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!
Gyromite was a platformer, you might want to look up a gameplay video of that.
Replace Mega Man with Mario and Met with Goomba and tell me if that statement makes sense.
I think it was a step in the right direction in a few areas. The cutscenes were nice, but we need to avoid a story. It doesn't make sense, and we and the developers should know better that a fighting game isn't going to give a plot that rivals the greatest RPGs of all time.
Well its true that given the crossover nature of Smash, that any story would fall flat on its face if it tried to take itself seriously, especially since the majority of the cast are either standard main characters in their personalities, or simply don't have any real personalities to speak of anyways. Still, the silent and light-hearted nature of SSE was fine in my book, since it still fairly interesting, but didn't try to be taken too seriously.
A common complaint I've heard is that the SSE played too much like a Kirby game. While people do like 2D platformers, it doesn't mean that it has it's place in a fighting game like Smash. The whole point A to point B thing really got to me while playing the SSE.
There's no "Real" problem with it asides from if It spent too much time on it, like SSE. It's just a personal dislike since both of the Platformers have been so uninteresting. I just want it to feel like Smash 64. Smashing, Smashing, and more Smashing. Your boss idea even has me wanting to have that instead of bosses in story. I just want 100% Enjoying the combat and the feel. Not running around facing a dude who looks like tron.
And that's definitely a valid complaint, with the amount of Kirby gameplay elements in SSE. I want a variety of gameplay elements. =(
Obviously the problem isn't the concept then, it's the implementation. Especially since Smash is built on the concept of a 2D platformer anyway.
You don't need an excuse for characters doing any of this. Does Mario Kart have a good reason for why two Bowsers and two Marios are all cool with being on the same team? No. They just race, they have fun, and that's it.
That doesn't sound much better than making up new enemies entirely (and they'd probably look really messed up from those descriptions). People care more about the enemies themselves appearing over how similar some of them might function. Even if a Klaptrap follows the same concept as a Goomba, people want both. Overlap isn't a big deal unless it's constantly happening (and it wouldn't unless whoever made the game figured modeling/animating was easier than altering behavior).
Out of fairness, if the Great Maze wasn't the rest of the game a second time, it probably would've sucked a whole lot less.
Not considering them as a clone, but a semi-clone.
Well most people don't quite like that there are two Marios and two Bowsers.
It is pretty much making up new enemies, and there's no denying they would look messed up, but I think new enemies are things that we're just going to have to have. What I'm suggesting there though is that they take things from multiple existing enemies.
Though, in all fairness, the Great Maze was a horrible metroidvania attempt, feeling more like a straight marathon run than anything else. That's absolutely not what I want; something essential like Shadow Complex is what I'm hoping for. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EyyiuAmKYI
Oops! Sorry, Isaac was supossed to be on their. I thought I had already included him but I was wrong. Just replace Starfy with him.
I disagree. Most likely, they are going to remove the pokemon like Lucario and hopefully Jiggs (don't flame me for this, I have never been able to consider Jigglypuff as a viable character, much less take it seriously) and include another Pokemon trainer. This would allow for some kind of rivalry (like Ash and Gary?) each with their own set of three pokemon.
No, no, it's definitely not as likely as you may think it is. Think about it, wouldn't another trainer defeat the purpose of the first, overthrowing what uniqueness the first has?
The thing is, Sonic is only a guest character, alongside any other third party character in Smash. They shouldn't see more characters because they aren't Nintendo, and Smash Bros. centers around Nintendo characters. Sonic is enough, however, perhaps a Sega character other than those in Sonic could appear (though I doubt it).
Hopefully SSB4 will debut more franchises. Andy is a character I see really adding something no character can is Smash.
1. Yes Sheik was, but when she was incorporated, she was in Zelda's last (real) role. In addition it was needed to try out a new mechanic. Unless you have a specific way for Shadow Mario to show up, its probably just going to be a repeat of that same thing. Also, Shadow Mario is pretty much a clone of Mario, while Sheik isn't a clone of anyone else.Oops! Sorry, Isaac was supossed to be on their. I thought I had already included him but I was wrong. Just replace Starfy with him.
As for your other comments,
- #1 Sheik was only in one game.
- #2 Ever heard of a guy called Algus? He's made movesets for many potentional cantidates including Balloon Fighter.
- #3 I actually forgot to say that they are alternate costumes for different regions.
- #4 Can they really make Pokemon gen 5? C'mon they've already made a god pokemon.
and now I've gone back and edited it. So thanks for the info.
Remember this?
You're gonna have to explain why we're required to make up new enemies. 64 and Melee didn't have any (except for the Hands). Brawl did and nobody liked them. Can't imagine why you think people would be cool with the hybrid enemies either, people hate that sort of thing:
I'd prefer the Metroidvania be in a separate mode if anything. That way you get a quick, arcade-like experience with one platformer and another more extensive one if that's not enough.
Remember this?
Character, setting, action. That's it. All the cutscenes just show you where you are or what you're up against, and that's perfectly fine.
We didn't need the "why" before. We still don't and we probably never will. No need to shoehorn it in.
Well first off we didn't have enemies for 64, and second off, Melee's enemies are kind of what I've been saying in that we won't really get all too much of them if we only have ones taken from the series. Why would there really be a need to make so many different types when they only show up on one level? Actually, the fact that Melee's Adventure mode sort of broke down there after its first few levels into just more and more random fighting could have been a result of this, though there could easily be other explanations going on there. Still, if I may restate a point, if you go with the classic enemies route, you're only going to get quite a few. Thus I don't think there will be a problem with a Morblin Archer and a FE archer, becuase you're probably only going to get one and not the other.You're gonna have to explain why we're required to make up new enemies. 64 and Melee didn't have any (except for the Hands). Brawl did and nobody liked them. Can't imagine why you think people would be cool with the hybrid enemies either, people hate that sort of thing:
Take a good look at that picture because that's what your idea would become.
Now, I still have no clue why you think they wouldn't make similarly functioning enemies, since they did that in Brawl already. How many large enemies would mainly tackle you? How about those fire/ice/lightning dudes that hugged walls? Were three of those necessary? Better yet, what about ATs? How many of those were "guy jumps around trying to attack his enemies" again? Or all the clones. Remember those?
We haven't seen any evidence that suggests Sakurai has a problem with making things function similarly (or appear similar). Or better yet, why you keep assuming certain things are required or unacceptable.
No, I'm not saying we WILL get all sorts of variety in enemies. I'm saying that enemies wouldn't necessarily be excluded for being similar, especially if we're defining them by their most basic functions (tackling, shooting, etc.) or attributes (big/small, fast/slow). You'd have to have zero creativity to be unable to make them distinct.
Melee had 8 enemies from three series. Brawl had 46 enemies, not including the three from King Dedede's side B (there were also a few cut enemies in the data files, at least Blade Knight, Bronto Burt, and Bonkers). Keep in mind they completely made up 37 of those enemies from scratch. How is that better than using existing stuff again?
Hotheads, Bubbles, Zoomers, the electric balls from DK Jr., I'm sure there's more for "wall huggers." And for "self-replicators" we have Fusion Metroids, all those Zelda slimes, any mobile plant monster from Mother, probably other stuff I'm forgetting. Zoomers and Zelda slimes in particular had no reason not to be there.
