-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3 announced exclusively for Nintendo Switch (Team Ninja developed, Nintendo published)
- Thread starter Xavi
- Start date
How is it not? You're literally saying it's ok for one game to be exclusive while the other shouldn't. It's not like I'm accusing you of something out of nowhere. It's the same tired arguments console warriors use.
It's quite possible Nintendo approached them with a strong proposal, yes. If that's the case, Marvel must have been pretty impressed, since they could have easily made this a multiplatform release.
Though Marvel seems to be getting pretty aggressive on the games side of things, so I wouldn't be surprised at all if this was their idea from the outset.
Would it honestly make you feel better if Nintendo/Marvel came out and said that the game wouldn't exist if Nintendo didn't step up and fund it (ala SFV), even if that weren't necessarily true? It feels sometimes that the lessons these big companies could take from the way some fans react to things is basically "Get better at bullshitting us".
The franchise had been dormant for a while, the rerelease/ports from a couple of years ago seemed to come and go without stirring up much fanfare, and Activision let the license expire. It's not that difficult to imagine some kind of scenario where Marvel went to Nintendo, or Nintendo went to Marvel, to resurrect this particular IP. And regardless, we wouldn't be privy to the actual details of how all of that went down anyway, just like we really aren't with any of these deals, which is why I find it silly to create narratives to decide that it's okay in some instances but not in the other, whether it's Spiderman PS4, or Street Fighter V, or PUGB, or Tomb Raider, or whatever.
Last edited:
Pretty sure Activision lost the right to Marvel stuff not super long ago.
I don't even think the Ultimate Alliance games are even available to purchase anymore in Steam.
I like it, yeah, it's not as impressive upon thorough inspection but the almost cell shaded comic booky style works perfectly. Also, even back then the Ultimate Alliance games were hardly pretty on the eye so this getting slammed for it seems short sighted.
I'm gonna hazard a guess that it's a similar situation to Spidey where Marvel Games were approaching different publishers with their properties, and Nintendo agreed with taking on a reboot of UA. Team Ninja most likely got brought on after that point.
It's not really Nintendo approaching them, but you're probably right in that Nintendo saw a potential game there.
This looks great! Big fan of Iron Man and Guardians of the Galaxy, so seeing them in a game like this is hype! Strange thing that it's Switch exclusive, but I guess it's a Bayonetta type of situation? Nintendo is probably funding it.
So I'm not really a fan of the art style that they went with but all of the people saying the previous 2 looked better need to take your nostalgia glasses off and go ahead and play them again because they look awful (and the voice acting, holy shit). I loved the first two but going back to them recently made me shutter a bit. They aren't what I'd remembered so fondly. I'm hopeful for this game. I was very surprised to see the Nintendo Switch exclusive but I'm not mad. This is why I have all consoles.
???
That doesn't make any sense. Activision had no use for the MUA franchise. They clearly weren't going to renew any license agreements with Marvel to make another game. I don't know what order of events took place or how it happened, but it's clear that Nintendo was able to scoop MUA up and their partnership with Koei Tecmo allowed them to find a talented studio to develop it. And of course, they cut through enough red tape with Marvel that X-Men are on the table for this game.
Is this game being developed by the same group that made Hyrule Warriors? Cause I didn't like those games.
It reminds me of the MvCI style. Not terrible, but also a little bland. For the kind of game it is, I think it will ultimately be fine as long as the animation/frame rate is smooth.
The cheesy voice acting is part of what makes those games memorable for me
"THIS IS BETTER THAN A SPIDER BITE"
... uh... what dude?
"JUST LIKE THE SUPER SOLDIER SERUM!"
... WHAT'S just like the super soldier serum?!
It looks better than MvCI. They're using the same style (MCU-ish) of character designs, but they just cel shaded or stylised enough to look better.
No? This is the third game in the series. It's isometric, party based RPG.
No, I'm reasoning why a game that was ALWAYS multiplat should REMAIN multiplat while also saying I understand why a game with two companies with a good and longstanding relationship based off the license of that character in the very first game of it's series is exclusive and less bothersome.
There was nothing at all in my statements to suggest I was console warring and you and anyone with fair reasoning knows it. I have no issue if you disagree with my thoughts and want to debate why you feel how you do on things but don't assign shit to me just because I don't jive with yours and I'll show you the same respect.
Yeah, it's definitely a possibility so I can't claim to know why they did it or who approached who but my feelings on it is just based off the series always being multiplat and suddenly it's not. I think it's a bit of a slap to the face of longtime fans (like myself) who are now shafted if we don't have a Switch, which sadly I don't yet. I'm not mad at this, just annoyed honestly and that's probably because I'll end up owning the system sooner than later anyway.
No, I'd feel they not only annoyed me by making a traditionally multiplat game exclusive but they're playing on my intelligence to lie as if the game wouldn't happen otherwise. Don't even get me started on SFV. That still bothers me to this day.
My last post on this btw since apparently I was warned for "port begging" even though I wasn't doing that at all smh
Nintendo is publishing, and probably footing the bill. It's not all that different from Spiderman on PS4, and that game isn't third party.
Hell are Smash Bros and Hyrule Warriors third party?
Dude, you're port-begging like a PS4 owner that just found out Bayonetta 2 was a Wii U exclusive.
No. Team Ninja does Ninja Gaiden and Nioh. Omega Force does Warriors.
Team Ninja co-developed Hyrule Warriors. But it was mainly developed by Omega Force.
Smash and Hyrule Warriors are totally different things, those are Nintendo IPs and Nintendo is involved in development of those games, while this game is 3rd party IP and made only buy 3rd party teams, point that Nintendo publishing it don't change that.
Games like Octopath Traveler, Daemon X Machina and Bayonetta 3 are all also 3rd party exclusives for Switch.
It's not a third party IP if Nintendo is publishing. Again, is Spiderman a third party PS4 game?
When it comes to first/third party, who is publishing is the only thing that matters.
There were hand ninja in the trailer, where they pop up Daredevil and iron fist follow. I too hope for the return of moon knight. Also if we've got Crystal and Lockjaw we're at least getting Black Bolt too
In the west, these are all first party titles.
In Japan, a couple of them (Octopath and likely Daemon) are third party titles.
We don't know the situation for Ultimate Alliance 3 in Japan yet. Could go either way. Lots of games developed by external companies qualify as first party software though and this applies to all three platform holders. And IP ownership isn't actually the deciding factor, which is why Sunset Overdrive, an Insomniac IP, is a first party release on XB1.
That's exactly why the term 2nd party had it's right to exist.
Pretty exciting to see a Marvel game being developed by a Japanese studio again. I find Japanese studios tend to get to the heart of what makes characters cool. They really do their research.
No. That's all I'll say to the nonsense you wrote here. I'll respond to you through PM.
Its 3rd party IP develped buy 3rd party studio, point that Nintendo is publishing it dont change nothing, games like Octopath Traveler, Daemon X Machina, Bayonetta 3 and this game, cant be 1st party games in any case, those are all 3rd party exclusives.
It didn't because 2nd parties don't publish games. First/Third party refers to publishers, and there is no such thing as a second party publisher.
"Well lets see what got announced at the Game Awards"
Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3, by Team Ninja, exclusively for Switch? Okay now I want to know how this game came into the world.
Seeing the thread, well thats not surprising. Don't understand the ugly comments. I really liked the X-Men Legends and Marvel Ultimate Alliance games, but they never were lookers to begin with. But I'm curious and hyped.
Marvel Ultimate Alliance 3, by Team Ninja, exclusively for Switch? Okay now I want to know how this game came into the world.
Seeing the thread, well thats not surprising. Don't understand the ugly comments. I really liked the X-Men Legends and Marvel Ultimate Alliance games, but they never were lookers to begin with. But I'm curious and hyped.
You are wrong. Again, is Spiderman not a first party PS4 game? Answer that question. Nintendo 100% considers any game they publish a first party game. the meanings of these terms got bastardized over the years when people starting using them as part of console warrior arguments and bullet points.
It made it at least clear, that a game is developed by an external studio with internal money.