Social NintenZone Social 4 - Bring It In, Guys!

[PLATINUM7]

Not so much having to do with characters but, "Filler" was used an unbelievable amount of times for the Miiverse Pic of the Day.

 

[Strider_Bond00J]

Here's a challenge.
Without googling, name 3 of Battleborn's 25 characters.

Now think to yourself how many of Overwatch's 22 you know.

That should say numbers how much disparity there is in the successes.

Oscar Mike, ISIC and Marquis. Of my short time I played it, Oscar and Marquis were technically my mains. About a few weeks ago, I tried to boot the game up again, but then I remembered why I stopped playing in the first place - I always seemed to be stuck in the Red server bars, so very high ping. Not the best experience for a game that's practically online all the time. But I do confess, some of the characters were pretty neat in concept or design. Marquis as a robotic battle butler who can slow time down, Shayne and Aurox essentially being what a first person JoJo would look like, if the user and Stand could banter outside of battlecries. But overall, Overwatch, as listed below, obviously beat out Battleborn by a long shot.

Overwatch: McCree, Genji, Reaper, Soldier:76, Bastion, Ana, Lúcio, D.Va, Pharah, Roadhog, Junkrat, Tracer, Widowmaker, Hanzo, Mei, the list goes on.

But the one game that I feel has the identity crisis might be Paladins. Just briefly looking at one character, Viktor, he's essentially a mishmash of Soldier:76 and Mike: Running, Grenades/Rockets, Aiming Down Sights, and even a targeted strike bomb. I can't help but feel like that's 'Following the leader' a bit too much in the direction of the generic FPS hero. IMO, Paladins would struggle just like Battleborn on recycled archetypes being explored by it's direct competitors.

 

[Yomi's Biggest Fan]

Not so much having to do with characters but, "Filler" was used an unbelievable amount of times for the Miiverse Pic of the Day.

Or "unimportant" spinoff characters like Daisy.

But that's a subject and a debate for another day.

 

[AwesomeAussie27]

Oh yes, how can I forget about everyone's second favorite word at the time?

View attachment 117138

Especially when better characters fit the definition well.

Ugh, this joke again...

But wait, it's forbidden to bad mouth Brash senpai around here. I'll just shove more candy in my mouth to keep it shut.

 

[Yomi's Biggest Fan]

Ugh, this joke again...

But wait, it's forbidden to bad mouth Brash senpai around here. I'll just shove more candy in my mouth to keep it shut.

It's ok bby, Brash senpai love you too!

 

[Aetheri]

"relevance"

Of course it doesn't always apply to every character...

As I mentioned at this point it's case by case per character, it's not whether they tick all boxes it's whether they tick the right ones...

 

[AwesomeAussie27]

It's ok bby, Brash senpai love you too!

Eeeeewww

I'm not going to be a bear jock's senpai, not at all...

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

"Reps". People went on and on about which franchises were "over-repped", which "deserved more reps", and so forth. They turned speculation into a contest between which series was "better" when that was the completely wrong way to look at it.

Relevance does matter, though...for better or worse. Absence from the spotlight is something that it seems you can only overcome if you're a Smash veteran or an iconic retro or third party character. It makes sense to an extent; they want characters that at least some part of the fanbase will recognize and want to acknowledge the newer blood for what it's been able to do. Would be rather unfair if they obsessed so much over who was "deserving" and only focused on characters from one era, wouldn't you say?

Everyone got so high strung about any given character's identity and which franchise they hailed from. What they should've been looking at was if they'd been in anything notable lately, how well a moveset could be built around their abilities, and what new and unique things they could bring to the roster.

I'd like to note that Corrin almost didn't make it because Sakurai felt it would overrep Fire Emblem. The series they hail from do play a role in their inclusion too. It should not be written off, although I do imagine that representation is lower on the list of factors when including someone.

Keep in mind this is also why we only have Kirby in Melee. He didn't want to overrep his own franchise.

It's likely he doesn't care as much about representation being "perfect" nowadays, but that's due to fun and movesets being higher priority to him. Which is reasonable, honestly.

I do agree that many took a lot of the representation arguments way too far though.

 

[Z25]

Well Ridley was rebuilt by the Space Pirates very much like Vader was built by the Empire...

----

Also please tell me this theme played when they appeared...

No but that would have been amazing!

 

[PLATINUM7]

I feel Smash has always had a good balance between relevant and surprise characters. Even then, some surprise characters seem relevant when you consider sales, historical importance, recognisability, etc. Having too much of one or the other wouldn't be so great.

I'd like to note that Corrin almost didn't make it because Sakurai felt it would overrep Fire Emblem. The series they hail from do play a role in their inclusion too. It should not be written off, although I do imagine that representation is lower on the list of factors when including someone.

Keep in mind this is also why we only have Kirby in Melee. He didn't want to overrep his own franchise.

It's likely he doesn't care as much about representation being "perfect" nowadays, but that's due to fun and movesets being higher priority to him. Which is reasonable, honestly.

I do agree that many took a lot of the representation arguments way too far though.

Exactly. Imagine cutting a character with an original/unique moveset because of over repping, then including a less interesting character gameplay wise because their series has less characters. Kinda silly if you ask me.

 

[Yomi's Biggest Fan]

Exactly. Imagine cutting a character with an original/unique moveset because of over repping, then including a less interesting character gameplay wise because their series has less characters. Kinda silly if you ask me.

How about we cut Dark Pit and replace him with Hades or Medusa?

Oh wait, there's still too many Kid Icarus characters. Better keep it at two reps so the fandom wouldn't explode.

 

[dream1ng]

"Relevance" (as its defined in these circles - usually to mean having a resonant recent impact) matters more than it used to as far as roster building goes. Now you'd be hard-pressed to find a Nintendo newcomer who hadn't been in the spotlight in recent years past the sole exception of DHD, but from 64 to Brawl it was much more so a case of "the characters who make the bigger overall impacts get in", at least as far as the unique additions went.

Not to say there weren't exceptions, but since Smash 4 the "recency/relevance" machine seems to be firing on almost all cylinders. That's the reason that going into Smash 4 characters like K. Rool, Isaac, Krystal, Goroh, Takamaru, Skull Kid, etc. had as much support as they did, people were predicating predictions based on the precedent at the time.

Now going forward people are going to be looking mostly for who hit it big recently, which imo is a shame, since there could be room for parity between both kinds of additions.

 

[PLATINUM7]

How about we cut Dark Pit and replace him with Hades or Medusa?

Oh wait, there's still too many Kid Icarus characters. Better keep it at two reps so the fandom wouldn't explode.

I feel like clones kinda get away with being included as they're extras. Though it's not like everyone sees it that way. I would say if possible have Dark Pit and one of the others but then there'd be even more "lol Sakurai bias" comments.

I guess whatever conditions or rules are used to determine characters inclusions, only apply to a certain extent. For instance, it's hard enough for people to accept 3 KI characters, imagine justifying 4 or 5, even if the 4th and 5th characters were super unique. Similarly, a character might be able to have a really cool moveset but if its some generic character from a game no one's ever heard of, the unique moveset rules kinda fall apart.

 

[Coricus]

Yet most people will completely ignore the "sometimes" part. Then call Sakurai a lier or troll for the times when it doesn't.

To elaborate my own opinion on that. . .

I think and were chosen due to relevance because they were from games released the year development was starting, which considering the timeframe. . .yeah they were basically the best options.

was chosen for relevance due to marketing.

had a "Pokemon slot" designated for them, although he seems to be the only character something this specific was set for.


I'm not sure on the reasons on every other newcomer this time around (aside from the clones, who were basically just a "throw it in" moment), but I'm pretty sure they weren't nearly as tied to relevance. That isn't to say it wasn't a factor at all, but I think both it and the similar buzzword "iconicism" were more melted down into a single pass/fail question from which only Bayonetta due to being a direct product of fan requests was exempt:

"Does anyone (internationally) outside of the Smash fandom even freaking care about these characters or the game they came from?"

The answer to every newcomer left is "Yes" to varying degrees, ranging from "Project Rainfall" at one end to "It's freaking PAC-MAN" at the other. Duck Hunt Dog also fits this, since he's one of the few NES characters consistently referenced by more mainstream media to this day.

From there characters were further narrowed down via the ease of ability to come up with unique moveset ideas, ease of ability to obtain license, and just how well they qualified to answer that question, rather than simply ticking Yes/No on "did this character have a game recently" or "Is this character super duper popular."

The role "relevance" and any other rule for that matter plays in more than a minority of characters is more of a gut feeling thing than hard fact, and is pretty flexible.

 

[KingofPhantoms]

What about "waste of a slot"? I remember that being used quite often, people used it when claiming another character was supposedly taking up a slot on the roster that another, sometimes "better" character could be using instead.

 

[AwesomeAussie27]

What about "waste of a slot"? I remember that being used quite often, people used it when claiming another character was supposedly taking up a slot on the roster that another, sometimes "better" character could be using instead.

Coming from a Wii Fit Trainer main, it's hard to be vocal about how much you love the character or why the character fits Smash because she's a "waste of slot" as all of her haters would say. I bet they would be happy if she does wind up being cut one day.

 

[Ura]

What about "waste of a slot"? I remember that being used quite often, people used it when claiming another character was supposedly taking up a slot on the roster that another, sometimes "better" character could be using instead.

It's true though. Disagree with me or not but I feel some inclusions are exactly that.

 

[dream1ng]

What about "waste of a slot"? I remember that being used quite often, people used it when claiming another character was supposedly taking up a slot on the roster that another, sometimes "better" character could be using instead.

People aren't going to stop using that one since they don't understand how/why clones and semi-clones are added in the first place.

Not to mention that "waste of a slot", even if referring to a unique character, is ultimately subjective. I personally think dev time was spent implementing an inferior choice for a character here and there throughout the series, but others may and do feel differently, so, like with most character discussions, it's largely swayed by opinion and bias.

 

[Coricus]

What about "waste of a slot"? I remember that being used quite often, people used it when claiming another character was supposedly taking up a slot on the roster that another, sometimes "better" character could be using instead.

Most of the "better" choices were actually more obscure than the characters they went with in the first place, hilariously enough.

The only exceptions are the characters added solely as last-minute throw ins that were already alternate costumes and thus could not have been replaced by any other character. . .and even THOSE are more well known than many of the things people want instead.

The word "better" is more often than not simply who the requester personally likes compared to the characters the requester doesn't care about. In other words, bias. Which is funny considering what these types of people accuse Sakurai of.

 

[PLATINUM7]

Most of the "better" choices were actually more obscure than the characters they went with in the first place, hilariously enough.

The only exceptions are the characters added solely as last-minute throw ins that were already alternate costumes and thus could not have been replaced by any other character. . .and even THOSE are more well known than many of the things people want instead.

The word "better" is more often than not simply who the requester personally likes compared to the characters the requester doesn't care about. In other words, bias. Which is funny considering what these types of people accuse Sakurai of.

Because Sakurai's bias =/= their own bias. God forbid people to have different opinions :/

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Because Sakurai's bias =/= their own bias. God forbid people to have different opinions :/

That's also the point. Everybody has their own opinions. It's no big deal, really.

The issue is how those opinions are expressed. The pointless wars among fans is the problem. Quite a few characters I still want in, but it happens. I'm not Sakurai, and he clearly has a lot of different priorities and things to work with. Even ignoring his biases, we know things aren't all black and white.

That said, my roster is vastly different from his, but also fails to have some really neat characters in return too, like Ryu, Cloud, Bayonetta, and even Wii Fit Trainer.

 

[KingofPhantoms]

Coming from a Wii Fit Tarinr main, it's hard to be vocal about how much you love the character or why the character fits Smash because she's a "waste of slot" as all of her haters would say. I bet they would be happy if she does wind up being cut one day.

I won't chew anyone out for liking and playing any specific characters, even if I don't care for some of them.

People aren't going to stop using that one since they don't understand how/why clones and semi-clones are added in the first place.

Not to mention that "waste of a slot", even if referring to a unique character, is ultimately subjective. I personally think dev time was spent implementing an inferior choice for a character here and there throughout the series, but others may and do feel differently, so, like with most character discussions, it's largely swayed by opinion and bias.

THIS.

I've always seen it as being subjective. Everyone wants and likes different characters in Smash.

Most of the "better" choices were actually more obscure than the characters they went with in the first place, hilariously enough.

The only exceptions are the characters added solely as last-minute throw ins that were already alternate costumes and thus could not have been replaced by any other character. . .and even THOSE are more well known than many of the things people want instead.

The word "better" is more often than not simply who the requester personally likes compared to the characters the requester doesn't care about. In other words, bias. Which is funny considering what these types of people accuse Sakurai of.

Yeah, that's what I was trying to get at there.

It seems people will never quite be able to tell opinions apart from facts.....would that itself count as an overused saying?

 

[PLATINUM7]

The issue is how those opinions are expressed. The pointless wars among fans is the problem.

This. This so much.

There's a BIG difference between simply saying you don't like a character, or would prefer someone else then what most people do. Which usually boils do to demeaning others or devaluing opinions, or writing a 1000 word essay basically on why someone's opinion is wrong.

This problem exists in just about every fandom. No one can seem to say which game in a series is their favourite without someone jumping in to express every thing that's wrong with what they like (no matter how subjective it may be).

 

[Coricus]

Because Sakurai's bias =/= their own bias. God forbid people to have different opinions :/

Considering how vitorolic people act about it, if God could forbid it at this point that would be nice.

But more seriously, it's not really about the opinions themselves so much as-

That's also the point. Everybody has their own opinions. It's no big deal, really.

The issue is how those opinions are expressed. The pointless wars among fans is the problem. Quite a few characters I still want in, but it happens. I'm not Sakurai, and he clearly has a lot of different priorities and things to work with. Even ignoring his biases, we know things aren't all black and white.

That said, my roster is vastly different from his, but also fails to have some really neat characters in return too, like Ryu, Cloud, Bayonetta, and even Wii Fit Trainer.

Yeah, that works. People keep picking fights with each other and yelling at Sakurai over things without actually thinking about the logic behind it.

You can think something else would be nicer without being a jerk about it.

I feel like people are directly blaming characters for the fate of other characters when that doesn't at all seem to be the case. Not simply thinking something would be cooler, but scapegoating another character that had little or nothing to do with it out of rage.

I mean, Tails would mean more to me than every character on the roster, but it's not like it's any of those characters' faults he's not in. He's a third party secondary character with a hatedom larger than some countries. So even though due to being part of my preferences he would fit one definition of better, that doesn't make anyone else worse.

 

[Champ Gold]

"Slots", "Shoo-ins", "relevancy", "size", "sales", "bias",

All those are just buzzwords.


Buzzwords to escape the fact that your character just wasn't good enough to get in

 

[SuperMii3D]

Turns out that Im a pretty good Mii Fighter (at least where I live) Ive been at this Con where there is a Smash 4 setup and Im actually beating many people with the 1111 setups of the Miis. Im getting a lot of "Im not sure of how the Miis play, so I dont know how to fight them", so maybe thats why Im winning. Theres a tournament tomorrow and Im signing up, but Im afraid that the Miis will be banned because the TOs are going to be too lazy to let me set them up (Which is garbage, since they are all 1111 and medium weight, which allows me to use the Guest Miis ). Also, my Wii Fit Trainer seems to be popular as well. Everyone Ive faced says that Im the best WFT theyve seen. Then they say that Im the only one theyve seen -_-. Im really glad that Ive managed to train with all 4 characters since last year and that Ive progressed far enough for people to actually want to be my rivals. Also fought some guy who attended Evo and we had Little Mac dittos, which I surprising won. Im feeling really confident about tomorrows tournament but I dont want to get too confident because Im aware that I have my flaws and that there are people that I havent seen.

 

[Delzethin]

What about "waste of a slot"? I remember that being used quite often, people used it when claiming another character was supposedly taking up a slot on the roster that another, sometimes "better" character could be using instead.

Oh, man. That line. If I had a dollar for every time I saw someone think there was a hard limit on how big the roster could get, and that any character who got in was "stealing a slot" from someone else, I wouldn't be having money problems.

 

[Delzethin]

People aren't going to stop using that one since they don't understand how/why clones and semi-clones are added in the first place.

Not to mention that "waste of a slot", even if referring to a unique character, is ultimately subjective. I personally think dev time was spent implementing an inferior choice for a character here and there throughout the series, but others may and do feel differently, so, like with most character discussions, it's largely swayed by opinion and bias.

Essentially. Challenge their argument enough, and it slowly becomes an outburst of "My opinions are supposed to be inherently better than yours!"

...Maybe I'm still a little bitter over a few things that happened on the boards...

EDIT: ...Crap, I wasn't expecting that to be a double, after how fast the thread has been moving.

 

[Coricus]

"Slots", "Shoo-ins", "relevancy", "size", "sales", "bias",

All those are just buzzwords.


Buzzwords to escape the fact that your character just wasn't good enough to get in

Well to be fair, "size" was the actual reason Sakurai ended up giving in the end. It doesn't make it any less of a buzzword, but if you add "in order to preserve the personality of the character" to that (which IMO means it applies to more than just Ridley since "proportions" has nothing to do with it), that's pretty much what the official statement was.

But for the most part I actually agree, although in a more. . .lightly put manner.

Every character that didn't get in either has one or more issues making them less likely to be considered, is less popular than who did get in, or both.

Some issues Sakurai has actually stated. Takamaru doesn't have international recognition. Non video game characters are licensing nightmares. Others we can simply guess.

Could some of those reasons end up being silly? Sure. But if you think about the hundred or so characters excluded, most of them have reasons for not being prioritized that make perfect sense.

It's not that the characters aren't good, sometimes they're even great. But everyone has flaws, and the characters that graduate to the "cool kids club" are the ones who's flaws cause the least issues compared to how many benefits their presence gives.

And who's allowed to be in the "cool kids club" can and will change over time. Remember Villager? Mii? PAC-MAN? Those folks used to be rejects! They all had their own reasons for not getting in. And you know what? Sakurai changed his mind. Heck, Wii Fit Trainer fits under the reason given for Villager before. Little Mac apparently required active thought to get him to be interesting. Neither of them likely would have made it before either. But they did now.

Just because your character didn't make it this round doesn't mean they're "banned forever." Sometimes it just takes time, or a change of heart. With over a hundred wanted characters, not everyone's going to get that, of course, but for some people it's just a matter of waiting.

Heck, if you look back far enough sometimes you can see people complaining about Wii Fit Trainer "replacing" characters like Palutena or Shulk.

. . .Try not to do that, LOL.

 

[dream1ng]

"Slots", "Shoo-ins", "relevancy", "size", "sales", "bias",

All those are just buzzwords.


Buzzwords to escape the fact that your character just wasn't good enough to get in

Slots is usually used interchangeably with characters (or at least characters on the CSS), shoo-ins is a highly overused but nonetheless valid term (think Inklings), relevancy is a bit of a misnomer but what the term is attributed to is a growing factor in the series, size matters sometimes, sales are an indirect force on Smash via their influence on the impact and prevalence of a series, and bias is real, some people just handle theirs better than others.

They've all been diluted through overuse, but they're not meaningless terms.

 

[Yomi's Biggest Fan]

Slots is usually used interchangeably with characters (or at least characters on the CSS), shoo-ins is a highly overused but nonetheless valid term (think Inklings), relevancy is a bit of a misnomer but what the term is attributed to is a growing factor in the series, size matters sometimes, sales are an indirect force on Smash via their influence on the impact and prevalence of a series, and bias is real, some people just handle theirs better than others.

They've all been diluted through overuse, but they're not meaningless terms.

It took me a while to realize this, you essentially joined this forum on my birthday.

Just something random I needed to point out.

 

[Chrono.]

The Smash 64 scene is lit.

コンボ１ pic.twitter.com/VCZJAtbCAv

— Red (@Red_No1FB) September 2, 2016

 

[Coricus]

Slots is usually used interchangeably with characters (or at least characters on the CSS), shoo-ins is a highly overused but nonetheless valid term (think Inklings), relevancy is a bit of a misnomer but what the term is attributed to is a growing factor in the series, size matters sometimes, sales are an indirect force on Smash via their influence on the impact and prevalence of a series, and bias is real, some people just handle theirs better than others.

They've all been diluted through overuse, but they're not meaningless terms.

Inklings are literally the only character in my entire half a decade watching this fandom I have ever seen that word actually make sense to apply to.

But anyway. . .overuse is part of it, but there's also misuse, abuse (of other fans), and mistaking guidelines for hard, uncounteractable rules that also further damaged them.

Relevance and sales are influences but a character can't coast on them alone (I mean, if it was JUST sales for example, Nintendog and Dr. Kawashima would be playable instead of Assist Trophies.), shoo-in is used on. . .a lot of characters that aren't, slots are often viewed far more based off of what a series as a whole "deserves" or off of hard numbers than the merits of the characters themselves which are what are actually what gets characters in (again, if the merits of a series alone were the issue then we'd have Nintendog and Dr. Kawashima), and the word "bias". . .probably shouldn't even touch that one.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

"Slots", "Shoo-ins", "relevancy", "size", "sales", "bias",

All those are just buzzwords.


Buzzwords to escape the fact that your character just wasn't good enough to get in

I agree with the first half.


I loathe the second half. Absolutely loathe it.

The biggest problem Smash players have is using whether they got into Smash as a benchmark of quality. There are tons of great characters, games and series's that didn't get in. And just because a character was cut, doesn't mean the character is terrible.

Sakurai's choices aren't magical seals of quality.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

My character might not have gotten in, and was never a shoe in

But at least he was mentioned by Sakurai and has a mii costume

Unlike some of you guys' shoe ins

 

[Delzethin]

I agree with the first half.


I loathe the second half. Absolutely loathe it.

The biggest problem Smash players have is using whether they got into Smash as a benchmark of quality. There are tons of great characters, games and series's that didn't get in. And just because a character was cut, doesn't mean the character is terrible.

Sakurai's choices aren't magical seals of quality.

Yeah. Sometimes things just don't break the right way. Sometimes a character might get considered early on, only to be too low priority to make it in or have something else happen to mess up their chances.

And sometimes the master fire wizard just gets overhshadowed by the waterbending ninja frog.

 

[Coricus]

I agree with the first half.


I loathe the second half. Absolutely loathe it.

The biggest problem Smash players have is using whether they got into Smash as a benchmark of quality. There are tons of great characters, games and series's that didn't get in. And just because a character was cut, doesn't mean the character is terrible.

Sakurai's choices aren't magical seals of quality.

Yeah, that part did come off a little. . .iffy.

IMO it's not about whether the character themselves are good are bad, it's whether or not the character has enough factors going for them in terms of appealing to a wider audience than the existing Smash fandom.

The best character in the world could only have their games released in Japan, or have had their game fall into obscurity with the tides of time. They could be a side character in a game with several protagonists, or a main character from a game that totally flopped. That doesn't make the character bad, that just means less people would appreciate them and thus another choice that more people would enjoy might be a better fit. It's not a mark of quality so much as a mark of already existing accessibility and thus marketability, both in terms of who would like them and in terms of designing them.

It goes both ways though. Sakurai's choices aren't magical seals of trash either, as much as people flaming X series for getting Y number of characters more than Z series claim them to be so.

They don't say anything about the objective quality of the character, just the level of marketability and the ease of creation and access that character has. It's not a quality marker so much as "Who's going to make Ninty the most money being put into this game."

And as a Sonic fan, I know full well how subjective quality is anyway. . .learned it the hard way. :/

 

[powerprotoman]

My character might not have gotten in, and was never a shoe in

But at least he was mentioned by Sakurai and has a mii costume

Unlike some of you guys' shoe ins

all of my characters got into the game...granted wonder red is a trophy and phosphora an assist

 

[Wolfie557]

So I want to do a little thing on Nintendo series revivals


it will pretty much be a strawpoll tournament for nintenzone on what 1st party nintendo series we want revived

For now I have the following series

• Advance Wars
• Golden Sun
• Mysterious Murasame Castle
• Duck Hunt
• Punch-Out!!
• 2D Kid Icarus, like NES and GB
• Game and Watch
• Wario Land
• F-Zero
• Sin and Punishment
• Daigasso! Band Brothers
  
• Excitebike
• Drill Dozer
• Starfy
• Custom Robo
• For whom the frog bell tolls (this one's for you BluePikmin)

I have excluded the folowing series
Chibi-Robo- as much as I feel it could fit, it kind of just got the game
Mother-"the series is dead"
third parties- trying to keep this simple

Any you would add?
Any you would remove?

Note, there is about a 50% chance I will forget about this by tomorrow.

I'd pick KI, Murasame Castle, Ice Climber and WarioLand if I were to choose 4.

Honestly tho, I'd prefer a 2.5D KI platformer that ditches all that weapon/item upgrade system, bull trail doors and those doors with jars in them ect. Ditch the Up scrolling levels as well unless they appear only a few times compared with the side scrolling ones.

I would like them to keep the dungeon stuff but obvi make it themed like castles or fake moon or whatever that's relevant. Hot springs gotta stay too.

Basically I don't want another NES/GB version with modern visuals. Should base it off Uprising mostly, imho.

 

[Sir Gengar de Èctoplasma]

So I want to do a little thing on Nintendo series revivals


it will pretty much be a strawpoll tournament for nintenzone on what 1st party nintendo series we want revived

For now I have the following series

• Advance Wars
• Golden Sun
• Mysterious Murasame Castle
• Duck Hunt
• Punch-Out!!
• 2D Kid Icarus, like NES and GB
• Game and Watch
• Wario Land
• F-Zero
• Sin and Punishment
• Daigasso! Band Brothers
  
• Excitebike
• Drill Dozer
• Starfy
• Custom Robo
• For whom the frog bell tolls (this one's for you BluePikmin)

I have excluded the folowing series
Chibi-Robo- as much as I feel it could fit, it kind of just got the game
Mother-"the series is dead"
third parties- trying to keep this simple

Any you would add?
Any you would remove?

Note, there is about a 50% chance I will forget about this by tomorrow.

RPG Paper Mario

I think you've got pretty much everything covered.