Post by: Plugabugz on November 16, 2007, 01:46:47 AM
It's all well and good that Ubi want to do achieve this, and to be frank even EA can do it, but how i'm seeing it is it'd only be possible if there's a change in management in nearly all devs and (mostly) publishers. I can see the business angle here - Sales dictate profit, but quality normally dictate the sales to start with.
If nintendo got something potentially good out of N-Space and something incredible out of Retro then its entirely possible for other people to achieve the same?
Post by: KDR_11k on November 16, 2007, 04:03:37 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 16, 2007, 04:27:58 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 16, 2007, 04:28:36 AM
Post by: Kairon on November 16, 2007, 04:46:58 AM
Yes, Nintendo is quality, polish, technical proficiency, willingness to delay a game for quality reasons, accessible by the mass market... but more than that, Nintendo develops the gameplay and game design systems first, and the graphics, story, features, etc. of the game only later take form not to be excellent on their own merits, but merely to support the core gameplay.
This, I believe, is one of the reasons why Nintendo (Miyamoto) games will probably NEVER have any RPG-like depth to their stories: they believe that stories exist only to provide structure for the gameplay and nothing more.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 16, 2007, 04:49:13 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on November 16, 2007, 05:27:01 AM
Some of it I think though is just raw talent and know-how. You'll play games from other companies where some things are complicated for no reason or parts of the game drag because of some story element. Nintendo seems to think of the gameplay first and as they design you can tell they tweak. They tweak the controls to make sure everything is tight and feels instintively natural to the player. You rarely push the jump button when you meant to shoot. I can imagine they sit down and test "which button is someone instinctively going to assume will be the jump button?" You can tell they go over the details. They don't tie themselves to genre conventions. They think about what they want to do and then figure out how to make it work. That's where the auto-jump in Zelda comes from. Everyone else would throw a jump button on there because it's 3D so we need a jump button. Nintendo looks at it and goes "why do we need to jump in a Zelda game like we do in a Mario game?" "Can't we just design the game so that not only will an auto-jump always work but that you will never feel the need for a jump button because there aren't hidden places you can't reach without it?"
I don't know if that can be taught all that well without Nintendo being directly involved in development. I gave a few observations out but the hell would I have ever thought of auto-jump or Z-targetting. Ubisoft not only has to know how Nintendo thinks but they have to be talented enough to come to similar conclusions. They can always try to think outside the box like Nintendo does to solve a problem but that doesn't mean they'll come to a good conslusion doing so.
If Nintendo made Splinter Cell they would never introduce a "standing in a split between two hallway walls" move and then never put a scenario in that requires it. Little stuff like that makes the difference.
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 16, 2007, 05:33:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost
Nintendo Quality means delaying games for months or years if necessary instead of pushing out something that is buggy and incomplete.
I don't understand why anyone would have the drive to achieve "Nintendo Quality." I know someone who worked on that Monster Madness game for the 360/PC and the company still managed to sell 250k copies of the game, and will only be selling more when it releases on the PS3. The publisher managed to PROFIT, something like $5 million. If a company can get away with making a crappy game and still sell about 300k copies of the game, why dump money and effort into actually making something great, especially when you have first parties with a vested interest to go up against?
I agree with Chozo's definition of Nintendo quality, but the payoff is minimal for a 3rd party to achieve that quality. It's much easier to throw together an engine in a few months and build endless licensed games off of that engine and make money by the boatload. Nintendo strives to create quality games because the success of their system relies on the availability of quality titles. If Nintendo themselves can provide those titles, they will almost certainly profit greatly.
I suppose this is slightly off topic of the question asked, but what I'm saying is that in profit driven market achieving "Nintendo quality" is not a worthwhile venture.
Post by: Flames_of_chaos on November 16, 2007, 05:46:46 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 16, 2007, 06:00:37 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
If a company can get away with making a crappy game and still sell about 300k copies of the game, why dump money and effort into actually making something great, especially when you have first parties with a vested interest to go up against
Kairon supports this policy!
Post by: Kairon on November 16, 2007, 06:28:12 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
I don't understand why anyone would have the drive to achieve "Nintendo Quality." I know someone who worked on that Monster Madness game for the 360/PC and the company still managed to sell 250k copies of the game, and will only be selling more when it releases on the PS3. The publisher managed to PROFIT, something like $5 million. If a company can get away with making a crappy game and still sell about 300k copies of the game, why dump money and effort into actually making something great, especially when you have first parties with a vested interest to go up against?
I agree to this on a certain extent, but it simply drives to home my point in the Sony CEO thread about how Nintendo's constant attention to the bottomline and ensured long-term profitability means they can pursue long-term strategies.
Nintendo's dedication to Nintendo quality is a long-term strategy, ensuring a brand reputation that will let them innovate extensively, deliver quality, and STILL profit in lean years like with the Gamecube. Other development houses often live a hand-to-mouth existence, and hence never stop to think about what things will be like in the future because they can't see past the next paycheck, or are financially incapable of doing so.
Ironically, Nintendo actually delivers a LOT of those "crappy games" Mr. Jack. Remember Wii Play? Remember Mario Party 2 -8? Wario Ware? Nintendogs? Brain Age? Crap crap crap CRAP. But I mean that in the nicest way possible! &>
Nintendo just THINKS of these no-nonsense crappy games before anyone else does, thus earning them massive profits on a first mover basis. If third parties would have had the inventiveness to make Brain Age first, they could've been the ones reaping the benefits. If they had made a dog simulator first with touch screen implemented, they would've sold 14 million + copies worldwide. If they had made a mini-game collection like Wario Ware first, they wouldn't be stuck in the back with things like Hot PIXEL or W.T.F. and instead have a 200-300k warioware hit on their hands!
Ubisoft, interestingly enough, is pursuing one side of the Nintendo's strategy with the Word/French/Spanish Coach games, being the first to market with applicable yet simple new, simple, and hopefully cheap game types. They're also looking to be the first to market with a real next-gen horse simulator. They're already doing much better than MS' me-too attempts with Fusion Frenzy whatever and Viva Pinata.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 16, 2007, 07:02:01 AM
I think it's the difference between a short term and long term business plan. If you make a high quality product you get a good reputation and thus loyal customers. Do you think if Nintendo didn't establish a reputation for quality in the NES and SNES years that they would have survived the N64 and Gamecube?
The Monster Madness strategy above is a con. It relies on the buyer being stupid enough to buy something of low quality. That's short term because once you establish a reputation of making crap your product doesn't sell anymore. Acclaim had that strategy and now they don't exist.
Ideally a videogame company wants to have a reputation where their own name has the selling power of a videogame franchise. Look at a company like Blizzard. They could release ANYTHING and people would pay attention because they're f*cking Blizzard and they kick ass. Look at Nintendo who has a real fanbase of people that anticipate the release of new Nintendo games.
Does Ubisoft have that? No. Who the f*ck is a Ubisoft fan? No one because they don't have a good reputation. They release a well received game pretty much every year but for that one game they release 20 crappy ones. I think the CEO of Ubisoft wants to see Ubisoft fansites. He wants to see geeks (that don't work for the company) wearing Ubisoft T-shirts and other geeks saying to them "Cool! Where did you get that shirt?" He wants Ubisoft to be a big brandname in videogames where people notice the logo on the box and buy the game because they know they'll like it. Ubisoft needs to have at least the consistency of Nintendo to achieve that.
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 16, 2007, 07:48:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Ironically, Nintendo actually delivers a LOT of those "crappy games" Mr. Jack. Remember Wii Play? Remember Mario Party 2 -8? Wario Ware? Nintendogs? Brain Age? Crap crap crap CRAP. But I mean that in the nicest way possible! &>
Agreed, and look how many copies Nintendo sells of their "crappy games." People want value.
Remember we ARE NOT average consumers. The average consumer has NO F-ING IDEA who Ubisoft is (or Nintendo or Microsoft or Sony for that matter). People know systems and that games exist for them. Brand loyalty only exists from the gaming enthusiasts. Obviously people who are gaming enthusiasts are not buying crappy games, but who cares? There are plenty of retards out there who will buy something just on box art alone, or the sticker price on the box. Plenty of crappy games sell VERY WELL because they appealed to a certain demographic for whatever ridiculous reason.
Look all I'm saying is that your average consumer is buying games based on variables totally different from what enthusiasts buy games for. They buy games like Wii Play because there is value there. They buy Mario (and his spinoffs) because they know the branding and feel comfortable making the purchase. Sure there is value in establishing some characters that people can recognize, but quickly making sub par games is probably far more profitable than making big budget polished beautiful games. If this wasn't the case why are 80% of all video games released utter crap?
Post by: Mikintosh on November 16, 2007, 08:15:01 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Ironically, Nintendo actually delivers a LOT of those "crappy games" Mr. Jack. Remember Wii Play? Remember Mario Party 2 -8? Wario Ware? Nintendogs? Brain Age? Crap crap crap CRAP. But I mean that in the nicest way possible! &>
Nintendo just THINKS of these no-nonsense crappy games before anyone else does, thus earning them massive profits on a first mover basis. If third parties would have had the inventiveness to make Brain Age first, they could've been the ones reaping the benefits. If they had made a dog simulator first with touch screen implemented, they would've sold 14 million + copies worldwide. If they had made a mini-game collection like Wario Ware first, they wouldn't be stuck in the back with things like Hot PIXEL or W.T.F. and instead have a 200-300k warioware hit on their hands!
The Mario Party games are subjective (I've always enjoyed them), but what wrong with Brain Age and Wario Ware? They both get good scores with each game, and with the former, it's cheaper to boot.
And I don't think a 3rd party WarioWare would have been successful, as the original lure of the first game was that it was a Mario universe game (I know that's why I bought it). That in reality it's not really connected to those games at all except for the inclusion of Wario is a moot point.
Nintendo's proved itself by putting out consistently great (and critically acclaimed) games for the last 20 years, so it can sell any game with its logo on it by having the Mario/Zelda/Pokemon "shine" fall onto it (hence why even tangential products like Nintendogs have items like Mario's Hat that can show up in screenshots as tying it to a proven series). Third parties can't do this not only because none of them have Nintendo's track record, but unlike Nintendo, they don't put care into the non-franchise games, for fear they won't make a profit. An EA Animal Crossing would just not have worked.
Most of the third-parties are like modern-day studios: pouring all their budget into blockbusters which have to either hit-or-miss, each one putting the studio on the line. Nintendo is the like the old studios: spread the money and time around so that most of its product is of solid quality; each individual one won't make as big of a splash (though there are the occasional smash hits), but the company itself is stable.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 16, 2007, 10:12:45 AM
Same reason 80% of all entertainment is crap. Not everyone is of equal talent. A lot of people are hacks. The best is always an elite group. And though it may be that a lot of companies are using the con strategy it isn't necessarily the best one to have.
Nintendo is probably the most successful videogame company to ever exist in that they've remained successful and profitable since Donkey Kong was released over 25 years ago. Even in lean years they still remain profitable. A quarter of a century of success. Meanwhile look at defunct companies like Acclaim, Interplay or Atari. All these guys pulled the "con people with crap" strategy and it didn't last. They're gone or they're brand names someone else owns or companies only in their own mind. Now it's not that simple but at the very least Nintendo has done quite well so I don't see why another company wouldn't want to emulate that.
Post by: Kairon on November 16, 2007, 10:38:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mikintosh
And I don't think a 3rd party WarioWare would have been successful, as the original lure of the first game was that it was a Mario universe game (I know that's why I bought it). That in reality it's not really connected to those games at all except for the inclusion of Wario is a moot point.
This is EXACTLY why you want to emulate Nintendo. Because even the crap that Nintendo makes people buy and call good.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 16, 2007, 10:47:34 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KaironQuote
Originally posted by: Mikintosh
And I don't think a 3rd party WarioWare would have been successful, as the original lure of the first game was that it was a Mario universe game (I know that's why I bought it). That in reality it's not really connected to those games at all except for the inclusion of Wario is a moot point.
This is EXACTLY why you want to emulate Nintendo. Because even the crap that Nintendo makes people buy and call good.
Am I the only one that finds it a tad bit ridiculous that you are calling games like Nintendogs crap? Not to mention the WarioWare games were quite unique they first came out, heck if it wasn't for Wario chances are we wouldn't be having so many mini game collections (Which may not be a bad thing). Regardless WarioWare was innovative and definitely was not crap.
Post by: Maverick on November 16, 2007, 10:49:28 AM
Post by: Kairon on November 16, 2007, 10:53:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Maverick
Kairon knows if Ubisoft made it he would be slobbering over it for days.
I've got My French Coach DS right next to my pillow.
Post by: Ian Sane on November 16, 2007, 11:56:34 AM
I don't care for those games at all but I'll admit that they're certainly not crap in a con way. They're really just high quality games that I don't like. I think "crap" is usually reserved for games that are poorly made.
Post by: Mashiro on November 16, 2007, 12:51:29 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Am I the only one that finds it a tad bit ridiculous that you are calling games like Nintendogs crap?"
I don't care for those games at all but I'll admit that they're certainly not crap in a con way. They're really just high quality games that I don't like. I think "crap" is usually reserved for games that are poorly made.
I fully agree =D
*waits for others to fill in the rest of this post*
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 16, 2007, 01:02:12 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: MashiroQuote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Am I the only one that finds it a tad bit ridiculous that you are calling games like Nintendogs crap?"
I don't care for those games at all but I'll admit that they're certainly not crap in a con way. They're really just high quality games that I don't like. I think "crap" is usually reserved for games that are poorly made.
I fully agree =D
*waits for others to fill in the rest of this post*
Kairon is just upset because 3rd parties can't make games as good as Nintendo, even casual games like Nintendogs, so he is resorting to name calling of games from Nintendo to fill the hole in his heart caused by games like Far Cry.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 16, 2007, 02:34:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. JackQuote
Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost
Nintendo Quality means delaying games for months or years if necessary instead of pushing out something that is buggy and incomplete.
I don't understand why anyone would have the drive to achieve "Nintendo Quality." I know someone who worked on that Monster Madness game for the 360/PC and the company still managed to sell 250k copies of the game, and will only be selling more when it releases on the PS3. The publisher managed to PROFIT, something like $5 million. If a company can get away with making a crappy game and still sell about 300k copies of the game, why dump money and effort into actually making something great, especially when you have first parties with a vested interest to go up against?
I agree with Chozo's definition of Nintendo quality, but the payoff is minimal for a 3rd party to achieve that quality. It's much easier to throw together an engine in a few months and build endless licensed games off of that engine and make money by the boatload. Nintendo strives to create quality games because the success of their system relies on the availability of quality titles. If Nintendo themselves can provide those titles, they will almost certainly profit greatly.
I suppose this is slightly off topic of the question asked, but what I'm saying is that in profit driven market achieving "Nintendo quality" is not a worthwhile venture.
You're right, but Nintendo games tend to be remembered as timeless classics more often than third party games are. Third parties profit by rushing something out, and it may sell very well initially, but 10 years from now do you think anyone will still be playing Monster Madness? That's the difference Nintendo Quality makes. If Super Mario Galaxy is as good as Mario 64, then you can be sure it will be played 10 years from now and beyond.
I don't see many 3rd party games having that long lasting appeal these days.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 16, 2007, 02:39:52 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian SaneDoes Ubisoft have that? No. Who the f*ck is a Ubisoft fan? No one because they don't have a good reputation. They release a well received game pretty much every year but for that one game they release 20 crappy ones. I think the CEO of Ubisoft wants to see Ubisoft fansites. He wants to see geeks (that don't work for the company) wearing Ubisoft T-shirts and other geeks saying to them "Cool! Where did you get that shirt?" He wants Ubisoft to be a big brandname in videogames where people notice the logo on the box and buy the game because they know they'll like it. Ubisoft needs to have at least the consistency of Nintendo to achieve that.
Excellent point. There are some third parties which have loyal fans. Square-Enix, Koei, and even Sega come to mind. But are there many EA or Ubisoft fans? Not really. It's kinda strange though, because EA and Ubisoft are probably the largest third party developers, but despite their commercial success they have very few loyal fans.
They could probably benefit from some mascot or something which they could build franchises around, and maybe one day have the same cult of personality that Mario and friends now enjoy.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 16, 2007, 03:36:04 PM
You know, before Twilight Princess.
Post by: IceCold on November 16, 2007, 03:41:12 PM
Also, I agree with nearly every single word Ian has written in this thread, except for not liking nongames.
Post by: Nick DiMola on November 16, 2007, 03:49:06 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Chozo Ghost
You're right, but Nintendo games tend to be remembered as timeless classics more often than third party games are. Third parties profit by rushing something out, and it may sell very well initially, but 10 years from now do you think anyone will still be playing Monster Madness? That's the difference Nintendo Quality makes. If Super Mario Galaxy is as good as Mario 64, then you can be sure it will be played 10 years from now and beyond.
I don't see many 3rd party games having that long lasting appeal these days.
Don't get me wrong here, I'm not saying these crappy games are even worth the plastic they are stamped on, I'm just saying that your average company doesn't care about their legacy they care about profit. Typically more games = more profit. Look at EA, they release a CRAPTON of games a year and they make a CRAPTON of money.
My whole argument in as few words as possible. Making Nintendo quality games is not ideal for 3rd parties. Making crap is. Just because a few companies got burned "conning" people, doesn't mean all companies who do the same thing also get burned. Sometimes I think everyone forgets this is a business. In the real world, being the best doesn't always translate into making the most money. I'm sure it helps, but it is definitely no guarantee.
To bring it full circle, Ubisoft is probably making enough money right now selling average to crappy games that they want to explore the more artistic side of things and would like to emulate Nintendo's tried and true formulas. Nintendo makes games that are simply of a higher caliber, and they are the ones making the timeless classics, there is no disputing that, but make no mistake, they do it because they have a vested interest in their platform and the better they make their games the more likely they will sell more units of their console. Third parties are not tethered to a single console and do not have the image of a console to maintain. This allows them to make crappy games and have it still be a viable business plan.
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 16, 2007, 04:40:03 PM
Atari used to be the videogame king and everyone probably thought they were invincible back then, but now they don't even exist anymore except as a name which other companies want to buy and use for themselves. Why is that? It may have something to do with horrendously crappy games they made. I mean, consider the game E.T. Many people rank it as the worst game EVER made. Nintendo has never made anything anywhere close to as awful as this, and that is why Nintendo is still around and now the market leader again.
So quality IS better than quantity in the long run. If you go with quantity you may make a lot of money really fast, but chances are your company won't exist 10 years from now. If you go with quality, you might make less money in the short term, but your company may still be in existence in 100 years.
I guess you could say it is just like the parable of the tortoise and the hare. Nintendo is the tortoise, slowly plodding along and being mocked all the way. Other companies are the hare and doing the mocking, but we all know who wins at the end...
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 16, 2007, 06:15:25 PM
Post by: Crimm on November 16, 2007, 06:43:44 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
People will buy crap. 3rd parties simply cater to that fundamental demand.
Indeed. I mean, somehow Midway made it this far.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 16, 2007, 08:20:49 PM
1st parties also cater to that fundamental demand.
Post by: Plugabugz on November 17, 2007, 09:33:07 AM
But as someone else said in another thread, a November splurge is easier to rake in the money. Galaxy or not.
Post by: Kairon on November 17, 2007, 10:04:43 AM
But maybe that's all just conjecture.
Post by: Shift Key on November 17, 2007, 10:12:30 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
1st parties also cater to that fundamental demand.
I'm pretty sure this a joke about Mario is Missing
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 17, 2007, 11:12:29 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Well, Nintendo DOES have the benefit of a somewhat stable development group, I believe, being a traditional Japanese company that tends to hold onto employees, and having such conservative hiring practices that they are unlikely to need to lay off people. Additionally, financial stability helps Nintendo to avoid even more developer turnover, creating a stable developer pool that can be depended upon, developed, and provide consistent quality without fear of reprisal...
But maybe that's all just conjecture.
Maybe they have that financial stability because they have been making great games and systems? Hmmm, amazing how that works!
Post by: Chozo Ghost on November 17, 2007, 01:49:39 PM
Nintendo has a vast library of hits for its VC. Sony and MS don't have so much.
Post by: couchmonkey on November 19, 2007, 06:54:08 AM
Second we have the debate over whether it's even worth it to have Nintendo quality from a business perspective. That's a very interesting question, and we can find companies like THQ that have basically survived by making clever use of liscences over the past 15 years. Liscenced games are often of the worst quality because they usually have a 9-12 month development period, but they'll sell because kids and casual gamers don't know what they're getting.
There is something to be said about achieving Nintendo quality, business-wise, though. Because of Nintendo's push for quality, it has about 20 liscences that have similar selling power to movies or TV shows, and Nintendo doesn't pay a cent for them. Because of Nintendo's push for quality, the company is a household name.
It is possible to do it without quality, it's even possible to become a big player without quality - Electronic Arts certainly doesn't offer "Nintendo-like" quality (but it's better than most hardcore gamers give it credit for).
Post by: Ian Sane on November 19, 2007, 07:25:50 AM
Hey, Midway's arcade games were awesome. Make fun of Acclaim instead. Their best games were home ports of Midway's excellent arcade games.
Maybe Ubisoft doesn't need to have Nintendo-like quality but would do better from something like Capcom-like quality. Capcom is a strong brand name. Gamers will typically show at least a token interest in any game Capcom announces. They're not Nintendo-like but they're good enough that gamers trust them to make good games. They have a good reputation. Just having that would help Ubisoft a lot.
Or maybe it's really just about having an identity. I find American publishers in general struggle with having an identity. You know a Square Enix game or a Konami game practically by sight without being prompted. They have a style and a feel. Nintendo obviously has that to. Ubisoft would benefit from having a Ubisoft style that people like.
Or maybe Ubisoft wants to achieve Nintendo-like quality so as to better compete on the Wii. The Wii fanbase obviously likes Nintendo games so maybe Ubisoft just wants to cater to them. After all, Ubi has benefited from being an early Wii supporter but obviously has to remain competitve as more developers come on board.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 19, 2007, 07:29:38 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane
"Indeed. I mean, somehow Midway made it this far."
Hey, Midway's arcade games were awesome. Make fun of Acclaim instead. Their best games were home ports of Midway's excellent arcade games.
Maybe Ubisoft doesn't need to have Nintendo-like quality but would do better from something like Capcom-like quality. Capcom is a strong brand name. Gamers will typically show at least a token interest in any game Capcom announces. They're not Nintendo-like but they're good enough that gamers trust them to make good games. They have a good reputation. Just having that would help Ubisoft a lot.
Or maybe it's really just about having an identity. I find American publishers in general struggle with having an identity. You know a Square Enix game or a Konami game practically by sight without being prompted. They have a style and a feel. Nintendo obviously has that to. Ubisoft would benefit from having a Ubisoft style that people like.
Or maybe Ubisoft wants to achieve Nintendo-like quality so as to better compete on the Wii. The Wii fanbase obviously likes Nintendo games so maybe Ubisoft just wants to cater to them. After all, Ubi has benefited from being an early Wii supporter but obviously has to remain competitve as more developers come on board.
That is an interesting point Ian, I never thought of the western 3rd Parties having no identity. Heck the only one I can think of that has any resemblance to an identity is Rockstar.
Post by: Smash_Brother on November 19, 2007, 07:34:32 AM
Also, for as much flak as Nintendo receives about development delays, they know that shipping a game late is better than shipping it early and having it suck. A lot of devs don't see it this way and typically say "It's going to ship on THIS date" and never waver from that, despite how much a game would benefit from a delay.
If more of them did that, I think we'd be seeing a lot more "Nintendo-like quality".
Post by: Plugabugz on November 19, 2007, 08:34:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
That is an interesting point Ian, I never thought of the western 3rd Parties having no identity. Heck the only one I can think of that has any resemblance to an identity is Rockstar.
Sex, violence and controversy sells.
Post by: wandering on November 20, 2007, 04:04:42 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on November 20, 2007, 04:51:46 AM
Actually, I would agree that Ancel's games give Ubisoft a bit of an identity, but the clash between his games and the Tom Clancy games and everything else Ubisoft does leaves them wanting...I think having an identity, to some degree, means avoiding liscences. Liscenced games are like fan-art: they can be great, but you're not likely to become known for them.
I'm a huge fan-artist, so I'm not bagging on them here...I'm just saying, that to create your own identity, you need to be working on your own projects. Ancel games do have a certain flavour, and even something as simple as throwing King Kong into the mix dillutes that flavour.
Post by: Kairon on November 21, 2007, 07:44:17 PM
A profitable company has a far greater chance of surviving market pressures to develop a "Nintendo-like" reputation. A company that approves games simply because they're "next-gen," "hardcore," cool and marketable undertakes extraneous risks that can sabotage their attempts at financial stability, and thus the very foundation that "nintendo-like" quality is built upon.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on November 22, 2007, 10:11:34 AM
Square-Enix.
CHURN-OUT DEM FMV MENU GAMES
Post by: Kairon on November 22, 2007, 02:23:23 PM
Post by: Plugabugz on November 22, 2007, 07:23:18 PM
