u/Low_Confidence2479

Two come to my mind, and it's funny, because both IPs are fighting games, which Smash doesn't seem to have issues with, but trust me, these two IPs are such cases.

The first one is Darkstalkers. There're cases where this is debatable, but generally Smash leans into protagonists.

This is a problem in this case. You thought Mai Shiranue from Fatal Fury had a complicated design to censor, Morrigan straight up doesn't even try, she's off-limits.

And Demitri has a different problem, being probably his most iconic move Midnight Bliss, where they turn the opponent into a female, chokes them, drains their blood before incinerating them (burning the clothes as well, with some nudity in some cases as a result of that) and just when they hit the ground they go back to normal like nothing happened, which got issues of age rating (due to being somewhat explicit), company guidelines (because some won't tolerate the transformation of their characters) and also straight up being hard to do (Demitri rarely makes it to crossovers cause of that move alone).

The second example might be even more controversial though, as I don't remember anyone asking for Darkstalkers rep in Smash...Mortal Kombat however...

Yeah, the main thing going against this are the fatalities.

Such a trademark of the franchise, but what makes them work is A)the one doing the fatality and B)the one on the receiving end getting eviscerated AT BEST. If what I said about Demitri before serves as any indication, this is Demitri's problem but super amplified because pretty much everyone in Mortal Kombat has a brutal fatality.

Anyways, any other example comes to mind? Comment.

Two series come to mind, the ones that, if it wasn't for Smash Bros, they would be forgotten: Star Fox and F-Zero (and I guess also Earthbound, but that's different given the series concluded with Mother 3, so it was never gonna come back anyway). You know it's bad when even Metroid didn't suffer as much of a hibernation as these.

The excuse for both series seem to be kinda the same. Low sales and also lack of ideas. And it's interesting to see how each series tried something new to surface.

Star Fox Zero was THE game Nintendo wanted to push Wii U with, more specifically, the Wii U gamepad, and to it's credit, it was very unique...though not in a good way.

F-Zero though suffered a longer gap, and the fate of the franchise was uncertain, then F-Zero 99 came out and, while not a HIT, it wasn't a FLOP either. It was interesting.

But given what happened with Star Fox Zero, Star Fox 2026 (I'm gonna refer to it as that from now on) took a different approach. It's not a brand new concept, but it has enough add-ons to differ itself enough from Star Fox 64 (which was the base), and though some people understandably see it as Star Fox 64 again...it's special.

If you ask me, Star Fox 2026 to Star Fox 64 is what every new Smash game is to the previous one. The director of Smash (Sakurai) doesn't see the new entries as sequels, mainly because each game is developed with a different goal in mind (and people really felt that in the transition from Melee to Brawl). But it's just me, what do you think?

For those who don't know, Nintendo is kinda forced in europe to make a Switch 2 variant that allows the regular consumer to "fix" the product without having to rely on customer support. Thus, a Switch 2 with removable and replacable battery is allegedly in the making just for europe (though high demand can bring it elsewhere).

However, you may wonder why this isn't the norm on stuff like phones, for example. There's a good reason for that and I think it unfortunately will also affect Switch 2.

Phones nowdays aren't build with removable batteries in mind. They're so thin that removing the battery risks the structural integrity of the device (aka, you can damage your phone if you remove the battery). The phones are designed this way for 3 reason: small size, waterproofing and really, they want you to get another phone eventually.

With all the things Switch 2 has, it's far from waterproof (the two USB ports, the audio port for a wired audio device, and most importantly the gamecard slot, all of it leaves the Switch 2 pretty exposed to water damage). The size though, while not exactly small, it's not exactly bulky either. Switch 2 is pretty slendy, just like Switch 1.

The removable battery would require Switch 2 to be built without the structural integrity in mind, meaning that Switch 2 model would be bulkier than some handheld PC

This has problems on two sides. On one hand, it will potentially make the system more unconfortable to hold, which kinda sucks for a handheld device, let's be real.

On other hand, the system is prone to screen scratching by the dock, annoying but manageable, but a bigger model would require another dock for it to fit confortably.

Being a hybrid system, Switch 2 already has trouble as it lacks the portability of handhelds and the raw power of a home console, at least its somewhat serviceable for both

A bulkier variant, if you ask me, won't help either aspect. It will require TV players to have another dock which will be hard to justify (even Switch OLED could use the old dock as both docks were compatible with both Switch models and the only difference between them is that a USB port was replaced with a LAN port). At least the Switch 2 dock enabled better resolution, justifying both dock and system working exclusively with each other.

And on the handheld aspect, let's be honest, the last thing we want is a bigger Switch 2 and people have been VERY vocal about that. The main reason Switch 2 is so big is because people wanted bigger Joy-Cons, which the Joy-Con 2s are, but to be connected to the sides of the system, the system had to match similar dimensions. This made Switch 2 less portable but more confortable, but with a bulkier system, both things will just get worse.

But that's just my take about the model that will apparently be out in june. What do you think about this?

Rogue had a move in X-Men VS Street Fighter that we would never see again, the ability absorbtion. One would think it didn't return because the roster kept increasing but...Kirby in Smash Bros had a similar idea and with each entry, the scope kept increasing. I don't think Capcom would've had many issues giving Rogue her ability back. Marvel VS Capcom takes a lot more creative liberties compared to Smash (just look at Mega Man on both series) but one would expect that the trademark abilities would've been fair game. What do you think?

Not too long ago, I saw an interview...the director of Marvel VS Capcom 3 said Mega Man (and Roll) were excluded from that game in favor of Zero and the argument would be something along the lines of "it wouldn't be Mega Man" and that's important, given how Mega Man and Roll appeared in the first two games, so the director saw those versions and decided they weren't really Mega Man. Zero was chosen because they evaluated every Mega Man and saw him as the most fitting for fighting game, though Infinite later added X too

By contrast, Mega Man in Smash is crystal clear ripped from his games almost completely it's not even controversial, as not only the animations, but some movement mimicks the one from his own games.

RelaxAlax (a Smash YouTuber, mostly know for his "Know Your Moves" series) explained the constrast by saying Marvel VS Capcom adapted Mega Man onto the game while Smash instead adapted the game for Mega Man.

If the faithfulness to the source material is a requirement for some of the best crossovers in Smash...we should welcome it. You might hate Steve or Kazuya, but they evoke the feeling of playing their games pretty well.

Anyways, whay do you think about this topic? Do you agree? If so or if not, why? Tell me down below. Goodbye.

The director of Marvel VS Capcom 3 once said that Mega Man didn't return in that game because "it would be a different character" as they couldn't adapt him faithfully. So in the director' eyes, the versions of Marvel VS Capcom 1 and 2 weren't really Mega Man. As a result of this, Zero was chosen as his moveset was more fitting for a fighting game, meaning Zero could be faithful. Even though it was claimed that every Mega Man was evaluated before landing on Zero, unironically, the next game added X as well, but Classic Mega Man and Roll, which were present on the first two games, were absent, in favor of X and Zero, for the sake of faithfulness.

When you look at Smash Mega Man, it's clear as water that Mega Man is himself, ripped from the Classic games with a big resemblance to the NES era...but 3Dfied. Mega Man in Smash also kinda feels like he plays exactly like his games, something Marvel VS Capcom didn't quite do.

RelaxAlax, a Smash YouTuber who used to make a series called Know Your Moves (where they analyze each fighter), looked at it like this. Marvel VS Capcom adapted the character (Mega Man) into the game, while Smash adapted the game (Smash) into the character. Which explains how both versions end up completely different.

My question is...which version do you prefer and why? And do you agree with the words of the director of Marvel VS Capcom 3 and the decision to choose Zero (and later also X in Infinite) over Mega Man (and Roll)?

View Poll