Sheikah

Nintendo have already produced a machine with this issue and then outright refused (even to this day) to officially admit there is a problem with the joycons. I don't understand why you think Nintendo couldn't manage it again and instead choose to believe unconnected people are for some reason colluding in a lie, going so far as to join a class action lawsuit? It's bad form to flagrantly support Nintendo on this issue when they have handled it so badly with the original Switch.

They have joined the class action lawsuit, if they didn't have to prove it to do so then the lie would come out later and they'd face legal ramifications for lying. No conspiracy here.

How come? I've no reason to suspect they are lying. I've seen a number of news outlets reporting on this, including Techradar.

I reckon it's that a lot of people really into their RPGs already have a PS4, and those seriously into DQ already picked it up. It's such a long game and not one of those "got to have it on every platform" unlike something like Minecraft. I couldn't consider playing it again after getting the plat on the PS4 version.

Yup, it's a thing. People with Switch Lites are joining the class action lawsuit against Nintendo.

See I think this is where your argument falls flat, at least in the sense of you trying to convince most people of your points. I say this because, contrary to what you said, the vast majority of people actually really loved BoTW, and found it immensely fun. It didn't sell like it did and win all those awards because it wasn't generally perceived as a fun game - and this is a game that didn't adhere to the strict structure of what went before. Stating a game which many people found to be immensely fun, actually wasn't fun, is a bit like telling people who ate a delicious slice of apple pie that actually, it wasn't delicious. It just makes for a very strange post to read. [emoji14] It's fine that it didn't align with what you personally find to be enjoyable, but in this case I think you have to chalk that up to your own unique personal tastes rather than providing some pseudo-analysis of why it fails. It sounds like you do not like the idea of creative play in doing things like building platforms, rather than this actually being an inherent fault of the game. Many loved the sense of wonder and exploration in the game, and tinkering with the engine purely to answer "what if...", but perhaps you didn't. I totally get that you are expressing your opinion, but when you bluntly say things like "games are fun by having solid rules" you ignore so many great, creative games that tore up your rulebook and were all the better for it. There have been great games that have observed the rules and great games that haven't. It's not so black and white.

Don't give the player every ability at the start but allow them to go straight to the end boss, with a severe disadvantage. Similar to BoTW. Let people tackle areas in whatever order they choose, similar to Link Between Worlds and BoTW. Remove the shooting doors for connected up areas that still have puzzles to solve for various reasons. Think how they removed shifting screens from the new Link's Awakening game. Zelda was going from dungeon to dungeon in a set manner, getting the keys and boss keys. And then it wasn't, following release of BoTW. IMO this is a case where people can't necessarily see how it could be improved and so they are a bit fearful of it. But without these leaps every now and then we wouldn't get some of the best games.

I'm not sure he suggested it be open world, just removing the locked doors and open up the levels more, and let you tackle areas in whichever order you want.

Nice post. I definitely agree with the comment about the doors, I remember in MP1 you would shoot a door to open it and it wouldn't always open immediately because the loading wasn't done. So as this shouldn't be an issue anymore; they could do away with the doors and open the game up more in the process. Another thing to note, in response to people saying it would annoy the existing hardcore fans, is that Metroid isn't anywhere near as popular a series as many of Nintendo's others. In this way, Metroid might well be the perfect candidate to receive the BoTW treatment of a big revamp in order to see the game appeal to many more people. For reference, the best selling Metroid game is the original Metroid Prime, but even that only sold 2.82 million units: In contrast, 2D Mario/Mario Kart sold tens of millions of copies on Wii, while Mario Galaxy and Smash each sold around 10 million. For a Switch comparison, MP3 sold just 1.63 million copies - on one of the best selling consoles of all time. Sorry to bring this to sales talk but from Nintendo's view, at Metroid Prime's last outing on Wii there were only 1.63 million people buying it. It wouldn't be crazy to think they are less bothered about annoying a relatively small number of people if they bring in a lot more players.

I think this should be a good lesson to people not to buy these broken games at release based on trust. The writing was on the wall for Anthem before it was even released. Shameful for EA to drop support and go back on its word though. And yet enough people always seem to buy their games at launch!

I'm not sure you can say Sony have "coasted" by focusing on developing excellent first party games, as that is the most important thing to do (and is difficult) as a console owner, and something Microsoft have struggled to do. So long as the PS5 is the place that has the games people want to play again then those other features aren't going to matter so much. Games will always be king, and I'm yet to be convinced that Microsoft will have its own Bloodborne, God of War, Persona 5, Last Guardian, etc... I've also said it before but I think the reason Microsoft released these additional features (such as backwards compatibility) was because they were behind and trying to differentiate their console and attract new customers. I do think however that they focused on the wrong thing - people are often vocal about wanting features like backwards compatibility but ultimately it is very underused and most people play new games. Microsoft acquiring new studios is a step in the right direction for next gen but so far this is a completely unproven unknown as to whether we'll see smash hits.

Congrats Cube! Now for the fun of wedding planning. [emoji14]

If you break the controller on the Switch Lite by dropping it again you'll be truly buggered though.

And levels, items, assist trophies, features... most of which got revealed.

Have to agree with you on the Smash thing, do not like their approach of revealing just about everything about the game in dribs and drabs the months up to release.

I think the opposite in fact, there are a number of turn based games (e.g. Final Fantasy, Tales) that have made the transition to action battles and not gone back. This makes a nice change.

You guys on Switch are in for treat, especially now the Switch version will have an orchestral soundtrack. The original NES-like soundtrack sounded like absolute ass.

We will have to agree to disagree on that one.

A big upgrade, checkerboard rendering up to 4k resolution and up to 60 FPS in many games that were 1080p/30fps. This is coming from someone who spent thousands of hours on each system. PS4 Pros are also not particularly expensive either these days. Would need a decent 4k TV to see the full benefits though.

But only 3 days since you were moaning about something, in all likelihood.

That's just not true, PS4 has a higher content output (particularly big multiplatform games) yet puts out PS2 ports. If you're going to say it as matter of fact then please provide some evidence. The way I see it, Nintendo have even used VC as marketing for new games (see Pokémon Gold/Silver). Sure there is. More money. And if Switch continues to sell well, when will there ever be a point of releasing VC? Then before you know it they're onto Switch 2 and they've missed out on however many years they they could have been selling VC titles for. Wii did when Nintendo stopped supporting it properly, about two thirds of the way into its life. Which could well happen to Switch, given most of its big first party games have already come out. And VC was already out before things started going south for Wii, back when it was very successful and getting a lot of support. Doesn't matter what stats you present, you and I both know that there's only so much Nintendo can do themselves long term and Switch misses out on a lot of big games. VC is an easy way to make up for the sales it's not getting - VC titles also are pitched well at the indie crowd which Switch is fostering. Heck, a lot of indie titles even try to recreate the feeling of said SNES games. It's the perfect fit. Just look at the top 5 games now in the charts; only one is a game available on Switch (FIFA), it's not a first party game, and you can bet the lion's share of sales won't be on Switch. Maybe little Timmy buys both? Maybe little Timmy buys £60 worth of VC titles? Without any evidence that VC causes people to shun new titles, this is a meaningless discussion. You can say "I'm just presenting a possibility" all you like, but with nothing to support it I'm calling that Nintendo are just mismanaging the situation. Like how they rushed out the Switch with a barebones UI and a delayed online subscription service, I feel it's much more likely that they haven't planned this out properly.

Ronnie, I plainly stated that the specific angle you were going for wasn’t worth considering because it didn’t make sense, not because it was just you saying it. Nintendo and other console manufacturers have released VC games alongside other titles in the past, so the idea that it is suddenly causing an issue with mindshare (when they are already releasing NES games anyway) doesn’t make any sense. Your examples in favour of your argument are also tenuous. There is a world of difference between releasing Mario Odyssey and Zelda on the same day as releasing VC titles and anything else. For one, VC titles are generally cheap and people can afford them and other games at the same time. A lot of VC titles are also on the shorter side or can be played more easily in bursts/levels, owing to the way games use to be, so people can pick them up and still have time for other titles. When it comes down to it though, at its peak the Wii was releasing and selling a butt loads of games and VC titles at the same time. If there was a mindshare issue I don’t see that this would have happened. I also think you are vastly overestimating the Switch. It’s certainly popular but it misses out on a lot of big multiplatform games. It has indie titles to make up for this but first party VC should also be high on the priority list as it’s 100% profit for them, and they’ve done this porting so many times now.

Ronnie I just want to point out that you responded saying "What are you on about" which is instantly dismissive and disrespectful, so please don't try to play the victim card here. They are already putting time and effort into VC but for NES, games most people don't want. So the idea that they are not interested into putting time and effort in favour of other things doesn't make much sense. How much time and effort should VC need anyway? They have ported these VC titles loads of times before. They should be masters. Also - they stand to make 100% of the profit of first party VC sales, versus just a cut from third party new games, so there really isn't any reason they should be prioritising other companies releases over their own VC games. Timing releases to cover software droughts is different to when you have a reasonably healthy console.

It’s a business strategy in the same way that the Wii U was. A poor one. They are sitting on a goldmine of games and have wasted years when they could have been making money off them. The idea that making VC games available would hurt sales of their new games is not even worth considering. By the same reckoning Nintendo would not allow indie titles on their machine as people might buy them instead of their games.

You give Nintendo too much credit. There are obvious reasons why Nintendo should do lots of things yet they never do them.