TripleJump

@Lizuka
Huh, I guess I never got Maker 3DS or Maker 2.
And when you think about all the countless NSMBU courses the community made for Maker 2, it means I haven't even played the smallest fraction of the NSMB levels that have been created so far.
Nevermind, I am a fake fan.

I want to actually get this game and play it to completion at some point. It's the only NSMB I haven't given the time of day.

@Jayvir
Yeah, sounds the same as New Horizons where the only reason to do any activity is to get aesthetic props that don't do anything.

I still really want the game though. The demo was a blast and Ill probably get more out of decorating a machine than I will an island.

...also because the moment-to-moment gameplay of racing and boosting and fighting is satisfying and rewarding in and of itself.

@Jayvir
Thats the major issue I had with New Horizons and Mario Kart World so I really hope it doesn't hurt my experience with this game too.

@Jayvir
Have you looked into completing the checklist?
I haven't gotten the game yet so I can't comment personally, but if you find you're able to get invested in completing all of the tiny quests littered across all of the games modes than hopefully it should keep you busy for a long while.

@canaryfarmer @MatthewTaranto
Theres this advert for a product called Marmite (its this spread you can put on bread) and the slogan is "You either love it or you hate it."
It basically just means your milage will vary wildly on if its your thing or not.

The roblox game could probably just be a novelty. Its not necessarily reflective of how audiences would feel about AI usage in standard games.

I'm seriously really excited about this one. City Trial during the demo was phenomenal and Im so happy about the substantial single player content

I cant wait to be Bandana Waddle Dee for the rest of my life 😁

@RupeeClock
Air Riders isn't getting roguelike DLC because the roguelike mode is already included in the base game.

Also, just because there aren't progression systems in the rest of Mario Kart World, it doesn't mean they can't create some for a new mode. New abilities or mechanics are an undertaking, but adding upgrades that change parameters like speed and jump height are (probably) practical without too much testing needed.

I'd love to see Kart World get a substantial single player mode of some kind since I really enjoyed the P Switches but they're too sparse to find new ones after you've collected a lot of them. Honestly, single player stuff is why I'm so hyped for Air Riders honestly.

Spoilers: Galaxy 2 beating Galaxy 1 makes me happy. The midnight launch for Galaxy 2 is a treasured memory for me..

@Friendly
Fixed, thanks

@Bobobiwan
Maybe they just need more time.
I don't envy a team that has to implement 60fps into a game this big.

If you've ever seen Sonic Colours Ultimate or played a game on an emulator with a 60fps cheat code, you'd see that so many different things break when you change the speed that the game operates.
Animations change speed and go out of sync with sound effects in addition to all kinds of new glitches and unexpected behaviour.

For a game as big as XCX, the amount of testing and fixing and effort that needs to go into a simple 60fps patch sounds like an actual nightmare.
It's honestly insane just many Switch 1 games function normally on Switch 2 despite it being completely different hardware.

Now THIS is peak journalism. Every NintendoLife article should aspire to reach such heights.

Fun Fact: This console is one character away from being called the REGRET.

@nessisonett
Thanks for the recommendation. I will definitely give this a watch.

@Panagiotis
Same. I was so excited. I guess Nick makes a pretty great visual for any game court cases, so it's understandable but I'm still disappointed.

It doesn't seem much has fundamentally changed regarding this case in the last 3 years. Nintendo Life has the right to make an article about whatever they want, though I don't fully appreciate why they bothered with this. I'm glad they did because it made me aware of the 2018 article, but it's just weird.

@Lordplops
Don't apologise. Kirby might not have a specified gender in the Japanese text, in the English localisation always refer to him as "he."

Also, isn't worrying about offending a fictional character taking things a bit too far. Then again, angering Kirby might be the last thing you ever do.

@Zochmenos
...If we don't understand the extent of Nintendo's justification in regards to the law and also don't understand the extent of Nintendo's justification in regards to morality, what are we even discussing anymore?!

If I were to clarify what I'm getting at, I'd say that logical pleas are just as limited as emotional pleas by our lack of contextual knowledge.

For example, if the law had an iron grip on Nintendo and they didn't have a choice in the matter, that would explain the lack of morality. If there was no such requirement, an argument against their immorality becomes less valid.

With this little context one way or the other I'm not even sure we can make a logical or emotional understanding from this. That's what I meant when I said (#197) that whether you value morality over law or vice versa, that'll be the deciding factor on where you stand in this matter. There are points to be made for either side, but all I can say with my limited knowledge is that it could very well be both. How are they mutually exclusive? I don't understand why Nintendo can't be correct according to the law, but still have done the wrong thing.

Maybe they don't care about doing the right thing and maybe they don't have to. But if they're going to follow this path of neglecting morality then people should be allowed to notice and react accordingly.

If you break the law than you suffer by the judicial system, but there isn't much of an apparent downside to acting immorally within those guidelines. I'm not sure what to make of that without spiraling into an entirely different discussion, but what else can society do to counter the immorally of companies than to talk about it online and encourage them to improve? I seriously can't think of any other approach they can take.

@Zochmenos
That is because most people, myself included, don't know the full ramifications of letting it slide.

Some are saying that Nintendo would instantly lose control over the Joy-Con name, something that would justify Nintendo's actions if it was true, but the existence of other licenced Joy-Con sellers make me doubt this (which I'll explain later down this post.) Others say that Nintendo would then have to cater to absolutely every other individual who infringes on their IPs with good intentions, which most people don't actually expect of them. The world doesn't actually work in extremes like that.

CaptainAlex already bought all of the Joy-Cons himself. If all of the proceeds were going to charity (which I'm not sure they were) and Nintendo's brands were being well represented, I don't understand why Nintendo would feel the need to intervene.

Controller Chaos is not an isolated case: I have seen so much unlicensed Nintendo IP use on t-shirts, mobile app games, mobile app ads, posters and especially controllers. The Mario and Pokémon IPs have been infringed a countless amount of times yet Nintendo still owns Mario. I have no reason to believe Nintendo would lose the Joy-Con IP when it's been infringed in much fewer instances than Mario; this feels like a case where one guy on the Internet did a second of legal research and now everyone is parroting his buzzwords without really understanding what they're saying.

As for people pushing their agenda on why it sucks that 3D All-Stars is a limited release... its the Internet. I bet some people shoehorned how Waluigi is not in Smash and Persona 5 is not on Switch into this as well. When things like this blow up, people will find a way to push their agenda.

And while I agree that none of us know the full story, since a full understanding is probably impossible, all we can do is just give it "our best cracks." Chances are that we'll never know the truth.

@yuwarite
Isn't this the exact same logic that allowed Sony to name their console "PlayStation" without dealing with Nintendo's licence for the name "Play Station"? Maybe the law has changed since the late-90s, but I just think it's funny how they got away with it.

@Zochmenos
Is your implication that law is logic without emotion and that morality is emotion without logic? Because whether you value one over the other seems to be the fundimental difference between both sides of the argument (from what I can tell anyways.)

I understand it this way because of the people who are responding to "Yes it is within the law, but it's morally reprehensible" with "Yes it is morally reprehensible, but it's within the law." I don't understand why it can't be both.

The way people argue that it's either one or the other is why the conversation isn't going anywhere. When neither side is listening to the other, it's just a shouting contest.

As for morality being devoid of logic... isn't the law built on morality? Examples like laws against stealing or hurting people are primarily about "doing the right thing", no? So doesn't that mean that the law is as emotion-fueled as morality?

@ToonStuff
Honestly, this is the gist of the situation. I'm not certain whether Nintendo was required to do this or it was just in their best interest, but regardless of legal precedent... this reflects really poorly on them. Its going to take time for them to fully rebuild their image.

@Zochmenos
Firstly, I agree that the fundimental principle that Nintendo is legally justified is understood by literally everyone here. Its frustrating that it's being repeated ad nauseum.

The legal inaccuracy is the idea that if Nintendo didn't let this one instance slide they would lose control of their trademark. Something that Controller Chaos and similar companies clearly prove to be invalid. This ties into the whole "why me but not them" thing, but it also goes against one of the major arguments repeated repeatedly in this thread.

@Zochmenos
A fair point about what I said about a complete understanding.

Toxicity is relative. I haven't seen much name-calling, but quite a few people are being rude to both CaptainAlex and anyone who believes Nintendo to be in the wrong here. It's a tad unpleasant, but it could be worse. It's moreso the large masses of people parroting the same misinformed legal information that irks me, since it misses the crux of the dilemma.

Anyone who completely defends Nintendo without a nuanced and complete understanding of what has happened here is just as bad as anyone who completely attacks Nintendo without a nuanced and complete understanding of what happened here.

This applies to most of the people in this thread.

@Stocksy
I'm also really disappointed. I know this is the Internet, but I was hoping for a more nuanced response than "Nintendo is legally in the right, end of story" spammed ad nauseum.

As if CaptainAlex didn't already know that.
As if ANYONE didn't already know that.

No one is arguing against Nintendo's legal precedent here: it is definitive and absolute. The ACTUAL QUESTION HERE is how come the tiny suicide-awareness charity case was targeted before Controller Chaos and other JoyCon manufacturers who sell Nintendo's IPs for cold hard profit. Why does Nintendo prioritise the former over the latter? If Nintendo must supposedly deal with every instance of copyright infringement or deal with losing their trademark (as people here keep repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating and repeating etc), where are their priorities?

Unlike everyone else in this thread, I don't have a doctorate in law so I won't pretend to. I'm also not going to definitively declare Nintendo to be in the morally wrong because I don't pretend to know the full situation.

But its a shame how everyone here immediately jumps to Nintendo's aid, like this is a personal attack on the developers that made their favourite games and not an unrelated corporate branch. I love Nintendo just as much as everyone here and that’s why I'm not going to stand here and pretend like they always do the right thing. I want them to treat their audience with as much respect as they treat their games, but I'm not going to plug my fingers in my ears and say "Lalala its the law" when they mess up to avoid having to think about the implications.

@Doktor-Mandrake
Thats probably a coincidence. Either way, both games ripped off Diddy Kong Racing if you think about it.

You lot... really don't like Sonic here, do you? The whole "Sonic had a rocky transition into 3D thing" isn't entirely untrue, but it overlooks the occasions when there were actually pretty fun games from the Blue Blur.

Yes Sonic Forces and Sonic 06 exist, but so do Sonic Colours and Generations. Sonic Mania might be an outlier right now, but its still a result of the franchise's consistent existence. I hope they stick around and make another one.

I'm not excusing the fact that this series has just as many downs as ups, but I'm of the mind that dismissing the entire franchise altogether is rash and doesn't take the full picture into account. It's an easy punching bag what with it's reputation, but Sonic has stuck around this long for good reason.

I'm so happy UnWiished made it into the top five. It's my favourite game, so seeing it get the recognition it deserves is fun. Also, I'm glad Colours was #2 since it's become incredibly unrelated lately. It's a fantastic game, Forces just makes it look bad.

Jokes aside, my top pick goes to Sonic Unleashed for the Wii. It isn't the best Sonic game, but it's by far my favourite. In fact, it just so happens to be my most favourite game of all time. Sonic Colours is also pretty great, though I don't care of Sonic Heroes.

In terms of 3D Sonic games, I'd have to say Super Mario Galaxy 2 is an easy 10/10.