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

Forums - Nintendo Discussion - Other Nintendo-third party collaborations you'd like to see

burninmylight said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Do you think I didn't know about this game. Or do you think, maybe, a brand new 2D Zelda game, a mainline one no less, has more precedence to set than a spin-off rhythm game? 

Besides Minish Cap came out after the CDi games, so that's a weird comment anyways. 

Do you think I didn't know about this game.

Yes, I did. Because you said this:

I don't think something like a brand new 2D Zelda would be seen as small enough for Nintendo to give it to a third party company nowadays sadly, despite how cool another Capcom 2D Zelda would be.

Cadence of Hyrule is a brand new 2D Zelda that was given to a third party company. Calling it a rhythm game changes nothing when the primary gameplay is much closer to every other 2D Zelda sans AoL than a typical rhythm game like Rhythm Heaven or Harmoknight. You can turn off the gameplay that requires rhythm and musical timing entirely so that it plays more like a Mystery Dungeon game.

I forgot that The Minish Cap was developed by Flagship, but whatevs.

I mean, anyone who understands that connotations are a thing would pick up on the fact that we're talking about a mainline game.

In the own thing you are quoting:

I don't think something like a brand new 2D Zelda (already a good hint because most people associate brand new 2d Zelda = mainline) would be seen as small enough (the best hint possible because 2D Zelda spin-offs are inherently smaller) for Nintendo to give it to a third party company nowadays sadly, despite how cool another Capcom 2D Zelda would be.

Even if I could have been more anally clear, I think there is clearly enough subtext there for anyone to get the point. Also, not sure why just disregarding the spin-off nature of the genre is a good thing in a discussion like this? It doesn't really matter if it's inherently closer to 2D Zelda than something else (than what even? what an odd thing to say), it's literally a 2D game, but it still isn't a mainline 2D Zelda ... which again, you could tell was the point of the discussion. 



Around the Network

Personally, i'd love to see a ridge racer-related title as a collaboration between Nintendo and Namco.



DON'T WIN ME CHIBI BUDDY DON'T WIN ME.

ANIMAL CROSSING NEW LEAF FRIEND CODE:- 5129 1175 1029. MESSAGE ME.
ANDY MURRAY:- GRAND SLAM WINNER!

In my opinion the N64 was not just the best console of the 5th gen but, to this day the best console ever created!

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
burninmylight said:

Do you think I didn't know about this game.

Yes, I did. Because you said this:

I don't think something like a brand new 2D Zelda would be seen as small enough for Nintendo to give it to a third party company nowadays sadly, despite how cool another Capcom 2D Zelda would be.

Cadence of Hyrule is a brand new 2D Zelda that was given to a third party company. Calling it a rhythm game changes nothing when the primary gameplay is much closer to every other 2D Zelda sans AoL than a typical rhythm game like Rhythm Heaven or Harmoknight. You can turn off the gameplay that requires rhythm and musical timing entirely so that it plays more like a Mystery Dungeon game.

I forgot that The Minish Cap was developed by Flagship, but whatevs.

I mean, anyone who understands that connotations are a thing would pick up on the fact that we're talking about a mainline game.

In the own thing you are quoting:

I don't think something like a brand new 2D Zelda (already a good hint because most people associate brand new 2d Zelda = mainline) would be seen as small enough (the best hint possible because 2D Zelda spin-offs are inherently smaller) for Nintendo to give it to a third party company nowadays sadly, despite how cool another Capcom 2D Zelda would be.

Even if I could have been more anally clear, I think there is clearly enough subtext there for anyone to get the point. Also, not sure why just disregarding the spin-off nature of the genre is a good thing in a discussion like this? It doesn't really matter if it's inherently closer to 2D Zelda than something else (than what even? what an odd thing to say), it's literally a 2D game, but it still isn't a mainline 2D Zelda ... which again, you could tell was the point of the discussion. 

I see a whole lot of shifting goalposts here. First you discount CoH as a rhythm game even though its gameplay is much closer to the 2D Zelda style than any rhythm game out there, now you're going with the "not sure if trolling or just retarded" fallacy of implying that everyone should have known what you meant, even though you said nothing about the mainline/spinoff status, scope, budget, length or canonical nature of such a game being factors. "Small" can mean so many things, so in this case, it means whatever you want whenever you need it to mean that, and I'm supposed to know exactly what you mean at all times.

So yes, you could have been more clear (and less anal). And no, there isn't enough subtext for me to get your point, because the OP's point was to simply ask about collaborations with third parties we'd like to see, and didn't add all of these extra qualifiers that you're now throwing out there. I apologize for not realizing that you were adding all of these extra rules and stipulations in order to answer the question.

It's a good thing 2D Metroid is seen as small enough to warrant Nintendo giving to a third party dev, otherwise we wouldn't have Samus Returns. It's a good thing the Mario IP is seen as flexible enough to warrant Nintendo giving to Ubisoft, otherwise we wouldn't have Mario + Rabbids. It's a good thing the Hyrule Warriors is considered a spinoff to warrant Nintendo giving it to Tecmo Koei, otherwise we wouldn't have Age of Calamity.

I get it now. Putting arbitrary qualifiers on everything is fun.



peachbuggy said:
Personally, i'd love to see a ridge racer-related title as a collaboration between Nintendo and Namco.

I think I saw some rumors about a Switch exclusive Ridge Raver game developed by Namco, but it got cancelled. However, nobody knows if anything about that is really true because the cancellation is just a rumor as well. It all may have been just hot air in the end. It would be very cool, though, I agree!



Gameplay > Graphics

Substance > Style

Art Direction > Realism

burninmylight said:

This is such a weirdly loaded comment and overly passive aggressive. I'm not calling you retarded or using a fallacy that states as such, I'm simply stating that I felt it was pretty obvious what I meant when I wrote that comment. Maybe to you it wasn't, that's fine, but honestly bickering back and forth over whether my comment was obvious enough isn't productive in the first place. It's a silly thing for both of us to get caught up on, I mean really, what does it change whether or not the comment was too abstract now that you know what I meant? At the end of the day the message stays the same: A mainline 2D Zelda under a third party company would be preferable to no new mainline 2D Zelda. I'm not even sure how you can qualify it as goal post shifting when you are replying to a comment I made about my own personal wishes, like do you think I didn't know what I meant when I was writing my original comment? The original comment wasn't in the form of an argument, it was in the form of a preference I stated, so this doesn't even make sense. 

I'm also not sure why you are so upset over using qualifiers. Yes ... I am talking about a non-spin off title. Yes, that by definition is using a qualifier. So what? What is the harm in that? Qualifiers exist for reason, because they qualify things. It's not like it's an arbitrary one, either. It literally changes everything from how the game is made, to how it's marketed, to how it fits in terms of significance in the franchise. 

"It's a good thing 2D Metroid is seen as small enough to warrant Nintendo giving to a third party dev, otherwise we wouldn't have Samus Returns. It's a good thing the Mario IP is seen as flexible enough to warrant Nintendo giving to Ubisoft, otherwise we wouldn't have Mario + Rabbids. It's a good thing the Hyrule Warriors is considered a spinoff to warrant Nintendo giving it to Tecmo Koei, otherwise we wouldn't have Age of Calamity."

Reminder of the original comment being replied to: 

"I don't think something like a brand new 2D Zelda would be seen as small enough for Nintendo to give it to a third party company nowadays sadly, despite how cool another Capcom 2D Zelda would be.

Seriously though, if Nintendo isn't going to make new entries in a lot of their franchises, I think letting prolific third parties make new entries in them rather than just pumping out more remakes would be a much cooler solution. If we get a remade 2D Metroid or another remade Zelda on the Switch instead of a new game ... my god ... "

At this point you are just arguing in bad faith and being overly aggressive. Like come on man, my original comment even addresses most of these criteria. The only thing it doesn't address is mainline, non-spin-off entries ... but we've already discussed that to death, which invalidates your other examples. Honestly you're hung up on the lack of one word: mainline. 



Around the Network
GoOnKid said:
peachbuggy said:
Personally, i'd love to see a ridge racer-related title as a collaboration between Nintendo and Namco.

I think I saw some rumors about a Switch exclusive Ridge Raver game developed by Namco, but it got cancelled. However, nobody knows if anything about that is really true because the cancellation is just a rumor as well. It all may have been just hot air in the end. It would be very cool, though, I agree!

Yes, it was mentioned in a Namco Singapore employees profile from a site called Linkedin i think[?] From there rumours circulated but nothing materialised. I was very disappointed as i'd love some ridge racer on the Switch! Not sure why i'd think it would make a good crossover, i just think it's quite  a "Nintendo-like" game, if that makes sense?

 Not sure how it could be implemented. I wouldn't want to see weapons/items in it, just maybe implying Nintendo characters were driving the cars as rivals and idk, Mario's face could appear in a small box  on the screen, saying "Woo-hoo!" or something as he passed Luigi, for example. 



DON'T WIN ME CHIBI BUDDY DON'T WIN ME.

ANIMAL CROSSING NEW LEAF FRIEND CODE:- 5129 1175 1029. MESSAGE ME.
ANDY MURRAY:- GRAND SLAM WINNER!

In my opinion the N64 was not just the best console of the 5th gen but, to this day the best console ever created!

AngryLittleAlchemist said:
burninmylight said:

This is such a weirdly loaded comment and overly passive aggressive. I'm not calling you retarded or using a fallacy that states as such, I'm simply stating that I felt it was pretty obvious what I meant when I wrote that comment. Maybe to you it wasn't, that's fine, but honestly bickering back and forth over whether my comment was obvious enough isn't productive in the first place. It's a silly thing for both of us to get caught up on, I mean really, what does it change whether or not the comment was too abstract now that you know what I meant? At the end of the day the message stays the same: A mainline 2D Zelda under a third party company would be preferable to no new mainline 2D Zelda. I'm not even sure how you can qualify it as goal post shifting when you are replying to a comment I made about my own personal wishes, like do you think I didn't know what I meant when I was writing my original comment? The original comment wasn't in the form of an argument, it was in the form of a preference I stated, so this doesn't even make sense. 

I'm also not sure why you are so upset over using qualifiers. Yes ... I am talking about a non-spin off title. Yes, that by definition is using a qualifier. So what? What is the harm in that? Qualifiers exist for reason, because they qualify things. It's not like it's an arbitrary one, either. It literally changes everything from how the game is made, to how it's marketed, to how it fits in terms of significance in the franchise. 

"It's a good thing 2D Metroid is seen as small enough to warrant Nintendo giving to a third party dev, otherwise we wouldn't have Samus Returns. It's a good thing the Mario IP is seen as flexible enough to warrant Nintendo giving to Ubisoft, otherwise we wouldn't have Mario + Rabbids. It's a good thing the Hyrule Warriors is considered a spinoff to warrant Nintendo giving it to Tecmo Koei, otherwise we wouldn't have Age of Calamity."

Reminder of the original comment being replied to: 

"I don't think something like a brand new 2D Zelda would be seen as small enough for Nintendo to give it to a third party company nowadays sadly, despite how cool another Capcom 2D Zelda would be.

Seriously though, if Nintendo isn't going to make new entries in a lot of their franchises, I think letting prolific third parties make new entries in them rather than just pumping out more remakes would be a much cooler solution. If we get a remade 2D Metroid or another remade Zelda on the Switch instead of a new game ... my god ... "

At this point you are just arguing in bad faith and being overly aggressive. Like come on man, my original comment even addresses most of these criteria. The only thing it doesn't address is mainline, non-spin-off entries ... but we've already discussed that to death, which invalidates your other examples. Honestly you're hung up on the lack of one word: mainline. 

Your replies have been so all over the place that I'm honestly more confused than I was at the beginning. Like, you tell me that I'm being overly passive agressive, but what would you call these?

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Do you think I didn't know about this game. Or do you think, maybe, a brand new 2D Zelda game, a mainline one no less, has more precedence to set than a spin-off rhythm game? 

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

I mean, anyone who understands that connotations are a thing would pick up on the fact that we're talking about a mainline game.

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Even if I could have been more anally clear, I think there is clearly enough subtext there for anyone to get the point.

I'm getting the strong impression that you feel that I tried to insult your intelligence, so you felt the need to respond in kind. So if I'm right, then I'd like to honestly apologize and let you know that it wasn't my intention. You said you don't think 2D Zelda is small enough for Nintendo to give to a third party. I gave you an example of a small third party that Nintendo gave 2D Zelda to. That was my simple intention, and my simple line of thinking. I'm not the one who started making things convoluted by adding all of these extras to the original statement.

The few things that you do put simply, I agree with. Namely, that it's silly and unproductive of us to bicker back and forth, and that a 2D Zelda under a third party would be preferable to no 2D Zelda at all. Not sure why you keep bringing up the word "mainline." All I see with that is another arbitrary and conditional label to justify the fact that you neglected to mention a brand new 2D Zelda from a third party developer. I don't care if the game is "mainline" or not, because it's fun and it feels like a Zelda game.

As for your question on whether I think you don't know what you meant when you were writing your original comment... you wouldn't like my answer, because it kind of feels like you're mansplaining everything to yourself just as much, but unlike me, you have the privilege of having an inside conversation with yourself. I never mentioned "mainline", nor the genre, nor how "small" it is, or any other labels that don't really matter. You're the one who keeps adding these things and making this discussion more and more complicated. So more and more, I feel like I'm not the only one confused here.

Since we both agree that any 2D Zelda is better than no new 2D Zelda, we can leave at that, or you can go ahead and type your reply and we'll leave it there. I made my point in my original reply to you, and I feel that it still stands regardless of whatever you want to call Cadence of Hyrule.



Kid Icarus game co-developed with Treasure. (Sin & Punishment 1 & 2, Ikaruga)



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.

curl-6 said:
Kid Icarus game co-developed with Treasure. (Sin & Punishment 1 & 2, Ikaruga)

I just want Treasure to do ANYTHING at this point. Does it even still exist? It's been six years since it last released a game...

But yes, when I become a multi-billionaire, one of the games I will fund will be a Kid Icarus game developed by Treasure that is the spiritual sequel to Astro Boy: Omega Factor.



burninmylight said:
curl-6 said:
Kid Icarus game co-developed with Treasure. (Sin & Punishment 1 & 2, Ikaruga)

I just want Treasure to do ANYTHING at this point. Does it even still exist? It's been six years since it last released a game...

But yes, when I become a multi-billionaire, one of the games I will fund will be a Kid Icarus game developed by Treasure that is the spiritual sequel to Astro Boy: Omega Factor.

Yeah they seem to have just vanished off the face of the Earth almost, which is a real shame as they do awesome work.

Oh, and while we're at it; new Starfox game by Treasure too.



Bet with Liquidlaser: I say PS5 and Xbox Series will sell more than 56 million combined by the end of 2023.