Shigeru Miyamoto: Nintendo Needs a "New Franchise"
- Thread starter StewShearerOld
- Start date
Well, I could argue you're being fairly arbitrary there. Just because these groups have their own names, doesn't make it the dividing line between being a developer in their own right, or effectively being equivalent to an internal development team within Nintendo.zalithar said:Maybe because quite a few of them are not well known? Or not a franchise yet? Or not directly made by Nintendo?Aiddon said:thing is EVERY company needs new franchises, but no one is commenting on that. Furthermore, has a LOT of new IPs....but of course a LOT of people handwave them as not counting because they're on the eShop, or they're on handhelds, or they look colorful or some other B.S. excuse. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what they've cooked up.
Because when Nintendo makes a new franchise you'll more than likely get something legitimately different as opposed to just a reskin of another franchise. People milk that tired, flawed, and easy-to-dismantle excuse of "Nintendo has no new franchises!", blissfully ignorant that A) Yes, Nintendo DOES make new franchises quite frequently such as Xenoblade, or Dillon's Rolling Western, or Pushmo, or Sakura Samurai, it's just that most people try to ignore those for arbitrary reasons. Like Miyamoto said, GAMEPLAY makes a new series, not characters or a name. A new franchise has to be LEGITIMATELY new, not just a reskin.The Artificially Prolonged said:Nintendo? New IP? Excuse me I just need to check the sky is not falling
Seriously this good news in my book. A new face from Nintendo would be a bit of fresh air and mix up the new Zelda, Mario, Metroid cycle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nintendo_franchises
They make new games through other developers, and those developers do often make squeals, but that does not make it a Nintendo franchise. That would mean Nintendo owns the copyright but does not make the game. Xenoblade would be a Monolith Soft franchise, Pushmo is by intelligent systems, Sakura Samurai is by grounding inc. technically Smash Bros was a HAL laboratory franchise.
I mean, you do realise that 'intelligent systems' and 'HAL laboratories' are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Nintendo, right? For that matter, Nintendo's current president, Satoru Iwata, used to work at HAL...
Intelligent systems is even more blatant - Not only are they wholly owned by Nintendo, and have contributed directly to games and hardware produced by Nintendo's R&D teams, and EAD software development teams. That goes the other way too incedentally. Early titles developed by intelligent systems contained major contributions from staff members that are officially part of nintendo's primary internal development teams.
Not only that, but 'Intelligent systems' is based out of Nintendo's Kyoto Research Center.
Is it really valid to claim that a developer that is based out of one of Nintendo's own offices, has been known to collaborate very closely with teams that are almost certainly internal Nintendo teams, and is wholly owned by Nintendo is in fact a separate entity just because they have a distinct name?
Given the evidence in a situation like that, is Intelligent systems any more independent from Nintendo than the internal EAD and various R&D teams are? (EAD is the team that Shigeru Myamoto was originally part of if you're wondering. - It's the main internal design and art team, basically.)
As far as I can tell, the lines between Nintendo and some of it's biggest subsidiaries are pretty blurry. They seem to share staff. They help develop eachother's games (As in, actual technical and artistic resources are contributed by one party to the other in quite a few cases), They're owned by the same people...
Kind of odd that people insist they aren't the same thing when a lot of the evidence would suggest they come pretty close to it...
I don't think anyone has a problem with Nintendo continuing it's classic franchises, but the company begins to stagnate if they rely on the same handful of fans to purchase the same handful of titles. For a long time Nintendo was the company of innovation, and could do no wrong. They're still good, but I haven't played a single Nintendo game that honestly seemed better than their classic N64 line up. I want to see Nintendo succeed, but I also know one of the main reasons I prefer the PlayStation is because they consistently deliver new and classic titles. Typicly I buy Sony consoles, and then, a few years later, I may purchase a Nintendo system. I've always avoided Xbox like the plague. New blood can keep the company alive, and I want to see the company COMPETE. Show the market how it's done Nintendo.Capitano Segnaposto said:
I'm excited for this. Nintendo are one of the only triple A developers who actually show their passion for game design. They don't just release titles driven by story or character or "atmosphere", they release titles with simple yet deep game theory/design.
When Nintendo give RPGs a shot, we get Zelda, Earthbound and Super Mario RPG.
When they give driving games a shot, we get Mario Kart and F-Zero.
When they give strategy games a shot, we get Fire Emblem.
Shooters? Metroid.
Rail shooters? Starfox.
Fighters? Hell, lets just reinvent the genre, Smash Bros.
And of course, Nintendo's ace in the hole and the medium for which a developer can truly show off their design finesse, platformers: Mario and Donkey Kong Country.
So when we hear wind of a new IP? We hear wind of a game that is going to last forever.
Nintendo just know how to make simple but deep games; they remember the core idea of video games, the actual game side of things. You take away the graphics and story of Nintendo games and you're still left with something fun. I'd like to see how a game like Uncharted holds up without those crutches.
While games are an 'experience', sometimes it's nice to actually play a game for the merit of challenge and fun.
When Nintendo give RPGs a shot, we get Zelda, Earthbound and Super Mario RPG.
When they give driving games a shot, we get Mario Kart and F-Zero.
When they give strategy games a shot, we get Fire Emblem.
Shooters? Metroid.
Rail shooters? Starfox.
Fighters? Hell, lets just reinvent the genre, Smash Bros.
And of course, Nintendo's ace in the hole and the medium for which a developer can truly show off their design finesse, platformers: Mario and Donkey Kong Country.
So when we hear wind of a new IP? We hear wind of a game that is going to last forever.
Nintendo just know how to make simple but deep games; they remember the core idea of video games, the actual game side of things. You take away the graphics and story of Nintendo games and you're still left with something fun. I'd like to see how a game like Uncharted holds up without those crutches.
While games are an 'experience', sometimes it's nice to actually play a game for the merit of challenge and fun.
Yes. A million times yes. Oh my god oh my god yes.Hectix777 said:
That would be kind of like the US claiming ownership of a decision made by the UN because the US is a major part of the UN and helped with the decision. Though only if the basics of the decision was created by a separate entity within the UN. Or you could look at the list of Nintendo franchises on Wikipedia and see that it is quite limited. A lot of franchises exclusive to Nintendo consoles are not Nintendo franchises. This really does not make much of a difference beyond the way in which the games are described.CrystalShadow said:Well, I could argue you're being fairly arbitrary there. Just because these groups have their own names, doesn't make it the dividing line between being a developer in their own right, or effectively being equivalent to an internal development team within Nintendo.zalithar said:Maybe because quite a few of them are not well known? Or not a franchise yet? Or not directly made by Nintendo?Aiddon said:thing is EVERY company needs new franchises, but no one is commenting on that. Furthermore, has a LOT of new IPs....but of course a LOT of people handwave them as not counting because they're on the eShop, or they're on handhelds, or they look colorful or some other B.S. excuse. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what they've cooked up.
Because when Nintendo makes a new franchise you'll more than likely get something legitimately different as opposed to just a reskin of another franchise. People milk that tired, flawed, and easy-to-dismantle excuse of "Nintendo has no new franchises!", blissfully ignorant that A) Yes, Nintendo DOES make new franchises quite frequently such as Xenoblade, or Dillon's Rolling Western, or Pushmo, or Sakura Samurai, it's just that most people try to ignore those for arbitrary reasons. Like Miyamoto said, GAMEPLAY makes a new series, not characters or a name. A new franchise has to be LEGITIMATELY new, not just a reskin.The Artificially Prolonged said:Nintendo? New IP? Excuse me I just need to check the sky is not falling
Seriously this good news in my book. A new face from Nintendo would be a bit of fresh air and mix up the new Zelda, Mario, Metroid cycle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nintendo_franchises
They make new games through other developers, and those developers do often make squeals, but that does not make it a Nintendo franchise. That would mean Nintendo owns the copyright but does not make the game. Xenoblade would be a Monolith Soft franchise, Pushmo is by intelligent systems, Sakura Samurai is by grounding inc. technically Smash Bros was a HAL laboratory franchise.
I mean, you do realise that 'intelligent systems' and 'HAL laboratories' are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Nintendo, right? For that matter, Nintendo's current president, Satoru Iwata, used to work at HAL...
Intelligent systems is even more blatant - Not only are they wholly owned by Nintendo, and have contributed directly to games and hardware produced by Nintendo's R&D teams, and EAD software development teams. That goes the other way too incedentally. Early titles developed by intelligent systems contained major contributions from staff members that are officially part of nintendo's primary internal development teams.
Not only that, but 'Intelligent systems' is based out of Nintendo's Kyoto Research Center.
Is it really valid to claim that a developer that is based out of one of Nintendo's own offices, has been known to collaborate very closely with teams that are almost certainly internal Nintendo teams, and is wholly owned by Nintendo is in fact a separate entity just because they have a distinct name?
Given the evidence in a situation like that, is Intelligent systems any more independent from Nintendo than the internal EAD and various R&D teams are? (EAD is the team that Shigeru Myamoto was originally part of if you're wondering. - It's the main internal design and art team, basically.)
As far as I can tell, the lines between Nintendo and some of it's biggest subsidiaries are pretty blurry. They seem to share staff. They help develop eachother's games (As in, actual technical and artistic resources are contributed by one party to the other in quite a few cases), They're owned by the same people...
Kind of odd that people insist they aren't the same thing when a lot of the evidence would suggest they come pretty close to it...
...yeah, not even close. HAL, Monolith. IS etc. are COMPONENTS of Nintendo, Nintendo is not a component of them.zalithar said:That would be kind of like the US claiming ownership of a decision made by the UN because the US is a major part of the UN and helped with the decision. Though only if the basics of the decision was created by a separate entity within the UN. Or you could look at the list of Nintendo franchises on Wikipedia and see that it is quite limited. A lot of franchises exclusive to Nintendo consoles are not Nintendo franchises. This really does not make much of a difference beyond the way in which the games are described.CrystalShadow said:Well, I could argue you're being fairly arbitrary there. Just because these groups have their own names, doesn't make it the dividing line between being a developer in their own right, or effectively being equivalent to an internal development team within Nintendo.zalithar said:Maybe because quite a few of them are not well known? Or not a franchise yet? Or not directly made by Nintendo?Aiddon said:thing is EVERY company needs new franchises, but no one is commenting on that. Furthermore, has a LOT of new IPs....but of course a LOT of people handwave them as not counting because they're on the eShop, or they're on handhelds, or they look colorful or some other B.S. excuse. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what they've cooked up.
Because when Nintendo makes a new franchise you'll more than likely get something legitimately different as opposed to just a reskin of another franchise. People milk that tired, flawed, and easy-to-dismantle excuse of "Nintendo has no new franchises!", blissfully ignorant that A) Yes, Nintendo DOES make new franchises quite frequently such as Xenoblade, or Dillon's Rolling Western, or Pushmo, or Sakura Samurai, it's just that most people try to ignore those for arbitrary reasons. Like Miyamoto said, GAMEPLAY makes a new series, not characters or a name. A new franchise has to be LEGITIMATELY new, not just a reskin.The Artificially Prolonged said:Nintendo? New IP? Excuse me I just need to check the sky is not falling
Seriously this good news in my book. A new face from Nintendo would be a bit of fresh air and mix up the new Zelda, Mario, Metroid cycle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nintendo_franchises
They make new games through other developers, and those developers do often make squeals, but that does not make it a Nintendo franchise. That would mean Nintendo owns the copyright but does not make the game. Xenoblade would be a Monolith Soft franchise, Pushmo is by intelligent systems, Sakura Samurai is by grounding inc. technically Smash Bros was a HAL laboratory franchise.
I mean, you do realise that 'intelligent systems' and 'HAL laboratories' are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Nintendo, right? For that matter, Nintendo's current president, Satoru Iwata, used to work at HAL...
Intelligent systems is even more blatant - Not only are they wholly owned by Nintendo, and have contributed directly to games and hardware produced by Nintendo's R&D teams, and EAD software development teams. That goes the other way too incedentally. Early titles developed by intelligent systems contained major contributions from staff members that are officially part of nintendo's primary internal development teams.
Not only that, but 'Intelligent systems' is based out of Nintendo's Kyoto Research Center.
Is it really valid to claim that a developer that is based out of one of Nintendo's own offices, has been known to collaborate very closely with teams that are almost certainly internal Nintendo teams, and is wholly owned by Nintendo is in fact a separate entity just because they have a distinct name?
Given the evidence in a situation like that, is Intelligent systems any more independent from Nintendo than the internal EAD and various R&D teams are? (EAD is the team that Shigeru Myamoto was originally part of if you're wondering. - It's the main internal design and art team, basically.)
As far as I can tell, the lines between Nintendo and some of it's biggest subsidiaries are pretty blurry. They seem to share staff. They help develop eachother's games (As in, actual technical and artistic resources are contributed by one party to the other in quite a few cases), They're owned by the same people...
Kind of odd that people insist they aren't the same thing when a lot of the evidence would suggest they come pretty close to it...
To use your own analogy, it'd be like claiming someone is not American because he's a citizen of the state of Connecticut.
The UN being equated to the industry at large. Nintendo is a portion of the industry, and take the rest of it for what you will. The US is trying pretty damn hard to at least get financial control, at least the 'people' (we know them as corporations) are.McMarbles said:
So... A team that's based out of Nintendo's offices, is funded largely by Nintendo, works closely with groups that most certainly ARE a part of Nintendo... Frequently works with IP owned by Nintendo, and worked on internal Nintendo projects at some point in the past is comparable to the US membership of the UN?zalithar said:That would be kind of like the US claiming ownership of a decision made by the UN because the US is a major part of the UN and helped with the decision. Though only if the basics of the decision was created by a separate entity within the UN. Or you could look at the list of Nintendo franchises on Wikipedia and see that it is quite limited. A lot of franchises exclusive to Nintendo consoles are not Nintendo franchises. This really does not make much of a difference beyond the way in which the games are described.CrystalShadow said:Well, I could argue you're being fairly arbitrary there. Just because these groups have their own names, doesn't make it the dividing line between being a developer in their own right, or effectively being equivalent to an internal development team within Nintendo.zalithar said:Maybe because quite a few of them are not well known? Or not a franchise yet? Or not directly made by Nintendo?Aiddon said:thing is EVERY company needs new franchises, but no one is commenting on that. Furthermore, has a LOT of new IPs....but of course a LOT of people handwave them as not counting because they're on the eShop, or they're on handhelds, or they look colorful or some other B.S. excuse. Anyway, it'll be interesting to see what they've cooked up.
Because when Nintendo makes a new franchise you'll more than likely get something legitimately different as opposed to just a reskin of another franchise. People milk that tired, flawed, and easy-to-dismantle excuse of "Nintendo has no new franchises!", blissfully ignorant that A) Yes, Nintendo DOES make new franchises quite frequently such as Xenoblade, or Dillon's Rolling Western, or Pushmo, or Sakura Samurai, it's just that most people try to ignore those for arbitrary reasons. Like Miyamoto said, GAMEPLAY makes a new series, not characters or a name. A new franchise has to be LEGITIMATELY new, not just a reskin.The Artificially Prolonged said:Nintendo? New IP? Excuse me I just need to check the sky is not falling
Seriously this good news in my book. A new face from Nintendo would be a bit of fresh air and mix up the new Zelda, Mario, Metroid cycle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Nintendo_franchises
They make new games through other developers, and those developers do often make squeals, but that does not make it a Nintendo franchise. That would mean Nintendo owns the copyright but does not make the game. Xenoblade would be a Monolith Soft franchise, Pushmo is by intelligent systems, Sakura Samurai is by grounding inc. technically Smash Bros was a HAL laboratory franchise.
I mean, you do realise that 'intelligent systems' and 'HAL laboratories' are both wholly owned subsidiaries of Nintendo, right? For that matter, Nintendo's current president, Satoru Iwata, used to work at HAL...
Intelligent systems is even more blatant - Not only are they wholly owned by Nintendo, and have contributed directly to games and hardware produced by Nintendo's R&D teams, and EAD software development teams. That goes the other way too incedentally. Early titles developed by intelligent systems contained major contributions from staff members that are officially part of nintendo's primary internal development teams.
Not only that, but 'Intelligent systems' is based out of Nintendo's Kyoto Research Center.
Is it really valid to claim that a developer that is based out of one of Nintendo's own offices, has been known to collaborate very closely with teams that are almost certainly internal Nintendo teams, and is wholly owned by Nintendo is in fact a separate entity just because they have a distinct name?
Given the evidence in a situation like that, is Intelligent systems any more independent from Nintendo than the internal EAD and various R&D teams are? (EAD is the team that Shigeru Myamoto was originally part of if you're wondering. - It's the main internal design and art team, basically.)
As far as I can tell, the lines between Nintendo and some of it's biggest subsidiaries are pretty blurry. They seem to share staff. They help develop eachother's games (As in, actual technical and artistic resources are contributed by one party to the other in quite a few cases), They're owned by the same people...
Kind of odd that people insist they aren't the same thing when a lot of the evidence would suggest they come pretty close to it...
Edit: And in actual fact it has more in common with the UN claiming that the work of one of it's members (Say, Italy, to take a random example) is actually the work of the UN.
Because... Your statement implies that Nintendo is somehow claiming ownership of the work of another member of a group they are a common part of... Yet structurally, Nintendo IS the group, not merely a member.
Now, how would you describe Nintendo EAD, by your logic. You know, the internal development team. Most of what I just said applies to them as well, so by a quirk of name they ARE a part of Nintendo, but a group such as 'intelligent systems' is not purely by virtue of the name?
I do think following Anouma's recent (though likely corporate fed) mewlings of new protagonist or not-Zelda-project wouldn't hurt. Shelve their big boys for a bit, expand out. I LOVE Zelda BUUUUUUUUT once upon a time it was the only 3D action adventure game intown.
Now not so much.
I mean look at spielberg he varies his stuff up immensely even with his propensity for smaltzy blockbusters with grand special effects and cute kids. he'll go without SOME of those elements or in an entirely different direction for emotional resound.
I think mostly this is partially at the feet of some Nintendo fans like myself who wouldn't LET Nintendo deviate and enjoy expansive others stuff in clinging to our nostalgia a bit.
At the least new ostenible packaging *might* attract more looks. and I have to admit. Even though even I sneered "tech demo" or "minigame collection" at Mario Party its done alright. and the Wii sports even better..
Now not so much.
I mean look at spielberg he varies his stuff up immensely even with his propensity for smaltzy blockbusters with grand special effects and cute kids. he'll go without SOME of those elements or in an entirely different direction for emotional resound.
I think mostly this is partially at the feet of some Nintendo fans like myself who wouldn't LET Nintendo deviate and enjoy expansive others stuff in clinging to our nostalgia a bit.
At the least new ostenible packaging *might* attract more looks. and I have to admit. Even though even I sneered "tech demo" or "minigame collection" at Mario Party its done alright. and the Wii sports even better..
Any studio that was not actually founded by Nintendo, and the games thereof (Monolith, HAL, Rare, Retro, Game Freak etc.) are by default not 1st party. Nintendo only earns a share of their profits and/or owns them through contracts. Nintendo can't be credited for games that they only published, but were actually the idea's and creations of another studio any more than Disney can be credited with the creations of Marvel or Lucas Film by simply owning them.
