Editing Talk:List of Namco universes
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
|
You aren't logged in. While it's not a requirement to create an account, doing so makes it a lot easier to keep track of your edits and a lot harder to confuse you with someone else. If you edit without being logged in, your IP address will be recorded in the page's edit history. | |
 Log in
|
Create account
| |
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
:::True, but even now, Namco still has way more of their IPs represented in Smash than other companies. Konami and Capcom both have 3 series each (Excluding ''Getsu Fuma Den'' for the former), Sega has 4 (Excluding ''After Burner''), and Square Enix still only has 1. And there are the 3rd-party universes from non-playable companies such as ''Rayman'', ''Shantae'', ''BIT.TRIP'', and ''Shovel Knight'', which are the only representations of their respective companies. Not to mention that Namco has pretty much become the main co-developer of the ''Smash Bros.'' series moving forward. Honestly, having a page for 3rd-party universes where about 50% of the entries are from the same company would make it feel like a mess, so I still say it's best to leave Namco with its own page. [[User:SuperSmashTurtles|SuperSmashTurtles]] ([[User talk:SuperSmashTurtles|talk]]) 22:00, 11 February 2019 (EST) | :::True, but even now, Namco still has way more of their IPs represented in Smash than other companies. Konami and Capcom both have 3 series each (Excluding ''Getsu Fuma Den'' for the former), Sega has 4 (Excluding ''After Burner''), and Square Enix still only has 1. And there are the 3rd-party universes from non-playable companies such as ''Rayman'', ''Shantae'', ''BIT.TRIP'', and ''Shovel Knight'', which are the only representations of their respective companies. Not to mention that Namco has pretty much become the main co-developer of the ''Smash Bros.'' series moving forward. Honestly, having a page for 3rd-party universes where about 50% of the entries are from the same company would make it feel like a mess, so I still say it's best to leave Namco with its own page. [[User:SuperSmashTurtles|SuperSmashTurtles]] ([[User talk:SuperSmashTurtles|talk]]) 22:00, 11 February 2019 (EST) | ||
::::I think a page with about 95% of the entries are from the Nintendo games, There are six third-party games on the page also make it feel like a mess.--[[User:Capstalker|Capstalker]] ([[User talk:Capstalker|talk]]) 00:27, 12 February 2019 (EST) | ::::I think a page with about 95% of the entries are from the Nintendo games, There are six third-party games on the page also make it feel like a mess.--[[User:Capstalker|Capstalker]] ([[User talk:Capstalker|talk]]) 00:27, 12 February 2019 (EST) | ||
:::::Well, ''Super Smash Bros.'' is supposed to be a Nintendo All-Star fighter, after all. Heck, the first game's Japanese name had the subtitle "''Nintendo All-Star''". So there's atleast a reason why 95% of the entries on | :::::Well, ''Super Smash Bros.'' is supposed to be a Nintendo All-Star fighter, after all. Heck, the first game's Japanese name had the subtitle "''Nintendo All-Star''". So there's atleast a reason why 95% of the entries on here are Nintendo-owned. Not to mention that, when the page was first created, only 2 third-party series (And a few debatable ones like {{uv|Fatal Frame}} or ''Culdcept'') were minor universes. And even when stuff like {{uv|Virtua Fighter}} or {{uv|Monster Hunter}} came via DLC Mii Costumes, they certainly weren't enough to warrant a full third-party page. And just to remind you again: Namco has too many IPs represented in Smash to just put them in any "List of universes" page other than their own, so I really don't see how we should put them in a third-party universes page rather than their own. [[User:SuperSmashTurtles|SuperSmashTurtles]] ([[User talk:SuperSmashTurtles|talk]]) 14:49, 12 February 2019 (EST) | ||
::::::I agree that this page should stay; Pac-Man is a unique case in ''Smash'' because his character is really a representation of Namco as a whole (as opposed to other third-party characters, who mostly represent their own games). The minor third-party representation is small enough that they feel fine going with the Nintendo games on the "minor universes" page, while this works more as a supplement to Pac-Man's appearance in ''Smash''. [[User:DryKirby64|DryKirby64]] ([[User talk:DryKirby64|talk]]) 18:21, 12 February 2019 (EST) | ::::::I agree that this page should stay; Pac-Man is a unique case in ''Smash'' because his character is really a representation of Namco as a whole (as opposed to other third-party characters, who mostly represent their own games). The minor third-party representation is small enough that they feel fine going with the Nintendo games on the "minor universes" page, while this works more as a supplement to Pac-Man's appearance in ''Smash''. [[User:DryKirby64|DryKirby64]] ([[User talk:DryKirby64|talk]]) 18:21, 12 February 2019 (EST) | ||
:::::::If we add other companies, it will not affect the entries of Namco, even can create a secondary classification for Namco. Since can put other companies on a page of almost all Nintendo, why can't put it on a page of 50% Namco?--[[User:Capstalker|Capstalker]] ([[User talk:Capstalker|talk]]) 22:07, 12 February 2019 (EST) | :::::::If we add other companies, it will not affect the entries of Namco, even can create a secondary classification for Namco. Since can put other companies on a page of almost all Nintendo, why can't put it on a page of 50% Namco?--[[User:Capstalker|Capstalker]] ([[User talk:Capstalker|talk]]) 22:07, 12 February 2019 (EST) | ||
