Recently Paul Izod's been playing Bioware’s stellar fantasy title Dragon Age: Inquisition (my second playthrough) and for all its immense quality and engagement, one thing left a real sour taste in his mouth.
The thing is, though, it's through no fault of Bioware or even EA; not really.
The article discusses a claim by an intellectual property (IP) expert that Nintendo likely does not hold patents strong enough to prevent the game developer Pocketpair from creating Palworld, a game that some believe resembles Pokémon. The expert suggests that Nintendo's legal challenges against Palworld could amount to nothing more than corporate bullying, as the patents Nintendo might be relying on are not robust enough to stand up to legal scrutiny. The situation could be seen as an example of a large corporation trying to exert undue influence over a smaller competitor.
Crazy how far they are willing to go over nothing rather than tell Game Freak to get their shit together and sort the quality of the mainline games out.
Personally I'd drop the two game bullshit, make a full on complete game, and take their time making the best game they can without relying on a silly battle gimmick they'll ditch after one game. Gimmicks out of battle is what they should be focusing on, beauty contests, berry making, secret bases, the underground, Seasons, events during day / night and post game content like travelling to a new location or something.
That's the thing, this is why we're now seeing more serious competitors in the genre. Game Freak has just been coasting by, doing the bare minimum in innovation for the last 20+ years. They need to get with the times. Hire more devs, give more dev time to foster creativity, etc. But now that they can't get away with that bare minimum they're trying to sue their competitors out of existence. It's disgusting.
Nintendo risks big with this one.. it’s means competition to pokemon and that they dont want
been saying this since sun and moon.
gamefreak just isnt used to, still isnt used to, the console market. they did well on the handheld space but as a complete 3d developer z they fail miserable
the last two pkmn gens look like gamecube games. not to mention the bugs at launch.
but uve seen the ridiculous anount of copies sold at launch too.
Realistically though palworld Pokemon with guns featured so many themes and concepts that Nintendont
There's no way they would make a game where you could use realistic weapons or have pals slaving away.
They're not the same genre at all they just feature similar characters
Can't hide plagerism I guess, Palworld had it easy, even flaunting it, they deserve ever thing Nintendo decides to throw at them.
I pretty much agree, two editions of the same game shouldn't even been a thing at this point. The foundations are solid, but the lack of content and having a lived in world really let the latest games down.
Two editions worked way back in the day as a gimmick hey your mate has different Pokemon in blue than you have in red so trade them but nowadays it's pointless we don't have any of those limitations system links not really a thing anymore and two editions feels exploitive nowadays like they are targeting kids to double dip
why would they do that when the fanbase is still willing to buy whatever low-effort and low-cost crap they are churning out? they are out to make as much money as possible with as little investment as possible and say what you want but GF is excellent at that front mainly because the fanbase allows them to. Nintendo is saying nothing because they are making money.
The article is actually Gamesradar's. MSN just used their page like a URL shortened link.
It's straight up bullying with mooney and using the government laws as a tool to do so. They should be fined.
Where does the time go?
Xbox discusses the brand licensing strategies connecting iconic video game franchises with the world’s most diverse fan base.
We asked MS, why are you so amazing and how do you come up with the ideas for creating such titles as Call of Duty and Elder Scrolls?
You bait people in with a headline that sounds like you have a legitimate point, then you criticize gamers for calling out false advertising and bringing about the rectifying of the situation through developers actually trying to do what they originally promised. Cool story bro.... I respectfully disagree with your notions, but you have your right to the opinion.
So you liked the ending... But it's bad because they tried to service their fans unlike mass effect 3?
Sounds like someone should go work for bungie... Don't worry author they will do what they want no matter how stupid or senseless their decisions are... And guess what they don't care about what their fans want... So no the inmates aren't running the asylum over at bungie... So fear not
I agree with the title, but the article isn't very well structured in my opinion. Takes too long to get the point across.
I think mob rule is ruining the industry because developers feel constantly obliged to provide the consumers expectations. It's not mob-rule, per se, it's constantly pandering to what their perceptions of what the consumer wants.
So now, in every game we get a black guy, a strong woman, a weak woman, a strong man, a homosexual man, just for the sake of fair representation. To mix things up we might get a cocky dwarven character, it's all terribly original, and the narrative always wraps up ever so neatly.
I want games to be unique, a piece of art, a reflection of the perspectives and minds of the creators, but because of the manner in which gaming communities influence their creative designs, video games are not that.
I'd rather a game be offensive and without a definitive conclusion than dull and uninspired, at the end of the day. But today, we see games bending to to the wills of the vocal consumers and press.
Inspirational movies like Memento, American Psycho and Fightclub, don't exist because their directors bent to the desires of the consumer, they exist, and stand as works of art because they surprise us and make us think. Something video games will never do while constrained by the publishers perception of consumer expectation.
I apologize if my first comment was a bit not to your liking, I know you're just expressing your opinion and like I said - you have a right to that... However...
I sincerely hope you are not the type of person who supports the recent censorship of The Killing Joke comic book cover, or the banning of Hatred from Steam (which was reversed), or the banning of Hotline Miami 2 in Australia. Because if that's the case, you have two opposing arguments going on at the same time and that's not healthy.
Hope that isn't the case, thank you for expressing your opinion. Just came back to warn you in case you do believe both of those things at the same time that you are simultaneously fighting against changed based on feedback whilst demanding it, and I get the feeling you potentially may be that type.
Cheers though. If not, no harm no foul.
Edit: Appendix: To the author, you are obviously decent at writing, keep improving as you go. Wish you the best.
Edit #2 in response to Joe above: I disagree with the point being made using the ME3 Ending situation. It was clearly false marketed, false promised, and false advertised for years leading up to it. This isn't pandering to the consumer's expectations, it's being held accountable for millions of dollars worth of investment in your company being made solely on the playing up of something that was never delivered. The author is smart, and had a point to make, but the example being used is simply unrelated at best.
Cheers, hope I don't offend somebody - it was really not my intent.
Still can't sell a wii u