If Nintendo go third party, sure.The Wonderful 101 can be considered a non-Nintendo game when there exists even the tiniest sliver of a chance of it appearing on PS3 or PS4.
fun
My definition has it covered.Originally Posted by equippedwithtowel
So in essence not so much a refined definition of "Nintendo game" as you just wanting to shit on Miyamoto a bit.
Job well done buddy.
All Nintendo games go through Miyamoto whether they be eshop titles developed by a new hire or a title made by Platinum Games.
He is the one dictating what gets made and what doesn't get made, nothing slips by him.
Monolith Soft is in the wrong list
If The Wonderful 101 wasn't a Nintendo game, it wouldn't be impossible for it to appear on a non-Nintendo platform. But it is a Nintendo game, so it isn't possible.
I don't know why I need to go into great detail about this.
Makes sense to me. I think the other guy thought Roto13 was saying that TW101 is a non-Nintendo game or something.Originally Posted by Fandangox
He is saying that W101 is a Nintendo IP, it will never be on other consoles since they own it.
I don't know what kind of logic you are using, because TW101 is published by Nintendo in collaboration with Platinum games. P* developed it, but it is considered Nintendo property.If The Wonderful 101 wasn't a Nintendo game, it wouldn't be impossible for it to appear on a non-Nintendo platform. But it is a Nintendo game, so it isn't possible.
I don't know why I need to go into great detail about this.
Same with Sin & Punishment, Xenoblade, The Last Story, and Pandora's Tower: Different developers, but Nintendo owns the IP.
I only think about devs owned by Nintendo, a contracted dev could make Wonderful 101 into Ugly 202 and release on PS4, like Demon's Souls that went to 360 as Dark Souls.
...I don't know what kind of logic you are using, because TW101 is published by Nintendo in collaboration with Platinum games. P* developed it, but it is considered Nintendo property.
Same with Sin & Punishment, Xenoblade, The Last Story, and Pandora's Tower: Different developers, but Nintendo owns the IP.
If they pay for it, then its Nintendo in my eyes.
If they pay for development, their producers are all over the project. Who does the grunt work doesn't matter as much as who is in charge of the project.
Pokemon Channel (lol remember that?) is just as much Nintendo as IS's fire emblem or EAD's Mario.
If they pay for development, their producers are all over the project. Who does the grunt work doesn't matter as much as who is in charge of the project.
Pokemon Channel (lol remember that?) is just as much Nintendo as IS's fire emblem or EAD's Mario.
That's....what he said.I don't know what kind of logic you are using, because TW101 is published by Nintendo in collaboration with Platinum games. P* developed it, but it is considered Nintendo property.
Same with Sin & Punishment, Xenoblade, The Last Story, and Pandora's Tower: Different developers, but Nintendo owns the IP.
Though why you list Xenoblade there when it was developed by a Nintendo studio is beyond me.
"etc. etc." :)Originally Posted by StreetsAhead
You forgot Kirby.
Anything developed by a Nintendo owned studio, publishing is irrelevant.
They should really consider going third party to be honest; they'd save and make much more if they did.
Saying Monolith isnt Nintendo is like saying Naughty Dog isnt Sony. If its Nintendo's IP, if they own the rights to the IP, then its Nintendo. If its 1st or 2nd party its Nintendo. Last Story, Xenoblade, and Wonderful101 are all Nintendo.
Monolith is Nintendo. What are you guys talking about?
It can't lose it's meaning as a Nintendo IP because it simply IS a Nintendo IP. Nintendo could make another one if they wanted. They could put the characters in Smash Bros. if they wanted.Yes but if it's essentially the same game, a sequel, improved from the original, then it'll quickly lose it's meaning as a Nintendo IP for me at least.
It's theirs. A Nintendo IP.
W101 has the Nintendo logo on the boxart. Speaks for itself really.
Well, they could make imitations of the IP but technically speaking all characters and other things within the game belong as both a joint copyright of both Nintendo/Platinum games.I only think about devs owned by Nintendo, a contracted dev could make Wonderful 101 into Ugly 202 and release on PS4, like Demon's Souls that went to 360 as Dark Souls.
Meaning to say unlike Dark Souls (or Soul Edge for that matter), it can't reference anything from the original without Ninetndo's approval. (I was going to mention they learned their lesson after Rare broke off from Nintendo. This is one of the reasons Silicon Knights can't make a new Eternal Darkness and can only make a "spiritual successor" in the form of Shadow of the Eternals.)
What kind of moron-logic refutes the very simple, very elementary concept of Publisher owns the IP? I am all ears.
What counts as "Microsoft" to you guys? Is Gears of War "Microsoft"? Because according to some of you guys' logic, it's not. Epic is not owned by Microsoft in the same way Platinum isn't owned by Nintendo. What about Halo? Is that "Microsoft"? Well, Microsoft didn't own Bungie, so that's the same story. On the other hand, Nintendo owns Monolith Soft... So how is X not a Nintendo game?
Took the words right out of my....keyboard..Team owned by Nintendo? Nintendo game
IP owned by Nintendo? Nintendo game
I know many will disagree on the IP thing, but if it is a Nintendo IP developed by a 3rd party, published by Nintendo it's a Nintendo game to me, I view it as a Nintendo game and hold it to the same standards.
Microsoft did own Bungie.What counts as "Microsoft" to you guys? Is Gears of War "Microsoft"? Because according to some of you guys' logic, it's not. Epic is not owned by Microsoft in the same way Platinum isn't owned by Nintendo. What about Halo? Is that "Microsoft"? Well, Microsoft didn't own Bungie, so that's the same story. On the other hand, Nintendo owns Monolith Soft... So how is X not a Nintendo game?
Right, it's developed by Next Level and published by Nintendo. You are saying you don't consider it to be a 'Nintendo' game, correct?It's a nextlevel game. You're asking this like it's supposed to catch me out, why?
Companies they own. Just grown up on that idea. That's why the Dreamcast hurt so bad. Sega made all their studios autonomous and immediately they started talking about PS2 ports and support.
So I don't count Platinum and such. I got mocked a while ago for not realising Sony had bought Naughty Dog because I made such a distinction.
So I don't count Platinum and such. I got mocked a while ago for not realising Sony had bought Naughty Dog because I made such a distinction.
If you're only counting games made by companies they own then that immediately means the following are not Nintendo games:Originally Posted by oconnomiyaki
Companies they own. Just grown up on that idea. That's why the Dreamcast hurt so bad. Sega made all their studios autonomous and immediately they started talking about PS2 ports and support.
So I don't count Platinum and such. I got mocked a while ago for not realising Sony had bought Naughty Dog because I made such a distinction.
Pokemon games
Kid Icarus Uprising
Mario and Luigi RPG games
Star Fox Assault
Luigi's Mansion 2
Super Smash Bros. for Wii U/3DS
Among others.
Those aren't Nintendo games? Really? That logic is so...wrong.
Last edited by TDLink; Today at 06:53 AM.
Uh, Intelligent Systems is a wholly owned studio. Fire Emblem, Advance Wars, and Paper Mario need not be on that list.If you're only counting games made by companies they own then that immediately means the following are not Nintendo games:
Pokemon games
Fire Emblem games
Advance Wars games
Paper Mario games
Luigi's Mansion 2
Super Smash Bros. for Wii U/3DS
Among others.
Those aren't Nintendo games? Really? That logic is so...wrong.
Wait? Nintendo don't own Intelligent Systems? Since when?If you're only counting games made by companies they own then that immediately means the following are not Nintendo games:
Pokemon games
Fire Emblem games
Advance Wars games
Paper Mario games
Luigi's Mansion 2
Super Smash Bros. for Wii U/3DS
Among others.
Those aren't Nintendo games? Really? That logic is so...wrong.
But no, I don't consider them Nintendo games just because the IP is involved. That gets lazy and hazy. Is Binary Domain considered a Sega game or an Obsidian game? Surely we have the smarts to distinguish this.
Originally Posted by Jaded Alyx
Uh, Intelligent Systems is a wholly owned studio. Fire Emblem, Advance Wars, and Paper Mario need not be on that list.
My bad, I bring great shame to myself, haha. For some reason I thought IS was second party, not sure why. But you're right, they're first party.Originally Posted by oconnomiyaki
Wait? Nintendo don't own Intelligent Systems? Since when?
But no, I don't consider them Nintendo games just because the IP is involved. That gets lazy and hazy. Is Binary Domain considered a Sega game or an Obsidian game? Surely we have the smarts to distinguish this.
If the game is developed with a Nintendo IP I don't see how you don't consider it a Nintendo game. Yeah, it is also that studio who made it's game...but it is still simultaneously a Nintendo game.
THIS!!Team owned by Nintendo? Nintendo game
IP owned by Nintendo? Nintendo game
I know many will disagree on the IP thing, but if it is a Nintendo IP developed by a 3rd party, published by Nintendo it's a Nintendo game to me, I view it as a Nintendo game and hold it to the same standards.
Binary Domain is a sega game because they published it, obsidian cant just make another one if they feel like it, they actually would have to ask sega if they can because sega owns the IP....because they published it.Originally Posted by oconnomiyaki
Wait? Nintendo don't own Intelligent Systems? Since when?
But no, I don't consider them Nintendo games just because the IP is involved. That gets lazy and hazy. Is Binary Domain considered a Sega game or an Obsidian game? Surely we have the smarts to distinguish this.
| Thread Tools | |