My Take On The Devil's Third Controversy

[PAOerfulone]

midrange said:

PAOerfulone said:

I'll acknowledge that Nintendo SDP has a role with developing 3rd party titles. But it looks more or less like it does with Bayonetta 2, not really anything major.
By supporting, it means more like giving them the funds and resources they need to develop the title, along with pitching some ideas and techniques that will help the game move along and showing them ways of developing for the Wii U to take advantage of the Wii U's hardware. So they are partially to blame for this.

However, the majority of the development responsibilities still falls on Valhalla. Because, after all, it's their game, thus they are the primary developers. And they had 3 years to make it good on the Wii U, WITH Nintendo's help, they had more than enough time and plenty of support. And they didn't deliver.
Plain and Simple.

Valhalla failing doesn't detract from the fact that Nintendo also messed up big time.

Nintendo used money that could have gone towards a destiny/fallout/GTA port, but instead they chose to invest in this game. That was the first mess up given the fact that this game was in development catastrophe after thq went down.

Then they did not intervene to say "this game looks awful, let's fix it," like a publisher should. That was the second mistake since Nintendo should have maintained a stronger oversight of a game that has been through tough development times.

The next mistake would be to not release the game. Not only could the money they invested have gone to ports of other games, it instead gets completely wasted since no game ends up coming out of it. Despite Valhalla making an awful game, Nintendo should still publish it to not waste the money that could have gone to meaningful ports.

1. Yes it does, since they were the ones who made the game and if they had made it good, it would have been worth the investment.

2. I'll agree that a GTA port would have been awesome. Destiny? Meh, would've done as much as Call of Duty does on Nintendo systems, which is nothing. Problems here are that Take Two Interactive and Activision would rather make profits on systems where those audiences already exist, thus everything with the exception of Skylanders have ditched the Wii U.
Fallout 4 on Wii U would have had the same issues as this, since that's a game being developed primarily for PS4 and Xbox One, so it would've been like Sonic Heroes on PS2, glitchy, slippery, and an all around inferior port of what was primarily a Xbox/GameCube game. Also, the development catastrophe was due to not having a publisher after THQ's downfall, which Nintendo came in to do. That gave Valhalla a home platform they needed to make the game good with plenty of development time. Look at Bayonetta 2, another 3rd party games that wouldn't have seen the light of day without Nintendo, and that game managed to be fantastic and well worth the investment, while taking a much shorter development cycle than Devil's Third. So again, no excuse whatsoever.

3. I'll agree that Nintendo should have stepped in as publishers in that regard and that they should have opted to delay the game. Although, then people would be saying "Oh great, ANOTHER delay of a Wii U game."

4. They are releasing the game, although North America is questionable, the reason I say is because it seems as though now Nintendo of America has changed their minds about that. But even if they didn't release it, I wouldn't blame them one bit, because, simply put, the game is crap. And yes, both parties share blame in that regard, but it's still mostly Valhalla's fault, because, three years, how much more time do you need to make a generic FPS.
And they'll make that money back another way, they're a multi-billion dollar company, who have been the #1 video game company in Japan for the better part of 3 decades now. And hopefully they'll spend that money they get back on meaningful ports like you say, like Bayonetta 3, etc.