S.T.A.G.E. said:
DanneSandin said:
S.T.A.G.E. said:
DanneSandin said:
outlawauron said:
DanneSandin said:
outlawauron said:
DanneSandin said: So Mistwalker won't make games for MS or Sony...? Sounds like a win for Nintendo ^^ |
Considering that MS was the first and only ones to buy into MIstwalker at their start, I doubt that's true.
In reality, I doubt MS wants Mistwalker to make games for them.
|
Yeah that's a possibility! If MS wants to seariously expand in Japan they'll need mistwalkers imo... But I'm not sure how much that would help :P
|
We know how it much it helped. xD
Look at Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey. 110k and 210k lifetime.
|
haha yeah, japans... japanese... japaneses ???!!) sure don't like american machines ;)
|
It's not that they dont like American machines. Microsoft made their console so close to the PS3 in offers the Japanese still have no need to support it. Why support an outside console if its offering the same crap?
|
yeah I guess that's true ^^ lots of ppl are complaining about zelda not being darker and more realistic, but it might be the thing that keeps nintendo relevant that ppl don't like in a way.
|
It's not about being darker or more realistic, it's Zelda. The reason Skyward Sword didn't sell as much as Twilight Princess is because the casual hype wore off of the Wii. Theres a five year differential between the launches of the two. The last came sadly when the Wii recorded its first loss.
|
But SS and WM did get a lot of crap for their visuals - it seems like ppl want the more darker, grittier Zelda (me included, but I very much enjoyed SS art atyle!), I'm just wondering if it's the diffrentiation from the HD twins that's keep Nintendo rlevent (relatively speaking: the Wii is what made them relevent this gen, but during the GC era then?)