The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
This thread has been linked to the game 'Super Smash Bros. Brawl'.
We do need one, don't we. Yes we do, we crave for a sequel. Melee was the ultimate fighting fest, packed with Ninty history, tons of modes and plenty of multiplayer mayhem. So, would you lot like to see a Smash Bros. 3, and what characters would you put in it.
I would add to the series:
Isaac (Golden Sun)
Wario
Krystal (Star Fox Adventures)
Ridley (Metroid)
I would have said Viewtiful Joe, but now he's on PS2, so damn. And no, I wouldn't want Sonic's sad ass in the game. What do you all think?
I would add to the series:
Isaac (Golden Sun)
Wario
Krystal (Star Fox Adventures)
Ridley (Metroid)
I would have said Viewtiful Joe, but now he's on PS2, so damn. And no, I wouldn't want Sonic's sad ass in the game. What do you all think?
Page:
gerrid wrote:
> All the designs for the Kong family, except Diddy Kong and Donkey
> Kong, belong to Rare, although the name Kong belongs to Nintendo.
> Therefore, Nintendo cannot use these character designs without Rare's
> permission. Likewise Rare can't use the name Kong for any of their
> characters without Nintendo's permission.
I was wrong, Pringle was partially right.
Bravo.
> All the designs for the Kong family, except Diddy Kong and Donkey
> Kong, belong to Rare, although the name Kong belongs to Nintendo.
> Therefore, Nintendo cannot use these character designs without Rare's
> permission. Likewise Rare can't use the name Kong for any of their
> characters without Nintendo's permission.
I was wrong, Pringle was partially right.
Bravo.
Hedfix wrote:
> Johnson wrote:
> Damn Nintendo for not giving us online play. They all deserve slaps.
Pah - rubbish.
I would like to see Nintendo develop an online system, because I think they could make it work, but it's not as simple as you guys seem to think. Simply putting Melee online would not have worked. It is an offline game designed for four-player multiplayer, and is brilliant for it.
Not everything will be better with online play. Nintendo make decent offline multiplayer games, and considering I prefer this more social style, I'd like them to stick to it - refining and improving.
> Johnson wrote:
> Damn Nintendo for not giving us online play. They all deserve slaps.
Pah - rubbish.
I would like to see Nintendo develop an online system, because I think they could make it work, but it's not as simple as you guys seem to think. Simply putting Melee online would not have worked. It is an offline game designed for four-player multiplayer, and is brilliant for it.
Not everything will be better with online play. Nintendo make decent offline multiplayer games, and considering I prefer this more social style, I'd like them to stick to it - refining and improving.
All the designs for the Kong family, except Diddy Kong and Donkey Kong, belong to Rare, although the name Kong belongs to Nintendo. Therefore, Nintendo cannot use these character designs without Rare's permission. Likewise Rare can't use the name Kong for any of their characters without Nintendo's permission.
THe slowest game I ever did play. The genius of it all.
Ahahaha hurray Doshin.
You people actually care which characters could be in it? Meh.
Doshin...
Doshin...
Pringle28 wrote:
> You dont have a clue what your talking about! We have had this
> conversation before in this forum and rare do not own diddy kong as
> he was in the original snes game that nintendo gave rare the rights
> to.
Yes, he was in the SNES game - CREATED BY RARE. Rare made Diddy, and Nintendo own him, as it's under the DK lisence
> All other DK characters belong to rare seeing as they created
> them.
Rare made Diddy, also, as mentioned above. Nintendo own the rights to ALL Donkey Kong related IP
> Conker was not a nintendo idea given to rare and therefore him
> and all the characters involved are allowed to be used in their
> upgraded port of bad fur day!
which is what I said.
> You dont have a clue what your talking about! We have had this
> conversation before in this forum and rare do not own diddy kong as
> he was in the original snes game that nintendo gave rare the rights
> to.
Yes, he was in the SNES game - CREATED BY RARE. Rare made Diddy, and Nintendo own him, as it's under the DK lisence
> All other DK characters belong to rare seeing as they created
> them.
Rare made Diddy, also, as mentioned above. Nintendo own the rights to ALL Donkey Kong related IP
> Conker was not a nintendo idea given to rare and therefore him
> and all the characters involved are allowed to be used in their
> upgraded port of bad fur day!
which is what I said.
Mattitude wrote:
> mattributé wrote:
> Pringle28 wrote:
> Oh and one last thing, other than Donkey, Diddy and the kongs to
> feature on the snes games you wont be seeing any of the others in a
> Smash bros game or any other game on the GC as they belong to rare
> and rare have left nintendo for another bigger company (I dont know
> if youve heard of them in your own little fanboy world) there called
> MICROSOFT...
>
> Um, no they don't.
>
> Nitendo own the rights to DK, as Rare were only making DK games
> unter
> Nintendo permission - it is and always was Nintendos IP, and any
> characters that Rare created within that IP (i.e. Diddy Kong) belong
> to Nintendo.
>
> Conker, on the other hand, was created by Rare, and, therefore, is
> THEIR product, and THEIR IP, which is why they are releasing it on
> the XBOX.
>
> Booyah.
>
> Yea Pringle
You dont have a clue what your talking about! We have had this conversation before in this forum and rare do not own diddy kong as he was in the original snes game that nintendo gave rare the rights to. All other DK characters belong to rare seeing as they created them. Conker was not a nintendo idea given to rare and therefore him and all the characters involved are allowed to be used in their upgraded port of bad fur day!
...and you still havent answered my question as to why you think it is nessecarry to post in every single topic on the forum?
> mattributé wrote:
> Pringle28 wrote:
> Oh and one last thing, other than Donkey, Diddy and the kongs to
> feature on the snes games you wont be seeing any of the others in a
> Smash bros game or any other game on the GC as they belong to rare
> and rare have left nintendo for another bigger company (I dont know
> if youve heard of them in your own little fanboy world) there called
> MICROSOFT...
>
> Um, no they don't.
>
> Nitendo own the rights to DK, as Rare were only making DK games
> unter
> Nintendo permission - it is and always was Nintendos IP, and any
> characters that Rare created within that IP (i.e. Diddy Kong) belong
> to Nintendo.
>
> Conker, on the other hand, was created by Rare, and, therefore, is
> THEIR product, and THEIR IP, which is why they are releasing it on
> the XBOX.
>
> Booyah.
>
> Yea Pringle
You dont have a clue what your talking about! We have had this conversation before in this forum and rare do not own diddy kong as he was in the original snes game that nintendo gave rare the rights to. All other DK characters belong to rare seeing as they created them. Conker was not a nintendo idea given to rare and therefore him and all the characters involved are allowed to be used in their upgraded port of bad fur day!
...and you still havent answered my question as to why you think it is nessecarry to post in every single topic on the forum?
mattributé wrote:
> Pringle28 wrote:
> Oh and one last thing, other than Donkey, Diddy and the kongs to
> feature on the snes games you wont be seeing any of the others in a
> Smash bros game or any other game on the GC as they belong to rare
> and rare have left nintendo for another bigger company (I dont know
> if youve heard of them in your own little fanboy world) there called
> MICROSOFT...
>
> Um, no they don't.
>
> Nitendo own the rights to DK, as Rare were only making DK games unter
> Nintendo permission - it is and always was Nintendos IP, and any
> characters that Rare created within that IP (i.e. Diddy Kong) belong
> to Nintendo.
>
> Conker, on the other hand, was created by Rare, and, therefore, is
> THEIR product, and THEIR IP, which is why they are releasing it on
> the XBOX.
>
> Booyah.
Yea Pringle
> Pringle28 wrote:
> Oh and one last thing, other than Donkey, Diddy and the kongs to
> feature on the snes games you wont be seeing any of the others in a
> Smash bros game or any other game on the GC as they belong to rare
> and rare have left nintendo for another bigger company (I dont know
> if youve heard of them in your own little fanboy world) there called
> MICROSOFT...
>
> Um, no they don't.
>
> Nitendo own the rights to DK, as Rare were only making DK games unter
> Nintendo permission - it is and always was Nintendos IP, and any
> characters that Rare created within that IP (i.e. Diddy Kong) belong
> to Nintendo.
>
> Conker, on the other hand, was created by Rare, and, therefore, is
> THEIR product, and THEIR IP, which is why they are releasing it on
> the XBOX.
>
> Booyah.
Yea Pringle
Personally, I think making a new SSB game isn't a good idea..too mnay times have i seen original games or sequels perfectly designed only to have them ruined in the next game. SSBM has everything already. 50+ characters would resort to using even more clones, some of which may be stupid to have anyway. I honestly can't see Waluigi being a star player in SSB3..
Don't get me wrong, i loved the original and SSBM, but they should leave it how it is. Why make new games if we all still play and love the old ones.
Don't get me wrong, i loved the original and SSBM, but they should leave it how it is. Why make new games if we all still play and love the old ones.
Page: