Soundwave said:
JEMC said:
Instead of focusing on the supposedly big number of games that will launch on the first year, something that I'm sure won't happen and that excuses like "there were delays" or "some were cancelled due to not meeting Nintendo quality standards" will be used, I want to know more about two points mentioned:
- To accomplish this, the entire process of how Nintendo develops and produces software has gone through radical changes.
- There is a new strategy that was put in place to create and release first party software at a faster rate.
What does this mean? How will Nintendo do this?
|
Clearly they've hired primates and other zoo animals to assist with game development.
Actually it's pretty much the staple of Nintendo "rumors" ... keep it vague and wishy washy enough so that you can't be pinned down on any one point.
Here's your classic NX rumor:
"NX will be quite powerful from what I've been told. Could be more than PS4, maybe considerably so. There's a console and there's some kind of portable component, unsure if that means its sold seperately or not. Controller may have a screen or not. Console isn't traditional though. But has some traditional controls. Oh and Nintendo support is going to be amazing. Zelda yes, but expect others too. It definitely plays video games though, I'm 100% sure of that."
|
That is absolutely correct, and sad.
The thing is that those rumors come from unnamed sources, so there is no actual reason to believe them besides hope. But she, Emily Rogers, has a reputation (deserved or not, it's out of the question) and everything she says will be taken more seriously than whatever anonymous sources say. That's why I'm asking those questions, because people will give this rumor more validity than the others.
And a clear example is that neither in the title nor in the OP the term "rumor" is used, kind of implying that it's simply true.
Luke888 said:
JEMC said:
Instead of focusing on the supposedly big number of games that will launch on the first year, something that I'm sure won't happen and that excuses like "there were delays" or "some were cancelled due to not meeting Nintendo quality standards" will be used, I want to know more about two points mentioned:
- To accomplish this, the entire process of how Nintendo develops and produces software has gone through radical changes.
- There is a new strategy that was put in place to create and release first party software at a faster rate.
What does this mean? How will Nintendo do this?
|
Well to be fair in late 2015 it was reported that all the EAD teams beside EAD 3 (the one working on Zelda) were merged in what is now called STD . This was made to improve software output...
|
Kagerow said:
It is simply possible that Nintendo, After the runaway success of relatively small project (If what I'm remembering is correct.) called Splatoon (Or Captain Toad), decided that they will re-organize the development structure to have 1~2 Core team and lots of small teams to experiment with new ideas, small or big.
If that is the case, I expect line up of about 1~2 full price Nintendo main line at launch year, and various cheaper priced side projects.
|
I'm answering your two posts together because they are similar but also present the same problems.
Fine, Nintendo has merged its studios. Will this really help? What Kagerow says is true and possible, maybe Nintendo will now make more smaller (A or B+ grade) projects and less big (AA or AAA) titles, but even with that in mind, development for a more powerful and capable console demands more work. The flaws that are deemed aceptable on Wii U won't be seen that way on a more capable device, even for smaller titles, which means that Nintendo will have to invest more money, time and workers into each title.
The question then is: Has Nintendo enough workforce to make than happen? Has Nintendo hired new/enough employees to make than possible? We simply don't know.
Oh, and let's not forget that those studios worked not only on Wii U games, but also on 3DS games, and they will keep working on both devices which we don't know (we can only speculate) if they will share all or part of the library. Because if they don't, things are now worse, not better.
