By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
hsrob on 16 July 2015
Edit Thread
twintail said:
hsrob said:

If Nintendo had been involved from the outset, perhaps quality control would have been enough to keep the game on track, but quality control can only get you so far if a product is fundamentally flawed.

Nintendo may have realised this and pitched some development assistance in hopes of righting the ship, but it clearly didn't work. Anything I've read about Nintendo and their third party partnerships these days suggests that they are happy to lend technical support but tend not to get too heavily involved, leaving directorship with the outside studio. If they get eavily involved it just becomes 'another Nintendo game'.

 

Did Nintendo give best efforts to try and fix the game? We can't know for certain but there comes a point where you have to cut your losses. And seeing as they had a hand in development they should have good insight into whether it was worth persisting with trying to fix this game.

 

Nintendo has certainly dropped the ball before in terms of supporting quality releases e.g. The Wonderful 101, I just don't think this is one of those times.

If that is the case then Nintendo ase idiots for another reason altogether.

Why would they sign on the game if they could tell it was fundamentally flawed? Why only pitch some development assistance for a game you are going to get behind and publish? 

Regardless of the situation, we know was the role of their team is: to help 3rd party games. As Itagaki put it, Nintendo sounded more involved than simple some development assistance. As the game is published by them it becomes  Nintendo game whether they actively develop it themselves or not. Pokemon is a Nintendo game, but Nintendo dont develop it: GameFreak, a 3rd party dev, does.

Me saying that what I am about Nintendo and their support for the game has nothing to do with the quality of it. Its the principle of the matter. They took the game on when Itagaki needed help. Now they dont care. Its a clear lack of respect for a 3rd party partner and their own involvement in an agreement with them. 

If Nintendo does not want to publish the game then don't do so then. Don't do a half-hearted attempt at publishing. 

I don't necessarily disagree with the first bold. They must have thought it was fixable, but clearly they were wrong.

 

I disagree with this, quality for me is part of the equation. If this is 7/10 'bad' game, then yes I think it's unfortunate that Nintendo is not following through, but if it's 4/10 bad then I agree. The developer has taken Nintendo's money and had the responsibility to produce a decent game that meets some kind of minimum standards. They can't phone it in, then expect that the publisher is going to enthusiastically get behind distribution and marketing, unless those were specifically called out in the contract.

 

I don't think it's lack of respect, it's not like Nintendo hasn't sent it's own first party games to die, they are just extremely (too)tight with their distribution and marketing budgets. As for regional disparity, Nintendo has always left publishing decisions up to the regional offices, that's not new. Remember this is the same NOA that initially passed on Xenoblade Chronicles, one of last generations most critically acclaimed games.

 

I agree that Nintendo is, at times, too tight with money, I just don't think this instance is particularly bad. The developer was given their chance to make the game, they still got paid and people can still pay the game if they want to.