Brentos4o8
Smash Ace
Hahahaha cool. I don't feel as stupid anymore.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Could Nintendo Finish the Fight
- Thread starter RoyalRook
- Start date
blayde_axel
Smash Master
It's an average game. But playing it proves how Nintendo handles 2D games... pretty excellently.
BudDudandSlash
Smash Apprentice
"Lawl les maek Smash into Powar Stoen!!1"
No.
No.
Finn Macool
Smash Apprentice
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2007
- Messages
- 104
The problem with the 3D fighting games I've played is that thy don't really give you freedom of movement depth wise, trying to move up or down the screen feels like your fighting the game to do it
I'll Take The Bait
Smash Bros. should not be the series to practice a new type of fighting game. If there were a sequel to Brawl, I'd expect the next generation improvements, new characters, new levels and items, and that would be enough to keep me happy.
As for your idea, yeah, why not. Since I can't think of an actual Nintendo franchise that would make for a good fighter all on its own, I'd say they come up with something new for this experiment. Like Pikmin. That was pretty much an experiment, there was never a game on the market like it before, so who would have known how people would have reacted to it? It was a success, anyways.
Or how 'bout this. Wii Fight. A game that uses your Mii's as fighters in a fully 3D, full control environment. So they can run about, give them super human strength or something. Now what kind of things would make this work. Maybe a lock on system? It would certainly help. And if you decide, "Hey, I want to toy with my opponent or trick him. Let's mix it up.", and release the lock on, you could always run away and try and lure your opponent towards a wall or obstacle, maybe preform a Jackie Chan like move running up a wall and hopping behind your opponent and beating him from behind. Destructible environments? Maybe some items or planks of wood or something that could be used as a weapon.
I don't know, I'm just throwing some ideas out there.
Smash Bros. should not be the series to practice a new type of fighting game. If there were a sequel to Brawl, I'd expect the next generation improvements, new characters, new levels and items, and that would be enough to keep me happy.
As for your idea, yeah, why not. Since I can't think of an actual Nintendo franchise that would make for a good fighter all on its own, I'd say they come up with something new for this experiment. Like Pikmin. That was pretty much an experiment, there was never a game on the market like it before, so who would have known how people would have reacted to it? It was a success, anyways.
Or how 'bout this. Wii Fight. A game that uses your Mii's as fighters in a fully 3D, full control environment. So they can run about, give them super human strength or something. Now what kind of things would make this work. Maybe a lock on system? It would certainly help. And if you decide, "Hey, I want to toy with my opponent or trick him. Let's mix it up.", and release the lock on, you could always run away and try and lure your opponent towards a wall or obstacle, maybe preform a Jackie Chan like move running up a wall and hopping behind your opponent and beating him from behind. Destructible environments? Maybe some items or planks of wood or something that could be used as a weapon.
I don't know, I'm just throwing some ideas out there.
Moon Monkey
Smash Hero
3D Smash? thats like multi-player Dk64 do you know how hard it will be if they did that? you will barely land a hit
Red Exodus
Smash Master
To date I don't know any REAL 3d fighters, Power Stone for Sega Genesis is the only one that comes to mind, it was a lot like smash come to think of it.
Drunken_Dragon
Smash Journeyman
so apparantly true 3d = non sideview camera for some reason.
because "3d" means you can move on 3 axis.. which you can in all 3d fighters. what you want is just 3d with more freedom of movement. but the problem with that is in fighting.. unless you can fly, moving on 3 axis simulaniously isent nessisary. in games like say.. dbz sparking, or virtual on. where you can fly, and shoot blasts/weapons. it makes sense.
in a 3d fighting scenario, its no nessisary to move say, forward, and right, and jump and move all the directions at the same time. (similarly to real fighting) cause by that definition, powerstone (for dreamcast.. not genesis) dosent even qualify. because only in certian modes can you move all 3 axis at one time. that would also make mario 64 "faux 3d".. which is bs.
saying "true 3d" is an excuse for people who dont know how to move in 3d fighters, because 3d fighters are truely 3d.
because "3d" means you can move on 3 axis.. which you can in all 3d fighters. what you want is just 3d with more freedom of movement. but the problem with that is in fighting.. unless you can fly, moving on 3 axis simulaniously isent nessisary. in games like say.. dbz sparking, or virtual on. where you can fly, and shoot blasts/weapons. it makes sense.
in a 3d fighting scenario, its no nessisary to move say, forward, and right, and jump and move all the directions at the same time. (similarly to real fighting) cause by that definition, powerstone (for dreamcast.. not genesis) dosent even qualify. because only in certian modes can you move all 3 axis at one time. that would also make mario 64 "faux 3d".. which is bs.
saying "true 3d" is an excuse for people who dont know how to move in 3d fighters, because 3d fighters are truely 3d.
Takeshi245
Smash Champion
2.5D is the way to go with the Smash series as it always has been. It's times like these in which I want to be moderater so I can close threads like these ones.
RoyalRook
Smash Journeyman
You know, that's not exactly true. Even you are trying to make fun of this thread. I ask you: WHY NOT? Why not MMORPG Halo with shooting zones? Why couldn't Nintendo make a true 3D fighting game. It's abstract and challenging, but so does the Wii. Did you expect to play something like Nintendo Wii back then? I didn't and I am pretty out there, lol.
P.S. Is show me your news up yet? Can't wait, huge week.
You're absolutely missing EVERYONE's point in this thread, dude.
If Halo was turned into a MMORPG then it would DESTROY everything that Halo was praised for.
Adding on to games like Halo, Guilty Gear, Soul Caliber, and Super Smash is a very good idea. But absolutely changing it's playstyle is just plain outright not smart, at all.
*points at Mortal Kombat*
The maker of MK is actually changing things completely around AGAIN after his last game because he realized he ruined everything just after turning things 3D and making it a completely new franchise almost. He's killing off almost everyone and bringing back what actually worked. Do you see the point I'm trying to make here?
RoyalRook
Smash Journeyman
And things like Final Smash is NOT adding to a game?
flyinfilipino
Smash Master
What does wanting Nintendo to create a 3D fighting game have to do with Super Smash Bros. Brawl?
Pyr0
Smash Ace
Call me oldskool, but 2D fighting games > 3D fighting games
You're not understanding me.
Final Smashes, new chars, all the new things on the dojo are adding to the game. They are adding to the game, and making it better. But they're not COMPLETELY changing the game, they're not making it something that it's not.
Everything they add I love more, but making it 3D wouldn't even look like Smash anymore. Come on now.
kin3tic-c4jun-3
Smash Ace
OP, you are absolutely useless.
Good day.
Good day.
pwnzorz
Smash Journeyman
I think the point of this thread is to explore the what-if's. What if they were able to make a perfectly enjoyable 3D fighter with all the bells and whistles, and have it not feel like any other game still.
It's kinda like how right now, Super Smash Bros. has, and always will, seperate itself from other 2D fighters. What if they somehow managed to do the same thing in 3D?
Now I know my first instinct is to say no, because I love the original Smash Bros formula, and they could make it again and again and I would keep buying it.
But just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it can never be done or can never be done well.
By the way, they turned Warcraft into an MMORPG. Arguably the best, and definitely the most popular. A 2D strategy game where you play God has evolved into a fully 3D massively multi player online game that plenty of people love. Now I'm not going to say EVERYONE loves it or even likes it, because a train of people will say they hate it or that all it is is electronic cocaine, or that the old ones were waiii better, but there was a lot of effort put into developing World of Warcraft, and tons of people do love it. It retained that "Warcraft" feel, and lots of people who play WoW go back and play Warcraft III anyways, 'cause it's still fun.
Halo RPG seems a little off the wall, but what if it were a Halo strategy game set in the Halo universe? Halo's got plenty of content and military structure on both the good guy and villain sides. Would it attract fans of Halo? Yeah, I think many of them would be attracted to them. In turn, it would broaden peoples horizons, some who may have never played a strategy game before even.
I'm only sticking up for this guy because if everyone were closed minded, we wouldn't have Smash Bros. or Halo, or Warcraft, or video games, or light bulbs at all. An idea may not make sense if you glance at it, but if you actually try hard to put input into it, then maybe it can could evolve into a product. Of course the idea seems to suck, you haven't given it any fuel, which was the entire point of this thread. Not to get all pissed and defensive about it.
It's bad enough half the threads get hated/grammar nazi'd/locked, but when someone actually puts some effort into their discussion topic, everyone just says, "[no.] [no.] [impossible.] [example.] [conclusion.]". Admittedly, it did come off as kinda hostile with all the fighting game and Sonic bashing, but those are opinions of currently existing games, and his idea was not even given a chance.
Lighten up. Welcome to the forums, RoyalRook.
It's kinda like how right now, Super Smash Bros. has, and always will, seperate itself from other 2D fighters. What if they somehow managed to do the same thing in 3D?
Now I know my first instinct is to say no, because I love the original Smash Bros formula, and they could make it again and again and I would keep buying it.
But just because it hasn't been done, doesn't mean it can never be done or can never be done well.
By the way, they turned Warcraft into an MMORPG. Arguably the best, and definitely the most popular. A 2D strategy game where you play God has evolved into a fully 3D massively multi player online game that plenty of people love. Now I'm not going to say EVERYONE loves it or even likes it, because a train of people will say they hate it or that all it is is electronic cocaine, or that the old ones were waiii better, but there was a lot of effort put into developing World of Warcraft, and tons of people do love it. It retained that "Warcraft" feel, and lots of people who play WoW go back and play Warcraft III anyways, 'cause it's still fun.
Halo RPG seems a little off the wall, but what if it were a Halo strategy game set in the Halo universe? Halo's got plenty of content and military structure on both the good guy and villain sides. Would it attract fans of Halo? Yeah, I think many of them would be attracted to them. In turn, it would broaden peoples horizons, some who may have never played a strategy game before even.
I'm only sticking up for this guy because if everyone were closed minded, we wouldn't have Smash Bros. or Halo, or Warcraft, or video games, or light bulbs at all. An idea may not make sense if you glance at it, but if you actually try hard to put input into it, then maybe it can could evolve into a product. Of course the idea seems to suck, you haven't given it any fuel, which was the entire point of this thread. Not to get all pissed and defensive about it.
It's bad enough half the threads get hated/grammar nazi'd/locked, but when someone actually puts some effort into their discussion topic, everyone just says, "[no.] [no.] [impossible.] [example.] [conclusion.]". Admittedly, it did come off as kinda hostile with all the fighting game and Sonic bashing, but those are opinions of currently existing games, and his idea was not even given a chance.
Lighten up. Welcome to the forums, RoyalRook.
Kirye
Smash Ace
Simple. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
If Smash was really gonna be a 3D Game, they should've done that with Smash 64 and see where it went. Now that we're expecting a third 2D fighing platformer game, going and changing it to 3D would most likely be catastrophic.
Besides, there's a reason all those 3D games are ****ty. It's because they're ****ty, and just about every 3D fighter i've played has been crap, not because of the creators, but because it just seems so limited. (I do enjoy Soul Calibur, but not as much as Smash.)
You try WDing on a 3D platform and see how you do.
If Smash was really gonna be a 3D Game, they should've done that with Smash 64 and see where it went. Now that we're expecting a third 2D fighing platformer game, going and changing it to 3D would most likely be catastrophic.
Besides, there's a reason all those 3D games are ****ty. It's because they're ****ty, and just about every 3D fighter i've played has been crap, not because of the creators, but because it just seems so limited. (I do enjoy Soul Calibur, but not as much as Smash.)
You try WDing on a 3D platform and see how you do.
Maikeru17
What the hell is this thing
Not only do you, the topic creator, make absolutely no sense; but a "3D fighter" today is only referring to GRAPHICS.
The GRAPHICS are in 3D. That's it. A fighter is not MEANT to be in FIRST PERSON or THIRD person (fighters are essentially in a 'second-person', or side view camera).
If you throw a fighting game into a world with 3-axis (x, y, z), you gain the freedom of movement in all three axis. That's not such a bad thing, but...generally speaking, you lose all sorts of fighting game elements, turning the game into a multiplayer Maximo (© Capcom). That in itself is a FAILURE in the eyes of ALL fighting games.
Why would you want to change the "formula" that has worked for SO MANY fighters, and still, to this day, WORKS JUST FINE?
No. No one does that. Because it won't appeal to the consumers, it won't appeal to the market, and it definitely won't appeal to the developers.
WWSD?
Snake: "Otacon...there are people stating that all of todays popular fighters are bad, and use a terrible 'formula'. What kind of smasher is this?"
Otacon: "Well, Snake, that kind of smasher is an IDIOT."
...End Transmission.
The GRAPHICS are in 3D. That's it. A fighter is not MEANT to be in FIRST PERSON or THIRD person (fighters are essentially in a 'second-person', or side view camera).
If you throw a fighting game into a world with 3-axis (x, y, z), you gain the freedom of movement in all three axis. That's not such a bad thing, but...generally speaking, you lose all sorts of fighting game elements, turning the game into a multiplayer Maximo (© Capcom). That in itself is a FAILURE in the eyes of ALL fighting games.
Why would you want to change the "formula" that has worked for SO MANY fighters, and still, to this day, WORKS JUST FINE?
No. No one does that. Because it won't appeal to the consumers, it won't appeal to the market, and it definitely won't appeal to the developers.
WWSD?
Snake: "Otacon...there are people stating that all of todays popular fighters are bad, and use a terrible 'formula'. What kind of smasher is this?"
Otacon: "Well, Snake, that kind of smasher is an IDIOT."
...End Transmission.