Let's use our brains. Only 6.5 million people bought Melee.
Wonderful. I wasn't sure of the real number, but the larger it is, the better my point.
Why on earth would you take into consideration absolutely everyone in the world for the debate of a fanbase in a videogame, when surely taking a number which relates to the debate and topic, Diddy in Brawl, makes more sense rather than just the world in general.
Oh look at this! Somebody is lacking reading comprehension again. Who's arguing about Diddy in brawl? Certainly not me. It's been, what, thrice now that I said that I don't care about that? Since he's already in. We are now arguing about popularity, and the ability to infer character popularity on some random forum that houses almost 0 of the gaming population.
Why include the world? Because the overwhelming majority of the world has heard of *some* Nintendo gaming character. People think what they know is important. If all people know is Mario, that is their favourite Nintendo character. They know it, they don't know anybody else, obviously Mario is more important (this sounds stupid, but humans work this way). This of course ignores that if all they know is Mario, that's their only object.
The sample size is of Smash players after all, and who they want in Brawl.
Nonsense. Overall popularity is extremely important. Draws new buyers you see.
Out of 6.5 billion people, the vast, vast majority wouldn't have a clue who on earth you were talking about if you were to survey them.
More nonsense. If I were to ask my mother her favourite Nintendo character, she would probably say somebody like Pikachu, simply because she doesn't know many. But she does know some.
They'd know what you were talking about. They just may not give you any inventive, creative, or new answers because their options are limited.
While most are certainly not all for discussion, it's still relevant. There's potentially 100,000 people that come here to debate anything, and how interesting and popular a subject is reflects how much it is discussed.
Popularity is only a facet of why people would argue over something. It is not important enough to make the claim that because a character's thread is bigger, the character must be more popular. There are a million other factors. Where the character's majority population is located, their average inclinations, their hobbies, etc.
If a character is popular and has a very large fanbase, some members will spend a lot of time posting on the threads while many others will make a few contributions. On the less popular character threads, usually there are only a few people that will repeatedly make posts and a few interjections. It isn't perfect whatsoever, but after having read a lot of posts on this board while I have been here, it's perfectly obvious which threads are spamfests about horrible character ideas and which are popular because they're liked.
Wonderful. Then you can show a study to prove certain assertions, while of course, keeping in mind that it is subject to change at any moment, and that it only shows popularity among Smash Players that Frequent these boards. Thus, a small percentage of smashers overall, which are a small percentage of Nintendo Gamers, which are a percentage of gamers overall, which are a percentage of people.
Gardevoir, not so. This is a pretty good random survey since the people are in noway required to have a bias towards any particular franchises or loyalties towards characters.
Wonderful. I once again point to the fact that threads here, even if they for sure show popularity, only show it among smash players who go to this site. Keep in mind there is a gigantic gaming population out there, and even a large smashing population that does not go to these boards.
Well seeming that this game encompasses both DK and Pokemon and attracts fans of all genres and franchises, this is a pretty decent place to get a balanced view, right?
No. Because not everybody currently plays Smash. If I love Pokemon, and am a huge Snorlax fan, I'm not going to go "Hey, let's join Smash World Forums!" But, for the sake of argument, if I hear that Snorlax is in the new Smash Bro's game, I may play it, because I'm a huge fan. This is an example but you should be able to get the idea.
There's plenty of Pokemon-nuts here and plenty of DK fans and Gardevoir fans of course. Aren't you here? Fawriel is here. You're both Gardevoir fans, so are you "Pfft."ing your own existance?
I meant that the majority of Gardevoir fans would not be found here. Probably could have worded that better.
At any rate, there may be a few. I believe I said that all you end up getting here are the people who are both smashers (who use this forum), and are a fan of some character. Not fans of the character in general.
The fact that there aren't enough Gardevoir fans to be in any large number away from the Pokemon forums illustrates my point perfectly, the fanbase isn't large.
No, it doesn't. It shows any number of things, but it doesn't show that the fanbase isn't large. Everybody knows Gardevoir is exceedingly popular. It's kind of obvious. I just now honestly went to a random Pokemon forum, clicked their "What's your favourite Pokemon" thread, and wouldn't you know it, the second post is a Gardevoir fan. Going further Gardevoir was one of about 3 Pokemon to have multiple mentions in the first 3 pages. But anyway, come on, It's generally well known that Gardevoir is a very popular Pokemon.
Now, why isn't her thread teaming, but DK's is? Many reasons. DK games may be more similar to Smash than Pokemon games are. People who play DK games may be more inclined to play Smash than Pokemon players. Of the Pokemon players, there *are* more popular Pokemon. Lucario and Deoxys are both indeed more popular. Why would their threads be bigger? The fans of Lucario and Deoxys again may be more inclined to come here, or be Smash players.
There are infinite reasons. But it is absolutely silly to say "The thread is small here, therefore Gardevoir isn't popular."
There's plenty of what you call "real" Diddy fans on the DK forums and plenty of d*mn "real" Diddy fans here. For someone as experienced in formal debates as you, you shouldn't be providing me with sufficient ammunition to discredit the point you're trying to make.
Good thing I'm not then, eh? I managed to fumble my words once so far, but I do that when frustrated to whatever. You? Pfft. You seem to be constantly confused.
Or you could take a random sample, which since it is totally random could be shown to reflect the general consensus. Of course the bigger the sample, the more accurate the data, but for your information Sonic is known to be the most requested after many polls. Don't ask for them, I don't have them, all I know is that is true and considering the number of polls that have taken place and Sonic acclaimed to be the most wanted, that is what we can assume to be quite accurate. But wait, what is this? Sonic's thread on Smashboards is quite large indeed, one of the largest character threads.
Wonderful. By your logic, he should have THE largest. Last time I checked however, he was the most requested 3rd party character, not the most requested overall.
Characters that are pretty unheard of or don't have much support have smaller character threads. Wow, doesn't mean a thing, right?
Not really, no. If you take a sample in an incorrect place, it skews your results. You ask 1000 people if we should keep blacks segregated, and most say yes, that doesn't say much if all 1000 people come from southern Alabama. By the way, this is called an analogy.
Once again, the most you get is how popular among smasher who frequent this board, a character is. Many many factors there to skew data, especially when thread size isn't even a solid thing.
Well you're suggesting to poll the entire world...
I'm suggesting to think things through logically. You don't need to poll the entire world. You need to not say stupid crap that is absolutely IDIOTIC, like "The fanbase for Diddy Kong is over twice that of Gardevoir." Because such a claim is nigh impossible to prove, and people like me *will* call you out on the stupidity of making such a claim. Didn't you ever learn to not make absolute claims, to always qualify everything you say? What Mr. Kirby said was worse than an absolute claim, it was highly specific and obviously impossible to prove in any way.
..with a list of every videogame character ever made otherwise it'd be inaccurate because some people like really really obscure characters in order to get any sort of proof. That is absurd. Taking Smashboards as a gauge of popularity is fine
Assuming all you want is the opinion of Smashers who go to these boards. An extremely specific sample of people.
...for aforementioned reasons, and Diddy just happens to be more popular. If you're seriously trying to convince me that the 2nd most important character in Nintendo's 4th biggest franchise who has starred in many games has a fanbase smaller (or at least not considerably bigger) than 1 3rd-gen pokemon which has a cult following, then I'll mark you as "deluded".
Another one of your insane rambling, or as I like to call them "huge mistakes." Once again you're sayng I'm saying something stupid. I never said this. You know what I said? I said something extremely specific, and easy to prove. So easy, we are doing it right now.
"Saying Diddy has a fanbase over twice that of Gardevoir is stupid." You can't prove that statement. It's a dumb thing to say. Don't say it. I know you personally didn't say it, but like it or not, you're arguing about it now.
Actually you said that everything he was saying too was just his opinion.
No. NO. Remember when I said I do my best to pick my words extremely carefully, and how a single word can change meaning. Here is what I said, quoted, with the important part highlighted for slow readers.
Certainly whatever you say is probably simply your opinion.
Thus, you are wrong, I am right. See, I qualify my statements, and you go off and dequalify them, and thus, look ********. Obviously some things are not his opinion.
However, Mr. Kirby has not presented any factual evidence. He spent pages and pages arguing with over something he agreed with me with, then proceeded to tell me I'm off topic while simultaneously bringing up Gardevoir every five seconds.
Then you should probably rethink about the part which I just omitted. It had nothing to do with the discussion at hand. It was you, once again, deviating from the debate on the subject of irrelevancy.
No. It was me, pointing out that his point was not a point. It was a red herring. You do know what that is right?
Just to clarfiy, it is your opinion that Gardevoir "crosses boundaries". It is fact that Diddy is far more popular.
What's this? Now you're putting words in his mouth! What he said was that Diddy has a very specific amount of popularity greater than Gardevoir, not that he was simply "more popular." If that was all he said, I would have agreed. It's true. No. He had to say something stupid, that Diddy's popularity was "over twice that" of Gardevoir's.
But since you obviously dislike Diddy Kong, you surely wouldn't understand why people like the character.
He's cool in a way DK isn't. He was in somebody's first game, and is better than Tails. There you go. Reasons. Understandable. Remember what I said about humans and how things we know are important. Things that we meet first are obviously of greater importance than those which we have met later. It's the way humans work, and I understand that.
It is true of me with many characters that I dislike people have stated that an aspect of the character that I dislike they find good, and I am unable to understand why that is the case.
Then I would say you lack lucidity and apathy of thought.
I can't explain why people find toilet humour funny because to me it isn't, and thus when people say they like Wario because of it I do not understand the attraction.
I don't find such humour funny, but I can tell you (in an extremely large paragraph that would require a lot of time to write) why some people do. Since I'm not apt to write such a thing, I will summarize briefly and say tt has to do with societal norms, and the ultimate reason everything is funny: Illogicality.
If I were to say to you "I like Diddy because I find his peanut popguns cool" and you disliked the peanut popguns with an intense passion, you would not understand my point of view any better or see why people like Diddy Kong, because you'd find the attraction of the character stupid from your viewpoint due to your opinions. Hence, pointless.
Nonsense. If you find his peanut popguns cool, I'd go, "okay" and probably ask why. If you didn't know, I'd say you need to think on that more, since everybody should know their motivations for everything.
Attraction too, in many cases, can't be explained or fine tuned down to a few things or even a combination of things.
Yes it can. Huge books are written about it. All over the place.
When people are in love it is usually not just 1 thing they like about that person but a perfect combination of everything about that person which would be indescribable.
An observer would be probably be able to tell (since a few things could actually be subconscious), but I would also honestly say that if you don't know why you find somebody attractive past "They're perfect" or "They complete me", then you're not thinking about it enough.
And I believe in a subjective morality. Digression over.
Morality is only one facet of "goodness." Utility exists, as well as quality, and a myriad of other things. And the digression would still not be over, because then we'd have to argue the base assumptions, yours being that it is subjective. The first thing I would do is pull an Aristotle on you and start asking you a ton of questions.
Oh sorry, I thought we were still doing a debate, not another one of your "little digressions".
So far, I've had one. Everything else I've said is relevant to some facet of what was said to me. In case you didn't know, real debates *always* splinter. The more you argue about one thing, the more things come up to disagree on.
You see, in my attempt to bring the debate back to the subject at hand you once again take a chance to deviate it from the course by bringing up you stating facts completely not on the subject.
Oh? Prove it. I once again say that everything I've said, minus one thing, is important to what was said before it. Really, even the one thing that I say was a digression, was important because it shows that your idiotic (then again, was it you? Perhaps it was Mr. Kirby) "Cool and Good are always opinions" is not a fact. Thus it is relevant. It shows somebody is saying something stupid again, and does not in fact have a point of any kind.
If I wasn't adamant about getting facts in a debate, then surely we'd get nowhere. Exactly where we're going, because of you refusing to believe any given evidence and constantly trying to derail the conversation while avoiding any situation where you might have to present facts relevant to the actual debate.
Nonsense. It is you and other people consistently saying stupid things and thinking they are points that is doing this. "Diddy's fanbase is over twice that of Gardevoir's" = That doesn't make any sense, where are you getting this? which = "thread sizes" which = "Thread sizes are not accurate in any way to show popularity comparisons"
It is a progression of thought. For each idiotic point I have to refute, we derail. Oh, but wait! Perhaps you simply don't want me to refute your points? You want me to nod my head at all the stupid crap I read here? No.
That's of course just one example.
Well if only the world worked on subjective values, you might actually have a case. If you could provide some objective reasons to why Diddy is bad character as such, then maybe we can get somewhere.
Wait, you seem to be using subjective and objective interchangeably. The average person is too stupid to have an objective value theory on anything of importance, so in order for me to post "objective reasons to why Diddy is a bad character" I'd have to find an agreed upon Objective Value System.
Currently, I'm working on Subjective values, meaning my reasons are my own, I don't care what you say (unless I'm factually incorrect about something). Hence when people tell me they like Diddy because he's cooler in a way DK isn't, I go "okay" and leave it at that. It's a reason. I'm not looking for objective truths, because most people don't have a system to give them to me.
No, I've realised you don't really work in the "facts" department, but if anyone would be operating under a delusion I think that would have to be you.
Somehow, I think you once again have managed to glide over my point.
"Would have lost"? What, if you'd actually put forth a decent argument that doesn't revolve around "Me and my friends have heard of Gardevoir but don't play Pokemon"? I'm afraid it really was 'We all know'.
Sorry, but the fact that some random non-gamers have managed to come across a certain Pokemon, and not others, shows *something*. You may not like it, but it does. Even if it is anecdotal, it puts forth the question of "Why not another Pokemon?"
Couldn't resist. If there's one thing I love more than a good debate it's an incredibly bad one.
Do you even know what a good debate is?
You basically proved our point. This argument you're making is about Gardevoir making it into BRAWL, not a POKEMON game
If you ignored me, why are you talking to me? You can't read my posts.
But no, I am NOT arguing here for Gardevoir to be in Brawl. What I have said on Gardevoir so far is:
Gardevoir is possibly able to cross boundaries that other Pokemon are unable to.
I like Gardevoir more than Diddy Kong.
Diddy Kong's fanbase is not "over twice" that of Gardevoir's.
None of these are "Why Gardevoir is going to make it in Brawl."
You are indeed extremely stupid. Unable to read exactly what I say. Are you lysdexic?
...so it would only be logical that it would be conducted on a Smashbros board.
Ah yes, I briefly entertained the idea of this "point" coming up, but then I realised it was stupid, and I wouldn't make it. I thus assumed that people here might have some intelligence and not make it. Alas.
Is Sakurai trying to cater to only Smash fans? Is Nintendo only making this game to get back people who'd already buy this game? No. That's stupid. When you make a sequal, you not only try to get back your old fanbase, you recruit new people. A single new addition can bring new buyers, and thus more money. When Mewtwo made it in Melee, I GUARANTEE that at least one player bought the game for no reason other than Mewtwo was in it. Thus it allows more people to get into the franchise. That one Mewtwo lover could tell all his friends that the game was awesome, making even more money through word of mouth. If Mewtwo never made it in, all that money is lost.
So, a character's *overall* popularity is extremely important, not just their popularity within the Smash community.
I doubt any of those *******s at the Pokemon forums give one flying **** about Gardevoir's chances in Brawl.
They will if Gardevoir makes it, and they hear about it.
This guy is a piece of work.
Pot, Kettle. Have you managed to make a single decent point?
cite some for your own arguments whie youre at it
Sorry, but standard argument procedure says you have to answer my call first. After you are done, I will go ahead and cite whatever is in my power to cite, or concede defeat. Get going.
I remember, at a racist forum I went to once, they refused to cite anything, always asking me to do it first. When I told them it was normal procedure for them to do it first, they said I was pulling "Jew Tactics." Do you think I'm pulling Jew Tactics?
you should be rolling those eyes at yourself. SET limit implies FIXED value.
Nonsense. Looking it up in the dictionary as an adjective, "set" does not mean "fixed value."
40-45 is a RANGE, that means ANY number BETWEEN 40 and 45 can be the LIMIT.
Thus, 40-45 is the set limit.
wrong...the less iconic character are cut because they are LESS ICONIC and therefore Sakurai doesnt feel it to be worth investing in a moveset and playability for them because either:
1. the fanbase is smaller
2. they arent all that significant to their own franchse
and no, i dont need to cite this because its common sense
One reason a less iconic character could be cut is because it's simply not iconic. But things could not be so simple. This is common sense. Your assumption once again is that there is no set ceiling for characters, and Sakurai can have whoever he wants in no matter what.
Obviously if there are let's say, 40 characters that can be made due to time or monetary restraints, and there is a contention between, let's say, Diddy, and let's say, Samurai Goroh, as an example, Diddy could go in and knock out Goroh, despite them both being important in their franchises, and iconic. Obvious.
the ceiling means nothing, and its a ceiling range not a fixed ceiling like you nkeep suggesting. youre acting like the true fixed ceiling value is picked before the characters are even decided.
If you ever developed anything, you always work out exactly what is possible to do, by mapping out your goals and monetary abilities. They didn't walk in with no plan for the number of characters. This has been said to you several times.
if youre trying to fill up a brawl roster with and you say you want "around 40 characters" why fix the value at EXACTLY 40 when you dont even know who youre putting in yet? this is basically what youre implying
Ahuh. Is English your first language. Because "Around 40 characters" is not "Exactly 40 characters." They are completely different statements.
just because you hate Diddy, dont make him less deserving.
I know. But it's another stupid comment to say that he deserves a spot more than "anyone." It's an unqualified absolute statement than in order for you to prove, you'd have to compare Diddy to every conceivable character.
telling me hes less deserving than Gardevoir is ignorant at best.
I agree. Good thing nobody ever said this.
Is this entire thread unable to read? What, is everybody hear in possession of a 5th grade reading level?
Don't even try and argue with him. He's almost as bad as those ****ers from 4chan.
You mean Ebaums.
I'll tell you why I like diddy at least Mr. Troll.
Hah. If I was trolling, there'd be Lolicon and Guro everywhere. I'm just rather annoying for people to debate with, when they are unseasoned in debate. You'd think I would have learned my lesson and stick to forums that are specifically meant for debate. Never any troubles there.
I would just stock up when I was running low lol) and in DK64 it was pretty cool to see too.
