Nintendo Switch

[Zevox]

So, while I was away on vacation this past week, it looks like we got a ton of news about this upcoming console. And I have to say, aside from one game, I'm really not impressed or excited.

The launch lineup is pretty pathetic. Zelda is the only noteworthy title, and it's launching on the Wii U simultaneously, so if you already have that, there's no reason to even think about getting the system at launch. And personally, I can't even say I'm excited for that, since the whole emphasis on it being a huge open-world game has long since killed the enthusiasm I normally have for major Zelda titles. Even with the games coming out soon after launch, the only things of note are what, the Mario Kart 8 remake (which does nothing for me personally) and that weird fighting game Arms?

Further down the line, I guess Super Mario Odyssey will probably be good, though the whole aesthetic of that real-world-city area is very jarring for me to see, looks completely out of place in a Mario game. I know Xenoblade 2 and Splatoon 2 have their audiences, too, though I still haven't actually played more than a couple of hours of Xenoblade (and haven't played Xenoblade Chronicles X at all) and have no interest in Splatoon at all myself. But those are all further down the line, with Splatoon 2 being mid-year, Mario Odyssey being a holiday release, and Xenoblade 2 supposedly being this year but frankly I won't be surprised if that gets pushed back. Strikes me as unlikely for a big RPG like that to get released so soon after it's announced.

For me, the one genuinely exciting game is Fire Emblem Warriors - basically a Fire Emblem version of Hyrule Warriors, which is something I was genuinely hoping would happen after playing and enjoying Hyrule Warriors but did not expect to actually come about. That I can honestly say excites me... but not to the point where it'll sell the console to me on its own, sadly (besides, it probably won't release until late 2017 at the earliest anyway). And besides that, well, there's a new Shin Megami Tensei sometime, though I'm not such a huge fan of the mainline SMT series at this point. And Dragon Quest 11, which I can just get on my PS4... and a BlazBlue game, which I probably already have on my PS4... and Yooka-Laylee, which I'm going to just get on my PS4 when it comes out...

So, yeah, I don't know. It's looking like the Switch is something I'm going to wait a year or more before I even consider picking it up - possibly all the way until it gets Smash 5, assuming that happens, if nothing else that seriously catches my interest pops up between now and then.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Meanwhile, Breath of the Wild sounds like the potential to expand on everything I liked about Wind Waker.

I'll buy it at launch, if BotW is bad I'll regret it until Spla2n comes out. I completely skipped the Wii U so w/e, it'll definitely have stuff I want.

I mean, every feature of the console itself aside from the somewhat better gimmick and more up-to-date specs sounds worse than what the Wii U had, but, well, more up-to-date specs. Pretty important even if it's not cutting-edge.

[GloatingSwine]

I'm going to be holding off until at least Xenoblade 2 I reckon.

I'll get the Wii U version of Breath of the Wild for £40 instead of spending £280 on a new console, £50 on the game, and £65 on a controller for people with normal hands that all won't get used again for a year because nothing else coming up really excites me except Splatoon 2 maybe.

Except Nintendo have gone in for the paid online thing with basically no additional benefits (whereas they should be announcing a Netflix style service where you subscribe and get all you can eat virtual console games they've announced so far it's one game per month and it's a rental you don't even get to keep it).

[Hiro Protagonest]

I'm going to be holding off until at least Xenoblade 2 I reckon.

I'll get the Wii U version of Breath of the Wild for £40 instead of spending £280 on a new console, £50 on the game, and £65 on a controller for people with normal hands that all won't get used again for a year because nothing else coming up really excites me except Splatoon 2 maybe.

The Switch controller looks fine. Better than the last two, and gamepad wasn't that bad, just heavy.

But I think Xenoblade 2 looks terrible. And I mean looks terrible. Ye gods those character models look like the game version of generic anime art, and the way the protagonist's outfit and red blade (which I'm going to assume is NOT the Monado) look does not really fit. The XC character design was largely a strong point aside from a couple examples, and this... isn't that. The environments and huge monsters shown look fantastic, so it's a shame unless they turn the character models around by the time it releases. I also wasn't a huge fan of the first game, XC2 could potentially have the strong points of XC and XCX, and even better, but it's not even close to guaranteed.

[Triaxx]

I'm very excited. Zelda titles are why I buy Nintendo, and that one from Sqeeenix? Otcopath? That looks very interesting. A definite call back to the old school RPG's.

Frankly, I'm happy it looks small enough I can plug it into my computer monitor, without burning desk space.

[Zevox]

I mean, every feature of the console itself aside from the somewhat better gimmick and more up-to-date specs sounds worse than what the Wii U had, but, well, more up-to-date specs. Pretty important even if it's not cutting-edge.
Specs only matter when they're enabling games, though. And at the moment, at least for me, it doesn't look much like they are.

In the long run I'm sure it'll have a decent number of good Nintendo games and probably a small handful of good third-party titles, like every Nintendo console since the N64 has. But if the Wii U is any indication, that's not going to be enough to make a console a success on its own anymore.


Except Nintendo have gone in for the paid online thing with basically no additional benefits (whereas they should be announcing a Netflix style service where you subscribe and get all you can eat virtual console games they've announced so far it's one game per month and it's a rental you don't even get to keep it).
Yeah, there's that too. I'm not opposed to them doing paid online, if it improves the quality of their online, which has always been a weak point for Nintendo. But early signs aren't promising there. They're using some mobile device app in place of implementing real voice chat for the system - which doesn't matter to me, since I don't do voice chat in the few online multiplayer games I play (all of which are fighting games), but I know matters to other people - and as you mentioned they're half-copying the free games of XBL and PSN but with the crucial difference that you don't keep them, which is just dumb.

[Rising Phoenix]

The Switch controller looks fine. Better than the last two, and gamepad wasn't that bad, just heavy.

But I think Xenoblade 2 looks terrible. And I mean looks terrible. Ye gods those character models look like the game version of generic anime art, and the way the protagonist's outfit and red blade (which I'm going to assume is NOT the Monado) look does not really fit. The XC character design was largely a strong point aside from a couple examples, and this... isn't that. The environments and huge monsters shown look fantastic, so it's a shame unless they turn the character models around by the time it releases. I also wasn't a huge fan of the first game, XC2 could potentially have the strong points of XC and XCX, and even better, but it's not even close to guaranteed.

The original xenoblade chronicles had, for the better part, good to very good characters and story line. The environments looked fantastic and the exploration elements utterly amazing. X didn't have as strong a story (it was still good), but it is the best exploration game I have ever played (skyrim move aside).

As for this. I will have to agree that the characters look too young- hopefully there will be some adult characters to shore that in. However, I must admit the story elements don't look that great (not that I can tell much, but it seems to be a generic fetch quest for damsel in distress). Hopefully the exploration will be amazing yet again.

As for the other games, I will probably get breath of the wild for the wiiu. I am a huge fire emblem fan so I will likely get Fire emblem warriors, but as for the rest of the library...eeeeh....nah.

This is not gonna be a day 1 purchase for me. However, if we get a proper fire emblem on it I will definitely be getting this.

[Zevox]

This is not gonna be a day 1 purchase for me. However, if we get a proper fire emblem on it I will definitely be getting this.
Oh, sure, that would probably do it for me too. Though I don't know if we will. Nintendo has been favoring their handhelds with Fire Emblem for a long time, the brief detour for the Tellius games aside, and I don't know if they're considering the Switch as much a successor to the 3DS as to the Wii U or if they're planning to continue with 3DS support alongside the Switch.

[Rising Phoenix]

Oh, sure, that would probably do it for me too. Though I don't know if we will. Nintendo has been favoring their handhelds with Fire Emblem for a long time, the brief detour for the Tellius games aside, and I don't know if they're considering the Switch as much a successor to the 3DS as to the Wii U or if they're planning to continue with 3DS support alongside the Switch.

Considering the portability of the switch it wouldn't surprise me if they did try to merge their console and handhelds together. Though, wether it's a wise move for them to do this considering the success of their recent consoles is up for debate (it very likely won't be a good move).

[Hiro Protagonest]

They've said it's "not a successor to the 3DS." However, considering they also said the DS was "not a successor to the Gameboy" and the conservative nature of Japanese companies run things in general, I consider that a weak "just in case this fails" excuse. Pokemon has already been pushing the basic 3DS' capabilities, and they've said the New 3DS won't have any games that can't run on an old one, so they shouldn't just start developing games for that. The Switch also has a good battery life, no reason it can't replace it.

[cobaltstarfire]

I don't think it'll be a day one purchase, I've got better things to dump 300 dollars on...like even more art supplies-- but I will be getting it for splatoon 2. I can be patient and get BotW later in the year as well. It'll be the earliest I've ever acquired a system. (I don't do day one purchases of hardware, and any game that isn't pokemon, or that one time I got Skyward Sword on release)

I didn't pick up a WiiU until summer of last year, and I know I've said it before, but Splatoon paid for the system and itself easily. I'm expecting Splatoon 2 to give me at least half as much fun, between the new weapons, maps, specials, and gear, which would still essentially pay for itself.


The rest of the stuff (except for the Mario Games) have me intrigued, though they aren't system movers I'd still probably play them or grab them at a discount. But I am optimistic for the system in general, especially given that it claims to be easy to develop for.

As far as the paying for online- I don't care, but that's likely because I'm an adult. I also don't really mind the way they're implementing it personally, or at the very least I'm willing to give it a try first. (Though I have no friends who play the kinds of games I play, so ultimately I'm not really nintendos target audience there)

[veti]

I'm excited for the Switch. I too skipped the WiiU, but the Wii is still in regular use in my household.

The range of games isn't that big a deal - we have lots of other platforms. (PCs, iPad, Wii, DSs, phones...) What a console is for is family fun, and what really matters is being able to share the screen and controls. The Wii is superb for that. I suspect the Switch will be slightly less good, but still workable, and the upgraded quality might be enough to make it just as popular.

[Zevox]

and they've said the New 3DS won't have any games that can't run on an old one,
I don't know where you heard that, but it's not true. One of the launch games they used to hype it up when it was revealed was the Xenoblade Chronicles port that only worked on the New 3DS because the original wasn't able to handle it, for instance. A quick google search turns up a list of 10 games that are exclusive to the New 3DS, though that Xenoblade port is probably the only really noteworthy one of the bunch.

They aren't considering it a new, separate system from the original 3DS and are largely avoiding making games that only work on it, that's true, but they have made some nonetheless.

[danzibr]

I'm going to buy one, even if the only game I ever play on it is Xenoblade 2. I'd love a Smash 5 though. And I hear FFXV might be coming over, so I consequently might skip the PS4.

[Mando Knight]

I don't know where you heard that, but it's not true. One of the launch games they used to hype it up when it was revealed was the Xenoblade Chronicles port that only worked on the New 3DS because the original wasn't able to handle it, for instance. A quick google search turns up a list of 10 games that are exclusive to the New 3DS, though that Xenoblade port is probably the only really noteworthy one of the bunch.

They aren't considering it a new, separate system from the original 3DS and are largely avoiding making games that only work on it, that's true, but they have made some nonetheless.

The 3DS version of Nintendo's SNES emulator also requires the n3DS hardware, for Reasons. (There's little doubt the old 3DS could run a basic homebrew SNES emulator, but apparently the n3DS's capabilities are needed (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/08/accuracy-takes-power-one-mans-3ghz-quest-to-build-a-perfect-snes-emulator/) for Nintendo's proprietary emulator).

[GloatingSwine]

The Switch controller looks fine. Better than the last two, and gamepad wasn't that bad, just heavy.

No, I disagree.

I don't like the Wii U gamepad for the same reason as I won't like the switch's basic controller. The buttons have a vertical layout close to the edge of the device instead of the diagonal layout that means they all fall under the arc of your thumb without bending it at the knuckle, which makes it much much more comfortable to use those controllers over the long term.

That's the reason I avoided using the gamepad for all my Wii U games, I only played ones I could play with the pro controller.

That controller layout everyone else uses and Nintendo think it's appropriate to charge an extra £60 for since the Wii? Not an accident, it's a product of ergonomic design. The grips are angled so that your wrists are in the neutral resting position when holding it, and the buttons are all laid out so they're under the arc of your thumb.


I'm going to buy one, even if the only game I ever play on it is Xenoblade 2. I'd love a Smash 5 though. And I hear FFXV might be coming over, so I consequently might skip the PS4.

I very much doubt FF15 will get a Switch release. It's barely more powerful than the Wii U, so a full fat PS4/X1 game is going to be right out. The only port FF15 is likely to get will be one with all the DLC in for the PC in a year or so.

If you get one console this generation, it should be a PS4 (which is cheaper than a Switch). Especially now as the next few months' lineup is going to be great with Gravity Rush 2, Nier Automata, Nioh, and Horizon Zero Dawn between now and the Switch launch.

[danzibr]

If you get one console this generation, it should be a PS4 (which is cheaper than a Switch). Especially now as the next few months' lineup is going to be great with Gravity Rush 2, Nier Automata, Nioh, and Horizon Zero Dawn between now and the Switch launch.
Oh dang, you got me there with Nier.

[Knaight]

I don't buy new consoles, and I definitely don't buy new consoles for one game (Breath of the Wild - I like Fire Emblem, but a non-turn based non-tactical Fire Emblem strips out everything I like about with it, and that's what FE Warriors sounds like). If the price drops a bit as it ages and we get a decent Metroid game, maybe. I never bothered with the Wii-U though, and while I have a Wii it's basically a GameCube game player for me.

[Spore]

Nintendo makes the repeated mistake of releasing their systems without a Mario/Jump n Run game. Guys, you basically (re)invented this genre and your mascot is a system seller. WHY WOULD YOU DELAY HIS DEBUT ON YOUR FRICKING CONSOLE?!

[Knaight]

Nintendo makes the repeated mistake of releasing their systems without a Mario/Jump n Run game. Guys, you basically (re)invented this genre and your mascot is a system seller. WHY WOULD YOU DELAY HIS DEBUT ON YOUR FRICKING CONSOLE?!

They probably do have something in development, and while they could rush development doing so is exactly the sort of thing that knocks series off their spots as system sellers. Nintendo has a tendency to let their major IPs lie fallow for way too long, but Mario is on the short list of ones they don't do that with.

[Hunter Noventa]

I'm somewhere in the middle. Zelda looks cool and all, but the last one I played was Link between Worlds. Mario could go all Sonic 2006 on us.

Xenoblade is Xenoblade, I still need to play the original, but X was amazing. Fire Emblem Warriors makes me squee because I'm a sucker for those crossovers.

Not nearly enough for a day 1 purchase though.

[Mando Knight]

Nintendo makes the repeated mistake of releasing their systems without a Mario/Jump n Run game. Guys, you basically (re)invented this genre and your mascot is a system seller. WHY WOULD YOU DELAY HIS DEBUT ON YOUR FRICKING CONSOLE?!

Because they want to have a steady stream of games released to the system over its launch year rather than an initial burst and a year-long drought. Also, Breath of the Wild is (or at least should be) closer to being finished, while Odyssey is probably a few months away from gold.

[Ninja_Grand]

May get it if the zelda hype is real, but if a Monster Hunter game hits I buy the sucker ASAP

[Rodin]

The 3DS version of Nintendo's SNES emulator also requires the n3DS hardware, for Reasons. (There's little doubt the old 3DS could run a basic homebrew SNES emulator, but apparently the n3DS's capabilities are needed (http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2011/08/accuracy-takes-power-one-mans-3ghz-quest-to-build-a-perfect-snes-emulator/) for Nintendo's proprietary emulator).

My getting a Switch is basically dependent on what they wind up offering in terms of emulated games. I've refused to pick up the n3DS solely for the SNES emulator since I already own a regular 3DS, but if they offer a full SNES lineup I'll certainly consider picking it up for the chance to play them again. AGDQ this year made me seriously nostalgic for Super Metroid, DKC, and Super Castlevania IV.

Any good next-gen titles would basically be a bonus for me.



If you get one console this generation, it should be a PS4 (which is cheaper than a Switch). Especially now as the next few months' lineup is going to be great with Gravity Rush 2, Nier Automata, Nioh, and Horizon Zero Dawn between now and the Switch launch.

Damn, I had actually forgotten that Nioh was still in development. It'll be great to have another Bloodborne-style game to sink my teeth into. I've been looking forward to Horizon as well.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Personally, I have a few concerns about the Switch. Not so much of what I have seen as what I haven't seen...

The Nintendo guys are being VERY careful about what they permit to show, and who gets to do it. Basically, anyone who already is guaranteed to give them a glowing review no matter what gets to 'leak' Breath footage. Understandable enough, they've finally learned that bad publicity can hurt them. Sort of. Which is awesome... except...

* NO ONE but a Nintendo Employee has played it, to date. Even on channels where people are given a 'sneak peak', such as ProJared, freely admit "I'm not the one playing it, this Nintendo rep is". Makes me wonder why. Kludgy controls?

* I may not be a full engineer, but I've got my CAD certs, and I do 3d modeling. I've seen the commercial for the Switch... those side-controllers? Look awfully small. I compare the Switch to my Kindle tablet, and look at what the controllers on the sides would look like... if I'm right, my hands will cramp up trying to use them, they're just too small.

* The *ONLY* game I hear hype for is the Zelda game. I've heard mention of other games, I've seen The List, but the only one being hyped up is the Zelda game.

* By that same token... I can't help but worry that the new Zelda game is being hyped up a bit TOO much. At this point, I'm not sure if ANY game is going to be able to live up to the hype.

[GloatingSwine]

* NO ONE but a Nintendo Employee has played it, to date. Even on channels where people are given a 'sneak peak', such as ProJared, freely admit "I'm not the one playing it, this Nintendo rep is". Makes me wonder why. Kludgy controls?


People who were at the Switch launch events got some time to play it.

Here's (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ktFlmH_0CI) DigitalFoundry's take based on their experiences (largely tech/framerate focused)


* I may not be a full engineer, but I've got my CAD certs, and I do 3d modeling. I've seen the commercial for the Switch... those side-controllers? Look awfully small. I compare the Switch to my Kindle tablet, and look at what the controllers on the sides would look like... if I'm right, my hands will cramp up trying to use them, they're just too small.

Yeah, they're small. Slightly smaller than a NES controller individually.

[Spore]

I think Breath of Wild will be "Baby's first sandbox game" - yes, I just noticed the title is stupid. I think it will be decent but lack features more experienced gamers (like game journalists or youtube game critics) would have expected and had then time to think of lines to put this down. The lack of otherwise omnipresent features without a whole game to see its context in might result in hysteria spouting criticism and fanboyism from the towers.

As for the controller, I will say is sarcastically: Can Nintendo start off their consoles for ONCE with a classical controller and explore other more creative control options with future games and iterations of the console? I loved the N64, I never got the chance to play or buy a GameCube and both the Wii and the WiiU are entirely unattractive to play for me. I am quite a PC master race elitist but I would gladly get a Nintendo console if it only had a classic controller and games that let me ignore their mental new control scheme. I want light hearted after work fun from my sofa when I don't feel like sitting on my PC, and Nintendo games offer that. I don't want a dance mat, a controller which is controlled like giving a hand job to Mr Wii and I dont need a heavy controller with a smaller display to show me how many coins Mr Mario has when I have a big screen.

[GloatingSwine]

I think Breath of Wild will be "Baby's first sandbox game" - yes, I just noticed the title is stupid. I think it will be decent but lack features more experienced gamers (like game journalists or youtube game critics) would have expected and had then time to think of lines to put this down.

I dunno. They've already demonstrated more features than the average Ubisoft openworld dot tidying game like The Division or various Far Cry games.

Features light "content" heavy is the standard for open world games now. (Where "content" reads "lots of the same task").

[cobaltstarfire]

* The *ONLY* game I hear hype for is the Zelda game. I've heard mention of other games, I've seen The List, but the only one being hyped up is the Zelda game.


Splatoon is getting hyped in its own way. (They have their own account on tumblr and other places, which they post "research" about the Squid Kids and their weapons). The Splatoon community is pretty hyped right now.

I mean, it was already hyped at the sight of pants, possibly hand accessories, new clothes, and different "hair" styles in the trailer last year, but now it's also hyped at new weapons, secondaries, and specials, new levels that have things like ink lines in them, as well as extra little abilities for weapons. (Dualies can roll, Rollers flick differently depending on if you're standing or jumping, Chargers can hold a charge for a short while when swimming) We're also happy to learn that all the old weapons at least are still in the game.

They're also pretty rampantly speculating over why only Marie is in the trailer we got, and if it might tie into the story. Word from the developers is that Callie is "working on something elsewhere" but for a brief while a lot of the community thought we'd killed her by voting Marie in the last Splatfest. (many people think *someone* has died because they say Marie is in funeral garb in the trailer, Callie is what people joke about, but many more seriously think Cpt Cuttlefish is dead)



They did cover the game some during the tree house, and the game looks like it runs much smoother too. About the only thing I'm sad about is the changes to the map which are a little disruptive since now you have to bring it up in order to do super jumps. The game still has gyro controls to aim, and I know the touch pad still has touch sensitivity, but I guess they really don't want to use the touch pad for "dual screen" capabilities in games like they did with the wiiu.

[GloatingSwine]

A lot of the out-of-fandom response to Splatoon 2 has been that the changes seen so far are too incremental. A few new weapons, maps, etc.

[danzibr]

I hate to agree with the nay-sayers, but it does indeed appear the Switch won't be able to handle FFXV. From what I've read, it looks like the Switch is a bit weaker than, say, XBox One, and the XBox suffers slightly when running XV. Like, drops in frame rates. :(

Looks like a PS4 for me after all. Well, both, probably, just like PS3 and Wii U, PS2 and Wii, PS and GC, still no XBox though.

[Hunter Noventa]

I hate to agree with the nay-sayers, but it does indeed appear the Switch won't be able to handle FFXV. From what I've read, it looks like the Switch is a bit weaker than, say, XBox One, and the XBox suffers slightly when running XV. Like, drops in frame rates. :(

Looks like a PS4 for me after all. Well, both, probably, just like PS3 and Wii U, PS2 and Wii, PS and GC, still no XBox though.

Considering that most X-Box games come out for PC nowadays, you don't really need one for anything. I'm pretty sure it has the fewest exclusives.

[Rodin]

I hate to agree with the nay-sayers, but it does indeed appear the Switch won't be able to handle FFXV. From what I've read, it looks like the Switch is a bit weaker than, say, XBox One, and the XBox suffers slightly when running XV. Like, drops in frame rates. :(

Looks like a PS4 for me after all. Well, both, probably, just like PS3 and Wii U, PS2 and Wii, PS and GC, still no XBox though.

I've never seen a reason to pick up an X-anything. There's simply jack-diddly in terms of exclusives that I would be interested in. I can really only think of Halo and Gears of War in terms of games that are exclusive, and Googling for them is hilarious. The scrollbar at the top of Google when I searched brought up Scalebound (cancelled), Horizon Zero Dawn and Nier Automata (both going to PS4) and the one article that popped up with "best XBox exclusives" listed Ori and the Blind Forest, which had a simultaneous release on Steam.

The impression I've always gotten of XBox is that it's a gaming PC for people that don't like gaming PCs.

[cobaltstarfire]

A lot of the out-of-fandom response to Splatoon 2 has been that the changes seen so far are too incremental. A few new weapons, maps, etc.

It sounds to me like they're just looking for more excuses to whine, Splatoon 2 didn't reveal any less in its two current trailers + supplemental material than any other game will have. Do you seriously think they're only going to add 1 new main, 3 new specials, and a couple of new subs and levels? (along with who knows how much gear, I haven't dissected the trailers to figure out how much of the clothing is brand new)

Other than new game modes, an improved 1 player campaign, better game performance, better multiplayer, playable octoraians, and various match making and GUI fixes/improvement, and what we've been shown so far, I'm not sure what else can be added that would actually add to the game in a meaningful way.

[Mando Knight]

The impression I've always gotten of XBox is that it's a gaming PC for people that don't like gaming PCs.

It really pretty much is. Besides Halo and Gears of War, the reason to buy an XBox One is to pick up Skyrim or Fallout 4 with actual modding support (the restrictions Sony put on them would be funny if it wasn't sad), but even then you're better off with the PC where external apps like xEdit and DynDOLOD let you further customize your playing experience.

[Hiro Protagonest]

And in the trailer alone, Spa2n showed a change to rollers. People who have gotten to play it have reported changed to chargers as well. The dual-pistol weapon apparently has dodgerolls, that's a pretty big mechanic. This is just off the top of my memeory of an unofficial changelist I saw, there are definitely other, perhaps less gameplsy-affecting changes (we'll have fo see how much the apparent "abilities are no longer tied to clothes" affects gameplay, and not just cosmetics).

[Kitten Champion]

The scrollbar at the top of Google when I searched brought up Scalebound (cancelled), Horizon Zero Dawn and Nier Automata (both going to PS4) and the one article that popped up with "best XBox exclusives" listed Ori and the Blind Forest, which had a simultaneous release on Steam.

They cancelled Scalebound? ~Awwww~

That was truly and honestly the only game they announced I had the slightest interest in. I don't know, it looked like it could be a more arcade-y Monster Hunter - a franchise I could never get into despite earnest attempts to - and maybe it would find its way on to PC at some point.

As to the Switch, I don't see a reason to consider being an early adopter here. Their online content service seems shockingly weak. a NES/SNES Rom rental/extended demo for a month is just silly in 2017. Despite nostalgia glasses, the vast majority of NES games are not worth more than a 50 cents maybe and few SNES games go above $1.00 to be honest - and that's owning permanently. Most will never even see the light of day anyways based on the relative size of their library to their current distribution philosophy.

Aside from that, Zelda looks like it might be a fun game but I haven't really enjoyed a Zelda title since Majora's Mask maybe and I never got a Wii-U to invest anything into titles like Splatoon and Xenoblade.

Basically, I'll see what the State of the Nintendo Nation is like next year. I'm only really hyped for one game this year - Persona 5 - and thankfully I don't need a new console to play it.

[cobaltstarfire]

You can get an official run-down from Splatoons tumblr. (http://splatoonus.tumblr.com/)


Rollers get different flicks dependent on if they're standing or jumping.
Chargers can keep a charge while swimming
No Changes to the Splattershot (either still in development, or not all weapons will get little changes)
Splat Dualies + they can roll&focus fire
5 new Specials (Stingray, Splashdown, Inkjet, some sort of Death Cloud, and an unnamed missile launcher) (tumblr implies all specials in the game may be new, the last game had 7 specials)
1 new Sub (Curling Bomb) (tumblr suggests that there will be more new subs)
3 New stages (only one was playable at the nintendo event)
Map mechanics changed
Gyro Controls Remain (and likely dual stick controls cause why not?)
All old main weapons will be available (tumblr)
Baby Judd
New Single Player Campaign
New hub area
Gear does not have abilities tied to it anymore (Jp Splatoon Twitter)

Other info allegedly from the developers
It will have ongoing in game events like Splatoon
It will have continual updates after release like Splatoon

I'm rather curious how the virtual console support will be. There's a lot of games over the past 10 years I've wanted to play, but couldn't because of time/money constraints, and if I can get a hold of them on the Switch via Virtual Console that'd be way nicer than hunting down a physical copy of what in some cases would be an obscure game, and then paying a serious premium for it.

[Zevox]

So, there was a Nintendo Direct today that was all about Fire Emblem. Gave us our first peek at Fire Emblem Warriors' gameplay, which featured Chrom chopping up some soldiers in exactly the sort of over-the-top fashion you'd expect if you played Hyrule Warriors. And apparently the intended release window is in the Fall, which is a bit sooner than I expected, so that's nice. It isn't going to be a Switch exclusive, though - it will also be on the 3DS, though specifically the New 3DS (presumably the originals lack the power for it). So if you already have that, that's one less game to sell you the Switch - though personally I don't, and I expect the Switch to be a better investment as a way to play FE Warriors than a New 3DS, so I'm much more likely to get it there.

They did also confirm that the next full new Fire Emblem title will be on the Switch, though there were no details given. It's planned to be a 2018 release, so it's well on the horizon for now, but it is good to know it'll be coming. That makes me think that next year will likely be when I look to pick up a Switch.


As for the controller, I will say is sarcastically: Can Nintendo start off their consoles for ONCE with a classical controller and explore other more creative control options with future games and iterations of the console? I loved the N64, I never got the chance to play or buy a GameCube and both the Wii and the WiiU are entirely unattractive to play for me. I am quite a PC master race elitist but I would gladly get a Nintendo console if it only had a classic controller and games that let me ignore their mental new control scheme.
Both the Wii and Wii U have had both of those things from the start.


I've never seen a reason to pick up an X-anything. There's simply jack-diddly in terms of exclusives that I would be interested in. I can really only think of Halo and Gears of War in terms of games that are exclusive, and Googling for them is hilarious. The scrollbar at the top of Google when I searched brought up Scalebound (cancelled), Horizon Zero Dawn and Nier Automata (both going to PS4) and the one article that popped up with "best XBox exclusives" listed Ori and the Blind Forest, which had a simultaneous release on Steam.

The impression I've always gotten of XBox is that it's a gaming PC for people that don't like gaming PCs.
The X-Box 360 specifically had more going for it - some exclusives that you wouldn't have expected of them, including JRPGs such as Tales of Vesperia and Blue Dragon, plus its online performance was noticeably superior to the PS3's, and from what I've heard many multi-platform games of that generation ran better on it. The One, on the other hand, doesn't have any of that at this point, and I can't say I ever heard of anything special about the original, so yeah.


They cancelled Scalebound? ~Awwww~

That was truly and honestly the only game they announced I had the slightest interest in. I don't know, it looked like it could be a more arcade-y Monster Hunter - a franchise I could never get into despite earnest attempts to - and maybe it would find its way on to PC at some point.
Eh, I was always disappointed that it wasn't what it looked like from the first trailer that they showed for - which was Devil May Cry with Dragons - but instead some weird pseudo-MMO, so I can't say I'm bothered by it. I do hope it doesn't signal that Platinum's having trouble, though, since they do tend to make some fantastic action games.


I'm only really hyped for one game this year - Persona 5 - and thankfully I don't need a new console to play it.
I've got Persona 5 and Marvel vs Capcom Infinite as my big two, personally, both of which I can get on my PS4.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Eh, I was always disappointed that it wasn't what it looked like from the first trailer that they showed for - which was Devil May Cry with Dragons - but instead some weird pseudo-MMO, so I can't say I'm bothered by it. I do hope it doesn't signal that Platinum's having trouble, though, since they do tend to make some fantastic action games.

...Even if it didn't look great, there's a big leap from the footage I saw to "pseudo-MMO."

I've got Persona 5 and Marvel vs Capcom Infinite as my big two, personally, both of which I can get on my PS4.

Atlus is a company I trust, but Capcom is not.

[Zevox]

...Even if it didn't look great, there's a big leap from the footage I saw to "pseudo-MMO."
*shrug* It had some strange "mass-multiplayer but not truly an MMO" element to it that hadn't yet been fully explained by the point I stopped paying attention to it, so that's what I recall when I think of it.


Atlus is a company I trust, but Capcom is not.
Capcom has made quite a lot of mistakes in recent years, no question there. But if there's one thing they consistently get very right - well, okay, that would be the Ace Attorney series. But if there's a second, it's the core gameplay of their fighting games, which is the most important part to me by far. I loved Marvel vs Capcom 3, and they've already rectified one of my two biggest complaints about that game in Infinite, the absence of Mega Man from the roster. Assuming they also make the netcode much better - which seems very likely since every fighting game they've made since Marvel 3 has had much better netcode than it did - I should definitely have a ton of fun with that game.

[Kitten Champion]

Eh, I was always disappointed that it wasn't what it looked like from the first trailer that they showed for - which was Devil May Cry with Dragons - but instead some weird pseudo-MMO, so I can't say I'm bothered by it. I do hope it doesn't signal that Platinum's having trouble, though, since they do tend to make some fantastic action games.

I never really looked too deep into Scalebound because I wasn't going to play it in all likelihood. It just happened to be a colourful ray of light in a sea of fairly monotonous sequels that composed the X-Box offerings for the last... well, since launch pretty much.

Looking at the pre-alpha footage it had a nice overall aesthetic and possibly interesting mechanics with the dragon and all. However, the protagonist character was a bit too try-hard, the actual action was fairly underwhelming at first glance - certainly for a Platinum game - and I'm not sure I'd care for the co-op aspect either. In my experience co-op action tends to lend itself to making enemies more damage spongy, longer, and less fun to deal with. Still, it was a pre-alpha.

I'm reasonably excited for Nier: Automata as far as Platinum goes, which... well - like every new title I'd consider buying - is inevitably on PS4 this year. Nintendo needs to get some of that third-party content by 2018 or I honestly will never pick it up. Not out of any particular intent, I just know that's what will happen. I had the same wait-and-see attitude for the Wii-U and here I am years later, Wii-U-less.

[Aotrs Commander]

Also worth noting that the reveal of the online service - a subscription - was that you are paying to get basically rented one (emulated backcatalog ROM) game per month (I'm not sure if there is even a choice which one), at the end of which, you lose access. So it's not like (what I understand of) PSN, where you get games, this system is "you get this gasme for a month and then that's it, you want to play it again, you buy it."

I am more or less utterly disinterested personally (even the distant modicum of interested I had with rumours of a third Sun/Moon game being on or exlcusive to the Switch) died immediately upon learning both the above and the price (I wouldn't even have posted, but I don't think that whole "pay to rent (potentially random) game for a month" thing hadn't been mentioned.

[Hunter Noventa]

Yeah the whole 'pay to rent a ROM' is outright ludicrously bad. I used to have Playstation Plus, but I never played anything online or even touched the free games that came with that so I dropped it, no way I'd pay for this sad excuse for online support. And Nintendo has a terrible history of online play in general, they've never come close to getting their online systems right. Friend Codes, anyone?

Glad to hear that Fire Emblem Warriors will also be on n3DS, since I have one of those. It's going to take more to sell me the Switch. Like Xenoblade Chronicles X2.

[danzibr]

Egad. That subscription stuff sounds awful. Surely there are more perks than just being able to use a game for the month? I hope?

[Hunter Noventa]

Egad. That subscription stuff sounds awful. Surely there are more perks than just being able to use a game for the month? I hope?

It'll be required for an online multiplayer like Splatoon or Mario Kart. I don't know how it'll affect future titles with more passive multiplayer a la Fire Emblem or bravely Default's usage of friends and streetpass.

I can only hope it's limited to 'live' multiplayer, because if they put pokemon on the switch and you have to pay to trade pokemon, that would the fastest way to kill the franchise.

Apparently there's also a new standard Fire Emblem coming out for 3DS, which is nice. And one for mobile? Who knows how that could be.

[Zevox]

It'll be required for an online multiplayer like Splatoon or Mario Kart. I don't know how it'll affect future titles with more passive multiplayer a la Fire Emblem or bravely Default's usage of friends and streetpass.

I can only hope it's limited to 'live' multiplayer, because if they put pokemon on the switch and you have to pay to trade pokemon, that would the fastest way to kill the franchise.

Apparently there's also a new standard Fire Emblem coming out for 3DS, which is nice. And one for mobile? Who knows how that could be.
I believe I heard/read that the Switch won't have Street Pass, though I'm not 100% sure (I've never used that feature, so I just kind of glossed over that detail due to not caring one way or the other).

And the only new 3DS Fire Emblem that was announced was a remake of Gaiden, the second game in the series, which IIRC is sort of the black sheep of the franchise, so I wouldn't get too excited about that. Especially after how Shadow Dragon turned out.

[Hunter Noventa]

I believe I heard/read that the Switch won't have Street Pass, though I'm not 100% sure (I've never used that feature, so I just kind of glossed over that detail due to not caring one way or the other).

And the only new 3DS Fire Emblem that was announced was a remake of Gaiden, the second game in the series, which IIRC is sort of the black sheep of the franchise, so I wouldn't get too excited about that. Especially after how Shadow Dragon turned out.

Well maybe they'll be able to improve it after the success of Fates and Awakening, I wouldn't know.

But yeah, a potential lack of free online features for some games is going to tick a lot of people off. Streetpass isn't as useful outside of Japan, but stuff like the Pokemon GTS or fighting each other's castles in Fire Emblem Fates being behind a paywall would not be good for business. There's some justification for live multiplayer like Splatoon or Mario Kart, since the requirements for those connections cost more to maintain, but it's still a tough sell.

[Triaxx]

I suspect given Creepy Airport guy in the switch trailer, it'll only be for online and not tablet to tablet multiplayer. Probably because of competitive gaming for those two because a subscription service means you can afford anti-cheat mechanisms easier.

[Hunter Noventa]

I suspect given Creepy Airport guy in the switch trailer, it'll only be for online and not tablet to tablet multiplayer. Probably because of competitive gaming for those two because a subscription service means you can afford anti-cheat mechanisms easier.

Right wi-fi is free, that's obvious. We're more concerned with the online services that aren't tied to live multiplayer. You can trade pokemon in person sure, but the GTS lets you trade with the world. Will that be paywalled if a mainline pokemon game ends up on the Switch? These are questions that need answering.

[Hiro Protagonest]

The Nintendo guys are being VERY careful about what they permit to show, and who gets to do it. Basically, anyone who already is guaranteed to give them a glowing review no matter what gets to 'leak' Breath footage. Understandable enough, they've finally learned that bad publicity can hurt them. Sort of. Which is awesome... except...

* NO ONE but a Nintendo Employee has played it, to date. Even on channels where people are given a 'sneak peak', such as ProJared, freely admit "I'm not the one playing it, this Nintendo rep is". Makes me wonder why. Kludgy controls?

Ahem. ProJared was on the Co-Optional Podcast this week. He specifically wanted to clear up misinformation about this, and said there was a hands-on demo which was the start of the game, and an old build at that, the build that was played at E3. There was also a Nintendo rep playing a different section of the game, which may have been a more recent build. It seems like Jesse Cox also got the opportunity to play and thought it was fun.

[cobaltstarfire]

He had a pretty interesting/entertaining interview with Reggie too. (https://youtu.be/G_OgxrwWZU8)

[Rising Phoenix]

So I've been investigating the launch line up for the switch and really nitendo seems to have done themselves in...again... There's 8 games and the big one is also available on the Wiiu. Also there's next to no third party big ip support...

[Hiro Protagonest]

So I've been investigating the launch line up for the switch and really nitendo seems to have done themselves in...again... There's 8 games and the big one is also available on the Wiiu. Also there's next to no third party big ip support...

Uh, "done themselves in" just for that would mean "I'll buy it later in the year" equals "I won't buy it."

There are more valid complaints. This is just a matter of sales model; it might be smart for production, too.

[cobaltstarfire]

Yeah, not to mention it's been pointed out a couple of times in different places by Nintendo that the Switch is supposed to be easier to develop for, and will have and hold onto third party support much better than the WiiU did as a result.

Reggie claims in his interview with Jared that there are 80(?) games in development right now via third parties, of course most of those probably aren't exclusives, and who knows how many of them will die in development, or won't come out for another year or two. It's too early to decide that the Switch doesn't have enough games on it yet.



505 Games
Activision
Arc System Works
ATLUS
Autodesk
Bandai Namco Entertainment
Bethesda Softworks
Capcom
Codemasters
CRI Middleware
DeNA
Electronic Arts
Epic Games
Firelight Technologies
FMOD
FromSoftware
Frozenbyte
GameTrust
Grasshopper Manufacture
Gungho Online Entertainment
Hamster Corporation
Havok
Inti Creates
Koei Tecmo
Konami
Level-5
Marvelous
Maximum Games
Nippon Ichi Software
ParityBit
PlatinumGames
RAD Game Tools
RecoChoku
SEGA
Silicon Studio
Spike Chunsoft
Square Enix
Starbreeze Studios
Take-Two Interactive
Telltale Games
THQ Nordic
Tokyo RPG Factory
TT Games
Ubisoft
Ubitus
Unity
Warner Bros. Interactive Entertainment
Web Technology Corp
Wwise

[Hiro Protagonest]

Oh yeah, I meant to talk about the power thing. Just because it's not competing for power doesn't mean it doesn't matter at all. For one upcoming indie game, when asked if it would be on Wii U they said "even if NX wasn't a thing, we're planning on using more power than the Wii U has." When asked for Switch, they said "maybe, if our publisher wants it."

[ShneekeyTheLost]

So, Zelda: Breath of the Wild. It's a thing. I have yet to find someone reviewing this game that doesn't give it 10/10. It is a paradigm shift for the Zelda franchise, but in the best way possible.

Apparently, it is to the Zelda franchise what Symphony of the Night was to the Castlevania franchise: a genre-shift to a more RPG style, and the reimagination of a legend.

I'll be honest, I'm tempted to purchase a Wii U to be able to play this. They aren't that expensive anymore, although I will definitely get the 32GB version. I won't be touching the Switch until it fixes many of the problems I have been hearing about. As ProJared so eloquently put it: Wait until June or so until they actually finish making their product.

I suppose time will tell, but with all this hype, there's got to be something decent underneath.

[danzibr]

So, Zelda: Breath of the Wild. It's a thing. I have yet to find someone reviewing this game that doesn't give it 10/10. It is a paradigm shift for the Zelda franchise, but in the best way possible.

Apparently, it is to the Zelda franchise what Symphony of the Night was to the Castlevania franchise: a genre-shift to a more RPG style, and the reimagination of a legend.

I'll be honest, I'm tempted to purchase a Wii U to be able to play this. They aren't that expensive anymore, although I will definitely get the 32GB version. I won't be touching the Switch until it fixes many of the problems I have been hearing about. As ProJared so eloquently put it: Wait until June or so until they actually finish making their product.

I suppose time will tell, but with all this hype, there's got to be something decent underneath.
Huh. Color me intrigued. I've always been a fan of Zelda, but not die hard.

[cobaltstarfire]

I'm going to wait for a combination of the left joycon bug being identified/fixed, virtual console going live and splatoon 2 coming out.

I really do want to play breath of the wild, but I don't mind waiting for it. There are also some interesting games available on the Eshop (I bet my husband would love to play bomber men, he loves that kind of game!)

It's a little frustrating that it has relatively little system storage, since there are a lot of games I want to try out that will likely be download only. so I guess while I'm waiting I can save for a decent sized SD card to go with it...

[Mith]

I am not a big gamer by any means, as I never really owned a console. However, the Switch has me intrigued. I will follow people here for any review of the system itself for play. I do not plan to buy the Switch for a while though (lack of money or excusable time to play), so I will hopefully skipping over the 1st generation bugs/patches.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Huh. Color me intrigued. I've always been a fan of Zelda, but not die hard.

Yea, they're going back to their original NES Legend of Zelda roots. Big open world, with no real indicator of where to go. On the Plateau, you have your NPC Tutorial, but other than that? You will be happy to note that you won't have an Annoying Sidekick Plot Director. You remember how confusing Legend of Zelda was without a map or anything? Well, it is kind of sort of going to that. Only they've put in hundreds of things for you to explore so you that while you may be lost as far as plotline, you'll always have something to do no matter where you go.

I'd almost call it Zelda: Fallout, but that's not quite right either, because a) it doesn't crash every five minutes, and b) the game is actually balanced. But yea, if you had an open-world like Bethesda likes to do, then built to the stability and entertainment standards of Nintendo, this is what you might get.

Having said that, the concerns about the hardware are absolutely there, and will need to be addressed before I ever consider purchasing the Switch. Not even for Breath of the Wild will I pay that much for a malfunctioning console.

[Zevox]

Yea, they're going back to their original NES Legend of Zelda roots. Big open world, with no real indicator of where to go. On the Plateau, you have your NPC Tutorial, but other than that? You will be happy to note that you won't have an Annoying Sidekick Plot Director. You remember how confusing Legend of Zelda was without a map or anything? Well, it is kind of sort of going to that. Only they've put in hundreds of things for you to explore so you that while you may be lost as far as plotline, you'll always have something to do no matter where you go.

I'd almost call it Zelda: Fallout, but that's not quite right either, because a) it doesn't crash every five minutes, and b) the game is actually balanced. But yea, if you had an open-world like Bethesda likes to do, then built to the stability and entertainment standards of Nintendo, this is what you might get.
*shudders* Ugh, you're making it sound like everything I feared it might be. I mean, I'm going to give it a try eventually, but the more I hear about the game, the more likely it sounds that this will be the first Zelda game I actually don't like.

In which case I'll have to sincerely hope that it proves to be a one-time detour for the series. I really don't want a series I love to turn into one I can't enjoy by stealing from Bethesda just because Skyrim was stupid popular...

[danzibr]

Yea, they're going back to their original NES Legend of Zelda roots. Big open world, with no real indicator of where to go. On the Plateau, you have your NPC Tutorial, but other than that? You will be happy to note that you won't have an Annoying Sidekick Plot Director. You remember how confusing Legend of Zelda was without a map or anything? Well, it is kind of sort of going to that. Only they've put in hundreds of things for you to explore so you that while you may be lost as far as plotline, you'll always have something to do no matter where you go.

I'd almost call it Zelda: Fallout, but that's not quite right either, because a) it doesn't crash every five minutes, and b) the game is actually balanced. But yea, if you had an open-world like Bethesda likes to do, then built to the stability and entertainment standards of Nintendo, this is what you might get.

Having said that, the concerns about the hardware are absolutely there, and will need to be addressed before I ever consider purchasing the Switch. Not even for Breath of the Wild will I pay that much for a malfunctioning console.

*shudders* Ugh, you're making it sound like everything I feared it might be. I mean, I'm going to give it a try eventually, but the more I hear about the game, the more likely it sounds that this will be the first Zelda game I actually don't like.

In which case I'll have to sincerely hope that it proves to be a one-time detour for the series. I really don't want a series I love to turn into one I can't enjoy by stealing from Bethesda just because Skyrim was stupid popular...
For me, sounds like I'll like it. Better watch some gameplay videos. I happen to have a Wii U.

[Triaxx]

If it's back to those Zelda 1 roots, it'll be okay.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

*shudders* Ugh, you're making it sound like everything I feared it might be. I mean, I'm going to give it a try eventually, but the more I hear about the game, the more likely it sounds that this will be the first Zelda game I actually don't like.

In which case I'll have to sincerely hope that it proves to be a one-time detour for the series. I really don't want a series I love to turn into one I can't enjoy by stealing from Bethesda just because Skyrim was stupid popular...

Then you will probably hate it, because that is exactly what it is. But they didn't 'steal' from Bethesda. They went back to their roots, and re-envisioned everything.

It goes back to the original Legend of Zelda, that golden cartridge which introduced the franchise back in the 80's, and the open world with no annoying sidekick to pester you about going back onto the main quest. This game actually IS about exploring, and you have a HUGE world to explore. All your tools, you get right at the beginning. So the developers were assured that, if you got off the Plateau, you had everything you needed to meet any challenge they presented.

The world is huge. We aren't going to pester you with any three day timer or annoying sidekick to do any of the main quest. The world is yours, have fun.

In the overworld, you've got tons of monsters to fight. But delving into the dungeons and such? Mostly puzzles. But unlike HL2, they don't just feel tacked on 'oh hey, you went through a combat scene, have a random physics puzzle'. And it is the shrines which give you the soul orb thingies, which are effectively your quarter-hearts, since four of them can equal a heart container. But you can also spend them on your endurance bar as well, if you like. Which can also be useful. I'd probably say get at least five hearts, then maybe get some stamina.

[Togath]

Are there npcs, villages, quests and such? Or is it closer to a sandboxy game than an openworld rpg like Skyrim?

[Zevox]

Then you will probably hate it, because that is exactly what it is. But they didn't 'steal' from Bethesda. They went back to their roots, and re-envisioned everything.

It goes back to the original Legend of Zelda,
I can't speak to comparisons to the original Zelda, since that's one of the two main-series Zelda games that I haven't played (the other being Zelda 2). But this:


The world is huge. We aren't going to pester you with any three day timer or annoying sidekick to do any of the main quest. The world is yours, have fun.
Does indeed sound like exactly the sort of design philosophy espoused by Bethesda, which personally is very much the opposite of what I like in games, and I think leads to very flawed game design. Creating a huge world like that leads to either much of it being empty, or it being populated by many things that the developers could not spend much time on, because games must be made on a budget and schedule by their nature, and there's only so much attention that can be given to each part if there's that much more to make. So either the space is thoroughly pointless and just a waste of my time to traverse, or it's full of things to do but they're so shallow that few to none of them are worth doing.

Moreover, personally I find the lack of focus in such games boring in its own right. In a single-player game I want a main storyline to follow, which should be the primary thing that you do throughout the game. Even if there's not much plot, as there often isn't in Zelda games, I want at least a clear goal to work towards and a steady sense of progress towards that goal. Which Zelda typically does have in the form of the dungeons and whatever McGuffin the game has you chasing through them, all in the service of defeating the Great Evil, usually Ganondorf. But if a game just leaves me to wander aimlessly, I just find myself wanting to put it down and go play another game instead.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Are there npcs, villages, quests and such? Or is it closer to a sandboxy game than an openworld rpg like Skyrim?

Yep! First place you are suggested to go to after the newbie zone is Kakairo Village. You run into NPCs all over the place, with quests and such.


I can't speak to comparisons to the original Zelda, since that's one of the two main-series Zelda games that I haven't played (the other being Zelda 2). But this:


Does indeed sound like exactly the sort of design philosophy espoused by Bethesda, which personally is very much the opposite of what I like in games, and I think leads to very flawed game design. Creating a huge world like that leads to either much of it being empty, or it being populated by many things that the developers could not spend much time on, because games must be made on a budget and schedule by their nature, and there's only so much attention that can be given to each part if there's that much more to make. So either the space is thoroughly pointless and just a waste of my time to traverse, or it's full of things to do but they're so shallow that few to none of them are worth doing.Zelda did it first. You could say that Bethesda stole it from Zelda and be more accurate.


Moreover, personally I find the lack of focus in such games boring in its own right. In a single-player game I want a main storyline to follow, which should be the primary thing that you do throughout the game. Even if there's not much plot, as there often isn't in Zelda games, I want at least a clear goal to work towards and a steady sense of progress towards that goal. Which Zelda typically does have in the form of the dungeons and whatever McGuffin the game has you chasing through them, all in the service of defeating the Great Evil, usually Ganondorf. But if a game just leaves me to wander aimlessly, I just find myself wanting to put it down and go play another game instead.You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I really don't like being put on rails like that. To each their own.

[Zevox]

You are certainly entitled to your opinion. Personally, I really don't like being put on rails like that. To each their own.
Indeed, and in theory I'm fine with games like that existing for those that do enjoy them. What bothers me here is that in the wake of Skyrim's runaway success, series that I actually like which were not like that are adopting those elements. Dragon Age, Mass Effect, and Zelda being the three biggest examples; series which include some of my all-time favorite games, but which are now going this route, and losing my interest rapidly as a result. That is extremely aggravating for me.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Indeed, and in theory I'm fine with games like that existing for those that do enjoy them. What bothers me here is that in the wake of Skyrim's runaway success, series that I actually like which were not like that are adopting those elements. Dragon Age, Mass Effect, and Zelda being the three biggest examples; series which include some of my all-time favorite games, but which are now going this route, and losing my interest rapidly as a result. That is extremely aggravating for me.

If you don't like open-ended sandbox worlds, that's your opinion. However, this has nothing to do with Skyrim. The original Legend of Zelda was doing open-world LONG before Bethesda was even a company. It moved to a more scripted and structured game after the first one because too many people complained about the 'nintendo hard' lack of direction.

I got the zelda bundle gamecube, which came with the original zelda, zelda 2, OoT, and Majora's Mask. If you can find a copy, I'd suggest trying it to actually experience the first zelda game. Without a guide. Then come back and talk to me about being faithful to the franchise.

[Triaxx]

Been there done that. Before GameFAQs existed. Closest thing to a walkthrough we got were hints in Nintendo Power. And those got traded more than an old nudie mag.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Then come back and talk to me about being faithful to the franchise.

WELL, there are 16 games in the franchise that are NOT Zelda 1.

I think the fact that most or all of those games have good exploration elements and Zelda 1's style negate any argument about Breath of the Wild being "not Zelda," but the opposite is not the case either.

[Zevox]

If you don't like open-ended sandbox worlds, that's your opinion. However, this has nothing to do with Skyrim. The original Legend of Zelda was doing open-world LONG before Bethesda was even a company. It moved to a more scripted and structured game after the first one because too many people complained about the 'nintendo hard' lack of direction.

I got the zelda bundle gamecube, which came with the original zelda, zelda 2, OoT, and Majora's Mask. If you can find a copy, I'd suggest trying it to actually experience the first zelda game. Without a guide. Then come back and talk to me about being faithful to the franchise.
Quite frankly, it doesn't matter in the slightest what the first game did. The franchise is far larger than one game now - if every other title has done things differently, as is the case, then that is not the norm for the franchise, and switching to it now is a departure. Heck, you yourself described this game as a "paradigm shift" in a previous post, which is not a term that gets employed for a series that isn't undergoing a major change.

And frankly, if you seriously think that the success of Bethesda in general and Skryim in particular have nothing to do with this, I would say you're ignoring the obvious. Zelda doesn't exist in some vacuum divorced from the context of the rest of the game industry. Even if one game in the series' past did something remotely like this, it is only now, in the midst of an observable trend across numerous major franchises throughout the industry clearly being influence by Bethesda/Skyrim, that a new entry in the series goes back to that. It's pretty ridiculous to claim that there is no connection there.

[Velaryon]

I've pretty much made up my mind to wait and see what the early adopters' experience is like for the Switch. However, I do have to say I find it extremely annoying that the new Shovel Knight expansion Specter of Torment came out today for the Switch, but those of us who already had the game on other platforms have to wait at least a month. I understand there's a certain prestige to being a launch title, but at the same time, I can't help but feel this is a slap in the face to people who have supported the game.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I can't help but feel this is a slap in the face to people who have supported the game.

I'll just sit here and wait the month for a veritable new game that I'm being provided for free...

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Quite frankly, it doesn't matter in the slightest what the first game did. The franchise is far larger than one game now - if every other title has done things differently, as is the case, then that is not the norm for the franchise, and switching to it now is a departure. Heck, you yourself described this game as a "paradigm shift" in a previous post, which is not a term that gets employed for a series that isn't undergoing a major change.It is a shift back to the original from where it has strayed. Gone are the obnoxiously annoying elements designed to shove you into the next plot point to race you through the game. You actually get a chance to... well... explore, instead of taking a minecart ride through a game.


And frankly, if you seriously think that the success of Bethesda in general and Skryim in particular have nothing to do with this, I would say you're ignoring the obvious. Zelda doesn't exist in some vacuum divorced from the context of the rest of the game industry. Even if one game in the series' past did something remotely like this, it is only now, in the midst of an observable trend across numerous major franchises throughout the industry clearly being influence by Bethesda/Skyrim, that a new entry in the series goes back to that. It's pretty ridiculous to claim that there is no connection there.This is something that was discussed in the Fallout thread. Bethesda makes great game engines, but lousy games. Skyrim was not an especially spectacular game, certainly nothing the industry is going to try and copy. The strengths were not in the game elements, which sucked, but in the game engine itself. In short, Skyrim, and Fallout 4, are a great game engine with a lousy game built on top of it to showcase most of the nifty features of the engine.

So no, I don't believe you are in the least bit accurate with this.

[Yuki Akuma]

For a game people kept assuming would have hardly any NPCs or story, I sure am running into way more named NPCs with actual personalities and voice-acted cutscenes than any Zelda game has ever had.

Well, okay, it's pretty easy to trump "zero" when it comes to the cutscenes, but...


I got a hint where I could find a lost memory. Unfortunately that hint was "Mt. Lanayru". So I climbed the goddamn mountain, got to the top, fought a secret boss to unlock a secret shrine, snowboarded down the mountain to an area that was obviously the "proper entrance" (I just scaled the ****ing thing, **** paths), saw the memory that is actually meant to prompt you to go up the mountain to find that shrine, head back to town, find an NPC giving me a quest to GO TO THAT SHRINE, instantly get "quest complete!" pop up.

I basically completed most of an event chain backwards and the game didn't stop me. This game's awesome.

[Zevox]

It is a shift back to the original from where it has strayed. Gone are the obnoxiously annoying elements designed to shove you into the next plot point to race you through the game. You actually get a chance to... well... explore, instead of taking a minecart ride through a game.
I'm well aware we disagree on the quality and desirability of the change taking place here. If you're not going to continue to argue that it somehow isn't a change because of the first game, though, then my point to which you were responding here stands.


This is something that was discussed in the Fallout thread. Bethesda makes great game engines, but lousy games. Skyrim was not an especially spectacular game, certainly nothing the industry is going to try and copy. The strengths were not in the game elements, which sucked, but in the game engine itself. In short, Skyrim, and Fallout 4, are a great game engine with a lousy game built on top of it to showcase most of the nifty features of the engine.

So no, I don't believe you are in the least bit accurate with this.
Oh come on now, this isn't some speculation about something that may happen, it's an observable reality that's been going on for a while, and a predictable one at that. Skyrim was a massive success story, selling a ton of copies and building a large fanbase quickly, and it was widely praised in large part for its expansive open world. When something like that happens, inevitably other games try to copy it. You can see it throughout gaming history: when Mario and Sonic were the biggest things out there, platformers were one of the most prolific genres, and often featured animal mascots for main characters to try and further copy Sonic. When Halo and later Call of Duty sold like hotcakes, the first-person shooter genre exploded. Similarly, Skyrim's success has lead to a rise in open-world games, and to established series adopting that style. Bioware has moved in that direction with Dragon Age Inquisition and Mass Effect Andromeda, The Witcher 3 went full open-world after its much more linear predecessor, new games like Shadows of Mordor went that route, and in some cases these games have welcomed or made that comparison in their marketing.

Much as I wish it were otherwise, the industry copying Skyrim is a thing that is happening. It only takes looking at the evidence and putting two and two together to see it.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Much as I wish it were otherwise, the industry copying Skyrim is a thing that is happening. It only takes looking at the evidence and putting two and two together to see it.

Far Cry 3 came out a year after Skyrim, which is not enough time to see the sales figures, decide on, and make a AAA game.

You'd also have to actually ask the guys at CD Projekt Red why they wanted to make an open-world Witcher before you make assumptions of such a good studio.

Oh, and a new IP (er, kinda) that got a character into Smash, Xenoblade Chronicles. Released in 2010.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Oh come on now, this isn't some speculation about something that may happen, it's an observable reality that's been going on for a while, and a predictable one at that. Skyrim was a massive success story, selling a ton of copies and building a large fanbase quickly, and it was widely praised in large part for its expansive open world. When something like that happens, inevitably other games try to copy it. You can see it throughout gaming history: when Mario and Sonic were the biggest things out there, platformers were one of the most prolific genres, and often featured animal mascots for main characters to try and further copy Sonic. When Halo and later Call of Duty sold like hotcakes, the first-person shooter genre exploded. Similarly, Skyrim's success has lead to a rise in open-world games, and to established series adopting that style. Bioware has moved in that direction with Dragon Age Inquisition and Mass Effect Andromeda, The Witcher 3 went full open-world after its much more linear predecessor, new games like Shadows of Mordor went that route, and in some cases these games have welcomed or made that comparison in their marketing.

Much as I wish it were otherwise, the industry copying Skyrim is a thing that is happening. It only takes looking at the evidence and putting two and two together to see it.The interview with the developers would disagree with you, because they specifically cite the first Zelda's freedom as the impetus for the open world feel of the game.

[Zevox]

Far Cry 3 came out a year after Skyrim, which is not enough time to see the sales figures, decide on, and make a AAA game.

You'd also have to actually ask the guys at CD Projekt Red why they wanted to make an open-world Witcher before you make assumptions of such a good studio.

Oh, and a new IP (er, kinda) that got a character into Smash, Xenoblade Chronicles. Released in 2010.
I'm not claiming that literally every open-world game that has ever gotten made is because of Skyrim - clearly one released before it like Xenoblade was not - only that there's been a definite uptick in them since, and again, there has been a trend of existing series adopting the style in their first new entry after it became such a huge success, often with comparisons to it being drawn during the pre-release period.

Seriously, how is there the slightest doubt that that game has had an influence on the industry? Since when does a game achieve it's level of success and not have at least some such influence?

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I'm not claiming that literally every open-world game that has ever gotten made is because of Skyrim - clearly one released before it like Xenoblade was not - only that there's been a definite uptick in them since, and again, there has been a trend of existing series adopting the style in their first new entry after it became such a huge success, often with comparisons to it being drawn during the pre-release period.

Seriously, how is there the slightest doubt that that game has had an influence on the industry? Since when does a game achieve it's level of success and not have at least some such influence?I would not call Skyrim a 'huge success', nor do I see it's influence anywhere. Open-ended alone does not a Skyrim make. There is a distinct lack of Fus Rho Dah.

In fact, if anything, I'd say Minecraft is the source of more open-ended or world-interaction aspects to various games that have been coming out, since it is several orders of magnitude more successful than Skyrim. What started out as an indie game was worth Billions (that's with a 'B', and more than Bethesda as a whole has as net worth) once it finally sold.

[Rodin]

All your tools, you get right at the beginning. So the developers were assured that, if you got off the Plateau, you had everything you needed to meet any challenge they presented.

Y'know, they did this with Link Between Worlds as well, and I'm actually not a fan. Part of the fun of Zelda is seeing areas you can't get to and then coming back to those areas with the proper tools to reach them. It removed the feeling of steadily growing more skilled, as you started with everything. It also affected the quality of loot, as there were only a handful of items they could meaningfully give you - I recall lots and lots of rupees.

Sure, you could tackle the dungeons in any order, but that was largely true of the previous games anyway.

[Typewriter]

I would not call Skyrim a 'huge success', nor do I see it's influence anywhere. Open-ended alone does not a Skyrim make. There is a distinct lack of Fus Rho Dah.

In fact, if anything, I'd say Minecraft is the source of more open-ended or world-interaction aspects to various games that have been coming out, since it is several orders of magnitude more successful than Skyrim. What started out as an indie game was worth Billions (that's with a 'B', and more than Bethesda as a whole has as net worth) once it finally sold.

Oblivion launched in March of 2006 and took until January 2007 to have sold approximately 3 million copies. Skyrim sold more copies in the first two days of launch (3.4 million copies). Since then it has sold somewhere between 23 and 30 million copies. Skyrim also launched to rave reviews and currently has a 95% on metacritic. While these methods of measurement are not definitive indactors of a games quality I do have to wonder - what exactly do you mean when you say that you wouldn't call Skyrim a 'huge success'?

I'm also shocked that you mention 'Fus Ro Dah' as some sort of indicator of Skyrims presence. Yes - there were dragon shouts in that game, but that isn't what made Skyrim the success that it was. It streamlined the quest and adventure system in a way that made players of all skill sets feel invited and welcome, it told a relatively compelling story, and it provided a, technically, limitless amount of content. I don't really feel like 'Fus Ro Dah' is something that anybody remembers Skyrim for. People remember the game because of the guilds and quests with clever dialogues. People remember fighting dragons, people remember eating a dozen cheese wheels in the middle of a fight for health, people remember mods, people remember exploration, adventure and fun - hell people even remember the random lines of dialogue spouted by the guards. One thing I can honestly say I don't think I've ever heard anybody mention in anything other than a 'generic reference' sort of way is the Dragon Shouts. I mean, you're talking about a mechanic that you could only use once a minute unless you specced heavily towards it. Of all the things that Skyrim was about I feel like Fus Ro Dah is near the bottom of the list.

Finally - Minecraft and Skyrim are incredibly different experiences that have given birth to entirely different realms of influence. Minecraft has breathed new life into the genres of world exploration, crafting, and survival in a procedurally generated way. Skyrim has inspired games that were previously kept on a firm(er) track to branch out into the realms of open world more. It's not the game that started this change, but the massive success definitely had a hand in paving the way. When someone plays a game like Terraria, Don't Starve, or even No Mans Sky you can see elements of these games that were inspired by Minecraft. Every time you play it's something new and you, as the player, have a firm role in creating that experience. When you play games 'inspired' by Skyrim it's different - you're exploring a world specifically designed with intent and purpose. Dragon Age Inquisition doesn't feel like Skyrim. It's a hand-crafted experience versus a procedurally generated one.

Now, personally I'll say that I think the thing that Skyrim inspired most is the idea that you should fill a game up with filler content. Fetch quests and 'radiant' quests - anything to drag out the game. Hell, even the actual story content was repetitive and dull (explore yet another cave full of Zombies). I think the industry was always heading towards an 'open world' sort of experience but Skyrim set the bar for expectations and standards regarding length and content - not that this is a completely good thing, mind you. Skyrim is at it's worst when it's wasting your time and it wastes your time a lot. From what I've heard it sounds like the new Zelda game is a more refined experience with the content you find and experience being more meaningful and enjoyable than the average quest in Skyrim.

[Mando Knight]

Of all the things that Skyrim was about I feel like Fus Ro Dah is near the bottom of the list.

Not shouts in general, Unstoppable Force in particular. I'm pretty sure "shouting Lydia off a cliff, only for her to run back up to you to loyally carry your burdens" is up there in the Skyrim memetic list.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Oblivion launched in March of 2006 and took until January 2007 to have sold approximately 3 million copies. Skyrim sold more copies in the first two days of launch (3.4 million copies). Since then it has sold somewhere between 23 and 30 million copies. Skyrim also launched to rave reviews and currently has a 95% on metacritic. While these methods of measurement are not definitive indactors of a games quality I do have to wonder - what exactly do you mean when you say that you wouldn't call Skyrim a 'huge success'?I didn't say it wasn't profitable, I said the game mechanics were utter crap. The idea was okay, but the implementation was horrid. Perhaps you forgot about all the massive Day One Bugs, including derpy dragons, falling through the world, and more. And not all of them were ever fixed. Skyrim is also about as stable as a skitzoid on acid. When a third party modder has to create a mod specifically to make it NOT CRASH (Skyrim Anti-Crash, Skyrim Anti-Stutter)... there's a really serious problem, and cannot be considered a success by game design standards.


I'm also shocked that you mention 'Fus Ro Dah' as some sort of indicator of Skyrims presence. Yes - there were dragon shouts in that game, but that isn't what made Skyrim the success that it was. It streamlined the quest and adventure system in a way that made players of all skill sets feel invited and welcome, it told a relatively compelling story, and it provided a, technically, limitless amount of content. I don't really feel like 'Fus Ro Dah' is something that anybody remembers Skyrim for. People remember the game because of the guilds and quests with clever dialogues. People remember fighting dragons, people remember eating a dozen cheese wheels in the middle of a fight for health, people remember mods, people remember exploration, adventure and fun - hell people even remember the random lines of dialogue spouted by the guards. One thing I can honestly say I don't think I've ever heard anybody mention in anything other than a 'generic reference' sort of way is the Dragon Shouts. I mean, you're talking about a mechanic that you could only use once a minute unless you specced heavily towards it. Of all the things that Skyrim was about I feel like Fus Ro Dah is near the bottom of the list.You and I must browse very different internets, then, because it's the only thing other than the 'arrow to the knee' quote which I ever hear when the topic of Skyrim comes up.


Now, personally I'll say that I think the thing that Skyrim inspired most is the idea that you should fill a game up with filler content. Fetch quests and 'radiant' quests - anything to drag out the game. Hell, even the actual story content was repetitive and dull (explore yet another cave full of Zombies). I think the industry was always heading towards an 'open world' sort of experience but Skyrim set the bar for expectations and standards regarding length and content - not that this is a completely good thing, mind you. Skyrim is at it's worst when it's wasting your time and it wastes your time a lot. From what I've heard it sounds like the new Zelda game is a more refined experience with the content you find and experience being more meaningful and enjoyable than the average quest in Skyrim.Let me take you to a time... probably a time before you were born, actually. The year is 1987. Mario was a big hit. Squaresoft hadn't yet gotten desperate enough to come up with Final Fantasy. Dragon Warrior pioneered the RPG field.

Then there was a new game that came out. Unlike every other game, this one had a shining golden cartridge. It was a gamble, it was very different from the other games of the day. Mario knew where he was going... to the right. Erdrick's son could talk to villagers to know where he was to go next. But not this one. You have an innovative (for the day) manual, full of lore (which most kids ignored) and monster names. But what it didn't contain was a map. You could buy one... for as much as the game itself cost, and the guide to go along with it. Or you could map it out yourself. I spent HOURS just trying to find the next dungeon.

There were tons of little secrets. Virtually every single area had some secret you had to figure out how to unlock. From friendly moblins who would ask you to keep it a secret from everyone, to angry individuals insisting you pay for door damages to a sucker's choice between a heart container or a potion, to a rumormonger to hidden merchants. And you had to figure it all out yourself. All of it hidden to the casual view. Heck, just finding your way to the first dungeon is non-trivial. There's no NPC's that give you information (except for a few cryptic old men in various dungeons whose hints weren't helpful unless you already knew the answer), no companion to say 'Hey! Listen!'. Yet, under every rock, there was another secret, waiting to be discovered. There's no quest log. There's no direction to tell you where to go.

The world was yours to explore... have fun.

This goes back to those days. Technology has advanced significantly since the old NES, and so the developers can do more now than they could hope to dream of these days. Had you told anyone back then that orchestras would be playing video game music, you'd have been seen as a lunatic. So they can do refinements that were impossible back then. A map, with the ability to put pins in it. An inventory of weapons, instead of tools, which required management. Discreet stats for your weapons greater than 'sword, better sword, best sword'.

But that sense of getting lost in the exploration... that was there all along. It got lost along the way somewhere. The game was criticized for being too difficult because there was no way to know where to go next, until you finally stumbled onto it. The second Zelda offering, generally seen as the worst in the series, tried to improve upon that by making a storyline with villages populated with villagers you could interact with (assuming they didn't turn into bats). This is another element which has been incorporated into the latest version of the game. You have little habitats sprinkled all over the place where NPC's live. More sparsely populated than in the second Zelda offering, but then, we're talking 100 years into the future, almost Fallout-esque (except, again, the game is actually stable and doesn't contain the same flavor), and Hyrule has been all but exterminated by evil creatures and robots.

Link to the Past brought the original Zelda into a more heavily populated world. This was where Kakariko Village made its first debut. And they took this village, and re-imagined it in true 3d. This is the most heavily populated place left in Breath of the Wild. You'll find little stables dotted around the countryside, and other places to encounter NPC's, but this is the hub of civilization. Just like in LTTP. Fortunately, you aren't seen as an outlaw this time. That dude with the poncho...nervous little fellow, wasn't he? It also was the first Zelda to really give you a map you could use that had places marked on it for you to go visit, which also has been brought back for Breath.

They did away with the railroad plotline, though, which REALLY got started with OoT and Navi's incessant pestiferous nagging. If they had just left her as a physical manifestation of the targeting mechanic, that would've been one thing. But to also have her nag you every five minutes? Well, they figured if players wanted a way to figure out where to go next, they'd cram it down everyone's throats. Same thing with Vi in Skyward Sword. Midna from Twilight Princes wasn't quite so bad, in that she wouldn't actively pester you unless there was something she could act on that you hadn't been introduced to yet. You could ask her, but she wouldn't keep popping up every five minutes, which is probably why I consider it the best Zelda since the SNES was retired.

And they went back to their roots. To actually getting out of your way, and letting you truly explore Hyrule for the first time in almost exactly thirty years.

No, it did NOT take inspiration from Skyrim or Bethesda. It's just going back to the beginning, and finding itself anew. Taking what worked from previous versions, leaving the chaff to the wind. This game is a culmination of decades of prior experience.

And it takes Skyrim and its supposed litmus test out behind the woodshed and said 'You want to make an open world game? THIS is how you do an open world game. Get on my level, n00b.'

[Tono]

Tch,everyone knows Zelda was just copying the formula from a better game. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_(Atari_2600))

[darkdragoon]

Lunar was parodying fetch quests before Elder Scrolls even existed.

[Triaxx]

The devs are also quoted as saying the open world is a direct response to the limited one in Skyward Sword.

[Zevox]

I would not call Skyrim a 'huge success', nor do I see it's influence anywhere. Open-ended alone does not a Skyrim make. There is a distinct lack of Fus Rho Dah.

In fact, if anything, I'd say Minecraft is the source of more open-ended or world-interaction aspects to various games that have been coming out, since it is several orders of magnitude more successful than Skyrim. What started out as an indie game was worth Billions (that's with a 'B', and more than Bethesda as a whole has as net worth) once it finally sold.
Open-ended alone would not a Skyrim clone make - but that is the major element that received a ton of hype and praise about the game when it came out. That is the lesson that people took from the game: that large numbers of gamers like and want that in games. And quite frankly, if you wouldn't call a game that sold as many copies, has as high an aggregate review score, and has as large a fanbase as Skyrim a "huge success," I would say you have an extremely warped idea of what is required to make a game a "huge success," and one which I'm quite sure game developers do not share.

As for Minecraft, that seems highly dubious given the explosion of such games is primarily among the action and RPG genres, neither of which Minecraft is anything close to.

But whatever, believe what you will. At the end of the day, my original point is unchanged: this trend of games adopting the open-world style exists regardless of what you, personally, wish to attribute it to, and it's one that I personally find very troubling since it is now in the process of turning series that I loved into ones that I may no longer be able to enjoy. It's one thing for such games to exist for those that like them, I'm fine just ignoring games by Bethesda or the like after having given them their chance and finding I don't like them, but surely anyone should be able to understand why it would trouble me that a trend like this is looking likely to turn game series that I liked into ones that I won't, no?


Y'know, they did this with Link Between Worlds as well, and I'm actually not a fan. Part of the fun of Zelda is seeing areas you can't get to and then coming back to those areas with the proper tools to reach them. It removed the feeling of steadily growing more skilled, as you started with everything. It also affected the quality of loot, as there were only a handful of items they could meaningfully give you - I recall lots and lots of rupees.

Sure, you could tackle the dungeons in any order, but that was largely true of the previous games anyway.
Agreed. Link Between Worlds wasn't a bad game, but I wouldn't call it one of the better Zelda games by any means, and that particular element is one of several reasons why. Not rewarding you for exploring the dungeons with new items that let you do new things and access new areas just made the overall experience less engaging. And quite frankly I don't see what the point is to making it possible to do the dungeons in any order - that just means you can no longer design them such that they get progressively more challenging, which would be preferable, in my opinion.

[cobaltstarfire]

I got a hint where I could find a lost memory. Unfortunately that hint was "Mt. Lanayru". So I climbed the goddamn mountain, got to the top, fought a secret boss to unlock a secret shrine, snowboarded down the mountain to an area that was obviously the "proper entrance" (I just scaled the ****ing thing, **** paths), saw the memory that is actually meant to prompt you to go up the mountain to find that shrine, head back to town, find an NPC giving me a quest to GO TO THAT SHRINE, instantly get "quest complete!" pop up.

I basically completed most of an event chain backwards and the game didn't stop me. This game's awesome.


That sounds both entertaining in retrospect (it makes for a great story), and kind of annoying in practice at the same time.

I didn't feel much engaged by the original Zelda (what little I've played of it) but Breath of the Wild looks really fun with a variety of things to do. But I haven't played very many open world games either. There Fallout 2, which I never completed(I wandered into an area too hard for me and kind of just got fed up with the game), Minecraft which is only fun with a good pile of mods, and Hyper Light Drifter, which I am absolutely in love with. I also enjoyed exploring zones in Vanilla world of Warcraft, and slipping into zones that weren't technically open yet like Hyjal or that place out in the desert being guarded by Tick and Tock.

What game play I've seen for BotW looks to be rather engaging whatever you choose to do. I feel like I remember someone mentioning that if you don't want to just explore and screw around, the game does give you direction if you ask for it, rather than forcing it on you.

[Triaxx]

F2 was very much a game demanding of tactical thinking. You could brute force through or avoid combat. But it also gave no directions for 'You shouldn't be here's beyond having you die super fast.

The original Zelda is a fantastic game, but has not really aged well. You almost had to play it then for it to work the magic. Then again when your option is this or nothing you tend to enjoy this a lot more than if the choice is Zelda 1 or Skyrim.

[cobaltstarfire]

F2 was very much a game demanding of tactical thinking. You could brute force through or avoid combat. But it also gave no directions for 'You shouldn't be here's beyond having you die super fast.



Yeah I was fine until I ended up wondering over to this nuclear power plant and irritating a bunch of radiation zombie people things...and then there was no way for me to escape or continue playing short of starting over because I didn't have a save state outside of that area. It kind of soured me on the whole experience.

I was in college when I got to try out the original Zelda, I didn't really enjoy it very much. Though I think I generally enjoy the 3D zelda games more. My sample size is pretty small for the top down Zelda Games though... I've only completed Links Awakening, and played a bit of Oracle of Ages (which just didn't hold my attention) and even less of the Original. But of the 3D ones I've played, there was Wind Waker, Twilight Princes (the only one of this group I didn't like on account of what I played being a snore fest), Skyward Sword , and Oracle of Time (Finals hit around the same time as I reached the Water Temple, so I lost track of where I was and had to give the game back to its owner before finishing).

I don't personally find it annoying to be nagged by the sword/fairy/king of lions, but I also don't mind setting my own goals and wandering either, so I guess I don't have much of a stake either way in terms of what kind of Zelda game is more desirable, as long as they're good I'll play them. You can't please everyone, and for as much as people whine about games sticking to a formula, there will be as many who whine about the game changing it up.

[Triaxx]

Link to the Past is probably the best of the top downs. Twilight Princess has a very slow start. It's also a very tough one, since your first meeting with the shadow beasts has them doing full hearts of damage. And if you screwed up Gecko that badly, you wanted to restart anyway.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

I was in college when I got to try out the original Zelda, I didn't really enjoy it very much. Though I think I generally enjoy the 3D zelda games more. My sample size is pretty small for the top down Zelda Games though... I've only completed Links Awakening, and played a bit of Oracle of Ages (which just didn't hold my attention) and even less of the Original. But of the 3D ones I've played, there was Wind Waker, Twilight Princes (the only one of this group I didn't like on account of what I played being a snore fest), Skyward Sword , and Oracle of Time (Finals hit around the same time as I reached the Water Temple, so I lost track of where I was and had to give the game back to its owner before finishing).You see, I have the exact opposite experience. I thoroughly enjoyed the original, dealt with the sequel, and loved LTTP. This is the era of 'Zelda', which I most strongly identify as being true to the Zelda franchise. This sort of gameplay continued on the mobile platforms from there, decidedly making them the majority in the franchise.

OoT... I actually really didn't like. The fact that it really fell deep into the Uncanny Valley was one part. Second, I really was irate that they were forcing you into a first/third perspective instead of isometric or top-down. Remember, the N64 was really the first time any game outside of racing games and FPS had really done that. I didn't like Mario 64 for the same reason. Really, the thing the N64 introduced which I despised more than anything else was Link's primary opponent: the camera angles. To me, it felt like 'Hey! You got your FPS in my Action/Adventure! If I wanted to play DOOM, I'd bloody well boot up DOOM'. Oh yea, the salt was real.

Majora's Mask wasn't much better, although I didn't get a chance to play it until the Gamecube and the bundle that came with it.

Windwaker was fun... but there was a LOT of empty space. There wasn't a lot to do on the open seas when traveling, and you did a LOT of sailing. On the one hand, it gave you a sense of scope... it was the LARGEST zelda world to date, but it felt very empty. This is something Breath addressed wonderfully.

Twilight Princes was the first of the 3d games which I really enjoyed. I felt it really had all the elements, it didn't have an NPC nagging at you constantly, and the graphics had advanced to the point that it had moved beyond the Uncanny Valley. However, it was even more linear than any of the previous offerings. You were pretty much stuck on a railroad plotline for most of the game, with no real way around it. The dungeons were also extremely linear, once you take a look at the relevant progression points (keys to doors, that kind of thing). While you had several doors off of a room, you could only go through one when you first encountered it, shunting you down a path to get a key to unlock the next path. What it lacked was exploration.

Skyward Sword also did a good job of giving you a large world, and it was a bit more 'full' than Windwaker, but Vi ruined the game for me. They managed to hit the Uncanny Valley with her attempts at singing. The controls, however, were murderously bad. This was when they tried to 'explore' the Wii's interface... and it was not a particularly successful one. And that damn AI that would not shut up.


I don't personally find it annoying to be nagged by the sword/fairy/king of lions, but I also don't mind setting my own goals and wandering either, so I guess I don't have much of a stake either way in terms of what kind of Zelda game is more desirable, as long as they're good I'll play them. You can't please everyone, and for as much as people whine about games sticking to a formula, there will be as many who whine about the game changing it up.Well, to each their own. I stubbornly dislike any attempts to railroad me into going down the One True Path. Maybe it's my early gaming upbringing with Zelda and the now-infamous sequence-breaking Metroid. However, I acknowledge that your perspective and gaming preference is also valid.

I think the disconnect here is that I am rejoicing that Zelda is going back to what it was, whereas you are upset that they are 'moving backwards'. And on that point, we shall have to agree to disagree. I suppose it depends on your perspective on open-world gaming and when you were introduced to the series.

Either way, this is a game which you will probably either really love or really hate, because of the direction it went. I think it's pretty clear which party I'm in. And while I acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their opinion and are free to dislike the game, I think any comparisons to Skyrim are quite silly. It's like trying to say that Warcraft stole from Command & Conquer... when Warcraft came first. The causality is the reverse. Zelda has always been an exploration-focused franchise, which had been downplayed in the past few offerings, and are finally, for better or worse, going back to.

[cobaltstarfire]

I think the disconnect here is that I am rejoicing that Zelda is going back to what it was, whereas you are upset that they are 'moving backwards'. And on that point, we shall have to agree to disagree. I suppose it depends on your perspective on open-world gaming and when you were introduced to the series.



Um, I'm not upset about anything? And as for the rest of your post, I never said that the top down games were bad, just of the three I've actually played I only liked (and finished) one of them, and I pointed out myself that I have a fairly small sample size for those so I can't rightly judge them very much!

I also said that BotW looked fun, that I really want to play it, and that I don't care if it's open world or "railroady".

[Zevox]

You see, I have the exact opposite experience. I thoroughly enjoyed the original, dealt with the sequel, and loved LTTP. This is the era of 'Zelda', which I most strongly identify as being true to the Zelda franchise. This sort of gameplay continued on the mobile platforms from there, decidedly making them the majority in the franchise.

OoT... I actually really didn't like. The fact that it really fell deep into the Uncanny Valley was one part. Second, I really was irate that they were forcing you into a first/third perspective instead of isometric or top-down. Remember, the N64 was really the first time any game outside of racing games and FPS had really done that. I didn't like Mario 64 for the same reason. Really, the thing the N64 introduced which I despised more than anything else was Link's primary opponent: the camera angles. To me, it felt like 'Hey! You got your FPS in my Action/Adventure! If I wanted to play DOOM, I'd bloody well boot up DOOM'. Oh yea, the salt was real.

Majora's Mask wasn't much better, although I didn't get a chance to play it until the Gamecube and the bundle that came with it.

Windwaker was fun... but there was a LOT of empty space. There wasn't a lot to do on the open seas when traveling, and you did a LOT of sailing. On the one hand, it gave you a sense of scope... it was the LARGEST zelda world to date, but it felt very empty. This is something Breath addressed wonderfully.

Twilight Princes was the first of the 3d games which I really enjoyed. I felt it really had all the elements, it didn't have an NPC nagging at you constantly, and the graphics had advanced to the point that it had moved beyond the Uncanny Valley. However, it was even more linear than any of the previous offerings. You were pretty much stuck on a railroad plotline for most of the game, with no real way around it. The dungeons were also extremely linear, once you take a look at the relevant progression points (keys to doors, that kind of thing). While you had several doors off of a room, you could only go through one when you first encountered it, shunting you down a path to get a key to unlock the next path. What it lacked was exploration.

Skyward Sword also did a good job of giving you a large world, and it was a bit more 'full' than Windwaker, but Vi ruined the game for me. They managed to hit the Uncanny Valley with her attempts at singing. The controls, however, were murderously bad. This was when they tried to 'explore' the Wii's interface... and it was not a particularly successful one. And that damn AI that would not shut up.
Yeah, I have much the reverse opinion. I find the 3D Zelda titles to date just plain superior to the 2D Zeldas - and the 2D Zelda that I most enjoyed was actually Oracle of Ages, not A Link to the Past, which I feel is overrated by many fans. Ocarina of Time and Skyward Sword are my favorite Zelda titles, with Twilight Princess being a close third, held back by being entirely too easy and by the late-game items having almost no use outside of their respective dungeons. Though Twilight Princess does contain my favorite Zelda character, Midna, whose story is the one time when I feel the writing of the series has been halfway impressive, rather than just stock fantasy writing that does the job of giving me reasons to play on and little more. But Wind Waker and Majora's Mask, while I feel they're weaker than those three, I'd still put well above the 2D games.


I think the disconnect here is that I am rejoicing that Zelda is going back to what it was, whereas you are upset that they are 'moving backwards'. And on that point, we shall have to agree to disagree. I suppose it depends on your perspective on open-world gaming and when you were introduced to the series.
Disagreement over whether it's properly described as "moving backwards" or adopting a trend that is occurring on a large scale in the industry aside, that much we agree on.

[Togath]

Why are people so upset about what sort of game it is nya?:smallconfused:
If someone enjoys it, yay, and if their opinion differs from you... play something you do enjoy? There really doesn't seem to be a reason to argue. I mean, if people are actively enjoying debating stuff, that's fine, but arguing over personal tastes seems kind of odd meow. Not 100% sure which this is.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Why are people so upset about what sort of game it is nya?:smallconfused:

Because...

nya?
*eye twitch*

Because franchise identity does matter.

Mario is largely exempt from this because one of the first things a console always gets is a new Mario platformer.

[Triaxx]

Run around? Check. Do Puzzles? Check. Stab foemans? Check. Yup, seems Zelda to me. For all it's 'open-ended open-worldness' Skyrim can be awfully railroady. You must visit the embassy and see what the elves are up to. Plow through the front door in your Dragonbone Armor? No way! You've totally got to stealth through the party, even though by this point your face is so instantly recognizable they're already sending hit squads after you. Then later, sorry, I totally can't loan you my castle to stop the dragons from killing us all, until you defeat my enemies/arrange a truce.

[Zevox]

Why are people so upset about what sort of game it is nya?:smallconfused:
If someone enjoys it, yay, and if their opinion differs from you... play something you do enjoy? There really doesn't seem to be a reason to argue. I mean, if people are actively enjoying debating stuff, that's fine, but arguing over personal tastes seems kind of odd meow. Not 100% sure which this is.
Because if a series you enjoy puts out a game with radically different elements that you don't enjoy, and that game then does well, it becomes likely that future games of that series will contain those elements as well. At which point it may cease to be a series you enjoy. Is it difficult to understand being bothered by that? Being worried that you may be about to lose a series that you like, potentially forever?

[Hiro Protagonest]

Run around? Check. Do Puzzles? Check. Stab foemans? Check. Yup, seems Zelda to me.

Sounds like a broad description for a lot of games.

But uh, Wind Waker certainly allowed you to go see a lot of places, even if you couldn't go inside yet. So I certainly think this change is well within the realm of the franchise.


Because if a series you enjoy puts out a game with radically different elements that you don't enjoy, and that game then does well, it becomes likely that future games of that series will contain those elements as well. At which point it may cease to be a series you enjoy. Is it difficult to understand being bothered by that? Being worried that you may be about to lose a series that you like, potentially forever?

Despite what I said about franchise identity being important, I also don't understand the concept of brand loyalty. People will make other games like it...

[Zevox]

Despite what I said about franchise identity being important, I also don't understand the concept of brand loyalty. People will make other games like it...
If I had brand loyalty, I wouldn't be worried here - I'd be blindly sticking with the franchise because it's Zelda, no matter what they do with it. It's just the reverse: I want the series to continue making games as they have over the past two decades because I like it when they do that. If they don't, and I don't like the new games very much, I'll stop playing them.

And I can't think of any other franchise that's really like Zelda and is still active. Darksiders was a sort of Zelda/God of War hybrid briefly, and that was pretty good, but the second game made a number of changes I didn't like and seemed rushed at the end, and then THQ died and we haven't had any indication in the years since then that the company that bought the rights to the series will make another. Beyond that, the only other Zelda-like game that comes to mind is Star Fox Adventures, and that was a one-off for that series.

[cobaltstarfire]

Maybe Yooka Laylee (or however you spell it) will work for you? It looks to be in the same vein as DK64/BanjoKazooie/SFA which are similar to OoT and beyond types of games so you could probably enjoy it.


If I didn't just dream up hearing about it, BotW does have a means of telling you what to do and where to go, you just aren't stuck having to listen. So you might play the game and find that you can still have an enjoyable Zelda Experience.

That said, if it was just another of the "typical" Zelda game, we'd be having a reverse argument, people constantly whine about Nintendo "rehashing" its IP's . So it really does seem like a pointless argument that's going to happen regardless of what Nintendo chooses to do.

[Zevox]

Maybe Yooka Laylee (or however you spell it) will work for you? It looks to be in the same vein as DK64/BanjoKazooie/SFA which are similar to OoT and beyond types of games so you could probably enjoy it.
Oh, I'm plenty interested in that already, trust me (though unfortunately it comes out just a week after my biggest must-play game of the year, so it'll likely sit on the backburner for me for a bit). Although I don't really think of it as similar to Zelda - Zelda is an action/adventure game series with an emphasis on dungeon crawls, puzzle-solving, and fantasy storytelling, while Yooka-Laylee is a 3D platformer in the style of, well, the games you mentioned. They have far more in common with Mario than Zelda.


If I didn't just dream up hearing about it, BotW does have a means of telling you what to do and where to go, you just aren't stuck having to listen. So you might play the game and find that you can still have an enjoyable Zelda Experience.
Perhaps, and that is partially why I do still intend to give Breath of the Wild a try at some point - but as a rental, once I'm caught up on other games I want to play more. Which looks like it will take a while given the number of games I'm interested in releasing in the first half of this year and my currently low amount of free time for them.


That said, if it was just another of the "typical" Zelda game, we'd be having a reverse argument, people constantly whine about Nintendo "rehashing" its IP's . So it really does seem like a pointless argument that's going to happen regardless of what Nintendo chooses to do.
Perhaps, but then I'd be on the other side of the argument, advocating the "if it isn't broken, don't fix it" end of things. Literally the only franchise I've ever stopped playing because I felt it got stale due to nothing changing meaningfully was Pokémon, and even I'm not sure why I wound up feeling that way about that franchise when I never have for any other.

[Knaight]

Open-ended alone would not a Skyrim clone make - but that is the major element that received a ton of hype and praise about the game when it came out. That is the lesson that people took from the game: that large numbers of gamers like and want that in games. And quite frankly, if you wouldn't call a game that sold as many copies, has as high an aggregate review score, and has as large a fanbase as Skyrim a "huge success," I would say you have an extremely warped idea of what is required to make a game a "huge success," and one which I'm quite sure game developers do not share.

As for Minecraft, that seems highly dubious given the explosion of such games is primarily among the action and RPG genres, neither of which Minecraft is anything close to.
Minecraft influenced a lot of genres it's not actually in though - it's sufficiently huge to have done so. It sold a hundred million copies, it pretty much kicked off the whole voxel fad in a big way (where it went from almost nothing to game after game), crafting and gathering suddenly showed up vastly more frequently in a whole bunch of genres, so on and so forth. It's pretty much the game with the single largest legacy on other games not named D&D. It being behind the decision for BotW more than Skyrim wouldn't be surprising at the least.


Despite what I said about franchise identity being important, I also don't understand the concept of brand loyalty. People will make other games like it...
Up to a point, yes. With that said, it depends on what specifically you're looking for - very few developers are making things like what Nintendo is making with anywhere near the same level of polish. Previous series that have either laid fallow or been derailed have not been replaced well at all - Metroid is all but dead (Other M and Federation Force both sucked), and there's next to nothing in the way of games like it for the 2D Metroid games and even less for the 3D ones. I personally dislike the way Fire Emblem has been going from Awakening onward, and other SRPGs enough like it have been in short supply. Star Fox went dead between Command and Zero, Zero kind of sucked, and there's not that much like it - and even command was fairly different from Assault.

I'm cautiously optimistic about BotW - I tend to dislike open world games, but there have been exceptions and Nintendo is good enough with polish on their major series that I suspect BotW is likely to be one of them. It also adds certain things that I like and that tend to be in a real shortage (by which I mean I'm happy to see a game that isn't a fighting game where you can use a freaking spear, as that basically never happens). It does represent a departure from the series though, and I'm really not seeing much in the way of solid replacements if the series goes down.

On a different point entirely - has anyone else been looking at Hollow Knight at all? I played the demo (on PC), and it seems like a really good game pretty enough to benefit from being displayed on a TV instead of a computer monitor.

[Rakaydos]

In my time with BotW, I have decided it's 2 parts Skyrim, 1 part Assasin's creed. Link's unrealistic climing abilities combined with the parasail means that it's NOT usually faster to go around an obstical.

Also, after ******* around the world map awhile, I have discovered that the lizards dont care about pillars of ice popping up, as long as they dont see the hylian warrir sneaking from pillar to pillar.

[cobaltstarfire]

Hollow Knight looks really sharp, hasn't heard of it till now, but I want to play it. I just have to decide if I want to get it on PC or the Switch.



I don't think there is a huge gap in terms of good metroidvania style games at least. Just off the top of my head over the past 6 or 7 years theres been Ori and the Blind Forest, Child of Light (though maybe the RPG elements in it disqualifies it?), Dust: An Elysian Tale, VVVVVV, Shantae, Cavestory (+). And those are just the ones I personally liked, there are some that didn't grab me but are still good games (Hell Yeah!, Guacamelee, Aquaria). And then those I haven't played but want to, like Owlboy.

[Velaryon]

I'll just sit here and wait the month for a veritable new game that I'm being provided for free...

It's a Kickstarter stretch goal, so it's not really free. More like "already paid for as part of buying the game." There's absolutely zero reason it couldn't/shouldn't have come out at the same time for people who have already financially supported this game.

[Rodin]

I played a little bit of Hollow Knight on PC before I got distracted by other games, and I liked what I saw. It's a Metroidvania with a Dark Souls aesthetic - minimalistic story telling thus far, dark abandoned world feeling. Note that the gameplay hasn't been Soulslike, just the setting - the bit that I played wasn't too difficult. I didn't get far enough in to give a proper verdict - only an hour or two.

It looks promising, and I can certainly give a tentative recommendation.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Eh, while the insect kingdom aesthetic is fairly cool, I think the NPCs weaken the atmosphere. Something like Ori's narrator or Metroid's scanner would have worked well in that atmosphere.

I didn't give it enough time to see any of the upgrades, but I beat the first real boss and still hadn't gotten any, so my verdict is the gameplay was... fine, pretty standard.

There was nothing that was really wrong but nothing that hooked me, nothing that set it apart from Metroid, Guacamelee, Zelda, Dark Souls.

[KillingAScarab]

I have largely ignored the press around the Switch up until now. My main concerns about it have been regarding the hardware. iFixit has a tear down (https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nintendo+Switch+Teardown/78263). They gave it an 8/10 for repairability; they noted the digitizer and the screen are separate components, but also they tore a data cable while disassembling. The USB-C connector for power would be difficult to repair, though. I was glad to read that the Joy-Con controllers are charged as well as send data through the rails when they are docked with the tablet. Too bad it's not going to be easy to change the colors (https://dbrand.com/shop/nintendo-switch-skins). Also, it seems weird that people have been reporting the left/blue/minus Joy-Con gets desynchronized if they point it down or its signal is blocked. The right/red/plus Joy-Con is the one with more complex hardware in it... though it is just by the IR. Despite having lived through Nintendo 64 analog stick resets (L + R + Start), I am going to hold off on a purchase until that has been sorted out for certain.

Looking through the list of Switch games (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Nintendo_Switch_games), I was pleasantly surprised to find a JRPG among the launch titles: I Am Setsuna (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Setsuna). This never happens.

I'm also surprised to see Ultra Street Fighter II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Street_Fighter_II:_The_Final_Challengers) coming later. If nothing else, there's the small hope I no longer have to explain Super Street Fighter II Turbo's ludicrous title to people.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I'm also surprised to see Ultra Street Fighter II (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_Street_Fighter_II:_The_Final_Challengers) coming later. If nothing else, there's the small hope I no longer have to explain Super Street Fighter II Turbo's ludicrous title to people.

Or you could just play 3rd Strike. :smallwink:

[Typewriter]

I didn't say it wasn't profitable, I said the game mechanics were utter crap.

I'm not sure where you said that, but that's not what I was responding to. I was responding to you saying that the game was not successful and that you didn't see it's influence anywhere.



The idea was okay, but the implementation was horrid. Perhaps you forgot about all the massive Day One Bugs, including derpy dragons, falling through the world, and more. And not all of them were ever fixed. Skyrim is also about as stable as a skitzoid on acid. When a third party modder has to create a mod specifically to make it NOT CRASH (Skyrim Anti-Crash, Skyrim Anti-Stutter)... there's a really serious problem, and cannot be considered a success by game design standards.


I don't particularly like Skyrim - I'm simply pointing out the facts of the matter - that the game was wildly successful and, as a result, drew a lot of attention. Lots of games are buggy - especially Bethesda games. Skyrim was not too bad in comparison to some of those. That being said I played the game at launch (on 360) and only ever really had one bug (on a side quest) - I know that lots of people had problems with the game, but lots of other people played through with minimal enough issues that the game launch to mostly critical (and fan) praise.



You and I must browse very different internets, then, because it's the only thing other than the 'arrow to the knee' quote which I ever hear when the topic of Skyrim comes up.


Well, you're right in that we must browse different internets but you only responded to about half of that statement. I said that, not only was that bit of gameplay not really remember as much as all of the other things in the game (which you disagree with - understood) - I also pointed out that it was a relatively minor component of gameplay. It's a minute part of Skyrim and to say that another game isn't inspired by Skyrim just because it doesn't have this one minor mechanic is silly.



Let me take you to a time... probably a time before you were born, actually. The year is 1987. Mario was a big hit. Squaresoft hadn't yet gotten desperate enough to come up with Final Fantasy. Dragon Warrior pioneered the RPG field.


Nice attempt at condescension but sadly you're wrong. Close though - born in 1985.



No, it did NOT take inspiration from Skyrim or Bethesda. It's just going back to the beginning, and finding itself anew. Taking what worked from previous versions, leaving the chaff to the wind. This game is a culmination of decades of prior experience.

Well, you put 'not' in all caps so I suppose I have to admit defeat. Or I could point out that you're ignoring 30 years of video game history and growth. Skyrim was inspired by a whole slew of things (probably including the original Zelda) and this Zelda game is inspired by a whole lot of other things (most likely including Skyrim).



And it takes Skyrim and its supposed litmus test out behind the woodshed and said 'You want to make an open world game? THIS is how you do an open world game. Get on my level, n00b.'

OK... good? That's what should be happening - Skyrim did a lot of stuff wrong but because of the success it had it changed the industry (not all for the better). Games like the Witcher 3 and BotW coming out and being better than it is exactly what should be happening - they're looking at the mistakes and problems with games that have come out (like Skyrim) and learning how to make better games.

You seriously sound like someone who just doesn't want to give Skyrim the credit it's due - by all means, hate the game (I'm not the hugest fan myself) but pretending that it hasn't left any impact on the industry is ridiculous.

[KillingAScarab]

Or you could just play 3rd Strike. :smallwink:Not on the Virtual Console, though. Come to think of it... Virtual Console hasn't been implemented on the Switch, has it? At least Hori will be putting out an arcade stick (http://nintendoeverything.com/hori-officially-moving-forward-with-fight-stick-for-switch/).

[Triaxx]

At this point it's probably best to assume all games will be like Skyrim for the foreseeable future and stop gaming until it's no longer the case.

[Hunter Noventa]

At this point it's probably best to assume all games will be like Skyrim for the foreseeable future and stop gaming until it's no longer the case.

I'm honestly not sure if I want an open-world Super Robot Wars game or not.

In the meantime, I'll happily enjoy my turn-based strategy while waiting for there to be more games on the Switch.

[danzibr]

Let me take you to a time... probably a time before you were born, actually. The year is 1987. Mario was a big hit. Squaresoft hadn't yet gotten desperate enough to come up with Final Fantasy. Dragon Warrior pioneered the RPG field.
Hey, that's when I was born!

I wonder if that "probably" could be justified based on the average age of the members.

Nice attempt at condescension but sadly you're wrong. Close though - born in 1985.
Getting old, man :P

[Typewriter]

Hey, that's when I was born!

I wonder if that "probably" could be justified based on the average age of the members.

Getting old, man :P

Finally! It only took 32 years :P

[danzibr]

Finally! It only took 32 years :P
:P

Last year I said to my wife (at the time we were both 28 iirc, I'm 10 months her senior) that I was almost 30, and she said you can't be 30, 'cause then I'm almost 30. In reality, I don't think I'll consider myself old until I'm like 80. Even my parents, in their early 60's, don't seem *old*.

Anyway, back on topic, I find it interesting Nintendo and XBox are coming out with next gen systems, but apparently Sony has no plans of replacing the PS4 until 2019 at the earliest. Works well for me as I got a PS4 like 2 weeks ago.

[cobaltstarfire]

Hey, that's when I was born!

I wonder if that "probably" could be justified based on the average age of the members.

Getting old, man :P


It always feels like like the average age of this forums members was higher than many other places, I keep running into folks on here that are past 30, or who claim to be.


I was born in 86 and remember playing Mario around when I was 3 (so in 89 or early 90?). I hated it, I mean, maybe had I been allowed to control both the D pad and the jump button I'd have enjoyed it, but no my dad insisted on playing "together" which meant sharing the control. My enjoyment for Nintendo games comes from the track game (you know the one with the big pad you could run/jump on? I didn't have it, but my cousin did and it was great!) Hockey, and playing various Disney/Capcom games like Rescue Rangers and The Little Mermaid. (Also Star Wars). I don't think young me would have really enjoyed Zelda, I know someone down the way had it, but I wasn't particularly interested in it at the very least.


The moment I started to feel "old" in terms of video games was in my mid/late 20's though, I was heading to the dining hall and the walls were plastered with with stuff for a dorm wide event to play "Retro" games on the SNES and Sega Genesis.

[Typewriter]

:P

Last year I said to my wife (at the time we were both 28 iirc, I'm 10 months her senior) that I was almost 30, and she said you can't be 30, 'cause then I'm almost 30. In reality, I don't think I'll consider myself old until I'm like 80. Even my parents, in their early 60's, don't seem *old*.

Anyway, back on topic, I find it interesting Nintendo and XBox are coming out with next gen systems, but apparently Sony has no plans of replacing the PS4 until 2019 at the earliest. Works well for me as I got a PS4 like 2 weeks ago.

I don't really consider myself old, but that's mainly because I don't feel like I've actually been - I don't know what word to use here so I'm going to use 'alive' even though that makes it seem way more dramatic than I intend - alive for 31 years. I've only been an adult for 13 years and even the first 3-4 of that hardly counts. My life - my real, adult, life has only been going on for 8(ish) years and I probably have another 50+ ahead of me? How can I feel old when I've barely experienced anything? Anyways, I'm getting existential. Or philosophical. Or dumb. Probably that last one.

In regards to the whole 'new console' thing I'm a bit surprised that new ones are already here. The Wii-U felt like it never really launched and now the Switch is out and I have a hard time understanding how I'm supposed to take it seriously. I'm sure I'll get one before long because I'm terrible and buy everything, but I'm fairly certain it's just going to sit on the shelf. I'll never use the portable features, Zelda is on the Wii-U and there's not really a lot else I care about. I really hope they support the Switch more than they did the Wii-U - that thing never even felt, to me, like it really launched.

I do feel a little surprised that a new X-Box is coming out but it sort of makes sense with what Microsoft has been trying to do in regards to the 'Windows' ecosystem. They've been trying to blur the lines between console and PC for a while now, and I'm guessing that this upcoming console will be trying to integrate the two even further - essentially making me wonder why I'd need both. And personally - I'm pretty glad that the PS4 isn't about to be replaced. I feel like it's got a steady stream of games and wonderful content coming out - no need to make the lifecycle half that of the previous generation. Especially with the Playstation VR being a thing now. I really like VR - I get nauseous when I play for too long, and am surprised and how amazing I find it to be - and I hope that they spend the next couple years growing their library of amazing games while continuing to find ways to integrate VR into games.

EDIT:


I was born in 86 and remember playing Mario around when I was 3 (so in 89 or early 90?). I hated it, I mean, maybe had I been allowed to control both the D pad and the jump button I'd have enjoyed it, but no my dad insisted on playing "together" which meant sharing the control. My enjoyment for Nintendo games comes from the track game (you know the one with the big pad you could run/jump on? I didn't have it, but my cousin did and it was great!) Hockey, and playing various Disney/Capcom games like Rescue Rangers and The Little Mermaid. (Also Star Wars). I don't think young me would have really enjoyed Zelda, I know someone down the way had it, but I wasn't particularly interested in it at the very least.


I liked Mario and Zelda at those young ages but was so bad at them that I never progressed. In Zelda I could barely progress past a few screens before dying and in Mario I (somehow) learned how to find the hidden pipes to warp me to the end of the game - where I promptly died every time. It wasn't until Mario 3 that I truly began to love the Mario series, or A Link to the Past where I fell in love with Zelda (I've actually never really enjoyed a 3d Zelda game - always felt they were better in the classic top-down style). My bread-and-butter though was Sonic. Hell, I don't know if I hardly ever played anything between the ages of 7 and 13 that wasn't a Sonic game, Mortal Kombat, or a rental that I only had for a week.

[Triaxx]

I'm not surprised about the New XboX. Switch seems sold out everywhere, everyone with a PS4 seems excited for Horizon, though that sample is possibly skewed by the people I talk to. Xbox? Unless you're a die-hard Halo fan, most of it's games seem to turn up on PC or PS4 as well, so there's no draw to owning an Xbox. Except for an easy way to watch Netflix on your TV if you're out of other options.

[cobaltstarfire]

I'm not even sure "easy to watch netflix" is much of a draw unless you have a really old TV. We bought a new TV last year (had been using a large computer monitor as a tv, and before that we had older tube tv's), and pretty much all the ones we looked at had the ability to access things like netflix/youtube/hulu/amazonprime loaded up by default, and these were the cheaper living room size ones we looked at. Do Xboxes double as blue ray players still?

I have known at least one person who had the craziest form of elitism going on for why you should have an Xbox instead of playing on PC. 'It takes more skill to play halo with a controller, therefore it is the superior option.' I wish I was joking...but I'm not.

[Triaxx]

Well, it does take more skill with a controller, but then again Halo isn't a skill game. Headshot's don't do more damage because you have shields or one HP.

I don't want my TV connecting to the internet.

[GloatingSwine]

Well, it does take more skill with a controller, but then again Halo isn't a skill game. Headshot's don't do more damage because you have shields or one HP.


Of course headshots do more damage in Halo.

Only with certain weapons though. Pistol, DMR, Battle Rifle, Sniper Rifle, and covenant equivalents. It's also not entirely true to say you have 1HP when your shields are out, you can't take many hits with your shields down but you do have a hidden amount of health which means that high damage weapons will kill you faster with no shield.

[Triaxx]

I never noticed. It was basically shields down, time to respawn.

[Hiro Protagonest]

I never noticed.
Ah, now your words makes sense:

but then again Halo isn't a skill game.

[Zevox]

Anyway, back on topic, I find it interesting Nintendo and XBox are coming out with next gen systems, but apparently Sony has no plans of replacing the PS4 until 2019 at the earliest. Works well for me as I got a PS4 like 2 weeks ago.
Well, Nintendo's not surprising. The Wii U basically flopped, so they started on its replacement early. The X-Box I do find stranger - while, at least when last I heard, it was losing to the PS4, it wasn't a flop itself by any means, and was doing overall perfectly fine. Small list of exclusives or no (and yeah, if you're not a big Halo, Gears of War, or Killer Instinct fan, I'm not sure what else they've got...), it has sold, so why Microsoft would be so eager to move on to a new console I'm not as sure.

[Triaxx]

Stupid auto-correct. Supposed to read isn't skills based. As in not controlled by numbers in the background. It's definitely based on player skill.

I never noticed because I suck. Unless I get a sword.

[Psyren]

Well, Nintendo's not surprising. The Wii U basically flopped, so they started on its replacement early. The X-Box I do find stranger - while, at least when last I heard, it was losing to the PS4, it wasn't a flop itself by any means, and was doing overall perfectly fine. Small list of exclusives or no (and yeah, if you're not a big Halo, Gears of War, or Killer Instinct fan, I'm not sure what else they've got...), it has sold, so why Microsoft would be so eager to move on to a new console I'm not as sure.

I'm pretty frustrated with Xbox in general as the original and the 360 were my consoles of choice. But they keep getting outplayed. For a while they had the best multiplayer (toxicity aside) so they coasted on that, but now the other two major players have caught up. (Well, Nintendo is a bit behind still what with this Friend Codes frippery, but at least they haven't lost sight of the need for strong local multiplayer.) And for awhile they had decent exclusives too - solid western RPGs like Jade Empire and Mass Effect that gave them a much-needed edge. Now? Pablum shooters and nothing else. The Kinect was a bust, they shot themselves in the foot with the always-online thing, and Sony is running laps around them on the exclusives front - no Bloodborne, no Infamous, no Horizon, no FF7 remake, no Uncharted . Instead we get Halo, Gears of War, and Quantum Break - shooter, shooter, shooter, with a Halo-themed strategy game shoved in there too. Where are all the other genres? Is the Xbox just doomed to be the console of choice for the Call of Madden crowd? They won't win that war either because a lot of those folks bought Playstations too, higher price be damned.

[Zevox]

I'm pretty frustrated with Xbox in general as the original and the 360 were my consoles of choice. But they keep getting outplayed. For a while they had the best multiplayer (toxicity aside) so they coasted on that, but now the other two major players have caught up. (Well, Nintendo is a bit behind still what with this Friend Codes frippery, but at least they haven't lost sight of the need for strong local multiplayer.) And for awhile they had decent exclusives too - solid western RPGs like Jade Empire and Mass Effect that gave them a much-needed edge. Now? Pablum shooters and nothing else. The Kinect was a bust, they shot themselves in the foot with the always-online thing, and Sony is running laps around them on the exclusives front - no Bloodborne, no Infamous, no Horizon, no FF7 remake, no Uncharted . Instead we get Halo, Gears of War, and Quantum Break - shooter, shooter, shooter, with a Halo-themed strategy game shoved in there too. Where are all the other genres? Is the Xbox just doomed to be the console of choice for the Call of Madden crowd? They won't win that war either because a lot of those folks bought Playstations too, higher price be damned.
The 360 was the console I picked up when I decided a Wii wouldn't be enough that generation, too. That was back in the day when they actually had a handful of exclusives that appealed to me, like Mass Effect, Tales of Vesperia, and Blue Dragon.

But at the same time, I can't say I'm bothered by the current state of things there. Sony having all of the non-Nintendo exclusives I want (sans Killer Instinct, and even that is not something I'm that interested in) just makes picking one and not getting the other a lot easier. In contrast, I did wind up picking up a PS3 in addition to my 360 last generation, albeit very late in the generation, because it wound up with that many exclusives that appealed to me, too. I won't shed any tears if the XBone never reaches that point, since it'll be easier on my wallet.

[Psyren]

In the short term, yes, that is preferable. But competition is a good thing too, and the Xbone being unequivocally worse just makes it that much easier for Sony to be self-interested next time. We can already see shades of it, what with the Xbone playing catchup by hurling itself into backwards compatibility, but the PS4 knowing that they don't need to try.

(Not that they really could anyway - the PS3's cell architecture was a nightmare.)

Ideally I would want no exclusives at all, or at the very least just timed ones.

[Triaxx]

Yeah, but frankly they've made the correct move, dropping the XBone and moving on. If it's failed, it's failed, move on to a new success instead of trying to float a sinking ship.

Nintendo did the same with the WiiU.

[Zevox]

In the short term, yes, that is preferable. But competition is a good thing too, and the Xbone being unequivocally worse just makes it that much easier for Sony to be self-interested next time. We can already see shades of it, what with the Xbone playing catchup by hurling itself into backwards compatibility, but the PS4 knowing that they don't need to try.

(Not that they really could anyway - the PS3's cell architecture was a nightmare.)

Ideally I would want no exclusives at all, or at the very least just timed ones.
If there were no exclusives, there would be little reason for there to be different consoles, honestly. Sony and Microsoft's consoles the past few generations have largely done all the same things. And Microsoft's attempt to introduce a meaningful difference with the XBone, well, didn't go over so well.

And besides, no exclusives is impossible, since of course anything Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo actually make themselves they have no reason to put on a competitor's console and every reason to make exclusive to theirs. That's part of competition too.

[Scowling Dragon]

I'm just really worried that the Switch is gonna mess up. I just want it to do well so much. I don't really need a games console with power because I play PC but something neat I could apreciate.

I just hope it attracts enough 3rd party attention and the hardware issues get fixed.

[Psyren]

Yeah, but frankly they've made the correct move, dropping the XBone and moving on. If it's failed, it's failed, move on to a new success instead of trying to float a sinking ship.

Nintendo did the same with the WiiU.

Oh agreed, but unlike Nintendo they have no identity at all. They've got Halo and that's it. Nintendo can release stinkers and alienate 3rd-party developers left and right with their hardware gimmicks, but they have a reliable and bankable fanbase who have nowhere else to go for their new Zelda and Pokémon games.


If there were no exclusives, there would be little reason for there to be different consoles, honestly. Sony and Microsoft's consoles the past few generations have largely done all the same things. And Microsoft's attempt to introduce a meaningful difference with the XBone, well, didn't go over so well.

And besides, no exclusives is impossible, since of course anything Sony, Microsoft, or Nintendo actually make themselves they have no reason to put on a competitor's console and every reason to make exclusive to theirs. That's part of competition too.

That's what I meant actually, and sorry articulating that poorly. First-party development should, in my mind, truly be the only major difference between them, at least from a games standpoint; well, that and friendly rivalries like the unique exclusive character on each version of Soul Calibur 2.

At the very least, if there must be third-party exclusives, each console manufacturer should do their best to ensure that their respective systems have a wide variety. Sony is doing a good job of this - there's Killzone for the gun-nuts, but also things like Breath of the Wild Horizon Zero Dawn and Bloodborne for the RPG fans, to say nothing of JRPGs where Microsoft has an uphill climb right out of the gate. I know this sucks if a good one comes out on another system but it means that at least everyone, regardless of which one they got, can have a decent gaming experience.

I don't own any of them so I have no real dog in this fight, but I do recall a time when I would have likely chosen the XB1, and knowing how close I came to a decision I'd have so thoroughly regretted today is a little irksome. That's nobody's fault but Microsoft's (it wouldn't even have been mine, since there'd be no way for me to tell what the system's library would be when it came out), so my griping is more aimed at them than anyone else.


I'm just really worried that the Switch is gonna mess up. I just want it to do well so much. I don't really need a games console with power because I play PC but something neat I could apreciate.

I just hope it attracts enough 3rd party attention and the hardware issues get fixed.

I think I'll hold out for the "Switch Plus" or whichever new version we likely end up getting down the road.

EDIT: Not sure why I ascribed Breath to Sony, I blame a long day at work.

[Triaxx]

I don't know, I mean Sega survived the transition to software okay, and Nintendo does have strong franchises. More than say just sonic. On the other hand, they seem to have gone out of their way to garner 3rd party support, which the Wii had in spades, but not the right kind, and the WiiU totally lacked.

I'm curious to see just how much additional base being portable gets them. Being able to combine those long core games, while also grabbing a share of mobile gaming is one heck of a brass ring to reach for. But if anyone can manage it, Nintendo is the company I expect to do it.

Fun thing: Both the pro controller, and the individual Joy Cons will connect to PC's. Which is kind of an interesting thing to know. You need something to map the buttons, but it could be useful for Stardew Valley for example.

Sadly you can only use one for each player, for some reason. Still, I'm sure someone will overcome that.

[cobaltstarfire]

Wasn't the Xbone the first to come out of the current gen? (or was that the 360? it's getting a little hard to keep up with console generations...) From that perspective it being one of the older consoles is another reason to be putting out a new one.



Well, it does take more skill with a controller, but then again Halo isn't a skill game. Headshot's don't do more damage because you have shields or one HP.



Who cares if it takes more "skill" to use a controller, it's pretty daft to treat that like some kind of selling point. Bad controls are bad controls, it's not something that any game should be proud of, it's just an annoyance, and I guess in that particular persons case mindless chest beating in some sad attempt to appear superior to folks who would rather play their FPS's on a PC.

[KillingAScarab]

Wasn't the Xbone the first to come out of the current gen? (or was that the 360? it's getting a little hard to keep up with console generations...) From that perspective it being one of the older consoles is another reason to be putting out a new one.Wikipedia's article for the eighth generation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_video_game_consoles_%28eighth_generatio n%29) puts the Wii U as the first; XBox One was launched only days after the PlayStation 4. Hey, that article actually made some mention of the Ouya, the Steam Machine and the Nvidia Shield, too.

[cobaltstarfire]

It must have been the 360 that came out first of its gen...

I did find a thing talking about the joycon issue (http://bgr.com/2017/03/06/nintendo-switch-left-joycon-connection-issues-fix-video/) (well actually someone on another forum found it and now I'm posting it here?)

TLDR: Someone opened it up to have a look, and it's a hardware issue, the antennae is near/touching a plate of metal or something, the person who took it apart just extended the antennae and it worked much better. So it should be an easy fix for the next run of hardware they do?

It's apparently selling really well so far, so that's good news for everyone who wants to wait and see (assuming Nintendo fixes that issue before the next run).

[KillingAScarab]

It must have been the 360 that came out first of its gen...Correct, the XBox 360 was rushed into production, and paid a heavy price for it. Also, Sony was lying to their customers about their ability to put rumble motors into their controllers. Not sure if that really delayed the PlayStation 3, considering it launched with Sixaxis controllers, but it certainly made the Wii look better.


I did find a thing talking about the joycon issue (http://bgr.com/2017/03/06/nintendo-switch-left-joycon-connection-issues-fix-video/) (well actually someone on another forum found it and now I'm posting it here?)

TLDR: Someone opened it up to have a look, and it's a hardware issue, the antennae is near/touching a plate of metal or something, the person who took it apart just extended the antennae and it worked much better. So it should be an easy fix for the next run of hardware they do?

It's apparently selling really well so far, so that's good news for everyone who wants to wait and see (assuming Nintendo fixes that issue before the next run).Thanks for the article. At least we now know it isn't just a software or firmware issue.

[Zevox]

That's what I meant actually, and sorry articulating that poorly. First-party development should, in my mind, truly be the only major difference between them, at least from a games standpoint; well, that and friendly rivalries like the unique exclusive character on each version of Soul Calibur 2.

At the very least, if there must be third-party exclusives, each console manufacturer should do their best to ensure that their respective systems have a wide variety. Sony is doing a good job of this - there's Killzone for the gun-nuts, but also things like Breath of the Wild and Bloodborne for the RPG fans, to say nothing of JRPGs where Microsoft has an uphill climb right out of the gate. I know this sucks if a good one comes out on another system but it means that at least everyone, regardless of which one they got, can have a decent gaming experience.

I don't own any of them so I have no real dog in this fight, but I do recall a time when I would have likely chosen the XB1, and knowing how close I came to a decision I'd have so thoroughly regretted today is a little irksome. That's nobody's fault but Microsoft's (it wouldn't even have been mine, since there'd be no way for me to tell what the system's library would be when it came out), so my griping is more aimed at them than anyone else.
Hm, yeah, that's all fair. And certainly Microsoft's failing in that area - the only noteworthy exclusives they've held onto over time have been their home-grown shooters, Halo and Gears of War, and the only new exclusive they grabbed this gen that I can think of is Killer Instinct. And well, much as I think it'd be nice if it were otherwise, an exclusive fighting game is just not going to be a big draw unless it's Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Injustice, or Marvel vs Capcom. And of those, well, one has become a console exclusive this gen, but for the PS4, not the X-Box, so...

(Well, and Super Smash Brothers, but that's kind of already a console-exclusive that will never be on X-Box for obvious reasons. Barring Nintendo dropping out of the console-making business someday, anyway.)

[Triaxx]

Yeah, awful controls shouldn't be a selling point. But I suppose when you've got nothing else...

Not that mouse and keyboard are entirely without flaw mind.

All things being quality, the most smooth FPS controls I've ever used, were on the Wii. Resident Evil 4 is stupid hard with a normal controller, with a Wiimote? Extremely easy. And you can tell it's the same game, if you plug in a GC controller, and have that hard difficulty right back.

[Psyren]

MS had acquired Rare a decent time back, hence owning Killer Instinct, but there's a lot more they could do with that studio's IP. Given the resurgence of old-school platformers like Ratchet & Clank, Yooka-Laylee and the upcoming Crash Bandicoot, I would think Microsoft has a chance to strike gold with a Conker's Bad Fur Day sequel. (Well, another chance, but the last time they just did a remaster and managed to screw it up.)

And yeah, there's little point in competing with Smash. About the only properties I could conceive of with both the varied cast and fanbase to do it would be Pokemon and Megaman; the former of which has the same leash-holder and the latter of which has dived into bed with them.

I could see a MOBA cast doing something like that. League Smash? At least it would be a way to get people who hate MOBAs invested in the world and characters, or something.

[Knaight]

MS had acquired Rare a decent time back, hence owning Killer Instinct, but there's a lot more they could do with that studio's IP. Given the resurgence of old-school platformers like Ratchet & Clank, Yooka-Laylee and the upcoming Crash Bandicoot, I would think Microsoft has a chance to strike gold with a Conker's Bad Fur Day sequel. (Well, another chance, but the last time they just did a remaster and managed to screw it up.)

Maybe, but the console market has been taste stratified due to a combination of people sticking to consoles for certain types of games frequently on them, first party IPs, and advertising. Microsoft has specifically catered heavily to people who see themselves as hardcore gamers, who enjoy shooters and military themed games, and who are frequently hostile towards games outside that. They've got some solid Rare IPs, but Nintendo has pretty much the entire console playerbase for them.

[Zevox]

MS had acquired Rare a decent time back, hence owning Killer Instinct, but there's a lot more they could do with that studio's IP. Given the resurgence of old-school platformers like Ratchet & Clank, Yooka-Laylee and the upcoming Crash Bandicoot, I would think Microsoft has a chance to strike gold with a Conker's Bad Fur Day sequel. (Well, another chance, but the last time they just did a remaster and managed to screw it up.)
If an old-school platformer resurgence actually becomes a thing, I'd hope that the franchise they'd try to bring back would be Banjo-Kazooie. They'd need to make sure they had a much better idea of what they were doing than they did when they made Nuts & Bolts, but that's a franchise that could definitely be brought back if they did, I suspect.

[cobaltstarfire]

It's too bad that while Microsoft has Rare's IP's, it has all but gutted the developing house itself, and doesn't seem to know what to do with the IP's. Microsoft needs to stop co-opting and buying things for the soul purpose of killing them. :S

Though I will say I really like the Xbone control, I have one for PC play and it's quite nice.



I generally can't play shooters, playing with a control just never felt right/natural, and I've only played one game mouse+keyboard (TF2). These days I can't play any mouse+keyboard game because of my shoulder. It might be one of the reasons I really like Splatoon, I haven't played many shooters so it's kind of "shiny" for me, and this is one with a control scheme that feels natural, is precise, and doesn't usually cause me physical pain.

[Bucky]

And yeah, there's little point in competing with Smash. About the only properties I could conceive of with both the varied cast and fanbase to do it would be Pokemon and Megaman; the former of which has the same leash-holder and the latter of which has dived into bed with them.

Remember "Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale"? Sony tried to copy Smash and did okay on sales, even though they didn't understand Smash very well and messed up the mechanics.

The market for smashlikes is hungry for variety.

[Zevox]

Remember "Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale"? Sony tried to copy Smash and did okay on sales, even though they didn't understand Smash very well and messed up the mechanics.

The market for smashlikes is hungry for variety.
Yeah, I do wish they'd try again. I didn't like PS All-Stars and didn't buy it as a result, but I like the concept, and I think if they hadn't made a few of their more baffling choices (why on earth did they change the method of scoring kills to "only when you hit with a super?"), they could've had a solid game.

They'll need to try and get some of their bigger characters next time, though. I didn't grow up with Playstation - didn't get my first Playstation console until I picked up a PS2 after it was already considered last-gen - but even I know Crash Bandicoot should've been right near the top of their "must-have" list. Personally, I'd hope they can get the real Dante next time, too, if Capcom has given up on the Devil May Cry reboot at this point.

[Kitten Champion]

Lego could do an awesome party brawler game, I'm actually surprised they haven't. I'm not sure how their licensing works but even something like Lego Dimensions shows they've got a broad IP base to work with and all with a unified, goreless aesthetic.

The Doctor fighting Harry Potter, Gandalf, and the Powerpuff Girls?

[Bucky]

Personally, I'd hope they can get the real Dante next time, too, if Capcom has given up on the Devil May Cry reboot at this point.

I think Capcom wants Dante to remain exclusive to their own line of crossover fighting games.

Speaking of which, does anyone know whether they've announced a Switch port of the upcoming Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite?

[cobaltstarfire]

I've been seeing things floating around saying that the carts for the Switch are infused with a terrible flavor to deter being put in the mouth.

And I'm still wondering who was the first to put one in their mouth to discover this, because part of me wants to believe that it was a misguided adult who made this discovery, and not someone child.

[One Tin Soldier]

I've been seeing things floating around saying that the carts for the Switch are infused with a terrible flavor to deter being put in the mouth.

And I'm still wondering who was the first to put one in their mouth to discover this, because part of me wants to believe that it was a misguided adult who made this discovery, and not someone child.

I think Nintendo actually announced that info first, possibly in response to concerns about the cartridge size, and then the internet decided to test it for themselves.

[Hunter Noventa]

I think Nintendo actually announced that info first, possibly in response to concerns about the cartridge size, and then the internet decided to test it for themselves.

Both Kotaku and Jim Sterling did test it out, and the latter reacted in such a way that it must be true.

[Zevox]

I think Capcom wants Dante to remain exclusive to their own line of crossover fighting games.

Speaking of which, does anyone know whether they've announced a Switch port of the upcoming Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite?
They had reboot Dante in Playstation All-Stars already. And the real one has been in the Project X Zone games (though granted those aren't fighting games).

And no, no announced plans for MvC:I to be on the Switch at this point. Given it's noticeably weaker hardware-wise than the XB1/PS4, I wouldn't hold my breath for it, either.

[KillingAScarab]

I generally can't play shooters, playing with a control just never felt right/natural, and I've only played one game mouse+keyboard (TF2). These days I can't play any mouse+keyboard game because of my shoulder. It might be one of the reasons I really like Splatoon, I haven't played many shooters so it's kind of "shiny" for me, and this is one with a control scheme that feels natural, is precise, and doesn't usually cause me physical pain.One would hope that "doesn't cause physical pain" would be a baseline for many controller setups, though I still remember my fingers hurting from the triggers on the Sega Dreamcast controller.


Lego could do an awesome party brawler game, I'm actually surprised they haven't. I'm not sure how their licensing works but even something like Lego Dimensions shows they've got a broad IP base to work with and all with a unified, goreless aesthetic.

The Doctor fighting Harry Potter, Gandalf, and the Powerpuff Girls?Traveler's Tales would be the studio which has been developing LEGO license games, but they would also need licenses for each other property involved. They are owned by Warner Bros., so that helps them get access to licenses, and explains why there have been so many LEGO Batman games. As for the Powerpuff Girls, there was a Super Smash Bros. clone put out with Cartoon Network characters. Cartoon Network: Punchtime Explosion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Network:_Punch_Time_Explosion) didn't seem to turn out very good, though.


I've been seeing things floating around saying that the carts for the Switch are infused with a terrible flavor to deter being put in the mouth.

And I'm still wondering who was the first to put one in their mouth to discover this, because part of me wants to believe that it was a misguided adult who made this discovery, and not someone child.

I think Nintendo actually announced that info first, possibly in response to concerns about the cartridge size, and then the internet decided to test it for themselves.The Verge (http://www.theverge.com/2017/3/1/14778316/nintendo-switch-cartridge-taste-test-dont-lick-it) put out an article on this, and Nintendo did put out a tweet to explain that they explicitly included a non-toxic bittering agent. I'm mostly surprised that it seems editors are the ones who are doing this taste testing, but I guess that's where you go to for ideas like, "We should lick other gadgets to compare." Interns just don't have the field experience to come up with that, I suppose.

[Hiro Protagonest]

As for the Powerpuff Girls, there was a Super Smash Bros. clone put out with Cartoon Network characters. Cartoon Network: Punchtime Explosion (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Network:_Punch_Time_Explosion) didn't seem to turn out very good, though.

This gives me hope for a Steven Universe fighting game.

[veti]

I do feel a little surprised that a new X-Box is coming out but it sort of makes sense with what Microsoft has been trying to do in regards to the 'Windows' ecosystem. They've been trying to blur the lines between console and PC for a while now, and I'm guessing that this upcoming console will be trying to integrate the two even further - essentially making me wonder why I'd need both.

When Microsoft first announced its XBox line, the whole point was to ensure that Microsoft would get to influence the development of consoles, because at the time (late 90s), conventional wisdom was that the console would likely one day replace the home PC. That's why they launched the thing, and subsidised it through heavy losses through its first 7-8 years. Microsoft has been trying to nudge the industry in the opposite direction - so that PCs would make consoles obsolete, rather than vice-versa.

And it was a great success. Sega gave up and went software-only. Sony played straight into their hands, by choosing to compete on graphics and sound quality - dimensions where the more flexible hardware of the PC will always give it an edge.

Nintendo, meanwhile, tried hard to make consoles a distinct, different experience from other platforms. They had a great success with the Wii, a flop with its successor, and now with the Switch - well, frankly I'm not sure they're trying any more. It looks like a tablet to me.

[cobaltstarfire]

One would hope that "doesn't cause physical pain" would be a baseline for many controller setups, though I still remember my fingers hurting from the triggers on the Sega Dreamcast controller.


It is a pretty consistent worry for lots folks even who don't have physical problems though, every generation people deconstruct the control design/handheld ergonomics. Often worrying about cramping because the control is too large/small/heavy/weird shaped. I know I had this problem with a game cube control I bought, which was slightly smaller than the originals. It always makes my hands cramp so bad when I'd play smash with it. (that's what I get for not using the claw grip I guess...)

It'd be interesting if it was possible to buy controls in different sizes, along with customization for buttons and joystick location. I feel like certain kinds of games benefit more from certain layouts than others...even better if it didn't cost an arm and a leg to do it! (ex I feel twin stick shooters are more comfortable and put less stress on my right thumb with a symmetrical stick set up, but generally prefer the asymmetrical set up for anything else I might play). Having played with the steam control some I'm not sure we're quite there yet.

There are some weapons in splatoon I can't use because they cause physical pain, they're all ones that require lots of trigger pumping, like the brush, or the nozzlenose (which is too bad because the nozzlenose is really fun!)

[KillingAScarab]

This gives me hope for a Steven Universe fighting game.Well, there was a side-scrolling beat 'em up (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartoon_Network:_Battle_Crashers) which Steven appeared in.


When Microsoft first announced its XBox line, the whole point was to ensure that Microsoft would get to influence the development of consoles...
And it was a great success. Sega gave up and went software-only.I don't believe you can draw the conclusion that Microsoft had any influence on Sega. The Dreamcast was discontinued two quarters before the Xbox launched. It was competing against the PlayStation 2 and the GameCube.


It is a pretty consistent worry for lots folks even who don't have physical problems though, every generation people deconstruct the control design/handheld ergonomics. Often worrying about cramping because the control is too large/small/heavy/weird shaped. I know I had this problem with a game cube control I bought, which was slightly smaller than the originals. It always makes my hands cramp so bad when I'd play smash with it. (that's what I get for not using the claw grip I guess...)

It'd be interesting if it was possible to buy controls in different sizes, along with customization for buttons and joystick location. I feel like certain kinds of games benefit more from certain layouts than others...even better if it didn't cost an arm and a leg to do it! (ex I feel twin stick shooters are more comfortable and put less stress on my right thumb with a symmetrical stick set up, but generally prefer the asymmetrical set up for anything else I might play). Having played with the steam control some I'm not sure we're quite there yet.

There are some weapons in splatoon I can't use because they cause physical pain, they're all ones that require lots of trigger pumping, like the brush, or the nozzlenose (which is too bad because the nozzlenose is really fun!)Interesting. I actually ended up purchasing a Rock Candy PS3 controller, because it was 1.) wired and 2.) has an asymetrical analog stick layout. It is a bit smaller than the standard PS3 controller, or at least its buttons are. The triggers/shoulder buttons might be a bit more comfortable than a DualShock 3 for me. Hard to say.

I just wish I could get my hands on another Mad Catz Fightpad (original or Round 2). That thing has the most comfortable D-pad ever.

[Triaxx]

I always loved the MadCatz controllers. The buttons always had a nice concave top. They even had a controller for the N64 that managed to make all the buttons reachable, which was a surprising challenge.

Button pain? Cute, but incomparable to the pure stick pain of Majora's Mask's Goron Magic Roll, or any Mario Party stick event.

[Alent]

I don't believe you can draw the conclusion that Microsoft had any influence on Sega. The Dreamcast was discontinued two quarters before the Xbox launched. It was competing against the PlayStation 2 and the GameCube.

That's a pretty easy point to refute: the Dreamcast's OS was a custom version of Windows CE. This creates the humorous situation where Sega's last Console was also technically Microsoft's first console.

On a more on topic note, has anyone heard either way if Blaster Master Zero has a Steam release in it's future? Based on what happened with GV and MN9, it seems to me that Inti Creates is making Steam part of their business model as a delayed release target. (Eg: Console first, Steam in a year or two) I'm not sold on the Switch yet, but I'm looking forward to playing both Octopath and Blaster Master Zero eventually. If I can bypass the Nintendo product and still get to play them, I'd much rather do so.

[KillingAScarab]

That's a pretty easy point to refute: the Dreamcast's OS was a custom version of Windows CE. This creates the humorous situation where Sega's last Console was also technically Microsoft's first console....which would be equivalent to saying Microsoft makes ATMs, airport terminal displays, point-of-sale systems and anything else upon which another party installed Windows CE. At which point, we could also claim the Xbox, the Xbox 360 and the GameCube were actually made by IBM because they relied upon PowerPC processors. There's a recognizable difference between the parts and the sum of them.


On a more on topic note, has anyone heard either way if Blaster Master Zero has a Steam release in it's future? Based on what happened with GV and MN9, it seems to me that Inti Creates is making Steam part of their business model as a delayed release target. (Eg: Console first, Steam in a year or two) I'm not sold on the Switch yet, but I'm looking forward to playing both Octopath and Blaster Master Zero eventually. If I can bypass the Nintendo product and still get to play them, I'd much rather do so.I have not found much information at all about Blaster Master Zero, though that game stuck out to me in the lineup, as well. Supposedly, there will be a patch (http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/03/blaster_master_zero_will_be_receiving_a_patch_that _adds_pro_controller_support) to add Pro Controller support. The last time a Blaster Master game was supposed to get a patch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaster_Master:_Overdrive), it didn't happen.

[Alent]

...which would be equivalent to saying Microsoft makes ATMs, airport terminal displays, point-of-sale systems and anything else upon which another party installed Windows CE. At which point, we could also claim the Xbox, the Xbox 360 and the GameCube were actually made by IBM because they relied upon PowerPC processors. There's a recognizable difference between the parts and the sum of them.

Ah, but your point was that you couldn't see a means for Microsoft to have any influence on Sega's decision... and I'm pointing out that Microsoft was working closely enough with them to design the Firmware and one of two development toolchains for Sega's new console... To spell out more specifically what I attempted to imply: that's not the kind of business relationship you just dissolve, especially not when Sega made a launch title for the original Xbox. Sega was in the correct place to have advance warning that influenced their decisions.


I have not found much information at all about Blaster Master Zero, though that game stuck out to me in the lineup, as well. Supposedly, there will be a patch (http://www.nintendolife.com/news/2017/03/blaster_master_zero_will_be_receiving_a_patch_that _adds_pro_controller_support) to add Pro Controller support. The last time a Blaster Master game was supposed to get a patch (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blaster_Master:_Overdrive), it didn't happen.

Nicely Done, Inti, missing Pro Controller support. *facepalm*

Ah well, I'll give it a while. It's not like Switch commercial hardware will get to Revision 1a any time soon, either.

[KillingAScarab]

Nicely Done, Inti, missing Pro Controller support. *facepalm*

Ah well, I'll give it a while. It's not like Switch commercial hardware will get to Revision 1a any time soon, either.I trust IntiCreates a bit more to get controller functionality added in time for North America. Actually, is there a reference anywhere for which control methods are supported for Switch games? It would be nice to see how many launch titles use the Pro Controller, and how many of those are 3rd party/independent developers.


Ah, but your point was that you couldn't see a means for Microsoft to have any influence on Sega's decision... and I'm pointing out that Microsoft was working closely enough with them to design the Firmware and one of two development toolchains for Sega's new console... To spell out more specifically what I attempted to imply: that's not the kind of business relationship you just dissolve, especially not when Sega made a launch title for the original Xbox. Sega was in the correct place to have advance warning that influenced their decisions.You are correct that Microsoft worked with Sega, but the Dreamcast didn't load Windows CE from firmware. The OS was loaded from the game discs, and the launch titles didn't make use of Windows CE (https://www.cnet.com/news/windows-ce-notably-absent-from-dreamcast-launch/). Sega Retro has a list of games (http://segaretro.org/Windows_CE) which loaded it.

[darkdragoon]

Because if a series you enjoy puts out a game with radically different elements that you don't enjoy, and that game then does well, it becomes likely that future games of that series will contain those elements as well. At which point it may cease to be a series you enjoy. Is it difficult to understand being bothered by that? Being worried that you may be about to lose a series that you like, potentially forever?

These sort of things tend to be greatly exaggerated and often ignore example of previous games. Like there's a lot of talk about getting a stick and lighting it on fire when you could do that in Wind Waker.

[KillingAScarab]

These sort of things tend to be greatly exaggerated and often ignore example of previous games. Like there's a lot of talk about getting a stick and lighting it on fire when you could do that in Wind Waker.
Don't forget Deku sticks. You couldn't finish the first dungeon of Ocarina of Time without lighting torches with a Deku stick.

[Knaight]

These sort of things tend to be greatly exaggerated and often ignore example of previous games. Like there's a lot of talk about getting a stick and lighting it on fire when you could do that in Wind Waker.

That's not being portrayed as a departure though, just a thing that is cool. The departures are the nonlinear gameplay, the broader equipment base and loss of the item progression, and the general absence of traditional dungeons.

[Zevox]

These sort of things tend to be greatly exaggerated and often ignore example of previous games. Like there's a lot of talk about getting a stick and lighting it on fire when you could do that in Wind Waker.

That's not being portrayed as a departure though, just a thing that is cool. The departures are the nonlinear gameplay, the broader equipment base and loss of the item progression, and the general absence of traditional dungeons.
Yeah, I haven't heard anyone say anything about that, and would not have thought anything of it if I had. That's been around since, at a bare minimum, Ocarina of Time, and is a pretty minor thing.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

That's not being portrayed as a departure though, just a thing that is cool. The departures are the nonlinear gameplay, the broader equipment base and loss of the item progression, and the general absence of traditional dungeons.

The first Legend of Zelda game was Trope Definer for non-linear gaming on a console. You could go straight to Level 8 once you got a candle from a vendor, without ever setting foot in any of the other dungeons. This isn't a departure, this is going back to its roots.

The general absence of traditional dungeons, however, I will sort-of grant you. There are the Legendary Beasts, after all.

[huttj509]

Yeah, I haven't heard anyone say anything about that, and would not have thought anything of it if I had. That's been around since, at a bare minimum, Ocarina of Time, and is a pretty minor thing.

I've heard it mentioned, but in connection with other things.

Like, if you need to go into a cold area, you can carry a burning weapon to keep you warm. You can roast apples still on the tree with a flaming stick. It feels like the fire mechanics just exist, rather than only being there for "light stick to carry fire to this torch to open door."

[Knaight]

I've heard it mentioned, but in connection with other things.

Like, if you need to go into a cold area, you can carry a burning weapon to keep you warm. You can roast apples still on the tree with a flaming stick. It feels like the fire mechanics just exist, rather than only being there for "light stick to carry fire to this torch to open door."

All of which is in the "things which are cool" side more than the departure from previous games side. I've seen no complaints about there being more fire mechanics, and said mechanics would fit neatly in previous games just fine.