|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Aug 4, 2006 3:30:36 GMT -5
TtF... your arguments are rubbish. I recommend you take a course. There's no point talking to you because you reduce everything to its most absurd conclusions.
If I say SSB is a celebration of Nintendo characters then you should draw the line at Nintendo characters. If I say SSB is a celebration of videogaming characters then you should draw the line at videogaming characters. You don't seem to understand this VERY SIMPLE distinction.
Besides, Kojima has said he wants to stop working on MGS3 so he can play with the Wii.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrustTheFungus on Aug 4, 2006 3:41:16 GMT -5
Disney isn't a video game company. Konami is. Simple as that. Nintendo is Nintendo. Konami isn't. Simple as that. And when has it ever been stated the SSB is only about video games? I wouldn't be surprised if SSBB had an Ultra Hand item, or something else based on their old toys. I don't think Nintendo would want any help from Disney. Most games they make aren't that good. How are my conclusions absurd? The concept of the game is Nintendo characters fighting? How is it absurd to say that adding non-Nintendo characters destroys the concept of the game? How is it absurd for me to say that adding Snake is like adding Mickey Mouse? Where do you draw the line for what other third-party characters get in? If Konami gets a character, I see no reason why every other video game company doesn't deserve one also. |
|
Saim
Balloon Fighter
Posts: 860
|
Post by Saim on Aug 4, 2006 5:28:30 GMT -5
You know, I would agree with you TTF, but I was so starved of information when Nintendo shoved Snake into my mouth, I started liking him.
|
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Aug 4, 2006 8:12:15 GMT -5
No, the concept of SSB and SSBM was Nintendo characters fighting. The concept of SSBB is Nintendo characters and SOME popular third party videogame characters who have appeared on Nintendo consoles fighting. Notice the change?
Which is why your Mickey Mouse thing is stupid. Because he is not a videogame character. And for some reason you seem incapable of making that distinction. Which is why it's absurd.
It's like saying that Ness and Mewtwo are psychic, so why not put in any old psychic? Uri Geller, for instance. The answer? Because you are ignoring some very clear and obvious distinctions...
Fact is, the inclusion of third party videogame characters in a hugely popular Nintendo game strengthens the ties between Nintendo and those developers, meaning more third party software is likely to be developed for the Wii. Plus, there are hundreds of fans of some third party characters who are likely to buy a Wii for SSBB if their favourite characters are in it.
Not everyone is a Nintendo fan, and that may put some of them off the SSB series.
|
|
|
|
Post by amazingeee on Aug 4, 2006 10:43:33 GMT -5
You are being pretty ridiculous, Fungus. You can't even make distinctions that Sakurai himself has- like "no manga characters" which I think can be extended to other cartoons pretty easily, eh?
FryGuy, I disagree with you that Diddy shouldn't appear. DKC NEEDS another representative, considering it is massively popular and has no shortage of choices. And Diddy is the best choice. All the franchises with similar or greater popularity than DK already have at least 4 representatives.
|
|
|
|
Post by Johans Nidorino on Aug 4, 2006 11:34:57 GMT -5
Who knows, maybe in the future, characters not created in games could blend with Nintendo. Popular characters that were not originated in games could even be downloadable or something as a bonus (I don't mean inmediately for Wii, nor for SSBB).
In that hypothetical sense, Mickey Mouse comes quickly to one's mind since he has been a famous character in pop culture for many decades. Although not comparable at all to Solid Snake or Pac-Man, he's not totally unrelated to video games, as Disney already has its own video games producer division, Buena Vista Games (this is similar to Lucasfilm and LucasArts).
|
|
|
|
Post by nocturnal YL on Aug 4, 2006 12:43:41 GMT -5
Well, you may or may not like about the inclusion of Snake, but it's too early to like or hate the game now. None of us has actually played it (unless some ssbb developer sneak in here) and I think it's just too early to say anything. Personally, I was opposed, and now indifferent. Who knows when they decide to enter even more 1st party Nintendo characters instead? In that hypothetical sense, Mickey Mouse comes quickly to one's mind Not me. I never think of that. The first non-game character to include could either be Miyamoto or Sakurai. |
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Aug 4, 2006 13:19:04 GMT -5
FryGuy, I disagree with you that Diddy shouldn't appear. DKC NEEDS another representative, considering it is massively popular and has no shortage of choices. And Diddy is the best choice. All the franchises with similar or greater popularity than DK already have at least 4 representatives. Diddy would indeed be the next selection from the DKC games - and it's not because he's a secondary character (like Ridley) that I don't want him to appear. It's because he's annoying  King K. Rool would be a better character IMHO - and his attacks would be better too. And his alternate costumes! The problem is that the DKC games are a sub-series of the Mario games. Adding more DKC characters (to some eyes) would look like adding even more Mario characters. Especially now that Diddy has been invited wholesale into Mario games. |
|
|
|
Post by wanderingshadow on Aug 4, 2006 14:49:41 GMT -5
It's like saying that Ness and Mewtwo are psychic, so why not put in any old psychic? Uri Geller, for instance. The answer? Because you are ignoring some very clear and obvious distinctions... Ms. Cleo would be a much better choice that Uri Geller ;D Anyway, Diddy Kong seems like a popular choice for a new character. At Gamefaqs, they're running a poll and Diddy Kong is in the top 10. |
|
|
|
Post by TrustTheFungus on Aug 4, 2006 16:58:16 GMT -5
No, the concept of SSB and SSBM was Nintendo characters fighting. The concept of SSBB is Nintendo characters and SOME popular third party videogame characters who have appeared on Nintendo consoles fighting. Wasn't that my point from the beginning of this argument? The concept of SSB has been destroyed and replaced with something else. Plus only including characters owned by popular third party companies is showing the same discrimination that a lot of people have against obscure Nintendo characters. |
|
|
|
Post by Fryguy64 on Aug 4, 2006 17:59:26 GMT -5
Wasn't that my point from the beginning of this argument? The concept of SSB has been destroyed and replaced with something else. No... it has been slightly amended. I wouldn't say adding a small number of third-party videogame characters has destroyed and replaced the concept of the Smash Bros. games in the slightest. Plus only including characters owned by popular third party companies is showing the same discrimination that a lot of people have against obscure Nintendo characters. Now you're not making sense and blowing the whole thing completely out of proportion. They're not ONLY including characters owned by popular third-party companies, they are adding a small number. And I don't understand what the inclusion of a small number of third party characters has to do with showing discrimination against obscure characters. So long as the developers provide a decent balance of obscure, popular, first- and third-party (which I am confident they can do) then I don't think SSBB deserves to be thought of as any less of an SSB game. Hell, Nintendo even built Sakurai his own development studio specifically for this game. They trust him to do it right as well. |
|
|
|
Post by danipepino on Aug 4, 2006 18:12:44 GMT -5
ha HA! This could get more third party softwares to produce Wii games HOPING that one of their franchises appear in a SSB game.
|
|
|
|
Post by TrustTheFungus on Aug 4, 2006 18:41:09 GMT -5
No... it has been slightly amended. I wouldn't say adding a small number of third-party videogame characters has destroyed and replaced the concept of the Smash Bros. games in the slightest. How is that a slight amendment? What if they changed the concept to "Nintendo characters, third party video game characters and cartoon characters." Would that be a slight amendment? What if they add book/comic/manga characters to it then? Then add movie characters? Each of those amendments would be just as big as allowing third party characters. Originally the game's concept would only allow characters from one company, now it allows characters from dozens of companies. That's a huge amendment. Now you're not making sense and blowing the whole thing completely out of proportion. They're not ONLY including characters owned by popular third-party companies, they are adding a small number. And I don't understand what the inclusion of a small number of third party characters has to do with showing discrimination against obscure characters. So long as the developers provide a decent balance of obscure, popular, first- and third-party (which I am confident they can do) then I don't think SSBB deserves to be thought of as any less of an SSB game. Hell, Nintendo even built Sakurai his own development studio specifically for this game. They trust him to do it right as well. Because they will probably only have popular third party characters. No characters from obscure third party companies. |
|
|
|
Post by amazingeee on Aug 4, 2006 20:37:51 GMT -5
Diddy would indeed be the next selection from the DKC games - and it's not because he's a secondary character (like Ridley) that I don't want him to appear. It's because he's annoying King K. Rool would be a better character IMHO - and his attacks would be better too. And his alternate costumes! The problem is that the DKC games are a sub-series of the Mario games. Adding more DKC characters (to some eyes) would look like adding even more Mario characters. Especially now that Diddy has been invited wholesale into Mario games. I just showed you the numbers where DK games have outsold Zelda. Games Diddy has been the main character in, including DKC2, DKL2 and DKR themselves have topped 12 million or something. So regardless of whether you find him annoying or whether he technically counts as a "Mario" character, he deserves to be in there. K Rool would be badass though. How is that a slight amendment? What if they changed the concept to "Nintendo characters, third party video game characters and cartoon characters." Would that be a slight amendment? What if they add book/comic/manga characters to it then? Then add movie characters? Each of those amendments would be just as big as allowing third party characters. Hahaha, you're kidding right? Worry about that when we haven't been expressly told it won't happen!!! No cartoons we've been told. I'm pretty sure you aren't actually worried about Mickey Mouse and Superman appearing in Smash Bros, so just give it a rest already! |
|
|
|
Post by Dances in Undergarments on Aug 4, 2006 23:32:17 GMT -5
How is that a slight amendment? What if they changed the concept to "Nintendo characters, third party video game characters and cartoon characters." Would that be a slight amendment? What if they add book/comic/manga characters to it then? Then add movie characters? Each of those amendments would be just as big as allowing third party characters. Argument logic with TrustTheFungus: Car Developer: Our latest car seems to be very popular, but its lacking a GPS system like our competitors have, so how about we make a small adjustment for the better, and put one in? TTF: But if you put in a GPS system you are runing the 'concept' of the car, which is to have a car without GPS systems! Why don't you just make the wheels smaller, make the car bigger, put in a whole heap of seats, give it wings, and call it a plane? Car Developer: ... ... ... Get out of here. |
|
