Sheikah

£60? That's crazy steep - the last time I remember paying that for a game at launch was Conker's Bad Fur Day! I am in two minds about this. No Smash has held my interest since the epic Melee, partly because I feel like they have not done enough new each time. But on the other hand, they've got all characters returning, and this more or less seems a definitive version.

I'll definitely be getting Dead Cells, it's just a matter of when. Too many games.

I have been more than civil here, with some genuine (detailed) chat about games, and I can't say I agree with your stance. I like to discuss games here but at the same time it sucks that people have to be disrespectful and unnecessary in their responses. I think by just letting it continuously happen without acknowledging it, that is probably more harmful in the long run.

I realise I'm creating my own definition here but seeing as it was me registering concern about the kinds of games already released...by "big hitter" I wasn't just referring to games that sell well. I also think Nintendo games often have high attach rates in part due to the nature of the console - if you buy their console for whatever reason, you almost certainly must like Nintendo games. My opinion of course but what I was really getting at was big scope games, not your biennial Kirby romp. Games with big potential, often system sellers that may try new things (but not necessarily always), rather than treading very familiar old ground like I saw with LM2, Fire Emblem, Pokémon, and Pikmin 3, or any of the NSMB games (although I did enjoy Pikmin 3). I believe there is a big, observable difference between games like Mario 64, Zelda Breath of the Wild, Smash Melee, Splatoon, Metroid Prime, and the games I previously mentioned. Even sequels to these games interest me for the most part (except maybe Smash), as I'd say there's still life and ideas there and the games are of great scope and quality. Games like Metroid Prime might not do as big numbers but they are big games that push the boundaries of the console, and I've no doubt they generate more excitement and do more for the Switch in the long run. I think generally these sorts of games are those that are just better games than the middleware titles Nintendo also push out, and you can tell they are big games with hype to match. They're the games I get excited about and the games that sold the Switch to me. They're the games that make me want to come back to the Switch. Obviously opinion, but that's more or less why I feel like there's not as much left for me that I want that's confirmed to be coming. I have played countless Pokémon, Fire Emblem, Pikmin, Animal Crossing and NSMB games over many generations, and I feel these games mostly retread the same ground, and churn the same formulas. Pokémon is for sure one of Nintendo's big hitters, possibly its biggest, but I must confess that I struggle to see how anyone maintains an interest in these games anymore on account of them being some of the most ridiculously conservative and recycled games going. I also played LM2 and found it genuinely boring, and more or less a middleware game. I'd be going through the motions if I carried on buying these games. Of course if they do something impressive with these series like BoTW did as a shakeup to the Zelda series then I'll go back on my words, but somehow I don't see that happening. Or if those torally new games turn out to be big and exciting critically acclaimed games that's also potentially something. And Ronnie if you disagree with this that's totally fine, we all have our opinions on what we look forward to, but citing your list of upcoming games that you always seem to have on standby is not going to change my mind. I acknowledge there are games coming but I do see Nintendo as having played most of its big guns already, aside from a few games that will probably be released very far apart. Also: There is literally no need to be crass and sarcastic like this when discussing topics with people.

I don't think most of these are mainstream big hitters, or coming that soon (with respect to Pokemon/Metroid Prime). As I say, I think Nintendo deal with a lot of big 'knowns' and I think a lot of them have now been played. They also don't exactly have many other third parties propping them up with massive games like Red Dead Redemption 2, Assassin's Creed, etc.

I do think there is something a little unhealthy with Nintendo though, specifically - like you say, those "big hitters" came out (Zelda, Mario, Splatoon, Mario Kart, Xenoblade), but then they're kind of done for that system, first party wise. They have Smash and Metroid Prime as other "big" games but the latter is a long way off. I wonder if third parties can provide more big exclusives for Nintendo or if it'll mostly be much smaller Nintendo titles (or alternative style games like Animal Crossing) from now on.

How about roguelikes? I find them perfect in this day and age because each run is relatively short. Something like Binding of Isaac, Nuclear Throne or Rogue Legacy is perfect for me. At least some of those are on Switch I think!

It's been mentioned before but RDR2 digital takes up exactly the same amount of space as the disc game. If you buy the disc game it just installs to your hard drive all the same. It's the way that works these days.

It''s more that I don't think that original post really looked at the reality of the situation - GTAV had a Tues release, RDR2 had a Fri release. RDR2 had digital sales unaccounted for (50% of sales were digital for Destiny 2, as an example of a recent game), whereas GTAV was released in 2013 when digital on PS3/X360 was much less a deal. If you account for all that (and GTA/FIFA being massively mainstream in the UK) I don't see how we can determine anything about the true sales/success from that article. Really though, we always knew this was going to be huge.

Just putting drahkon's post here too, since RDR2 was discussed here very recently: @Dcubed wondering if your thoughts on the magnitude of sales success of this game have changed at all? I remember you saying that Rockstar definitely won't be happy with the numbers.

Also look at that preorder rate via PSN - that's where a lot of sales will have come in vs GTA (which was last gen), which are never accounted for in the charts. This makes the suggestions in the other topic that this wasn't an enormous sales success seem ridiculous now. [emoji14]

Pretty sure it's a case of if you have a cattleman revolver already, there's no point in looting another. So far all the weapons I've seen dropped are "worn" (so would need oil to clean them to remove the stat debuff). I also doubt they have any modifications on them since you usually have to pay a premium in the shop for them. I think looting dropped enemy weapons is good if you didn't bring that particular weapon to the gunfight (i.e. you left it on your horse), and you want to use that gun.

A little way in that stops happening and you have to paint them yourself. Not sure if you can put the auto feature back on.

No, you're not. GTAV also came out on a Tuesday whereas RDR2 came out on a Friday. There's a lot of reasons to explain the difference.

Whoa you're being full on with your exclamation marks! GTAV is the most profitable game of all time so to compare anything to it is always going to make it look poor. FIFA also does gangbusters in the UK so I'm not shocked on that one either. I didn't think RDR would come close to GTA (and I bet R* didn't think so either) purely because GTA is a franchise that has ridiculous levels of reach/adoption by the masses. Doesn't stop RDR being the best thing R* have ever done though. RDR will also get online next month and I don't doubt it will continue to sell very well indeed. It's hard to say anything about this either way as this is UK figures only, and I believe retail (not online) only? When GTAV came out (last gen) digital was far less of a thing. FIFA will also factor far less in other territories like the US.

Disc games get installed fully to hard drive now so take up pretty much the same space as digital. However I read somewhere that the digital version of RDR2 needs an extra 50GB space initially (which is then deleted after install) so 150GB total, so there is that to consider. The thing about sharing the game means that you can have 2 separate accounts playing one digital purchase, so long as you play the PSN account that didn't purchase the game on your assigned primary console. Then the non-primary console needs to be logged in with the PSN account that bought the game. That said, if you're not planning to share then yeah, physical makes a lot more sense. £10 cheaper and can be lent/sold. I find that I tend not to switch discs all that often anyway - I often return to the same game that I'm into at the time. I got an e-mail from SimplyGames confirming copies will be sent out first class on Thursday (when they receive it) and this is indeed a nationwide policy. If they can't get early copies out then no-one can. [emoji14]

It’s really not out of necessity. Don’t take my word for it - EA themselves said after taking out microtransactions from Star Wars Battlefront 2 that there would be no material effect on earnings - here’s the link. Not to mention there are many big games that have not gone the microtransaction route e.g. Witcher 3, which proves this is not a necessity. It is important in these discussions to separate microtransactions (bad) from DLC, the latter of which has been around for a very long time (see PC expansion packs) and is generally a good and pro-consumer thing (in that you are providing more game to people without any gambling mechanics involved), providing it is not main game content that was set aside to make more money. I suggest you check out the vid dwarf posted as I’ve seen you say something like this before and it’s simply not true. There is so much to suggest that microtransactions are down to greed and the pleasing of shareholders rather than it being necessary. Many of these big companies are making MOST of their money from microtransactions as opposed to game sales! Microtransactions are big earners for publishers and said publishers will defend them with weak excuses like they’re enabling ‘player choice’. It’s only when they get called out for being too greedy that they remove them.

I'm pretty sure he just did.

Outside of the big ones, forums just aren’t as popular anymore.

When you say you've explored less than a fifth of the game do you mean you've gone to a fifth of the map and done most of the subactivities there? I think the point that article made was that if you don't want to keep repeating the usual repetitive activities between missions then you'll end up underlevelled, and lacking a lot of features that basically up quality of life. Some pople will definitely want the booster though - if nobody would want it, they wouldn't be selling it.

That's not true, the game also offers gameplay boosts such as the permanent XP boost, which has been noted by news outlets to make the game better. I think it's fair for Jim to say that a game that you'd want to pay to not play to make it better has poor game design.

I find it much more funny to read these posts as if spoken by one of Jim Sterling's characters:

Yeah, exactly. A...white background. With a person holding it to show you the scale, given it's sold as a 'mini' console. Hardly copying, is it? Then again, people will see what they want to see.

I'm guessing Ape Escape is out of the question since it was the first game to require analogue sticks. I hope emulation does become possible as I can't see some of the games I want to revisit being on it. Would be nice if they made it would you could download games to it off their store.

I don't get this criticism. Sony copy Nintendo sometimes, which is a good thing. Microsoft copy Sony too - Games with Gold, tagging the share feature to a button, etc. Basically, copying is needed to some extent because the chance you are going to come up with everything people want by yourself is low. What's worse is when they don't copy. There is so much Nintendo could do with their online service that you could easily criticise as copying if they did it. But the console would be so much better for it. As for the PS mini, I probably won't be buying it at 90 quid, unless it becomes a very good emulation device.