Potential Features for Animal Crossing on the Switch

Hello again!

As some of you may remember, and in some cases be annoyed about, mainline Animal Crossing skipped the Wii U.

But why?

Financially lucrative, appealing to most demographics, and genuinely adored, having this franchise pass over Nintendo's last home console seems like a wasted opportunity to many. Personally, I believe that a big part of why this didn't happen was that the principle novelty of the hardware was dual-screen play.

Though unique among home consoles, dual-screen functionality has been leveraged as the primary means of moving the Animal Crossing franchise forward on Nintendo's handhelds. Wild World on the DS saw a more intuitive interface and expanded feature set that later carried over into New Leaf, alongside a plethora of other additions and adjustments. In many ways, Animal Crossing games tend to be improved iterations of each other as opposed to full-blown sequels, so releasing a title on the Wii U might not have only seemed a little redundant but also as a less convenient way to play as well.

It doesn't help that the development team was quite busy coming off of New Leaf, having a hand in building the Wii U's interface, Nintendo Land, and four other projects: two of which were Animal Crossing related and one being Splatoon, the first entry in Nintendo’s wildly successful new IP .

However, with the release of the Switch, we now have hardware that’s abandoned dual-screen play as its core feature, instead finding its novelty in being functional as both a handheld and console. Because of that, I believe that an Animal Crossing made on this platform won't be disadvantaged by losing the pivotal boon of playing anywhere or held back by the technical limitations of a traditional handheld, making it a strong place to push the series forward with little compromise.

Today, I thought it'd be fun to consider what interesting innovations or mechanics could be implemented on a Switch version of Animal Crossing to provide a unique, interesting play experience.

Here are just a few that I’ve come up with.

Tablet Notifications

I think an external notification system that allows players to receive more notable updates on what's going on in their game would be pretty useful.

.

Something like this could be integrated into the standard notification system of the Switch or an external app. Whether available on the cartridge, through the eShop, or even on mobile, a lean secondary application would be a great alternative to help conserve battery life in portable mode. A mobile application in particular, perhaps integrated through the Animal Crossing mobile game, would provide the benefit of a notification system you'd always have on hand. Being optional would mean that only those who really want to keep up with their game would have updates coming in, respecting players in a way that most apps typically don't.

StreetPass-style Trading

Though Nintendo's confirmed that StreetPass isn't a feature of the Switch, I feel that a means of hypothetically connecting it, the 3DS, and mobile platforms in some way could have interesting interactive uses.

Trading in particular is something I think would be fun. Imagine putting items that you don't personally want out for a new home. Passing by folks playing New Leaf or the upcoming mobile game would allow you to give away these things alongside accompanying letters, and maybe receive something unique for yourself.

Maybe an expansion of shops would allow you to design your own items to sell and provide a means for passersby to show their approval later on or even buy something for themselves! I think that this could be a really cool way to make bells and expand social engagement in a safe, rewarding way.

Window Mode

In much the same way that the introduction of handhelds has been an excellent fit for allowing us to enjoy Animal Crossing in short bursts, I think that the application of a secondary mode for home use might also provide an interesting means of increasing efficiency and respecting the player's time.

Window Mode would be an immersive feature that would be like, well, a window into the game's world. Functioning like an informative, interactive screensaver, it would intuitively allow players to see what's going on in their towns.

You could see what the weather's like, if you've got mail, perhaps a hint of whatever festivities may be happening on a given day, and more. You might even get friendly villagers saying hello, dropping things off, or wanting to talk! Of course, some folks might not like having too much socialization come their way, so you would be able to adjust your —customizable— blinds and/or curtains to make it so that other villagers know you're looking for a little privacy.

Personally, I think this would be a really fun little touch that could also help players who tend to get lost figuring out what to do and allow those at home to passively engage with the game while still being productive instead of dedicating the time to sitting in front of the television and turning the console on and off when wanting to play.

What I Want from Breath of the Wild

Originally published on February 27th, 2017

Hey folks! With the release of the Switch being just a week away, hype is in overdrive all around. What excites me most about next week isn't the Switch, however, but the release of Breath of the Wild.

Yes, after years of waiting, speculation, and anticipation, the 3rd of March will finally be the day we get our hands on one of the most ambitious titles in the Legend of Zelda franchise yet, and I'm very ready to sink my teeth into the massive open world of Hyrule for myself.

Being the last week until the game's release, previews have started to pour out of the press. Though I've been avoiding these write-ups and videos with the aim of immersing myself entirely in the game without knowledge of anything that'd be pleasant to discover on my own, that hasn't stopped me from having my own hopes for what it'll be like to play.

Today, I've decided to gather up all of the things I'd love to see Breath of the Wild do to highlight what I personally think would be an amazing experience.

Here's what I want from the game.

Gameplay

Starting with gameplay, there are some things in particular that I'd like to see in this release.

The folks at Nintendo always seem to love hiding secrets in their games, whether they be references to other franchises like the animal masks in Majora's Mask or mechanical obscurities like getting in a Koopa shell in Super Mario 3D World, these oddities never fail to make me feel like there's more to a game than meets the eye and that I'm in on something special. I'd love to see more of these in Breath of the Wild. I Know that it's pretty much a guarantee that we'll get to see these warm little touches regardless considering the precedent, but the fact that Breath of the Wild has such a massive world only excites me so much more about the possibility of find numerous things that I'd never expect to see, whether in a Zelda game or otherwise.

Another thing I really want is challenge. Because this game has an open world in the truest sense, I don't want to be held back from progressing by artificial walls of any sort. Within reason, I want my successes to reflect my skill more than they do the quality of my inventory: I want to be a better player, not have a better character. I love the idea of doing something that seems restrictively difficult and knowing that I can overcome it instead of being forced to turn around and take a different path until Link is somehow numerically more capable. Things like this would mean that I can make my own challenges by approaching dire situations on my own terms. The pinnacle of that sort of design would be defeating Ganon right from the get go, and I fully intend to give it a try to satisfy my own curiosity before really delving into the rest of what the game has to offer. Knowing that this is technically possible already has me wondering what incredible things a skilled player could pull off on their adventure, and I look forward to becoming that player myself.

Just imagine beating down Bokoblin by flailing around a piece of meat with Magnesis!

On the other end of things, I want the simple, obvious things to be entirely in my hands to figure out. I'd love to get a fuller sense of satisfaction from recognizing what's necessary through my own observations and experimentation. Essentially, if the game is put together in a way that respects my intelligence instead of telegraphing what needs to be done before I get the opportunity to engage with the situation, I'll be a very happy camper. I'm not actually too worried about things on this front, as it seems very clear that most situations are designed to be open ended with regards to how players approach them. It's even been said that there isn't a typical companion character in the game because they want to grant players the complete freedom to forge their own path, and that is very encouraging to know.

Story

Though I know that the freedom of Breath of the Wild is also established in a way that allows players to have their own personal stories to tell at the end of their experience, I'd really like the primary narrative of this Zelda game to be as fully featured as the ones we've seen in previous entries of the franchise. I recognize and appreciate that we can defeat Ganon without contextualizing our play-throughs with the cutscenes in the game, but I hope that those of us that do pursue them get a rich background to paint the picture of what happened leading up to our adventure.

I also would really love smaller plot threads being explored through side-quests. These could be especially memorable if Nintendo approached them with the kind of depth and variety we've seen in Majora's Mask.

Something else I've really been wanting from a Zelda game, though not necessarily this one, is an exploration of the "Era Without a Hero". This is a part of the Adult timeline that takes place after Ocarina of Time but before Wind Waker and is the period in which the flooding of Hyrule occurred. I think it'd be compelling to experience that Era, especially if things weren't necessarily as simple as we might think.

What if the Legend only says that the hero was nowhere to be found because he failed?

Though the Link from Ocarina of Time disappeared from this timeline, the Link in Wind Waker still had the Spirit of the Hero. Why would it simply be gone in the intermediary time, especially when the royal bloodline still continued and Ganon broke his seal? What if this doesn't mean that there wasn't a hero, but that he failed? After all, failure isn't unprecedented in the Zelda universe continuity, as the Decline timeline is dedicated to a scenario in which Link does not succeed in defeating Ganon.  In that case, it would make sense that the legend of his time would ignore him as the chosen hero destined to save Hyrule. In their eyes, if he fails, how could he be? I think it'd be incredibly interesting to see a game like this that, ultimately, would be more of a tragedy: justifying the need to call upon the Goddesses to flood Hyrule.

Lore

Relevant to the story front, I'd love to see more strong world-building in Breath of the Wild. The immense size of the game lends itself to an enormous amount of potential with regards to painting a richer picture of Hyrule than we've ever seen before.

I want to learn about past tragedies through the rubble of architecture and the remains of civilization. I want to enter ruins and be able to trace the path a guardian might have taken as it left destruction in its wake. I want geography to show me why certain groups live in certain places and how that reflects on their way of life.

Translating Hylian glyphs or running through tapestries like this would be a great way to flesh out the world.

Even side-quests could build on this front, indirectly helping expand our understanding of the world. Just imagine learning about the various cultures of Hyrule, whether through the remains of what was or through the new villages and communities that exist in the present.

Going back to respecting player intelligence, I'd also love to have much of this done in a way that indicates thoughtful design as opposed to directly feeding the player through optional exposition. There's nothing wrong with doing things in that way, but I think that primarily presenting the lore through deliberate choices with the geography, ecology, architecture, enemies, and NPCs would be all the more enriching to those of us who want to put a careful eye forward, thus making the experience feel all the more cohesive and the world more alive.

The Way I See It: Marketing the Switch as a Handheld

The Way I See It is a category of pieces that represent my personal opinions or reasoning on subjects I enjoy or have a lot to say about. Though I attempt to build these write-ups on on well-researched and verified information where relevant, as a general statement, I do not speak with absolute authority on any given matter covered. Thank you for your time.

Returning once again to the topic of the Nintendo Switch, a common complaint I've seen again and again is that the hardware isn't being presented well to potential consumers. A whole lot of folks have insisted that Nintendo's not being smart about the Switch by marketing it as a console first. "Why sell it as a weaker console that you can take with you when you could advertise it as a really powerful handheld that you can hook up to the tv?" they say. I believe that there are a lot of reasons for why they wouldn't want to do that. In fact, looking at things as a whole, there's little to no value in presenting it in that way at all.

Here are some of my thoughts and an elaboration on my perspective.

Price

Let's start with the money factor.

I'll put it bluntly: At 300 dollars, the Switch is not priced to sell as a handheld.

Looking back at a relevant and recent example, the 3DS entered the market at 250 US Dollars. By the second quarter of the hardware’s availability, it had become apparent that this was not a wise move. Sales so solidly plummeted that they didn't just fail to meet projections, but they also contributed to Nintendo's first quarterly loss in about 8 years. Nintendo quickly turned around on this and heavily dropped the 3DS's price, aiming to encourage sales, regain their market momentum, and build their player-base to convince developers and retail partners that the handheld could achieve a degree of success comparable to its predecessor.

The Switch retails for 50 dollars more than the 3DS did before its price drop with no pack-in game or holdover distractions like AR to speak of.

Advertising the Switch as a handheld first and asking consumers in the same market group as the 3DS - one that has shrunken by about a 3rd if we're being generous - to pay 300 dollars for it is utterly untenable. On top of this, potential buyers from the console market would likely balk at the prospect of putting that much money down for a handheld when the same amount could buy them a PS4 or Xbox One with a game included and the assurance of an already expansive software library instead.

Speaking of software, the pricing there is also a glaring issue that would need to be addressed.

Typically, the roof of handheld game pricing is about 40 US dollars. Full-scale Switch games cost the standard 60 associated with new console games. When posing the Switch as a handheld, every market would find problems with this amount.

Many console gamers looking from the outside would ask why they'd have to pay the same price for a handheld game as they would a standard console release, seeing it as a lower value proposition. On the other side of the spectrum, the financially minded handheld gamer, who already has the price of the device to consider, would only be further detracted by a perceptible cost increase for software. Things get even worse when looking at mobile gamers who do most of their shopping on app stores: through their frame of reference, they'd be apprehensive of paying 10 dollars for a single game, let alone a solid 60.

Where money is concerned, Nintendo needs to set the right context to justify the investments that they and their partners expect consumers to make, and no part of telling the world that the Switch is a 300 dollar handheld with 60 dollar games succeeds in doing that.

Practicality

On top of pricing concerns, let's consider the functional value of the Switch being a handheld-first device. Sure it'd look like a step forward to the handheld gamer, but what about the other market groups?

To everyone else, its console functionality wouldn't seem all that attractive would it?

3DS games and the like tend to be smaller, bite-sized experiences that are made with the consideration that the hardware has a limited battery life and will be used in unstable settings. A lot of games in various genres designed in terms of those parameters would likely feel shallower, shorter, less engrossing, and less meaningful to those who primarily play games on consoles and personal computers. Implying that Switch games are like this adds unnecessary apprehension of the quality of experience that console gamers would end up finding on the hardware; it goes against the appealing current messaging that you can take your full-featured console game with you anywhere you go.

Calling this a handheld device you can hook up to your tv raises a further, possibly more potential stifling, marketing issue: the mainstream audience doesn't associate the 3DS with handheld games, but the titles they get on their phones. Take a walk in their shoes. Would you at all want to play a majority of those games on a television given the opportunity? Mobile games are almost universally centered around basic mechanics and aren't graphically intensive. Folks playing on a phone have a convenience that isn't found anywhere else in that they can play their games in any environment and usually still have a hand free to do other things. They can play while on the train, waiting in line at the store, running their errands, and even while watching tv. Giving mobile gamers something that seems to take that all away doesn't sound like an alluring kind of novelty, does it?

Closing

The long of the short of it is that Nintendo marketing the Switch as a console that you can play on the go is a stronger strategy when compared to the presented alternative. It allows Nintendo to pose the hardware and software in a way that's more palatable to all markets in terms of price as well as easily manage the expectations of the kinds of games it's been built to facilitate. Console and PC gamers will very clearly understand the concept of the hardware and consider the allure of playing upcoming games in the same capacity that they usually do at home wherever they'd like. Handheld gamers will be able to look at the Switch and recognize that it's an even bigger leap in scale and graphics than they might typically expect. The mobile market will very immediately understand that the software and hardware are not directly comparable to things like their phones and app-store games, allowing them to appreciate the device’s merits on its own terms.

As far as I can see, marketing the Switch as a handheld first would only be smart if all that mattered for its success was its perceived power. I'm sure that it's clear to those who really think about it that things aren't that simple, and the overall value of pushing the Switch under those extremely specific terms isn't just low; it's actually potentially very damaging to the success of the hardware.

Nintendo has never released the most powerful handhelds on the market, yet they've always succeeded in the face of their competition. They've done this by pricing their hardware competitively, providing great battery-life, and, more recently, having novelties that turn heads. As a handheld, the Switch offers none of these things. Is it then still worth it for Nintendo to pose their latest flagship device under this marketing context, just to look more powerful?

If you asked me, I'd say no.

The Possible Reasons for the Nintendo Switch's Online App

A little while ago, Nintendo announced that the Switch's online functionality would be primarily relegated to a mobile application instead of running entirely on the console itself. Naturally, many eyebrows and pitchforks have been raised in response to this unusual turn of events. With what little information we have, a lot of reasonable questions have come about. Things like "What if I don't have a smartphone?", "Isn't this an unnecessary inconvenience?", and "Why do I have to manage two devices at once?" to name a few.

Right now, with how vague things are, Nintendo’s application seems like an unattractive proposition, but such a controversial and unprecedented decision can't have been made lightly. With this in mind, I believe that trying to look for the advantages of this strange, segmented implementation of online might help us derive the underlying reasons that led to Nintendo seeing sense in it.

Here's my take.

Technical Functionality

A great place to start is assessing the technical side of things: what technical value can be reaped by relegating much of the Switch's online functionality to an external application?

Though we don't know the particulars of the Switch's internals, it isn't a stretch to say that the console is likely built to facilitate software developers getting the most out of its specs as efficiently as possible. Letting an app take up the duty of online matchmaking, voice chat, and parties would probably free up a bit of ram and processing that'd otherwise have been dedicated to ensuring that these secondary features could be accessible at any given time.

I can think of two potential advantages that could come from freeing up these resources: Greater visual quality and an increased battery life.

What if offloading some online functionality to the app let devs do more and gamers play longer?

In either handheld or docked mode, a little probably goes a long way. Minimizing the Switch OS's footprint instead of having it encompass various online functions probably increases the usable resource pool in a way that allows developers to have more happening on screen than would otherwise be possible or, alternatively, a greater deal of performance stability with the same quality and quantity of assets.

There's also the option of avoiding the use of resources in excess, allowing for the Switch to last longer in handheld mode: freeing up ram, easing the processing load, and sending little in the way of wireless data natively could be a great boon for battery life and make online play a bit more viable in handheld mode.

If relevant, these reasons might be pretty substantial in encouraging the decision to host the brunt of online functionality on external hardware.

Lifestyle

Other reasons Nintendo would want to pursue a secondary app for online functionality may not be in terms of the Switch but the brand outright.

Let's face it, even with handheld mode, not everyone is going to be bringing their Switch with them wherever they go. While it is more convenient than a full console has ever been, the Switch isn't pocketable, it doesn't have a very long battery life, and, as far as we know, doesn't support cellular data. These things make the console a little more difficult to see as a something that'll always be on hand to a majority of its userbase.

However, even though the Switch may not end up being one of most people's lifestyle devices of preference, a cellphone definitely will be.

By setting up their principle online infrastructure through mobile devices, Nintendo can keep their ecosystem on the mind outside of play, even if you don't have any of their dedicated hardware with you. Setting up through the phone also offers the opportunity to connect players across platforms, foster growth and expansion of the community overall, and ensure that updates and promotions are easily accessible to everyone who can take advantage of them.

This sort of consideration could be a smart play towards making Nintendo a prominent part of your everyday life, and that would potentially represent massive marketing value to the company moving forward.

Convenience

Interestingly, the advantages of making Lifestyle considerations aren't just promotional, but also an increase in user convenience. Centralizing the online infrastructure to an application could bring together a wealth of features that players may enjoy taking advantage of when they're away from their console, including things like the eShop or customer service access. This is the sort of thing Nintendo could consider pushing in a quality of life context.

Imagine a central hub for all your needs no matter where you fit in the Nintendo ecosystem.

Nintendo could even take things farther when working to this end and use the app to make our lives easier even when we go back to our dedicated hardware. An example of this could be establishing a base Nintendo ID Framework. With permission, the app could then log you on to any Switch, phone, or future handheld without any hassle for the transfer of accounts and software purchases. They could even do something like allow you to log your Nintendo ID onto a friend's console for multiplayer, carrying over data and rewards, and earning their equivalent of achievements.

The possibilities are quite attractive, but only time will tell if these sorts of things are actually on the table for the app. Here's hoping.

Parental App

This is more of an aside to be honest, but the one thing I can't really piece together is Nintendo's Parental Control app.

Don't get me wrong, I think that it's a great idea: It can help a parent regulate what, when, and how much a child plays. It can even help folks keep to personal schedules, further adding to it's potential utility.

It also does little that I can imagine requiring it to be a separate application as opposed to being a feature-set of the standard online app.

You might think it'd help prevent children from editing their parents' schedule settings, but I don't think that makes too much sense as it'd all be accessible on a single device anyway. Maybe things would get a bit too cluttered by putting those feature sets together?

I can't be sure, but we'll probably see why things have been done this way as we learn more about both of these applications in the future.

I hope you enjoyed this piece, and I'll see you soon for whatever comes next.

Take care!

The Way I see it: The Future of the 3DS

The Way I See It is a category of pieces that represent my personal opinions or reasoning on subjects I enjoy or have a lot to say about. Though I attempt to build these write-ups on on well-researched and verified information where relevant, as a general statement, I do not speak with absolute authority on any given matter covered. Thank you for your time.

Recently, Nintendo's president, Tatsumi Kimishima, reinforced the idea that the dedicated handheld space is still a valuable market and that the 3DS may yet see a successor.

The response to this idea hasn't been all too positive.

I've been reading a lot of naysaying on Nintendo continuing to support the DS handheld line even before the recent comments, but it seems that some folks aren't just doubtful of the likelihood of this happening: they're outright opposed to it. That's a little odd to me. While everyone has a right to their opinion on where Nintendo should go on this front, I have to say that a number of the reasons put forward in an attempt to justify doubts and detractions haven’t seemed all that solid to me.

Today, I've decided to dig into that matter a little.

An Elaboration

Like I've done in the previous post in this series of opinion pieces, I'll be outlining and answering some of the more prominent doubts on the matter as a means of constructively explaining my view: I don't think that Nintendo necessarily should or will abandon the dedicated handheld space in service of their latest console.

Nintendo's merged their software development divisions to make games for one device, namely the Switch.

Some point to the merger of these divisions about four years back as something that was done explicitly in order to design games for a singular device. There's no proof or indication of this. The excuse we'd gotten was that the move was made to develop “more innovative and attractive products” and to keep up with the various facets of the industry. This could just as easily be seen as a move to increase the fluidity of production, more efficiently transfer resources and personnel between projects as necessary, and/or increase access to the creative pool. There's no reasonable way to point to this merger as a clear excuse for only creating games on the Switch instead of multiple kinds of hardware; Nintendo pursuing the mobile market and intending to support the 3DS into 2018 -five years after the merger- both reinforce the invalidity of this oft parroted assumption for good measure.

There's no point in a new 3DS if the Switch succeeds because it could do everything a dedicated handheld could do.

I sometimes read this idea put out in order to justify why a new handheld is pointless. However, this perspective doesn't consider that, after the Wii U, Nintendo have relegated the concept of dual screen play exclusively to the DS line. This is something that can't be found anywhere else and, coupled with whatever supplementary novelty they pursue in the future, will easily help differentiate the hardware on a core level. Also worth considering, the Switch may be portable in that it can be taken on the go, but it isn't something that can be fit in your pocket or taken around as a pure convenience. Include the fact that the new advancements made for the Switch allow incredible performance for battery consumption, and you have a pretty sure bet that whatever might come after the 3ds could return to DS Lite levels of battery life at 10-15 hours, adding further to the viability of a truly dedicated handheld.

Making other handhelds isn't smart because it would confuse customers.

Nintendo is explicitly, whether or not people like it, marketing the Switch as a home console first and foremost and framing its portable aspect with that in mind. It's also priced well outside the range of successful dedicated handhelds.

By at least a hundred dollars.

In fact, you can even purchase a 2DS for less than a third of the cost of a Switch. This price difference alone already establishes a hard cut with regards to its placement in the market, as many consumers that'd purchase a handheld would immediately disregard the Switch when it runs the cost of a new home console: a fair number of folks don't at all want a home console, meaning that the features that account for this increase of price don't represent notable value to them. I think it's fairly reasonable to say that just leaving this part of the market empty-handed in the future is a waste of potential.

Nintendo said they wouldn't drop the Gameboy line of hardware when they released the DS but actually did, so they're probably going to do the same thing if the Switch succeeds.

When folks look back at this circumstance, it's reasonable to call out what Nintendo said. It's also fair to assume that they would have come back to the Gameboy if the DS failed. This is because both handhelds were being sold to the same functional market and the DS could even play GB games for two revisions. However, with the Switch replacing their dedicated console outright and the 3DS receiving a slower stream of third party software support, why would the logical response to the Switch failing be to lean on the DS line as opposed to developing a new dedicated home console? Alternatively, if the Switch succeeds, why would they throw away the novelty of dual-screen gaming entirely when it still maintains appeal to a fair portion of the market? It doesn't even make the most financial sense to shut off a revenue stream like that and focus on a single piece of hardware unless you're only considering first party games: Nintendo receives a licensing fee for every game sold on their hardware whether or not they've made it. With this in mind, if there's still an audience open to purchasing a dedicated handheld, it pretty immediately seems like a wasted opportunity for everyone involved if they neglect it or treat it like a contingency plan.

Closing

So there you have it.

As you can see, things aren't necessarily as definite or simple as they've been painted to be and, though I don't speak with authority on the matter, I personally don't think that Nintendo will consider abandoning the 3DS line (or dedicated handhelds) if the Switch is successful but might consider it if a successor to the 3DS ends up being a failure instead.

What do you think? Do you have any perspectives you'd like to share on the matter? Things you think I've missed? If so, please feel free to let me know in a comment below.

Thanks for reading and take care!

The Way I See It: Super Mario 3D World

The Way I See It is a category of pieces that represent my personal opinions or reasoning on subjects I enjoy or have a lot to say about. Though I attempt to build these write-ups on on well-researched and verified information where relevant, as a general statement, I do not speak with absolute authority on any given matter covered. Thank you for your time.

For the first entry in this series of posts, I wanted to write about Super Mario 3D World, a game in the Super Mario series released back in 2013 on the Wii U. More specifically, I wanted to address a topic that I've seen come and go often on forums and discussions in the Mario fan-base:

Is Super Mario 3D World a true 3D Mario game?

I'll start off clearly and say that my perspective on the matter is that 3D World is definitely a mainline 3D Mario game.

It's a game that observes and reframes the well-trodden conventions of 2D Mario games in a 3D context, translating those core fundamentals into a 'true' 3D successor to the 2D games and their design philosophies while taking into consideration the important lessons the developers have learned in making the less controversial 3D titles over the years.

Even though I don't agree with the alternative view on this matter, over time, I've come to empathize with it and acknowledge that 3D World doesn't necessarily provide what a number of folks are looking for in a 3D Mario experience in as full a capacity as they might prefer. The return of flagpoles as a universal primary goal point and linear level design makes the game much more overtly directed even with the exploratory opportunities on offer; there's a lack of complete openness or even the illusion of it that existed in the preceding games which seems to have been where the line's been crossed with expectations.

Since the inception of 3D Mario, Nintendo has been subtly and incrementally making sequels that trend away from the game preceding them to the ends of ensuring that all Mario fans can enjoy the title at hand. Over time, this path has proven to be one of a growing linearity, which many fans are not fond of. The underlying core of this progression seems to have been in service of overcoming the challenges of navigating 3D space.

In making the jump to 3D, Nintendo wholeheartedly embraced the additional dimension and crafted a game that recognized the advantage of the new frontier, providing an experience that is looked back upon fondly for its masterful design and polish. Unfortunately, the inherently more complex nature of 3D platforming and exploratory core were not typical of the Mario experiences seen up until that point. In other words, because of the lack of familiarity and the abandonment of core aspects of the original Mario experience, Nintendo has split its player base. This is a gap they want to bridge and is perhaps why such a major effort is dedicated to streamlining and simplifying 3D navigation in the series.

With 3D World, Nintendo built the game from the ground up as an experience that follows traditional 2D series conventions with 3D Mario mechanics/Principles in mind. This is essentially a reversal of how things have been done up until 3D Land before it and has resulted in a game built on novelty and variety, designed in such a way as to ensure that players always know where to go but are free to explore and are rewarded for making the effort.

The design decisions that facilitate this result come together with the less open world to provide those that say this isn't a true 3D Mario game their arguments.

I respect that the experience is fairly different and that it isn't the 3D Mario game some people want, but I don't think that not meeting certain expectations or norms disqualifies a game from its series, especially a series as experimental in nature as Mario.

But let's really dig into the heart of these doubts.

An Elaboration

In order to more effectively communicate my perspective while humoring the other side of things, I thought it might be constructive to list the more common reasons against 3D World being a 3D Mario and refute them or elaborate on why those changes were introduced.

It's has smaller/more linear stages

The stages on offer aren't actually much smaller if at all when compared to the Galaxy titles, but there are various things that come together to give this impression:

• The camera is fairly far away from the character. This makes most things within frame look generally smaller than they otherwise would seem.

• The consistently flat shapes and simple layouts used in the levels make for much less inherent visual spectacle and provide a less impressive sense of scope.

• While the more direct level design in 3D World focuses on establishing a singular principle concept and engaging with it in each stage, Galaxy, for example, provided various smaller objectives in succession separated by planetoids. That sort of design is something that I think makes an experience feel "fuller" in a way that may contribute to the impression of size.

• On the topic of planetoids, the transition between each one may be visually enjoyable, but the function takes time and control away from the player. It did have a use in terms of the modular level design as it was a very functional way of giving players a wider view of their next objective, but the fact of the matter is that it contributes to increasing the amount of time required to complete a given level, as opposed to increasing the playable area.
  
• The levels in the Galaxy games can reasonably be seen as generally more linear than the ones in 3D World. Guided by way of planetoid transition, players are unable to veer of the intended path. Additionally, the round nature of planetoids ensure that players return to where they've started and are constrained in such a manner until clearing the objective and being funneled to the next land mass.

• Mario’s general movement speed in 3D World is the fastest it has ever been in a 3D Mario game. This is also something that contributes to the sense of shrinkage due to quicker completion time and faster moment-to-moment traversal.

• The count-down timer also plays a role by setting a strict limit on how long a player can be in a stage. This is a big contrast to games like 64 and Sunshine where Stars are individually gathered in a sizable, open space on the player's own time. There are reasons for this design choice that I'll go into later, but I'll say now that it is noteworthy in driving home how long a level can take when previous 3D entries simply let the player roam, usually without a sense of urgency.

While all these things come together to provide what is essentially a Mario experience that has seemingly shorter levels, they are that way because they're distilled into the least padded form possible. I think that represents an immense respect for our time as players and a great deal of confidence in the principle design of each level on display, but I can see and appreciate how that also serves to take away from the sense of freedom relative to the earlier 3D titles in the series.

  

The camera is fixed

The specific nature of the Camera in 3D World is mostly a carryover from the Galaxy games' more automated implementation back in the Wii era, so the application isn't majorly unique in a 3D Mario title; in fact, counting 3D World, a majority of the 3D Mario games have a functionally independent camera during active play.

Set at a fixed angle and distance from the player at default, the camera is adjustable within a margin. This is something that has a number of advantages worth considering:

• It informs level design and allows the developers to more deliberately place and adjust platforms, secrets, enemies, and items with a more definite understanding of how and where the player will approach them.

• It means that camera adjustment isn't actually necessary to complete the game, which not only facilitates the use of any controller that can be connected to your console, but also single-screen multiplayer in a way that I can't imagine many other configurations managing to allow for. After all, it wouldn't make all that much sense to invite players to fight for preference of visibility now would it? That'd be the wrong kind of competitive element to bring to this particular table.

• The way the camera is set up comes together with the subtle restriction in directional movement and the more geometrically clear level design to ensure that jumps aren't missed due to errant twitches or a misjudgment of the placement of platforms; this configuration majorly reduces the prevalence of the difficulties that come with 3D platforming to inexperienced players.

• Though the camera is restrictive, it isn't entirely fixed, allowing for adjustments in most situations. I believe that this also exists as a measure to provide further clarity for jumps and help out less experienced players.

As you can probably tell, there's a whole lot that likely went into the selection of camera design for this game. Additionally, players have more control of the camera during play than they did in the Galaxy, which effectively provided no functional options on this front.

There's a count-down timer

Ahh, the count-down timer. 

This one's fairly interesting, as it feels like it puts a nice little bow on the embracing of more linear level design for 3D World. Fortunately, I don't think this was a blind addition simply for familiarity's sake.

The return of the count-down timer allows for an added dimension to tune with regards to challenge in boss-rushes, puzzles, or even certain levels in full later down the line. It certainly has great value when used in tandem with Ghost Houses, a level type that I think wouldn't have as much of a sense of foreboding, if at all, without a time-limit looming overhead.

Some may argue that a larger timer comes up and is more prominent for some of the situations I've presented, and so should be left out generally, but I believe that keeping the usually generous timer constantly on display ensures that players have a sense of it in mind and keep a forward-driven pace. This can be particularly valuable in multiplayer.

There isn't a Triple Jump

Here's an interesting bit of trivia: the first form of the Triple Jump didn't make its debut in Super Mario 64: it originally appeared in Donkey Kong for the Gameboy. Additionally, the Triple Jump features as a primary movement mechanic in the New Super Mario Brothers series of games. Because of these things, disqualifying 3D World as a 3D Mario game for excluding the Triple Jump is the same as disqualifying it as a mainline Mario game outright, so I don't agree with this as a metric.

I'm of the opinion that a big reason for the exclusion of the Triple Jump is to highlight the value of the cat-suit, which provides the player with climbing for simple, effective vertical traversal. The Triple Jump would not reasonably meet the same heights that the cat-suit allows Mario to reach by climbing, and no platforms are spaced out in a way that would make the Triple Jump ideal for any situation.

I also believe that the lack of a triple or even double jump is a platforming consideration; I think it's likely that having varying jump heights and distances based on a singular input was something Nintendo looked at as a bit too complicated to keep on the table.  You might say that less skilled players could just avoid using it, but that's exactly the problem: it's extremely easy to execute.

If a novice player began engaging with higher momentum platforming confidently in the game as it is now, they'd have a specific maximum jump distance to consider and nothing more. Putting the added consideration of the Triple Jump mechanic on their plate might result in failures that dissuade them from making faster-paced jumps or taking other risks in the future, which isn't worth allowing when the level-design doesn't reward the usage of the move in a meaningful way to begin with. Indeed, even if levels were made with the Triple Jump in mind, the problem would still exist if it was still implemented in the form we all know and love so well, so I'm fairly doubtful that they'd have gone that route anyway.

Consistency is also a potential issue with the Triple Jump. With various playable characters in the game, each with their own handling and jump heights, the Triple jump would have to be balanced between all of them. This would likely result in inconsistent input adjustments that make some characters feel less inviting to select.

It has a run button

Making running and walking binary isn't just some sort of return to 2D conventions for the sake of it. This effectively ensures that players can be far more deliberate about the pace they'd like to employ, not to mention that Mario's never moved faster than he has here. If you hold the run button and continue to run, you're given an even further boost in speed, rewarding those who commit to the challenge of maintaining momentum an increase in momentum. Those who want to be careful and take their time face no consequence and get a decent pace to work with that doesn't feel unreasonably sluggish.

On top of the more precise control, there's noted value in returning to this implementation because of the various input methods that are available for the Wii U. There's the Game-pad, pro controller, Wiimote and Nunchuck, and even just the Wiimote alone. This application means that even if you have just a single Wiimote, which doesn't have an analog stick, you can still play the game without concession. Anecdotally, this same solution was used for the primary control scheme of Super Mario 64 DS, a port/remake released on a system that also doesn't have an analog stick.

There's no exploration/Flagpoles return

The earlier 3D Mario games encouraged exploring a single large environment multiple times and meeting certain conditions to collect different stars. This was done because at the time, when asking what the most enjoyable aspect of playing in a 3D area was, the conclusion they came to was the novelty of searching around an open space. Though this is true, as time has gone on, the developers have recognized that this implementation posed the problem of players getting lost and being unable to effectively fulfill objective requirements. That's a part of why we've been seeing the design of titles get more and more linear in subtle and not so subtle ways, with Galaxy actively funneling players to their primary objective through the use of planetoids. In the case of 3D World, the decision was made to return to using flagpoles as an overall goal to ensure that players always know exactly where to go to clear a level.

Make no mistake, however: exploration still exists in the game, though in a more condensed capacity.

Stars of some sort were the primary objectives of the past 3D Mario titles, and they make a return here. They aren't all necessary to get through the game, and earlier on some of them are clearly within reach, but as the game goes on we see that these stars serve a similar function to those in the other 3D games. There are stars that are hidden, there are some that require trickier platforming to get to, some require puzzle solving, some ask for a certain enemy to be defeated, and some that are a reward for timed challenges. In a way, the implementation of stars in this game leans more toward the type of experience seen in 3D Mario than getting the Star-Coins seen in more recent 2D outings, likely to satiate the more exploratory interests of players who find joy in that part of the experience.

This application of the flagpole and stars could potentially be a great framework moving forward to satisfy all Mario players without compromise, guiding those who are daunted by exploration clearly towards a constant and well defined goal point in each stage and allowing the more adventurous players to jump off the directed path, exploring a large and diverse environment littered with stars as rewards for completing secondary objectives of various types, all without kicking you out between each one. This would likely require an additional core design element that ensures players know where the goal is at all times. More traditional suggestions would include a UI indicator or some sort of light-beacon. Regardless, I'm fairly sure that we'd likely see an unobtrusive, creative, and subtle solution if it were ever considered.

I think that it's also worth reiterating a point made above in that the Galaxy games funneling the player toward the Star at the end. The implementation featured in those games represents a functional linearity that would be unavoidable regardless of if the objective were reaching a flagpole or grabbing a star, making the complaint even more superficial a point when coming off the back of said entries.

Conclusion

Taken individually, few of these concerns do well to discount 3D World as a 3D Mario game, but when considering all of them it becomes very clear that it's notably different from the titles that preceded it.

In summary, I'd say that while this is definitely a 3D Mario game, it's not one that gives everyone what they want or expect from their 3D Mario experience. This is a title that was designed by looking back at the origins of the Mario series, something that had yet to be seriously done in any of the 3D games -besides 3D Land- with regards to principle design. It is meant to take what made the Mario games fun for the original audience and reintroduce it to them in a 3D context while also providing that traditional experience to fans of the 3D games. Indeed, 3D World reflects the nature of the original titles better than 64, making it a very interesting and introspective step for the franchise. I can't say for sure where things will go from here for 3D Mario, and I hope that whatever comes next manages to please those that felt unsatisfied, but I think that it's safe to say that 3D World was an experiment worth making and an excellent addition to the masterfully designed series its a part of.

Thanks for reading!

The Nintendo Switch: My Initial Thoughts and Analysis

About two months ago, on Friday, October 20th, Nintendo released a “sneak-peek” reveal (which you can watch here) of their upcoming game console, formerly known as codename NX. This new hardware is the Nintendo Switch, a console-handheld hybrid that’s meant to provide a new experience by bridging the gap between those two worlds.

I thought that this was an incredibly interesting reveal, not to mention the unprecedented timing and lead-up that’s had a lot of folks in the gaming community on their toes for months. The whole thing’s been so exciting, in fact, that I wanted to write up my thoughts and observations of what we’ve seen so far. The contents of this post are sort of a work in progress because there’s a lot to break down and consider, so I’ll be coming back to it and adding more if and when something comes to mind.

Picture Me This

Here's a little thing I put together a year or so ago for people that enjoy writing. I haven't gotten to try it out much in my circle of friends, but I figure there are some folk out there that might want to take a crack at it.

So I've come up with this simple exercise to help me get back on-track with creative writing. After a while, I’d started toying around with how it could work in a more collaborative environment, and it’s become a game that I think is both fun to play and a useful way to get your creative and interpretive juices flowing before taking on a project, or even to come up with a project.

The game is called Picture Me This.