Famitsu Readers Top 50 Nintendo Titles

[Zechs Merquise]

What a load of shite! No Super Metroid, no Galaxy 2 and no Metroid Prime! There's probably other stuff missing too, but it's a pretty piss poor list!

[Patch]

Yup, I've just checked the Japanese boards, and they're all filled with comments like:

 

Wait, Banjo-Tooie (N64) makes it into the list, but Tennis (NES) doesn't? WTF?

[Oxigen_Waste]

You'd also be wrong by saying that Nintendo had nothing to do with the development of the game.

 

You're making the mistake of making the leap from 'Nintendo doesn't own the legal rights to IP X at time Y' to 'Nintendo had no involvement in the development of game X'.

 

Like I said, I have no idea... it just feels a lot like Xenogears, so I assumed Nintendo didn't have a hand in the development...

 

As for Banjo though, if they did have an involvement, shame on Nintendo. I know I'm in the vast minority here, but I haven't played a single Rare game that I truly loved apart from Goldeneye. Conker was very funny, but as for the games themselves, apart from Goldeneye, I thought Banjo Kazooie, Perfect Dark, both DKCs on the SNES and Starfox Adventures were all second rate games. I played them all and didn't really like any of them. Same for Conker, but the humour saved that one, imo. If Nintendo did have a hand in the development... then shame on them. Once again, I know I'm in the minority, and that this is highly unrelated to the topic and completely subjective, just venting.

 

Anyway, I still think that while they're awesome games (not so much banjo) they shouldn't really be on the list as "Nintendo games", I'd stick to games 100% Nintendo. But you are right.

 

Likely there are contracts that determine who owns any IPs that Monolith Soft has developed in the past and any they develop while they're mostly owned by Nintendo. We don't know and are unlikely to find out.

 

As long as Nintendo owns Monolith Soft though (80% of them at least), they will control what Monolith does and and any IPs or games Monolith Soft creates in that time are effectively Nintendo games. If they were to sell them again, that might be a different story.

 

As for Xenoblade, I believe there was an Iwata Asks where they indicated that the development of Xenoblade had to be approved by Nintendo, so the level of control Nintendo has makes them effectively a subsidiary.

 

I just think it's werid to include games they own but clearly have nothing of them in. The game is all Monolith, as a Xeno fan, I assure you of that. You know what I'm saying? Nintendo might own the game, but it's not "theirs", spiritually.

[Burny]

I just think it's werid to include games they own but clearly have nothing of them in. The game is all Monolith, as a Xeno fan, I assure you of that. You know what I'm saying? Nintendo might own the game, but it's not "theirs", spiritually.

 

I know what you mean, but it doesn't make sense. Nintendo expanded by buying Monolith Soft (mostly ). It doesn't matter one bit, if Myamoto didn't personally design the game or that it wasn't developed by EAD. Monolith Soft is now part of Nintendo and so is this game.

[Jonnas]

I just think it's werid to include games they own but clearly have nothing of them in. The game is all Monolith, as a Xeno fan, I assure you of that. You know what I'm saying? Nintendo might own the game, but it's not "theirs", spiritually.

 

Isn't Xenoblade technically a new IP, that only has that name to honour its spiritual predecessor?

 

Either way, Burny has a point, there. If the Fire Emblem franchise had been split from Nintendo like the Banjo franchise did, your arguments would be directed elsewhere.

 

Just a theoretical example, since FE is just an Intelligent Systems franchise. At one point, its creator, Shouzou Kaga, left Nintendo and released spiritual successors in the Sony consoles. He could've, in theory, taken the FE series with him if IS had left as well, instead of him forming a new company.

 

Theoretically, the same could also happen with, say, Camelot's Golden Sun.

 

 

As for the list itself, lol, that's all.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Jonnas

[Fierce_LiNk]

I'm amazed at how Super Mario Sunshine is on there above Galaxy, and that Galaxy is rated much, much lower than 64.

 

However, they redeem themselves by putting Super Mario Bros. 3 on there. Only slightly, mind.

[Oxigen_Waste]

Yeah, I wouldn't include Golden Sun either, is what I mean. Not because it isn't a good game, but because as far as I'm concerned, it's not a Nintendo game, it's a Camelot game. Owning it doesn't make it theirs, in my opinion. Fire Emblem is a blurry case, though. Hmmm.

 

 

Yeah, I know I make little sense, but I think you guys understand what I mean.

[Fierce_LiNk]

Geez, Oxygen_Waste. You Portuguese are so pedantic

[Burny]

Yeah, I wouldn't include Golden Sun either, is what I mean. Not because it isn't a good game, but because as far as I'm concerned, it's not a Nintendo game, it's a Camelot game. Owning it doesn't make it theirs, in my opinion. Fire Emblem is a blurry case, though. Hmmm.

 

The way I understand this, Camelot isn't owned by Nintendo, so not every game they produce is automatically a Nintendo game. We don't know who owns the Golden Sun IP. If it's Nintendo though, it's a proper Nintendo game. At the very least for the purpose of "Top-X" games on Nintendo's platforms through the years it can be counted as such. You'll have a hard time playing the Golden Suns through official means on anything else than Nintendo platforms.

 

You need to start distinguishing between the owners and the creators of a game.

[Oxigen_Waste]

Geez, Oxygen_Waste. You Portuguese are so pedantic

 

Admit it, though, every damn year people in this specific forum submit movies as movie of the year that were last year's and it's always because "it came out this year over here". Well, I'm on several other forums, and I keep noticing this attitude coming from the british every damn time. Also the Americans... it just comes across as arrogant, is all... it doesn't matter when it came out in your country, what matters is when it initially came out to a widespread audience! Gah.... it's just a matter of suplanting your own identities and projections to that of the product, other cultures don't really indulge as much as you do. But it doesn't matter, you guys are responsible for 60% of the world's talent, you're allowed to be a bit arrogant.

 

 

You need to start distinguishing between the owners and the creators of a game.

 

Isn't that what I've been doing 'till just now?

 

Golden Sun -> Camelot created -> Nintendo owns -> Camelot game, imo.

 

Mario Tennis -> Camelot created but is severely limited to working within the universe of an already developed, made and owned by Nintendo IP, which of course means they can't really do much about the soul and feel of the game (which in the end is what makes a great game) and claim responsability for -> Nintendo owns -> Nintendo game.

 

 

It's like Twin Snakes. Made by Silicon Knights, but in my mind that game's charm is 100% Konami's.

 

Just as Xenoblade will never be a Nintendo game, in my eyes.

 

 

We don't know who owns the Golden Sun IP. If it's Nintendo though, it's a proper Nintendo game. At the very least for the purpose of "Top-X" games on Nintendo's platforms through the years it can be counted as such.

 

I guess we just think differently. I strongly disagree. A product belongs to it's creators and developers, in my mind, not it's publishers and owners.

 

In my opinion, that's like saying The Beatles' songs were Michael Jackson's just because he owned them.

[Burny]

Isn't that what I've been doing 'till just now?

 

Golden Sun -> Camelot created -> Nintendo owns -> Camelot game, imo.

If it were a Camelot game, then Camelot would decide what happens with it. If Nintendo owns Golden Sun, than they do however and that makes Camelot exchangeable. The creative legacy of the three Golden Suns may be that of Camelot, but they're (probably) Nintendo games.

 

With Golden Sun it's indeed less clear than with Xenoblade. Xenoblade is a Nintendo game, because Monolith Soft is a Nintendo team now. That's the whole point of expanding your company by buying a studio.

 

In my opinion, that's like saying The Beatles' songs were Michael Jackson's just because he owned them.

 

That's the whole point of IP-ownership. :p

 

From a consumer's POV it has little consequence in the music industry that a label might have all the rights to a song. Your CD-player's doesn't distinguish between CDs from Universal Music or Sony. It's even morally questionable there, as songs are usually works of a very small group of people or even individuals.

 

Games however aren't so much works of art done by a handful of people, as they're large scale projects that result in a product which somebody owns to some degree. If it's Nintendo, it's a Nintendo's product, no matter whose creative legacy is behind it. If Nintendo wants somebody else than the original developers to continue developing it, they just have somebody else do it. If Nintendo sells it to Microsoft, it becomes a Microsoft product.

Much more importantly: If Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft own an IP, they decide on what platforms the games appear and that is what counts here.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Burny

[killer kirby]

What a load of shite! No Super Metroid, no Galaxy 2 and no Metroid Prime! There's probably other stuff missing too, but it's a pretty piss poor list!

 

Pfft, who cares about those, the main concern is where the fuck is mother 3!?

 

Just as Xenoblade will never be a Nintendo game, in my eyes.

 

Jesus christ, someone tweet Sakurai, tell him to make sure he puts Shulk in Smash Bros with a level of place set in Xenoblade, while also saying 'this is a NINTENDO GAME!'

Edited January 4, 2012 by killer kirby

[Jonnas]

Admit it, though, every damn year people in this specific forum submit movies as movie of the year that were last year's and it's always because "it came out this year over here". Well, I'm on several other forums, and I keep noticing this attitude coming from the british every damn time. Also the Americans... it just comes across as arrogant, is all... it doesn't matter when it came out in your country, what matters is when it initially came out to a widespread audience! Gah.... it's just a matter of suplanting your own identities and projections to that of the product, other cultures don't really indulge as much as you do. But it doesn't matter, you guys are responsible for 60% of the world's talent, you're allowed to be a bit arrogant.

 

 

For the record, I'm thanking this part of your post here, because you just voiced a good chunk of my opinion The "movie of the year" business is a very minor example, but what you are saying rings very true.

 

Isn't that what I've been doing 'till just now?

 

Golden Sun -> Camelot created -> Nintendo owns -> Camelot game, imo.

 

Mario Tennis -> Camelot created but is severely limited to working within the universe of an already developed, made and owned by Nintendo IP, which of course means they can't really do much about the soul and feel of the game (which in the end is what makes a great game) and claim responsability for -> Nintendo owns -> Nintendo game.

 

 

It's like Twin Snakes. Made by Silicon Knights, but in my mind that game's charm is 100% Konami's.

 

Just as Xenoblade will never be a Nintendo game, in my eyes.

 

Quick question, the Viewtiful Joe and Okami franchises... who truly owns them? Capcom or Platinum Games (a.k.a. the second coming of Clover Studios)?

[Burny]

To expand on my last post a bit here, take this:

Golden Sun -> Camelot created -> Nintendo owns -> Camelot game, imo.

 

We seem to understand different things when we say that X is a <corporate entity>-game. You seem intend to honor the creators of the game and deliberately read it as "Y developed game X, so it is a Y-game". In the context of this list though, it's clear that what matters is the platform exclusivity through publishing agreements or IP-ownership at the time.

 

Even if we were to understand Y-game as "Y created the game", it's still inaccurate if we refer to companies. A game is created by a set of people and a game company may go through heavy changes in personnel through the years or become defunct, while the game is still available or sequels to the game are developed. Lets say fifty years from now Nintendo still makes Mario games, hasn't succumbed to the pressure of developing 1-dollar applications for all kinds of phones or been bought and is still a platform holder, but everyone involved in today's Mario games has retired or died due to having eaten too much contaminated rice after the nuclear fallout. Mario would still be a Nintendo game, even if the people developing it then will have nothing to do with those who develop it today.

 

When everyone within a company is exchangeable though, the one thing tying the game to the company is the ownership. If the company doesn't own a game or series, that makes the whole company exchangeable.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Burny

[Dcubed]

Banjo Tooie is so awesome that it makes the list, despite it not even being a Nintendo game!

 

BTW: Even if for some reason you don't count Xenoblade as being a Nintendo game because it was made by Monolith, do note that it was actually co-developed by Nintendo SPD as well (who acted as "editors" according to Xenoblade's Iwata Asks)

 

Either way, Nintendo's influence on this game is clear to see. It's so far beyond Takahashi's previous efforts (and without masses of content cut this time!) that it's comical to say that Nintendo had no influence on the game's development.

Edited January 4, 2012 by Dcubed

[killer kirby]

BTW: Even if for some reason you don't count Xenoblade as being a Nintendo game because it was made by Monolith, do note that it was actually co-developed by Nintendo SPD as well (who acted as "editors" according to Xenoblade's Iwata Asks)

 

Either way, Nintendo's influence on this game is clear to see. It's so far beyond Takahashi's previous efforts (and without masses of content cut this time!) that it's comical to say that Nintendo had no influence on the game's development.

 

It's why Nintendo bought them in the first place, Iwata can see talent when he sees it, Monolith are excellent in story telling in video games, perhaps the best there is, but the biggest flaw to the company was gameplay, with Nintendo being the pros of gameplay, they were able to contribute and help Monolith in them making deep gameplay mechanics.

[pratty]

The absences of some great games might be down to how the poll was made. For example if readers were asked their top 3 Nintendo games SMG2 might not figure in a lot of people's top 3, but might in their top 10.

[Oxigen_Waste]

Quick question, the Viewtiful Joe and Okami franchises... who truly owns them? Capcom or Platinum Games (a.k.a. the second coming of Clover Studios)?

 

IMO, they're Platinum games, not Capcom. Is that what you're asking?

 

To expand on my last post a bit here, take this:

 

 

We seem to understand different things when we say that X is a <corporate entity>-game. You seem intend to honor the creators of the game and deliberately read it as "Y developed game X, so it is a Y-game". In the context of this list though, it's clear that what matters is the platform exclusivity through publishing agreements or IP-ownership at the time.

 

Even if we were to understand Y-game as "Y created the game", it's still inaccurate if we refer to companies. A game is created by a set of people and a game company may go through heavy changes in personnel through the years or become defunct, while the game is still available or sequels to the game are developed. Lets say fifty years from now Nintendo still makes Mario games, hasn't succumbed to the pressure of developing 1-dollar applications for all kinds of phones or been bought and is still a platform holder, but everyone involved in today's Mario games has retired or died due to having eaten too much contaminated rice after the nuclear fallout. Mario would still be a Nintendo game, even if the people developing it then will have nothing to do with those who develop it today.

 

When everyone within a company is exchangeable though, the one thing tying the game to the company is the ownership. If the company doesn't own a game or series, that makes the whole company exchangeable.

 

You're not getting what I mean. In 50 years time, if Mario still exists he'll be the same Mario that we have now. Different, of course, but fundamentaly the same... My whole point is... whoever initially developed an IP is basically who it belongs to, spiritually. Every sequel that comes after the original is always creatively bound by the limits set on the IP's inception. Get it? So while in 50 years a Mario will still be a Mario, as the spirit will live on, any new IPs that are developed will, IMO not be true nintendo games. IMO, a true Nintendo game is any game that spawned from the whole Miyamoto/Yokoi mindset. Metroid, Mario, Zelda, Pikmin, Starfox... anything that is their brainchild.

 

This whole argument is simple, you see things in a corporate fashion while I see the same things in a more artistic manner.

 

Banjo Tooie is so awesome that it makes the list, despite it not even being a Nintendo game!

 

BTW: Even if for some reason you don't count Xenoblade as being a Nintendo game because it was made by Monolith, do note that it was actually co-developed by Nintendo SPD as well (who acted as "editors" according to Xenoblade's Iwata Asks)

 

Either way, Nintendo's influence on this game is clear to see. It's so far beyond Takahashi's previous efforts (and without masses of content cut this time!) that it's comical to say that Nintendo had no influence on the game's development.

 

I take it you haven't played Xenogears, then... oO

 

The only thing Blade has over Gears is graphics. They're both fantastic, equally so, IMO.

 

It's why Nintendo bought them in the first place, Iwata can see talent when he sees it, Monolith are excellent in story telling in video games, perhaps the best there is, but the biggest flaw to the company was gameplay, with Nintendo being the pros of gameplay, they were able to contribute and help Monolith in them making deep gameplay mechanics.

 

Not so much. Takahashi is Monolith's only talent. He was great at the helm of his square team, gears is fantastic both in story and in gameplay. He was just stuck with a bad team for the saga games, and now Nintendo gave him a good team again. As a Gears fan, I honestly see absolutely nothing of Nintendo's in Blade. I seem exactly the same soul that was behind gears. Well, Blade's story's not as good, but it's almost as good. So yeah, Kudos on Nintendo for hooking him up with a decent team, but that's about it, I'd say. I'll stick with my opinion until someone can show/prove me otherwise.

[killer kirby]

Not so much. Takahashi is Monolith's only talent. He was great at the helm of his square team, gears is fantastic both in story and in gameplay. He was just stuck with a bad team for the saga games, and now Nintendo gave him a good team again.

 

Takahashi was not involved with Baten Kaitos Origins, which to me is one of the greatest RPG's ever created, so no, I believe Monolith as a whole team has the talent.

[Burny]

So while in 50 years a Mario will still be a Mario, as the spirit will live on, any new IPs that are developed will, IMO not be true nintendo games. IMO, a true Nintendo game is any game that spawned from the whole Miyamoto/Yokoi mindset. Metroid, Mario, Zelda, Pikmin, Starfox... anything that is their brainchild.

 

I do get what you mean and I also get very alarmed when the word "true" is being used. A true Metroid, a true Zelda, what are these things?

 

We can't define them, as it's not us who these games belong to. Anyone who owns an IP however, can define or redefine it to their liking, no matter if they're the same people who created it. That includes bending or removing any creative constraints set by the people who created the IP.

 

Essentially you also deny the possibility of something evolving beyond what it originally was. You deny the possibility that Nintendo hires new employees with a different mindset unrelated to that of Myamoto & co., who might develop completely different IPs, which are nevertheless Nintendo games. You even deny the possibility that people's mindset change over time which might lead to a change of spirit in their games. You're arbitrarily limiting the spirit of any one company to one they - or a few people they employed at one point - had at a certain point in time of your choice, when both its spirit and employees are subject to constant change in the first place.

 

Even when you claim this is the "artistic" way to see it, you're not honoring the possibility of artistic evolution or freedom with your lofty, but misdirected personal understanding of "<company> games".

 

The argument isn't simple at all, because you hopelessly overstate the artistic portion of product creation and limit a product's belonging to its creators at the time of its inception, to the point where you don't acknowledge actual ownership or in fact reality anymore. It's like talking to a Gringotts goblin.

Edited January 5, 2012 by Burny

[Dcubed]

I take it you haven't played Xenogears, then... oO

 

The only thing Blade has over Gears is graphics. They're both fantastic, equally so, IMO.

 

I was actually referring to Xenogears. It had roughly half of the game's intended content cut out (the 2nd disc) and the game suffers heavily for it.

[Jonnas]

IMO, they're Platinum games, not Capcom. Is that what you're asking?

 

Both IPs belong to Capcom, now. Sure, it looks like all they're doing is including them in crossover games and cameos, but... Okamiden is very much a Capcom-made sequel, and if any other games are released, Okami will fully become a Capcom IP.

 

So, while individual games can be seen as "belonging"a certain team, IPs can't really belong to its original developers (as in, the people involved), the same logic can't be applied to an entire series.

[Cube]

Some games can be kept by the original publishers, even when the IP moves forward. I'm fairly sure Mass Effect wasn't released on PS3 once BioWare moved to EA due to it being published by Microsoft.

 

Another example is the "Burnout Anthology" collection. It comprises of Burnout 3: Takedown, Burnout Revenge, and Burnout Dominator - the first two (non-EA) games were excluded, probably because Criterion/EA have no "ownership" of them.

 

With Rare/Microsoft, the ownership of Rare-created franchises and all the games was part of why Nintendo got so much for them - and why games like Banjo-Kazooie can be re-released.

[Ronnie]

1. Super Mario Bros. NES

2. Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time N64

3. Super Mario 64 N64

 

Ahh nostalgia at its finest

[Oxigen_Waste]

Takahashi was not involved with Baten Kaitos Origins, which to me is one of the greatest RPG's ever created, so no, I believe Monolith as a whole team has the talent.

 

Baiten Kaitos Origins is one of the greatest RPG's ever created? oO

Oh dear... that's not even funny.

 

It's an embarassing sequel to an already soulless original that nobody remembers now and will certainly have been forgotten in the near future. Don't get me wrong, it's very decent, but nobody cares about "just okay".

 

I do get what you mean and I also get very alarmed when the word "true" is being used. A true Metroid, a true Zelda, what are these things?

 

We can't define them, as it's not us who these games belong to. Anyone who owns an IP however, can define or redefine it to their liking, no matter if they're the same people who created it. That includes bending or removing any creative constraints set by the people who created the IP.

 

Essentially you also deny the possibility of something evolving beyond what it originally was. You deny the possibility that Nintendo hires new employees with a different mindset unrelated to that of Myamoto & co., who might develop completely different IPs, which are nevertheless Nintendo games. You even deny the possibility that people's mindset change over time which might lead to a change of spirit in their games. You're arbitrarily limiting the spirit of any one company to one they - or a few people they employed at one point - had at a certain point in time of your choice, when both its spirit and employees are subject to constant change in the first place.

 

Even when you claim this is the "artistic" way to see it, you're not honoring the possibility of artistic evolution or freedom with your lofty, but misdirected personal understanding of "<company> games".

 

The argument isn't simple at all, because you hopelessly overstate the artistic portion of product creation and limit a product's belonging to its creators at the time of its inception, to the point where you don't acknowledge actual ownership or in fact reality anymore. It's like talking to a Gringotts goblin.

 

I don't deny any of those possibilities. Hell, look at Metroid, it has evolved way beyond what it initially was, Retro kicked our buts with how awesomely they implemented every single new aspect of Prime... and yet, in the end, it's still great because of the same thing that made the first one great: isolation. So while it may indeed change and become an entirely different beast, as of yet, Metroid remains Yokoi's. He defined the spirit of it, and therefore the spirit of every sequel to come... until someone pulls a Resident Evil 4 on it and completely reinvents the franchise to the point where it's become 2 completely different things. You see, here is a very good example of what I'm trying to show you: Resident Evil. Resident Evil isn't Resident Evil anymore. Resident Evil now means 2 completely different things... the old ones, and anything after and during 4 are two completely different concepts and implementation. The moment they changed it's essence, it became a completely different thing. The only thing in common between games is that they both have viruses and scary gameplay. The characters are the same, but their existence upon this new universe is forced and... let's face it: plastic.

 

This is mostly because the videogame industry's main audience is VERY juvenile and immature and tends to stick to their guns and fear new things, so from a marketing POV, it kind of forces companies to stick by their brands, even when they completely change the direction of a franchise except for a few things. There are counter examples, some companies have balls and aren't affraid to abandon a franchise whenever it has run it's course. Like Bioshock and Demon's Souls existence in relation to System Shock and King's Field, for example. You see, they know that when you implement a radical amount of change into something, it becomes a different thing... names aren't important, "soul" is what counts, the feeling! Names are just a marketing tool. Best examples are Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest, the only reason these games still get released attached to these monikers is because the fans wouldn't nearly care as much about them if they were released under a different name. Not so much DQ, but FF in particular has become a completely different breed of game when compared to the old ones. These aren't Final Fantasy games we've been playing, not anymore. They carry their name, but none of their soul, which, in my opinion, makes them a completely different thing.

 

I understand there's change, and that things evolve... I'm not tryint to argue against facts, here... I know Xenoblade is a Nintendo game, I understand that now, and am not trying to argue against it... all I'm trying to say is that IN MY OPINION, it doesn't qualify as a true Nintendo game... because it doesn't feel like one. To me. Why are you so desperate to change the way I think? I'm not rejecting what you say, at all... I just have a completely different approach on what makes something part of something else as you do. Of course I'm not going to try to refute proven evidence here, I'm not as oblivious as you make me out to be.

 

In short, I believe something's essence is what defines it and makes it what it is. Everything has room for improvement and growth, but as soon as the essence is changed, even if the name is kept, in my view of things, it becomes a different and new creation, with a new owner to go along with it.

If the essence is kept the same, however, it doesn't matter who makes which changes to what, because in the end, it will still truly belong to it's creator. You know... the way people say "JJ Abrams' LOST" even though he only came up with the concept and directed the pilot. People do that, because it was his creation of the essence of what that show was about that defined what it became. He made it what it is (a giant shitpile of a story... with some great characters), regardless of any implementations anyone made upon it, because nobody ever deviated from his initial direction. Just like Zelda. Or Metroid. Or Mario. Countless games later, they're still essentially the same.

 

If someone had come along and completely changed it, though, like when Aaron Sorkin departed from the West Wing, it would become a different thing, because the essence... is no longer the same, and now a different part of the same product belongs to someone else. Like Resident Evil 4.

 

But I get it, you're set on making me out to be a pretentious snob... so it doesn't even matter what I say to you, does it?

 

I was actually referring to Xenogears. It had roughly half of the game's intended content cut out (the 2nd disc) and the game suffers heavily for it.

 

Well, not having played the cut content I can't really say, but I doubt anything could have improved it. It's status speaks for itself, spectacularly received, universally acclaimed to this day as one of the best RPGs ever made and it stands as one of my favourite games ever and I only played 3 years ago. So I don't know if it does suffer for getting cut, all I know is that it's still a near perfect example on how to properly make an enthraling RPG with a perfect balance between story and gameplay... so I pretty much know it doesn't suffer that heavily because of it.

 

We'll just have to wait and see, but I highly doubt Xenoblade will ever reach Xenogears status in videogame history. Even if personally, I already think it does, neither players nor reviewers seem to like as much as they did gears.

 

Both IPs belong to Capcom, now. Sure, it looks like all they're doing is including them in crossover games and cameos, but... Okamiden is very much a Capcom-made sequel, and if any other games are released, Okami will fully become a Capcom IP.

 

So, while individual games can be seen as "belonging"a certain team, IPs can't really belong to its original developers (as in, the people involved), the same logic can't be applied to an entire series.

 

Read my reply to Burny, you'll understand what I mean.