PK-ow!
Smash Lord
Alright guys, what I have to say concerns the project of this thread as a whole.
If we are to resolve the questions posed here, we need to agree at least to the criteria with which to evaluate proposals. When sides are engaged in an argument, no synthesis can be achieved unless there is at least some foundational agreement, some higher order of principles to which to appeal any arguments made.
I am quite sure that presently, the criteria being implicitly used in this thread are divergent. Discussion has to turn to this higher level before any meaningful conclusion can be made. That's what I meant when I said I should have brought this up sooner.
I perceive three sorts of 'norms' ("goodness metrics") that are being used. One, humour. Some kind of value toward lulziness and spontaneous-seeming names is producing some suggestions. This is the origin of a suggestion like, calling Up-B **** (and Side-B Kirby ****). Or using "Murder Hug." Funny.
There is also, of course, my own suggestions, which derive from some need for double meanings, and/or references to mythological lore. That is, I value a name that can just be analyzed more and more. I offered Thunderclap*, or King's Divide under this model.
Then there is a line of suggestions that values ominous seeming singular names. A name that gives an impression, like a metaphor. Names like Thor's hammer, and Din's Curse. They are suggestive... but ... are somehow different from something like Thunderclap.
These are what I've perceived so far. There may be more. I'm not sure where "400 Babies" falls, as it seems a reasonable cross of all of them. Funny and 'analyzable', yet with an immediate perceptible connection to the attack, more or less.
Now, of course, what our goal must be is, either to find some way of arguing between these norms, or, what is often more productive (not coincidentally), trying to find how each of these norms is an expression of some even higher principle, to which we all do agree. Finding some thing that each of these gets at, which define a "meta-definition" of what makes a good name. Platonic philosophers would say it's guaranteed to be there. I can hope as much, but I won't count on it.
SO! How shall we resolve this? I believe that deeply analyzable references are valuable because.... we're trying to create an effect. Moves created under the model I've been using can be engineered so as to have an immediate effect, and anyone who wants to think more about it... has some brain food to chew.
I was also thinking each move can be known by two names. No reason we can't have both Murder Choke and Gerudo, right? And Stomp and Murder Stomp? I think those would just be limiting cases* of what could be a greater option, of just taking two names. One "poetic" name, and one 'moment' name that isn't as over-the-top, and more for a casual environment when you're trying to create hype rather than terror.
Gentlemen?
*a limiting case is just a case in a special condition that lets you make special assumptions you couldn't make in general.. because it's a special condition.
*I believe I found a better place for Thunderclap. I'll bring it up when we get to that move.
EDIT: Whew! It feels so good to write this post! Z1Gma, you make a good team with me. I have an idea, you give the smallest word of support, and then I follow through. ****, that's **** teamwork, people.
If we are to resolve the questions posed here, we need to agree at least to the criteria with which to evaluate proposals. When sides are engaged in an argument, no synthesis can be achieved unless there is at least some foundational agreement, some higher order of principles to which to appeal any arguments made.
I am quite sure that presently, the criteria being implicitly used in this thread are divergent. Discussion has to turn to this higher level before any meaningful conclusion can be made. That's what I meant when I said I should have brought this up sooner.
I perceive three sorts of 'norms' ("goodness metrics") that are being used. One, humour. Some kind of value toward lulziness and spontaneous-seeming names is producing some suggestions. This is the origin of a suggestion like, calling Up-B **** (and Side-B Kirby ****). Or using "Murder Hug." Funny.
There is also, of course, my own suggestions, which derive from some need for double meanings, and/or references to mythological lore. That is, I value a name that can just be analyzed more and more. I offered Thunderclap*, or King's Divide under this model.
Then there is a line of suggestions that values ominous seeming singular names. A name that gives an impression, like a metaphor. Names like Thor's hammer, and Din's Curse. They are suggestive... but ... are somehow different from something like Thunderclap.
These are what I've perceived so far. There may be more. I'm not sure where "400 Babies" falls, as it seems a reasonable cross of all of them. Funny and 'analyzable', yet with an immediate perceptible connection to the attack, more or less.
Now, of course, what our goal must be is, either to find some way of arguing between these norms, or, what is often more productive (not coincidentally), trying to find how each of these norms is an expression of some even higher principle, to which we all do agree. Finding some thing that each of these gets at, which define a "meta-definition" of what makes a good name. Platonic philosophers would say it's guaranteed to be there. I can hope as much, but I won't count on it.
SO! How shall we resolve this? I believe that deeply analyzable references are valuable because.... we're trying to create an effect. Moves created under the model I've been using can be engineered so as to have an immediate effect, and anyone who wants to think more about it... has some brain food to chew.
I was also thinking each move can be known by two names. No reason we can't have both Murder Choke and Gerudo, right? And Stomp and Murder Stomp? I think those would just be limiting cases* of what could be a greater option, of just taking two names. One "poetic" name, and one 'moment' name that isn't as over-the-top, and more for a casual environment when you're trying to create hype rather than terror.
Gentlemen?
*a limiting case is just a case in a special condition that lets you make special assumptions you couldn't make in general.. because it's a special condition.
*I believe I found a better place for Thunderclap. I'll bring it up when we get to that move.
EDIT: Whew! It feels so good to write this post! Z1Gma, you make a good team with me. I have an idea, you give the smallest word of support, and then I follow through. ****, that's **** teamwork, people.
I propose we invent the term 'failsmash' so as to pioneer new dimensions of Smash scientization. >.>
Like, Din cursed Ganondorf with the Dsmash. :\
.
