• 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!

What Are Your Unpopular Gaming Opinions? (Ver. 2)

Quillion

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
5,989
It's just a greedy and slimy practice when companies make a remastered version of a game and add exclusive content to it that you can't get with the original. I don't want to pay for a game I already own just to get the new content. Mario Kart 8 Deluxe, Sonic X Shadow Generations, Xenoblade Chronicals X for the switch, Super Mario 3D World with Bowser's Fury, etc, I'm looking at you.
So they should make remasters with nothing new, then?
I'd say Rizen's view is reasonable for PC releases at least, at least with the high-level standardization of gaming hardware on that end. Granted, the efforts to port old games to modern standard hardware requires SOME compensation, but at least the PC offers a lot more room to detect whether you've bought a game beforehand or not, AND it offers more room for developers to "return" to an old game if need be.

Now for console releases? Yeah, good luck hoping that'll come true...
 

Rizen

Smash Legend
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
14,969
Location
Fascist ****Hole Of America
So they should make remasters with nothing new, then?
No, they should release the new content as DLC. It's not rocket science. Why should I pay $60-70 for Mario 3D World, a game I already own, when I only want to play the Bowser's Fury expansion which is probably worth about $15? I refused to do it. I think the remasters are great for people who have never played the games but they screw over people who owned the original.
 

Quillion

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
5,989
No, they should release the new content as DLC. It's not rocket science. Why should I pay $60-70 for Mario 3D World, a game I already own, when I only want to play the Bowser's Fury expansion which is probably worth about $15? I refused to do it. I think the remasters are great for people who have never played the games but they screw over people who owned the original.
I remember when New Super Luigi U was released separately from New Super Mario Bros U for some time (different disc and download both). And NSLU standalone had a lower price than NSMBU to boot.

Would be nice if they did that in the future, but we need to remember that 3DW Switch was released 8 years after 3DW Wii U. Who's going to want to add content to an eight year old release made for different (non-standard) hardware? Same deal for Shadow Gens being released 13 years after the original Sonic Gens.
 

Lenidem

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
1,257
No, they should release the new content as DLC. It's not rocket science. Why should I pay $60-70 for Mario 3D World, a game I already own, when I only want to play the Bowser's Fury expansion which is probably worth about $15? I refused to do it. I think the remasters are great for people who have never played the games but they screw over people who owned the original.
So they should... update games from previous generations, whose hardware is not even supported anymore? Or sell only the additional circuits from 8 Deluxe without the core game? Just the color dungeon from Link's Awakening DX without the whole quest?

I guess it some cases, it could be done. Bowser's Fury could probably be sold alone on the eShop. Same for Futures Connected from Xenoblade Chronicles Definitive Edition. But this additional content was probably not created for that, it was meant to be an argument in favor of the remake. Without the remake, they wouldn't have done those additional parts in the first place.
 

Nah

Smash Champion
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
2,180
And would you want any of FromSoft's games to have easy modes?
I have heard people say before that they want that. Not in terribly large numbers, but still. Nevermind that for 15 years the Souls community has been saying stuff like "magic is easy mode", "summons trivialize bosses", "[insert thing here] is OP!", "if you didn't play the game melee-only+no spells+no shield you didn't really beat the game!", etc. The difficulty of Soulsborne has for the most part long been overstated anyway.
 

Ze Diglett

Smash Champion
Writing Team
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
2,858
Location
Elsewhere
NNID
ZeDiglett
Or sell only the additional circuits from 8 Deluxe without the core game?
A new Mario Kart on the Switch would've been preferable to being stuck with 8 for another 8 years, but that's just my opinion.
I have heard people say before that they want that. Not in terribly large numbers, but still. Nevermind that for 15 years the Souls community has been saying stuff like "magic is easy mode", "summons trivialize bosses", "[insert thing here] is OP!", "if you didn't play the game melee-only+no spells+no shield you didn't really beat the game!", etc. The difficulty of Soulsborne has for the most part long been overstated anyway.
I will say people tend to not appreciate when a game's "easy mode" is just using easier or more powerful options. I dunno much about the Souls games, but from what I've heard, magic does kinda trivialize them. That to me is fine since it means your build effectively is your difficulty select. Pokemon's a similar way where if you want the game to be a cakewalk, there are plenty of win buttons the game waves in front of your face, but if you wanna challenge yourself, you can by loading your team up with bad mons, running only one type, not using legendaries, etc. Lots of singleplayer games have stuff like this, and it's why I think not every game needs a traditional difficulty select. The options are there, you just have to learn the game a little.
 

Quillion

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
5,989
A new Mario Kart on the Switch would've been preferable to being stuck with 8 for another 8 years, but that's just my opinion.
TBH, Mario Kart has accumulated so many elements over the installments that I think 8's at an evolutionary (innovationary?) dead end. The next Mario Kart will most definitely needs to make some sacrifices mechanically in the effort to make the gameplay feel new.

I will say people tend to not appreciate when a game's "easy mode" is just using easier or more powerful options.
I'm actually starting to prefer that over "difficulty select" honestly, but I acknowledge it can be done well or badly. I actively love BotW Normal Mode and TotK's "technically hard but easy to make easy" philosophy to difficulty. Gen 6 Pokemon not so much.

I think there just needs to be some way of mitigating the feeling that you're "holding yourself back", though it's admittedly hard to define.
 

Rizen

Smash Legend
Joined
May 7, 2009
Messages
14,969
Location
Fascist ****Hole Of America
I disagree about magic trivializing souls games but I really think it varies from game to game. In Dark Souls 1 I played with a great sword for a good portion of it until I found a Halberd that fit my strength build. That made the game so much easier when I wasn't clanging on walls all the time. Eventually I switched to spear and great shield: that's what trivialized bosses. Spears are just safer and better than other weapons.

DS3 was still plenty hard as a sorcerer or a pyromancer. I don't think magic trivialized it.

Elden Ring bosses can be made easier with magic in some cases but some bosses like Melenia are still really challenging as she dodges a lot of the stuff thrown at her. Or the final boss is extremely resistant to magic; he gave me a hell of a time the first time. Elden Ring does a pretty good job balancing the bosses and enemies so every weapon type has its uses.
I like that the game has a kind of difficulty setting option built in with summoning other players or spirit ashes. I wish Sekiro had that. I never like Sekiro's combat and simply quit the final boss because he had a ridiculous amount of health and poise. 4 freaking health bars is too much!
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nah

Wario Wario Wario

Smash Legend
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
12,039
Location
Cheese Wheels of Doom
When people talk about "the greatest video game music of all time", they put way too much stock in the use in the game itself and often times it can just come off as "greatest games of all time, conveyed abstractly through song". If Mario and Zelda never took off, I greatly doubt that Koji Kondo would've gained the same following the Follin brothers have (not that some of his work isn't worthy of Follin-level praise (Dire Dire Docks, Song of Storms, and SMB2 Overworld come to mind), or any of them are bad really, just that the iconic factor of the games is doing the heavy lifting in Kondo's reception as a whole, and typically his stuff tends to lean a little generic) I understand that not everyone wants to dig really deep, especially if they're a general music publication and not a gaming one as a whole, but come on. You probably would not like Wily's Castle 1 so much if you had never heard of the "mega men", but bump some Smurf's Nightmare GBC or C64 RoboCop without context and everyone's vibing.
 
Last edited:

LiveStudioAudience

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 1, 2019
Messages
4,457
When people talk about "the greatest video game music of all time", they put way too much stock in the use in the game itself and often times it can just come off as "greatest games of all time, conveyed abstractly through song". If Mario and Zelda never took off, I greatly doubt that Koji Kondo would've gained the same following the Follin brothers have (not that some of his work isn't worthy of Follin-level praise (Dire Dire Docks, Song of Storms, and SMB2 Overworld come to mind), or any of them are bad really, just that the iconic factor of the games is doing the heavy lifting in Kondo's reception as a whole, and typically his stuff tends to lean a little generic) I understand that not everyone wants to dig really deep, especially if they're a general music publication and not a gaming one as a whole, but come on. You probably would not like Wily's Castle 1 so much if you had never heard of the "mega men", but bump some Smurf's Nightmare GBC or C64 RoboCop without context and everyone's vibing.
Stuff like this is why YouTube binges will always work better in highlighting great video game music than any company app or even Spotify list could. Heck incredible tracks from crap games is probably one of the most interesting historical phenomena out there, as Interplay's SNES Lord of the Rings demonstrates:

 

Lenidem

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
1,257
Stuff like this is why YouTube binges will always work better in highlighting great video game music than any company app or even Spotify list could. Heck incredible tracks from crap games is probably one of the most interesting historical phenomena out there, as Interplay's SNES Lord of the Rings demonstrates:

As a Tolkien fan, I must thank you for this gem!
 

LiveStudioAudience

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 1, 2019
Messages
4,457
What is the point of other platform fighters , if all they do is copy smash bros ?
I think the core problem with Smash inspired fighters is that, to a degree they're coming too late. Not in the sense that no Smash like fighting game could be successful now, but more that SSB has defined so many elements of the modern platform fighter that with the money involved in making such a game? Being similar to it almost becomes either an inevitability or results in an awkward attempt to not be like it.

Mario Kart spawned many imitators but the best of them (Crash Team Racing, Diddy Kong Racing) managed to come out early enough to carve out their own identities because while MK established a base formula, there were still different places to go with it safely in the marketplace. Even Sonic and Sega All Stars Racing coming out after 6 Mario Kart games came out managed to work by being a spiritual successor to Diddy Kong Racing's gameplay philosophy (less luck related items to name one).

Smash Bros by contrast has so thoroughly defined what platform fighters are like that (especially to risk averse companies in an age of expensive software development) it becomes downright illogical to not have them play like SSB to a degree. Sony All Stars Battle Royale (now 11 years ago) was the last major attempt to try and be somewhat different and even if suffered because it couldn't figure out if was trying to appeal to the Smash audience or a new one.

If a successful Smash like game had caught fire in 2004 (whether it was by Capcom, Konami, Sega, Microsoft, Sony, SE, Namco) then it not only would have had the momentum to be considered a safe and consistent investment, but it likely would also have a strong enough foundation built to eventually go in a different direction. Various JRPG's played like Final Fantasy and Dragon Quest once but eventually grew popular enough to have the freedom to do their own thing. Platform fighters aren't so lucky.
 
Last edited:

Wario Wario Wario

Smash Legend
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
12,039
Location
Cheese Wheels of Doom
I think that when people say "why are other platform fighters so much like Smash", they aren't necessarily wrong by definition, they're just looking in the wrong places - I think all the attention seems to be on two things:
  1. Knockback KO systems
  2. Melee tech specifically
Brawlhalla, MVS, Rivals 1, and NASB1; arguably the 4 most successful non-Smash platfighters in recent history (if you're talking "ever", then PSASBR probably edges out Rivals, and that will come back later) all play nothing like Smash beyond #1, and only half of them have #2 - but everything between those gameplay wise, except maybe the control scheme, are kinda abstract and tricky to comprehend - from a casual perspective, wavedashing is just "you slide, it's hard to do and annoying people like it"; and knockback KOs are "go flying, go boom" - game feel, defensive gameplay, or overarching moveset design mentalities are all a bit more abstract to explain and tend to be where games vary, you can call NASB1 fast, but you can't put into words just how fast it is; you can say Rivals has a minimal defensive system, but you can't easily summarise why that is (if a casual player even knows how to use defensive options in the first place). I don't mind non-sumo platfighters as a concept, I'd love to see a stamina game, but I think complaining about that being the crux of the genre is equivalent to being upset over all traditional fighters using lifebars, it's kinda just part of the genre and any break away is at the end of the day a gimmick, not an innovation.

I also think there's a third "similarity" here, but it has a weird... not nuance really, I'd say it's more completely irrational and unjustifiable but also kinda understandable at least in where it came from - the crossover element. People associate platform fighters as a "crossover genre" and aren't interested in playing a platfighter with new characters when they'd be happy to play any other genre with new faces - in the absence of Mario, people will accept a random furry they don't recognise in a platformer, but not in a platform fighter. Because of this, people end up not paying that much attention to non-crossover platfighters, and then wonder "why are all these games like Smash?" when exclusively talking about games that are more conceptually similar to Smash and therefore will typically edge more towards Smash philosophies. A self-fulfilling prophecy really

I'd argue a lot of it is decade-old debris from PSASBR - PSASBR tried really hard to avoid replicating Smash, while also being a lot of people's first non-Smash platform fighter (and if it wasn't they may have played a game with a lifebar system like Digimon Rumble Arena), so that may have set up an unreasonable expectation for those willing to give new platform fighters a chance, but on the other end, PSASBR was considered a flop, and had a bit of a console war sting attached to it, one that wouldn't exist if it was a Sega or Namco game, so it could have created a subconcious (or just concious) association between the genre and "wannabes". There's also a lot of two-decade-old Brawl discourse debris, especially considering how Melee tech has become a genre staple (even Royalty Free-For-All, which markets itself on how simple its controls are, and only has one comp-viable stage shown thus far out of a good many, has been said to have wavedashing by those who played it), but that probably goes without saying.

The most nuanced part of this discussion is sequels (Rivals and NASB particularly), which do end up implementing more elements from Smash - but even then, I have not played Rivals 2 nor read up much about it, but I can pretty safely say that NASB2 is nothing like any Smash game in gamefeel, even with air dodges; bubble shields; side inputs; and so forth. Yes, that includes Melee. Content is also another factor - CTR and Diddy Kong are both considered to be more advanced games than Mario Kart, but ask most people who prefer those over MK64 and they're much more likely to mention the adventure modes or unlockables... but story modes are in almost every platform fighter, they're roughly as common as wavedashing. So you're left with two things: unlockables, an outdated design philosophy literally only Smash still abides by, and giant rosters with a hypeillion characters, which is.... hahaha NO. Even if you sold an arm and a leg; got a kickstarter world record; or both, you're never gonna have as many characters as Smash unless you're doing a significant chunk of the work yourself. You'd have to either license out characters or hire artists to draw new ones, both of which are massive money sinks and only financially viable if you're to take sacrifices - less experienced character designers for OCs, less popular characters for ECs.

I don't really think marketing is a big factor to consider, because these platform fighters do tend to sell like hot cakes, especially when there's IP involved, which suggests they are at least being well-marketed (with NASB2 - which had godawful marketing for many reasons (though the fandom isn't completely innocent in relation to this, even as someone who strongly believes the toxic state of Smash discourse is a consequence of its marketing and didn't intensify naturally) - as a particularly sore exception), what's really being "fought" for is 1. retention, and 2. respect, neither of which I really think matters outside of convincing bigger companies to work on or license platfighters.
 
Last edited:

MBRedboy31

Smash Lord
Joined
May 5, 2018
Messages
1,594
Speaking of platform fighters that are stamina-based instead of knockback-based, I wonder if a Kirby Fighters game could ever be a bigger thing than it is if they ever, like, gave it any marketing budget (instead of shadowdropping it randomly on the eShop) and any degree of post-launch support so that people have more of a reason to return to it and keep talking about it.

I feel like it's pretty unlikely for these; probably the reason the Kirby Fighters games exist at all is because they can reuse so many models and animations from contemporary Kirby games that they can avoid spending too much time and budget before making the next main series Kirby game. Still, it'd be neat to see Kirby Fighters be more of a thing instead of just a fleeting curiosity.
 

Þe 1 → Way

Smash Champion
Joined
Dec 12, 2020
Messages
2,387
Location
Wouldn’t You Like To Know?
First time returning to the forums after awhile, feels good. I feel like one way a game could alter platform fighter gameplay in a unique way I haven't seen would be to combine stamina and percent smash. I.e. something like having 150 health in a stamina esque match, but the closer you get to running out, the more your launch distance increases, leading to deaths often via ring outs like in classic Smash.

This could lead to unique design elements like some characters being designed around damage, whereas others specialize in knock back. Wouldn't fully differentiate it from Smash gameplay, but it isn't something yet seen from the series.

Looking morseo to the lens of the current discussion, I think a lot of platform fighters have tried and succeeded in remixing Smashlike gameplay. Rivals and Nasb2 are some of my favorites, although I think some games like Multiversus ended up straying too far from Smash's structure for me to enjoy it. Smash ultimately dominates the genre not just by being so utterly massive as a game, but also because it had time to sit and iterate on itself while a lot of series are still revising and changing as we speak, to varying degrees of success.
 
Last edited:

Wario Wario Wario

Smash Legend
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
12,039
Location
Cheese Wheels of Doom
Speaking of platform fighters that are stamina-based instead of knockback-based, I wonder if a Kirby Fighters game could ever be a bigger thing than it is if they ever, like, gave it any marketing budget (instead of shadowdropping it randomly on the eShop) and any degree of post-launch support so that people have more of a reason to return to it and keep talking about it.

I feel like it's pretty unlikely for these; probably the reason the Kirby Fighters games exist at all is because they can reuse so many models and animations from contemporary Kirby games that they can avoid spending too much time and budget before making the next main series Kirby game. Still, it'd be neat to see Kirby Fighters be more of a thing instead of just a fleeting curiosity.
It's a miracle Kirby Fighters ever managed to be more than just a minigame mode, considering how notorious Nintendo is for not wanting more than one of any given genre other than platformers or RPGs. Even on the platformer side, Kirby and Metroid kinda stand alone alongside a sea of Mario universe extensions.

I'd say I'm neutral on the idea that Nintendo wants to hamper the platfighter genre as a whole, there's relatively convincing evidence (NASB1 and Rivals 1's release dates being at the same time as platfighter related Nintendo content; Nintendo not promoting Rivals to the same degree as other indies of its calibur) but it all seems a bit "Mario Mandate"-ey, and the evidence to the contrary (Nintendo actively promoting games like Lego Brawls, the existence of Kirby Fighters as a series) feels way stronger and actively non-coincidental, but there's really no denying that modern Nintendo doesn't like the prospect of having first party games cannibalise one another, they'd rather put the eggs in the tried and tested baskets, which I guess makes sense, while every F-Zero game bought instead of a Mario Kart game is making the same money for Nintendo at base, that's also Mario Kart DLC; T-shirts; toys; and posters someone isn't going to buy, and just not enough people bought F-Zero to justify making those.

I do wonder if this is why Nintendo don't make many new IPs much anymore (even if the Switch was way better than the Wii U era physical game space in that regard, and arguably the Wii/DS era depending on how you qualify the "Wii series games" and casual appeal games like Nintendogs and Big Brain Academy as a whole, maybe the N64 era retroactively on virtue of Nintendo losing all of Rare's stuff, but that feels counter-balanced by Pokemon and Animal Crossing being Pokemon and Animal Crossing, and Banjo/Conker/e.t.c. still being a part of the brand cult of personality while most fans of 3P IPs Nintendo pushed in those prior eras like Yokai Watch and Layton have moved on from associating them with Nintendo) - it must be quite a nightmare to manage a franchise when it wasn't expected to be a hit, and that was probably experienced by Nintendo with Splatoon and the initial US rollout of Animal Crossing, it's a two-sided risk where the reward will make things more difficult going forwards instead of easier. Damn you, capitalism.
 
Last edited:

Quillion

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
5,989
(though the fandom isn't completely innocent in relation to this, even as someone who strongly believes the toxic state of Smash discourse is a consequence of its marketing and didn't intensify naturally)
Why do you believe this out of curiosity? Honestly, I don't think it's any more "toxic". The only real difference is that there's more people, and that naturally means more toxic people.

I can't even respect the assessment that contemporary platform fighters are too similar to or "copying" Smash. Rivals, NASB, and Smash are about as similar to each other as Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, and Blazblue.
I mean, TBF and IMO, the 2D tradfighter genre really isn't very divergent anymore. There's a reason why most "innovation" in that space amounts to just "extra super meter" nowadays (not too different from modern Pokémon actually).

First time returning to the forums after awhile, feels good. I feel like one way a game could alter platform fighter gameplay in a unique way I haven't seen would be to combine stamina and percent smash. I.e. something like having 150 health in a stamina esque match, but the closer you get to running out, the more your launch distance increases, leading to deaths often via ring outs like in classic Smash.

This could lead to unique design elements like some characters being designed around damage, whereas others specialize in knock back. Wouldn't fully differentiate it from Smash gameplay, but it isn't something yet seen from the series.
Not a bad idea, honestly. It could also be a better way of balancing the speedsters and glaciers: the speedsters are more geared towards chipping down stamina, while the glaciers are geared more towards blowing opponents out of the ring. All of this could even be done without the over-wide gap between speedsters and glaciers that mars Smash's balance.

I do wonder if this is why Nintendo don't make many new IPs much anymore
They're more consistent in making new SMALL IPs. They've always have been, really.

The new BIG IPs just kinda dried up around the GameCube though. And now the rest of the AAA industry is facing the same deal.
 

MasterCheef

Smash Ace
Joined
Jul 7, 2021
Messages
735
Not a bad idea, honestly. It could also be a better way of balancing the speedsters and glaciers: the speedsters are more geared towards chipping down stamina, while the glaciers are geared more towards blowing opponents out of the ring. All of this could even be done without the over-wide gap between speedsters and glaciers which mars SSBNU balance.
The real challenge is all the glacier characters' special moves are very NON-harmonious & do NOT work well together. Probably the best example is WHY does King DeDeDe's Gordo NOT spike ? & WHY is his down special not inhale ? & His forward smash should be Jet Hammer. & His ( Super Jump ) up special should offer more horizontal recovery.

Also Snake. Why is His Up Smash only completely vertical ? This makes it near useless. Why don't his ( grenades & Remote Missile ) deal more damage ? Also ( Remote Missile's KB ) was nerfed too much.

I can't even respect the assessment that contemporary platform fighters are too similar to or "copying" Smash. Rivals, NASB, and Smash are about as similar to each other as Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, and Blazblue.
My point was other platform KB fighters tend to copy & paste Smash character design & generally don't do anywhere near as well
 

Quillion

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
5,989
The real challenge is all the glacier characters' special moves are very NON-harmonious & do NOT work well together.
That's just a problem regardless of speedster/glacier; what moveset IS harmonious in Brawl-onward Smash?

That's the reason why meta play Brawl-onward is very spammy: there isn't much reason to use moves in a cohesive manner.
 

LiveStudioAudience

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 1, 2019
Messages
4,457
This is a remarkably niche observation I know, but I think seeing certain other fandom's objections to their franchise through the lens of a series/property you're closer to can often really help one understand the former better.

I'm a long time Sonic fan, grew up on the Genesis/Megadrive games, and generally respected most of the games in the Adventure. When fans of the latter started really objecting to certain aspects in the boost, while I intellectually understood their problems, I never really deeply connected with them. The pairing down of the cast, the shift in tone, and generally less ambitious nature of the boost games never bothered me emotionally, so when I saw such complaints lobbied, it just didn't quite register (possibly because I'm an older fan that still sees the 2000s games as a variation of Sonic rather than what the series was supposed to be).

I wasn't until I compared these thoughts to my own lamentations about the DK series that everything finally clicked. The tonal differences, smaller cast, and less aspirational direction were all things I found myself seeing with the Donkey Kong franchise in many respects, and applying my own thoughts about that to Adventure Era fans thoughts about Sonic? It finally made sense, and it gave me a kind of empathy as to why so many of them were so distressed about where the franchise was going even if I didn't agree with it.

Basically, I think it can be a useful way of better appreciating how certain fans could end up feeling with various media.
 

Quillion

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
5,989
This is a remarkably niche observation I know, but I think seeing certain other fandom's objections to their franchise through the lens of a series/property you're closer to can often really help one understand the former better.

...

Basically, I think it can be a useful way of better appreciating how certain fans could end up feeling with various media.
That IS a good point, but I think it's only a good source of empathy, not necessarily a good source of agreement nor appreciation. Especially when agreement or appreciation can fuel entitlement.

And even then, comparing the contexts of how Sonic and DK contracted from their large sizes (in terms of fictional universes[?] so to speak), things play out a lot differently.
  • Sonic had to contract because the franchise was getting overambitious, Sega was getting worse about managing everything, and the fans started to dislike the overcomplications the universe was accumulating. Nowadays, Frontiers and Shadow Gens have re-visited those "overcomplications", but took a lot of steps to re-contextualize them in a clearer way that feels more in line with the franchise as a whole.
  • Donkey Kong simply DOES NOT work as a "universe" with a lot of characters. DK doesn't really need any "main" characters beyond Donkey, Diddy, Dixie, Cranky, and Funky (maybe conceding Wrinkly). Honestly, when Donkey Kong tries to branch out beyond "platformer focused on atmosphere and challenge", it ends up being bog-standard "platformer franchise spin-offs" in the end. It's quite telling that the one main exception: Diddy Kong Racing, was supposed to be its own IP to begin with.
So in short, I'd say that Sonic needed to prune to grow back healthier, while Donkey Kong needed to prune and stay pruned.
 

fogbadge

Smash Obsessed
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
22,749
Location
Scotland
That IS a good point, but I think it's only a good source of empathy, not necessarily a good source of agreement nor appreciation. Especially when agreement or appreciation can fuel entitlement.

And even then, comparing the contexts of how Sonic and DK contracted from their large sizes (in terms of fictional universes[?] so to speak), things play out a lot differently.
  • Sonic had to contract because the franchise was getting overambitious, Sega was getting worse about managing everything, and the fans started to dislike the overcomplications the universe was accumulating. Nowadays, Frontiers and Shadow Gens have re-visited those "overcomplications", but took a lot of steps to re-contextualize them in a clearer way that feels more in line with the franchise as a whole.
  • Donkey Kong simply DOES NOT work as a "universe" with a lot of characters. DK doesn't really need any "main" characters beyond Donkey, Diddy, Dixie, Cranky, and Funky (maybe conceding Wrinkly). Honestly, when Donkey Kong tries to branch out beyond "platformer focused on atmosphere and challenge", it ends up being bog-standard "platformer franchise spin-offs" in the end. It's quite telling that the one main exception: Diddy Kong Racing, was supposed to be its own IP to begin with.
So in short, I'd say that Sonic needed to prune to grow back healthier, while Donkey Kong needed to prune and stay pruned.
Sonic's pruning came in part due to Ken Pender wanting to sue them over every little thing.
 

Quillion

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
5,989
Sonic's pruning came in part due to Ken Pender wanting to sue them over every little thing.
That only affected the SatAM/Archie-adjacent content though. And Sega was already keeping most of that out of the games to begin with.

I'm referring to how Sega pruned a lot of the Adventure-06 era stuff out in the games themselves.
 

fogbadge

Smash Obsessed
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
22,749
Location
Scotland
That only affected the SatAM/Archie-adjacent content though. And Sega was already keeping most of that out of the games to begin with.

I'm referring to how Sega pruned a lot of the Adventure-06 era stuff out in the games themselves.
then why do they keep referencing it?
 

Quillion

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
5,989
then why do they keep referencing it?
In the games? All they're really referencing in the games is Sonic's love of chili dogs, and it's not like anyone can copyright chili dogs to begin with.

Outside of the games... IDRK, I don't really follow Sonic beyond the games. You'll have to update me on that.
 

fogbadge

Smash Obsessed
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
22,749
Location
Scotland
In the games? All they're really referencing in the games is Sonic's love of chili dogs, and it's not like anyone can copyright chili dogs to begin with.

Outside of the games... IDRK, I don't really follow Sonic beyond the games. You'll have to update me on that.
when was the last time you played a sonic game? we literally just got game with stuff from those games in it
 

Quillion

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
5,989
when was the last time you played a sonic game? we literally just got game with stuff from those games in it
Oh... now I see where you're coming from.

Well, like I said about Sega re-implementing those stuff:

Nowadays, Frontiers and Shadow Gens have re-visited those "overcomplications", but took a lot of steps to re-contextualize them in a clearer way that feels more in line with the franchise as a whole.
I got lost when you mentioned Penders. Penders' lawsuit did affect the Archie/SatAM-adjacent content and motivated Sega to take stronger ownership of stuff in Sonic adaptations and spin-off media.

When it comes to the Adventure-06 stuff being pruned, I said THAT needed to be pruned so it could grow back healthier.
 

fogbadge

Smash Obsessed
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
22,749
Location
Scotland
Oh... now I see where you're coming from.

Well, like I said about Sega re-implementing those stuff:



I got lost when you mentioned Penders. Penders' lawsuit did affect the Archie/SatAM-adjacent content and motivated Sega to take stronger ownership of stuff in Sonic adaptations and spin-off media.

When it comes to the Adventure-06 stuff being pruned, I said THAT needed to be pruned so it could grow back healthier.
well it was the penders suit that led to them restarting their comic universe and for them to set down new rules for their characters. which I assume applies to the games as well. but at the same time it doesn’t stop them from calling back to whatever’s already happened

As for sonic 06 coming back healthier I’m inclined to agree as they did get a bit odd even by their standards with that one
 
Last edited:

Quillion

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
5,989
well it was the penders suit that led to them restarting their comic universe and for them to set down new rules for their characters. which I assume applies to the games as well. but at the same time it doesn’t stop them from calling back to whatever’s already happened

As for sonic 06 coming back healthier I’m inclined to agree as they did get a bit odd even by their standards with that one
IIRC, the only thing that's really affected are the Nocturnus Echidna from Sonic Chronicles (which was already a legal-friendly attempt to incorporate Archie elements into the games).
 

fogbadge

Smash Obsessed
Joined
Jun 29, 2012
Messages
22,749
Location
Scotland
IIRC, the only thing that's really affected are the Nocturnus Echidna from Sonic Chronicles (which was already a legal-friendly attempt to incorporate Archie elements into the games).
the story as I read it was the lawsuit left sega pretty scared of doing anything with their characters. even though I believe they won
 

Quillion

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
5,989
I hate when "video game-y" and "immersive" are treated as mutually exclusive.

Only really speaking for me here, but I feel immersed in the original Super Mario Bros. 1 on the NES. I find that the key is for me to learn how the world and game system works through play, trial, and error and not through a bunch of dialogue, cutscenes, and other stuff that pause the game.

Not knocking "cinematic games" that utilize all that stuff (though still not my cuppa tea), but still.
 

Ze Diglett

Smash Champion
Writing Team
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
2,858
Location
Elsewhere
NNID
ZeDiglett
I hate when "video game-y" and "immersive" are treated as mutually exclusive.

Only really speaking for me here, but I feel immersed in the original Super Mario Bros. 1 on the NES. I find that the key is for me to learn how the world and game system works through play, trial, and error and not through a bunch of dialogue, cutscenes, and other stuff that pause the game.

Not knocking "cinematic games" that utilize all that stuff (though still not my cuppa tea), but still.
People who use the term "video game-y" as a pejorative in general are corny as hell. If you're so unable to suspend your disbelief that you can't enjoy a video game that in any way reminds you that it is, in fact, a video game, I pity you.
 
Last edited:

Quillion

Smash Hero
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
5,989
Here's a thought I have: could video game discourse/analysis have been significantly better if it didn't largely develop in the internet age?

The internet rapidly developed a distinct culture of "scream for attention" (as in exaggerate and make your statements as inflammatory as possible just so people can give you some time of day), and the fact that video games rose in near-parallel to the internet could've severely hampered the serious study of video games as a technical and technological art form with standards and good practices.

Now sure, movie, TV, and music discourse suck just as much too nowadays, but IDK, it seems that those media at least benefitted from how they developed a significant amount of time BEFORE the rise of the internet. I'd go as far as to say that while video game discourse always sucked; movie, TV, and music discourse didn't suck AS much until ~the mid 2010s.

I said this in another thread, but I think if Beethoven was active during the internet age, there'd be so much flame wars over whether his music was better before or after he went deaf.
 

Wario Wario Wario

Smash Legend
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
12,039
Location
Cheese Wheels of Doom
Using "video game-ey" as a prejorative gives me the same vibe as using "cartoon-y" as a prejorative. Just as animation shouldn't disown the Tex Avery and classic Disney styles (or in recent years the Pixar photorealistic/emotional style) just because it tends to be pigeonholed into that, video games shouldn't abandon the Atari or NES styles, either aesthetically or in gameplay. We're long past the late 90s/early 2000s where 3D was "the future" and old pixelated graphics were used as jokes in marketing.
 
Last edited:

Wonder Smash

Smash Champion
Joined
Oct 8, 2013
Messages
2,228
Tatsunoko vs Capcom - While the game itself is not bad, the Tatsunoko characters were the least interesting characters in the Vs series. I did like that Capcom was finally going up anime characters but these particular ones were very underwhelming. They were a lot less diverse compared to Capcom and also Marvel before them. Viewtiful Joe alone looked like half of those characters. And another thing is they were created to imitate American superhero culture...which was already featured in the Marvel vs. Capcom games. So this kinda feels like a step down. This is not a knock on the series they come from (series like Gatchaman will always be a classic) but they're just not the kind characters I'd be excited to see in a Capcom Vs game.

Instead, I think Osamu Tezuka characters (which they're doing artwork collaborations with) would have been much better. He's the pretty much the reason for the many things people love in anime. Even if people are not familiar with the characters, they might know some characters were inspired by them (Tien from the Dragon Ball series being inspired by Sharaku, for example). So they would still feel right at home with these characters.

In the end, I think Capcom should do Vs. game with Tezuka instead of Tatsunoko.
 
Top Bottom