Talk:List of minor universes/Archive 1

Before I throw any more time at this page: would people generally find this useful as a page? It would replace the wall of text I'm basing it on from the bottom of the universe page, and sections would be linked to by a minor universe template analogous to {{uv}}. Miles (talk) 00:49, 25 February 2015 (EST)

Well, I'm all for it. There are a lot of these little representations that leave you wondering, "What kind of game is that?", and right now I think the wiki doesn't have much in the way of satisfactory answers to such questions, likely for lack of suitable places to put such information. So this definitely serves a purpose, and I already learned a few things reading it. I could contribute a bit to it later, too. Zyrac (talk) 08:13, 25 February 2015 (EST)

Yeah, I mean the text of the sections is rather sloppy and ripped verbatim from the universe page, as I mentioned. I was mostly setting up the infoboxes as a means of consistency and page formation, with the idea that the text would be more easily improved later. Miles (talk) 16:02, 25 February 2015 (EST)

I think this is a good idea. We need to see if we can do anything with the table of contents though. Toomai Glittershine Da Bomb 21:47, 25 February 2015 (EST)

I agree that 60 is a bit unwieldy, but I'm not quite sure what would be an alternative. Removing it altogether seems unwise... Miles (talk) 23:17, 25 February 2015 (EST)

Also a couple of clarifications for consistency:

1. Should minor Namco universes be referenced on this page or on a separate page like "List of Namco universes"? Their representation varies widely from Dig Dug (enemy, music excerpt, Namco Roulette) to King & Balloon (Namco Roulette in one version of SSB4 only), and it'd be a little weird to reference such a minor thing on a page that's already kind of unwieldy.
2. In terms of item-origin universes, which I recently implemented pages for, would the more ambiguous cases of Meteos, GoldenEye 007, or Super Scope also warrant universe pages? And depending on the previous answer about Namco, how about Galaga or Rally-X?
3. Do we care about documenting Marvel vs. Capcom anywhere given that it is officially referenced?

I know I'm probably way overthinking these but I would like some consistency. Comments are appreciated. Miles (talk) 13:00, 26 February 2015 (EST)

1. Arguably we could stuff all those into a "Namco universe" (the game already kinda does), though whether that's a good idea or not is debatable.
2. I think the MSB is a direct enough reference that GoldenEye is viable. I don't think the Super Scope has a native universe. The X Bomb could go either way.
3. Eh I don't think it's necessary.

Toomai Glittershine The Resolute 23:56, 27 February 2015 (EST)

1. I don't see why we wouldn't put all those in a "Namco universe".
2. While the MSB used the GE007 design in the NTSC versions of Melee, they used their Perfect Dark design over in Japan. Also, Sakurai ponted out that the X-Bomb that was in Smash was not to be confused with the one from Meteos, if I'm not mistaken.
3. I think at least pointing the MvC reference would be necessary (specifically, mentioning it on Mega Man's moveset table). Other than that, I don't think we need to do much.

Aidan the Aura Master 00:21, 28 February 2015 (EST)

Alright so the current game plan is to do a "Namco (universe)" or "List of Namco universes" later, include GoldenEye on the main template as an item universe, and pass over the others. (Super Scope I was thinking insofar as Super Scope 6 was a Duck Hunt/Zapper analogue, if anyone cares; it's a bit of a stretch, though.) Miles (talk) 02:09, 28 February 2015 (EST)

Culdecept as 3rd party

I don't get it, why was Culdecept listed as 3rd party but not Fatal Frame or Tetris. If it was third party it would probably be on the Windy Hill or Pac-Land stage, maybe.Nintenzilla (talk) 09:30, 1 May 2015 (EDT)

The piece of information you're complaining about was already removed because there were enough franchises involved to make it ambiguously notable. Miles (talk) 09:37, 1 May 2015 (EDT)

Oh, okay! Now I know!Nintenzilla (talk) 09:38, 1 May 2015 (EDT)

Virtual Fighter goes here right?

Since Akira and Jacky's Mii outfits were leaked, I was wondering if they belong here. I just want to make sure. Magiciandude (talk) 15:20, 13 June 2015 (EDT)

"Virtua". And yes, I already put Akira down on this page. I don't really know anything about that series, so I'm not sure if the Jacky costume is separate or if it's an alternate of some sort. Miles (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2015 (EDT)

Looks to be separate (notice the blonde hair on Jacky's outfit). If you're not sure, then at the least we could just say an outfit based on Jacky's appearance as well. Magiciandude (talk) 16:01, 13 June 2015 (EDT)

Fatal Frame

So recently, I found a video confirming Zelda and Zero Suit Samus costumes for the most recent game in the Fatal Frame series. Would this be something to bring up in the article? Aidan, Master of Speed and Aura 15:07, 19 October 2015 (EDT)

There's no reference to Maiden of Black Water in Smash, coupled with the fact that Nintendo co-owns Fatal Frame. It's not within the scope of this article. Aardvarkian (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2015 (EDT)

Fun Fact

I was actually the one who added all of those universes in the minor universes section of the 'List of universes' page before the section was turned into its own page. ~SuperSmashTurtles

Splitting into "Nintendo-Owned" and "3rd party"

I think it's worth dividing the page up into Nitnendo series at the top and 3rd party franchises at the bottom, especially considering DLC costumes added so many to ssb4. I'm still not sure on what to call the divisions though. Any ideas? Guybrush20X6 (talk) 06:14, 20 March 2018 (EDT)

Base page: "List of minor universes". New page: "List of third-party universes". The only issue is that there really aren't that many to put there, especially since Namco gets their own page. Aidan, the Irish Rurouni 07:51, 20 March 2018 (EDT)

Maybe it's worth waiting and seeing if Smash Switch continues the trend of 3rd Party Mii costumes. We got a few Capcom and Sega ones, not to mention the Commander Video and Rayman trophies so a few more maybe. Guybrush20X6 (talk) 20:49, 25 March 2018 (EDT)

Space Invaders and Meteos

in two pic of the day posts, referencing the X-Bomb and Colour TV Game assist trophy respectively, Sakurai mentioned Meteos and Space Invaders. should we count those as minor universes or not? they haven't appeared in any form in Smash games themselves through, so I'm not 100% sure...

Franchises that are only mentioned and nothing else aren't noteworthy enough representation to warrant a spot on the list. SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2018 (EDT)

Baten Kaitos on this or Namco page?

So I was thinking: Should we move Baten Kaitos to the Namco page or do we keep it here? The first game in the series was published by Namco, so it would've definitely been on the Namco page if it were kept that way, but the sequel is Nintendo-published instead, and a music piece from the sequel plays on the Gaur Plains stage in Super Smash Bros. for Wii U. Plus, it seems rather ambiguous as to who owns the Baten Kaitos IP. How should we handle this? SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 21:39, 4 July 2018 (EDT)

All of the universes on the Namco page were developed by Namco in-house. Since the developer of the Baten Kaitos series is Monolith Soft (that being the reason it's on Gaur Plains, as they also developed Xenoblade), it's probably better to keep it here to avoid any confusion. But you're right that it's ambiguous as to who actually owns the IP. DryKirby64 (talk) 21:53, 4 July 2018 (EDT)

In case there's a Third-Party Universes page...

If we ever make a "List of third-party universes" page when there's enough third-party universes with minor representation (Trophies, music, Mii costumes, etc.), how should we handle the more "debatable" third-party universes? The candidates I will be talking about are Baten Kaitos, Culdcept, Glory of Heracles, and Fatal Frame.

• There's already a discussion about Baten Kaitos that mentions how ambiguous it is as to who owns the IP.

• Both Culdcept for 3DS and Culdcept Revolt, two of the latest installments in the Culdcept series, are Nintendo published, unlike previous installments. Considering that the boxarts for both games have the words "Published by" above the Nintendo logo (Something that isn't present on other Nintendo-published installments of third-party series such as the Japanese Wii U version of Rayman Legends), it seems clear that Nintendo only owns the publishing rights of Culdcept, which likely means OmiyaSoft still owns the IP.

• Ever since the bankruptcy of Data East, Paon picked up the rights to some of their IPs, including Glory of Heracles. When Paon decided to revive the series for the DS, Nintendo decided to publish that installment. Like with Baten Kaitos, it's another case of ambiguity as to who actually owns the IP.

• And finally, there's Fatal Frame. While Tecmo has published and released the first three games on the PlayStation 2, every installment afterwards has been Nintendo published and released exclusively on their consoles (Even the Wii remake of Fatal Frame 2). However, the original PS2 version of Fatal Frame 2 did get re-released on the PSN Store in 2013, a year after the Fatal Frame 2 Wii remake and before Fatal Frame 5 for Wii U, so it seems that, like with Culdcept, Nintendo only owns the publishing rights to future games while Tecmo Koei owns the IP in general.

So, yeah. How should we handle all of them? SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2018 (EDT)

This is a pretty interesting issue. I think we should stop looking at this from a publishers' perspective, and instead focus on who owns the IP owners:

• In Baten Kaitos' case, Monolith Soft is entirely owned by Nintendo, therefore it isn't a third party.
• In the case of Fatal Frame, it is both third-party and not at the same time. The IP is shared by Koei Tecmo and Nintendo. In these cases, I'd say Nintendo takes priority, so in regards to Smash, it's a first party title.
• For Glory of Heracles, every source I check states that Paon owns full rights to Glory of Heracles.
• As for Culdcept, I'm not really sure. The legal text on the series' most recent game website says "Culdcept is a trademark of Omiyasoft Co., Ltd". Therefore implying it's third party?

Considering the fact that most of these are third-party, I think it's safe to assume that Nintendo is allowed to add in content from games they published in the series. The series are for sure third-party, but Nintendo seems to be able to take out anything from them as long as it's included in a game that they published. This is my theory anyways. Pokebub (talk) 03:46, 17 July 2018 (EDT)

Actually, while I was reading about Baten Kaitos on Wikipedia, I discovered an interview by Siliconera with the creator of the series. In it, he states "If we can gather more voices for Baten Kaitos, then maybe we can start something with Bandai Namco Entertainment.". This seems to imply that Namco still owns the Baten Kaitos IP. SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 04:45, 17 July 2018 (EDT)

Baten Kaitos is the one I put the least research into. Maybe we can contact someone at Monolith Soft for confirmation? The same goes for Culdcept as well. Pokebub (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2018 (EDT)

Getsu Fuma Den, After Burner, etc.

We should probably come to a consensus about whether we should cover series whose only representation in Smash is through previous crossover content. For example, After Burner is referenced only by way of the name "After Burner Kick" and a music track, both of which were existing reference in Bayonetta and not new references in Smash. Getsu Fuma Den is a similar case where its only known representation is likely indirect through Castlevania: Harmony of Dissonance. Do we cover these as represented series in their own right, or not? (Tangential and sort of-related case: the Marvel vs. Capcom series, by virtue of Mega Man using the MvC version of the Mega Upper in Smash.) Miles (talk) 18:44, 11 September 2018 (EDT)