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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - One-Off Nintendo Games to Revive?

 

What one-off Nintendo game would you most like to see be brought back as a franchise?

Wild Gunmen 5 4.67%
 
Duck Hunt 21 19.63%
 
Ice Climber 40 37.38%
 
Mach Rider 5 4.67%
 
Hogan's Alley 2 1.87%
 
Clu Clu Land 2 1.87%
 
Other 32 29.91%
 
Total:107
SegataSanshiro on 24 October 2017
Jumpin said:
axumblade said:
Mischief Makers

That’s Enix

It's Treasure. Nintendo and Enix published it in different regions. That game is one I believe Treasue still actually owns.



Around the Network
pleaserecycle on 24 October 2017
AlfredoTurkey said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

I know it wasn't, but they own the IP. 

But the company released games on PS3, PC, 360... they were basically contracted to release one game on Gamecube and one port of MGS. Eternal Darkness is no more a Nintendo title than Resident Evil remake as far as who had a finger in it's existance. 

The only second party games I'd budge on are Retro and Rare games because Nintendo actually had their own guys working side-by-side on them. 

Diddy Kong Racing is probably the strongest one-off.

edit: It looks like my links don't work.  Search TESS (Trademark Electronic Search System) and then input "Eternal Darkness" or "Banjo Kazooie" or any other game.  

Nintendo owns Eternal Darkness.  Rare owns Banjo Kazooie.  Sega owns Bayonetta.



AlfredoTurkey on 24 October 2017
SegataSanshiro said:
AlfredoTurkey said:

But the company released games on PS3, PC, 360... they were basically contracted to release one game on Gamecube and one port of MGS. Eternal Darkness is no more a Nintendo title than Resident Evil remake as far as who had a finger in it's existance. 

The only second party games I'd budge on are Retro and Rare games because Nintendo actually had their own guys working side-by-side on them. 

Diddy Kong Racing is probably the strongest one-off.

But Nintendo owns the IP. Nintendo also keeps renewing the trademark. Doesn't matter who developed it. Nintendo can ask whoever they want to make a new one. Microst owns Lost Odyssey even tho Mistwalke developed it. There is a lot of Treasure developed IPs SEGA owns. Just because a 3rd party develops a new IP does not mean that 3rd party will own it. It's not uncomon for the publisher to own the IP rights and in the case of Eternal Darkness. Nintendo owns it.

I suppose this is semantics. In my opinion, a game that is not developed by Nintendo and instead, simply contracted, isn't a Nintendo game. Even if Nintendo OWNS it legally, it's not a Nintendo game. I view it in the same way as I do other mediums. When Michael Jackson bought Beatles songs... were they Michael Jackson songs? No, they were Beatles songs etc.

So, when I think of "Nintendo games" to revive, I think of things like F-Zero or Retro/Rare IP that Nintendo helped develop. 



leedlelee on 25 October 2017

From the games listed, I would choose either Ice Climbers or Mach Rider...
But if we were to expand the list I would choose either Gumshoe or Mysterious Murasame Castle...
Gumshoe could be a gritty, darker detective game...
Murasame could be an alternative to Zelda with a Japanese aesthetic...



Have a nice day...

SegataSanshiro on 25 October 2017
AlfredoTurkey said:
SegataSanshiro said:

But Nintendo owns the IP. Nintendo also keeps renewing the trademark. Doesn't matter who developed it. Nintendo can ask whoever they want to make a new one. Microst owns Lost Odyssey even tho Mistwalke developed it. There is a lot of Treasure developed IPs SEGA owns. Just because a 3rd party develops a new IP does not mean that 3rd party will own it. It's not uncomon for the publisher to own the IP rights and in the case of Eternal Darkness. Nintendo owns it.

I suppose this is semantics. In my opinion, a game that is not developed by Nintendo and instead, simply contracted, isn't a Nintendo game. Even if Nintendo OWNS it legally, it's not a Nintendo game. I view it in the same way as I do other mediums. When Michael Jackson bought Beatles songs... were they Michael Jackson songs? No, they were Beatles songs etc.

So, when I think of "Nintendo games" to revive, I think of things like F-Zero or Retro/Rare IP that Nintendo helped develop. 

It's not semantics. You're just wrong. they own it. It's thier IP so if someone says they want Eternal Darkness 2. It counts.



Around the Network
Juma009 on 25 October 2017

Star Tropics.



Thechalkblock on 25 October 2017

i know the game doesn't really count, but zombiu...



SuperNova on 25 October 2017

I have no clue what they would actually do with them, but the Ice climbers are so cute that they deserve their own game!



foxtail on 25 October 2017
AlfredoTurkey said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:
AlfredoTurkey said:

Eternal Darkness wasn't developed by Nintendo. 

I know it wasn't, but they own the IP. 

But the company released games on PS3, PC, 360... they were basically contracted to release one game on Gamecube and one port of MGS. Eternal Darkness is no more a Nintendo title than Resident Evil remake as far as who had a finger in it's existance. 

The only second party games I'd budge on are Retro and Rare games because Nintendo actually had their own guys working side-by-side on them. 

Diddy Kong Racing is probably the strongest one-off.

Silicon Knights were an official Nintendo Affiliate during the GameCube years.  They had the same status as Retro and Rareware at the time (i.e. Affiliate company with equity method) as Nintendo owned more than 20% of the company.  Eternal Darkness was developed by Silicon Knights but Nintendo had a lot of involvement in the development process ever since the games initial start on the N64.  

Silicon Knights and Nintendo ended their exclusivity agreement with the advent of the Wii because Silicon Knights wanted Too Human to be a more graphical game than that which the Wii could handle.  Silicon Knights is now defunct, but I don't think Nintendo ever sold its shares in the company. 

 

The status of companies as related to Nintendo up to the September 2001 period below:

Subsidiary companies are the equal of Nintendo created and controlled official chapters and sub-divisions. Affiliates are the equal of externally created, acquisitioned partners and funded companies.Nintendo Company Ltd. and its related chapters and companies, which are composed of the Company, twenty-six subsidiaries and fifteen affiliates as of September 30, 2001, operate manufacturing and sales of electronic entertainment products as a major business.

 

Distributor – International Headquarters

 

(a) Nintendo of America Inc.
(a) Nintendo of Canada Ltd.
(a) Nintendo of Europe GmbH
(a) Nintendo of France S.A.R.L
(a) Nintendo of Benelux B.V
(a) Nintendo of Espana, S.A
(a) Nintendo of Australia Pty. Ltd.
(a) Nintendo of Phuten Co., Ltd.

 

Market Research etc.
(a) NES Merchandising Inc.
(a) NHR Inc.
(a) HFI Inc.

Special Retailer
(a) Nintendo Services USA Inc.
(a) Pokemon USA Inc.
(d) The Pokemon Company

Electronic Registration of Service Merchandise etc.
(a) SiRAS.com Inc.
(a) Nintendo Services Ltd.

Management of Game Creator etc.
(a) warpstar Co., Ltd.
(C) Fukuei Co., Ltd.
(d) Marigul Management Inc.
(d) MGM Fund Inc.
(e) Randnet DD Co., Ltd.

Software & Technology Development
(a) Nd Cube Co., Ltd.
(a) Nintendo Technology Development Inc.
(a) Nintendo Software Technology Corporation
(a) Nintendo Software Canada Inc.
(a) Brownie Brown Co., Ltd.
(a) Rare Acquisition Inc. / Rare Toys & Games Inc.
(b) A/N Software Inc.
(d) HAL Laboratory Inc.
(d) MONEGI Co., Ltd.
(d) Mobile 21 Co., Ltd.
(d) Rareware Limited
(d) Left Field Productions Inc.
(d) Retro Studios Inc.
(d) Silicon Knights Ltd.
(d) iKuni Inc.
(d) Ape Inc.
(e) Midway / Nintendo Inc.

Key Terms & Company Breakdown
(a) Consolidated subsidiaries -- 24
(b) Non-consolidated subsidiaries -- 1
(C) Non-consolidated subsidiaries without equity method – 1
(d) Affiliate companies with equity method -- 13
(e) Affiliate companies without equity method – 2

Total Subsidiaries -- 26
Total Affiliates -- 15

Subsidiary companies are the equal of Nintendo created and controlled official chapters and sub-divisions. Affiliates are the equal of externally created, acquisitioned partners and funded companies.


NoirSon on 25 October 2017
AlfredoTurkey said:
SegataSanshiro said:

But Nintendo owns the IP. Nintendo also keeps renewing the trademark. Doesn't matter who developed it. Nintendo can ask whoever they want to make a new one. Microst owns Lost Odyssey even tho Mistwalke developed it. There is a lot of Treasure developed IPs SEGA owns. Just because a 3rd party develops a new IP does not mean that 3rd party will own it. It's not uncomon for the publisher to own the IP rights and in the case of Eternal Darkness. Nintendo owns it.

I suppose this is semantics. In my opinion, a game that is not developed by Nintendo and instead, simply contracted, isn't a Nintendo game. Even if Nintendo OWNS it legally, it's not a Nintendo game. I view it in the same way as I do other mediums. When Michael Jackson bought Beatles songs... were they Michael Jackson songs? No, they were Beatles songs etc.

So, when I think of "Nintendo games" to revive, I think of things like F-Zero or Retro/Rare IP that Nintendo helped develop. 

By that logic, Nintendo doesn't own either Kirby, Fire Emblem, Pokemon, any Mario RPG ever (from the original to Paper Mario and the Mario and Luigi games) or any of the Donkey Kong platformers. Yet we all agree those are IP Nintendo has control over, may not be fully in some cases but Nintendo controls the IP and thus has majority say on whether or not the games come out.

But yeah, put me as another person saying Eternal Darkness, while I know they now have partial contro on Fatal Frame, a good Eternal Darkness franchise could straddle the line between horror and action tones similar to Castlevania  in its prime which would add to Nintendo's available genres.