Grazza

At first I couldn't recall the mic feature. Then I suddenly remembered your Arnold Schwarzenegger recreations! Those were the days.

LOL, a "clown"? Seems a bit unnecessary. I didn't know there was anyone claiming Wii U's line-up was better. Plus, although I do believe Emily Rogers is legit, not even Nintendo knows they'll actually have all those games ready in the first 12 months.

3D Mario at launch sounds good. I don't know much about Skyrim, but would probably buy that as well. Zelda will probably be Christmas though, rather than just a few months after launch. It's good Nintendo is moving onto technologies that are in line with what other developers are already using. Not that 3DS was short of games, but it did always seem much below (and different to) everything else. Give in, Nintendo, give in!

What a brilliant and well-built game Wind Waker is! I was enthralled with it at the time, and the Wii U version might even be the first remake I've played that genuinely holds its grandeur so many years later. It's food for thought, certainly. I've always thought, and this is going back as far as I've known Zelda, that it's good to see Hyrule (especially Hyrule Castle) reimagined every generation or two. Each technical leap gave the opportunity for better town design, better overworld design etc.

This has made me think of another issue... Generational leaps used to be really obvious. For instance, A Link to the Past simply couldn't have been delayed until N64 - it would definitely have been far, far too late. Even when we moved onto polygons, delaying Ocarina of Time until the GameCube would been completely wasteful considering the added power the GC offered. Nintendo, however, is the only manufacturer who has occasionally made consoles that seem almost exactly like their predecessors in terms of graphics and power, namely Wii compared to GC and (possibly) Switch compared to Wii U. With this in mind, Nintendo's two biggest Zelda delays are a bit more understandable in terms of the games being able to span generations, even though it brings a fair amount of annoyance with it. Unfortunately, they can get away with delays that would be a lot more blatant (even just visually) if Nintendo took more traditional leaps with hardware. Not sitting on a side of an argument here; it was just a thought.

Because dungeons are part of the content and to have more full-size dungeons that WW, TP and SS would be utterly ridiculous.

The only assumption I'm making is that "bigger" = map size/land mass. You were the one who suggested it might mean content, which I'm just pointing out would be highly unlikely, even undesirable.

That's almost certainly not true though. For this game to have more content than the sum of WW, TP and Skyward Sword's dungeons and sidequests would be hugely inefficient. In terms of actual map size, in theory I don't see the need to go much beyond Wind Waker. However, this game has huge mountains (and thankfully so). It could be that the mountains are so tall, that dictates the size of the land mass, as having them too close together would seem unnatural. Regarding delays, I tend to side with @Rummy. Development time is not always about needing extra hours to polish a game. It's often tactical too, especially with Nintendo, as they unfortunately often have consoles that are considered flops. It's no coincidence that the two most controversial delays were the GameCube's 2nd Zelda (Twilight Princess) and the Wii U's (Breath of the Wild) - in other words, their two biggest hardware "flops". Nintendo knows the rough amount of time needed to make a game. All the basics of BotW would have been mapped out at the beginning - overworld, dungeons, enemies. For Aonuma to state, in June 2014, that the game would be released in 2015, it must have been roughly on track for that. That's not to say I'm sitting here furious - I've actually zoned-out about the game - but I think if you fail to get a Zelda out in due time, you miss out on people who are particularly invested in that specific console, or those who were particularly enthused at time of unveiling. Historically though, this tactic does work, and so we just have to hope the finished product will be all that it might once have been.

£199.99 gives Nintendo a good chance of success, but I honestly don't think it bodes well for the amount of technology we'll be getting. This thing has a pretty big screen and a docking station, yet it's all coming in for less than the 3DS in 2011. It really does cement the machine as a handheld with TV out, which is not a bad thing, but I don't think it's in any way a home console. I also think this has implications for Zelda: Breath of the Wild, although this has been the case ever since it was delayed a few years ago.

I think it's great there's a chance to play 7th Dragon III. Wanted to try that series for years.

I like to have a rough idea, but only so far as whether the game is long, medium or short. For example, I'd expect a 2D platformer to be less than 10 hours, 10-20 hours for something like Metroid, the average Zelda to be 50 hours and many RPGs (or Animal Crossing) 100+ hours.

I just remember the NES and Master System seemed extremely expensive when they first arrived, especially the games. In the UK we were used to the computers sumo73 mentioned. Games cost about £2.99 (sometimes cheaper), with a £9.99 cassette being as expensive as it got. Then the Sega and Nintendo consoles came along and, if I recall correctly, weren't even sold in that many shops. I know Boots was one of the main places I saw the NES. To my mind consoles in the UK really took off with the Sega Mega Drive, but even that was limited to certain retailers at first. It was really ground breaking stuff. That said, I felt the SNES was a lot more mainstream (than the NES).

Yes, but not much. To be quite honest I don't like the series at all. I did like those levels in 3D World though. If they had been described as the ones where you dash from left to right I'd definitely have remembered them. Thanks for the explanation anyway.

Oh, I liked that, thanks. I just didn't notice a Mario Kart connection.

I completed every level of Super Mario 3D World apart from the most difficult two, liked the game in general, and genuinely can't remember the Mario Kart stage.

The SNES. I always wanted a NES, but it wasn't on the cards. When I was a bit older I got the Megadrive, and was lucky enough to receive the SNES shortly after. As much as I loved the Sega machine, I couldn't get over the jealousy of knowing the SNES had a technical advantage. I loved the early games like F-Zero, Super Mario World and Final Fight. It's funny to think of the days when Nintendo consoles represented the crème de la crème!

I'd be inclined to get the big games released quickly, to give it the best chance of success. Once it's an established games machine, other publishers can take it from there. Launch 3D Mario New Super Mario Bros Mario Kart Zelda: Breath of the Wild The first three are probably the ones most people look for in terms of popular appeal. If Zelda wasn't in the situation it's in, I'd leave it until Year 2, but in this particular case it has to be a launch title. Year 2 Smash Bros Splatoon Metroid Now's the time to get out the fan favourites, with a focus on the more popular ones. Metroid is less established than it once was, but I still think it needs to arrive quite early. Year 3 Animal Crossing Mario Maker F-Zero (based on the Mario Kart engine) A complex, in-depth game like Animal Crossing needs to be released fairly early so there's plenty of time to play it before the console's past its best. As for F-Zero, enough time will have passed since Mario Kart to re-use the engine and (frankly) make a better game! Year 4 Metroid sequel 3D Mario sequel If Switch isn't a success by now, there will not be much point inventing brand new concepts for it. In either case, a 2nd Metroid game (using assets and engine from the earlier game) would a welcome experience for fans to get their teeth into. Similar with Mario. Year 5 Zelda sequel Whether Switch has been a success or not, it can bow out with a creative, Majora's Mask-esque Zelda that uses the assets from Breath of the Wild.

Not sure if Virtual Reality is something most people have sampled now, but I tried PlayStation VR today and thought I'd share my impressions. The headset is perfectly comfortable, both physically and in terms of stereoscopic 3D. It worked straight away - my eyes didn't need to adjust to it at all. Sony has done a great job there. The visor let in a small amount of light from my surroundings and, even if it didn't, I can't imagine feeling genuinely cut off from the outside world. The best way I can describe it is that it's as though someone has stuck a giant magnifying glass in front of a TV. That "magnifying glass" (almost) fills your field of view, and somehow provides you with stereoscopic 3D. It reminded me of the '90s arcade game, Starblade, although to be honest I was more impressed with that coin-op back then than I was with VR in 2016. Hey, I was 15. The demo I tried was the luge. First thing I saw was a body sticking out from my point of view. The 3D effect works well but I couldn't in all honesty ever feel it was my body. I went under cars and over jumps, which is meant to make your stomach go over like you're on a roller coaster, but to me it just looked like graphics flashing by. I've heard people say things like they got scared because they looked over a mountain edge (maybe they were talking about Oculus or Vive) but from what I've experienced, I just can't see that. The main thing though is the resolution. I don't say this to be insulting but, with the screens so close to you, it honestly is like going back to something akin to VHS. I can imagine it will start to be realistic when the screens used are 8K or above, but it's got a long way to go IMO. I don't say this with the intention of being negative - I wanted to love it - just to have some honest discussion about people's impressions of it. Sony has done a great job with the technology available today, but I just think there's a long way to go before VR really makes you feel you're there.

I would just splash out and buy the New 3DS XL. That said, I don't have one (just have the original and XL), but if I was in the market for a 3DS, I'd definitely get a New 3DS XL. There are enough times that I've wanted to use its features, whether it's the dual analogue or Virtual Console. OK, I probably wouldn't build up a huge VC library with the Switch on its way, but the 3DS still has loads of eShop games that are exactly suited to its resolution. The 3DS is such a great handheld, playing one game is likely to make you want to play another. I'd just want to see them all at their best.

When I was younger I honestly hoped "Oil Boy" was a real job: In all seriousness: 1) I always wanted to be a comic book maker or own a theme park. In the case of the former, I probably never had the talent for it, not to mention the fact that it's hard to find support/collaboration in person for that sort of thing. Later on I was plagued by the need to use technology; and, to be quite honest, doubts about what I really wanted to convey. The 2nd one was obviously a lot more unrealistic, but for the record I'd love about 500 acres of woodland and to fill it with wooden roller coasters. 2) Something pretty unremarkable, but I don't really want to go into details (sorry) 3) Yes

I consider IX to be significantly better than VII. In fact, I'd say between VIII and IX, Dragon Quest is really evolving in the right direction (not counting X because I haven't played it and it's an MMO). Gameplay-wise, IX was pretty much perfect. For one thing, VIII introduced skill trees and skills linked to weapons. IX improved that by being more generous with skill points, bringing back vocations (which were missing from VIII) and linking vocations to weapons (initially). Also, I loved the new skill categories such as "Shields". Actually, one thing I do like in VII over IX is the Advanced classes, not just Beginner and Intermediate. It would be even better though if the Advanced classes had no weaknesses compared to the "lesser" ones. For instance, Champion would be as strong as Gladiator. One thing I do miss from IX is the character creation tool. I'm beginning to think having a "set" Hero is not all that important to Dragon Quest, and it's better to make your own avatar. I do think I'd miss well-crafted teammates like Yangus though, so I hope XI strikes a balance between the two.

When I was younger and my health was better, I was optimistic to the point of delusion and naivety. I thought my body would fight off anything and repair any injury because, well, it always did. At the same time, I was a much harsher critic of things that didn't really matter. I remember on here I used to moan about Metroid Prime just because I found it too difficult back then, and got really angry about how the Wii was sub-par. Nowadays I'd just think "So what?" (not necessarily a good thing, because it means you're less passionate). As I've got older and my health has become worse, I only get upset about things that really bother me. There's no way I'd moan about a TV programme or film that I found disappointing, for example. In most cases they did their best, and if they couldn't quite pull it off, so what? On a personal level I have almost no optimism left. On the World Stage, I'm neither optimistic nor pessimistic - there are a lot of good people and some very bad people, and you just can't guess how things will work out.

So, I finally got to play Dragon Quest VII... I have to say, I do agree with H-o-T's analysis of the game. Having dual locations of everywhere, not to mention a huge amount of vocations (which isn't a bad thing), it reminds me of Dragon Quest VI, which was enjoyable but gruelling. I suppose Yuji Horii had certain aspirations when he made VI and VII. It's interesting for someone who jumped on board with VIII. This one really is the bridge between the 2D games and the 3D ones, although I'd say it plays much more like the former. In this game, for instance, special moves can be performed with any weapon (like its predecessors), whereas VIII introduced a bit more strategy by tying skills to weapons. It just gives them a bit more importance when you have to choose whether you're going to be a specialist in Swords or Spears. This game has been very well localised, with quite a few laugh-out-loud moments. The three cowardly brothers in the desert town spring to mind. Overall, it's nice to have played it, but it doesn't have that "battle, upgrade kit, battle" rhythm of the others. It's telling that when I completed the game, I had played for a very long time but was still low level. Doing the post-game now and am trying suss out Traveller's Tablets. Seems it's like the Grottoes from IX? I'll be playing this for a while...!

It's been a very good series, in my opinion. Samsara had a brilliant (but chilling) sci-fi idea - the Karma Drive. Like all great sci-fi, it held a mirror up to humanity. Imagine something that could be programmed by authorities to project their personal morals onto everyone. Very thought-provoking, and I laughed out loud at the skeletons having an orgy. Give & Take - Loved the characterisation of Cat. When Kryten and Rimmer rescued Lister and Cat, it cemented Rimmer as the true hero of Red Dwarf (we all know he is!) Officer Rimmer - A great showcase of Rimmer's desire to be above others! He was right to try and destroy the other spaceship, as he was only defending StarBug (he's the highest-ranked for a reason). I loved the barbershop quartet, and there was a huge belly laugh when Kryten and Rimmer tried to unjam the printer! Krysis had a laugh-out-loud moment with the guttural foreign language lesson, and let's face it - Red Dwarf began in 1988. Most of its fans could relate to the central premise of this episode.

I haven't been around! I got logged-out ages ago and the password request didn't work. Hadn't seen anything I was desperate to comment on since then, but was particularly drawn your "Manning Up" topic as I really think you're onto something with that. So, Switch... I quite like it. All I wanted from Nintendo was a powerful handheld, so I'm happy in that regard. If I have one nitpick it's that as a handheld it's going to be slightly held back by the console aspect, and vice versa. I don't think this is quite as exciting as getting a true successor to the 3DS (which I always imagined as similar to the Vita), but I can't complain too much. Overall, I think Nintendo gathering all its resources into one machine is the right way forward. If it means we won't get games like Phantom Hourglass or A Link Between Worlds, I won't be too upset, as they always felt slightly compromised. Technology is now so advanced that we have a portable that can run Breath of the Wild - that's a great thing. I do wonder if this thing is going to be slightly less powerful than the Wii U. My guess is very similar performance, but adapted to the new architecture. Not a huge problem, but there might be some things it can't do that the WiiU could. We'll see. Slightly disappointed not to see Wayforward on the list of supporting developers - you'd think we'd have Mighty Switch Force! : peace: