By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
NoirSon on 24 August 2014
Edit Thread
theRepublic said:
NoirSon said:
The biggest hurdle appears to be Nintendo itself.

During the SNES, N64 and early parts of the GC era, Nintendo was a lot more open, experimental and less restrictive with the types of games it let its second party developers work on.

1. Since, a quarter or about half way through the Wii's life cycle there was a shift that contracted most games Nintendo would put support behind. We are only now seeing Nintendo shift away from that stance in terms of the games it supports but the fact is had Rare stuck around they wouldn't have done nearly as many original games as they did in the N64 era.

2. Retro could have done more games in the Wii era then Metroid Prime 3 (and technically Trilogy) and Donkey Kong Country Returns, Nintendo just didn't let them pull the trigger on allocating sources to other projects.

1. Is there any evidence at all for this?  Nintendo didn't support Rare's Conker's Bad Fur Day back on the N64 for just one example.  What change are you talking about?  Nintendo has always been careful about releasing only quality (and mostly family friendly) software under their name.

2. So people were just sitting around Retro doing nothing?  They didn't have more resources to allocate.  Games take a lot longer to make now due to the vastly increased complexity.  I'm not sure why the OP, and some people in the thread refuse to acknowledge this.

 

1. Yeah, Conker's Bad Gur Day was released on the N64, they also release Geist and Eternal Darkness on the GC. As I said the contraction seemed to occur about a quarter or about half way through the Wii's life cycle. They obviously still released quality games and took chances, but you can name a number of games they decided not to release sequels to on the Wii despite the system and its motion controls fitting the game play like 1080 Snowboarding, Star Fox or F-Zero. Then you have some less then family friendly games that could have helped parched the drought in the Wii's Western (or NA in particular) release schedule between their own major releases such as Diaster: Day of Crisis, Zangeki no Reginleiv, Fatal Frame/Zero 4 and the remake of Fatal Frame/Zero 2 and nearly the three extremely well done Operation Rainfall games. These were small releases that could have helped during the back half of the Wii's life cycle, heck not cutting of the creation of games like Metriod Prime Trilogy, Fire Emblem: Radiant Dawn, Punch-Out and a number of other games less then 18 after their release would have also helped in that regard.

2. I agree with you but the fact is Nintendo controls Retro and how much they have to work with. Nintendo was more content for most of the Wii's life cycle to have Retro work on either Donkey Kong Country or working to help other teams (such as their contributions toward Mario Kart 7 stages) then actually working on new software. Retro isn't a massive team but they should still be large enough that you can have some of them working on one big project and others working on something smaller even if it is only meant to be a eShop or DS/3DS title. If other Nintendo teams like Intelligent systems and even Monolith Soft can work on multiple projects Retro should have output then they do unless they are being muzzled on what they actually are able to do. We get several open sandbox games and their sequels in the last generation, while AAA development is hard and a much longer process, just putting out software can still be done in reasonable time if effort and the main company is willing.