Finally replying to this; I meant to when I got home on Thursday but after you basically announced that you had seen a take so bad that you were forced to immediately go to sleep, as it were, I forgot about it. My apologies to both you and the thread for dragging it back up.
EPDooming, really? This is basically an objection to development logistics; like saying nothing is safe at Naughty Dog because 200 people from ND were joined by 1000 outsourced staff when making Last of Us (or whatever the figures were - the real tragedy at ND is how they treat their contractors when shit hits the fan).
This comes down to my choice of words and I'd say it's a misunderstanding that I created. What I should have said was that nothing's
status at EPD is safe; this was in response to some talk earlier in the thread arguing that some core series were going to stay majority EPD for the foreseeable future and that the company's resources for anything else were consequently nonexistent. I didn't reply to any specific posts because there weren't any I specifically wanted to engage with, but the lack of any context contributed to your perception of my post as unprompted "dooming."
And? It was a freebie in a port, probably outsourced entirely because the next 3D Mario is EPD Tokyo's focus (along with their 2D project). And it's a disservice to 1UP, the actual 3D Mario co-developer for the last decade, to act as if this arrangement is somehow resulting in games that are smaller in scope or quality, or to use Bowser's Fury, a bonus freebie, as proof of that. It's a particularly weak example to bring up because it likely demonstrates just how Nintendo conserve EPD's resources to focus on their prestige titles.
I think this response is built on the foundational misunderstanding that my phrasing created. I had absolutely no intention of implying that Bowser's Fury is a smaller game because it wasn't made in Tokyo.
As for your point of it indicating that EPD resources are reserved for the biggest titles, I don't agree that it works against my position. Yes, it is an example of internal resources being reserved by way of outsourcing, I think it indicates that the status quo of even 3D Mario is not immutable. Remember that Pikmin 3 Deluxe was Eighting's debut working on freebie content for a port, and where things went from there.
Zelda gets a lot of its modern identity from a man who joined Nintendo's internal development set up 20 years ago and has worked on the series since the late 90s, starting at Capcom. Roughly 100 Monolith Soft staff worked on Tears of the Kingdom, out of a total team in the region of 800 staff; and I think (someone please correct me if you have the numbers) around 300 of those were EPD.
I acknowledged in another post that my understanding of the new Zelda games' development is even hazier than the rest of my knowledge, so I'll take the L on this. I think that you diminish their impact unnecessarily here though. I don't know what roles those hundred people filled, but I think they do deserve artistic credit.
??? How is this relevant?
My argument, which I once again acknowledge was established poorly, was that the core Nintendo franchises do not have a stranglehold, if you'll excuse the dramatic term, on internal resources. Yes, Pocket Camp was just a mobile game, but Mario Kart Tour came straight from the source. I also remember Kyogoku acknowledging some inspiration and iteration from the ideas in Pocket Camp, but I can't find a source so I'll relinquish the point.
Sure, in arcades, and for development support; not in the creative direction of the series nor in terms of control and primary development.
I was indeed thinking of the arcade games, which I point out not for the sake of argument but to clarify for onlookers that I do not consider art support on the same level as co-development. Given the difference in positioning and in acknowledgement of the lack of "creative direction of the series" I'll concede that any perceived potential there is hopeful.
I get that new hardware generation has everyone stir crazy, and that the forum has actually needed to be reorganised, but come on gang. Put your energy into something less reliant on misrepresenting reality.
I'd like to attribute this to the perceived misunderstanding I acknowledged at the start of my post, but either way I find this really disrespectful and arrogant. Not only does it imply malicious intent, it also picks apart my argument while sweepingly admonishing everyone present. I really take no issue with being strongly refuted like this, as I hope the length of this reply indicates, but I'd rather not see other people disparaged in an otherwise very specific reply to one of my posts. I speak only for myself.
And, I know it's not your intention, but posts like this rub me up the wrong way because they overlook how valuable creative collaboration can be, and it unintentionally demeans the work that support studios, co-developers and contractors put into these games.
As far as I can tell this point is predicated on an assumed foundation that Bowser's Fury (and I suppose Pocket Camp) are inferior. Despite its diminutive size I'd put Bowser's Fury well above Odyssey, and direct comparison to a mobile game is unfair.
Without them, we don't get this stuff.
This is true, and it's a lesson I've learned very slowly over many years of engaging with video game development discussion. However, I find both this conclusion and your calling it "EPDooming" quite funny, because there is absolutely an element of wishful thinking in my post. I
want to see series with strong identity lean on co-development specifically so that EPD can apply their unique culture and artistry to entirely new games and revitalizing older games with imaginative sequels. The thought of an EPD relegated to an assembly line of the same five projects, with a few unique games pursued when accommodations allow, frightens me. (edit: I'd even say this is the primary cause of the sense that I'm grasping at straws throughout my post: I'm trying to rationalize a favorable belief, i.e. coping)
Despite this, I have never felt more highly of Nintendo's development structure than I do now. Pikmin 4, despite some unfortunate flaws that seem to be unrelated to co-development, was a resounding success, and its contracted status allowed for a richness of content that would not have been possible internally. As for internal projects, it seems to me that care is being applied very liberally thanks to the pipeline security that all of Nintendo's development partners have provided:
Wonder was able to flourish in its planning phases without a deadline and
Tears of the Kingdom got a full year after content completion to makes sure that the game's many systems were flawless. While I don't especially care for the final result,
Tears is a project of special curiosity to me: a sequel to Nintendo's biggest game ever, afforded the privilege of an entire layer of the game kept totally secret (shoutout to
@Skittzo for calling that one), and given vast time and resources to pursue a vision that was outwardly a simple iterative sequel set in the same world.
It's one reason I'm glad Nintendo don't go in for the kind of studio branding shenanigans Sony and others push (though I do wish Nintendo forced their studios to credit everyone who worked on a game; stares at Metroid).
I have no idea what Sony stuff you're referring to (I only barely keep up with Nintendo), but I of course agree about Metroid.
www.express.co.uk
