potato_hamster said:
GhaudePhaede010 said:
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.
|
Very well reason, solid points made. I agree with you as well that the term "second party" has evolved. That got me thinking about Pokemon. How does that fit into things? To me that's a second party game, how do you see that?
|
I do not know. I thought Nintendo owned at least partial stock in Gamefreak. Honestly, I never talk about Pokemon other than in Smash so I do not know the business side of things. However, Pokemon may very well be why the term, "second-party" has evolved since nobody could accurately describe the business partnership between Nintendo and Gamefreak.
Admittedly, I just tried to google the situation because I am not versed on the business of Pokemon since I am not a very big Pokemon fan (like I said, other than Smash, Pokemon is not a franchise I play or care about) but I was unable to find out anything other than Nintendo owning a third of Pokemon (the franchise). I was unable to find out anything about their business relationship with Gamefreak. A funny grey area. But today, you would be insane to call Gamefreak and the Pokemon titles anything other than second party so I guess it was beneficial in some ways to evolve the term.
