DrRandle

@WhoaManWtF It can be played with one player, but is enjoyed best with at least 2, and up to 4. With 1 player you get like AI companions you can boss around. (They're cute dogs.)

If anybody out here is on the fence, I highly, highly recommend this game. I've played it on PS4 and will probably get it again on Switch (when I'm not being rendered destitute from every other game)

@JaxonH "The players didn't like it." I actually did like a lot of the now-changed icons. I think they look more like bad phone game icons now than when they were cool pictures. I also happen to think most physical boxart is pretty bad because it's usually the most generic, nothing art they could have possibly used in the attempts to trick you into interest. When it's not on a shelf for you to buy it, what's the point of it? Why does it still have to look so bad? Why can't the icons just be nice art bits? Why do they have to have logos mashed into them like everything else?
And yes, taking the time to reach out to a dev to complain about a thumbnail is far more upset than anybody needs to be about it. Nobody ever reached out to developers before to complain about this stuff, but this new wave of entitlement is just obnoxious whining from my perspective and it's only happening with Switch users, making our community look the worst.

my god is there nothing people cant be overly and ridiculously upset with? I wish I had the time to go out of my way to complain at developers every time there was an icon I didn't like. An icon. Honestly. They're not even remotely bad compared to the majority of the 'normal' ones everyone seems so insanely overfond of.

Passwords are fun. But that image for the video is just...upsetting to the eyes. The color of the pink, the font overlapping the colors, that weird Samus photoshop (that admittedly maybe should have been in Smash)

@elhozzo It worked on US, just confirmed.

I don't know if we can request this kind of thing, but @yorumi seriously needs to be removed. He is toxic, inciting violence, and calling folks names. We don't need that low level of discourse around here. I don't know who moderates this stuff around here, any advice would be appreciated.

It was Rediv, btw, if you want to go whole hog into the depths of insanity.

Looks like folks here clearly do not understand the concept of broadening horizons, expanding a market, stuff like that. I forgot who said it and it was lost in all the madness, but somebody on here said "I believe in equality for both genders. That said, maybe girls don't like Smash Brothers."
I just don't... see how that isn't the exact point of sexism, and is certainly the type of mindset that competitive games (especially fighting games) are unfortunately known for. Nobody sound of mind would possibly want to get anywhere near this neanderthalic group of people who continue to buy into these ridiculous ideologies that most of this board has decided to flaunt about. Comment sections are a nightmare because they remind you that the crazy folks in the news and on TV aren't the minority, but the vast majority.

I come to this site looking for Nintendo news and fun. Instead I just see a bunch of toxic, terrible people. Captain planet would be ashamed of you all.

@Arminillo Lady's also cool, imo. And gals and guys and all that's fine. IMO, even throwing ladies under most masculine labels like "guys" is generally fine because those are the rules of our insanely messed up language. However, at least to me, calling them "girls" and us "men" is a bit of a 'tipping your hand' move for most people. It's not referring to folks on even ground, even relatively. It feels like an (admittedly, non-deliberate) way of showing how you view the difference between the two.

Overall, to everyone here, I'd say stop caring. One way or the other; this event has nothing to do with anybody here, or any 'team' they think they're on. There are no teams. This is all a grotesque display of 'Us vs. Them" mentality, no matter what side you think you're on. We're all in this nightmare of a reality together, the least we could do is just be cool with each other.

@TeslaChippie Nothing is awesome. The world is a bleak pool of pain and misery. The only escape for humanity is that which they secretly crave the most, but haven't the courage to accept.

I mean except Captain Toad's Treasure Tracker. That game was just a /delight/.

@Benjamin Hmmmm, nah I'm good. Because no matter who you are, this is how you're acting. Like somebody who pretends to be 'true neutral' and is in fact super right-wing, but just get less super-screamy about it. Instead, they just talk down to people with words like "SJW" and "Them."

The very fact that most people in these comment sections refer to the other gender as "Girls" instead of, I dunno, Women? Females, if we want to be oddly clinical about it? No. They're girls and men.

If at any point a cluster of female-led organizations had a member bow out to have a man's opinion in their field, and let's just say it's the cast of The View. Is that even still a thing? Anyway. Star Jones decides to sit out so Terry Crews can tag in. The same people on here bemoaning a 'forced agenda' would applaud The View for being more inclusive. Basically? "As long as there's more men, it's okay."

That is every negative comment I've read thus far in the thread.

ya'll a bunch of scared, white guys who have no idea how reality should actually work.

@Equinox Nobody was forced out of anything. He looked around, said "Let's diversify things" and instead of forcing a "lesser ranking" player out, decided to step down himself to allow somebody up in. It's total class on his part, and people like you are just being dumb about the whole thing.

I honestly want this to be a regeneration of the Metroid franchise, but I also get the intent that this is Nintendo telling Metroid fans to put up, or shut up, for good. It's not just the "bad" run of recent Metroid games; as the article stated, they've never really lit any financial fires. Given that Nintendo does want to make money at the end of the day, it needs to focus more on games that can let it do crazy things like Breath of the Wild, or even smaller stuff like Rhythm Heaven. Metroid will never be that franchise, and as games continue getting more expensive to make, it's hard not to see why it's taken this long.
And when these games do the same, I fear it will be the very end for the Metroid series for a very, very long time.

@Yorumi Again, still not acknowledging 75% of the post in any way. Was it wrong for Nintendo to give you Mario Galaxy when all you thought you wanted was Mario 64? Did you know best then?

I'm not saying it always works, but it's not arrogance in the sense of a flaw. It's arrogance in the sense of "I think this is best, so I think we're going to do it." Can you honestly say you've never done that? (PS: You're doing it right now.)

But I withdraw, I'm far too old to be dealing with the nonsense of such a toxic, feral community, that only wants blood for their blood gods. I'm just here to try and enjoy games, no matter how imperfect they may be.

@Yorumi You're doing exactly what you accuse me of doing by settling on a binary fallacy. You're essentially saying there is one right way to do a game and the rest are wrong. There is room for all kinds of games, but by disregarding the intent of the original creator in favor of your own ideologies, you might as well not care where the games come from at all because all games become the same at that point.
I mentioned in my last post that you can examine intent and execution in a game and disagree with it, but the attitude of everybody on this thread is one of condemnation without approach.
And you still haven't countered the fact that Nintendo has used exactly this mindset in dozens if not hundreds of other games, and nobody complains about it then; most rejoice in it. Nobody was unhappy with how close-knit Ocarina of Time was. Nobody cared that Nintendo decided the order you get everything, and how you learn to progress. It's never considered a flaw in Super Metroid that there isn't really an open-ended exploration, because there's an absolute critical path through everything that makes backtracking more of an illusion to openness and padding for the game. But it's there. It's there because Nintendo thinks they know what you want from a Nintendo game. If they didn't, they wouldn't be the Nintendo we love.

I can tell a lot of you don't understand how art kind of works. Yes, there are artists who will draw whatever you want for your money. That's a craft, a job. Those people are doing whatever they can to part you with your cash.
Nintendo treats more of their games (certainly not all) like art. As much as you complain about the mindset for this one game, do you not realize how it's been implemented a hundred times before? Mario Galaxy was weird, wondrous, and not anything like anyone of us would have been able to ask for. But Nintendo though they were onto something and let us discover it as they designed. Same goes for pretty much all the Mario games. (Did you know you wanted a fat Italian dressed up in a raccoon costume? Because I wouldn't have known how badly I wanted it until I had it in Mario 3)
It's not arrogance, it's the mindset of an artist trying to introduce you into their world and ideas. It's totally fair to say "You know what, not for me" and move on, but at the very least you should actually examine the product and try to understand it, not make a passing glance judgement.
You take this stuff for granted, and then when somebody points out they tried it on a game that had it's own box of issues, you act like this has never happened before, and that the person who said it is a jerk who doesn't know what he's doing. If that's really how you feel, you're going to be really upset when I start breaking down every other video game for you.

@Seacliff If you select the icon in the menu it tells you exactly what the game is in big letters above the icon. Why do you need more? Also, if I was at a friends and saw a cool logo that maybe looked like legos, I would say "Oh that looks cool, what is that?" which could be a gateway into me finding a cool game. If I see that big dumb box art there, I know what it is and I already don't care, so there's no chance in being surprised.

Never minding how stupid this WHOLE thing is.
Why would you want to replace a cool, simplistic graphic that still clearly shows you what the game is with something as generic as the boxart full of logos and random garbage?
But I'm one who strictly stands by the notion that almost every boxart is designed to inform, and not to actually look good. Heaven forbid this actually look nice.

The theme's a great little theme if you haven't picked it up already.

I actually like that logo quite a bit. Fits right in with something like a mobile icon or something. As long as the name of the game is listed above ,why is there such outcry for this? Do people really not have enough to be angry about in the world right now?

Because it worked so well for Street Fighter on Switch. or like. A thousand Wii games.

OH NO

I certainly wouldn't be willing to drop 50 dollars just to have a joycon that cripples my ability to play 2 player games on the go. It seems entirely antithetical to the system. I played Shovel Knight - Spectre of Torment with zero issue using the buttons.
The tone of this piece comes off way to unnecessarily hostile and demanding, acting as though you're being shut in the cold by something most people wouldn't be bothered by. It's very unfortunate that folks feel the need to invent problems while there are still legitimately bad things still going on with the switch. "Seriously Nintendo, I need a d-pad?" Lack of priorities when faced against "why does Splatoon have so many gimped features" and "why is the voice chat somehow MORE awful than no voice chat" probably need to be handled first.

Kind of a super-silly first run at an otherwise neat concept, I think! This will be a really great way to push content for games like Splatoon, Arms, and anything else they wanted to. Kind of like how they pushed content via constant updates in Mario Maker and Splatoon on WiiU.

I always said Othello would be better if it were a top-down shooter. Glad somebody agreed!

(I've literally never said that.)

I've seen this game on Steam and it looks... terrible. The reviews are none-to-kind on there, either. Anybody interested in this game, I highly suggest checking out the user reviews on Steam.

In lieu of BBQ, Buffalo, and Sriracha, I will have to go with Mayo because I feel like it'll be under-rep'd. Also, if the ink colors for that aren't Red vs. Slightly off white, then what are we doing with this game?

@impurekind Hey bud. Rather than telling people to open their mind to new opinions, instead of mindlessly following there own, which is exactly what you're doing, how about you provide concrete examples of things Nintendo do should do other than follow PS4 and Xbox into a weightlifting competition of specs? Because everything he said illustrates why 3rd party support is lacking on Nintendo platforms: 3rd parties ha -delightful- bake a port with less specs and features, and then get upset when it doesn't sell. You can't just be lazy and port the same game unless you're not tech-driven. That's why Nintendo games do so well on their platform: they understand that making the game fit the platform is far and away the best way to go.
This fella also condemns the portability as being irrelevant. How, exactly, is a key feature of taking hd games on the go irrelevant? Because they're not as shiny as they would be on Scorpio? Let's see how well those "big boy consoles" can take their consoles on the go, and see what kind of concessions they have to make.
His tone is absolutely a one-sided, anger-based rant. I noticed he didn't bring up the wonderful success games from companies like Atlus and numerous indie devs have had on 3ds, like Shovel Knight and Azure striker. Nintendo is providing a very different space for developers than other Co soles. Heck, you wanna talk about a lack of Promotions, Steam won't even show your game on a new release list if it's not a big Marquee title. I have a PC if I want to play games that look nice. And I have my switch on the go. What niche, then, is Microsoft and Sony fulfilling ? Persona is the only thing keeping my PS4 hooked up. Coming out of E3, a lot of indie devs are much happier with Nintendo support now more than ever before, so what exactly are they not learning? They have a great, unique piece of hardware, their games are great, they're helping 3rd parties more. The only thing that isn't working is the 3rd parties who keep doing lazy ports of the same stuff, rather than creating truly captivating software.

@Yasume
I'm sorry, but in what way is a brand new Zelda, snipper clips, a brand new Mario, a new Splatoon, Mario Kart 8 and many, many more "the worst line up"? Even looking at Nintendo platforms, what did the DS have in its first year? Rub Rabbits? How about the 3ds, which had a terrible first year? And the 360 launched with what, exactly? Like 6 games? The most remarkable of which was Kameo? This kind of unwarranted negativity is more than welcome to be somewhere away from this site if that's all you're going to bring to it.

Oh look, another Non News story. Just save yourself some effort and make one article called "MORE TECHNICALLY ADVANCED GAMES DESIGNED FOR MORE POWERFUL SYSTEMS WON'T COME TO LESS TECHNICALLY POWERFUL SYSTEM" and copy-paste it every couple of days or so.

Give to me the Boxboy Amiibo, Nintendo.

I still don't understand why we're seeing articles like this? Nobody should reasonably expect a Triple-A PS4/XB1 game to come to the Switch. The power isn't there; you'd be getting a gimped version of it. If you want a game like this, just play it on your PC, which, if you invest a bit, will be far more powerful than a PS4/XB1.
This article is akin to posting an article to the effect of "Uncharted 4 not coming to the Switch!" Nobody even remotely suspected that it should/would, so why would you post an article like that? Why are people even asking these questions?

I don't get the 'weak launch' philosophy. Maybe Day 1 is a bit sparse (because apparently a new Zelda doesnt do it for you?), but look at everything they announced over the next year. Almost every one of the WiiU's big games over 4 years are being met by something within the Switch's first. New Zelda, new Mario, a more complete version of MarioKart 8, a new Splatoon.

I think anybody that's been a fan of Nintendo for a while now should know what's going to happen here. It'll be fine. I know I'm going to enjoy the heck out of it.

Also, Virtual Console probably isn't a priority to getting that think out the door.. If we get it, I can almost promise it won't be until a few months after launch.

Lame. Still not available in NA.

That's an amazing game, and perfect on the Switch. I can't wait to see that series continue on Nintendo!

@ruinez Then stop coming to this site and mucking about the comments section if we're all dumbos. God forbid a company give you a slightly underpowered console. It's not like it was a successful strategy for the Wii and virtually every one of Nintendo's handhelds.
But you're right, they should just make a PS4 Pro with the Nintendo logo on it. I'm sure that would sell just as well as a PS4 having no conceivable benefits. Especially in Japan where the home console market is a dead beast altogether.

Didn't the GamePad have that same issue on WiiU where the battery replacement had to be done by Nintendo? I honestly don't recall.

@PlywoodStick I believe the DS and 3DS would argue otherwise. The PSP, a multimedia powerhouse, and the VITA, an immensely better system, both failed because of the software. The problem isn't that nobody's porting to the Switch, the problem is that nobody is taking Nintendo consoles seriously and making actually good, unique games that fit them and only them. I don't want Resident Evil 7 on Nintendo. My PC is ahead of every console, and Nintendo isn't going to launch that far forward.

I do want most of the Switch games announced, which is far and away the number of games I want for my PS4 in the coming year.

@ruinez Which tech is that? They didn't announce processing power or anything, so what do you know makes your tablet more powerful?

Just a healthy reminder that if Console Tech Specs are your ultimate concern, you're in the wrong place. No console can beat a healthy PC, and those can last you a lot longer. What ultimately matters, as has always been the case, is the games.

Nice video! I'm actually more and more excited for this the more I see/hear. And thank you for confirming that standard controls are an option. I have a friend who has been super luke warm on this game, and I'm 99% positive it was the motion control aspect. (Which looks like it'll be good fun, but not quite as competitive ready).

I highly recommend everyone play this game if you like puzzle type games at all. I imported it for my PS4 and I absolutely love it.

http://i.imgur.com/c7NJRa2.gif

I'm still very, very confused at everyone's expectations here that the Switch can run PS4/XB1 games. It can't. It won't. It's not powerful enough, and it never was going to be. So why is everyone surprised and calling this a death knell for the Switch?

Sees DeDeDe. Buys a thousand copies of Boxboy

@Tsusasi
You have to pay to play Mario Kart online - Comperable, though unfortunate, to having to play any game online on PS4 and XBOX One. No win for Nintendo, sure, but certainly not different.
if you have more than one friend that you want to play Mario Kart with locally, that's an extra $80 you HAVE to spend. - How would you have to pay an extra 80? Use two Joycons that came in the box. Also of note: you would have to buy a second controller on any other system, too.
The game itself is $60, Zelda is $60, we don't know the price of the online service, but an educated guess would be at least $10 a month or $60 if you pay for the whole year. - Educated guess places it at more than TWICE what you pay for Gold and Plus? That doesn't sound right; it'll probably be 60 per year, at most.
So if you want to get the most out of Mario Kart and actually play with friends, you're going to be in it for $300 for the system, $60 for the game, $80 for extra controllers, $60 for online gaming. So, $500. Plus another $60 for Zelda. $560.
Now you're factoring in multiple games, which is a moot point, they cost the same as competitor games. Let's use the PS4 with your exact example: 399 for the base, now inferior model, another 65 for the controller for your friend, 60 for your game, and 60 for your online: Now you're at 585. Sounds like you're getting a good deal on switch; it has a more expensive (unnecessary in this example) controller.)
And you can only play games. Period. - what else do you want your video game console to do? Make skype calls? Play blu-rays even though it has no disc slot? Netflix and those won't be there at launch, sure, but they're coming. How much more did you expect it to do?

Oh good, another article being wholly and unnecessarily negative towards Nintendo. That's what I come here for.

It is not Nintendo's responsibility to make Capcom's games sell on Nintendo systems. Capcom needs to make convincing software that sells, utilizing the unique strengths of the platform it's performing on. Same with everyone else.

The Wii sold like crazy, but EA didn't make games for it because EA Games didn't sell well. Why? They were cheap, lame ports and not original content. If all these companies do is make half-baked ports of their games from other systems, then what incentive does a Nintendo fan (especially one who owns multiple systems and a PC) have to buy them? This isn't Nintendo's fault. They made the system, it's up to developers to make interesting content.

I paid $50 dollars for Bomberman 64, and it was well worth the price. What's to say this won't be worth it? It appears to have some sort of a story type mode that might be pretty cool.

I just don't get all these snap judgments of what a game nobody has played fully should and shouldn't cost.