Dark Jaguar Wrote:That phone based Fire Emblem game sure was a disappointment. The sad thing is, a pure touch screen interface would work fine with Fire Emblem. Heck, I use the touch screen almost exclusively with the current crop of Fire Emblem games as it is. Turn based strategy is a perfect match for that.
The phone game doesn't look good, yeah, but the first half of the video, which covers the other three games, was quite good, with multiple new announcements and some good-looking games shown.
Quote:At least you see where I'm coming from when it comes to Zelda, and I do get your point of view. I think the main reason Zelda isn't playable in Zelda games comes down to history.
I know you've said this before, but while I don't disagree, I think that the main reason here is sexism more so than just sticking to what they have done before.
Quote:Nintendo is just too afraid to mess with their formula. It's the same reason you never play as anyone but Link in the series. There's a good number of games where multiple characters seem to have a lot going on, but it's always Link. I've said it before but Nintendo's biggest barrier is being able to look past their icons for a moment to really come up with some new perspectives in future games in a series. (The most recent Metroid game is an example of that done badly though. Care must be taken.) Heck, the newest Mario game continues the trend (ever since Mario 64) of putting Luigi on the back burner. He gets the occasional breakout oddball game like Luigi's Mansion, but goes largely ignored in the "main" series of Mario games. It's only in the New Super Mario Bros. series where they've seen fit to actually bring him back, but when it comes to stuff like Mario Galaxy and the upcoming one, he's outta there. It's a lot more acceptable with Mario because really the story doesn't matter at all in that series, but it still is a bit of a shame.
Despite what I said above, you're right, they have done something somewhat similar to Luigi ever since Mario 64. He used to be right there with Mario, but ever since 64, that hasn't happened except in the multiplayer games (NSMBWii/U, SM3DW, and such) and spinoffs. And that is a shame, since green is my favorite color I've always somewhat liked Luigi... though Luigi's Mansion never interested me much so while I did get it a few years ago I've barely played it, and I haven't thought too much about buying the 3DS sequel. But anyway, yeah, not even having Luigi playable in those games, never mind Peach or, in the Galaxy games, Rosalina, does say something about how over-conservatively Nintendo has been with who you play as in their major titles.
Quote:Peach's character is a sticking point with me because there's plenty of material that gives her a much more compelling and fun personality. Super Mario Adventures and Super Mario RPG are the highlights, and are how I've seen her personality for years now, which is what makes her rather vapid persona in Super Princess Peach so annoying. At any rate, while sexism plays a part (it's how the male leads were picked in the first place when the series were young), the biggest barrier right now seems to be a fear of breaking out of the norms they've set.
I kind of liked how they played with the usual stereotype of "Peach always gets kidnapped" in Paper Mario. It was clever the first time, and worked. But when Paper Mario: The Thousand Year Door did the same thing again, I thought that it wasn't good anymore; you did that once, try something new with her this time, instead of just having her get kidnapped again! But no, for traditionally sexist reasons Nintendo is attached to "rescue the princess" as their favorite plot device, and they refuse to let that go. It's really unfortunate.
Quote:I'm with you when it comes to all these complaints. It really does seem to me that people are just looking for things to be mad about when it comes to the switch. There's no shortage of little problems with the thing (the cost of that docking station is ridiculous, and the online being entirely linked to a cell phone that little kids may or may not have is a big mistake if that's the ONLY way to use it), but when people keep asking, nay, DEMANDING that they sell a "version of the switch without the docking station" because they "deserve to have a choice", it really angers up the blood. Get over yourselves, I want to shout at them. The docking station is the entire point, barely adds to the cost at all (in spite of what the individual docking stations are overpriced at) and frankly if they want JUST a switch they can always just buy that part by itself used like anything else. I think MS's whole Kinect debacle really got to these type's heads and now they've convinced themselves they've got every right to demand everything be removed from a system if they don't like it. Heck, why not demand a version of the system without the joycons while you're at it?
Yeah... for the most part I agree, the very negative reactions from some in the press and on gaming forums go way, WAY too far in unfairly attacking Nintendo. There are some real issues about the Switch, with the phone app online service one being maybe first on my list (second might be how 1-2-Switch looks too limited due to its audio-game focus to be a Wii Sports analog), but a lot of the negativity is unwarranted. I think some people are looking for things to criticize Nintendo about, unfortunately.
As for selling it without parts of the system... yes, the vocal critics of motion controls probably would have loved it if this was just a box that came with a controller, no motion anything. As I said earlier though I think Nintendo is right to not take that path, and to make some new motion games. I like that the system still has motion, and I hope some of the critics try motion games again.
As for the idea of selling everything separately, though, that's never going to make financial sense; the main unit's going to be costly regardless, and you'll need Joycons for some things even if you hate motion and mostly want to stick to a Pro Controller, if you ever want to play it portably for instance. And if you had to buy those separately I doubt it'd be cheaper than the system as it is now plus a Pro Controller...
Thinking about that though, while cost-wise it would make things way too expensive, I do wish that they could have included a Pro Controller in the box too, that'd have been great. For three generations now Nintendo has required people buy those separately, and they're expensive and costs keep going up -- this one will be $70! Yes, it has HD Rumble, an NFC Reader, and gyro controls, so the cost kind of makes sense, but still... that's a lot.
Not requiring people to buy anything other than standard controllers is something the N64 does well, versus other consoles of the time -- where on the PS1 or Saturn you need to buy other special controllers for some kinds of games -- the flight stick, arcade stick, mouse, wheel, and such -- on the N64, almost all games are designed just for the regular controller. The N64 does have a mouse (for some 64DD games only), a keyboard (for the 64DD's now-dead online service only, I believe), and some third-party wheels and arcade sticks, but outside of the 64DD nothing was designed around the idea that players actually have anything other than the regular pad, which puts everyone on an even par in a way that systems which require extra stuff don't do.
In comparison, think of the original Wii. For all the stuff I have, I do not own a Wii Classic Controller or Classic Controller Pro due to how I don't exactly love the design. At various points I've told myself that I would buy one if I found a game that really needs the thing, mostly fighting games then since most other kinds of games play fine with the Wiimote+Nunchuck, but... I've just avoided buying fighting games for the thing, except for the few that work fine with motion or Gamecube controllers. If a CC had come in the box then I'm sure I'd have gotten, like, some Neo-Geo fighters or something, even if that isn't the best controller. So yeah, despite that, it is best to just include everything important in the box. People aren't necessarily going to buy the other stuff.
Quote:There's also the matter of Nintendo once again stating that the time-limited free games will only work for a month. The first time around, I was pretty sure that was a mistranslation of Nintendo saying you could only DOWNLOAD them for one month but they'd stay working forever after. Now I'm not so sure, because if NOA is still working off a mistranslation then at the very least there's a serious communication problem going on there.
With how they've repeated this several times, I'm not betting it's a mistranslation... it's just weird. I kind of understand the idea, as it keeps more value for Nintendo games and Nintendo sure has been big on not reducing game prices, rarely putting games on sale at significant discounts, etc.; this is consistent with that. It does hurt the service, though, as if you can't keep the games you get it definitely would greatly reduce my interest in continuing to pay for the service if I was and the subscription expired, as you can't keep the games anyway!