LotusFlowers

@Mattock1987 I just re-read my initial message, and realized that the tone of it does come off as rather dismissive. My apologies! That wasn't my intention, and I obviously hope to be proven wrong, and that you are right - it would just run counter to many of Nintendo's recent decisions regarding difficulty.
At the very least, Nintendo could create a new 'Master Mode' for returning players - though would you want them to completely rework the dungeons they way they did for the GameCube Version? I feel like the layouts should still resemble the game we played 30 years ago. But then...returning players will know how to solve every single puzzle...it's a design conundrum I don't know how to solve!

@Mattock1987 Yeah, sorry dude. This game isn't made for you (or other people who were 10 years old in 1998). It's made for the folks who are 10 years old NOW. I'd be very surprised if they upped the difficulty in any area. If anything, they're likely to make it easier.

I just hope that they keep the original water temple layout (don't add any weird 3DS arrows or explain what the triforce areas are for), because I found it rather unimmersive.

This was a good direct if you're a fan of JRPGs, or if you haven't played a bunch of these ports on other consoles. Or Pokopia DLC.

I think Xbox had more just in terms of variety, and stuff for everyone (Fable, GoW, neat indies, Persona)

@DonnieTACO Hmmm...this is an interesting take (the divergence between aging player base and the new kids). While Nintendo has always pitched itself as making "games for everyone," I think you could credibly argue that Nintendo has knowingly attempted to court the person who played Link to the Past in 1991 with every Zelda game until 2021 - which is kind of nuts, when you think about it. I think you could make a similar argument with many of its marquee franchises as theyve chased the same player for 30 years into adulthood. But with the Switch 2 (and the advent of the straight-up remakes of Star Fox and possibly Ocarina of Time), it seems like Nintendo is doing a soft reset in terms of target market for the children of that 1991 player. This would be an unprecedented shift since games as a medium is still very young, but I wouldn't be surprised at all if adult gamers have trouble adjusting to their own...de-centering. Like...why on earth would Nintendo care whether people know what Yoshi's Island is? Surely they won't be designing Yoshi games with the expectation that people have played a 30-year old game.

@Henmii Honestly people should read reviews beyond the score to see if the highlights/lowlights are things that matter to them. I've read a bunch of the other reviews that got higher scores. Destructoid (who gave this game an 85) admitted "Gameplay is pretty same-y" and "a lot of puzzle-solving can be done...by accident." Checkpoint Gaming (another 85) says "If you are looking for a general purpose to what you're doing beside the sense of discovery, you might be disappointed."
Depending on who you are as a gamer and what you value, you might read the above quotes and say such a game should get a lower score from the reviewer; or you might read Ollie's review and say "based on the article, the score should be higher!" People need to stop depending on (or defending) review scores. The score doesn't matter.

@NintendoWife Isn't it a smart business strategy, though? I feel like if people knew Zelda and Mario were coming, more folks would skip Yoshi and Star Fox. By keeping the focus on 1 game at a time (2 games max), Nintendo maximizes the sales of the lesser knowns - even if its out of sheer desperation for something new to play. It's not like there's any doubt about sales when a Mario game releases. I suspect this is why Nintendo hasn't really done many multi-game directs for the past 2 years. They'll be doing more dedicated 1-game directs for the foreseeable future.

For everyone who is criticizing this analyst's take: is it possible that Nintendo is forecasting lower sales specifically because they know it actually will be a quiet year? Surely, Nintendo would forecast higher sales if they knew something big was on the way which get people to buy a Switch 2? I don't think the analyst is making a prediction out of nothing; he's drawing a conclusion from Nintendo's own forecasts. I'm not even saying this year's lineup is bad or anything - but I think we can all agree that games like Yoshi arent exactly going to move Switch units.

If you were a kid in 1994, you probably loved this arcade-y rail shooter. Then, in 1996, seeing it get remade in 3D probably blew your mind. Then, in 2011 (once you started earning your own money to spend) you probably jumped at the chance to play an upgraded/remastered version in handheld mode that touched your nostalgia. Then, in 2016, you might've hesitantly spent more money on another remake/reboot that tried to mix handheld and TV modes. And now...in 2026, you can spend more money, to play another upgraded remake, that mixes handheld/TV modes, and was probably made to touch on your nostalgia again.

@tektite_captain Koizumi closed his segment by thanking longtime fans who have supported the series for so long. Then he invited newcomers to try this game. I wonder if we should parse that statement as "this game is for kids." I think the game looks pretty good for what it is. But I can understand why people who have been supporting SF for 30 years may feel like they've gotten served the same thing one too many times by this point.

@hol_up I think most fans would agree that a big direct is more fun to watch. But I don't think fans measure on the same metrics as Nintendo. I think Nintendo wants as much of the fan base as possible to discuss one game (and only one game) - the upcoming game - to maximize the potential of everyone buying that one game....before looking forward to the next game on the calendar (and only that game). Directs might just be overshadowing things, from their perspective.

Like if a hundred people were considering buying that new Yoshi game, but then a direct came along revealing a new Zelda and Star Fox, or 3D Mario, then 10-20 of those Maybe-Yoshis might skip it to wait on the heavy hitters. But with no direct, those hundred Maybe-Yoshis will be more likely to purchase the game - heck, you might even get a few extra purchases from those who are anxious for something new to play. Meanwhile, skipping the direct and shadow dropping trailers on Nintendo Today won't cost Nintendo any Zelda or Star Fox purchases.

@JohnnyMind I agree with you in part - if you care about getting the best possible visual experience, chances are you would never be persuaded to buy a Switch2 version of any game let alone FFVII, so it's probably unnecessary to mention. That said, these previewers are trying to be objective, and part of that might involve saying "other console versions have fewer visual compromises." I don't think that is mean-spirited or cruel to say. Heck, 10 years ago I remember when WiiU ports were called "the absolute worst versions to play," so these Switch2 remarks seem positively kind by comparison.

@Smithicus Yeah, I completely agree. I also think this presages a greater shift towards "Nintendo as entertainment company," as opposed to "Nintendo as game company." It's been 10 years since the last 3D Mario game. In that same time frame, Nintendo has been able to announce, create, market and release 2 movies (3 if you assume the Zelda movie will release before the next game), and build 2 theme parks from scratch. I have to assume that the movies cost way less to make than the games, which only incentivizes Nintendo to pivot towards Hollywood content.

@BrianJL If a movie is trying to be nothing more than a Saturday morning cartoon, then that is indeed OK - but no better than OK (as in, a 5 out of 10). People are allowed to say they loved a mild diversion cartoon, but you can't ask critics to suddenly hand out great scores to studios with no narrative or emotional ambition, when countless other kids' movies show that such films can do much better.

I wonder if Nintendo is going with all these shadow drops (and skipping directs) because of their frustration with all the leakers. It would make sense for Nintendo to keep some control of information and stay in charge of hype.

@DollyrotsFan1 No one was expecting a masterpiece. I think people were just expecting to have to use their brain at least...a little bit? There's nothing wrong with liking this movie (I enjoy eating spoonfuls of sugar straight from the bag sometimes like everyone else), but dismissing critics' opinions as "you wanted Citizen Kane?" is just misrepresenting what people are actually saying. A movie can be simple, and also care about telling a decent story.

@gcunit No one says this when a movie's story is good. If spectacle and character cameos is all people want, just watch someone else play Smash Brothers for 2 hours and save yourself 20 bucks.

Yeah I really don't understand why people say "Mario games have no story" to fight back against the critics. Y'all know the difference between games and movies, right? I don't think it is snobby or pretentious of movie critics to ask for a little more from their movies than an AI-level mashup of Mario Items and Nintendo characters for two hours. If that's all you want, then I will personally allow you to come over to my house and watch me play Super Smash Bros for two hours. I will charge you 0 dollars, you can call out any cool references you see, and you can help yourself to popcorn.

@CJD87 Dude, you're making a straw man of everyone's concern. No one is expecting Citizen Kane or Inception with Mario. No one is expecting "fine cinema." They are merely hoping for a story that's a bit more involved than References: The Movie. If the whole movie is nothing but references and colours, then that is...a pretty empty experience. And these film critics are merely pointing that out (if you read the reviews themselves). I also don't buy the argument that "Mario games never had great stories." That is fine - because it's a GAME, not a movie. A movie is not interactive. It's a passive experience. It should have a decent story to keep me invested, and it shouldn't feel like I'm watching someone else play a video game with bad voice acting.

Yes. This movie is bad. Obviously. You know what else are bad? Pop Tarts and Pizza Pockets. Dollar-store satisfaction overstuffed with sugary empty calories. And people still eat those. Super Mario Reference-y is just that, and people will eat it all the same. Because you can enjoy an objectively bad thing every once in a while. Though it is unfortunate that kids' films are aiming so much lower these days. I just wish these films weren't so afraid to try.

I dont think adult gamers are the target market for this new version of the game. When you consider the assist modes, the minigames, the easiness of the boss battles...this is clearly geared towards young kids who are aging into Nintendo's target demographic of players. Nintendo has a new Mario movie coming out, and they want the kids who see it to have a new game to buy. The next 3D mario isnt ready yet, but they can refurbish this game at minimal cost and sell it at full price to the kids who never played it. I think its part of Nintendo's broader strategy to court younger audiences in general (Nintendo Life reviewed Mario-themed building blocks last week for pete's sake) because they want toddlers to recognize and love Mario the mascot before they even know what a video game is.

I feel like many commenters are missing the point. The score ultimately doesn't matter because the average NL reader (who played Wonder in 2023) is not the target market for this new version of the game. When you consider the assist modes, the minigames the easiness of the boss battles...this is clearly geared towards young kids who are aging into Nintendo's target demographic of players. Nintendo has a new Mario movie coming out, and they want the kids who see it to have a new game to buy. The next 3D mario isnt ready yet, but they can refurbish this game at minimal cost and sell it at full price to the toddlers who never played it. It's pretty brilliant brand management, actually.

@JohnnyMind
Because assist modes, badge combinations and new transformations are not substantial to most players who have already completed the game. The bosses are cool, but not 20-30 dollars-cool. Also, I don't know if we can say the Toad Challenges are meant for single-player when literally every single clip of those challenges...are multi-player clips. If they wanted to demonstrate single-player viability for that mode, they would have put it in the trailer.

With the Switch 1's huge install base, I was wondering whether Nintendo would have a Series X/S situation on their hands, where indie devs would end up compromising their games to be able to sell them on the much less powerful (though much more popular) machine. I was half expecting basically every game to be cross platform for that reason. Not so, it seems!

Did 7 or Village even come out on the original Switch? If not, it makes sense why Requiem sales (by itself) are so low. If you are a survival horror fan/Switch 1 owner and missed out on all the RE from last generation, you'd likely buy the collection just to get caught up.