Nintendo Never Going To Make a "realistic" game?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.
  1. Boards
  2. Wii U
  3. Nintendo Never Going To Make a "realistic" game?

User Info: Terotrous

Terotrous
2 years ago#41
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96YcUotg1Rs

Wave Race and 1080 Snowboarding are also generally realistic.
http://www.backloggery.com/tero - My backloggery
http://whatliesbeyondnovel.blogspot.ca/ - My novel, updates weekly

User Info: GigerSupreme

GigerSupreme
2 years ago#42
pillsburyboy22 posted...
QlJGamer posted...
pillsburyboy22 posted...
Why should Nintendo make a 'photo-realistic' game?

No one complains about Pixar not making realistic movies.


Pixar isn't a parent company they are subsidiary of a larger company that makes every type of movie. Pixar doesn't need to make realistic movies it is not owner, they could simply do one thing forever because the company that owns them does other movies genres.


Disney didn't buy Pixar until 2006. Pixar had already established themselves by that point and no one complained with what they were doing.

The fact that Nintendo is a parent company means they SHOULDN'T bother making a photo-realistic game. They should stick with what they are good at doing and hire other companies (like they did with Platinum and Bayonetta), to make other types of games.


THIS

User Info: Avirosb

Avirosb
2 years ago#43
You'd want to check if you use the correct words next time then, just to make sure you get your point across properly.
Console wars are like pissing contests. So yeah.

User Info: QlJGamer

QlJGamer
2 years ago#44
pillsburyboy22 posted...
QlJGamer posted...
pillsburyboy22 posted...
Why should Nintendo make a 'photo-realistic' game?

No one complains about Pixar not making realistic movies.


Pixar isn't a parent company they are subsidiary of a larger company that makes every type of movie. Pixar doesn't need to make realistic movies it is not owner, they could simply do one thing forever because the company that owns them does other movies genres.


Disney didn't buy Pixar until 2006. Pixar had already established themselves by that point and no one complained with what they were doing.

The fact that Nintendo is a parent company means they SHOULDN'T bother making a photo-realistic game. They should stick with what they are good at doing and hire other companies (like they did with Platinum and Bayonetta), to make other types of games.


No the fact that Nintendo is a parent company means they need a first-party studio to create different games from their other studios to expand diversity. They should adapt buying other companies to make other types of games. Why pay someone something you could learn to do. They are the only publisher who has no diversity, all there games are E. Everyone else has M, E T and alll the other thingys.

okay i getting tired.
guaranteed to meet or exceed the quality standards of the leading brand.

User Info: GigerSupreme

GigerSupreme
2 years ago#45
i have a feeling that the topic creator is a very naive kid who dosent understand how game development works or how creativity works in business at all.

User Info: GigerSupreme

GigerSupreme
2 years ago#46
QlJGamer posted...
pillsburyboy22 posted...
QlJGamer posted...
pillsburyboy22 posted...
Why should Nintendo make a 'photo-realistic' game?

No one complains about Pixar not making realistic movies.


Pixar isn't a parent company they are subsidiary of a larger company that makes every type of movie. Pixar doesn't need to make realistic movies it is not owner, they could simply do one thing forever because the company that owns them does other movies genres.


Disney didn't buy Pixar until 2006. Pixar had already established themselves by that point and no one complained with what they were doing.

The fact that Nintendo is a parent company means they SHOULDN'T bother making a photo-realistic game. They should stick with what they are good at doing and hire other companies (like they did with Platinum and Bayonetta), to make other types of games.


No the fact that Nintendo is a parent company means they need a first-party studio to create different games from their other studios to expand diversity. They should adapt buying other companies to make other types of games. Why pay someone something you could learn to do. They are the only publisher who has no diversity, all there games are E. Everyone else has M, E T and alll the other thingys.

okay i getting tired.


why should they?
nintendo knows its strengths and knows their audience. why betray that?

what you suggest dosent make much sense.

User Info: QlJGamer

QlJGamer
2 years ago#47
GigerSupreme posted...
i have a feeling that the topic creator is a very naive kid who dosent understand how game development works or how creativity works in business at all.


okay, you are entitle to your opinion. All i was saying was that of all the publisher who also develop games have greater diversity in their games libraries than Nintendo. And that I would like to see Nintendo try something they have yet to try before like a Mass Effect or Uncharted art style game.
guaranteed to meet or exceed the quality standards of the leading brand.

User Info: pillsburyboy22

pillsburyboy22
2 years ago#48
QlJGamer posted...
GigerSupreme posted...
QlJGamer posted...
pillsburyboy22 posted...
Why should Nintendo make a 'photo-realistic' game?

No one complains about Pixar not making realistic movies.


Pixar isn't a parent company they are subsidiary of a larger company that makes every type of movie. Pixar doesn't need to make realistic movies it is not owner, they could simply do one thing forever because the company that owns them does other movies genres.


if pixar was independent, i dont think pixar would change their style suddenly.


If Pixar was still independent, they would of been completely crushed by DreamWorks and Disney as they could not compete in such an industry. Film and Video Games publishing and developing are completely different fields anyways. And Nintendo has made thousands of video games and they all have been in cartoon style. Pixar made what two movies before being brought by mickey mouse? I am pretty sure if Pixar got big and made over 50 movies they wouldn't all by animated.


This shows you know nothing about Pixar. They released at least 6 films before ever being bought out by Disney, including the likes of Finding Nemo and The Incredibles. Both of which were very successful and proved that Pixar would be successful regardless of Disney. Disney bought Pixar precisely BECAUSE they were so successful at what they were doing.

User Info: GigerSupreme

GigerSupreme
2 years ago#49
QlJGamer posted...
GigerSupreme posted...
i have a feeling that the topic creator is a very naive kid who dosent understand how game development works or how creativity works in business at all.


okay, you are entitle to your opinion. All i was saying was that of all the publisher who also develop games have greater diversity in their games libraries than Nintendo. And that I would like to see Nintendo try something they have yet to try before like a Mass Effect or Uncharted art style game.


in an industry filled with realistic graphics like that of uncharted or mass effect, max payne 3, gta 5, tomb raider, etc etc etc... why should nintendo waste the time and energy to conform and risk all that effort when there are already hundreds if not thousands of others doing the same?

it just seems really stupid to me.

User Info: GigerSupreme

GigerSupreme
2 years ago#50
pillsburyboy22 posted...
QlJGamer posted...
GigerSupreme posted...
QlJGamer posted...
pillsburyboy22 posted...
Why should Nintendo make a 'photo-realistic' game?

No one complains about Pixar not making realistic movies.


Pixar isn't a parent company they are subsidiary of a larger company that makes every type of movie. Pixar doesn't need to make realistic movies it is not owner, they could simply do one thing forever because the company that owns them does other movies genres.


if pixar was independent, i dont think pixar would change their style suddenly.


If Pixar was still independent, they would of been completely crushed by DreamWorks and Disney as they could not compete in such an industry. Film and Video Games publishing and developing are completely different fields anyways. And Nintendo has made thousands of video games and they all have been in cartoon style. Pixar made what two movies before being brought by mickey mouse? I am pretty sure if Pixar got big and made over 50 movies they wouldn't all by animated.


This shows you know nothing about Pixar. They released at least 6 films before ever being bought out by Disney, including the likes of Finding Nemo and The Incredibles. Both of which were very successful and proved that Pixar would be successful regardless of Disney. Disney bought Pixar precisely BECAUSE they were so successful at what they were doing.


rekt.
  1. Boards
  2. Wii U
  3. Nintendo Never Going To Make a "realistic" game?

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived