Super Smash Bros 4 (Wii U/3DS) Topic

[Autumn ♫]

I have a hard time imagining Ditto with a unique moveset.

 

[Johnknight1]

@ Moon Monkey
It depends on which characters:
1. Move the most units (having many characters from different franchises and even companies is a huge part of this).
2. Mesh the best.
3. Add the most things to the game.
4. Stick out the most.
5. Give players different reasons to buy the game and keep coming back to the game.

All of those reasons point more towards the latter roster more than the former roster (although both are pretty underwhelming).

 

[~automatic]

Well I remember reading quite a few things about The Animal Crossing characters (including the Villager) all being psychopaths, including, again, that web comic.

This one guy was making a semi serious toned graphic novel about animal crossing as a drug rehab clinic and was close to gaining 20K of backing for his project. It looked like an interesting concept but it never gained full backing.

 

[Moon Monkey]

There's something wrong with your head if you don't want Tyrogue, Moltres or Dragonite with unique movesets.

I should have put hitmontop in there too. Joke aside.
Do you get wast i'm trying to say?? I would rather have fun to play characters from all franchises than, have 10+ characters from 1 series.

I have a hard time imagining Ditto with a unique moveset.

(ditto is the random )

 

[Johnknight1]

@ Moon Monkey
I'm not disagree with the 10 characters from 10 franchises logic over 10 characters from 1 franchise, but saying "representative" is just silly.

Saying "diversity," "uniqueness," or "new blood," on the other hand, isn't. Diversity is a huge part of what makes these games unique and what draws in new audiences. I know several dozen people who played Brawl just because they were fans of Sonic the Hedgehog or Metal Gear, which is a huge deal.

Said the guy that promotes "bromance" where ever he goes.

There's a difference between posting nude pictures of... weird albino figurines and showing affection for your bros.

Besides, SMASH BROS BEFORE SMASH HOES

(and yes, female Smashers' bros are their buds, and the hoes are [generally] men who aren't their buds, so don't call me a sexist)

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

What Moon Monkey said. Yes, the reason some franchises have more characters is because they're bigger. The amount of characters do represent how important the franchise is to Smash and/or Nintendo. I can't see a reason to add in a character outside of them representing a specific series and having popularity in general. Taking a look at every character, they all are pretty popular or represent their own series for one-offs.

I don't buy they aren't representatives at all.

 

[Moon Monkey]

@ Moon Monkey
It depends on which characters:
1. Move the most units (having many characters from different franchises and even companies is a huge part of this).
2. Mesh the best.
3. Add the most things to the game.
4. Stick out the most.
5. Give players different reasons to buy the game and keep coming back to the game.

All of those reasons point more towards the latter roster more than the former roster (although both are pretty underwhelming).

So let's say hypothetically both rosters have equally the same amount of appeal in all categories including in the underwhelming department. Would you pick the all Pokemon one or the one with more of an even spread across other franchises?

It's not really questionable. There isn't anything that states we're restricted to a certain amount of characters or we're forced to get a certain character because of bullcrap, what matters is if said character can be likable and fun.

I was never implying that there are any rules of any sort. I'm just saying I would rather not have a game with Mario and Pokemon characters that make up half the roster.
How would you feel if you favorite character didn't get in, but Sudowoodo did? Unless Sudowoodo was you favorite character then I guess the jokes on me.

 

[Reznor]

Tell me would you rather have a roster that has roster that looks like this:

With all unique movesets and competitively viable characters? (ditto is the random )

Or would you have a roster that looks like this:

With all unique movesets and competitively viable characters?

I would rather have the first roster ..... i'm a horrible person

 

[FlareHabanero]

I was never implying that there are any rules of any sort. I'm just saying I would rather not have a game with Mario and Pokemon characters that make up half the roster.

Wanting diversity = wanting to sell out?

 

[Johnknight1]

So let's say hypothetically both rosters have equally the same amount of appeal in all categories including in the underwhelming department. Would you pick the all Pokemon one or the one with more of an even spread across other franchises?

The one that sells the most copies, and has the most diversity.

By that very nature, if we had two 50 rosters (one of all Pokémon, one of a reasonable Smash WiiU/3DS roster), the latter would have more diversity, and would sell the most copies because of that diversity and having the most appeal to the most people.

 

[Arcadenik]

To be honest, I am mostly happy with both rosters since both have Meowth.

 

[Moon Monkey]

@ Moon Monkey
I'm not disagree with the 10 characters from 10 franchises logic over 10 characters from 1 franchise, but saying "representative" is just silly.

Saying "diversity," "uniqueness," or "new blood," on the other hand, isn't. Diversity is a huge part of what makes these games unique and what draws in new audiences. I know several dozen people who played Brawl just because they were fans of Sonic the Hedgehog or Metal Gear, which is a huge deal.

The word "representative" is nothing more than a word that has been thrown around and used for the wrong reasons on this site.
But to they do matter to some degree.

What if a person wants a Fire Emblem "representative" from another franchise for the sake of diversity, uniqueness and new blood? are they wrong for that?
Of course they aren't.

But if they are saying we need a Fire Emblem rep because their inclusion is a must, inevitable, and/or because X character is relevant (which is another word that has been tossed around frequently),
Then they should be slapped with a whale's ****.

I'm just trying to clarify where we stand on this "rep" thing. I'm pretty sure we are all on the same page to some degree if not entirely.

 

[Johnknight1]

The word "representative" is nothing more than a word that has been thrown around and used for the wrong reasons on this site.
But to they do matter to some degree.

What if a person wants a Fire Emblem "representative" from another franchise for the sake of diversity, uniqueness and new blood? are they wrong for that?
Of course they aren't.

But if they are saying we need a Fire Emblem rep because their inclusion is a must, inevitable, and/or because X character is relevant (which is another word that has been tossed around frequently),
Then they should be slapped with a whales ****.

I'm just trying to clarify where we stand on this "rep" thing. I'm pretty sure we are all on the same page to some degree if not entirely.

The problem is people use the latter point 99% of the time, instead of pointing at the good reasons, or they use it to point at SPECIFIC CHARACTERS that aren't all that diverse or new.

 

[Moon Monkey]

↑ I agree completely which is sad, and I wish would change. ↑

Wanting diversity = wanting to sell out?

I wouldn't say that.

The one that sells the most copies, and has the most diversity.

By that very nature, if we had two 50 rosters (one of all Pokémon, one of a reasonable Smash WiiU/3DS roster), the latter would have more diversity, and would sell the most copies because of that diversity and having the most appeal to the most people.

Okay, so looks like we are the same page after all.
Most of Nintendo's franchises differ in content and gameplay, which means each character can/may bring something to the table that the other characters can not.
So when people say they want to see different series get representation, in my mind that translates to: "I would like to see what new elements this character can bring to the roster"

That's why when this statement was made:

Who cares what franchises get characters as long as we get the best possible playable characters

I found it questionable because caring about characters from other franchises can be a way way to find good and unique playable characters.

 

[Johnknight1]

Okay, so looks like we are the same page after all.
Most of Nintendo's franchises differ in content and gameplay, which means each character can/may bring something to the table that the other characters can not.
So when people say they want to see different series get representation, in my mind that translates to: "I would like to see what new elements this character can bring to the roster"

That is because the types of thought process are the thought processes of stupid people who don't think, whereas your thought process is the exact opposite.

Breaking down what you said, we got characters from tons of kinds of platformers, dungeon solvers, action games, speed running games, strategy games, all sorts of shooters, ship-based games, aiming-based games, RPG games, puzzle games, mini-game-based games, party games, stealth games, casual games, simulation games, fitness games, etc. etc. etc. Basically we have characters from games from every (somewhat) major genre but fighting games (so far!).

 

[FlareHabanero]

Most of Nintendo's franchises differ in content and gameplay, which means each character can/may bring something to the table that the other characters can not.
So when people say they want to see different series get representation, in my mind that translates to: "I would like to see what new elements this character can bring to the roster"

Which is of course one of the perks about Nintendo, is that it's a company that trailed on many different things ranging from themes to genres. This is why, when you think about it, there are a lot of colorful choices out there to choose from. This is why people want to see characters that pop out, not blend in. Characters that don't stand out tend to suffer hard from it.

 

[Johnknight1]

Which is of course one of the perks about Nintendo, is that it's a company that trailed on many different things ranging from themes to genres. This is why, when you think about it, there are a lot of colorful choices out there to choose from. This is why people want to see characters that pop out, not blend in. Characters that don't stand out tend to suffer hard from it.

The only thing about Nintendo and "familiarity" is that over half of the roster was made (or was helped being made) by one man (Shigeru Miyamoto), while the same group of people helped make like 1/8th of the rest of the roster (Pokémon).

That is actually one of the big reasons why I think having Snake, Sonic, Mega Man, and potentially one or two other 3rd party characters is such a hugely important thing to have. While the Pokémon and Shigeru Miyamoto created (or co-created or influenced) characters are nice, they are similar in some (mostly small) ways, and having characters made with completely different ideologies really helps the whole roster feel more "fresh."

Granted, that doesn't mean that having 20 3rd party characters is the way to go (that deludes the focus), but rather, new completely different characters help bring a type of contrast you don't normally find within Nintendo's ranks.

 

[Moon Monkey]

So representatives DO matter, but not because of the reason why many say it matters; Instead having various franchise representatives can lead to a game with a wider variety of characters and play-styles. Or as John put it:

helps the whole roster feel more "fresh."

Though to clarify no one should want "representatives" they should want characters.

@ Johnknigh1: Agree'd. I think 4 3rd party characters should suffice depending on who those characters are.

 

[FlareHabanero]

The only thing about Nintendo and "familiarity" is that over half of the roster was made (or was helped being made) by one man (Shigeru Miyamoto), while the same group of people helped make like 1/8th of the rest of the roster (Pokémon).

Still, the point still stands that even with the characters we have now, there is still a sense of diversity. We've got a blend of different types of themes ranging from fantasy to sci-fi, we've got a blend of serious to comical, big and small, fast and slow, human and non-human, magical powers and mechanical artillery, good and evil. In other words, there really isn't anything that is set in stone, which is a good factor to have because there isn't strict guidelines for preventing clashing. Not to mention there is that sense of wanting diversity in order to keep that sense of freedom up to shape.

 

[Johnknight1]

Though to clarify no one should want "representatives" they should want characters.

That is precisely what I am getting at Doctor Monkey (I don't know why, but I have wanted to call you that for dayssssss).

@ Johnknigh1: Agree'd. I think 4 3rd party characters should suffice depending on who those characters are.

4 or 5, given who they are. Snake, Sonic, and Mega Man all obviously fit, and yet stick out. Characters like Pac-Man, Tails, Simon Belmont, Professor Layton, Geno, or a generic Final Fantasy Black Mage could all accomplish that.

Heck, Crash could accomplish that. Honestly, Crash would be a solid addition to a future smash game, given that he was essentially Sony's "mascot" for years, and Sony has been Nintendo's biggest rival for the last 3 generations (although such a proposition would be better served if Sony stopped producing consoles, which is something as a gamer I hope never happens unless their consoles suddenly turn into inferior consoles and total crap).

 

[Moon Monkey]

That is precisely what I am getting at Doctor Monkey (I don't know why, but I have wanted to call you that for dayssssss).


4 or 5, given who they are. Snake, Sonic, and Mega Man all obviously fit, and yet stick out. Characters like Pac-Man, Tails, Simon Belmont, Professor Layton, Geno, or a generic Final Fantasy Black Mage could all accomplish that.

Heck, Crash could accomplish that. Honestly, Crash would be a solid addition to a future smash game, given that he was essentially Sony's "mascot" for years, and Sony has been Nintendo's biggest rival for the last 3 generations (although such a proposition would be better served if Sony stopped producing consoles, which is something as a gamer I hope never happens unless their consoles suddenly turn into inferior consoles and total crap).

Doctor Monkey LOL!

If we thought the R.O.B and Wii Fit Trainer rage was bad. If Crash ever made it into Smash, the Sony guys would rage so hard especially since he and Spyro never made it into PSABR.
And it could happen too:

Spoiler

 

[Arcadenik]

I really want Simon Belmont in Smash so badly... maybe if we start rallying for Simon now... he could be the next Sonic/Mega Man for SSB5.

 

[kikaru]

Tell me would you rather have a roster that has roster that looks like this:

With all unique movesets and competitively viable characters? (ditto is the random )

Or would you have a roster that looks like this:

With all unique movesets and competitively viable characters?

Yes

 

[KingofPhantoms]

Doctor Monkey LOL!

If we thought the R.O.B and Wii Fit Trainer rage was bad. If Crash ever made it into Smash, the Sony guys would rage so hard especially since he never made it into PSABR.
And it could happen too:

Spoiler

I'd much prefer Spyro, but he's too big if we're gonna get a purple dragon, Ridley is the first on that list of pruple dragons, and dragons period.

 

[Johnknight1]

Doctor Monkey LOL!

If we thought the R.O.B and Wii Fit Trainer rage was bad. If Crash ever made it into Smash, the Sony guys would rage so hard especially since he and Spyro never made it into PSABR.
And it could happen too:

Spoiler

Sony would rage so hard that various people in their company would explode and thus spend the rest of their lives living without heads or torsos or arms.

But still, it would kinda be epic, since Crash and Spyro are both very historic characters from really a classic and game changing era of gaming.

 

[MexM]

Doctor Monkey LOL!

If we thought the R.O.B and Wii Fit Trainer rage was bad. If Crash ever made it into Smash, the Sony guys would rage so hard especially since he and Spyro never made it into PSABR.
And it could happen too:

I want to see the PSABR fans rage so badly.

There should be another Crash and Spyro crossover, but instead of blending the two gameplay styles, they should be competing at the Olympic Games!

 

[Johnknight1]

I really want Simon Belmont in Smash so badly... maybe if we start rallying for Simon now... he could be the next Sonic/Mega Man for SSB5.

You mean Smash 6 (since either Smash WiiU or 3DS is Smash 5).

But yes, this should totally happen. Simon Belmont honestly has as much or more potential for greatness as any Nintendo newcomer we could think of when it comes to being a smash bros playable character. If Konami was kind enough to give Nintendo the rights to use Simon Belmont and/or Bomberman as well as Snake for Smash 6 (as playable characters), I would be a happy camper, especially if we got all 3.

Oh, and Tails in Smash for whatever reason just seems like a brilliant idea to me. I think he would be a great smash bros playable character.

 

[FlareHabanero]

Yes

A fine contribution you made to this chat.

 

[Arcadenik]

I posted this on Simon Belmont's support thread the other day but I thought I would bring it over here as well. It isn't much but I hope you guys like it.

I came up with a moveset for Simon Belmont... it is entirely based on the NES/SNES games... and I picture Simon doing these moves with his NES/SNES sprite animations.

A
Simon whips forward once... it is that simple.

Hold A + Move Stick
Simon whips forward once... and then lets his whip dangle... then you move the stick to make Simon whip some more... it is kinda like Sheik's Chain... this is based on Super Castlevania IV.

Running + A
Simon tosses up to three daggers while running... this is based on having the Triple Shot power-up while using the Dagger sub-weapon in the NES/SNES games.

Side + A
Simon whips forward once but the whip has a longer reach... this is based on the second Morning Star upgrade in the NES/SNES games.

Up + A
Simon whips upward once... this is based on Super Castlevania IV.

Down + A
Simon whips downward diagonally once... this is based on Super Castlevania IV.

Smash Side + A
Simon glows as if he got a Whip upgrade... and then he whips forward once... but a fireball flies out from the tip of the whip... the fireball has a good knockback like Lucas's PK Fire... this is based on the Flame Whip upgrade in Castlevania II: Simon's Quest.

Smash Up + A
Simon throws an axe upward and it flies in a steep curve... it goes up then it goes down... this is based on the Axe sub-weapon in the NES/SNES games.

Smash Down + A
Simon throws a bottle of holy water at the ground in front of himself... the bottle breaks into flames that burns the opponent repeatedly like Ness's PK Fire... this is based on the Holy Water sub-weapon in the NES/SNES games.

Aerial A
Simon jumps and whips forward once... Simon does this a lot in the NES games.

Aerial Forward + A
Simon jumps and throws two daggers forward... this is based on having the Double Shot power-up while using the Dagger sub-weapon in the NES/SNES games.

Aerial Backward + A
Simon jumps and throws a bottle of holy water behind him... the bottle breaks into flames when it hits an opponent or the ground... the flames burn repeatedly like Ness's PK Fire... this is based on the Holy Water sub-weapon in the NES/SNES games.

Aerial Up + A
Simon jumps and whips upward once... this is based on Super Castlevania IV.

Aerial Down + A
Simon jumps and whips downward once... this is based on Super Castlevania IV.

B - Triple Shot Cross
Simon throws a boomerang like Link's Boomerang... however he cannot throw boomerangs diagonally like Link does... but he can throw up to three boomerangs at a time... this is based on using the Triple Shot power-up while using the Cross sub-weapon in the NES/SNES games... especially useful against Dracula in Super Castlevania IV.

Side + B - Diamond Deflect
Simon throws a diamond diagonally downward... but then the diamond bounces off any surface... Simon can only have one diamond out at a time... this is based on the Diamond sub-weapon in Castlevania II: Simon's Quest... it was also known as the Rebound Stone in Castlevania: Symphony of the Night... but this version deflects projectiles... imagine that, a projectile that deflects projectiles!

Up + B - Grapple Swing
Simon uses the whip as a tether recovery if he whips onto the ledge of the stage... but he can also whip onto a grapple ring that appears from thin air to swing across the gap if he is too far away from the ledge... this is based on Super Castlevania IV.

Down + B - Invisibility Potion
Simon drinks a potion and becomes invisible for three seconds... when Simon is transparent, opponents can attack him but cannot inflict damage... it is like the Cloaking Device in Melee... this is based on the Invisibility Potion item in the NES/SNES games.

Final Smash - Magic Rosary
Simon picks up a holy cross... white light flashes the whole stage... nearby opponents are KO'd instantly... this is based on the Rosary item in the NES/SNES games... remember that cross item that kills all enemies on the screen... that's the one.

 

[Kamikazek]

I'd be so down for a Pokemon exclusive Smash spin off you don't even know.

 

[Moon Monkey]

Yes

Not sure if you are aware, but 2 questions were asked.

I'd much prefer Spyro, but he's too big if we're gonna get a purple dragon, Ridley is the first on that list of pruple dragons, and dragons period.

As long as it isn't any of the reboot Spyros, I'm cool with Ridley Jr.

Sony would rage so hard that various people in their company would explode and thus spend the rest of their lives living without heads or torsos or arms.

But still, it would kinda be epic, since Crash and Spyro are both very historic characters from really a classic and game changing era of gaming.

Definitively. I think they are owned by Activision now right? Well Spyro at least. I'm not sure who owns Crash.

 

[KingofPhantoms]

A fine contribution you made to this chat.

This guy would agree:

Good about this topic..thanks for sharing here with us.

 

[Arcadenik]

Not sure if you are aware, but 2 questions were asked.

Yes, but he didn't answer correctly... the question asked which roster you liked best.. and he said yes when he was supposed to pick one roster or the other roster.

 

[MexM]

As long as it isn't any of the reboot Spyros, I'm cool with Ridley Jr.

Butt new Spyro is teh bets!!!1!!

 

[Moon Monkey]

I want to see the PSABR fans rage so badly.

There should be another Crash and Spyro crossover, but instead of blending the two gameplay styles, they should be competing at the Olympic Games!

Are you suggesting what I think you suggesting???

Spoiler

 

[FlareHabanero]

Butt new Spyro is teh bets!!!1!!

OH GOD.

OH GOD.

OH MY ****ING GOD.

NO.

NONONONONONONONO.

NOOOOOOOO.

SO MUCH NOPE.

 

[KingofPhantoms]

OH GOD.

OH GOD.

OH MY ****ING GOD.

NO.

NONONONONONONONO.

NOOOOOOOO.

SO MUCH NOPE.

I'm probably off by a longshot, but I have this weird feeling in my gut that tells me you don't like the new Spyro.

 

[MexM]

OH GOD.

OH GOD.

OH MY ****ING GOD.

NO.

NONONONONONONONO.

NOOOOOOOO.

SO MUCH NOPE.

 

[Moon Monkey]

this makes me want to watch Dragon Tales

 

[FlareHabanero]

I'm probably off by a longshot, but I have this weird feeling in my gut that tells me you don't like the new Spyro.

He looks like a chameleon with terminal 7 brain cancer that got ran over by a lawnmower, then reproduced with a pug and then the father reproduced with his daughter and then the daughter's daughter reproduced with the grandfather and she drank a **** ton of booze during pregnancy, and later gave birth to that thing.