That Friday Feeling - UK Video Game Releases (03/03/17)

Aside from the new Zelda game, that Switch lineup is piss poor to say the least,.

Even if I could actually manage to use it I probably wouldn't bother getting one at launch as there's literally nothing else worth buying.

That depends on if you've played the ports before or not. From experience FAST is definitely worth buying, and the general consensus appears to be that Shovel Knight and I am Setsuna are too.

But they're nearly all lower budget indie releases, available cheaper elsewhere, World of Goo for example is admittedly a great game but it was available years ago on the original Wii and PC, its hardly showcasing the technical capabilities of a brand new console. The only games even remotely doing that are the new Zelda and Fast RMX and only one of those is a totally new game from a recognisable Nintendo IP.

Just because games have been available previously on other formats it doesn't automatically mean everyone that's buying the console has played them. I hate that analogy.

Is it even possible to get a Switch on launch if you haven't pre-ordered it? I sort of want it but only for Zelda.

Pretty sure you'll be able to walk into a shop and buy one. Pre-orders haven't even sold out over here.

Blue Eyes wrote:Is it even possible to get a Switch on launch if you haven't pre-ordered it? I sort of want it but only for Zelda.

Amazon still have the grey one in stock but the neon was sold out last time I looked. You'd probably be able to get one at launch from places like Argos or John Lewis.

Mafro wrote:

Blue Eyes wrote:Is it even possible to get a Switch on launch if you haven't pre-ordered it? I sort of want it but only for Zelda.

Amazon still have the grey one in stock but the neon was sold out last time I looked. You'd probably be able to get one at launch from places like Argos or John Lewis.

Cool, thanks. I think I'll leave it for a while anyway.

Mafro wrote:Just because games have been available previously on other formats it doesn't automatically mean everyone that's buying the console has played them. I hate that analogy.

They're hardly system sellers though, the only recognisable Nintendo game is the new Zelda, there's literally no other big name Developers or Publishers with brand new games available at launch.

I really can't see the Switch being successful for Nintendo if this is the best they can come up with.

Christmas is the real launch, and we already know Nintendo will have a lot more then

Ironhide wrote:

Mafro wrote:Just because games have been available previously on other formats it doesn't automatically mean everyone that's buying the console has played them. I hate that analogy.

They're hardly system sellers though, the only recognisable Nintendo game is the new Zelda, there's literally no other big name Developers or Publishers with brand new games available at launch.

I really can't see the Switch being successful for Nintendo if this is the best they can come up with.

If only Nintendo were releasing games for it other than Zelda.

Mafro wrote:

Ironhide wrote:

Mafro wrote:Just because games have been available previously on other formats it doesn't automatically mean everyone that's buying the console has played them. I hate that analogy.

They're hardly system sellers though, the only recognisable Nintendo game is the new Zelda, there's literally no other big name Developers or Publishers with brand new games available at launch.

I really can't see the Switch being successful for Nintendo if this is the best they can come up with.

If only Nintendo were releasing games for it other than Zelda.

Yes but Nintendo seem to think a new Mario, Zelda or Smash bros game ever 3 years (if they're feeling generous) is enough to keep buyers happy, no console has ever sold well without adequate 3rd party support and the lack of big name developers with launch games is fairly worrying.

Ironhide wrote:

Mafro wrote:

Ironhide wrote:

Mafro wrote:Just because games have been available previously on other formats it doesn't automatically mean everyone that's buying the console has played them. I hate that analogy.

They're hardly system sellers though, the only recognisable Nintendo game is the new Zelda, there's literally no other big name Developers or Publishers with brand new games available at launch.

I really can't see the Switch being successful for Nintendo if this is the best they can come up with.

If only Nintendo were releasing games for it other than Zelda.

You imply that's all Nintendo are releasing this year, yet they'll also have Splatoon 2, Arms and Mario Kart 8: Deluxe by the end of Summer. Not to mention Fire Emblem: Heroes and Xenoblade Chronicles 2 later in the year.

I'm bored of hearing the tired old argument that Nintendo need major third party support to be successful. The Gamecube had substantial third party support for much of its life yet it couldn't compete sales wise with the Xbox or PS2, whilst the Wii had comparatively poor third party support and sales (outside of party game type shovelware) yet it sold by the absolute bucket load.

People aren't buying a Nintendo console to play the same games they can get on the PS4 and Xbox One and even if Nintendo had released a system with feature/power parity to PS4 Pro they would still be looking at their own software as the main selling point for the system.

The wii had a ton of good third party support. Games like No More Heroes, Red Steel, Resident Evil, Okami, Monster Hunter, Zack & Wiki, Little King's Story.

OrangeRakoon wrote:The wii had a ton of good third party support. Games like No More Heroes, Red Steel, Resident Evil, Okami, Monster Hunter, Zack & Wiki, Little King's Story.

I'd say with the exception of Resident Evil and Monster Hunter (in Japan) they all fall far closer in profile to the Switch's low key titles like Super Bomberman R, Fast RMX and Shovel Knight than they do the so called AAA titles.

Also many of those games were spin offs or ports of previous gen titles, obviously a part of that was down to power. The Gamecube for the first couple of years had the majority of the same third party releases as the other systems. So comparatively I would say it was worse, yes.

Yeah to be fair they are not what sold the console, but there are great third party games there. It was more a case of the console being successful which brought the third party games rather than the other way round.

Red Steel was a definite attempt at a AAA title. Games like No More Heroes showed that the wii was worthy of attention from core gamers outside of Nintendo's fare.

For me I want a console that offers the majority of third party games out there and great exclusives, otherwise I feel like I could be missing out.

GameCube was my favourite Nintendo because of this and the last Nintendo home console I ever bought.

OrangeRakoon wrote:Yeah to be fair they are not what sold the console, but there are great third party games there. It was more a case of the console being successful which brought the third party games rather than the other way round.

Red Steel was a definite attempt at a AAA title. Games like No More Heroes showed that the wii was worthy of attention from core gamers outside of Nintendo's fare.

I see what you're saying, I think the point I was trying to get across was that the Gamecube got games that appeared on other systems and had performance parity with them. You're right though, the Wii on the other hand got some excellent, original third party titles.

We haven't seen much of that yet but I think that's largely because developers were so stung by the Wii U and are reluctant to commit to Switch just yet. If the Switch takes off that will change and I think Nintendo's own first year line up is looking strong enough that it can make that happen.

The examples you brought up are all great examples and I think they highlight the kind of games third parties need to put on the Switch. Unique titles which appeal to the owners of the system.

The Wii U had loads of third party support at launch but they were almost all shoddy ports of games that were better on older systems which most Wii u owners also owned so it was no great surprise that they didn't sell.

Ironhide wrote:

Mafro wrote:

Ironhide wrote:

Mafro wrote:Just because games have been available previously on other formats it doesn't automatically mean everyone that's buying the console has played them. I hate that analogy.

They're hardly system sellers though, the only recognisable Nintendo game is the new Zelda, there's literally no other big name Developers or Publishers with brand new games available at launch.

I really can't see the Switch being successful for Nintendo if this is the best they can come up with.

If only Nintendo were releasing games for it other than Zelda.

Yes but Nintendo seem to think a new Mario, Zelda or Smash bros game ever 3 years (if they're feeling generous) is enough to keep buyers happy, no console has ever sold well without adequate 3rd party support and the lack of big name developers with launch games is fairly worrying.

A combination of 3DS releases and Wii U ones make a more compelling reason to a Switch now that Nintendo are focussing on one console - the amount of releases for the Wii U was relatively poor (although I still think it was very underrated).