GalacticMario28

I'd like to take advantage of this, but I live in the middle of nowhere, so there are no Nintendo Zones around for miles. Oh, well.

I really don't feel that the graphics of the PS4 and Xbox One are a big enough improvement over their predecessors to justify the price. The games seem quite similar to last gen, and the control schemes appear to have only been slightly tweaked; well, I guess the Xbox One has Kinect, but I haven't really seen them integrate it into games in an interesting way; it seems like its meant mostly for a few party games and some extra features. The PS4 and Xbox One may very well deliver excellent gaming experiences even with the lack of new features, but unless those experiences end up being significantly better than those on PS3 and 360, I say these new consoles just aren't worth the money.

I'm not sure about which bundles, if any, are coming out in Japan in the coming weeks, but it may be that people are waiting to buy a Wii U bundle, especially with Christmas coming up. Nintendo advertises its family-friendly approach, so it wouldn't be surprised if some parents are waiting until a little closer to Christmas to buy a Wii U and/or Super Mario 3D World. If that turns out to be the case, we may not see an explosion in sales in the coming weeks, but we may see more week 2/3 sales than usual, at least compared to week 1 sales.
And like other people are pointing out, we don't know the digital sales and we have yet to see what's been happening in NA and what will happen in EU starting this Friday. Things may look bad at the moment, but I think it's a little too early to conclude anything. As Thomas said, only time will tell.

Personally, I think Nintendo just needs to gradually make games that utilize the GamePad more and more. I feel like it's mostly made subtle contributions to games so far, contributions that do create an experience that couldn't be had without the GamePad, but that aren't necessarily enough to justify the price. Of course, if every game relies too heavily on the GamePad, a lot of people will get mad and won't even buy the games because they want more traditional controls. But I think if Nintendo takes small steps, inventing uses for the GamePad that gradually become less subtle and more a necessary part of the gameplay, more people will be won over by what the GamePad can do. Of course, Nintendo doesn't have all the time in the world, so gradually making the GamePad more important in the actual games is probably easier said than done, but I still think Nintendo should at least attempt to do this in some way.

As for Wii HD with the same controls as the Wii, I say no way. People already harp on Nintendo enough for being too 'safe' with their games; should Nintendo really take that route with their hardware, too? Personally, I don't think so, and I'm not even one of the ones who thinks their playing it too safe with their games. I think Nintendo's already decided they're going to do things differently, rather than take the easy way out by copying their rivals, and I personally really respect that. I don't believe it's worth being guaranteed to sell more units if they're not giving up their identity in the process.

I don't think Super Mario 3D World alone will allow the Wii U to compete with the PS4 and Xbox One, at least not directly anyway. I do think that it has the potential to raise awareness, to show people just what kind of experiences they can expect from now on if they buy a Wii U: experiences that take you back to when you were a kid and allow you to enjoy something on a level you could never reach by playing all of those 'mature' games on rival consoles. Needless to say, not everyone cares to have such experiences, but I'd like to think that enough people do to allow 3D World and the Wii U to thrive, even in this day of 'mature' gaming.

I unfortunately only ever owned a few Game Boy games, but I do have memories of spending hours playing the ones I did have, most notably Pokémon Red and Blue. It feels like just yesterday that the Game Boy was still all the rage with kids.

I'm definitely hoping that Super Mario 3D World manages to pull a surprise victory, though I fully expect 1st and 2nd to a close call between The Last of Us and GTAV for Game of the Year, and I have a feeling Rayman Legends will steal Best Nintendo Game (it's multiplatform, come on). I'd also like Pokémon to get a victory or two, but I just don't think its as popular among 'hardcore' gamers as Fire Emblem, Zelda, or Animal Crossing. But at least if any of those three win something, it'll still be a win for Nintendo.

I think it's way too early to tell how sales will turn out in the long run. It all depends on the games.

As much as I love the Galaxy games, I really don't see a third one being too feasible. I personally felt like they were scraping the bottom of the barrel with Galaxy 2, so I can't imagine that they have a whole lot more to work with for a potential Galaxy 3, especially considering all of the crazy things they seem to be incorporating into 3D World.

I could see them incorporating elements of the Super Mario Galaxy style of gameplay into future Mario games, though. I, for one, would have absolutely no problem with that.

Well, if I hadn't already pre-ordered the game, this trailer would've gotten me to do it.

I wouldn't mind seeing Pokémon designs simplified a bit, even though I think I like the recent designs better than a lot of people do and I acknowledge that some of the older designs were pretty uninspired, but I don't want to see the mechanics become oversimplified. I think it would be fine to remove a few things here and there and fine-tune a couple of other things, but I absolutely do not want the battle system to revert back to the way it was in Gen I/II. Those were the days when Electrode and Sandslash didn't learn any Electric and Ground moves, respectively, by leveling up (Sandslash might have, I don't remember exactly, but I know it didn't learn Earthquake by level up). I feel like the Pokémon just didn't learn enough moves back then, not to mention there was no Physical/Special split, meaning some Pokémon were borderline useless back then; although I do feel they could do with Pokémon learning slightly fewer TM moves than they do nowadays.
After testing out some of the Mega Evolutions, I can definitely say I approve. I like the concept of temporary evolution, and I think they've done some interesting things with the concept, though I would like to see them do just a little bit more with it. I'd also like to see what some other Mega Evolutions would be like. For instance, imagine going up against a Mega Shuckle; with Shuckle already being such a pain to deal with (provided you can't hit it for Super Effective damage), I shudder at what its Mega Evolution would be like.
I do feel that IVs and HMs can be annoying at times, but I also feel like they're a part of what makes Pokémon what it is, at least for me; I wouldn't lose sleep if those were changed/removed, but I also don't have a particularly strong desire to see that happen.

I think this is definitely the game to be advertising. I don't think anything else can simultaneously appeal to both families and seasoned gamers as well as Mario can.

@gatorboi352 I agree, but that wasn't really the point I was trying to make. I was just trying to say that I agree with Nintendo's approach, making the games they want to make rather than mostly making the games that will appeal to the majority, even if they could potentially make more money by doing the latter.

As someone who plans to do a lot of consecutive fishing for shinies, I think this device is pretty awesome. I'm not sure I'd want it hooked up to my 3DS, though; it could have consequences down the road.

I agree with Iwata completely. I don't think it makes sense for Nintendo to do exactly what other companies are doing. They should do what they feel is right, which happens to be what has worked for so many years. If someone wants realistic graphics and tons of blood/gore/death, they can buy a PS4 or an Xbox One. If someone wants fun that the whole family can enjoy, they can buy a Wii U.

I think DLC can be good for some things, but not so much for others. In my opinion, a game like Super Mario 3D World doesn't need DLC.

I haven't used Wonder Trade yet, though I have used the GTS a fair bit so far. It is a little annoying that some people are requesting Pokémon that you need to hack to get or, at the very least, need to hack to get at the level they request (level 1-10 Chesnaught? Really?).

I'm not sure Mario will be the same with Miyamoto only overseeing development, but its understandable, and I think its good that he wants to spend his time working on new things.

I agree that Nintendo could have handled the Swapnote situation better, but I also agree that the family-friendly approach is a huge part of what makes Nintendo what it is; they just need to focus on finding a way to maintain their family-friendly status without overdoing it and offending older gamers, though I imagine that's easier said than done. I just hope people don't use this as an excuse to launch a campaign against Nintendo about dropping their focus on families and younger audiences altogether and focusing entirely on the "adult" "hardcore" gamers.

I could go on for hours about how much I now love Eurogamer for this, but suffice to say I couldn't agree more.

I loved the orchestrated music in the Galaxy games, so I'm very pleased at this news. One more month. . .

Personally, I simply can't fathom a Mario platformer with online multiplayer. I feel that playing a game like 3D World with people online would completely ruin the dynamic created by having a group of people in the same room looking at the same TV screen while playing the game. In my opinion, Mario games are too dynamic to be enjoyed to their full potential unless the multiplayer is local. Furthermore, I'm glad there's not an online option because I suspect people would eventually get lazy and simply play online whenever they wanted to play multiplayer, even if they have more fun playing local multiplayer. I think online multiplayer works well for more competitive games like Mario Kart, Smash Bros, and Pokémon, as well as certain large-scale co-op experiences like MMOs, but not for a crazy cooperative-competitive experience like Super Mario 3D World.

I agree that the Wii brought a great deal of innovation to the gaming industry, even if that innovation was met with mixed reception among 'hardcore' gamers, but I have to wonder how long Nintendo could have kept up that particular form of innovation. Some people complain that Nintendo is playing it way too safe as of late by releasing titles they know will appeal to most Nintendo fans. But what if they decided to make more games that targeted families and other 'casual' gamers? I think that, eventually, we'd start to see more entries in some 'casual' franchises; for example, instead of only two Wii Sports games, there could end up being one each year so as to maximize the profit they would make by targeting the audience with the most money. That would be playing it safe in a different way; instead of releasing more Mario, Zelda, etc. specifically to please the hardcore gamers, they would be releasing more motion-control-centric mini-game collections specifically to draw in the casual gamers. In either case, Nintendo risks spoiling one audience and alienating the other. I would love to see Nintendo find some perfect balance between the two, but I see that being much easier said than done.

I don't live in the UK, so I don't know all of the details about how release dates and such work over there, but if a bunch of companies decided to sell the games early (which I think is really stupid and unfair), then that pretty much gives GAME two options: 1) sell the games early and lose the respect of some gamers, or 2) wait until the 12th to start selling the games and potentially lose a lot of money. From a business perspective, the choice is pretty obvious, even if some gamers (myself included) would rather not have had them stoop to the same level as their competitors.

I think it's good that Zelda games typically only come out once every few years. Yeah, some people want them more frequently (providing the quality of the games doesn't suffer at all), but if the games did come out annually, then I think a lot of people would start to get burnt out after a few years. If the current method isn't broken, don't try to fix it.

I picked up X, mainly for Xerneas, but I may pick up Y at some point if I get the money for it.

I'd never really thought about the concept of undercutting retailers and damaging relationships with them until reading this article. I think that's a really good point, as is the fact that Nintendo simply can't handle all of the retail duties by themselves. It would be nice if games were a bit cheaper digitally due to not having to pay for physical material, but it seems like we're starting to see more discounts and bundles as of late, and that's certainly nice to see.

I guess it really is inevitable that people will spoil things like this for one reason or another. But at least we have the option of steering clear of the leaks if we so choose. I'm hoping to pick up X this weekend, and I'd really like to discover some parts of a Pokémon game myself for the first time in years, so I've been avoiding the leaks like the plague.