Limited Run Games Thread - We only promise our NES games will work, not your console

Squarehard

Squarehard

CAGiversary!
Feedback
182 (100%)
Last edited:
Upvote 2 Downvote
Equippt said:
They've also already released a full game as part of this project, and it's awesome. So already Bloodstained has reached a level that Mighty No. 9 never did!
Click to expand...
Yeah, I completely agree, as that 8-Bit style game was top shelf, and even though I can no longer get the main game on Vita, this was a very good runner up prize. LOL

 
I'm cautiously optimistic for Bloodstained. The delays are frustrating but I prefer a delay over a broken game. As far as Mighty No. 9, I didn't think it was the massive train wreck that most people say it is. But I'm not a huge Megaman fan either so I guess my expectations and desires weren't as high as theirs. 

 
Does anyone here have a ballpark of the time Iconoclasts will be released by LRG? Because I'm dying to play it and if it's supposed to come out in the next month or two I'll just wait, but if it's one of those titles that may not get released until December or early 2019 I'll just bite on the digital now and buy a copy later.

 
chrislaustin said:
That would probably be anyone who has played it and enjoyed it, as many like to show support multiple times across many platforms for games they like. The next group would probably be those who have never played it, and don't mind paying more to have a physical copy of said game.

BTW, your statement probably applies to 95% of every game offered by LRG so far, and all you really have to do to find an answer is look at every person here who has bought a game from LRG in the past, present, or future.
Click to expand...
I buy games multiple times too, however I wouldn't ever pay more the second time around... That'd be kinda dumb. I'm just applying basic economics here.

If you reeeally want that juicy orange, you might pay $5 for it. The second one, maybe 5 also, but probably less now that it's lost its novelty and you've quenched your craving. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th oranges are each worth less and less.
 
ShadowAssassin said:
Does anyone here have a ballpark of the time Iconoclasts will be released by LRG? Because I'm dying to play it and if it's supposed to come out in the next month or two I'll just wait, but if it's one of those titles that may not get released until December or early 2019 I'll just bite on the digital now and buy a copy later.
Click to expand...
Dfa4XEvWAAAczsn.jpg


 
BadWaluigi said:
I buy games multiple times too, however I wouldn't ever pay more the second time around... That'd be kinda dumb. I'm just applying basic economics here.

If you reeeally want that juicy orange, you might pay $5 for it. The second one, maybe 5 also, but probably less now that it's lost its novelty and you've quenched your craving. The 3rd, 4th, and 5th oranges are each worth less and less.
Click to expand...
I get what you're trying to say here. Just remember that for a certain audience there's a big, BIG difference between buying a license to download a game from one specific marketplace for only as long as said marketplace exists (or shorter), and buying a for-real physical game.

Now, we all know that physical games often come with their own set of issues too, but that's a whole other conversation! The point is simply that a physical game is a different product than a digital game, and trying to compare the two directly doesn't really work.
 
ShadowAssassin said:
Well, that basically leaves this month or else they pushed the date back. I remember the original announced date for Salt and Sanctuary was August 24th and it never happened, so LRG changes their dates all the time. I guess we'll find out this month.
Click to expand...
Hopefully they reveal September's schedule soon.
 
Does anyone know what the hold up on the Tribute Treasure Box is? They have the games. They have the Steelbooks. Those were the two things they had previously said they were waiting on. 

 
EvilutionDesigns said:
Does anyone know what the hold up on the Tribute Treasure Box is? They have the games. They have the Steelbooks. Those were the two things they had previously said they were waiting on.
Click to expand...
They have to assemble them individually. Also this

https://twitter.com/TributeGames/status/1034811649637707778

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Olengie said:
They have to assemble them individually. Also this

https://twitter.com/TributeGames/status/1034811649637707778
Click to expand...
Ha Ha Ha "Soon enough", how pathetic. Between this having a shipping delay, Saturday morning RPG CE along with Cosmic Star Heroine CE with no concrete date just a vague timeframe is irritating. Paying $16.50 for shipping and having 3 items get delayed due to "unforeseen circumstances" is punch to the right kidney.
 
Senran Kagura is down to 819 copies available, the bulk of which sold during the AM/PM batches going live. It'll be interesting to see if it has another surge this friday.

SephirothWF said:
I feel sorry for anyone that is going to pay $50 for Yooka Laylee on Switch.
Click to expand...
Yeah that's a stupid price and their reasoning is "well it's $40 on eshop". It's $18.78 on Amazon for a physical PS4 copy.

It wouldn't bother me at all if it fails to get a minimum order amount together... but if people want it that bad then, ok. It's an easy pass for me.

Equippt said:
They've also already released a full game as part of this project, and it's awesome. So already Bloodstained has reached a level that Mighty No. 9 never did!
Click to expand...
That was a different dev and with a pure retro NES styling to it. I think the E3 2018 build looked pretty decent for the main game. The level design is prettier than the E3 2017 build but still fairly generic in level layouts. The enemies are still super generically designed outside of the bosses. I'm keeping my expectations in check with Bloodstained RotN. I hope it's fantastic but as is it just seems like a somewhat generic rip on the CV formula.

 
$40 for Yooka-Laylee in Septermber of 2018 is too much--let alone $50. They should have put it up on the eshop at a lower price, and it shouldn't be a penny more for this physical release. It's just a bad value given what the game costs elsewhere because it's not new. And while I realize that one can't simply flip the proverbial 'port' lever, the effort to port a game is not equivalent to the time/money/effort to create it in the first place, so it being ported to a new system shouldn't be an excuse for jumping back to the original full price (or, for the LRG physical, and then some).

Of course, this isn't a uniquely LRG problem (perhaps tacking $10 on, but let's ignore than part of it for a moment). Other games are being ported to the Switch that are old and dirt cheap and being sold for their original full price, too. Just look at Doom, Skyrim, and Donkey Kong for some great examples. The value of those titles had dropped significantly by the time the Switch ports came out, and yet we were again expected to pony up the original full price. It hurts sales and pisses people off. I'm fairly convinced that the good-will and better value would help move a lot more units at release. 

 
Zaku77 said:
Of course, this isn't a uniquely LRG problem (perhaps tacking $10 on, but let's ignore than part of it for a moment). Other games are being ported to the Switch that are old and dirt cheap and being sold for their original full price, too. Just look at Doom, Skyrim, and Donkey Kong for some great examples. The value of those titles had dropped significantly by the time the Switch ports came out, and yet we were again expected to pony up the original full price. It hurts sales and pisses people off. I'm fairly convinced that the good-will and better value would help move a lot more units at release.
Click to expand...
Sadly, "N" games in general seem to hardly ever get proper price reductions, and on their systems, everyone else seems to have adopted the same broken level of thinking(at least for the port master, which is the NS). In the end, people seem happy to pay the higher inflated prices for what is pretty much generations old titles at full price. So until consumers stop supporting shit like this, it will continue in spades.

I do love to hear all the excuses of why they do it for the NS, and the my personal favorite, is that your getting a console and portable title for the price of one..........Yeah, right! LOL

I haven't personally bought an NS, as I think it's over priced for what the hardware is, and for features I have no want or need to pay extra for. But if these games, ports, etc where priced competitively, I may have bought one, as I could then at least justify it by the great games, at cheaper prices. Paying $60 for Mario Kart, DKCTF, etc, when the same games can be had for under $20 on the Wii U is a GIANT middle finger to fans, and that's just "N" own milking of the situation. To see these 3rd parties going down this road, I just say fuck the lot, as I'll just wait for proper sales on all this stuff, or just get them dirt cheap for the PS4 down the road(and have the best versions available).

 
chrislaustin said:
But if these games, ports, etc where priced competitively, I may have bought one, as I could then at least justify it by the great games, at cheaper prices.
Click to expand...
We've had some solid deals for many of the retail games already including most of those first party Nintendo titles. The problem for me is mainly limited print stuff where you buy day 1 or you likely will pay more later so they jack the prices up because they can. If anything it's helped discourage me from even bothering with many of these smaller indie games in physical form. Thankfully Cat Quest is going the regular retail release side... and $30 at that. That's more like it. It's like paying the later DS & GBA prices for games again (which even they started out pushing the $40 price point).

Overall the Switch is a fantastic system. Considering my vita and 64gb memory card ended up about the same price as my Switch, I don't quite understand your complaint about the cost for the tech. It's easily a much better package than the Vita was (especially in controls, raw power, graphics, resolution, screen size, and memory card prices) as well as better than the WiiU and that gamepad and fairly slow ui and disc loading... and it seems to play games better too. Overall, I think if you gave it a chance and stopped looking at it as an "N" system but just another game system, you'd see the beauty in the device. I get it though, it's like trying to convince someone of the beauty of the Vita when they only love the DSi.

 
nightc1 said:
That was a different dev and with a pure retro NES styling to it. I think the E3 2018 build looked pretty decent for the main game. The level design is prettier than the E3 2017 build but still fairly generic in level layouts. The enemies are still super generically designed outside of the bosses. I'm keeping my expectations in check with Bloodstained RotN. I hope it's fantastic but as is it just seems like a somewhat generic rip on the CV formula.
Click to expand...
It's true that Curse of the Moon was developed primarily by Inti, but Iga acted as supervisor for the game in order to make sure the characters/scenario/general atmosphere meshed well with Ritual of the Night. Plus CotM was promised as part of the original Bloodstained Kickstarter, so its release is a good sign that the project as a whole is still progressing.

I think your observations on the latest RotN demo are spot-on, too. It plays just like Iga's old CV games, which is what most fans probably want, but the artwork is all over the place. Hopefully the delay gives them the time they need to tighten up the presentation and make it look less like it was developed by a bunch of separate teams.

 
nightc1 said:
We've had some solid deals for many of the retail games already including most of those first party Nintendo titles. The problem for me is mainly limited print stuff where you buy day 1 or you likely will pay more later so they jack the prices up because they can. If anything it's helped discourage me from even bothering with many of these smaller indie games in physical form. Thankfully Cat Quest is going the regular retail release side... and $30 at that. That's more like it. It's like paying the later DS & GBA prices for games again (which even they started out pushing the $40 price point).

Overall the Switch is a fantastic system. Considering my vita and 64gb memory card ended up about the same price as my Switch, I don't quite understand your complaint about the cost for the tech. It's easily a much better package than the Vita was (especially in controls, raw power, graphics, resolution, screen size, and memory card prices) as well as better than the WiiU and that gamepad and fairly slow ui and disc loading... and it seems to play games better too. Overall, I think if you gave it a chance and stopped looking at it as an "N" system but just another game system, you'd see the beauty in the device. I get it though, it's like trying to convince someone of the beauty of the Vita when they only love the DSi.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I agree in regards to the "limited" titles, as it's buy now or not at all, but LRG is really the only place where that applies, as they are printing to order. While everyone else is printing the minimum allowed, which pretty much leaves inventory for sales later down the road. Is there a risk of missing out? Of course, but that happens in collecting in general, so it's par for the course.

As for the NS, it's an over priced handheld(to big for my taste), or it's an under powered console(with low specs), either way, I personally don't see the value. I don't need a dock, and I don't need removable controls, all of which is at least $100 of the $300 asking price. Yes, my Vita with 64gb card, and import color is probably right around the NS price as you have stated, but I got a system with games I want. As the Vita has tons of games which I have never played, and I got for rather cheap digital(or on sale at retail), or $25 in regards to most of my LRG offerings. So tons of great games, at rock bottom prices(the CAG way). LOL

So while I do understand your argument, it's moot, as I can compare the NS to the PS4, and it's no contest(I could probably get one cheaper than the NS to boot). Pretty much all the same games, all of which run better on the PS4, and are a 3rd of the price. 95% of my Vita catalog was bought in the same way. So while you and others see a value(which is great), I don't, not as-is. Now if the NS offers a smaller system without the bells & whistles I don't want(more in line to what the Vita is), it would be a $150-$200 handheld at most. Then, I would be cool buying the system, but I still wouldn't be OK with the prices of games and digital stuff currently. So I'm voting with my dollars, and not buying one as there are major issues on both sides of the system for me personally. The system is sub par compared to consoles at the same or lesser pricing, and as a handheld, it's really like having the Wii U tablet, as it's to big for my taste and needs. It's a jack of all trades, and master of none!

 
chrislaustin said:
Yeah, I agree in regards to the "limited" titles, as it's buy now or not at all, but LRG is really the only place where that applies, as they are printing to order. While everyone else is printing the minimum allowed, which pretty much leaves inventory for sales later down the road. Is there a risk of missing out? Of course, but that happens in collecting in general, so it's par for the course.

As for the NS, it's an over priced handheld(to big for my taste), or it's an under powered console(with low specs), either way, I personally don't see the value. I don't need a dock, and I don't need removable controls, all of which is at least $100 of the $300 asking price. Yes, my Vita with 64gb card, and import color is probably right around the NS price as you have stated, but I got a system with games I want. As the Vita has tons of games which I have never played, and I got for rather cheap digital(or on sale at retail), or $25 in regards to most of my LRG offerings. So tons of great games, at rock bottom prices(the CAG way). LOL

So while I do understand your argument, it's moot, as I can compare the NS to the PS4, and it's no contest(I could probably get one cheaper than the NS to boot). Pretty much all the same games, all of which run better on the PS4, and are a 3rd of the price. 95% of my Vita catalog was bought in the same way. So while you and others see a value(which is great), I don't, not as-is. Now if the NS offers a smaller system without the bells & whistles I don't want(more in line to what the Vita is), it would be a $150-$200 handheld at most. Then, I would be cool buying the system, but I still wouldn't be OK with the prices of games and digital stuff currently. So I'm voting with my dollars, and not buying one as there are major issues on both sides of the system for me personally. The system is sub par compared to consoles at the same or lesser pricing, and as a handheld, it's really like having the Wii U tablet, as it's to big for my taste and needs. It's a jack of all trades, and master of none!
Click to expand...
That's a really interesting perspective. The Switch is pretty much my ideal handheld, so it's easy for me to forget that it's just too damn big for some people, or that not everyone cares about easy multiplayer or TV connectivity or whatever. There's no shame in waiting it out for a price drop, either. Like you said, this is still CAG after all. Soon enough used game stores and pawn shops will be full of Switch stuff--just like every other console ever. Digital prices are starting to get better, too. There are so many games coming to the eShop every week that publishers are already resorting to massive discounts to get some attention.

In the end though, play what you like and ignore anyone who tries to give you grief about it!
 
There are several reasons why the Switch is flourishing while the Vita floundered.

Not the least of these reasons is creator support. For Sony, the Vita was an experiment, not a major commitment. They never supported the Vita in the West as well as they should have. Nor did they fully understand it's value in the marketplace as a portable system. For the Japanese market, it did fine. But the Japanese market is quite different, and clearly geared toward supporting a device like the Vita. Nintendo made the Switch their next big system, and threw first-party development support behind it in a big way. They also did a better job of courting indie devs, especially indie devs having to deal with the dwindling support and sales of the Vita platform.

The dual play-style support is also a fairly large issue. Sony provided this type of support for the Vita through it's PSTV system. This was a great idea, but a better idea would have been a dock for the Vita that essentially did the same thing. Also, the PSTV was too pricey at launch, and didn't really drop in price until the clearance sales trumpeted it's departure from the market. Nintendo realized this cross-play-style dream right out of the box, and even tailored a lot of their first-year development to work well with this pick-up-and-go play. An opportunity that Sony only dipped their toe in, Nintendo instead did a flying-leap cannonball into.

And finally, the memory storage. In all fairness, the importance of digital distribution wasn't quite as evident when the Vita was launched. But it also wasn't Sony's first rodeo, so they don't have that much of an excuse. They had already seen problems with proprietary, expensive memory formats with the PSP, and the Vita essentially double-downed on that. I get that they were likely worried about piracy, and were hoping to avoid casual hacking by using a memory card format that can't be casually connected to a PC. (piracy and hacking were a huge deal on the PSP) But Nintendo's decision to use microSD cards has helped the digital sales on the Switch to explode. Gamers are considerably less concerned about the expandable storage on their Switch's, thanks to this one choice.

 
chrislaustin said:
As for the NS, it's an over priced handheld(to big for my taste), or it's an under powered console(with low specs), either way, I personally don't see the value. I don't need a dock, and I don't need removable controls, all of which is at least $100 of the $300 asking price.
Click to expand...
Just to offer an alternative perspective, I'm really happy about the removable controls even though I only play in handheld mode. I've had to replace joysticks in my Vita (QC is garbage and there's no option to re-center the joysticks) and it involves taking the Vita apart and hoping you don't mess something up. With the Switch, I can just pop on a new joy-con if the joystick wears out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Equippt said:
In the end though, play what you like and ignore anyone who tries to give you grief about it!
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's all good, as me and nightc1 have some good debates from time to time, and I just wanted to show that just because something is of an equal value dollar wise to something else, doesn't in any way mean it is of the same level of interest.

Richard Kain said:
There are several reasons why the Switch is flourishing while the Vita floundered.

Not the least of these reasons is creator support. For Sony, the Vita was an experiment, not a major commitment. They never supported the Vita in the West as well as they should have. Nor did they fully understand it's value in the marketplace as a portable system. For the Japanese market, it did fine. But the Japanese market is quite different, and clearly geared toward supporting a device like the Vita. Nintendo made the Switch their next big system, and threw first-party development support behind it in a big way. They also did a better job of courting indie devs, especially indie devs having to deal with the dwindling support and sales of the Vita platform.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I personally don't see the 1st party support, especially for a system that was in the works as long as the NS has been. BotW started as an Wii U title, and while "N" has never said the same about Odyssey I personally believe that to be the case as well. While many here know of my issues with "N", I'm a long time fan, who has owned more and sold just as much, than most here will ever own from them. And the NS to me is just about as half baked as the Wii U was, as without the tons of indie titles, and ports of games on other systems that are cheaper and run better, the NS really doesn't have any must have games. Yes, they have Ultimate this, or complete that, but it's all just more of the same old games I've played over and over again.

The NS should have had way more original games, than ports and quick sequels, but once again, that's a personal preference, and for those who want Mario Kart again(or Ultimate Smash), more power to that group. The indie titles are great, but seeing how I can get most for next to nothing on PSN, the NS is just a port machine tablet and really nothing more. I'm currently happy with my 3DS, and I'm really enjoying Toad Treasure Tracker, as it's the funnest and most original "N" title I've played in FOREVER! It started off rather easy, but it was still fun to find everything, now I'm on the last book, and the challenge has gotten pretty good. So as always, different strokes, for different folks!

WingsDJY said:
Just to offer an alternative perspective, I'm really happy about the removable controls even though I only play in handheld mode. I've had to replace joysticks in my Vita (QC is garbage and there's no option to re-center the joysticks) and it involves taking the Vita apart and hoping you don't mess something up. With the Switch, I can just pop on a new joy-con if the joystick wears out.
Click to expand...
That's a great feature for you I suppose, but I've never had a handheld or console controller break since probably the early 80's, and having to buy a dual pack of JC for $80 is another reason I have no interest in the NS currently.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
chrislaustin said:
And the NS to me is just about as half baked as the Wii U was, as without the tons of indie titles, and ports of games on other systems that are cheaper and run better, the NS really doesn't have any must have games.
Click to expand...
I always get a little upset when I see this argument. And it's not because I want to defend the Switch, but rather because I insist on defending the Wii U. The Wii U was not "half-baked." It was a fine system with some great ideas and designs that simply didn't get the third-party support it needed to persist in the market. A big part of this was simply Nintendo mis-reading the market, and coming out with the wrong system at the wrong time. But the Wii U's lack of financial success was not due to poor system quality or lack of quality games. I strongly suspect that a lot of people are going to begin realizing this in the next few years, and the Wii U is going to become a popular system with collectors. I'm seeing a lot of parallels with the GameCube, which dealt with a lot of the same issues. (and had people voicing a lot of the same complaints)

As for the Switch, it is indeed a port machine. But that has been part of the secret of its success. The ports are one of the things that people like the most about it. And all of this ties into it's portability features. The vast majority of portable systems in the past have focused on portable design. And modern tablets are focused on touch-screen games, as they can never insure the user has a proper controller. The Switch is able to bridge the gap, and can provide either experience with far fewer compromises. A lot of modern gamers are gravitating toward the Switch not because it provides a superior experience, but because it fits better with their busy lifestyles. Being able to play games while commuting or on-the-go is a big draw. And the docking ability of the Switch lets them transition seamlessly when they get home. It also incorporates the second-screen feature that so many people found useful with the Wii U. (especially those with families, where monopolizing the television isn't an option)

Sony's mis-management of the Vita is why it's been on its way out the door for years. A little tweaking to the platform could have kept it viable, and even a competitor to the Switch. It's not for everyone, and it is not presently cheap. But it is also rapidly eating up what little market share the Vita had, and starting to encroach on the PS4 and Xbox One as well. You can't count a system out due to lack of power, as Nintendo has proven time and again. Nintendo's most traditional home consoles always seem to struggle the most, while their wilder experiments frequently pay off. They would be better off never giving gamers what gamers ask for, as that never seems to work out well for them.

 
Richard Kain said:
I always get a little upset when I see this argument. And it's not because I want to defend the Switch, but rather because I insist on defending the Wii U. The Wii U was not "half-baked." It was a fine system with some great ideas and designs that simply didn't get the third-party support it needed to persist in the market. A big part of this was simply Nintendo mis-reading the market, and coming out with the wrong system at the wrong time. But the Wii U's lack of financial success was not due to poor system quality or lack of quality games. I strongly suspect that a lot of people are going to begin realizing this in the next few years, and the Wii U is going to become a popular system with collectors. I'm seeing a lot of parallels with the GameCube, which dealt with a lot of the same issues. (and had people voicing a lot of the same complaints)
Click to expand...
I bought a Wii U just last year, so I'm in no way against it as a system, as I bought one after the fact. As for the system they intended, I have no idea what they planned, all I saw was what was offered. The tablet was the major selling point of the device(and most of the cost), and I'm sorry, but it was mostly useless. Off screen play was a major selling point to me, and it rarely was used, as many games still require the TV. What games by "N" even made use of it outside of a dual screen past a map or quick menu? Not many!

The proof of what they had planned was in what we got, and that wasn't much. The one game I would have loved to have played as intended was BotW, as it was designed around the tablet. But of course, we all know what happened there, so the Wii U crowd got a lesser game so they could sell more to the NS crowd. That was complete and utter BS, but it's what they do, and was of ZERO surprise to me when they did it, just past history repeating itself.

The Wii U launched with way more AAA 3rd party support than the NS did, as there was tons of games at the Wii U launch that covered many genres and many fan bases(one of the most well rounded launches in the history of gaming for the record). The well went dry after developers saw no one wanted the system. "N" tried to cash in with the "Wii" crowd, and really had no ideas or solid plans on how or why the tablet was needed. The buying public saw it for what is was, and expensive experiment that they didn't want to pay $300+ for. They finally offered SF Zero near the end of the systems life, to show what was possible, but where where the 5 years previous of games showing what the tablet was about? There was none, as "N" NEVER had any plans past the gimmick of it all.

It's apparent you have your thoughts on why the Wii U failed, but I also have mine, and it 100% falls at "N" feet, as the Wii U was in no way friendly to 3rd parties, and "N" themselves made very little use of the tablet. Without the tablet, the console could have had beefier specs, and been cheaper and may have done better. But it was another system design on what "N" wanted it to be, with little to no thoughts of others using it, and they got burned. The same things happened with the N64 & the GC, as they built devices they thought would be relevant in the industry, and they couldn't have been more wrong. The NS is many steps in the right directions, but even here all I see is more "half baked" as the system is no longer new, and still has no set plans for many things, or past catalogs of games, which in all honesty should be their bread & butter, and it's an after thought at best.

 
chrislaustin said:
Yeah, it's all good, as me and nightc1 have some good debates from time to time, and I just wanted to show that just because something is of an equal value dollar wise to something else, doesn't in any way mean it is of the same level of interest.
Click to expand...
Lol I actually appreciated his input on the topic, too. I wasn't trying to take a swipe at him or anyone else in particular, although reading it again I can see how it could be taken that way. Just my general philosophy about basically everything.

 
chrislaustin said:
as the Wii U was in no way friendly to 3rd parties, and "N" themselves made very little use of the tablet. Without the tablet, the console could have had beefier specs, and been cheaper and may have done better. But it was another system design on what "N" wanted it to be, with little to no thoughts of others using it, and they got burned. The same things happened with the N64 & the GC, as they built devices they thought would be relevant in the industry, and they couldn't have been more wrong.
Click to expand...
The Wii U was actually the MOST friendly Nintendo console where the average 3rd party developer was concerned. That's why we saw so much 3rd-party support at launch, which you yourself just pointed out. While most of Nintendo's previous systems had featured non-standard controllers, the Wii U's gamepad featured controls that were virtually identical to all other modern consoles. Two analog sticks, a d-pad, four face buttons, two shoulder buttons, and two analog triggers. Everything a growing console needs. For the first time in a while, developers could target a Nintendo system without having to worry about switching up their button mapping. And as the Wii U had comparable power to the PS3 and Xbox 360, porting existing software over was relatively easy. None of that was actually a problem. This was all a big change from the much different control mapping of the Wii.

Even the Gamepad itself wasn't a problem. It was entirely optional for developers, and while some of them used it effectively, many others just used it for tacked-on mini-maps. A lot of them just used it for off-TV play. (a popular feature that many users appreciated)

Every time Nintendo tries to go the conventional route, they lose ground. When they go that route, they frequently design good systems, systems that are often remembered very fondly after the fact. The SNES sold less than the NES. (in no small part thanks to competition from Sega of America) The N64 and GameCube were a continuous progression of becoming more like the rest of consoles at the time. And both sold worse and worse for Nintendo. The Wii switched things up, and sold like gangbusters. The Wii U was a return to the conventional, and tanked. When Nintendo attempts to emulate the trends that you seem interested in, they pay for it. When they shift away from conventional wisdom and do their own thing, they succeed. The historical precedent is clear.

You may not like how they handle things, and particularly how they've approached the Switch. But it's undeniable that it is working out well for them. The Switch has already outsold the Wii U. It is gaining ground, both in its financials as well as mindshare. You can personally not care for the Switch all you want. But don't try to convince me it's not the direction that Nintendo should have taken. Clearly something is working.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Richard Kain said:
Every time Nintendo tries to go the conventional route, they lose ground. When they go that route, they frequently design good systems, systems that are often remembered very fondly after the fact. The SNES sold less than the NES. (in no small part thanks to competition from Sega of America) The N64 and GameCube were a continuous progression of becoming more like the rest of consoles at the time. And both sold worse and worse for Nintendo. The Wii switched things up, and sold like gangbusters. The Wii U was a return to the conventional, and tanked. When Nintendo attempts to emulate the trends that you seem interested in, they pay for it. When they shift away from conventional wisdom and do their own thing, they succeed. The historical precedent is clear.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t going to join in the debate on this one but this part of your argument is missing critical evidence that kind of negates itself.

The N64 was in no way an attempt to step in line with other consoles at the time. Remember it was cartridge based which resulted in crippling its power and memory limits. This coupled with their strict limitations on what content was allowed to be released on the N64 were two of the primary factors in the majority of 3rd parties going PS exclusive. This hubris unfortunately was not forgotten easily and most of the 3rd parties refused to support the Gamecube and when it didn’t do astoundingly well they had no reason to change their decision.

When Nintendo falters it’s usually their own fault.

Also, I just want to say that success can be defined in more than one way when it comes to video games. Last I saw the Wii had the worst attach rate of any console ever (at least ‘main stream’ ones) which tells us that the majority of users bought the device and never bought another game for it. This is a CRITICAL statistic as third parties may have seen these figures and decided to again abandon Nintendo for greener pastures. After all, the Switch 3rd party support really wasn’t there at launch if memory serves.

Semi-sidebar: To me the Vita is a better handheld (I could go into depth but I have multiple times before so I won’t unless asked about it at this point)but if you’ve read my comments anywhere you’d know that already. Lol
 
Richard Kain said:
You may not like how they handle things, and particularly how they've approached the Switch. But it's undeniable that it is working out well for them. The Switch has already outsold the Wii U. It is gaining ground, both in its financials as well as mindshare. You can personally not care for the Switch all you want. But don't try to convince me it's not the direction that Nintendo should have taken. Clearly something is working.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm not trying to convince you, as I honestly don't know what they should have done, as they really do most things in a bubble and trying to figure that out is a fools errand at best. LOL. The NS is beyond successful and I've admitted here more than once, that it did 10x better than I ever thought it would. It even defies logic to me today, as it's really nothing there(IMO), it's like the emperors new clothes.

Yeah, each home console after the NES as you stated did in fact sell less than each previous up until the Wii, but that console wasn't built out of some need for something different, but how they could use the past generations hardware and do something new with old tech they already knew and had developed. They had pretty much underperformed 2 times, and couldn't afford to build a new system from scratch, that would compete with Sony & MS, so they went with what they could. A reworked system, just like they rework games now.

The Wii U returned to the exact pattern of all other consoles, as it was destined to do. If "N" had any ideas that where great, the Wii U would have been the success the Wii was, or at least something close. Great companies don't go from 100+ million in sales, to less than 15 million when they know what their doing, "N" clearly has no clue. The NS while having success, isn't because of some great killer library, which it should have, as they combined portable and console R&D years ago, and I see no fruits of that labor on the NS.

The NS should have a new 1st party retail game every 3-6 months, based on how long this system was being worked on before it was released. In my opinion, all they concerned themselves with was the hardware(and gimmick games to sell said hardware, 1 2 Switch and Arms), as the "switch" is the new gimmick, and it's working, but where are the original and new games? At the very least, they should have annual sells in the billions based on past games alone, and they are dishing up $8 Donkey Kong and Punch-Out, yeah, these guys are for sure a force to behold(clueless as ever).

Of course handhelds have been their best on going successes, and I put that high on the list of why the NS is doing well(as it's part portable), but it's still over priced to tap into the grand audience of the DS/2DS/3DS systems, but that's a discussion for another day clearly.

 
https://twitter.com/LimitedRunGames/status/1037102285460070406

Very cool CE, but I'm not particularly interested in collecting for the Switch. Also kind of suspicious about the S&S release this week; it's one of their biggest releases and they haven't promoted at all (as far as I've seen) recently.

 
Chrono Gear said:
The N64 was in no way an attempt to step in line with other consoles at the time. Remember it was cartridge based which resulted in crippling its power and memory limits.
Click to expand...
That's true. But it's also true that at the time, cartridges were still the standard approach to successful game consoles. Nintendo's decision to stick with cartridges was partially influenced by what had happened to most of their competitors who had switched over to CDs. And you can't really blame them. Adding CD support didn't exactly work out for 3DO, or Philips, or Sega, or the TurboGrafx, or Atari. People like to point at the PlayStation and claim that Nintendo screwed up. And let's be honest, Nintendo did screw up by avoiding CDs. But let's also remember that the decision to stick to cartridges happened before the PS1 came out. And that Sony was the first company to truly make CDs work in the video game industry. (after SO many others had failed)

Also, it's worth noting that the CD format had nothing to do with power. It's well established that the N64 had considerably more processing power than the PlayStation, and could handle 3D graphics that the PS1 never could. It's cartridge format actually gave it an edge in this area. The CD format gave the PS1 an edge in pre-rendered video, audio playback, and significantly greater texture memory. (as well as greater memory capacity in general) But it's biggest advantage had nothing to do with performance. PS1 CDs were cheap to produce, and Sony made certain that they were much cheaper to license. This was extremely good for developers, publishers, and ultimately consumers.

And aside from the cartridges, the N64 was very much a conventional system of its time, only more powerful. It's analog stick was it's biggest addition to it's control scheme, a feature that most of its competitors swiftly adopted. But even that was an incremental and optional improvement, with a prominently featured D-pad on the controller.

The GameCube was even more conventional, finally adopting an optical media format, and providing a controller much more in line with its competitors. (even if it did have a slightly atypical button layout) This was the apparent from the number of cross-platform ports that the GameCube received. (and the increasing prevalence of cross-platform ports in general)

 
Tothoro said:
Very cool CE, but I'm not particularly interested in collecting for the Switch. Also kind of suspicious about the S&S release this week; it's one of their biggest releases and they haven't promoted at all (as far as I've seen) recently.
Click to expand...
Well, along side the standard release, this seems the better buy(which I'm sure was the game plan all along). LOL

Yeah, if I was going to buy this, the CE would for sure be the way to go, as you get some decent items for an extra $25. By comparison, this makes the standard look even worse than it was before, but oh well. Maybe they should have an open preorder on the CE, as I for sure see this title having more drawing power than the standard edition even if it's not "limited".

 
Looking great, definitely adding that CE to my ever growing Switch collection.  Love this thing.  I hope the box is the same size as an N64 box...so that my protective cases will fit it.

 
SW4J said:
Looking great, definitely adding that CE to my ever growing Switch collection. Love this thing. I hope the box is the same size as an N64 box...so that my protective cases will fit it.
Click to expand...
In their tweets, they state it's the exact dimensions of the N64 box, so you should be good. They also state it's made from the same materials, with the same finish, so for those who have N64 games left in their collection, it's supposed to fit in like any other N64 offering.

 
I’m surprised considering all the discussion about the Wii U that you’ve missed the bulls-eye on why it really tanked: one of the worst marketing blunders in corporate history. They made a console that looked very much like their previous one in color and size and then they gave it a name that was nearly identical. For all most of those 100 million folks who bought a Wii knew Nintendo was trying to sell them an accessory for their existing console for $300.
 
TuscaloosaJohnny said:
I’m surprised considering all the discussion about the Wii U that you’ve missed the bulls-eye on why it really tanked: one of the worst marketing blunders in corporate history. They made a console that looked very much like their previous one in color and size and then they gave it a name that was nearly identical. For all most of those 100 million folks who bought a Wii knew Nintendo was trying to sell them an accessory for their existing console for $300.
Click to expand...
I was going to chime in with a similar statement...the Wii U confused the hell out of people, primarily the casuals who make up a big part of the customer base. The soccer Moms buying the console for their kids and the novelty gamers who just want to have something in the house to show off to guests every couple months. I think a lot of people assumed it was some kind of extension or attachment to the Wii and just kind of dismissed it from the start, and giving it a name similar to the Wii was also a bad choice when you consider the fact that the Wii didn't really do too well the last few years of it's lifespan, having a really low attach rate and most casuals having dismissed it after getting their fill of Wii sports and Wii Fit. It made sense on paper to piggyback the name off of a console that had sold so well, but the conditions for marketing it well just weren't there.

 
This reminds me of all the "Wii was the biggest selling, most successful console blah blah blah" talk from the previous decade when all Wii really did was make a lot of money for Nintendo by selling overpriced plastic.  It was not a core gaming machine.   Gamers didn't game on them.  People who bought them didn't buy any additional games, and definitely not any 3rd party ones.  It let grandma play bowling and step on a stair.  Wii was nothing but an extended casual fad during a time just before gaming became mainstream and somewhat socially acceptable.  It's nearly impossible to go back to playing one as well, because the graphics are atrocious.  

The sad thing is that the Wii U was the proper gaming machine that players wanted all along; it had 1080p resolution and people finally got to play Mario and company in true HD. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
TuscaloosaJohnny said:
I’m surprised considering all the discussion about the Wii U that you’ve missed the bulls-eye on why it really tanked: one of the worst marketing blunders in corporate history. They made a console that looked very much like their previous one in color and size and then they gave it a name that was nearly identical. For all most of those 100 million folks who bought a Wii knew Nintendo was trying to sell them an accessory for their existing console for $300.
Click to expand...
Yeah, this was very much a given(but the truth is very much lost on some), as I partly alluded to it in my statements about them just trying to cash in on the Wii, with no real idea on what the Wii U should have been(or any level of focus making it happen). All they really came up with was the name, and little else, as they thought that same casual crowd was going to jump in head first, when that same casual market hadn't touched their Wii's in years. They also looked at the DS and it's success, and thought why not dual screens for a console? Not really looking past the point of having to look back & forth at 2 separate screens was not ideal for most, if any for that matter.

EDIT: Like I said, the off screen play was one of it's best feature, to only have most games still require the TV. With the NS, they got this most important feature right, as it works now as it should have back then.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm actually shocked at how good of a job they did on the Switch, and how well everything worked out after the completely wrong and crossed signals Nintendo received through the consumer reception from their previous two consoles. 

It IS all about having great games, and you DO need the hardcore gaming demographic.  They are your foundation and the cornerstone for your success.  Lessons I'm surprised they learned from the backwards nature of their previous two console cycles. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing371 said:
I'm actually shocked at how good of a job they did on the Switch, and how well everything worked out after the completely wrong and crossed signals Nintendo received through the consumer reception from their previous two consoles.

It IS all about having great games, and you DO need the hardcore gaming demographic. They are your foundation and the cornerstone for your success. Lessons I'm surprised they learned from the backwards nature of their previous two console cycles.
Click to expand...
Yeah I'm actually shocked as well. On paper the Switch seemed like a perfect idea but with Nintendo involved I was skeptical up through launch. I did get Zelda BotW (during prime 20% discount window) once I realized that this system would be worth it and I had to play that game. Thank goodness I didn't sleep on it either...

Best games I've played in the last 10 years... Xenoblade Chronicles 2, Super Mario Odyssey, and though not system exclusive, the nintendo exclusive Zelda Breath of the Wild. I really loved ARMS as well, though I wouldn't put it in my top 50 of games... where as Xenoblade and BotW definitely are top 10 all time favorite games and Odyssey is certainly in my top 25. It was the best 3D mario game (IMO) since Sunshine (which I 100%'ed that). I'd be hard pressed to decide which of those two I loved the most.

 
Alright, time for two unpopular opinions:
1. The N64 is horribly overrated, and is only well-regarded now because people remember playing Smash, Mario Kart and Goldeneye with their friends back in the day. Most of these people haven't actually fired up a 64 in a decade or two, because if they had they'd realize what a pain it is to use that awful controller and how clunky and awkward the early 3D era controls are. There are a handful of great games on the system, but that's about it.
2. The Wii is actually underrated, since most people wrote it off immediately as gimmicky without actually digging into the library. Beyond the mountains of wiggle-waggle shovelware garbage that everyone remembers, there are several true gems to be found--especially you stay open minded about the motion controls. I know most of the time they're unwieldy and pointless, but there are many games that manage to get them right, too.
Anyway, just my thoughts. If you're in love with that blank Yooka Laylee N64 cart, don't let me stop you!
 
To give the Wii some credit, it became an amazing rail/gallery shooter machine. House of the Dead, Sin and punishment, the RE Chronicles games, and several others work excellently with the Wiimotes and when I do find myself wanting to go back to the Wii (which is rare) these are the games I want to play. Grabbing a couple wiimotes with a buddy, drinking some beers and shooting up zombies in co-op is a pretty fun time and the fact that none of the newer consoles have these rail shooters (except for a couple on PSVR) make the Wii the definitive place to go to play these arcade style games. Really wish we could get a new Time Crisis or HOTD with a Bluetooth guncon for the PS4 or XB1. But rail shooters seem to have fallen out of popularity.  

 
Equippt said:
The N64 is horribly overrated, and is only well-regarded now because people remember playing Smash, Mario Kart and Goldeneye with their friends back in the day. Most of these people haven't actually fired up a 64 in a decade or two, because if they had they'd realize what a pain it is to use that awful controller and how clunky and awkward the early 3D era controls are. There are a handful of great games on the system
Click to expand...
I mostly agree. I fired mine up a few months ago and trying to play Turok was a horrendous experience. Mario64 wasn't bad though. The nostalgia for the N64 is crazy though. I guess all the kids that had it as their 1st system are adults now though so they are lining up to defend it in a manner that those of us who grew up with the NES would.

 
The N64 is insanely overrated.  Like the Gamecube it only had a handful of great games, yet it's highly regarded by all the Nintendo lunatics.  It was probably the most shitty period of gaming.  Why do you think most people migrated over to the Playstation?

"The N64 was great,"......because that's what I played when I was a kid. Oh, okay.  That's some solid reasoning there.

You get the same rationale from the Gamecube people.  "omg the Gamecube was the best system ever!"  Why is that?  oh it's because you were 10 and you had one.  That's it.  Got it. 

Nobody plays N64 games today.   Because they didn't age well.   It was a very awkward time in gaming since EVERYTHING attempted to have 3D world exploration, and convert 2D games to 3D.  They were shitty games by and large.  Luigi's Mansion and Mario Sunshine are you kidding me?  No one gave a shit about those games and they were probably the worst incarnations of Mario during any Nintendo cycle to date.  It's hardly subjective either. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nothing371 said:
"The N64 was great,"......because that's what I played when I was a kid. Oh, okay. That's some solid reasoning there.

You get the same rationale from the Gamecube people. "omg the Gamecube was the best system ever!" Why is that? oh it's because you were 10 and you had one. That's it. Got it.
Click to expand...
Those two sentences more or less sum up the ultimate result of console war style arguments. They may start off with some rational points but usually devolve into a nostalgia driven shitshow in which emotions get too involved and people start admitting that they feel whatever console they are arguing for is great just because they had it as a kid. I think in the case of Nintendo, the nostalgia is stronger and more blinding to logic because the company has been around the longest and is/was a bigger household name. At some point it becomes a "How dare you insult Link or Mario" instead of looking at Nintendo as a business that wants your money more than anything else, just like Sony, Sega, or Microsoft.

 
Nothing371 said:
The N64 is insanely overrated. Like the Gamecube it only had a handful of great games, yet it's highly regarded by all the Nintendo lunatics. It was probably the most shitty period of gaming. Why do you think most people migrated over to the Playstation?

"The N64 was great,"......because that's what I played when I was a kid. Oh, okay. That's some solid reasoning there.

You get the same rationale from the Gamecube people. "omg the Gamecube was the best system ever!" Why is that? oh it's because you were 10 and you had one. That's it. Got it.

Nobody plays N64 games today. Because they didn't age well. It was a very awkward time in gaming since EVERYTHING attempted to have 3D world exploration, and convert 2D games to 3D. They were shitty games by and large. Luigi's Mansion and Mario Sunshine are you kidding me? No one gave a shit about those games and they were probably the worst incarnations of Mario during any Nintendo cycle to date. It's hardly subjective either.
Click to expand...
Let's also not forget Nintendo's most awkward and unusable controller ever, terrible frame rates (OoT on N64 is unplayable in my opinion), an extremely limited overall library (especially when compared to their competition: the PS1), and extremely bloated prices--even when the games were new and readily available. The N64 has very little to offer outside of nostalgia. That's not to say it has nothing to offer, but just definitely not very much.

 
While I loved the PS1, I also liked N64 quite a bit. I loved the platformers such as Banjo and even Donkey Kong 64. 3D platformers where its forte for sure. It sucked horribly for RPGs, which is why I got the PSOne later. Not a terrible system by far, but a good one nonetheless.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top