Nintendo Has A Tough Time Finding Suitable U.S. Developers
- Thread starter vansau
- Start date
Clearly Rare studios, creators of some the most intelligently designed Platformers and shooters in the 90's, never existed in the eyes of Nintendo.
Neither does Retro Studios, creators of the best gamecube game Metroid Prime, they are invisible herpes rashes in the eyes of Nintendo
Neither does Retro Studios, creators of the best gamecube game Metroid Prime, they are invisible herpes rashes in the eyes of Nintendo
Except they mentioned Retro in the article.Technicolor said:
OT: There are some points I COULD make about this, like how there are plenty of good western devs, and I could also just as quickly say there are plenty of devs who would just make a Wii CoD clone. I don't work in business, so I have no proper clue as to how it would work.
Like movies and music before it, it's also a business with an inherent creative medium attached to it.Blitzwing said:
I can't tell if you're arguing for or against them.HankMan said:
Mario Galaxy 2 was one of Nintendo's rare sequels, and it was so much more of a sequel than most are and a truly excellent 3d platformer. Are you arguing that it wasn't a quality game or that the reason for it's production was money over quality?
Nintendo is full of it, which is no surprise at all. As though they don't do the exact same thing they condemn. Don't tell MovieBob though.
Wait, I'm confused. Isn't Nintendo responsible for recycling 30-year-old franchises over and over and over and over? To me, that falls in the same category as Dragon Age 2 and Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, who ride on the coat-tails of their predecessors.
Since someone mentioned Super Mario Galaxy 2...how different is the gameplay/concepts/mechanics from Super Mario Galaxy 1? From my understanding, not very.
Since someone mentioned Super Mario Galaxy 2...how different is the gameplay/concepts/mechanics from Super Mario Galaxy 1? From my understanding, not very.
Precisely. Mario Galaxy 2 was a level pack that managed to miss some of the first game's magic.danhere said:
I noticed that people think "a company is innovative, it's great no matter how bad that game is. A company creates a sequel once every 4 games, the sequel is a master piece, better then great, THE game of the 4 years, OMG IT'S NOT INNOVATIVE, BULLSHITHOTDOOG!!!"
TBH, not every company needs to be innovative. There are games that we simply like to play, and we like to have them polished until perfection. Nintendo is one of those developers that creates GREAT games. Zelda comes out once every 3-4 years. Mario a bit more often. Yes, Nintendo makes those games over and over again. But all those games aren't carbon copies. Hell, the only thing they have in commune are the names. Every Zelda games is different and unique (except the Ocarina of Time which was re-released few times and which I would be glad to have, but unfortunately, no money for 3DS).
Blizzard is another company we would like to have them develop the same games over and over again. Ofc, with a nice space between 2 releases. Who can say that Blizzard is bad because not being innovative and releasing Starcraft 2? Warcraft 3 and TFT? Hell, even WoW deserves respect (though I hate it).
BioWare. If they would be creating games as MassEffect, I would be happy with "just" that. They make the "same" game, but completely different. Unique, polished until perfection.
On the other hand, we have Activision. CoD comes out once every year. Why no hate against Activision as much as you hate Nintendo? Because it creates CoD? IMO, CoD BO is the fail game of the year. Not only that it's the same as the previous CoD, but it's not even polished for a beta, not to speak about a final version.
Some developres, who don't know, have money, time or for what ever other reason can't make a sequel with some space between 2 games and can't polish it until perfection, they need to be innovative. They need to get out attention by creating something new. Companies like Nintendo and Blizzard, as long as their games are spaced and perfectly working, non carbon copied with a nice story, they can (maybe even should) release their franchisees.
And I know this is completely off-topic.
So the point is (now on-topic), You can't say that Nintendo is also a company with is ONLY for money. Every game THEY make, is high quality. Even the low quality Nintendo games are as good as mediocore non-Nintendo games. Creativity is NOT the indicator of someones love to games. I mean, it's not the only indicator.
TBH, not every company needs to be innovative. There are games that we simply like to play, and we like to have them polished until perfection. Nintendo is one of those developers that creates GREAT games. Zelda comes out once every 3-4 years. Mario a bit more often. Yes, Nintendo makes those games over and over again. But all those games aren't carbon copies. Hell, the only thing they have in commune are the names. Every Zelda games is different and unique (except the Ocarina of Time which was re-released few times and which I would be glad to have, but unfortunately, no money for 3DS).
Blizzard is another company we would like to have them develop the same games over and over again. Ofc, with a nice space between 2 releases. Who can say that Blizzard is bad because not being innovative and releasing Starcraft 2? Warcraft 3 and TFT? Hell, even WoW deserves respect (though I hate it).
BioWare. If they would be creating games as MassEffect, I would be happy with "just" that. They make the "same" game, but completely different. Unique, polished until perfection.
On the other hand, we have Activision. CoD comes out once every year. Why no hate against Activision as much as you hate Nintendo? Because it creates CoD? IMO, CoD BO is the fail game of the year. Not only that it's the same as the previous CoD, but it's not even polished for a beta, not to speak about a final version.
Some developres, who don't know, have money, time or for what ever other reason can't make a sequel with some space between 2 games and can't polish it until perfection, they need to be innovative. They need to get out attention by creating something new. Companies like Nintendo and Blizzard, as long as their games are spaced and perfectly working, non carbon copied with a nice story, they can (maybe even should) release their franchisees.
And I know this is completely off-topic.
So the point is (now on-topic), You can't say that Nintendo is also a company with is ONLY for money. Every game THEY make, is high quality. Even the low quality Nintendo games are as good as mediocore non-Nintendo games. Creativity is NOT the indicator of someones love to games. I mean, it's not the only indicator.
I wonder if Nintendo realizes why the PS2 was such a successful console?
But then again, the PS2;s success might actually reinforce their point. I can't think of a single really good game on the PS2 that didn't come out of Japan. And I'll bet you can show me an armload of crap games on the PS2 that were insipid shovelware produced by western studios.
But then again, the PS2;s success might actually reinforce their point. I can't think of a single really good game on the PS2 that didn't come out of Japan. And I'll bet you can show me an armload of crap games on the PS2 that were insipid shovelware produced by western studios.
Crappy graphics could be used as an argument, but difficult controls not. You know, you DON'T have to use motion sensors. Super Smash Bros. Brawl doesn't use motion sensors and works fine.DragonLord Seth said:
Also a team like BioWear is skilled enough to overcome tiny obstacles as aiming with the IR sensor on the WiiRemote. If Zelda can be played on Wii and uses Wii Motion, then it is possible.
Nintendo is not saying that Western developers aren't making good games. They're saying that they aren't making good games with the sole intention of making good games, with making money being a positive side effect.
And they aren't saying it's all Western developers that do it. Bethesda doesn't do it, and I'm sure Nintendo knows that. Same thing for Epic Games, Rocksteady, etc. No they're referring to people like Activision, Treyarch, and Infinity Ward who - while they have put out fine games - have put out an annual Call of Duty game for that past what five years now? Sure the games are good but they aren't made for expressly that purpose. They're made because Activision knows that CoD has FPS-lovers right where it wants them and they're getting as much money out of it as they can get. And if the end result is a really great game? Then bravo to you IW, Treyarch, and Activision. But they aren't doing it for the sake of making a good game. They're doing it for the sake of making millions of dollars.
Nintendo sure isn't a stranger to making millions of dollars, but that is a side effect of their main goal - make games that always have been and will continue to be regarded as classics.
And as far as the difference between Western and Japanese developers goes, it's pretty big. Japanese developers take SO many more risks than Western developers. Okami is a great example. Loved by critics, but it didn't do very well commercially. Sure you can compare that to certain indie games, but there is a difference between what it costs one small group of people to make a game that doesn't do well and a big company like Capcom to make a game that doesn't do well.
And they aren't saying it's all Western developers that do it. Bethesda doesn't do it, and I'm sure Nintendo knows that. Same thing for Epic Games, Rocksteady, etc. No they're referring to people like Activision, Treyarch, and Infinity Ward who - while they have put out fine games - have put out an annual Call of Duty game for that past what five years now? Sure the games are good but they aren't made for expressly that purpose. They're made because Activision knows that CoD has FPS-lovers right where it wants them and they're getting as much money out of it as they can get. And if the end result is a really great game? Then bravo to you IW, Treyarch, and Activision. But they aren't doing it for the sake of making a good game. They're doing it for the sake of making millions of dollars.
Nintendo sure isn't a stranger to making millions of dollars, but that is a side effect of their main goal - make games that always have been and will continue to be regarded as classics.
And as far as the difference between Western and Japanese developers goes, it's pretty big. Japanese developers take SO many more risks than Western developers. Okami is a great example. Loved by critics, but it didn't do very well commercially. Sure you can compare that to certain indie games, but there is a difference between what it costs one small group of people to make a game that doesn't do well and a big company like Capcom to make a game that doesn't do well.
Give me a break. Can you honestly think that has more to do with the studio being Japanese than the size of the company, availability of funding or dependence on publishers, or any number of other factors that influence or limit a developer's creative freedom?rembrandtqeinstein said: