| Psypoke http://www.psypokes.com/forums/ |
|
| Nintendo vs. Capcom? http://www.psypokes.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=26331 |
Page 1 of 1 |
| Author: | searchman52 [ Sat Apr 24, 2010 12:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
Good idea? Bad idea? I say good. REALLY REALLY good. |
|
| Author: | Lawence Codye [ Sat Apr 24, 2010 1:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
It really depends on Nintendo to me...so I say yes if Nintendo doesn't end up messing it up if even possible...otherwise...I want another Marvel VS Capcom bad... |
|
| Author: | Ryanh181 [ Sat Apr 24, 2010 8:22 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
Well, Nintendo is a massive company as Capcom is just a small one. Capcom makes games FOR Nintendo. |
|
| Author: | Lawence Codye [ Sat Apr 24, 2010 9:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
Well...I'm just saying...they don't make all of Nintendo's games & besides Tatsunoko VS Capcom, none of the other ones were let's say...Nintendo games...at least the mentioned one was released for a Nintendo console as the other ones...not so much... |
|
| Author: | Registeel_Rocks [ Sun Apr 25, 2010 11:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
As a casual fighting game player, I've always wanted this. Samus versus MegaMan X (*** yeah X is awesome) in a battle of the arm cannons. Donkey Kong versus E. Honda! Servbot against Kirby in a duel of cuteness! The awesome possibilities are endless. Best of all, they could use the Tatsunoko VS Capcom engine. Would be perfect, in my opinion. Lawence Codye wrote: I want another Marvel VS Capcom bad... Marvel VS Capcom 3 was just announced, so you can rest happy. Ryanh181 wrote: Well, Nintendo is a massive company as Capcom is just a small one. Capcom has a pretty impressive list of titles; I'd say they're far from small. |
|
| Author: | Lawence Codye [ Mon Apr 26, 2010 2:45 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
Registeel_Rocks wrote: Best of all, they could use the Tatsunoko VS Capcom engine. Would be perfect, in my opinion.
Marvel VS Capcom 3 was just announced, so you can rest happy. About the issue with Nintendo doing this is that it might not turned into a game for a younger audience & thus not be as good as the others cause of this...it's not too likely but still...&... Thank You for telling me that, I can not rest happy indeed after I get half of everything else I want lol... |
|
| Author: | searchman52 [ Tue Apr 27, 2010 5:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
Lawence Codye wrote: It really depends on Nintendo to me...so I say yes if Nintendo doesn't end up messing it up if even possible...otherwise...I want another Marvel VS Capcom bad... Capcom develops the Vs. games no matter what the partner... Ryanh181 wrote: Well, Nintendo is a massive company as Capcom is just a small one. Capcom makes games FOR Nintendo. Capcom is small? Have you seen their library? Registeel_Rocks wrote: As a casual fighting game player, I've always wanted this. Samus versus MegaMan X (*** yeah X is awesome) in a battle of the arm cannons. Donkey Kong versus E. Honda! Servbot against Kirby in a duel of cuteness! The awesome possibilities are endless.
Best of all, they could use the Tatsunoko VS Capcom engine. Would be perfect, in my opinion. Those are some nice matchups! And TvC's system was great. Damage scaling and the Mega Crash are perfect balancers. Though I have to say Karas lost a lot of shine and Zero is a beast... |
|
| Author: | Lawence Codye [ Tue Apr 27, 2010 9:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
searchman52 wrote: Capcom develops the Vs. games no matter what the partner... Well I meant that I want Capcom to release something that has Marvel VS Capcom rated content instead of Nintendo rated content, I know Capcom makes the games but it's on a Nintendo console...is all I'm saying... |
|
| Author: | Frost [ Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:24 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
The only way this idea would ever work is if Capcom developed the title. Nintendo thinks a "fighting game" is something like the Super Smash Bros. series which is, in reality, a set of party games for people who have never played a real fighting game before. Even Mortal Kombat is a deeper fighting game than Smash Brothers and that's sad. |
|
| Author: | Lawence Codye [ Wed Apr 28, 2010 12:28 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
Frost wrote: The only way this idea would ever work is if Capcom developed the title. Nintendo thinks a "fighting game" is something like the Super Smash Bros. series which is, in reality, a set of party games for people who have never played a real fighting game before. Even Mortal Kombat is a deeper fighting game than Smash Brothers and that's sad. Agreed...Capcom has to do it or it simply won't work especially for me... |
|
| Author: | searchman52 [ Wed Apr 28, 2010 5:40 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
Frost wrote: Nintendo thinks a "fighting game" is something like the Super Smash Bros. series which is, in reality, a set of party games for people who have never played a real fighting game before. Even Mortal Kombat is a deeper fighting game than Smash Brothers and that's sad. woah, woah, woah, wait. As far as I know, the deepest thing in Mortal Kombat is a Fatality-thing. Smash has, well, smashes, but also, victory is determined wether you were able to save a frame of time by hitting the L button when you bounce of that wall. Do you know about techniques like gimping, DI, teching, Smash DI, spiking, L-cancels, SHFF, jab cancels, and wavedashing? Helloz! |
|
| Author: | Frost [ Wed Apr 28, 2010 6:04 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
There's no intended depth on the part of the designers to most of those mechanics. Sakurai wasn't even aware that wavedashing existed until competitive players realized it was a quirk in the game that could be abused. It's not like they sat down and designed a complex, balanced fighting system the way that Capcom does for Street Fighter (which has just as many "quirks" that you listed for Smash, only they're intentionally designed into the game: blocking, ticking, parrying, air throws, tech hits, focus attacks, special moves, super combos, ultra combos, etc.), Namco does for Tekken or Sega does for Virtua Fighter. Smash Bros. as it is intended is simply a party game, and that's why there's all sorts of crazy characters, environments and items in regular Smash play. It's the tourney fags who ruin Smash by trying to turn it into a retarded clone of Street Fighter, which it was never intended to be and which it never WILL be. It simply isn't the kind of game that is meant to be enjoyed as "No items, Fox only, Final Destination." The main fun of the game comes from throwing Pokeballs at each other and playing in a massive map like Hyrule Temple, not removing those things. |
|
| Author: | shinashu taji [ Thu Apr 29, 2010 1:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
As both a casual player of Smash Bros, as well as a tourney fag, I see the validity of your argument Frost. However in a tournament players want to keep it balanced as possible, though I'm not condoning the banning of all stages or Fox only, but some removals are necessary to do that. Those necessities just happen to be no Pokeballs, Heart Container, etc. It keeps it as balanced as possible so when one person gets a Pokeball they get Latias/Latios, and the next person gets Goldeen. More or less those who ruin Smash Bros are the hardcore tourney fags most notably the ones that follow and use Dave's Stupid Rule. As for a Nintendo vs. Capcom game I would absolutely love one. Fox McCloud vs. Albert Wesker, to me, would be an incredibly hilarious match. |
|
| Author: | searchman52 [ Thu Apr 29, 2010 5:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
Frost wrote: There's no intended depth on the part of the designers to most of those mechanics. Sakurai wasn't even aware that wavedashing existed until competitive players realized it was a quirk in the game that could be abused. It's not like they sat down and designed a complex, balanced fighting system the way that Capcom does for Street Fighter (which has just as many "quirks" that you listed for Smash, only they're intentionally designed into the game: blocking, ticking, parrying, air throws, tech hits, focus attacks, special moves, super combos, ultra combos, etc.), Namco does for Tekken or Sega does for Virtua Fighter.
Smash Bros. as it is intended is simply a party game, and that's why there's all sorts of crazy characters, environments and items in regular Smash play. It's the tourney fags who ruin Smash by trying to turn it into a retarded clone of Street Fighter, which it was never intended to be and which it never WILL be. It simply isn't the kind of game that is meant to be enjoyed as "No items, Fox only, Final Destination." The main fun of the game comes from throwing Pokeballs at each other and playing in a massive map like Hyrule Temple, not removing those things. Anything can be a party game. I'm sure there are button mashing Street Fighters. Still, you can't flag the Smash series because Nintendo focused on putting a smile on your face. First of all, isn't that the point of a videogame? Second, almost everything in Smash is customizable, so you can have a three player free-for-all with items on using a WiiMote on 75m, and that's fine. Or, you can have a one-on-one match on Final Destination with items off and Metaknight banned, that's okay too. I have to admit, Nintendo made some really stupid mistakes, like random tripping, but Capcom messed a few things up, like the Giants in TvC or dizziness in Street Fighter. Then again, don't you dare bring Street fighter in this, this is about Mortal Kombat. People who attended the latest Smash tournament: 10,000. People who attended most recent Mortal Kom- oh wait. There wasn't one. And in Mortal Kombat, you don't need to hit right on the control stick at frame 41, then left on frame 42 to do a Samus superwavedash, do you? |
|
| Author: | Frost [ Thu Apr 29, 2010 5:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
Smash Bros. and Mortal Kombat are equally ridiculed by serious fighting game enthusiasts, but at least Mortal Kombat was significant in the history of the development of fighting game series. Even still, MK has gameplay mechanics that were implemented to try to provide depth and they weren't accidental discoveries like wavedashing and such. There's multiple fighting stances for every character, more than the same Special Move sequences shared among every character, air combos, air throws, combo breakers, combos that segue between different fighting styles, etc. While Mortal Kombat is a shallow fighter in comparison to other 3D fighting titles, it's still considered a fighter because there's far less zaniness and randomness than regular Smash is supposed to have. And dizziness in Street Fighter is NOT a mistake. Certain characters have higher and lower stun meters and certain attacks drain that stun meter more or less than others. Dizziness plays as much of a strategic role as anything. |
|
| Author: | searchman52 [ Fri Apr 30, 2010 4:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
Oh yeah, sure, so that unlockable character from Street Fighter 2 that pretty much doesn't flinch, doesn't get dizzy at all, and has lightning fast attacks is a well-polished, balanced, strategic game, huh? Smash is also one of the few games were you can't go ultimate on someone. Mortal Kombat is just a wimpy game for 10-year-olds who think they're cool becuase they're playing a game with blood. All because a game is over-the-top and most importantly, fun, doesn't mean it's a bad fighting game. It's just unique. And if you want to complain to the "tourney fags", why don't you head over to the MLG place and complain? Yeah, you'll definite- oh wait, they have millions of more dollars, supporters, evidence, and resources than you. Sorry! Oh, and this thread is about Nintendo vs. Capcom, not Mortal Kombat vs. Smash. So, I think Link vs. Zero would be pretty cool. Oh, and what does Albert Wesker exactly do? |
|
| Author: | Registeel_Rocks [ Sat May 01, 2010 2:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
I'll say it once and only once, the Smash Bros series is a party game with fighting aspects. searchman52 wrote: Oh, and what does Albert Wesker exactly do? Basically he a bio-terrorist with super powers like super speed, strength, reaction time, etc. Also, sunglasses. If this hypothetical game of ours had multi-character teams (i.e. pick 2 or 3 characters and switch them at will), a Viewtiful Joe and Captain Falcon team would be an overload of manly awesomeness. |
|
| Author: | KeroTheInvincible [ Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:02 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
As you can probably tell from my avatar and the fact that I'm here, I'd love a game like this. Registeel_Rocks wrote: If this hypothetical game of ours had multi-character teams (i.e. pick 2 or 3 characters and switch them at will), a Viewtiful Joe and Captain Falcon team would be an overload of manly awesomeness. Nintendo vs. Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Captain Falcon, Ken the Eagle and Viewtiful Joe, the AAA-Team. |
|
| Author: | Registeel_Rocks [ Fri Jun 25, 2010 2:16 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Nintendo vs. Capcom? |
KeroTheInvincible wrote: Nintendo vs. Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Captain Falcon, Ken the Eagle and Viewtiful Joe, the AAA-Team. Dear lord that's almost too much awesome for one game to handle! |
|
| Page 1 of 1 | All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|