-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Which Development Studio Had the Greatest "Prime"?
- Thread starter Doug Dimmadome
- Start date
It's interesting that for some BioWare's prime starts with KOTOR 1 while for me that's the last great game they made. Makes a thread like this interesting!
Going from KOTOR 1 to Mass Effect was a bit of a shock because I still expected BioWare to be in the RPG business but they had already moved towards the action hybrids. I like ME1 though, even if I remain utterly baffled by the creative decisions that have driven their games for the past 15 years or so since then. I blame Bono tbh
I was just around 8 or so when I first played KotOR so I had no exposure to the CRPG peak at the end of the 1990s (so missed out on BG during those years around release). Not to mention, I didn't have a computer for gaming so I was only able to experience their console titles from then on until I was much older.
I imagine that influences the determination of the peak for some gamers, at least it does for me.
OP
OP
Yup, for my personal taste, BioWare reigns supreme. I've always enjoyed the more story driven RPG's they made instead of the immersive ones like BGS makes. I didn't play Baulder's Gate but even I am aware of that games legacy.
BGI & II, KOTOR, Jade Empire, Mass Effect, Dragon Age Origins and Mass Effect 2 is wild. Even Dragon Age 2, ME3 and Inquisition are games I really like, even if I recognize they aren't as good as what came before. I don't think they put out a straight dud until Andromeda (which still has some enjoyable parts) and then buried themselves with Anthem :(
Has to be the big N. Went back to BotW today after several years without playing and it's still the most incredible experience. I also own every Nintendo console dating back to the SNES so I'm biased.
I voted Square because Nintendo never stopped peaking, whereas Square clearly peaked in the late 90s/early 2000s. They had great games before that, but they basically put the PS1 on their back. I don't even comprehend how they put out so many huge RPGs in such a short amount of time, not to mention branching out to other genres.
Nintendo has had like 8 or 9 peaks over the course of their existence, and the next is never too far off. They dip, but yeah.
Nintendo has had like 8 or 9 peaks over the course of their existence, and the next is never too far off. They dip, but yeah.
I don't quite understand how Nintendo is winning considering they fell out of innovative favour from the mid 90's until fairly recently. It makes me wonder, because the PlayStation really did a number on them, and while they survived respectably, it took them a long time to start competing with Sony and Microsoft.
Anyway, I can make a case for a few, but as far as modern games are concerned I think Squaresoft in the 90's has to take it because their influence is important and still felt today.
They set the gold standard for RPG's. While they weren't the only one, they were amongst the early studios who set out to prove games as a credible artistic medium, and to prove cinematic storytelling in games. They were also at the forefront of cutting edge, high fidelity graphics.
Anyway, I can make a case for a few, but as far as modern games are concerned I think Squaresoft in the 90's has to take it because their influence is important and still felt today.
They set the gold standard for RPG's. While they weren't the only one, they were amongst the early studios who set out to prove games as a credible artistic medium, and to prove cinematic storytelling in games. They were also at the forefront of cutting edge, high fidelity graphics.
80-90s Sega and mid 80s to mid 90s Capcom would probably be above quite a few of these.
Innovation isn't the end all be all. using the sports analogy in the OP, it's not always about the most innovative offense or defense, it's who executes the best.
Innovation isn't the end all be all. using the sports analogy in the OP, it's not always about the most innovative offense or defense, it's who executes the best.
I don't know, I'd say there was a period of inconsistency until the Switch. The Nintendo Wii was an incredibly innovative device, and brought console gaming to different types of people (many for the first time ever.)
Not to mention what they did with handhelds
I clarified my post in an edit. What I mean is, Nintendo were top dog for a long time, then the PlayStation came along and it really did a number on them. The dip in their market share was quite severe, and the N64 didn't compete well against Sony. Then when MS came onto the scene too, they had a lot of misses while attempting to compete with them and couldn't get themselves alongside them. The 2000's were very much defined by Sony and Microsoft.
Sure but even with N64 Nintendo put out Ocarina of Time, Star Fox 64, Super Mario 64, Majora's Mask, F-Zero X, Mario Kart 64, etc.
Nintendo, followed by Square. Though square would be my favorite.
Square's star lineup from 1990 to 2001:
Look at this list. They released even more games than that too; that's just the big stuff that I'm familiar with. It doesn't even count the Saga and Front Mission games, Live A Live or a bunch of other stuff.
Goddamn. I'm tempted to switch my vote to Square lol.
Square's star lineup from 1990 to 2001:
- Final Fantasy 3 (1990)
- Final Fantasy 4 (1991)
- Final Fantasy 5 (1992)
- Secret of Mana (1993)
- Final Fantasy 6 (1994)
- Chrono Trigger (1995)
- Trial of Mana (1995)
- Secret of Evermore (1995)
- Super Mario RPG (1996)
- Final Fantasy 7 (1997)
- Final Fantasy Tactics (1997)
- Xenogears (1998)
- Parasite Eve (1998)
- Final Fantasy 8 (1999)
- Chrono Cross (1999)
- Vagrant Story (2000)
- Final Fantasy 9 (2000)
- Final Fantasy 10 (2001)
Look at this list. They released even more games than that too; that's just the big stuff that I'm familiar with. It doesn't even count the Saga and Front Mission games, Live A Live or a bunch of other stuff.
Goddamn. I'm tempted to switch my vote to Square lol.
I didn't say they were irrelevant, but they weren't keeping up with Sony and Nintendo until around the PS360 era.
I mean...
^ This.
The BIB's alone are mainstays in "greatest games of all time" lists, and I'm being conservative about them. The 4 I put *'s next to are largely considered to be watershed moment games that have defined the industry.
Sony and their first party output was never really their strongsuit. Microsoft, too. Though I'm also not arguing Nintendo is the choice, I'd probably choose Sega, AM2 and Yu Suzuki.
PlayStation as a platform dominated in the late 90s/early 2000s, but that was largely driven by 3rd party. I can't imagine anyone thinking Sony's 1st party output matched or exceeded Nintendo's during those eras. The success of their respective platforms isn't really relevant to this thread.
But certain IP's were Sony aligned at that time, like Squaresoft IP's. Even so, I don't think Nintendo were keeping up with the likes of Squaresoft, it really was their era through the PS1 and PS2 generations.
Yeah, this thread is mostly just about who developed the games rather than who published and such. Like I wouldn't count Pokemon for Nintendo, nor F-Zero GX.
No, of course not. But, Nintendo as a company was in decline during that era not at its peak. The point about Sony wasn't that they released better content in house or to say its Sony who had the greatest prime, but that the platforms almost wiped Nintendo and Sega off the map. Nintendo struggled to compete, and Nintendos content broadly became more erratic as a result. I don't think the platform nor their studio output were at any kind of a peak during the late 90's and 00's.
If I compare Nintendos game output through that era, they don't even come close to Squaresoft.
Square definitely killed it. The only argument against them is (relative) versatility but then that charge could be launched at a number of other great contenders. Even in the JRPG genre they managed to vary things quite a bit.
Just an awesome run.
I was going to say this, Rare are a massive omission form this list. They outdid Nintendo on their own console in many's eyes.
On the list I'd say Squaresoft, they were absolutely off the chain in terms quality, originality and sheer volume of their output from the latter years of the SNES all the way through to the Playstation's twilight years.
And that's a Mega Drive/Saturn kid speaking.
This is a legitimate pick. The light shone only for a moment, but it was a damn supernova.
All of LG's best games are no worse than Top 5 all time in their respective genres.
Come on...
Nintendo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SquareSoft > Blizzard > Black Isle Studios > Capcom
Nintendo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> SquareSoft > Blizzard > Black Isle Studios > Capcom
This is a really thin thesis, and ignores important context for why Nintendo's home console platforms waned in popularity during that period. It had little to nothing to do with their 1st party output, which remained extraordinarily successful.
There was a 5 year gap between GTA5 and RDR2 where they released virtually nothing. I don't consider that "prime".
I feel like Rare deserves an honorable mention here, their run starting on the NES and and up to the xbox 360 was excellent.
- Battletoads
- Donkey Kong Country
- Ken Griffey Jr. Winning Run
- Killer Instinct
- Goldeneye
- Blast Corps
- Diddy Kong Racing
- Banjo-Kazooie
- Jet Force Gemini
- Perfect Dark
- Conker
- Kameo
- Viva Pinata
- Battletoads
- Donkey Kong Country
- Ken Griffey Jr. Winning Run
- Killer Instinct
- Goldeneye
- Blast Corps
- Diddy Kong Racing
- Banjo-Kazooie
- Jet Force Gemini
- Perfect Dark
- Conker
- Kameo
- Viva Pinata
I don't even know what Nintendo's peak is. They are pretty consistently great with their software.
I voted Square because Squaresoft in the late 90s was absolutely insane. Instant classics released within months of each other. And they kept that up for several years.
I voted Square because Squaresoft in the late 90s was absolutely insane. Instant classics released within months of each other. And they kept that up for several years.
Actually, let's extend that list up a year to 2002 and you get Kingdom Hearts 1 on there too. Another bonafide classic from Squaresoft!
Speaking of which, yeah, the greatest prime? It's Squaresoft. Banger after banger after banger after banger after banger.
Plus Nintendo kind of has an unfair advantage in the poll for not really having a singular peak and more just consistently great output of games over many, many, many years.
Treasure from 1993 to 2009 was pretty insane, too.
Nintendo was never not good, but I don't think it's been a consistent peak for 40 years. Wii-era Nintendo was good, but their games were over tutorialized and sprinkled with bits of mind-numbing busywork that didn't exist before or after.
(Mind you, I don't think any developer has been at their absolute best for 30-40 years: some, like Namco, just didn't stop making good games even if they didn't reach their previous peaks.)
Nintendo was never not good, but I don't think it's been a consistent peak for 40 years. Wii-era Nintendo was good, but their games were over tutorialized and sprinkled with bits of mind-numbing busywork that didn't exist before or after.
(Mind you, I don't think any developer has been at their absolute best for 30-40 years: some, like Namco, just didn't stop making good games even if they didn't reach their previous peaks.)
I mean, Nintendo. Come on.
Hell, even just 1996-1998 Nintendo is crazy by prime standards:
Pokemon Red/Green/Blue/Yellow
Super Mario 64
Mario Kart 64
Goldeneye 007
Banjo-Kazooie
Link's Awakening DX
Ocarina of Time
Mario Party
Hell, even just 1996-1998 Nintendo is crazy by prime standards:
Pokemon Red/Green/Blue/Yellow
Super Mario 64
Mario Kart 64
Goldeneye 007
Banjo-Kazooie
Link's Awakening DX
Ocarina of Time
Mario Party
OP
OP
As I said, my taste have traditionally guided me towards western developers. Combined with only being born in the mid 90's, I missed a lot of these classic games from Square/Konami/CapCom. However this thread has been very enlightening and I'm learning a lot about video game history
I am quoting this for no other reason than to keep it in the conversation. Looking at the games Looking Glass made is insane to me. These were before my time, yet I've heard of every single one of these games and know the weight they carry. To know they all came from the same studio is kind of wrecking me
Squaresoft in its prime (SNES and PS1) was the greatest amalgamation of video game talent to have ever existed. Probably the longest and most prolific streak of groundbreaking and generation defining games from any one developer.
NES/SNES era Capcom might be my favorite period for any developer, but Nintendo pretty much just kept putting out winners for decades. I'd say they had some rough spots (late N64, bit during GCN, but during Wii U) but I'm sure if I looked at the release schedular I'd see a GOAT hanging out in those rough spots too.
I'm sure it's overwhelming being late to most of the pre-2000s party but it's always nice to see someone wanting to learn more about stuff before their time. You might be surprised at the shear amount and variety of good games Sega made, not to mention all those other developers people listed.
