I'm not long past the second palace in Persona 5, and finally the game is opening up and giving me some control. I didn't like that aspect of Persona 4, and I found it a bit tedious here at times. Now that the game is handing over the reigns a bit, it feels better.

So far I'm really enjoying the experience, although I must say...the translation/localisation is pretty awful in general here. I found it to be much better in Persona 4. So much of this game's writing is really dry or just completely off-base in terms of characterisation. It's a bit of a blemish on an otherwise really beautiful game (with a reasonably interesting plot, at least as far as JRPG plots go).

This is why I said "first mainstream force feedback in gaming". Truth be told, many of these technologies existed in some form many years prior, but I think that's less relevant than the question of who introduced the technology to the mainstream.

I mean, Sega had the 3D Controller for Saturn, but it was hardly revolutionary; it was nothing like what Nintendo did with the Nintendo 64. It made games like Nightsfeel smoother and more natural, but Nights was nowhere near Super Mario 64 in terms of setting major industry standards. And I say this as a crazed Sega fan (I've actually probably collected more weird Sega gear than Nintendo gear at this point).

The term "rip off" implies something negative - in this case, I'd say that Nioh is inspired by Souls. In other words, there's a clear and obvious lineage here, but it's a wholly positive one.

I think Niohtakes some core concepts established in the Souls games and builds upon those in fascinating ways. Taken on its own terms, I'm really enjoying it so far, but I'd also say it feels a lot fresher and more unique than Dark Souls 3 did. I'm really hopeful that Nioh becomes an ongoing franchise, as I'd love to see where Team Ninja can take it in the future.

@MirkoS77:

On a final note, I'm not sure how long you wish to keep this going, I could go either way as I quite enjoy getting into long debates. It's pretty rare to find here and I appreciate your time and effort.

Good question. I probably won't post terribly regularly, but I'm happy to have the discussion. I am definitely interested to learn/read about different perspectives.

On a side note - totally unrelated to this - have you ever written for a gaming publication? Is it something you'd be interested in?

Yea, if you can't tell I tend to be a pretentious pessimist which I think is the general consensus around the boards about me if there is one. There's a motto that's served the cynic in me well in life: "When you expect the worst you are rarely disappointed but are oftentimes pleasantly surprised" (surprised meaning expectations are surpassed, not confirmed).

I can understand tempering your expectations to avoid disappointment. My version of that though is "wait and see" - reserve judgement, rather than assume the worst. I think there can be a fine line between assuming the worst and then saying that the worst will definitely happen, if that makes sense.

The "wait and see" principle serves me pretty well in general. No matter what news or previews are out there and no matter what the community is saying about some upcoming release (hardware or software), I know that my view of that product will ultimately be determined only by hands-on experience. The proof is in the pudding, as the say.

Also - and this may or may not give you more insight into my thinking - I tend to celebrate and enjoy what I do have rather than what I missed or could have had. Does that make sense? I feel that if I spent a lot of time on the latter, I'd be burning a lot of fuel on something I can't change, which feels like wasted time to me. I guess I'm pretty philosophical - life is short, and I want to focus on the things that give me some enrichment. :-)

(Okay, I'll stop there before it gets too D&M!) ;-P

It's true that Nintendo produces a large amount of software, and I know they've taken steps to consolidate their pipeline to address droughts.

Thing is, despite what Nintendo likes to believe, they're in competition with Sony and MS and that's not exclusively viewed on first party grounds either (of which Nintendo surpasses). Collectively contrasted, their mainline output is paltry. Nintendo's held a stance for so long that's marginalized any significant third party involvement to their console strategy. That's their perogative, but if they place such importance on their own desires that subsequently alienates others from backing their ecosystem that would help afford parity, the onus is then upon them to compensate in achieving it.

Hopefully they've learned their lesson about droughts. It's a fine line between withholding games to space them out and doing so to the extent that market momentum is lost entirely. The Wii U suffered the latter and I'm skeptical the Switch will have enough to avoid a similar fate. I'm trying to remain optimistic it'll be better, but the past has shown that Nintendo is very slow to learn, or if not, stubborn to act.

Yeah, I think this is a fairly reasonable assessment. You are right on the one hand to acknowledge the steps they have taken to improve the situation with Switch (in regard to third parties and software pipeline in general), but as I keep saying: we really just have to wait and see. :-)

Having said that, Nintendo's business strategy isn't why I am going to buy a Switch. Although I know that their strategy will (or won't) materialise as actual software I can play, I tend to make purchasing decisions based on the actual product I'm faced with on the shelf - as do just about all consumers, especially the mass market kind that Nintendo would love to attract. So, in the final analysis here, I think the success or failure of this thing will come down to what Nintendo and its partners are offering consumers in the real world, on the store shelves (I include the eShop in that definition too).

It's probably worth noting though that I am a fairly unique kind of consumer, as are many people in this community - I already own a PS4 and Xbox One, so the last thing I want is another console that is offering the same kind of experience. The Switch is offering me something that nothing else does, and that's a key reason I want to buy one. If Nintendo can prosecute that argument writ large to millions of people, then they'll have a decent chance of pushing this thing in a big way. Let's see, I guess.

What's preventing Nintendo from doing today what they did back then with these IPs?

Ultimately, that's a question neither of us can truly answer: only Nintendo can.

But logically, as I said earlier, Nintendo has a fixed number of people in their company. By definition, they can only work on a certain amount of stuff at once. So, this is really a question about how they allocate people to projects. From there, we get down to the discussion about how they select one project over another - I think we've addressed that already. So I think we largely have the answer to this.

Like you, I still want to see a new Metroid and/or F-Zero. We'll just have to wait and see what happens (see, there's that phrase again). :P

I'm not asking for these games annually or even semi. Once every 4-5 years would be wonderful.

Fair enough.

Nintendo's IPs are their DNA and that is why the product comes first. To place philosophy at the forefront so much so that IPs are secondary is paradoxically detrimental as IPs encompass it. This isn't to say I believe philosophy to be unimportant, but IPs are its vessels.

I know we're getting a bit esoteric here, but I think you really have this the wrong way around. You're describing the opposite of what is true.

Yes, the IP is the vessel - but it's just that, a vessel. The IP on its own isn't the DNA; it's not what creates the magic. Nintendo's philosophy - and they way they practically apply it through design - is their DNA. Their people are their DNA. Their IPs are outputs; artefacts that result from a creative process.

That's why I think the example I mentioned about Mario's design is so powerful. Mario is not Nintendo's DNA - he's just a character, a piece of visual art. It's the design behind Mario that is truly magical (the movement, the gameplay, the world interaction) - and that design is birthed through a fundamental philosophy that underpins everything Nintendo does. Without that philosophy, any artefacts they produce just aren't going to contain those magical ingredients. :-)

With all the above being said, I find any position attempting to excuse these games' absence under this philosophy inconsistent, as noted above Nintendo has had no trouble making new Marios, Karts, Zeldas, Smashes, etc. Yet if Metroid and the like are created they're somehow an affront to Nintendo's creative integrity. No philosophy is precluding Nintendo from making these games, and I think deep down both you and I know that. There's obviously other variables at play, so I find any justification posited under the premise of a particular design approach to hold little to no merit when we witness many of their same old properties getting their due.

Well, just to be clear, I didn't say that philosophy was the only reason certain games don't exist at the moment. Don't forget that Nintendo's projects come out of heavy experimentation and that there are likely to be numerous games (perhaps even falling within the franchises you describe) that were killed off at some point and are currently sitting on the cutting room floor. We tend to only discover this much later on in an interview somewhere or another.

I think what I'm saying here is actually quite simple. Nintendo don't start with an IP and then create a game around it - the opposite is true: they start with creative experiments and then decide which IP is the best fit. In a nutshell, that's how they work.

All I'm suggesting is that I don't particularly want them to grab an IP off the shelf and make a new entry in a series because they feel some pressure to do so from fans; this is an unnatural way of working that is less likely to lead to great designs in the end. I'd rather Nintendo start with creative experiments and then explore the ideas that seem to work best (whichever coat of paint they apply later is far less important to me - whether it's Mario or Captain Falcon).

As I said, I can definitely agree that I want another Metroid - I thoroughly enjoyed Metroid Prime - but I'm not hugely fussed if I don't see one for a while. If that means we get a new one when it's ready, then cool. I understand the desire to see something that isn't materialising, it's just not something I care deeply about (and I wouldn't want Nintendo's product roadmap to be determined by anything other than an experimental R&D focus).

I've always felt the Directs were made for the reason you highlight: to compensate for lack of content. Watching a bunch of Muppets modeled after executives or game characters performing cute antics brings no profit to what brings Nintendo profit in the first place: software. If I wanted quirky fun and endearing, I'd watch the actual Muppets. That's not Nintendo to me, it became Nintendo under Iwata while their content dwindled further and further. With these Directs, what Nintendo was (and is) doing is obvious: they're attempting to craft a cult of personality around their executives. This began under Iwata, and I believe it was a very calculated move. As a gamer, Muppets are no substitute for games.

As for E3, I'm a big proponent of it but only if you have the content to warrant its investment, which Nintendo at present doesn't.

Yes, it comes down to personal preference in the end.

As it happens, more and more companies are communicating with audiences "directly" via the internet; so I think that trend will only continue. Whether it's considered a good or bad thing is obviously going to depend on a) what the content is and b) our individual preferences for how we want to be communicated with. :-)

Currently I'm playing NioH, Galak-Z, and a few VR (Vive) games. Preoccupied with school mostly so I'm not gaming as much as I used to, which is also the reason my replies take a while. I enjoy all types of games on all systems. The only genres I don't really care for are sports and MMOs (unless it's well done, like Day Z). You?

Interesting. I'm also playing Nioh at the moment. I only just finished Resident Evil VII.

Aside from Nioh, I'm sort of bouncing between a few games. Forza Horizon 3 and Sunset Overdrive are a couple of others I'm playing right now. I also play retro stuff quite a bit - just recently picked up a copy of Baku Baku on Saturn, which is a pretty fun puzzle title.

I'm a bit the same too in terms of timing, although my reason is work, where (at the moment anyway) I'm doing quite a bit of travel. I wish I could fit even more gaming time in!

By the way, if you ever feel like adding me on PSN, my ID is white-pikmin. :-)

@FireEmblem_Man: So? They've had the game a short time and they're trying to finish it before reviewing it - seems reasonable to me. This game is apparently more difficult than many other games out there, so it makes sense it would take longer.

I'm not quite sure what the point of the thread is, to be honest.

I mean, if you're somehow saying they should be able to beat it faster...eh, that seems like a really wobbly kind of position to take. Unless you've beaten it yourself, you're not in much position to say something like that (perhaps that's not what you're saying - I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that).

It's really hard to answer because I want all three, haha. If I really had to choose, I'd go with Switch by a slim margin followed by PS4 and then Xbox One.

I think that's the key thing that designers need to figure out how to overcome before VR can become more mainstream. People might put up with the headwear and the pricing if they can confidently step into the experience for a good period of time without feeling sick. I don't have this issue, but I can see how this could be a huge negative for a lot of people. If VR made me feel ill, I don't think I'd go anywhere near it.

I think any attempt to expand the gaming population is worth it, so long as quality and fun isn't sacrificed.

I've never liked or sympathised with the "hardcore vs casual" debates though. I mean, I'm about as hardcore as it gets when we're talking about video games but my overriding principle is about fun. I don't care how hardcore something is perceived to be, I care about how fun it is - is it enjoyable? Is it something I want to play? Is there value for me? Those are the important questions in my mind.

Also, I don't think anyone can legitimately argue that Nintendo has built so-called casual games at the expense of hardcore games - we've still had Pikmin, Splatoon, Mario Kart, Zelda, Mario...and so on. These are all examples of Nintendo's more "traditional" games. Not every game they make is WiiSports.

Having said that, I'd point out that even their most "hardcore" games have always tended to be designed for as wide an audience as possible. I think Nintendo have always attempted - whether successfully or not - to create games that almost anyone can play regardless of skill level. The whole "easy to pick up, tough to master" principle is at play here, I think. Obviously some games skew more heavily one way or the other, but that's fine and probably as it should be.

Overall, as a gamer, I want to play fun games. That's the key principle for me. And that means I want a variety of great games - I want simple ones, complex ones, games of all different genres, and perhaps entirely new genres too! Variety is the spice of life, and this is certainly true in video games as much as anything else. :-)

Yeah I'd hope that goes without saying (although perhaps not). I'd just add:

- Always compare like with like (similar quality, model, etc...)

- Get a few examples of like products and average them out (don't just take highest or lowest value)

- Don't just rely on eBay

The thing is, it's not necessarily linear - if you step back and look at the big picture, you'd have to acknowledge that motion controls are here to stay in one form or another. I'd wager that a lot of the things developers learned with earlier motion controllers helped to frame the possibilities around what can now be done in VR - whether it's Occulus Touch or even using the PS Move.

I don't know about you, but when I play PSVR with a regular controller versus two Move controllers, the difference is night and day. The PS Move controllers really add to the feeling of immersion, even though they aren't the best motion controllers out there.

So I think people just dismiss this stuff at their peril, honestly. It's not that every game out there is going to involve waggle, it's that the technology, ideas, and skills that come out of those kinds of products shape what is possible in the future - I think motion controls will continue to be a feature, not a bug.