DarkTron

@Lofoten they're people spending literal thousands on cardboard entirely driven by FOMO and internet hype, a novelty device that plays Pokémon songs isn't that stupid in comparison.

@RupeeClock yes that would be ideal, no arguments there. The file size being tripled wouldn't impact anything, that is a more logical design whilst still offering the complete package (because there really isn't a difference). The one alternative in the current set-up is that you can buy the other version in a separate language if that's a requirement (e.g. English FireRed, French LeafGreen). What is clear is that these are just straight-forward ports to Switch, not remasters or collections, which does explain why they didn't do it your way (and will probably be copied for future releases). It feels a lot more like they took NSO GBA versions, made them standalone and released them (which would explain the weird release style).

My point on the language side specifically was you mentioned it impacting Masuda method, in a generation where it doesn't exist, and in an era where getting foreign-language variants of Pokémon is already easier than ever. These ports are a novelty more than an issue.

@RupeeClock more than likely, it's not possible to code 1 version of the game with the ability to change languages (either through how the original was made or just general laziness), and a product that's just "3 games in 1 (but all the games are just language variants of each other)" looks less polished.

Also, Masuda method isn't a thing in Gen 3 anyway, so it has no impact.

@Jeronan the "Switch 2 update" is a surrounding patch on the game to let it run native, there was literally no reason he couldn't have just released it and then patched the game later (which is what happened with the NA version). He also said this patch would come out with this update (which, again, was supposedly submitted within hours of that announcement), now 2 months later he's changing his mind again.

• It's also worth pointing out here that Nintendo offered a statement to confirm that Labo VR won't be officially compatible with Virtual Boy

They said that specifically with regards to using Labo for the Virtual Boy catalogue. Why you're using that statement as a claim that the Odyssey VR is similarly affected is beyond me.

"No major delay" yet we're 3 months out from the original release with no actual new information, this is the textbook definition of a major delay.

@Jeronan Nintendo allow separate SKUs for international/Japanese builds, it's very clear AdHoc just didn't avail of the option. Nintendo's policies is very clearly not "you can only have 1 worldwide build", by simple virtue of the fact Cyberpunk and Resident Evil exist on Switch.

In all seriousness, AdHoc did not communicate the censorship until the console release, which quite honestly is where a lot of the issues are stemming from, because even in the scenario where it's 100% Nintendo's fault for the game needing to be censored, AdHoc still did not communicate this issue until the game release, despite knowing for weeks in advance, and being active on social media (so thsir "we put it in the eShop description" argument falls flat, especially when they messed that up entirely), so it's still scummy behaviour in the best case scenario

@Dang_69 "i don't see what point you're trying to make" yet you're having the biggest crashout in this comment section because you're almost deliberately ignoring the obvious. The point is, AdHoc are admitting they weren't aware that there was an option for submitting 2 SKUs for review (one that exclusively is for the Japanese region - like CDPR and others have done - and one for international release), which itself is contradicting their PS5 releases (which had 2 separate SKUs, and thus makes it clear that they are aware that a censored build could be published separately to an uncensored build). Blaming Nintendo for this when in every other scenario they've allowed similar content (heck, the only time a worldwide build was rejected was - ironically - the worldwide release of Neptunia, which was cancelled for not following guidelines in Europe and USA but not Japan who released it as is) is just dumb, and pushing this narrative so severly just shows a lack of care and understanding. This is clearly more the fault of AdHoc than Nintendo.

@Dang_69 one thing that has been made clear throughout this is that this is clearly not Nintendo’s fault, the fact the version on the eShop is identical to the PS5 Japanese version shows that it’s a deliberate build, the fact that there exists multiple builds in the first places shows AdHoc were capable, and their ownstatements imply they messed up. This is AdHoc’s fault, not Nintendo’s

@JohnnyMind anyone can cherry-pick specific words and take them out of context to make their point seem valid, that doesnt make it correct. By the same statement AdHoc made (the rest of which actually deconfirms your little theory), they were not fully aware of the actual restrictions and ability to upload separate builds on platforms (which itself is a lie, because they did it on PS5). Them quoting a line from Nintendo (which again was just a generic line that any platform holder says with regards to content) is not proof at all that the original build was rejected for international telease; the existence of only 1 build at all (as confirmed by hackers who downloaded both a Japanese and non-JPN version and found they were the same) very much implies they only ever worked on the one, which again would make the original build subject to all age-restriction requirements for all regions it released in. If AdHoc are even admitting that they're working with Nintendo to release an uncensored version for affected regions, then your entire claim is illogical; a company that would force these claims and be the sole reason they happened would also not be likely to acquiese and allow content it previously "banned" in, unless it was eligible in the first place. The CERO claim that has been made has more logic and weight behind it then the opposing side (which uses an indie game that later admitted it submitted incorrectly, and Neptunia - which quite frankly was only ever accepted in Japan in the first place), and regardless of anything it is 100% to claim AdHoc took no effort to communicate the issue prior to release, and if they were inexperienced enough to mess up their eShop description to display that fact, then they were certainly capable of messing everything else up.

@JohnnyMind Nintendo's statement really only says that the game's content must match the age rating of the regions they're releasing. Dispatch (western) does not match CERO's rating, so AdHoc made a compliant version, then instead of releasing 2 builds for certification (an international uncensored and a Japa use censored version), they only ever released the 2nd version for all markets. Most other releases that are being compared (Witcher 3, Cyberpunk etc.) do have separate builds for the regions, so we know that that would have been accepted as fact, and the content in Dispatch is nowhere near as graphic as some of that. This is not Nintendo having a ridiculous guideline, this is a dev who misconstrued their words and failed to do things correctly. Starting a flame war over it is unnecessary, so I dont see the logic in your comment.

@Vyacheslav333 the game could come out in 2033 and would still have less development time than Victory Road, we're 14 days into the general release year of DECAPOLICE there's no logic in fearmongering over its release date.

@darylb24 most of the DLC content was supposed to be part of the base game, and at the very least was assumed standard by virtue of the fact the game was originally supposed to be Ares content exclusively.

@Polley001 instructions do it correctly, the only reason it was noticed was the influx of people posting completed builds after Christmas. It's a complete non-story.

Knowing Square and their realistic expectations, they're not.

@dskatter what's worse than someone making as bad as comment as "that's stupid" is someone like you barging into a comment section and screaming about "people are never happy". Wanting 60fps is as valid a reason for some as yours is for being OK with it (personally I'd have accepted a graphics toggle like the docked mode), but then blowing up with "the original devs tried hard" when it wasn't even them who did the port is just uninformed brigading, which is not needed anywhere.

@Olliemar28 the complaint is fair, this is a teaser trailer from a company that just came into existence a few months ago, with no expectation of a release within the next year (or two, or even 3). There's no point in drumming up hype this early for this, and quite honestly a game this early in development needs no article speculating if it'll be on specific platforms. You're as guilty of the issue as anyone else.

@TheExile285 you really shouldn't be, it's a 14 year old game that pushed out a lazy compatibility update that barely takes advantage of the new hardware, so they can claim they're supporting the platform. The best this does is vaguely give hope they'll similarly update DOOM and Wolfenstein in the same vein.

@Spider-Kev love how we've gotten to a point where wanting devs to optimise file sizes to actually be manageable is an unrealistic expectation.

@Solid_Python hand-waving away the remake/non-mainline appearances as "well, I don't count it" is missing the point exactly. He hasn't appeared in 2 mainline games released in the last 14 years, but he has appeared in the vast majority of the other projects, and the fact it's a rethread just adds to that issue. It's a first appearance in 3 years, not 14 (as well as appearing in 3 of the previous 5 RE games as of Requiem). The gap is also irrelevant in making the claim: he's a poster child for the franchise. It's just basic overexposure.

@Solid_Python remakes do count when you're talking about bringing a character back multiple times, there's no impact in his appearance when the major reason he was expected to come back is just that he's popular. It's a fair comment to make.

@SuperEndriu a physical copy at this point would be worthless, they're still missing a large amount of content (Chronicle Mode is still missing 3 seasons of content)

@TerribleTerabytes the vast majority of Shovel Knight sales came when the base price was $15 (it only went up after the 2nd expansion), they've released nothing of their own development that isn't Shovel Knight, and are now resting the fate of their company on a new IP that's been twice delayed and where they're already 20000 copies in deep.

On one hand, this is a drastic issue that should be taken seriously, on the other hand this is a company that has released 1 game in 10 years (the Shovel Knight DLCs dont count, even when they were released as standalone) and is relying on a twice-delayed game in a niche style to save it, when even 100k sales is a decent achievement (although somehow the company has $2.5 million per-year deficit without any new content), and the only thing announced for after is another Shovel Knight game (a remake), this does feel self-inflicted.

Surprised to see not a single note or point on the dialogue, which is genuinely obnoxious and takes away from the experience the "chilled out" gameplay would imply is a constant, most made famous by the Vinesauce clip where a certain line of dialogue made him instantly pause the game and turn down the voice volume in settings (https://www.reddit.com/r/Vinesauce/comments/154ebm4/vinny_promptly_reacts_to_the_viewfinder_dialogue/). What's more aggregious is that this is completely optional - the vast majority comes from an external NPC you never meet.

@Olliemar28 don't think Nintendo Life journalists should be criticising anything else for being "bland", that's a "pot-calling-kettle-black" moment right there.

@Dom_31 "barely advdrtise" yet getting top 5 (behind Pokémon, ario Kart and 2 soccer games), on top of being a Warriors title (which aren't usually popular) is actually very good

@IceCatraz The most that was said at that was the delivery of the second half of the DLC (the first being the outfits) would be provided by February 28th, and the fact it coincided with Pokémon Day led people to assume it was deliberate, when in reality all it was saying was "the first bit is a pre-order bonus, and the actual DLC isn't coming for a few months".

This is a very dumb reason for delaying it 2 times, it's a nice sentiment but a minor delay to a physical release isn't that great a justification (especially when the issue is just "we missed something the first time we delayed it")

@SillyG I think you should read and follow your own comment, seems much more applicable to yourself than anyone else. You're the only one making comments about "not playing because of blasphemy", which is not exactly a rational argument.

@SillyG "I don't like how this game containing fictional characters insults the fictional characters I personally like" is the gist of this rambling, I take it?

@TensuraFan7 official announcement says the patch is also coming to other platforms same day

@canaryfarmer there isn't a Switch 2 version, it just plays better on the Switch 2

@Orpheus79V vaguely saying "2 weeks ago" isn't really evidence enough, for all we know SEGA informed them to "ask Johnny" prior to the judgement, and it then took them until then to ask him directly, which would cover both scenarios. In reality, based on the wording of the judgement, Johnny doesn't have a claim anymore (accepting there was no breach of contract means that SEGA's use of the song - and licensing of it - without direct permission from or compensation for Johnny and Crush 40 was and is completely in their rights). As well as this, the wording doesn't seem to match a willingness from Crush 40; Johnny still believes the songs are solely his (even in spite of this ruling), so would likely not enter an agreement with SEGA that doesn't guarantee full ownership for future collaborations (not wanting to be burned twice), which would not seem attractive to SEGA (being that they have no reason to want a different deal).

@sixrings the lesson would be “charge the upgrade for free, but monetise every update that’s been put in since release”.

@norwichred becuase you watched the US version of the stream (which is the most popular channel), the other regional streams didnt have that warning.

To be fair to Team Cherry, a similar conversation already happened when they were charging (and maintaining) $15/€15 for the original Hollow Knight (even after 3 DLC releases) 7 years ago.

@iLikeUrAttitude except the read speed of a Switch 2 cartridge is 400 MB/s, which is 4 times faster than the Steam Deck running via Micro SD (where it is Steam Deck verified). This is just an illogical statement, coming from a company that didn't optimise the original release to begin with (when it was on PC and PS5) claiming that somehow the Switch is to blame.

"Confirmed" would be more accurate, they had already announced in the Kickstarter that the Switch stretch goal also applied to Switch 2 (or whatever it was going to be called).

@JohnnyMind don't see the logic in completely false speculation, everything you say after the dash is just a bad read. Looks more like a future update for the Switch 1 version will let it run better when played on Switch 2, not that a future version will make it a theoretical third-version of the game.

@Anti-Matter punishing the Pokémon game for using gameplay styles that have been implemented for 25+ years is an interesting reason to denounce a game. "The Pokémon game that is just standard battling only has standard battling" isn't that good an argument.

@Vyacheslav333 we're barely past 2 arcs since the last PW game, and the past 2 have had to do game-original versions of their most recent arc (Dressrosa and Wano respectively), and both were the weakest part of their games (just ended up being a "everyone is here" rush).

Shame on the article writer for putting controversy in quotation marks (usually denoting sarcasm), this was an actual issue that the company spent days denying, threatening to silence anyone who complained, and banning customers who asked for refunds from ever being allowed to buy from Dbrand again (even when they publically admitted fault, they still haven't reversed that part). For a sight that seems to take everything shat out of the mouths of former Nintendo employees (or known leak grifters) at face value, this part seems to have been conveniently never been report.

This doesn't even deserve an article, he has no proof beyond "trust me". This is giving way too much credit, and the "evidence" of facts in the past is getting one specific date right (even then claiming it was way more than what it ended up being) and a very generic "more games will come to the Switch 2" statement. I think a lot of people would prefer if NL stop giving attention to very broad statements by people with as much insight and knowledge of the subject as the readers of their articles.

@ParrakerriRush stop with the basic ragebait, we all know exactly why a Pokémon game would get bundled over less popular franchises.