Looking back, SNES had good developers like Capcom, Konami, and Square making it a good console. After SNES, Nintendo didn't get any of the good titles from these developers and their systems became bad, only housing Nintendo IPs and only having a couple decent games per console. Why did this shift happen? Was it because of the goofy choice of controllers they made making it hard to make games for them?
 Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
 |
Thalidomide Vintage Ad Shirt $22.14 |
>Nintendo systems are bad
Another excellent thread, sirs
It’s a relatively valid point, though. The NES and SNES had a plethora of amazing exclusive games from other studios. N64 onwards lacked severely and have since then relied on their first party games alone.
>It’s a relatively valid point, though
Just purposefully worded like a console-warring Gankeredditor because you're bored again
They are? Only their handhelds were good after SNES
Wouldn't exclude Sony moneyhatting developers back then. We know that they do it today, even for petty shit like timed exclusivity and DLC
yep
namco boycotted both the saturn and N64 (handful of low effort releases don't count, and ridge racer 64 was developed by nintendo)
>boycotted
Sega was their direct competitor and nintendo was hated by most third parties. Namco was 100% right in all its decisions.
>Moneyhatting
Only the most moronic of them all would stick only with Nintendo after the N64 reveal.
>cartridges have low storage
>have to wait weeks for the cartridges to be made compared to CDs
>more expensive to develop
>higher licence fee
I think that the N64 was the only console to move gaming forward on the 5th gen but you don't have to give me money to start developing games for the PS after all that shit.
Not entirely true: they got both of the best Goemon games, the second one being one of the greatest games of all time.
The controller had more options for gameplay than the PS did. PS1 had been out for several years before the 64 came out, so it had already eaten up most of the market share (of course, that's just one reason it somewhat failed in Japan).
Famicom and Super Famicom had the largest install base of their respective generations in Japan, so third parties prioritised those machines. Subsequently, the PlayStation won every generation in Japan until the Switch (with Saturn having an early advantage against PlayStation). Other than that, it was a lot cheaper to publish games on CD than on Nintendo's cartridges and CD games were seen as better at the time. There's also the issue of Nintendo's first party games having a lot more selling power to Nintendo console owners so third parties are wary of going up against Nintendo first party games with their own IP. Nintendo has gradually tried to address the shortfall of third parties from the N64 onwards by doing special exclusivity deals for some games and farming out their IPs to third party developers.
Sony outsold the FRICK out of everybody, why are third parties going to waste time making their games for the more poorly-selling system that nets less profit per unit because Nintendo stupidly went cartridge-only and pulled the DD64 stunt too?
PS2 coming out of the gate with backwards compatibility forced Nintendo to totally change up their game, I bet it cost 'em a fortune.
All those devs still made games for Nintendo handhelds.
This too. What moronic console warriors like OP fail to understand is that Nintendo expects you to own both the home console and the handheld. They compensate each other. GameCube + GBA isn't even more expensive than a PS2
Why not buy a GBA and a PS2 though?
That's what I did, I loved it.
You are NOT supposed to do that.
Nintendo handhelds were generally fine, but they were handhelds, all the games on them were a consolation. Remakes of old games, bad versions of console games, lots of shovelware, and Pokemon. For handhelds, they were fine, but you weren't playing the Game Boy version of a new game.
>all the games on them were a consolation.
Not really. Pheonix Wright started as a GBA game, remember?
Don't be moronic. The OP mentions Konami and Capcom, do you want to argue that series like Castlevania or Mega Man weren't better on handhelds after the SNES?
This is literally a buygay coomlector problem
how so
>Nintendo didn't get any Konami titles after SNES
N64 has a bunch of great Konami games
>best Goemon
>best 3D Castlevania
>best Bomberman
>Rakugakids
>International Track & Field
>International Superstar Soccer 64, 98 and 2000
>Hybrid Heaven
>Pawapuro 6
>Jikkyo GI Stable
>etc.
Just because you have shittaste doesn't mean they aren't there. Your thread is moronic
They had some interesting N64 games (Bomberman wasn't Konami at that time), but let's face it, the best Konami games of that generation were not on the N64 (Metal Gear Solid, Silent Hill, Gradius, SotN). Same for Capcom.
I'm deadly curious of what the games included in your "et cetera" are.
Is G.A.S.P!! Fighters' NEXTream the hidden gem that makes the N64 library now not as shallow as a dinner plate?
>International Superstar Soccer 64, 98 and 2000
those are worse than 16bit ISSS, it's unbelievable Nintendo got just ONE Winning Eleven game ever and for the GC and in 2003
Nintendo actually upset a lot of developers. Also PS1 was better suited for most of the games these three wanted to make.
I think it was just nintendo being nintendo, so it was just cheaper and easier or at least the best choice for profit. N64 had a cart, gcn had a special disk size. Somehow i guess nintendo had the sweet sauce on hand helds.
I dont know, Konami, Treasure and Hudson did a great job with their games on the N64, specially Konami.
I know people shit on western devs all the time here but Acclaim, Lucasarts, Eurocom, Ubi Soft, Midway, GT and Atari delivered a decent amount of good games for the system.
Losing support from Capcom, Square and Namco was a big loss yes, but the 3rd party offerings on the N64 are really overlooked imo.
Gotta love that Castlevania 64. What a good job Konami did for the N64. Meanwhile on PlayStation...
CV64 is fine and LoD improved on it.
Thats a good point but I dont think those make their n64 versions obsolete outside a few instances.
>but the 3rd party offerings on the N64 are really overlooked imo
probably because most of the best 3rd party games on n64 are twice as good on dreamcast
Back then they had a lot of strict policies for third parties. I think the official excuse is to avoid another video game crash but they would limit how many games the publishers can even release per year for the NES iirc among other things. One reason Genesis was successful actually was because people were ready to welcome competition again.
>Back then they had a lot of strict policies for third parties
Only for the west, though.
It's the CD vs Cartridge. Nintendo cut their own foot off when they worked with Sony and didn't bother to protect their biggest interests in their market. One of the biggest corporate blunders in history all due to stupid Japanese business practices.
Sony managed to draw everyone in with the PSX thanks to easier development, lower production costs and royalty fees, and allowing anything and everything on their system.
Nintendo was always kinda shit to third parties, like how on NES in the US a third party publisher was only allowed to publish a limited number of titles a year, forcing Konami (who released a hundred titles on Famicom alone; they were the most prolific and some of the best selling third party dev on the platform) to create another label to publish other games.
Originally (can't say about how it is now) Sony didn't have Nintendo's level of bullshit + offered lower production costs.
N64 and Gamecube are two of the worst consoles of all time, they're only popular for the same reason the MCU continues to be popular, people who make brand loyalty their replacement for a personality.
>N64 and Gamecube are two of the worst consoles of all time
In what way?
for the 64 its an early 3d console that aged poorly. All of 5th gen is garbage in that regard, except for maybe the Saturn since it could not really do 3D and had to rely on 2D games a lot (which still look nice to this day)
GC was just meh software wise. too few must have's and even Nintendo's output was the wost ever (Sunshine, Double Dash, Star Fox, Waverace, Wind Waker, all shit compared to the 64 while new titles like Luigi's Mansion were just too short)
>even Nintendo's output was the wost ever
Even worse than the wii u?
There's no GC Nintendo hit on the magnitude of BotW so yeah
By the time 64 came out Sony already poached every dev from Saturn.
Nintendo changed their licensing terms on the manufacturing of carts and Namco, being one of the oldest 3rd party, got very pissed and publicly stated that they would help Nintendo's rivals at the time. They still made Famicom games, but their input lowered at that point and their biggest releases went for others.
>SNES had good developers like Capcom, Konami, and Square making it a good console
You're base premise is already incorrect. Those developers tried to make decent games on the SNES, but they found the bottlenecked and deficient hardware largely incapable for keeping up with they're ideas. Konami's games are widely recognised to be better on the Mega Drive, PC Engine, and X68000, in fact Konami developers being frustrated with the lackluster SNES hardware is the reason some of them split off to become Treasure. Similarly, Capcom found themselves shitting out flawed ports of excellent arcade games like Final Fight, Area 88, and Street Fighter II, Final Fight SNES being thoroughly shown up by it's Mega CD and X68000 ports, and Street Fighter II SNES not even able to surpass it's PC Engine port, much less the far better Mega Drive version. Capcom on the SNES couldn't even surpass Virgin, a western developer, with Aladdin, which is quite sad. And SquareSoft was just pumping out cookie-cutter RPG Maker shit in the 16-bit era, nobody cared about they're games until they were unshackled on the PlayStation, where they immediately became one of the most beloved developers.
The reason developers stopped wanting to deal with shitty Nintendo hardwares isn't in spite of the SNES, it's precisely because of the SNES, a poor console that held everybody back.
Mod!
>konami
konami threw mostly shitty B-team efforts to the genesis, and most of their pc engine games were ports of old shooters. they only developed two brand new games for the x68k
>capcom
capcom barely developed any games directly for the pc engine, otherwise it was several year late ports done by NEC Avenue or hudson. they did not care about the pce
Don't bother, that post is pure shitpost. Even lied about Treasure's formation (they were tired of the constant sequels on Konami). And is a notorious one since he's been calling Square games "RPG Maker shit" for a long time.
>konami threw mostly shitty B-team efforts to the genesis
Then it's an incredible testament to the skills of Konami's B-team and the freedom offered by more powerful Mega Drive hardware that they were able to totally run circles around Konami's A-team which was stuck working on the SNES.
>it was several year late ports done by NEC Avenue or hudson
And it was still a much better port, on a console 3 years older than the SNES, and much cheaper to develop for. You think Capcom didn't take notice of how poorly they're games were performing on the SNES?
Tokimeki Memorial was their biggest hit on all 3 of these platforms. Konami let their best teams choose whichever hardware they wished to work on. Past 1992 the SFC saw very few original Konami games. Mostly Goemon, Parodius and ISS as the larger hits. And those Parodius games were notoriously slow and quickly outdated.
Hi specs-schizo
Thread's dead, the local Segafan-schizo found it. It was good while it lasted.
>The 3D0 was DOA, but we also got our hands on specs for the upcoming Sega Saturn, the Sega 32X, and the mysterious Sony Playstation. The decision really didn’t take very long. 3D0, poor 3D power, and no sales. 32X, unholy Frankenstein’s monster – and no sales. Saturn, also a crazy hybrid design, and really clunky dev units. Then there was the Sony. Their track record in video games was null, but it was a sexy company and a sexy machine – by far the best of the lot. I won’t even bring up the Jaguar.
>Personally when I first got my hands on Mario I was like WTF? How is anyone going to know what to do here? And although there was a pretty real sense of marvel in this funny new world, I never found it very fun. The early camera AI was brutally frustrating. And the Mario voiceover. I still cringe, “It’sa me, Mario!” Still the game was brilliantly innovative, although I remain convinced that if anyone but Miyamoto had made the game it would have flopped.
Who are you quoting?
Crash Bandicoot creator coping over SM64.
Lmao
I personally prefer that interview where he complains that Sunshine wasn't "cinematic" enough.
He's not wrong about the last part. 90% of this board will misinterpret the meaning of it.