Mr Puggsly said:
I don't think they needed Nintendo's guidance per se, they needed Nintendo's audience. Rare is more in touch with what Nintendo fans want than Xbox fans. Everything Rare has put out post Nintendo hasn't been bad. In fact, I think all their Xbox games would have sold significantly better on Gamecube and Wii. Those are consoles where casual games and platformers are in demand. Basically, Rare was great at selling games to the audience Nintendo built. But they couldn't bring a casual audience to the Xbox. |
I don't see the connection between simply having Nintendo's audience, and all of the creative breakthroughs Rare had which led to massive industry trends and Rare being an industry leading force.
They made no technological or innovative breakthroughs after Microsoft bought them out; at least none that I can think of that became Industry leading forces like they had before. On SNES, Rare became the first company to use pre-rendered 24-bit graphics, and on a console that was supposed to have only a 16-bit output - this essentially started a revolution, Square would follow with Mario RPG, followed by a couple of other games, and eventually their Smash hit Final Fantasy 7, and Capcom brought Resident Evil 2. Not to mention they took the FPS genre, and brought it to a whole other level with GE007 on the N64 introducing things such as reaction zones, stealth combat, sniper rifles, and the most popular multiplayer mode in a game to date. They didn't really make any further breakthroughs after the N64 era; they certainly weren't leading the industry. This article really covers why that was the case when they discuss the positive morale, the cashflow, and the freedom which the company had in those days when they were under Nintendo's wing.
I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.