Picture this. It’s sometime in 2026. Your shiny new Nintendo Switch 2 is humming away, docked to your TV. The new controllers feel strange and wonderful in your hands. You’re scrolling through the early reviews for the launch lineup, buzzing with that new-console energy, and then you see the headline that makes your heart sink just a little bit: “Two Of The Worst-Reviewed Games On Switch 2 Come From Nintendo.”
It feels impossible, doesn’t it? Almost sacrilegious.
Nintendo is the gold standard. The house that Mario built. The company that literally resurrected the video game industry from the dead in the 80s. They are the masters of polish, the wizards of “game feel,” the company we trust to deliver pure, unadulterated joy. And most of the time, they do.
But. (And this is a big but.) They also have this weird, baffling blind spot.
Every now and then, Nintendo—the very same Nintendo that gave us Breath of the Wild and Super Mario Odyssey—releases something that feels less like a game and more like a bizarre corporate mandate that somehow escaped the lab. And looking back at the current Switch’s library gives us a terrifyingly clear blueprint for how this exact headline could become a reality.
The Ghost of Gimmicks Past
Let’s talk about 1-2-Switch. Please, let’s talk about it, because I need some kind of group therapy.
Released at the launch of the original Switch, this wasn’t just a game; it was a mission statement for the new Joy-Con controllers. It was meant to be the next Wii Sports, the party-starter that would have everyone flailing their arms and laughing. Except it wasn't.
The fundamental problem wasn't the concept. It was the execution and the price. Nintendo had the audacity to charge full retail price—sixty dollars, a price point usually reserved for sprawling RPGs or blockbuster shooters—for what was, essentially, a collection of tech demos. And not even particularly good ones.
I remember bringing it to a party, thinking I’d be the hero. Instead, I subjected my friends to the profound social awkwardness of “Milk,” a mini-game where you have to stare into your opponent's eyes while making a vigorous… milking motion. It was weird. It was uncomfortable. It lasted about thirty seconds, and then everyone just wanted to play something else.
The whole experience was built around looking at your friend, not the screen. A neat idea on paper, I guess, but in practice, it just meant you paid for a game you didn't even get to watch. It's a harbinger, a perfect prototype for one of the worst-reviewed games on Switch 2. Imagine a new controller with some new haptic feedback or a built-in projector (who knows!), and Nintendo launches a full-priced "game" that’s just a set of disconnected, shallow demos to show it off. It’s not just possible; it’s happened before.
The Bare-Bones Betrayal
The second template for disaster is different. It’s more insidious, more heartbreaking, because it happens to a series people genuinely love. I'm looking at you, Mario Strikers: Battle League.
On paper, this game should have been a slam dunk. Arcade Mario soccer with over-the-top special moves? Yes, please. And to be fair, the core gameplay, the literal minute-to-minute act of playing, is fantastic. It’s tight, responsive, and chaotic in all the right ways. But that’s all there was.
The game launched with a shockingly small roster of characters, a handful of stadiums, and almost no single-player content to speak of. It felt less like a full game and more like a foundation. A really solid, well-built foundation, but you were still standing in the basement with exposed wiring, wondering where the rest of the house was.
Nintendo’s plan, of course, was to add content over time through free updates. Which they did. But that initial impression was brutal. It felt cynical. They sold a premium-priced game that was, at launch, an Early Access title in all but name. The reviews reflected that, savaging the game for its lack of value. It's a tough pill to swallow when you can find a sprawling adventure game online for free that feels more complete.
This is the other path to that dreaded Switch 2 headline. Take a beloved B-tier franchise—maybe F-Zero or Kid Icarus—rush it out for the launch window to pad the lineup, and ship it with only 30% of its content, promising the rest later. It's a move that erodes trust, and for a company that trades on its sterling reputation, it's an incredibly risky play. It’s one thing when a company like Take-Two gets heat over a potential delay for a massive title like GTA; it’s another when Nintendo ships something that feels deliberately incomplete.
So Why Does Nintendo Do This?
I keep coming back to this question. Why does the master chef occasionally serve a burnt piece of toast? I think it comes down to two things: innovation and pressure.
Nintendo is relentlessly innovative with its hardware. That's their whole deal. But new hardware requires new software to justify its existence. The HD Rumble in the Joy-Cons needed 1-2-Switch to exist, even if it was a creative dead end. The pressure to have a "killer app" that shows off the new gimmick is immense, and sometimes, the gimmick comes before the fun.
The other side is the pressure of the launch window. A new console needs games, period. And if a big title isn't quite ready, I can see the boardroom logic of chopping it up and shipping the core, promising the rest later. It gets a box on the shelf. It creates a narrative of "post-launch support." But for the person who spent their hard-earned money on day one, it just feels bad.
It’s the strange duality of Nintendo. They’ll delay a Zelda game for years to get it perfect, but they’ll also push a hollowed-out sports game out the door to meet a quarterly earnings report. It’s what makes them fascinating, and occasionally, infuriating.
FAQs About Nintendo's Game Quality
Wait, are you saying Nintendo is a bad developer now?
Not at all! That's the whole point. Nintendo is, by and large, one of the best developers on the planet. This is about acknowledging their occasional, baffling missteps. For every 1-2-Switch, there are ten masterpieces. It’s just that their failures are so glaring because they stand in such stark contrast to their usual level of incredible quality.
Which Nintendo-published games on the current Switch have the lowest scores?
If you look at Metacritic, the absolute lowest scores for games Nintendo published are often things like Brain Age: Nintendo Switch Training or the aforementioned 1-2-Switch. These tend to be non-traditional games or tech demos sold at a premium, which reviewers (and players) often find to be poor value for the money.
How can I avoid buying a disappointing Nintendo game on the Switch 2?
The best advice is the same for any console: wait for reviews. Especially with launch titles that seem heavily focused on a new hardware gimmick. Be wary of games that seem light on content, and don't let the hype for a new console cloud your judgment. A little patience can save you a lot of buyer's remorse.
Why would two of the worst-reviewed games on Switch 2 come from Nintendo themselves?
It sounds crazy, but it’s a real possibility based on their track record. It would likely happen because they feel pressured to release A) a full-priced tech demo to show off a new controller feature, and B) a rushed, content-light version of a beloved but second-tier franchise to bolster the launch lineup. It’s this combination of prioritizing gimmicks and meeting deadlines that can lead their own first-party titles to get hammered by critics, even on a brand-new console.
In the end, I'm still going to be there on day one for the Switch 2, full of hope. Because the odds are still overwhelmingly in our favor. The odds are that Nintendo will deliver magic. But I'll also be keeping a wary eye out, watching for the ghosts of gimmicks and the shadows of shallow sports games. Because knowing Nintendo, the capacity for genius and the potential for a truly baffling blunder will always be sitting right there, side by side.
