Shouldn't this include all franchises (or at least those with separate articles) rather than just those that fall under the completely arbitrary classification of being "main"? Haipa Doragon ( talk • contributions) 03:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't include spin-offs like Mario Kart and Mario Party as they all are one universe. Mario, wario, Yoshi and Donkey Kong series are under one since they are in one uinverse though different main series. Plus the Mario universe is Nintendo's main franchise plus main mascot series. -- Victory93 ( talk) 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to define "main" and stick with that. I have a few proposals, but I figured I'd bring them up here instead of starting an edit war.
So let me hear the ideas. POWERSLAVE TALK/ CONT 22:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I've changed it to just franchises since making more sense. Golden Sun series be happy if maybe someone would create this article: Golden Sun (series). Now could someone create this article please. And also these ones:
-- Victory93 ( talk) 04:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know but thanks to me it got created. I even created one for franchises of Konami. So could anyone create an article for:
-- Victory93 ( talk) 22:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've got a couple suggestions for franchises to add, wanted to see what you guys thought: Another Code/Trace Memory, StarTropics, PilotWings, Puzzle League, 1080 Snowboarding, Chibi-Robo, Rhythm Heaven, Elite Beat Agents/Ouendan. What do you guys think? --El cubo
Well also if possible, could anyone create like articles which is about the series like Golden Sun (series). Like have StarTropics (series) and others. -- Victory93 ( talk) 04:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello everyone. The heading says it all; wouldn't "Flagship franchises" be more appropriate than "Main franchises"? Also, I added the Smash Bros. series to the template. - sesuPRIME talk • contribs 21:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
don't franchises usually involve multiple forms of media 174.111.86.246 ( talk) 19:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
i think there needs to be a greater distinction between "franchise" and "sequel". two of the current series listed -Big Brain Academy- and -Magical Starsign- have only had two games released. there are other series listed that have also only had two games released (e.g. -Brain Age-, -Pikmin-) but in those cases there have been significant cameos and/or rereleases (e.g. -Brain Age-'s appearances on DSiWare, -Pikmin-'s rereleases on Wii). 98.216.50.159 ( talk) 18:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Nintendo had only handled the publication of Dragon Warrior, Dragon Quest IX, the remake of Dragon Quest VI, and the handheld game Dragon Quest Monsters: Joker 2 outside of Japan, while the rest of the games in the franchise were all published by Enix/Eidos/Square Enix. Is that enough to consider Dragon Quest a Nintendo franchise? 69.118.251.148 ( talk) 14:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I separated second and first party games, and added in former second party franchises. I may have messed up on Eternal Darkness and a few of the Second party ones and former ones, so please fix those if you see them. Also, I included Kameo since it was originally to be released on the GameCube, so when Nintendo owned part of Rareware, it was in the creation process. Umbreon00 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
So, every time I come across this template, it seems it has been cluttered with just about anything and everything remotely related to Nintendo. I feel that, in order to keep this clean and accurate, there should be inclusion criteria set up.
So please consider these before adding to the template. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't really think Touch Generations is much of a franchise, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it merely a brand name or something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.214.251 ( talk) 02:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't seem many people really understand the term "franchise". Would it be better to rename it something regarding "series" maybe? Or is there more for a precedent for using Franchise? For example, I see "Sony" doesn't even have one, but they do have one outlining dev studios, and a related subsection is called "Franchises". So, it's hard to compare really... Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sony_Franchises L0L
anyway, I guess that would be a bit better of an idea. I'm still trying to comprehend how Nintendo has third-party franchises.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE6D:6FB0:DC40:19A9:51CA:F388 ( talk) 23:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Please people, this is wrong info. I keep notes of this kind of thing. Stop deleting things. Nintendo NEVER published a Conker game. Not even Conker's Pocket Tails. Don't believe me? Look at it's page! Also, why is Fatal Frame not on here? Sure, they didn't publish EVERY game, but that was before Nintendo bought it out! Only Nintendo can put their names on it now. Don't believe me? Look at the fatal Frame page! This is what the table should look like:
Please people, I know what I'm talking about. I was providing info and cleaning this up before most of you even started protecting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.83.234 ( talk) 03:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
One last thing: Art Academy wasn't just 2 downloads and one retail, it actually has 2 retail titles, one for the DS and one for the 3DS. I'm very confused why it hasn't been updated (probably due to lack of interest), but the 3DS game, Art Academy: Lessons for Everyone, was released as a retail title and on the Nintendo eShop. I know because I have a 3DS, and because I've seen it on store shelves. You may want to google that. Also, Big Brain Academy is aimed at a younger audience, is cartoony, and not very serious. Brain Age on the other hand, is arguably aimed at an older audience, and is not cartoony, basically pretty serious, and unlike BBA, it is focused on training brain skills (such as reactions), rather than making you smarter. 173.53.83.234 ( talk) 22:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 173.53.83.234 ( talk) 22:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Nintendo Land is a game based entirely off of Nintendo Franchises, but is not a franchise itself. How shall we handle it? My thoughts were to maybe make a third subsection, something along the lines of "Related" or "Other", and put it in there. The downfall of that though is that it would probably be a magnet for unrelated/unnecessary additions in the future. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm quite sure it'll become a franchise in the future, but I feel for the time being it should be left out. While it celebrates Nintendo franchises, this is a template listing franchises owned by Nintendo, not ones that celebrate franchises. Plus, like you said, it'll attract other unwanted things. If there were to be a third category, I think it would include Touch Generations and Game & Watch, since those aren't really franchises, but seem to be listed anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE6D:6FB0:55B6:7E1E:8832:CC52 ( talk) 03:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I kinda feel this needs to be discussed, as to whether Fatal Frame should be included or not, I mean. I personally think yes it should be included, because Nintendo owns part of the franchise and have been publishing the last few games, as well as keeping them exclusive, and most likely will stay like that for the future. Please discuss your thoughts here for the consensus. Umbreon00 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is KI still listed as second-party? When Rare left, they took the rights to the property with them; the game no longer has any ties to Nintendo. Could someone please remove this? -- 136.181.195.25 ( talk) 20:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed Arkhandar added a lot of games under the second party banner despite the franchises not actually being owned by Nintendo. Specifically, A Boy and His Blob, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Guild, Jett Rocket, the Mighty series, Nano Assault, Ninja Gaiden, Shantae, and The Denpa Men have no place on the list. Just because a series appears primarily on Nintendo platforms or Nintendo might have published one or two entries in a series does not mean they own the franchise, and thus, it does not belong here. (By the same token, Professor Layton probably shouldn't be on either since Nintendo only publishes it in English regions while Level-5 retains ownership of the IP and publishes it in Japan, whereas something like Fatal Frame deserves inclusion since Nintendo now co-owns the franchise.) Could someone take care of this? -- 136.181.195.25 ( talk) 15:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
72.37.248.47 ( talk) 21:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Nintendo completely owns Monolithsoft, and thus, they are a first party developer.
Despite its title, Xenoblade is completely unrelated to the rest of the Xeno- franchise, and was only named so to honor one of the creators. I don't know why Xenoblade is listed under the second- and third-party section, but that is false.
Likewise, Baten Kaitos should be under the second- and third-party section, and not first-party, since only Origins was published by Nintendo, and only in North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.88.107 ( talk) 05:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Should we split up a few of the ones listed in "other" and move them above? Pokemon, for example, can be split into a few general topics: Main Series (X & Y, Black & White, etc), Mystery Dungeon, and Spin-Offs, and they're different enough that they could be listed as separate ones, in a way similar to Mario and Donkey Kong.
Also, how is it decided what specific games to include and which ones not to? I hardly think that Four Swords and Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland are the two most notable Zelda games. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Why was Pokémon moved to "First party"? It's a second party franchise created and developed by Game Freak. Nepse ( talk) 13:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse
, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a
navbox, sidebar, or
table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.
To change this template's initial visibility, the |state=
parameter may be used:
{{Nintendo franchises|state=collapsed}}
will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.{{Nintendo franchises|state=expanded}}
will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.
Are we sure this is a Nintendo franchise? I mean, Nintendo now owns Monolith Soft entirely, but this franchise was trademarked by Namco long before Nintendo bought the company. NP Chilla ( talk) 18:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't The Wonderful 101 be included under the second- and third-party section? It was developed by Platinum, but was funded entirely by Nintendo and the IP itself is owned by Nintendo. Other non-series games in this boat like Odama and Endless Ocean are included in the category.
Speaking of Platinum, would Bayonetta be considered a second/third-party Nintendo franchise at this point? I'm pretty sure Platinum themselves own the character, while SEGA owns the first game and Nintendo owns the second (with Nintendo funding development for it and publishing both it and a Wii U port of the first). It's definitely much less concrete than W101's situation, but the section already includes several tenuous links (Tetris, Dragon Quest, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.154.186 ( talk) 01:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Shogakugan and Riverdeep published and developed the Hamtaro games, plus there was a Hamtaro game on the PC and iPhone. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Uuruuseiyo (
talk •
contribs) 05:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Apparently Nintendo did make games for Hamtaro, but should this series be considered a part of this template, when for instance Hamtaro was created as an ongoing manga and an anime. Uuruuseiyo ( talk) 14:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I noticed Golden Sun was placed at the end of the template before I made my edit. Is it because Golden Sun (made by Camelot) is a 2nd party series? If that's the case, should there be a section for Nintendo's 2nd party games such as Custom Robo (made by Noise), Kirby (made by HAL Laboratories), and Pokemon (made by Game Freak)? Uuruuseiyo ( talk) 03:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It keeps being removed, and I don't understand why. It's made by Nintendo. It's a series - there's many iterations of it. It has been a multi-million selling series, so it's not like its obscure. What is the rationale? Sergecross73 msg me 03:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we should be including "franchises" that do not have a dedicated article on the series. That should be a safe bar to set (though even better would be only including series that have been cited as such in secondary sources). – czar 00:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
isn't it unneccesary to state 'Rhythm Tengoku'? why not have Rhythm Heaven just be 'Rhythm Heaven'? Spinnny ( talk) 18:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Uuruuseiyo ( talk) 00:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone add Yo-kai Watch under the Nintendo franchises template, or is that not considered an official Nintendo owned franchise?
2601:2C5:C301:8F7B:6C32:C34D:ECFA:C36 (
talk) 06:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Would Color TV Game count as an entry? I know it's a series of dedicated consoles, but we also have Game & Watch in there as well. Namcokid47 ( talk) 00:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think Fossil Fighters deserves a spot on this, seeing how there's now 3 games in the series. TurtleLover99Wikipedia ( talk) 00:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Uh, I don't know if this would count as a "source", per se, but... It has 3 installments, the first 2 games were developed by Nintendo SPD, and all 3 games were published by Nintendo. Not to mention that the 3rd game got a Trophy in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS. Isn't that enough to warrant a spot on the list? TurtleLover99Wikipedia ( talk) 06:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I've got a few questions that I would like answered before I poke around with the template:
-Should we be able to add HAL Laboratory franchises, such as the Eggerland series? They seem to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Nintendo, and Kirby seems to be part of this list too, which they created.
-I don't really think Game & Watch should be part of the list, since that seems to be just a series of handheld LCD games, not really a "franchise" per say, but more of just some sort of brand name.
-This could just be me, but I feel as if the "co-owned" section is unnessecary. I think Fatal Frame should just be moved directly to the Koei Tecmo template while Cruisi'n could be put somewhere else. Having that section seems a bit too complicated, and I think Nintendo simply published a few entries in both series and doesn't exactly "own" them (although correct me if I'm wrong).
Any feedback would be very appreciative. Namcokid47 ( talk) 20:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
From what I've been told multiple times, Pokémon (And The Pokémon Company, as well) is co-owned by three companies: Nintendo, Game Freak, and Creatures inc. Should that be enough to include it there? TurtleLover99Wikipedia ( talk) 06:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
So I had a discussion with someone about an edit I made, and after discussing, it made me realize that calling this "Nintendo FRANCHISES" is a bit of a stretch. Some of these listed (Which I'll admit I added some myself, but only because certain similar series were listed) shouldn't really classify as "franchises". Some of these, such as Touch! Generations or bit Generations/Art Style, are more brand names than actual franchises. Plus, the list is PRETTY bloated.
Despite this, I still feel there is a place for these lesser known series.
So my ideas are:
Hope this helps. TurtleLover99Wikipedia ( talk) 19:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Other than that, I agree this template needs to be trimmed somehow, but I don't really know what to do... admittedly much of this is my fault as I added an enormous amount of entries, further expanding the template. I have tried cleaning up some of it, but it will need a lot more work. Namcokid47 ( talk) 00:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
There has been a dispute over what content should be included on this template, and so I would like to form a consensus on what is appropriate.
A decently large number of items on this template are individual video game articles rather than series articles, and thus it feels like their inclusion is treating this template as a list of series rather than as a way to nagivate to articles about Nintendo series. Thus, I think that any articles that are not about the series of games itself should be removed from the template. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
And probably a few more that I am missing. To be clear, would you agree that this is bloating the template? If so, what limitations would you propose to prevent all of these from being added? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I mean, come on. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
This is getting very silly.
Like, a lot of what you said was explicitly untrue. If you don't know, that's like, super okay, but don't act like you do. It isn't beneficial to anyone. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
You also argue against Fatal Frame for being Koei-Tecmo, ignoring me pointing out that it is co-owned by Nintendo. Do you plan to remove Pokemon from the template as well? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
And wow, I was wrong about something. What a shocker. Sarcasm aside, I could go on and on about this entire ordeal, but I won't. I've got other projects here to finish (and ones I would rather be doing), so this will (maybe?) be my final reply here. If this thing bothers you that much, consider taking this to Wikiproject Video Games if you already haven't done so, or try making a list article to house all of them in, like "List of Nintendo video game franchises" or anything along the lines of that. Good luck with this discussion. Namcokid47 ( talk) 22:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
)
czar 01:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)If the concern is bloat, then as a random peanut gallery comment, separate the "Other" section into two: "Active" and "Inactive" franchises. Franchises that haven't received a new game on the past two platforms (3DS & Switch) go to "inactive". Don't count mobile games, cameos in Smash Bros., etc. Maybe count upcoming games if they are sufficiently well-sourced to have an article and have an official future release year. SnowFire ( talk) 21:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The intelectual project itself belongs to Sega. Nintendo is licensing the title for games. Saying Bayonetta is part of Nintendo is the same as saying the Alien franchise is part of Sega just because they released a series of Alien games, but in fact Alien belongs to Disney and Sega just licensed for games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rud-Johns ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add all known Nintendo franchises 2600:6C44:77F:FF91:45DF:8239:BE19:C34C ( talk) 06:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Video games: Nintendo Template‑class | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Shouldn't this include all franchises (or at least those with separate articles) rather than just those that fall under the completely arbitrary classification of being "main"? Haipa Doragon ( talk • contributions) 03:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
This doesn't include spin-offs like Mario Kart and Mario Party as they all are one universe. Mario, wario, Yoshi and Donkey Kong series are under one since they are in one uinverse though different main series. Plus the Mario universe is Nintendo's main franchise plus main mascot series. -- Victory93 ( talk) 03:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
I think we need to define "main" and stick with that. I have a few proposals, but I figured I'd bring them up here instead of starting an edit war.
So let me hear the ideas. POWERSLAVE TALK/ CONT 22:18, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Well I've changed it to just franchises since making more sense. Golden Sun series be happy if maybe someone would create this article: Golden Sun (series). Now could someone create this article please. And also these ones:
-- Victory93 ( talk) 04:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't know but thanks to me it got created. I even created one for franchises of Konami. So could anyone create an article for:
-- Victory93 ( talk) 22:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
I've got a couple suggestions for franchises to add, wanted to see what you guys thought: Another Code/Trace Memory, StarTropics, PilotWings, Puzzle League, 1080 Snowboarding, Chibi-Robo, Rhythm Heaven, Elite Beat Agents/Ouendan. What do you guys think? --El cubo
Well also if possible, could anyone create like articles which is about the series like Golden Sun (series). Like have StarTropics (series) and others. -- Victory93 ( talk) 04:10, 11 July 2009 (UTC)
Hello everyone. The heading says it all; wouldn't "Flagship franchises" be more appropriate than "Main franchises"? Also, I added the Smash Bros. series to the template. - sesuPRIME talk • contribs 21:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
don't franchises usually involve multiple forms of media 174.111.86.246 ( talk) 19:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
i think there needs to be a greater distinction between "franchise" and "sequel". two of the current series listed -Big Brain Academy- and -Magical Starsign- have only had two games released. there are other series listed that have also only had two games released (e.g. -Brain Age-, -Pikmin-) but in those cases there have been significant cameos and/or rereleases (e.g. -Brain Age-'s appearances on DSiWare, -Pikmin-'s rereleases on Wii). 98.216.50.159 ( talk) 18:17, 19 November 2010 (UTC)
Nintendo had only handled the publication of Dragon Warrior, Dragon Quest IX, the remake of Dragon Quest VI, and the handheld game Dragon Quest Monsters: Joker 2 outside of Japan, while the rest of the games in the franchise were all published by Enix/Eidos/Square Enix. Is that enough to consider Dragon Quest a Nintendo franchise? 69.118.251.148 ( talk) 14:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
I separated second and first party games, and added in former second party franchises. I may have messed up on Eternal Darkness and a few of the Second party ones and former ones, so please fix those if you see them. Also, I included Kameo since it was originally to be released on the GameCube, so when Nintendo owned part of Rareware, it was in the creation process. Umbreon00 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
So, every time I come across this template, it seems it has been cluttered with just about anything and everything remotely related to Nintendo. I feel that, in order to keep this clean and accurate, there should be inclusion criteria set up.
So please consider these before adding to the template. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 16:28, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm sorry but I don't really think Touch Generations is much of a franchise, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it merely a brand name or something like that? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.230.214.251 ( talk) 02:38, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
It doesn't seem many people really understand the term "franchise". Would it be better to rename it something regarding "series" maybe? Or is there more for a precedent for using Franchise? For example, I see "Sony" doesn't even have one, but they do have one outlining dev studios, and a related subsection is called "Franchises". So, it's hard to compare really... Sergecross73 msg me 17:29, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Sony_Franchises L0L
anyway, I guess that would be a bit better of an idea. I'm still trying to comprehend how Nintendo has third-party franchises.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE6D:6FB0:DC40:19A9:51CA:F388 ( talk) 23:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Please people, this is wrong info. I keep notes of this kind of thing. Stop deleting things. Nintendo NEVER published a Conker game. Not even Conker's Pocket Tails. Don't believe me? Look at it's page! Also, why is Fatal Frame not on here? Sure, they didn't publish EVERY game, but that was before Nintendo bought it out! Only Nintendo can put their names on it now. Don't believe me? Look at the fatal Frame page! This is what the table should look like:
Please people, I know what I'm talking about. I was providing info and cleaning this up before most of you even started protecting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.83.234 ( talk) 03:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
One last thing: Art Academy wasn't just 2 downloads and one retail, it actually has 2 retail titles, one for the DS and one for the 3DS. I'm very confused why it hasn't been updated (probably due to lack of interest), but the 3DS game, Art Academy: Lessons for Everyone, was released as a retail title and on the Nintendo eShop. I know because I have a 3DS, and because I've seen it on store shelves. You may want to google that. Also, Big Brain Academy is aimed at a younger audience, is cartoony, and not very serious. Brain Age on the other hand, is arguably aimed at an older audience, and is not cartoony, basically pretty serious, and unlike BBA, it is focused on training brain skills (such as reactions), rather than making you smarter. 173.53.83.234 ( talk) 22:46, 8 January 2013 (UTC) 173.53.83.234 ( talk) 22:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Nintendo Land is a game based entirely off of Nintendo Franchises, but is not a franchise itself. How shall we handle it? My thoughts were to maybe make a third subsection, something along the lines of "Related" or "Other", and put it in there. The downfall of that though is that it would probably be a magnet for unrelated/unnecessary additions in the future. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm quite sure it'll become a franchise in the future, but I feel for the time being it should be left out. While it celebrates Nintendo franchises, this is a template listing franchises owned by Nintendo, not ones that celebrate franchises. Plus, like you said, it'll attract other unwanted things. If there were to be a third category, I think it would include Touch Generations and Game & Watch, since those aren't really franchises, but seem to be listed anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CE6D:6FB0:55B6:7E1E:8832:CC52 ( talk) 03:03, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
I kinda feel this needs to be discussed, as to whether Fatal Frame should be included or not, I mean. I personally think yes it should be included, because Nintendo owns part of the franchise and have been publishing the last few games, as well as keeping them exclusive, and most likely will stay like that for the future. Please discuss your thoughts here for the consensus. Umbreon00 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Why is KI still listed as second-party? When Rare left, they took the rights to the property with them; the game no longer has any ties to Nintendo. Could someone please remove this? -- 136.181.195.25 ( talk) 20:21, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed Arkhandar added a lot of games under the second party banner despite the franchises not actually being owned by Nintendo. Specifically, A Boy and His Blob, Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles, Guild, Jett Rocket, the Mighty series, Nano Assault, Ninja Gaiden, Shantae, and The Denpa Men have no place on the list. Just because a series appears primarily on Nintendo platforms or Nintendo might have published one or two entries in a series does not mean they own the franchise, and thus, it does not belong here. (By the same token, Professor Layton probably shouldn't be on either since Nintendo only publishes it in English regions while Level-5 retains ownership of the IP and publishes it in Japan, whereas something like Fatal Frame deserves inclusion since Nintendo now co-owns the franchise.) Could someone take care of this? -- 136.181.195.25 ( talk) 15:07, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
72.37.248.47 ( talk) 21:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Nintendo completely owns Monolithsoft, and thus, they are a first party developer.
Despite its title, Xenoblade is completely unrelated to the rest of the Xeno- franchise, and was only named so to honor one of the creators. I don't know why Xenoblade is listed under the second- and third-party section, but that is false.
Likewise, Baten Kaitos should be under the second- and third-party section, and not first-party, since only Origins was published by Nintendo, and only in North America. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.246.88.107 ( talk) 05:46, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Should we split up a few of the ones listed in "other" and move them above? Pokemon, for example, can be split into a few general topics: Main Series (X & Y, Black & White, etc), Mystery Dungeon, and Spin-Offs, and they're different enough that they could be listed as separate ones, in a way similar to Mario and Donkey Kong.
Also, how is it decided what specific games to include and which ones not to? I hardly think that Four Swords and Tingle's Rosy Rupeeland are the two most notable Zelda games. Supernerd11 Firemind ^_^ Pokedex 02:28, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Why was Pokémon moved to "First party"? It's a second party franchise created and developed by Game Freak. Nepse ( talk) 13:40, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
This template's initial visibility currently defaults to autocollapse
, meaning that if there is another collapsible item on the page (a
navbox, sidebar, or
table with the collapsible attribute), it is hidden apart from its title bar; if not, it is fully visible.
To change this template's initial visibility, the |state=
parameter may be used:
{{Nintendo franchises|state=collapsed}}
will show the template collapsed, i.e. hidden apart from its title bar.{{Nintendo franchises|state=expanded}}
will show the template expanded, i.e. fully visible.
Are we sure this is a Nintendo franchise? I mean, Nintendo now owns Monolith Soft entirely, but this franchise was trademarked by Namco long before Nintendo bought the company. NP Chilla ( talk) 18:45, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't The Wonderful 101 be included under the second- and third-party section? It was developed by Platinum, but was funded entirely by Nintendo and the IP itself is owned by Nintendo. Other non-series games in this boat like Odama and Endless Ocean are included in the category.
Speaking of Platinum, would Bayonetta be considered a second/third-party Nintendo franchise at this point? I'm pretty sure Platinum themselves own the character, while SEGA owns the first game and Nintendo owns the second (with Nintendo funding development for it and publishing both it and a Wii U port of the first). It's definitely much less concrete than W101's situation, but the section already includes several tenuous links (Tetris, Dragon Quest, etc.). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.176.154.186 ( talk) 01:03, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
Shogakugan and Riverdeep published and developed the Hamtaro games, plus there was a Hamtaro game on the PC and iPhone. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Uuruuseiyo (
talk •
contribs) 05:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Apparently Nintendo did make games for Hamtaro, but should this series be considered a part of this template, when for instance Hamtaro was created as an ongoing manga and an anime. Uuruuseiyo ( talk) 14:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
I noticed Golden Sun was placed at the end of the template before I made my edit. Is it because Golden Sun (made by Camelot) is a 2nd party series? If that's the case, should there be a section for Nintendo's 2nd party games such as Custom Robo (made by Noise), Kirby (made by HAL Laboratories), and Pokemon (made by Game Freak)? Uuruuseiyo ( talk) 03:04, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
It keeps being removed, and I don't understand why. It's made by Nintendo. It's a series - there's many iterations of it. It has been a multi-million selling series, so it's not like its obscure. What is the rationale? Sergecross73 msg me 03:40, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
I don't think we should be including "franchises" that do not have a dedicated article on the series. That should be a safe bar to set (though even better would be only including series that have been cited as such in secondary sources). – czar 00:13, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
isn't it unneccesary to state 'Rhythm Tengoku'? why not have Rhythm Heaven just be 'Rhythm Heaven'? Spinnny ( talk) 18:26, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
Uuruuseiyo ( talk) 00:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Can someone add Yo-kai Watch under the Nintendo franchises template, or is that not considered an official Nintendo owned franchise?
2601:2C5:C301:8F7B:6C32:C34D:ECFA:C36 (
talk) 06:23, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.
B E C K Y S A Y L E S 06:33, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Would Color TV Game count as an entry? I know it's a series of dedicated consoles, but we also have Game & Watch in there as well. Namcokid47 ( talk) 00:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
I think Fossil Fighters deserves a spot on this, seeing how there's now 3 games in the series. TurtleLover99Wikipedia ( talk) 00:29, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
Uh, I don't know if this would count as a "source", per se, but... It has 3 installments, the first 2 games were developed by Nintendo SPD, and all 3 games were published by Nintendo. Not to mention that the 3rd game got a Trophy in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS. Isn't that enough to warrant a spot on the list? TurtleLover99Wikipedia ( talk) 06:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
I've got a few questions that I would like answered before I poke around with the template:
-Should we be able to add HAL Laboratory franchises, such as the Eggerland series? They seem to be a wholly owned subsidiary of Nintendo, and Kirby seems to be part of this list too, which they created.
-I don't really think Game & Watch should be part of the list, since that seems to be just a series of handheld LCD games, not really a "franchise" per say, but more of just some sort of brand name.
-This could just be me, but I feel as if the "co-owned" section is unnessecary. I think Fatal Frame should just be moved directly to the Koei Tecmo template while Cruisi'n could be put somewhere else. Having that section seems a bit too complicated, and I think Nintendo simply published a few entries in both series and doesn't exactly "own" them (although correct me if I'm wrong).
Any feedback would be very appreciative. Namcokid47 ( talk) 20:23, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
From what I've been told multiple times, Pokémon (And The Pokémon Company, as well) is co-owned by three companies: Nintendo, Game Freak, and Creatures inc. Should that be enough to include it there? TurtleLover99Wikipedia ( talk) 06:59, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
So I had a discussion with someone about an edit I made, and after discussing, it made me realize that calling this "Nintendo FRANCHISES" is a bit of a stretch. Some of these listed (Which I'll admit I added some myself, but only because certain similar series were listed) shouldn't really classify as "franchises". Some of these, such as Touch! Generations or bit Generations/Art Style, are more brand names than actual franchises. Plus, the list is PRETTY bloated.
Despite this, I still feel there is a place for these lesser known series.
So my ideas are:
Hope this helps. TurtleLover99Wikipedia ( talk) 19:26, 18 May 2018 (UTC)
Other than that, I agree this template needs to be trimmed somehow, but I don't really know what to do... admittedly much of this is my fault as I added an enormous amount of entries, further expanding the template. I have tried cleaning up some of it, but it will need a lot more work. Namcokid47 ( talk) 00:02, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
There has been a dispute over what content should be included on this template, and so I would like to form a consensus on what is appropriate.
A decently large number of items on this template are individual video game articles rather than series articles, and thus it feels like their inclusion is treating this template as a list of series rather than as a way to nagivate to articles about Nintendo series. Thus, I think that any articles that are not about the series of games itself should be removed from the template. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 20:32, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
And probably a few more that I am missing. To be clear, would you agree that this is bloating the template? If so, what limitations would you propose to prevent all of these from being added? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:33, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I mean, come on. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 21:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
This is getting very silly.
Like, a lot of what you said was explicitly untrue. If you don't know, that's like, super okay, but don't act like you do. It isn't beneficial to anyone. - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
You also argue against Fatal Frame for being Koei-Tecmo, ignoring me pointing out that it is co-owned by Nintendo. Do you plan to remove Pokemon from the template as well? - New Age Retro Hippie (talk) (contributions) 22:15, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
And wow, I was wrong about something. What a shocker. Sarcasm aside, I could go on and on about this entire ordeal, but I won't. I've got other projects here to finish (and ones I would rather be doing), so this will (maybe?) be my final reply here. If this thing bothers you that much, consider taking this to Wikiproject Video Games if you already haven't done so, or try making a list article to house all of them in, like "List of Nintendo video game franchises" or anything along the lines of that. Good luck with this discussion. Namcokid47 ( talk) 22:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
{{
ping}}
)
czar 01:08, 31 March 2019 (UTC)If the concern is bloat, then as a random peanut gallery comment, separate the "Other" section into two: "Active" and "Inactive" franchises. Franchises that haven't received a new game on the past two platforms (3DS & Switch) go to "inactive". Don't count mobile games, cameos in Smash Bros., etc. Maybe count upcoming games if they are sufficiently well-sourced to have an article and have an official future release year. SnowFire ( talk) 21:30, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
The intelectual project itself belongs to Sega. Nintendo is licensing the title for games. Saying Bayonetta is part of Nintendo is the same as saying the Alien franchise is part of Sega just because they released a series of Alien games, but in fact Alien belongs to Disney and Sega just licensed for games. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rud-Johns ( talk • contribs) 18:04, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add all known Nintendo franchises 2600:6C44:77F:FF91:45DF:8239:BE19:C34C ( talk) 06:03, 4 April 2024 (UTC)