Insider reports claim that New Super Mario Bros. U will be coming to the Switch
Source (Rumor)
Still wonder what the deal of not porting Mario Maker is. They could port it and release alongside their Online service to... you know... provide a system that doesn't suck to catalogue maps and such.
The Zelda games are always kind of a port on home consoles. I think it's because of their awkward development timeframe that just so happens to place them inbetween generations. Makes me hope Skyward Sword gets an HD port to Switch.The Switch is getting only ports and Indies. Hell even Zelda BotW was a port.
A 7 out of 10 Mario game , in my opinionWhy not just make a new Mario game that's enjoyable? New Super Mario Bro was just meh and meh. It wasn't really a bad Mario game, it was just soulless.
Oh youNow I know why they called the Switch a "Portable console"
Only a drunk people could have said thatAnd people say it will beat the PS2 and PS4...
Super Mario World ?If it means anything, I totally agree with you. All the "New" games felt very lifeless and kinda bland. None of them were memorable either. I mean, if you ranked all the Mario games, not one of the "New" ones would even make the top 10.
For me, Super Mario World is still the benchmark for 2D Mario games, with Mario Bros 3 a close second.
That sucksAnd still no Playable Princess Peach
Wow , i can't wait to play al this new games !I'd much rather see 3D World getting ported than this.
Super Mario Maker I can see being announced alongside the Online Service Direct just to try to pull as many people as possible to their shitty service.
But where Nintendo is really dropping the ball hard is by not porting Wind Waker and Twilight Princess HD to the Switch.
But on second thought, they might do so just to pad out the dev time until a new Zelda comes out.
Come one, Shitendo, just package Wind Waker, Twilight Princess, alongside both Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask from the 3DS but all in HD for the Switch, and you'll shit money for a year guaranteed.
If BoTW is a port then all the multiplatform games are ports of each other.
It does not matter what it was initially developped for. A LOT of games are initially developped for one console and later adapted.
The Zelda games are always kind of a port on home consoles. I think it's because of their awkward development timeframe that just so happens to place them inbetween generations. Makes me hope Skyward Sword gets an HD port to Switch.
Well, in this case, i think Portendo does fitWhy not just make a new Mario game that's enjoyable? New Super Mario Bro was just meh and meh. It wasn't really a bad Mario game, it was just soulless.
So why don't we call the PS4 a "Portstation 4" when games are ported to that? Or Portbox one? Other systems have just many ports as the Switch, yet no one calls them out.Well, in this case, i think Portendo does fit
Go ahead guys, i allow you to say it
IkrSo why don't we call the PS4 a "Portstation 4" when games are ported to that? Or Portbox one? Other systems have just many ports as the Switch, yet no one calls them out.
So why don't we call the PS4 a "Portstation 4" when games are ported to that? Or Portbox one? Other systems have just many ports as the Switch, yet no one calls them out.
why buy a snes, ps2 or hell, any old console that people are ACTIVELY BUYING AS WE SPEAK?
maybe I'm not the best guy to ask that question, buy playing those games as originally intended is one of the reasons if said game is available on a modern platoform.
Again. I just don't understand how that's a bad thing. Some people want older games in newer consoles (we hear people ask a LOT for VC for example) and the devs do or won't do it. What's the matter for people who weren't interested in the first place?you are right about having old games on modern hardware being good, but you see more and more people demanding that kind of treatment for every game they happen to have missed like if it was mandatory for devs to do it instead of doing what they can to play that game that they have so badly to play and go get it.
it doesn't help that often times it is a cheap excuse for developers to not put any effort whatsoever in their games. they are just blindly copy/pasting what was successful in the past to get a quick buck.
You're right, but we also don't how the percentage of a main team being using for these ports. More often than not outsourcing is being used. Is it the case here? I honestly can't tell. Although I will agree that indeed if the majority of a main team is used for ports there's an issue.if you think this doesn't affect people that want new games you are wrong. developers have to allocate part of their resources to making those ports making the development of new games slower or non existent if they happen to be a small studio.
also that "wallet vote" system is kinda flawed, ports are (smartly I must say) released in the middle of no mayor releases to fill gaps, what does people do then? but them so they have something to do while waiting the new games that is what they really want to play. is like offering orine to a thirsty man in the middle of a desert, he need the water and isn't gonna complain about it no matter what it is until he gets to his destination or he dies.
That's kind of the whole point. You have the choice. You can choose to hunt for old hardware if you want, but you have access to these games on new hardware if you want too. Everyone wins and it's especially true for the case of a failed Wii U.
The complains come from those who don't want people to be given a choice... okay they didn't want them, so they don't have to get them. Why adding the complains?
Again. I just don't understand how that's a bad thing. Some people want older games in newer consoles (we hear people ask a LOT for VC for example) and the devs do or won't do it. What's the matter for people who weren't interested in the first place?
The last part of your message makes me think that because it's easy money, it's necessarily a bad thing. I call that a win-win personally. Having a new version of a game you already own come out doesn't magically remove your ownership of the game on a older console.
You're right, but we also don't how the percentage of a main team being using for these ports. More often than not outsourcing is being used. Is it the case here? I honestly can't tell. Although I will agree that indeed if the majority of a main team is used for ports there's an issue.
The problem is that new retail games are very few and far between. NES wasn't port after port after port after port after port after port after port after port after port & had plenty of new games coming out. SNES was the same, as was the N64, GameCube, DS, Wii, 3DS and Wii U. The Switch gets primarily ports. Continually. With very, very few new retail tiles being made for it. Ports aren't bad in themselves, the problem people have with the Switch is the severe lack of NEW titles. Hence the entire Portendo thing. And as I stated in my prior post, it makes perfect sense. There's like 10 exclusives worth having on the Switch, and a few of those are iffy. The rest are ports (not including any exclusive indies). Not to mention most are ports of games that are many years old. If barely gets ports of new games because of its inferior specs. Those things are where the problems lie. Not so much in ports themselves. It thar itreceives PRIMARILY ports. Hence Portendo. And the title fits accordingly.
But for those of us who bought the wiiu back in 2012 and the switch at launch - it continues to feel like a kick in the face for sticking with Nintendo all this time.
Like - at least let us enjoy our games on the switch that we already bought. I bought Mario Kart 8 again on the switch and the fact that they didn't even add any new stages is just unforgivable. I know they didn't pretend to do anything but churn out a lazy port - however it's still just that.
$120 to Nintendo between those two games and it left a sour taste in my mouth.
Well. First off, there -are- games that releases first on switch console (excluding pc) like Monster Boy and the Cursed Kingdom or even Hollow Knight, so it's not exactly a one way street.
And second, I think the problem is less with Nintendo (for a single company, they release a LOT of new games, let's be honest) and more with some third parties and their constant rush for horsepower and graphics.
But the problem is here I think, people constantly compare the switch with the ps4/xbox while in fact I think it would be more fair to compare it to mobile gaming. Whether you like it or not, Nintendo does not care about competing with the Xbox and PS4, it's by design and advertised as such. People who understand that and bought a switch knowing that are happy with what it does: Ports and Nintendo exclusives.
If you bought the switch expecting ps4/xbox main titles on a mobile device, I think you made an error of judgement and should sell your switch.
Otherwise enjoy and get thrilled at the idea that finally, with games like Octopath being a blatant demonstration that a rush for always more graphics and always more scripted action isn't the only way, we might get more switch exclusives like that in the future.
Switch still has a lot of exclusive good games
I think you've missed the point entirely. Even when compared to any of Nintendos past consoles, the Switch is a HUGE port machine in comparison. You're saying that people bought a Switch knowing full well that there would be very few retail exclusives and should just accept the fact that it receives first and foremost, ports of old games. I don't believe that people bought a Switch with that mindset, expecially with Reggie telling us all that the Switch would not repeat the Wii U's struggles. When in fact, it's worse. Outside of sales. But I feel the much stronger sales were only because of being told it wouldn't have those shortcomings. Leave PS4 out of things for a moment. The Switch has THE weakest exclusive library to date of any Nintendo console. That in itself is a huge problem for many people.
A lot? That's quite the overstatement.
We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.
And that's because big publishers are obsessed with triple AAA that requires a beast to run a game.One thing I will certainly disagree on is that the Switch has already surpassed the Wii U in terms of "good" exclusives. And if we are going to include the PS4 in the discussion, the PS4 has a steady flow of NEW exclusives in addition to any ports it receives. The Switch does not.
And that's because big publishers are obsessed with triple AAA that requires a beast to run a game.
Instead of spitting on the switch for its lack of third party exclusive (because third party exclusive ARE the problem, not first party), it is why it's REALLY important that games like Octopath become a success. So that publishers feel more entitled to finance exclusive games for all kind of gamers, instead of the so called "pro gamers".
In an ideal world, there would be just as many games for high end consoles than low end. Indies are successful today because there's next to no big name developers on the (technical) "low end" market.