How much could Nintendo get per year if it sold exclusivity rights to all of its IPs?
- Thread starter Willco
- Start date
SantaCruZer said:
Have you played ICO? Have you seen the stuff for Wanda & The Colossus yet? That team could do a Zelda game that was leaps and bounds better than Majora's Mask or Wind Waker.
edit: Let me back up. My point is that the ICO team is very competent and that their "reductivist" game design theories are very appealing. I'm not saying that "OMG NINTENDO SUX", just that if you were to start handing out licenses, these guys could make a great game out of it.
Yeah.... muddy combat, 1998 block puzzles and dragging around a helpless girl is pretty terrifying. While I think SCEI's Team Ico could do wonderfully on presentation and world design, they have yet to really prove themselves capabale of crafting worthwhile gameplay and mechanics. Even as simplified and dumbed down as TWW was (and funny enough, my first sentince applies to it as well largely), it's still quite a step above Ico in that area.The End said:
The End said:
Then you have no idea wtf makes a Zelda game a "Zelda game".
ICO is not a Zelda game and neither is Wanda. Having a male hero and a female he must protect/rescue does not make a Zelda game.
This is as good as saying "I bet Treasure could make an awesome ace combat game, just look at Gradius V! They're both games where you control a flying ship and shoot stuff!"
Could the ICO team make a good game featuring Link and Zelda? Sure. Could they make a good ZELDA game? No.
radioheadrule83
Banned
The End said:
What the fuck? Apples and oranges.
Ico is good because it's different. Same looks to be true for Wanda. Simple ideas forged into compelling gameplay. Ico is puzzles based around the lead/follow concept, and Wanda has you crawling all over Collosus' - and you go from A to B with these ideas as the foundry. Zelda is a fairy tale fantasy adventure game, with action (and the simple but well conveyed myth-esque story) being as big a precept or part of the game as the puzzling. You play an elf type dude that goes in caves and/or dungeons to solves puzzles, fight bosses, collect artifacts, eventually upgrade to a mythical blade, and slay a common villain or stop great powers from falling into the same hands. They wouldn't have a lot to work with any more than any other developer -- what makes you think it would be 'leaps and bounds' better? You're full of shit IMO. Sorry if that sounds a bit harsh. I just think the games are totally different./
Granted they could do great puzzles, but then so could the Four Swords Adventures team or the GBA Capcom team. And the graphics would rock... but anything else?
If Nintendo ever did go third party (which they won't for a very long time, if ever at all) -- I'd actually prefer they were platform agnostic and released on everything. And not in the 'say one thing, do another' SEGA way of things were you split your fans across three different platforms. Putting franchise exclusivity under the hammer would be shit.
SantaC
Member
Rahul said:
Yes Capcom made a good Zelda game in Minish cap, but it didn't top lttp or LA. Nor did it top OoT or MM. It's a great game though.
Plus that Capcom is creating something that Nintendo already has layed an outline for.
Can't believe I am debating dumb shit like this. Nintendo themselves make the best Zelda games.
I think you're missing the point here.
We're not debating whether Nintendo makes good zelda. It's obvious that they can. We're talking about what other devs could do with Nintendo IP. Much like how AV made an amazing racer with the F-Zero license, i think Sony's ICO team could make a very different and very worthwhile Zelda game. Hell. I'd love to see IGA and KCET take a crack at the Metroid license while we're at it.
We're not debating whether Nintendo makes good zelda. It's obvious that they can. We're talking about what other devs could do with Nintendo IP. Much like how AV made an amazing racer with the F-Zero license, i think Sony's ICO team could make a very different and very worthwhile Zelda game. Hell. I'd love to see IGA and KCET take a crack at the Metroid license while we're at it.
I agree that the ICO team doing a Zelda game would be great. Great in terms of graphics and atmosphere. But as people have said earlier in this thread, Zelda isn't just graphics and atmosphere.
It would be cool to see Team ICO's "interpretation" of the Zelda series though...what they would do with the Zelda series. But to be honest, I would much prefer if they stick to making original games instead. I'm actually happy they aren't forced to make sequels in successful series.
It would be cool to see Team ICO's "interpretation" of the Zelda series though...what they would do with the Zelda series. But to be honest, I would much prefer if they stick to making original games instead. I'm actually happy they aren't forced to make sequels in successful series.
Agent Icebeezy
Welcome beautful toddler, Madison Elizabeth, to the horde!
The End said:
The point of the matter is that, why they might be able to make a decent Zelda game, 90% of us would rather it come from EAD, that's all
radios shipping overview
Member
:lol:lol:lolduckroll said:
Come on guys, what do you take me for?Willco said:
That really depends on a number of factors. The beggining price would be so great that all but the largest of developers would be unable to afford to purchase the IPs. Only a few companies could raise the capital such as MS, EA, and Sony. It really depends on how much these companies want the IPs. It could create an ARod style bidding war or, the first company to come up with a wad of cash coud buy all of them with little competition. Its really a hard thing to judge.
- Star Wars is "inspired" by Kurosawa's Hidden Fortress (the general theme, C3P0 and R2D2, the scene transitions, etc).
- Star Wars Ep1-2 have sucked so far imo.
- Castlevania SoTN is "inspired" (cough, ripoff, cough) by Metriod games.
- The GBA Castlevanias have been less than stellar so far imo.
The End was suggesting that IGA and his team take on the Metroid series because they're "similar" to how he does the Castlevania games now, but I was implying that IGA and his team ripped off Metroid and sucked at it.
I hate IGA for doing what he did to the Castlevania series and I'm no fan of the Metroidvania "evolution" of the series, so for anyone to even imply something like IGA being on the same level as Nintendo (or even Retro Studios) on Metroid is pretty disrespectful!
- Star Wars Ep1-2 have sucked so far imo.
- Castlevania SoTN is "inspired" (cough, ripoff, cough) by Metriod games.
- The GBA Castlevanias have been less than stellar so far imo.
The End was suggesting that IGA and his team take on the Metroid series because they're "similar" to how he does the Castlevania games now, but I was implying that IGA and his team ripped off Metroid and sucked at it.
I hate IGA for doing what he did to the Castlevania series and I'm no fan of the Metroidvania "evolution" of the series, so for anyone to even imply something like IGA being on the same level as Nintendo (or even Retro Studios) on Metroid is pretty disrespectful!
Duckhuntdog
Member
duckroll said:
Yeah, but Metroid tooks it's basic gameplay elements from Zelda and made it side-scrolling. They both have the same basic tool based systems running at the hearts of them:
You want to go to Area B, but to get to Area B, you need item/tool C. In order to get item/tool C you need to have gotten item/tool A, which let you get item/tool B.
I don't even think Zelda was the first game to even use this concept.
Duckhuntdog
Member
The End said:
Define what truly next-gen 2-d is.
Similar threads
- Poll