Topic: Disappointed by the lack of new exclusives

@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.

@JaxonH You know. I like you. I really do. But you you love to defend everything Nintendo with an infuriating passion sometimes I want to smack you

You are talking business. You're literally saying sales dictates if a game is worth a price. That's very directly talking business. Again, I say just because for reasons people bought at thing, good marketing, pent up demand, etc. etc. etc. does not mean that thing is truly worth that price when compared to other things. Is Dread objectively worth as much as Skyrim, or HzD, or AC:V or whatever? Absolutely not, it's a tiny game with a miniscule scope, miniscule budget, etc. It's a GBA game at heart and at size with updated visuals. Does that mean it's not fun or engaging? No. Does that mean the market won't pay too much for it because they value the Metroid brand, or because it was well marketed, or because they're captive in Switch's ecosystem? Sure they will. I'm among them. And a copy of SMB3 in a box isn't objectively worth $1.something million bucks, but someone out there is paying it.

You're very much equating business with value, and the argument that if people pay it that's the value, is a business argument, not a critical argument.

Again, I'm not talking budget or file size, I'm talking game scope. The size of the world, the environment, the content within the game. Dread is small. And 2/3 of the way through it mostly becomes a sequence of boss fights and the meat and potatoes of Metroid,the world exploration/puzzle takes a back seat. You can't argue away from that because it is what it is, factually. Imagine a vast 2D metroid world befitting spending weeks exploring the labyrinth? We COULD have had that. That's the game they could have made. But it's not the one they made. It has nothing to do with mb or budget other than that it would take more than a low-budget to do. We're not talking $100m Sony moviegames here, we're talking about a much more sizable Metroid planet than a GBA could hold. I don't think that's a big ask of Nintendo in 2021. "Do the same thing but in bigger worlds' shouldn't really be to tall an order for the company's second HD console. Not when the rest of the industry has been building bigger more intricate worlds for 15+ years, and games the size of Dread are considered indie games at a lower price point to reflect their smaller scopes. None of that is a big ask, or out of line with what one expects in this industry. One doesn't go to McDonalds and expect to pay the same price for a burger as Five Guys, even if what you really crave right now is just a big mac..

@NEStalgia Can you actually define what constitutes a "big" game? Because, from where I'm sitting, it very much feels like a totally arbitrary judgment you're using to demean everything that isn't a big-budget action-adventure or RPG title.

I wouldn't have pegged you as the sort of person to advance a "only big-budget blockbusters count" sort of position.

@NEStalgia
I'm not "defending" anything. I'm telling you your subjective opinions aren't facts for everyone.

And as much as you claim "I love to defend" that's a cheap cop out to side step the argument. It's basically saying, "I can't argue the point by merit, so I'll just attack your credibility instead".

You've seen others do it so you think you can exploit it as a weakness also. It's become the default talking point for anyone making a claim to marginalize valid critiques of their view.

I'm done tolerating that kind of childish nonsense. If you want to have a conversation like an adult, we can do that. If you're going to try to discredit me instead of my argument, I'm done talking to you. I've lost my patience for that kinda stuff.

@NEStalgia
You are talking business. You're literally saying sales dictates if a game is worth a price

I'm saying value is placed on things by consumers. Whatever value is placed, that's what it's value is. And the only way to establish the value placed on something as a whole is to see if ppl buy it for a given price. If they do, then it's literally worth that much. Any argument to the contrary is moot. You don't have to agree, you don't even have to like it. But that's a fact. If ppl are buying games for $60, they are by definition worth that much.

You can call that "business", call it whatever you want. Doesn't change the fact.

And I'm really not looking to argue over Metroid. You're free to your opinion, I'm free to mine. I think it's one of the best games I've played this generation, and one of my favorite Metroid games of all time. I like it exactly how it is, and it met my expectations precisely. Wouldn't change a thing. It's not the same as 2D sprite games that aren't in the same ballpark. Just as DKC Tropical Freeze isn't the same as 2D sprite platformers that aren't in the same ballpark, just as Street Fighter V isn't the same as 2D sprite fighters that aren't in the same ballpark, despite having "similar amounts of content".

@NEStalgia Metroid Dread did kind of do that though. Perhaps not to the degree of a full sized AAA open world game (although with Metroid's sales traditionally being relatively low, I can hardly blame them for not wanting to), but the game does give the sense of a larger scope than past Metroid games. The size of the rooms and the size of the areas are bigger than past games, that entire loop in Artaria to get the Charge Beam seems to be about the size of a full fledged area from some of the past 2D games and that's not even 1/3 of all of Artaria, which itself is one of 9 areas in the game. So the game feels about 3-5 times as large as other Metroid games for less than twice the price. That's not a bad deal and we couldn't have gotten that on older hardware like the GBA, I don't see much issue here aside from comparing it to incomprehensibly huge open world games, and they're generally not going to go that route unless it's an IP they know sells bucketloads.

@NEStalgia From where would one derive an expectation that Nintendo should produce more 'large scope' games?

Medium scope games is kinda Nintendo's modus operandi, isn't it? When Breath of the Wild came out, one of the reasons it blew so many people away was because it had a pretty un-Nintendo size scope.

Take Breath of the Wild and Xenoblade Chronicles out of the equation and what is the next largest scope game Nintendo has ever made?

Nintendo's core market is 'family game', medium scope stuff. I suppose Metroid Dread could have been 2 or 3 times larger in scope, but would it have been worth that effort? Less people would get the satisfaction of beating it, and it wouldn't have drastically affected sales figures.

The Metroid market was crying out for a game just like Dread. HD polish, modern controls, and just enough different from previous entries to stand out sufficiently. It strikes me as a very well measured production.

If they were to pour their heart and soul into every new game, they'd be spent. Ideas and innovations need managing - shoot your whole load and then where do you go next? That's boom and bust.

And one other thing... when Nintendo outsources development on a game, how does anyone outside of that project know how much input Nintendo still put into it? If there's one company that's more likely to have a hands-on approach to third party outsourcing, it's Nintendo, isn't it?

Waiting for and expansive open world Urban Champions game.

@faint true but they had a big 2020 and launched a new platform after some major games before it. Nintendo kind of dragged after 2019 which recovered after a meager 2018. Only 2017 and 2019 were really significant years.

@gcunit tbh you're mostly making my points for me... Measured production, why should they do more if it won't boost sales, medium scope at full of price....... You're pretty much repeating everything I've said, just with a positive spin, slightly...

@Bolt_Strike I don't see dread being as comparatively large as you say, but I also wasn't taking 3d open world, that's Prime 4s job really, but a larger scope 2d game still should have been expected. What we got is "fine" but just "fine" well made but didn't try to wow.

Retro and monolith (and now after lm3, nlg) are actually all first party. That's part the issue is that retro is one of the big internal studios and the only thing they've done since the game cube is 2 dkc games.... So anything those studios do is what I'm looking towards here, but retro..... Hasn't done anything. In ages...

Also for both you and @Ralizah I think your posts crossed with mine to Jax, where I described more of what I meant on size meaning scope, not budget, so no ralizah I'm not one of those big budget blockbuster people, and you know people rail on me on ps for not being one. Here everyone thinks I'm a pony and on ps everyone thinks I'm a nintendrone addicted to overpriced kiddy games. Like in politics, if everybody hates me, I must be doing something right! 😂

@JaxonH All I can say is we often agree on many things but on all topics raised here we couldn't possibly disagree more to the point that neither of us can even see how the other could possibly have the position they do. Probably not much more to say on it then. Not personal but it's very clear we'll never have an even similar point if view on this, unfortunately, if your point of view remains fixed on the business perspective, and yes it is a business perspective, that product value is based on what people pay rather than a comparison of similar market competitors.

It'd leave it only with the thought that if mercury stream made the exact same metroidvania game without the licensed names and characters, released it as a new IP as an indie, and published with devolver..... Would that price have held at $60 for a new ip indie metroidvania? Not a chance. It's brand power, not the content, that has "justified"the price point.

@NEStalgia
that product value is based on what people pay rather than a comparison of similar market competitors

Value in comparison to competitors doesn't change the fact ppl are choosing to buy it, despite all those "other competitors". Which means ppl buying it judge its value overall as being higher, even in comparison. ​Idk what's so hard to understand about that.

Simply pointing to a game with more content and saying, "see, it has more content by comparison, therefore any game with less content isn't worth its price". Or "see, it has higher production values, by comparison, therefore any game with lower production values isn't worth its price". That's not how ppl value things. So using those metrics to assign value is meaningless. Ppl assign value based on the game as a whole. Fun factor included. Intensity of fun included. Desire to play included.

The whole, "value is just a comparison of which game has more stuff" is how we end up with cookie cutter open worlf Ubisoft tower games each year. Because they think a game is nothing more than graphics and content. That's not what gives a game its value. They can contribute, but they're not sole determining factors.

If value isn't assigned by the purchaser, then why do games go on sale? Explain it to me, please. If a game's value is just how much stuff it has in comparison to other games, then every single game would have a different price, because no two games are exactly the same. We'd have some games coating $350.12, others costing $51.73, and those prices would never change because after all, the value is how much stuff it has. If anything price should rise overtime as updates release.

Prices drop because the value is different for each person, because the value is assigned by the individual. This is basic stuff man.

You can personally say, "this game has less stuff, so I personally value it less" and that's fine. But trying to say a game objectively has less value just because it has less stuff? There are things that matter far more than just the mathematical sum of its parts. Value is never objective. Ever.

All you can say is you personally judge value based on stuff comparisons. Others judge value based on entertainment quality comparisons. It may have less stuff, but it still looks good, clean, polished, doesn't look like a cheap $10 pixel indie, and I'm gonna have 3X as much fun playing it, ergo, compared to other games its higher value.

What you're doing is, you're picking arbitrary metrics, then acting like those arbitrary metrics are the sole determining factor of value to everyone as a blanket statement to try to legitimize your claim.

Games are more than their file size. And while comparisons are used to determine value, the degrees of freedom along which ppl make those comparisons are virtually infinite. Trying to cherry pick 1 or 2 of them and saying, "these are the only aspects of comparison that matter" isn't sound logic.

If you don't like a game, just say you don't like it. If you want to voice an opinion, voice it. But what brings conflict is the assertion that, no, it's not just an opinion, it's FACT. A declaration that value is only determined by comparison with respect to X and Y, even if that's in opposition to reality for most consumers.

@NEStalgia So you consider Retro and Monolith to be first party but not Game Freak, Intelligent Systems, and Good Feel? Again, confusing criteria here.

And no, you were the one that was citing AAA open world games as examples of "big" games. I didn't cross anything, you were the one you started that conversation.

Speaking of which, I'm still waiting for you to explain your criteria for what's a "big" game is (I do see you used Dread as an example and mentioned size and scope, but where do you draw the line?). What is an "A tier" game vs. a "B tier" game? What makes something an "HD 3DS game"? I've asked you this about 5 times. Other users have repeatedly asked you this. I've also compared the Switch lineup with the Wii U lineup, you said nothing about that either. You compared first party Nintendo games with third party games and I pointed out the inconsistency there, nothing about that. If you're not going to address any of this, there's nothing further to talk about here. You can't expect other people to agree with you or take your opinion seriously if you're just using arbitrary criteria to exclude games you don't like, if you want to exclude something it should be based on logical, factual criteria that can be consistently applied to other games.

@Bolt_Strike btw I forgot to reply about the game i listed being 3rd party games, and I did that because I was aiming for games that are not Nintendo that are available on switch. Though I technically included The Outer Worlds which is first party XGS. It's not fair to compare to Sony because they have a very particular "interactive movie game" formula and talk of their extreme budgets which imo is the opposite extreme of Nintendo and not a great comparison.

I don't just consider monolith and retro to be first party, they truly are. 100% owned internal studios. Game freak is not though Nintendo owns a partial stake through their ownership of tpc which owns part of game freak but they don't own or wholly control them. They don't own intelligent I don't believe at all, maybe they have some shares? They don't own good feel, Camelot, alpha dream (which they bankrupted), Mercury steam, they didn't own nlg when lm3 came out but they do own them now. Monolith, retro, nlg (starting their next game) are fully internal studios, they report to Takahashi, Nintendo is their board, furukawa is their CEO. That's why xc2 absolutely counts as much as Zelda, it's truly internal.

As for criteria what you're asking for is an absolute. That can't be given at it depends on the game and genre etc. What I can give is what jax is rejecting. A comparison to other similar products and the norm in it's marketplace. What's the going rate for 2.5d "metroidvalia" games and what is the scope and size of those games. Or top down adventure puzzlers, or other games of similar genre and scale? When you start comparing to iOS games that are no more than $15 and the only difference is recognizable characters, for 4x the price theres a mismatch.

@JaxonH you still didn't answer brand power question. If the game was a new in IP but otherwise identical with different characters as an indie do YOU believe it would have held$60? Even $40? You say a lot about people upholding intensity of fun etc, but my question about how much of that "value" consumers supposedly assigned it is simply brand power.

Similarly by that value metric, is a ps5 really worth $1200? Lots of folks seem to say yes.

Similarly there's a difference within the Nintendo bubble and without it. Compare Metroid to returnal. A rogue, yes, but with metroidvania elements so not totally outside focus. Definitely a bigger game in most regards, though there's fair debate about rogues. That was also an indie game published and aided by a platform holder (housemarque having been bought afterward.) It too was overpriced for what it is despite being a great game right high "intensity of fun"or whatnot. But unlike Nintendo's games that sell on brand I'd in a walled garden, sales are pretty terrible. Did players choose price based on gameplay? I doubt it. The difference is brand Id in Nintendo's walled garden. Value has a different meaning here than on every other platform. The same criticism can be applied to Sony as well but not QUITE as intensely.

@NEStalgia "Scope" doesn't really mean anything out of context, though. You mentioned something about wanting Metroid Dread to be some weeks-long experience, but length has never been something that's defined so-called "big" experiences. Unless stuff like Gears of War, Uncharted, etc. are also "small" games. Metroidvanias are ideally 8 - 12 hours long, so that works well for Metroid Dread. And technically? I mean, hate to say it, but the Switch is weak, so you're not going to be seeing significantly better graphics from that game if you want it to hold a good framerate.

I don't really think you've thought through a lot of these categories and labels you're applying to games to somehow say they don't count. It's getting absurd now. Breath of the Wild isn't a Switch game, despite launching simultaneously with the Wii U version, having features removed from development that would have tied it more closely to the Wii U's hardware, and selling 90% or more of its copies on Switch. Games like Warioware and Luigi's Mansion 3 don't count because they're "small games." Exclusives contracted out to third parties, but with development managed by top Nintendo guys, don't count. Remakes don't count, even if they're transformative as a result. etc. etc.

I mean, yeah, I guess if you apply a hundred different ultra-specific conditions as to which games "count" as worthwhile first-party exclusives for a system, you'll wind up with a small list that supports your contention. But you could do this with any company, frankly.

As this conversation gets more heated feeling and really off topic is getting less interesting to debate and feels more like an argument. Considering it's become time consuming and stealing time that otherwise was to be spent on smtv, I'll give everyone one more courtesy reply, and then I'm bailing out. Smt won't play itself, and since I clearly hate Nintendo according to public opinion anywhere but push square, I'll be sure not to enjoy as minute of my Sega game on my evil Nintendo console

Happy Thanksgiving to those of you in the US, if don't get back to this until I've started a turkey fire!

@Ralizah That's just it, the conversation started as a conversation about internal studio output at Nintendo being unsatisfactory compared to the past. What it has turned into it's a broad "why do you hate Nintendo" inquiry board of 3 vs 1 demanding ever more specific criteria for otherwise broadly understood ideas. I'm not saying anything unique and we've veered away from the discussion on Nintendo first party output being lean and largely consisting of filler to being demanded of to identify quantifiable measuring sticks as to what qualifies that. I mean if we're down to activated debate about why warioware, a self styled microgame collection isn't as big as smtv, deathloop, fh5, botw, and frankly sushi striker....... What the heck kind of debate are we even having? And again, no it's not production values alone r&c rift isn't a big game either and it's overpriced.

@NEStalgia
I can't answer hypotheticals, nor do I see the value in "what ifs".

But I see games like Undernauts and Blue Reflection, games with FAR less production values than Metroid Dread, virtually no brand recognition and which aren't even remotely as good, selling for $60, so if you're asking do I think Metroid without the brand would sell? Yes, I do. Absolutely. Because the game is that polished and that fun. Would it sell as well? Of course not. But that's true for any game regardless. It's not unique to Dread.

And that applies to how much fun ppl assign due to brand power. I don't know. But I don't think it matters, either. Brands known for quality with characters ppl love makes them more willing to take a risk on a game, resulting in more sales. But that's true for any game, so again, it's immaterial to the discussion.

Is a PS5 worth $1200? For some people, obviously yes. Why else would they spend $1200 on it if they didn't think it was worth it?

Returnal was $70, and the higher the price the lower the quantity demanded (Economics 101) and it had serious problems. Not many ppl are into repetitive games where you die and repeat the same thing over and over. And it didn't let you save mind run, putting hours of playtime at risk. I don't even understand what your point is. That brand matters? Of course it matters. But so what? If brand is so quality ppl are more willing to buy the game, then the game inherently has more value due to being a lower risk purchase. More brand = less risk = more value. Any way you slice it, ppl don't buy things they don't deem worth it

And contrary to what you might tell yourself to rationalize why games with less budget can be just as high value, most Switch gamers don't live in a vacuum. They are well aware what else is out there. The simple fact remains, they still see more value in Metroid for $60 than many AAA games. For a whole host of reasons.

But the most important thing is fun, and meeting a minimum threshold of visual fidelity. As long as a game looks clean, that's "good enough" for most ppl, and they will see that game on equal ground with any $100 million budget game you throw at it for comparison. Beyond that minimum threshold it's all about fun. And most Nintendo games meet that minimum threshold to where they're not seen as "lesser than", except by console elitists, who are no different than PC trolls telling Xbox and PS gamers their games all suck because they're not 4k 120fps with RT.

There's two kinds of ppl. Those who see a game's value as more than the sum of its parts, and those who think its just a function of budget, scope and graphical fidelity. At the end of the day, how much entertainment value am I getting from my purchase? I don't care how it's delivered, only that it's delivered.

Nintendo has always been so good at making games, they can deliver that value without needing to fall back on realism and unsustainable budgets. Will that always be the case? Who knows... Probably. As time marches forward, however, there is a need to maintain the "minimum threshold of expectancy", but as least so far, it has been maintained.

@NEStalgia Ratchet and Clank is a prominent first-party release, though, and was widely trumpeted to be one of the first games from Sony to showcase the 'power' of their ultra-fast SSD. How on Earth is that not a "big" game?

You say you're talking about "broadly understood ideas," but I think the replies you're getting kind of indicate that nobody really understands what you mean by "big" games, because there doesn't seem to be any identifiable standard you're adopting.

If your contention is solely "HD game development has slowed down for Nintendo's internal studios," then, yes, I agree, and welcome to the modern era, where games are way more expensive and take 5x as long to develop. And that's putting aside reported difficulties Nintendo's developers have had adjusting to the additional workload required for HD game development.

I don't think (or care, frankly, as long you're polite about it) you hate Nintendo. You'll notice (aside from an unfortunate interaction with someone else earlier) I've only really jumped in to discuss this particular subject with you, because I'm genuinely sort of baffled by the positions you're adopting in this thread.

Edit: But, yes, your time is better spent playing SMT V. Don't lose out on time playing it on my account.

Well, the thread title says about 'new exclusives' on Switch but oddly we're not supposed to count anything made by even 2nd parties that either only make games for Nintendo at all or make some series that is exclusive?
With the way Sony push certain timed exclusives on their systems, why shouldn't the games that launched on Switch count, as well?

Cringe thread. The fewer games exclusive to any platform, the better.

@JaxonH If you can't handle hypotheticals, then you can't handle arguments or discussions like these.