| Troll_Whisperer said: Not a "let's shit on Nintendo" thread, bear with me. I just thought about this. Nintendo are a publisher. Within it they have EAD 1, EAD 2, EAD Tokyo, Retro, etc. Why is Nintendo considered a developer, while for Ubisoft it was just Ubisoft Montreal? I mean, Nintendo and Ubisoft are similar in that sense (let's forget the quality aspect of it...), many internally created developers under one name. If Rare makes a great game, "Nintendo" made it, but if Naughty Dog makes it it's not Sony? I don't get it. I know I'm late to the party and that I'm trying to find logic in a video game award ceremony, but I found it curious. |
With the exception of EAD Tokyo, the other EAD studios are all internal studios at Nintendo meaning that most of them are just different teams that are part of one larger developer. That is Nintendo. It's only the external developers that are credited with their own name such as Hal Laboratory, Retro Studios, Monolith Soft, Gamefreak, NST, and others.
Notice that whenever Nintendo releases a game that was made by one of their EAD teams, those teams are never credited on the box or anywhere in the game except for that credits. Nintendo itself is credited. Also, when Rare was with Nintendo, they got PLENTY of credit for their games by the public at large. There's a reason whynin the late 90's, Rare was considered one of the best developers in the planet.
Check out my art blog: http://jon-erich-art.blogspot.com
