Third-party games on WiiU - were they worth it?

[GhaudePhaede010]

potato_hamster said:

GhaudePhaede010 said:

 

A game published by a company and a game developed by a company are not the same thing. I know you know this. You are just trying to argue. But still, a game that is published by Nintendo is not necessarily a title developed by Nintendo. If a game is developed by a noteablethird party, then it can be said it is a third party title even though Nintendo published it.

Also, if you can call the Tokoyo Mirage game, which you noted is co-owned by Nintendo, a Nintendo title, then others can call it an Atlus title since it is co-owned by Atlus; especially since it was developed by Atlus and not Nintendo.

But we have a term for games that are published by a console manufacturer but not developed by the console manufacturer. It's used throughout this thread. They're called second party games. I Tokoyo Mirage is a second party game. Not a first party or third party game. The same goes for Wonderful 101, Fatal Frame, Bayonetta 2, etc.

Semantics aside, we agree. I am not and was not trying to dispute this fact.

Semantics included I hate the way the term, "second-party" has evolved. I know this rant has nothing to do with our conversation but I have held this in for a while so here goes. A, second-party title used to be a title developed by a company owned (either majority or minority) by the parent company in question. For example, Silicon Knights developed a game for Gamecube called Eternal Darkness. Silicon Knights and the game Eternal Darkness were considered second-party not because Nintendo published the title, but because the company that developed the title was partially owned by NIntendo.

SquareEnix once developed a title called Mario Sports Mix. It was also published by Nintendo but at that time, you would have been called insane and laughed off the internet if you would have called SquareEnix a second-party Nintendo developer or that title a second-party Nintendo title. It was considered a third-party title that NIntendo published. Obviously, times have changed but this development has thoroughly bothered me over the last few years.

Back to the topic at hand. I said nothing to disagree with what you are saying. What I was saying was that not all Nintendo titles are created equally. As well, a game that is co-owned ,by a company deserves to be as much one company's title as the other. I mean co-owned literally means neither company has more stake than the other so to call it one company's game over the other in an equal partnership is very... loose. You may do that but, you must accept that someone else may see it the other way because that is only fair.

Also, there is a difference between a game developed by Nintendo and one published by Nintendo; usually in quality. But semantics aside, I still agree with what you have said.