You're right, a direct is to announce games. Go ahead and tell me all the times a Direct pulled an Oprah and has told us to go checkIt doesn’t really matter if it’s in-house or not. You’re kind of ignoring what the general directs are positioned to do. It’s to announce games and give us a basic preview of what’s coming over the year.
With the way this virus is affecting certain events lately, it’s definitely in the realm of possibility that Nintendo is in a state of uncertainty for a lot of upcoming releases.
It unfortunately trickles down. Or in this case up.
Paper Mario is announced.
Where does Nintendo manufacture its cases, cartridges, promotional material, etc? Despite them being a Japanese based company, they still utilize resources from China.
All this will factor into changing the release table of some games. As well as their overall market plan for the year.
Nintendo is under no obligation to physically release the games. Sure, a lot of people, myself included, both enjoy and expect a physical copy of the game, but if it were literally a matter of international concern that is stopping the production of the cases, artwork, or game cartridges, that's tough. Hell, imagine being in Nintendo's situation and you realize you could save millions of dollars by blaming supply chain shortage and only releasing games digitally for a few months. Most of these numbers folks probably looked at the coronavirus as far back as January as something that'll blow over in China before it causes a shortage of case or game production in the release window of any games that would have been announced during a February direct, if there was one planned to begin with.
I think if the direct happens next week to coincide with Mar10 Day then they were intentionally holding off on it, and that should end any coronavirus debates... But if the direct happens period it would end coronavirus debates, I suppose.
Finally. I have unironically awaited the sequel to that movie since I first saw it back in 1997 and saw the cliffhanger ending scene.
If you've never watched it, they took the "Mario's younger brother" concept to its extreme. At the time of the movie, Bob Hoskins (Mario) was 50 and very much looked it, while John Leguizamo (Luigi) was 28 and looked as fresh faced as 20. I think it's a little unrealistic to think that their theoretical parents would have waited 20 years to have a second child (though not impossible...) so it might be fair to say that Mario is supposed to be 30 while Luigi is around the 17 to 20 mark, but the lack of mustache probably isn't just to show the age gap - Luigi drives most of the plot and is very much the main character of the movie (a radical idea for the time, part of why this movie is pure genius), and they probably wanted their lead man to look as appealing to the hip kids of the 90s as possible. If the movie were made today with the same level of "irreverence" to the source material, Luigi would probably have a mustache. And a beard.I always wondered why Luigi did not have a mustache in that movie.
Excuse me for being dense, but... what did they sell with Terry? Or Banjo? I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that Banjo has anything to do with Cuphead and Ori - Microsoft does have the distribution rights to Ori but I don't believe that means they own it - there are plenty of games throughout history in which a party that doesn't own the game retains distribution rights for a time before those rights expire and someone else picks it up or the developers find a way to self-publish.I just wanna join the legendary Geno thread. Maybe y'all could give me your thoughts on some things.
I think Geno's biggest hurdle is that he doesn't have an obvious sales tie-in. Of course there could be a release of SMRPG for Nintendo's online service, but this doesn't bring the big bucks.
Banjo also had this problem, but Nintendo and MS were really creative and open-minded with that negotiation. I think that's how we ended up with Cuphead and Ori on Switch. So there's obviously some flexibility in what's possible.
I'd love to hear people's thoughts on how Nintendo and Square Enix would try to make the most of Geno if he is included. The most obvious move to me would be for him to play a major role in the next Paper Mario game. But I'm 1. not sure what Intelligent Systems is doing and 2. not sure if Nintendo is serious about the Paper Mario series. Also, the Alpha Dream (RIP) games were more of a successor to SMRPG--they included a Geno cameo in the first game, and had the same composer--so I'm also unsure of whether the Paper Mario team would be interested in making a successor to SMRPG.
Nintendo has already dedicated two spots in Smash to Square's biggest franchise (Final Fantasy) and the biggest franchise they've ever acquired (Dragon Quest). An entirely new generation has been introduced to Cloud in the years leading up to the long awaited remake of Final Fantasy VII, which will likely never see its way to a Nintendo console. Both of these franchises are legendary, spanning the entirely history of commercially viable video games, but Super Smash Bros. would sell without Cloud and without 4 protagonists from Dragon Quest. I'd even go as far as to say Ultimate would have seen its record setting day 1 sales whether or not Cloud had been in it - Smash is a ****ing legend in and of itself. Nintendo isn't honored to have your character in their game, you're honored to have your character in their game. We don't know the situation, ultimately - has Nintendo gotten anything out of this? Did Cloud's inclusion push thousands of sales of Final Fantasy VII remaster? Dragon Quest 11 S? It may be a bit presumptuous of me, but at this point, Square owes Nintendo the favor of having whoever the hell Nintendo wants be in Smash, because it's very obvious that Square's gotten what they want. Who else do they have to shill?
Smash has been out for a full year, now. I understand where people were coming from, to say that the variety of the first Fighters Pass was to attract new audiences to Smash, even though I don't believe it accomplished that goal, since I just don't see a hardcore Persona fan making an at minimum $365.99 + tax investment to play Joker in a platform fighter/party game hybrid on a console from a company that has never hosted a main Persona game (and this is just an example, as the same can be said for Terry, and Dragon Quest was out on the PS4 for at least a year before it was on the Switch). That extended example speaks to the simple fact that it's very likely that the copies of Smash that have sold are the copies that are gonna sell, barring extremely late adopters. Even as someone who has been denied Geno in this dumb platform fighter party game since Melee, I don't act like the game is somehow worse due to the fact it's lacking him - I don't think there's an appreciable number of people who are going to be sold the game on one character or, honestly, in an 80+ character roster, 5. Even if your favorite character isn't in the game, you find someone you enjoy playing and you play them when you play.
To sum up my point, not every inclusion is a shill. Sometimes, something is done for the fans (Ridley, K. Rool, Belmonts, Banjo), and we're sitting at a point where, with how little we know about the future releases, fan favorites and shills could be the same (Inkling, Isabelle). At this point, the DLC should be sold as something to enhance Smash, not try to attract people to Smash. The people who love this game, the "sMaSh BuBbLe", should be satisfied by these inclusions. I can already smell the bootlickers coming by to tell me that I'm wrong and this is entitlement or whatever, but I'll just let you guys know ahead of time, I don't care what you think about what I think Nintendo should be doing with this round of DLC.
Last edited by a moderator: