And as somebody pointed out if The Last Of Us can be seen as a 'sony' game. Bayonetta and Wonderful 101 can certainly been seen as Nintendo ones.
Wouldn't that be like calling Gears of War 10 a Sony game if it came out for PS4?
And as somebody pointed out if The Last Of Us can be seen as a 'sony' game. Bayonetta and Wonderful 101 can certainly been seen as Nintendo ones.
Wouldn't that be like calling Gears of War 10 a Sony game if it came out for PS4?
Wouldn't that be like calling Gears of War 10 a Sony game if it came out for PS4?
And as somebody pointed out if The Last Of Us can be seen as a 'sony' game. Bayonetta and Wonderful 101 can certainly been seen as Nintendo ones.
So is Nintendo supposed to compete on the hardware front with Sony and Microsoft?
Bad example there as Naughty Dog is fully-owned by Sony while Platinum is independent. Gears of War would be a better example as it's developed by a third party but is considered to be a Microsoft franchise.
What about LittleBigPlanet, was it a Sony game? That was a funded game from an independent studio.
What about LittleBigPlanet, was it a Sony game? That was a funded game from an independent studio.
They bought out Media Molecule very soon after that so maybe not at the time.
Why is this important again?
That's reaaaaaaally splitting hairs. Like, how many companies could you then apply that to? Guess Destiny isn't a new IP either. It's a Halo game! Guess Quake wasn't either. It's pretty much Doom.
"There are some really good new IPs on the eShop"
"Doesn't count, they're just eShop games."
"There are some new IPs from Platinum and Monolith Soft"
"They're too much like their old new IPs, doesn't count"
"Iwata sacrificed his firstborn, did a voodoo ritual, and single-handedly swam to the USA and took the CEO of Rockstar hostage to make a new GTA game exclusively for the Wii U"
"It'll come to the PS4/XBOne eventually, doesn't count"
Holy meltdown. Now I remember why I generally stay out of Nintendo threads.
i think it has to do with people discounting some of nintendo's software development moves as inauthentic or not real just because the title of the development studio isn't "nintendo", which is extremely misleading because outsourced work can share the vision of the funding company just like a real first-party game - like in Luigi's Mansion 2 or LittleBigPlanet. both games are filled full of influence from their funding studio because funding studios don't fund games without getting involved themselves. however many people refuse to think about the situation in any more complex terms than which developer label is slapped onto the end product.
so that leads to the perception that Nintendo refuses to take risks with their software and just does the same thing over and over again. which relates to the OP somehow, i think, because people are under the impression that other studios are taking more risks just because they have less established brands. i can't say i fully understand the thought process behind some of these posters.
Not sure if any one made reference to Nokia here?
Nokia used to rule the mobile phone world, the then new CEO did not give a damn about competition. Even when iPhone launched.
Look at Nokia now.
Please understand, Mr iwata
Which is totally not what the Nintendo is trying to do right here now...Nokia is Nokia. Bad comparision. Nintendo has always operated like this. Nokia got cocky and thought they could dictate how the market operates.
so that leads to the perception that Nintendo refuses to take risks with their software and just does the same thing over and over again. which relates to the OP somehow, i think, because people are under the impression that other studios are taking more risks just because they have less established brands. i can't say i fully understand the thought process behind some of these posters.
Which is totally not what the Nintendo is trying to do right here now...
In business, You pay attention (not copy) to your competition or you will be eaten alive.
In regards to the Gamecube, releasing a powerful console /= following all the other companies. It was Nintendo's draconian policies and neglect of key burgeoning features (online, mature games) that were drastically different from their competitor's approach and led to the 'Cube underperforming.
In regards to the Wii, Nintendo may have ignored other companies, but that's NOT what made the Wii successful. The Wii was successful before Nintendo DIDN'T ignore the market. Unfortunately, ignore the market is exactly what they did this time around and is why the Wii U is failing.
If Nintendo is to survive, they need to realize that they can't just be different for different's sake. SMART innovation. INFORMED innovation. NOT throwing-shit-at-a-wall-and-hoping-something-sticks innovation. The Wii U is an example of the latter and, surprise surprise, nothing's sticking.
In the future, what do you think video games will be like?
It's convenient to make games that are played on TVs. But I always wanted to have a custom-sized screen that wasn't the typical four-cornered cathode-ray-tube TV. I've always thought that games would eventually break free of the confines of a TV screen to fill an entire room. But I would rather not say anything more about that.
There was an interview Miyamoto did prior to Wii release where he said he hoped gaming would move away from the TV screen. This was in circa 2004/2005. If I find it I'll link it.
The gamepad is that idea. Off screen play the reality.
EDIT: Found it.
Nintendo has and always will be an ideas company. They think of something and they YOLO if they really believe it's the future. Look through their patents and you will see crazy ass shit.
Ah...you underestimate Nintendo a lot if you think Nintendo just saw the tablet and said we'll do that.
The Wii was a throw shit at a wall and hope something sticks.
It was also lightning in a bottle. Reading the Iwata asks Nintendo very much likes the concept of idea>reality.
There was an interview Miyamoto did prior to Wii release where he said he hoped gaming would move away from the TV screen. This was in circa 2004/2005. If I find it I'll link it.
The gamepad is that idea. Off screen play the reality.
EDIT: Found it.
Nintendo has and always will be an ideas company. They think of something and they YOLO if they really believe it's the future. Look through their patents and you will see crazy ass shit.
No.
The original Wii was no kitchen sink, YOLO idea. It was the result of years worth of Nintendo paying attention to the market and realizing there was a growing population of potential customers who were becoming alienated by the increasingly complex and male-focused industry. Everything about the Wii was the concentrated from a very focused message that resonated: simple, fun, unlike anything you've ever seen.
The Wii U, by comparison, has an identity crises. Too complicated and expensive for casual audiences; lacking in core features, power, and software variety for enthusiast gamers, wrapped up in a gimmick that has zero appeal. And, frankly, if the big innovation Nintendo could come up with for a home console was not playing it on your TV, that's all the more support for the argument that the gamepad should have been optional. Off-screen play is a convenience at best, it is not a compelling, innovative gameplay feature.