Nolan. said:
I pay enough attention to know these things along with the fact you still continue to refute your own statements. By your example Banjo would then neatly fit right into the casual demographic. Seeing as you previously commented on nintendo advancing the mario series and making a success of it. So therefore if they are willing to take these risky chances with games like Viva why not then ''allow'' banjo in it's original state.? There really aren't much of a difference when it comes to image. You suggesting that banjo 3 is them catering more to the 360's typical base and viva is the trying to break ino the casual market to me just doesn't add up.
How am I refuting my own statements AT ALL?
Banjo is a platformer (or was anyway), Viva Pinata is a simulation game - there's a difference. Historically the platforming genre has done shit for the Xbox brand, Blinx, Voodoo Vince, Malice, Conker, none of them pushed any kind of hardware or software for that matter. Simulation games have a much broader and while they still aren't as big on the Xbox brand they would most certainly have a better chance at hitting a wider base than a cutesy platformer.
As for Nintendo advancing the Mario series, yes they did on a gameplay level, but the game was going to succeed regardless, its fucking Mario, it's not going to flop.
And like I've said they took ONE risky chance with Viva Pinata, it didn't pan out well, however they invested a lot into it (I don't know how many times I've repeated this), they clearly aren't being risky with the franchise anymore if they are making it more accessible and is more of an expansion over the original rather than a true sequel. And because of that they couldn't possibly risk letting Banjo out in its original platforming state, as it would more than likely be a bomb. So the game becomes more action oriented and is more likely to sell to the existing Xbox userbase. You see Microsoft isn't letting Rare take a risk, get it?
