Forums

Topic: Disappointed by the lack of new exclusives

Posts 81 to 100 of 428

NEStalgia

@BlueOcean We forgot Sushi Striker in the list! Seriously, though, it actually is a good (overpriced) game. I'd argue it's a better game than some of the other "big" games on the list. I say this as a genuine Knack fan, though...

One problem Nintendo has continues to be that they're massively understaffed for HD development and rely on contracting out most of their production so as not to have to increase their internal size. The impression I have is they have very little development capacity internally, and basically just have a room full of project managers that mostly coordinate and assemble external content. Sometimes that works out great (Most things Intelligent Systems, Alpha Dream (until Nintendo bankrupted them), Rare (until Nintendo almost bankrupted them), Mercury Steam, 50/50 Platinum, NLG (now internal though.))

One problem is our perception that we're judging them based on actual in-house products, while it seems like they've intentionally decided their solution for moving into HD production is to more or less stop developing much in house outside Zelda, Splatoon, XC, Mario (&Kart), and AC, and rely on contracting out for most things. Almost nothing comes from inside, maybe 5-6 games per generation, and everything comes from outside partners now. And the former internal talent like Sakaguchi spearheads the coordination with outside studios, where he used to lead the internal studio.

It's not a bad strategy as long as it works consistently. There's not necessarily a difference between a Nintendo game made by Nintendo or a Nintendo game made under contract and managed by Nintendo. We may be too harsh judging them by whether the exclusive is internal or external. But the consistency of the products isn't even, with a surprising number feeling like decidedly low budget filler, or intentionally minimized content games.

It's clear that Switch lacks a lot of "Nintendo" games. It has a handful of big games that are "produced" by Nintendo via 3rd party. As long as it's nintendo content (Fire Emblem, etc, which they own the brand), from a consumer perspective it's still really a Nintendo game, and should be judged accordingly. It's not like the game will be on PS. But many of those games end up mediocre. Especially anything with a Pokemon tie-in.

Switch definitely has some solid system-selling content. It's just that most of said content isn't actually from Nintendo at all...

And there's still the problem that Retro, one of their biggest most known internal studios hasn't actually shipped a game in almost 8 years and counting. The Zelda "B" team that does the handheld games hasn't shipped a game in almost 8 years (they've probably been on the remasters.) Their studios are either idle, caught in development hell, or constantly assigned to support one of the big 4 game teams and nothing else gets made, much like how Sony abused Japan Studio until it withered and died. With the number of remasters and ports they've been putting out, I'm guessing a lot of their internal studio development time has actually been spent working on the remasters themselves instead of new content. Smart business to monitize the old expenses, but it leaves Switch as WiiU Pro - a better machine to play the best Nintendo 8th gen games on, and the real Switch exclusives come mostly from other companies. Since most people never owned WiiU it makes Switch look great to everyone except the WiiU customers. Again, smart business, they don't care, we're not the market now. But what will they do next time when they can't just sell the prior generation's games as new to most of their market? They'll have to massively ramp up output to match what Switch looked like to people that never bought a WiiU. I don't think they have the capacity to come even close to that goal. Or are they intentionally holding back the product of their studios so they have them for Switch 2, since Switch 1 can live on WiiU's shadow to most of the market ?

NEStalgia

RR529

While it's true that the system has seen it's fair share of Wii U ports, who honestly gives a rat's behind that Fire Emblem, Xenoblade, Luigi's Mansion, Metroid, Astral Chain, etc. are "second party"/licensed out? In the practical sense (from the end point of the person playing the game) it's irrelevant that the teams making the games don't have the word "Nintendo" printed on the front of their office door, and seems a poor excuse from the, increasingly shrinking, crowd that still feels burned about how the Wii U played out & wants to discredit the Switch at every turn.

Currently Playing:
Switch - Blade Strangers
PS4 - Kingdom Hearts III, Tetris Effect (VR)

gcunit

BlueOcean wrote:

@BruceCM I love Fire Emblem and Xenoblade but I proved that Nintendo have done nearly nothing. This is not about happy Switch owners with thousands of games to play. It's not about ports are good or bad or second/third-party games are good or bad, it's about Nintendo's pathetic output. The topic is:

chipia wrote:

I understood that by having Switch as the only console this generation, Nintendo would be able to put more resources into the games, but I'm honestly seeing the opposite. I think there are less exclusives than in most console generations, although exactly the opposite should be expected.

And he is 100% right.

The problem is the thread title. It's bad. Users come here thinking it's a thread about one thing and don't necessarily read the OP with enough attention to detail to realise it's actually Nintendo's quantitative output disappointing the OP, not the Switch itself. Fix the thread title and people will probably stop arguing the main point - Nintendo's output, quantity wise at least, has been a bit disappointing since 2015, but the Switch has enabled so many alternative sources of games to come to play that for most people any disappointment with Nintendo is almost irrelevant. I can't really afford for Nintendo to turn out more games.

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

Varkster

I think the OP doesn't understand well the difference in scope of developing a game for a handheld and developing a game for a home console. They're two entirely different things and considering with almost every IP so far Nintendo have at least been trying to ball it out of the park, yeah, games take time.

Not only do games take time but games with as much content as is actually in these games like Smash, Fire Emblem, Splatoon, Breath of the Wild, yeah, believe it or not developing these Switch games takes a lot longer than developing a 3DS 2D RPG. It's pretty straight forward. I also want to remind you the absolute barebones games we got on the Wii U such as Mario Tennis, which looked almost like a demo for Aces in comparison. It was depressing.

I also want to mention that you're nuts if you think the output hasnt drastically changed despite the virus and all that. Do you not remember the droughts during the Wii U? There have been like 6 month gaps between releases at some points with the most exciting game being the likes of Pushmo - a download only puzzle title. Did we all forget that the Wii U also had no Metroid, Fire Emblem, Animal Crossing games and so on? We have all these revivals of classic franchises on Switch. What more do we want? The Wii U had so little content output that I remember getting legitimately hyped for Earthbound, having played it many times before.

I understand feeling disappointed but it sounds more like the system just isn't for you and you should opt to buy another for your gaming needs.

Edited on by Varkster

Varkster

kkslider5552000

RR529 wrote:

While it's true that the system has seen it's fair share of Wii U ports, who honestly gives a rat's behind that Fire Emblem, Xenoblade, Luigi's Mansion, Metroid, Astral Chain, etc. are "second party"/licensed out? In the practical sense (from the end point of the person playing the game) it's irrelevant that the teams making the games don't have the word "Nintendo" printed on the front of their office door, and seems a poor excuse from the, increasingly shrinking, crowd that still feels burned about how the Wii U played out & wants to discredit the Switch at every turn.

This is the point I most agree with. While there's at least reason to be annoyed at how maybe Nintendo's main studios haven't put out enough games in the context of Nintendo in general not putting out enough games, there is no reasonable argument to why anyone should care that a giant percentage of Nintendo games are made by developers not fully owned by Nintendo. Especially when a lot of those games are really good.

Non-binary, demiguy, making LPs, still alive

Bioshock Infinite Let's Play!:
LeT's PlAy BIOSHOCK < Link to LP

chipia

gcunit wrote:

The problem is the thread title. It's bad. Users come here thinking it's a thread about one thing and don't necessarily read the OP with enough attention to detail to realise it's actually Nintendo's quantitative output disappointing the OP, not the Switch itself. Fix the thread title and people will probably stop arguing the main point

You are right, I've changed the thread title.

gcunit wrote:

Nintendo's output, quantity wise at least, has been a bit disappointing since 2015, but the Switch has enabled so many alternative sources of games to come to play that for most people any disappointment with Nintendo is almost irrelevant.

Most of these alternative sources are indie games that are available on all platforms including PC (most dont even require a gaming pc) so they are IMO not a great reason to buy the switch, unless one absolutely needs portability.

BlueOcean wrote:

It's not the same developing a game like Halo Infinite, Gears 5, Resident Evil VIII or The Last of Us Part II than cartoony games like Nintendo's own games. The investment in time and resources can't even be compared.

Yes and I must also add that Nintendo reuses a lot of the graphic. I mean, graphically there is not a big difference between Splatoon 1 and 2 or Mario Maker 1 and 2. Animal Crossing NH also has similar models and animations to New Leaf. Pokemon Sword/Shield should be well known, and BOTW2 also looks similar to BOTW1. So I don't buy the argument that Nintendo needs to put so much effort into graphics and animations, that it reduces their output.

chipia

Pizzamorg

All of the people defending Nintendo in here over the “scale of modern gaming” like… yikes. The Switch hardware felt outdated pretty much when it was released, let alone all these years later. If a company of the size and resources of Nintendo are struggling to develop for the limited hardware of the Switch, they are only going to be increasingly left behind then, as other companies are powering off ahead.

Right now, it doesn’t seem to really hurt them, as people just take any first party Nintendo IP they can get, it seems and arguably they aren’t in competition with other companies in the same way say Microsoft and Sony are, as Nintendo aims to fill a different niche.

However, there will surely have to come a time at some point where a Switch successor will need to exist and it will surely have to be more powerful than the Switch is. So if they are struggling to make the first party exclusives now, they really need to take a step back and look at their whole production line to work out where things are going wrong.

Edited on by Pizzamorg

My @ handle everywhere is Pizzamorg.
My Friend Code is: SW-6997-6872-4381
Switch games currently playing: The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. Shin Megami Tensei V. Pokemon Shield.
Non-Switch games I am currently playing: Life is Strange: True Colors.

gcunit

@chipia Thanks for acknowledging my point and taking it onboard.

You use the phrase 'absolutely needs portability'. From my observation, I've seen a lot of comments in different places around the web about how the Switch has changed their gaming habits. For a lot of people, it's not about needing portability, it's just an appreciation for the benefits of portability. A lot of people are getting more gaming time because they do not have to sit in a fixed position in their home to enjoy an (almost) full range of gaming experiences. Switch, being a hybrid, offers portability and big screen gaming. That dual functionality is worth tolerating less powerful hardware for a lot of people. It's not need, it's just preferred.

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

Anti-Matter

@chipia
Exclusive or not, if i found interesting games from either Switch or PS4, i will pick them.
Also, i think Switch have some exclusive 3rd party games you can consider.

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
8. DANCE EVOLUTION

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

gcunit

Pizzamorg wrote:

All of the people defending Nintendo in here over the “scale of modern gaming” like… yikes. The Switch hardware felt outdated pretty much when it was released, let alone all these years later. If a company of the size and resources of Nintendo are struggling to develop for the limited hardware of the Switch, they are only going to be increasingly left behind then, as other companies are powering off ahead.

Right now, it doesn’t seem to really hurt them, as people just take any first party Nintendo IP they can get, it seems and arguably they aren’t in competition with other companies in the same way say Microsoft and Sony are, as Nintendo aims to fill a different niche.

However, there will surely have to come a time at some point where a Switch successor will need to exist and it will surely have to be more powerful than the Switch is. So if they are struggling to make the first party exclusives now, they really need to take a step back and look at their whole production line to work out where things are going wrong.

If Nintendo put twice the current investment into developing new games for Switch, do you think they'd sell twice as many Switches? Or twice as much software?

So far, with the 'disappointing' software output for Switch, it has achieved a market penetration on course to become one of the highest selling gaming platforms in history. There would be diminishing returns from doubling or tripling the software investment.

Nintendo would probably be better off reserving that investment for further down the line. Which I suspect is what it's doing. It's not struggling to produce more games, it's strategically managing the pace of output in attempt to maximise return on investment.

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

Pizzamorg

gcunit wrote:

@chipia Thanks for acknowledging my point and taking it onboard.

You use the phrase 'absolutely needs portability'. From my observation, I've seen a lot of comments in different places around the web about how the Switch has changed their gaming habits. For a lot of people, it's not about needing portability, it's just an appreciation for the benefits of portability. A lot of people are getting more gaming time because they do not have to sit in a fixed position in their home to enjoy an (almost) full range of gaming experiences. Switch, being a hybrid, offers portability and big screen gaming. That dual functionality is worth tolerating less powerful hardware for a lot of people. It's not need, it's just preferred.

I am very much one of those people. I didn’t think I’d get any use out of the hybrid model and the lower specs of the Switch was off putting to me. I still do think it’s a shame that a lot of Switch games don’t run great, especially when docked. But novelty or not, the seamless transfer between docked and handheld is just such a nice thing to have.

You can have the most comfortable set up in the world, but you’re still bound to one place. Being able to game with practically zero interruptions on the Switch is just a thing you get used to, which is then hard to be without when you go back to other consoles/PC.

I wasn’t exactly someone who struggled to fit gaming into my schedule in the first place, but it is still nice to get extra gaming sessions in like first thing in the morning or last thing at night when curled up in bed. Or when you get a tea/loo break. Or even when doing chores. The gaming doesn’t really need to stop (unless you are driving). I just love that and can mostly just roll with all of the other problems that come from that approach, as the convenience is so good.

gcunit wrote:

Pizzamorg wrote:

All of the people defending Nintendo in here over the “scale of modern gaming” like… yikes. The Switch hardware felt outdated pretty much when it was released, let alone all these years later. If a company of the size and resources of Nintendo are struggling to develop for the limited hardware of the Switch, they are only going to be increasingly left behind then, as other companies are powering off ahead.

Right now, it doesn’t seem to really hurt them, as people just take any first party Nintendo IP they can get, it seems and arguably they aren’t in competition with other companies in the same way say Microsoft and Sony are, as Nintendo aims to fill a different niche.

However, there will surely have to come a time at some point where a Switch successor will need to exist and it will surely have to be more powerful than the Switch is. So if they are struggling to make the first party exclusives now, they really need to take a step back and look at their whole production line to work out where things are going wrong.

If Nintendo put twice the current investment into developing new games for Switch, do you think they'd sell twice as many Switches? Or twice as much software?

So far, with the 'disappointing' software output for Switch, it has achieved a market penetration on course to become one of the highest selling gaming platforms in history. There would be diminishing returns from doubling or tripling the software investment.

Nintendo would probably be better off reserving that investment for further down the line. Which I suspect is what it's doing. It's not struggling to produce more games, it's strategically managing the pace of output in attempt to maximise return on investment.

As I said in my original post, right now, it isn’t hurting them. And granted, no one can say for sure if it will or it won’t, eventually. However, logic would follow that it is more likely to hurt them than anything else, if the Switch 2 is even more powerful, and it is now a decade plus between each exclusive game.

Edited on by Pizzamorg

My @ handle everywhere is Pizzamorg.
My Friend Code is: SW-6997-6872-4381
Switch games currently playing: The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild. Shin Megami Tensei V. Pokemon Shield.
Non-Switch games I am currently playing: Life is Strange: True Colors.

Grumblevolcano

Disruption from the pandemic, HD development as well as the move to open world are likely the 3 most prominent factors.

The 2nd point has been most noticeable with the Wii U as that console was infamous for game droughts and Nintendo has learned from that by releasing lots of ports/remasters/remakes to help fill in gaps for the Switch's library. Meanwhile the 3rd point has been most noticeable with PS4/XB1, games have gotten more open world over time and naturally the gap between entries is larger because of the open world and increasingly games are becoming Games as a Service. BotW being such a gigantic success means Nintendo's likely going to make more of their franchises open world and as you can see the gap between BotW and BotW 2 is about 6 years.

Nintendo hasn't really delved into the GaaS space much yet but given Furukawa's comments on Animal Crossing, I feel it's only a matter of time before Nintendo joins in.

Grumblevolcano

Switch Friend Code: SW-2595-6790-2897 | 3DS Friend Code: 3926-6300-7087 | Nintendo Network ID: GrumbleVolcano

Meteoroid

@CactusMan It really boils down to what this gentleman said. The average development time for a Switch game is significantly higher than on 3DS and especially DS, and it also requires more staff. This means that Nintendo has fewer small teams working on smaller projects, and most people have merged into their bigger teams working on the next Mario, Zelda, etc. Add to that the rough last couple of years that really slowed down the entire world, and you get the picture.

To counter-balance this, the games we get on Switch, are often a lot longer than their past counterparts. For example, Breath of the Wild can be played for literally hundreds of hours; in comparison, I've never really played any other Zelda game more than 50 hours or so, and for handheld titles this number is less than half.

Personally, I am extremely happy with the Switch, and I consider it the best Nintendo console of all time, objectively speaking (subjectively, nostalgia is getting in the way). We are talking about the console that gave us the best 3D Mario so far, a whole unbelievable new take on 3D Zelda, the best Metroid since Super, the best Luigi's Mansion to date, arguably the best modern Fire Emblem, the best Animal Crossing, possibly the biggest Smash game we're ever going to get, the best Mario Party in what feels like centuries, etc, etc. Honestly, I could go on for ages, but the point is no other Nintendo console (perhaps since SNES) has had this many quality entries in almost all their IPs.

The Switch is phenomenal, I couldn't have asked for more. I just wanna see what's next. I suspect Nintendo is preparing some killer software to launch their new Switch iteration (or generation) with.

Edited on by Meteoroid

Meteoroid

CactusMan

@Meteoroid I´m still baffled by people denying it. Take Advance Wars for example the GBA put out 2 entries. But back than you needed to make two sprites to animate water. Now it needs coding for fluid dynamics and modelling for the bodies of water. Programming transparency. The Character portraits were low resolution and static.
The NES put out 3 Mario games but the jump animation of Mario was a sprite sheet. The behaviour of Goombas was just walking straight ahead.
I could give much more examples but game development is just way recourse heavier, you can´t reasonably expect the same quantity of output.

Bamm!

Switch Friend Code: SW-6657-1971-4787

anynamereally

Meteoroid wrote:

We are talking about the console that gave us the best 3D Mario so far, a whole unbelievable new take on 3D Zelda, the best Metroid since Super, the best Luigi's Mansion to date, arguably the best modern Fire Emblem, the best Animal Crossing, possibly the biggest Smash game we're ever going to get, the best Mario Party in what feels like centuries, etc, etc. Honestly, I could go on for ages, but the point is no other Nintendo console (perhaps since SNES) has had this many quality entries in almost all their IPs.

In fact all those 'best of' examples are arguable if you ask me, it's not just Fire Emblem that's arguable.

Mario Odyssey. There're some great levels in this entry, but some of them aren't really that great. If you look at the whole package you'll see that it's pretty incosistent in its level design; it looks like different levels were made by people from different divisions, like they all had their own approach on how it should be done and then they gathered together and made this compilation of some sorts - as a result there are some highlights, but there're also lots of lowlights. I still enjoyed it for what it strived to achieve, but best 3D mario ever? Not really.

Zelda BotW? First and foremost it was a Wii U development. So all the credit should go to that platform not the Switch, sorry for stealing that from you, lol.

Metroid Dread is a big advancement for the series in visual department, it's pretty much an AAA 2D metroid in terms of production values. But aside from that? It's a good 2D metroid game, but it's nothing groundbreaking for the genre as a whole, it didn't introduce anything substantially different or new. It's good. It's metroid. It's okay.

Animal Crossing: New Horizons. This is the most arguable of all. It's very divisive entry and it splitted the fanbase. I myself as a fan of AC was severely dissappointed by everything they've done in this entry including the latest update that became the only major one that they've managed to release.

Smash Ultimate will be remembered for it's roster and only for it's roster. Nothing else is worth noting. On the other hand it really lacks single player content and lots of game modes that previous entries enjoyed.

Mario Party. I'm not really a fan of mario parties so I'm not the one to judge here. It's pretty good just by the looks of it and people seem to be fairly content with those 2 entries that they got, so that's nice I guess.

Just like you said I could go on for ages about all of this, but I think you got the main point.

Edited on by anynamereally

anynamereally

Meteoroid

@anynamereally I didn't say all of these were the best entries, only specific ones and that's just to me, if you read carefully; I prefer other Zeldas to BotW, for example. But the point still stands that the Switch has very solid entries in pretty much all major Nintendo IPs (sorry, Starfox and F-Zero are not major by any stretch these days). Whether they were exactly what you wanted or not is pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things. I don't think anyone can argue that these are very good first party games. And look, of course, depending on your tastes, whether you are interested in remasters at all, and other criteria, the Switch might turn out to not be the best Nintendo console yet, but again, I don't think anyone is going to argue that it doesn't have a fantastic first party library, and that's a very shiny medal for the Switch.

Edited on by Meteoroid

Meteoroid

BlueOcean

@NEStalgia If Nintendo had outsourced Star Fox, Wave Race or F-Zero and the results were awesome nobody would complain. Sega made an awesome F-Zero GX and Rare (second-party) made the best DK games. As you said, outsourcing is risky and sometimes they have to reduce the content (Metroid Dread), restart the whole project (Metroid Prime 4), etc. Nintendo are probably thinking about future software/hardware and they might have abused their studios in the meantime. Monolith helped with Breath of the Wild because it seems that Nintendo struggled even with the basic concept of the open world and yet Monolith managed to make a gorgeous and more complex Xenoblade Chronicles X. Have these studios helped Nintendo to fix Animal Crossing or design the few and uninspired bosses of Super Mario Odyssey? Who knows.

@gcunit I'm glad that you understood and even agree with me. It's so frustrating when people don't read or don't understand and still reply things like "many people didn't get a Wii U", "who cares if it's first/second/third party?", " there are thousands of game available on Switch" or even dare to call you "ignorant" and "you don't have any idea what you're talking about" (before they edit). Thank you for actually listening which is rare these days. @NEStalgia helped me made the list of Nintendo exclusives for Switch and it's lame and, as @chipia explained, the graphics and features can't be used as an excuse because, come on, Splatoon 2, Super Mario Maker 2... Arms, a game I know you like but not technically very impressive either. Even Breath of the Wild, a Wii U game (Wii U should get the credit, not Switch) that was delayed one year while making the Switch port, doesn't have proper voice acting. It was weird hearing voices just a few times in the whole game and then reading everything else. The graphics are not extremely detailed either and there isn't a lot of variety in the assets nor the enemies but they used the lightning wisely and I think that's why Breath of the Wild looks good. I'm not saying that I don't like Link being silent and that I don't like that kind of graphics but that this can't be compared to what other studios are working on. The few efforts for Switch come from studios that they have acquired like Monolith or Next Level or even studios that they hired.

@anynamereally I totally agree about Super Mario Odyssey. Everybody on this site that knows me a little knows that I love 3D platformers (platformers in general) but Odyssey did very little for me. The level design is not cohesive and the platforming is bland, even in the extra/secret levels. It's a sandbox but quite boring. Breath of the Wild is a bigger sandbox, that's why it takes ages to play, but it's more interesting because of the physics (paraglider, fire, wind...) and the environment. After reading the whole comment, I also agree with everything else that you wrote. Very few games but yet best entries so far? No way!

BlueOcean

alexwolf

anynamereally wrote:

Meteoroid wrote:

We are talking about the console that gave us the best 3D Mario so far, a whole unbelievable new take on 3D Zelda, the best Metroid since Super, the best Luigi's Mansion to date, arguably the best modern Fire Emblem, the best Animal Crossing, possibly the biggest Smash game we're ever going to get, the best Mario Party in what feels like centuries, etc, etc. Honestly, I could go on for ages, but the point is no other Nintendo console (perhaps since SNES) has had this many quality entries in almost all their IPs.

In fact all those 'best of' examples are arguable if you ask me, it's not just Fire Emblem that's arguable.

Mario Odyssey. There're some great levels in this entry, but some of them aren't really that great. If you look at the whole package you'll see that it's pretty incosistent in its level design; it looks like different levels were made by people from different divisions, like they all had their own approach on how it should be done and then they gathered together and made this compilation of some sorts - as a result there are some highlights, but there're also lots of lowlights. I still enjoyed it for what it strived to achieve, but best 3D mario ever? Not really.

Zelda BotW? First and foremost it was a Wii U development. So all the credit should go to that platform not the Switch, sorry for stealing that from you, lol.

Metroid Dread is a big advancement for the series in visual department, it's pretty much an AAA 2D metroid in terms of production values. But aside from that? It's a good 2D metroid game, but it's nothing groundbreaking for the genre as a whole, it didn't introduce anything substantially different or new. It's good. It's metroid. It's okay.

Animal Crossing: New Horizons. This is the most arguable of all. It's very divisive entry and it splitted the fanbase. I myself as a fan of AC was severely dissappointed by everything they've done in this entry including the latest update that became the only major one that they've managed to release.

Smash Ultimate will be remembered for it's roster and only for it's roster. Nothing else is worth noting. On the other hand it really lacks single player content and lots of game modes that previous entries enjoyed.

Mario Party. I'm not really a fan of mario parties so I'm not the one to judge here. It's pretty good just by the looks of it and people seem to be fairly content with those 2 entries that they got, so that's nice I guess.

Just like you said I could go on for ages about all of this, but I think you got the main point.

I won't argue much about Mario Odyssey, since it is a pretty objective matter, but for Smash Bros Ultimate you are just plain wrong. SSBU has one of the biggest and more rich single player campaigns out of any fighting game ever released, partially due to the World of Light. World of light introduces so many characters and elements from so many different games, it is unreal.

SSBU is also the peak of the series when it comes to content and scope, it brings together so many different characters from so many different games and embodies the soul of the franchise better than any other entry.

Hardcore fans may prefer SSBM, but SSBU caters to both casuals and pros, as it has both very tight controls and is pretty balanced in the competitive side, while also being super fun even for just a couple of rounds with your buddies. With so many different characters, there is the right fighter for every kind of player out there, no matter the taste.

alexwolf

dionysos283

So do you guys think we'll ever get a new 2D Zelda and 2D Mario game on Switch?

dionysos283

gcunit

dionysos283 wrote:

So do you guys think we'll ever get a new 2D Zelda and 2D Mario game on Switch?

Well, as BotW2 seems to be in-line for a 2022 release, I doubt we'll see any other Zelda between now and then, and as it's been so long since the last 2D Zelda was made, I really wouldn't be betting on one. As for Mario 2D... tough to say, but it wouldn't surprise me if they hit us with a 2D collection someday.

At this point in time though, I do have reservations about whether Nintendo has many new titles lined up for the current Switch. We're supposedly still getting Splatoon 3, Kirby 3D, BotW2, Metroid Prime 4 (?), Bayonetta 3... they could be the only 'big' titles from Nintendo until sometime in 2023, by which point I am expecting some form of successor to become apparent, one that will be needing lots of lovely new games from Nintendo to give it any chance of maintaining the momentum that Switch has seen. But there certainly seems room for one more Mario game before then... will Galaxy 2 make an appearance?

Edited on by gcunit

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

Top

Please login or sign up to reply to this topic