I think thye started making a wii u game but moved focus to nx so i say a new game around 2017.

I don't know think EON would have given them such an ultimate deal, but I do agree that it would have been beneficial for what I'm getting at for them to have attemted harder to keep that deal going.

I don't think Devil's Third doesn't work for Nintendo because it's violent. It doesn't work because it's a shit game, and that doesn't go with the high bar of technical quality Nintendo goes for. For example, if the next Ninja Gaiden was exclusive to Nintendo, it would work fine, as long as they kept the quality high.

That being said, there is something to be noted about Nintendo's branding a video game company synonimous with video games. While I think that they would benefit from IP that were on other media first like with James Bond, there's something lost when licensed games enter the mix. I felt that way about the Lego game.

This is honestly just personal preference, but I think it's much more authentic to their brand to keep their exclusive IP specifically video gaming IP as opposed to licenced IP.

Nope, its clear what you said "Fuck Diddy Kong racing, make something good."

Now I want Nintendo to make a new IP based on espionage, to se what they can come up with.

I don't have a problem with it, because Nintendo in the 90s actively chased a lot of IP. James Bond and Star Wars used to be known as Nintendo franchises in a lot of ways, to the point where the first Smash Brothers had the lightsaber knock off weapon and I think there was some talk of a Bond reference too. Nintendo in fact outbid Sony for the Star Wars licensing deal and it was very successful for them in the 90s ...

http://lubbockonline.com/stories/110498/LF0065.shtml#.Vh4UC7RViko

Also the NBA Kobe Bryant games, the Ken Griffey Jr. MLB games, etc. etc. We know they were also heavy into attempting to get the Harry Potter license. 

Nintendo is weaker without these brands not stronger IMO. I don't think you want too many licensed games, but if you have so much success with something like Bond ... sometimes it's smarter just to not screw around with it. Bond is just a special character that is time less. They've never had a game since that has appealled to the so-called "core" market like GoldenEye did. 

I remember a lot of my friends, even those who didn't care about Mario/Zelda felt they had to buy an N64 to have GoldenEye. Everyone loved that game even ardent Playstation fanatics, everytime my Sony-only friends came over they'd want to fire up GoldenEye. 

We'll see at next E3.

Yeah, that would be the ideal situation. I just hate that I have to wait so much in order to find out!

Yeah, but the 90s were a completely different time for games in terms of licenced material. Gaming companies, especially Nintendo, don't really need those licences and more to stand out because their brands are so much more iconic now. I know about all those games, it just think it would devalue what's do great about them if they became well known for liscenced material instaid of gaming IP.

BTW, the Bond reference is the Mine item in Smash.

I'd be fine with liscenced sports games because of the nature of those types of games, but I'd rather Nintendo stick with dedicated gaming franchises when it comes to exclusive IP. If they want something that is like Bond, either make their own or get an exclusive like Metal Ge-

...Or make their own. I don't think it's even remotely out of Retro's creative skill set to make a new original gaming IP with the same appeal and impact as Goldeneye had.

If they make Diddy Kong Racing they need to ditch the 3 types of vehicle mechanic and make cars that have special animal transformations. It would make a lot more sense for the DK universe. Also give it a quirky story mode to set it apart from MK. And call it Donkey Kong Racing because fuck Diddy. Oh and the race cars would have a more natural/organic look (like a mine kart or bamboo race car).

Not that I think Retro is making DKR.