If Nintendo was forced into being third party they won't be making games for other consoles, and instead would be focusing almost exclusively on mobile, and unlike Mario Run they would be designed to generate revenue first and foremost rather than promoting a brand. So what you would think of Nintendo's quality would depend almost entirely on what you feel about them just making mobile games.
If Nintendo went 3rd party, would the quality of their games drop?
- Thread starter Doosi
- Start date
Yeah, sure. Again where are all these big open world JRPGs on other consoles? There's only FF.
CaviarMeths
Member
It doesn't matter who developed #FE or W101. Nintendo paid for them in an attempt to attract different users into their ecosystem. As a first party platform holder, that has real value to Nintendo. Users buy other games, talk about the system on social media, and tell their friends and family to buy the system.
If they didn't have a system, then #FE and W101 would have no reason to exist and therefore wouldn't exist.
TheRedSnifit
Member
This is also something that people tend to forget.
Do Tales of count?
You mean those games that release yearly and look like PS2 games and reuse a shot ton of assets?
They're totally comparable to Xenoblade.
Honestly this is what I'm thinking too, kinda like SEGA is at least operating nowadays. Since Nintento would be downsizing dramatically and have to work with hardware they didn't design (which can be a problem to them given they had issues with developing for the WiiU and that was their own hardware), leading to longer development cycles than there already are.
Due to the smaller company size and higher development time due to platform research, they would be hard pressed to primarily focus on making games that sell in order to sustain themselves meaning smaller franchises would be completely out of the window while Mario, Zelda, Pokemon and perhaps Splatoon would make up most of the stuff they will produce while new IP or new angles to existing IP would be lost in progress as they didn't have the liberty to experiment anymore to the same extent they do now.
They're also as much open-world as stuff like Pokémon or Dragon Quest.
looooolThat gif is really useful today :
clem84
Gold Member
I think it would suffer a little bit. The freedom they have to do whatever they want on the hardware front gives them all the freedom necessary to develop exactly the games they want to make.
I think we can all agree Mario 3D world would still have been great developed on another platform but the uniqueness that came from the gamepad elements added a little bit to its greatness. Mario Switch would still be awesome on another platform but it being tailored specifically to what the switch can do will no doubt bring a little bit more to the game.
Some will claim their games would be better because the graphics would be state of the art (more or less), and while that may be true, I can't help but to think part of that Nintendo magic would be lost if they developed their games on a more standard platform.
I think we can all agree Mario 3D world would still have been great developed on another platform but the uniqueness that came from the gamepad elements added a little bit to its greatness. Mario Switch would still be awesome on another platform but it being tailored specifically to what the switch can do will no doubt bring a little bit more to the game.
Some will claim their games would be better because the graphics would be state of the art (more or less), and while that may be true, I can't help but to think part of that Nintendo magic would be lost if they developed their games on a more standard platform.
You know, I feel like everyone's basing Nintendo's hypothetical trajectory off of what happened with Sega, which I guess is valid because it's one of the only cases of that happening in the industry. But that's just one company, you don't know that Nintendo would follow in Sega's footsteps and completely screw themselves over.
Now, if this was a known pattern among several high profile game companies that dropped out of the console business to focus on software, then yeah, you could make a case that the same thing would happen to Nintendo. But there's no way to know that for sure with just one example.
Now, if this was a known pattern among several high profile game companies that dropped out of the console business to focus on software, then yeah, you could make a case that the same thing would happen to Nintendo. But there's no way to know that for sure with just one example.
Movalpolos
Banned
Splaoon and Fire Emblem have been pretty successful though. I could see those sticking around.
Captain Toad and Star Fox could easily be just be small digital-only titles without too much risk (they aren't long games as they are now), Pushmo falls into that too (Pushmo in particular would work great as a mobile game).
Kirby is a mainstay, so is DKC.
W101 and Bayonetta 2 are technically not first-party.
Kid Icarus and Fatal Frame probably would be dead.
Codename Steam is probably already dead.
Xenoblade would only benefit from being on hardware that more gamers are on.
EDIT: Oh and Pikmin... hmm. Would probably work fine also as a smaller low-risk digital title. Might even be good for mobile too.
Cheeseman Battitude
Member
It's new for Nintendo : )
killatopak
Member
it would even be better because they can finally focus on software alone and not deal with inferior technology only to be denounced by others as being 720p.
You've missed out on a lot of great games. How unfortunate.
Well, Mario is third party right now. He was just put on phones. You don't have to miss him at all.
CaviarMeths
Member
Nah.
I'll go a step further and say that Monolith Soft wouldn't even exist today if Nintendo didn't buy them. I mean, what other publisher would buy a failed studio whose last series bombed so hard that it had to be retooled from a six-part series into a trilogy? And that was on PS2, the most popular console of all time. In an alternate 3rd party Nintendo timeline, Bamco would have closed the door on MS after Xenosaga 3.
As it happens in this timeline, Nintendo was looking to buy an established RPG house to cultivate an audience for their own hardware. They had worked with MS before on Baten Kaitos (another game that wouldn't exist in alt timeline), so they purchased all the shares from Bamco.
Maybe you should get a Switch?
Boy Wander
Member
You've missed out on so many amazing games I can't even....
TheRedSnifit
Member
Splatoon would possibly stay alive.
Fire Emblem would be shunted off to mobile phones as f2p.
Kirby would be dead or f2p mobile
DKC would be dead, no reason to make it instead of more Mario sidescrollers
Star Fox would be so, so dead
Pushmo would be dead
Captain Toad might survive as a f2p mobile game
Xenoblade would be dead if the number of open-world JRPGs is anything to go by.
W101 and Bayonetta 2 are first party, lmao. They'd also be dead.
And while Pokemon would survive, it would be as f2p mobile, not as a killer Vita app or whatever people expect. Spin a crank for a chance at a Wailord.
Lol. You are saying all that with hindsight. If Nintendo went full third party they wouldn't fund games like W101 and Bayo 2. Doesn't matter they are or aren't first party. Nintendo wouldn't experiment with Splatoon etc.
test_account
XP-39C²
I agree with this. I dont think that the games in terms of quality would be any worse. And smaller games could still be made, we see this from other 3rd party publishers. Why do people think that they wouldnt take chances with other stuff?
Yeah Monolith is a funny one because if there was big third party interest in their games then Namco wouldn't have sold them to Nintendo and Xenoblade would have been a PS3 game.
mrmickfran
Member
I don't think I could ever come into terms with a third-party Nintendo.
I love Mario and Zelda as much as the next guy, but not having games like Xenoblade, Sin & Punishment, Bayonetta 2 or even nowadays Star Fox?
Gaming wouldn't be the same for me.
I love Mario and Zelda as much as the next guy, but not having games like Xenoblade, Sin & Punishment, Bayonetta 2 or even nowadays Star Fox?
Gaming wouldn't be the same for me.
Movalpolos
Banned
Ahh, I see. Monolithsoft would likely not exist as they are. That's a good point. I believe talented developers will always find a place though.
Looking at the Japanese industry now that place would be making Gacha games on Mobile.
AudioEppa
Member
I would, I might, idk. I'm not into gaming on more then 1 platform.
And I totally forgot there was Mario mobile game, have to check it out.
Lol I'm sure they were good games, but I was happy with the games I was playing.
Quality and variety go hand in hand
Movalpolos
Banned
I think it was only a matter of time until someone picked up Bayonetta 2. W101 probably would not have happened though, I agree.
As far as Splatoon goes, that's already established.
Now that I think about it more though, Nintendo has a lot of respect, so I could see others trusting Nintendo to make a new successful IP.
Stallion Dan
Member
Metroid would actually sell.
Not if they're talking about each game in a vacuum which I assumed what was being proposed. However If they were talking about the quality of their catalogue I could understand, but they didn't specify, so I guess carry on?
Movalpolos
Banned
Hmmm, maybe. I might be wrong, but that talent seems like it would seek out endeavors in the dedicated console and gaming handheld space.
EDIT: But I guess that wouldn't make them apart of Nintendo at that point.
Japan isn't exactly awash in dedicated console and handheld positions right now. If you want to be a game developer in Japan you're almost certainly going to have to work on mobile instead.
JordanN
Banned
Who is going to care about quality when everyones minds will be blown you can finally play Nintendo games on any system?
They don't even have to make new games. Just remaster their 3DS/WiiU/Switch games.
With the huge differences in power, we could easily have Zelda, Mario or Pokemon running at 4K resolutions @ 60fps on a standard PS4.
They don't even have to make new games. Just remaster their 3DS/WiiU/Switch games.
With the huge differences in power, we could easily have Zelda, Mario or Pokemon running at 4K resolutions @ 60fps on a standard PS4.
Movalpolos
Banned
I see, that is unfortunate.
What is fortunate though is that the gaming space for dedicated hardware is larger than just Japan and persists outside of it.
CaviarMeths
Member
Sure they would, but it wouldn't be up to them. 3rd party Nintendo would still be publisher Nintendo and they would have 100% control over all the projects that they greenlight.
Sony: Hell yes, Nintendo, please develop whatever you want for the PS5! We'll share the marketing expenses and give you stage time at E3. Go nuts.
Nintendo: Ok thanks... hmm, I guess we'll just make some fuckin' Mario Kart.
Looks like people haven't learned anything from the SEGA situation, and most probably weren't even there when SEGA was relevant to understand the quantity and quality of SEGA games to compare with today.
Would a third party Nintendo be financially successful? Probably yes.
Would it mean killing the majority of smaller internal studios, shrinking the remaining teams and total extinction of experimental titles that may or may not have worked and been successful? that's a yes too.
I love Zelda and Mario, but Nintendo is more than those titles to me.
People should understand that what Nintendo is doing is figuring out new gameplay ideas and then adding a familiar skin to market it. They are constantly pushing their gameplay experimentation, to create new ways to interact with the games, and they have set this as a priority over other aspects of electronic entertainment. People who play Nintendo don't do so because they want the new XX series entry, but because they want to see what gameplay implementations the next generation of XX series entry would bring. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but they do experiment, where most other publishers follow a successful recipe and make more visually pleasing entries with it.
Some say that the lack of certain entries for a gen is a sign that Nintendo is already abandoning IPs, but they should consider two things.
1) Nintendo has a big library of IPs, and whether you want it or not, we saw most of them in last gen. A couple of IPs are allowed to be absent.
2) When you ask why there is no Metroid game, you should understand that probably Nintendo hasn't figured out how the Metroid of the next generation should play. Metroid is an exploration adventure, not a FPS game, and Nintendo will always struggle to make a good exploration adventure entry out of the IP. Prime will not always work and honestly this circle has closed anyway. Nintendo tried other approaches with the IP (see Other M), and really it didn't work. It happens.
So don't really write Metroid off just yet. When Nintendo sees they have a good idea at their disposal that fits the IP, they will make the game.
SEGA did the same for a long while, and while some may be happy with newer entries (I'm not) or with how much better the next Yakuza game is compared to the previous (probably the only game they are still capable of developing in house), old SEGA fans miss all the weird games which sometimes succeeded, sometimes didn't, but are considered classics today.
Also it's been a while since we had one of those threads. Nintendo hasn't even properly announced their next HW, let alone release it, and we already have third party talk. FFS, pick another publisher for your concern trolling for one year, just for variety.
Also:
Beautiful XD
Would a third party Nintendo be financially successful? Probably yes.
Would it mean killing the majority of smaller internal studios, shrinking the remaining teams and total extinction of experimental titles that may or may not have worked and been successful? that's a yes too.
I love Zelda and Mario, but Nintendo is more than those titles to me.
People should understand that what Nintendo is doing is figuring out new gameplay ideas and then adding a familiar skin to market it. They are constantly pushing their gameplay experimentation, to create new ways to interact with the games, and they have set this as a priority over other aspects of electronic entertainment. People who play Nintendo don't do so because they want the new XX series entry, but because they want to see what gameplay implementations the next generation of XX series entry would bring. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but they do experiment, where most other publishers follow a successful recipe and make more visually pleasing entries with it.
Some say that the lack of certain entries for a gen is a sign that Nintendo is already abandoning IPs, but they should consider two things.
1) Nintendo has a big library of IPs, and whether you want it or not, we saw most of them in last gen. A couple of IPs are allowed to be absent.
2) When you ask why there is no Metroid game, you should understand that probably Nintendo hasn't figured out how the Metroid of the next generation should play. Metroid is an exploration adventure, not a FPS game, and Nintendo will always struggle to make a good exploration adventure entry out of the IP. Prime will not always work and honestly this circle has closed anyway. Nintendo tried other approaches with the IP (see Other M), and really it didn't work. It happens.
So don't really write Metroid off just yet. When Nintendo sees they have a good idea at their disposal that fits the IP, they will make the game.
SEGA did the same for a long while, and while some may be happy with newer entries (I'm not) or with how much better the next Yakuza game is compared to the previous (probably the only game they are still capable of developing in house), old SEGA fans miss all the weird games which sometimes succeeded, sometimes didn't, but are considered classics today.
Also it's been a while since we had one of those threads. Nintendo hasn't even properly announced their next HW, let alone release it, and we already have third party talk. FFS, pick another publisher for your concern trolling for one year, just for variety.
Also:
That gif is really useful today :
Beautiful XD
Jonneh3003
Banned
Undoubtedly. First party games are developed to add variety to a library, if Nintendo went third party they would likely be very similar to how Sega currently are.
Movalpolos
Banned
Ahh, so it would make Nintendo more risk averse is what you are saying.
I believe you will get another answer to this question when Switch games show control options Nintendo equipped themselves with:
touchscreen
motion
sticks/triggers/buttons
touchscreen + motion + sticks/triggers/buttons
IR function
They can do whatever they want, they can even easily add peripherals. Being in control with controls is a creativity foundation. They can make decades old franchises relevant again, slightly changing how they are played. Nintendo is good at that. They got it wrong with Wii U, the dual screen didn't bring much value. They got it right with wiimotes/nunchuck. The Switch seems to be another game design enabler. They have a wide set of choices to play with. That is a path to quality, not the only one, but one they value a lot. And so do I.
touchscreen
motion
sticks/triggers/buttons
touchscreen + motion + sticks/triggers/buttons
IR function
They can do whatever they want, they can even easily add peripherals. Being in control with controls is a creativity foundation. They can make decades old franchises relevant again, slightly changing how they are played. Nintendo is good at that. They got it wrong with Wii U, the dual screen didn't bring much value. They got it right with wiimotes/nunchuck. The Switch seems to be another game design enabler. They have a wide set of choices to play with. That is a path to quality, not the only one, but one they value a lot. And so do I.
JordanN
Banned
I would love if Publishers went open season and just paid Nintendo to make their games. Hell, it could mean they make new IP's they've never done before.
Electronic Arts presents: Super Mario Football.
Koei Tecmo presents: Nintendo Xtreme Beach Volleyball.
Come on, you know this all sounds awesome.
Jonneh3003
Banned
Games aren't the reason Wii U failed, it could have had anything and it would still be an unappealing system. If the best Mario Kart, a brilliant new IP (Splatoon) and one of the most innovative games of the generation (Super Mario Maker) didn't push units then nothing would have.
Wii U had so many good games, they may make Switch appealing but they didn't do anything for Wii U.