I really don't think Nintendo had much say in BFD at all. They had pretty much given Rare free reign at that point. Nintendo didn't publish it though unlike most other Rare games at the time, so they must not have appreciated it.
>>2952914 The devs did a let's play a few years ago and pretty much confirm that Nintendo was kinda being dickish to Rare during the late N64 early GC era. The devs said they basically had free reign on the game after it was pretty much going to be canceled.
There was no bad blood. Every single interview I've ever seen with Rare and the development team behind Conker held a deep admiration for Nintendo and were happy as clams when they pitched the final version of the game to Nintendo of America and they laughed and were fine with it.
>>2952914 Also I wouldn't say there was "bad blood" but more so growing animosity between Nintendo execs and Rare because their production started to drastically slow down. They went from releasing 2-3 games a year to delaying things and contributing to drought of games that plagued the N64 towards the end of its lifecycle.
>>2952937 The games were similar because Nintendo execs like Miyamoto constantly flew in to check up on Rare make suggestions (aka micromanage) them constantly. The reason Rare was sold was because their production had slowed to a crawl. Simple as that.
Nintendo isn't more than one entity. Even though the company employes several respective individuals, we're talking about the company itself as a singular object. How "were" could possibly sound natural to you is beyond me. I swear, you Europoors and your wacky dialects.
Nintendo definitely wasn't happy with it and something must have gone down behind the scenes, because they flat-out refused to advertise the game in Nintendo Power. There was no review in the magazine, no promotions at all other than some raunchy late-night commercial on Comedy Central or something like that. The game sold miserably.
>>2953510 In Rare Replay, they briefly mentioned that Nintendo was actually (at least somewhat) supportive of the game, but I don't know any other sources that might say otherwise. But then, they might not be allowed to flat out say "Nintendo hated it".
It's the responsibility of the person making the claims to provide a source.
lets say you read the work of a historian and discover that there are no sources in the book. You write him a letter and he says "WTF YOU IDIOT USE GOOGLE". That's just not the way it works. Until you provide a source, your arguments and claims are invalid.
>>2953014 >didn't enjoy KI2, or probably didn't even play it on arcade and lumps it in with KI1 >preferred the worse Rare N64 FPS >Rare making soulless games when Banjo has 100x more soul than Mario >still thinks Rare only ever copies Nintendo even after being proved wrong
It's entirely more likely that CBFD had more raunchy humor than anything else on the NA Nintendo systems and NP, being the family friendly publication that it was, decided that it was a bit too much.
On top of that, Conker was a series where the original game was a very kid-friendly game. They probably didn't want to confuse anyone, so they just opted not to review it.
Don't mean to come down on you, but that "Nintendo wasn't happy" shit is something I've seen on these boards more than once and I've never seen a lick of evidence to support it.
On top of that, given that Nintendo essences the games that appear on their systems, the theory makes no sense. If they were really that unhappy with the game, they would have just told Rare no. Especially considering that they literally owned Rare at the time of CBFD's release.
>>2954521 Go fuck yourself. You go fuck yourself hard.
You can shit all over every game I love, I don't give a fuck. You can call my mother a dirty whore with a smelly cunt. You can say whatever you want, but when you insult Seinfeld, that's where I draw the fucking line.
Will you guys stop? This is a pointless argument. There's no definition to "soul". It's a completely subjective and personal thing. All you can do is go back and for saying "yes it does!" and "no it doesn't"!
Let's try and make this a good board. Refrain from these arguments and don't reply to those who try to incite them.
According to the Rare Replay (posted here: >>2953618), Nintendo actually supported the game, just as long as it didn't fall into the hands of minors. I would imagine that NoA was against mature games not because of moral issues, but because they didn't want batshit insane 90's parents saying that their games (and therefore their consoles) were harmful to children (which happened enough without the mature games anyways).
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.