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!
Yet how many people exist that play any group of three or more very different characters at a high near-equivalent main level that they can consistently win with against equivalent competition? In Smash 4 there's pretty much just MKLeo and Tweek at top level (while two of their characters are the notoriously overpowered Bayonetta and Cloud), and in Brawl there was no one like that. Assuming all the pokemon are perfectly balanced viable characters, the simple fact of the matter is everyone is going to have different aptitudes for different characters, and there is not an infinite amount of time you can spend practicing and playing, so there is only so much you can do to force yourself to get better with the pokemon you don't click with, and all that time spent developing them is an opportunity cost for time you can spend on the characters you actually click with (or the overpowered top tiers you like).
All the claimed "mindgame" advantages are so nebulous, and results from people trying to "mix up" their opponents at high level play during counterpicking doesn't support it as a viable tactic at all; how many times have people switching up their characters midset in an attempt to "change it up" and "throw off" their opponent has actually worked? Not very, and in the few times it is successful, usually when it's tried again against the same opponent it fails. Standard counterpicking to get an actual matchup advantage has a lackluster success rate as it is even during Smash 4's claimed "counterpick meta".
Each of the pokemon are their own fully individual characters with complete movesets, all they lack is a down special, which is not necessary for them to compete (e.g. Sheik in Melee and hypothetically Squirtle in Brawl were all fully viable characters without a down special, and many viable characters have had specials they barely utilized if at all), there's nothing stopping people from succeeding as the individual pokemon (they will just have to deal with the annoyance of having to switch on the revival platform upon respawning every time).
People are certainly going to try it at first, people always get hyped up over the theorycrafted hypotheticals for transformation characters, and then the reality sets in where the majority are going to drop it upon realizing how impractical it is or simply realizing they're wasting their time forcing themselves to play characters they don't enjoy as much, whether it be for focusing on the pokemon they like or playing other characters, while the few that stick with forcing it are going to struggle to keep up with their peers. Also saying PT is a character with a "moveset three times bigger than everyone else" is a very misleading statement.
There is nothing in that recipe of gameplay that could have been polished to be an all time great.
Hard to say. I know it'd probably have a very divided reaction. Wind Waker HD was pretty well received overall but Twilight Princess's HD remake got a much more divided reaction. Some people say it looks much smoother and nicer, while others say the graphical changes takes away from the original game's atmosphere and ruins what it was supposed to feel like. I definitely think HD remakes of the Prime games could get similar reactions to TP HD depending on exactly what's changed.
Por qué no los dos?
The only fanfic I've read is "Harry Potter: Here we go again".
Sounds good to me!
The "echoes take minimal resources" thing needs to stop. They take less. Not minimal.
Well with the WW and TP remakes you need to remember that the Zelda fanbase had decided to change their minds on what they liked, and valued the games that tried to be more original more
WW HD looked a lot better at a first glance because of its shiny new light engine. When TP HD was released, people were comparing it to that, which was kind of unfair to it as it actually did look better then the original. It was actually kind of nice being able to play TP again and actually be able to tell what was going on onscreen 100% of the time.
Ain't that still Little Mac?Two problems with that:
1. Little Mac retired, story's over.
2. What can you even do after that? Punch-Out has a pretty simple formula, there's not really any new things you could spice things up
Unless you wanna bring this guy and reboot him.
Sorry to say that'll likely never happen for me. Unless one of my friends sits me down and forces me at some point. But I really have less than zero interest in MGS based on what I've seen. Not a huge fan of stealth gameplay. Not really interesting in the setting (military settings are very blah to me, even if they involve super weird **** happening. I dunno something about it just turns me off.)
I have a full living National Pokedex, minus Zeraora, who hasn't come out in NA yet.
Tú no entiendes.
The Meter is a more straight to the point mechanic. Star Punch relies more on proper timing on counter attacking. If possible, maybe they can implement it into his Down-B.
It just dawned on me that saying "Gen 7 pokedex" doesn't count gens 1-6. Uh yeah, I've got the National Dex as well.
Well for what it's worth, the producers of Punch Out Wii said he's a different person altogether.
I disagree, but it would take a completely new script with a different character arc, then reconstructing the gameplay around the Wiimote and nunchuck, or just a pro controller. I liked that it tried to blend 2D Metroid visuals with a 3D environment, and I actually felt like the over-the-top action fit Samus as a badass bounty hunter slaughtering a bunch of aliens. The idea at its core wasn't flawed at all after three straight Prime games that, while extremely good, didn't vary themselves up enough to justify a fourth anytime soon.
Gimme some Mystical Ninja as well and I'm pretty much golden. =D
Most of the Metal Gear games penalise you for straight up murdering the enemy (except where absolutely necessary, like bosses and a few sections of MGS1), after MGS2 all the Metal Gear games include guns with tranquilizer darts instead of bullets and usually reward you for non-lethally dealing with the bosses.
God I hope not, that game has some truly great things but every time they think of something good, Eiji Aonuma's dog pisses all over the office
Honestly I would've preferred that over a mechanic that rewards you with a random free kill move, whether you've been succeeding or failing, cough CLOUD cough.
So essentially, redo everything except the very core idea of the game? At that point it's not even the same game anymore outside of the very basic principles of it. Saying it could have been great if you changed basically everything but the core isn't really an interesting argument for me personally because you have so many what ifs it just clouds the entire debate.
I get that. I don't normally like guns or military games either. But MGS transcends that, I think. And it's a strictly anti-war series, thematically.
Games we've played.
Eh, true I 'spouse.
To each their own. I think the change is fine myself, and I really like the improved detail on several characters and textures, but I can see why others would prefer the way the original looks.
I seriously hope it doesn't. Because I really don't think they could possibly add much to improve the original's graphics. If it does happen, then the most I can do is hope I'm proven wrong.
I've still never beaten it. I hate the controls so much.
I understand perfectly.Tú no entiendes.
Reading comprehension, mate, I never said reboot the series again, I said reboot him, the guy, the character. He is the Ethan to Little Mac's Red. Use your optical receptors. The only staples in the series is Bald Bull, Sandman, and Super Macho Man. The rest is ****ing fair game. Sure you could bring SNES characters sure, but goddamn I would sure like it if there was a focus in new boxers entirely. We only got one, ONE new character in the Wii game.
And damn if he wasn't the best character.
What's wrong with a remake of that game? All I see are nitpicks that could be easily be changed with a remake...
My "beat" list would be so much shorter...and harder to judge for some characters.
- Too many mainline Mario titles to count. - In Mario Kart games, I always complete all the cups. R.O.B. Counts. - Mario Super Sluggers was my jam. - Donkey Kong Country Returns was great. - ...Now comes the awkward part. Link's Awakening was the only Zelda I actually beat. - Return to Dreamland was my first and only Kirby game. It was fun. - I've been a Pokémon fan since I was a literal baby. The franchise has been with me my whole life, basically.:ultrobin - Awakening was my first Fire Emblem game. I put hundreds of hours into it. - I will forever stand by my belief that Shadow Dragon gets a whole lot more flack than it deserves. One of my favorite games, and one of my top three for Fire Emblem. Great maps, great writing, and some of my favorite characters.- Stuck on the final fight of the NES version and beat the Wii one. Love this series with all my heart. - Beat Uprising and then managed to outright lose the cartridge RIP. - It's hard to judge what qualifies as beating these arcadey/fighting game/Wii Sports games, but I've played them a lot so here they are. - Actually I am stuck on the final fights of both Mega Man 2 and Castlevania, but I'll include them here anyway since they're mostly beaten.Don't be dissing the Hero-King, son.
Interesting. Wasn't totally sure how prominent they were since I haven't actually played any, but I assumed you had to kill the bosses at least. Either way though that doesn't solve the problem of the military setting and just generally stealth games being largely unappealing to me. This is a little superficial but when it comes to games the setting/atmosphere is hugely important to me. If I don't find the setting appealing it's gonna be real hard for me to get invested in a game.
