Smigit

"you'd naturally expect your "strong" hand to be the one making the most precise control inputs"

I'd argue the right hand has to do more, especially now days that there's right hand joysticks alongside the buttons on that side of the control while controllers with a stick + dpad generally see the d-pad getting allocated less frequently used functions like inventory management etc.

Even back on older NES and SNES titles the left thumb would probably be moving around less than the right hand one which was controlling buttons. A lot of those older titles you were just rocking the dpad left or right to control some 2D title.

@DTFaux I don’t think it matters if Nintendo is in China or not. They’re notorious to turning a blind eye to blatant copyright infringements.

@DTFaux According to the source link it’s from China, so theres between zero and nil chance that a cease and desist will occur.

They could drop the Labo name and possibly tweak any logo anyway if copyright was an issue and they’d no longer be infringing anything. Nintendo doesn’t own cardboard casing for gadgets and they aren’t shipping any software that’s infringing anything. Nintendo’s differentiator with Labo surely has to be the software, I’m sure they were aware people would make custom cardboard kits and in a sense that almost seems in the spirit of the product (I wouldn’t say profiting off those designs necessarily is but).

Shovel knight physical release + Amiibo triple pack they showed off.

@Menchi187 An article from October 2016 isn’t a very good reflection on Nintendo’s views of the Switch as a portable system.

Firstly that Christmas the Wii U was abandoned and along with the NES Classic, the 3DS was where they were making some money. They had to encourage 3DS sales knowing they’d just announced another more powerful portable system.

Secondly 2017 happened and the Switch went in to become one of the fastest selling consoles of all time over a 12 month period.

If you look at the focus it seems relatively clear the Switch is Nintendo’s priority in terms of all gaming. There’s a few 3DS titles on the horizon sure, but even some of those were almost a foot note to a Switch version such as the case was with Captain Toad.

It is widely accepted that Nintendo was cautious in the lead up to the Switch, especially when it came to positioning the 3DS. This is the same company that prior to its launch said the DS wasn’t a Gameboy replacement. The fact they are continueing to push models without 3D in pursuit of a cheaper console also says where the system is in its lifecycle.

@SmaggTheSmug They do have a smaller City Slicker case which I have and fits the console, some spare joycon, games and a cable or two. Won’t fit a power pack but. Worth a look if size is a concern...I love mine.

Odd article. I think the title needs to be changed to reflect the fact Zelda, Mario odysse and possibly Mario Kart have been deliberately left out to highlight more niche titles (at least according to remarks in the comments from staff).

Double odd when they’re basically all 2017 titles and not hugely reflective of the December/Jan game of the years awards the site issued. Again, an issue with the articles title.

“Without it, there wouldn’t be a Nintendo Switch. Wii U was the stop gap that had to exist between the motion control innovation (and mainstream uber-success) of Wii and the semi-rebirth that is Switch.”

People like to say that as a defence for the Switch but there’s nothing really to back it up. Many of the issues resolved by the Switch were ones the public picked up day one, if not earlier. We didn’t need the Wii U to get to the Switch but no doubt the journey would have helped.

For example, everyone knew the Wii’s U controller being tied to a 4 or 5 meter range of the console was limiting. We all wanted to be able to take it anywhere. That wasn’t a vision that was hard to realise.

Likewise everyone could see that one Wii’s U Gamepad was a concession and would limit multiplayer potential. Here was this concept that sounded great for multiplayer but Nintendo then told us the console would only work with up to two if the game pass at one and there was no plans to ship them as an aftermarket accessory anyway. Likewise we all knew the resistive screen of the console was going to reduce its usability and that the resolution of it was crap.

From a marketing perspective it was clear the name was not a good choice for casual buyers. We could see the UI wasn’t great etc etc.

All things that were identifiable day one. To add to the issue so many were fundamental hardware issues that it was obvious these limitations were going to follow the console through its life.

So no, the Wii U didn’t have to be released and fail for the Switch to arrive. What really needed to happen was for mobile phones and tablets to drive advancements in silicon beyond the point that they were when the Wii’s U released so that the Nintendo could release the home console inside a portable body that the market had been asking for over the years. Other than the joycon being removable, the Switch is really the realisation of what people had been mocking up and asking for already. The Wii U fell short of those visions and we all knew it. Nintendo went in that direction before the technology was there to support the vision.

@Kirgo yeah all valid and what I was alluding to. There’s a lot to consider. I’d put game integration in the “other infrastructure” bucket too but either way it’s highly likely that the team was doing more than rendering a few images and text in a grid but building a fleshed our system. That’s before we talk about other work on the OS, I doubt they worked in isolation, in fact you couldn’t.

@Kirgo Does the article state they were on the feature full time, or did they simply have 4-5 people working it over a 12 month span while doing other things. 4-5 man years seems nuts, but if the same staff were also working on the eShop and the supporting infrastructure then it seems like a realitively realistic use of resources and time frame given they were doing QA/UAT between regions. I could conceivably see them pushing out multiple iterations for teams to then dog feed for a few weeks and those staff would be largely engaged on other development while waiting for the feedback.

Same team may also have been working on non Switch services such as Nintendo’s website.

I’ll wait for some benchmarks but I may pick up the game. Shame they didn’t release it in this state, but I wasn’t burnt due to buyer at the time so nothing lost in that regard and ultimately it’s still a title I’m interested in.

Charming title but in my view it’s probably only worth the $2 or $3 I paid for it on the iPhone. Can’t see how this one would benefit from being on the Switch control wise and certainly can’t see how it’d gain enough to be worth several times the mobile price.

@AG_Awesome I read one report that stated his run scored a lot from using a hammer to smash barrels which in turn gives a randomly generated number of points. Someone claimed that on average he was getting well above the norm for those actions across the run compared to what is standard, with the implication being the ROM had been modified.

Unsure if that’s exactly it but it was one thing I heard.

I don’t think it’s completly nuts although I doubt they’d spend the money. Even if MS keeps the games multi platform it likely buys them leverage by owning the most important sports titles, Battlefield and other major franchises to bargain for things like cross play with Sony which could help them eat away at perceived system lock in over time. That and initially this gen having the superior third party game ports on the PS was a big part of what got Sony ahead, where almost certainly MS would be the lead platform for all those titles even if they were cross platform.

They’d get Origin and its tech too which I’m sure has value and beyond just sports there’s the Sims, Need for Speed and a number of still respected studios including Bioware whose Anthem took out many best of awards at last years E3.

On the PC side it’s a big boost to the Windows Store side.

Considering what they dropped for Minecraft alone it doesn’t seem “that” nuts a buy. Not cheap but there’s not many bigger names in gaming and for certain high profile genres like sports EA is easily the top dog.

I doubt any buy would impact Nintendo a whole lot. It’s Sony where they’re probably likely to try push their weight I’d say.

EA would also have the infrastructure in place that MS if they wanted could be relatively hands off if they wish. Buying smaller Devs means greater risk and probably encourages extra oversight where they can probably let EA continue doing what EA does.

@Rayquaza2510 80mb/s is fine. Here’s an article where one card rated at that out performed Nintendo’s own cartridges in every test, if only slightly to the point of being meaningless.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2017-best-microsd-cards-for-switch-loading-time-comparison_7

Given games are designed to run off the cartridges, a memory card that performs as well (slightly better) isn’t going cause too many issues.

"Wii U was a necessary step towards a superior console"

No it wasn't. A lot of the failing of the Switch as a platform were recognised by consumers and the industry from day one. I'm sure Nintendo learnt a lot from the missteps, but at the same time it was clear that the console was compromised in its delivery and the lack of AAA titles also was a very apparent issue and problems that could have been avoided by waiting for the technology to materialise and a better release strategy.

I completely disagree that the Wii U had to happen for the Switch to appear though and the Switch brought with it a lot of what people wanted day one from the Wii U.

Personally I’d like to see the open world with some more story oriented elements layered on top. I think that’s perfectly achievable and many games have done this successfully in the past. The story just needs to be able to adapt around the player going off script which can be difficult but not impossible. That and it doesn’t need to be one large linear story, but there could be multiple smaller quest lines going on. BotW didn’t even have many minor quest lines of real substance.

I’m not saying it needs to play out like Twilight Princess, but there should be fewer fetch quests and rather sub stories of more substance. Perhaps a town is having issues with raiders destroying buildings, kidnaping villagers etc and over multiple quests Link can work to resolve that. Something a bit more invested than “find me five xxx” that many of BotWs quests implemented.

Those people helped, towns saved etc that all have their own unique story may then help you in later conflicts like the Heroes in BotW did. Don’t help them and you’ll get a different outcome.

I also want to see some more substantial dungeons or keeps in the game. An underworld cave like environment would be nice too.

Picked Mario Odysse myself but overall I’m very comfortable with the results across all systems.

Possibly feel that Mario and Rabbids Battle Kingdom derverves to be in the top five of the Switch, but can’t really argue too much given the caliber of titles. Really great to see the Switch lineup doing so well. Also glad Metroid from the 3DS snuck in for the top overall five titles.

Here in AU the price is $90 for standard va $120 for the special edition. Seems pretty excessive for a steelbook and a few cards.

Would be nice if it had at least included the original on a physical cart.

Personally I’d pick Mario Odyssey. BotW was a fantastic game no doubt however I did feel as though after about 20 hours it’s ability to surprise sort of went away a bit, even if you hadn’t uncovered the map. From then onwards it was fun but I’m. It sure the game expanded a huge deal. Chalk that up to a poor story (when all is said and done), lack of larger dungeons and small enemy list.

Mario in the other hand has a comparable number of moons to Zelda’s Kurok Seeds but getting them for the most part is just so wildly more varied and generally more satisfying too.

What I love about BotW is the potential. I can just imagine them taking the current engine and cranking it to 11 with more enemies, larger dungeons, more engaging quests and story and more terrain. Essentially bring in Mario’s or even past Zelda’s games variety and dump that into BotWs sandbox. BotW was a great game but I think there’s a massive amount of untapped potential that Nintendo could really run with in a next instalment, especially now that they know what works.

I don’t think we’re going to see discrete generations from Sony or MS again. Why do they need to reinvent the wheel unless they plan to move away from x86. I can’t imagine either are going to to try do a Nintendo with the Switch and MS in particular has incentive to keep the platform similar to Windows PCs.

I think the Pro and One X are a sure sign that generations are out and we’re goig to see iterative updates. Discrete generations are a huge business risk. Look at Sony’s struggle to transition from the PS2 to PS3 and MS in turn failing miserably to carry its 360 momentum to the One. Discrete generations provides a logical point for customers to jump ship rather than stick with a common platform.

So yeah, we may be two years away from an upgrade to current consoles, but I don’t think we’re going to see a new generation in the traditional sense again.

Sounds like progress to me. Surely the next step is a nano USB-C Bluetooth single from some third party that’ll work with any standard Bluetooth headset. Wouldn’t be as good as adapter free, but it’d be close.

Compression sounds likely. I’m not sure what’s in the original game but perhaps translations too if there’s any audio differences.

@impurekind “Seriously, why can't Nintendo simply remake all the original SNES chips and stuff 100% accurately but just shove them in a smaller box”

Because that can’t be ported into other systems like the Switch. I think it’s a no brainer that the software based emulation being developed for these somewhat limited run consoles is intended to be reused elsewhere, namely the Switch which hasn’t yet been given a virtual console. Going the dedicated hardware route locks them into supporting a single niche hardware solution, where a good software emulator can be reused time and time again and ported to current and future devices.

The other thing is 99.5% of the people buying this don’t need 100% perfect emulation. It’s close enough for them. Developing hardware adds cost and would bring no tangible benefits to most gamers. Their money would probably be better spent just adding more titles to the same software which I think customers would appreciate more generally.

@Angelic_Lapras_King you may not need to start again. Depends on what the achievements criteria are and whether they planned ahead and have been tracking all along.

They added the tracker post release and when that went live people had their exploration history pre filled up to around 100 hours from memory.

"Third-parties – which are often developing multiple versions of the same game – often don't have the intimate knowledge of the hardware"

I doubt the file size difference between Nintendo and some third parties has much to do with hardware knowledge, but is rather a by product of the graphical styles of the games. All the Nintendo titles in the article are using cartoonish graphics that don't ask for large volumes of high detail textures and other media to create the world. The games look great, but in many cases graphically they're pretty simple even if they're incredibly stylistic. Even the newer BotW has some pretty terrible low resolution textures however the art style makes it easy to look past this.

There's also FMV and audio tracks (often with voicing) that other titles may use and these are things Nintendo usually skips or has pretty limited use of.

I imagine that's where a lot of the capacity gets used up. The intimate hardware knowledge may help a bit but that probably aids more in optimising game performance as opposed to it explaining why Nintendo shipped 1.6GB titles and third parties had 22GB releases.

I'm not surprised that this would happen as I've never felt 32GB was massive for the carts. That said, I'm a bit surprised it's a basketball title that sees us hitting that wall. I can't imagine there's a huge storage requirement for such a game. As other have noted, it could be the developer cheating out.

I think in 12 or 18 months it won't be uncommon but. Throw a large RPG or FPS on the system, possibly with cinematics etc, and 32GB can go pretty quickly. I know many will say that something like BotW was massive and only 14GB, but it did use relatively low quality textures and didn't have a lot of cinematics, so I can see other games that go for higher fidelity graphics struggling. Graphically the system can go further than the PS3 that had titles filling Blu-ray Discs.

I do hope devs are smart about it but moving forward...shipping low quality textures that the game can be played with and having higher detailed content as optional downloads for example.

With any lock the physical media gets cheaper too and capacity increases. Get it to 64 and the need for external storage drops dramatically as long as games don't implement lazy patching routines (like some titles that see people basically downloading the entire game again on other consoles after an update).

@Ps4all Having a quick look at the documentation it seems to suggest LAN play supports docked mode. As such perhaps people would rather play docked on their own TV, possibly with a Pro controller, over sitting in a single room likely in handheld mode.

http://en-americas-support.nintendo.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/27035/~/how-to-use-the-lan-play-feature-of-splatoon-2

Actually for Splatoon the documentation takes it further and seems to suggest each Switch requires its own TV in 'LAN' mode. I can't imagine too many houses have multiple TV's in the one room so voice chats an ideal thing to have.

Could be a logistical thing rather than people being social or unsocial.

@ricklongo yeah. That said we'll get The End is Nigh soon which may partially fill that void a bit.

@MonkiPlays I do hope so. They had said it'd be considered after the final DLC.

@ricklongo I get the impression it's an auto runner instead of an endless runner, so a bit like Mario Run. The article says levels progressively get harder as you beat them, where endless runners don't really have levels.

I assume they did it so they could release on mobile devices.

Meanwhile here in Australia stock was available for days before it had been allocated at each retailer taking orders.

It's a pretty bad situation when 20 mins of availability is considered not to be so bad.

Zero so far, but only because the titles I've wanted have had physical releases I've gone for instead. I'll eventually get some digital games no doubt, possibly starting with my Yooka Laylee Kickstarter reward.

Optimistic about the store but as above I've preferences physical releases to date. The prices have been the same or better physically, and I'm still a bit tentative when it comes to Nintendo and digital. Also while I can't log into multiple Switch's at once, physical provides a better sharing mechanism should we get a Switch for our son. The current restrictions, while better than previous consoles, does still feel like I'm locking myself to a single device. I think family sharing needs to open up a bit more.

@BLP_Software 1440p isn't that crazy for mobile displays. Firstly there's a big difference between rendering text and rendering a game. Text you want to be very very clean, where you can get away with doing things at a lower resolution in a game where everything is in motion anyway and higher red introduces significant performance differences.

Also that S8 you're using is intended in part to be used in VR headsets where the phone will be an inch from your eyes. The resolution might be high for normal use but when used in a VR headset it's not that unreasonable at all.

Switch displays are fine although unlike others, I'd prefer if it was glass out of the box. Nothing a glass screen protector didn't address but.

@jswhitfield8 He'll be able to use the bonus content as much as anyone else. If he doesn't play the games thats the exception, but anyone can get the standard edition if they want to play it. The actual games the same either way.

Lets not act like the other buyers aren't going to stick the bonus items on their shelves for display also.

My personal view is its a broken weapon, for single player at least. I have a few issues with it:

a) It doesn't really help the user a great deal. To get the blue shell you're probably at the bottom of the race anyway and the fact it likely bypasses people immediatly in front of you means it's only really helping those in 2nd, 3rd, 4th or up at the front. If the race group is compacted maybe you'll overtake the victim, but I rarely see that being the case.

b) It's too hard to defend against. The Super Horns nice but its too rare. Secondly while you can attempt to keep a horn around for an inevitable blue shell, there's a very high chance that you'll lose it to the lightening bolt which is arguably more over powered but at least impacts everyone on the field equally. The fact the horn is so easily lost however to the lightening bolt means it's not a reliable tool to keep around necessarily.

c) Due to A and B, i dont think it's an especially fun item when used in player vs computer scenarios. It's nice to win because you were in second place and someone knocks out an AI leader with the shell, but I wouldn't call it any more satisfying than shooting a green or red shell from second place. If you're doing poorly then there's far more useful items out there (bullet, piranah, star, lightening, tripple mushrooms etc) that will help you progress your own position more so than a blue shell.

I think they need to change the design so that the shell progresses at track level and will break after it hits three players. It can still target the person in first, but if along its path it hits three players the shell will break before hitting its target. Not only would that have a similar effect of potentially slowing down player one, it'd ensure there's cases where race leaders aren't impacted and make it more likely the shell will help the player using it by slowing down players closer to their immediate position.

If the shell must remain as it is, I sort of feel the horn should be immune to the effects of the lightening bolt so that it can be relied upon for defence. It's still a gamble carrying the horn as it's tieing up your ability to get other defensive items like bananas and shells which can be used for more proactive defence.