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

[PsychoIncarnate]

I loved fossil fighters!

I feel the game needs some tweaks to make it to the big leagues...

It had Megas before pokemon mind you!

 

[Deleted member]

It also had a MOTHER****ING T-REX before Pokémon did.

But that goes without saying.



Though I'm saying it anyway.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Looks like more course stuff. Captaion not available yet. Green Mario, oy.

 

[Kamikazek]

You were seeking, games then. Your parents rewarded you for doing chores, and you went out to buy a video that looked cool to you on the shelves of some store. The clueless consumer I'm talking about, is the person that isn't even interested traditional gaming. The type of person who bought a Wii and was content with Wii Sports. The type of person that only finds out about games through word of mouth and commercials.

In fact the majority of casual Wii owners don't buy no more that 3 -4 games:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20080421/131636905.shtml

The casuals aren't the people that are buying these hidden gem games, they are the ones that will get Wii Play, Mario Kart and NSMB and calls it a day, we know this because the attach rate is really low, despite it being really popular.

Which is my point exactly, there were a lot games out there. But nowadays, there are fewer games release due to the increased effort put into them. On top of that, we are in a recession. No one wants to spend $60 on a game that MIGHT be good.

But my original argument wasn't about casual vs. hardcore, hence the quotation marks around "casual" and "hardcore", it was about informed vs. uninformed buyers. D: My point wasn't weather or not I was a gamer, it was whether or not I had any idea what I was buying, which I didn't. I'm saying that uninformed consumers don't always buy the most well know product, they'll buy random products because they don't know what the hell they're doing. There's a big difference between an uninformed consumer and a consumer who just straight up doesn't buy things; the latter exists but I was talking about the former. Where that falls on the spectrum of casual to hardcore I have no idea because I think those are terms I never use and never understood at all anyway. As far as people who basically just buy consoles are concerned, I'm not sure how much affect they have on game sales figures when they aren't buying games anyways.

My point was that there are still a lot of games out there, but they're just more spread out over different platforms and such. Honestly I really don't think there's a lack of good games nowadays, there's way more games I want to play than I could possibly have time for, money be damned. Also there's more stuff I like on the Wii than, say, the NES, but that's just me.

 

[Ridley_Prime]

Right now it's the ONLY single reason I'm even slightly interested in the XBOX ON

Same here I guess, though I'm sure I'll have a friend or be able to find one that has an xbone so I wouldn't have to spend over $500 for a new system just for a series that's been dead for like what, 15 years? If I waited that long for KI to come back, I can wait a little longer, though like someone else said, I might feel dirty playing Rare games (or what was originally a series by Rare) on an Xbox system.

 

[Yonder]

I really hope the yarn thing doesn't become a trend.
I mean, The Legend of Zelda: Yarn of Destiny?
Fire Emblem: Yarn Ball?
Donkey Kong's Epic Yarn?

Was it just a coincidence that Kirby and Yoshi both got yarn games, or were they made by the same team?

I agree. I mean, while I found Kirby Epic Yarn to be decent gameplay wise, the storyline was mind numbingly childish. Way too "kiddy" for me. I actually felt kind of embarrassed to be playing that game during the cutscenes. Actually, it sounded almost like an episode of Thomas the Tank Engine or something.

 

[PsychoIncarnate]

Has anyone ever wandered over you?

Edit: Guess what I ordered.

I'll give you a clue:

Spoiler

 

[Wario Bros.]

Sakurai: "Pic of the day. Starship Mario floats up high in the Mario Galaxy stage. Lubba is on board as well."

 

[The Original Robot boy]

Sakurai: "Pic of the day. Starship Mario floats up high in the Mario Galaxy stage. Lubba is on board as well."

Man that some great stage detail i hope he dosen't forget the characters neeed look there best on release though

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I posted the picture on the last page. -_-

 

[Berserker.]

Sakurai: "Pic of the day. Starship Mario floats up high in the Mario Galaxy stage. Lubba is on board as well."

Just to compare them

 

[mimgrim]

On the subject of Xbone and PS4, I actually want the Xbone more as in the long run it will have more games I want, and the fact that KH3 will be coming out on it to helped greatly, for some reason the PS3 and current line-up just don't have many games that intrest me. All I want from the pS3 if KH1.5 and the eventual KH2.5 and that's it. I much prefer the PS2 and PS1 over all lol. But I still want the Wii-U the most of the next gen consoles.

 

[Moon Monkey]

But my original argument wasn't about casual vs. hardcore, hence the quotation marks around "casual" and "hardcore", it was about informed vs. uninformed buyers. D: My point wasn't weather or not I was a gamer, it was whether or not I had any idea what I was buying, which I didn't. I'm saying that uninformed consumers don't always buy the most well know product, they'll buy random products because they don't know what the hell they're doing. There's a big difference between an uninformed consumer and a consumer who just straight up doesn't buy things; the latter exists but I was talking about the former. Where that falls on the spectrum of casual to hardcore I have no idea because I think those are terms I never use and never understood at all anyway. As far as people who basically just buy consoles are concerned, I'm not sure how much affect they have on game sales figures when they aren't buying games anyways.

My point was that there are still a lot of games out there, but they're just more spread out over different platforms and such. Honestly I really don't think there's a lack of good games nowadays, there's way more games I want to play than I could possibly have time for, money be damned. Also there's more stuff I like on the Wii than, say, the NES, but that's just me.

My the point is still there in my argument. Uninformed buyers rarely by games, as shown in the link I provided. So how can they spend their money on hidden gems when they only buy 2 to 4 games? I can tell you from now the "casual" gamers aren't the one's playing games like Binding of Isaac, Bastion, and X-com. They were only interested in Wii Sports, Wii Play, DDR, Mario Kart and CoD, games that have proven to be a good purchase as seen in the sales. They aren't interested in going to the mall and seeing what game looks cool on the shelves, they aren't going out and taking the risk.

"As far as people who basically just buy consoles are concerned, I'm not sure how much affect they have on game sales figures when they aren't buying games anyways."

These people actually matter a lot, because the games they DO buy, they buy by the millions. Prime example CoD. The issue is that they also inflated the Wii's install base, making game devs believe there are a lot of gamers on the Wii that are willing to buy their games than there really are. Wii has an install base of 12 milion users, but only say 2.5 million are buying the games. We both know who are the 2.5 Million and they aren't the "casuals."

 

[Arcadenik]

Nintendo shouldn't make new IPs, considering they do it all the time. People like to pretend they don't, but seriously everytime they make something new people simply ignore it and then turn around wonder why we don't get anything new. WELL MAYBE IF YOU WEREN'T DENSE MOTHER****ERS THE COMPANY WOULDN'T HEAVILY RELY ON MARIO AND WII SHOVELWARE TITLES.

Also in other news, new Fossil Fighters game for the 3DS is being developed. It's called Fossil Fighters: Derm Gen Gear, and it's slated for a 2014 release date in Japan.

http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=717725

I think it is because most of them are second-party, not first-party. Plus, people who play Smash tend to favor games that star the Smash characters... And all of them (except Pokemon) are in first-party games.

So... I am guessing that for second-party games to sell, characters from those games should be added to the Smash roster... To make the casuals interested in these characters enough to buy their games. It's worked wonders for Fire Emblem...

 

[BluePikmin11]

Sakurai: "Pic of the day. Starship Mario floats up high in the Mario Galaxy stage. Lubba is on board as well."

It's a floating head of Mario, Dr. Kawashima confirmed.

 

[mimgrim]

I think it is because most of them are second-party, not first-party. Plus, people who play Smash tend to favor games that star the Smash characters... And all of them (except Pokemon) are in first-party games.

So... I am guessing that for second-party games to sell, characters from those games should be added to the Smash roster... To make the casuals interested in these characters enough to buy their games. It's worked wonders for Fire Emblem...

Why do people keep using the term "second party" so incorrectly. "Second party" is a term made by game enthusiasts and media, to make it easier to discern independent studios from the owners of the platform, but it isn't an actual thing. In actuality "second party" games are first part games because it is funded by the platform holder who funds the IP. Are you really have are first parties and third parties. Second parties aren't real and are just a term to make it easier to discern. Sot hose so called "second party" games are really just first party. Also Fire Emblem isn't even close to being under the term second part since IS isn't independent but is owned by Nintendo instead. e_e

 

[Kamikazek]

My the point is still there in my argument. Uninformed buyers rarely by games, as shown in the link I provided. So how can they spend their money on hidden gems when they only buy 2 to 4 games? I can tell you from now the "casual" gamers aren't the one's playing games like Binding of Isaac, Bastion, and X-com. They were only interested in Wii Sports, Wii Play, DDR, Mario Kart and CoD, games that have proven to be a good purchase as seen in the sales. They aren't interested in going to the mall and seeing what game looks cool on the shelves, they aren't going out and taking the risk.

"As far as people who basically just buy consoles are concerned, I'm not sure how much affect they have on game sales figures when they aren't buying games anyways."

These people actually matter a lot, because the games they DO buy, they buy by the millions. Prime example CoD. The issue is that they also inflated the Wii's install base, making game devs believe there are a lot of gamers on the Wii that are willing to buy their games than there really are. Wii has an install base of 12 milion users, but only say 2.5 million are buying the games. We both know who are the 2.5 Million and they aren't the "casuals."

I get your point, I was just making a different point. You're talking about the demographic of people who buy only a couple games. I'm talking about the demographic of people who buy several games but know next to nothing about games besides the few they played and aren't at all involved in gamer culture. The type of people who have never heard a thing about Bastion in their life but might still buy it anyways. 2 separate demographics, both significant, both very different from what one might call the "hardcore gamer" demographic. The demographic you're talking about is well documented. The demographic I'm talking about is one I feel get's ignored and I think fits the label of uninformed buyers just as well if not better than the people who just buy a console and one game. Perhaps it would be the distinction between a "casual gamer" and a "non gamer", I don't know those types of terms make my head hurt.

Absolutely games that are super mainstream system selling games are going to have a massive lead in sales, with CoD probably being the best example like you say. That does have some effects on games; it assures that those serials will get lots of sequels, it reduces the amount of resources that are available to make other games, and it inspires other companies (or the same company) to try and copy that game. But there are few enough of those games that even with company's turning them out they can only consume so much of the rather large industry's resources. The Wii has like what, 6 killer aps that "non gamers" would buy? The 360 has...like 2? The PS3 has...like nothing that most people wouldn't more likely get on the 360 anyway? You got those couple of games and then a HUGE drop off. That "buy a console for only a few games" games list doesn't even include a lot of popular and successful franchises, like Kirby or Street fighter. Statistically if you have massive outliers like that they should be put their own pool and calculated separately from everything else and as far as I can see that seems to be what game publishers do. Basically I don't think most games are actually truly competing with CoD or Wii fit because publishers know that there's a large demographic that's only going to buy those games and have approximately zero barring on the sales of any other games. Things get a lot more foggy when you get into the low attach rate but still popular games because there are dozens of those, enough that they can conceivably consume most of the industry's resources, and I think it's those games that low exposure games actually have to compete with.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

He was only saying Fire Emblem was helped to sell by being in Smash. He only called Pokemon second party(which officially it is), not Fire Emblem. Note the whole conversation, not a small piece he said. He never used any of it incorrectly.

 

[mimgrim]

He was only saying Fire Emblem was helped to sell by being in Smash. He only called Pokemon second party(which officially it is), not Fire Emblem. Note the whole conversation, not a small piece he said. He never used any of it incorrectly.

I think it is because most of them are second-party, not first-party.

Specifically calling games that are second party not first party which is totally wrong. There is no official "second party" it is a made up term. You only have first party of third party. Currently Pokemon falls under first party. I might have misinterpreted what he meant with Fire emblem, but he still used the term "second party" wrong. Something that can be called "second party' is no matter what first party as second party is a made up term that is meant to be used to more easily discern independent studios from the platform owner, however "second party" games are still first party because they are funded by the platform holder. So yes, he did use the term wrong.

 

[Malion]

I like second party games by nintendo.

Spoiler

 

[Kamikazek]

Specifically calling games that are second party not first party which is totally wrong. There is no official "second party" it is a made up term. You only have first party of third party. Currently Pokemon falls under first party. I might have misinterpreted what he meant with Fire emblem, but he still used the term "second party" wrong. Something that can be called "second party' is no matter what first party as second party is a made up term that is meant to be used to more easily discern independent studios from the platform owner, however "second party" games are still first party because they are funded by the platform holder. So yes, he did use the term wrong.

Whether or not it's an official industry term 2nd party is still a "real" term. You just gave a definition for the term. He used the term, you knew what it meant, a lot of people know what he means when he says it, that makes it a real term. It doesn't matter if it's used by the industry, fans, or whatever, it's still a "real" term. Just like how slang words are real words if people know what it means even if it's not actually in dictionary.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Specifically calling games that are second party not first party which is totally wrong. There is no official "second party" it is a made up term. You only have first party of third party. Currently Pokemon falls under first party. I might have misinterpreted what he meant with Fire emblem, but he still used the term "second party" wrong. Something that can be called "second party' is no matter what first party as second party is a made up term that is meant to be used to more easily discern independent studios from the platform owner, however "second party" games are still first party because they are funded by the platform holder. So yes, he did use the term wrong.

You entirely misread what he said. He's saying a lot of guys who could be in Smash but AREN'T are second party. Not the current lists, which outside of Pokemon, and the third parties, are first party. Context is important.

And every single thing is a made-up term. That's not really an argument at all. He never once used it wrong, anyway. He called only Pokemon a second party(officially, it IS second party). I'd say the fact GameFreak has made games for something besides Nintendo proves that entirely.

A second party developer is owned by a Company, but they can make games for other companies as well. However, a third party isn't owned by any Company at all.

GameFreak made a game for the PlayStation after making a Pokemon game for the Game Boy. If they were actually first party, they couldn't do that. Yeah, they're quite different in reality.

 

[Malion]

I know that I personally play first party games. I know that you (the person reading this) play second party games. And I know that someone else who I will refer to by the name Jim plays third party games.

And if you aren't at the first, second or third party I know the 3 people I listed are at least the first, second and third person.

 

[mimgrim]

You entirely misread what he said. He's saying a lot of guys who could be in Smash but AREN'T are second party. Not the current lists, which outside of Pokemon, and the third parties, are first party. Context is important.

And every single thing is a made-up term. That's not really an argument at all. He never once used it wrong, anyway. He called only Pokemon a second party(officially, it IS second party). I'd say the fact GameFreak has made games for something besides Nintendo proves that entirely.

A second party developer is owned by a Company, but they can make games for other companies as well. However, a third party isn't owned by any Company at all.

GameFreak made a game for the PlayStation after making a Pokemon game for the Game Boy. If they were actually first party, they couldn't do that. Yeah, they're quite different in reality.

Were not talking about companies, we are talking about games. GameFreak is a third party company however their Pokemon games are in actuality first party games because they are funded by Nintendo. You ignored what I quoted I to, he said specifically the second part game are not first party games in the first sentence, which is in fact wrong, because all second party games are still first party games. How many times am I going to have to repeat myself till you read what I type correctly?

Whether or not it's an official industry term 2nd party is still a "real" term. You just gave a definition for the term. He used the term, you knew what it meant, a lot of people know what he means when he says it, that makes it a real term. It doesn't matter if it's used by the industry, fans, or whatever, it's still a "real" term. Just like how slang words are real words if people know what it means even if it's not actually in dictionary.

I meant "real" term as official industry term, my bad on my communication there. But it still doesn't change the fact that a second party game is still a first party game through and through, it is just a fan term to easily discern games from independent companies that are funded by the platform owner, but the game is still first party no matter how you try to spin. And the person I originally quoted clearly said second party games are not first party games which is wrong.

 

[Kamikazek]

But he never said he was using industry terminology so how is he "wrong" for using fan terminology? There can be more than one type of terminology for one thing. For instance I'm a biologist (well, in training) and even within accepted academic discourse, even within the same field of biology there are different schools of terminology that are completely incompatible with each other. And those are horribly incompatible with a layman's terms for biology. For instance depending on who you talk to Dogs and Wolfs could be the same species or different species, and neither is considered wrong unless you claim to be using one brand of terminology but are actually using the other. Another good example is that culinary classifications of plants and scientific definitions of plants don't mix well at all.

Within industry discourse what a fan calls a second party game would be considered first party game because "second party games" don't exist within that discourse so the used term defaults to first party. In the brand of fan discourse being used there is a clear distinction drawn between what is a first party and what is a second party so a second party game would not be called a first party game. Both are forms of discourse that are well accepted within the community and thus totally fair game.
It's all about the context yo.

 

[Deleted member]

@mimgrim: I applaud your line of thinking when it comes to the concept of "second-party".
But at least the term makes a little more sense than "fourth-party", which people use to mean "non-video game characters" thanks to the Smash Bros. Crusade fangame.

Even if it technically doesn't exist, I feel it's ok to be lenient on that. (Except when people try to say that "second-party" characters aren't first-party as opposed to just first-party characters that involve a third-party developer such as Pokemon with GameFreak.)

 

[Izuhu]

I don't know if anyone seen this, but I'll post it here anyways lol

http://www.p4rgaming.com/masahiro-s...-killing-myself-would-be-the-cowards-way-out/

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

A bit over egotistic, but he has a point about how hard games are to develop for. And to be fair, he does overdo it, so I'm not surprised he would think that would be the case at all.

Many don't severely test the game themselves to that degree. And I doubt many would go to the same lengths he does, so they probably could've made SSB without killing themselves.

 

[Deleted member]

It's fake.
p4rgaming is a satire site.

 

[mimgrim]

But he never said he was using industry terminology so how is he "wrong" for using fan terminology? There can be more than one type of terminology for one thing. For instance I'm a biologist (well, in training) and even within accepted academic discourse, even within the same field of biology there are different schools of terminology that are completely incompatible with each other. And those are horribly incompatible with a layman's terms for biology. For instance depending on who you talk to Dogs and Wolfs could be the same species or different species, and neither is considered wrong unless you claim to be using one brand of terminology but are actually using the other. Another good example is that culinary classifications of plants and scientific definitions of plants don't mix well at all.

Within industry discourse what a fan calls a second party game would be considered first party game because "second party games" don't exist within that discourse so the used term defaults to first party. In the brand of fan discourse being used there is a clear distinction drawn between what is a first party and what is a second party so a second party game would not be called a first party game. Both are forms of discourse that are well accepted within the community and thus totally fair game.
It's all about the context yo.

I don't really care how people use a term when there is a official well defined definition to it means only one thing. And what "second party" means is a game that is made by a third party company but funded by a platform owner and not the third part company itself which makes the game first party for the platform owner. There is no interpretation there.

@mimgrim: I applaud your line of thinking when it comes to the concept of "second-party".
But at least the term makes a little more sense than "fourth-party", which people use to mean "non-video game characters" thanks to the Smash Bros. Crusade fangame.

Even if it technically doesn't exist, I feel it's ok to be lenient on that. (Except when people try to say that "second-party" characters aren't first-party as opposed to just first-party characters that involve a third-party developer such as Pokemon with GameFreak.)

I don't mind being lenient on it, but when someone clearly calls a second party game not first party game, as the person I originally quoted did in the very first sentence, it falls under the except case for me like characters do for you.

 

[Deleted member]

I know that was said; that's why I brought up the "except".
It was an indirect way of saying you're in the right.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

It's fake.
p4rgaming is a satire site.

To be fair, Sakurai is seriously that damn egotistical. He seriously does overwork himself. I really doubt he'd actual say that, but it's not that hard to believe. He took all the credit for Brawl itself, and you gotta have a pretty big ego for that one.

 

[Deleted member]

This is the same site that said Iwata punched a man in the face that told him that Nintendo should just go third-party and release games on the iPhone and Android.

 

[Moon Monkey]

I get your point, I was just making a different point. You're talking about the demographic of people who buy only a couple games. I'm talking about the demographic of people who buy several games but know next to nothing about games besides the few they played and aren't at all involved in gamer culture. The type of people who have never heard a thing about Bastion in their life but might still buy it anyways. 2 separate demographics, both significant, both very different from what one might call the "hardcore gamer" demographic. The demographic you're talking about is well documented. The demographic I'm talking about is one I feel get's ignored and I think fits the label of uninformed buyers just as well if not better than the people who just buy a console and one game. Perhaps it would be the distinction between a "casual gamer" and a "non gamer", I don't know those types of terms make my head hurt.

Absolutely games that are super mainstream system selling games are going to have a massive lead in sales, with CoD probably being the best example like you say. That does have some effects on games; it assures that those serials will get lots of sequels, it reduces the amount of resources that are available to make other games, and it inspires other companies (or the same company) to try and copy that game. But there are few enough of those games that even with company's turning them out they can only consume so much of the rather large industry's resources. The Wii has like what, 6 killer aps that "non gamers" would buy? The 360 has...like 2? The PS3 has...like nothing that most people wouldn't more likely get on the 360 anyway? You got those couple of games and then a HUGE drop off. That "buy a console for only a few games" games list doesn't even include a lot of popular and successful franchises, like Kirby or Street fighter. Statistically if you have massive outliers like that they should be put their own pool and calculated separately from everything else and as far as I can see that seems to be what game publishers do. Basically I don't think most games are actually truly competing with CoD or Wii fit because publishers know that there's a large demographic that's only going to buy those games and have approximately zero barring on the sales of any other games. Things get a lot more foggy when you get into the low attach rate but still popular games because there are dozens of those, enough that they can conceivably consume most of the industry's resources, and I think it's those games that low exposure games actually have to compete with.

Oh okay, I guess we are associating "clueless" with two different groups of people. I would consider your definition of "clueless gamer" still a gamer. For them to even to have found Bastion they would need to have a Steam/XBLA/PSN account to even purchase that. Once you are that deep into searching I wouldn't really consider them clueless. I consider them apart of the "hardcore" gamers, because they are putting more time and effort into playing and finding games than your average clueless casual gamer.

I think i agree with you on pretty much everything. One thing i'll pick out:

"Basically I don't think most games are actually truly competing with CoD or Wii fit because publishers know that there's a large demographic that's only going to buy those games and have approximately zero barring on the sales of any other games"

I agree and disagree, While true certain games will sell well regardless of the circumstance, all games are competing against each other. They are competing for the almighty consumer dollar. A brand new game indie or AAA, is going to have hard time gaining sales when released on the same days as CoD. When the average casual consumer sees the media hype of CoD, they are going to gravitate to CoD.

The issue for Nintendo is that the games they made that once attracted these new consumers on the Wii, aren't pulling them back in for the Wii U.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

This is the same site that said Iwata punched a man in the face that told him that Nintendo should just go third-party and release games on the iPhone and Android.

Wasn't my point, though.

I didn't feel they exaggerated Sakurai's character all that much. Of course, others... yeah. That's pretty obvious.

Also, first time I read the site. I always saw Sakurai as having a really big ego. I couldn't assume satire by default in that specific case. Does make sense, though, with the Iwata thing being mentioned.

 

[Diddy Kong]

This is the same site that said Iwata punched a man in the face that told him that Nintendo should just go third-party and release games on the iPhone and Android.

The man would deserve it though.

 

[Deleted member]

@Diddy: No argument there.
Though it would be more believable if Reggie was the one to hit him.

 

[Diddy Kong]

HyperFalcon, that article is so fake but funny as ****. Imagine Sakurai actually going that route!

And he'd actually delay the game anytime someone asked for Geno or Ridley?

Seriously, yes, Sakurai has a little bit of an ego, but not to this extend. Only Kanye West is comparable to this level.

 

[SD Grandmaster Hero]

That damn Reggie gives me a weird feeling. I wouldn't be surprised if that happened.

 

[Deleted member]

"Yo Sakurai, I'm really happy for ya and Ima let you finish, but I have one of the biggest egos of all time! OF ALL TIME!"

This needs to be a Kanye pic.