Thankfully, Nintendo gets it.
One thing about them, they might be assholes when it comes to game preservation and whatnot, but they always did their own thing based on what they think gamers would like.
They’re a toy company. That’s how they think of themselves. The fun comes first. That’s why they also try new gimmicks in games and then most of the time never do it again. In their minds they already made that toy.
Which is honestly something I love about their games. I play Nintendo for some casual gaming fun, then I go to Steam for my preferred niches.
The one glaring exception here is Pokemon, but that’s technically Game Freak instead of Nintendo proper, so I guess they’re okay making the same toy over and over because it’s a gold mine.
Yeah Game Freak is their own thing really.
Best part of the timeless Nintendo games is they’re all extremely easy to emulate and play forever. (Switch online subscription can suck my toadstool)
I think Galaxy 2 was unfinished levels from the first one, wasn’t it? Something like that.
Or Breath of the Wild, they were still having fun with it, and decided to multiple it by 3 for Tears of the kingdom
That… actually explains the logic of this lawsuit for me. I still disagree and think they’re overly litigious fucks, but I think I might understand a less malicious argument for it. If someone mods a see 'n say to have a different audio track and slaps some new stickers on it, that’s still a see 'n say, right? The mechanism is fundamental to the product - a see n say is the spinning wheel -> random noise and Pokemon is video game where you throw balls at wild not-animals to catch them and use them to battle people. There’s a difference between a toy that’s heavily inspired by another one and being an edgy five year old with a firearm sticker pack who gives them to the cows and chickens and sheep.
I really have more of a games as art philosophy though, and I’ll just point to the works of Andy Warhol and Marcel Duchamp to make my argument here, my edible just kicked in.
