Dodger

Seriously though, Mii Swordfighter is fun in this one. The chakras are a really great projectile, and gale force combos into up air or hero spin for kos, plus he's got a counter or reflect move. Also, forward air can really mess up heavy characters. I main Pokemon Trainer so far (specifically the one in
awful mustard yellow sweatpants so that my green squirtle looks like a koopa from Mario), but Mii Swordfighter is my second at the moment. Mii Brawler is fun too - really easy to KO, but fast with good KO options. Much better than Smash 4, at least. Mii Gunner is...Samus and Falco combined? At least he doesn't have Samus's super weird dodge roll. I'd like it better if the miis had some of their absurd personality from the 3DS games (Streetpass, Tomodachi Life, Miitopia, etc) since they kind of became characters in themselves beyond fitness obsessed island dwellers, but I'll take this too.

Given that the miis are actually good this time around and can be played online, these might have a point.

Live action cartoon movies are pretty much always formulaic, uncreative, focus group written movies about a loser guy who is taught to not take himself too seriously by bonding with the cartoon character. Live action animation doesn't have to be bad, but by the numbers studio written movies do. I'm leaving a little possiblity open for Detective Pikachu to be different because I know the work of its writers (Gravity Falls and GotG, last I checked), to be good, but I'm not betting the farm on it, especially since it hasn't escaped the other law of live action cartoon movies, "Thou shalt make all cartoon elements look uncanny and freaky"

Not unless I can also use them with other platformers. It sounds like unofficially sometimes yes, but not reliably. I don't hate NES content, but I already have any NES game I want to play on systems with dpads.

Has just telling an angry person to relax ever worked? I'd be shocked if I found one husband for whom saying "it's okay" or "relax" did anything except have the opposite effect.

As far as I can tell, Nintendo is charging me to host the same old laggy servers for Smash Bros on my own Switch with my own internet that I was before I had to pay for it, but I'll give them my lunch money anyway because I want to play Mario Kart and Smash Bros online with my family.

Remember "tournament" doesn't just mean EVO or prize money. It can mean student clubs at colleges and local groups. I can see why a tournament unlocked option would be helpful if I was doing say, a smash tournament charity event at my college.

If there are Smash Bros. fans who tell people they shouldn't play with items or shouldn't play low tier characters, 1, they're stupid, and 2, that's not usually the best players in the Smash 4 scene. Most of those have fun playing lots of different characters for fun and practice. And there are a lot of competitive players who main or second a lower tier character with good matchups or who can do things people aren't expecting. Besides, most I've seen tell their fans that tier lists don't matter for 99 percent of players and that they should play who they want. There's a decent article on SmashWiki on what tier lists are supposed to communicate and why they exist that would be good reading for fighting game fans.

Fandoms are universally awful though, and are to be avoided. Somehow, building communities exclusively around a piece of entertainment convinces people that the entertainment is more important than it really is and that hurting other people over their opinions about it is okay.

Also, esports are kind of silly. So are many enjoyable human activities. We're too afraid of silly sometimes. Silly doesn't mean bad, and laughing at oneself isn't bad either.

@Reploid Sports filled a role in American culture during the urbanization of the early 20th century. A shared experience in developing cities where community wasn't a given. Something to make small talk about. That's actually important. They're kind of silly, but they're important to people, partially because they unite people. I think that's part of why they've taken on a patriotic identity, even though it's kind of silly to sing about a battle in the War of 1812 before we watch millionaires swing a stick. Nobody even knows about the War of 1812. I probably know more about it as an undergraduate history major than 95 percent of the country. But we like to sing about it. There's nothing wrong with silly, but we don't have to have a rational reason for why we do emotional things.

Esports have never had to fill the same function of providing a shared experience between dissimilar people who have to be neighbors. It's not surprising that we don't think of them patriotically. I think of them more in the same way I think of chess. Neither are watched communally, but people who know the game find competitions interesting. They take fast thinking and sometimes reflexes. I enjoy them because watching a good competition is fun, not because of where I'm from. I like sports because I'm a member of a community that likes sports; I like certain esports because I'm an individual who finds certain things interesting regardless of whether anyone else does. And things that I like because I'm an individual rarely incite community or patriotic feelings.

I'm looking forward to playing Ultimate and to following tourneys more than I was. After I graduate, might even compete in some locals.

To everyone saying tourneys should play with items on: you don't really want that. It's not (or at least not just) elitism. Items work for fun play with friends and family. Nothing wrong with them. They're fun for 90 percent of players. But in professional or high level play final smashes and items encourage camping and exploiting items for gamebreaking combos. It wouldn't be the kind of fun chaos management that it is for 90 percent of players. It would give a huge advantage to characters who can camp until items spawn, and the items themselves would make for cheap combos. It wouldn't be satisfying to see a game won by say, Jigglypuff running away, then using a down throw bob-omb combo or hitting people into a thrown baseball bat or similar shenanigans. Even the banana, a relatively weak item, has proven to be a core reason why Diddy Kong is so good - he's got a projectile item that induces tripping and good combo options to follow up with and to force people into the banana with. In short, items on or final smash on play by the best players would be slow and boring and unsatisfying, and strategy would become based around exploiting the most unbalanced and random aspects of the game. I think the extreme unpopularity of Hungrybox's Jigglypuff in Melee and of Bayonetta's broken combos in Smash 4 prove the audience doesn't like slow, campy gameplay or reliable 0-death combos, and that's what items and final smashes would encourage.

Best capture was the giant steak. It's all downhill from here for the Mario series, unless they make a whole game with the giant steak capture.

I would probably play it, but with the volume off. Xenoblade Chronicles had obnoxious noises from characters who are constantly shouting the same lines and a great soundtrack you can't hear under all the shouting. X has that and a soundtrack that is 90 percent obnoxious and 10 percent amazing. It's like they played Sonic Adventure 2 and thought its soundtrack was actually cool. Or that they thought the soundtrack should be people constantly talking too since you can't hear it under the constant talking anyways.

But the gameplay and story are cool in both. Xenoblade games, that is. Not Sonic Adventure. That has the Chao garden and a few fun Sonic levels. I do love a good Xenoblade boss fight.

Looks like Deemo, which is fun, but TBH I listen to the (often pretty dang good) soundtrack more than I play the game. I already have been learning to play trumpet for a few years as a hobby, and I'm better off putting time into that.

I admit, I moved to playing items only because I mostly played Smash 4 on the 3DS. You couldn't turn down item intensity, and it was no fun when an item falls every 15-30 seconds. The Smash moveset is complicated enough to be fun without items, and the items are only fun when they're an occurrence, not the norm.

It's like Mario Kart. It's more fun with balanced items than without items, but it's more fun without items than with Mario Kart Wii style items where you always will be hit by 3-5 undodgable powerups in the final lap in single player or multiplayer. You want one or two blue shells or lightning bolts a race, not one or two a lap.

As far as the popularity of Mother 3 and Earthbound, I think you almost have to look at them in the lens of art history. Both games, but especially Mother 3, have legitimate commentary on Western society, and both balanced that with a memorable sense of humor. The games and the Starman.net community that sprung up around them have influenced a lot of other game designers and other artists, and the influence of the game can be seen in some experimental games and some experimental stories, some of the most noteworthy being Homestuck and Undertale. Earthbound and Mother 3 aren't groundbreaking in their mechanics, but they were doing something that others weren't in terms of humor, commentary, and narrative themes, and a lot of people paid attention.

At first, I thought "pirates of the hand-dagger? I would expect most pirates to use daggers - not sure why that would make any particular group of pirates special..." But then I remembered that, while that's what the word means in ancient Greek historical works (where it literally translates as "small handheld thing"), it later was used to refer to small books summarizing philosophical or theological systems, usually Stoic or Christian, implying that the basics of the faith should be kept close at all times as a method of defense like a dagger. I know nothing about the plot, but I suspect that either they have a dagger or they follow a series of philosophical teachings.

I would buy a game where Ooo is flooded and the main characters respond by becoming stoics though. "I got a game over again. This is the will of the universe, and it is good"

With how easy to edit IMDB is, that's not a reliable piece of evidence to build a narrative with. Whether it's a good piece of evidence doesn't matter though, because an article that implies a new Smash Bros character leak will get a lot of views and comments regardless of whether the rumor has any merit or evidence - more than a well-written article with good evidence. After all, it got me to click and comment. You win.

I can understand why an investor might not be excited based on what was shown. If I'm an investor, I'm reading general reaction to the presentation and wanting to see a solid set of games people are excited about over the short term and long term. Exclusively focusing on the next 6 months isn't necessarily a good way to excite people. That strategy meant that most of the presentation was devoted to DLC, previously announced games, and games that have already been released on other platforms. Fortnite, Fighterz, and Hollow Knight are good games, but I can play those without a Switch, so not super exciting. If I own Splatoon, and I do, then more levels are great, but I'm not rushing to buy a Switch because I can play new levels as an octopus. Now Smash Bros is an exciting game and a system seller. A lot of people would plop down $500 for a system, controllers, and a good Smash Bros. game. That seems to have been about it for most people, and it's fair for investors to pay attention to whether there are exciting system selling games being made.

Long story short, I'm not sure it's entirely unjustified to look at a lineup mainly consisting of a Pokémon spinoff, a Mario spinoff, Smash Bros, and a Fire Emblem game and say, "that's cool, but not so exciting that I don't want to know about the long term." If you really want to sell a line like "our policy is to talk only about the next 6 months," you need a really exciting lineup in the next 6 months. If you don't, and all companies have times where they don't, since exciting games take time to make, it actually kind of makes sense to maintain excitement by keeping people in the loop on long term plans so they don't suspect the worst, that you have nothing planned at all. I don't think it would have been stupid to streamline the Smash presentation, cut out the bit about Olimar's helmet animation, and spend the extra 10-15 minutes ending their presentation with a good old fashion trailer talking about the longer term picture, whatever that is. Then Mr. Average Video Gamer can say "I can play Smash on my Switch this Christmas, and then I can play Pokémon next year, and then I can play Metroid the year after that! Awesome!" That's a good feeling for your audience to have if you're a video game publisher. A lot of people didn't seem to have that feeling. So of course an investor is going to pay attention to that.

Note that I'm not saying Nintendo should have more games to release in the next 6 months or that they should be making *insert game here, although it isn't good if your audience is walking away from your big presentation saying that. I'm saying I think their advertising strategy was ineffective and investors and gamers are somewhat justified in their confusion. I could write a 10 page essay on why the Smash presentation was ineffective advertising and how it could have communicated better, but I'll spare you.

Super Mario Odyssey, the Next Penelope, is a good year for classicist gamers.

People are always saying to ignore the number and focus on the content of the review, which if we are taking video games seriously, is not a bad idea. So let's do that.

The thesis of this review is simple enough to summarize: "Pokémon Ultra Sun and Ultra Moon are good games. " The argument is essentially this: "Most things are the same, but it isn't an identical retread because the games have totem stickers, mantine riding ports, plot changes, a battle agency, and nostalgic battles. This content is enough to be worth purchasing and playing the remake." Now, I don't think many people are finding that argument convincing. It is a highly subjective argument, as you either find that new content to be sufficient, or you don't. Many don't. But the problem with this article is that the author never addresses counterarguments while dealing with a controversial title. Do UltraSun and UltraMoon address common complaints of the first games, namely their linearity, their dialogue-heaviness, and their lag? The review doesn't address that. Is the game worth it for repeat players? Not sufficiently addressed. Is there a single design choice the reviewer disagreed with? Apparently not.

It isn't simply about reviews being subjective; I believe that many readers found Mr. Craddock's rhetoric to be unconvincing because it did not address issues that needed to be addressed in order for his audience to be persuaded. Both Sun and Moon and Ultra Sun and Moon have been divisive titles among esteemed Professors of Pokémon, so people do have their concerns.

An argument something along these lines would likely be more persuasive: "The first games were already high quality, and this game retains the good aspects of those games, which are... Problems with the first games, such as... have been fixed, and the new content, such as..., is extensive and enjoyable, making this the best version for those who have not played the game and a worthwhile purchase for those who have." Still a subjective opinion, but an article along those lines would address people's concerns more effectively.

Alas, probably none this weekend. This week, I have to write a 10 page on how overexpansion contributed to the fall of the Roman Republic, a 5 page on whether or not early Socratic philosophy has a conflict between a necessity to obey authority and a necessity to never wrong anyone, and also to study for two midterms. If I find the time, I want to play me some Earthbound.

I remember playing a farm simulator game as a kid. Not all that much, mind you. Little kid me couldn't figure out how to keep the farmers happy, and my wife would always leave and then my farmer would get depressed and give up. Not even a trampoline would distract them from their marital and financial crisis. Fun times.

Stardew Valley is a lot of fun. I picked it up on PC this summer. It's a Harvest Moon knockoff, so it shouldn't be. But it's everything good about Harvest Moon minus the often downright idiotic design choices, insanely slow pace, uninteresting graphics, terrible frame rate and repeating character cast that plagues most of the Harvest Moon games I've played. There's something to be said for recognizing a good idea in a messy game and doing it right.

Sounds like it might actually have some half decent level design, besides some parts where, like the original Sonic games, they base the level design around stopping and waiting for traps all the time. Glad to hear it.

Making you reply the level if you die is fine. What gets me is when games make you replay an entire world over. If I proved I can beat a level, I don't want to waste my time beating it again and again because a later level is hard. It's significantly more fun to be able to focus on the hard level until I get it then to have to keep replaying previous levels to even get another shot.

Would this have been a single player mode in Mario Kart Wii that doesn't always end by throwing a blue shell, a lightning bolt, and 20 red shells at you as a super combo whenever you're about to win, leaving the player in a Sisyphean struggle to collect unlockables, only to always have a blue shell roll them down the hill again? A single player mode in Mario Kart Wii that doesn't send the player into a state of soul-crushing rage? A single player mode in Mario Kart Wii that allows the player to...have fun? What alternate universe has this hacker peered into?

You're forgetting the crudely drawn imitations of human body parts used for reproduction. Add in some more drug references and curse-laden attacks on individuals disliked by the artist and it'll be just like real life graffiti.

Easy solution. Turn it off in single player modes. Mario Kart Wii was among the most frustrating games I ever played because it hid unlockables behind tests of skillful play, then would screw me over with a blue shell + lightning bolt + red shell combo every single grand prix. When it is just the computer deciding you won't win and there's no human player to compete with, the blue shell is simply infuriating.

Already have Splatoon pre-ordered. Never got to play the original, so looking forward to it.

Oh yeah, I love Sengoku and his friends, Krallen, Cicero, and Veggies. Lizard Sphere Z is such a great show. Do you get to fight Onion Jr. in this game?

The vocal music, the cartoon character in a city of realistically proportioned people... I'm not sure who asked for a Mario game in the style of Sonic Adventure, but I trust Nintendo a lot more than I do Sega.

I'm looking forward to playing the Odyssey, a story in which a man has to go on a journey to prevent another suitor from marrying his girl. It's going to be such a missed opportunity if Mario does not have to fight a cyclops at some point.

This is one where I'd rather wait to let some other people get their HANDS on it first and find out what its supposed hidden depths are for me, because I'm not seeing it yet from the advertising and trailers. I'm not saying they aren't there, but I'm not saying that I'm convinced that they are there either. It could be a lot of fun.

I'm thinking there needs to be a fan petition to get Monster Hunters V through XIX localized for the West. The West is always missing out. First, we don't get Windows 9, and now we miss out on 15 Monster Hunter games? Not fair.

"A conservative universe, no more! Mario and comrades have embraced communism!" "The history of all hitherto existing Mario games is the history of class struggles. Princesses and toads, villains and minions, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to each other, carried on an uninterrupted, now 3D, now 2D fight, a fight that each time ended, either in the rescue of a princess, or in go-kart racing." -Marxio.

A little more seriously, I'm curious to see how they do turn based multiplayer co-op. That is only done so often. Could be fun, but I'm quite skeptical.

No thanks. I hate lag so much that I only stream PC games at faster-than-light speeds using a tachyonic antitelephone. The gameplay footage is shown on the television before I've ever played it, which makes each game an exciting adventure to press all the right buttons to produce the footage I've already seen in order to avoid an unstable paradox. Every time the television turns on, I have an existential crisis, but I always play when fate demands - the risk is too great. Who is deciding to turn the computer on when my future self is only imitating what I saw him do? Do I even have free will? What is reality? What am I? Why am I? Oh well. At least there's no lag.

The Wii U had some really good multiplayer games that a lot of people never got to play because nobody owned Wii U systems. As the Switch is advertising itself as a good multiplayer system, due to always having two controllers, and as these games interested people, but not enough to buy a system, it makes sense to pad out the Switch library with ports. Most people haven't played them.

Smash Bros. 4 would be a great fit for the Switch. Being able to do a two-player match anywhere would be great. All they'd have to do is include all the DLC and call it Super Smash Bros. 4: Complete Edition. It, in particular, wouldn't lose any features from being on the Switch.

I can't help but suspect that this will lead to a worse internet gaming experience. It is likely to lead to a much smaller fraction of Switch owners actually playing online games, making my experience worse if I do play. It also leads to my having to pay $60 for a game that I can't play without extra fees. Off the heels of the Wii U doesn't seem like the time to be adopting airline-like approaches to gaming. $300 for the ticket, $60 for in flight entertainment (or more like to go anywhere with the plane, since there's no pack-in), $70 to control it better, $70 for local multiplayer, and an extra $5 or so afterwards to actually use the system and game you already paid for. Next they'll be charging $25 to have legroom while you play, and $15 to eat snacks while you play Switch. I wouldn't have complained if Nintendo had wanted to be the Southwest of video gaming in an industry of Deltas and American Airlines. Add in the fact that they didn't reveal the cost before preorders opened and that the features included require another accessory to use, and I think people are justifiably aggravated. It's an annoying way to be treated as a customer.

The Switch has a year one library I want to play and a launch lineup that blows the Wii U and 3DS out of the water (they had more titles, but nothing worth buying a system for). But I don't see this as a customer friendly decision at a time where they need those.

Haven't played it before. Might be fun. The game itself looks clever. It also played a major part in the misadvertising of the Wii U in North America. I don't know if this was part of the deal for getting the game as an exclusive, but every Wii U demo station that I ever saw prior to launch and for months after either had no demo or had Raymond Legends. This was the game that they were using to show off the console to the general public. Not Nintendo Land. Not New Super Mario Bros. Wii. By my own personal observation, many people picked up the controller out of curiosity and were confused or not interested in Legends. The game then didn't even make it as a launch title, and then wasn't even a console exclusive, making the decision to make it the only demo even more foolish. So while a platformer that can be played with two people would make sense on the Switch, I'm not rushing to preorder this one.

Link as an unlockable character with double claw shots?

I'm cautious about this one. It looks like a combination of Wii Sports Boxing and something like Pokken (3D arena wit-$70h focus on dodging/blocking). With enough content, that could be fun, but I certainly would want to play a demo first.

This seems like it would be a great game to sell for $60-$70 bundled with another set of joycons, but they won't do that, because Nintendo seems convinced that the Switch hardware is being sold at the minimum price, ignoring once again that making a profit on each system doesn't matter if your install base is minimal. But, that's another subject entirely.

The game looks like it has a lot of really clever ideas. I'm willing to give a new sandbox Mario game a try.

The one thing is that it isn't a good sign when the first 10 seconds of the trailer make me think "Sonic Adventure 3? But the first two weren't really that good..."

I'm waiting for the M rated prequel, Super Mario Iliad. "Sing, O Muse, the wrath of Super Mario"

Finding ways to play Wii U games after the hardware ceases to work or be reasonable to purchase is great and all, since humans die and the things we make decay, but since the article mentions smartphone emulation, this seems like an ideal time and place to start up a heated debate about the morality of digital piracy and whether providing tools to break the law with is the same as using them to break the law. Has that happened on this site before? I can't remember, but I think it's happened once or twice or two hundred times.

I'll start with a well-researched and well-argued essay that nobody can argue against. Piracy = bad. See? There's an equals sign, which means you're dealing with math here, and you can't argue with mathematics because 1+1=1 no matter what you think.

@Anti-Matter Oh, of course. Nintendogs j Cats is the best pet simulator on the market. It's important to have a lot of different kinds of experiences. My point was that they tried to launch the 3DS and the Wii U without a game big enough to catch people's attention. There are some games that you look at and think "Man, I have to play that." Those games get you to buy a system. Other games, you try once you already have the system. A good Zelda game tends to be the former, while experimental games like Steel Diver, smaller games like Nintendogs, and minigame collections like Nintendo Land tend to be the latter. That's no knock against any of those games.

The Wii was an interesting exception, as Wii Sports became a game that people got the system for. I think Twilight Princess was supposed to be that game, and it was for some, but Wii Sports was bigger. I don't think most minigame collections get that kind of attention. The unique and (mostly) functional controls, the Mii avatars, and the idea of being able to play something with your kids caught lightning in a bottle, I think.

They desperately need a good launch lineup, and they need to give people opportunities to try demos. The 3DS and Wii U both had horrid launch lineups. Didn't have any games that anybody wanted. Nintendogs and Steel Diver don't sell systems. The Wii U had a horrid launch lineup, and they didn't even give players a chance to play it. They had all these demo machines out at stores in the US, and there either were no demos, or the only one was Rayman Legends, which typically confused people and then didn't even wind up being a launch title.

They have Breath of the Wild. It has everybody's attention. It's a Zelda game, and it also looks like it finally remembers that gamers like exploring and fighting monsters so much that we don't need to be told to do so by a talkative helper and 2,000 bossy NPCs. Skyrim got that right. The game lets you wander around and find stuff. Now, Zelda is going to let me do that too. That gets me pretty psyched. Get that game out there quickly, and I'll be buying a Switch, as will my dad, and likely several of my friends. Delay that game until Christmas, and most people will forget about it. That game needs to be out by May, at the latest, or it might just be too late.

What I'm worried that they'll do is delay Zelda a long time and launch with a bunch of Wii U ports. I mean, there are some good games on the Wii U, and a lot of people haven't played them yet, but unfortunately, they didn't move hardware. Use ports of Splatoon and Mario Kart to pad out the launch lineup, sure. But I'm worried they'll use them instead of a launch lineup.

The battle has never been the best part of Paper Mario, even if it was fun. The best Paper Mario games had charming worlds, a pleasant aesthetic, fun puzzles, and a story which did just as much as it needed to in order to get you to keep going. Sticker Star, in my opinion and experience, removed almost all of that except the pleasant aesthetic, and it wasn't enough. If Color Splash has a world that I want to be in and puzzles that I want to solve, it can be a decent game.

First of all, vibrating controllers don't really add much to a game, in my opinion.

Secondly, is this a rumor from a let's player on youtube with unnamed sources? Hardly seems worth an article, but I guess NL got me to click on it, so joke's on me.

Thirdly, is Nintendo ever going to say anything about this system? I'm starting to think I'll visit Wal-Mart next spring and it'll just be on the shelves.

Probably not a day one purchase, but I'm interested to see how they change the series. I recently played OmegaRuby, and I'm currently playing Pokémon Yellow, so I'll probably play some other series for a while with my limited time. But I'll likely pick it up someday. Pokémon games are fun because exploring and collecting things are fun, and to be honest, sticking to a formula as much as they do takes away from the sense of exploration. The fact that they're willing to make some changes to the formula makes me almost as excited as the fact that the Zelda series is finally willing to make some changes to the formula.

It makes sense that they took it down. Copyright laws and all. Both sides of that argument have been made in this comment thread already. I don't have anything to add regarding whether Nintendo was justified in taking the game down.

But it is a bit... tactless to take it down right at the 30th anniversary. The fanbase seems to be a bit annoyed already, if I'm reading between the lines correctly. And it is the 30th anniversary of the franchise. Is this the week to come down with an iron fist on somebody celebrating the franchise, even it it's illegal? Seems like the better thing to do would have been to wait a few weeks.

In one sense, power isn't required to make a good game. There are many creative and well made NES games I'd rather play instead of a poorly made, by the numbers shooter on PS or Xbox. Nor does power equal pleasant graphics. Super Mario World, for example, is more aesthetically pleasing than Mario 64, and Mario Galaxy is much better looking than a lot of CoD games.

In another sense, power is important, because a good developer or artist can do more with a more powerful tool. A carpenter can make a better table with power tools than with a pocketknife and a piece of sandpaper. Mario Galaxy is more aesthetically pleasing than Mario 64. Minecraft or Breath of the Wild or No Man's Sky simply couldn't be done on an N64. In other words, a good artist with a pencil and a piece of notebook paper is likely to create something better than somebody who has never drawn and who doesn't care about the quality of their product with every color of paint available at the art store and hundreds of tools and brushes at their disposal. But I still would like to see what the good artist can do with the more powerful toolset.

But here's where power actually matters. You want to convince the customer to buy your system and not the competitor's. People usually make this decision based on what games can be played. The One and PS4 are close enough in specs that a game can easily be developed for both, increasing the potential customer base. Porting to a less powerful system takes valuable resources (HD development isn't easy) and lowers the quality of the product. If a blockbuster game is coming out on the NX's competition, but not on the NX, it will sway buyers toward the competition. A system close in power to current gen consoles isn't too hard to port to and will see a larger library. A system close in power to the PS3 and 360 is hard to port to and will miss out on games that the other two will get. I can hear you saying, "But Dodger, everybody knows that games that aren't on Nintendo systems are universally and objectively terrible, so why would anybody care? Who needs more than Nintendo games?" Well, many, including myself, think that there are some decent games made by other developers. Nintendo games are great, but a lot of people would rather have Elder Scrolls than Zelda, if they have to choose. Wouldn't it be great to not have to choose? I bet a lot of people would pick Nintendo if they could play good versions of 3rd party games and Mario on the same system. That's why some want Nintendo to release a system which competes with Sony and Microsoft in the power department.

They should add the Alola pokemon, but only to Hawaii. Otherwise, it isn't realistic, and my game about cartoon animals needs to be realistic.