By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
DélioPT on 13 May 2017
Edit Thread
Nautilus said:
DélioPT said:

I was under the impression that it was a second party studio.

"There is not even a shred of evidence that points out that Nintendo has "nothing" indevelopment for 2018( hence the FE example)"
How many games have they planned for 2018? Because i honestly can't name a second after Fire Emblem.

Sharing resources co-develop a game is not the same as fully developing one.
Do you know the amount of resources they are allocating to this collaboration or in what way they are collaborating?

Well, if we knew I would have said it.But thats not even the point.We are not in 2018 yet, and we are still far from it.Saying that future stinks because its not tomorrow yet makes no sense.Nintendo has had this strategy, of announcing mostly games that are closer to release(as in releasing in 12 months time) since the reveal of the Switch.To suggest that just because they prefer to announce things that are soon to be released, instead of pulling an Square Enix and announce a game that is barely under production, is that they dont have nothing behind the scenes is beyond ridiculous.2018 may not be as impressive as 2017 in terms of first party, but of course they have titles for it that they are already working on it.I mean, we dont know what Retro is doing, what some of the EADs are doing, they may have more collaborations on the way, etc.

And what does the ammount of resources have anything to do about having it develoiping it yourself?Your whole argument is "Nintendo has nothing on 2018 because they are not willing to show many games for it".How come a second party game is any less than a first party game, when both are a game?Nintendo could very well be investing more this year, so that, with a bigger installed base, it could have a more relaxed output of first party games due to third party help.Or are you saying that only first party games matter?Because in that case MS and Sony would fail miserably then.

Most of what you just said has got nothing with what i have said or questioned.

"Your whole argument is "Nintendo has nothing on 2018 because they are not willing to show many games for it".
That is not my argument, nor have i suggested it.
What i questioned was their ability to correct a past mistake: not enough 1st party support (that excludes concerns over 2nd party SW). And if they corrected this mistake and have a ton of games coming, why hold back at the single biggest event in gaming year?

"To suggest that just because they prefer to announce things that are soon to be released, instead of pulling an Square Enix"
I never said anything of the sort or implied that i would be ok with it - which i'm not, btw.
What i have been saying is that i wished for - or saw as the best decision - was to divide focus between 2017 and 2018 games for the video presentation.

The strategy of revealing games began before the Switch and the reason was not because, suddenly, Nintendo decided to change their ways. It used that PR spin to cover up their lack of games (you can't announce for the future what you lack or do not have).
That's why E32016 was all about Zelda.
Do you really believe that if E3 2016 had been a second E3 2014, for example, they would have done what they did last year? I don't believe that for a second.

"2018 may not be as impressive as 2017 in terms of first party"
Your view is even worse than mine, then.
I expect nothing less than upping their release schedule (decreasing 3DS SW and no Wii U games for 2/3 years) for next year in a significat manner... i just fear that might not be the case.