#9532694, By JinTypeNoir Wii U

  • JinTypeNoir 27 Apr 2013 10:42:52 4,365 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    You don't want to play with the extras, keep your originals. We're not talking paying for the whole thing all over again here. It really is quite inconsequential. Nintendo fans could easily come back and say to nitpickers that as many problems as the Wii U has, this is what you decide is ridiculous? Either way, the Wii U is backwards compatible. We don't know how the PS4 is planning on offering downloadable titles from the PS3, other than they plan to do something with Gaikai. Right now, there isn't a good comparison to be made with Sony or Microsoft's backwards compatibility options.

    Much more heinous is the recently released Pokemon downloadable title. Though it is a download title this time, the extent to which it is scaled back from its predecessor is shocking. The mission design is gone, the various levels and such are too, there are very arenas and they don't do much to distinguish themselves, and the Pokemon you can choose from are all rather neutered unless you buy a figurine. It's not as bad as some iPhone games that clearly have little value unless you sink serious money into them, but its so much more limited without buying those NFC figurines. What I'm saying is, that Nintendo released a game for 1800 yen with content that wouldn't justify a purchase for a 500 yen downloadable title on the 3DS. I imagine if you buy all the figurines they will release, the total will come close to the around 5000 yen price of the original, and yet the game will still wouldn't be as full-featured. That's a rip off and a horrible precedent to set, since Nintendo said they would be careful with how they handled downloadable pricing. It's basically Ridge Racer on the Vita all over again.

    On an entirely different note, I read that Saturday Soapbox on the front page and was already to post a tongue-in-cheek comment about the press not being happy about a company saying it will give less exposure to the press. It was rather surprising to read that Martin Robinson was mostly positive about Nintendo's decision. Though his tone is suspect. I always wonder how journalists can remain neutral when they write things like being excited to stream Nintendo Directs and tweet and text for any information they can get, or how much it gets their nerd boner going when Miyamoto comes out on stage with a sword. Shouldn't they be beyond that on our behalf? I don't know why a great deal of gaming journalists even report those shenanigans, as in any other industry it would obviously be seen as trying to coddle favor.

    If you think about it, the whole idea of previews in the media is rather old and moldy. They existed when magazines or infrequent TV reports were all the fans had to learn about new titles before release and in that sense, they played their part in imparting information that truly couldn't be had any other way. Even in the infancy of the internet they had some role to play. Now, with facebooks and twitters and streaming live plays and gameplay movies and websites and forums, there's more than enough for players to get the necessary information previews used to give. The media could get rid of a huge stigma that's been growing that they are nothing but enthusiast nutbags who can't be trusted to piss straight into a toilet let alone give in untainted opinion and the publishers could save a lot of money. Without previews, gamers will have to wait for reviews to get a critical consensus on a game and it might even help elongate sales because less hype will built up for the first day and more will be ferreted out based on a more fresh reaction to the game's qualities.

    Of course, asking for that would be a pipe dream. I only know of one major journalist who has stated they will top doing previews of any kind.
Log in or register to reply