Nintendo Never Going To Make a "realistic" game?

#71pillsburyboy22Posted 7/9/2014 6:58:29 AM(edited)
QlJGamer posted...
@the people talking about Pixar

Pixar would of never be brought by Disney if they were in such a good shape. Disney and Pixar were rivals for the longest, they even had pubic corruption on Toy Story 2. Most on Pixar movies were commissioned by Disney.

I was trying to stay on topic that is why I ignored this stupid post about Pixar championing Disney yet being purchased by them in there prime???


Pixar agreed to be bought out by Disney for convenience sake. Disney already had a large distribution infrastructure. It would have taken years for Pixar to reach that level. The deal was beneficial to both parties.

Disney eliminated a major competitor in the animated movie industry.
Pixar saved boatloads of money that they would have had to invest in infrastructure, distribution, and advertisement in general.

EDIT; This is the last I'm going to say on the subject because it is completely irrelevant to the topic anyway.
#72Sir_HaxorPosted 7/9/2014 6:57:43 AM
QlJGamer posted...
@the people talking about Pixar

Pixar would of never be brought by Disney if they were in such a good shape. Disney and Pixar were rivals for the longest, they even had pubic corruption on Toy Story 2. Most on Pixar movies were commissioned by Disney.

I was trying to stay on topic that is why I ignored this stupid post about Pixar championing Disney yet being purchased by them in there prime???


The reason MS tried to buy Nintendo in the 90s was because Nintendo was about to go bankrupt.

This new age of trolling is awful. Poor grammar and faulty logic just so you can get people to destroy you on purpose. Then laugh about how much you can "manipulate" them.

Back then we called your kind village idiots or the class dunce. Just goes to show how much standards have fallen.
---
Half naked teenage demon boy is as good as it gets- MetaLoki
The Official Anguished One and Chaos Hero of the SMTIV board
#73GigerSupremePosted 7/9/2014 6:58:44 AM
QlJGamer posted...
Muddy_Ape posted...
QlJGamer posted...

Pixar would of never *been brought by Disney

Grammar, learn it.


At the moment I am tired, and my grammar skills are lowering as I care, very little about this conversation. It's very easy to attack my grammar when you literally have nothing else to say. And I don't wanna play the "Kids Card" but you guys are surely childish when it comes to discussing anything remotely negative about Nintendo. This conversation was me pretty much explaining my first post because 2/3 of you got confused reading it. And yeah that is bad on my part as every thing said in here in taken literally. Most of you know what am talking about but just wants to troll on the details on how I spoke it.


discussing something negative about nintendo is fine. discussing something as inane as nintendo having to make a game with realistic graphics because everyone else is doing it is just stupid because nintendo dosent need to, and the industry dosent need it.
#74QlJGamer(Topic Creator)Posted 7/9/2014 7:00:34 AM
pillsburyboy22 posted...
QlJGamer posted...

Correction: Disney does indeed make r-rated movies, if "other companies" is own by Disney then Disney made the movie.


Kinda like when Monolith Soft makes a game and its still a Nintendo game because Nintendo owns Monolith Soft.


I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but this post proves you are either a troll or just stupid.

None of Disney's subsidiaries make R-rated movies. Only their affiliates.

I'll put it into simple terms for you. A subsidiary is equivalent to Monolith. An affiliate is equivalent to Platinum games making Bayonetta for the Wii U.


I am PRETTY sure I can find a company owned by Disney that made or makes R-rated movies.
Disney owns like half of the media world, I am sure I will find a movie hold on...


Disney's first R-rated film, Down and Out in Beverly Hills, is released under the Touchstone banner

Touchstone is WHOLLY owned by Disney.
---
guaranteed to meet or exceed the quality standards of the leading brand.
#75DragonAtmaPosted 7/9/2014 7:04:58 AM
As long as a game is fun, it's utterly irrelevant whether it's photorealistic or not.
---
My NES, SNES, and GB all work just fine. Why should I downgrade to a Wii U, PS4, or XBone?
#76GigerSupremePosted 7/9/2014 7:05:05 AM
miramax is owned by disney.

that makes kill bill and pulp fiction disney movies technically.
#77renzsweetPosted 7/9/2014 7:05:31 AM
You know, both Assassins Creed and Mass Effect are both on the WiiU.
---
I praise the name of Jesus.
#78EvilmonsterPosted 7/9/2014 7:06:08 AM
I would like Nintendo to try a realistic game.

I want to see their take on it. A realistic Zelda-esque game (along the lines of Assassins Creed) would be legendary or a realistic RPG similar to Final Fantasy (instead of Paper Marios or M&L)

It's not so much the argument of should they or why should they, but why not? It's fun to talk about what their game would be like and not this back and forth argument that's been in this topic...
#79GigerSupremePosted 7/9/2014 7:06:23 AM
renzsweet posted...
You know, both Assassins Creed and Mass Effect are both on the WiiU.


photorealistic graphics sure as hell didnt make those games better.
#80MetroidJunkiePosted 7/9/2014 7:06:57 AM
DragonAtma posted...
As long as a game is fun, it's utterly irrelevant whether it's photorealistic or not.


Photorealism has more to do with the art of a game than the game-play so it's a little apples to oranges there. The problem with photorealism is it's really hard to make perfect and any little flaw can plunge it into the uncanny valley, which is why it's easier to just use stylized graphics that can get away with little imperfections without looking creepy.
---
If you believe in Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and you're not ashamed, put this in your signature.