top studios in the world. The majority of the rest of their content is just contracted out now. Including major first party IPs like Metroid that used to be all in-house. That's it, 9 games in 6 years, two of which are iterations of the same game, and two of which are actually WiiU games, so really one game a year from the mighty Nintendo first party engine? The former R&D 1 & 2 + the extension studios + Monolith's two divisions, + Retro.....and with all of that they can successfully produce one major game a year while running a single platform instead of 2? And nobody finds that a bit "off?"
@Buizel I'm the one that referred to Luigi's Mansion 3 as an HD 3DS game. I absolutely stand by that. That doesn't mean I dislike the game or am dismissing it. I love it. I loved LM2. And 3DS remains my favorite console of all time even over Switch mostly for the reasons being discussed in this thread, even if I like the switch hardware much more for obvious reasons. But there is nothing about Luigi's Mansion 3 other than the HD visuals that could not have existed on 3DS. It's a pure extension of Luigi's Mansion 2. That's not a bad thing, both are great games. But it is what it is. It's a game that could and maybe should have been on 3DS. Instead they apparently were going to bring it to WiiU probably because it needed games, desperately, while 3DS was fine. And then they made the call to abandon WiiU and kept this game in the vault for Switch.
I also suspect that's where a chunk of Nintendo's internal games have been. They're probably making some and keeping them in the vault for the next generation console to help it sell in the first years, and since 3rd party can carry Switch, they're content holding onto those games for when they need them. Like Pikmin 4 that was done years and years ago. Basically using Switch as a WiiU do-over, letting 3rd parties carry it, and then the "real" WiiU replacement arrives as the next system. Notice they don't even list or discuss WiiU as having existed anymore? They pretend Switch followed Wii. Everything that was WiiU is really Switch. You got your Switch in 2012, you just remember it wrong.
Like I said before, criticism of Miyamoto with Sticker Star and Starfox 0 aside, I think a lot of what we're seeing with the problems in modern Nintendo is directly the result of Miyamoto, the heart and soul of Nintendo development, not being in direct control of game development anymore, plus Iwata, the arbiter of "fun" and quality not being at the helm. The businessmen are in, and that means it runs like Rockstar/Activision now. I'd say EA ,but they actually seem to be cleaning up and showing a glimmer of who they used to be in the 90s under new leadership. Yamauchi ran it that way in the 80's but he had people like Miyamoto and Tezuka, the rebels, pushing back on creative grounds. Today it seems a lot more corprorate where everyone goes along with the program and there's no new Miyamoto rebels to "upend the teatable." Without his focus, which has lead development since the NES, their studios seem adrift and in disarray, both coping to deal with modern "computer game" scale they cleverly avoided during the Iwata years, and trying to figure out how to function at all in their new "one big studio" arrangement instead of 4 R&D groups without the guy who's micromanaged it for 35 years doing so. The net result seems to be instead of pushing to differentiate themselves or really capture hearts and minds, they're content putting out focus tested on-trend product to appeal to designated market demographics. Like Sony, but on a much smaller budget for the same retail price.
I don't think it really matters if you're a Switch super fan or not. There's a lot of reasons to like Switch, especially in the face of no actual competition. But super fan or not, WiiU owner or not, I don't think anyone should be looking at the output from Kyoto as it's been, in volume, quality, or value, and thinking "this is fine" or "this is what I expect from Nintendo." Could they fix that and back-load the console with tons of great Nintendo games? Maybe. But I suspect they'll hold those shots for the next console, leaving Switch in an awkward place in Nintendo's first party history.
And just to prove a point I'm going to analyze the Wii U's library similarly to how our friend @NEStalgia did to show just how arbitrary this whole argument is and how the Wii U really didn't do that much better:
Nintendo Land- minigame compilation
NSMBU- NEStalgia would be calling this an "HD Wii game", and I would agree with that. It's basically NSMB Wii with a Gamepad gimmick.
Game & Wario- Warioware "microgame" game.
Pikmin 3- Not too familiar with Pikmin, but this game seems appropriately sized. I'll count it.
Pokemon Rumble U- Simplistic combat and toy-based artstyle.
The Wonderful 101- Developed by PlatinumGames and is a repetitive combat game
Wii Fit U- casual focused exercise game
Wii Sports Club- casual focused sports game
Super Mario 3D World- If there were ever a game that could be called an "HD 3DS game", this would be it. It's literally just a 3D Land sequel with little bit slightly larger levels. It's not sandbox style whatsoever (the style of gameplay people have come to expect from 3D Mario), there's nothing really new in terms of mechanics aside from throwing in NSMB Wii/U's co-op, the game mainly just feels like a level pack of 3D Land, a 3DS game. Bowser's Fury is what this game should've been like to begin with.
NES Remix- Compilation of NES games with the mechanics, characters, and scenarios changed up.
Tropical Freeze- Another "HD Wii" game. Doesn't seem to evolve DKCR in any meaningful, highly noticeable way. It adds in new characters which are barely needed and then brings back some mechanics from the original trilogy like swimming and throwing, but still feels a step behind those because the non-Rambi Animal Buddies. Also a Retro Studios game
Mario Kart 8- Kind of an "HD 3DS game", but the courses are larger and the gravity mechanics did evolve the gameplay in a very interesting way. I'll count this one.
Hyrule Warriors- I'm just going to quote NEStalgia here "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"
Smash Bros. for Wii U- Kind of a step backwards from Brawl due to the lack of a story mode and it's not made by Nintendo, but I'll count this one since NEStalgia counted Ultimate if only to keep the comparison fair.
Captain Toad Treasure Tracker- 3D World minigame turned into a spinoff. Maybe if a sequel scales up the levels to make them bigger/longer we can start counting it but until then, nope.
Kirby and the Rainbow Curse- "HD DS game", a sequel to a DS, touch screen only spinoff that again, does not seem to evolve the gameplay in any meaningful way.
Mario Party 10- It's Mario Party. Very controversial Mario Party with a car gimmick, but Mario Party nonetheless. I probably wouldn't count Mario Party and Mario Sports games as "big", but again I'll count this one since NEStalgia counted Super Mario Party
Splatoon- Nice little new and creative multiplayer IP. I'll count it.
Super Mario Maker- This was a great little level designer and Mario definitely needed it, but in terms of being a "big" game it's an asset flip, they're just recycling assets from old games and calling it a new game.
Yoshi's Woolly World- As I said in the last post, this is basically Kirby's Epic Yarn: Yoshi Edition. Also made by Good Feel.
Animal Crossing Amiibo Festival- Did anyone actually want or ask for this game? Nevertheless, it's a cheap, mobile scale party game sold for full price.
Mario Tennis: Ultra Smash- Mario Sports game, and very stripped down and lacking in content
Xenoblade Chronicles X- One of the rare and elusive "open world/sandbox 3D exploration games". I'll count this.
Pokken Tournament- Made by Bandai Namco and an arcade port.
Star Fox Zero- Reimagining of Star Fox 64 and made by Platinum. Doesn't count by your standards
Tokyo Mirage Sessions #FE- Crossover with SMT and made by Intelligent Systems and Atlus, not Nintendo
Paper Mario Color Splash- Made by Intelligent Systems and very controversial, but counting because you counted Origami King
BotW- Probably should've been on Wii U a lot sooner and ended up being cross gen with Switch, but it counts.
So that's 8 by your standards, which is a little more than 1 a year. And you counted 3 a year for the Switch, with it essentially losing 1-2 years because of a pandemic and having more on the way (Legends Arceus, Kirby and the Forgotten Land, BotW2, Metroid Prime 4)?
No, the Switch is night and day better even by your bizarre and arbitrary standards. Even with them also working on the 3DS, the Wii U having less than half is still worse. Nintendo's "big game" problem clearly started before the Switch and they're starting to turn things around. The problem started with the Wii U, or maybe even the Wii.
@Bolt_Strike I have to ask, given your response, do you, or have you ever played in another ecosystem other than Nintendo (And forgive me if you also post on PS or PXB and I'm not remembering who I see where.) I'm not trying to be snarky, it's just your view is kind of puzzling how you could arrive at some of the conclusions you did, and it would make a lot more sense if you just didn't have a point or reference to compare with. Especially given your own preferences you stated were for "open world/sandbox" experiences, I just don't see how you could possibly arrive at the conclusion that games like Dread, Crafted, and LM3 are satisfactory full price home console experiences as opposed to 3DS style games with an HD visual refresh.
I'm not saying its wrong to like those games a lot, I do, too, and I bought them all as well. And like I said, I enjoyed the 3DS more than other consoles including Switch, and barely used my PS4 most of the time because of that. That makes me a fool, but not a blind one, I know what I bought when I bought it and accepted I was ok with getting ripped off, essentially because I wanted what I wanted and paid a premium for it.
Again, not trying to be snarky with you, but I could understand the circular flow of the conversation better if you're kind of arguing from inside a bubble without really having a full field of view of what is really on debate.
There's no mysticism around what's a Nintendo developed game. The guideline is: Who developed the game, Nintendo, or NOT Nintendo? There's no catch or trick to it. Disney owns the Star Wars IP. And yet no Star Wars games are made by Disney. Disney owns the Marvel IPs. Yet no Marvel game is made by Disney. Kena: Bridge of Spirits "feels" like a Sony game, and is published by Sony, but it is NOT a Sony game. It is not made by a Sony development team. I'm using a hard qualification for what is a Nintendo game, which is to say, it's a game made by Nintendo's development teams. Your qualification is who holds the IP rights on license and if a game "feels" like a Nintendo game?
Regarding other platforms, again, have you played other games on other platforms? For that matter have you played third party games on Switch? You can see plenty examples of "big" games right here on Switch. There's the Assassin's Creed remasters, there's Fenyx Immortal's Rising (now there's a game that "feels" like a Nintendo game....and is huge!), there's Skyrim (freaking Skyrim!), Doom Eternal, every FF game short of 13, 15, and 14MMO, Ys 8 & 9, TCS3, The Outer Worlds, Civilization, Darksiders, I mean lots of games and series and I'm only rattling off a few off the top of my head, I mean there's a ton of examples that are "big" games on any platform you can play right on your Switch. All of them are much "bigger" games than most of what Nintendo has been putting out short of Odyssey, BotW, and XC2. You don't even need to look over the fence to see what the comparison is to understand the talking points.
That last paragraph kind of goes off point, so I'll leave that one.
All have sinned and fall short of Gods glory. Wages of sin is death. Romans
God so loved the world He sent His only Son- whoever believes on Him has eternal life. Unless you believe, you will die in your sins. Whoever believes, rivers of living water flow within them. John
@NEStalgia
I see this mentality a lot with ppl who cling to power platforms. They get it in their head that unless the game has $100 million budget behind it with realistic graphics it’s not “big”… it’s not “worth full price”.
And that’s fair if that’s your opinion, but that’s not fact for everyone else. There’s 100 million people who bought a switch since 2017 and are gladly buying those full price games on switch rather than the big budget games elsewhere, or in many cases, in addition to. So yes, people do have a frame of reference and something to compare with, and they still conclude they would rather spend their $60 on those switch games. They see them as big games for the Switch.
You can disagree, you can classify them as “big” or “small” or however you like. That’s your prerogative. But there’s clearly a massive market of people who see these games as being big enough and worth the price. If you don’t, that’s cool, but it doesn’t take away from the fact that there’s a huge market of people that do. Not everyone has the AAA mindset. There’s a lot of ppl who judge by quality, how polished a game looks (regardless of budget or polygon count) and how fun it is as the sole determining factor of how impactful the game’s release is. It’s why games like WarioWare are seen as a reasonably big release, despite being lower budget. It’s why Metroid Dread is definitely seen as a big release. Luigi’s Mansion 3 was seen as just as big as Mario Odyssey or Zelda BotW. Different platform, different audience, different standards and different expectations.
And I would like to clarify the difference between a property licensed to an outside party at their creative discretion, and a game developed by Nintendo’s own producers and directors of their own volition under their own creative vision but simply contracting some help for the legwork. Massive difference. It’s why Mario Rabbids is technically not a Nintendo game, But Metroid Dread is. I’m not really looking to get into a debate over this because there’s nothing to debate- those are factual differences. A game created by a Nintendo employee creator, at their discretion, who hires outside help for grunt work under his command, is not the same thing as a game created by an outside company at their discretion and under their creative direction (even if consultation is required to authorize certain aspects). One typically involves paying the outside studio for their time helping. The other involves the studio paying the owner for licensing rights. As a general rule- if Nintendo approaches a company to make a game using their IP- that’s a Nintendo game. If a Nintendo Director is involved with creative direction, regardless of who approaches who- that’s also a Nintendo game.
All have sinned and fall short of Gods glory. Wages of sin is death. Romans
God so loved the world He sent His only Son- whoever believes on Him has eternal life. Unless you believe, you will die in your sins. Whoever believes, rivers of living water flow within them. John
@JaxonH Don't fall into @Bolt_Strikes trap. And don't fall into shoeboxing the argument around "power consoles and budgets" etc. Remember. Early on, I was a Switch evangelist as well, and WiiU, and I was all in on Switch after being all in on 3DS and ignoring PS4 because of it until Switch's content started really trailing off, which encouraged me to spend more time on the other platforms and come back to Switch when warranted which has become a lot less frequent (I still use it daily but more for brief pick up and play and meandering through some games as desired, right now SMTV and GAA2. But neither are Nintendo's games which is the point.). The industry has evolved in the past 5 years, but Nintendo has fallen backward in the same time. You're probably the biggest Nintendo "fanboy" I know, but you're also balanced. That trap isn't your level. You shouldn't be in it.
It's not about budgets or "power" or anything. Like I said, I basically ignored PS4 entirely for years and played 3DS instead. Because the GAMES were much more compelling compared to the competition than what we're seeing these days on Switch.
And don't fall into the trap of comparing fan criticism with "the market is paying!!!" This isn't WSJ, it's NL. I don't care if Nintendo made 10T and MS and Sony made 4T in gaming. We're talking content, not profits and successful business strategy. We're discussing this as Nintendo fans and game enthusiasts about the how the content quantity, quality, and value resonate with us, not business analysts of which companies strategy benefits their shareholders the most. It's become too common in fan discussions to step away from evaluating products as how they meet our needs and wishes, and defend the product based on it's commercial financial success in the mass market. If we were to devolve fandom into that we should all just follow the money, be quiet, and go play Fruit Ninja and Candy Crush. What fans want may not be the most profitable for the widest market. But we're not here to discuss the most profitable use of electronic entertainment products. Let Furukawa and Ryan and Bond duke that out. We're here to talk about what we like and what we aren't happy with. I too contributed and bought those games in addition to "bigger" games as you suggest. Doesn't mean voicing that I don't think that's a good thing and being critical of the placement contradicts that. And much as I love it, doesn't mean I will continue to do so forever as other products offer better enjoyment and value and Nintendo keeps going down that path. It's valid constructive criticism of the current product and sales model from an existing, current, participating, repeat customer.
The part about Dread is confusing though. The idea that a game directed by one Nintendo employee is totally his game, and therefore Nintendo's game and the outside company has no control over the creative direction short changes Mercury Steam's work as an independent company, and it absolves Team Ninja of too much responsibility for Other M ans an independent company and places all blame at Sakaguchi's feet. You're drawing a line that doesn't really exist between the types of outsourced games.
@NEStalgia
I'm not evangelizing anything. I'm trying to explain your arbitrary definitions don't apply for everyone. And the market matters. When you make a claim a game isn't big enough to be full price, that claim can be tested, and it will be. Market says otherwise. And the market is the gamers. Ergo, gamers say otherwise. So the claim is refuted if you're trying to apply it to anyone beyond yourself.
But you didn't say that, you asked them if they really thought, as if, because you think otherwise, that needs to apply to them, questioning how they could possibly come to any other conclusion than your own.
And nobody's asking you to do anything or trying to change your opinions, only clarifying that applying your arbitrary thresholds and personal opinions as matter of fact statements for everyone doesn't fly.
And yes, the responsibility of Other M does lie at Sakaguchi's feet. It's not about "credit". They can share credit and share blame. That's fine. But it's his game, and he is Nintendo.
All have sinned and fall short of Gods glory. Wages of sin is death. Romans
God so loved the world He sent His only Son- whoever believes on Him has eternal life. Unless you believe, you will die in your sins. Whoever believes, rivers of living water flow within them. John
@JaxonH Again, this is a fan site not a business site. Just because a good marketing engine can convince people to buy a product that is a poor value proposition is doesn't make it a good value proposition. It makes it a talented marketing team. Nor is it a mutually exclusive proposition that people who pay the money don't think it's a poor value proposition. As I said, and as you know, I'm one of those that did pay the money. In a sense you're using myself as "proof" that my argument is wrong. No, I paid, I'm willing to, this time, but I also know it's a bad deal, and I also know I won't be willing to do that forever for what is received. And I'm sure I'm not the only one among the market with that viewpoint. I reiterate, that "well it sold well!" isn't a valid argument against criticism of the product's value. It indicates successful marketing, it indicates tolerance, it indicates demand, it even indicates good business acumen, but it doesn't invalidate the criticism.
It's not unique to Nintendo, it's all platforms, of course, but it gets tiring from all the communities seeing the notion that company X is beyond criticism, and anyone that dare criticizes the perfect platform holder is instantly set upon to debunk them. The arguments always come back to "well that's just your wrong opinion!" and "well the market bought it so it must be all ok!" Not calling you personally out on that, I know that's not really your thing. But I see it here, I see it at PS, I see it to a lesser degree at PXB. Maybe it comes from knee jerk defensiveness to trolls that try to do the "my platform is better than yours" thing. But that's not what I'm saying here, and countering that mentality becomes exhausting.
Bolt maybe doesn't have a frame of reference for comparison which could explain that limited view, perhaps. But I know that doesn't apply to you, and when you look at games with the scope of games like Dread, and then you look at the scope of games from other companies, other platform holders, and even Nintendo's own past and current catalogue, only in gaming could anyone really come up with an argument for how it's worth the same price or equal footing. I mostly liked Dread. It's flawed. It's very good, but flawed, small, and feels like content is cut (and then we found out content WAS cut.) I like it. I paid too much for it. I knew I was going to pay too much for it before I bought it because I'm a sucker for a series I liked 30some years ago and haven't seen in ages. I enjoyed my time with it a lot. For like a week or two. But it was rapidly replaced by SMTV as my running game the moment it came out and I doubt I'll go back to it. It's not about production value, it's about scope. The game had a good foundation, but an extremely small scope. I think of what it COULD have been with the same 2.5D 3DS-esque presentation but a much bigger scope and that could have been amazing. Worthy of being a true home console scope game. But instead they mostly went with the same scope of a GBA game, once again. Because they knew they could and the market would say it's fine. Because good marketing and fan loyalty goes far and permits this. I think there's a place for these polished "indie" sized games, and I'd like to see many more of them. But when other platforms have that kind of content, they sell it at reduced prices, they make it digital discount games. Kena, Stray, etc on PS. Gears Tactics, Ori, etc. on MS. For Nintendo they put the marketing engine behind it and upsell it as premium. And it's not even sold as supplementary smaller content to their bigger titles, they're the main stage! No other company could get away with that, because it's largely based on marketing, nostalgia, and brand awareness rather than the actual product. That's not okay even if I'm encouraging it with my sale, for the time being. And "people bit down hard and took it" doesn't excuse it even if it means they can keep doing it. It doesn't supplant criticism.
Edit: And what I said about scope on Dread is a summary of my total complaint bout Nintendo's output of late. That's my whole point really. If you want to give all credit to Sakaguchi, fine. Sakaguchi clearly didn't set out to make the biggest best Metroid game he could produce with the budget allotted to make a classic that would stand as an example to other games for decades to come. That's what he did with Super, Fusion, etc. But not this time. It was clearly designed as a product to fit a market exactly, and trimmed until the tightest budget could product the ROI expected. And not a single shinespark more. He made a good game, but it's definitely not the best game he could have made. It didn't create a new legacy for the series or the genre. It's just "a pretty good game" that can hit the right financials. The passion is gone. It's just a manufactured product now.
Man one heck of an thread. Anyway Nintendo as a developer has been underwhelming this gen. Lately it feels like they have bowed out from developing games and went full “let’s port everything to switch and sell it for maximum prices.” Or outsourcing their ips to make underwhelming Mario spin-offs.
@NEStalgia
You're not following. Nobody's talking about "business". I'm referring to gamers.
You can't make a claim that "this game isn't big enough to warrant full price" and then handwaive any evidence to the contrary. Gamers say otherwise. It's as simple as that. You're free to voice your personal opinions, but again, you questioned them as if their different opinion was somehow "wrong" because it didn't align with your own, as if your conclusions are somehow objective. The only true measurement to test a claim that a game isn't big enough to warrant a price, is see if ppl are paying that price. If they're not, then it could be true (or maybe it's some other reason). But if they are, then it's absolutely not true.
And there's nothing wrong with Dread or it's scope. It's an amazing game and everything I could hope for in a 2D sequel. Graphically, design wise, gameplay wise, content wise. Far better game for $60 than most of the AAA stuff I've played, which aren't nearly as fun.
If your only bellwether of value is the number of MB in the file size and budget behind it, hey, you do you. But you only speak for yourself.
All have sinned and fall short of Gods glory. Wages of sin is death. Romans
God so loved the world He sent His only Son- whoever believes on Him has eternal life. Unless you believe, you will die in your sins. Whoever believes, rivers of living water flow within them. John
@MrHonest All developers do this and isn't limited to Nintendo. They publish their own IP and publish others onto the Cart and get a cut from it. That's how you keep your business alive. If you think Switch Cart games are expensive try Cloud and paying to keep that going month to month. Your the loser on this plan. Odd someone would say outsource when others just make similar games but isn't a IP outsource let's not go that rabbit hole shall we. Nintendo got plenty of their own past consoles games they could port or remaster to Switch without someone else doing it. Your not being really honest here.
@NEStalgia
I have one thing to say: "I enjoy the current release games, 1st party / 3rd party / exclusives, whatever."
Be granted with the current release.
@NEStalgia Opinions are opinions. That doesn’t change the fact that Covid really messed up development cycles for all major publishers. Seems like Nintendo is doing ok to me. Sony only released 5 first party titles this year. 1 is a game plus dlc exclusive that’s also going to the PC and another is a two game bundle of ps4 titles.
Forums
Topic: Disappointed by the lack of new exclusives
Posts 201 to 220 of 441
Sorry, this topic has been locked.