Smash 3DS Smash for 3ds Delayed to October 3rd Discussion

[R0Y]

>implying Sonic '06 was bad BECAUSE of rushing or anything
Dude, that game was conceptually ****. It was doomed from the beginning (and it DID go through development hell, between Yuji Naka leaving and everything, so really, rushing wasn't the problem). Heck, even the level design didn't feel properly built for a Sonic game, which is something that would have been established in the conceptual stages.

Delaying a game means you risk falling behind other games technologically, or risk selling it at a terrible time (the sad story of Rayman Legends comes to mind).

Delaying games is something that should be avoided at all costs, and your deadlines should be realistic from the get go as a result. Games shouldn't have announced release dates until it's reasonable to give them one.

However, a small delay like the one Smash 3DS is getting is fine. I'm more referring to delays that go into half a year territory, and just how citing Miyamoto's little quote isn't very good.

Most modern Sonic games are, Colours and Generations aside, doesn't stop it from being one of the very worst. Game had many things dummied out due to time constraints...including proper testing (was buggy as hell.) Game was unfinished.

http://tcrf.net/Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(Xbox_360)

No, no no. This is a myth we rarely see anymore. Graphically, games like Final Fantasy XIII and LA Noire went through hell and back, and still ended up as some of the generation's best-looking games. LA Noire started development in 2004, assets were greatly improved by its 2011 launch.

Selling at a terrible time? Anything other than November and to a lesser extent, October, March, and April, seem to be horrible times for game releases.

Rayman Legends didn't bomb because of its release date... That same game in July when fewer people are buying games would have bombed harder. It's a $60 USD (plus tax) 2D platformer without Mario. Honestly, I don't know about you but I'm tired of the "retro" revival of 2D platformers, it's old. Show some risk and give me a sequel to Rayman 2: The Great Escape, and I'd buy it. We haven't seen a 3D Rayman since 2003 (Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc), and that one was far more linear than its 1999 prequel.

Let's say I'm still interested in the genre, like a lot of gamers, why get the game that is 6 times more for a similar experience. Indies have literally overstated the market and reduced the perceived and real value of 2D platformers. Nobody seems to want to make a good 3D platformer anymore except Nintendo and sometimes Sega. Apparently Skylanders is actually quite nice though I haven't played it yet and it seems more action-adventure.

Miyamoto is correct. He delayed Super Mario 64 repeatedly until he got a formula right, and that was a formula much of the 5th generation's biggest games tried to emulated.

 

[ChikoLad]

Most modern Sonic games are, Colours and Generations aside, doesn't stop it from being one of the very worst. Game had many things dummied out due to time constraints...including proper testing (was buggy as hell.) Game was unfinished.

http://tcrf.net/Sonic_the_Hedgehog_(Xbox_360)

No, no no. This is a myth we rarely see anymore. Graphically, games like Final Fantasy XIII and LA Noire went through hell and back, and still ended up as some of the generation's best-looking games. LA Noire started development in 2004, assets were greatly improved by its 2011 launch.

Selling at a terrible time? Anything other than November and to a lesser extent, October, March, and April, seem to be horrible times for game releases.

Rayman Legends didn't bomb because of its release date... That same game in July when fewer people are buying games would have bombed harder. It's a $60 USD (plus tax) 2D platformer without Mario. Honestly, I don't know about you but I'm tired of the "retro" revival of 2D platformers, it's old. Show some risk and give me a sequel to Rayman 2: The Great Escape, and I'd buy it. We haven't seen a 3D Rayman since 2003 (Rayman 3: Hoodlum Havoc), and that one was far more linear than its 1999 prequel.

Let's say I'm still interested in the genre, like a lot of gamers, why get the game that is 6 times more for a similar experience. Indies have literally overstated the market and reduced the perceived and real value of 2D platformers. Nobody seems to want to make a good 3D platformer anymore except Nintendo and sometimes Sega. Apparently Skylanders is actually quite nice though I haven't played it yet and it seems more action-adventure.

Miyamoto is correct. He delayed Super Mario 64 repeatedly until he got a formula right, and that was a formula much of the 5th generation's biggest games tried to emulated.

No, most modern Sonic games aren't. With the exception of '06 and Shadow, they haven't been too over the top and serious, nor have they had really unfitting ideas like guns and saving princesses. Sonic '06 was an extremely misguided reboot attempt from the beginning of it's development.

Square Enix and Rockstar are extremely huge companies with a lot of money. Of course they constantly have people working on new engines and technology, alongside their games.

Rayman Legends would have sold very well had it stuck to the Wii U launch release date, or at least the March one. It would have been one of the only games out for the Wii U at those times, a Wii U exclusive at that, and Rayman is a fresh series right now since it was absent for so long. Instead, they released it a couple of weeks before GTAV. And so it bombed in sales. I frequent a Rayman forum, and even hardcore Rayman fans skipped the game for a bit to save money for GTAV. If the game didn't have that delay (the game was ready to ship in February, but Ubisoft wanted the dev team to port it to other consoles at the last minute).

Miyamoto did not delay SM64 (delaying a game is announcing a release date to the public, and having to relapse - simply taking as much time as you want before announcing a release date is more how Miyamoto works), he simply had flexibility, which is a good thing (and is likely what L.A Noire and FFXIII had). Nintendo EAD don't really set deadlines:

That was one good thing about EAD work – they appreciated that projects were dynamic like that, not saying here’s your schedule stick to it.

http://pixelatron.com/blog/the-making-of-super-mario-64-full-giles-goddard-interview-ngc/

I agree with Miyamoto's quote in the correct context - having a flexible schedule is always better than rushing to meet a sales deadline. However, taking it in the context of "delays are actually good", is wrong. Delaying your game only tells me you didn't plan hard enough, or you didn't have a flexible enough work environment for your experimental project.

 

[The21stSmasher]

I think the delay was a good call. Without it, Nintendo would more likely rush their way through the 3DS version.

 

[R0Y]

No, most modern Sonic games aren't. With the exception of '06 and Shadow, they haven't been too over the top and serious, nor have they had really unfitting ideas like guns and saving princesses. Sonic '06 was an extremely misguided reboot attempt from the beginning of it's development.

Square Enix and Rockstar are extremely huge companies with a lot of money. Of course they constantly have people working on new engines and technology, alongside their games.

Rayman Legends would have sold very well had it stuck to the Wii U launch release date, or at least the March one. It would have been one of the only games out for the Wii U at those times, a Wii U exclusive at that, and Rayman is a fresh series right now since it was absent for so long. Instead, they released it a couple of weeks before GTAV. And so it bombed in sales. I frequent a Rayman forum, and even hardcore Rayman fans skipped the game for a bit to save money for GTAV. If the game didn't have that delay (the game was ready to ship in February, but Ubisoft wanted the dev team to port it to other consoles at the last minute).

Miyamoto did not delay SM64 (delaying a game is announcing a release date to the public, and having to relapse - simply taking as much time as you want before announcing a release date is more how Miyamoto works), he simply had flexibility, which is a good thing (and is likely what L.A Noire and FFXIII had). Nintendo EAD don't really set deadlines:



http://pixelatron.com/blog/the-making-of-super-mario-64-full-giles-goddard-interview-ngc/

I agree with Miyamoto's quote in the correct context - having a flexible schedule is always better than rushing to meet a sales deadline. However, taking it in the context of "delays are actually good", is wrong. Delaying your game only tells me you didn't plan hard enough, or you didn't have a flexible enough work environment for your experimental project.

Most Sonic Games are terrrrrrrrrrible. I can have that opinion, and you can have yours, there's no objective means to prove either of us wrong.

So's Bandai Namco and Nintendo even moreso...what's your point?

No it wouldn't have. It sold best on Wii U because that's where the audience is, but the market for a $60 2D platformer that's not Mario is simply too small.

...WHAT!!!!

Miyamoto DID delay Super Mario 64. Literally, that's what the quote is about...
http://www.edge-online.com/features/a-history-of-videogame-hardware-nintendo-64/
http://www.edge-online.com/features/a-history-of-videogame-hardware-nintendo-64/
http://www.edge-online.com/features/a-history-of-videogame-hardware-nintendo-64/

I'm done arguing with because you're ignoring basic facts...so there's no point. You'll never understand.

 

[ChikoLad]

Well if you don't like Sonic by principle, of course you'll have that view. However, Sonic '06 is not just a bad game, it's a terrible SONIC game, and was from it very conception. It tried to blend a lot of Sonic elements with stuff that didn't fit Sonic at all. It was a doomed game.

I was talking about Miyamoto's quote, not Smash's delay. I specifically stated that Smash's delay is a not a major scenario, they are literally just fine tuning it. Still bad that they had to delay it, but it's not severe.

There was literally nothing for Wii U owners to buy in March of last year. Rayman Legends had a lot of hype around it then, because the game looked (and is) amazing. However, they lost their momentum because of the delay. It was a terrible move that led to petitions and boycotting, and poor publicity and sales.

Your Edge article "reportedly" claims it was delayed by Miyamoto. I posted an interview with SOMEONE WHO WORKED ON THE GAME stating that the game simply had a flexible work schedule. While the game may have had rough internal release dates that were constantly pushed back, it didn't have a public release date that got delayed.

 

[R0Y]

Your Edge article "reportedly" claims it was delayed by Miyamoto. I posted an interview with SOMEONE WHO WORKED ON THE GAME stating that the game simply had a flexible work schedule. While the game may have had rough internal release dates that were constantly pushed back, it didn't have a public release date that got delayed.

He was talking about the hardware, and that's information that a Mario title screen face programmer might not be privy to regardless. Nice try though.

The console was originally slated for release by Christmas of 1995. In May 1995, Nintendo pushed back the release to April 1996.[18] The prospect of a release the following spring at a lower price than the competition lowered sales of competing Sega and Sony consoles during the important Christmas shopping season.[19]

In its explanation of the delay, Nintendo claimed it needed more time for Nintendo 64 software to mature,[5] and for third-party developers to produce games.[18] Adrian Sfarti, a former engineer for SGI, attributed the delay to hardware problems; he claimed that the chips underperformed in testing, and were being redesigned.[5]

Giles Godard doesn't know what he's talking about here, the N64's delay is very well-documented and Nintendo said themself it was to "allow N64 software to mature" Super Mario 64 was one of only 2 launch titles (3 in Japan and a few more when it finally made it to the PAL region) Goddard most likely worked on the game from the United States, not Japan where the big decisions were made on the N64.

 

[ChikoLad]

Nintendo 64 being delayed does not mean SM64 was. As Goddard said, it's misinformation.

The Nintendo 64 being delayed in the wait for other software to mature is literally just Nintendo pushing it back so it can launch with some games. They obviously picked out what games would be suitable launch titles, and decided to release the console with them. The console was delayed, not the games. The two are not synonymous. The games were permitted to spend as long as they wanted, and Nintendo simply kept pushing back their console because they were being cocky. If SM64 ended up requiring another two years, it would have got those two years, and the console simply would have released without it. This happened with the GameCube and Sunshine, as well as the Wii and Galaxy.

 

[supercopper64]

I might not even be geting the 3ds version anyway. As long as the wii u version is coming in december im good cuz my bday is in the end of sepetember.

 

[Saikyoshi]

I'm a little upset, yeah, because it'll get launched right smack in the middle of the college semester, but of course I understand why.

You're allowed to be upset; you're not allowed to demand something you're not entitled to. (Directed at Miiverse, not anyone here.)

 

[HermitHelmet]

The delay makes sense. From what I played, the 3DS Version was very buggy. Stable, but buggy. Even with the 3D off, it very occasionally dipped to 30/40 FPS. And with the Wii U Version, it won't be delayed. They plan to release Amiibo around the same time.

 

[TeenGirlSquad]

Nintendo 64 being delayed does not mean SM64 was. As Goddard said, it's misinformation.

The Nintendo 64 being delayed in the wait for other software to mature is literally just Nintendo pushing it back so it can launch with some games. They obviously picked out what games would be suitable launch titles, and decided to release the console with them. The console was delayed, not the games. The two are not synonymous. The games were permitted to spend as long as they wanted, and Nintendo simply kept pushing back their console because they were being cocky. If SM64 ended up requiring another two years, it would have got those two years, and the console simply would have released without it. This happened with the GameCube and Sunshine, as well as the Wii and Galaxy.

They should have done the same with the Wii U. And maybe the GameCube, honestly.

 

[Jackie Chandler]

I want to know what the final roster is more than I want to play the game.