Nuvendil said:
As EA, Activision, and Square themselves have demonstrated, all the money in the world can't fix stupid. You can be a "AAA" studio and make a game that might as well be B tier for all the shiny paint you lavish on it. Monolith Soft has the money and the resources now that they didn't have during the partnership with Namco; they are a part of Nintendo now, a first party developer. And Nintendo has demonstrated a willingness to give them the resources needed, as seen with Xenoblade and with Xenoblade X so far. These are big games by anyone's measure. And if having a less-than-perfect track record makes you an inferior studio B-tier studio, then that should make Monolith Soft and Square an even match cause Square has put out some stinkers over the years; I mean, last gen they put out three entries in 13 despite declining approval from all sides and put out the orignal 14, which was an outright shameful display. So yeah, just tossing Square the win is very premature. |
Not sure how you can say this when the strengths and weaknesses are almost exactly the same as previous games.
The EA/Activision comparison holds no water, because they rush games out and have yearly sequels of its major franchises. Square takes as much time as they want and have no qualms over delays.
And if you read the original post, I never said you could just toss them the win. I said if you had to make a decision at first glance, it's not a reach to pick Square. That's all.
