The "Nintendo Games" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Quoted from Total Advance Magazine Issue 36: "With all the recent Rare events you would have thought that Diddy and co would be no more. However, it appears that Rare owns the right to Diddy Kong's name." of course this will mean that Diddy Kong Pilot is still in the works but for some reason I don't think it's true because Nintendo should own ALL the Kongs.
Page:
gerrid wrote:
> in the end it was just far too complicated.
*
Maybe that says more about you than it does about the game?
> in the end it was just far too complicated.
*
Maybe that says more about you than it does about the game?
The game was fantastically boring.
Rare thought it was good to havehuge levels with loads of areas and hundreds of things to collect, but in the end it was just far too complicated.
Rare thought it was good to havehuge levels with loads of areas and hundreds of things to collect, but in the end it was just far too complicated.
The game was good, the DK Rap was the work of Satan himself.
What a rubbish game it was. Oh the memories.
I liked Lanky. He had a funny face.
As long as they take Lanky and Chunky with them I don't care.
Rare are welcome to the little poe faced mong.
Edgy wrote:
> Nintendo created Donkey Kong.
> Rare created Diddy Kong under Nintendo's franchise.
> Nintendo own the name 'Kong' when referring to videogames characters
> (other than those based on the actual movie)
> Thus, if Rare could find a loophole which allowed them to use Diddy,
> he would not be named Diddy Kong.
---
Exactly. :-)
Donkey Kong is a part of Nintendo, and Diddy Kong still will be as well (in a way), even although he belongs to Rare - reason: Rare are still bringing Diddy Kong Pilot out on the GBA, and I can't see them giving him his own game on X-Box, which means he'll only really be appearing on a Nintendo console.
I really couldn't care about Diddy Kong though - Donkey Kong in his own game will be good enough for me. :-)
> Nintendo created Donkey Kong.
> Rare created Diddy Kong under Nintendo's franchise.
> Nintendo own the name 'Kong' when referring to videogames characters
> (other than those based on the actual movie)
> Thus, if Rare could find a loophole which allowed them to use Diddy,
> he would not be named Diddy Kong.
---
Exactly. :-)
Donkey Kong is a part of Nintendo, and Diddy Kong still will be as well (in a way), even although he belongs to Rare - reason: Rare are still bringing Diddy Kong Pilot out on the GBA, and I can't see them giving him his own game on X-Box, which means he'll only really be appearing on a Nintendo console.
I really couldn't care about Diddy Kong though - Donkey Kong in his own game will be good enough for me. :-)
John.J wrote:
> WS is right not you Dringo. *bows down to WS*
No Dringo is perfectly right, Dringo sad obsessed Nintendo fan that study's everything.
Dringo know for fact that Nintendo managed to hold the Donkey Kong franchise as well as characters based upon the game including Diddy Kong.
They actually used his name in the press release.
Ok?
> WS is right not you Dringo. *bows down to WS*
No Dringo is perfectly right, Dringo sad obsessed Nintendo fan that study's everything.
Dringo know for fact that Nintendo managed to hold the Donkey Kong franchise as well as characters based upon the game including Diddy Kong.
They actually used his name in the press release.
Ok?
Nintendo created Donkey Kong.
Rare created Diddy Kong under Nintendo's franchise.
Nintendo own the name 'Kong' when referring to videogames characters (other than those based on the actual movie)
Thus, if Rare could find a loophole which allowed them to use Diddy, he would not be named Diddy Kong.
Rare created Diddy Kong under Nintendo's franchise.
Nintendo own the name 'Kong' when referring to videogames characters (other than those based on the actual movie)
Thus, if Rare could find a loophole which allowed them to use Diddy, he would not be named Diddy Kong.
Page: