Hypothetically... yes.

That’s kinda the thrust of it, huh?

They should. Let Nintendo do their own marketing like Nintendo so very clearly wants to do.

But they won’t. Because Nintendo IP brings eyeballs that they wouldn’t get if they were doing their own work or even modding someone else’s IP.

And then next to no one will give it a second of attention before they look for the next YouTuber flashing some mod of an existing IP they already know they like.

In addition, Seuss did genuinely try to reckon for the bigotry in his earlier works, rather than double down on it like Rowling has.

I mean... you’re right. Nintendo IS weird like that, and DO hold their cards in ways that don’t make sense at times... but something like this? That could drive sales just by giving a glimpse of Zelda in a playable setting? I just don’t see Nintendo holding that card completely in their hand the entire time.

Yeah, and they also have poorly marketed clunkers like the Wii U and Gamecube. They are much more hit or miss on their hardware marketing than their software.

Nintendo has seemed to hit a good spread of their potential customer base though. This trailer was for the lore and story heads. Last peek behind the curtain was for those who wanted to know how it all played.

As far as a playable (even in a limited sense) Zelda, I honestly think if that was in the cards, they would have showed said card by now. It does seem she has some agency in this game, but I suspect said agency will be shown entirely within cutscenes.

There are times where I feel like video game companies should be the ones that handle state secrets... because good God does that industry act like their precious internal data is like nuclear launch codes.

My guess is that they have an increasing partnership with Nintendo, and that is one of Nintendo’s stipulations in the deal.

Nintendo’s entire conceit with game building is that they never let things like “lore” and “continuity” get in the way of what they think would be fun to do.

Well... yes and no.

No one said Toad was a rational, objective thinker.

My argument is that there are a lot more moving parts to games than used to exist 30 years ago, and those things aren’t free. They cost money too, which is why production costs for games even if you completely cut out marketing budgets have skyrocketed significantly.

Ya know, I kinda love how a video can have a chapter called “How Walls Work,” and in context have it make total sense to need to explain that concept.

I think people have this vague idea of what a “good” Mario movie would/should look like. I doubt too many people have given much thought about it to the point that they could clearly communicate that vague idea.

100%, which is a big part of the reason why any potential blowback Nintendo could possibly get for how aggressive they are towards content creators isn’t going to manifest.

There is certainly a point where developing for older platforms become more trouble than they are worth, especially if what you want to do is something that is largely beyond the abilities of that older hardware.

I wouldn’t gamble any money on even a simple majority of the critics even being passively aware of Pratt’s church attendance.