@Danksparce Fair enough, but just to be clear, I'm with Einherjar on this one; the topic itself invites discussion over gender politics when it says that something "appears to suggest" a female or male.
I may have gotten a little over-heated, and for that I can apologize, but please, don't blame us for bringing up gender politics when the topic itself invites it with the headline alone. That's all I ask.
@datamonkey Nope. They're also showing off Tokyo Mirage Sessions, Paper Mario: Color Splash, and a few other things.
There's also rumors of more Mario Kart 8 DLC on the horizon, though whether or not that'll be shown at E3 as a surprise is completely up in the air.
But basically, no, it's not all Zelda and Pokemon. That's a common lie that's being spread around to make it seem like Nintendo's got only one or two games to talk about at all this year.
@PlywoodStick Whether or not they would affect his character would, again, probably depend quite a bit upon the region he was born into, since physical and personality changes are greatly influenced by the region in which one is born.
Take the Gerudo for example. Or the Zora or Ruto [the race, not the princess].
Heck, for an even more extreme example, take the Koroks from Wind Waker, who are descended from the Kokiri and changed their entire bodies, heck practically their entire racial type, when they came to live upon the sea.
I think it's fair to say that having Link become a less...what was the word you used? Aryan? Ah screw it, I'm gonna stick to terms I actually know.XD
I think it's fair to say that having Link become a less Hylian character would probably also change his characterization to reflect the region, and possibly the race, that he would be born into.[Although I doubt it would affect his Silent Protag archetype, since that seems more like a development decision for the sake of artistic aesthetics, and possibly to avoid offending players with one badly done voice or for avoiding more costly budgets, than anything else]
But since he seems to have an inclination towards being born with the previously described traits, i think the likelihood of Nintendo deciding to include a darker-skinned Link is highly unlikely.
Thought it would be pretty funny if there was a way of getting different degrees of sun tan in a future Zelda game, to account for that player choice without screwing with his characterization/archetype, or the lore or birth regions or all that complicated jazz too much.XD
Well, keep in mind that Spirit Tracks, Wind Waker, and a few other Zelda games allowed us to control other characters, at least in a minimal fashion, so it's not as if the concept of being able to play as a female character with Link at her side, or staying behind in a village somewhere, would be outside of Nintendo's range of experience.
If they can shove Zelda's soul into a suit of armor, then why not let a Linkle-like character journey alongside Link or vice-versa in Zelda U?
@PlywoodStick I suppose that depends on whether or not we're taking birth regions or differences in body structure owing to era into account, as far as Hyrule's history is concerned.
But then we'd have to go deep into the lore of Zelda U, at least, to find out which areas of Hyrule in Zelda U's particular era have the higher concentrations of people with different/darker skin or body traits, and whether or not any extraneous factors like the birth of any other evil individuals influencing the birth of the hero in a certain region come into play, and given how little info we have of Zelda U's overworld regional structure, and how much the land masses of Hyrule change between games, that's basically impossible to accurately account for...
But going by the past, it seems that the Spirit of the Hero tends to conform to a fairly narrow set of physical characteristics whenever it is reborn into the world; a Hylian male with brown or blond hair, blue eyes, white skin, and overall courageous demeanor, usually starts out naive and has to be taught the ways of the hero through adventure itself.
I don't think there's ever been a case where Link was in a position to inhabit a body of darker skin color, and contextually speaking it seems like the majority of Hylians are white so the odds of him being born as one of darker skin are very unlikely, especially if we consider the likelihood of the Spirit of the Hero having some sort of inclination towards those white blond/brown haired blue eyed Hylian body types, since it's what his ancestors almost all looked like.
@TheDavyStar I think that as long as Link is still present within the world when the female character is chosen, possibly even helping out during certain sections of the main story, it would fulfill both conditions simultaneously. But that might be expecting too much from Nintendo, so I'll just say that, at the very worst, Nintendo should just stick to what has worked since the series started, and not open the can of worms that selectable gender would open up. I mean, next we'd have people asking for fat, anorexic, trans, etc etc etc player options for Link. Allowing gender-swap is a slippery slope that would do more harm than good as far as Zelda is concerned. A female playable character aside from Link? Sure, if it's done right, could be fun. But nothing more than that.
@CharlieSmile If both are true, then that's even more reason why your opinion regarding Link's importance in The Legend of Zelda should not be taken seriously. Because it's been established that left wing feminists don't want equality with men, they want sublimation OF men. But that's a separate topic that I won't be going into any deeper, because it's a pointless endeavor.
I'll only say this; the middle ground between not allowing a female to be playable, and gender-swapping Link, would be to allow players the chance to play as either a new female that isn't Link, or as an established female of the series such as Zelda.
This middle ground simultaneously caters both to people who want to show respect to the series and to Link as a character, and to people who want the option of playing as a gender they can more easily identify with.
Gender-swapping Link does nothing but harm in comparison.
@PlywoodStick The thing about that, though, is that we're no longer in those times, and Zelda's fantasy world doesn't take after those dark-age times closely enough for what you said to be applicable.
Both in the modern day, and in Zelda's storyline, there's no need for the use of the term Hero in any sort of gender neutral fashion. Also, by doing so, it ignores the fact that Zelda has always been female, and that both Link and Ganondorf have both always been male, and that that's never truly been an issue that needs "solving". To be quite honest, there's more detriment than gain in gender-swapping Link, when making a new female protagonist that exists alongside Link in the same storyline to play as, or letting us play as an established female alongside Link, would accomplish the same thing without disrespecting Link as a set characterization.
@TheDavyStar That's like saying Laura Croft has always been a blank slate.
Skyward Sword Link is anything but a blank slate. Same with most of the other Link's in the franchise; even if it's just in artwork, or in the tone set for the story, Link has always had a very easy-to-see personality to him. It might not have always been the most interesting one, in early years, but it was there. And it's only gotten more pronounced as the years have gone on and we've gained more tools with which to allow Link to express himself.
He's not a blank slate anymore, no matter how much you'd like him to be.
Turning him into a girl would be disrespectful to him as a character.
And even if you were right, even if Link were a blank slate that could be easily exchanged, that would still be disrespectful to fans of the franchise, who deserve a NEW female character, or at the very least an ESTABLISHED one like Zelda or Linkle, to play as.
A gender-swapped clone is lazy feminist pandering, in comparison to a new or established female as a choice.
It should not happen And something important WOULD be lost; the integrity of the series and the company behind it. Because gender-swapping Link is nothing more than pandering to feminists.
But there is a delightfully good middle ground that the former [those that want the option of gender choice and/or resent not having said choice] still show resentment towards.
The middle ground of allowing the choice of a new female character created specifically for the game, with her own personality and background, or an established female like Zelda, to play as from the get-go.
Either of those choices would accomplish the goal of giving gender choice, without disrespecting the series.
But it seems a lot of these gender politicians really don't want that and just directly want Link, as a male personage, killed off in his entirety.
@dizzy_boy Yes, but that's what makes it glorious. The RPG aspects only make it better, and I'm really looking forward to seeing more upgrade options and possibly even more weapons to choose from. It's a fantastic title to just dive into with buddies for a night of mindless SHMUP fun.
@Mr_Zurkon This might not make sense to you now, but when you hit 32 and start appreciating how difficult it is to buy literally ALL of your own clothes... A fresh pair of woolies under the tree is actually quite welcome. Especially if they're night socks with individual toes. Damn, those things are warm and comfy... #oldmanthings #thanksmom...no,really,thanks.
@A01 To be fair, people were saying that Bayonetta, let alone Bay 2, would never happen on the Wii U, either. We all know how that prediction turned out.
Who knows what's possible anymore, honestly? I'd get Darksiders 3 on Wii U if it did become a thing. Heck I might even go for the first Darksiders, since I own and like the second game on Wii U already and would love to expand my knowledge of the series a bit, given the opportunity on a current gen console like the Wii U.
@JaxonH "They didn't buy Splinter Cell Blacklist, or Rayman Legends, they didn't buy any other 3rd party port either."
Yeah, because most of the third party ports on Wii U had issues that did not warrant a purchase, or released at too high a price for their age.
And avoiding a game because it's not receiving the same treatment as its twins on other systems, is not just some "excuse".
That's on the developers, and anyone saying otherwise is not putting the responsibility for bad ports on the right shoulders, because it's THIRD PARTIES that decide the content of said ports and the prices they go at.
And when you make the stupid business decision of trying to sell crap ports at new-game prices, especially after you've already made mistakes in the past that have basically lost all trust from a console's fanbase, you're going to see not only a drop off in sales for those initial efforts, but also a butterfly effect, wherein there's not enough trust from the console base to make future titles sell well either, unless harder efforts, over a longer term, are put in.
Ubisoft didn't make those harder efforts, and neither did the majority of the other third party scum that skipped town the moment they realized Wii U owners had had enough of their BS.
"What's going on elsewhere on other consoles is irrelevant."
No, it is not.
If it were, then those games would have sold better than they did.
But facts are facts; most of the games were old ports with issues, and DID NOT JUSTIFY A FULL PRICE TAG.
Wii U players don't "owe dues" to third parties for late, crappy ports.
If the multiplats are old when measured by the time of their INITIAL RELEASE, or have other issues like missing content or horrible optimization, then they should NOT be sold at new game prices.
PERIOD.
That's BASIC BUSINESS.
You don't go selling a slightly rotten fruit at the same price as a fresh piece if you want it to sell at all, and you don't go selling a game that's been ON A REGION'S MARKET FOR AGES as if it's JUST RECENTLY ARRIVED.
The console that a game has been on before makes literally no difference; a release date is a release date, and unless it's something like an overseas import that never had a chance of selling out here in the first place, old games should never go for full price.
ESPECIALLY if they want to entice people who've already played it elsewhere to double-dip for it.
Don't enable third party BS by pretending we somehow "owe them dues" for old games.
We don't owe them JACK.
ESPECIALLY if those old games don't even offer the OPTION of buying content that the others got the opportunity to purchase, like with Black Ops II.
If they want new game money, they put out new games.
Not wait a year then expect everyone to pony up the same price a second or third time depending on the console.
@JaxonH
It's no better for them to be doing that with Tomb Raider than Ubisoft did with Watch Dogs.
This isn't a "Wii U gamers" thing, this is a "Bad developer decisions" thing.
Delaying the game when there was no reason to do so for the Wii U was already a mark against them, but then they made Wii U gamers pay the same price as if it weren't already a year old game that people had already been playing on their PS3's and 360's. [Many Wii U owners were also multiconsole owners, ya know]
I can't recall precisely, but I believe there was also some optional content missing.
But I digress; the point is that Wii U gamers shouldn't have been treated any differently than the others.
If they're only going to charge $20 on any other system, for the exact same game, then there's no reason for them to scalp Wii U owners just because they released it late there.
When it came out on the Wii U, it was not a brand new game any longer.
Ubisoft treated Wii U owners as if they were desperate idiots that would buy anything they shoved down their throats.
You don't get to suddenly decide that it's fair to make Wii U owners pay more than others for a year old game.
And, again, the same goes for cases like Tomb Raider coming to PS4; that's NOT a new game. Anyone wanting to play it has the option of picking it up for the XBone or PC.
Their sales bombed because of it, and I'm hoping it taught them a valuable lesson about how they should NOT go about things when approaching the NX with their games.
@gcunit I would be able to agree with you more easily if it weren't for the fact that it was purposefully delayed, then sold for the same price almost a year later, when other versions were already being sold for less.
It was a mark against the developer to treat the Wii U fanbase as if they were starved for Watch Dogs and were desperate enough to pay full price for it en masse a full year after Ubisoft had obviously stopped caring about the game.
The full game itself wasn't really worth that high a price to begin with. I got it for just about $20 and I felt that that price was just right, for the content on offer, but I would never have bought it for $50, let alone $60 or more.
@SLIGEACH_EIRE I don't know where you live, but here in the good old US of A, 7 out of 10 is a great score.
Let's break the 1 to 10 scale down to make this productive, instead of this turning into a stupid flame war between us, shall we?
1 = Trash. No redeeming values, not even a single quirk worth mentioning.
2 = Garbage, but with maybe one or two interesting points worth mentioning.
3 = "So bad it could be fun." Generally a bad game, but might be worth watching a Let's Play for.
4 = Slightly below average. Similar to a lot of other games that do the same thing it's doing, only better. Worth a rental at least.
5 = Average. A fun experience, but not anything special.
6 = Above average. Has one or two special points that put it slightly ahead of other similar games.
7 = Great. A game worth owning that does most things right, and might have a surprise or two, but will still be something you'll trade later on if something better comes along, and may still has a few flaws that bog it down from being something of the highest grades.
8 = Excellent. A game that will stick to your collection and be remembered fondly. Might even have done a few things to leave a name for itself in the hearts of gamers, but is still bronze metal material with a few flaws.
9 = Incredible. Very few flaws to bog down the experience, has a large following that it earned based off of its own merits, and is probably a game that makes players want a system.
10 = Genre-definers. Games that no system's library is really complete without, that do many things others of its genre can only follow along behind or imitate, but rarely duplicate at the same level of entertainment value, while standing out as a game that most gamers of its era are never going to forget, and very few will deny that it did something to shape a generation.
By your own definition, if a 7 on a 1 to 10 scale is crap, then there's no point in rating any game on anything other than a 1 to 3 scale, because anything below the top three doesn't matter.
Which is bullcrap.
7 is a great score.
Most people know this, yourself included, even if you don't admit to it, after logical examination of why calling 7 out of ten anything but "great" is just illogical.
@SLIGEACH_EIRE Please. 5 is "average" and 6 is "above average". 7 is "great" territory by the standards of anyone that knows how a 1 to 10 scale actually works; this whole "7 isn't that great" mentality is something passed on by people that either don't know how to use, or purposefully MIS-use, the 1 - 10 scale, by treating it the same way they would a 1-5 star scale.
@gcunit I owned it on Wii U, and I felt that it was mediocre. At best. It didn't do anything stupendously wrong, but it didn't do anything that justified releasing it so much later than other versions, either.
@ricklongo Not entirely. While what you say about one being pushed back and the other not having a set date to begin with is true, the end result, that of neither one showing tons of details, remains the same.
And to be blunt, Zelda U's first delay was being pushed back for improvements; we still don't know whether or not Nintendo will release the Wii U version earlier than the NX version, or if the NX version will have stuff the Wii U version won't.
Isn't it ironic how holding back info on this forms a positive impression, yet holding back info on the new Zelda is somehow just ticking a lot of people off?
Sometimes I just don't understand what goes through the minds of today's gamers.XD
Having said that, I'm really looking forward to this game's release.
@Mr_Zurkon I get the feeling it will be. Keep in mind; the Wii had ten times the userbase of other consoles in its gen, and yet games like CoD still didn't sell well because they didn't get their full range of content.
Even if the NX turns out to nab a huge opening install base, third parties will just screw up again. It's the norm for them on Nintendo home consoles, and has been since way back in the NES era when Nintendo had to be heavy-handed with them just to guarantee some semblance of consistent quality. [In hindsight it probably wasn't a good idea to be as heavy-handed as they were, but it really was needed at the time, all circumstances considered.]
@EngieBengie I beg to differ, considering I've seen plenty of exciting matches on that stage between teams of two. Having two teams of four will only make it even more fun to watch for me. Stalling will just get them boo'd off the stage, anyways; I'm sure they aren't going to resort to that.
@happylittlepigs That's where the larger stages come into play; it allows the teams to spread out and make things less confusing. I play 8 player Smash quite often and rarely have any issues keeping track of myself, even in battles where there's others playing the same character as me; I'm sure it's similar for others. You've just got to have good concentration and awareness. Sure there's differences between the size and scope of a football team compared to this, but the fundamentals are the same; the teams are big and the plays look complicated, but when the teams are good at what they do and everyone knows their role, there's a definite method to the madness and you get to see a lot of amazing plays come out.
It can be the same for Smash; it's not guaranteed to just be deemed a casual party game from this. If anything, the Smash community is already considered one that's on the same level as other competitive fighting games, and this will just allow that scene to spread out further into something more ambitious.
I'm not saying it's guaranteed to succeed or anything, but we really shouldn't assume that 8 player smash will look "too casual to be competitive" before we've even seen how it holds up.
Especially considering how well structured the rules are thus far.
@Damo Too right. Shin-en ALONE has done better work at making gorgeous-looking games on the Wii U than some of these other bigger AAA third parties have done with 10X the budget and resources.
It really speaks poorly of the big wigs when they're so focused on making ports for everything that they can't even realize that the path to better sales on a Nintendo console lies on games built from the ground up for the tech.
@Geno-Breaker I'm betting even fewer of them know anything about how 8 player Smash works on stages with hazards, let alone how to coordinate well with a team of more than two.
ROFL, have you even PLAYED in 8 player Smash mode?
Many of the stages in the game LOSE their stage hazards in 8 player mode.
Heck, ORBITAL GATE ASSAULT isn't even AVAILABLE in 8 player Smash unless you use Omega mode, which completely cuts out all of the changing mechanics and provides a flatter, more traditional stage.
Similarly, the Kalos Pokemon League stage only offers Omega form in 8 player Smash, which, again, means no stage hazards.
And stages like Norfair, which normally have a hazard, don't use their hazard in 8 player mode, to preserve frame rates.
The only stages that don't entirely cut out any form of hazards, are The Great Cave Offensive, DK 75M, and Palutena's Temple.
And Castle Siege is the only non-Omega stage available where transitions can happen like they do in Orbital, and the transitions are way less traumatic and spaced out than they are in Orbital.
So in all honesty, no; it's not a terrible idea.
There are too few stages in 8 player mode with hazards that are unpredictable to be worried about them in 8 player Smash, and in fact most of them can be used to a strategic team's advantage.
The one reason you had that I can somewhat agree with, is the one about it being hectic, but that's where having a solid team with solid team-work comes into play.
Football has teams twice this size and is twice as hectic, but there's unity in their chaos because they work well together.
That's what the players of this mode of Smash are trying to accomplish by going pro, and it has a good chance of making it happen.
@EngieBengie By "wider range", I mean stages that do more to test the player's sense for battle than just giving them a few odd platforms and a flat main area.
Temple is a good example; yes, there's no stage hazards, but the many variations in height and shape of the landscape form into areas where more strategies can be brought into play.
It shows more skill on the part of the player to be able to take advantage of those differences in landscape and whether or not they can lure their opponent into a disadvantageous situation because of it. Most of the "legal stages" aren't honestly that much more exciting than FD. Having a wider range of stages makes the competitions more entertaining to watch, and by extension makes this particular type of competitive match more likely to see recurrences through larger audience participation. The excitement will make it more popular, which will make it more likely to become a main-stay in the competitive scene.
I think I need to set a goal of living to 97 now. If only to have one more year of life to enjoy the games that his incredible talent brought so much life to...
I wonder if these matches will have friendly fire on or off? Friendly Fire has the potential for letting team-mates save each other, but it could also screw them over if they get a little too happy-go-lucky with crowd-clearing attacks, and would make it harder for them to take advantage of enemies that a team-mate has grabbed onto without hurting their allies in the process.
@EngieBengie I find it sad that a serious competitive player would camp in a walk-off zone in the first place. You'd think most of them would avoid that temptation for the sake of allowing a much wider range of stages to be played upon...
@Vandy The ones that were rejected were either not realizable or were not above Bay in votes.
That's not heresay; that's facts.
You can keep saying that Bay was "too niche to possibly be the winner" and presenting straw-man arguments with weak "evidence" all you like, but it doesn't make it any less of a fact that she won the polls above any character you yourself wanted as far as characters that were realizable, especially within the time-frame they had to come up with good move-sets, for them outside of easy specials, and the deals they were able to make with their owners.
So you go on believing that Sakurai was BSing us with the poll all you like.
I'll go on believing the fact that Bay won that poll fair and square, through the votes of people that truly wanted her in after her appearance on the Wii U with Bay 2.
@AlexSora89 I like your post, great points, but you REALLY need to insert some paragraphs, my friend. Walls of text are never easier to read than a well-spaced story.
@Vandy Again, you really need to let go of that hatred you've got for Sakurai.
Yes, realizable.
As in, Shrek couldn't get in, no matter how many people voted for him.
And if a character was realizable, then Bayonetta, overall, got more votes than them.
Sakurai would have chosen Shovel Knight if he had been voted way over Bayonetta in total worldwide, because that's a realizable character, too.
But he wasn't above Bay in votes.
Nor was any other character.
The word "realizable" was not an excuse.
It was a condition.
One that you have to learn to accept if you ever hope to move on from this unreasonable straw-man's argument-turned-grudge that you've got against a poll that your choices obviously didn't win in.
Bay is in because she won the poll.
If you're going to blame anyone, blame the people that didn't vote for your most desired character, but quit heckling for no valid reason.
@Vandy No, Sakurai really doesn't.
And his love or hate of Fire Emblem characters have no relation to Bayonetta winning the poll; that's just a ridiculous stretch.
Also, if he were afraid of "backlash", he would have gone all out to include the top three from the poll regardless of whether or not they were ridiculous.
Again, Sakurai has NO REASON TO LIE about this.
He doesn't NEED to justify anything to you or to anyone; it's his game and the poll was already a massive service to fans in the first place that he was under no obligation to even CREATE.
And as to the random "respected smasher", his research and compilations are still nothing more than assumptions, and not official numbers.
We don't need the data to show that Bay won the poll; we KNOW she did, because SHE'S IN THE DAMN GAME due to winning it!
Not because of some invisible whim conjured up by a bunch of hate-filled straw-man arguments regarding Sakurai's biases, but because SHE WAS THE MOST VOTED UPON OUT OF THE REALIZABLE CHARACTERS.
You really just need to get over this hatred of Sakurai; it's not his fault that someone you like more than Bayonetta didn't get in.
She won the most votes out of all characters that were actually realizable for the series.
THAT'S THE FACT OF IT.
Whether you can accept that fact or not doesn't change matters.
No one here is placing Sakurai on any sort of pedestal, because there's no need to.
We're just telling you how it is; a bunch of randoms on the internet have far less of a clue about the official poll numbers than Sakurai, and that puts Sakurai's words above theirs whether you can all accept his words or not.
Bayonetta DID win the poll, and she's in the game because she won.
THAT'S THE END RESULT.
@Vandy Except it wasn't, and it's the logical choice to accept the word of the guy who was most likely to have SEEN THE ACTUAL RESULTS.
And for every internet comment you can show that didn't include Bayonetta, I can show you just as many where Bayonetta WAS asked for, amongst realizable characters.
Without the official numbers to read out ourselves, however, there's no evidence OTHER than Sakurai's word to prove or disprove it, so asking for evidence is silly, since his word is far more trust-worthy than anyone saying "I've seen all these votes for all these others in comments, so she can't possibly have won!". -_-;;
Again, just because you can't accept Sakurai's explanation doesn't make him a liar, nor does it make the poll a sham.
She was the top pick.
The creator, of all people, knows that better than anyone here does, and has absolutely no reason, nor gain, to lie about it.
She won the poll.
Accept that much and move on from it; maybe the NX version of Smash will host another poll and you'll get someone you actually want to be included.
Damn it, interns!
Why must you rise up against your unpaid wages?!XD
In all seriousness, I hope someone else picks up the trade-mark for this.
Hopefully, someone who can actually afford to pay the sla-err, interns they employ.
@Vandy No.
No they did not.
In Europe, and overall worldwide, Bayonetta was the No.1 amongst all realizable characters.
The only reason you're saying Sakurai lied about this is because you had characters you wanted more; that doesn't make you right and it doesn't make Sakurai a liar.
The only thing I can think of, is an alien civilization that gets the idea to create its own planet, civilization, etc, out of materials similar to Tetris blocks, with some weird mysterious energy source running through them.
This energy source becomes a source of conflict, and something threatens to make that energy run out of control.
If it does, the planet they created would start to disappear.
One row at a time, from the core on up.
Until there's nothing left.
At which point, the energy would explode outward to cause all sorts of mayhem in the universe.
Movie one would be about the failure to stop this energy from running wild, due to an idiotic evil villain type thinking he can control it for his own purposes and failing to do so, and the subsequent destruction of the planet as the energy escapes outwards, while a small group of survivors escapes from the ensuing destruction, heading towards a planet that is rumored to have some sort of ancient information tied to stopping the energy.
Movie two: the energy reaches Earth, ironically, but not unexpectedly, the very planet that holds the key information that could stop the energy wave, and starts infecting the planet, turning things into Tetris blocks and inseminating the dangerous energy throughout the planet like a virus.
At the end, the heroes of the film, both Earthlings and aliens alike, manage to reach some sort of "core", but are halted and turned back by the defensive measures of the sentience behind the Tetris energy, who turns out to be the same villain that failed to control it in the first place, now coincidentally fused with the energy that exploded outward when the Tetris planet that the alien heroes came from was destroyed by the rampant energy.
Before driving the protagonists off with the defenses, it is explained that he feels he should be a God, and that every time the Tetris energy runs rampant and destroys something, he gets just a little bit stronger from the ensuing energy feedback.
Thus his plan; destroy as much as he can, and when he's strong enough to form an immortal body made of Tetris energy, use it to take over the known universe.
Movie three: Having failed to stop the Tetris sentience with their own power, the alien and Earthling heroes and heroines now begin searching for the rumored ancient information that could stop the Tetris energy from completely taking over Earth.
Love and close friendships form between the heroes and heroines in a trial-by-fire, as the minions of the sentience do everything in their power to stop the group of saviors from finding the information that could halt the sentience's plans.
In a race against time, they're led to a museum where a single black-and-white game boy, which somehow survived a nuclear war and still works despite looking distinctly half-melted [this is actually a real thing; look it up!] somehow managed to absorb energy from the Tetris planet long before it ever exploded [apparently the energy is much more prevalent in the Universe than everyone thought; potential for more sequels follows this] and now holds the key data needed to stop the Tetris sentience.
They race back to the core, with a link cable, fresh batteries, and the melted GB in hand, connect it to the main computer of the sentience after somehow getting past its defenses, and suddenly, holographic screens pop up in front of the whole team, showing different sections of the planet alongside, you guessed it, a complete game of Tetris in front of each individual protagonist, with a set amount of lines that all of them MUST clear.
It's a race against the clock, and the sentience, to clear a certain amount of lines before the Sentience can fully transform the planet into one made of Tetris blocks.
Cue dramatic music and the scene of the planet slowly recovering as the team rapidly clears line after line on the holographic screens, finally culminating in a moment where they've cleared so many lines that there's literally no more energy left, and the sentience finally dies as the black and white game boy fades away in a multicolored light.
Some closure happens between the various protagonists, and then the aforementioned "the universe still has Tetris energy in it!" thing is brought into play when the beam of light that the melted GB disappeared into, is shown flying off to a whole new planet...
Was the villain really killed? Is this a new threat, or a chance at a new adventure and possibly a benefit to Earth through recovery, and reformation, of the energy into something positive? Or will it be just a continuation of the need to stamp out Tetris energy once and for all?
.....
Too much?
I just started typing and then I couldn't seem to stop...^^;;
Comments 537
Re: E3 2016: Nintendo E3 Zelda Badge Appears to Suggest Male and Female Link
@Danksparce Fair enough, but just to be clear, I'm with Einherjar on this one; the topic itself invites discussion over gender politics when it says that something "appears to suggest" a female or male.
I may have gotten a little over-heated, and for that I can apologize, but please, don't blame us for bringing up gender politics when the topic itself invites it with the headline alone.
That's all I ask.
Re: Guide: A Nintendo Fan's Breakdown of E3 2016's Press Conferences and Events
@datamonkey Nope.
They're also showing off Tokyo Mirage Sessions, Paper Mario: Color Splash, and a few other things.
There's also rumors of more Mario Kart 8 DLC on the horizon, though whether or not that'll be shown at E3 as a surprise is completely up in the air.
But basically, no, it's not all Zelda and Pokemon. That's a common lie that's being spread around to make it seem like Nintendo's got only one or two games to talk about at all this year.
Re: E3 2016: Nintendo E3 Zelda Badge Appears to Suggest Male and Female Link
@PlywoodStick Whether or not they would affect his character would, again, probably depend quite a bit upon the region he was born into, since physical and personality changes are greatly influenced by the region in which one is born.
Take the Gerudo for example. Or the Zora or Ruto [the race, not the princess].
Heck, for an even more extreme example, take the Koroks from Wind Waker, who are descended from the Kokiri and changed their entire bodies, heck practically their entire racial type, when they came to live upon the sea.
I think it's fair to say that having Link become a less...what was the word you used? Aryan? Ah screw it, I'm gonna stick to terms I actually know.XD
I think it's fair to say that having Link become a less Hylian character would probably also change his characterization to reflect the region, and possibly the race, that he would be born into.[Although I doubt it would affect his Silent Protag archetype, since that seems more like a development decision for the sake of artistic aesthetics, and possibly to avoid offending players with one badly done voice or for avoiding more costly budgets, than anything else]
But since he seems to have an inclination towards being born with the previously described traits, i think the likelihood of Nintendo deciding to include a darker-skinned Link is highly unlikely.
Thought it would be pretty funny if there was a way of getting different degrees of sun tan in a future Zelda game, to account for that player choice without screwing with his characterization/archetype, or the lore or birth regions or all that complicated jazz too much.XD
Re: E3 2016: Nintendo E3 Zelda Badge Appears to Suggest Male and Female Link
@World
Well, keep in mind that Spirit Tracks, Wind Waker, and a few other Zelda games allowed us to control other characters, at least in a minimal fashion, so it's not as if the concept of being able to play as a female character with Link at her side, or staying behind in a village somewhere, would be outside of Nintendo's range of experience.
If they can shove Zelda's soul into a suit of armor, then why not let a Linkle-like character journey alongside Link or vice-versa in Zelda U?
Re: E3 2016: Nintendo E3 Zelda Badge Appears to Suggest Male and Female Link
@PlywoodStick I suppose that depends on whether or not we're taking birth regions or differences in body structure owing to era into account, as far as Hyrule's history is concerned.
But then we'd have to go deep into the lore of Zelda U, at least, to find out which areas of Hyrule in Zelda U's particular era have the higher concentrations of people with different/darker skin or body traits, and whether or not any extraneous factors like the birth of any other evil individuals influencing the birth of the hero in a certain region come into play, and given how little info we have of Zelda U's overworld regional structure, and how much the land masses of Hyrule change between games, that's basically impossible to accurately account for...
But going by the past, it seems that the Spirit of the Hero tends to conform to a fairly narrow set of physical characteristics whenever it is reborn into the world; a Hylian male with brown or blond hair, blue eyes, white skin, and overall courageous demeanor, usually starts out naive and has to be taught the ways of the hero through adventure itself.
I don't think there's ever been a case where Link was in a position to inhabit a body of darker skin color, and contextually speaking it seems like the majority of Hylians are white so the odds of him being born as one of darker skin are very unlikely, especially if we consider the likelihood of the Spirit of the Hero having some sort of inclination towards those white blond/brown haired blue eyed Hylian body types, since it's what his ancestors almost all looked like.
Re: E3 2016: Nintendo E3 Zelda Badge Appears to Suggest Male and Female Link
@TheDavyStar I think that as long as Link is still present within the world when the female character is chosen, possibly even helping out during certain sections of the main story, it would fulfill both conditions simultaneously.
But that might be expecting too much from Nintendo, so I'll just say that, at the very worst, Nintendo should just stick to what has worked since the series started, and not open the can of worms that selectable gender would open up.
I mean, next we'd have people asking for fat, anorexic, trans, etc etc etc player options for Link.
Allowing gender-swap is a slippery slope that would do more harm than good as far as Zelda is concerned.
A female playable character aside from Link? Sure, if it's done right, could be fun.
But nothing more than that.
Re: E3 2016: Nintendo E3 Zelda Badge Appears to Suggest Male and Female Link
@CharlieSmile If both are true, then that's even more reason why your opinion regarding Link's importance in The Legend of Zelda should not be taken seriously.
Because it's been established that left wing feminists don't want equality with men, they want sublimation OF men.
But that's a separate topic that I won't be going into any deeper, because it's a pointless endeavor.
I'll only say this; the middle ground between not allowing a female to be playable, and gender-swapping Link, would be to allow players the chance to play as either a new female that isn't Link, or as an established female of the series such as Zelda.
This middle ground simultaneously caters both to people who want to show respect to the series and to Link as a character, and to people who want the option of playing as a gender they can more easily identify with.
Gender-swapping Link does nothing but harm in comparison.
Re: E3 2016: Nintendo E3 Zelda Badge Appears to Suggest Male and Female Link
@PlywoodStick The thing about that, though, is that we're no longer in those times, and Zelda's fantasy world doesn't take after those dark-age times closely enough for what you said to be applicable.
Both in the modern day, and in Zelda's storyline, there's no need for the use of the term Hero in any sort of gender neutral fashion.
Also, by doing so, it ignores the fact that Zelda has always been female, and that both Link and Ganondorf have both always been male, and that that's never truly been an issue that needs "solving".
To be quite honest, there's more detriment than gain in gender-swapping Link, when making a new female protagonist that exists alongside Link in the same storyline to play as, or letting us play as an established female alongside Link, would accomplish the same thing without disrespecting Link as a set characterization.
Re: E3 2016: Nintendo E3 Zelda Badge Appears to Suggest Male and Female Link
@TheDavyStar That's like saying Laura Croft has always been a blank slate.
Skyward Sword Link is anything but a blank slate.
Same with most of the other Link's in the franchise; even if it's just in artwork, or in the tone set for the story, Link has always had a very easy-to-see personality to him.
It might not have always been the most interesting one, in early years, but it was there.
And it's only gotten more pronounced as the years have gone on and we've gained more tools with which to allow Link to express himself.
He's not a blank slate anymore, no matter how much you'd like him to be.
Turning him into a girl would be disrespectful to him as a character.
And even if you were right, even if Link were a blank slate that could be easily exchanged, that would still be disrespectful to fans of the franchise, who deserve a NEW female character, or at the very least an ESTABLISHED one like Zelda or Linkle, to play as.
A gender-swapped clone is lazy feminist pandering, in comparison to a new or established female as a choice.
It should not happen
And something important WOULD be lost; the integrity of the series and the company behind it.
Because gender-swapping Link is nothing more than pandering to feminists.
Re: E3 2016: Nintendo E3 Zelda Badge Appears to Suggest Male and Female Link
@JaxonH
Exactly.
Both are just as bad.
But there is a delightfully good middle ground that the former [those that want the option of gender choice and/or resent not having said choice] still show resentment towards.
The middle ground of allowing the choice of a new female character created specifically for the game, with her own personality and background, or an established female like Zelda, to play as from the get-go.
Either of those choices would accomplish the goal of giving gender choice, without disrespecting the series.
But it seems a lot of these gender politicians really don't want that and just directly want Link, as a male personage, killed off in his entirety.
Re: Leaked Legend of Zelda Image Shows Link Scaling New Heights
@gcunit I'd laugh, but then I'd just take a look at the astounding viewpoint from the top of that cliff, and say. "...Worth it."
Re: Random: This Real Life Parody of Super Mario Maker Reflects the Mascot's Never-Ending Struggle
I really hope and pray that no one tries to make a copy of that level at the end of the video. That's just ridiculous.XD
Re: Dual Core Gets European Release Date Along With Update in North America
@dizzy_boy Yes, but that's what makes it glorious.
The RPG aspects only make it better, and I'm really looking forward to seeing more upgrade options and possibly even more weapons to choose from.
It's a fantastic title to just dive into with buddies for a night of mindless SHMUP fun.
Re: The Nintendo@E3 2016 Miiverse Community is Live and Full of Unrealistic Expectations
@Mr_Zurkon This might not make sense to you now, but when you hit 32 and start appreciating how difficult it is to buy literally ALL of your own clothes...
A fresh pair of woolies under the tree is actually quite welcome.
Especially if they're night socks with individual toes.
Damn, those things are warm and comfy... #oldmanthings #thanksmom...no,really,thanks.
Re: Nordic Games is Actually Working on a Wii U Release
@A01 To be fair, people were saying that Bayonetta, let alone Bay 2, would never happen on the Wii U, either.
We all know how that prediction turned out.
Who knows what's possible anymore, honestly?
I'd get Darksiders 3 on Wii U if it did become a thing.
Heck I might even go for the first Darksiders, since I own and like the second game on Wii U already and would love to expand my knowledge of the series a bit, given the opportunity on a current gen console like the Wii U.
Re: For What It's Worth, Watch Dogs 2 Launches This November
@JaxonH "They didn't buy Splinter Cell Blacklist, or Rayman Legends, they didn't buy any other 3rd party port either."
Yeah, because most of the third party ports on Wii U had issues that did not warrant a purchase, or released at too high a price for their age.
And avoiding a game because it's not receiving the same treatment as its twins on other systems, is not just some "excuse".
That's on the developers, and anyone saying otherwise is not putting the responsibility for bad ports on the right shoulders, because it's THIRD PARTIES that decide the content of said ports and the prices they go at.
And when you make the stupid business decision of trying to sell crap ports at new-game prices, especially after you've already made mistakes in the past that have basically lost all trust from a console's fanbase, you're going to see not only a drop off in sales for those initial efforts, but also a butterfly effect, wherein there's not enough trust from the console base to make future titles sell well either, unless harder efforts, over a longer term, are put in.
Ubisoft didn't make those harder efforts, and neither did the majority of the other third party scum that skipped town the moment they realized Wii U owners had had enough of their BS.
"What's going on elsewhere on other consoles is irrelevant."
No, it is not.
If it were, then those games would have sold better than they did.
But facts are facts; most of the games were old ports with issues, and DID NOT JUSTIFY A FULL PRICE TAG.
Wii U players don't "owe dues" to third parties for late, crappy ports.
If the multiplats are old when measured by the time of their INITIAL RELEASE, or have other issues like missing content or horrible optimization, then they should NOT be sold at new game prices.
PERIOD.
That's BASIC BUSINESS.
You don't go selling a slightly rotten fruit at the same price as a fresh piece if you want it to sell at all, and you don't go selling a game that's been ON A REGION'S MARKET FOR AGES as if it's JUST RECENTLY ARRIVED.
The console that a game has been on before makes literally no difference; a release date is a release date, and unless it's something like an overseas import that never had a chance of selling out here in the first place, old games should never go for full price.
ESPECIALLY if they want to entice people who've already played it elsewhere to double-dip for it.
Don't enable third party BS by pretending we somehow "owe them dues" for old games.
We don't owe them JACK.
ESPECIALLY if those old games don't even offer the OPTION of buying content that the others got the opportunity to purchase, like with Black Ops II.
If they want new game money, they put out new games.
Not wait a year then expect everyone to pony up the same price a second or third time depending on the console.
Re: For What It's Worth, Watch Dogs 2 Launches This November
@JaxonH
It's no better for them to be doing that with Tomb Raider than Ubisoft did with Watch Dogs.
This isn't a "Wii U gamers" thing, this is a "Bad developer decisions" thing.
Delaying the game when there was no reason to do so for the Wii U was already a mark against them, but then they made Wii U gamers pay the same price as if it weren't already a year old game that people had already been playing on their PS3's and 360's. [Many Wii U owners were also multiconsole owners, ya know]
I can't recall precisely, but I believe there was also some optional content missing.
But I digress; the point is that Wii U gamers shouldn't have been treated any differently than the others.
If they're only going to charge $20 on any other system, for the exact same game, then there's no reason for them to scalp Wii U owners just because they released it late there.
When it came out on the Wii U, it was not a brand new game any longer.
Ubisoft treated Wii U owners as if they were desperate idiots that would buy anything they shoved down their throats.
You don't get to suddenly decide that it's fair to make Wii U owners pay more than others for a year old game.
And, again, the same goes for cases like Tomb Raider coming to PS4; that's NOT a new game. Anyone wanting to play it has the option of picking it up for the XBone or PC.
Their sales bombed because of it, and I'm hoping it taught them a valuable lesson about how they should NOT go about things when approaching the NX with their games.
Re: For What It's Worth, Watch Dogs 2 Launches This November
@gcunit I would be able to agree with you more easily if it weren't for the fact that it was purposefully delayed, then sold for the same price almost a year later, when other versions were already being sold for less.
It was a mark against the developer to treat the Wii U fanbase as if they were starved for Watch Dogs and were desperate enough to pay full price for it en masse a full year after Ubisoft had obviously stopped caring about the game.
The full game itself wasn't really worth that high a price to begin with. I got it for just about $20 and I felt that that price was just right, for the content on offer, but I would never have bought it for $50, let alone $60 or more.
Re: Review: Kick & Fennick (Wii U eShop)
@SLIGEACH_EIRE I don't know where you live, but here in the good old US of A, 7 out of 10 is a great score.
Let's break the 1 to 10 scale down to make this productive, instead of this turning into a stupid flame war between us, shall we?
1 = Trash. No redeeming values, not even a single quirk worth mentioning.
2 = Garbage, but with maybe one or two interesting points worth mentioning.
3 = "So bad it could be fun." Generally a bad game, but might be worth watching a Let's Play for.
4 = Slightly below average. Similar to a lot of other games that do the same thing it's doing, only better. Worth a rental at least.
5 = Average. A fun experience, but not anything special.
6 = Above average. Has one or two special points that put it slightly ahead of other similar games.
7 = Great. A game worth owning that does most things right, and might have a surprise or two, but will still be something you'll trade later on if something better comes along, and may still has a few flaws that bog it down from being something of the highest grades.
8 = Excellent. A game that will stick to your collection and be remembered fondly. Might even have done a few things to leave a name for itself in the hearts of gamers, but is still bronze metal material with a few flaws.
9 = Incredible. Very few flaws to bog down the experience, has a large following that it earned based off of its own merits, and is probably a game that makes players want a system.
10 = Genre-definers. Games that no system's library is really complete without, that do many things others of its genre can only follow along behind or imitate, but rarely duplicate at the same level of entertainment value, while standing out as a game that most gamers of its era are never going to forget, and very few will deny that it did something to shape a generation.
By your own definition, if a 7 on a 1 to 10 scale is crap, then there's no point in rating any game on anything other than a 1 to 3 scale, because anything below the top three doesn't matter.
Which is bullcrap.
7 is a great score.
Most people know this, yourself included, even if you don't admit to it, after logical examination of why calling 7 out of ten anything but "great" is just illogical.
Re: Review: Kick & Fennick (Wii U eShop)
@SLIGEACH_EIRE Please.
5 is "average" and 6 is "above average".
7 is "great" territory by the standards of anyone that knows how a 1 to 10 scale actually works; this whole "7 isn't that great" mentality is something passed on by people that either don't know how to use, or purposefully MIS-use, the 1 - 10 scale, by treating it the same way they would a 1-5 star scale.
Re: For What It's Worth, Watch Dogs 2 Launches This November
@gcunit I owned it on Wii U, and I felt that it was mediocre.
At best.
It didn't do anything stupendously wrong, but it didn't do anything that justified releasing it so much later than other versions, either.
I hold no expectations for its successor.
Re: Review: Kick & Fennick (Wii U eShop)
@SLIGEACH_EIRE 7 is not a bad score, though, even though you're alluding to it being so.
Re: ​Rumour: Nintendo UK Hints at More Mario Kart 8 DLC
@allav866 All of my YES!
That and the Wario Stadium dirt bike track from the N64; that track was my JAM.
The best thing they could do, though, is to make a free update with this DLC pack that FIXES BATTLE MODE to feature ARENAS instead of tracks.
If they did that, MK8 would officially become the best Mario Kart since Double Dash.
Re: Feature: Check Out The Team-Based Super Smash Bros. Competitive Format, The Gauntlet - Live!
Okay, I'm sold; this is WAY more fun to watch than regular team battles.XD
Re: EDGE Magazine's Look At Yooka-Laylee Explores a Dynamic World, Minecarts and Arcade Game Unlocks
@ricklongo Not entirely.
While what you say about one being pushed back and the other not having a set date to begin with is true, the end result, that of neither one showing tons of details, remains the same.
And to be blunt, Zelda U's first delay was being pushed back for improvements; we still don't know whether or not Nintendo will release the Wii U version earlier than the NX version, or if the NX version will have stuff the Wii U version won't.
Re: EDGE Magazine's Look At Yooka-Laylee Explores a Dynamic World, Minecarts and Arcade Game Unlocks
Isn't it ironic how holding back info on this forms a positive impression, yet holding back info on the new Zelda is somehow just ticking a lot of people off?
Sometimes I just don't understand what goes through the minds of today's gamers.XD
Having said that, I'm really looking forward to this game's release.
Re: Next Year's Mega Man Cartoon Looks Certain To Maintain Proud Tradition Of Annoying Fans
He looks constipated...XD
Re: LEGO Star Wars: The Force Awakens Has Neat DLC, Yet It's Not Listed for Wii U
@Mr_Zurkon I get the feeling it will be.
Keep in mind; the Wii had ten times the userbase of other consoles in its gen, and yet games like CoD still didn't sell well because they didn't get their full range of content.
Even if the NX turns out to nab a huge opening install base, third parties will just screw up again.
It's the norm for them on Nintendo home consoles, and has been since way back in the NES era when Nintendo had to be heavy-handed with them just to guarantee some semblance of consistent quality. [In hindsight it probably wasn't a good idea to be as heavy-handed as they were, but it really was needed at the time, all circumstances considered.]
Re: Feature: Teams and Details Take Shape as The Gauntlet Aims to Revamp the Super Smash Bros. Competitive Scene
@EngieBengie
I beg to differ, considering I've seen plenty of exciting matches on that stage between teams of two.
Having two teams of four will only make it even more fun to watch for me.
Stalling will just get them boo'd off the stage, anyways; I'm sure they aren't going to resort to that.
Re: Feature: Teams and Details Take Shape as The Gauntlet Aims to Revamp the Super Smash Bros. Competitive Scene
@happylittlepigs
That's where the larger stages come into play; it allows the teams to spread out and make things less confusing.
I play 8 player Smash quite often and rarely have any issues keeping track of myself, even in battles where there's others playing the same character as me; I'm sure it's similar for others. You've just got to have good concentration and awareness.
Sure there's differences between the size and scope of a football team compared to this, but the fundamentals are the same; the teams are big and the plays look complicated, but when the teams are good at what they do and everyone knows their role, there's a definite method to the madness and you get to see a lot of amazing plays come out.
It can be the same for Smash; it's not guaranteed to just be deemed a casual party game from this.
If anything, the Smash community is already considered one that's on the same level as other competitive fighting games, and this will just allow that scene to spread out further into something more ambitious.
I'm not saying it's guaranteed to succeed or anything, but we really shouldn't assume that 8 player smash will look "too casual to be competitive" before we've even seen how it holds up.
Especially considering how well structured the rules are thus far.
Re: Third Party Developers Share Their Hopes For Nintendo NX
@Damo Too right.
Shin-en ALONE has done better work at making gorgeous-looking games on the Wii U than some of these other bigger AAA third parties have done with 10X the budget and resources.
It really speaks poorly of the big wigs when they're so focused on making ports for everything that they can't even realize that the path to better sales on a Nintendo console lies on games built from the ground up for the tech.
Re: Feature: Teams and Details Take Shape as The Gauntlet Aims to Revamp the Super Smash Bros. Competitive Scene
@Geno-Breaker I'm betting even fewer of them know anything about how 8 player Smash works on stages with hazards, let alone how to coordinate well with a team of more than two.
Re: Feature: Teams and Details Take Shape as The Gauntlet Aims to Revamp the Super Smash Bros. Competitive Scene
@happylittlepigs
ROFL, have you even PLAYED in 8 player Smash mode?
Many of the stages in the game LOSE their stage hazards in 8 player mode.
Heck, ORBITAL GATE ASSAULT isn't even AVAILABLE in 8 player Smash unless you use Omega mode, which completely cuts out all of the changing mechanics and provides a flatter, more traditional stage.
Similarly, the Kalos Pokemon League stage only offers Omega form in 8 player Smash, which, again, means no stage hazards.
And stages like Norfair, which normally have a hazard, don't use their hazard in 8 player mode, to preserve frame rates.
The only stages that don't entirely cut out any form of hazards, are The Great Cave Offensive, DK 75M, and Palutena's Temple.
And Castle Siege is the only non-Omega stage available where transitions can happen like they do in Orbital, and the transitions are way less traumatic and spaced out than they are in Orbital.
So in all honesty, no; it's not a terrible idea.
There are too few stages in 8 player mode with hazards that are unpredictable to be worried about them in 8 player Smash, and in fact most of them can be used to a strategic team's advantage.
The one reason you had that I can somewhat agree with, is the one about it being hectic, but that's where having a solid team with solid team-work comes into play.
Football has teams twice this size and is twice as hectic, but there's unity in their chaos because they work well together.
That's what the players of this mode of Smash are trying to accomplish by going pro, and it has a good chance of making it happen.
Re: Feature: Teams and Details Take Shape as The Gauntlet Aims to Revamp the Super Smash Bros. Competitive Scene
@EngieBengie By "wider range", I mean stages that do more to test the player's sense for battle than just giving them a few odd platforms and a flat main area.
Temple is a good example; yes, there's no stage hazards, but the many variations in height and shape of the landscape form into areas where more strategies can be brought into play.
It shows more skill on the part of the player to be able to take advantage of those differences in landscape and whether or not they can lure their opponent into a disadvantageous situation because of it.
Most of the "legal stages" aren't honestly that much more exciting than FD.
Having a wider range of stages makes the competitions more entertaining to watch, and by extension makes this particular type of competitive match more likely to see recurrences through larger audience participation.
The excitement will make it more popular, which will make it more likely to become a main-stay in the competitive scene.
Re: Alan Young, the Voice Actor for Scrooge McDuck, Has Passed Away
I think I need to set a goal of living to 97 now.
If only to have one more year of life to enjoy the games that his incredible talent brought so much life to...
Re: Feature: Teams and Details Take Shape as The Gauntlet Aims to Revamp the Super Smash Bros. Competitive Scene
I wonder if these matches will have friendly fire on or off?
Friendly Fire has the potential for letting team-mates save each other, but it could also screw them over if they get a little too happy-go-lucky with crowd-clearing attacks, and would make it harder for them to take advantage of enemies that a team-mate has grabbed onto without hurting their allies in the process.
Re: Feature: Teams and Details Take Shape as The Gauntlet Aims to Revamp the Super Smash Bros. Competitive Scene
@EngieBengie I find it sad that a serious competitive player would camp in a walk-off zone in the first place.
You'd think most of them would avoid that temptation for the sake of allowing a much wider range of stages to be played upon...
Re: Rumour: Smash Bros. Update 1.1.6 Only Seems To Impact Bayonetta
@Vandy The ones that were rejected were either not realizable or were not above Bay in votes.
That's not heresay; that's facts.
You can keep saying that Bay was "too niche to possibly be the winner" and presenting straw-man arguments with weak "evidence" all you like, but it doesn't make it any less of a fact that she won the polls above any character you yourself wanted as far as characters that were realizable, especially within the time-frame they had to come up with good move-sets, for them outside of easy specials, and the deals they were able to make with their owners.
So you go on believing that Sakurai was BSing us with the poll all you like.
I'll go on believing the fact that Bay won that poll fair and square, through the votes of people that truly wanted her in after her appearance on the Wii U with Bay 2.
Re: Meet The Edgy And Mature Fan-Made Pokémon Game That Aims To "Fix" The Series
@AlexSora89
I like your post, great points, but you REALLY need to insert some paragraphs, my friend.
Walls of text are never easier to read than a well-spaced story.
Re: Rumour: Smash Bros. Update 1.1.6 Only Seems To Impact Bayonetta
@Vandy Again, you really need to let go of that hatred you've got for Sakurai.
Yes, realizable.
As in, Shrek couldn't get in, no matter how many people voted for him.
And if a character was realizable, then Bayonetta, overall, got more votes than them.
Sakurai would have chosen Shovel Knight if he had been voted way over Bayonetta in total worldwide, because that's a realizable character, too.
But he wasn't above Bay in votes.
Nor was any other character.
The word "realizable" was not an excuse.
It was a condition.
One that you have to learn to accept if you ever hope to move on from this unreasonable straw-man's argument-turned-grudge that you've got against a poll that your choices obviously didn't win in.
Bay is in because she won the poll.
If you're going to blame anyone, blame the people that didn't vote for your most desired character, but quit heckling for no valid reason.
Re: Rumour: Smash Bros. Update 1.1.6 Only Seems To Impact Bayonetta
@Vandy No, Sakurai really doesn't.
And his love or hate of Fire Emblem characters have no relation to Bayonetta winning the poll; that's just a ridiculous stretch.
Also, if he were afraid of "backlash", he would have gone all out to include the top three from the poll regardless of whether or not they were ridiculous.
Again, Sakurai has NO REASON TO LIE about this.
He doesn't NEED to justify anything to you or to anyone; it's his game and the poll was already a massive service to fans in the first place that he was under no obligation to even CREATE.
And as to the random "respected smasher", his research and compilations are still nothing more than assumptions, and not official numbers.
We don't need the data to show that Bay won the poll; we KNOW she did, because SHE'S IN THE DAMN GAME due to winning it!
Not because of some invisible whim conjured up by a bunch of hate-filled straw-man arguments regarding Sakurai's biases, but because SHE WAS THE MOST VOTED UPON OUT OF THE REALIZABLE CHARACTERS.
You really just need to get over this hatred of Sakurai; it's not his fault that someone you like more than Bayonetta didn't get in.
She won the most votes out of all characters that were actually realizable for the series.
THAT'S THE FACT OF IT.
Whether you can accept that fact or not doesn't change matters.
No one here is placing Sakurai on any sort of pedestal, because there's no need to.
We're just telling you how it is; a bunch of randoms on the internet have far less of a clue about the official poll numbers than Sakurai, and that puts Sakurai's words above theirs whether you can all accept his words or not.
Bayonetta DID win the poll, and she's in the game because she won.
THAT'S THE END RESULT.
Re: Rumour: Smash Bros. Update 1.1.6 Only Seems To Impact Bayonetta
@Vandy Except it wasn't, and it's the logical choice to accept the word of the guy who was most likely to have SEEN THE ACTUAL RESULTS.
And for every internet comment you can show that didn't include Bayonetta, I can show you just as many where Bayonetta WAS asked for, amongst realizable characters.
Without the official numbers to read out ourselves, however, there's no evidence OTHER than Sakurai's word to prove or disprove it, so asking for evidence is silly, since his word is far more trust-worthy than anyone saying "I've seen all these votes for all these others in comments, so she can't possibly have won!". -_-;;
Again, just because you can't accept Sakurai's explanation doesn't make him a liar, nor does it make the poll a sham.
She was the top pick.
The creator, of all people, knows that better than anyone here does, and has absolutely no reason, nor gain, to lie about it.
She won the poll.
Accept that much and move on from it; maybe the NX version of Smash will host another poll and you'll get someone you actually want to be included.
Re: Lynn and the Spirits of Inao Has Been Cancelled
Damn it, interns!
Why must you rise up against your unpaid wages?!XD
In all seriousness, I hope someone else picks up the trade-mark for this.
Hopefully, someone who can actually afford to pay the sla-err, interns they employ.
Re: Rumour: Smash Bros. Update 1.1.6 Only Seems To Impact Bayonetta
@Vandy No.
No they did not.
In Europe, and overall worldwide, Bayonetta was the No.1 amongst all realizable characters.
The only reason you're saying Sakurai lied about this is because you had characters you wanted more; that doesn't make you right and it doesn't make Sakurai a liar.
Re: Rumour: Smash Bros. Update 1.1.6 Only Seems To Impact Bayonetta
@Vandy She WAS the one who won the fan poll, amongst realizable characters.
Shrek never stood a chance. Sorry to burst your swamp gas bubble.XD
Re: Free Rupees And Fairy Food On Offer To Celebrate Hyrule Warriors Legends DLC Launch
So, question; when will the extra characters be available for the Wii U version?
Re: Nintendo Plans Corporate Changes That Point to Diverse Business Moves
@Senpai_Bruh I don't drink, but I'd buy a bottle of Chateau Romani in a heart-beat.XD
Re: ​A Tetris Movie is in the Making
@RantingThespian See kids; this is why you don't CHUG PACKETS of the new Ghost Pepper sauce at Taco Bell...XD JK
Re: ​A Tetris Movie is in the Making
The only thing I can think of, is an alien civilization that gets the idea to create its own planet, civilization, etc, out of materials similar to Tetris blocks, with some weird mysterious energy source running through them.
This energy source becomes a source of conflict, and something threatens to make that energy run out of control.
If it does, the planet they created would start to disappear.
One row at a time, from the core on up.
Until there's nothing left.
At which point, the energy would explode outward to cause all sorts of mayhem in the universe.
Movie one would be about the failure to stop this energy from running wild, due to an idiotic evil villain type thinking he can control it for his own purposes and failing to do so, and the subsequent destruction of the planet as the energy escapes outwards, while a small group of survivors escapes from the ensuing destruction, heading towards a planet that is rumored to have some sort of ancient information tied to stopping the energy.
Movie two: the energy reaches Earth, ironically, but not unexpectedly, the very planet that holds the key information that could stop the energy wave, and starts infecting the planet, turning things into Tetris blocks and inseminating the dangerous energy throughout the planet like a virus.
At the end, the heroes of the film, both Earthlings and aliens alike, manage to reach some sort of "core", but are halted and turned back by the defensive measures of the sentience behind the Tetris energy, who turns out to be the same villain that failed to control it in the first place, now coincidentally fused with the energy that exploded outward when the Tetris planet that the alien heroes came from was destroyed by the rampant energy.
Before driving the protagonists off with the defenses, it is explained that he feels he should be a God, and that every time the Tetris energy runs rampant and destroys something, he gets just a little bit stronger from the ensuing energy feedback.
Thus his plan; destroy as much as he can, and when he's strong enough to form an immortal body made of Tetris energy, use it to take over the known universe.
Movie three: Having failed to stop the Tetris sentience with their own power, the alien and Earthling heroes and heroines now begin searching for the rumored ancient information that could stop the Tetris energy from completely taking over Earth.
Love and close friendships form between the heroes and heroines in a trial-by-fire, as the minions of the sentience do everything in their power to stop the group of saviors from finding the information that could halt the sentience's plans.
In a race against time, they're led to a museum where a single black-and-white game boy, which somehow survived a nuclear war and still works despite looking distinctly half-melted [this is actually a real thing; look it up!] somehow managed to absorb energy from the Tetris planet long before it ever exploded [apparently the energy is much more prevalent in the Universe than everyone thought; potential for more sequels follows this] and now holds the key data needed to stop the Tetris sentience.
They race back to the core, with a link cable, fresh batteries, and the melted GB in hand, connect it to the main computer of the sentience after somehow getting past its defenses, and suddenly, holographic screens pop up in front of the whole team, showing different sections of the planet alongside, you guessed it, a complete game of Tetris in front of each individual protagonist, with a set amount of lines that all of them MUST clear.
It's a race against the clock, and the sentience, to clear a certain amount of lines before the Sentience can fully transform the planet into one made of Tetris blocks.
Cue dramatic music and the scene of the planet slowly recovering as the team rapidly clears line after line on the holographic screens, finally culminating in a moment where they've cleared so many lines that there's literally no more energy left, and the sentience finally dies as the black and white game boy fades away in a multicolored light.
Some closure happens between the various protagonists, and then the aforementioned "the universe still has Tetris energy in it!" thing is brought into play when the beam of light that the melted GB disappeared into, is shown flying off to a whole new planet...
Was the villain really killed? Is this a new threat, or a chance at a new adventure and possibly a benefit to Earth through recovery, and reformation, of the energy into something positive? Or will it be just a continuation of the need to stamp out Tetris energy once and for all?
.....
Too much?
I just started typing and then I couldn't seem to stop...^^;;
Re: Super Smash Bros. 1.1.6 Patch Is Landing Soon On Wii U And 3DS
@IceClimbers The Puff is Buff Enough.XD
Give some love to Link; he's had a really rough time with faster characters thanks to all the frames in the wind-up and tail-end of his projectiles.