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!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
The whole casual vs hardcore Smashers is kinda pointless. He doesn't cater to any "crowd" per se, and maybe even leans towards casuals more. Melee wasn't meant to be extremely competitive, people just exploited the hell out of tiny glitches and turned those glitches into actual techniques to further and expand the gameplay of the game. That wasn't Saukrai trying to cater to hardcores, it was an oops.
As for Brawl, I'm almost positive there is an article somewhere stating how he wanted to slow down Brawl's gameplay in order to expand Smash's fan and player base. He didn't want casuals or newcomers to the series to be turned off or against trying the game out because it was too fast paced. That's why it became slower. Then he goes on to say that the newer Smashers are now accustomed to the game, therefore there won't be a problem if he speeds up gameplay, however, not to the point of Melee, but a happy medium.
But anyway, here's to hoping for Jiggs this week. Or next week. Or the next day.
In Brawl, we saw 9 (10 if you count Zero Suit Samus) newcomers on the starting roster. We previously had 4 or 5 (Sheik) on the Melee starting roster. I can't speak for everyone, but I was a bit disappointed, as the majority of the newcomers were revealed so early, with only a handful of the newcomers were hidden. Even two of the hidden newcomers, Snake and Sonic, were shown off early.
My question is, do you think Sakurai will try to mend this, keeping most of the newcomers hidden and not showed off until release, or do you think it will be the same as Brawl?
In Brawl, we saw 9 (10 if you count Zero Suit Samus) newcomers on the starting roster. We previously had 4 or 5 (Sheik) on the Melee starting roster. I can't speak for everyone, but I was a bit disappointed, as the majority of the newcomers were revealed so early, with only a handful of the newcomers were hidden. Even two of the hidden newcomers, Snake and Sonic, were shown off early.
My question is, do you think Sakurai will try to mend this, keeping most of the newcomers hidden and not showed off until release, or do you think it will be the same as Brawl?
In Brawl, we saw 9 (10 if you count Zero Suit Samus) newcomers on the starting roster. We previously had 4 or 5 (Sheik) on the Melee starting roster. I can't speak for everyone, but I was a bit disappointed, as the majority of the newcomers were revealed so early, with only a handful of the newcomers were hidden. Even two of the hidden newcomers, Snake and Sonic, were shown off early.
My question is, do you think Sakurai will try to mend this, keeping most of the newcomers hidden and not showed off until release, or do you think it will be the same as Brawl?
I think we may see every character revealed before release.
I believe that based on the fact that Sakurai didn't appreciate that all of the cutscenes from SSE could be found online instead of being exclusive to the game. So the logic goes like this. Even if somebody didn't know who was in the game before release as unlockables, they could go to say...GameFAQS to go find out who's in the game.
I think there will be unlockables. But I think they're all going to be revealed by release.
He's kind of boring.
His specials are similar to Ness (not the after affect though, since it does the opposite), his final smash too, and his basic attacks are pretty decent I guess.
Overall, Lucas plays and looks too similar to Ness for me to really enjoy him. I wouldn't normally have a problem with this, but it's the fact that everyone tries to push that he is different, when in the long run, he is quite similar.
I don't want to argue about Lucas though, I just wish maybe he was a little tiny bit more unique. And that people would admit that he does play similarly to Ness.
I've played one after the other, they are similar.
K. Maybe we'll both learn something.
*Adding to this after having read and replied to all parts, your post is filled with strawman, and comments I'd hope would be taken far less seriously than you took them (such as Ike "fighting for his friends," or "Toad can't fight.")
First and foremost - your preconceived notions about fan-bases. You have basically formulated this sort of black-and-white dichotomy between "hardcore competitive" and "casual" fan-bases, as if they are entirely diametrically-opposed to one another (like an insoluble combination between oil and water). Essentially, you summarily characterize the fan-bases as being entirely divided core-groups, in terms of wants and needs, without even comprehending an understanding that these so-called "competitive" and "casual" fan-base can very well easily overlap each other. Your unwarranted claims are also severely confounded when presented with these conflicts:
No, no, no, no, no. Not at all. Nowhere did I imply that there are "casual characters" and "hardcore characters." Nowhere. Not even close. This is a gigantic strawman. The only exception is "Mii", which is undeniably a more casual attraction by nature.The ONLY three things that had to do with casual are:
1. R.O.B. People who are more hardcore, dedicated, enthusiastic, etc, about this game, are more likely to care about something like "Significance to Nintendo history" than a person who just owns the game and wants to play as a character they want.
2. Ridley. The more casually minded, who do not look deep into Ridley's history (save for those who are familiar with metroid,) have a schema in their mind regarding Ridley as this "huge Smash boss." The sudden change in Ridley has a chance to confuse them, perhaps even make them miss being able to fight against "Their favorite boss" or the "boss they found hardest."
3. Mii. A "me" is a huge attraction to a more casually minded person, who wants to immerse themselves into the game, regardless of the playstyle. I included me for the same reason that someone in the Mii thread voted yes to having mii: he said, "I want Mii for the sake of my mother." So his mom can play as herself, which is kinda fun. The Mii is there for the casual experience, having fun with your friends and family, not for the gameplay that competitive characters
What exact sort of methodology are you using within developing your hypothesis? Asking random strangers what they specially think about certain potential characters?
Whatever I can work with. Empirical polls, anecdotal evidence (including asking random people, or paying attention to what folks say,) and through my own subjective system of valuation, based upon what I would value in a character (this does not mean I discount what Sakurai has been proven to value [EX: quoted as saying it matters, not a subjective interpretation of a status quo.])
You do not have to be a "casual" to support the idea of having a Mii, nor do you have to be "competitive" to support the idea of Ridley or King K. Rool. So, why do you have to construct these false dilemmas, why must you build these straw-men to knock down, in order to prove some baseless point in defining what the Super Smash Brothers series' fan-bases are?
No, I never implied this. Rather, I implied something more along the lines of realpolitik, where each basic "gaming type" has certain wants. The wants do differ from different bases: EX: Casual gamers seem to be more inclined to want to play as a character they know of and like, while more serious gamers seem to be more inclined to care about things such as "importance to Nintendo history."
then surely the "casual" fan-base (as you define the term)
You're not really implying that I simply made up "casual gamer" vs "hardcore gamer," are you? You're not seriously implying these different types don't exist? This is pretty much common knowledge in the gaming world.
[Casuals] Would have never allowed Ness or Lucas entry into the games, but rather characters from "casual" games like "Waluigi".
No, because they're not "anti-competitive." What I said is that the casual input tends to overpower the hardcore input simply because there are more of them. And again, this only really applies to R.O.B., Ridley, and Mii, for reasons listed above. Ultimately, Nintendo & those working on Smash4 decide what's in the game, but I'm just gonna go ahead and make the radical assumption that Nintendo listens to it's target audience.
If, as you say, the "consumer base should dictate every aspect", then Sakurai will see to it that he not arbitrarily divide his fan-bases as you do, not take parts of the whole and divide them, but rather take the sum of the parts into a whole.
That's pointing towards the point I was making, dude. I said several times, "all potential customers' inputs matter. The thing is, the whole overwhelmingly ends up representing the more casually-minded because there are just simply many more of them.
And it is not me that divides them, it was Sakurai. It is not me that (originally) said, "Nintendo should focus on "intermediates," it was Sakurai who said he DOES focus on "intermediates." Again, I lumped Intermediates into casual when special of "casuals." It was not me that (originally) said, "Sakurai should mostly ignore the feedback from top-level competitors," it was Sakurai who said he DOES "mostly ignore the feedback form top-level competitors." Sakurai listed his basis for doing so, very clearly, as there simply not being very many "top-level competitors." Sakurai said this originally, not me. I concur with it because it makes sense from a business perspective: you should not put too much attention into a small minority when trying to please/persuade as many people as possible. This is why I opt for R.O.B. leaving: because, based on what I know and expect, from a conglomeration of decent empirical evidence, poor anecdotal evidence, deductive reasoning (call out fallacies if you see em,) and my own subjective system of evaluation, it would end up being better for Nintendo financially and for reception if they cut R.O.B., who as far as I've observed, when you lump all the input from all potential smashers together, tends to be relatively hated. As far as I have observed, R.O.B. is only defended much by more serious gamers, for historical reasons. The reason I opt for cutting R.O.B. is because the net total of fanbase feedback, as far as I've observed, would be overwhelming in favor of cutting R.O.B. for a more popular newcomer, be it Bowser Jr, Krystal, Simon Belmont, or a box of Frosted Flakes for all it matters.
Onto the tour de force:
Snake stays: We don't need any more 3rd party, even if Namco is developing. Snake staying helps keep some "more serious" gamers interested in the game.
Snake is popular for a varietal array of reasons, and I don't believe many of them have to do with some sort of "seriousness" assumption of people playing as "Rated-M for Mature" characters. People will play as characters because they enjoy playing as that particular character for their distinct game-play traits and fighting styles
Snake (and Samus), the more "realistic/shooter/mature" characters, were the only reason my brother even tried Brawl. I have also heard from/read-posts-of other people who stated that, despite feeling like they were "growing out of Nintendo," gave Brawl a try for Snake (or other more "mature" characters.) I know, for sure, that the appeal of "maturity" persuades some people to try it. This is anecdotal evidence, but as I said before (and I intend to not say it again,) if I'm going to make a roster prediction, then I'm going to have to work with what I've got.
First of all, why are you, again, generalizing what particular consumers of a products want, especially when such consumers are not anywhere near as simplistically one-dimensional as you make them out to be? And from what inexplicable sources do you even collectively gather these quotes from?
Nowhere do I intend to imply that "all casuals hate toad, cause they're convinced toad can't fight. Perhaps this thread is a bit too serious to throw out obvious jokes like "Ridley's too big" or that "Toad can't fight." Anyone can fight, but the general consensus I'd been getting from "intermediate casual" players is that toad just doesn't seem like he'd fit as well as a fighter as some other Mario rep, like Waluigi. Simultaneously, again from what I've observed, many casual players play a "bit of mario kart, a bit of Mario party, a bit of mario sports, a bit of individual franchises," and etc. These people do often say, "Waluigi has been everywhere, why isn't he in Smash yet? Let's have him in Smash!" This is a summary of a common opinion, not a literal quote. It must also be understood that many casuals are opting for Goku as a playable character, so even finding a plurality can be difficult.
Secondly, let me clarify this as crystal-clear as possible: if a potential character, like Toad, does not make it into the final product of the game, it is because Sakurai either did not find a feasible solution to a character to make them work, Sakurai's visionary roster doesn't include the character because he doesn't feel they add to anything, or that character could not be implemented as a result of time-constraints. Here, we are speaking about the former two examples, in that if Toad doesn't make it in, it's because for whatever reason or another, Sakurai doesn't see Toad as a workable character. Not because your poorly-described definition of "casual" fans say, "Toad can't fight!" You know who also technically couldn't fight in their own games? R.O.B.
You forgot one major part about why Toad might not be in the game: Whether or not people want him in the game. Sakurai has made it very clear, even though it should be intuitive as a capitalist project, that it matters whether people want a character to be in the game.
And yes, R.O.B. couldn't fight in his original game. Reading other posts of mine on this thread (no, I didn't expect you to) will reveal that I've said, many times, that "anything can be made a fighter with enough dedication." I've used a "Box of corn flakes" several times as something that theoretically has fighting potential. The reason I do that, is because I make it a point to differentiate between "movesets that are there just for the sake of being a moveset," and "movesets that actually have something personal to do with the character."
Think about this: what is the solitary purpose of the Mii? Why, of course, to be a personally-detailed customization of yourself. If the supportive fan-bases of the Mii are exuberantly calling for it's inclusion, then it is for several differentiated reasons, but perhaps the most important: to be able to play as oneself within a Super Smash Brothers game.
Yes, and based on what I've observed, this means so much more to casual players (such as families playing together.) I included an explanation for Mii because many people on this forum, and again I have noticed this a lot with more competitive players, are very much anti-Mii.
Also, talk about lacking contextual awareness. When Sakurai referred to the "hardcore competitive" scene as "maniacs", he was only referring to how over-zealously enthusiastic they are about their passionate hobbies. Not because they are lacking in sanity.
Where did I imply that maniacs was referring to competitive players as insane? I never did. In fact, I consider myself part of the competitive player base. It was exceedingly baseless, and to be honest quite insulting, that you implied I was somehow too daft to understand the difference between insane, and over-zealous, in a sentence in which the word "passionate" also appears.
Tetra: Bolder guess & personal preference. I think she's the most likely Zelda Newcomer, and I think a Zelda Newcomer is more likely than, say, Shulk.
While I can finally find some agreement with your preferential roster choices, I cannot help but feel distractedly baffled as to your reasoning Shulk should even be compared to a Zelda character. Where does the comparison even warrant itself a logically reasonable explanation?
The similarity draws in that both are franchises with an opportunity to throw a character into the cast. I'm of hte persuasion that "franchise representation" is a thing, and that the "bigger & better the franchise," the more characters it should, if capable, have.My view is that the LoZ franchise is a massive franchise, but an incomplete one. It's incomplete in the sense that Toon Link is a bit of a goose among ducks, being the only member of the "toon"-half of the LoZ franchise. Above that, not counting the Young Link -> Toon Link swap, LoZ would have had no newcomers for 2 games if it didn't get one in SSB4, which is saddening. LoZ may have quite a few reps already, but again, I believe that the bigger a franchise, the more reps it should have. Even though F-Zero has never had a newcomer, I don't think it deserves one, heavily because it's a dead franchise, and also heavily because there's little casual demand (very few "families with Wii Us" are racing against Samurai Goroh right now, whereas tons are trying to defeat Bowser Jr. in New Super Mario Bros Wii U, and tons of kids with a 3DS are experiencing the Windwaker adventure alongside Tetra right now.
The reason I compared them to Shulk was simply because Shulk is one of the most highly expected, and indeed highly warranted, newcomers. I just personally thought that, for one of those precious roster slots, Tetra was more warranted than Shulk. It was also a partial explanation as to why Shulk is not on the list, similar to how I tried to note (soft) reasons as to why there's no Chrom or Ridley.
Of all the arguments I have heard against a character's inclusion, this is, above and beyond all, the worst argument I have ever had the misfortune of listening to.
Quotes? You mean Chrom, or by extension Roy, Lucina, Robin, Lyn, and the like, are not allowed access towards inclusive entrance because... Ike says he "fights for his friends"? Because an already established character within the Super Smash Brothers series has quotes, we should just forsake all others? I can understand the first point you are suggesting (in that Chrom provides nothing else that is already provided for by Marth and Ike), but the second one... is incomprehensible. It is, in fact, ludicrous.
And this is an example of you taking me seriously when I'd hoped it'd be an obvious joke. I am not saying that Ike should get in over Chrom or etc. because he has quotes, because indeed any FE rep can have quotes. I was hoping that through my soft joke, people would grasp the idea that, "Ike is just plain loved. People have grown on him." Sakurai has said that cutting characters is one of the hardest things to do, because it can "break the hearts" of people who really loved a character. Because of Ike's popularity, I went ahead with the prediction that Ike would not be cut.
Unfortunately, this spelled trouble for Chrom, because as I wrote, Chrom is trying to ride a thin line between Marth's fighter niche, and Ike's fighter niche. I am of the persuasion that niches/roles matter greatly, especially in terms of balance, and Sakurai has, quite probably, alluded to him believing that niches/roles matter greatly as well, where he said that, paraphrased, "Character A shouldn't get in over Character B, if Character A does the same thing as Character B, and Character A has already fulfilled that role." Sakurai did indeed use the word "role."
As much as I would enthusiastically support the inclusion of the merchant, she is, by far-and-wide, out-prioritized by Chrom, Roy, and Robin, perhaps even Lucina.
As stated, I view niches as mattering. Chrom and Roy experience huge problems finding their realized niches with Ike and Marth around. Lucina even worse, because Lucina is almost literally just a "female Marth," terribly intruding on Marth's niche. I haven't observed much FE speculation from casuals, only from competitive players, (but this is largely due to me not living in Japan, as FE has its largest following in Japan. No doubt, many casual Japanese gamers are very much interested in FE characters.) The pain of not getting a potential newcomer (Chrom, Lucina) should be far less than the pain of losing your favorite character (Ike fans.) Similarly, Roy has already been cut. I know it stung Roy fans deeply, but at this point, I think they can tank the hit.
For Robin, I've noticed very little support for her, so I can't agree there.
Can you, at the very least, provide substantial evidence in regards to your claims? Because otherwise, what is presented without evidence can just be as easily dismissed without evidence.
How can I? There's very little objective information out there for us to work with, especially when trying to separate competitive interests (more commonly taking polls,) with casual interests (busy playing NintendoLand). I'm only able to make predictions based on what I've observed, as is everyone else (unless some secret treasure trove of empirical data is lying around somewhere, which I haven't been made aware of.) Really, this boils down to "This is my prediction because I'm seeing this." Some people might concur, some might not. Many competitive players do not, and I think this is largely due to me focusing most of my attention on casuals.
Also, there was a reason Wolf was granted entry over Krystal in Super Smash Brothers Brawl - Wolf is far more crucially-important to his own series as the antagonistic rival, in a humiliating comparison to a controversial-to-her-own-series damsel-in-distress. Why would that change the second time around?
Appeal. I'm seeing more folks upset about Krystal not being in, than those who would be upset about wolf getting cut for her. I'm also seeing a huge problem in conceptual niches for all the space animals. Playstyles may be different, but they "look the same," and again, I view this through as casual eyes as I can. It is only once you get into the more competitive gaming that playstyle starts really mattering more than whether it's an "athletic space canine with gun & reflector," but for a casual person, they'll look at Bowser, and Kirby. They'll look at Bowser, and Peach. Then, they'll look at Fox, Falco, and Wolf. The similarities are too close (and I have had some casuals say that.) Basically along the lines of, "they all do the same thing, cut one so it's not as bad." Sometimes they ask for including Krystal.
Isaac>Shulk: Popularity, potential, uniqueness, and semi-cult appeasement.
I can actually, for once, understand this particular suggestion. Yet, even then, Shulk shouldn't be disregarded as a potential choice just because of Isaac - they can co-exist just fine.
It's again a reference to roster size. I'm trying to keep the size down. It's not that their niches overlap much (they don't,) but that between two characters who are generally viewed as very close in terms of likelihood, I found one more likely than the other. It's just trying to show, like I did with Tetra, that despite all of Shulk's merits, I think the cast I predicted is more warranted than him, even if it's ever so slightly.
Garbage. Pure unadulterated, bottom-of-the-trash-can garbage. I feel sick.
Lovely rebuttal. Also quite considerate of you, it's always nice to get such respectable and understandable criticisms.
Sarcasm aside, I've said numerous times that I'm really on the fence about Ness & Lucas. I do think one will get cut. The things which give Lucas a chance over Ness are perceived popularity (again, I'm working with what I can,) recency/relevancy, and that Lucas was supposedly to replace Ness in Melee, but ended up not happening due to Mother 3's delay.
Why should we cut loose the iconic mascot of their own respective series, just for the sake of keeping another character that has previously co-existed with the character in question? The bizarre equivalent would be cutting Marth in order to keep Ike, or cutting Wolf for Falco. It makes no sense whatsoever.
To keep roster size in check, to keep niches from overlapping too much (almost every casual I meet says they're the same thing. Indeed, they aren't different like Link and Zelda are different,) to prevent overrepresenting a very subpar series,
Emotional argumentation. Generalizing assumptions. Logical fallacies. Cognitive biases, ranging from confirmation inclination to the false-consensus effect.
Already, you have practically guaranteed no reasonable spectator will ever listen, or even take seriously, to what you have to say in regards to R.O.B. because you have already established a personally-combative disposition against R.O.B. No attempts at arguing valid points or even presenting factual testimonial evidence. Just, "R.O.B. sucksssss. Nobody likes R.O.B." Considering the fact, not opinion but fact, that there are actually people who do prefer R.O.B. and would even go as far as to main him as a playable character and proudly display him as an avatar on their Smashboards profiles... this argument, no, I mean this generalized preconception is factually wrong, on several, if not all, levels of logic.
This post was a blatant joke for any regular to this thread. It's become somewhat established that I'm an outcast on Smashboards for doubting R.O.B. And yes, I know many on Smashboards love R.O.B. I also repeated, several times, that I'm not seeing this love of R.O.B. in the casual scene, aka the vast, vast, vast majority of smashers. When putting all the input together, R.O.B. ends up really quite hated.
I have posted many times my reasons for doubting R.O.B.'s return, many pages back all over this thread, and quite simply, I just don't want to repeat it again. There's a reason poster's were saying, "another R.O.B. argument."
The simplest way to put this is: It's unfortunate you didn't get the reference, and that you did not interpret the multiple "S"s as an obvious joke explanation. To be perfectly blunt, I don't really doubt that you caught it's lack of seriousness, I'm sure basically anyone would. I think you just really wanted an excuse to throw the implied ad hominem that I'm not worth being taken seriously. Do you want an honest discussion, or do you simply want to instill as many negative traits unto me as you possible can? I'm being both cynical, and fed-up.
Again, stop pretending you are extensively knowledgeable about these fan-bases, because you are only demonstrating
a complete lack of understanding in regards to this, especially when given these ignorantly false examples. Look at what Ridley is - a purple flying space dragon. Already he is aesthetically pleasing. Now look at what Ridley does - flies around at high velocity, uses his sharp claws to grab enemies and drag them across walls, swings his elongated tail around, etc. Already he is feasibly a fighter. All that stands in Ridley's inclusion is Sakurai's criteria for playable character, and certainly not because "casuals" want him to maintain his current position as a boss.
I never pretended to have extensive knowledge about fan-bases desires. I can only work with what limit information I have acquired. There are multiple reasons I doubt Ridley's inclusion, but I'm really not seeing the same Ridley enthusiasm in casuals as I am with competitive players (though it is notable.) Alongside that, I have a few other concerns for Ridley fitting in smoothly, and I think it's likely that Sakurai will retain his Brawl strategy of just making him a Boss, thinking he "wouldn't work."
Why not just have Ridley as a playable character in the first place?
It's not the same thing. It's controlling "Boss Ridley." The big thing that landed on the side of a ship with like, 3 attacks (fireball, bigger fireball, shake ship.) It's entirely different from a 20+ moveset character. For someone who has been audacious enough as to call into question my proper discriminatory skills, it's quite ironic that you didn't catch the "bosses mode" part.
I suppose the 45-50 range is within judicious limits.
It would be a 50-55, "really pushing it (in my opinion,)" if I hadn't made some of the cuts or non-inclusions "called into question," or outright disrespected as if my opinion is inferior to yours. Perhaps it is, and you've got this wonderful fountain full of empirical evidence. If that's the case, let me in on it, but until then, don't pretend your subjective system of evaluation is superior to mine. This is quite literally the same territory as the fools who say, "my religious beliefs are better than your religious beliefs, and that's a fact!"
Overall, this preferentially-favored roster of yours needs more astute fine-tuning in terms of its technicality, logicality, and cohesion, in order for it to become sensibly reasonable. I do desire you not to take this as an offensively-aggressive attack on all fronts of your belief systems, but rather a productive guide that may help better your roster predictions. I myself am not perfect in this regard, and neither are any of us for that matter, but in the very least we can work together as a closely-knit unit within our constructive criticisms of each other's roster predictions, and hopefully become more knowledgeable spectators as a result.
PG-13 (Language)
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're reasonably intelligent. After all, even if you were to put forth a concerted effort to use all them fancy words you used, it still takes a reasonably intelligent person to due it properly. I'll assume that you're not completely lacking in an ability to communicate either, as the messages you conveyed were very easy to convey.
So why, then, do you seemingly ignore such obvious jokes, and use them excuses to use as much demeaning words or implications as you can? Why did you, with no decent reason to even think I implied it, outright accuse me of being too daft to see the most basic context regarding the word "maniac" in the Sakurai interview?
Indeed, I don't think your intention was to have a rebuttal, to put forth constructive criticisms, or to help us both out in the long run. I'm convinced that your only intention in this post was to make me look as bad as possible (for whatever reason that may be.) I'm convinced your only intention was to instill as many negative traits into me as you possible can. Perhaps you really wanted to get likes on your post, or something else alongside "impressing the crowd," but that's being awfully cynical.
By the way, to re-iterate it one last time: I will work with what I have available when making Smash predictions, just like we all will. If you want me to show you my Predicted roster based solely upon empirical evidence, then here it is:
Newcomers: Villager Mega Man Wii Fit Trainer
Veterans: Mario Donkey Kong Link Samus Kirby Fox Pikachu Bowser Pit Olimar Luigi Peach Toon Link Sonic
You know full-well that there's always variables, there's always possibilities, and that anything can happen. You know full-well that a roster prediction discussion requires subjective interpretations of situations, subjective systems of evaluation, and loads of anecdotal evidence due to an astounding lack of variable-free empirical evidence. Why, then, do you ask for "solid evidence" every time I say, "I'm seeing Krystal as more popular than Wolf." Do you want me to make a carbon-copy of my memories and insert it into your brain, connect my copied-neurons to your neurons properly, so you may also have access to the anecdotal evidence I have acquired and, unfortunately, needed to use (since I wanted to make a roster prediction)?
It's astounding in this thread how selective the call for evidence is, and how obvious the "serious-player-bias" roams free. By trying to argue for things that would appease the 97%+ of the consumer base, I've somehow fallen into a disastrous pit of "you're absurd," when not once has someone thought to themselves, "If I'm a 13-year-old kid playing Kirby's Epic Yarn, dreaming of my favorite characters for Smash4, do I really want R.O.B.? To me, he is just 'this random Robot from Subspace Emissary.' To me, he's there and my beloved Bower Jr. from NSMBWiiU isn't there".
Not every potential customer is going to look and base decisions on significance to Nintendo history, indeed the vast majority (as far as I have seen) do not, whatsoever. Alongside that, is it really that crazy to suggest that Nintendo wants to make as much money on Smash4 as possible, while appeasing as many fans as possible? (Fans, not just "competitive maniacs," but all fans from ages 5 to 35, fans who aren't that into Smash Bros. that they'd take time out of their life to do any significant research as to who R.O.B. is or to view the arguments on a random mostly-competitive smash forum about why R.O.B. deserved to be in.)
While I may or may not agree with your points, you deserve a like simply for taking the time to think up those replies.
You certainly seem to have experience with debating.
Lucky, I still have a bio midterm comin up and and english essay to do + a persuasive speech and i'm procrastinating like hell.... no sleep for me D: as always....
Ignoring what's important regarding characters, some people are. All up to Sakurai, it is. Appeal both crowds, Sakurai wants to, or include obscure content like some characters, stages and Assist Trophies, Sakurai wouldn't.
Ended, Frostwraith's patience has. Borrow his account, Frostwraith let me, so comment on this thread's stupidity on his behalf, I could.
(Note: This post doesn't necessarily reflect the account's owner's views... or do they?)
When has representation ever been abooot how many games a series has? Pokemon had 1 game and got 2, Fox only had 2 officially released games and had more than Donkey Kong.
Ignoring what's important regarding characters, some people are. All up to Sakurai, it is. Appeal both crowds, Sakurai wants to, or include obscure content like some characters, stages and Assist Trophies, Sakurai wouldn't.
Ended, Frostwraith's patience has. Borrow his account, Frostwraith let me, so comment on this thread's stupidity on his behalf, I could.
(Note: This post doesn't necessarily reflect the account's owner's views... or do they?)
But lol.. how typical The starmen's post wasn't "too long to read," and became a haven for likes and props.. Mine? just ignore it. I'm convinced you guys aren't interested in discussing evaluation systems, and are more interested in simply bringing me down.
Sakurai. He said that he will not favor mostly competitive players. That does not mean he will focus mainly on casuals, no matter how much of the majority they are. He's going for an in-between. And anyone that thinks otherwise is wrong, they are both together the ultimate factor.
Please, people, am I missing what he is saying about casuals?
Context: I'm including the "intermediate" gamers as Sakurai called them, the "core gamers" as they are officially called, in the casual term. Indeed, a true casual would be someone like the mom who buys their kid SSB4 for xmas, and the child, a "casual gamer," doesn't really know what to expect, but has enjoyed Smash and is expecting it to be fun. The "Core" gamers are the folks who, right now, are saying, "wow, a new Smash is coming out! I love Smash Bros! I wonder if they'll finally add (insert loved character.)" They are a game's target audience. They are the group that companies want to convince to buy the game. They are what Sakurai explicitly stated he is focusing (yes the word focus was used) on, explicitly because they are his target audience.
Sakurai has explicitly stated, he is focusing on the wants of "core gamers," as is typical for any professional game designer (which Sakurai is indeed.) Their goal is to make money, and these are the folks you actually have to win over to make as much money as possible.
He explicitly stated that he tends not to take in feedback from hardcore gamers, and focuses on core/intermediate gamers, right next to each other in the same quoted paragraph.
I don't know, I might be missing it too. I agree with your sentiment. He was just trying to convey that competitive players were not a priority, perhaps he was just alluding to the notion that the focus is not going to be inherently honed on the competitive nature of fighting games like many other titles (as a way of differentiating the game). I most certainly did not interpret that quote as he is going to favor one player base over another. I actually perceived the opposite.
There will be components of the game that cater to competitive players, and there will be portions of the title that are more significant to the casual base. That is how it has always been...
I was referencing that Sakurai has explicitly stated he is focusing on "intermediate/core" gamers, and paying little attention to serious gamers (because serious gamers just aren't very plentiful.) All of this he has explicitly said in that forever-long kotaku interview.
So, are we arguing about Eddy's roster still?
I predicted more anger over Ness being cut. Huh.
Anyway, I think Ness is one of those characters that make Smash Bros what it is. Imagine if Lucas replaced Ness in Melee. Ugh.
If Ness was cut, I would legitimately reconsider buying this game.
Definitely opting for Ness over Lucas now. I was thinking back.. The "casuals/cores" I talk to do call them "Ness characters," not Mother characters. Ness is not just the veteran, he is the icon, because while Lucas is more relevant in the Mother franchise at this moment, Ness is still the icon. Not because of who he is in Mother, because admittedly Mother isn't very big, but because he's been in every Smash game yet.
Right? I mean, he wouldn't tip the scales in favor of one audience, right? It'd be an insult to either audience... it's all about moderation, in anything in life.
This is where context is key. Our audience is very small, the "core audience" is huge.
If you have 100 smashers, 30 are casuals who will buy it no matter what, 65 are "core" players, and 5 are serious players, then treating the 65 core players on equal terms as the 5 serious players, is basically meaning 1 "serious player" is 13x as important as 1 "core" player. Each customer should be treated equally. As such, the views that core players tend to have (it does differentiate with serious players, because serious players dig deeper and find more info, fine-tuning their stances) as a collective should be 13x as important as the views the serious players tend to have as a collective. If we only had 1 slot, and the serious players thought it should go to Toad, while the core players thought it should go to Baby Bowser, then we've got 5 votes for Toad, 65 votes for Baby Bowser.
The core players do not win out because they are "more important" than us. They core players win out because there are just plain more of them.
Ignoring that the number of people who would do that are much smaller then that, you're never going to win with those type of people. If they want something specific and they leave because they don't get it, then they're not worth it. Also, you'll be rolling in the 10 million you get anyway, which is still a large chunk of money you're getting back.
You're saying that potential Smash customers who are "on the edge" are fewer than 1 in 1000? I'd tend to thinks there's more.
You're saying that folks who like Smash, but not enough to spend $50, but who's opinion might change if...Mewtwo came back, are less than 1/1000?
And that's a nice ideal, about whether or not they're "worth it," but that's not how game marketing works. Marketing games is all about winning over the core gamers.
Except you've given no adaquate reason for his exclusion other then "I don't like him." At least with most rosters, people gives some less subjective reasoning for exclusions, you haven't.
Somebody didn't catch the joke. Many users have found it obvious that I doubt R.O.B.'s chances, so the "R.O.B. sucks no one likes him" comment was meant to be an obvious joke. I've listed reasons why I doubt R.O.B. will be coming back, and you can find them on your own accord. The most notable is that I think Nintendo could have a better performing smash game, and make more money, by cutting R.O.B. in favor of a more wanted character. Again, I'm looking at casual/core/intermediate gamers, not through the eyes of the serious gamers (the ones who seem to be the only ones who dig deep enough to fit R.O.B.s historical significance and then subsequently place high value on it.
Still doesn't change my point. Also, the FE characters, Ness/Lucas, etc.
To say that "it's never the case" that the core gamers have the most influence to directly go against Sakurai's quote, in which he says that they are focusing on appeasing the core gamers. This is objective fact.
[collapse="Sakurai Quote"]Basically, Smash Bros is designed to be sort of targeted at the center, intermediate players.[/collapse]
Again, these are the "core gamers."
So basically your point is just "Too big" under another name, just with "the customers would be confused!" added to it. Not even bothering.
Ridley has already been established as a big boss in Smash Bros. Many casuals/core gamers are used to him as a big boss in Smash Bros. Sakurai has said it "couldn't work," so he's skeptical of it. I've noticed far less casual/core demand for Ridley than serious, meaning that the target audience is (assuming the limited information I have to work with properly translates into the grander population) not as interested in playing as Ridley as SWB (though there is notable demand.)
There's a few other, much pettier reasons for why I doubt Ridley, and there's a few I think are significant but I know spark a huge debate, but that's about it.
Also, you're aware that Petey Piranha changed sizes when he was playable in spinoff titles, right?
Very, and I anticipate Petey Piranha will stay the same size he was portrayed in Brawl as in future Smash games. I'm also well aware of how small the original Metroid Ridley is, and how inconsistent Ridley's size has been in the Metroid Series. I take size in series with a grain of salt, but once something has been put in Smash, I've considered it to be the default. Ridley is unique in that he had the Melee opening sequence, but in the same manner, Pikachu was tiny in the SSB64 opening sequence, so it's hard to utilize definitively.
And yet with all that "influence," the roster remains balanced towards both groups, you're overrating their influence yet again. Also, as Bkupa put it, there's no "casual" or "hardcore" characters, it's just a wall you're trying to put up to prove your already faulty point. Characters are characters, Sakurai doesn't appeal to one group or the other when picking them out, so why are you so adamant in proving this when it's never fit the situation beforehand?
-I didn't make up the[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamer#Types_of_gamers different types of gamers.[/URL]
-Sakurai explicitly stated which types of gamers he's focusing on. Sakurai explicitly stated that he takes very little feedback from hardcore gamers. I am not taking guesses, I am just reiterating what Sakurai has said himself about which types of gamers have the most influence.
He explicitly stated that Smash Bros. focuses on "intermediate/core" gamers, and takes very little feedback from "hardcore gamers." This is not an opinion, this is fact. The quote is right there on the kotaku mega-interview.
Unless we say Sakurai is lying in a serious interview, the idea that Smash is Targeting "Semi-casuals" and mostly ignoring "competitives" is an objective reality.
While I may or may not agree with your points, you deserve a like simply for taking the time to think up those replies.
You certainly seem to have experience with debating.
I just got back from my studies just to see that huge post. . . . . . . . . .
what the heck did I miss?!?
this thread just gets crazier and crazier as the days go by
When has representation ever been abooot how many games a series has? Pokemon had 1 game and got 2, Fox only had 2 officially released games and had more than Donkey Kong.
You know sakurai loves starfox right? he would have made a new game for them but went with KI:U instead, and i'm talking about all titles, not just a recent title, its safe to assume that DK will get another. But like frost said, its all up to sakurai, what we do here is pointless because we have no power over the roster no matter what we type and no matter what petitions we ask random peeps to sign, sakurai will have the final say like it or not.
@Eddy welcome to SWF! where if you don't have 1000 posts you get ignored, or if you go against a circle of friends you get bashed, we all have opinions here and I respect every one I don't bash or whatever, but this is the internet and you must know that
FE will get at least 3, starfox will stay at 3, pokemon might get 5, mario might get 5, DK will get at least 3.
But again its my opinion, I don't care about representation, it's about which characters can bring a new playstyle to the table and are easily recognized. i'll buy the game no matter what happens, but sakurai has the final say and he decides the roster, if he wants 2 FE chars fine, but if he adds 3 for whatever reason that's fine as well.
You're saying that potential Smash customers who are "on the edge" are fewer than 1 in 1000? I'd tend to thinks there's more.
You're saying that folks who like Smash, but not enough to spend $50, but who's opinion might change if...Mewtwo came back, are less than 1/1000?
And that's a nice ideal, about whether or not they're "worth it," but that's not how game marketing works. Marketing games is all about winning over the core gamers.
Haha, if you try to go for the minority when marketing then you're going to miss out on a lot of money from the majority. The miniscule amount that makes up the ones "on edge" are much smaller then you're making it out to be and there's only so much that you can do to appeal to those people. For instance, there's definitely a small group supporting Master Chief in Smash no doubt, but would that be feasible for Nintendo to get in game?
Somebody didn't catch the joke. Many users have found it obvious that I doubt R.O.B.'s chances, so the "R.O.B. sucks no one likes him" comment was meant to be an obvious joke. I've listed reasons why I doubt R.O.B. will be coming back, and you can find them on your own accord. The most notable is that I think Nintendo could have a better performing smash game, and make more money, by cutting R.O.B. in favor of a more wanted character. Again, I'm looking at casual/core/intermediate gamers, not through the eyes of the serious gamers (the ones who seem to be the only ones who dig deep enough to fit R.O.B.s historical significance and then subsequently place high value on it.
Your type of humor rings quite hollow to me. Also, as many have said, if it didn't stop Mr. Game and Watch from returning, why would it stop ROB? Tell me that.
To say that "it's never the case" that the core gamers have the most influence to directly go against Sakurai's quote, in which he says that they are focusing on appeasing the core gamers. This is objective fact.
[collapse="Sakurai Quote"]Basically, Smash Bros is designed to be sort of targeted at the center, intermediate players.[/collapse]
Again, these are the "core gamers."
"In terms of characters." Note that the quote doesn't say anything about characters. Even playing by your rules, Sakurai never appeals to one over the other, you have your "casual" characters and your "hardcore" characters. This whole distinction crap is non-existent and nonproblemic, and the fact that you're trying to perpetuate it based on the filmiest of information is ridiculous.
Ridley has already been established as a big boss in Smash Bros. Many casuals/core gamers are used to him as a big boss in Smash Bros. Sakurai has said it "couldn't work," so he's skeptical of it. I've noticed far less casual/core demand for Ridley than serious, meaning that the target audience is (assuming the limited information I have to work with properly translates into the grander population) not as interested in playing as Ridley as SWB (though there is notable demand.)
There's a few other, much pettier reasons for why I doubt Ridley, and there's a few I think are significant but I know spark a huge debate, but that's about it.
Very, and I anticipate Petey Piranha will stay the same size he was portrayed in Brawl as in future Smash games. I'm also well aware of how small the original Metroid Ridley is, and how inconsistent Ridley's size has been in the Metroid Series. I take size in series with a grain of salt, but once something has been put in Smash, I've considered it to be the default. Ridley is unique in that he had the Melee opening sequence, but in the same manner, Pikachu was tiny in the SSB64 opening sequence, so it's hard to utilize definitively.
It's already been beat to death why that argument is full of crap, Charizard was a Pokeball Pokémon, Giga Bowser became a FS (and was larger to boot), Metal Mario is an item, etc. Hell, Ridley got resized in Brawl itself! Canon and consistency do not exist that well in the realms of SSB, Ridley is not the magical exception, it can happen, it has happened, stop trying to push something that has been disproven.
-I didn't make up thedifferent types of gamers.[/URL]
-Sakurai explicitly stated which types of gamers he's focusing on. Sakurai explicitly stated that he takes very little feedback from hardcore gamers. I am not taking guesses, I am just reiterating what Sakurai has said himself about which types of gamers have the most influence.
He explicitly stated that Smash Bros. focuses on "intermediate/core" gamers, and takes very little feedback from "hardcore gamers." This is not an opinion, this is fact. The quote is right there on the kotaku mega-interview.
Unless we say Sakurai is lying in a serious interview, the idea that Smash is Targeting "Semi-casuals" and mostly ignoring "competitives" is an objective reality
And again, where do the characters fit into that? That's never been an area Sakurai differentiates and I've constantly given you examples of that, putting your fingers in your ears and singing "Lalala" does not neuter the point.
In truth and honesty, I think you have a double standard in your arguing process and a view of the game's roster and deciding process that has never been supported or seen.
So,two Kirby newcomers in Brawl,all Kirby characters play important roles in SSE,the fact that he voices Dedede,Metaknight has a unique victory theme and is broken as hell,that is not favoritsm? XD
So,two Kirby newcomers in Brawl,all Kirby characters play important roles in SSE,the fact that he voices Dedede,Metaknight has a unique victory theme and is broken as hell,that is not favoritsm?
No, it's what we call "necessary". And I was referring to Melee on how we got 2 Star Fox characters and only 1 Kirby. And Meta Knight wasn't broken intentionally. (he's not even that broken)
I believe dedede was planned for 64 but something went wrong, and mk for melee but got put aside for another reason. So there could have been 3 kirby characters before brawl now that i think about it.
Oh yes he is. Go to a tourney and find out how broken MK is and how campy ROB can be.
Or I can show you myself with my secondary main MK. he is broken man, he's got priority moves, all his specials can recover, and has got one of the best gimp moves in smash to date... he is broken lol.
I believe dedede was planned for 64 but something went wrong, and mk for melee but got put aside for another reason. So there could have been 3 kirby characters before brawl now that i think about it.
Ignoring what's important regarding characters, some people are. All up to Sakurai, it is. Appeal both crowds, Sakurai wants to, or include obscure content like some characters, stages and Assist Trophies, Sakurai wouldn't.
Ended, Frostwraith's patience has. Borrow his account, Frostwraith let me, so comment on this thread's stupidity on his behalf, I could.
(Note: This post doesn't necessarily reflect the account's owner's views... or do they?)
