Rummy

With a number of other things looking like they're moving in the right direction - I just can't believe or accept quite yet that they won't go forwards for party chat as a minimum, and online voice chat hopefully as a standard on par with competition. It's going to be interesting to see and possibly a real deal breaker for me - imo if they manage to implement something on par with the competition this system will fly off the shelves; if they leave it out then it'll have a modest performance outdoing the WiiU but ultimately end up hindered by being behind a very current and still evolving curve that's a standard expectation. I'd like to hope/think they won't just implement, but at the same time do a classic bit of Nintendo magic and even jump beyond it, but they're still Nintendo and I'm still wary given a lot of their decisions in the last gen or two. /RetroDreams

The fact you'll even have at least the two of you playing together will negate some of the downsides Shorty mentioned. I definitely enjoy it far more even just with one other person I know.

All very much my own thoughts that I've had before. I've come at NX/Switch quite sceptical after the WiiU but the information we've been getting is turning me more in its favour and I'm starting to think it really could be viable in a way they didn't manage with the WiiU. Of course, I also said the same of the WiiU and eventually got suckered in(albeit not straight away) and I do regret that somewhat now. I think I'm currently quietly optimistic but prepared for it to not be quite all I want. I'm definitely still not sure if this is definitely going to be a purchase for me yet, and certainly not looking likely for launch day unless that Mario is just some killer title I HAVE to have. I think Nintendo should look towards adopting a paid online model as the competition does - and if you're subscribed to said online then you are able to access the back catalogue of titles. Sure, sell them as standalone downloads etc - but giving people an option to play any of their back catalogue as part of the nominal online fee would be a good shout imo. Also encourages more people to embrace online - somewhere they've not always been as active in previously. Maybe draw lines around it - so only to SNES or N64 games; or maybe add small premiums for certain titles. IE you're paying £3-4 a month or so for online maybe, but you can 'buy' the games you want access to for small amounts - like less than £1 a piece but like PS+ titles you can only access them whilst also still having an active online subscription etc.

I'm with Shorty - the 'idiots' are usually much more clearly experienced players. I never mind if it's clear we've got someone new with us, or I feel bad if we end up matched against a lot of new people and we roll them(happened last night, I'm presuming it was a group of friends trying the free weekend). I've got about 90hours clocked in now and tbh I still clearly am not spectacular. I play with 4 of my other mates generally, and I'm probably second 'weakest' of the 5 of us though I do tend to lean towards a much heavier support angle most of the time. I think it's definitely a game that ends up being worth its money(did @Mr\-Paul and anyone else too! @Emerald Emblem joined us for a few last night; so he can maybe tell you what kind of level he found us playing at. (we do get quite chatty on mic tho)

It is looking absurdly good for 2017, but we do still need to be mindful of 2018 and onwards. If they manage to have a really good start they need to ensure they do well to keep its momentum with lots of content - I'm excited to see what they do with more indie/downloadable stuff and storefronts etc. I think there's a lot more games I see on things like PSN store or Steam that I'd probably be more inclined to pick up on Switch with its lack of limitation of being tied to the TV.

What or why were there difficulties with Unity? I thought the whole idea of Nintendo adopting and supplying it was because it was supposed to make development and porting easier for the WiiU? Almost quite literally alolololol. Still not happy with the Zelda delay, and Sun/Moon/Stars don't really interest me but with these and the rumours of Mario for launch and its more SM64 style the Switch is growing every more tempting for me. Getting the system sold well in the first year can only be good for it imo, and I won't mind taking as much of a chance on it. Online features and functionality is still going to be the real decision-maker for me but everything else is slowly starting to look as if Nintendo are going in a direction that I think is going to work well for the system this time round. Splatoon pack-in is a good idea but its online functionality definitely needs some hard looking at and fixing in places.

Silly question you've just made me wonder - is BotW another Hyrule setting? I presume so for tradition etc but tbh if this IS a huge open world etc then you know I'd possibly be tempted by your suggestion(also come's back to Retro's one too) of essentially having an identical geographical world but with a different amount of content to it. Almost like a BotW Master Quest only not just limited to dungeons. I mean if you're gonna make that huge world then why not take advantage of trying to present it in a completely different way a few years later? Was the dungeon design great though? I mean...it was fun but I'd call it OK at best. The novelty came from items and control method - I actually think TP had some of the best dungeon design and variance to the series; but the problem was it was all very self-contained. I suppose a fair caveat to consider is that I probably noticed TP's dungeon design a lot more than other titles due to the aforementioned thin lacking of content outside of them. Would probably agree with that myself too. The repeated visits to the various areas made it feel very much like they didn't have enough content but were trying to evergreen what was there. If you consider the size of TP compared to what SS offered - it certainly felt they went a bit small. The evergreening aspect certainly does make the game feel old/outdated for me; a throwback to when you'd try to recycle and maximise areas/assets to long out the game.

Don't get me wrong, there's enough bluster around her as anyone else; but I still give her more a benefit of a doubt than most other folks due to her previous track record. I'm not sure she's been quite as on point in the last few years as I stopped following or paying attention; but it seems that she's certainly got a somewhat unique perspective on some aspects of the industry especially with a Nintendo focus. I don't know much about Laura Kate Dale but with the two corroborating each other so far they do seem somewhat credible sources for things.

Pack-in will be digital beyond a doubt - why give yourself extra costs and reduce margins? My biggest issue is that if they pack-in Splatoon however they need to make sure that they fix some of the online aspects of it. Not sure how I'm feeling right now having read about the 1v1 mode. It's a great game and I want it in many more hands but its online needs to be rock solid, especially as a push or pack-in with a brand new system. In her defence I wouldn't just call her a 'Twitter user' she's been writing articles about Nintendo's history for many years now and tends to go into a fair amount of detail where she can. Admittedly I've not read much since her NES days but I always found her articles interesting and worth reading despite being quite comprehensive. I'd be tempted by new Mario on launch, and a Splatoon pack-in, but I also worry about this supposed Zelda delay. I had intentions to purchase on the WiiU, but with a delay beyond the Switch's launch I honestly don't know what I'll do. It's frustrating/annoying enough that I might not actually buy it brand new, and go second hand or wait a bit for reactions before doing so - because I don't agree with its approach in delay etc and as much as I'd like the experience, I'm not keen to directly support them monetarily if that's how they wish to conduct themselves. As for the EA game - it's either gonna be a sports title so they can leave it to die and justify not putting titles on the console, or one of their other titles(not sure what's coming/out/about??) for them to test the waters of the systems demand and saleability before putting their bigger titles like the sports ones etc on it too.

Interesting thoughts on the generational leaps previously compared to now @Grazza; hadn't even thought about that. Has been interesting seeing the variance on the acceptability of delays for different folks too! For WW I think I'd actually agree! I haven't played WW much since its original release(tried a replay once or thrice but fallen off) but maybe I'll give it a go this Xmas or something on my WiiU. Thinking about it I certainly can't, off the top of my head, think of anything that'd make it specifically old or out of touch. What makes TP or SS feel old? I know for me TP feels empty, and SS feels repetitive in places, but repetition could also be levelled at Wind Waker when it comes to the triforce charts(though as said I don't mind it). Isn't BotW despite that sort of fantasy middle earth landscape going a bit more futuristic? Not sure how much more room there is for mixing up but that is a kinda difference depending how prominent a feeling it is. Personally I love the idea of more experiments like MM. I can't right now envisage what they'd similarly do with BotW but I haven't seen enough of the game really. The idea of DLC is interesting, but I think it'll rankle too many folks to take off. I like suggestion of a seasonal change and all it brings but the DLC+Zelda just feels like it's gonna leave a bitter taste in many mouths and it won't take off. Hmmm. I think in my gut I'm right with you on the first part, but the solution it gives is the same as your end point - release more games/more often/possibly have a main game and an experimental one. It's very possible they already do this and no experiments work out and we don't know of course. The obvious flipside to this is the risk of a franchise fatigue or milking that harms its image. If they're going to keep hitting console boundaries with their releases each title's going to have to be fresh and new though.

They can easily cut the price later if they want though, right? So they could well be testing the waters with this £8 mark, maybe looking to see how it sells at different prices or giving them an opportunity to discount it for sales or permanently later on?

The Jonathan Pie video really hit a mark for me. I've been trying to talk to people generally about it; I pose that people of ethnic origin, islamic faith, female gender etc have voted for Trump and to call all his supporters racists of biggots etc almost discounts the fact there are people out there who you might not have expected to vote for him, voting for him; and shouldn't we ask ourselves why? Hypothetical people, in a light-hearted conversation with people, and I've still seen the vitriol some people spout about these personally unknown people being 'idiots' or 'stupid' or reduced to such a level of absurd disrespect I'm actually quite amazed. I agree with you Gibbs that the perceived 'left' are losing ground and failing. There's a whole middle we forget about in these false dichotomies and the 'right' is doing a better job of getting them on board because when they pose questions to the 'left' they may well get shouted down and called names or belittled or ridiculed. I find it astounding and can see it pushing us more into a tribalism we haven't had as much of recently imo. AAAnyway - one thing I wondered which has half slipped the net(not entirely) but I've not seen talked about. I saw a tweet that was something along the lines of 'Now all the media who told you this wouldn't happen will tell you all the things are going to happen as a result of this happening' and it made me think: Are the traditional media losing power of influence? The media mostly didn't see this, nor Brexit, coming. A large majority for both have expressed shock and surprise at the outcome. If the media were saying this was never going - why did it? Were they reporting, or influencing did they fail, did they just get it wrong, is their world changing? With the ease of accessing and logging on to social media and the amount of time we spend on it, is it actually slowly breaking down the power of the traditional mainstream media; whether for better or worse??

Surprised by the price, really thought sub £5(probs £3-4) mark would have been about the right way to go. Does it affect anyone's decision to buy it? I might have picked it up at under a fiver though I'm Android anyway so would be waiting a while and might lost interest by then, but £8s a bit too much for me really. I'd be more inclined to pop down to CEX and see what I might pick up for that price than this tbh. Definitely in part with Ashley on this being somewhat experimental for them though - I'm hoping it is and they do take something from it; rather than just launching a blind product and hoping for the best.

I've no issue on disagreement! It's what makes discussion what it is! My issue is that for some reason few seem to want to answer my question. Retro did - he'd give Last Guardian a year, or if it was delayed for even 7 years would possibly still come back to it if it was good enough. I'm curious for views like that. I can't go up to a stranger in the street, explain the general situation with BotW/WiiU/Switch(which imo isn't all that general, plus relation to TP/Wii) and ask them their thoughts without some of it probably being lost in translation. There's very few people I can imagine that I have in my social circles that I can pose the question to or have the discussion with either - so I end up asking it here hoping to broaden my horizons. There's no line for @dazzybee, but I'd still ask him - would you take BotW in a year? 2? 3? 5? 10? Surely the line is somewhere. What happens if you get a 2014-esque game in 2018? I asked where people draw the lines on what they find acceptable for delays. Instead it then became a point of how easy I think it is or how well I'd do at running Nintendo. Yes I hold views on what they do business-wise that I disagree with; but I honestly didn't want to go there with this. I'd even have elaborated much more on that in response but I really don't want this to go off Zelda BotW. I'm just curious on where other people draw their lines on where the acceptability of delay for this particular situation is? I could tell you in much more detail what Nintendo should or shouldn't do, imo, but it moves off thread relevance. I could also bring up parallel examples that maybe reference competition and flagship titles. However I don't want this to get off topic to a classic Sony discussion derailment and have tried to keep it to Zelda/BotW given that it's somewhat unique in itself. When, ever, has a flagship title come after actual console production is pretty much officially ceased? Is it acceptable or reasonable to people here as consumers given the title in question(I'd daresay Zelda holds a fairly unique weight to it)?. If neither of those hold contextual relevance then where, do you feel, holds an acceptable level of delay for a game like Zelda for you? I'm not asking anyone to nod and agree with me(as it is, as stated, all a matter of opinion) but I would appreciate if you'd answer the question. What's acceptable for you in terms of delay? Iirc this game was announced back in early(January even maybe?) 2013 as being in development - is 4-5 years an acceptable amount of time from announcement to release, especially given a context of the originally intended console itself having almost a shorter lifespan? As I'm apparently having an issue with a supposed disagreement - where you actually draw your own lines in terms of delays, @Shorty? For me the context of delay for BotW is related to the WiiU lifespan itself, although I also think a 4+ year announcement to release for Zelda form Nintendo is kinda unusual regardless, but it's been especially noticeable with the WiiU, imo. Tell that to the "guaranteed" 2016 release announcement. Not the first announcement on date either, mind. I consider myself here and the implications(best point of reference I have) interesting. Do I buy it on WiiU? Yes, because I dislike the repeat of TP. Do I buy it on Switch? Well, that's assuming I buy a switch, and in such a case I might still get this on WiiU before I get a Switch(possibly hurting both Switch and Switch version sales). Do I buy BotW and a Switch? Well, that's the real ultimate maybe but how will I feel knowing I might not see another Zelda on the system or if I do it will be after its lifecycle and its ceasing production? If I'd had a Zelda on my WiiU 3-4 years ago and the Switch came out with a new brand new one I couldn't get elsewhere would I be likely to buy it? Far much more so I imagine, as it'd be something I can't experience elsewhere. I held off on buying a WiiU(and didn't until after Zelda was 'officially' in development) and given the experience it gave me and the lack of Zelda until this point - I'd wonder whether to get Switch off the bat. Even if I do, I will most likely NOT get BotW-Switch unless there was some super good offer to WiiU version owners. The thing is that's just me though. I realise I'm just one person.

And it's equally easy to lean back and armchair praise Nintendo as if everything they do is just because they're amazing and fantastic and care so much about us, when the reality will actually be infinitely more complicated. The arguments on that go both ways. I was merely here to have a discussion and get people's thoughts to expand my own, as gamers and consumers, on where they find their lines drawn in regards to delays - using this game and this thread and its consoles as a relevant place to do that(somewhat unique, barring the similarity to TP/Wii/GC). Nobody's going to be right or wrong on what's an acceptable delay, I just wanted to know what people's personal thoughts and lines were. Could I do a better job than Nintendo? You know what, yes maybe. Could I do a worse job? Yes, maybe too. It's irrelevant, I was aiming for the consumers' point of view, not theirs. I'm not trying to run their company - I'm trying to see where my thoughts and opinions lie in relation to those of people I'd have considered to be of a fairly similar(tho with a positive amount of variance imo) position. Apparently it's too much to ask though. I thought it'd foster some discussion. Even for a brief moment I actually thought Ashley's post was going to lead us onto something where we consider what happens next and have fun speculations on reusing assets, or reusing design, or considering what can be learnt or taken forward, or maybe even what might not. But again - it's equally easy to lean back and armchair praise Nintendo as if everything they do is just because they're amazing and fantastic and care so much about us, when the reality will actually be infinitely more complicated. Even if it's not the actual point.

I didn't, just ftr.

Solution? Focus harder to prioritise and get their bigger games out for their systems sooner. Do you really think it's all that great that the WiiU has/is ending production, and still hasn't even seen its own Zelda title? Also you say normal human rationale - but there's clearly some difference here; I'm saying the delay so far in relation to the consoles life-cycle itself is rather appalling. You seem to think that it isn't, but I still don't know what or where it is for you guys that you draw the line of acceptability on the apparent amount of time that a game should be delayed. I'm just wondering where everyone's line is for what's acceptable, if they at all actually draw a line? 'Great games take time' gives no definition. 'normal human rationale' gives no definition. It's fine to just throw phrases at my argument, but I don't know what is wrong with the question I'm asking that people struggle to answer it; where is the line drawn for you, if at all? How long do you feel IS acceptable the wait? If you've never really given it thought and don't know, that's in itself a fair answer, but it seems rationalising the delays you must surely have something in your mind on where your limits are? I bought my WiiU in part for Zelda; I've yet to even see it and the console's being dropped from production. Regardless of whatever other tastes or things I have to entertain me - I don't see why it isn't something that shouldn't be discussed. Seriously - I'm just asking; where do people draw their lines on delays? For example @Retro_Link - let's say Last Guardian takes even longer than a year for you; at what point does that level of delay stop being acceptable? Also is Zelda worth the wait? Maybe once. I'd ask - was TP worth the wait for many people? Was SS worth the wait for many people? I mean, sure, a Zelda *should* be worth the wait but what if it's getting to a point that you're waiting, and it's just not even being worth it for you anymore?! Where do all these balances end up?

But no one seems to adress my actual question - where do you draw the line? Or don't you? You just wait forever for it?? Also the OoT delay, whilst annoying, happened in a much more different world for a number of reasons. None of us were here. Information wasn't as free-flowing, I'd daresay the market was different at the time, let alone me/us as consumers too. Not to mention a delay from 1996 to 1997 is NOT the same as Nintendo promising you an end of 2015 release(after a 2013 announce) to a still as of yet unannounced and rumoured delay into 2017. Let's also not ignore my other point - where the game comes in the console's life cycle. The 1997 release of OoT for N64 compared to a vague 2017 release for WiiU - a console they're already officially announced is soon to stop production - is not really the same. They will have literally stopped making their console before they've gotten a new Zelda game out for it. But hey, it's ok. Great games take time.

I realised now my post probably read somewhat rhetorically, but this is what I was actually wondering. Whether it was a mockup thing or something else. It looks pretty decent from the one and only time I actually watched said video; but maybe that's a trick of being so obnoxious that no one will look twice :p

Wow, you've really opened my eyes with your efficient method of focusing on just one small part of my post. However, you're obviously very right about it, and great games DO take time. No more Mario or Zelda for 30 years. Just to get it REALLY right. Calling it now, I can't possibly be wrong. Just call me the next Emily Rogers guys Do you mean like an MM/OoT situation of asset reusage? Or just jumping off from the process of this one? Definitely do hope the next one doesn't take as long or at least syncs up sensibly with a console's timeline. TP for Wii was kinda acceptable, but SS came so far later - are we always going to be getting to a point of getting these games at the end of the console's cycle, whereas before they tended to be at the heart of it? Does anyone else not wonder if they've possibly lost sales of this game, the Switch, or both due to the time it's taken?

When or where are you gonna draw the line though? One Zelda every 10 years? Constantly coming towards the end of console lifetimes or as a transitional title? I think it's pretty appalling to have not seen a new Zelda on WiiU yet tbh. Yeah WW was good despite being big - there was something in literally every square of the map(even if that was just charting it) and treasures and pointers that send you elsewhere etc. Admittedly that was taken somewhat to a longer extreme with the Triforce hunt but I don't think I actually hated it too much because there was actually a lot of money around it too - and I love me some rupees! Exactly what let TP down imo. They went big but thinned out the content in the world. It's a shame, because they did some cool/interesting things with the dungeons and the items; but there just wasn't enough use for them outside really.

Where the fuck did he get it from though?!

If we're really lucky, we might even get it in time for the Switch's successor

Almost a month on and thought I'd give this a bump! I got stuck in P&DZ a few weeks back - kept dying at a boss dragon thingy called El Dorado or something(fire based) and gave up caring too much to fix myself up to beat him. Thought I'd tip over to trying the Mario side of things. Mario is HARD. It's different enough too, though. The lack of fluff(simple overworld, going back to stages quick and easy even after death) has kinda kept me going with it, though I certainly found myself 'grinding' a bit more for certain monsters/items on some of the 3-colour levels. The leader bonuses are quite interesting - I've more recently moved to the Luigi/Mario leader combo where both give bonus attack if attacking with 3 combos or more, and I've just this morning unlocked the Boo leaders which have a pretty sick bonus if you can pull it off(especially doubled-up) - with that I think I'm now just onto World 5? I've been evolving where I can, choosing priority and variety depending on items/allies I want usually going for the high/hard hitters over HP/RCV; but that's just how I generally play. I've only just realised with it the relatively low limit on lives - I thought they'd clock over but apparently not?? I've wasted many a free life due to being too stubborn to use continues! Whilst harder than PnD I'm weirdly not getting too frustrated. I think given I've managed to overcome all of my stuckness on the Mario side so far, I'm gonna keep playing this til I finish or get stuck again; then move back to PnD. All in all though not too shabby a game. For what set me out just over a tenner I think I've already clocked 30+ hours, not too bad at all!

£199.99-229.99 is a great price point imo - and if these rumours are accurate then I'm rather excited as it makes me think Nintendo are approaching things with a decent amount of thought for the market too. I do agree with @Grazza that such a price would give me a worry on the level of tech - but hasn't it already been debated to death how good this thing could/would/should be? Like the tech we're expecting sounds like it's decent enough to do a pretty good job and has good levels or interest and potential support so far? Ofc still the pricing makes me wonder, are Nintendo or the system itself taking some sort of hit to allow for it? The system needs to be the best it can be, even if they have to take the hit initially to make back later- tbh given the amount of 1st party content they end up creating/selling, I actually think they'll easily make profit on a system even after taking said initial hit. For me price really is the big thing to get right off the bat though - this system needs to get sold and into homes/hands to then build upon its success further. It's almost self-fulfilling beyond a point.