What direction will Rare take next?

I knew it, Kinect would fail.

It's too bad. The hardware is really nice. The shovelware is not.

Rare has a new head. A man with experience, previously working at Midway. This will end well.

Joy. Can't wait to see how the guys at the RWP will react.

This cannot end well.

I'd like to add to the discussion on the last page the Grant Kirkhope hasn't been at Rare since 2008. He's went to join Big Huge Games, which is now 38 Studios.

Anyway, back to this...yea, since all of the core staff from the glory days are gone, I'm not terribly optimistic about the future of Rare. That also allows me to be pleasantly surprised if they rebirth into awesome again.

If there's nothing left of Rare there, should we just call them Common?

I wish they didn't sack the Conker team and cancel the production of the sequel, I really wanted Other Bad Fur Day so badly.

If Conker was to be sold off to another developer, I certainly hope it isn't Nintendo. Banjo-Kazooie and Nintendo? Fine, works well because BK is a cutesy-cartoony Platformer game (despite all the Getting Crap Past the Radar stuff). If Nintendo got the rights to Conker they would revert him back into the cutesy-cartoony kid squirrel he was in Diddy Kong Racing, Pocket Tales (First Conker game) and the cancelled Twelve Tales and that is the last thing I want.

edited 22nd Mar '11 12:56:24 AM by PippingFool

I highly doubt Nintendo would buy Conker. Banjo-Kazooie, maybe.

If Nintendo did buy back Conker, they won't likely tone down his character seeing that Nintendo had approved of M rated titles from 3rd party developers.

Okay, begrudging third party developers the right to make a game on your system =/= Actually publishing a risque game. Nintendo tried to kill Conker the first time around, and if anything, they've gotten softer since.

Not trying to Nintendo-bash or anything (just going on things I've heard), but hasn't their recent output been kinda meh? Other M didn't do to well and I've heard people speak negatively of Epic Yarn and DKCR.

Even if they got a hold of Conker and B-K, would they be able to do anything good with them?

Them getting softer is a good thing for the release of M titles. The reason Rare got censored in the first place was because Nintendo wasn't giving developers enough freedom. After the N64 lost sales and developers to the Playstation, they began to learn their lesson, but it was only with the Wii that we actually started getting a nice flow of M games.

Other M was a third party developed game, but it still sucked donkey balls.

Epic Yarn and DKCR are both fairly good IMO, but got bashed for different reasons. Epic Yarn was bashed for being too easy (And it is, kinda like Lego Star Wars), while DKCR was bashed for being too traditional and too hard.

Of course, Nintendo's also released several extremely good games that have been critically lauded recently. They're a company with generally mediocre to amazing results, with Other M being the odd one out for their I Ps in recent years.

edited 23rd Mar '11 3:08:12 PM by Scardoll

Epic Yarn was bashed for being too easy (And it is), while DKCR was bashed for being too traditional and too hard.

So they got bashed for doing what their franchises were known for?

Well, in Kirby Super Star, you can die, you just won't. In Kirbys Epic Yarn, it is literally impossible to die; the challenge instead comes just from points. I personally see why some would complain, since Kirby Super Star Ultra (The remix of Kirby Super Star on the DS) had an extremely difficult boss battles mode.

DKCR upped the difficulty of the DKC series some, and apparently the 2D gameplay of the series has gotten stale for some modern gamers.

edited 23rd Mar '11 3:13:52 PM by Scardoll

^^^ Wrong definition of the word softer dude. They now, even further than before, lack cojones.

Honestly, Indigo Dingo, nothing I can say can change your mind on that matter.

You choose to hate Nintendo whether they reject third parties or accept them, whether they are successful or not, whether they make good decisions or bad, just like you choose to support Sony through any decisions they make. I admire your dedication, and I agree with you on a lot of things (Fuck E-game fanboys who think any blood or gore makes a game horrible), but it really makes talking to you the equivalent to talking to a brick wall.

edited 23rd Mar '11 3:31:29 PM by Scardoll

There was only one console in their history where they openly rejected violent games - the SNES. Saying games like Madworld or No More Heroes represent a change in policy and a learned lesson doesn't work if you've seen Resident Evil 2 or Duke Nukem Zero Hour for the N64. What I'm pointing out is that their attitude towards pubishing games - as distinct from allowing games to be published, a completely different practice - is the same as always. Given that if Nintendo did acquire Conker, they would be the ones to publish the game by definition, we can therefore assume that in that instance, they would try and bring Conker back into Tastes Like Diabetes territory.

They hired third parties or inhouse second parties for Metroid. Conker would probably get the same treatment.

Nintendo, like any company, cares about money. They know (Just like everyone) that Conker has absolutely no reputation as a saccharine series. They know that a Conker game marketed towards kids won't sell, because it's not an established franchise and because by doing so they will repel all the fans who would otherwise be definite customers. At best, they'll either develop a similar sequel directly or hire someone else to do it for them. At worst, they won't make the game at all, probably because they'll think there's no money left in the series.

Indigo Dingo, stop thinking about Nintendo like they're Moral Guardians and start thinking of them for what they are, a business. They maintain a family-friendly image because it's lucrative, not because they actually care about the content. Marketing a previously M rated IP to kids would be a disaster, both sales-wise and image-wise.

edited 23rd Mar '11 3:52:59 PM by Scardoll

I'm aware they'd use a different developer, that much is obvious. However, it would still be theirs to publish it, and publishing it would affect their image. So, the question is if they would risk their image for a game for fans. I say not bloody likely. So, in the unlikely event thaqt they recquired the series, they would drag it back to its Pocket Tales level.

And who's going to buy this essentially unestablished IP that gaming news will be mocking? The only people who know what Conker is also know what a real sequel to it would be.

What parent is going to buy their kid this IP when there are more recognizable ones that won't be attacked by news pundits as "Marketing inappropriate games towards children!"? Kirbys Epic Yarn was a sales failure, and that game was an IP already entirely geared to children that was actually bought by a peripheral audience.

There is absolutely no business reason to make a Conker game for kids, or to publish one for kids. It wouldn't sell even with the people who would otherwise buy a Conker game. It's the same reason why they won't publish a No More Heroes game for kids if the company randomly decided to make one.

edited 23rd Mar '11 4:09:33 PM by Scardoll

Nintendo does things differently all the time, and doing something new isn't a bad idea. Besides. Just how much was Duke Nukem 64 edited?

It got censored a lot, although they kept the gore and sexual tone. Duke Nukem 64 was still aimed at the same audience, and it was just a rerelease during a time when the series was going this strong. This hypothetical Conker game would be a reboot of a dead franchise that nobody who liked the franchise will buy.

edited 23rd Mar '11 4:17:12 PM by Scardoll

Yes, so clearly the most sensible thing to do is not buy the IP. However, we're in a hypothetical situation wherein they do, and the most likely fcourse of acton there is the Squeaky voiced character option, as opposed to risking their reputation with parents.

...Except they'll get the ire of the parents if they do release an E rated version of a previously M rated franchise. By releasing it and marketing it towards an older audience, they'll at least avoid Trojan Horse type paranoia. They'll also have an audience already there to buy the game (Those who liked the first one). Conkers Bad Fur Day was literally changing an E game IP to an M game IP, which pretty much eliminated any previous audience (However small) the series had. Doing the reverse would have the same result.

There just aren't any sales in an E-rated Conker. Nintendo cares about sales, because sales equals $$$. The best option, if they're so worried about their image, would be to allow a third party IP to develop the game like they did with Other M (Although preferably not with the same results), since at least then there would be an actual market.

edited 23rd Mar '11 4:26:24 PM by Scardoll