+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=42)
+--- Thread: Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases (/showthread.php?tid=1991)
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - A Black Falcon - 16th June 2004
http://cube.ign.com/articles/523/523704p1.html
As in, more things like Donkey Konga and F-Zero GX as opposed to purchasing companies, which is very expensive and isn't always a good investment.
Quote:June 16, 2004 - Nintendo plans to shy away from purchasing development talent in the future, Reuters reports today. Echoing previous statements, company president Satoru Iwata stated in an interview with a French publication that Nintendo aims to build strong relationships with game development companies rather than outright buying them.
As reason for this policy, Iwata stated to the publication that the purchase of a company requires great amounts of money, but may not necessarily be a sound investment. The presence of people and creative forces in the videogame business means such investments have no security, regardless of the amount of money thrown at a deal.
Iwata's comments apparently apply to the entire world, including Japan, Europe and North America.
Already the company's efforts have seen results from partnerships with Sega and Namco yielding such titles as Donkey Konga and F-Zero. IGNCube is also aware of a few partnerships that Nintendo has worked out with developers smaller than these two industry giants. Perhaps the next Nintendo title you play may not actually be a Nintendo-developed one.
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - Great Rumbler - 17th June 2004
There's also Advance Wars on the GC by European developer Kuju.
I think this strategy is a very good one. It's what Sony has been doing for years, building strong relations with developers so that they'll make more exclusive games for the Playstations.
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - Dark Jaguar - 17th June 2004
There are so many things wrong with Advance Wars GCN. First off, it's not called Gamecube Wars. Second off, it doesn't look the slightest bit like a strategy game. It's a little bit Pikmin and a little bit average 3rd person shooter. Finally, it doesn't seem the slightest bit "fun". An RTS would have been the better choice.
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - OB1 - 17th June 2004
You haven't played it. I've heard from a lot of people who actually played through the entire E3 demo that it's a lot of fun. Honestly, with Advance Wars 1 & 2, Fire Emblem, and the upcoming Fire Emblem GC, we have all of the classic AW-style gameplay we need. So I'm actually glad that they're trying to do something different. Even if it sucks I'll still have the games I mentioned.
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - Sacred Jellybean - 17th June 2004
Nintendo hadn't made me wet my pants in years, but the made my urethra gush out a tsunami this past E3.
...yeah, I guess that's irrelevant. Nevermind.
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - Great Rumbler - 17th June 2004
Quote:There are so many things wrong with Advance Wars GCN. First off, it's not called Gamecube Wars. Second off, it doesn't look the slightest bit like a strategy game. It's a little bit Pikmin and a little bit average 3rd person shooter. Finally, it doesn't seem the slightest bit "fun".
I admit it's odd for them not to call it Cube Wars, but oh well. As for it not being strategy, I still think it looks really cool and would be a fun game to play. As OB1 mentioned we've already got a lot of strategy games already, it's time for something new!
Quote:An RTS would have been the better choice.
Ever played Starcraft 64?
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - OB1 - 17th June 2004
It's being called Advance Wars because Nintendo figures that most people are stupid and might not figure that Cube Wars is related to Advance Wars. And I have to admit, most people are stupid.
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - Dark Jaguar - 17th June 2004
No, but I know exactly why that would suck. Okay, I guess what I was suggesting was more along the lines of a system link capable RTS.
Eh, anyway it just seems like a different KIND of thing that's been run into the ground. The Wars series from what I've read has basically always been a very simplistic thing. Fire Emblem is Nintendo's more complex strategy game series. I would like to see more freedom in Fire Emblem. Don't get me wrong, during the missions the strategy can vary a decent amount and all, but I'd like something along the lines of FFTA where I can actually freely choose my missions. Oh well, I guess that's why I nudge FFTA as my favorite tactics game right now.
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - A Black Falcon - 17th June 2004
Yeah, we didn't have "NES Wars" or anything, just Advance Wars, so some people won't make the connection without the same name, sadly enough... I definitely see why they did it. But like "Jedi Knight II", I completely disagree. :)
FFTA you can freely choose? Not really. The main campaign is completely linear. It just lets you choose a lot of side-missions along the way (mostly send-out-a-guy types). It's not that different when you think about it... they just added optional missions, that's all.
As for this game, I think they made the right choice. As OB1 said, for pure strategy there's Fire Emblem. We don't want two games that are almost the same. So, why not action-strategy? And that is what this is. Action-strategy. Unit tactics are here, strategic thinking, etc... it's not just "one man against an army"... it's just got faster action. First-person RTS/combat. I'm sure it's not as complex a Uprising or Battlezone (mid-90s PC version), but I suspect that those were some games they were thinking of, given that you have a bunch of units to control... how much they go down that road will depend on how much resource gathering/management (see: money), unit construction, etc. is involved (ie, the more strategy-game elements they add the more like the concept of those games it'll get)... sure, I didn't really like that Battlezone, but that was a very different game and I liked Muzzle Velocity, which has a somewhat similar idea, so I'm sure that this could end up a very fun game.
I'm also sure that no one else here has actually played Muzzle Velocity, Battlezone, Uprising (I haven't played that one either, actually...:)), or Urban Whatever (yeah, didn't play it.), so my point will not mean as much.
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - Great Rumbler - 17th June 2004
Quote:Okay, I guess what I was suggesting was more along the lines of a system link capable RTS.
People compained about having to buy GBAs to play multiplayer Crystal Chronicle...
Quote:As for this game, I think they made the right choice. As OB1 said, for pure strategy there's Fire Emblem. We don't want two games that are almost the same. So, why not action-strategy? And that is what this is. Action-strategy. Unit tactics are here, strategic thinking, etc... it's not just "one man against an army"... it's just got faster action. First-person RTS/combat. I'm sure it's not as complex a Uprising or Battlezone (mid-90s PC version), but I suspect that those were some games they were thinking of, given that you have a bunch of units to control... how much they go down that road will depend on how much resource gathering/management (see: money), unit construction, etc. is involved (ie, the more strategy-game elements they add the more like the concept of those games it'll get)... sure, I didn't really like that Battlezone, but that was a very different game and I liked Muzzle Velocity, which has a somewhat similar idea, so I'm sure that this could end up a very fun game.
Exactly. It's a fast-paced strategy-action game. You have a lot of units under you command and can freely switch between any of them on-the-fly. It's kind of like Pikmin, but more complex and more of an emphasis on combat. Of course, none of that means the game will be good, Kuju could still mess things up. Hopefully, though, Nintendo will help them to make a very good game.
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - A Black Falcon - 17th June 2004
When I first heard about this I thought 'Muzzle Velocity'... and while this is definitely different from that, it's got similarities as well, for sure. Like, it looks like it's more fun and less frusterating (stupid units never seem to go where I tell them to unless I drive them there myself...)... :) The switching system looks more like Battlezone or even Rainbow Six, though -- switching from an onscreen menu, not going to an overhead map and choosing a unit from there. But as I said it's the same idea. I say Muzzle Velocity more than Uprising or Battlezone because those were more first-person RTSes -- you built buildings, created units, collected resources, etc, just from your vehicle...
Can't believe I didn't think of this sooner. Dungeon Keeper! Great game, and you could go into the eyes of your units.
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - Great Rumbler - 17th June 2004
Dungeon Keeper was an awesome game! I think, though, that it was more traditional RTS than the kind of game Cube Wars is.
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - A Black Falcon - 17th June 2004
Well yeah, certainly. I was just thinking of strategy games where you could take control of the units in first-person.
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - Dark Jaguar - 17th June 2004
Optional missions sure did open it up though. I don't care about the "criticial missions" being "in line", there are still about a billion side quests. Remember, in an RPG side quests can and SHOULD make up about 70% of the game. They aren't all "send out a guy" quests either. You just need to find the right ones, and oh yes, seek out roaming clans. Those are fun.
Eh, I dunno maybe it'll be good. I didn't play a single bit of the demo obviously, because I didn't GO to E3. So, all my opinions can and must be based on the only thing I have, the clips. It didn't really make any sort of impression on me at all, so it just looks like a dull little game. Might be good, I dunno, but for now I don't care about this game. LET me not care.
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - Private Hudson - 17th June 2004
Being that I haven't been online that much in recent times, I haven't kept up with the details of this game, but from what I've read in this thread, the game sounds a lot like Wargames: Defcon 1 on the PSX. Which, whilst wasn't that celebrated critically, I thought was an extremely underrated game. And I always did want a sequal. This sounds similar to that game (all units on the battlefied, doing their own thing, but you can switch between them freely and control them directly) only on a larger scale (I think WG:D1 only allowed up to about 4 or 5 units [plus mini-units]).
The great thing about that was the real-time fighing, but also the multiple units all had vastly different capabilities. The rocket tank fired from long-distance, but was easily defeated when approached by any other type of units from close range. The buggies were fast, and had stealth capabilities, etc. etc. You get the idea. I thought it was a great game, with lots of strategy and action, and a great deathmatch. If this game bares any resemblance with that, with what made AW so great, it should be a fantastic game.
Forgive me if I'm way off. :)
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - A Black Falcon - 17th June 2004
Advance Wars is a strategy/wargame. They sometimes do branching missions, but sidequests? Not in games like that, no. That'd be ones with RPG influences, generally... :)
I have no problem at all with a linear mission setup, though. Oh, branching (or sidequests) is fine too, but I don't have any complaints with linear mission sequences.
PH, no, I'd say that from that description it sounds like a reasonable comparison. You have an "army" to control, can switch between them and give them orders, and control one of them while AI controls the rest, generally doing what you tell them to... and you've got a rock-paper-sissors unit set where each one has a counter.
Battlezone and Uprising are different because you generally stay in one vehicle the whole time. You have a 'supertank' thing that is your base, and you spend most of the gametime in it. I think you could switch to other units, but like in Dungeon Keeper you can do the most in your vehicle... Uprising certainly. I don't remember as much about Battlezone. I keep mentioning Muzzle Velocity because, like AW-GC and the game PH describes, you have an army and can switch at will between the units in it. And the unit you are controlling is the same as any others -- no super skills or extra health or anything. And there's a mechanism for giving orders to the other units, but they also have AI that will do things without your direct orders (though in that game it generally ends up as you in tanks going after the baddies while your mostly incompetent army has mixed results in going where you want... oh well, I still liked the game. :))...
... Okay, Muzzle Velocity was bad. But it was unique, and that was enough to get me to enjoy the demo. Here's a link if anyone's interested... (DOS)
http://www.digi4fun.com/
I also mentioned Rainbow Six because that's another game where you can switch between multiple people in a team at will, and they're all equal strength (no superheroes). And like AW you do everything in the game... though most of those games also have a lenghty planning stage on a map before you start.
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - Great Rumbler - 18th June 2004
Quote:So, all my opinions can and must be based on the only thing I have, the clips.
You never base things on impressions by people who've played the game?
Quote:LET me not care.
???
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - OB1 - 18th June 2004
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - A Black Falcon - 18th June 2004
GR, get used to it, DJ acts like that all the time.
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - big guy - 18th June 2004
i played wargames...it was kinda fun, but if i remember correctly, when you weren't using a vehicle it sat dorment and did not act until you were inside it. to me it felt more like a vehicular combat game than what advance wars GCN should end up being.
"cruisin' around in my lazer mobile
ain't no particular place to go."
Nintendo reiterates in stronger terms that it now prefers partnerships to purchases - Private Hudson - 21st June 2004
Could be true big guy, it was more action based than (real-time) strategy.
But I believe that if there were enemy vehicles in the area, then your units would take action? Also, if you had an APC that released troopers into the area, the troopers would move about of their own free will.
Good to see sombody else enjoyed it, too. :) :luigiwin: