Monday, November 10, 2014
Nintendo Reveals Mega Man Amiibo Figure
I think many of us were waiting for this nugget of news. As seen on Nintendo Japan's new Amiibo website, a Mega Man Amiibo figure is on the way. The Blue Bomber is planning to launch alongside the third Amiibo wave in February, 2015. It's priced at 1,200 Yen (roughly $10.45).
No word on whether this will come to the U.S or Europe within the same time frame. I'd say it's likely but it's safe to wait for official confirmation. Sooner than later, one can hope. UPDATE: February it is.
Source: Destructoid (via Nintendo Japan) | More info on Amiibo can be found at Nintendo
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Nice! I was really looking forward to this! February cannot come soon enough.ReplyDelete
That figure looks exactly how it should. If I didn't know any better I'd straight think it was the 3D model.ReplyDelete
That's a cute figure. I'd buy it and I don't even have a Wii U.ReplyDelete
If it doesn't end up looking horrible, like Marth's, then I will too, and I don't have a Wii U. So far it looks pretty good, although something about the face looks...odd. Maybe it's because of how pale it is.Delete
1. Smash is out now, and Mega Man is quite big on itReplyDelete
2. The controversial Mega Man Xover is soon closing down
3. It's been quite a while since all cancelled Mega Man project, including the most recent gritty Mega Man X
4. Mega Man amiibo is coming out on February
I think it's a fair assumption to make that Capcom is now setting up the Mega Man return. Say what you will of the company jokingly, but remember that they are a company. They don't "hate" money, by any means. They've been into a roller coaster of unlucky coincidences, but at this point I think they'll just release a new game. This holds an especially high weight considering Mighty No. 9 and Azure Striker Gunvolt are themselves presuming upon the thirst for the character and the series' gameplay-style, and Capcom owning the intellectual properties has an undeniable advantage. The opportunity cost is too high, and there has never been a better time to see the return of the character.
Whether Inafune, Inti Creates or Nintendo are going to be involved remains to be seen. But it simply is incredibly unlikely that Capcom won't take advantage of the character's current momentum. I'm expecting an announcement, potentially close to December 17th.
I expect something to e announced at some point in the future. But i'm not holding my breath for December or any other particular date. I will believe it when I see it.Delete
Funny because Capcom hasn't really had to do anything for "setting up the Mega Man return."Delete
That said, I'd say you definitely have a valid point. Nintendo has handed Capcom more publicity than they have ever given the IP outside of the Japan themselves. It would be foolish for them to only attempt to capitalize with more merchandise, which apparently sells fine either way if the mass influx of merchandise over the past three or four years is any indication.
Time to really get the ball rolling.
I sure hope you're right because I'm kinda getting sick of only getting merchandise...but besides the point, I'm definitely getting the amibo i'm excited for it!!Delete
come on, we have been telling capcom to not outsource games, no DLC on disc, no tons of versions of street fighter and reviving their old ips but not as an IOS game. and what capcom did? capcom outsourced their games to bad developers like spark and ninja theory, dlc on disc for most of their games (SFxT), tons of versions of street fighter and revived breath of fire as ios game that has nothing to do with breath of fire. and now capcom has little money to spend for next gen consoles.Delete
@Sckarton What are you talking about? SF4 has been outsourced, MvC3 has been outsourced, Strider HD, RE: Revelations, and Dead Rising 2 have all been outsourced. All of those were well received and acccepted at large. They lead to good sales, good relations, and promising products down the line. Also I'm sure not everyone agrees with the no updates for SF stuff, or it wouldn't be the most fan supported competitive fighting game for over six years. Not to mention SF4 only had like one mandatory physical update, the rest were just updated content to the game through DLC. Also Ninja Theory is not a bad developer, every single game they have developed has had a solid reception in terms of quality, from critics to the general public alike, including DmC. Only bias fanboys bashed the game itself.Delete
Most game developers that have DLC, plan and develope them way ahead of time, most just keep them on servers to charge you more for the lose they take by doing so. It's a terrible practice, but Capcom is not the only one doing this, or even the worse, even when it comes to on disc DLC. Yet Capcom is always pointed to when this issue comes up.
BoF is not a very successful franchise and it has been around for a while. So the company feels it's not worth the invesment to contine high production for it. It's sad but true. Capcom is a business and the bottom line is they really could care less for BoF. What I feel they did wrong though is if the series is veiwed as dead to them, they shouldn't desecrate it, just leave it dead in peace.
Anyway Capcom isn't the worse, they just lack the hardcore support companies like Activion has. Typing on cell sorry for the bad typing and such.
@Sckarton: You seem to be demonizing Capcom. Most of their outsourced games were good. Most Capcom games does not contain on disc DLC, and your example (SFxT) wasn't even that bad of a case. It was 12 characters for 15 bucks out of a base roster of 44 characters, most fighting games charge 5-8$ for a single character and some times they are on disc (BlazBlue) without even half the base roster as SFxT. Not that I agree with shady overpriced DLC, but come on, it's the industry standard right now. The fighting game community loves the Street Fighter support. BOF is not the only thing Capcom brought back, Capcom brought back DuckTales and Strider. And that's just the recent ones, cause SF and Marvel vs was brought back as well, as they both had over 10 year hiatuses.Delete
Capcom has little money because they've been wasting it pumping out Mega Man and other niche games, that don't sale squat, for a bunch of ungrateful fans that hate on everything without thought (outside of the first few entries in each series) whenever they get the chance, then pretend they never did and that they are not part of the problem.
Oh come now Anony. Saying things like "only bias fanboys bashed the game itself" when talking about DmC reeks of ignorance.Delete
So much of what you said is wrong I don't even know where to begin. So instead I'll just say this. Capcom was happy with the sales of Mega Man 9 and 10 (which fans were fairly happy with if you'll remember). I don't think they would be happy about the sales of a game if it lost them money. There is no "waste" there. The only thing that could be argued for is something called opportunity cost, which even then would be debatable.
Fans seem pretty happy and grateful towards Nintendo for how they have handled Mega Man in Smash as well.
A little bit of effort goes a long way.
Game Informer 9/10
IGN (PC/X360) 8.9/10
Joystiq 4.5/5 stars
I see universal, solid to excellent ratings. That's the critical end. I can also link to many youtube juggernauts that played through the game and thought it was great. I've also read through many forums and blog posts and find that even many original Devil May Cry fans consider it the best entry from a game mechanical standpoint. Heck many even praise its story.
Also MM9 and 10 are 8-bit downloadable games for like 10 bucks. So that is what the franchise is worth at that point to Capcom. Disregarding that, even then you're wrong. Only MM9 was widely accepted, but that's only because of all the elitists that moaned on and on about how MM as a franchise has become trash since let's see X7 (bad game to most) X8 (good game) XCM (good game) MMBN 1-2-3-5-6 (good games) MMBN4 (bad game) MMNT (mediocre game) Zero 1-2-3-4 (great games, considered the best of the franchise to some) ZX/ZXA (good games) MMSF 1-2-3 (goes both ways, many hate them many love them, so I'd say at least decent games). So the series was going to s*** between like 19+ mainstream games with possibly, maybe 6 of those being considered bad? Anyway, MM2 enthusiasts hyped up MM9 as the landing of God, but as soon as that got tired, out comes the hate toward MM10. MM10 had at least half as much hate as it had praises among the fans. You know why? Because even though it added more content and it was just as well designed as 9, people started getting tired of the 8-bit, calling it a cheap cash in. Then the Legends fans pop out of the woodwork, and since the fan base couldn't 360 their overall feelings for the X, MMBN, ZX, and now Classic series, they all rallied around L3 (a game from a series previously hated on before). While all this is going on, all those games sold like s***, with the exception of MM9, maybe 10 and BN4 compared to their competitors, or even overall.
The Smash thing is simple to explain. People already love Nintendo, it has to have the most dedicated fanbase of any video game developer/publisher. That said, Smash is huge and has many traits that appeal to an established very wide variety. Coming off the heels of the cancellations, BBAMM in SFxT, the exclusion of MM in MvC3 and the IOS games, it was the most picture perfect scenario to set up MM's inclusion in Smash and for fans to eat it up, and say this is how it's done. Nintendo is not dumb, they will take advantage of all that, especially with the failing WiiU, they needed that hype. Then the fans like usual (when it's convenient) forget all the rep Capcom has given the character, that went virtually unnoticed beforehand, and even now for that matter.
Wow, so much to cover I don't even know where to begin.Delete
I wouldn't bring gaming "journalists" into a discussion about a games quality, but that's just me. Even so, what's your point about DmC bringing that up anyway? That it's a good game? That's an opinion. Guess what? People have different opinions. A lot of fans were disappointed because they felt like it was a step down in terms of gameplay from previous Devil May Cry games. Not that it really matters what is said about that game. A long time fan can make pages of text about how they don't like the changes to mechanics and all of it would be ignored with a simple rebuttal of "you're mad about the hair" or something similar. There have been just as many fans disappointed with how simple DmC was mechanically compared to previous, and the story is one of the least praised things about the game. Saying "many even praise it" is like me saying "many people hated it." We can spout anecdotal things that we've seen on forums all day. It doesn't accomplish anything. Fact of the matter is, the game didn't do what Capcom wanted.
Moreover, DmC was the worst selling Devil May Cry game. That game was a reboot. A game meant to breathe new life into the franchise and attract NEW fans. It failed. It failed for a lot of old fans and at bringing in a significant number of new fans.
As for MM9 and 10, that's the only chance MM was given on home consoles through the ENTIRE previous console generation, so it needs to be mentioned, $10 price point or not. You listed a lot of games and then gave YOUR opinion about them. That doesn't prove anything. You say MMBN 1 was good? Some would disagree. So your point about it being accepted only because of "elitists" is pure drivel as you continue to post opinions as facts to "back up" your arguments.
Did it ever occur to you that MM9 might have been successful because it was a good game? Maybe that because it had been so long since the last MM game in the Classic series, especially an 8 bit game, that fans would be happy to give it a shot, regardless of what else was released before it?
You almost did a good job there by saying "it added more content" because it's true. MM 10 did start with more content than 9. But then you went right back into stating your opinion as fact. "it was just as well designed as 9" is YOUR opinion. I disagree strongly. I think MM9 was a much better designed game. And is it so wrong for fans to want something a little more than 8 bit game after 8 bit game? MM9 was successful, why didn't Capcom try to capitalize on that success by doing something a little bigger? It doesn't need to be a huge AAA budget style game, just modernize it a bit. Also MM10 was considered successful, just more modestly so than MM9.
Your nonsense about Legends, I don't even know where to start. A lot of fans were excited to see it, and even if you aren't a fan of that series, it's not hard for someone with a level head to see that Capcom mishandled that situation so poorly. There was plenty of reason to support Legends 3 after what Capcom did, and I would hardly call it "hated" so much as "unknown." Times have changed and maybe people would have liked to give Legends 3 a shot.
As for the sales of the games, I need to know that you understand the difference between "units sold" and "profit made" before I bother even beginning to discuss that.
And no, I completely disagree with your explanation of Smash. There are just as many people who hate Nintendo and are taking the opportunity of the poor sales of the Wii U to kick the company while it's down.
I need to continue this in a separate comment.
This is continued from a previous comment, in case this gets approved first.Delete
Nintendo didn't "take advantage" of Capcom mishandling the MM IP so poorly if that's what you're implying when you say it was the perfect time for fans to "eat it up." Nintendo would have no idea how poorly Capcom would treat the Mega Man IP over the past few years, development for Smash likely started long before everything started to go south for Mega Man.
And no, it wasn't for the hype for their failing console. It was for the hype of Smash Brothers in general. It's not that hard to understand why Nintendo did it. As I said, they weren't taking advantage of timing or anything. Nintendo was already developing Smash when things got bad. In fact, their reasoning is a lot simpler than that. Sakurai put Mega Man in Smash because after Sonic he was the most requested third party character. Simple as that.
See, unlike some other companies, Sakurai saw what fans wanted and decided to give it to them. That's all it took to make fans happy. Really happy. Nintendo has done a great job with Mega Man in Smash and they are being recognized for their efforts. Effort that goes beyond anything Capcom could be bothered to do. As you said yourself, he was excluded from MvC3 after all, despite so many fan polls, including Capcom Unity's own polls, having him (or a version of him: X ) being at the top. See the difference? One company saw the masses wanted Mega Man and did a great job creating a faithful rendition of the character to go in their game. The other company couldn't be bothered and made a few DLC costumes they could charge extra with.
It's not difficult to understand why Nintendo comes out of the comparison favorably. Your quote "Then the fans like usual (when it's convenient) forget all the rep Capcom has given the character, that went virtually unnoticed beforehand, and even now for that matter," confuses me more than anything.
What rep are you talking about? The poorly handled representation of Mega Man in SFxT? The non-representation in MvC3? As I mentioned before, the only console games Mega Man got through the entire last generation of consoles was Mega Man 9 and 10, both of which were received well enough to be successful despite the (usually justified) criticisms one or both of them may get. Capcom has been mishandling the franchise for a while. I would personally argue for a longer time than most, but that's just me.
Fans are frustrated and over the past four, almost five years now a common opinion is that other companies have been handling Mega Man better than Capcom themselves. I personally see Mega Man as a franchise with a huge amount of potential, but I don't see any of it being realized with Capcom being the way they are now.
Sincerely hope I'm wrong there.
Dang so much nonsense to counter argue.Delete
"What's your point about DmC bringing that up anyway? That it's a good game?" No, initially it was that it's considered a good game by many, the majority that publicly played it in fact. This though would support the idea that it is not a fundamentally bad game, which would suggest that it is a good game. Then the opinion becomes whether or not other people like the game. If you take away that criteria for what makes good games, there would be no way to prove any game ever created was good, cause there will always be those that disagree and think it's bad. Also don't you think the predisposition of negativity the game had, was any indication of maybe why a lot of people made up their minds not to purchase the game beforehand, thus effecting the sales? Also sales picked up by the year 2014 when the game was ported to even more platforms, gaining even higher critical acclaim than before. Capcom listed their suspicions for the lack of sales in 2013, citing "coordination between the marketing and the game development divisions in overseas markets" as one of the problems. No where do they state their dissatisfaction with the quality of the game itself. Basically sales=/good game.
So you're telling me DMC fans as a majority were dissatisfied with DmC am I correct? So DmC sold 1.6 million units in comparison to the previous entry's 2.9, under one third of a difference. If the fans aren't happy, and the game is just so much worse compared to the previous entries, who's making up the install base with comparable sales to DMC2 and outselling the original DMC3? Answer, the new people the reboot introduced to the series. This logical deduction was arrived using your very own information not mine btw.
"You listed a lot of games and then gave YOUR opinion about them." Again no, I used information I've gathered from many sources, from critics' critical analysis, perceptions from fans and other sources. Are you serious? Is this gonna be the basis of your arguments? Rhetoric about what makes a game good being up to the individuals' tastes. Get real man, it's always been about popular opinion and conforming to the majorly accepted community and industry standard, that dictates what makes a game good or not. You trying to change that now out of convenience to your argument, doesn't change that. 'Did you know Ocarina of Time really isn't a good game, it's just many peoples' opinions that it is'. gimmeabreak
"Did it ever occur to you that MM9 might have been successful because it was a good game?" That did occur to me, then after analyzing the situation more deeply I arrived at the conclusion I previously posted up relating to it.
Again with the it's only your opinion bull *skip*. Refer to the multiple times I've addressed this above.
"And is it so wrong for fans to want something a little more than 8 bit game after 8 bit game?" No it is not, but it is wrong to 360 their feelings after one entry, despite the fact that they had games that shared close likeliness within the series that were just recently produced beyond the 8-bit graphics and game design limits. Not to mention two new entries set to do the same, that was non-constructively bashed to the point where most wished they didn't exist.
See you in part 2.
"MM9 was successful, why didn't Capcom try to capitalize on that success by doing something a little bigger?" Because it was only (just about) successful relative to it's production, which really wasn't that extensive nor expensive in comparison to projects that required "something a little bigger". Logic.Delete
Regarding Legends: "A lot of fans were excited to see it". Because Capcom was so impressed with the devroom participation right? Or that 100, 000 strong took off running and reached its goal sooner than everyone expected? Many, is seeming pretty relative right about now. You can't be for real, lecturing me about being level headed to see things.
Units: the amount of copies that has been sold. Profit: the return revenue accumulated after all production costs are recovered. Oh just in case you get confused again, I am referring to games and the units sold/revenue gain pertaining to the companies officially holding their licenses. Simple, let the discussion begin.
Regarding Smash: "development for Smash likely started long before everything started to go south for Mega Man" MMU officially cancelled: March 31, 2011, MML3 cancelled: July 18, 2011, RMO canned: March 2013. These are just the official announcements, the production/development of RMO for example stopped since late 2011. MvC3/UMVC3 launch: February 15, 2011/November 2011.
SSB WiiU/3DS' development started: some time in March 2012. You're telling me that this is not enough time to take advantage of the situation, especially with the added incentive of a character that you yourself stated was popularly voted for to be included beforehand?
See you in the final chapter.
"And no, it wasn't for the hype for their failing console. It was for the hype of Smash Brothers in general." If that were the case than why did Sakurai specifically state that he wanted a modest roster, and return back to the roots of the Smash series in terms of simplicity, to only completely disregard that whole idea? Why is Nintendo promoting getting both versions of the game to get exclusives this extensively, when previously they tried to make the two versions as unique as possible outside of the cast? Let me guess, probably fan demand right? Because he loves listening to fan demand, that's why we got tripping in Brawl, and a complete disregard for the competitive aspects in till this convenient moment. Yup has nothing to do with cash.Delete
"See, unlike some other companies, Sakurai saw what fans wanted and decided to give it to them." Agreed.
"It's not difficult to understand why Nintendo comes out of the comparison favorably." Well for you it is. "Nintendo has done a great job with Mega Man in Smash" "he was excluded from MvC3". Completely forgetting that, MM was in MvC, MvC2, TvC, TvCUAS, and had two reps from his franchise in MvC3 and UMvC3, had tons of references in those games as well as cameos. Both character's are fan favorites but one plays a lot like MM(S) but get's hated on for stealing the spotlight meanwhile the other does the exact same thing, doesn't play at all like MM and gets away with it. I don't know about you but I'd rather like the character who best represents my favorite series. Actually well, let's face it, Tron Bonne is MML. The devs even stated their reason for including Zero over X. They simply said he was a more natural fighting game design. In fact with different quotes and voices, with a slightly tweaked moveset, and his X costume he pretty much is X. And if Capcom couldn't be bothered to do anything, or listen to anyone why is the X costume even in existence, how does that help Zero?
"What rep are you talking about?" You sure are forgetting a lot when it is convenient, you wouldn't so happen to be a fan like usual would you? Anyway including the comically well done BBAMM (oh IMO oops), the countless cameos and references in MvC3/UMvC3, refer above for a few more of the very many examples.
Trust me, I know sales =/ quality when it comes to game. As for what makes a game good or not, that can be debated all day. You say the majority of people who played it liked it. I don't know if that's true or not. I can't say you're wrong. But I can't say you're right either.Delete
You don't seem to understand how opinions work. 'Did you know Ocarina of Time really isn't a good game, it's just many peoples' opinions that it is'. Yes. It is an opinion. A widespread opinion. Guess what ? Some people don't think Ocarina of Time isn't a good game. You can try and argue that some kind of majority feel it's a good game. I think it's a good game. But that doesn't mean someone is wrong for thinking it isn't. That's how opinions work. If you think they are wrong for thinking it's a bad game you're free to.
But now you're saying that you think the people who bought DmC are made up of entirely new people? Then why even make it a Devil May Cry game? The goal of the reboot was to bring in new while not completely alienating the old. It either failed at one or did mediocre at both.
I think you're greatly over exaggerating the negative response to MM10. I could go into my complaints about it, maybe even try to pass my opinion off as fact if you like, but I won't bother. Instead I'll say I think it's completely understandable for fans to ask for something more than an 8 bit game, as I said before, and leave it at that. Also to 360 someone's feelings would be to do a complete circle and come around back to where they started. I think you meant 180.
I'd like to see your sales figures on MM9 though since you seem to know exactly how profitable it was. I know both Inafune and Capcom claimed to be quite happy with the sales, Capcom in particular seemed surprised at how much it sold in the west. If I remember right it sold more in the west than in Japan. Maybe a better company could have seen that there was a market to tap in to there. But that's hearsay at this point. Either way, that's all the public was told about the sales of that game.
If you want to talk about the Devroom, I'll simply say that it was very poorly promoted, a lot of fans didn't even know about it until the game was cancelled, and that the Legends series is bigger in Japan than anywhere else, if only because it has seen more support there. Seems a little foolish to decide where to go with a game based off a poorly promoted stunt they set up for the west when that games biggest source of fan input would likely come from Japan, but if the Devroom really is what made them decide to shut the whole thing down, all I can say is I think it wasn't the best informed decision. But we don't really know how they made the call, so I don't fault them for WHY they did it. I can't since I don't know. I do think they handled the situation horribly afterwards though.
As for Nintendo, you think they took advantage of something that happened less than a year out? I honestly don't think Nintendo cares one way or the other how Capcom was treating Mega Man, but even if they did, I don't think it's very realistic for them to decide to go to all that trouble just to take advantage of Capcom mishandling their own brand.Delete
If anything Capcom's treatment may have created an influx of fans asking Nintendo to put Mega Man in the game. Since Mega Man was already highly requested back when Brawl came out, it would seem like a no brainer, but I personally believe Nintendo was planning to ask if they could put Mega Man in Smash regardless of how Capcom was handling the franchise.
I suppose timeline wise it is "possible" for Nintendo to take advantage, but until I see some evidence that they did, all we have is the statement that Mega Man was the most requested third party character to be included after Sonic. In fact, what you're saying sort of seems like a reason not to try and get Mega Man in the game. If the franchise is worth so little that Capcom can pretty much completely disregard it, why would Nintendo think there was anything really worth taking advantage of there? If Nintendo wanted "hype" why wouldn't they go after a character for the highest selling Capcom franchise, Resident Evil? Other than obviously having to tone things down for the sake of the rating.
I have no idea what you're getting at in response to my claim that placing Mega Man in Smash was for the sake of hyping Smash. Are you implying that Sakurai wanting to go back to the roots of Smash would take away from the hype? Maybe he thinks it makes for a better game. People seem to be praising the new Smash pretty well so I'd say he did a good job when it came to the decisions of designing and hyping the game. That is, whatever he did that marketing didn't do for him.
This one really throws me for a loop. Nobody said anything about tripping in Brawl until after it came out. Because it wasn't really a factor in Melee, there was nothing for fans to voice complaints about until Sakurai included tripping. I don't think he put tripping in the game to deliberately make it bad, it was just a decision that a lot of people didn't like. Guess what, fans didn't like it. So it's gone now. Again, listening to fans. What the heck does tripping have to do with Smash being about for money or not anyway?
And aside from that, when did I say it wasn't about cash? Why else would they hype Smash in the first place? Of course they did it for cash. They put Mega Man in Smash because he was highly requested and they wanted a hook to help sell the game that a lot of fans would like. There you go, it's about cash. However that doesn't tie it back to Nintendo taking advantage of Capcom mishandling the brand at all. That's Nintendo taking advantage of information they already have. That Mega Man is highly requested.
I'm not in the mood to right walls, oh well. I see how you do things though, I'll play along. I'll reply according to the broken up word structures you've presented, going from the first to latest numbering for indication.Delete
(1) You can get the information right one the web, by browsing websites and observing comments from those that analyze and give their opinions of the game. If you want proof of some sources, I can give you some more game reviews that speak of the game while playing or after completing the game.
(2) Fair enough, I concede, you're right, there really is no such thing as objectively good or bad games. Despite any widely accepted standard, it just cannot be viewed as objective fact. In fact, even a game that has a bug that freezes the game at the start menu screen for example, not allowing you to progress further can be considered a good game. Actually not even that, even if the game never loads past the consoles bios menu but allows for the disc animations and for players to select and deselect it can be considered a good game, because that can have video interactive value. I'm not even being sarcastic, I'm adhering to your philosophy and definitions. Though I will make use of your way of thinking down the line. Thank you for you informative persuasiveness : )
(3) Where did I state that I though the entirety of DmC was made up of entirely new people? Disregarding that, that whole thing was based on your information. I personally find that a lot of DMC fans (including myself) like the game. Also to answer you're question, the point of a reboot is just that, to reboot. Show me the official definition that requires the criteria you've listed, and that sales are any indication of a failure to reboot.
(4) I don't think it is completely understandable for fans to ask for something more than 8-bit. Call me dense, but it's not like in this context, understandability has to conform to any social or intellectual standards or anything, so I'm good. About the other thing, I completely meant 180 thank you for your constructiveness, because we all know that both have a set definition, and I couldn't possibly mean "to turn COMPLETELY around and have a change of heart". Sorry about that, I'll try to adhere more closely to you semantics in the future.
(5) Oh I don't have have the exact sales figures to present to you. You are completely right though, so I'm sorry for misleading you into thinking I knew exactly how much it sold. Seeing as how circumstantial evidence is out of the line of logic, I'll proceed to disregard all that circumstantial evidence you may have remembered correctly, that you've just presented, just as you've done mine. Thank you for the insight.
(6) You are using you're opinion stating that the Deveroom was very poorly promoted. I'm gonna need empirical evidence that dictates what makes promotions poor are not. Be it scope, presentation or anything in relation. I'm also gonna need the same type of evidence to prove that a lot of fans didn't know about it, and that the series is bigger in Japan or even more supported in Japan. I'm also gonna need to know the exact idea of support, and what qualifies to be that in this situation, whilst proving one side or another has more. And finally I'm gonna need to have empirical evidence for how they handled the situation horribly, because horrible is subjective after all. In till then, I'll disregard what you think pertaining to this with candor. : )
See you in part two.
(7) Yes I do think that Nintendo took advantage of something that happened, in some cases more than a year ago. Other than that, I really don't care what you think were behind Nintendo's actions, all I need is that empirical evidence proving you're statements.Delete
(8) I don't understand what you're saying here. None of the dates pertaining to the events in question here, coincide with the date of when the Brawl poll was released to now. So how can you gauge an influx? Is there a comparatively new poll to compare it to? If so, I'm gonna need EE (empirical evidence) of the two polls, making sure they support the claims you've made, and were acknowledged by Nintendo while influencing the inclusion of MM in Smash.
(9) We do have the statement that MM was the second most requested character outside of Sonic. I never disagreed with that, what I stated was that the circumstances presented at the time also played a major part in MM's inclusion. Also you see it as a reason not to put MM in the game. I see the advantages as them licensing a heavily requested character that along with circumstances presented they could take advantage of. Over a series (not even character) that was barely ever requested to be represented in a game that consistently out sales said series, and has franchises already represented within it that completely out sales it at well. Seeing as how they just need to tend to their already large demographic, they stuck to their demographic by adding Mega Man.
(10) Oh, what I meant by that was that the monetary loss Nintendo endured from the WiiU's poor sales affected the direction they took the Smash series in, and that it wasn't solely for the hype of Smash. That was my implication, that's why I used circumstantial indicators to aid with my conclusions related to the matter. But since that is just disregarded I retract that, and I'm gonna have to ask you for empirical evidence proving your claims. Also praise is something subjective as well as the term good, so I'll just disregard that for you, as you've done so courteously for me. All I know, and can prove is that, the game is the second lowest scoring on Metacritic and GameRankings and the worst selling entry so far in the series.
Sakurai has stated Smash isn't a competitive fighter, and was displeased with where the competitive scene that has played and supported the series, took it to. Then with the future release he specifically states he developed the game and implemented mechanics that negated large skill gaps, I'll post the quote if requested in the future, cause this post is long already. Then what I believe from viewing most articles and comments, is that he took out tripping because both the competitive and casual play side disliked it. He even quotes that he believes he's adhering to the silent minority, rather than the vocal majority when designing his games. Also how could the people hate something they didn't even know yet? Anyway, the point of this example from my end, was to showcase his lack of concern toward fans. Like I said before, I don't care what you think, I need EE of you proving he didn't put tripping in to discourage the large competitive scene from playing the way they wanted. Making the game bad or good is subjective, so I'll just disregard that. To answer your question about tripping and money, I thought it was about money because the producer compromised his goals from previous games in order to comply to popular demands, which I thought not to be the case with the previous entry while the company was at a financial high. But yeah circumstantial, cant prove that so I recant it.
Check back for part 三!
Sorry for the grammatical errors, just excuse them if you will. I am currently juggling replies to you and other things right now.Delete
Too bad the comercial figure is gonna look nothing like that, judging by past waves, all of these cheap figs end up looking horrible and not worth the trouble.ReplyDelete
Man, I'm gonna get an amibo figure or two and level them up to crush my opponents in Smash. Wonder if people are gonna buy amibo figurines?ReplyDelete
I already have my Samus and Link preordered, awaiting for this one to be available officially so I can get in on that, too.Delete
I like how Mega Man's figure doesn't have any ugly poles.ReplyDelete
Where Capcom fails,Nintendo prevails. And Don't expect Anything great from Crapcom regarding Mega Man in the future,they still don't care much about the franchise.ReplyDelete
Yet Nintendo still had Capcom redesign Mega Man in SSB. I guess when you stop thinking about them in a corporate level while playing favorites, you'd see that it is the developers and the opportunities they get that make the difference. Nintendo has something on their side that most Japanese companies (not only gaming, but just in general) don't have, tons and tons and tons an...(10lines later) and tons of disposable income, generated from millions upon millions... (20lines later) upon millions of fan and casual support.Delete
Well let's put it like this. Nintendo and Capcom are roughly comparable sizes, Nintendo, excluding hardware or profits made through licensing, has best selling software sales averaging in the 20million units sold, Capcom's best selling game and most popular franchise of all time sold less than 7million and altogether around 62million. That is a BIG difference.
So yeah, I'd definitely say where Capcom fails, Nintendo prevails is the truest statement that can be said regarding this. In fact, Nintendo compared to Capcom is so much on another level, that when I type its name it doesn't even need a spell check.