Insider reports claim that New Super Mario Bros. U will be coming to the Switch
Source (Rumor)
Source (Rumor)
Well easy, they don't want to release all the great Wii U games for the switch all in the same year.
They have already released some great titles this year. My bet is that they are saving some stuff for later to keep to gold flowing.
I think they are aware that people wan't mario maker, and so I believe it will happen. Just not now..
They know that it's expensive to host the servers for it and I would not be surprised if they wait until they make a profit on the online service.
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2013
- Messages
- 6,750
- Trophies
- 3
- Age
- 30
- Location
- Biblically accurate Hell
- XP
- 18,673
- Country
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.
A 7 out of 10 Mario game , in my opinion
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Oh you
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Only a drunk people could have said that
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Super Mario World ?
I would say Mario Bros 3 , despite being in the previous console
Obviously it's my taste , nothing more
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
That sucks
--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------
Wow , i can't wait to play al this new games !
Not of each other, of the original. You may or may not know which the original is.
It can matter. i.e. If a game started out on ps2 and was ported to ps3 without going back and increasing texture resolution.
Ports aren't inherently bad, only bad ports are bad.
They seem to take an entire console generation to build them, so it's inevitable it will change between consoles. Nintendo & Microsoft are pretty good at making it easy to port between console generations. Sony SDKs are very different. When the new console becomes available then it's easy to get budget to port it, once it's out and the team has disbanded then it's much harder.
Last edited by smf,
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2013
- Messages
- 6,750
- Trophies
- 3
- Age
- 30
- Location
- Biblically accurate Hell
- XP
- 18,673
- Country
Well, in this case, i think Portendo does fit
Go ahead guys, i allow you to say it
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.
Last edited by The Catboy,
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2013
- Messages
- 6,750
- Trophies
- 3
- Age
- 30
- Location
- Biblically accurate Hell
- XP
- 18,673
- Country
Ikr
Its just that i got annoyed by people saying Portendo when it wasnt Nintendos decision to port the game
For this one, i wont be annoyed because it do is Nintendos decision
As for other console, im not a fan of ps or xb
But yea, im pretty sure they do have many port
So yea, i wonder, why no Portbox or Portstation
At least for the PS4... it's not called Portstation because it has a steady flow of non-port exclusives. The Switch has a stead flow of... well... ports. It's quite simple to understand and is a pretty accurate term.
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's that it receives PRIMARILY ports. Hence Portendo. And the title fits accordingly.
Last edited by D34DL1N3R,
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.
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2015
- Messages
- 575
- Trophies
- 0
- Age
- 25
- Location
- France
- Website
- www.youtube.com
- XP
- 1,536
- Country
Why did you buy these games if you knew they were ports ?
Switch still has a lot of exclusive good games, like SMO or XC2. I understand that Wii U owners don't like much all these ports, but the Wii U sold poorly and there are a lot of good games to sell very easely, why wouldn't Nintendo do that ?
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.
Last edited by D34DL1N3R,
I don't miss the point, I just happen to disagree.
Mostly, not to mean any offense, but I think hundreds of brand new releases per console is a thing of the past. A past where games weren't as expensive to make while still being sold $60 (a price that should have been increased by now), where ports, lootboxes, GaaS weren't a thing. In this past companies could make games faster because they had a smaller scope, and they were doing it, but we're living a more modern age where big games have to involve hundreds of people for a 15h ish experience. There's very few giant publishers and they swallowed every promising studio (or almost) to focus on triple AAA, which doesn't leave much beside indie games.
In this era, at least I think we can agree that -all- the consoles have a huge library of ports. It's not a Nintendo exclusive thing. All companies port their games. You got the bioshock collection here, uncharted collection there, god of war collection, many version of Street Fighter V and this is not going away.
The Wii U struggle was the lack of appeal. There was no killer feature (the only feature being the gamepad, poorly marketed and not that great). The switch has full mobility. Where the Wii U didn't actually have a lot of killer games, the Switch already has a few (BotW, Xenoblade Chronicles 2, Mario Odyssey, Smash and Pokemon coming) and many more killer games announced for later. With that -alone- the switch already surpassed the Wii U.
And I listed the games a few days ago but I can do it again: 1/2 switch, ARMS, Splatoon 2, Xenoblade 2, Kirby, Mario Aces, Mario Odyssey, Labo
With Smash, Mario Party, Pokemon Let's Go, Pokemon Core games, Metroid 4, No More Heroes (forgot its name), Yoshi releasing either this year or probably next year.
And BoTW, no matter what some people say, was release AT THE SAME TIME as the Wii U version, which makes it just as valuable as the Wii U version.
And I didn't count third party exclusives like Rabbid and Octopath. Didn't even count Fire Emblem Warriors just because it's on 3DS, but the switch version is clearly the one to play.
I'm sorry, but it's neither the weakest library nor is it repeating the Wii U struggles. It hasn't even been 2 years.
Also let's not forget that the switch will get a game that is an absolute love letter to nostalgic gamers and that has more content than any modern game with all their dlcs.
We'll have to agree to disagree, I guess.
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.
Last edited by D34DL1N3R,
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.
Last edited by deinonychus71,
None of it takes away from the fact that it receives more ports than anything else. That is the problem people have. If there were more "Octopaths", people wouldn't have nearly as much of an issue. I'll say it one last time. People have an issue because it receives PRIMARILY ports. End of discussion.
