Topic: Disappointed by the lack of new exclusives

Posts 241 to 260 of 453


@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.

Edited on by Ralizah

Currently Playing
Shin Megami Tensei V (NS)


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.



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.

Edited on by JaxonH

NS: Shin Megami Tensei V, MH Rise
Steam: Forza Horizon 5
NS: MH Rise Sunbreak, Bayonetta 3, Splatoon 3, Triangle Strategy, Zelda BotW 2, Metroid Prime 4

Jesus is Lord.


@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.

Edited on by Ralizah

Currently Playing
Shin Megami Tensei V (NS)


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?

Steam: Bruce_CM


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.



@Ralizah everyone is taking in different directions. Jax is calling a big game by sales and personal pleasure. You're calling a big game by it's marketing hype in the runup. You guys really can't be that unaware of what I'm describing in terms of a games scope, can you?

Are you really going to put warioware, sushi striker, dread, and Mario tennis in the same pot as botw, Odyssey, xc2, bayo 2/3, prime 4, even Splatoon and call them all the same size scope, and pricing tier of game with a straight face? How about switch 2 when Nintendo starts charging $70 because they always follow industry standard price? Will Mario golf and ac amiibo festival new play control suddenly be worth $70 alongside Splatoon 8 and botw 4?

That's the thing, Nintendo HAS done a lot of smaller games than other companies. And they were charming. And they were also always cheaper than other games so the value felt right. 3ds had a constant stream of Nintendo games. They were largely small games. But they were also $10 cheaper than console games, and the even smaller ones were $20 cheaper. Pokemon was never a full price handheld game, and the handheld games were never full price console games. So it felt fair. Now they seem to have less big games, less games, and the small ones they want industry standard console price on. Yes that started on wiiu with hands like rainbow curse. But it didn't matter because the good stuff was on 3ds. If switch games, or the smaller scale games were still $50 I think it would be more justifiable. Add it ALWAYS was until now.

I don't know what to say if everyone doesn't understand what I mean by smaller games. "Indie in size and scope", "low budget small content games?" "Minimum to sell products?" "single A*? It's not about gfx or budget, but SNES had bigger scope games than some of them. Ironically the graphics are the only part that IS better in some cases.

But you got to it in hd development slowing them down. I think that's the other contention. Nintendo games scale shouldn't be slowed by that by much at all. They're not building a fully interactive London like watch dogs, they're not building half of Mexico like fh5, they're not building huge server infrastructure like battlefield. We're taking puzzle games and 2.5d side scrollers. Only botw and 3d Mario really get that defense. As you said Nintendo particularly had difficulties. You're right and that's part of it, exactly. Everyone else has been doing this since 2006 minimum. They have screwed up royally if they haven't figured out how to do it in 15+ years. That's kinda the point right there. And then they want the customer to pay the tab by just paying more for content where the graphics are really all that's different from what 3ds and Wii offered. How exactly is that different from what Sony is doing with their 100.+ Blockbuster junk and passing the tab along? Which I know we agree on. And how should we react when Nintendo goes $70 to match it, and they WILL, are still making hd boosted Wii/3ds games? And doesn't discount them while Sony does?

Because I guarantee you that's the switch 2 future right now because everyone is proving right here they can get away with it, and they know it. See you at $100 preorders for Mario Teaches Typing!

Btw, you were civil and social in this debate so it was enjoyable. Others got inappropriately heated in tone and it sapped the fun right out, so thanks!

Also, regarding blue, I'm pretty sure he misunderstood what you said, earlier, or just doesn't get the trademark ralizah sarcasm . His reply didn't really match the snark. And I'm pretty sure he's just fed up with rampant overzealous defense of both Nintendo and ps actions in various camps, which I wholly understand at this point, but is more likely to blow a fuse over it than I. I won't tag him on this comment and make it awkward but at the risk of paying mediator, you guys aren't fundamentally juxtaposed, and it would be worthwhile to come to a truce on that. Yes he can tilt toward xb fanboy statements at times, but is also fair overall. Earlier I think the tone of this thread overall plus your "Xbox output still sucks" line just set him off against that backdrop and he forgot or didn't know you're multiplat. He's definitely a reasonable person to have in a debate normally. And while you disagree with me, you're far from the biggest switch zealots around.

Ok and with that I'm really done and spending all this time back on playing games. On that evil switch I must obviously hate so much . Happy Thanksgiving, all.



@NEStalgia I understand that most people aren't going to see games like Sushi Strikers as being sufficiently meaty compared to something like Zelda, yes. But I wouldn't say, lump Metroid Dread in with the former group versus the latter, for example. It feels like a 'big' Nintendo release to me, whatever that is. Is Mario Kart 8 a big release? Because that shares probably nine-tenths of its DNA with something like Mario Kart 7 on the 3DS. Some people would only class Mario and Zelda as the "big" first-party releases, and ignore stuff like Fire Emblem: Three Houses, despite that being a hugely meaty release. For some people, Pokemon games are very "big," even though something like BDSP is probably sub-Warioware in terms of the effort and money put into making it. You don't consider LM3 to be a big release even though it's a larger game than the previous two in scope and arguably on par with something like SMO in terms of its presentation.

It's not that I don't obviously have a hierarchy of games that I care more about than others. But I think that's a largely personal thing, as there are no objective standards for it. So, what I really think this boils down to is some people, like yourself, not valuing a lot of Nintendo's properties as much as others on here do. And that's fine. But I don't think there's an argument to be made for their first-party output being terrible at this point unless you're only counting so-called "big" games like Mario and Zelda, or only purely internally developed stuff. Most Nintendo consoles only get one Mario game, one or two Zeldas, so this is all right in line with what you can expect from them in a given generation.

In terms of original first-party software, will Wii U/3DS end up having had more games on them together than Switch does singularly? Probably. 240p handheld games are easier to pump out than HD stuff. That's the price you pay for getting everyone together on one HD platform, since some of these developers are going to take their dear, sweet time adjusting to the new workload.

Price has never bothered me too much with Nintendo games, personally, precisely because they don't seem to drop in value. Nintendo collections are investments if you buy physical, not money pits. Although I do have to draw the line somewhere, and if Nintendo starts asking $70 for their games in 5 - 10 years (which yes, I agree they will if the new MSRP Sony is pushing catches on), let's just say I'll be leaning heavily on my backlog, or even buying used to make up the difference. Maybe leaning on Xbox Game Pass if Microsoft hasn't wildly jacked up the price by then and gets more Japanese support going forward.

Anyway, you posted your one courtesy reply, and I don't think I really have anything more to say on this issue. You know my feelings, I know your feelings, so I don't think there's anywhere to go from here. Enjoy SMT V and have a happy thanksgiving.

Edited on by Ralizah

Currently Playing
Shin Megami Tensei V (NS)


NEStalgia wrote:

Are you really going to put warioware, sushi striker, dread, and Mario tennis in the same pot as botw, Odyssey, xc2, bayo 2/3, prime 4, even Splatoon and call them all the same size scope, and pricing tier of game with a straight face?

If you didn't use Metroid Dread in the "lesser" list and Metroid Prime 4, which is just a WIP logo in its known state, in the "greater" list, and didn't refer to scale as scope, I would agree with you. The scope of WarioWare's gameplay for instance I would argue as bigger than most of the games mentioned, but the scale in which that scope is presented may be the smallest listed. I would make a similar case for games like Ring Fit Adventure and ARMS, both are easily within a larger scope list but not in scale. Personally, I would pay more for larger setting scope and gameplay as opposed to larger scale. Breath of the Wild in particular I think relies too much on scale and gets a pass for lackluster areas in its gameplay due to its scale. Is climbing up Dueling Peaks in the rain a premium gameplay experience for example? There should be more considered towards a game's value than just the scale of its environments.

Edited on by I-U

"The secret to ultimate power lies in the Alimbic Cluster."


And here I thought @Chipia as the owner of this thread didn't even care with feedbacks here, literally just only let other users make some arguments until page 13. ūüėí
If you have an issue with 1st party exclusives on Nintendo Switch, blame to your cherry picking attitude in getting the games.

Edited on by Anti-Matter

Top 8 Konami's Rhythm games:
1. Dance Dance Revolution
2. Para Para Paradise
3. DrumMania
4. Beatmania IIDX
5. Pop'n Music
6. KeyboardMania
7. Martial Beat

Switch Friend Code: SW-8364-7166-5608 | 3DS Friend Code: 2638-4872-0879 | Nintendo Network ID: TAGunderground


I-U wrote:

Is climbing up Dueling Peaks in the rain a premium gameplay experience for example?

It's a bit foolhardy to consider that question in isolation. Personally, in the context of the sense of anticipation and exploration I got when going pretty much anywhere for the first time in that game, I would say the experience was unparalleled.

What better way to celebrate than firing something out of the pipe?

Nothing is true. Everything is permitted.

My Nintendo: gcunit | Nintendo Network ID: gcunit


@symmy I disagree since games are what sells consoles, and that especially goes for Nintendo ones.

Good... good
Now play Dragon Quest


Anti-Matter wrote:

If you have an issue with 1st party exclusives on Nintendo Switch, blame to your cherry picking attitude in getting the games.

I don't do cherry picking when getting games. I enjoy 3rd party games as well, but the when I got the switch my highest expectations were for the exclusives, especially as Nintendo only has to develop for 1 console this generation. I've been playing Nintendo consoles since the early 90s and the main reason I enjoyed them so much were the exclusives.
The problem here is not that Switch is a "bad" console.
It's that many people, for good reason, think that the Switch didn't quite deliver what they expected.



@chipia What did you expect from a console that’s spent half its lifespan in a history defining pandemic?

[email protected]
friend code: 0103-9004-2456


@faint Yeah, I can't help but think that we'd have had at least four or five more big first party releases on the Switch were it not for the pandemic-induced delays. Rather a lot of Nintendo's internal development groups haven't produced a new game since 2017/8 and I'd think it far more likely that they got caught deep in the development cycle than were just unproductive.

Still, at least the Switch is doing better than the consoles that have spent their entire lifespan in the pandemic. The PS5 exclusives lineup is still looking rather threadbare and Microsoft pretty much gave up on giving the Series X any meaningful ones before it even launched.



@NEStalgia ‚ÄúMario Teaches Typing HD Definitive Edition Remastered & Knuckles‚ÄĚ is the game we truly need for these troubled times.


Switch Friend Code: SW-6338-4534-2507


alexwolf wrote:

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.

I'll try to do it quickly this time because this is like talking to a brick wall that's safely behind glass. This thread is about games developed by Nintendo exclusively for Switch and then we discussed the outsourced games. Impossible for me to lose credibility for stating facts such as fewer in-house games as listed on page 3, which is my main argument from the start. In regard to impressive sales and critical acclaim, no, that doesn't mean that those games are not divisive. I'm well aware of how much hype and praise Breath of the Wild received but also consider that many fans are disappointed with it because of no true dungeons, monotonous shrines and dull side quests, lack of music and disappointing bosses, just to name a few reasons. There are many more reasons but those I listed are essential in a The Legend of Zelda game since SNES. I'm a huge The Legend of Zelda fan and this is a divisive game for me and many other fans. It's a great sandbox game that I enjoyed as such but ask yourself if it had received so much praise if it was developed by Ubisoft and called The Legend of Fenyx: Breath of the Wild. In spite of this, I have said several times on this thread that the quality is relative (I said this to Antimatter about Animal Crossing) and my intention has never been convincing anyone about loving or hating games but I (and others) don't think that Switch has received the best entries in their respective franchises and you guys must accept that. Super Mario, (Breath of the Wild is a Wii U game), Mario Kart (no new game), Mario Tennis, Mario Golf, Donkey Kong (no new game), Yoshi, Xenoblade (not in-house but studio acquired by Nintendo so I added it to the list). Best entries ever, you say... Super Smash Bros. Ultimate (not developed by Nintendo), maybe, because it's a greatest hits. The others, though, best games ever? Really?

alexwolf wrote:

Smash Bros Ultimate (which you previously mentioned in this thread offers nothing new except from more characters)

A lie.

alexwolf wrote:

a vocal minority

We all are a vocal minority, most Switch/Xbox/PS owners are normal people that just play some games sometimes but here there are the Switch zealots that are internet warriors that waste 99% of their free time here and don't accept anyone criticising Nintendo or Switch nor they accept other Nintendo fans comparing Nintendo to Nintendo. They don't accept anything against Nintendo, even if the arguments are rock-solid.

alexwolf wrote:

You keep on labeling everyone that disagrees with you as Nintendo fanboys

I didn't call them Nintendo fanboys, I am a Nintendo fan like most people here. I said that there are Switch zealots that give a childish reputation to Nintendo and to Nintendo fans, even if they are 40-year old. I am the one that was called troll for no reason, didn't you notice? I also was insulted in a comment that was later edited.

The reality is that Nintendo have done very little as developer since 2016 even though they only have one platform to support after abandoning Wii U very early. The quality of the games, we can discuss forever about it and I didn't say that they are bad games (some are, e.g., Yoshi) but you can't deny that Splatoon 2 and Super Mario Maker 2 are Wii U expansions and you can't deny that New Horizons was hollow at launch. Anyway, have a nice evening.



@alexwolf So are you saying is argument is invalid because you like those games? Or are you saying its not Divisive because Most people like it? Because I for one would say those game could be, as there are a lot of reasons to not like them over others.

Nintendo are like woman, You love them for whats on the inside, not the outside.

(My friend code is SW-7322-1645-6323, please ask me before you use it)


Sorry, this topic has been locked.