By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
JWeinCom on 06 February 2021
Edit Thread
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
JWeinCom said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Well I don't know, I said first few months not the first half of the year, but even then was there really much variety in the early parts of 2017, 2018, or 2019? 2019 is by far my favorite Switch year and even with my favorite Switch game releasing in that first half, you basically got two platformers releasing in it's first half and that was it. Switch's 2017 is helped by the fact it didn't need to cover two months, which is a bit unfair, but even counting that a Wii U port, a simultaneous Wii U release and Arms is not really much in the way of variety, not to mention you had NO BACKLOG on the Switch during this time period. 2018 is kind of the same, you have Kirby and Mario Tennis but then a bunch of Wii U ports. I think a Wii U port with extra content that looks to be the best extra content we've gotten in a Wii U port with the most amount of effort put into it, a somewhat major JRPG, a new Pokemon snap, most likely THE biggest third party game the Switch will ever get, and Persona 5 Strikers (yes, late localization and all) actually shows a lot more variety and consistency than any of those years. Again, it's enough releases in the span of just 4 months that I can say I don't care about almost half of them, and I'm still satisfied, which isn't something you can usually say. 

Because honestly if the lesson here is just "we could do better than any Switch year's first half", I think that can generally be agreed upon unanimously (things usually start heating up around July and even then momentum usually starts in August/September for releases). 

Zelda was a cross release, but it was new content. You could make the argument that Wii U owners wouldn't have a reason to be extra excited, but at least no one had actually played it before, and it was the better version. Then you had ARMs in June, Splatoon in July, and Mario+Rabbids in August. Right now we only know what's coming through April, so if they announce great games for May and June, I'll revise my opinion accordingly.

Not to go in circles, but 2018 was different. They'd just released a bunch of great games in the latter half of the year, and particularly about the end of the year. So, it's understandable they're going to have something of a lull.  

It doesn't make sense to just compare January through April or whatever in given years. There should be a relatively consistent flow of games over time. If they're bunched up at particular parts of the year, whatever. But, Nintendo's output has been dry for a while. From last July to this April, there's been I believe one full original retail game. That's really not good. 

I agree Zelda is new content, I'm essentially saying either way Switch's first half of 2017 might look good in retrospect because it has a lot of factors going for it, the most obvious being it could just flat out ignore two months of the year. But really, a port and Arms do not add much value onto that Breath of the Wild package if we're going to be dismissive of ports (which is your criteria). So it's really only better than 2020 and 2018 in that regard, debatably as good as 2019 and 2021 (I'd disagree here). 

"Then you had ARMs in June, Splatoon in July, and Mario+Rabbids in August. Right now we only know what's coming through April, so if they announce great games for May and June, I'll revise my opinion accordingly."

Ok ... July and August is not first half of a year. Maybe you're adjusting it to reflect the fact that Switch didn't launch till March 2017, and thus it's "first half of a year" would run from March - August? That's a very slippery slope though, because we'd have to adjust all metrics accordingly with that. If that were the case Switch's first year would end in March of 2018, which is just a bit silly if we're talking about regular non-fiscal years, and then there is all the other year comparisons to follow. Unless you're just saying the fact that they had consistent releases after the first half made the somewhat peckish first half OK, in which case I understand, but it's hard to tell when you compare it to "them announcing great games for May and June". 

"It doesn't make sense to just compare January through April or whatever in given years."

Right but even when we use a metric that's well agreed upon and that's fairly set in stone, like for example first half of a year, we're already getting more consistent major releases now than we have before. Which is a point that hasn't really been addressed, no? 

"There should be a relatively consistent flow of games over time. If they're bunched up at particular parts of the year, whatever. But, Nintendo's output has been dry for a while. From last July to this April, there's been I believe one full original retail game. That's really not good. "

I don't disagree with this, but honestly what more is there to put on this front. You feel that there hasn't been enough consistent big releases to create a "new" backlog. I agree. But that doesn't really detract from my point that the new titles in this first quarter of the year are more stacked than they are in pretty much any other year. I get what you're saying, in a time of attrition you feel you should be compensated even more. I don't disagree, it doesn't mean this isn't the best first quarter Switch has had for releases, though. 

Edit: Meant march, not may, lol. 

First off, Arms adds a shit ton of value. Arms is awesome. 

If we extend it 6 months, then Splatoon and Mario and Rabbids squeak in, and those are pretty awesome too. So in terms of 6 months, I'd say 2017 crushes this year based on what we know, but maybe they'll add something.

I'm just looking at everything in context. I don't see the point in comparing individual quarters in isolation. You can do that if you want, but I don't really see the purpose. Like... saying "well this is the best February 12th Nintendo had in years" would be kind of dumb right? Expanding that to a month is less dumb, but still kind of dumb. 3 months is better still, and so on. The more time you're comparing the more sense it makes. You have to drawn the line somewhere obviously, but a quarter is too short to be meaningful imo.

So, if you're point is that the first 4 months of the year look good to you, that's fine (we don't know anything beyond Snap to my knowledge so you can't say anything about 6 months). But, what I'm saying is that Nintendo's overall software output of late has been pretty bad. I think we generally agree and are talking past one another.