Quantum Star said:
Snotnarok said:
Rolling Western was developed by Vanpool
Pushmo was developed by Intelligent Systems
Sakura Samurai was developed by Grounding Inc
Rhythym Heaven was co-developed between Nintendo TNX Music Recordings
Look I'm not trying to be an ass here but you're literally defending your point with info you didn't even look up. This is 5 minutes on wikipedia. They didn't develop those games, they didn't make Xenoblade Monolith Soft did, Platinum Studios made Wonderful 101- the same guys behind Bayonetta.
They published them, funded them, they gave them the okay on the project- they did not make these games.
Guess what? That's how Nintendo is different when it comes to creating exclusive games. They give these second parties creative control so they can create something intrinsically different than how Nintendo 1st party development would. That's why Nintendo's exclusive series have such such great diversity in gameplay, setting, and so on. I'll ask again, why does it matter if one of these studios creates a new franchise under Nintendo's name instead of Nintendo HQ themselves?
...Because they, Nintendo are not the ones making it. They make a bunch of games but the ones everyone are waving in my face are not created by them. The developers are, so I'm not giving creation credit to the people that didn't make it. Why is this such a hard thing to understand? Do people think Sony made Uncharted? No they funded it, Naughty Dog made it.
To repeat the above, I have a skewed view. I'm an artist, if I make something for a client the client may own my art and use it how they wish but my signature and credit are my own. I apply the same logic to the developers vs publishers.
Quantum Star said:
Nintendo has no reason to cancel either of them, considering how well they've been received, and considering they both come from reliable developers, (the Fire Emblem team and Nintendo's internal dev studio.)
If Drilldozer was only published, then Pokemon, Kirby, Fire Emblem, Xenoblade, were all only published by Nintendo too, even though they're Nintendo exclusive franchises. Here's some interesting info for you: many of Nintendo's exclusives, like the ones I listed, are actually second party. Nintendo owns a majority share in Gamefreak, HAL Laboratory, and so on, so while they give creative and reasonable financial freedom to the studios under their ownership, they have a say in anything they produce. That's the difference between owning a majority of a studio's financial shares, and signing a publisher/exclusivity deal, like Mass Effect.
So tell me, what's the difference between a game developed at Nintendo's EAD studio, and a studio like HAL which develops games exclusively for Nintendo, on Nintendo's dollar, on Nintendo's watch? They're both Nintendo exclusive games made under nearly the same circumstances, why does it matter so much?
Also, you seem to misunderstand Bayonetta's position. Nintendo funded the sequel after every other publisher Platinum went to turned it down. Nintendo owns the rights to Bayonetta 2, but not the first game.
I didn't ever question whether you were a Nintendo hater or whether you owned anything from them at all, but you were very eager to deny something I never brought up. Just an observation.
It doesn't matter if they have reason or not to do it, if the game isn't out yet, it's not out yet. When they're out then yes all the credit in the world. I'm not discrediting them here or anything, but the game isn't out yet so how can someone count "games they made" when currently they're "games they're makING"
The difference is ...Nintendo has their own studio, HAL is another studio who makes games as well. I'm not sure what's hard to grasp here. Naughty Dog makes Uncharted, NOT sony.
I'm just saying my stance since anytime I say ANYTHING about nintendo I get people literally ready to punch my face because I disagree or have a different view. These days you have to start with "in my opinion" or otherwise people get all kinds of angry like it's fact.
Look, as said to the other two, I don't give publishers credit for creating, they totally have a part in making the games possible but I give the people behind it credit, the developer. Because they regardless of the IP they're working with they work differently. Metroid Prime was hailed as a great game, made by Retro. Metroid other M was smashed and it was made by Nintendo & Team Ninja. Who gets the blame? ...Well in this case Nintendo as they apparently wrote the game but that's besides the point really.
Could I be wrong and Nintendo has more than just a foot in the devs door? Pfft yeah I don't work there so who the hell knows? It's what I treat all pubs and developers with, same with me doing art for clients. They paid to make the art happen, I made it, I get credit, they own it. *shrug* Think how you'd like on this.[/quote]
Okay, the reason your stance is getting people "literally ready to punch you in the face" (thanks for speaking for me by the way), is because you're creating an accosting opinion that is in many instances, flat out wrong.
-The publisher owns the right to the IP. Kirby is a Nintendo IP, not a HAL IP. Likewise, Uncharted is a Sony IP, not a Naughty Dog IP.
-IPs that haven't come out yet very much "count", since they show up on the company's financial forecasts, unless those official forecasts don't count either, right?
-It's absolutely right to appreciate the team behind the games, anyone who's a fan of Xenoblade for instance knows to thank Monolithsoft, in addition to Nintendo for backing them.
Remember, this argument started because you think Nintendo treats new franchises like toxic waste, when they simply handle their franchises in a different manner. I guess if Nintendo fully absorbed HAL into a 1st party developer, Kirby would suddenly "count" as a Nintendo game, right? Here's the other thing, you're an artist, (which from what I can tell, you mean a painter or an illustrator), video games are a COMMERCIAL art. The environment traditional art and video games are created under are hugely different, but you sound like you're judging video games ownership by traditional art ownership, which is hugely wrong.