It doesnt even have to be third party, if people had games they wanted to play or hell, if nintendo just occasionally SHOWED a little something that interests them.
Actually, its really not about third parties at all. They shouldnt even be mentioned in the same sentence with nintendo, because when it comes to what this article is about, they are completely incompetent and worthless. In fact, the author explicitely states such:
Tom McShea: 'I would never insult
Nintendo by mentioning them in
the same breath as Electronic Arts
or Activision, and I'm appalled
that you just did.'
People here seriously need to Read. The. Article and stop responding off of their assumptions.
What these people who are dissapointed with dk are waiting for, has historically been shown, time and again, to only come from nintendo, And Retro just happens to be one of Nintendo's studios that has done it recently. And instead, they are doing a very safe very by the numbers 2d platformer.
Which is pretty much the same thing the rest of the industry is doing. Safe and by the numbers. Which is the problem, for them, its ok, they cant do any better. For Retro, and nintendo, we know they can. Which is why we hold them to a higher standard, making the cries of 'but uncharted 4 is fine right? hur ur' Completely off base and pointless.
Tom McShea: Yes, I do hold Retro
Studios to a higher standard. I say
that in my editorial.
Provided one actually READ the editotial that is.
As for the three senior prime directors (after the first prime) leaving? Best thing that could have possibly happened to the series. Mark Pacini in particular dragged the series further and further down with each entry. The stream lining was devastating, although it never got quite as bad as other M, the next pacini prime probably would have been (talking about world/level design, nothing else).
Although I will never be as harsh a critic as Pacini himself (he called echoes and corruption crap which tarnished what was done with prime) I am excited to see what someone new, fresh brings to the table, considering it was blind pioneering that resulted in prime.
I think your misunderstanding the intention of my post. I am solely responding to what was written in the quoted message. I am not trying to really tie it into the discussion about the article (which you have already pretty much closed the book on).
From what I am seeing, from Wii U customers and potential Wii U customers, third party support, in league with the competing platforms, is highly desirable. Retro making this game (and the fallout of disappointment), combined with the aspect of overall Wii U bias within the console fan base appears to be leading to the creation of assumptions of bias.
This does not excuse making a post about an article, not reading it, botching your subject, and then defending it after being proven wrong. However, this seems to be the overall effect of the times we live in.
Sadly, from a financial perspective, Nintendo has to make money on hardware to justify software risks. For all we know, there are two games, one slated for 2013 in DK, and the other for late 2014 in their real project. DK is a safe bet when the Wii U will be a drag on their financials.
The same would hold true for the COD's of the world, except they are choosing to provide the highest return for shareholders, and moving gaming forward is not something you can use as an investor's meeting if it goes bad.
I apologize for any misunderstanding or added frustration, lord knows you have had enough lately. I would offer you a cup of tea or something if I thought it would help;)
