Palworld manages to be the best monster catching game released in at least 12 years on a minimal budget, with relatively inexperienced devs, in early access, at only $29.99. It outsold legends Arceus’s launch week sales in 5 days. Gamefreak/Pokémon company should be ashamed.
Pokémon has already had better competition for awhile now(TemTem, Cassete Beasts, even Nexomon), but now they’ve been completely blown out of the water.
If anyone spends $60-70 on Gamefreak’s next game, you are the problem.
1. It’s a Ubisoft game, and they go on sale insanely fast.
2. I’m not spending $50 for a Metroidvania when games that are amazing in the genre(Hollow Knight, Blasphemous, Ori, Axiom, Ender, Ion, etc) in the genre provide the same amount, if not more content and quality for $15-25.
3. Even ignoring that godawful reveal trailer that killed my initial hype, the first PoP game in over 10 years has us controlling this wannabe-looking Prince to SAVE the Prince? Got massive Federation Force vibes from that and it turns me off.
I’m happy the game is reviewing well, the Rayman team is extremely talented and I’m sure it’s a great game, and I do plan on playing it someday, likely later this year…which it’s $20 or less/on Gamepass/PS+.
Without spoiling anything major because I’m no where close to finishing the game myself, I feel like it’s both the very end AND the very beginning.
We all knew BotW was the very end of the timeline because elements from all timelines had converged back into themselves, so BotW is so far in the future that it was the last Zelda canonically. As TotK is a direct sequel to BotW, obviously it’s now canonically last.
However, the flashbacks…had me very confused at first, and again I’m not anywhere close to finishing the game, but I’m starting to think the flashbacks predate Skyward Sword. I think what’s going on is showing the VERY first foundation of Hyrule and the Goddess, and the Demon King is the VERY FIRST Demise/Ganondorf, and Zelda ends up being the catalyst for the entire series with her being the Sage of Time, therefor giving a very new spin to “The Legend of Zelda”. Whatever happened at the end of this war must’ve led to the Hylians inhabiting the Sky Islands found in Skyward Sword, and Link/Zelda go back and reestablish the kingdom of Hyrule.
It just doesn’t make any sense for this section of the game to take place after Skyward Sword. There’s still a lot of questions though, and I hope the game gives satisfying conclusions.
Absolutely disgusting, as expected. Que the Nintendo simps defending an undefendable, anti-consumer decision.
HOWEVER, the fact that they included it within the voucher program, means I can pick this game up with Advance Wars for $99. This is the only way to buy this game now, or going for the CE.
If you spend the straight $70, congrats, you are part of the problem.
@Duncanballs It’s not subjective, value had through time spent is different, I’m talking full on monetary increase in price for quality that isn’t going to be worth that jump. We’re taking a direct sequel to a game on such weak hardware that the original, a Wii U port, couldn’t even hold a stable 30fps.
It’s about having standards. You look at a game like Demon’s Souls, Ratchet and Clank, Dead Space Remake, God of War: Ragnarok, you SEE why these games can and should cost $70. They have significantly increased the quality of their presentation, from graphical fidelity to voice acting to motion capture and other things for this new generation of games. Nobody is charging $70 for the Xbox One/PS4 versions of these games, they’re still $60.
This is why Nintendo is ripping everyone off. Ragnarok costs $60 on PS4…but Nintendo is going to charge $70 for its direct sequel on hardware way less powerful and a game that’s way less impressive? Absolutely no way. It’s a rip off, whether you get value out of it or not. No one should be ok with this, but they know most Nintendo fans will cave, because they don’t have the willpower to say no.
@Crockin Stuff like this kills me. Gamers have absolutely no will power or self control when they’re getting taken advantage of. It’s no wonder this industry has become so toxic and anti-consumer in such a rapid timeframe.
@KingofSalvagers04 You do realize the attitude is precisely WHY this will be the standard, right? If you buy this, if you support this, they will start doing it for every other game. Anyone who buys this game at $70 is contributing to this practice.
Absolutely not. I have some level of self respect. It’s honestly disgusting seeing so many people say they will, but I don’t expect much less from Nintendo fans, so it is what it is.
I’ll buy it used eventually if that’s the case. The principle matters. Imagine if they tried pulling this crap with Scarlet/Violet? If they do price TotK at $70, and it sells well, they’ll start pricing every Switch game at $70. Which is absolutely ridiculous.
Imagine paying $70 for a game on less powerful Xbox One hardware, that’s a direct sequel which means reused assets, environments, animations(meaning less dev cost), that doesn’t have any reason why modern games are so expensive(such as full voice acting, motion capture acting, Ray tracing/graphical fidelity, etc). Nintendo is literally only doing this because they know their fan base won’t say anything and blindly buy it.
I know Nintendo fans love getting ripped off, but this is a new level of nonsense if it ends up being true. Extremely disappointed.
I bought it for my PS5 for $29 yesterday, and I’ve played it for around 2-3 hours so far.
The only genuinely positive things I can say is that the combat system is interesting(you can effectively have 4 different weapons equipped at the same time and use all 4 at the same time for some pretty interesting combos), some of the enemy designs are cool, the art style is unique, the multiplayer appears to work well, and the loot itself seems interesting.
But that’s it. Even the positives are just, as of now, only interesting, not necessarily good. The graphics themselves are very underwhelming, they look like PS3 quality most of the time. It’s the SLOWEST Platinum game I’ve ever played, it doesn’t feel as smooth as it should. The level design is like a PS2-era linear affair. The characters aren’t that interesting(yet), the story isn’t that interesting(yet), and the amount of microtransaction for cosmetics and premium battle passes is nuts for a $60 launch day title.
I’ll keep giving it a shot, because I am a sucker for looter games with co-op, and like I said, there’s potential here, maybe it’ll show itself more as the game goes on. But right now, it’s either a 5/10 or 6/10. It’s just not what I’d expect from a quality studio like Platinum.
Hopefully Gamefreak capitalizes on this success and expands upon this formula for the mainline titles going forward. I don’t want Pokémon: M16 and Pokémon: AK47 using an “updated” Sword and Shield style engine. I’m having too much fun to ever want to go back, unless it’s a faithful remake of Gen V/VI/VII.
Just PLEASE gives us higher quality graphics next time Gamefreak! Show us what you can do when you actually try!
I got it digitally and stayed up a bit past my bedtime to play for an hour and a half or so.
It’s not great graphically, they need to do better for a $60 game. It takes a LOT of inspiration from Monster Hunter, with a tad from BotW and Souls. I can see it eventually getting a bit repetitive and samey if the structure doesn’t change to include dungeons/puzzles.
But if I’m honest? This is the most fun I’ve had with Pokémon since I was a teenager. I absolutely LOVE what they have done here, and I NEVER want to go back to the old style(outside of faithful remakes, but even then). It’s just so satisfying. I finally care about the story. I finally really want to fill out the Pokédex, including all those challenges/quest. I love the atmosphere, the mystery, the brutality. It may not be a groundbreaking video game, but damn if this isn’t the most exciting Pokémon game since Gen 2.
This is a loaded question and people word it so to make you feel superficial if bad graphics matter to you.
But make no mistake: Bad graphics matter, especially in this case. Legends doesn’t have “janky” graphics, this isn’t a cheaper-than-retail Eurojank RPG, this is a $60, premium priced, triple A release from the most successful media franchise of all time. The graphics aren’t janky, they are BAD. Plain and simple. The two biggest reasons:
1. Immersion
Just imagine how much better Arceus would be with richer detail? How magical it would be, how much more immersive? Video games are a visual medium, the visuals are important to the product. Especially when it’s just laziness as the cause. Immersion is what video games can do better than ANY other entertainment medium. Bad visuals detract from that.
2. It’s $60
Tell me, how on earth should we, as consumers, be ok with spending full retail price for a game from the most successful and one of the most profitable media enterprises of all time? How on earth can we spend $60 on games like God of War, Forza Horizon, Spider-Man, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Monster Hunter World, etc, all these games that BLOW us away from a visual standpoint, while also having incredible gameplay, stories, atmosphere, etc. How do we pay $60 for BotW, a LAUNCH Switch game that was made for Wii U, and accept at how Pokémon Legends looks WORSE with far less detail and stuff going on?
Graphics don’t make a game, of course not, gameplay is the most important. But they do matter a lot of how immersive a title is, how we perceive the quality and care that went into it, and most importantly, how we justify spending $60 on it.
Gamefreak needs to do better, and consumers need to expect better. If this was a $40 game with a lower budget? The conversation changes. But a $60 game from POKÉMON having some of the most underwhelming and lower quality graphics of any triple A release yet? It’s not acceptable.
@CharlieGirl Again, I did say the game holds merit, it’s not broken or unplayable by any means, it’s simply from a different time. This review puts it in a very negative light.
But regardless, we’ll agree to disagree. If it was a $60 port(ala Nintendo prices), then there’s room for more criticism, but a $20 port of a 20 year old game that’s still very much playable by design(Switch issues not withstanding), should be judged on both how it holds up today AND what it achieved at release. I wouldn’t consider a review that doesn’t acknowledge that as particularly well read.
I can understand the overall negativity that the Switch version probably has poor performance(buttery smooth 60fps, HD resolution on my Series X), but otherwise, this review is a bit harsh on the game.
It’s true that the sequel is a significantly better game, falling more in line with Devil May Cry 3/God of War/Ninja Gaiden style fighting, with upgrades and secrets, but the original wasn’t bad. It’s a product of old PC Third Person action design, where the camera was always centered behind you in larger levels(such as the original American McGee’s Alice). At the time, it did a lot of cool things, and there was really nothing else like it. This game also predates all the games I mentioned, as Bloodrayne came out in 2002, whilst NG/DMC3/GoW came out in 2004/2005, same as Bloodrayne 2.
I’m not particularly nostalgic for the series, but this review is a little harsh on the original, you gotta review ports/enhanced ports/remasters as products of their time just as much as how they hold up today. The Switch’s poor performance seems unfortunate, but there is merit with the game itself.
@HappyMaskedGuy I know this sucks, but you want Nintendo to make an unannounced visit? Are you serious?
Dark Souls, From Software do not need the Switch. At all. This series has become one of the most popular in the world without any involvement from Nintendo. Nintendo has no power over them and no right to make any kind of “action” against them.
Good or bad, they had their reasons for the delay, it sucks but that’s just how it is. Nintendo has to deal with it. They have no grounds or right to say or do anything. Do not overestimate Nintendo’s pull. Third party devs do not need Nintendo. Especially lately.
People who were gonna buy the Switch version will still buy it. I’m buying it digitally on my Xbox One X because 4k/60fps with a much better online infrastructure is a much better deal, but I had preordered the physical copy for Switch. I’ll still buy it, now it’ll just be later. This will change little, I imagine, other than the ire of some keyboard warriors.
One of my favorite games on the Wii U, already bought and played it on my Xbox One. It sucks that the Wii U lost one of its very few great third party games, but the more people that get to play this gem, the better.
As for the port...it's only $20, for a game that originally cost $60. If you were expecting a complete overhaul that fully used the power of the Xbox One/PS4, then you only have yourself to blame. I personally am very excited to have this game on another console.
I do disagree with that, simply because it literally retained everything the previous games had, just instead had a bigger, much bigger focus on creative vehicle platforming/ customization than pure straight platforming, but I do understand that point of view for those who didn't want Rare to try something new and creative, and just wanted another Banjo Tooie, but bigger. I do understand that. I just think it's foolish to condemn a game for trying something new while retaining its spirit. Then again, Nintendo rarely tries new things with their core franchises.
However, I feel the same way about Skyward Sword. Good game but a terrible Zelda game. The difference is I feel that Nuts and Bolts expanded on the formula, while Skyward sword took away from it.
I literally made an account today because of all this mindless Rare bashing by you Nintendo fans who CLEARLY never played a 360 game. Let me correct your ignorance. Viva Pinata, Viva Pinata TiP, and Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts were incredible games. Kameo: Elements of Power, Jetpac Refueled, and yes, Kinect Sports 1 and 2 were good, fun games. The ONLY Rare games that were mediocre, imo, by typical gameplay standards, were Grabbed by the Ghoulies and Perfect Dark Zero. At least GbtG had classic Rare heart, PDZ was a super generic mishap however.
I was a Nintendo-only guy until the Wii generation, where it became clear Nintendo no longer valued the core gamer. I thank them for this, because that led me to get a 360, and now I'm a proud owner of every gaming system a decent gaming PC. Trust me, anyone who is bashing this(those not out of jealousy, anyway) really need to think before they say anything. Unless you own and have played these games, and own non-Nintendo systems, your opinions and thoughts are worthless and merit-less.
If you CHOOSE not to buy other systems and games, that's your choice, and trust me, you are worse off because you're missing a lot. But please, for the love of common decency, don't bash something you have no firsthand knowledge of and experience in.
Comments 20
Re: Soapbox: Game Freak Could Actually Learn A Thing Or Two From Palworld
A thing or two?
They could learn several dozen things.
Palworld manages to be the best monster catching game released in at least 12 years on a minimal budget, with relatively inexperienced devs, in early access, at only $29.99. It outsold legends Arceus’s launch week sales in 5 days. Gamefreak/Pokémon company should be ashamed.
Pokémon has already had better competition for awhile now(TemTem, Cassete Beasts, even Nexomon), but now they’ve been completely blown out of the water.
If anyone spends $60-70 on Gamefreak’s next game, you are the problem.
Re: Poll: So, Will You Be Getting Prince Of Persia: The Lost Crown?
No, not yet, for a few reasons:
1. It’s a Ubisoft game, and they go on sale insanely fast.
2. I’m not spending $50 for a Metroidvania when games that are amazing in the genre(Hollow Knight, Blasphemous, Ori, Axiom, Ender, Ion, etc) in the genre provide the same amount, if not more content and quality for $15-25.
3. Even ignoring that godawful reveal trailer that killed my initial hype, the first PoP game in over 10 years has us controlling this wannabe-looking Prince to SAVE the Prince? Got massive Federation Force vibes from that and it turns me off.
I’m happy the game is reviewing well, the Rayman team is extremely talented and I’m sure it’s a great game, and I do plan on playing it someday, likely later this year…which it’s $20 or less/on Gamepass/PS+.
Re: Zelda: Tears Of The Kingdom: Where Does It Fit In The Zelda Timeline?
Without spoiling anything major because I’m no where close to finishing the game myself, I feel like it’s both the very end AND the very beginning.
We all knew BotW was the very end of the timeline because elements from all timelines had converged back into themselves, so BotW is so far in the future that it was the last Zelda canonically. As TotK is a direct sequel to BotW, obviously it’s now canonically last.
However, the flashbacks…had me very confused at first, and again I’m not anywhere close to finishing the game, but I’m starting to think the flashbacks predate Skyward Sword. I think what’s going on is showing the VERY first foundation of Hyrule and the Goddess, and the Demon King is the VERY FIRST Demise/Ganondorf, and Zelda ends up being the catalyst for the entire series with her being the Sage of Time, therefor giving a very new spin to “The Legend of Zelda”. Whatever happened at the end of this war must’ve led to the Hylians inhabiting the Sky Islands found in Skyward Sword, and Link/Zelda go back and reestablish the kingdom of Hyrule.
It just doesn’t make any sense for this section of the game to take place after Skyward Sword. There’s still a lot of questions though, and I hope the game gives satisfying conclusions.
Re: Poll: Will You Be Getting The New Zelda: Tears Of The Kingdom Switch OLED?
No. I’m not about to spend $360 for ancient hardware, especially when it doesn’t even come with the game.
Re: Yes, Zelda: Tears Of The Kingdom Costs $70, Collector's Edition Announced
Absolutely disgusting, as expected. Que the Nintendo simps defending an undefendable, anti-consumer decision.
HOWEVER, the fact that they included it within the voucher program, means I can pick this game up with Advance Wars for $99. This is the only way to buy this game now, or going for the CE.
If you spend the straight $70, congrats, you are part of the problem.
Re: Poll: Would You Pay $70 For The Legend Of Zelda: Tears Of The Kingdom?
@Duncanballs It’s not subjective, value had through time spent is different, I’m talking full on monetary increase in price for quality that isn’t going to be worth that jump. We’re taking a direct sequel to a game on such weak hardware that the original, a Wii U port, couldn’t even hold a stable 30fps.
It’s about having standards. You look at a game like Demon’s Souls, Ratchet and Clank, Dead Space Remake, God of War: Ragnarok, you SEE why these games can and should cost $70. They have significantly increased the quality of their presentation, from graphical fidelity to voice acting to motion capture and other things for this new generation of games. Nobody is charging $70 for the Xbox One/PS4 versions of these games, they’re still $60.
This is why Nintendo is ripping everyone off. Ragnarok costs $60 on PS4…but Nintendo is going to charge $70 for its direct sequel on hardware way less powerful and a game that’s way less impressive? Absolutely no way. It’s a rip off, whether you get value out of it or not. No one should be ok with this, but they know most Nintendo fans will cave, because they don’t have the willpower to say no.
Re: Poll: Would You Pay $70 For The Legend Of Zelda: Tears Of The Kingdom?
@Crockin Stuff like this kills me. Gamers have absolutely no will power or self control when they’re getting taken advantage of. It’s no wonder this industry has become so toxic and anti-consumer in such a rapid timeframe.
Re: Poll: Would You Pay $70 For The Legend Of Zelda: Tears Of The Kingdom?
@KingofSalvagers04 You do realize the attitude is precisely WHY this will be the standard, right? If you buy this, if you support this, they will start doing it for every other game. Anyone who buys this game at $70 is contributing to this practice.
Re: Poll: Would You Pay $70 For The Legend Of Zelda: Tears Of The Kingdom?
Absolutely not. I have some level of self respect. It’s honestly disgusting seeing so many people say they will, but I don’t expect much less from Nintendo fans, so it is what it is.
I’ll buy it used eventually if that’s the case. The principle matters. Imagine if they tried pulling this crap with Scarlet/Violet? If they do price TotK at $70, and it sells well, they’ll start pricing every Switch game at $70. Which is absolutely ridiculous.
Imagine paying $70 for a game on less powerful Xbox One hardware, that’s a direct sequel which means reused assets, environments, animations(meaning less dev cost), that doesn’t have any reason why modern games are so expensive(such as full voice acting, motion capture acting, Ray tracing/graphical fidelity, etc). Nintendo is literally only doing this because they know their fan base won’t say anything and blindly buy it.
I know Nintendo fans love getting ripped off, but this is a new level of nonsense if it ends up being true. Extremely disappointed.
Re: PlatinumGames' Live Service Title Is Off To A Really Bad Start
I bought it for my PS5 for $29 yesterday, and I’ve played it for around 2-3 hours so far.
The only genuinely positive things I can say is that the combat system is interesting(you can effectively have 4 different weapons equipped at the same time and use all 4 at the same time for some pretty interesting combos), some of the enemy designs are cool, the art style is unique, the multiplayer appears to work well, and the loot itself seems interesting.
But that’s it. Even the positives are just, as of now, only interesting, not necessarily good. The graphics themselves are very underwhelming, they look like PS3 quality most of the time. It’s the SLOWEST Platinum game I’ve ever played, it doesn’t feel as smooth as it should. The level design is like a PS2-era linear affair. The characters aren’t that interesting(yet), the story isn’t that interesting(yet), and the amount of microtransaction for cosmetics and premium battle passes is nuts for a $60 launch day title.
I’ll keep giving it a shot, because I am a sucker for looter games with co-op, and like I said, there’s potential here, maybe it’ll show itself more as the game goes on. But right now, it’s either a 5/10 or 6/10. It’s just not what I’d expect from a quality studio like Platinum.
Re: Retailer Currys Reveals Pokémon Legends: Arceus Has Become Its Most Pre-Ordered Game Ever
Hopefully Gamefreak capitalizes on this success and expands upon this formula for the mainline titles going forward. I don’t want Pokémon: M16 and Pokémon: AK47 using an “updated” Sword and Shield style engine. I’m having too much fun to ever want to go back, unless it’s a faithful remake of Gen V/VI/VII.
Just PLEASE gives us higher quality graphics next time Gamefreak! Show us what you can do when you actually try!
Re: Poll: Pokémon Legends: Arceus Is Out Today On Switch, Are You Getting It?
I got it digitally and stayed up a bit past my bedtime to play for an hour and a half or so.
It’s not great graphically, they need to do better for a $60 game. It takes a LOT of inspiration from Monster Hunter, with a tad from BotW and Souls. I can see it eventually getting a bit repetitive and samey if the structure doesn’t change to include dungeons/puzzles.
But if I’m honest? This is the most fun I’ve had with Pokémon since I was a teenager. I absolutely LOVE what they have done here, and I NEVER want to go back to the old style(outside of faithful remakes, but even then). It’s just so satisfying. I finally care about the story. I finally really want to fill out the Pokédex, including all those challenges/quest. I love the atmosphere, the mystery, the brutality. It may not be a groundbreaking video game, but damn if this isn’t the most exciting Pokémon game since Gen 2.
Re: Soapbox: Pokémon Legends: Arceus Raises The Question - How Much Do Janky Graphics Matter?
This is a loaded question and people word it so to make you feel superficial if bad graphics matter to you.
But make no mistake: Bad graphics matter, especially in this case. Legends doesn’t have “janky” graphics, this isn’t a cheaper-than-retail Eurojank RPG, this is a $60, premium priced, triple A release from the most successful media franchise of all time. The graphics aren’t janky, they are BAD. Plain and simple. The two biggest reasons:
1. Immersion
Just imagine how much better Arceus would be with richer detail? How magical it would be, how much more immersive? Video games are a visual medium, the visuals are important to the product. Especially when it’s just laziness as the cause. Immersion is what video games can do better than ANY other entertainment medium. Bad visuals detract from that.
2. It’s $60
Tell me, how on earth should we, as consumers, be ok with spending full retail price for a game from the most successful and one of the most profitable media enterprises of all time? How on earth can we spend $60 on games like God of War, Forza Horizon, Spider-Man, Horizon: Zero Dawn, Monster Hunter World, etc, all these games that BLOW us away from a visual standpoint, while also having incredible gameplay, stories, atmosphere, etc. How do we pay $60 for BotW, a LAUNCH Switch game that was made for Wii U, and accept at how Pokémon Legends looks WORSE with far less detail and stuff going on?
Graphics don’t make a game, of course not, gameplay is the most important. But they do matter a lot of how immersive a title is, how we perceive the quality and care that went into it, and most importantly, how we justify spending $60 on it.
Gamefreak needs to do better, and consumers need to expect better. If this was a $40 game with a lower budget? The conversation changes. But a $60 game from POKÉMON having some of the most underwhelming and lower quality graphics of any triple A release yet? It’s not acceptable.
Re: Review: BloodRayne ReVamped - A Joyless, Frustrating Port That Shows How Far We've Come
@CharlieGirl Again, I did say the game holds merit, it’s not broken or unplayable by any means, it’s simply from a different time. This review puts it in a very negative light.
But regardless, we’ll agree to disagree. If it was a $60 port(ala Nintendo prices), then there’s room for more criticism, but a $20 port of a 20 year old game that’s still very much playable by design(Switch issues not withstanding), should be judged on both how it holds up today AND what it achieved at release. I wouldn’t consider a review that doesn’t acknowledge that as particularly well read.
Re: Poll: What's The Worst Legend Of Zelda Game?
1. Triforce Heroes
2. Four Swords GBA
3. Spirit Tracks
How the heck is Zelda 2 leading by such a wide margin? It was different for sure, but the worst??? Worse than Triforce Heroes?!?!
This community is…interesting.
Re: Review: BloodRayne ReVamped - A Joyless, Frustrating Port That Shows How Far We've Come
I can understand the overall negativity that the Switch version probably has poor performance(buttery smooth 60fps, HD resolution on my Series X), but otherwise, this review is a bit harsh on the game.
It’s true that the sequel is a significantly better game, falling more in line with Devil May Cry 3/God of War/Ninja Gaiden style fighting, with upgrades and secrets, but the original wasn’t bad. It’s a product of old PC Third Person action design, where the camera was always centered behind you in larger levels(such as the original American McGee’s Alice). At the time, it did a lot of cool things, and there was really nothing else like it. This game also predates all the games I mentioned, as Bloodrayne came out in 2002, whilst NG/DMC3/GoW came out in 2004/2005, same as Bloodrayne 2.
I’m not particularly nostalgic for the series, but this review is a little harsh on the original, you gotta review ports/enhanced ports/remasters as products of their time just as much as how they hold up today. The Switch’s poor performance seems unfortunate, but there is merit with the game itself.
Re: Dark Souls: Remastered Will Still Have An Early Network Test
@HappyMaskedGuy I know this sucks, but you want Nintendo to make an unannounced visit? Are you serious?
Dark Souls, From Software do not need the Switch. At all. This series has become one of the most popular in the world without any involvement from Nintendo. Nintendo has no power over them and no right to make any kind of “action” against them.
Good or bad, they had their reasons for the delay, it sucks but that’s just how it is. Nintendo has to deal with it. They have no grounds or right to say or do anything. Do not overestimate Nintendo’s pull. Third party devs do not need Nintendo. Especially lately.
People who were gonna buy the Switch version will still buy it. I’m buying it digitally on my Xbox One X because 4k/60fps with a much better online infrastructure is a much better deal, but I had preordered the physical copy for Switch. I’ll still buy it, now it’ll just be later. This will change little, I imagine, other than the ire of some keyboard warriors.
Re: Video: Here's How Zombi Shapes Up Against The Original ZombiU
One of my favorite games on the Wii U, already bought and played it on my Xbox One. It sucks that the Wii U lost one of its very few great third party games, but the more people that get to play this gem, the better.
As for the port...it's only $20, for a game that originally cost $60. If you were expecting a complete overhaul that fully used the power of the Xbox One/PS4, then you only have yourself to blame. I personally am very excited to have this game on another console.
Re: Rare Co-Founder Has No Idea Why Nintendo Didn't Buy The Studio Outright
@ikki5
I do disagree with that, simply because it literally retained everything the previous games had, just instead had a bigger, much bigger focus on creative vehicle platforming/ customization than pure straight platforming, but I do understand that point of view for those who didn't want Rare to try something new and creative, and just wanted another Banjo Tooie, but bigger. I do understand that. I just think it's foolish to condemn a game for trying something new while retaining its spirit. Then again, Nintendo rarely tries new things with their core franchises.
However, I feel the same way about Skyward Sword. Good game but a terrible Zelda game. The difference is I feel that Nuts and Bolts expanded on the formula, while Skyward sword took away from it.
Re: Rare Co-Founder Has No Idea Why Nintendo Didn't Buy The Studio Outright
@MikeW
I literally made an account today because of all this mindless Rare bashing by you Nintendo fans who CLEARLY never played a 360 game. Let me correct your ignorance. Viva Pinata, Viva Pinata TiP, and Banjo Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts were incredible games. Kameo: Elements of Power, Jetpac Refueled, and yes, Kinect Sports 1 and 2 were good, fun games. The ONLY Rare games that were mediocre, imo, by typical gameplay standards, were Grabbed by the Ghoulies and Perfect Dark Zero. At least GbtG had classic Rare heart, PDZ was a super generic mishap however.
I was a Nintendo-only guy until the Wii generation, where it became clear Nintendo no longer valued the core gamer. I thank them for this, because that led me to get a 360, and now I'm a proud owner of every gaming system a decent gaming PC. Trust me, anyone who is bashing this(those not out of jealousy, anyway) really need to think before they say anything. Unless you own and have played these games, and own non-Nintendo systems, your opinions and thoughts are worthless and merit-less.
If you CHOOSE not to buy other systems and games, that's your choice, and trust me, you are worse off because you're missing a lot. But please, for the love of common decency, don't bash something you have no firsthand knowledge of and experience in.