Talk:Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development

message: I removed the following games because they were NOT developed by Nintendo EAD: Sheriff, Popeye, Donkey Kong, Donkey Kong Jr, Donkey Kong 3, Mario Bros were all developed before EAD even existed.  F-Zero GP Legend and F-Zero Climax were also not developed by Nintendo EAD.
Why is there a reference to Matt Casamassina at that foot of this page?
83.71.3.52 14:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Untitled 

message: The article's title is "Nintendo Entertainment Analysis and Development" not "EAD Before Restructuring", so I edited the list to include every game developed by EAD. If there really was any marked difference worth pointing out then every single page in wikipedia that says "developed by EAD" should be edited to "developed by EAD before/after restructuring". That would be absurd.
I tried to complete the list as best I could. If anyone notices a game missing, please add it.
Star Fox was developed by EAD with Argonaut doing the programming and designing the chip FX. The directors, designers, etc. are all from EAD.
Stunt Race FX is for the SNES and Argonaut had nothing to do with it.
I removed Star Fox 2 because if it was going to be included then every other game that was ever started and cancelled by EAD would have to be included too.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Link floyd (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Big List Edit 

message: Why isn't Takashi Tezuka mentioned anywhere in this article? So far as I am aware he is second in command to Miyamoto (head of Nintendo EAD) and was promoted to General Producer a few years ago. Furthermore, the Wikipedia article on Tezuka states he is the head of the NEAD department that creates all mario games yet he isn't mentioned as such in this article nor does he have a place as any of the heads of any department. I would correct the error myself but I don't know much about the structure of Nintendo and secondly, I'm not a member of Wikipedia and have no place to make changes to a main article. 208.102.181.15 (talk) 09:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Takashi Tezuka MIA 

message: The Japanese version of "Iwata Asks - Punch-Out!!" gives the title of Research and Development Department 3 as . Several instances on the official Japanese Nintendo site confirm this applies to the other teams as well, hence  for R&D 1 and  for R&D 2. However, I couldn't find anything mentioning an R&D4 team. Is there an interview with one of the employees that confirms it ever existed or is this just a logical conclusion from the other team names, picked up by many, many sites? Prime Blue (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japanese title of former "Research and Development Departments" 

message: As mentioned above already: This alleged former name of Nintendo EAD originally came from N-Sider before it was picked up by other sites. Given that there is not a single primary source like a development interview that mentioned this name or its Japanese counterpart (開発四部), I guess this was just an educated, but wrong guess – just like how they said R&D2 was merged into EAD but it was merged into the SPD. I will rename all instances of this to Nintendo EAD. Prime Blue (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Research and Development Department 4 / R&D4" 

message: Are there any sources that verify that EAD Tokyo is divided into two development groups? As far as I see only The Kyoto Report writes that. Anyway, who is running that Blog? That would be interesting, AFAIK the site doesn't tell. But well, to me it doesn't make that much sense to claim EAD Tokyo is divided. Why should that be? The Iwata Asks Interview on Super Mario Galaxy talks a bit on EAD Tokyos history, and as far as I remember it doesn't explain a divided development department. I'm just afraid that information is wrong, so again my questions: Are there any reputabel sources for that information? I hope I'll get an answer, and excuse my bad englisch! Umweltschützen (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Nintendo's E3 Press Site has confirmed it, and several others every year on the producer's bios. "Tokyo Software Development Group No. ?" etc. Basically every EAD Producer / SPD Producer usually coincides with a "Development Group No" title. NOAWiki (talk) 04:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for Tokyo Development Group No. 1/2 

message: Can someone please explain what's with this team? Why do they have such a huge gap between Super Mario 64 DS and Star Fox Wii U? Have they even been doing anything else all this time at all? 108.71.237.182 (talk) 16:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The Comprehensive Development Group is the EAD managerial group. The group is primarily focused on managing staffs, budgets, and concepts throughout all of Nintendo EAD in Kyoto. The group is rarely involved with the primary development of a game, but it has done so from time to time. However, they will not develop Star Fox for Wii U on their own. That's hwy they're currently looking for a partner to fill that gap.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 17:16, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Couldn't they just be listed as a "co-producer" on the games they assisted on, rather than having their own "team"? ~ Dissident93 (Talk) 20:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: But the team does exist, its just that don't usually "get their hands dirty". They're a managerial group, so it's only natural that they seldom work on games.--Arkhandar (Talk • Contribs) 23:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you point me to any sources on this? I can't find any evidence that it does exist, at least as a formal group with its own name. Dancter (talk) 17:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   They probably do exist, but Arkhandar even admitted they don't directly work on games. (therefore they shouldn't have games listed below them) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:11, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

text:  They do exist. Or did. Although that upper-tier section may be called something else by now since it was only briefly mentioned years ago on GC-Inside. However, some of the information on the wikipedia is inaccurate. For one, Star Fox U is being handled by the same production group that did Star Fox 64 3D. EAD Group No. 5. That was obvious from day one. The "comprehensive group" doesn't develop games (anymore), but instead they existed more to work on public space initiatives in Japan like the Shigureden Museum, DS Classroom, and DS Guides. I'm not sure why the original wikipedia author called Star Fox U a comprehensive group game (because Miyamoto is doing the PR? he also did Pikmin 3 and that wasn't a comprehensive group game). The external developer possibility being involved means nothing, since every Japanese game has a myriad of external companies cooperating in the production. NOAWiki (talk) 01:05, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a link you could direct me to, or even just a description of the article in which this group was mentioned? I want to go over it myself, if possible. There is some content in this article that is very poorly referenced, suspect, and difficult to verify. For one thing, that logo does not look authentic at all. It does not seem to exist at the cited source (or anywhere else that I could find), the kerning is very poor, and I can find no evidence that Nintendo ever spelled "Entertainement" that way. Dancter (talk) 17:45, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

text: On the same token, Project Guard and Project Giant Robot are also both Group No. 5 games. Project Guard is being directed by Yugo Hayashi, Star Fox U by Takaya Imamura, and Project Giant Robot is likely being directed by Hiroshi Matsunaga. Those are all guys who have headed up teams at EAD Group No. 5 under Tadashi Sugiyama. Although, I still think EAD will intergrate Project Guard into Star Fox as a side mode like Nintendo has hinted. NOAWiki (talk) 01:15, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This section cannot continue to remain unverified like this. If no verification is provided, it will push for its removal. Dancter (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compehensive Development Group 

message: Thank you for your work in helping Wikipedia be a better place for accurate video game music information. You have done a great job in this article in listing composers. However, there were some minor hiccups. No worries though. Here are my sources:
*Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree - Music: Ryo Nagamatsu
*New Super Mario Bros. Wii - Music: Shiho Fujii, Ryo Nagamatsu
:While I'm not sure 100% anymore if Wakai composed for Big Brain Academy: Wii Degree (some sites say he did however), I know for a fact Nagata (Sound Director) did for New Super Mario Bros. Wii. While Mobygames is a great source of info (since they get their credits straight from the game), for VGM and it's composers however, it can be worthwhile to also check out VGMdb (where they have liner notes from OSTs, which are generally more accurate regarding video game composers). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Music composers 

message: :Group Manager / Producer: Koichi Hayashida
:The third production unit of the Tokyo Software Development Department at EAD, is responsible for the NES Remix series as well as spin-off titles like Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker. The Group Manager and Producer, Koichi Hayahida, was originally a programmer as well as a level designer on Super Mario Galaxy and Donkey Kong: Jungle Beat. Even more notably, Hayashida programmed and designed most of NES Remix by himself as a side project before officially getting approval from the company.  
:
 List of software developed by Nintendo EAD Tokyo Software Development Group No. 3
Title                         	Genre(s)     	Platform(s) 	    	Notes
Captain Toad: Treasure Tracker	Puzzle       	Wii U       	2014	Cooperation with 1-Up Studio
Ultimate NES Remix            	Retro Variety	Nintendo 3DS	2014	Cooperation with Indies Zero
: ~ NOAWiki (talk) 05:30, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Software Development Group No. 3 

message: I propose to merge List of software developed by Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development into Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development. I think that the content in the List of software developed by Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development article can easily be explained in the context of Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development, and the Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development article is of a reasonable size that the merging of List of software developed by Nintendo Entertainment Analysis & Development will not cause any problems as far as article size is concerned. ~ Arkhandar (message me) 14:55, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger proposal 

message: Hello.
Running through the article in its current state has quickly made a variety of issues evident. Here are some to start:
=== History section===
* There are swathes of unsourced developer information all across the entire section.
* Where there are sources, instances exist wherein the statements made do not necessarily reflect the content of the associated source and/or go beyond what it entails (Sawano is implied to have been Miyamoto's partner for Tech since 2006 outside of being noted as leading two departments. Nothing indicates that Sawano would have lead the department in the period being refrenced. A more suitable source should be used if it exists).
* There are multiple instances of an unreliable source -as established by WP:VG/S- being used in the 1989–2002: Renamed to Entertainment Analysis & Development section (n-sider).
=== Structure section===
* Details of the existence of the splits and department designations of EAD are not sourced.
* The associated staff, timeline, and hierarchy are mentioned without sources.
* Projects worked on are all devoid of any kind of overall sourcing or specific references tying them to the particular subdivisions.
* Co-developers are also just casually mentioned without citation through a smattering of footnotes.
* In fact, the best way to summarize the issues here decisively is that there are no sources for any part of the Structure section. At all.
=== List of developed games section===
* This section reiterates what's already come before it, effectively combining and repeating the lists in the page a second time. This redundant list was removed twice in early April of last year with an explanation of the matter in the edit summary, but it was swiftly reverted in each instance by separate users without and comment or any evident discussion in their own talk pages or here. I'd have suggested the removal myself if it weren't for the fact that the preceding section could very well be considered far more egregious in its lack of sourcing and become a more suitable candidate for removal.
It's fairly surprising to this degree of disregard for basic sourcing requirements in this kind of page and it all really does need to be dealt with. Unfortunately, the extent to which this issue is present is overwhelming and, as mentioned in the last point, clean up attempts have been swatted down without note. I'd like to see some discussion on these matters so the page can be built up into a clean, well-referenced resource as opposed to what it is now. If any of you have any answers, suggestions, or further issues to bring up, please go ahead and type them out. That way solid anchors can be established for proper removals, adjustments, and references. Fact Scanner (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various concerns 

message: * This section reiterates what's already come before it, effectively combining and repeating the lists in the page a second time. This redundant list was removed twice in early April of last year with an explanation of the matter in the edit summary, but it was swiftly reverted in each instance by separate users without and comment or any evident discussion in their own talk pages or here. I'd have suggested the removal myself if it weren't for the fact that the preceding section could very well be considered far more egregious in its lack of sourcing and become a more suitable candidate for removal.
It's fairly surprising to this degree of disregard for basic sourcing requirements in this kind of page and it all really does need to be dealt with. Unfortunately, the extent to which this issue is present is overwhelming and, as mentioned in the last point, clean up attempts have been swatted down without note. I'd like to see some discussion on these matters so the page can be built up into a clean, well-referenced resource as opposed to what it is now. If any of you have any answers, suggestions, or further issues to bring up, please go ahead and type them out. That way solid anchors can be established for proper removals, adjustments, and references. Fact Scanner (talk) 20:50, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of developed games section