Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Is Marvel Ultimate Aliance 3 the most "Un-Nintendo" thing Nintendo has produced yet?

Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 certainly came as a surprise when Nintendo announced it last year. It's a sequel to an action RPG series that hasn't had a new entry in years, not from the original developer, and published by Nintendo as a first party Switch exclusive. Nintendo often produces and publishes niche, strange, and left-field projects to help bolster their console's library, creating variety on the system. But Ultimate Alliance 3 I think is the most un-Nintendo thing they've done in years. Firstly, it's a Marvel game, a brand that's predomedently western. Nintendo's produced niche Japanese games before, but this feels like an attempt at catering directly to western gamers. It's also a licensed game. While Nintendo's done licensed works before, with the Popeye arcade game, and the Hamtaro Game Boy titles, they mainly stick to their own homegrown creations. So Ultimate Alliance 3 does come as a surprise in that regard.

When Nintendo picks up games like this, it's mainly to appeal to hardcore Nintendo fans who want something a bit different. Think Xenoblade, Astral Chain, Bayonetta, etc. But Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 is one of those games that feels like Nintendo trying to appeal to non-Nintendo fans. It's use of a popular Western brand, and it being a sequel to a cult western RPG series, appears as though Nintendo is trying to use this game to cater explicitly towards western gamers than its diehard fans. Personally, I'm not complaining. Nintendo's been lacking in this area for a while now, so if the success of this leads to stuff like another Eternal Darkness or a new Western oriented IP, then I'm down.



Around the Network

Well I had a blast playing X-Men Legends on the Nintendo Gamecube, which this game seems to be a spiritual successor to those games.



Don't you mean publish yet ?

Cuz as much as I know, Team Ninja at Koei Tecmo is working on it.



Switch Friend Code : 3905-6122-2909 

Mar1217 said:
Don't you mean publish yet ?

Cuz as much as I know, Team Ninja at Koei Tecmo is working on it.

Publishing and Producing are mostly interchangeable in the gaming industry. Yes, Team Ninja's doing the actual development. But Nintendo's calling the shots here, they're giving the development team money to make the game. The development team answers to Nintendo executives.



The Switch appeals to a wide range of gamers from the hardcore mature, to the young and casual. Given what the Switch is doing, Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 fits right in.

As for the "least Nintendo" thing in general, it would only apply to a single generation that a particular tired stigma that haters like to throw around was relevant. So on that note, I would also have to say no.



Nintendo Switch Friend Code: SW-5643-2927-1984

Around the Network
TheMisterManGuy said:
Mar1217 said:
Don't you mean publish yet ?

Cuz as much as I know, Team Ninja at Koei Tecmo is working on it.

Publishing and Producing are mostly interchangeable in the gaming industry. Yes, Team Ninja's doing the actual development. But Nintendo's calling the shots here, they're giving the development team money to make the game. The development team answers to Nintendo executives.

That's only true if the developers belong to a publisher, and even then, there are exceptions. In this case, it's not true at all. Nintendo might have bought exclusivity rights for the game release, but that's about it.

They also can't call the shots on a brand like Marvel. Here, Marvel, and by extension Disney, calls all the shots. And remember how they reacted after the Battlefront II debacle with EA?

And my biggest question about the game: Will Zardu Hasselfrau make an appearance?



Bofferbrauer2 said:

That's only true if the developers belong to a publisher, and even then, there are exceptions. In this case, it's not true at all. Nintendo might have bought exclusivity rights for the game release, but that's about it.

Not necessarily. The publisher doesn't have to own the studio to produce the game their making. Sony produces the Ratchet & Clank games, but they don't own the developer, Insomniac, who are independent, Sony does own the IP though, so Insomniac can't do anything with Ratchet & Clank without Sony's approval.

They also can't call the shots on a brand like Marvel. Here, Marvel, and by extension Disney, calls all the shots. And remember how they reacted after the Battlefront II debacle with EA?

Marvel Games has some level of input, but it's the publisher who's mostly in charge. Spider-Man PS4 for example, is owned outright by Sony, with Marvel simply licensing the character to them. Same with Ultimate Alliance 3. It's Marvel, but it's Marvel licensed to Nintendo. Or the Fox X-Men franchise in the case of film.



It's a cartoony game with the graphical fidelity of a mobile title aimed predominantly at man-children who want to relive their childhood.

I would say that qualifies it as one of the most "Nintendo things" Nintendo has ever produced.



TheMisterManGuy said:
Bofferbrauer2 said:

That's only true if the developers belong to a publisher, and even then, there are exceptions. In this case, it's not true at all. Nintendo might have bought exclusivity rights for the game release, but that's about it.

Not necessarily. The publisher doesn't have to own the studio to produce the game their making. Sony produces the Ratchet & Clank games, but they don't own the developer, Insomniac, who are independent, Sony does own the IP though, so Insomniac can't do anything with Ratchet & Clank without Sony's approval.

They also can't call the shots on a brand like Marvel. Here, Marvel, and by extension Disney, calls all the shots. And remember how they reacted after the Battlefront II debacle with EA?

Marvel Games has some level of input, but it's the publisher who's mostly in charge. Spider-Man PS4 for example, is owned outright by Sony, with Marvel simply licensing the character to them. Same with Ultimate Alliance 3. It's Marvel, but it's Marvel licensed to Nintendo. Or the Fox X-Men franchise in the case of film.

@bolded: That's the thing! Who owns the IP calls the shots. Nintendo owns nothing there, so they ain't in any position to call any shots.

@italic: that's only true for the movie rights. Marvel retained the rights for pretty much everything else. It's just that Sony also makes the Spiderman video games, and thus doesn't want to share with the others, but afaik they don't have any exclusivity rights over him outside of movies.



Bofferbrauer2 said:

@bolded: That's the thing! Who owns the IP calls the shots. Nintendo owns nothing there, so they ain't in any position to call any shots.

@italic: that's only true for the movie rights. Marvel retained the rights for pretty much everything else. It's just that Sony also makes the Spiderman video games, and thus doesn't want to share with the others, but afaik they don't have any exclusivity rights over him outside of movies.

Marvel owns all the characters and settings in UA3 and Spider-Man PS4, but the actual rights to the games themselves are held by Nintendo and Sony respectively. Marvel simply licenses these characters to the companies. The same is true for the upcoming Avengers game. Marvel owns the characters, but Square Enix owns the game itself. It's very much like the Fox X-Men franchise, where Marvel is simply licensing out their characters to other companies.