General Nintendo thread

It's also ironic for Nintendo since their hardware is usually very outdated.

i guess "power" here could probably mean "strong at putting out good video games" which they definitely are

Nintendo:"real power, doesn’t come to those who were born strongest, or fastest, or smartest. No. It comes to those who will do anything to achieve it."

Edited by The-Azure-Star-Of-Orion on May 8th 2024 at 2:25:51 AM

Sure, Nintendo might not have the strongest hardware, but they've put out enough fun games for me to not really care all that much about that. If a game is fun enough, I don't mind if it isn't cutting edge.

Then again, I'm the kind of person who once played Dragon Age: Origins on a laptop that really wasn't suited for it even at the lowest possible settings and still had a blast...

I personally have grown to somewhat resent it after getting a gaming PC. I wish Nintendo was able to put out a Mario or Zelda visually on par with something like Ratchet and Clank Rift Apart. It also results in the Switch and other successful consoles of theres having lots of third party support... made up of merely passable to outright botched ports.

Edited by TheLivingDrawing on May 8th 2024 at 5:39:12 AM

And remember that Team Power did win that Splatfest. Full sweep too.

this just in, Splatfests can now tell the future.

what does this mean for the end of the world Splatfest? this and more on TVTropes Forum News.

x3 You do you but as warning you getting into the idea of "AAA" gaming where you need the high-end specs of graphics to enjoy the game which only bloats it as waste of money in the long-term or ages horribly overtime.

Edited by The-Azure-Star-Of-Orion on May 8th 2024 at 2:55:08 AM

I am aware, which is why I ultimately accept Nintendo's decisions. Economics are a bitch.

No, no. See, Microsoft had the COURAGE to allow Nintendo to put Banjo-Kazooie and Minecraft Steve in Smash, and give them rights to some games for the NSO that they didn't HAVE to because they own Rare now.

That's totally Green behavior!

Meanwhile, PC gaming goes purple and the Four Sword quarter is complete.

If Microsoft closes Rare, Nintendo needs to snap that shit up immediately. Take back Banjo and Kazooie.

Famiboards sleuths have discovered through shipping data that the Switch successor will have 12 GB of RAM from 2 6 GB 7500 MT/s LPDDR5 or LPDDR5X modules and 256 GB of internal storage.

For some context, they managed to find a Nvidia shipping site with a two month delay through someone else's post on the site formerly known as Twitter, have confirmed it was legit by seeing parts for the base Switch, Lite, and OLED, and have been tracking parts for a new device that they assumed it was for the successor due to the previous Nvidia hack for a year or two.

For some context on RAM, this is still below the PS 5 and Xbox Series X, but better than the Series S.

Edited by tclittle on May 8th 2024 at 5:59:11 AM

Rare isn't useful to Nintendo, I don't think. They used to be prolific on the NES, less so on the SNES and N64, and didn't put out a ton on the GameCube. Nintendo selling them to Microsoft blew my mind at the time, but in hindsight, I think it makes sense. They were getting rid of a load. What has Rare done for Microsoft? Not a whole lot.

I can't really see Sea of Thieves working on the Switch, as a constantly-online game.

People are just remembering the N64 days, where it seemed that most high-profile, non-first party games were made by Rare.

I can see a new Viva Piñata coming out if Nintendo bought back Rare, but that’s about it.

There's no way Nintendo would ever buy Rare from Microsoft. Microsoft has no reason to want to give up the associated IPs, and Nintendo wouldn't want to take the employees because none of them are people worked at Rare in its prime. Nintendo would have to put in the work moving them into Nintendo's organization and giving them something to do, and what would really be the point?

Also, Nintendo didn't sell Rare to Microsoft. Nintendo never owned Rare, they just owned a minority stake in the company and had major publishing deals with them. Rare's upper management chose to sell the company to Microsoft because Nintendo wasn't interested in buying them. And stories I've read from former Rare employees make it sound like Rare's management was poor and disorganized, the devs were struggling to keep up with increasing scale in development, and Nintendo's steering in the games they published helped keep them focused in ways they struggled with under Microsoft who mostly left them to their own devices. That gives the impression to me that Rare's owners didn't really want the job of managing a game studio and so were eager to sell and run, so it makes sense Nintendo would be weary of taking on the all the responsibility for Rare that its owners were shirking.

Dragon Quest X says hi.

The always online portion of Always online games could work on the Switch, just none have been ported because of other system limitations, such as RAM.

Dang, I didn't know all the detail!

Would Rare's owners be the Stamper brothers? I always assumed they were actually into games, but I guess they were really just (or primarily) businessmen.

No, they're into games. They designed and programmed most of Rare's early titles on home computers and the NES, and only stepped back into pure producer roles starting with the N64. They directed the first Donkey Kong Country themselves.

Edited by RacattackForce on May 8th 2024 at 5:16:39 AM

Perhaps I shouldn't have said "didn't really want the job of managing a game studio" since that's not necessarily true. I don't know exactly how Rare's corporate structure worked, but it sounds like they were bad at keeping development focused and on schedule, and they worked well under Nintendo's direction while struggled under Microsoft's lack of direction. The ones in charge may have also just been eager to sell because smaller game studios like Rare were often in financial trouble. That's why almost all the small studios in America and Europe got swallowed up by huge companies like Microsoft, EA, Activision, etc. over the 90s to early 2010s. Them being small means they couldn't self-publish their games, meaning they're ability to get paid relied on the whims of huge corporations making publishing deals with them, and a lot of these studios would basically run the corporate equivalent of living paycheck-to-paycheck. After a while selling the studio to a big company would seem attractive to whoever was in charge.

Didn't know there was still a grey logo in Nintendo's holdings. Glad they changed it.

All valid points. Well then, I just want Banjo and Kazooie in Nintendo, really.

I had thought of this: hopefully whatever games that have that "cloud" marking on them on the Switch drop it for Switch's successor's version.