By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Capcom developing Switch titles aimed to release after April next year, including Ace Attorney

KilleyMc said:

Ace Attorney is my favorite Capcom IP among the ones still relevant and one of my favorite franchises in general, if a new main entry is beign made exclusively for Switch then I might be needing one sooner than I thought.

SuperNova said:
*Throws confetti*

Haha, never more appropriate.

I'm a big Ace Attorney fan. ;)



Around the Network
SuperNova said:

I'm a big Ace Attorney fan. ;)

Yay for Ace Attorney!



I will be buying the Switch Ace Attorney day one, even if it is Capcom. It will likely be beautiful too. Hopefully it comes out on retail.



Wright said:

Dude, revisionist history? I've done nothing but post sources all this way through. It's not my fault if you willingly choose to ignore them.

So let's go back to that straight talk you claim from Bethesda. There was a point where they actually said Skyrim on WiiU was a possibility (click on the link, otherwise it might seem like I'm doing revisionist history out of nowhere). Surprise, apparently there were a remote idea of it being there on WiiU, from the mouth of Pete Hines itself. But then, none of that possibility ever came true, with Pete Hines himself, again, disproving the claims and blaming it on WiiU's hardware.

Here's an actual quote from Bethesda VP:

None of the game's we've announced are being developed for the Wii U, so it's guaranteed that none of those games are coming to Wii U," Bethesda VP of PR and marketing Pete Hines told us at QuakeCon, with regards to The Elder Scrolls Online, Wolfenstein: The New Order and The Evil Within. "Will any future ones come out? I can't say for sure, in our near-term focus it's not on our radar."

"It's largely a hardware thing," Hines said, explaining that Bethesda's mantra is to "make the games that we want to make, on whatever platforms will support them as developed." Giving an example, he said that The Elder Scrolls Online "likely would have" been released on Xbox 360, but that it "just wasn't possible" due to hardware limitations. Specifically referencing future announcements for the Wii U, Hines said that "it remains to be seen what the future holds."

But of course, Bethesda has chosen now to support the Switch because they see the potential. Even if they had to downgrade Doom to accomodate for Switch, they did it. None of this effort was ever seen on WiiU though, makes you wonder why.

Namco confirmed a bunch of things, sure. I'm not disclaiming that, but I've also provided you an example of Namco being a dick that you totally glossed over (I guess it's because it's not convenient to talk about it). Three more titles are coming for 2018, but also Capcom has announced that they'll bring titles in 2018, with Ace Attorney being one of them. I'm not sure what the problem remains here.

I don't lose sleep at night, thank you very much for worrying about it. I don't care much about big companies that make more money than I'll ever see in my life. I just find intriguing how easy it is to gloss over Namco's messes up even though I provided sources of them being not so good to the Switch fanbase (neglecting a game that was stipulated to come to Nintendo consoles and forcing their fanbase to make echoes for it to happen, and not porting the huge amount of games they've released this year). Priorities, I suppose.

How exactly does that counter what I said about them being straight talking that quote full on proved my point congratulations you debunked yourself.

Non of this effort was on Wii U because the platform used a completely different architecture from everything else where as Switch uses Nvidia's which developers are at ease with the amount of effort to do what they've done with doom would have equalled far more work for Wii U back then.

Maybe you're having trouble registering what has been said to you, Namco as you yourself have admitted confirmed their commitment early on, they already dedicated one of their major franchises in Tales to Switch before one unit was even sold as well as brought Xenoverse 2 to the platform with now 3 more titles on the way this is already miles ahead of what Capcom have done if Namco are dicks then under your logic Capcom are far worse the fact you're comparing USFIIHD to the efforts of other companies is laughable.

You seem to be losing sleep as you're rattle about people liking Bethesda's efforts and you cared as much to rant about it so again how ever much you'd want to try and paint Capcom as saints they themselves have brought heat upon themselves so deal with it.



Wright said:
SuperNova said:

I'm a big Ace Attorney fan. ;)

Yay for Ace Attorney!

 

XD

I'm also a huge Ankward Zombie Fan! I see I have to go catch up, I didn't know this one yet.



Around the Network
Wyrdness said:

How exactly does that counter what I said about them being straight talking that quote full on proved my point congratulations you debunked yourself.

Non of this effort was on Wii U because the platform used a completely different architecture from everything else where as Switch uses Nvidia's which developers are at ease with the amount of effort to do what they've done with doom would have equalled far more work for Wii U back then.

Maybe you're having trouble registering what has been said to you, Namco as you yourself have admitted confirmed their commitment early on, they already dedicated one of their major franchises in Tales to Switch before one unit was even sold as well as brought Xenoverse 2 to the platform with now 3 more titles on the way this is already miles ahead of what Capcom have done if Namco are dicks then under your logic Capcom are far worse the fact you're comparing USFIIHD to the efforts of other companies is laughable.

You seem to be losing sleep as you're rattle about people liking Bethesda's efforts and you cared as much to rant about it so again how ever much you'd want to try and paint Capcom as saints they themselves have brought heat upon themselves so deal with it.

I'm not sure if you're missing entirely the point what I'm saying or you're purposedly being obtuse to find a way to make cheap attacks at me while playing dumb. I'd argue it's the later, but let's give you the benefit of doubt.

First of all...how does that counter what you said about straight talking? Because Pete Hines went in circles? I'll give you yet a different source that echoes what I'm saying:

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/bethesda-considering-wii-u/1100-6336585/

He said:

"It's definitely a possibility for the future," Hines told the Official Nintendo Magazine UK. "We'll look at any platform that will support that games we're trying to make, but that's the key thing - the console has to support the game as it is designed. [...] We'll see. It's definitely a possibility."

Then he later said:

"It's largely a hardware thing," Hines said, explaining that Bethesda's mantra is to "make the games that we want to make, on whatever platforms will support them as developed." Giving an example, he said that The Elder Scrolls Online "likely would have" been released on Xbox 360, but that it "just wasn't possible" due to hardware limitations. Specifically referencing future announcements for the Wii U, Hines said that "it remains to be seen what the future holds."

So he went from "definitely a possibility" to "none at all because hardware". You realize WiiU is capable enough of running 360 and PS3 games, right? You realize the hardware excuse is completely bogus because Bethesda didn't really want to put any effort on WiiU at all, right? You realize I'm not talking about Doom for the WiiU, but Skyrim, a 2011 game for PS3, 360 and PC, right? The same game that's getting ported to Switch and has endured changes that are unlike "the game as it was designed" like Pete Hynes said, right? Heck, it even has joy-con support, which you can be sure it wasn't something that was designed at first, despite what Pete Hynes might say.

And WiiU's architecture was more than capable of running Skyrim. Bringing up the WiiU's architecture does nothing in this case, really. We're talking about a 360/PS3 game, after all. WiiU got plenty of ports of those, including an EA game (Mass Effect 3). They got nothing from Bethesda, though.

 

Namco has promised commitment, sure. Maybe you're having trouble reading my posts, but I said this:

Wright said:

Namco confirmed a bunch of things, sure. I'm not disclaiming that,

I just pointed out that we're talking about the same Namco that then required the Nintendo fanbase to beg for a game - Project Cars 2, which was said to release on Nintendo consoles - it on social media. Something I already posted but you glossed over entirely. Same Namco that, like you said, ported Xenoverse 2 and then told the Nintendo fanbase to focus on Xenoverse 2 for the time being, so that then they would start considering porting Dragon Ball FighterZ?

Heck I'll even post the quote:

On the subject of releasing the game on the Nintendo Switch, which already has seen some fighting game action in the forms of Ultra Street Fighter II: The Final Challengers, ARMS, and the upcoming  Pokkén Tournament DX, Hiroki noted that they couldn’t really say anything about that situation. “However, we do know that we would like our Switch users to focus on our first Switch title: Dragon Ball Xenoverse 2. After the release of Dragon Ball Xenoverse 2 on the Switch, [which comes out on September 7th in Japan, before launching worldwide on the 22nd] then we will start considering whether we should have Dragon Ball FighterZ on the Switch.”

It's a good thing you brought up Xenoverse 2, as I had forgotten Namco's lousy way of handling Dragon Ball FighterZ for Switch. What do you think about this? Under your logic, now Namco is at the same level as Capcom, no? Bunch of games announced for 2018, they both told the fanbase to buy a certain game in order to have access to others (and Namco outright denied Project Cars 2 unless fans begged), and they've both put games on the console. Namco put Xenoverse 2, Capcom is releasing Revelations 1 and 2.

I'm not rattling about anything, don't worry. It seems you misunderstand (or willingly choose to undervalue) the effort I put into giving you actual sources, and explaining how I think situations are comparable and words being said from each party. It matters none; in light of the current situation, even if you choose to stick with Bethesda (why wouldn't anyone, I already said I enjoy their games too after all), this will totally change your mind with Namco. It's only fair, unless your priorities are elsewhere, of course.



Wright said:

I'm not sure if you're missing entirely the point what I'm saying or you're purposedly being obtuse to find a way to make cheap attacks at me while playing dumb. I'd argue it's the later, but let's give you the benefit of doubt.

First of all...how does that counter what you said about straight talking? Because Pete Hines went in circles? I'll give you yet a different source that echoes what I'm saying:

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/bethesda-considering-wii-u/1100-6336585/

He said:

"It's definitely a possibility for the future," Hines told the Official Nintendo Magazine UK. "We'll look at any platform that will support that games we're trying to make, but that's the key thing - the console has to support the game as it is designed. [...] We'll see. It's definitely a possibility."

Then he later said:

"It's largely a hardware thing," Hines said, explaining that Bethesda's mantra is to "make the games that we want to make, on whatever platforms will support them as developed." Giving an example, he said that The Elder Scrolls Online "likely would have" been released on Xbox 360, but that it "just wasn't possible" due to hardware limitations. Specifically referencing future announcements for the Wii U, Hines said that "it remains to be seen what the future holds."

So he went from "definitely a possibility" to "none at all because hardware". You realize WiiU is capable enough of running 360 and PS3 games, right? You realize the hardware excuse is completely bogus because Bethesda didn't really want to put any effort on WiiU at all, right? You realize I'm not talking about Doom for the WiiU, but Skyrim, a 2011 game for PS3, 360 and PC, right? The same game that's getting ported to Switch and has endured changes that are unlike "the game as it was designed" like Pete Hynes said, right? Heck, it even has joy-con support, which you can be sure it wasn't something that was designed at first, despite what Pete Hynes might say.

And WiiU's architecture was more than capable of running Skyrim. Bringing up the WiiU's architecture does nothing in this case, really. We're talking about a 360/PS3 game, after all. WiiU got plenty of ports of those, including an EA game (Mass Effect 3). They got nothing from Bethesda, though.

 

Namco has promised commitment, sure. Maybe you're having trouble reading my posts, but I said this:

Wright said:

Namco confirmed a bunch of things, sure. I'm not disclaiming that,

I just pointed out that we're talking about the same Namco that then required the Nintendo fanbase to beg for a game - Project Cars 2, which was said to release on Nintendo consoles - it on social media. Something I already posted but you glossed over entirely. Same Namco that, like you said, ported Xenoverse 2 and then told the Nintendo fanbase to focus on Xenoverse 2 for the time being, so that then they would start considering porting Dragon Ball FighterZ?

Heck I'll even post the quote:

On the subject of releasing the game on the Nintendo Switch, which already has seen some fighting game action in the forms of Ultra Street Fighter II: The Final Challengers, ARMS, and the upcoming  Pokkén Tournament DX, Hiroki noted that they couldn’t really say anything about that situation. “However, we do know that we would like our Switch users to focus on our first Switch title: Dragon Ball Xenoverse 2. After the release of Dragon Ball Xenoverse 2 on the Switch, [which comes out on September 7th in Japan, before launching worldwide on the 22nd] then we will start considering whether we should have Dragon Ball FighterZ on the Switch.”

It's a good thing you brought up Xenoverse 2, as I had forgotten Namco's lousy way of handling Dragon Ball FighterZ for Switch. What do you think about this? Under your logic, now Namco is at the same level as Capcom, no? Bunch of games announced for 2018, they both told the fanbase to buy a certain game in order to have access to others (and Namco outright denied Project Cars 2 unless fans begged), and they've both put games on the console. Namco put Xenoverse 2, Capcom is releasing Revelations 1 and 2.

I'm not rattling about anything, don't worry. It seems you misunderstand (or willingly choose to undervalue) the effort I put into giving you actual sources, and explaining how I think situations are comparable and words being said from each party. It matters none; in light of the current situation, even if you choose to stick with Bethesda (why wouldn't anyone, I already said I enjoy their games too after all), this will totally change your mind with Namco. It's only fair, unless your priorities are elsewhere, of course.

Here's a revelation for you when they took a look at the hardware perhaps they found that it wasn't suited to their games and to top it off you've taken a statement which he's saying it's possible but we're looking into it and later when they've looked into it they've found issues this hardly counters anything I've said at all as they've flat out told people straight what the situation, thanks for proving my point even further.

Here's the problem with you and your Namco argument by admitting they've committed to the platform your argument is debunked by default as you're acknowledging they've hand;ed things far better than Capcom which is the whole point and what you're trying to argue against to begin with essentially you've flat out conceded what I pointed out is correct.

Giving sources is null and void when they're not backing your argument you've given sources that either highlight what I'm saying or flat out do not really give your stance any concrete ground.



Wyrdness said:

- wonder if you even clicked on the links -

All I can read from here is that you purposedly keep ignoring what I bring up and twist it into "my points are correct" without any meaningful explanation or correlation. You could even try to make a decent attempt at bringing up information just like I keep pointing out things with those, but nope. This conversation bears no sense if you're going cherry pick one small portion of my post (one that I've even acknowledged myself, which makes zero sense on your end) to collectively ignore and not address any of the points I make, sitting down there and refusing to dwelve into any of the points. It's a waste of my time, frankly, and your passive-agressive attitude doesn't help either.

Also, this confirms as well that you're okay with Namco's (and by proxy, others sans Capcom) shenanigans, which sums up and explains how the whole conversation has been, since you felt no need to talk about those parts. Like that Spanish proverb says:

He, who remains silent, grants.

Have fun playing Dragon Ball FighterZ on Switch once the fanbase has bought enough copies of Xenoverse 2 to make Namco consider it, by the way.



Wright said:

All I can read from here is that you purposedly keep ignoring what I bring up and twist it into "my points are correct" without any meaningful explanation or correlation. You could even try to make a decent attempt at bringing up information just like I keep pointing out things with those, but nope. This conversation bears no sense if you're going cherry pick one small portion of my post (one that I've even acknowledged myself, which makes zero sense on your end) to collectively ignore and not address any of the points I make, sitting down there and refusing to dwelve into any of the points. It's a waste of my time, frankly, and your passive-agressive attitude doesn't help either.

Also, this confirms as well that you're okay with Namco's (and by proxy, others sans Capcom) shenanigans, which sums up and explains how the whole conversation has been, since you felt no need to talk about those parts. Like that Spanish proverb says:

He, who remains silent, grants.

Have fun playing Dragon Ball FighterZ on Switch once the fanbase has bought enough copies of Xenoverse 2 to make Namco consider it, by the way.

Too bad for you I did click the links the Bethesda one is debunked already the second one on architecture i possibly you not understanding the earlier point in that the case of using the architecture to port games over is different from whether the architecture is capable of running the game an example. A number of the early ports had performance issues due to the different architecture you can argue over time they can sort these out yes but then months later Wii U was beginning to show signs of being dead in the water which would make it costly to make that effort.

Yawn if you're upset someone responds to you on a public forum just don't reply I don't sugar coat or baby people when replying fact is I don't care about your time and never will I'm just responding to your post and what's relevant to what I've said, Bethesda are straight talking and don't beat around the bush, Namco have shown better commitment than Capcom even down to overall PR (even after the DBZ statement the recent report from Namco had a clear clarification on support) and Capcom reaped what they sowed and are now trying to get their act together. 



Wyrdness said:

Too bad for you I did click the links the Bethesda one is debunked already the second one on architecture i possibly you not understanding the earlier point in that the case of using the architecture to port games over is different from whether the architecture is capable of running the game an example. A number of the early ports had performance issues due to the different architecture you can argue over time they can sort these out yes but then months later Wii U was beginning to show signs of being dead in the water which would make it costly to make that effort.

Yawn if you're upset someone responds to you on a public forum just don't reply I don't sugar coat or baby people when replying fact is I don't care about your time and never will I'm just responding to your post and what's relevant to what I've said, Bethesda are straight talking and don't beat around the bush, Namco have shown better commitment than Capcom even down to overall PR (even after the DBZ statement the recent report from Namco had a clear clarification on support) and Capcom reaped what they sowed and are now trying to get their act together. 

It's funny how repeatedly you try making it as I'm the one upset or rambling, when you're the one using the passive-aggresive tone and the selective way of replying to avoid touching certain topics. The epitome of it is writing "yawn" in a post forum. At least put it between asterisks if you're roleplaying a yawning, mate. Dunno, maybe you'd like having me upset or rambling, unfortunately that's not what's happening. I'm actually disappointed, hoping you'd provide an insightful conversation with the sources I was giving and you bringing up yours, but I guess it wasn't mean to be.

I'm not sure how can it be disputed that Bethesda isn't all that "straight talking" when you've seen Hines going a bit in circles himself. In case you need me to specifically point out to it, he said that Skyrim had to remain specifically as it was designed, but there was a possibility of it happening on WiiU. I already gave you WiiU's architecture and a link to it which can totally make Skyrim work (especially bearing in mind WiiU's third party performance on it), but Hynes said that the hardware an issue. And now here comes Skyrim Switch, which even features joy-con support (something that wasn't even designed originally). It's easy to tell where Hynes, which is responsible of the PR department, can't clear up his mind, or how things change once Bethesda has in its hands a Nintendo console where they see the sales potential.

You also bring a point that I've been trying to call out all along:

Wyrdness said:

but then months later Wii U was beginning to show signs of being dead in the water which would make it costly to make that effort.

Which would mean Bethesda wasn't "straight talking" about WiiU's hardware; they just didn't find money viability and used hardware as an excuse instead of telling the truth, not unlike some devs with the WiiU as well.

Also, let's exercise some pragmatism, why not?

Wyrdness said:

(even after the DBZ statement the recent report from Namco had a clear clarification on support)

So does Capcom's statement in this very thread we're replying to each other.