Rednog said:
TheMisterManGuy said:
Casual Shinji said:
Here's the thing... I would like a new Nintendo action adventure or platformer... that's not Zelda or Mario. I want some fresh characters and settings.
That's what I assume people mean when they say 'Nintendo just makes the same games over and over'. Even when they make a new game like a fighter, or a racer, or a puzzle game, it'll just be wearing the skin of the same old IP. It'll either be Mario, Zelda, Kirby, or Donkey Kong themed, or a mixture of those. And the IP's that they have they hardly ever bother to shake up even a little, they're just completely rusted shut in an iconic stasis.
First, http://playeressence.com/nintendo-has-made-71-brand-new-franchises-since-2001/
Second, Nintendo franchises DO change. Are you going to sit there and Say Super Mario Galaxy is the same as Super Mario 3D World, or Skyward Sword is the same as ALBTW? However, changes in some games are more subtle than others.
Nintendo publishing it really really isn't Nintendo "making" brand new franchises. If we really associated publishing as making a new IP Valve would be the king of new IPs, but being the money man behind the scenes really isn't the same as putting a new idea out there. Even if you did...there be some horrendous shovel ware in that pile.
That's true, but you get into an awfully tangled mess if you go down that road.
Look at EA. How many games do they make?
Now step back for a moment and think about
who actually makes those games.
We just had an article about layoffs at Maxis. Now, maxis is wholly owned by EA, but it was once a separate thing.
Or look at Activision. They publish Call of Duty, but the studios that make it, (treyarch and infinity ward) have distinct identities. So did activision make call of duty, or is it the work of the studios involved, even though they are wholly owned by Activision, and make whatever Activision tells them to make.
Now consider Nintendo.
Smash Bros. and kirby are made by HAL laboratories. Technically that's a seperate company. But... Nintendo owns them, and they even share staff.
Pokemon is the work of Game Freak. And yet, this is also a company owned by Nintendo, and in fact, Nintendo staff are directly involved with some aspects of it's development. (Just look at the credits and compare it to Nintendo 'internal' productions).
Now note that all of the following are seperate studios, with their own distinct identity, They nonetheless are wholly owned by Nintendo, and again often share staff and resources with the 'main' company.
They are 1-up Studio, Monolith soft, Intelligent Systems, Nd Cube, and Retro studios.
Given how they work, these are independent of Nintendo in name only.
They are not much different than the official internal development teams such as EAD and SBD which are internal to Nintendo.
So, if they are wholly owned by Nintendo, share resources and staff, but happen to have a distinct name and identity, are they part of Nintendo or not?
By that same token, is Maxis seperate from EA?
Is treyarch not the same thing as Activision?
Where do you draw this line, really?
What is part of a company, and what isn't?