Retro Studios isn't "the new Rare"

#1 Posted by drekula2 (3285 posts) -

Retro is no Rare. Retro is a great studio, and I'm not expecting it to have the same influence that Rare had.

But Rare had two things Retro does not:

1. They had full creative freedom. They didn't just create what Nintendo ordered them to. They created what they wanted

2. With this freedom, they created introduced new IP's and created the kinds of games Nintendo could never have created. They complemented what Nintendo did not have.

Metroid Prime 1, Prime 3 and Tropical Freeze are three smash hits. Classics. Amazing games. But I won't call Retro the new rare until they make a new IP and are given full creative freedom.

#2 Posted by superbuuman (3385 posts) -

Well that's up to Nintendo to allow Retro the same freedom as Rare had...with Iwata's at the helm tho, I doubt that will happen. :P

#3 Edited by trugs26 (6143 posts) -

So far (old) Rare blows Retro away. Simply because Rare produced a large variety of high quality games in a short amount of time.

Retro could be like Rare once they get more games out. But at this rate, I doubt they'll match the speed they developed. Granted, it takes longer to make games these days. But if they match the large variety of high quality games over a longer period of time, I'll allow the comparison "Retro is the new Rare". But currently, they are not, we need to wait until they have another 5 games under their belt.

I also agree with you in terms of "freedom" to do new IPs. But, I personally don't care about this too much. As long as the games are good, regardless of the IP.

#4 Posted by drekula2 (3285 posts) -
@superbuuman said:

Well that's up to Nintendo to allow Retro the same freedom as Rare had...with Iwata's at the helm tho, I doubt that will happen. :P

Yeah. It really upsets me. Nintendo doesn't want to change or evolve. And it resents anything that isn't a blatant mimic of a formula Miyamoto made 15 or 20 years ago. Nintendo's goal should be to subvert Miyamoto's formulas.

@trugs26 said:

So far (old) Rare blows Retro away. Simply because Rare produced a large variety of high quality games in a short amount of time.

Retro could be like Rare once they get more games out.

Agree on the first bits. Retro doesn't have a large enough body of work (only 5 games). They need more time.

#5 Posted by FFCYAN (4955 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

Metroid Prime 1, Prime 3 and Tropical Freeze are three smash hits. Classics. Amazing games.

Metroid Prime 2: Echoes is a fantastic game, despite your passive attempt to discredit it.

#6 Edited by MWright469 (168 posts) -

You're comparing apples and oranges. Yes, it's true that Retro isn't and won't be a Rare, because no one ever will be again. These days, we aren't working with low-res 64 bit graphics, we're working with games that can take tens of millions of dollars to produce. Nintendo let Rare have freedom, yes, but here again, the economic climate was different- games were easier to produce, didn't have as much competition, etc. The reason Retro won't be Rare, and there will never be another Rare, is because our economy won't allow for it. You'd have to have a developer that was able to pump out ridiculous quantities of triple A titles within a year's timeframe and do it with comparatively little funding.

#7 Posted by YearoftheSnake5 (8417 posts) -

@drekula2 said:

They created what they wanted

Like Dinosaur Planet, right? Nintendo didn't force them to make that into a Star Fox game at all. Or Goldeneye. They weren't forced to do that one. Oh wait...

Nintendo has always dictated what Rare released. Rare could develop a prototype of something(any developer can do that), but Nintendo had to approve it. Additionally, Nintendo could force projects on Rare, demand modifications to existing ones, or outright cancel them. They didn't have freedom in the sense you describe.

#8 Posted by drekula2 (3285 posts) -

@mwright469 said:

You're comparing apples and oranges. Yes, it's true that Retro isn't and won't be a Rare, because no one ever will be again. These days, we aren't working with low-res 64 bit graphics, we're working with games that can take tens of millions of dollars to produce. Nintendo let Rare have freedom, yes, but here again, the economic climate was different- games were easier to produce, didn't have as much competition, etc. The reason Retro won't be Rare, and there will never be another Rare, is because our economy won't allow for it. You'd have to have a developer that was able to pump out ridiculous quantities of triple A titles within a year's timeframe and do it with comparatively little funding.

Agree except for the fact that digital distribution is big now, and it's perfectly possible for Retro to make smaller projects. Super Metroid II could be $15 on Virtual Console and would probably only require <10 people and <1 year to make.

@YearoftheSnake5 said:

@drekula2 said:

They created what they wanted

Like Dinosaur Planet, right? Nintendo didn't force them to make that into a Star Fox game at all. Or Goldeneye. They weren't forced to do that one. Oh wait...

Nintendo has always dictated what Rare released. Rare could develop a prototype of something(any developer can do that), but Nintendo had to approve it. Additionally, Nintendo could force projects on Rare, demand modifications to existing ones, or outright cancel them. They didn't have freedom in the sense you describe.

Agree that Nintendo has always had a yoke on developers. But Rare was able to introduce new ideas. They revived Donkey Kong on their own volition. Yes, Nintendo approved it but they initiated it.

Mario Kart 7 was extremely derivative and I couldn't help but feel that Retro is being used as Nintendo's little lapdog rather than a full-fledged studio.

#9 Edited by starwolf474 (983 posts) -

I definitely agree that Retro is not as good as Rare used to be.

Rare released quality games at a much faster rate; on average Rare was releasing at least 2 or 3 games per year, whereas Retro takes 2 or 3 years just to release 1 game.

Rare also released more diverse games and came up with their own ideas, which we haven't seen if Retro is capable of doing that yet.

Another thing that Rare was much better at was creating charm and humor in their games. That's one thing that I think makes Retro's Donkey Kong Country games not as good as Rare's Donkey Kong Country games. Retro's games lack charm and humor. Whenever I see the lame Super Guide in Donkey Kong Country Returns, I just know that if old Rare had made the game, they would have made that feature more charming and fun. They probably would have had Cranky Kong be the Super Guide and go through the level with ease while criticizing you the whole way about how bad you are at the game and how today's gamers can't handle the challenge like back in his day. That would have been much more charming, but with Retro not being good at adding charm to their games, they just made the Super Guide generic and boring instead.

#10 Posted by Master_Of_Fools (1459 posts) -

Retro surpassed Rare long ago. Although some key players from Retro are gone...they are still far better then Rare lol. And Retro Studios was created to work on Nintendo IP's that Nintendo themselves could not. You say they had no choice yet or freedom that's false. Nintendo gave them the choice before to either do Metroid or another DK game, they chose DK and did DCK TF. They have freedom and make the game how they want.

#11 Edited by MWright469 (168 posts) -

@drekula2: I wasn't talking about shitty ports, but full titles. So in reality, aside from, yes, releasing lots of old or simplistic games, they couldn't be expected to pump out as many as Nintendo use to require.