Discostew

I've had one issue in the past with a LAN adapter. At one time, it just stopped working, but just before I contacted Nintendo thinking it was a Switch/dock issue, it started working again, and worked ever since. I really wish that Nyko dock had an ethernet port on it. That would have been a no-brainer to get, and that is small enough to put into a carry case.

@Nincompoop A triple-A game is nothing more than a game with a higher budget. It doesn't say anything about the quality.

Outside of a little bit of audio differences, the two games I hear that seem to have changes off the top of my head are Contra 3 with the bomb effect and Yoshi's Island in the Fuzzy levels where when you touch one, the background disappears for a second.

If this is due to altered ROMs in the classic, could the original ROMs replace them for the more authentic feel?

It's interesting how it was done graphically. You may see parallax background scrolling of multiple layers, but there's only one actual background layer since the NES only supports one layer. The actual layer is only ever updated once, and that's at level start. It just repeats the same sequence over and over with changing those good/bad icons you collect. For the part that looks like it's part of a separate layer, that's simply updating a small collection of background tiles each frame that the layer references. You can tell at around time index 2:04 where 3 tile entries corrupt with the wrong color palette and it just repeats itself.

The only other game to make use of this graphical trick that I can recall is Sword Master.

@MegaTen 28.4GB installed, or 28.4GB space needed before downloading is allowed? Typically, space is needed temporarily as it downloads so it can then install.

Anyways, I'm recalling Rime, where for such a small-sized game, it still tacked on an extra $10 for the Switch version. It was also found out that Tantalus was responsible for the port, not the original team. Makes me wonder if this "outsourcing" is what's causing the Switch versions to tack on extra cost rather than the cartridges.

@BlueOcean @electrolite77 Not suggesting a 32GB cart is priced just like a 50GB Bluray. There is certainly a extra cost because of how it is manufactured, but this idea that it's over $20 per cart for devs is ludicrous. Even $10 more is just not likely.

@electrolite77 Which wouldn't be any different from PS4/XB1 physical games.

One thing to bring into this discussion is Rime. A game that is just over 4GB installed on PS4, yet it's to be $10 more for the Switch version assuming it uses an 8GB cart, which I think is the standard for Switch cart sizes (so any less may actually cost more). What we know about Rime is that the devs who made it are not the ones porting it over. Tantalus is. That's where I think the extra cost is coming from, to pay them because it was a last-minute decision to bring them on board.

What if Rockstar, for instance, is not the one porting over L.A. Noire to Switch?

"In industry circles, it is said that these cards actually cost more than $20 per cart to the publisher."

I honestly don't believe this, even if that was limited to the 32GB Switch carts. How much does a 32GB microSD cost? Let's take a look at the Samsung EVO 32GB U1 card with adapter. That's currently $13 on Amazon. It features 95MB/s read, 20MB/s write. That 95MB/s read speed is already far faster than what the Switch carts offer (when comparing physical and digital game load times). That 20MB/s write speed? Doesn't matter, because Switch carts are read-only. That's a thing to note. This is a comparison of rewritable flash media vs write-once flash media.

So, $13 on Amazon, where Amazon has already bought in bulk for a cheaper price per unit as a means to make some profit via retail markup. How much of a discount? I don't know, but let's assume they bought each one for $10 after bulk discount. That's already half as much as is estimated from "industry circles" regarding Switch cart prices that are not only slower, but are also read-only.

I wouldn't be surprised if 32GB Switch carts were no more than $5.

@Elanczewski SE is indeed giving a lot of support to the Switch (far more than the Wii U ever got), which is why I find it odd that the SoM remake isn't coming to it and the collection isn't localized. One can't expect everything of course, but I just don't see the logic behind this decision when Switch is truly perfect for it.

@Elanczewski I would say though that if the SD collection was localized, this wouldn't be as much of a problem. I had waited for SoM to come to Wii U's NA VC (among other VC from SE), but it never came. Now while I can technically get it on Switch as well as the other two games, I don't know Japanese to be able to follow along.

@AirElephant Sony sold back their shares though.

@BinaryFragger The Bayonetta 2 situation is completely different from this remake situation. Both Sony and MS didn't want to fork any support to get Bayonetta 2 on its feet, and their fanbases plugged their ears regarding it. Instead, the fanbases blamed Nintendo for taking it away when Nintendo is the one that saved it from extinction. To say it is similar is like trying to say that SE didn't have the means to fund the remake, and Sony footed the bill. We all know that is not the case.

Think Sony is afraid about Switch's potential, including having 2 controllers for instant local play that would make this remake an instant buy for many. It is also a very Japanese game, which Nintendo is really Sony's only competition in. There's really nothing besides Sony that would prevent this game from coming to Switch, especially if Vita is getting it.

I still think it's Sony that caused Switch to not get MHW since that too is a very Japanese game.

The Pocket version is so below what the Switch is capable of. Honestly, a game like XCX on Wii U is pulling more than this, and Wii U is far below what Switch can do. If they are able to change the entire game's visuals like what the Pocket version does, then I see no reason why they can't simply do a little bit of downgrading of the original to run on Switch. In fact, why not downgrade from the PC port that supposedly is optimized for Nvidia GPUs with GameWorks?

Seriously, just bring the NES/SNES collections to the Switch.

HMDI, eh?

@Ryu_Niiyama I hope so. I've got 80 gold coins that are going to expire by the end of the month, and there's really nothing that interests me for the NA site.

Castle Rock has problems when playing docked. Hopefully this is fixed when it goes retail.

Is this going to be another case where if it doesn't sell well when released on Switch, they'll back out of making more Switch games? Because this is self-sabotage when everyone will buy it elsewhere because they can't buy it on Switch at the same time. The only reason why the Switch version could possibly sell well with this scenario is because of portability, but I honestly hate how Nintendo's platforms are becoming afterthoughts. Rayman Legends was one of the first to push Nintendo off to the side by forcing Wii U owners to wait for a completed game half a year later in order to appease other platform owners, yet Nintendo platform owners don't get that same benefit. It's generally "after" other platforms get them.

He made it sound like Iwata dishonored the company for being unable to make it successful with the Wii U, therefore, to regain that honor, he took on Japanese tradition and committed sudoku.

Doesn't look like "console-quality graphics" based on those screens, unless that's from the mobile version, and that they plan to up the ante with the Switch version.

@westman98 CoD on Wii U sold poorly because it was basically similarly powered hardware to what existed for a good 7 years prior, with nothing that made it stand out, when the install base on the other platforms was incredibly large. Chances were, a person who got a Wii U likely had a PS3 or 360 or PC.

What Switch has is its portability, which is a major attraction to both consumers and developers. And even if it isn't as strong as PS4/XB1, it never stopped developers before. Even CoD got ported to Wii when PS3/360 got it too, and that system had a much larger gap in power than Switch does.

It's really a lose-lose situation Nintendo has on their hands as a 1st-party, simply because various 3rd-parties tend to not want to compete with Nintendo on their own platform. A lot of people say specs are the reason, yet specs didn't stop the Wii from getting numerous 3rd-party games, including CoD, and Switch has a far smaller power gap. Numerous times, Nintendo has given 3rd-parties the spotlight, but they chose to ignore it because they don't want to take risks. They want Nintendo to build the platform up for them. Yet, when Nintendo does build it up, the 3rd-parties still ignore it because the platform is popular because of Nintendo, and they don't want to have to compete with the 1st-party developer on their platform.

Basically, 3rd-parties want Nintendo to somehow have a good-selling platform that isn't driven by Nintendo's own software so the 3rd-parties can swoop in and make some sales from simply being there.....

I buy 3rd-party games on Nintendo platforms, but I don't buy ports that are crappy, late, or otherwise a sign of sabotage for no reason other than because the devs didn't care.

A 6/10 game is considered an honorable mention? I guess anything else was rated less than those mentioned

@SLIGEACH_EIRE It's not suddenly fine now. It's been fine for over a decade. That's the thing about retro games. It doesn't matter.

Nice, but, what does this market cap actually do for Nintendo? Does it help with production? Improve development?

For folks wonder if this is just vanilla with all the DLC, or the remaster....

http://i.imgur.com/uz7OBZi.png

Vegetation more dense, sun reflection in water more scattered (as an indication of using the newer water shader), overall color shading, etc. Texture quality may not be as high as on PS4/XB1/PC, but this other stuff, plus evidence of things like godrays in the initial Skyrim for Switch reveal point towards it being based on the Remastered version.

@Lewieboy124 Vgchartz, and though you may laugh at that, it's been almost 2 years since the 1st collection released, so their numbers are probably close enough to the actual (vs numbers based on just a few weeks after a game's launch).

And why would folks buy on Switch if they bought the 1st collection on 3DS? Well, for one, a different console (that's also portable). Two, it would seem that having the game again isn't exactly a problem for many, since on the 3DS, owners had access to all of the first 6 Mega Man games via VC, while the 1st legacy collection sold the most on it. Third is likely because the 3DS cannot really handle the 2nd Legacy collection, as it's not made up of NES games (not even 9 and 10 are NES games).

@Lewieboy124 We're talking about a collection here. You're making no sense with bringing up SFV with a different context. And I've already explained a reason why the DAC probably won't come to Switch.

As it is, the first Legacy collection sold the best on.....you guessed it, a Nintendo platform.

@AlternateButtons It's also for XB1 and Steam.

But like I mentioned before, it would be rather silly to release the 2nd Legacy set on Switch without having the first, so why not just bundle them together into one?

It sucks, but, there might be some reasoning for it. With the Disney Afternoon Collection, that isn't purely Capcom. If Disney doesn't want it on Switch, then Capcom can't do anything about it. With MM Legacy 2 not coming to Switch, it's sorta understandable, since Switch does not have the 1st Legacy collection. With that, perhaps the reason why is because of a possible Ultimate Legacy collection, where instead of only having the 2nd of a 2 set, it'll be both sets combined.

Seems he kept with the limitation of 2 square waves (pulse generators), 1 triangle wave (bass), and a noise generator. There is a 5th channel on NES that is a DMC (Delta modulation channel) that handles a 1-bit stream to control a 7-bit PCM counter. SMB3 uses that channel to make the drum sounds, or Double Dribble's announcer at game start.

Wait....did you seriously try to say the tablet is only $115 by subtracting the accessories at their individual prices? That's not how it works at all. If anything, the pricing of one Joycon vs two should give you an indication of how such "bundles" work ($50 for one, $80 for two).

"I can even poke the walrus!"

Ugh, I keep hearing folks say Nintendo doesn't know how to emulate the SuperFX chip, hence why games using them are never part of VC. That's not true at all. The problem is the licensing of it, because Nintendo not only didn't make nor own it, but the folks who own it now don't care to work with Nintendo.

A place where nobody dared to go
The love that we came to know
They call it Xanadu
And now, open your eyes and see what we have made is real
We are in Xanadu

A million lights are dancing and you are, a shooting star
An everlasting world and you're here with me, eternally

Xanadu, Xanadu
(Now we are here) in Xanadu

@gatorboi352 Got a source for that 15 months?

@gatorboi352 I'm not suggesting that Fast RMX is the best the Switch can provide. I'm simply doing a comparison from Wii U to Switch with the same game, and that particular game is making a jump by 4.5x the pixels. It may be a racer, but it still pushed the Wii U to its limits with effects and tricks practically not seen in Wii U games, and by comparison and statements by Shin'en, the Switch version is not pushing the limits. It was also a a port of a game that was already completed long before, giving the dev team a chance to focus completely on the port.

BotW on Switch was not like that, but in fact was requested late in development and expected at the Switch's launch, so there was no means to really focus on that version like Shin'en could with Fast RMX. It got patches that improved frame rate already. Seriously, when Switch's BotW was shown to run smoother in portable mode at 720p than in docked mode at 900p when portable mode has to underclock the hardware, you know there's more to it than system power that's causing the issues.

@gatorboi352 I'm pretty sure Fast RMX demonstrated how much more the Switch could do, going from 640x720 @ 60fps (with drops), to a full 1080p @ 60fps on Switch. That's 4.5x the pixel count, and the only reason why single-player mode even drops in resolution is due to a flaw in the firmware that's eating up GPU resources (mentioned by Shin'en). This doesn't take into account that it's a Wii U port (much like MK8D) where they are still limited by the structure that Wii U utilized, and that a full-on Switch game would better utilize the resources.

Um, starting with the Mute City track in the video, the Wii U version looks like it was dropped to 30fps, which for many may create a false impression in thinking that Switch is improving a lot more over what Wii U does for this game when graphically, the only real different is going from 720p to 1080p (which YT videos seem to not do justice with).

The battery in the Switch takes up a major chunk of the space, and because battery tech really hasn't advanced much, I find it unlikely that a Switch mini will happen that can do everything the Switch can. There was news about glass-based battery tech that provided roughly 3x the charge that Li-ion batteries provide, and takes just minutes to charge fully, but that's still a long ways off.

If anything, a non-portable Switch could happen, where it becomes a mini console simply because of taking out the screen and battery.

So....when are they going to bring back full games via Gold and Platinum coins? Hell, buying physical Switch games is already an issue because of how little Gold coins they give compared to digital.

I pre-ordered my copy for $24 on Amazon (-$12 for pre-order with Prime, -$24 for trading my Wii U copy to them).

@NEStalgia Devs don't generally make such drastic changes to a game on a platform because it could be physic or digital.

@NEStalgia My theory is duplicated data. They certainly had the space on a Wii U disc to do that if with all unique data would tally to 7.1GB. Duplicated data for a disc is beneficial because they could set up long load sessions (like the city) in such a way where the disc would practically stream from one point to another. Wii U's disc drive could only handle about 21MB/s when actually reading, but that doesn't take into account access time. Read jumps to different data points causes an access time delay, and discs are very bad with that because the read head has to physically adjust to wherever the next point is. It's probably "the" reason Sony and MS went with mandatory installs to HDDs. So, to duplicate data so it streams instead of jumping around, it reduced load times. If they kept it at 7.1GB on Wii U and made the read head jump around, you'd probably end up with double the load time.

With Switch and the flash medium with internal storage, microSD or carts, access time isn't an issue. Plus the flash medium is already faster than Wii U's disc drive read speed, so overall faster load times.

Just to note, for what differences the game on Switch has from the Wii U version (for better or for worse), it is also close to 1/3 in game size by comparison, which is good for anyone who wants to go digital.

@Amsterdamsters What about face texture shadow casting and mouth texture Z-fighting? Are those present after the update?

There's a few spots where the Switch uses lower-res textures, but I think the majority of them are either the same resolution, or higher. It is a bit dark in numerous areas

One thing that's really giving me issues is on Switch, the mouth textures are producing some Z-fighting amongst themselves. Look at face close-ups. You'll see it in the first cutscene with Honey. There is also unusual shadow casting from face textures, something not done on the Wii U.

Overall, the Switch version is better, but has various issues that put me off from getting it at the current MSRP (or even Prime discount).

Some folks are saying the game runs at 1080p @ 30fps in docked mode, which is a nice enough boost from Wii U's 720p @ 30fps. In portable mode, it's also 720p @ 30fps.

@gatorboi352 True that. It shows it's capable of more than that.

@gatorboi352 I hope you're sitting down, because Fast RMX on Switch is pushing 4.5x the number of pixels that FRN on Wii U was doing, and that game on the U was stressing the hardware.