8-peacock-8
Smash Hero
Yes. yes he would be the best choice for a second Luigi's Mansion rep. If that happened of course. Which it wont. But King Boo is amazing.
-
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!
Roster Discussion Thread (Closed)
- Thread starter Xiivi
- Start date
- Status
D
Deleted member
Guest
Personal preference bolded.
- K. Rool because he is my third most wanted character. While Ridley is probably the most deserving newcomer, he's not too interesting to me (need to change signature to reflect that). Perhaps an E3 reveal will change my thoughts on Ridley.
- Hard one here. Palutena is the best female choice available and would be great to have, yet I like Dixie Kong in DKC2 and would like to see four DK reps. Slight edge to Dixie here.
- Another close one. Tingle would make a great joke character, although I'd prefer Pichu. Don't really care about Krystal since I haven't played any Star Fox game, but her move set potentials really interest me. Krystal gets a slight edge, but I'm neutral on both.
- Mewtwo. Second most wanted character and Mewtwo should have never been cut from Brawl. Wish we could have Roy too though...
- Saki. Don't care for Shulk's inclusion, but I have played Sin & Punishment and it'd be interesting to see how a Sin & Punishment rep turns out.
- Isaac. I find Little Mac to be boring, but I do want to see Isaac in Smash, so this one was easy. Plus even if Little Mac does miss out, he would definitely get in Smash 5 anyway (although this is a highly unlikely scenario considering he's the best small franchise pick) whereas Smash 4 is Isaac's last chance to get in.
- Toad. Bandanna Dee is interesting, but he's not high on my list. I like Toad and would love to see a Mario rep in Smash, plus he's the best Mario has to offer, so this one was easy.
- Mega Man. Third-parties are expendable and we don't know if Sakurai intends to bring them back. I'd rather see new third-parties over the ones we already have if we only get 1-2 third-parties period (if they even return), although the ideal situation (for most people, myself included) would be to keep the ones we have and add Mega Man.
- Lucario. Would hate to see Lucario go and I don't think any Pokemon newcomers can match up to Lucario.
- Snake. I don't mind Layton, but I really enjoyed Snake's inclusion in Brawl and would like to have him back.
- Ike. Again, no cuts please, plus Chrom is pretty bland.
FlareHabanero
Banned via Warnings
Actually Marth is the daughter, Pit is the son, Ike is the uncle, Jigglypuff is the aunt, Donkey Kong is the monkey's uncle, Chrom is the father, Peach is the mother, Nana is the grandmother, Ganondorf is the grandfather, Kirby is the pet, Shulk is Marth's roommate, Takamaru is Marth's lesbian girlfriend, Captain Falcon is that annoying neighbor thats so nice it hurts, and Little Mac is the lawyer that files all the lawsuits.
Gingerbread Man
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
8-peacock-8
Smash Hero
You forgot to mention that Little Mac also has the tendency to ironically get in trouble with the law because he punches out (hur hur hur) people.
Croph
Hold Baroque Inside
Oooh, it all makes sense now. In the end, everyone in Smash is one big, messed up, happy(?) family.
Bowserlick
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2005
- Messages
- 5,136
Bowser is the milkman, but he's a grump and pisses in everyone's milk bottle and only smiles when he sees someone drinking it.
Gingerbread Man
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2009
- Messages
- 1,214
your avatar makes this easier to imagine.
FlareHabanero
Banned via Warnings
Actually that's Falco who pisses in the milk bottles. Bowser is the mailman who intentionally puts black mail and surprise taxes in every mailbox to see people squirm.
Oasis_S
Smash Legend
You just made me realize that I think Star is based on Marco.
BKupa, assuming it is Nintendo, I was thinking it would be strange for a single character to get so much attention. WHILE STILL STRANGE, I realized that, as far as they would be aware, K. Rool would be Smashboards #1 pick for a new Nintendo character, thanks to the STICKY POLL.
I mean, this wouldn't mean anything to Sakurai. The roster is surely finalized by now, I doubt there's much in the thread that would actually be useful from a DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT at this.. point. I would say it could have to do with something PROMOTIONAL for E3, but the trailer, assuming there is one, would already be made. (Right?)
It's a cool theory, but the conclusions that could be made from are not apparently exciting.
It's also about K. Rool and not Ridley so, I mean, y'know, kind of wasted your time quite frankly.
Croph
Hold Baroque Inside
Damn you Bowser. Because of you, the naive Roy drank your milk(?) and got badly poisoned with explosive vomiting. No wonder why he was absent in Brawl.
jk jk
Bowserlick
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2005
- Messages
- 5,136
Hopefully, Roy will fall for it again right before the next game.
Banjodorf
Dynamic Duo
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2007
- Messages
- 8,455
- NNID
- bluefalcon27
- 3DS FC
- 2105-8715-5493
I'm really glad none of these characters are *actually* competing with one another, or I'd be mad that you guys did this. We need a slightly unified list, not conflict folks! We're so close!
But, I may as well play along:
- K. Rool. No question Do you really need to ask why? I don't doubt Ridley's deserving status, or his near-guaranteed inclusion, but I also don't doubt K. Rool's, and my DKC fanboy-ness outweighs any love for Metroid I have. DKC all the way, and that includes the King.
-Dixie. See above. I'm as much a Palutena supporter as Dixie, and don't doubt either of them as deserving, likely rep choices, but DKC comes first. If ya didn't know that, then you don't know me very well! Hah!
--Tingle. I never much cared for Krystal. This doesn't mean I wouldn't want to see her, as long as she didn't impede one of my top picks from being in. I think if she wasn't a clone of the other three, she'd be different and interesting. Tingle, on the other hand, has alot of possibility to be awesome. KOOLOO-LIMPAH!
-Mewtwo. Come on guys, it's Mewtwo. Roy is amazing, but 1v1, I'm gonna go with Mewtwo as a Pokemon fan and fan of no-cuts. And returning characters. (Once again glad they aren't competing...)
-Shulk. I haven't played Xenoblade, but it sounds like something I'd love, and I want to get to know the character in a familiar setting. Shulk being in Smash would give me that. Saki seems cool, but Shulk gets my pick.
-Little Mac. This one's just not fair. However, Mac is just a bit more likely than Isaac. Gonna go with Mac, plus Punch-Out!! is mah homeboi. I expect both.
-Toad. I prefer Jr. as a Mario rep, but I'd support Toad if he was picked. I really don't think Kirby needs another rep, even though a spear character would be cool.
-Megaman. The only Sonic game I ever beat was Adventure 2, and although I see his appeal, I just have so many more memories of Mega Man. He's a boss in every game, and his moveset potential doesn't involve 2 1/2 of the same spin.
-Lucario. No cuts, sorry. I love Zoroark, and his potential, but don't cut characters, or we'll be in the "Bring back Mewtwo and Roy!" situation again. Please.
-Snake. I'm a hardcore MGS fan that's never played a Layton game. It pretty much says it all.
-Ike. Awakening is my favorite FE game, but no cuts. Add Chrom too, but Ike doesn't leave.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2011
- Messages
- 9,001
- Location
- Marvel Land ~ Eternally Slumbering
- NNID
- IndyGo98
- 3DS FC
- 2793-0906-0731
- Switch FC
- SW-7670-7999-3483
Can I say, Star's a Flying Man? *Shot*I'll just upload all of them. Your changes were minor, I changed the eyes so they don't look so sinister/sharp, changed the sleeve on the coat so there's a bit of asymmetry in the design, and I worked on the scythe a bit. I changed the pose so it's not an accidental rip off of Ephriam's pose from FE.
On ~automatic, she's upside-down because page ergonomics, I was just trying to fit them all in and save paper, so just rotate the picture, or stand on your head...
Corph got the headband she requested.
and Star is a birdman.
But man, he looks very distinctive! Bird Man...
Also I totally dig M&S Guy, just the way remember him.
And ALL THE GIRLS~~ (~>*/v/*<~<)
So what kind of a magical is Croph? Magical Lord?
Automatic has a whimsical-looking pose, really do like.
And you weren't kidding when you said N30N got a better pose. (DAT. ASS.)
Why did I miss this, anyway? (-l~l-);;
Big-Cat
Challenge accepted.
- I was talking more along the lines of A, 6A, 2A strings ala Marvel or Tekken that were character specific. Something to help speed up racking damage.
- Actually, I was thinking of making them smaller and not shrinking. But yes, Yoshi needs a proper shield.
- Pretty much agree here.
- Really? That seems to sell the idea rather short don't you think?
- This was what I was thinking of. Combos are mostly character and percentage specific to a degree, but nothing too overly complicated like SF4 Sakura's combos. Those are stupid.
And Cassandra sounds nice.
peeup
Smash Lord
Of the things discussed above, I think the only thing needed is more shield stun. Shielding is way too safe as is. The game should reward offensive play, not defensive. Characters can have specific options that are defensive, but the universal ability to shield should be situational.
ChronoBound
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2006
- Messages
- 8,998
I am thinking that if character DLC happens for Smash 4 that there is a good chance that the DLC characters will be "on disc". There are two primary reasons for this:
1. Namco already has done this before with Tekken Tag Tournament 2 and Street Fighter x Tekken
2. The limited internal space for the 3DS.
I think for this reason why many of the DLC characters may be clones, as they would be quick to implement in (Sakurai mentioned that six clones take the work of one completely unique character), and by simply getting the models, sound files, and other important character data for them already in, they could leave properly balancing them to a later data after the game's release.
Although most people detest the idea of "on disc" DLC, keep in mind that with at least Namco (who is developing the game), they have had precedence for making such characters free (at least for Tekken Tag Tournament 2), especially considering much of TTT2's DLC characters were clones.
For this reason, we could very well end up knowing what characters will end up as DLC for Smash 4 as soon as the game is dumped online (which would be a short while after the game's release). However, I wonder if the there are any ROM dumps for 3DS/Wii U games like there were for the Wii. If not, then Sakurai could very well keep the entire fanbase in the dark as to who will end up as DLC, even if the characters are "on-disc".
I do think DLC will be something Sakurai is asked about at E3. However, knowing Sakurai, I believe he will give out an ambiguous answer if there is plans for DLC, or a straight "no" if there are no plans.
1. Namco already has done this before with Tekken Tag Tournament 2 and Street Fighter x Tekken
2. The limited internal space for the 3DS.
I think for this reason why many of the DLC characters may be clones, as they would be quick to implement in (Sakurai mentioned that six clones take the work of one completely unique character), and by simply getting the models, sound files, and other important character data for them already in, they could leave properly balancing them to a later data after the game's release.
Although most people detest the idea of "on disc" DLC, keep in mind that with at least Namco (who is developing the game), they have had precedence for making such characters free (at least for Tekken Tag Tournament 2), especially considering much of TTT2's DLC characters were clones.
For this reason, we could very well end up knowing what characters will end up as DLC for Smash 4 as soon as the game is dumped online (which would be a short while after the game's release). However, I wonder if the there are any ROM dumps for 3DS/Wii U games like there were for the Wii. If not, then Sakurai could very well keep the entire fanbase in the dark as to who will end up as DLC, even if the characters are "on-disc".
I do think DLC will be something Sakurai is asked about at E3. However, knowing Sakurai, I believe he will give out an ambiguous answer if there is plans for DLC, or a straight "no" if there are no plans.
Big-Cat
Challenge accepted.
Namco didn't do Street Fighter X Tekken, they just lent the rights to the Tekken characters. Tag 2's characters were basically time release characters as well. Unlike the characters in SFxTK, they were balanced and everything before being released.
Specifically, we need move specific shield stun like in other games.
PsychoIncarnate
The Eternal Will of the Swarm
This has already been said, but did anyone see the Kremlin thread? Friggin 70,000 views. Crazy
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2011
- Messages
- 9,001
- Location
- Marvel Land ~ Eternally Slumbering
- NNID
- IndyGo98
- 3DS FC
- 2793-0906-0731
- Switch FC
- SW-7670-7999-3483
But did you know that there's this Strong thread which over 54,000 views.
The one with the purple big dragon boss that is Ridley.
/OasisyoumakeRidleyproud/
The one with the purple big dragon boss that is Ridley.
/OasisyoumakeRidleyproud/
PsychoIncarnate
The Eternal Will of the Swarm
last week the k Rool thread was at 40,000 though
30,000 views in 1 week
30,000 views in 1 week
Alright SmashChu, here it is. Sorry it's late. I chose making a roster of us over responding more quickly. I have no regrets.
Many series rely on something apart from gameplay (not that it doesn’t play a part) to sell well, and if not character recognition, then brand name recognition. Series like CoD are not character-focused, series like Final Fantasy have rotating casts, but as long as they have a recurring and well-known brand title, they’ve already got a built-in audience, and they're already going to sell units based solely on that, regardless of gameplay.
Just because someone is more famous in general doesn’t mean they can do as well or better than less-famous people/characters in every source of media. They don’t share the same audience everywhere. It'd be like expecting a professional athlete to be able to compete professionally in every sport.
But, like I said, Mickey’s presence in the games he is in is the cause of the majority of the sales of that game. People like and/or know Mickey, so they buy his game. It’s got a built-in audience already. Not all the sales come from previous fans of Mickey (or whoever the character might be), some are just interested in the gameplay, but those are mostly hardcore gamers (though some hardcore gamers could also buy it mostly for Mickey), and more importantly, the minority.
Post-NES, when the competition showed up though in the next gen, the market changed, people split up to a different console, and accommodations and sacrifices were made. Since then Mario games have pretty much sold with fluctuations, but fairly consistently. The only reason some Mario games (like NSMB and MK) have picked up now is due to the casual market Nintendo recently accrued. I never said that gameplay and accessibility played no factor in success, because since NSMB and MK are both so accessible and feature Mario, it’s really a more equal mix of the two factors than, for example, another Mario spin-off, which usually relies more on Mario to sell it than the gameplay. However I stand by my point, without Mario, none of those games, except the original SMB (which was packaged with the system) would have sold nearly as well.
As for “Golf”? Well, one, that game has a Mario-looking guy on the cover, who in the west is Mario. That attracts consumers. But more importantly, it sold so well because at the time it was THE ONLY golf game on a system with little to no competition. Without the market being split between golf games or systems, why do you think it sold so well?
I also didn’t say every Mario game will sell the same, don’t put words in my mouth. I said games will sell better with Mario marketed with them. Gameplay does play a factor, I never said it didn't, it’s just not the biggest factor in most genres. In a game with the same characters (Mario Golf, Mario Kart) that is when gameplay makes the difference, but before that step, the characters usually come first.
You think gameplay is going to sell itself without promotion and marketing of such “unique”, “quality”, and “accessible” features? Innovation still needs promotion. Casuals still need marketing material such as commercials and in-store promotion before word can spread, the more hardcore need evidence of quality and pre-release hype, which marketing tries to convey. The Blue Ocean Strategy takes marketing for granted and assumes as long as you innovate, you will find success, which is flawed. One of the only success stories of companies that implemented the Blue Ocean Strategy is Nintendo, with the DS, Wii, 3DS, and to a lesser extent, the Wii U. The DS and Wii were, granted, very innovative, and Nintendo seized the opportunity to venture into uncontested market space, like the strategy dictates, with much of their software, and for those two, were very successful. However, the amount of marketing Nintendo did for those systems and the games such as Brain Age, Nintendogs, and the Wii series that fall into the “new market” was ridiculous. They basically created a new demographic, and that takes an unimaginable amount of marketing. It paid off sure, but it wouldn’t have without all the marketing they did. Imagine if they had released those products but did nothing to promote them among the casual. The Blue Ocean Strategy still requires marketing, innovation doesn’t necessarily sell itself. Nintendo once again tried to push the innovative with the 3D element of the 3DS, but even with all their promotion, it turns out the consumer doesn’t care too much about the 3D, thus Nintendo rarely brings it up anymore. Just because something is innovative, just because there’s nothing else quite like it on the market, doesn’t mean it will necessarily find success. Smash easily could’ve faltered commercially without strong brands. Again, I’m not saying Smash’s commercial success isn’t in part due to the gameplay and the high quality, I’m just saying that’s not the cause or largest factor of its success.
Lastly, bad products still can sell, if they have decent brand recognition gained through marketing. Look at Wii Music, the Wii brand name managed to carry past 2 million sales, because it certainly wasn’t the gameplay. Another example is Pokémon Battle Revolution, a very mediocre game, over 1 mil in sales. The Just Dance series only ever gets average reviews, but sells 5-6 million copies each. Sonic 06 sold about as much as average Sonic games, Resident Evil 6 has nearly 5 million sales but very mixed to negative reviews, and quite a few licensed games sell much better than their gameplay deserves.
It's not relevant to the overall topic, but you were the one to bring up Nintendo's supposed "decline".
Game companies shove characters into games not originally planned for them a lot. Why do you think Kirby was added to Epic Yarn, Mega Man was made the protagonist of Mega Man X instead of Zero like Inafune planned, Diddy Kong was added to Diddy Kong Racing, Panel de Pon was reworked with Yoshi and the Tetris name for western audiences, or the original characters of Dragon King were replaced? There are even more examples that I’m forgetting, am unaware of, or the public wasn’t even told of. The game companies aren’t out to tell you how they made changes due to sales, it makes them look bad, but that’s why. They know existing characters (even new versions of them) are more likely to sell better than new characters with an unproven brand.
However, Smash sells better than most accessible series, other than Mario, Wii, and probably two or three others. Plus way to ignore the rest of that paragraph.
There are plenty of examples of new IPs that never become successful and don’t get follow-ups, even if they have great gameplay and are critically acclaimed. Even if they are accessible. That’s basically what most likely would happen if you took away the profitable characters/brands from an existing IP. Of course not all new IPs are doomed to fail, otherwise we’d never get a new IP, but VERY FEW of them can match the success of existing IPs on their first or second outing. That’s why if companies have an already successful existing IP, it’d be stupid to totally rebrand it, unless it’s declining harshly in sales.
*What the whole debate boils down to, before we started getting a little off-topic, is that the addition of the existing well-known and marketable characters contributed to Smash's commercial success more than gameplay, accessibility, or innovation did (which I don't deny did play a part). With original characters, Dragon King would've been significantly less commercially successful than Smash.*
Like I said before though, I wouldn't really be too sad if Iwata left.
) it’s not like I’m debating Micaiah’s chances with some immovable wall.
Again, sorry it took so long to reply. Embarrass
I don’t really want to debate the market and business anymore, some of my points strayed too far from the original point I was trying to make, so like most of our debates, I’m content to leave it at agree to disagree.
I could accuse this of you as well. Your biggest paragraphs were responses to parts of my reply that weren’t even about the main topic. Important parts of what I wrote didn’t get replied to, or were brushed off. You tell me how wrong I am instead of presenting your own point and “correcting” mine.
In video games that rely mostly on its characters to sell, that’s true. Smash has been one of these series. Sure, now maybe could get by (with significantly reduced sales… significantly) without existing characters. Maybe. But, commercially, it most likely couldn’t when it was starting out, it was a largely unproven gameplay idea in a genre that, even with already established characters, still only did mediocrely at the time. Sakurai recognized this.
Many series rely on something apart from gameplay (not that it doesn’t play a part) to sell well, and if not character recognition, then brand name recognition. Series like CoD are not character-focused, series like Final Fantasy have rotating casts, but as long as they have a recurring and well-known brand title, they’ve already got a built-in audience, and they're already going to sell units based solely on that, regardless of gameplay.
The same reason I brought up with Marvel. Mickey’s main medium isn’t video games. That’s not where his audience is. A portion is there, because audiences can overlap, and that’s the majority cause of what sales he does have, that recognition and familiarity his audience has for him, but expecting Mickey to sell as well as Mario through Mario’s audience (gamers) is like expecting people to go to Disney Land to see Mario.
Just because someone is more famous in general doesn’t mean they can do as well or better than less-famous people/characters in every source of media. They don’t share the same audience everywhere. It'd be like expecting a professional athlete to be able to compete professionally in every sport.
But, like I said, Mickey’s presence in the games he is in is the cause of the majority of the sales of that game. People like and/or know Mickey, so they buy his game. It’s got a built-in audience already. Not all the sales come from previous fans of Mickey (or whoever the character might be), some are just interested in the gameplay, but those are mostly hardcore gamers (though some hardcore gamers could also buy it mostly for Mickey), and more importantly, the minority.
Doing some checking will show that after Sonic 1 and 2, Sonic’s sales numbers declined to where they currently sit, roughly between 1-2.5 mil a game. They’ve been this way for almost 20 years. They were this way on the same system as the first two. They were this way before the gameplay even changed. The first two were more of a popularity spike than a consistency. Since Sonic 3, this has been Sonic’s audience capacity. On Sega systems, the BEST place to sell Sonic games, as all his fans would presumably own one, post-Sonic 2 he only managed sales comparable to what he does now. Sonic’s numbers haven’t greatly wavered since like 93, it should show that since then, the same number of people are buying Sonic games as they always did, regardless of “quality of gameplay” (because we all know that’s been up and down). So what is left to sell the game besides the quality of gameplay? The character. Sonic has only managed to sell as many as he did due to the name he made for himself very early on. Take Sonic and all his friends out of a game, keep the current gameplay, and it wouldn’t sell as well. Of course I don’t have proof, because NO GAME COMPANY WOULD EVER DO THIS, but removing the marketable character in a game, while it would not the only thing that would affect sales, would be the thing that affects the majority in a series that only gets its success by brand recognition at this point.
As to why Mario went from 40 mil to 6? I’m pretty sure Sunshine didn’t come packaged with every Gamecube, that’s why. If it had, it would’ve sold 21 mil, more than any NES Mario game not packaged with a system. That’s like wondering why Wii Sports sold more than Wii Party. Another reason is because back in the days of SMB, Nintendo was basically the only console with major popularity, and SMB was the most popular NES game. There was little to no competition for the most part, and the market wasn’t split to any great extent. If there was only one major console around during the 6th gen, and Sunshine came packaged with it, it would pull some pretty big numbers as well.
Post-NES, when the competition showed up though in the next gen, the market changed, people split up to a different console, and accommodations and sacrifices were made. Since then Mario games have pretty much sold with fluctuations, but fairly consistently. The only reason some Mario games (like NSMB and MK) have picked up now is due to the casual market Nintendo recently accrued. I never said that gameplay and accessibility played no factor in success, because since NSMB and MK are both so accessible and feature Mario, it’s really a more equal mix of the two factors than, for example, another Mario spin-off, which usually relies more on Mario to sell it than the gameplay. However I stand by my point, without Mario, none of those games, except the original SMB (which was packaged with the system) would have sold nearly as well.
First off, did I say including marketable characters will cause the game to become the bestselling one in that genre? I did not. I did say it will help sell the game, which it does. There might be a few golf titles above Mario, but look at all the ones below him. Speaking of Golf games though, why do you think EA uses Tiger Woods in the title and on the cover of almost all their golf games instead of a generic golfer? Is it because they likely paying him extra royalties? No, it’s because they know marketing him with the game will cause more people to pick it up. He appeals to the main audience of those games, golfers overlapped with gamers.
As for “Golf”? Well, one, that game has a Mario-looking guy on the cover, who in the west is Mario. That attracts consumers. But more importantly, it sold so well because at the time it was THE ONLY golf game on a system with little to no competition. Without the market being split between golf games or systems, why do you think it sold so well?
I also didn’t say every Mario game will sell the same, don’t put words in my mouth. I said games will sell better with Mario marketed with them. Gameplay does play a factor, I never said it didn't, it’s just not the biggest factor in most genres. In a game with the same characters (Mario Golf, Mario Kart) that is when gameplay makes the difference, but before that step, the characters usually come first.
Marketing isn’t the sole reason products sell, but it’s sure the biggest reason. Without marketing, most people wouldn’t know some unnecessary consumer product such as Smash even exists. When they did go to the store to buy it, it would be some blank cover with text, because including recognizable characters on the cover is marketing. And then, how would they even know if that was the game to buy? Devoid of marketing, all games would be blank covers with titles. It’d basically be like walking into a store blind, you have no knowledge of what’s in front of you, and everything looks the same. They wouldn’t be able to see pre-release promotional material, because that’s advertising, and that’s marketing. It’d fall to fans to market such products, and fan campaigns rarely have the success as official marketing.SmashChu said:
You think gameplay is going to sell itself without promotion and marketing of such “unique”, “quality”, and “accessible” features? Innovation still needs promotion. Casuals still need marketing material such as commercials and in-store promotion before word can spread, the more hardcore need evidence of quality and pre-release hype, which marketing tries to convey. The Blue Ocean Strategy takes marketing for granted and assumes as long as you innovate, you will find success, which is flawed. One of the only success stories of companies that implemented the Blue Ocean Strategy is Nintendo, with the DS, Wii, 3DS, and to a lesser extent, the Wii U. The DS and Wii were, granted, very innovative, and Nintendo seized the opportunity to venture into uncontested market space, like the strategy dictates, with much of their software, and for those two, were very successful. However, the amount of marketing Nintendo did for those systems and the games such as Brain Age, Nintendogs, and the Wii series that fall into the “new market” was ridiculous. They basically created a new demographic, and that takes an unimaginable amount of marketing. It paid off sure, but it wouldn’t have without all the marketing they did. Imagine if they had released those products but did nothing to promote them among the casual. The Blue Ocean Strategy still requires marketing, innovation doesn’t necessarily sell itself. Nintendo once again tried to push the innovative with the 3D element of the 3DS, but even with all their promotion, it turns out the consumer doesn’t care too much about the 3D, thus Nintendo rarely brings it up anymore. Just because something is innovative, just because there’s nothing else quite like it on the market, doesn’t mean it will necessarily find success. Smash easily could’ve faltered commercially without strong brands. Again, I’m not saying Smash’s commercial success isn’t in part due to the gameplay and the high quality, I’m just saying that’s not the cause or largest factor of its success.
Lastly, bad products still can sell, if they have decent brand recognition gained through marketing. Look at Wii Music, the Wii brand name managed to carry past 2 million sales, because it certainly wasn’t the gameplay. Another example is Pokémon Battle Revolution, a very mediocre game, over 1 mil in sales. The Just Dance series only ever gets average reviews, but sells 5-6 million copies each. Sonic 06 sold about as much as average Sonic games, Resident Evil 6 has nearly 5 million sales but very mixed to negative reviews, and quite a few licensed games sell much better than their gameplay deserves.
By proving that games still sell as well as they have before (aka not declining) is where my argument falls apart?
Because you said these games have sold less over time and I showed how they didn’t. Would it have been more relevant had I not proved you wrong?
It's not relevant to the overall topic, but you were the one to bring up Nintendo's supposed "decline".
I’m saying your point is wrong because to be in a decline, you need declining sales. The only time Nintendo sales have noticeably declined is when they stopped becoming the sole major system on the market (the Master System didn’t sell well anywhere except Europe), which happed, oh, in the fourth gen of gaming, like 20+ years ago. Since then they’ve fluctuated. By the virtue of the fact that sales have overall increased from last gen makes any statements about continual decline null. You can’t have increasing sales and profits yet be in a commercial decline.
I was responding to that single point of yours, not the whole argument. Therefore, I split it up.
Splitting up a paragraph helps me address things individually. If you can’t follow how it’s related, that’s on you, no one else who read my post complained or seemed to get confused.
That's a good cop out. You're implying the opposite, yet can't prove it either. This is honestly one of the flimsiest excuses I’ve heard on here. The absence of proof is not the admission of being incorrect. If it really wouldn’t make a difference, why bother licensing characters for continual use in these games when, according to you, they can profit just the same with an original, and cheaper to use, cast? For that matter, why would any company pay to use a character that would be used in marketing, but overall wouldn’t really affect the game if they were absent, if they were to profit all the same without using them? It’s because the profits increase with well-known characters that have existing audiences that would carry over.SmashChu said:
Game companies shove characters into games not originally planned for them a lot. Why do you think Kirby was added to Epic Yarn, Mega Man was made the protagonist of Mega Man X instead of Zero like Inafune planned, Diddy Kong was added to Diddy Kong Racing, Panel de Pon was reworked with Yoshi and the Tetris name for western audiences, or the original characters of Dragon King were replaced? There are even more examples that I’m forgetting, am unaware of, or the public wasn’t even told of. The game companies aren’t out to tell you how they made changes due to sales, it makes them look bad, but that’s why. They know existing characters (even new versions of them) are more likely to sell better than new characters with an unproven brand.
I didn’t realize I had to spell everything out for you, I assumed you would be capable of thinking of at least one other accessible game or game series other than Smash. Most 2D platformers, some 3D platformers, many racing games, many music games, some puzzle games, and really most series aimed at the young children or casual demographic are fairly accessible. Sure most games have intricacies, more advanced parts to them, but like Smash, my examples can also be picked up and played fairly easily. They’re accessible to most audiences, even if you don’t do well at them.SmashChu said:
However, Smash sells better than most accessible series, other than Mario, Wii, and probably two or three others. Plus way to ignore the rest of that paragraph.
I gave evidence on how Nintendo’s sales weren’t declining, I gave evidence how the Blue Ocean Strategy doesn’t always work, I gave evidence how bad games can still sell well, I gave evidence how games are reworked to sell better by adding more marketable characters, the main topic of what we’re debating is a hypothetical, you can’t prove Smash’s path had it gone differently either.
There are plenty of examples of new IPs that never become successful and don’t get follow-ups, even if they have great gameplay and are critically acclaimed. Even if they are accessible. That’s basically what most likely would happen if you took away the profitable characters/brands from an existing IP. Of course not all new IPs are doomed to fail, otherwise we’d never get a new IP, but VERY FEW of them can match the success of existing IPs on their first or second outing. That’s why if companies have an already successful existing IP, it’d be stupid to totally rebrand it, unless it’s declining harshly in sales.
*What the whole debate boils down to, before we started getting a little off-topic, is that the addition of the existing well-known and marketable characters contributed to Smash's commercial success more than gameplay, accessibility, or innovation did (which I don't deny did play a part). With original characters, Dragon King would've been significantly less commercially successful than Smash.*
If you don’t at least attribute part of it to the marketability of the characters included, it’s going to be wrong.
I didn't mean I thought Nintendo was doomed, I meant opposing fanboys and alarmists will declare it "doomed". Nintendo could still make several systems that sold worse than the Gamecube in a row before they are doomed. They're loaded, and they've got some of the most valuable IPs in gaming. They'll be just fine. Eventually.
Like I said before though, I wouldn't really be too sad if Iwata left.
That’s fine. I think I used your original reply to structure mine though. Don’t worry I’m not mad or anything, (things in caps are due to reading too many of Oasis’s posts at once, not due to anger
) it’s not like I’m debating Micaiah’s chances with some immovable wall. Again, sorry it took so long to reply. Embarrass
I don’t really want to debate the market and business anymore, some of my points strayed too far from the original point I was trying to make, so like most of our debates, I’m content to leave it at agree to disagree.
PsychoIncarnate
The Eternal Will of the Swarm
I didn't buy the game because the gameplay looked boring to me, but I was interested in it because it was Mickey
Baskerville
That's a paddlin'
Alright SmashChu, here it is. Sorry it's late. I chose making a roster of us over responding more quickly. I have no regrets.
I could accuse this of you as well. Your biggest paragraphs were responses to parts of my reply that weren’t even about the main topic. Important parts of what I wrote didn’t get replied to, or were brushed off. You tell me how wrong I am instead of presenting your own point and “correcting” mine.
In video games that rely mostly on its characters to sell, that’s true. Smash has been one of these series. Sure, now maybe could get by (with significantly reduced sales… significantly) without existing characters. Maybe. But, commercially, it most likely couldn’t when it was starting out, it was a largely unproven gameplay idea in a genre that, even with already established characters, still only did mediocrely at the time. Sakurai recognized this.
Many series rely on something apart from gameplay (not that it doesn’t play a part) to sell well, and if not character recognition, then brand name recognition. Series like CoD are not character-focused, series like Final Fantasy have rotating casts, but as long as they have a recurring and well-known brand title, they’ve already got a built-in audience, and they're already going to sell units based solely on that, regardless of gameplay.
The same reason I brought up with Marvel. Mickey’s main medium isn’t video games. That’s not where his audience is. A portion is there, because audiences can overlap, and that’s the majority cause of what sales he does have, that recognition and familiarity his audience has for him, but expecting Mickey to sell as well as Mario through Mario’s audience (gamers) is like expecting people to go to Disney Land to see Mario.
Just because someone is more famous in general doesn’t mean they can do as well or better than less-famous people/characters in every source of media. They don’t share the same audience everywhere. It'd be like expecting a professional athlete to be able to compete professionally in every sport.
But, like I said, Mickey’s presence in the games he is in is the cause of the majority of the sales of that game. People like and/or know Mickey, so they buy his game. It’s got a built-in audience already. Not all the sales come from previous fans of Mickey (or whoever the character might be), some are just interested in the gameplay, but those are mostly hardcore gamers (though some hardcore gamers could also buy it mostly for Mickey), and more importantly, the minority.
Doing some checking will show that after Sonic 1 and 2, Sonic’s sales numbers declined to where they currently sit, roughly between 1-2.5 mil a game. They’ve been this way for almost 20 years. They were this way on the same system as the first two. They were this way before the gameplay even changed. The first two were more of a popularity spike than a consistency. Since Sonic 3, this has been Sonic’s audience capacity. On Sega systems, the BEST place to sell Sonic games, as all his fans would presumably own one, post-Sonic 2 he only managed sales comparable to what he does now. Sonic’s numbers haven’t greatly wavered since like 93, it should show that since then, the same number of people are buying Sonic games as they always did, regardless of “quality of gameplay” (because we all know that’s been up and down). So what is left to sell the game besides the quality of gameplay? The character. Sonic has only managed to sell as many as he did due to the name he made for himself very early on. Take Sonic and all his friends out of a game, keep the current gameplay, and it wouldn’t sell as well. Of course I don’t have proof, because NO GAME COMPANY WOULD EVER DO THIS, but removing the marketable character in a game, while it would not the only thing that would affect sales, would be the thing that affects the majority in a series that only gets its success by brand recognition at this point.
As to why Mario went from 40 mil to 6? I’m pretty sure Sunshine didn’t come packaged with every Gamecube, that’s why. If it had, it would’ve sold 21 mil, more than any NES Mario game not packaged with a system. That’s like wondering why Wii Sports sold more than Wii Party. Another reason is because back in the days of SMB, Nintendo was basically the only console with major popularity, and SMB was the most popular NES game. There was little to no competition for the most part, and the market wasn’t split to any great extent. If there was only one major console around during the 6th gen, and Sunshine came packaged with it, it would pull some pretty big numbers as well.
Post-NES, when the competition showed up though in the next gen, the market changed, people split up to a different console, and accommodations and sacrifices were made. Since then Mario games have pretty much sold with fluctuations, but fairly consistently. The only reason some Mario games (like NSMB and MK) have picked up now is due to the casual market Nintendo recently accrued. I never said that gameplay and accessibility played no factor in success, because since NSMB and MK are both so accessible and feature Mario, it’s really a more equal mix of the two factors than, for example, another Mario spin-off, which usually relies more on Mario to sell it than the gameplay. However I stand by my point, without Mario, none of those games, except the original SMB (which was packaged with the system) would have sold nearly as well.
First off, did I say including marketable characters will cause the game to become the bestselling one in that genre? I did not. I did say it will help sell the game, which it does. There might be a few golf titles above Mario, but look at all the ones below him. Speaking of Golf games though, why do you think EA uses Tiger Woods in the title and on the cover of almost all their golf games instead of a generic golfer? Is it because they likely paying him extra royalties? No, it’s because they know marketing him with the game will cause more people to pick it up. He appeals to the main audience of those games, golfers overlapped with gamers.
As for “Golf”? Well, one, that game has a Mario-looking guy on the cover, who in the west is Mario. That attracts consumers. But more importantly, it sold so well because at the time it was THE ONLY golf game on a system with little to no competition. Without the market being split between golf games or systems, why do you think it sold so well?
I also didn’t say every Mario game will sell the same, don’t put words in my mouth. I said games will sell better with Mario marketed with them. Gameplay does play a factor, I never said it didn't, it’s just not the biggest factor in most genres. In a game with the same characters (Mario Golf, Mario Kart) that is when gameplay makes the difference, but before that step, the characters usually come first.
Marketing isn’t the sole reason products sell, but it’s sure the biggest reason. Without marketing, most people wouldn’t know some unnecessary consumer product such as Smash even exists. When they did go to the store to buy it, it would be some blank cover with text, because including recognizable characters on the cover is marketing. And then, how would they even know if that was the game to buy? Devoid of marketing, all games would be blank covers with titles. It’d basically be like walking into a store blind, you have no knowledge of what’s in front of you, and everything looks the same. They wouldn’t be able to see pre-release promotional material, because that’s advertising, and that’s marketing. It’d fall to fans to market such products, and fan campaigns rarely have the success as official marketing.
You think gameplay is going to sell itself without promotion and marketing of such “unique”, “quality”, and “accessible” features? Innovation still needs promotion. Casuals still need marketing material such as commercials and in-store promotion before word can spread, the more hardcore need evidence of quality and pre-release hype, which marketing tries to convey. The Blue Ocean Strategy takes marketing for granted and assumes as long as you innovate, you will find success, which is flawed. One of the only success stories of companies that implemented the Blue Ocean Strategy is Nintendo, with the DS, Wii, 3DS, and to a lesser extent, the Wii U. The DS and Wii were, granted, very innovative, and Nintendo seized the opportunity to venture into uncontested market space, like the strategy dictates, with much of their software, and for those two, were very successful. However, the amount of marketing Nintendo did for those systems and the games such as Brain Age, Nintendogs, and the Wii series that fall into the “new market” was ridiculous. They basically created a new demographic, and that takes an unimaginable amount of marketing. It paid off sure, but it wouldn’t have without all the marketing they did. Imagine if they had released those products but did nothing to promote them among the casual. The Blue Ocean Strategy still requires marketing, innovation doesn’t necessarily sell itself. Nintendo once again tried to push the innovative with the 3D element of the 3DS, but even with all their promotion, it turns out the consumer doesn’t care too much about the 3D, thus Nintendo rarely brings it up anymore. Just because something is innovative, just because there’s nothing else quite like it on the market, doesn’t mean it will necessarily find success. Smash easily could’ve faltered commercially without strong brands. Again, I’m not saying Smash’s commercial success isn’t in part due to the gameplay and the high quality, I’m just saying that’s not the cause or largest factor of its success.
Lastly, bad products still can sell, if they have decent brand recognition gained through marketing. Look at Wii Music, the Wii brand name managed to carry past 2 million sales, because it certainly wasn’t the gameplay. Another example is Pokémon Battle Revolution, a very mediocre game, over 1 mil in sales. The Just Dance series only ever gets average reviews, but sells 5-6 million copies each. Sonic 06 sold about as much as average Sonic games, Resident Evil 6 has nearly 5 million sales but very mixed to negative reviews, and quite a few licensed games sell much better than their gameplay deserves.
By proving that games still sell as well as they have before (aka not declining) is where my argument falls apart?
Because you said these games have sold less over time and I showed how they didn’t. Would it have been more relevant had I not proved you wrong?
It's not relevant to the overall topic, but you were the one to bring up Nintendo's supposed "decline".
I’m saying your point is wrong because to be in a decline, you need declining sales. The only time Nintendo sales have noticeably declined is when they stopped becoming the sole major system on the market (the Master System didn’t sell well anywhere except Europe), which happed, oh, in the fourth gen of gaming, like 20+ years ago. Since then they’ve fluctuated. By the virtue of the fact that sales have overall increased from last gen makes any statements about continual decline null. You can’t have increasing sales and profits yet be in a commercial decline.
I was responding to that single point of yours, not the whole argument. Therefore, I split it up.
Splitting up a paragraph helps me address things individually. If you can’t follow how it’s related, that’s on you, no one else who read my post complained or seemed to get confused.
That's a good cop out. You're implying the opposite, yet can't prove it either. This is honestly one of the flimsiest excuses I’ve heard on here. The absence of proof is not the admission of being incorrect. If it really wouldn’t make a difference, why bother licensing characters for continual use in these games when, according to you, they can profit just the same with an original, and cheaper to use, cast? For that matter, why would any company pay to use a character that would be used in marketing, but overall wouldn’t really affect the game if they were absent, if they were to profit all the same without using them? It’s because the profits increase with well-known characters that have existing audiences that would carry over.
Game companies shove characters into games not originally planned for them a lot. Why do you think Kirby was added to Epic Yarn, Mega Man was made the protagonist of Mega Man X instead of Zero like Inafune planned, Diddy Kong was added to Diddy Kong Racing, Panel de Pon was reworked with Yoshi and the Tetris name for western audiences, or the original characters of Dragon King were replaced? There are even more examples that I’m forgetting, am unaware of, or the public wasn’t even told of. The game companies aren’t out to tell you how they made changes due to sales, it makes them look bad, but that’s why. They know existing characters (even new versions of them) are more likely to sell better than new characters with an unproven brand.
I didn’t realize I had to spell everything out for you, I assumed you would be capable of thinking of at least one other accessible game or game series other than Smash. Most 2D platformers, some 3D platformers, many racing games, many music games, some puzzle games, and really most series aimed at the young children or casual demographic are fairly accessible. Sure most games have intricacies, more advanced parts to them, but like Smash, my examples can also be picked up and played fairly easily. They’re accessible to most audiences, even if you don’t do well at them.
However, Smash sells better than most accessible series, other than Mario, Wii, and probably two or three others. Plus way to ignore the rest of that paragraph.
I gave evidence on how Nintendo’s sales weren’t declining, I gave evidence how the Blue Ocean Strategy doesn’t always work, I gave evidence how bad games can still sell well, I gave evidence how games are reworked to sell better by adding more marketable characters, the main topic of what we’re debating is a hypothetical, you can’t prove Smash’s path had it gone differently either.
There are plenty of examples of new IPs that never become successful and don’t get follow-ups, even if they have great gameplay and are critically acclaimed. Even if they are accessible. That’s basically what most likely would happen if you took away the profitable characters/brands from an existing IP. Of course not all new IPs are doomed to fail, otherwise we’d never get a new IP, but VERY FEW of them can match the success of existing IPs on their first or second outing. That’s why if companies have an already successful existing IP, it’d be stupid to totally rebrand it, unless it’s declining harshly in sales.
*What the whole debate boils down to, before we started getting a little off-topic, is that the addition of the existing well-known and marketable characters contributed to Smash's commercial success more than gameplay, accessibility, or innovation did (which I don't deny did play a part). With original characters, Dragon King would've been significantly less commercially successful than Smash.*
If you don’t at least attribute part of it to the marketability of the characters included, it’s going to be wrong.
I didn't mean I thought Nintendo was doomed, I meant opposing fanboys and alarmists will declare it "doomed". Nintendo could still make several systems that sold worse than the Gamecube in a row before they are doomed. They're loaded, and they've got some of the most valuable IPs in gaming. They'll be just fine. Eventually.
Like I said before though, I wouldn't really be too sad if Iwata left.
That’s fine. I think I used your original reply to structure mine though. Don’t worry I’m not mad or anything, (things in caps are due to reading too many of Oasis’s posts at once, not due to anger
Again, sorry it took so long to reply. Embarrass
I don’t really want to debate the market and business anymore, some of my points strayed too far from the original point I was trying to make, so like most of our debates, I’m content to leave it at agree to disagree.
D
Deleted member
Guest
I didn't realize Spain did April Fools day the same day as the New World, afaik, it was the 30th... My ISP sure had a good time trolling the **** outta me yesterday. For some reason it's working fine today (just as I was about to cancel the service and switch providers too...).
Anyway:
My general thought process when I made the 3 girl designs was this:
N3ON = smart + sexy, because you always use those winky and kissyface smilies. So yeah, you get to be the PLOT. Hahahaha
Croph = cute + clutzy. Mostly because her tone when posting is, "I hope I'm not offending anyone" and she's always confused about the current topic.
~automatic = I felt would be best as a sort of sarcastic, yet carefree demeanor, with a sporty look because she's a competitive player. The sarcasm should be rather obvious I feel.
So yeah, you get to be the fanservice girl, the mass appeal, hahahaha. Sorry. Hey, at least you have a cool scythe to boot. Funny enough, I feel ~automatic would be /a/'s favorite. They always go for the more sarcastic types.
Oh, I should mention, I guess you're the one officially in charge of the Roster. I'll PM you the colored versions alongside Horsetail so you can update it (when they're finished that is).
Also, would anyone believe me if I said the ass on N3ON's persona was unintentional? I never really think poses and proportions out too much. I just sorta 'feel' out the strokes based on the image I have in my mind and see what I get. Ah well..
Besides, sexy butts are sexy.
I got a couple others done btw, including Shorts, who is basically what Kuma described him as. And you got the Jimmy Neutron hair you requested.
Anyway:
The scythe, well doesn't BRS have a scythe? Or someone in that show? I have a vivid image of someone swinging around a scythe in that show. Plus it's a unique weapon that doesn't get much love. It's all swords and huge guns these days...Looks pretty sweet.
Didn't realize I had a scythe, last time I thought it was a staff (being swung). How come? (nothing against scythes, they're awesome)
And, since we've run out of girls, am I to assume I'm going to be filling the Litchi/Cammy/Mai/any female SoulCalibur character/etc. role?
Anyway, was bored, thought I'd update this:
My general thought process when I made the 3 girl designs was this:
N3ON = smart + sexy, because you always use those winky and kissyface smilies. So yeah, you get to be the PLOT. Hahahaha
Croph = cute + clutzy. Mostly because her tone when posting is, "I hope I'm not offending anyone" and she's always confused about the current topic.
~automatic = I felt would be best as a sort of sarcastic, yet carefree demeanor, with a sporty look because she's a competitive player. The sarcasm should be rather obvious I feel.
So yeah, you get to be the fanservice girl, the mass appeal, hahahaha. Sorry. Hey, at least you have a cool scythe to boot. Funny enough, I feel ~automatic would be /a/'s favorite. They always go for the more sarcastic types.
Oh, I should mention, I guess you're the one officially in charge of the Roster. I'll PM you the colored versions alongside Horsetail so you can update it (when they're finished that is).
A Magical Lord? Hmmmm. I just went for a Meguka. Kinda took Lilina as a starting reference and rolled with it and ended up with that.
Also, would anyone believe me if I said the ass on N3ON's persona was unintentional? I never really think poses and proportions out too much. I just sorta 'feel' out the strokes based on the image I have in my mind and see what I get. Ah well..
Besides, sexy butts are sexy.
I got a couple others done btw, including Shorts, who is basically what Kuma described him as. And you got the Jimmy Neutron hair you requested.
Baskerville
That's a paddlin'
Character designs in Fighting Games are always so diverse. I mean look at the new characters from Skullgirls or better yet, Manly's drawings and sig.
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2011
- Messages
- 9,001
- Location
- Marvel Land ~ Eternally Slumbering
- NNID
- IndyGo98
- 3DS FC
- 2793-0906-0731
- Switch FC
- SW-7670-7999-3483
Manly: Jimmy Neutron-Hair... Thanks for the new (potential) nickname. (-=v0)
D
Deleted member
Guest
Hahaha
Well, it's true!
Back in high school, that's what we would call Lucas. Especially since he had a costume that looked an awful lot like Jimmy Neutron.
volbound1700
Smash Master
Wow, Sonic Adventure 2 is one of my least favorite Sonic games all-time. You have to play the original Genesis Sonic to understand what made his series great. Especially when you consider the competition of the NES Marios and SMW. Sonic really beat out the platformers in its day. Sonic has never really done well in the 3D era. I like the original Sonic Adventure and I here that Colors is good and may try it but the rest that I have tried have been mediorce.
Sonic Adventure 2 had some very annoying levels (rail riding, all of Tails levels stunk would have rather had him mechless like SA, Cut-scenes are VERY CHEEZY).
Moon Monkey
Smash Hero
I only liked Sonic Adventure 2 for the Chao Garden, I was addicted to raising them.
Besides the amazing Sonic Generations I would say colors is the next best 3D Sonic game. Then Unleashed, SA2, SA1, Heroes and then Rings/Black knight.
When it comes to 2D I am gonna have to go with Sonic & Knuckles
Besides the amazing Sonic Generations I would say colors is the next best 3D Sonic game. Then Unleashed, SA2, SA1, Heroes and then Rings/Black knight.
When it comes to 2D I am gonna have to go with Sonic & Knuckles
volbound1700
Smash Master
I loved Sonic Adventure 1 partly because the characters moved and felt like Sonic characters and the game felt that way as well. I also like that it was free roaming like the Mario 3D games. SA2 got too linear and the characters didn't act or move like they did in the past (See Tails for example). I do think SA2 had a more epic storyline, however I just wasn't a fan of the game play and cut scenes at times.
Croph
Hold Baroque Inside
I hope I'm not offending anyone by saying this. And if I am, I apologize. But one of my fave Sonic games is Sonic 3D Blast. It was my first Sonic game (on the Saturn) and for some reason I loved that game as a kid. I kinda hope that Flickies will make their appearance in Smash 4. It's probably not likely, but I always loved those birds.
Moon Monkey
Smash Hero
Yeah back when I was 8 SA2 definitely seemed more bad-ass though remember cringing at the ending cut-scene.
I will agree towards the end of SA2 for heroes it all goes down hill.... literally all you do is grind down to the goal for like a good 15-20 mins...
If SA2 played more like SA in structure with improvements I think it might have been a better game.
I LOVED that game. I never got to beat the game though.
Baskerville
That's a paddlin'
I played 3D Blast on my PC when I was younger, so I know how you feel.
~automatic
Smash Legend
- Sayounara, Shadow sa Hejohoggu.
- Mariaaaa
♪♪LIVE AND LEEEAAAAARN! YEAHYEAHYEAHYEAAAAAH♪♪
- Smaller shields w/o would make blocking traditionally (high, low & mid) a thing but some attacks such as Tornado or GnW's N-air have huge multi-hit areas and would easily poke through a smaller shield. I like the idea of smaller, non-decaying shields though; I know I kicked that idea around for a while.
- Yeah, I know I didn't really give AD much thought but I feel we're fine.
- Mariaaaa
♪♪LIVE AND LEEEAAAAARN! YEAHYEAHYEAHYEAAAAAH♪♪
-Oh OK. I can see that for certain characters at low percentages.
- Smaller shields w/o would make blocking traditionally (high, low & mid) a thing but some attacks such as Tornado or GnW's N-air have huge multi-hit areas and would easily poke through a smaller shield. I like the idea of smaller, non-decaying shields though; I know I kicked that idea around for a while.
- Yeah, I know I didn't really give AD much thought but I feel we're fine.
Yeah, Dead Master has the scythe, not BRS. She's basically the secondary character, but I think her weapon fits me a little better than lugging around a heavy cannon.
[collapse=Dead Master]
Fair enough. I like my design too much to complain anyway. Plus there's no way I'm ever going to give up my
Oh, ok. Sounds good. We're going to be as gender lopsided as Smash.
Ok Manly...
This much is true.
lobotheduck21
Smash Master
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2012
- Messages
- 3,999
- Location
- Plastic Beach
- NNID
- @AntwonGodefroy
- 3DS FC
- 4914-4683-5067
I brought this up earlier, but what would you think of mii's being a stance fighter
Big-Cat
Challenge accepted.
- That was more or less what I had in mind along with making combo parts and DI reads a bit more interesting.
- One thing might be to reduce the size of those hitboxes. IDK for certain, I'd need to see the actual hitboxes myself.
What do you think of wall teching going away in favor of wall bounces. I always did love seeing wall bounces in combos.
I never liked the idea of Miis being playable. Just seems really off to me.
- Status