Post by: Fenix_091 on May 07, 2003, 05:53:25 PM
Post by: RickPowers on May 07, 2003, 05:58:26 PM
Post by: ThePerm on May 07, 2003, 06:04:04 PM
edit...i checked it out and Hot Shots Golf 2 & 3 were developed by Clap Hanz Limited and published by Sony....so Camelot no longer is involved in the series.
Post by: RickPowers on May 07, 2003, 06:11:29 PM
Post by: ThePerm on May 07, 2003, 06:20:31 PM
Post by: Syl on May 07, 2003, 06:21:46 PM
I've yet to see them make any games for any other system since the original Mario Tennis/golf was released.
then again, since golden sun got on the market, i haven't heard of them making much of anything =).
And I believe factor 5's reasons is something like "if we go 2nd party, it would be much harder for us to get the lucas arts license"
Post by: Berto2K on May 07, 2003, 06:40:08 PM
Post by: Darc Requiem on May 07, 2003, 07:57:14 PM
Darc Requiem
Post by: ThePerm on May 07, 2003, 08:39:38 PM
Post by: Gamefreak on May 07, 2003, 08:48:51 PM
And Factor 5 made a PC port of Rogue Leader, but since then they have been loyal to Nintendo. They even made the music system in the GCN for crying out loud...I doubt they will go anywhere either. Silicon Knights used to make games for other platforms too, but that doesn't mean anything. They don't anymore. Yeah yeah I know they are owned by Nintendo
But they seem to have grown so close to Nintendo that they would stay exclusive even if they weren't owned...And you left out Sonic Team, they only want to make games for Nintendo...But they were forced into PSO for Xbox and probably the same is true for Sonic Heroes. But I recall a Sonic Team quote saying they only want to make games on Nintendo systems..
Post by: Termin8Anakin on May 08, 2003, 03:08:34 AM
Heopfully, Thornado pops it's head out, and Camelot comes to E3 with a 3D Golden Sun.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 08, 2003, 03:30:23 AM
You mean rogue *Squadron*, right?
And Camelot is offficially a 3rd party, but they can kind of be considered a 2nd party since all their games are for Nintendo platforms and Nintendo's extremely close to them.
Post by: ThePerm on May 08, 2003, 10:15:31 AM
Post by: ruby_onix on May 08, 2003, 11:31:21 AM
Quote
And Camelot is offficially a 3rd party, but they can kind of be considered a 2nd party...
Personally, I believe the term "second party" is fiction, a media buzzword that only exists in our heads. So I agree with you in that Camelot "can kind of be considered" to be a second party.
Quote
i remember reading something about factor 5 programming the next dragonquest game.
That's Level 5, the makers of the cel-shaded RPGs "Dark Cloud 2" for the PS2 and "True Fantasy Online" for the XBox. Not Factor 5, the Dolby-lovin Nintendo-friendly Star Wars junkies.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 08, 2003, 11:36:55 AM
I guess, though, I could see how you could simplify it and include all the companies owned at all by the console maker into the 1st party category and all the potentially multiplatform developers into the 3rd party category.
Post by: Ian Sane on May 08, 2003, 11:44:09 AM
Yeah it would be nice if they could work on a Gamecube RPG or something (rumour has it they are but I don't think it's coming out for a while). Personally I don't see any point in making a new Mario Tennis or Mario Golf. Unless they go online there really isn't any reason for new versions to exist. Is anyone seriously looking forward to these games? It's not like Mario Kart where the fans demand a new game every console generation.
Factor 5 is also pretty much working on a superflous sequel. I mean I look forward to both Factor 5's and Camelot's next games but I would have preferred if they worked on something different and original. I really liked Rogue Leader but when I was playing it I didn't think "Damn they have to make another game like this." Maybe publishers have gotten so dependant on sequels that they're starting to make them regardless of whether the fans want them.
It must be brutal to be on one of these teams that spends their entire time working on the same series again and again and again. I have a friend who used to work for EA that left because he got sick of making the same damn football game every single year.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 08, 2003, 11:46:47 AM
Post by: Berbs42 on May 08, 2003, 12:37:53 PM
Although...
Didn't F5 say that, other than Rogue Squadron III, they were working on a second title and would not comment on the platform?
I don't see Factor 5 straying from the cube.
But who knows? I might end up blindsided.
- Berbs
Post by: Berbs42 on May 08, 2003, 12:39:29 PM
Post by: Grey Ninja on May 08, 2003, 01:04:51 PM
Granted, Factor 5's code is a lot faster than most people are willing to code, but still, it's not that big of news, as the Xbox has discs that are a lot bigger than GameCube's.
Post by: kennyb27 on May 08, 2003, 02:20:03 PM
Post by: The Hero of Time on May 08, 2003, 02:56:08 PM
Post by: manunited4eva22 on May 08, 2003, 03:27:06 PM
Post by: Gamefreak on May 08, 2003, 04:08:29 PM
Post by: Ninja X on May 08, 2003, 04:23:05 PM
Post by: Armed on May 08, 2003, 04:52:05 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: The Hero of Time
i really want a golden sun on the cube
As do i!
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 08, 2003, 04:53:32 PM
Post by: ruby_onix on May 09, 2003, 12:45:50 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ruby_onix
Personally, I believe the term "second party" is fiction, a media buzzword that only exists in our heads.
Quote
Originally posted by: mouse_clicker
How is it a media buzzword, ruby?
The term "second party" doesn't seem to exist anywhere except videogames. And it only came around in the late SNES days, when Nintendo hooked up with Rare.
Here's how I see it. Nintendo is the first party. They make the hardware. They make the games that play on the hardware. They make the controllers, and stuff like that. Now then, if you get tired of having a system that's "100% Nintendo", you can go to a "third party" and get some "enhancements" to mix it up and make it more interesting.
Nintendo is the first party, you're the second party (of course, the term "user" is more common), and whoever else you involve is the third party.
Rare wasn't Nintendo. So Rare was a third party. Sure, Nintendo appeared to be in charge of them and could boss them around, but at it's heart, Rare was the Stamper Brothers, not Nintendo.
The current Rare is Microsoft. They were bought up 100%, and are just a "team name" within Microsoft now, so they're part of a first party.
Silicon Knights and Retro aren't Nintendo. They've got cozy arrangements, but they're still their own bosses. So they're third parties.
Square's a third party (or should I say Square/Enix). They got up and left for Sony while Nintendo owned a chunk of them, and now they're going multi-platform while Sony owns a chunk of them.
I have no clue about the status of Hal, especially since it's founder is now the president of Nintendo. I'm kind of thinking that Hal actually "pulled a Kirby" and swallowed/absorbed Nintendo. (>")> (>")> (>")>
Unlike other markets, videogame software needs third party assistance. The first parties can't cover everything. So third parties are more and more important.
When the industry started finding third parties willing to provide the first parties with serious ammunition, a reliable source of top-notch games that were console-exclusive, the first parties knew that they needed a new name for these "valued third parties", since almost every first party in the world likes to point out and make people understand that "third parties" are inferior to "first parties".
So when Nintendo hooked up with Rare and the Stampers, they coined the term (or someone else smaller used it, I can't really tell) "second party". Something halfway between a first and second party, mathamatically speaking.
Since the SNES days, people have been trying to pin down the exact meaning of "second party". The most common one I've heard is that it's a company with some degree of ownership by the first party, and an exclusivity contract. But the ownership factor is irrelevant, since we've seen a few times that anything less that 50% doesn't really count toward anything serious. And contracts are everywhere. The modern industry is built on them. We most likely don't even know about half of them, and most of us outside of Rick haven't ever seen the details of any of them.
On PS2 message boards lately I've seen another definition pop up (probably since Sony is looser with their pens and tighter with their paper shredders than any companies we've seen before, and almost all of their games are made by someone else). "Any game that's published by the first party is a game made by a second party, even if they only held that position for a short while." Is that really a bad definition? It eliminates some of the confusion. All you have to do is look for a logo on the box.
And it has the side effect of us being able to say that Square is a second party of Nintendo again, while they stopped being a Sony second party when they hooked up with EA five years ago. ^_^
Since the SNES days, we've constantly been surprised by the actions of "second parties", and asked "How can they do that? Weren't they a second party?" They do what they do because they're third parties. They're not Nintendo (or Sony, or Microsoft), they're someone else. Every second party is really a third party, and you have to look at them one-by-one to understand them and not be surprised by their actions.
People can easily say that the likes of Factor 5 and Camelot and Treasure are closer to Nintendo than some "second parties", and more deserving of the term. And since nobody can provide a dictionary definition of "second party" (aside from the occasional IGN Mailbag where someone like Fran says "I thought it was common knowlege, oh well, here's what it means") since it's exclusively used by the videogame software industry, I can't stop anyone from changing their "personal definition" of the term to include those companies.
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 09, 2003, 01:01:25 PM
Post by: KirbySStar on May 10, 2003, 08:27:41 AM
Post by: Gamefreak on May 10, 2003, 08:36:04 AM
As for SK, last we officially heard Nintendo owned most but not all of them, but by the way it's going and what Denis Dyack has said in interviews, it seems SK is going to stay at Nintendo...
Post by: KirbySStar on May 10, 2003, 08:41:16 AM
Post by: ThePerm on May 10, 2003, 10:31:44 AM
Post by: Gamefreak on May 10, 2003, 10:43:08 AM
Post by: mouse_clicker on May 10, 2003, 01:20:20 PM
Post by: KirbySStar on May 11, 2003, 02:40:37 AM
Post by: egman on May 11, 2003, 03:11:47 AM
I don't suggest N buy them out or in part, but I hope they continue get closer to them in ways like contributed development capital or letting them get involve in their console like they did the GC.
Post by: Gamefreak on May 11, 2003, 10:27:58 AM
But at least we won't ever see Rebel Strike on Xbox. They definately conclude that at the end of the article...
