[Nintendo Switch] Unironically, probably the best console you’ll ever own.

1808183858689

Posts

  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    The major game sites can't rate the games poorly because "Nintendo is just reselling ROMs in a nakedly anti-consumer way" because their user base would flip out as they do whenever the beautiful purity of a Nintendo release is questioned for any reason. The only match for the backwards business methods of Nintendo at times is their fans rabid desire to do free PR work for them.

    This seems presumptuous of the purpose of the review, and assumptive of what the reviewer's thought process must be. Like, "we all know what these reviewers REALLY want to say but they're being STIFLED by their fan base!!" How do we know their thoughts? Maybe they like the overall package? Kind of conspiracy theorish, in an age when we really need as few of those as possible.

    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
    MulletudeHandsome Costanza
  • Linespider5Linespider5 ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGER Registered User regular
    The major game sites can't rate the games poorly because "Nintendo is just reselling ROMs in a nakedly anti-consumer way" because their user base would flip out as they do whenever the beautiful purity of a Nintendo release is questioned for any reason. The only match for the backwards business methods of Nintendo at times is their fans rabid desire to do free PR work for them.

    That is an interesting position: Should the distribution method of a title factor into its review? Like, if Nintendo was selling 3D All Stars for $120 or you could only get it as part of a limited edition Switch bundle (which, let’s be honest, in a world where the Switch was selling poorly and lacked a solid catalogue they may well have done), should that reframe the merits of the game itself?

    I have no idea, but I do think that game reviews in general would probably be better served to reflect on the information surrounding a game’s development and release. Limited edition re-releases are hardly egregious (there are companies who’s whole business model is putting out re-releases in small batches) compared to delving into, say, a developer’s forced crunch time, employment of questionable individuals that make an unsafe work environment, or publishers that may be supporting unacceptable business practices or legislation through their action or inaction. I think there’s room for that in the launch discussion of a game, as opposed to how tight the graphics really were on level 3.

    I’ll still be very interested to see if there’s a significant presence online of people who care about the limited release window of All-Stars come March of 2021. Hell, I’ll be interested if this still gets brought up in November. We are a people inundated with baubles, particularly at a year’s end. This too shall pass.

  • shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    cloudeagle wrote: »
    The major game sites can't rate the games poorly because "Nintendo is just reselling ROMs in a nakedly anti-consumer way" because their user base would flip out as they do whenever the beautiful purity of a Nintendo release is questioned for any reason. The only match for the backwards business methods of Nintendo at times is their fans rabid desire to do free PR work for them.

    Besides the fact that this isn't how game sites work, how is this anti-consumer?

    How is selling the three games with less work done than fan projects available for free at $60 anti-consumer? The limited time offer for the physical copy making it impossible to pre-order is one way. The limited time offer on the digital copy being literally insane is the other way.
    With a massive reverse engineering effort due to not having source code, fans made a port of Mario 64 to PCs and various homebrew consoles that has been upgraded to 60 FPS, widescreen, analog camera control, and at least few improved models. That is what makes Nintendo's efforts look so paltry.

    I'm not a fan of basing any judgement on the fact that certain obsessives sometimes do a better job for free. We would be here all day, condemning nearly any artistic endeavor for not doing it as good as the homebrewers. Modders had better base building mods for Fallout before Fallout 4's implementation. Modders do bigger and better expansions than some officially sold expansions. People write the rare fanfic better than the core fiction. People write scripts better than multimillion dollar movies. Translators lovingly translate games that are never officially released in english, when the translation is sitting right there, ready to go. Fan wikis always contain more accurate info than game guides sold in the store.

    You will always find somebody willing to do it for free and better. Sometimes the Christian Whiteheads and Elianoras get hired in a more official capacity, but it's rare.

    In almost all of those cases, the creators of the official work SHOULD be shamed, though? Sonic 4 is laughable trash compared to Sonic Mania, and Sega clearly realized that when they hired the guy to make their game. Fallout has gone off a quality cliff and the fact that the mods are higher quality than the newest official release is basically just a symptom of that. Etc etc.

    rahkeesh2000Stormwatcher
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    The major game sites can't rate the games poorly because "Nintendo is just reselling ROMs in a nakedly anti-consumer way" because their user base would flip out as they do whenever the beautiful purity of a Nintendo release is questioned for any reason. The only match for the backwards business methods of Nintendo at times is their fans rabid desire to do free PR work for them.

    That is an interesting position: Should the distribution method of a title factor into its review? Like, if Nintendo was selling 3D All Stars for $120 or you could only get it as part of a limited edition Switch bundle (which, let’s be honest, in a world where the Switch was selling poorly and lacked a solid catalogue they may well have done), should that reframe the merits of the game itself?

    I have no idea, but I do think that game reviews in general would probably be better served to reflect on the information surrounding a game’s development and release. Limited edition re-releases are hardly egregious (there are companies who’s whole business model is putting out re-releases in small batches) compared to delving into, say, a developer’s forced crunch time, employment of questionable individuals that make an unsafe work environment, or publishers that may be supporting unacceptable business practices or legislation through their action or inaction. I think there’s room for that in the launch discussion of a game, as opposed to how tight the graphics really were on level 3.

    I’ll still be very interested to see if there’s a significant presence online of people who care about the limited release window of All-Stars come March of 2021. Hell, I’ll be interested if this still gets brought up in November. We are a people inundated with baubles, particularly at a year’s end. This too shall pass.

    Yeah, I was thinking about this too. If the status of a game as a rerelease means you knock a few points off, then does the status of a game as new mean you're essentially adding points for being new?

    Like someday in the near future, looking at the pros and cons section of a game review, "the game is brand new and is not a re-release and has received an extra point in recognition for that."

    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
    LBD_Nytetrayn
  • NamrokNamrok Registered User regular
    The major game sites can't rate the games poorly because "Nintendo is just reselling ROMs in a nakedly anti-consumer way" because their user base would flip out as they do whenever the beautiful purity of a Nintendo release is questioned for any reason. The only match for the backwards business methods of Nintendo at times is their fans rabid desire to do free PR work for them.

    Man, as much as I'd like to just be able to buy a console game once, and have it run on new hardware for all time, it just doesn't work that way. I mean sometimes we get lucky, and hardware architecture stays roughly the same. Like how the Wii could play Gamecube games, and then the Wii-U could play Wii games. Other times, it's more purposeful, like how the early PS3's literally included the PS2 chips in them for backwards compatibility.

    But sadly, even being in an era where it seems like every game that was even moderately successful is being re-released, a lot is being left to rot on the side of the road. Fact of the matter is, if a company can't get a second, third, or even fourth bite of the apple, they don't bother making their old games available. And that's assuming companies can even get their act together about who owns what.

    Pirates will make it all available, of course. An interesting fact I picked up reading blogs about the history of 8-bit computing and the software that ran on them, is that much of their libraries are only still available today thanks to piracy. Of course, even outside of the legal issues, piracy carries it's own risk. Especially in this day and age, you're exposing yourself to enormous security risks attempting to traffic in pirated software from dubious sources.

    So yeah, as much as it might annoy people "having" to pay $60 to play 3 Mario games they already bought a decade or more ago on systems they no longer own, or can be bothered to dig out of storage, it incentives Nintendo to be responsible stewards of their older IP. Which I'm a huge fan of.

  • Brainiac 8Brainiac 8 Don't call me Shirley... Registered User regular
    The major game sites can't rate the games poorly because "Nintendo is just reselling ROMs in a nakedly anti-consumer way" because their user base would flip out as they do whenever the beautiful purity of a Nintendo release is questioned for any reason. The only match for the backwards business methods of Nintendo at times is their fans rabid desire to do free PR work for them.

    I don't know, porting three of the best Mario games over in a collection for 60 bucks seems like a fine deal for me. Twenty bucks per game is a phenomenal deal considering how much game is crammed into each one. Not to mention this is the first time Sunshine is not stuck on the Gamecube.

    I understand some people wanted them to basically redo some of these from scratch, but providing a collection of games of this caliber is such an awesome move and something that is usually so not-nintendo. Even without the small touches they did on these, this trio of games is completely worth the price tag imo.

    Also not anti-consumer. That is a term that I wish was used less as it's kind of lost its meaning.

    3DS Friend Code - 1032-1293-2997
    Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
    PSN - Brainiac_8
    Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
    Add me!
    Custom SpecialUncleSporkyskeldareFuzzy Cumulonimbus CloudYoungFrey
  • Linespider5Linespider5 ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGER Registered User regular
    The major game sites can't rate the games poorly because "Nintendo is just reselling ROMs in a nakedly anti-consumer way" because their user base would flip out as they do whenever the beautiful purity of a Nintendo release is questioned for any reason. The only match for the backwards business methods of Nintendo at times is their fans rabid desire to do free PR work for them.

    That is an interesting position: Should the distribution method of a title factor into its review? Like, if Nintendo was selling 3D All Stars for $120 or you could only get it as part of a limited edition Switch bundle (which, let’s be honest, in a world where the Switch was selling poorly and lacked a solid catalogue they may well have done), should that reframe the merits of the game itself?

    I have no idea, but I do think that game reviews in general would probably be better served to reflect on the information surrounding a game’s development and release. Limited edition re-releases are hardly egregious (there are companies who’s whole business model is putting out re-releases in small batches) compared to delving into, say, a developer’s forced crunch time, employment of questionable individuals that make an unsafe work environment, or publishers that may be supporting unacceptable business practices or legislation through their action or inaction. I think there’s room for that in the launch discussion of a game, as opposed to how tight the graphics really were on level 3.

    I’ll still be very interested to see if there’s a significant presence online of people who care about the limited release window of All-Stars come March of 2021. Hell, I’ll be interested if this still gets brought up in November. We are a people inundated with baubles, particularly at a year’s end. This too shall pass.

    Yeah, I was thinking about this too. If the status of a game as a rerelease means you knock a few points off, then does the status of a game as new mean you're essentially adding points for being new?

    Like someday in the near future, looking at the pros and cons section of a game review, "the game is brand new and is not a re-release and has received an extra point in recognition for that."

    I feel like that’s already taking shape as a review factor. Right now it’s been more for underserved genres or franchises, although we might be getting to a poingt where most genres are healthy enough to have solid representation (well, apart from maybe realtime strategy games, but I could be wrong and not know about that).

    Like, I think Pikmin kind of rode on that new IP from Miyamoto wave when it came out, arguing for its pedigree even if the game itself wasn’t an obvious slam dunk for Nintendo fans or other audiences.

    UncleSporky
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    In almost all of those cases, the creators of the official work SHOULD be shamed, though? Sonic 4 is laughable trash compared to Sonic Mania, and Sega clearly realized that when they hired the guy to make their game. Fallout has gone off a quality cliff and the fact that the mods are higher quality than the newest official release is basically just a symptom of that. Etc etc.

    I suppose it's your right to go around angry at the state of all modded/homebrew-enhanced media, I just don't see the point. Things should be enjoyed on their own merits.

    Like suppose no mods had ever been released for Mario 64, and then this release comes along exactly as it is. Does that make it better? Just because nobody else improved it previously?

    Pick a random game...Steamworld Dig. I have no idea whether anyone has modded Steamworld Dig. If there are no mods for it, does that make its Switch rerelease better?

    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
  • NaphtaliNaphtali Null Registered User regular
    Brainiac 8 wrote: »
    Also not anti-consumer. That is a term that I wish was used less as it's kind of lost its meaning.

    The time limited aspect of the release is the anti-consumer part. At the least, the digital version should remain on sale until the Switch Eshop shuts down.

    B.net: Naphtali#1830 | Steam | Nintendo ID: Naphtali | PSN: EI-Naphtali | Wish List
    shoeboxjeddyrahkeesh2000Crippl3MNC DoverBrainiac 8LitanyJazzRehabLBD_Nytetrayn
  • DaringDirkDaringDirk Daddy CEO Oakland, CARegistered User regular
    In almost all of those cases, the creators of the official work SHOULD be shamed, though? Sonic 4 is laughable trash compared to Sonic Mania, and Sega clearly realized that when they hired the guy to make their game. Fallout has gone off a quality cliff and the fact that the mods are higher quality than the newest official release is basically just a symptom of that. Etc etc.

    I suppose it's your right to go around angry at the state of all modded/homebrew-enhanced media, I just don't see the point. Things should be enjoyed on their own merits.

    Like suppose no mods had ever been released for Mario 64, and then this release comes along exactly as it is. Does that make it better? Just because nobody else improved it previously?

    Pick a random game...Steamworld Dig. I have no idea whether anyone has modded Steamworld Dig. If there are no mods for it, does that make its Switch rerelease better?

    Also, keep in mind that Nintendo does consider all the 'fan' work to be illegal. You know, because it is. People have made illegal copies of their properties. They do not see this as a service. They do not see it as legitimate. And from that stance, the modded/homebrew-enhanced media should not exist.

    As a thought exercise, what if Nintendo was just coming from that perspective? And they assume the majority of their audience does not break the law? And, crazy thought, what if they're right? Is it possible that the true core Nintendo audience that the company is after is NOT the obsessed person who will break the law to download ROMs and emulators? Maybe they're making games for kids, or normies.

    camo_sig2.png
  • shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    In almost all of those cases, the creators of the official work SHOULD be shamed, though? Sonic 4 is laughable trash compared to Sonic Mania, and Sega clearly realized that when they hired the guy to make their game. Fallout has gone off a quality cliff and the fact that the mods are higher quality than the newest official release is basically just a symptom of that. Etc etc.

    I suppose it's your right to go around angry at the state of all modded/homebrew-enhanced media, I just don't see the point. Things should be enjoyed on their own merits.

    Like suppose no mods had ever been released for Mario 64, and then this release comes along exactly as it is. Does that make it better? Just because nobody else improved it previously?

    Pick a random game...Steamworld Dig. I have no idea whether anyone has modded Steamworld Dig. If there are no mods for it, does that make its Switch rerelease better?

    One would imagine that there's no reason for Mario 64 to be running in non-widescreen at 30 FPS if no mods existed. The mods merely confirm how ludicrous the situation actually is, in a way that is impossible to argue against.

    rahkeesh2000Crippl3Frem
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    In almost all of those cases, the creators of the official work SHOULD be shamed, though? Sonic 4 is laughable trash compared to Sonic Mania, and Sega clearly realized that when they hired the guy to make their game. Fallout has gone off a quality cliff and the fact that the mods are higher quality than the newest official release is basically just a symptom of that. Etc etc.

    I suppose it's your right to go around angry at the state of all modded/homebrew-enhanced media, I just don't see the point. Things should be enjoyed on their own merits.

    Like suppose no mods had ever been released for Mario 64, and then this release comes along exactly as it is. Does that make it better? Just because nobody else improved it previously?

    Pick a random game...Steamworld Dig. I have no idea whether anyone has modded Steamworld Dig. If there are no mods for it, does that make its Switch rerelease better?

    One would imagine that there's no reason for Mario 64 to be running in non-widescreen at 30 FPS if no mods existed. The mods merely confirm how ludicrous the situation actually is, in a way that is impossible to argue against.

    Correct. This is about judging the work on its own merits or lack thereof, and not what fans have done.

    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
    skeldare
  • cloudeaglecloudeagle Registered User regular
    In almost all of those cases, the creators of the official work SHOULD be shamed, though? Sonic 4 is laughable trash compared to Sonic Mania, and Sega clearly realized that when they hired the guy to make their game. Fallout has gone off a quality cliff and the fact that the mods are higher quality than the newest official release is basically just a symptom of that. Etc etc.

    I suppose it's your right to go around angry at the state of all modded/homebrew-enhanced media, I just don't see the point. Things should be enjoyed on their own merits.

    Like suppose no mods had ever been released for Mario 64, and then this release comes along exactly as it is. Does that make it better? Just because nobody else improved it previously?

    Pick a random game...Steamworld Dig. I have no idea whether anyone has modded Steamworld Dig. If there are no mods for it, does that make its Switch rerelease better?

    One would imagine that there's no reason for Mario 64 to be running in non-widescreen at 30 FPS if no mods existed. The mods merely confirm how ludicrous the situation actually is, in a way that is impossible to argue against.

    Other than the fact that it's Nintendo's game and they can release it however they see fit. It's not like they advertised a bunch of changes to it; we know what we're getting.

    Switch: 3947-4890-9293
    skeldare
  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular
    Naphtali wrote: »
    Brainiac 8 wrote: »
    Also not anti-consumer. That is a term that I wish was used less as it's kind of lost its meaning.

    The time limited aspect of the release is the anti-consumer part. At the least, the digital version should remain on sale until the Switch Eshop shuts down.

    I'm tempted to say even that's not anti-consumer. The word has been misused so bloody much, as a general sub for "I don't like this".

    Your rights as a consumer are not being trampled on.

    In the case of the limited aspect, you're not entitled to buy the game. If somebody wants to stop selling a product, that's not anti-consumer. It's... anti-business (if that's even a word/thing), as in it's ridiculously bad business to refuse to sell something people want. It's a stupid and dumb thing, and ideally you shouldn't do it when your job as a business is "make money" and "please customers so they give you money". But it's not "anti-consumer", or at least not what the word should ideally mean. It should refer to your rights as a consumer, like your right to a refund, or your right to repair. There is no "right to content" though.

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
    PSN: TheWolfman64 3DS/Pokemon Y: 0774-4614-4065/NNID: the_wolfman64
    UncleSporkySageinaRagePailryderBrainiac 8
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    That is an interesting position: Should the distribution method of a title factor into its review? Like, if Nintendo was selling 3D All Stars for $120 or you could only get it as part of a limited edition Switch bundle (which, let’s be honest, in a world where the Switch was selling poorly and lacked a solid catalogue they may well have done), should that reframe the merits of the game itself?

    Reviewers would absolutely reframe things if it cost $120 or $360 + a Switch, as cost has always been a factor.

  • The WolfmanThe Wolfman Registered User regular


    So knowing they're emulated:

    -Mario 64 puts the C buttons on the right stick. There's no reworked freeform camera control, it's exactly like the original.
    -No analog triggers means you just squirt water at full power all the time in Sunshine. I don't think there was any need to otherwise other than you could, so it shouldn't be an issue.
    -The big one, Galaxy. R button recenters the pointer, and you move it with gyro, even with a pro controller. In handheld the touchscreen replaces the pointer. The few big motion control levels still require them, even tilting the system in handheld.

    The big takeaway is that Galaxy controls pretty much like I was hoping/expecting it would with a pro controller. But the game has not been massively reworked, the pointer controls are still required, and the motion control levels still exist. You will be required to move and wiggle something, and if playing handheld, touch the screen. At this point I think you know if that's a problem for you or not.

    "The sausage of Green Earth explodes with flavor like the cannon of culinary delight."
    PSN: TheWolfman64 3DS/Pokemon Y: 0774-4614-4065/NNID: the_wolfman64
  • skeldareskeldare Gresham, ORRegistered User regular
    Naphtali wrote: »
    Brainiac 8 wrote: »
    Also not anti-consumer. That is a term that I wish was used less as it's kind of lost its meaning.

    The time limited aspect of the release is the anti-consumer part. At the least, the digital version should remain on sale until the Switch Eshop shuts down.

    We don't even know what they'll do after that date. For all we know, they'll release them all separately at like $15 - $20 apiece.

    Nintendo Console Codes
    Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
    PM Me if you add me!
    HAIL HYDRA
    DaringDirkOneAngryPossumNaphtaliBigJoeMAbsoluteZero
  • OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    edited September 16
    I find it very doubtful that this collection goes missing early next year.

    I could be wrong, if it’s real it’s a very odd decision, and one that would probably annoy me if I wind up delaying on the collection.

    But I really think this message is a consequence of some unannounced Nintendo product/initiative that’s making messaging difficult.

    OneAngryPossum on
  • urahonkyurahonky Dayton, OHRegistered User regular
    I think, for me, it ultimately doesn't matter one way or another if hackers/modders did a thing with Mario 64. I have wanted to play these Mario games on my Switch and now I have the ability to do so without modding my Switch. The limited time is pretty lame though.

    skeldareJam WarriorPailryderChiselphaneBrody
  • shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    edited September 16
    Naphtali wrote: »
    Brainiac 8 wrote: »
    Also not anti-consumer. That is a term that I wish was used less as it's kind of lost its meaning.

    The time limited aspect of the release is the anti-consumer part. At the least, the digital version should remain on sale until the Switch Eshop shuts down.

    I'm tempted to say even that's not anti-consumer. The word has been misused so bloody much, as a general sub for "I don't like this".

    Your rights as a consumer are not being trampled on.

    In the case of the limited aspect, you're not entitled to buy the game. If somebody wants to stop selling a product, that's not anti-consumer. It's... anti-business (if that's even a word/thing), as in it's ridiculously bad business to refuse to sell something people want. It's a stupid and dumb thing, and ideally you shouldn't do it when your job as a business is "make money" and "please customers so they give you money". But it's not "anti-consumer", or at least not what the word should ideally mean. It should refer to your rights as a consumer, like your right to a refund, or your right to repair. There is no "right to content" though.

    It is pretty anti-consumer to throw your entire market to the mercy of re-seller sharks after a few months for... no reason? If they release the games separately for higher prices or whatever, I'll fully agree that it's no longer an anti-consumer thing and more of a "questionable value of the product" type deal. I would argue that it isn't the term being overused so much as corporations being violently anti-consumer to the point of people getting tired of hearing about it.

    General statement, not aimed at any person in particular: A corporation being legally allowed to do something isn't the same as it being morally neutral to do or even a smart business maneuver, so please bring more than "It is not illegal" to this discussion, if any one cares to have it. No one said it was illegal.

    shoeboxjeddy on
    Stormwatcher
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    -Mario 64 puts the C buttons on the right stick. There's no reworked freeform camera control, it's exactly like the original.
    -No analog triggers means you just squirt water at full power all the time in Sunshine. I don't think there was any need to otherwise other than you could, so it shouldn't be an issue.
    -The big one, Galaxy. R button recenters the pointer, and you move it with gyro, even with a pro controller. In handheld the touchscreen replaces the pointer. The few big motion control levels still require them, even tilting the system in handheld.

    The big takeaway is that Galaxy controls pretty much like I was hoping/expecting it would with a pro controller. But the game has not been massively reworked, the pointer controls are still required, and the motion control levels still exist. You will be required to move and wiggle something, and if playing handheld, touch the screen. At this point I think you know if that's a problem for you or not.

    Some other takeaways:

    The prerendered movies are upscaled rather than fully re-rendered, and Galaxy's come off better than Sunshine's. Sunshine's are widescreen now but were cropped to fit, so technically missing a small amount of image that used to be there.

    The fonts in Mario 64 and Sunshine are redone and much more readable. Mario 64 in particular had this 1-pixel width thing that was ok on CRTs but not when pristine. It looks bolded and sprite filtered to me.

    Mario 64 is based on the Shindou version which means "bye bye" instead of "so long, gay Bowser." This version also added a Mario head easter egg, and (from what I have heard) may have a slight Mario voice pitch issue on his second and third jumps (higher pitched than should be).

    Sunshine sounds like it has the most improvement. Just being in HD, the effects are so much more significant and visible, like the heat haze in the air everywhere.

    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
    skeldare
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular

    Mario 64 is based on the Shindou version which means "bye bye" instead of "so long, gay Bowser." This version also added a Mario head easter egg, and (from what I have heard) may have a slight Mario voice pitch issue on his second and third jumps (higher pitched than should be).

    The anti-speed run version, since it fixes the major glitch. (Although the TAS of it is impressive and doesn't even care that the glitch is fixed because wall kicks are OP)

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
  • SageinaRageSageinaRage Registered User regular
    The fact that Nintendo is selling as 'Mario 64', the actual game of Mario 64, is not anti-consumer. Expecting anything other than Mario 64 is just stupid, when what they are selling, is Mario 64.

    The fact that Nintendo is not selling what you want to buy, is not anti-consumer. It's their right and choice to sell whatever they want, especially when they are selling exactly what they are advertising.

    Why does this game bring out all of the worst takes in nintendo fans?

    skeldareMulletude
  • jothkijothki Registered User regular
    If the price compared to the amount of effort put into All Stars is bad, just how horribly were we getting screwed over by the original Nintendo 64 release of Mario 64?

  • MNC DoverMNC Dover Full-time Voice Actor Kirkland, WARegistered User regular
    If people want companies to release higher quality versions of older titles (visual upgrades, new features, etc), then they need to speak with their wallet. If a company sells X hundred thousand or million copies of bare bones releases, there’s no incentive to do more.

    On the other hand, if they sell next to no copies, they may never release old games again citing “a lack of interest”.

    The whole thing is dumb.

    Legends of Runeterra: MNCdover #moc
    Switch ID: MNC Dover SW-1154-3107-1051
    Steam ID
    Twitch Page
    rahkeesh2000Custom SpecialJazzLocal H JayKoopahTroopahIceBurnerLBD_Nytetrayn
  • Linespider5Linespider5 ALL HAIL KING KILLMONGER Registered User regular
    MNC Dover wrote: »
    If people want companies to release higher quality versions of older titles (visual upgrades, new features, etc), then they need to speak with their wallet. If a company sells X hundred thousand or million copies of bare bones releases, there’s no incentive to do more.

    On the other hand, if they sell next to no copies, they may never release old games again citing “a lack of interest”.

    The whole thing is dumb.

    And I mean honestly, if a company is preparing to re-sell a game and they’re doing a barebones release, it is going to make them money. It just is. It may not be ‘more’ money or the amount consumers think a full-fledged rerelease would deserve, but they are making money, it will be profitable. So ‘voting with your wallet’ doesn’t really carry the weight it implies, unless it means you are specifically buying other games in that same release window in direct competition with said barebone release, and possibly continuing to do so each consecutive time said company puts out a barebones rerelease.

    shoeboxjeddyLocal H Jay
  • Brainiac 8Brainiac 8 Don't call me Shirley... Registered User regular
    edited September 16
    Naphtali wrote: »
    Brainiac 8 wrote: »
    Also not anti-consumer. That is a term that I wish was used less as it's kind of lost its meaning.

    The time limited aspect of the release is the anti-consumer part. At the least, the digital version should remain on sale until the Switch Eshop shuts down.

    This I can't disagree with. Still don't know if I would use the term anti-consumer, but it is definitely a dumb headscratcher of a move. I just don't know what their thinking is with that. It feels like there is something we don't know, like after that date they'll just sell them separately, but we don't know that until that time I guess. It's just a silly move.

    Edit: I will make a prediction here and now that this won't stop being sold in some shape after March. Either they'll change their mind, or they will just sell them separately digitally. Them selling these games as a collection is so not the way Nintendo does things that I think that is why it is limited. The games won't stop being sold, the collection will. We'll see if I'm right.

    Brainiac 8 on
    3DS Friend Code - 1032-1293-2997
    Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
    PSN - Brainiac_8
    Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
    Add me!
  • skeldareskeldare Gresham, ORRegistered User regular
    If this is true, wonder if it'll be shown tomorrow. Though it could also be like all the other incorrect listings we've seen.

    Nintendo Console Codes
    Switch (JeffConser): SW-3353-5433-5137 Wii U: Skeldare - 3DS: 1848-1663-9345
    PM Me if you add me!
    HAIL HYDRA
    Chiselphane
  • NaphtaliNaphtali Null Registered User regular
    Brainiac 8 wrote: »
    Naphtali wrote: »
    Brainiac 8 wrote: »
    Also not anti-consumer. That is a term that I wish was used less as it's kind of lost its meaning.

    The time limited aspect of the release is the anti-consumer part. At the least, the digital version should remain on sale until the Switch Eshop shuts down.

    This I can't disagree with. Still don't know if I would use the term anti-consumer, but it is definitely a dumb headscratcher of a move. I just don't know what their thinking is with that. It feels like there is something we don't know, like after that date they'll just sell them separately, but we don't know that until that time I guess. It's just a silly move.

    Edit: I will make a prediction here and now that this won't stop being sold in some shape after March. Either they'll change their mind, or they will just sell them separately digitally. Them selling these games as a collection is so not the way Nintendo does things that I think that is why it is limited. The games won't stop being sold, the collection will. We'll see if I'm right.

    FWIW, I hope you are right.

    B.net: Naphtali#1830 | Steam | Nintendo ID: Naphtali | PSN: EI-Naphtali | Wish List
    Brainiac 8
  • Brainiac 8Brainiac 8 Don't call me Shirley... Registered User regular
    skeldare wrote: »
    If this is true, wonder if it'll be shown tomorrow. Though it could also be like all the other incorrect listings we've seen.


    I hope this is true. Always wanted to play these and never got around to it. Having them portable would get me to finally play them.

    3DS Friend Code - 1032-1293-2997
    Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
    PSN - Brainiac_8
    Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
    Add me!
    AbsoluteZero
  • UncleSporkyUncleSporky Registered User regular
    Brainiac 8 wrote: »
    Naphtali wrote: »
    Brainiac 8 wrote: »
    Also not anti-consumer. That is a term that I wish was used less as it's kind of lost its meaning.

    The time limited aspect of the release is the anti-consumer part. At the least, the digital version should remain on sale until the Switch Eshop shuts down.

    This I can't disagree with. Still don't know if I would use the term anti-consumer, but it is definitely a dumb headscratcher of a move. I just don't know what their thinking is with that. It feels like there is something we don't know, like after that date they'll just sell them separately, but we don't know that until that time I guess. It's just a silly move.

    Edit: I will make a prediction here and now that this won't stop being sold in some shape after March. Either they'll change their mind, or they will just sell them separately digitally. Them selling these games as a collection is so not the way Nintendo does things that I think that is why it is limited. The games won't stop being sold, the collection will. We'll see if I'm right.

    I will tell you their exact logic -- and this isn't intended as a defense, and others can feel free to say it's wrong and couldn't possibly be true, but I'm telling you this is the way Nintendo thinks:

    This is the Mario 35th anniversary event. So it's (supposedly) just available during his 35th anniversary, and not after.

    This is the same reason that the 35 Mario online game is supposed to come and go during this same period. It's for Mario 35! It doesn't make sense that a game with 35 Marios would still be around when Mario is 40!

    That's their thinking.

    Switch Friend Code: SW - 5443 - 2358 - 9118 || 3DS Friend Code: 0989 - 1731 - 9504 || NNID: unclesporky
  • Brainiac 8Brainiac 8 Don't call me Shirley... Registered User regular
    Brainiac 8 wrote: »
    Naphtali wrote: »
    Brainiac 8 wrote: »
    Also not anti-consumer. That is a term that I wish was used less as it's kind of lost its meaning.

    The time limited aspect of the release is the anti-consumer part. At the least, the digital version should remain on sale until the Switch Eshop shuts down.

    This I can't disagree with. Still don't know if I would use the term anti-consumer, but it is definitely a dumb headscratcher of a move. I just don't know what their thinking is with that. It feels like there is something we don't know, like after that date they'll just sell them separately, but we don't know that until that time I guess. It's just a silly move.

    Edit: I will make a prediction here and now that this won't stop being sold in some shape after March. Either they'll change their mind, or they will just sell them separately digitally. Them selling these games as a collection is so not the way Nintendo does things that I think that is why it is limited. The games won't stop being sold, the collection will. We'll see if I'm right.

    I will tell you their exact logic -- and this isn't intended as a defense, and others can feel free to say it's wrong and couldn't possibly be true, but I'm telling you this is the way Nintendo thinks:

    This is the Mario 35th anniversary event. So it's (supposedly) just available during his 35th anniversary, and not after.

    This is the same reason that the 35 Mario online game is supposed to come and go during this same period. It's for Mario 35! It doesn't make sense that a game with 35 Marios would still be around when Mario is 40!

    That's their thinking.

    This wouldn't surprise me at all if this is their thinking. I'm still thinking they'll be purchasable in some form after March though.

    3DS Friend Code - 1032-1293-2997
    Nintendo Network ID - Brainiac_8
    PSN - Brainiac_8
    Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/id/BRAINIAC8/
    Add me!
    UncleSporky
  • DrascinDrascin Registered User regular
    In almost all of those cases, the creators of the official work SHOULD be shamed, though? Sonic 4 is laughable trash compared to Sonic Mania, and Sega clearly realized that when they hired the guy to make their game. Fallout has gone off a quality cliff and the fact that the mods are higher quality than the newest official release is basically just a symptom of that. Etc etc.

    You know, people love Mania, but personally as someone who isn't super deep into Sonic, the game felt as approachable as a spike pit. For my money Generations is a more fun game in about every respect.

    Steam ID: Right here.
  • rahkeesh2000rahkeesh2000 Registered User regular
    edited September 16
    Gameplay-wise Generations isn't a true throwback, it's just the most refined version of the boost gameplay they'd been developing in their 3D titles. It's more like Mario Oddessey, where Sonic 4 was supposed to be a modern-looking take on ancient gameplay like NSMB. They truly dropped the ball there though, which is why Sega had to get a low-budget fan team deliver us that great gameplay though rehashed pixel art.

    rahkeesh2000 on
  • Lindsay LohanLindsay Lohan Registered User regular
    I know I'm more or less alone in this, but I also really liked Sonic Lost World. I thought it was the best approach at a 3D sonic I've played. Too often they just want him to feel like a roller coaster on a path, but Lost World did a decent job at avoiding that and feeling like an actual platform game.

    LBD_Nytetrayn
  • shoeboxjeddyshoeboxjeddy Registered User regular
    Drascin wrote: »
    In almost all of those cases, the creators of the official work SHOULD be shamed, though? Sonic 4 is laughable trash compared to Sonic Mania, and Sega clearly realized that when they hired the guy to make their game. Fallout has gone off a quality cliff and the fact that the mods are higher quality than the newest official release is basically just a symptom of that. Etc etc.

    You know, people love Mania, but personally as someone who isn't super deep into Sonic, the game felt as approachable as a spike pit. For my money Generations is a more fun game in about every respect.

    That's my quote, btw, not sure how it got reattributed? I'm curious what you didn't like about Mania, though. Do you just like the 3D levels more?

  • ZundeZunde Registered User regular
    edited September 16
    Got Carrion.

    That is uh..

    That's an icon alright

    Oh hey it changed when i updated it thank god.

    Zunde on
  • StormwatcherStormwatcher Blegh BlughRegistered User regular
    edited September 16
    These games were always going to be emulated, expecting anything else would be crazy. Rewriting even old game architectures from scratch is a ton of work, and I'm sure Nintendo would rightfully rather put that effort into new releases.

    jseus this again

    it's not a thing

    just give Bluepoint, Grezzo or M2 a couple of yen and they'll make you the best possible version of any game you want. There is not bizarre zero-sum "effort points" to be spent.

    And the fact that it's emulated just makes it SADDER that we're not getting any features; emulators can give you amazing extra stuff, a jailbroken switch already runs Mario 64 at 1080p, 60fps and a ton more cool things. Nintendo could have paid some of those fan devs some pretty cheap fees to license their work. I mean, they're already using what looks like a scene release of the game ISOs.

    Emulating the games actually makes it very much more possible and very much more easy to enhance the game.

    Nintendo had some very capable people do the least possible effort to put this out the door.

    I bought it and I'm gonna enjoy it, but don't tell me they couldn't have done a lot better for not that much more cost.

    Stormwatcher on
    Steam: Stormwatcher | PSN: Stormwatcher33 | Switch: 5961-4777-3491
    camo_sig2.png
    rahkeesh2000shoeboxjeddyLocal H Jay
  • ZundeZunde Registered User regular
    I'm going to enjoy 3D allstars and the physical copy is going to have a place of honor amongst my collection.

    But if the question is "Could they have done better." It's almost always "Yeah they could have." It's not really worth arguing about.

    skeldareMNC DoverurahonkyLocal H JayAbsoluteZeroKoopahTroopah
  • YoungFreyYoungFrey Registered User regular
    Brainiac 8 wrote: »
    Brainiac 8 wrote: »
    Naphtali wrote: »
    Brainiac 8 wrote: »
    Also not anti-consumer. That is a term that I wish was used less as it's kind of lost its meaning.

    The time limited aspect of the release is the anti-consumer part. At the least, the digital version should remain on sale until the Switch Eshop shuts down.

    This I can't disagree with. Still don't know if I would use the term anti-consumer, but it is definitely a dumb headscratcher of a move. I just don't know what their thinking is with that. It feels like there is something we don't know, like after that date they'll just sell them separately, but we don't know that until that time I guess. It's just a silly move.

    Edit: I will make a prediction here and now that this won't stop being sold in some shape after March. Either they'll change their mind, or they will just sell them separately digitally. Them selling these games as a collection is so not the way Nintendo does things that I think that is why it is limited. The games won't stop being sold, the collection will. We'll see if I'm right.

    I will tell you their exact logic -- and this isn't intended as a defense, and others can feel free to say it's wrong and couldn't possibly be true, but I'm telling you this is the way Nintendo thinks:

    This is the Mario 35th anniversary event. So it's (supposedly) just available during his 35th anniversary, and not after.

    This is the same reason that the 35 Mario online game is supposed to come and go during this same period. It's for Mario 35! It doesn't make sense that a game with 35 Marios would still be around when Mario is 40!

    That's their thinking.

    This wouldn't surprise me at all if this is their thinking. I'm still thinking they'll be purchasable in some form after March though.

    It could also just be that knowing it is limited, everyone who "might get it someday" will get it immediately. Especially the people buying physical copies. And sure, those people will be angry if (when) Nintendo sells it again, but not angry enough for Nintendo to feel bad about selling them a game they wanted sooner rather than eventually.

Sign In or Register to comment.