Login

Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light arrives on Switch Dec. 4th, 2020

For the first time ever!

Well here's a lovely surprise for Fire Emblem fans! Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon and the Blade of Light is making the trip outside of Japan, and is coming to Switch on Dec. 4th, 2020! This is a limited-time release, so don't wait too long to pick it up. Check out full details below!

Every legend has a beginning. Every hero has a point of departure. For the past 30 years, the critically acclaimed Fire Emblem series has captured the attention of players with its strategic and tactical gameplay, intriguing stories and striking characters. Now, the original 8-bit game, Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon & the Blade of Light, which featured the heroic exploits of Prince Marth and launched a decades-spanning franchise, will be available in the U.S. for the first time. On Dec. 4, the Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon & the Blade of Light game launches for the Nintendo Switch family of systems, available to purchase for a limited time. You can watch a trailer for the game here.

While North American players were first introduced to Marth as a fighter in the Super Smash Bros. series, the story of this bold and courageous prince actually begins in Japan’s first entry in the Fire Emblem franchise, Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon & the Blade of Light. The game’s new release for Nintendo Switch features its first English language localization, bringing to life the tactical RPG classic for a new generation of players. This release will also include features like rewind, fast-forward and save states, which allow burgeoning tacticians to approach the challenge at their own pace.

“The Fire Emblem series has grown into a saga enjoyed by fans for its strategic gameplay and memorable characters,” said Nick Chavez, Nintendo of America’s Senior Vice President of Sales and Marketing. “With Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon & the Blade of Light, Nintendo Switch owners can now experience the game that started it all with enhanced features that make this timeless adventure available to everyone.”

Throughout Marth’s perilous journey, players can shape their armies to execute a range of strategies by carefully selecting from dozens of characters with unique attributes that can turn the tide of every battlefield skirmish. Will Marth be able to acquire the sacred Falchion sword on his epic expedition to restore peace to the Kingdom of Archanea? Lead a band of loyal followers on a continent-spanning quest for glory and victory, and reclaim the throne from the Shadow Dragon Medeus!

Fire Emblem: Shadow Dragon & the Blade of Light launches in Nintendo eShop on Nintendo Switch and on Nintendo.com on Dec. 4 at a price of $5.99 and will only be available to purchase until the end of the franchise’s 30th anniversary on March 31, 2021. For those who want to begin their adventure as soon as the game launches, pre-order is now available in Nintendo eShop.

In addition, Fire Emblem 30th Anniversary Edition will be available through select retailers at a suggested price of $49.99. This collector’s edition of the game will include a nostalgic, stylized physical NES box and a replica NES Game Pak art piece with a protective sleeve that transports owners to the era of the original game’s release. The collector’s edition also includes a colorful, 222-page Legacy of Archanea deluxe hardbound art book and a game download code. It will be accompanied by an NES instruction manual, newly localized from the original Famicom release, along with a fold-out world map and a Mini Nintendo Power retro collectible. With this rich package packed with exclusive items, fans can finally play the original Fire Emblem game as it was always intended: with power!

Comments

Top Rated Comment
darkfork
Thu Oct 22 20 08:45pm
Rating: 5

it is a commemorative release...the only difference now is that their games are also digital

No, there are a few differences.

Zelda Collector's Edition
Not for sale. Promo only.

Zelda Four Swords
Limited time FREE download.

Metroid Prime Trilogy
Not billed as a "limited edition." Rendered limited when they stopped printing it relatively early, probably because of all the shelfwarmers still at retail. More importantly, this is still available for purchase digitally today. Limiting their production of physical copies never limited the availability of the digital release, nor should it.

Wii's Super Mario All-Stars
Was limited, until they decided to un-limit it. They reprinted it and it was available through the Wii U life cycle.

We were never supposed to have them anyway.

This doesn't make any sense. We DO have them. If we "weren't supposed to have them," Nintendo wouldn't be selling them.

Making games unavailable after a certain period absolutely encourages piracy, especially in a situation like this where the official English translation of Fire Emblem will be commercially available no where else.

Nintendo's practice of artificially time-limiting their own retail games, physical AND digital, is new and unnecessary. It is antithetical to the benefits digital distribution is supposed to offer. It hurts consumers and it hurts their own profits. Stop defending it.

acmiguens
Thu Oct 22 20 12:40pm
Rating: 1

1 - I wish I could afford the physical version
2 - I'm glad I can afford the digital version

I wish the physical version would be released in europe as well...

So let me see if I get the Collector's Edition, it has all the goodies but the game is in a download code? Is that a first for Nintendo?

acmiguens
Thu Oct 22 20 02:31pm
Rating: 1

The game is basically a SNES game, so the file size is ridiculously small and cartridges are more expensive than discs. Otherwise we could have had another SNES game released physically such as the Mario 25th Collection for the Wii.

I prefer the 200+ page book over an actual physical version of this game

nice. now someone please ask "who is Lucas?"

I'm glad that this exists for the people who want it, but I think I'll pass. I enjoy most FE games, but I found Shadow Dragon on the DS to be extremely boring so I don't think this version will be more enjoyable (in fact, it'll probably be the opposite). But I'd probably get the SNES games if they ever translate those!

Also, can Nintendo PLEASE stop with this "limited time" FOMO bullshit? It makes absolutely no sense for first-party games to be removed from the eShop. In fact, it makes me so angry that I'm far less likely to spend money on Nintendo products, and more likely to want to pirate their games.

It's limited because it is a commemorative release, not a standard one. Nintendo has always done that, the only difference now is that their games are also digital, but Zelda Collector's Edition, Wii's Super Mario All-Stars, and Metroid Prime Trilogy were always limited. They also rereleased Zelda Four Swords digitally on the 3DS for a very limited time. In other words, these releases are just meant for the hardcore fans and not to bulk up their console library.

Now, I find silly that you think that can make you prone to pirate games. Neither 3D All-Stars nor Fire Emblem were ever meant to be Switch titles, so if you wanted to pirate any of these games, there was nothing preventing you to do it in the first place.

We all should be glad that we have the opportunity of getting these games on our newest console. The fact they are limited is irrelevant, since we were never supposed to have them anyway.

darkfork
Thu Oct 22 20 08:45pm
Rating: 5

it is a commemorative release...the only difference now is that their games are also digital

No, there are a few differences.

Zelda Collector's Edition
Not for sale. Promo only.

Zelda Four Swords
Limited time FREE download.

Metroid Prime Trilogy
Not billed as a "limited edition." Rendered limited when they stopped printing it relatively early, probably because of all the shelfwarmers still at retail. More importantly, this is still available for purchase digitally today. Limiting their production of physical copies never limited the availability of the digital release, nor should it.

Wii's Super Mario All-Stars
Was limited, until they decided to un-limit it. They reprinted it and it was available through the Wii U life cycle.

We were never supposed to have them anyway.

This doesn't make any sense. We DO have them. If we "weren't supposed to have them," Nintendo wouldn't be selling them.

Making games unavailable after a certain period absolutely encourages piracy, especially in a situation like this where the official English translation of Fire Emblem will be commercially available no where else.

Nintendo's practice of artificially time-limiting their own retail games, physical AND digital, is new and unnecessary. It is antithetical to the benefits digital distribution is supposed to offer. It hurts consumers and it hurts their own profits. Stop defending it.

This doesn't make any sense. We DO have them. If we "weren't supposed to have them," Nintendo wouldn't be selling them.

I mean, we were never supposed to have them on the Switch. Prior to Nintendo deciding on rereleasing them, the Switch wasn't supposed to have any of these or other games. The Switch unfortunately lacks a Virtual Console for things like Mario 64 and OG FE didn't even have any official Western localization until now. These are old titles, tied to old platforms, and no, having them (or any other legacy titles) on the Switch is not something that can be taken for granted.

Making games unavailable after a certain period absolutely encourages piracy, especially in a situation like this where the official English translation of Fire Emblem will be commercially available no where else.

Now, saying this encourages piracy is ludicrous. If I wanted to play Shadow Dragon, I would need an ol' Famicom and the likely uncommon cartridge. Whoever thinks piracy is not only okay but also a fine option won't need any "encouragement" from Nintendo to pirate. I'm not into the piracy scene, but I think it's reasonable that there's a unofficial translation out there that anyone can download right now if they so want. It's not like someone who's used to pirate games would stop doing that just because the title he/she wants to play is widely available.

And by the way, my point had nothing to do on how those past limited editions were distributed, but rather with the very fact they were always intended to be limited, and thus this isn't something new from Nintendo. And yes they were all special instances - or do you think it is a regular thing to release three state-of-art Metroid titles on a metal case? it would be unreasonable to think they would be printing MPT on the same numbers of, say, Mario Kart Wii. Ah, and like All-Stars, MPT was rereleased only late on the Wii U cycle.

OG Fire Emblem is not even a retail title per se, and the only thing we have here is a limited digital rerelease, which isn't exactly a novelty when Four Swords on the 3DS is considered. Yeah, it was free, but this doesn't change the fact it was limited.

Nintendo's practice of artificially time-limiting their own retail games, physical AND digital, is new and unnecessary. It is antithetical to the benefits digital distribution is supposed to offer. It hurts consumers and it hurts their own profits. Stop defending it.

I have to agree that it is definitely unnecessary, but disagree on the rest. They're bringing back legacy titles that one can only legally play on dated hardware, which is not only expensive, but also unfresh, to their current platform, with enhancements and all and yet people call them out as "anti-consumer" or whatever. Chill a bit, as I said before, the goal of these releases is to celebrate their franchises and give something to hardcore fans. It's not like anyone gets actually "hurt" by that.

darkfork
Thu Oct 22 20 10:50pm
Rating: 1

it would be unreasonable to think they would be printing MPT on the same numbers of, say, Mario Kart Wii.

By this logic, any franchise that isn't a system seller is "limited edition." The truth is that every game is limited--limited to how many they can sell. More or less is printed in anticipation of how much will sell, and production schedules can be altered in response to demand (less for MPT, more for All-Stars). Of course, "limited" shouldn't have to mean anything in terms of digital distribution because there are no manufacturing or distribution costs to balance against sales.

I'm not into the piracy scene, but I think it's reasonable that there's a unofficial translation out there that anyone can download right now if they so want.

Seiken Densetsu 3 went untranslated and unavailable in the west for decades. Fan translations filled the gap. Suddenly Square-Enix trots out Collection of Mana (a commemorative release that isn't artificially limited). One of the first things that happened when that collection was released was the officially-translated was extracted and disseminated online. People downloaded it. People made/bought repro carts. The fan translation took a backseat because an official translation now exists! People will want this Nintendo localization and if they can't get it legally, they only have one other option. There will always be people who pirate regardless, but for people who want to buy the game, barring them from purchase gives them no other alternative.

I mean, we were never supposed to have them on the Switch. Prior to Nintendo deciding on rereleasing them, the Switch wasn't supposed to have any of these or other games.

So what? They decided to release it. We have it now. Reality supersedes whatever hypothetical alternate universe may have held. The notion that old games released on current systems should be subject to a limited time-frame is ridiculous. You've offered a lot of "rationales" but nothing actually legitimizes limited-release, especially digital; put another way, there's no benefit to releasing them for a limited time only.

It's not like anyone gets actually "hurt" by that.

Anyone who is unable to buy the game after it is delisted is hurt by that. By turning away these would-be customers, Nintendo hurts itself.

OG Fire Emblem is not even a retail title per se

Your perception of reality is fascinating, but it doesn't negate reality.

imperator karorusu
Fri Oct 23 20 03:00am
(Updated 1 time)

I'm truly amazed at how you managed to misconstrue nearly every single point of my previous comment, even down to small words. That takes either plain dishonesty or intellectual ineptude. Anyway, referring to each of your paragraphs as a number:

I - LOL, so you actually think a metal pack containing three transcendental titles for the price of one should be seen as a regular release? I've only mentioned the number of units because IIRC, MPT was only printed once or twice, as that was characteristic of a limited edition. It's obvious that all games are limited, after all, it's not like Nintendo is reprinting Xenoblade X or Star Fox Zero. While it's true that under a production point of view a digital version could outlast its physical release, that would contradict the limited aspect of the edition. If Nintendo announces a game as limited run, but then keeps selling it digitally after the deadline, they would be incurring in false advertising. And that's what would be truly anti-consumer, but it seems internet folks are unable to see the bigger picture...

II - I can't say much on this, but I keep my stance that this has little to no impact on piracy issues. I find it funny because it is the kind of logic that blames victims for the crimes they suffer. "Oh, we're only playing rom hacks because that evil Nintendo refuses to give a rerelease of X obscure game". People choose their actions, and while many pirate games both unlisted and new, others choose to only play legally. I know for myself that I won't play rom hacks from any game from any company.

III - LOL no, smh. That's the part were your distortions shine the brightest. I never said that legacy content should be limited-time .Can you grasp the idea that you are basically complaining about something that came out of nowhere, that wasn't promised, and that wasn't even made for this generation of gaming, but instead was locked into old hardware? That's like getting accepted into a top college, but then being bitter that it wasn't an Ivy League. Would it be better if it wasn't limited? Yeah. But it is still amazing for fans, and that's something we never had before, so what's the issue? I'd rather have it limited than not have it at all.

IV - Nope. Yesterday, no one had an officially localized version of FE I, and no one was "hurt" by that. When it gets delisted, no one will be "hurt" by that as well. It's a most ridiculous argument, to be frank. There are hundreds of past games not available as of now across all platforms, and it's not like people are "hurt" by not being able to play them. Gaming is cool, but it's far from being a life necessity; I'm pretty sure people can live well in case they fail to get FE or 3DAS until March 31st. Ah, and no, Nintendo doesn't hurt itself. They're literally doing it for the hardcore fans. It's not like a niche Famicom title being delisted will cause them to lose meaningful amounts of money.

V - If a digital code counts as a retail title to you, well that's your problem. It may be technically, but not per se, as I said. Unfortunately though, your perception of reality is not that fascinating.

darkfork
Fri Oct 23 20 05:41am
Rating: 1

I - Steelbook casing notwithstanding (not every country got this BTW), I do believe compilations should generally be treated as standard releases. Most companies do this all the time.

Digital distribution should thwart the concept of a limited edition. They're limited because they're generally too costly to produce and sell in large quantities. Your steelbook example (and the Fire Emblem physical package) illustrates this well--of course they're going to limit production, it costs too much to have millions of steelbooks on the market (especially when Metroid isn't going to move product like Mario or Zelda will). But a digital copy costs zero dollars to physically produce and zero dollars to distribute. You seem to think that Nintendo makes limited edition products to make hardcore fans/collectors happy, and I think that's missing the bigger picture. They do it to profit off of zealous collectors by bundling the game with a bunch of detritus. The thing is, these limited editions usually come alongside standard editions of the game that continue to be sold, physically and digitally, long after the limited edition is gone. You're arguing that the game itself, with no other niceties, should be limited as well.

II - There's nothing to say here. People can't choose to play a game legally if they're arbitrarily denied the choice to do so (because it's April, not March!), but you seem to think that's acceptable.

III - You're really hung up on the concept of "surprise content" or something that was "never promised." These are meaningless distinctions. Nothing's ever promised or guaranteed. It's true that Nintendo didn't "have" to do this, but I fail to see how that justifies making it only available through March.

IV - For someone alleging that your words are purposely being misconstrued, you sure seem to be having a field day with the word "hurt." Delisting a game like NES Fire Emblem will not cause Nintendo to lose a lot of money, this is true; but they'll lose less than they would if they just left it on the eShop. There is no compelling reason to take it off the eShop and not continue to make money from it. Nintendo really does not give a shit if the person buying their game is a "niche hardcore fan" or not; $5.99 is $5.99 wherever it comes from.

As for consumers: When I bought a 3DS, I wanted to download the original Game Boy Tetris. But I couldn't, because it was pulled from the eShop. (This is a special case and it was pulled due to licensing issues, not arbitrarily removed.) This "hurts" me because I can't buy a game I wanted to, and it hurts Nintendo because they don't make any money they otherwise would have. Of course it's not a life necessity; no one ever said that, don't be obtuse.

V - I give you credit where it's due. Nintendo has of late employed arbitrary time limits on the availability of their own games without even bothering to explain it (they don't have to: FOMO is real), and you have furnished a fantastically layered rationale of why this is a good and beautiful thing. It's a hell of a thing to see a consumer actively delude oneself.

what's the issue? I'd rather have it limited than not have it at all.

The issue is that it's unnecessarily arbitrarily limited. Not at all < limited < NOT LIMITED. There's no upside to the game being limited. Nobody benefits.

imperator karorusu
Fri Oct 23 20 04:20pm
(Updated 1 time)

I - Oof, you are jumping to absurd conclusions and again misconstruing my comments. I'm not saying Nintendo should limit their products' availability, and I have no idea on how you were able to make this jump:

You're arguing that the game itself, with no other niceties, should be limited as well.

No, mate, I never said that. Anyway, let me be more direct: commemorative items marketed as remissive of a special event (Mario's 35th anniversary, FE 30th anniversary...) simply aren't meant to be sold indefinitely. "Oh, but they could go digitally, since they won't need to produce cartridges", is technically correct but the truth is that this doesn't hold up in practice, since they would be commiting false advertising. Besides, Nintendo doesn't make distinctions between their physical and digital releases. If a game MSRP is 60 dollars, then it is also 60 dollars on the eShop. It doesn't matter that they could charge less digitally. So, if a release is meant to be temporary it will be for both formats. And this is not a matter of what I think should or should not be, but that's how it is.

II - Of course, turn things around. Playing pirated is not a legitimate option. Some do it, some do not. Those who do, will do regardless, those who do not won't regardless. In other words, it's an irrelevant point.

III - It's not that it "justifies" anything - I must say it though that I find it funny that a person or a company would have to "justify" the act of releasing a product - but rather that you are acting like Nintendo took a game from the Switch lineup and turn it into limited-time, when they're actually just bringing legacy content for commemorative reasons. It doesn't bother me, and as I said way before, limited editions aren't alien to Nintendo. In other words, that's a petty complaint.

IV - You need to settle on what's your view of Nintendo. It is either the company that "profits off zealous collectors by bundling the game with a bunch of detritus" or a gang of idiots that "don't make money they otherwise would have"; it can't be both. As for the hurting part, oh give me a break. There are a lot of games I missed out across generations for a variety of reasons. It's completely normal to not have each and every product you see out there. Ah, and it's even worse when you consider that there simply aren't many people eagerly waiting to play localized FE I. That release is obviously for the hardcore Western fans, that didn't even need to play that particular game to become fans in the first place. If you still think that a game being delisted may "hurt" someone, you should reconsider your concept of being hurt.

V - I'm not here to advocate for the marvels of limited-time releases, and much less for Nintendo to make that a daily practice. I just am not the kind of person that sees a cornucopia of asinine internet opinions and automatically believe them. Nintendo has done it before and it is crystal clear it is due to the commemorative nature of the items. Furthermore, it would be absurd to keep an anniversary item available ad aeternum, even digitally.

Just don't assume that you know what's best for me as a consumer. I know better.

I - "Not meant to be sold indefinitely" is a concept that just doesn't make sense in the digital space. They wouldn't be committing false advertising if they didn't state "available digitally for a limited time only." If they chose NOT TO DO this, false advertising would not be a problem in the first place. You're putting the cart before the horse. You claim I'm characterizing Nintendo as a bunch of idiots, while you're here acting like their hands are tied because they used words which have the weight of immutable law, if only they hadn't! (Of course, there's also the fact that their sacred "limited edition" billing DOES NOT PREVENT THEM FROM REVERSING COURSE, as we've seen them do many times before).

III - "It's from an old system so it can have all sorts of zany subversions of norms" is a pithy excuse.

IV - There's nothing mutually exclusive about how I characterize Nintendo. As an entertainment industry business, Nintendo--like all their fellow contemporaries--are out to profit and they know all too well that consumers gonna consume. This isn't even a negative take, it's just a fact of business. Does Nintendo make foolish moves sometimes? Absolutely. All the time. I'm hardly alone on this, not even on this very site. Nintendo is a very successful and profitable business, they're obviously not idiots. That doesn't mean that therefore every decision they make is inherently intelligent.

V - It's very nice that you view anniversaries and commemoratives as a sacred virtue which should never be sullied. So sacred that building a business model around FOMO should be accepted! Again, lots of "anniversary editions," "commemorative releases" continues to sell after whatever they're commemorating has passed. They don't artificially lock it into a limited time frame. Only Nintendo does this, and I'll say it again: this simply has no upside. No one benefits. I would rather betray a very specific interpretation of "commemorative" than limit something for benefit of any kind.

At this point it's clear that neither one of us is going to budge, so I'm ready to let this go.

"Not meant to be sold indefinitely" is a concept that just doesn't make sense in the digital space.

Says who? You? Digital libraries are a relatively new thing, specially for Nintendo. I think they know better about what makes sense or not on their eShop. I get it, you don't like it, but it doesn't follow that it "doesn't make sense". I didn't like the fact that the collector edition of FE I will not feature a cartridge, but it's not like I'm grasping at straws to complain about how that doesn't make any sense.

I could go on and on with this but you are simply obsessed with the idea that this is a most terrible thing and that I'm defending the limiting itself instead of showing you this is a recurrent practice and that it actually makes sense, regardless of how much you dislike it.

I don't know what else to say, since the rest of your comment is either laughable - stating that they could just reverse course like "hey pals, it was just a joke, limited-time edition no more!" - or nonsense - repeating the internet trope of FOMO when the gaming industry is basically built around the idea of hardware and software being discontinued (should I be mad at bad Nintendo who made me miss out the NES even before I was born?).

Anyway, just because something doesn't make sense for you, it doesn't mean it's the same for Nintendo and other people. If you are still so convinced of your logical superiority at this issue, get a degree, learn Japanese and apply for a job at Nintendo.

Chefs are not the only people allowed to critique food. Consumer voices are important.

your comment is either laughable - stating that they could just reverse course like "hey pals, it was just a joke, limited-time edition no more!"

You mean, like they did with Mario All-Stars Wii? Or even Jump Rope Challenge? Hell, GameCube's "limited edition" Platinum color was limited to the very end of the GC production. In the end, Platinum was more common than the flagship Indigo.

I'm not saying you can't critique. I critique as well. The problem lies in your conclusions, not on the criticism itself.

All-Stars Wii got reprint years later. With Jump Rope Challenge there is no issue, it is free and the goal was to entertain players that suffered from lockdown, which, unfortunately is still a reality. Can't say anything about the Platinum GCN, as I don't remember it being limited, and mine is Indigo, although my spare controllers are indeed Platinum, but still that's sounds just like grasping at straws.

Your own arguments are inconsistent. All-Stars doesn't count now because there was a few years difference in release? But I thought it didn't make sense to offer anniversary commemoratives after the anniversary ended! (Of course, that years-long gap applies to the Nintendo Selects induction, not the reprint of the original anniversary release, which did happen.) Jump Rope doesn't count because it was free? But Four Swords 3DS was free! SMB35 is free! If their "commemorative" status is what rationalizes their limited releases, (a) why bring up Free at all and (b) see my first point.

LOL You keep being silly, don't you? Do you actually believe in your distortions? I hope not.

I mentioned Four Swords on 3DS as an example of limited release, and it was you, my dear one, who thought that it being free changed any of that. It doesn't. Now you went to question on why Nintendo extended Jump Rope Challenge and one of the reasons is that it is free (the other being that it is still serving its purpose). What does one thing have to do with the other? Nothing.

Wii All-Stars became a Selects title in 2016, and I don't see how that has anything to do with what you want - namely, that Nintendo keep FE I continuosly on the eShop. Mind you, by March 2016 (date of the reprint), Nintendo was still celebrating Mario's 30th anniversary.

Get some sleep, you definitely need some.

Wii All-Stars became a Selects title in 2016, and I don't see how that has anything to do with what you want

You brought it up.

No upsides, no benefits.

Oh yeah, getting Sunshine for a decent price is horrible. Official localizations suck too. See ya.

There's no upside to the game being limited. Nobody benefits.

You evade the actual topic so often it's either a bug or a feature.

You don't even know what you're talking about. When you're able to read and understand a text, let's do this again.

Another limited until March 31 2021 release? There’s got to be some business/financial reason they’re doing this.

lazysprite
Thu Oct 22 20 05:00pm
(Updated 1 time)

They made good money by pressuring us into buying the Mario 3D Collection.
Nintendo is becoming ruthless.

This game should release on the Switch Online NES App.

grcpan
Thu Oct 22 20 05:01pm
Rating: 2

So a NES emulated game that is sold separately instead of being part of the online service. And they couldn't even bother to include its remake in the package, what a joke.

ngamer01
Fri Oct 23 20 01:27pm
Rating: 1 (Updated 1 time)

To be fair the remake bombed so badly on the DS that it almost killed the franchise before Awakening saved the series from cancellation. Nintendo doesn't see a profit in offering the Shadow Dragon remake again. In fact I wouldn't be surprised if they pulled the DS remake from Wii U Virtual Console when the NES original releases on Switch.

iondall
Fri Oct 23 20 01:40pm
Rating: 1

Actually it was the combied low sales of the Tellius games, Shadow Dragon and New Mystery which almost killed the series, and out of those 4 SD sold the best

Is this going to be part of the switch online service or can it be bought separately?

So far it's separate

I don't even... A collector's edition without the physical game... This has to be some sort of sick joke...

People wanted Nintendo to stop living in the past and modernize like EA, Activision, Ubisoft, etc. Becareful of what you wish for...

Search

Today's VIP

steelwolf76's avatar
Joined: November 2017
Newbie

Social Services

Want to join this discussion?

You should like, totally log in or sign up!