By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Nintendo has second thoughts about publishing Devils Third in NA.

 

Should NoA publish Devils third?

No, another publisher should do it! 45 40.91%
 
Yes 65 59.09%
 
Total:110

I'm hoping "Fatal Frame" gets a retail release, as "Devil's Third" seems like it has made very little progress from its rough 2014 build.



Retro Tech Select - My Youtube channel. Covers throwback consumer electronics with a focus on "vid'ya games."

Latest Video: Top 12: Best Games on the N64 - Special Features, Episode 7

Around the Network

The's apparently a controversy over a character who looks quite young, that's a PR nightmare if true.



Wyrdness said:
The's apparently a controversy over a character who looks quite young, that's a PR nightmare if true.

It's probably the eternally 15 year old character. I could see that raising some red flags.



 

European previews point to this being a train wreck of a game, with poor controls, graphics and a frame-rate that judders all over the place. I wouldn't blame Nintendo for backing out at this point, Valhalla haven't delivered a good game by the sounds of things.



I hope they leave it to XSEED or some other publisher, that way they keep their reputation and we get the game in the west. Even if I'm not so sure about this game anymore.



Around the Network

But it looked really cool! Was it really that bad all along? :C



They'll be criticized no matter what they do, publishing or not, so they may as well just publish it and release the game.



NintenDomination [May 2015 - July 2017]
 

  - Official  VGChartz Tutorial Thread - 

NintenDomination [2015/05/19 - 2017/07/02]
 

          

 

 

Here lies the hidden threads. 

 | |

Nintendo Metascore | Official NintenDomination | VGC Tutorial Thread

| Best and Worst of Miiverse | Manga Discussion Thead |
[3DS] Winter Playtimes [Wii U]

Has Nintendo ever publicly stated that they WON'T be publishing the game? Since when do they listen to "backlash" from fans, and just where exactly is this "backlash" coming from? If they're bringing it because of this so-called "backlash", then that's interesting how there has been much larger backlash of other games in the past that are still not even localized.



forethought14 said:
Has Nintendo ever publicly stated that they WON'T be publishing the game? Since when do they listen to "backlash" from fans, and just where exactly is this "backlash" coming from? If they're bringing it because of this so-called "backlash", then that's interesting how there has been much larger backlash of other games in the past that are still not even localized.

I feel like you don't have all the details of the way NoA has been kind of sidestepping Devil's Third.

They didn't bring the game to E3, pulled it from the future releases section of the Wii U eshop, didn't even talk about the game while Europe and Japan were getting release dates, didn't get the game rated by the ESRB, and then they waited two days to respond to the fire that got started by the Unseen64 report. To top it off, Siliconera reached out to verify the report, presumably with someone that knows what's going on within NoA, and they were absolutely confident in their verification that NoA had dropped it and another publisher had picked it up that Siliconera readers were fairly familiar with.

It still took a day after the Siliconera report, then two days after the Unseen64 report, of people bashing NoA left and right because "y u no bring M content and stick to your promises", before Nintendo issued a single Tweet that simply implied that they were still publishing it. Even then, they didn't outright commit to publishing the game in North America, and they have said nothing more since that single Tweet, still failing to show any kind of commitment towards publishing the game.

Now we get this report which, I'm not familiar with the site, so I can't say if the confidence in their sources is warranted. It does line up with Nintendo's peculiar silence, contradictory Tweet, and the Siliconera report though (notably specifically mentioning XSEED as the publisher who would pick up the title). To me, that at least grants some validity to this, and quite frankly, I had come to the same conclusion already, that Nintendo was reacting to backlash and was uncertain of what course of action to take. Do they stick to what they said before and go the route of NoJ and NoE and publish the game anyways, gimping the release in someway to keep costs down and accepting the negative feedback for daring to publish such a potentially bad game, or do they give up on it entirely and accept whatever negative feedback comes their way? Admittedly, NoA is in a tough spot here, and it's really a lose/lose scenario. They just have to figure out where they lose least when it comes to their fanbase that is content to endlesly complain about not getting a title the majority will never even purchase.

Now personally, I don't care whether the game gets published or not. I'm not a Wii U owner, and even if I were, this game does not look even remotely appealing to me. That said, I do pride myself on having a fairly complete retelling of the facts at this point in time. The Unseen64 report, followup Siliconera report, Nintendo tweet, and the record of their actions (or inaction if you will) is all easy to find online and is relatively well documented. I personally think this is an interesting scenario and have had a good time keeping up with it all.



 

Don't care I just want to see the game released this year so we can judge it on its own merits.