|
|
Post by eadninja on Aug 29, 2009 13:38:40 GMT -5
1. Tose was involved in Game & Watch Gallery 4 with Nintendo. But you also list them as the developers of 1-3 and I don't see any evidence of that. Matter of fact, the staff of G&W4 is completely different than the staff of 1-3.
2. Nintendo R&D1 developed Yoshi's Cookie on the NES and GB based on BPS Hermetica concept. In turn, BPS got an american team developing the SNES version.
|
|
|
|
Post by eadninja on Aug 29, 2009 13:48:01 GMT -5
In general most databases don't share co-developer marks to begin with so I don't think this is necessarily a runaway issue. Sin & Punishment is an oddball to begin with anyway. NOA did the production, R&D1 was somehow involved, and Treasure did the majority of the game component.
Well supposedly the original Mario Party games were mainly developed by Monegi. A former 50/50 Nintendo/Hudson Soft start up developer. Of course all the development credit goes to Hudson Soft because of their logo showing up after Nintendo. But Monegi was absolved into something else.
Having done a bunch of databasing I've noticed that something very frequent, and now even more so, is that game development will be mult-sourced as far as development groups and companies go. Almost every game has subcrontacted or assisted involvement with other companies / teams.
I think ultimately the most factual way of databasing games is by the development team in charge of the game. Once you have a credit listing of the actual staff, then you can source multiple development teams within the staff members involved. It's how I database all my credits basically.
|
|
|
|
Post by nocturnal YL on Aug 29, 2009 14:05:56 GMT -5
1. Tose was involved in Game & Watch Gallery 4 with Nintendo. But you also list them as the developers of 1-3 and I don't see any evidence of that. Matter of fact, the staff of G&W4 is completely different than the staff of 1-3. Seriously, have you even read the credit screens of G&W Gallery 2 and 3? |
|
|
|
Post by eadninja on Aug 29, 2009 14:24:04 GMT -5
Well yeah. That's the point right. The Tose team of Game&Watch 4 is completely different than the teams involved in G&W1-3.
|
|
|
|
Post by nocturnal YL on Aug 29, 2009 15:18:50 GMT -5
Ah.... I see where you're going at.
You're using your much stricter standard to see who's in charge of the development rather than inclusing TOSE just because they're involved in the game.
You may as well ask for a complete staff list for each game rather than just a simple "developer" listing. But I don't think it's the current focus of NinDB as of now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Aug 29, 2009 19:25:52 GMT -5
In Japan, and increasingly in America, you will find development farms, contracted companies sent in specifically to work on another company's projects. These farms usually go uncredited, and many of them prefer it that way.
Tose is a good example of a development farm. They have worked on dozens, possibly hundreds, of games over the years, but the developers aren't the creatives behind the game. They simply lease out their development resources to other companies.
Nintendo had done a lot of work with Tose in the past, not just on Game & Watch Gallery (one of the first games the company was credited). Nintendo entered into a joint project with Tose to produce an original IP, so Tose had a creative stake in something - and Legendary Starfy was born.
This isn't all that different from how HAL Laboratory started out. HAL farmed out development resources to Nintendo for years, and eventually got shipped in to produce Kirby and form an official partnership with Nintendo.
When it comes to company credits, I don't want to know that development farm x provided programming staff, or that graphics studio y provided the cutscenes. I want to know which development studios were behind the creative bulk of the project. This is also why I don't list Intelligent Systems as the developers of games like Super Metroid. Yes, it appears on their website... they worked on that game... but they weren't the lead creatives behind the project.
Basically... we need to identify what the lead creative roles are and what company/ies they worked for at that time. What I need is someone knowledgable to produce a list of games and say what companies were involved. If it's more complicated than we're giving it credit for... then more detail needs to be provided and that can be written up in the game description.
|
|
|
|
Post by nocturnal YL on Aug 30, 2009 1:47:54 GMT -5
...Then it's right for eadninja to say G&W Gallery 1~3 should be credited to someone else. (But who? Million Colors?)
|
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Aug 30, 2009 3:06:36 GMT -5
The fact Tose was actually credited makes me think they may have done more than just farm out a few of their resources... but until I know exactly who was involved in the game's development, it's going to be a tough call.
eadninja has an excellent record of this kind of thing, and I'm hoping to use his expertise to polish up NinDB.
|
|
|
|
Post by eadninja on Aug 30, 2009 15:41:59 GMT -5
|
|
Grandy02
Balloon Fighter
I'm so happy today
Posts: 847
|
Post by Grandy02 on Aug 31, 2009 13:40:28 GMT -5
I'm not entirely sure about this, but maybe this is a game for NinDB? It's a movie-based GBC game called Quest for Camelot (not released in Japan). It was published by Nintendo and the "©1999 NINTENDO CO., LTD" on the (European) back cover indicates that the rights for the game are partly owned by Nintendo (it is similar with The Little Mermaid II: Pinball Frenzy, covered by NinDB, isn't it?). |
|
|
|
Post by nocturnal YL on Aug 31, 2009 13:47:50 GMT -5
Game title screen please. If possible, credit screen please. In-game info would be more accurate, no?
And I do think there should be a list of what Nintendo published, regardless of whether Nintendo made or owns the game. There can be no game page for these games, but a mention alone should be there, if just to prevent all those "Fry why didn't you include this game?"
|
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Aug 31, 2009 14:23:45 GMT -5
Actually, Quest For Camelot was on the site back when I took in any and all "published by Nintendo" games. The licensed properties that remain on the site were either developed by a second or first party. Quest For Camelot was developed by Titus. Maybe Nintendo did managed to wrangle the rights to produce a game-of-the-film which they farmed out to Titus... but more likely they just published a game already in development. Either way, they don't own the content (Warner Bros. does), they weren't involved in the game's development (Titus was), and the game itself is almost as pants as the movie was... so no major loss  Edit As suspected, the staff credits over at GameFAQs suggest it was entirely a Titus production. |
|
Grandy02
Balloon Fighter
I'm so happy today
Posts: 847
|
Post by Grandy02 on Aug 31, 2009 15:26:27 GMT -5
Okay, that's an argument. I guess Mario's Photopy also doesn't stand a chance since it was neither developed nor published by Nintendo (dunno how much Nintendo was involved)? |
|
|
|
Post by fiendcode on Sept 6, 2009 12:21:00 GMT -5
I agree with the programming issue, outsourced code shouldn't really be enough for a full co-developer credit. Super Metroid is a great example of that, which had only one or two IntSys programmers on board iirc. But then, I think you have to be careful on that standard, as many "developer farms" also end up contributing to game design. Now Production on the Mario Baseball games being a prime example, and if you credit check, you'll find Namco staff in mainly supervisory roles. NowPro's actually been slowly making something of a name for themselves in the genre, handling Famista/PlayStadium for Namco, Mario Sluggers for Namco under Nintendo contract and Little League World Series for Activision.
NowPro's actually a lot like Tose in that they've been around for decades, secretly working on many established franchises and adaptations (Adventure Island, Splatterhouse, Klonoa, Spelunker, Ms. Pac-Man, DDR, Sonic Adventure, Katamari, etc) and only recently started getting recognition and even producing their own games (like the Intelligent License series).
|
|
|
|
Post by fiendcode on Sept 6, 2009 12:47:18 GMT -5
Okay, some more quick corrections...
Game Boy Advance
-Eyeshield 21 - Eighting
-F-Zero Climax = Suzak
-F-Zero GP Legend = Suzak
-Hamtaro: Ham-Ham Heartbreak = Pax Softnica
-Happy Panechu = Nintendo / Agenda
-Zelda ALTTP = Nintendo / Flagship / Capcom (due to Four Swords)
-Zelda Minish Cap = Flagship / Capcom (though an important chunk of the team went on to join Nintendo EAD afterwards)
-Millenium Family = indieszero
-Mother 3 = Brownie Brown / HAL
Gamecube
-DDR Mario Mix = Konami / Hudson
-Mario Party 4/5/6/7 = Hudson / CAProduction
-Mario Baseball = Namco / Now Production
-Pokemon Box = Nintendo
-Puzzle Collection = Nintendo / NST / Tose Software (different subgames were literally handled by different teams)
-Wario Ware = Nintendo / Intelligent Systems
|
|
