Topic: Disappointed by the lack of new exclusives

People on here love to hear themselves talk.

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.

@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.

@Bolt_Strike
Preach.

@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.

@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.

@MsJubilee This is an evergreen statement

@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.

My personal opinion of course.

@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.

@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.

@SwitchForce And where did i say Nintendo was the only one doing that? Yes i was being honest on Nintendo being underwhelming this gen.

@NEStalgia I would prefer more open experience, but I am also fine with anything of a satisfying size and length that has creative gameplay mechanics. And the size and length of games like Pokemon SwSh/Legends Arceus, LM3, Dread, and Crafted World feel long enough. I can't quite explain why because it's partly a subjective feeling not based in logic or reason, but they just feel enough for me.

The difference between Nintendo and someone like Disney is that video games are Nintendo's primary market whereas Disney is focused on movies. Because of that, it's much easier to compare another developers style to Nintendo's development style and see the similarities between the two, and as a result it's easier to predict if the final game is characteristic of how Nintendo would make the game if they developed it internally. Many of the "second party" studios, Retro, NLG, Monolith, Intelligent Systems, etc. have these similar qualities to Nintendo hence why many people accept them as Nintendo games and don't really distinguish them between the two.

Regarding the "big" games on other consoles you mentioned, they're all third parties. You didn't list a single game from Microsoft and Sony's studios, and of course there's going to be much more of them coming from the third parties than there are coming from Nintendo because that's a much wider net to cast. It would only be fair to compare Nintendo's first party output with Microsoft and Sony's first party output.

Lastly, you still haven't addressed any of the complaints I've brought up with what criteria you're using to distinguish "big"/"A tier" games from "small"/"B tier" games or what criteria you're using to label something an "HD 3DS game". Nor have you addressed the comparison I did between the Wii U and Switch lineups based on how you've evaluated the Switch lineups and how the Wii U would have less than half of the "big" games the Switch would have. If you're going to claim this problem originated with the Switch as opposed to the Wii U or even the Wii (which I find much more likely), you need to explain this a little more.