Best Video Game Developer

[Keranu]

Nintendo does the exact same shit (only 10x worse) yet all you guys love them and can't wait to spend your money on the 45th re-release of some f*cktarded old nes game.

10x worse? Since when did Nintendo (or anyone else) make one game, then make tons of new versions of it with small updates within the same time frame and sell it for full price and port it to every damn system ever made? There is a difference between porting an old NES games to a portable system 20 years later and adding faster speed and characters multiple times to a single game within five years. Sorry Capcom, but milking a single game that much is insane and cheap.

[GUTS]

Hey where is the Nintendo Classics Collection with 20 of Nintendo's old games on one disc for $20?  Oh yeah, Nintendo is too f*cking greedy to make one so it doesn't exist.  Capcom has two of those out, by the way.  Nintendo also makes the Pokemon games, which started the whole trend of releasing the exact same game in 2 forms, then re-releasing it again with a couple new things months later.

The thing is, all companies need to make money and do what they have to.  Nintendo is guilty of being greediest f*cks in the history of video games (well EA is probably neck and neck with them), yet its awesome companies like Capcom that get shit from people.

[Keranu]

I didn't say Nintendo wasn't greedy, but Mega Man is far worse than Pokemon. I can't see how Nintendo or anyone else is possibly more greedy than Capcom, the Street Fighter series as a whole is proof that Capcom's the greediest company on the market. I don't think Capcom gets shit from many people, just a few people like myself.

By the way I love how you praise those Collections discs when you're the one bitching about downloading games for free .

[GUTS]

I've always praised the collection discs, $20 for 20+ games is a reasonable deal.  $5-$10 for one poorly emulated ROM is a f*cking god-damned bullshit rip-off.  And how is Mega Man worse than Pokemon?  Mega Man games are actually good (unlike Pokemon), plus Capcom has 2 collections out that have nearly every console mega man game ever on them, and they're cheap.

[Keranu]

Yeah but guess what, you can download as many games as you want for FREE! I'm not going to treat collection discs any differently than paying for each ROM myself.

As far as Mega Man being worse than Pokemon, there are like at least 3x more Mega Man games than Pokemon and most of them are the same damn thing. I look at Mega Man 1 - 6 for NES and the updates in each game or so small it just feels like I am getting an update of the original with more levels rather than a true sequel. I can accept Mega Man 2 as a somewhat decent sequel to the first, but the rest are just ridiculous. And I'm only talking about the NES games here!

However what's even cheaper of Capcom is to use the same damn sprites in all their fighting games, including games like CvS2 which have new digital effects and 3D backgrounds. Take for example Morrigan. Morrigan's sprite is seven years old and not updated in the slightest, totally not blending in with the rest of the graphics. How hard would've have been to do some light touches on sprites like this to make them fit in with the rest of the game? As a sprite artist, I can tell you that it shouldn't take much effort at all.

[Joe Redifer]

Yeah I remember all of those Capcom Dreamcast fighting games where the backgrounds where high-res and the sprites were super-blocky low-res.  Pissed me off.  Oh well, at least Marvel vs Capcom 2 has soothing jazz music to fall asleep to... errr I mean fight to.

[FM-77]

Every Street Fighter game is the same, hehehe. And there's like a hundred of them, too.

Pokemon rules. Some of the most fun turn-based rpgs I've played.

[esteban]

Yeah but guess what, you can download as many games as you want for FREE! I'm not going to treat collection discs any differently than paying for each ROM myself.

Keranu, that doesn't make any sense. We are discussing the business strategies of two companies. Clearly, Capcom is offering consumers a much better deal when they offer games for $1-3 a pop on a collection versus Nintendo putting out the GBA re-issues ($20) and Wii's VC charging TOO MUCH for only the ROM (at least you have a cart for GBA, a hardcopy that will last forever)! I don't need to even discuss all of the other ways Nintendo consistently milks money from their back-catalog and squeezes everything they can from their established franchises -- the very fact that Nintendo refrains from putting out budget collections speaks volumes. Even the short-lived e-Reader for GBA was clearly designed to milk the old games... until Nintendo realized that they could make even more money by discontinuing the e-reader and selling the same games at an even higher price.

Oh crap, then there is Nintendo making ridiculous hardware requiremments to play Zelda 4 swords -- how much did it cost to play that game with some of your friends? Talk about raping the Zelda franchise! I've lost count of how much money Nintendo expected swindle from consumers with that fiasco alone. If Nintendo simply wanted to make a great game that Zelda fans could enjoy, and be innovative by incorporating multi-player aspects into the franchise, they easily could have. Instead, they put profits over people -- to the extreme.

I don't really think Capcom > Nintendo or Nintendo > Capcom, I think both companies are, at the very least, are equally guilty of exploiting their products and their position in the market.

I think we, as consumers, are perfectly entitled to criticize companies for their business practices. But let's apply the same critique to all the companies who are guilty.

-------------------

But, if we want to be accurate, I think I can convincingly prove that Nintendo is the worst offender! It's simple. Rather than waste our time figuring out how many titles are in each series (are there 30 Zelda titles? 90 Street Fighters?), we should look at this problem in a different way: what company profits the most from these practices? what company has consistently abstained from budget collections?

I would argue that, historically, Nintendo profits the most and purposefully abstains from budget collections. Their long-term business plan is to cold-heartedly squeeze every last penny from consumers. They were charging good money for Urban Champion on VC, for goodness' sake!

Capcom, on the other hand, should be viewed as a pathetic developer who faced decreasing returns on their once-popular franchises and milked them to death. Capcom tried to exploit the short-term success of Mega Man and Street Fighter for as long as possible. Their long-term plan, though, was to put out budget collections of their back-catalog.

Personally, I find Nintendo to be the more cold-hearted strategist: they are much more anti-consumer (since there is a higher price of entry to play their games).

What do you folks think? Am I completely off-base? Am I deluded? Tell me .

[Necromancer]

I can see both sides of the argument, but does it matter who's screwing you the hardest?  If I'm going to be ass raped by two companies, is it really important that one of them used some lube?  The collection discs are only a bargain if you actually want all of the games on the disc.  If you only would have bought three or four (if available separately), no money was saved.  For me though, I'd rather pay for a disc or cartridge than a downloaded file.

I don't mind continuing franchises.  Some games in the franchise will rock, some will suck.  Can anyone here name a single franchise that always was substantially improved with each successive release? 

[Keranu]

I'm not saying VC games aren't a rip off, because they are, nor am I saying collection discs are necessarily a bad deal. What I am saying is in my point of view, I don't find repurchasing games to be worth it period most of the time. I just thought GUTS was pushing it a little when he was yelling at people to go download ROMs for free instead of paying $5-10 to play them on the VC when he himself is paying for ROMs as well, be it a different medium.

It's funny you bring up Zelda: Four Swords though because when it comes to Zelda, Capcom has guilt as well . First it starts with those Oracle and Season of Ages games for Gameboy. Not only did they take Nintendo's idea (even if Nintendo allowed it), but they barely bothered to add any new graphics or music in that game since they took most of the graphics straight from Link's Awakening, which was like ten years old by that time. To top it off, they sold the game in two parts when they could've easily just sold it as one.

But it doesn't stop there, Capcom releases Four Swords for GBA. This game includes a port of A Link To The Past as well as it's own little mini game (which can only be played if you have at least two GBA's and two carts). I have finally been able to play that Four Swords game recently with two GBAs and while I was hoping for a meaty multi-player adventure, I was wrong. I realized that this game was just a little demo made by Capcom using the graphics from it's upcomming Zelda GBA game, Minish Cap. So unlike what they might be advertising, you're really only getting a port of a classic Zelda game + a demo of Capcom's upcomming game.

Personally, I find Nintendo to be the more cold-hearted strategist: they are much more anti-consumer (since there is a higher price of entry to play their games).

Once again, I don't disagree what you say about Nintendo, they are a greedy company. However Nintendo sorts of gains an advantage over Capcom in the greed compartment and that's the fact that Nintendo makes consoles, so they can go greedy in terms of hardware, which is what I think is Nintendo's primary greed factor. If Capcom made home consoles, I personally think they would be every bit as greedy as Nintendo in that area.

But in my opinion, it's Capcom's software that makes them more greedy than Nintendo. When a company like Nintendo or Sega makes a sequel, they make sure to do it right and make it beefy for the audience like a sequel should be. Look at the jump from Super Mario Bros 1 to SMB 3, compare that to Mega Man 1 to Mega Man 6. Pathetic ain't it? Within just two games, Mario evolves into something really big and special, but Mega Man can't help but remain the same game-after-game, year-after-year.

When it comes to Street Fighter, instead of making new games, they make "updates". There are like over 30 (possibly many more?) SF games, but the series is primarily made from three games: Street Fighter II, Street Fighter Alpha, and Street Fighter III. I think it's just ridiculous to drag on games this long without taking big further steps.

[Black Tiger]

As far as Mega Man being worse than Pokemon, there are like at least 3x more Mega Man games than Pokemon and most of them are the same damn thing. I look at Mega Man 1 - 6 for NES and the updates in each game or so small it just feels like I am getting an update of the original with more levels rather than a true sequel. I can accept Mega Man 2 as a somewhat decent sequel to the first, but the rest are just ridiculous. And I'm only talking about the NES games here!

The NES Megaman games aren't really anymore more rehashes than the 8 & 16-bit Sonic and Bonk games.

I think that most of the things people have accused Capcom of here are things that most other major publisher/developers are guilty of.

I also think that anyone should feel free to hate Capcom as much as anyone else hates any other particular company. 

[Keranu]

The NES Megaman games aren't really anymore more rehashes than the 8 & 16-bit Sonic and Bonk games.

I slightly agree, but mostly disagree. I agree that besides the growing and shrinking feature of Bonk 3, it's mostly a rehash of Revenge. However Revenge was a fresh sequel to Adventure, better than any Mega Man NES sequels have done. Sonic's sequels did a fine job creating fresh new graphics and coming up with new ideas.

I think that most of the things people have accused Capcom of here are things that most other major publisher/developers are guilty of.

That's probably true but in my opinion, Capcom's guilts are much severe.

I also think that anyone should feel free to hate Capcom as much as anyone else hates any other particular company. 

Thank you! It's hard to be a Capcom-hater since it's such a well-loved company. Please don't think I have no respect at all for Capcom though because Street Fighter II is one of the most revolutionary games ever made.

[Black Tiger]

The NES Megaman games aren't really anymore more rehashes than the 8 & 16-bit Sonic and Bonk games.

I slightly agree, but mostly disagree. I agree that besides the growing and shrinking feature of Bonk 3, it's mostly a rehash of Revenge. However Revenge was a fresh sequel to Adventure, better than any Mega Man NES sequels have done. Sonic's sequels did a fine job creating fresh new graphics and coming up with new ideas.

I think that most of the things people have accused Capcom of here are things that most other major publisher/developers are guilty of.

That's probably true but in my opinion, Capcom's guilts are much severe.

I also think that anyone should feel free to hate Capcom as much as anyone else hates any other particular company. 

Thank you! It's hard to be a Capcom-hater since it's such a well-loved company. Please don't think I have no respect at all for Capcom though because Street Fighter II is one of the most revolutionary games ever made.

Bonk's Revenge is to Bonk's Adventure is what Megaman 2 is to Megaman 1(have you played through all 4 games?).

Both originals were good ideas that weren't fully fleshed out or refined and each sequal is the definitive version of each series. If anything, Megaman 2 adds a lot more than Bonk's revenge does.

The later Megamans become repetative/rehashes as I understand it(I don't have much experience with the series after part III).

But don't forget about the other 7 Bonk games on NES, GB, SNES and Amiga. Just because Nintendo's illegal business practices kept the first batch of 6 Megamans on the same console doesn't change the fact that in roughly the same time period Hudson dropped 10 similar Bonk games on the world.

Plus there's at least 8 of the same kind of Sonic games for Genesis, Sega-CD and Master System.

If anything, Megaman's 8-bit outings are one of the more modest major console serieses. 

Personally, I wish more game serieses wouldn't try to change things so quickly. Or at least the good ones. Too many great games get sequals that have nothing to do with the original. At least Japan got the real SMB2(so did my hometown, but thats another story ).  I'm still waiting for a faithful sequal to Phantasy Star and an Ys style Ys III. 

[Keranu]

Bonk's Revenge is to Bonk's Adventure is what Megaman 2 is to Megaman 1(have you played through all 4 games?).

Like I said, Megaman 2 was decent as a sequel to the first Megaman, but the rest are big rehashes. I still find Bonk's Revenge to be more of a sequel though because of the complete face lift and better mini-games.

But don't forget about the other 7 Bonk games on NES, GB, SNES and Amiga. Just because Nintendo's illegal business practices kept the first batch of 6 Megamans on the same console doesn't change the fact that in roughly the same time period Hudson dropped 10 similar Bonk games on the world.

Some of those Bonk games were just ports and the AMIGA one wasn't even made by Hudson. Further more, the GB and SNES ones are much different from what I know.

The thing is that after Mega Man 2, nothing was really new to the series at all from 2-6. But even after they moved on from the NES, they continued making Megaman games that were extremely similar to each other, not to mention spin-off series that weren't even platformers anymore.

Plus there's at least 8 of the same kind of Sonic games for Genesis, Sega-CD and Master System.

I find all the Sonic games for the consoles to be quite different from each other. They share the same concept of making it to the end of the stage, but gameplay, design, and even soundwise they are all pretty different than each other. For instance Sonic CD has the whole future thing, the Master System has a whole different level layout style, and Sonic 3 & Knuckles introduces shields. Megaman just adds new levels and bosses, which have names that keep getting more ridiculous. Not to mention that Megaman doesn't even fix it's flaws, even today.

Personally, I wish more game serieses wouldn't try to change things so quickly. Or at least the good ones. Too many great games get sequals that have nothing to do with the original. At least Japan got the real SMB2(so did my hometown, but thats another story ).  I'm still waiting for a faithful sequal to Phantasy Star and an Ys style Ys III. 

I agree, but in my opinion, Megaman games over do it. Year-after-year there is a new Megaman game that is the same as the prequel and it's not until another 5 years or so that they decide to make a new series. I would much rather have Capcom make one game and then take it's time to create a good sequel instead of rehashing games to make a quick buck.

[esteban]

Yeah, I don't mind if Keranu hates Capcom . I'm not a Street Fighter fan, myself, so I was able to avoid the onslaught of SF games... although I do want to play SF: The Movie (even if Capcom didn't develop it).

At least the Mega Man sequels aren't as bad as sports games that simply updated the rosters and stats (or are they? )

I don't deny it: I like Mega Man. I don't mind the re-hashes of MM2... especially now, because they're fun. How many times have we said: Oh, I wish they released another Karnov, Legendary Axe, Bionic Commando, Blodia, etc.? OK, maybe most folks don't, but I do!

If a game is good, or has potential, I don't mind if its sequel is simply a tweaked version. Keep in mind: the resulting game has to be solid, otherwise we (as consumers) will probably feel ripped off.  I agree, though, that by Mega Man 4, Capcom should have done more.

Here's what I'd be happy with:

original --> tweaked rehash --> some innovations to keep things fresh --> tweaked rehash of prior title --> concerted effort to introduce new concepts --> tweaked rehash