Important The Ridley for SSB4 Thread - End of an Era

[Meandpikachu]

Ridley deconfirmed
This is the best thing

How do you know ridley is deconfirmed?

 

[Spazzy_D]

This thread is always a fun read. I was thinking.... Ridley, if he is in fact playable, can't be unlockable, since we would have to see Pyrosphere's gimmick at game launch. Makes me wonder how many more new comers we are going to see pre-launch.

 

[GraveEclipse567]

How do you know ridley is deconfirmed?

I hope you know what a Rick Roll is.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

For reference...

Characters clearly have shadows in Sm4sh. So the absence of Pikachu's shadow clearly shows that there's some trickery going on in that bit. It was very obvious choreographed and it's subject to some interpretation as to what was modified to create the effect it did.

We need info on source of light and the angle before we can deduce its size using HIgh/Low bird.

Ok.

It would seem quite apparent that the most of the light is coming from the lava, most notably evident by the shadow cast by the structural anamoly on the back left of the stage.

It can be somewhat surmised that a minimal amount of light is coming from the "emergency" lights speckled along the walls, though they don't appear to be vibrant enough to be worth mentioning, nor capable of producing such glaring shadows. You can see that the "face" of the structures are darker on the opposite side of the lava.

 

[Weeman]

How do you know ridley is deconfirmed?

Rick Astley says so

 

[majora_787]

I find it amusing how people still say basic observation amounts to nothing just because it's a shadow. We've still been able to extrapolate things from it very easily. Just not things that explicitly confirm playability or bossliness.

 

[AbioFlesh]

Ridley deconfirmed
This is the best thing

The song makes me think about the mentality of this thread. People here aren't gonna give up on Ridley.

 

[AndreaAC]

@Epsilon52 can I ask you for a itty bitty little favor? could you do a heigh chart with these References?

please???

 

[UltimateWario]

bossliness

I do believe the word is boss-omeness.

 

[Epsilon52]

For reference...

Characters clearly have shadows in Sm4sh. So the absence of Pikachu's shadow clearly shows that there's some trickery going on in that bit. It was very obvious choreographed and it's subject to some interpretation as to what was modified to create the effect it did.

Ok.

It would seem quite apparent that the most of the light is coming from the lava, most notably evident by the shadow cast by the structural anamoly on the back left of the stage.

It can be somewhat surmised that a minimal amount of light is coming from the "emergency" lights speckled along the walls, though they don't appear to be vibrant enough to be worth mentioning, nor capable of producing such glaring shadows. You can see that the "face" of the structures are darker on the opposite side of the lava.

Doesnt work for the right side platforms. Emulate this setting in 3d max and the right platforms would not have a shadow from the lava.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

I find it amusing how people still say basic observation amounts to nothing just because it's a shadow. We've still been able to extrapolate things from it very easily. Just not things that explicitly confirm playability or bossliness.

It's almost like you didn't read anything I posted. My current argument completely rests on that of the shadow, not the irrelevance of it.

If the shadow is not definitive of anything, why do you get to use it as proof that Ridley is playable, and I can't use it as proof that he isn't?

Just ridiculous.

 

[OblivionWolf]

Just cause this old shadow comparison makes me laugh I'll post it. (Not 100% accurate but close)

Ridley is small.

 

[JinSiege]

Hey Zipzo thanks for stating your opinion. As it stands however, no one yet knows for sure what Ridleys chances are at this time. Like you said, a shadow was shown; nothing more and nothing less. The prime differences in your opinion vs the majority here are that you see the shadow as a hazard/boss, and the majority here see it in the ways in which the shadow could be playable such as it being Bowser sized, slow, jerky animation not consistent with other boss animations, etc. You have your opinion, and I respect that, but please understand that throwing an argument of speculation against an argument of speculation cannot end. We will not have a definitive answer until Sakurai decides otherwise. In the meantime, let's all agree to disagree.

 

[darksamus77]

It's almost like you didn't read anything I posted. My current argument completely rests on that of the shadow, not the irrelevance of it.

If the shadow is not definitive of anything, why do you get to use it as proof that Ridley is playable, and I can't use it as proof that he isn't?

Just ridiculous.

This statement, in itself, makes no sense.

 

[False Sense]

For reference...

Characters clearly have shadows in Sm4sh. So the absence of Pikachu's shadow clearly shows that there's some trickery going on in that bit. It was very obvious choreographed and it's subject to some interpretation as to what was modified to create the effect it did.

Ok.

It would seem quite apparent that the most of the light is coming from the lava, most notably evident by the shadow cast by the structural anamoly on the back left of the stage.

It can be somewhat surmised that a minimal amount of light is coming from the "emergency" lights speckled along the walls, though they don't appear to be vibrant enough to be worth mentioning, nor capable of producing such glaring shadows. You can see that the "face" of the structures are darker on the opposite side of the lava.

Um, I'm pretty sure Pikachu does have a shadow in that scene. It's just hard to see since his shadow is small and his body blocks most of it. If you look at the scene closely, you can see moments where the floor is darker than it is the next moment, and there are a few points where Pikachu's thin tail shadow can be seen. So, there's no modification to Pikachu's shadow.

 

[Morbi]

It's almost like you didn't read anything I posted. My current argument completely rests on that of the shadow, not the irrelevance of it.

If the shadow is not definitive of anything, why do you get to use it as proof that Ridley is playable, and I can't use it as proof that he isn't?

Just ridiculous.

Most of us do not use it as proof that he is playable. I certainly do not; even if someone did, it is as you mentioned, ambiguous. It supports both sides of the argument (as most information pertaining to Ridley, it seems).

 

[ppbto]

I wasn't here for two days and this thread made a jump on ~60 pages.

So, now that the E3 has passed I think that the next chance to know Ridley's destiny will be the August's direct, until then he'll remain in his status of the Schrödinger's Space Dragon.

 

[Anomilus]

If the shadow is not definitive of anything, why do you get to use it as proof that Ridley is playable, and I can't use it as proof that he isn't?

HOLD IT!!

Who said anything about these evidences of possibility being proof that Ridley is being playable? This is all about possibilities, not absolutes.
You have got to watch what you're saying. It's why you get people jumping all on you.

 

[Omega Tyrant]

This thread is always a fun read. I was thinking.... Ridley, if he is in fact playable, can't be unlockable, since we would have to see Pyrosphere's gimmick at game launch. Makes me wonder how many more new comers we are going to see pre-launch.

Except 3DS version comes out at least two months before the WiiU version, where Ridley's playability would be known for certain by then regardless of Pyrosphere. And we're probably only going to get one or maybe two more newcomers revealed before launch unless Sakurai decides to give us a roster dump.

If Ridley is in, it's very likely he'll be an unlockable secret (especially since he was never implicated by the Gematsu leaker).

 

[Deleted member 245254]

This statement, in itself, makes no sense.

People assert that his size is an inference for the possibility of him being playable, based on size implications, based on in-depth calculations of the shadow size in the direct.

I made an argument for Ridley easily and potentially being "boss" sized, and that the shadow could be misleading, and that's all of the sudden irrelevant because it's just a shadow.

 

[Kalimdori]

As for his size, this is the one point I consider to be insightful. HOWEVER...

Notice how (both in the video and in this picture for those who don't want to go see it), Pikachu lacks any kind of shadow. It's not as though he is angled to the stage in a way that he should lack one, he simply just doesn't have one where he should.

Do you know what this means? This means there's an inconsistency. You are sizing Ridley based on his Shadow, when his shadow may not even be consistent to his actual in-game size (as a boss). Clearly something is amiss in putting everything on this shadow.

You catch a brief glimpse of the texture on his (presumably) left wing, for posterity, but maybe this is a tiny fraction of the very edge of his wing? Maybe he's actually huge, and he's much higher up, forcing the shadow to be smaller than his actual size.

Since Ridley's shadow is visible we can conclude that he is not a definitive example of the left bird, but you can use both to reference something very important...the shadow becomes compacted further, the higher up the target source of the shadow is from the display of its shadow.

This potentially means that depictions of his size based literally on the size of the shadow could essentially be completely unfounded and unscientific, rendering your assumptions based on the "weirdness" of his potentially small size sort of not completely bulletproof.

That's his tail.

And this isn't reality we're talking about, it's a video game, and I've analyzed this so much that I can assuredly tell you that shadows on the Pyrosphere stay about the same size regardless of how high they are. I find it odd that Pikachu doesn't have a shadow, but it doesn't matter much to me. (I personally don't think Pikachu was grabbed) We have the shadows position, which is enough to compare it to other objects in the Direct, like the Mother Brain assist trophy (Which he is much smaller then)

Just realized something. Can somebody with good photoshop skills try to compare the shadows position based on character heights? (Find a character level to where Ridley's head is, then find one level to his tail, compare height difference, etc.) Might be more helpful if we can actually tell how big Ridley is compared to the actual stage.

 

[Epsilon52]

It's almost like you didn't read anything I posted. My current argument completely rests on that of the shadow, not the irrelevance of it.

If the shadow is not definitive of anything, why do you get to use it as proof that Ridley is playable, and I can't use it as proof that he isn't?

Just ridiculous.

You're a closet ****. Just so you know.

Your undertones are obvious. Its no wonder there's so much conflict here all of a sudden.

Rather than throw him in the short bus, try to explain your point. Especially when we completely miss it.

How hard is that?

By the way, most people are not even using the shadow as proof. Most of us have never mentioned this shadow as proof or evidence pointing one way or the other due to how basic the shadow engine is.

Not much to extrapolate.

 

[Morbi]

I wasn't here for two days and this thread made a jump on ~60 pages.

So, now that the E3 has passed I think that the next chance to know Ridley's destiny will be the August's direct, until then he'll remain in his status of the Schrödinger's Space Dragon.

To be completely and utterly honest, I am not even expecting him for the August Direct. I feel as though the only way to solve this mystery is to play the game. Which, in and of itself only supports the notion that he is playable. If we do not receive any news regarding bossley prior to release, it is safe to assume he is playable. No unlocks required.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

You're a closet ****. Just so you know.

Your undertones are obvious. Its no wonder there's so much conflict here all of a sudden.

Rather than throw me in the short bus, try to explain your point. Especially when I completely miss it.

How hard is that?

Im not even using the shadow as proof. Ive never mentioned this shadow as proof or evidence pointing one way or the other.

Clearly my post wasn't aimed at you, considering the main quote of the post you quoted is not even your post. Chill out.

 

[praline]

If Ridley is playable I hope he looks like an updated HD version of the Ridley in the opening of melee.

 

[Anomilus]

Just cause this old shadow comparison makes me laugh I'll post it. (Not 100% accurate but close)

Ridley is small.

Yeah this pic does not work. You can't take two images shot from two completely different angles which would create two different perspectives and just meld them together and create an accurate representation of scale. This is the haphazard kind of evidence that makes us look worse. Pleeeease be careful! =/

 

[Spazzy_D]

Except 3DS version comes out at least a month before the WiiU version, where Ridley's playability would be known for certain by then regardless of Pyrosphere. And we're probably only going to get one or maybe two more newcomers revealed before launch unless Sakurai decides to give us a roster dump.

If Ridley is in, it's very likely he'll be an unlockable secret (especially since he was never implicated by the Gematsu leaker).

I thought about the release date of the 3DS game, but I would imagine that things like "what characters are secret" would have been decided before they figured out which version would release first.

I think there may be another Smash direct (like the final Mario Kart direct) that will be a bit of an info dump shortly before launch... who really knows, though.

 

[majora_787]

People assert that his size is an inference for the possibility of him being playable, based on size implications, based on in-depth calculations of the shadow size in the direct.

I made an argument for Ridley easily and potentially being "boss" sized, and that the shadow could be misleading, and that's all of the sudden irrelevant because it's just a shadow.

The first part is true, and is not an issue. Because his size can be used to indicate possibilities. That's how things work. I have no idea how in any way this is an issue.

The SECOND part is false and is just you ignoring information and fabricating your own in order to go, "Well maybe Ridley DOES follow his own lighting physics!"

I have no idea how you can honestly say people here are the ones being ridiculous when you are VERY AGGRESSIVELY ignoring literally everything and then fabricating your own substitutes.

 

[False Sense]

I find it odd that Pikachu doesn't have a shadow, but it doesn't matter much to me.

He does have a shadow. It's just hard to see.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

That's his tail.

And this isn't reality we're talking about, it's a video game, and I've analyzed this so much that I can assuredly tell you that shadows on the Pyrosphere stay about the same size regardless of how high they are. I find it odd that Pikachu doesn't have a shadow, but it doesn't matter much to me. (I personally don't think Pikachu was grabbed) We have the shadows position, which is enough to compare it to other objects in the Direct, like the Mother Brain assist trophy (Which he is much smaller then)

Just realized something. Can somebody with good photoshop skills try to compare the shadows position based on character heights? (Find a character level to where Ridley's head is, then find one level to his tail, compare height difference, etc.) Might be more helpful if we can actually tell how big Ridley is compared to the actual stage.

If it's his tail that's even better evidence of him being higher up, because his tail is likely to reach way further down than the rest of his body.

 

[UltimateWario]

It's almost like you didn't read anything I posted. My current argument completely rests on that of the shadow, not the irrelevance of it.

If the shadow is not definitive of anything, why do you get to use it as proof that Ridley is playable, and I can't use it as proof that he isn't?

Just ridiculous.

He was talking about Swampasaur saying that the shadow is irrelevant. He wasn't replying to you.

 

[Deleted member]

To be completely and utterly honest, I am not even expecting him for the August Direct. I feel as though the only way to solve this mystery is to play the game. Which, in and of itself only supports the notion that he is playable. If we do not receive any news regarding bossley prior to release, it is safe to assume he is playable. No unlocks required.

I'd scream like a girl if I opened the Character Select Screen the first day I play it and see Ridley on the starting roster.

 

[darksamus77]

People assert that his size is an inference for the possibility of him being playable, based on size implications, based on in-depth calculations of the shadow size in the direct.

I made an argument for Ridley easily and potentially being "boss" sized, and that the shadow could be misleading, and that's all of the sudden irrelevant because it's just a shadow.

No, you said we were using the shadow as PROOF he's playable while claiming you were "disproving" us and using the shadow as evidence he isn't. We're speculating here just as much as you are. However, with this being Ridley's support thread, YES, we'd like to see him as playable. Right now, all we have is seconds of a shadow moving and grabbing Pikachu, We have a reasonable doubt to believe he's entirely a boss/stage hazard. You're putting words in everyone's mouths here and quite frankly, it's ridiculous to claim you're being attacked when you're using pointed statements like that against us. Innocent of blame, you are not.

 

[Deleted member 245254]

The first part is true, and is not an issue. Because his size can be used to indicate possibilities. That's how things work. I have no idea how in any way this is an issue.

The SECOND part is false and is just you ignoring information and fabricating your own in order to go, "Well maybe Ridley DOES follow his own lighting physics!"

I have no idea how you can honestly say people here are the ones being ridiculous when you are VERY AGGRESSIVELY ignoring literally everything and then fabricating your own substitutes.

Honestly, it seems that your only purpose is to ignore and fabricate your own reasoning (except with the support of many Ridley supporters) for why I'm wrong without actually addressing my points.

Having the majority behind your back does not a good point make.

Though I do enjoy watching you continue to be a hypocrite, in this case.

 

[Kalimdori]

Yeah this pic does not work. You can't take two images shot from two completely different angles which would create two different perspectives and just meld them together and create an accurate representation of scale. This is the haphazard kind of evidence that makes us look worse. Pleeeease be careful! =/

This. You'd have to do a fair bit of stretching to get that to match up with Mother Brains. As is that isn't very accurate.

 

[ppbto]

To be completely and utterly honest, I am not even expecting him for the August Direct. I feel as though the only way to solve this mystery is to play the game. Which, in and of itself only supports the notion that he is playable. If we do not receive any news regarding bossley prior to release, it is safe to assume he is playable. No unlocks required.

Actually, I don't expect him to be revealed at the direct, but is fun to speculete. I think that if he is playable, he will be a hidden character.

 

[JaidynReiman]

If it's his tail that's even better evidence of him being higher up, because his tail is likely to reach way further down than the rest of his body.

...but he picks up Pikachu... How can he grab Pikachu if he's way high up?

 

[False Sense]

...but he picks up Pikachu... How can he grab Pikachu if he's way high up?

I really don't think he picks up Pikachu.

 

[UltimateWario]

Having the majority behind your back does not a good point make.

Being witty and insulting does not a counterpoint make, either. I'm not going to get involved with this nonsense, but your post was literally "NUH-UH, YOU ARE".

If we're going to go through this rigmarole again, can we at least not devolve to insults and schoolyardery, people?

 

[Epsilon52]

Clearly my post wasn't aimed at you, considering the main quote of the post you quoted is not even your post. Chill out.

My apologies. It is still no way to reply to anyone though.