Sheikah

Shiiiiiiiit.

Well it's still available digital. If the demand is there, people still have access to it.

You're right, in this case it's probably due to extreme stock shortages. That said, if stock weren't a limit, I still think it would sell far less than on the other consoles and that would very much be due to the online and feature set versus the full fat versions.

The things I was just talking about are at the OS level, which people already knew about.

It's not really surprising, you can't even send a message to a friend on Switch, let alone form a party outside a game. A fair chunk of people with a Switch probably have a second console, and if they're remotely into FIFA that's probably where they'll buy the game. Of course, some people will still double dip or be Nintendo only.

Well the "poor" part was when you talked about the high number of PS3 and 360 systems out there to justify the low Switch sales, because install base of those last-gen consoles doesn't matter anymore (360 has 84 million units sold for instance, but only a miniscule fraction of FIFA 18 copies will have been on 360). It doesn't work that way. A better justification of Switch sales would be short supply, which seems to be an issue here.

That's a bit of a meaningless statement though, as the vast majority of people who bought PS3s/360s aren't playing them or buying games for them anymore. Overall it is a very poor percentage for the Switch, and I can see why third parties don't always treat the Switch the same as the other consoles.

100% due to Nintendo, developers shouldn't be responsible for coding in an online friend matchmaking solution every time. It should be implemented at the system level as on other consoles. Any time online features are missing blame Nintendo and their silly choices when making the system.

Wut. Haha that's amazing if true. I got TPP dirt cheap but that's great for people who have yet to pick it up.

Well no, because if it was breakfast in his house he wouldn't have a receipt to claim back now would he? More likely it was him having to get up early to travel and so he got breakfast while travelling, something I've expensed many a time.

No way, RDR2 please.

I visit a few gaming sites, and didn't click the relevant articles but it seems that they are revealing even more levels for this game, right?

A small point but would it be possible to remove the several point spacing after hitting return on a browser? For instance, type a line and hit enter and you'll see the caret has jumped what looks like two lines. It wasn't like this before. Why I'm really asking is because on Tapatalk, spacing is still formatted the old way (no big point spacing between returns). So essentially, if I type a post on Tapatalk and want to break up paragraphs, I'll leave a blank line between them (as you would have before on PC). When these posts are viewed on PC these spaces between paragraphs look really big. Here's an example image of a post I did in Tapatalk but screen grabbed on PC. In Tapatalk I put a one-line space between my paragraphs which looked fine in the app (and is necessary otherwise there's no space at all between paragraphs on Tapatalk), but when viewed on PC (as in the screenshot) it's a really big gap as it's adding several points of spacing in addition to that line: Worse still, as the PC software is automatically adding spacing, people no longer press return twice to separate their paragraphs by a line. As such, in Tapatalk (which adds no spacing between paragraphs in the posts you view, aka 'the old way'), posts people have done on the PC have paragraphs bunched together with no spaces. This problem basically started following the move. Consistency between both platforms would be great, and seeing as it used to be that there wasn't a high degree of spacing between paragraphs, any chance you could remove the spacing on PC?

Well that's like, your opinion. What qualifies for me is how much I enjoyed the game, far more so than how the FPS holds up today. Giving enjoyment to people is essentially why games are made, so I can see no finer reason for selecting games than that. And if a game was groundbreaking or fresh when it came out, chances are I enjoyed it more and it'll be on my list. You know, when I get around to actually posting it. [emoji14]

People are choosing Red and Blue for the same reason they're saying Mario 64 and not 64 DS, and Ocarina of Time and not Ocarina of Time 3DS. I don't know about everyone else but when the original titles came out they were groundbreaking and I was absorbed. To me it seems a little strange that you would bestow honours on the remasters that, let's face it, are the true nostalgia cash ins. I think there is something to be said for giving credit to the original source, as there is in nearly any other setting. Just my own personal experience with Pokémon Blue - I was young and completely absorbed by the game. Me and my friends were playing and trading and battling Pokémon, and trying to work everything out in the days where the internet wasn't really commonplace. I loved how new the concept of Pokémon felt and how it tapped into something that no game ever really had. The cutesy pixelated style, seeing Missingno, stumbling upon Mewtwo, and finally finding a Pikachu in Viridian forest... The Fire Red and Leaf Green remakes were a stroll down memory lane. I enjoyed them, but they were ultimately a throwback to a fantastic time and experience. I don't remember doing much trading in that game, because by then most people had moved on. For me, all games can ultimately be compared on a general scale of enjoyment they gave me when I played them rather than to any modern standard. I can't reasonably expect to feel that same enjoyment today for each game because of changing circumstances and the fact the game isn't new to me anymore. This will always be a subjective exercise so trying to be objective about it probably isn't going to work, at least not for me.

Why would you want to remove nostalgia though. If it's the kind of nostalgia that means you remember it better than it was then sure, try to avoid that. If it's you remembering how much fun you had at the time then I think that's perfectly fair. Reason being, if you judge every game by how good it is by today's standards then every top 10 list should by rights be the latest games in a series unless the latest games were terrible or the original games epic beyond belief. Especially for many of Nintendo's games where formulas are often adhered to (Mario Kart, Pokémon, Smash, etc). For example I would rate Pokemon Red and Blue very highly and above the latest games even though many of the latest ones followed near enough the same formula but had many quality of life and graphical improvements. I think you have to recognise the games that had the biggest impact at the time due to them being fresh and novel as well as great games that first demonstrated brilliance. If games in a series continue to rehash a formula then there's no way I can justify rating the latest game in a series higher than the original. Mostly because I'd have been nowhere near as excited about a game the 7th time round versus the 1st. Sure, the 7th generation might have improved in a bunch of ways, but ultimately I'd mark it being much of the same. I don't see the point in going back and judging old games by today's standards because it's not like I'm going to go back and play them today. You don't see review sites going back and remarking old games because it doesn't make much sense. For Goldeneye, the fact the FPS is dogshit by modern standards doesn't matter to me much, as someone who has no intention of revisiting it today, but I could still class it as one of the best games in the genre based on the enjoyment I had when it arrived and the utter brilliance of the game.

At least it's 60Hz so you can actually do it this time. But you can't skip cutscenes now can you?!! Either way, love this game. The first Final Fantasy game I played.

I haven't watched the video yet but I'm slightly disheartened to hear that people aren't impressed with what they've seen. I do think the original Xenoblade Chronicles was amazing (probably one of the best RPGs I've played) and I was quite miffed by XCX, which I felt had very little of what made the original game great. I'm hoping that this shapes up to be more like the first game!

This is the virtual console made into a reality. It was their plan all along.

Maybe I'm in the minority but I wasn't particularly taken with this game.

@Ashley it's £419 in store at Carphone Warehouse, apparently.

Ha. Shovel Knight. Good one. [emoji14]

Out now. Buy it. Best indie game there is.

Well the argument was more than focusing down on one specific complaint (i.e. more than just the characters), but from my perspective I do think it's unnecessary to reveal all characters before release. If people like fighters and the game reviews well, it seems superfluous to me to spoil them all. You're probably going to buy it anyway if you like that series and the game is a success. And about only character reveals reaching gaming blogs... I'm not sure where you got that from as that clearly isn't true, plenty of info other than character reveals was making it to those sites. From the briefest of Googles: link. From just Destructoid alone: link.

You say in a fighter it's fine to reveal characters but that everything else should remain secret - as Smash revealed far, far more than characters ahead of release, we are seem to be in agreement that Nintendo over-revealed for Smash. You say, a platformer needs a general demonstration of controls, aesthetic and level structure - so I'm guessing you'd also agree that in-depth demo videos of new levels aren't really necessary in Mario Odyssey's case. So the comparison between the two was pretty clear to me when I made it - Nintendo seem to be over-revealing for the kind of game Mario Odyssey is, the same as they did for the kind of game Smash was. Some may be fine with that of course, but I really like being surprised at launch.