Super Smash Bros.

However, as long as Game Freak stays on Nintendo, it'll be a first party game... by proxy only.

As I said, it matters if Nintendo owns Level 5 or not.

Also, what was brought up makes a good point. If it's only published in the West by Nintendo, it's most likely not 1st party.

Quest 64 thread

If he we're Capcom you'd be getting Layton rereleases every goddamn day of the week.

Eh, I think it still counts, personally. A couple years ago, Nintendo actually ran a twitter account as Layton, to promote the games.

I could see him making it as an assist trophy. Pointing at people and shit.

x 3: Huh, so where are my Gotcha Force sequels? Look, I get that hating on Capcom is the 'in' thing to do, like hating on Justin Bieber, but could we not have it enter every fucking video game thread? It would be much appreciated.

edited 25th Aug '12 9:14:18 PM by EviIPaladin

"Evii is right though" -Saturn "I didn't know you were a bitch Evii." -Lior Val

Normally I'd agree with you, but making fun of Capcom's penchant for remakes is actually much older than the popularity of hating on them. It dates back all the way to the early '90s, with their gazillion versions of Street Fighter II.

Also, for all intents and purposes, if Nintendo publishes it, it's a Nintendo property. Otherwise, Kirby, Pokemon, and Fire Emblem wouldn't qualify.

Does that make Cooking Mama a Nintendo property, seeing as it's developed by Majesco and published by Nintendo?

It's not published by Nintendo. It's published by Majesco. The developers are a group called Cooking Mama Limited, formerly Office Create.

Oh. The more you know...

And Knowing Is Half the Battle!

Sorry, though.

I was making fun of capcom's regular habits. Not their recent....difficulties.

Notice how "difficulties" has the letters d, l and c in it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8yAjWvAqyM

Their disc-locked dlc's for S Fx Tekken was a joke though

edited 25th Aug '12 9:28:24 PM by BrickRoad

"I'm afraid I just blue myself" - Tobias Funke

Okay, now we're going into the zone we didn't want to go to.

wait, I get it. Cleveeer

edited 25th Aug '12 9:30:12 PM by Theboywonder

Mega Man in Smash Bros. makes so much sense it's not even funny.

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

...

So, what do you guys think would happen if the next Smash had diagonal moves added?

Lampshade Hanging: It's a lifestyle.

I don't think it would be a good idea, the potential for screw ups seems to high.

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

What he said. That wouldn't exactly work in a game where every directional input you make matters and messing up is really easy.

For Those who Seek the Thrill of Death: A Dramatic SMT3 Hard Playthrough

Depends on how the Wii U sticks are designed, too.

You do not win regardless of who you pick in a well balanced game. You have the same chance of winning, which is a good thing.

What I think you mean to say is that you don't want balance at the cost of diversity, which I can understand.

But they shouldn't make any effort to make the game at all unbalanced on purpose*

, that's just stupid.

In a game with a cast as wide and diverse as Smash Bros., there's probably gonna be some unbalances no matter what they do. This is not a good reason for them to slack off on balancing, especially with such a large tier gap they have right now.

Put me in motion, drink the potion, use the lotion, drain the ocean, cause commotion, fake devotion, entertain a notion, be Nova Scotian

Hyper balanced does make the game entirely boring, though. Why?

Because there is no reason to get better at all if there's no challenge in it. Having a tier list in a fighting game means people will either concentrate on the high tiers, or find new strategies for the lower ones. That's what makes the game diverse and worth playing alone. The challenge itself. If everybody is entirely equal, then why bother to evolve your game? All that matters is if you have perfect timing and that's it. There is no characters to counter. Whoever you pick... doesn't matter.

So everybody picks their favorites, and wins/loses. Potential means nothing if there's nothing to beat by gaining more. The only reason playstyles evolve is because there's something better to fight against, making the new playstyle worth practicing. Tier lists, quite literally, make the game better in this case. Or specifically, lack of balance in itself.(better balanced is good. Perfect balance turns the game stale) Part of the skill of being a player isn't "practice that combo multiple times and that's it", it's also character choice and why they're better for that situation. That's a skill that's been in Smash Bros. for a long time. There is absolutely nothing wrong with sticking to your character. But you won't get better as a player... if there's nothing hard to fight or any reason to quite literally get better.

Non-Perfect balance, quite literally, invites unique playstyles and reasons for players to strive for perfection. Even if it's not possible, as long as nothing is ridiculously unbalanced(like Brawl is, mainly Meta Knight and Ganondorf), you know you can face tougher stuff and get better.

Quest 64 thread

^ That portrays a very flat interpretation of not only how skill works, but how game design in terms of balancing works. A balanced game in no way removes the challenge from a fight - rather, it removes Fake Difficulty coming from having some characters have less ground in a fight than others.

A more balanced fight would instead likely be more challenging, as all characters would be on an even field and players would thus have more stake in strategy than complacency.

edited 26th Aug '12 4:38:58 PM by KnownUnknown

"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.

Uh...can you give me an example where a competitive game has ever been like this? Like...ever?

For Those who Seek the Thrill of Death: A Dramatic SMT3 Hard Playthrough

If everybody is equal, there is zero challenge or reason to ever choose any other character. There is no incentive to get better outside of memorizing combos. Why bother getting better? Not like there's any real challenge.

The less balance there is, the more reason to make a character better to fight the harder ones. BTW, every game with a cast that is not perfectly balanced has always worked like that and always will.

That's how the game evolves tourney-wise. Players take a worse character and find ways to make them better. Sometimes that supposedly worse character might be better than we thought. That's how tiers change. Because everybody tries out something different and has a reason to do it(the imbalance itself and a character that is actually harder to beat)

Being hyper-balanced is really no different from having one playable character. Being fairly balance means that inequality(which is what makes fighting games good tourney-wise) helps players do more than just "get better" at combos/memorization. It means they find new ways and now have the incentive to beat a harder opponent.

When everything is perfectly balanced, we hit our practice peak really early on. There is not enough diversity or any reason to get better because it becomes stale very fast. The more balanced it is, the faster the game gets stale.

The less balance there is, the more players find new and unique ways to win. That's why imbalance is absolutely needed.

Brawl. Why bother getting better at your character when you know you'll always win. Mainly Meta Knight. Players not using him have a reason to get better, to beat MK himself. And weaker tier characters are practiced and need unique and interesting ways to win to fight the higher tier characters. They only bother to do this because of the lack of perfect balance.

edited 26th Aug '12 5:01:37 PM by Hydronix

Quest 64 thread