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)

Now we've waited and seen, Smash Switch aka Ultimate not only continues the trend of Mii costumes, the whole spirits thing adds a lot of 3rd parties. Definetly think we should split them, the question now being: Different section or own page? Guybrush20X6 (talk) 21:20, 20 November 2018 (EST)

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)

Sorry for the very late reply, but I just thought about it, and I have to say that I disagree on the whole "We kept it on this page to prevent confusion" thing. Okay, so Baten Kaitos isn't Namco-developed, but what if something like Xenogears gets representation in Smash? That series is also made by Monolith Soft, but it's heavily associated with Namc and is still owned by them.. Not putting it in the Namco page would cause more confusion than make less. So yeah, I don't think it should really matter if a Namco IP is made by Namco or not to warrant a section on the Namco universes page. SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 10:29, 7 January 2019 (EST)

I think should keep it here if can't confirm who owns the IP, because only about Baten Kaitos Origins in Smash at present.--Capstalker (talk) 11:06, 11 January 2019 (EST)

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)

Should the games mentioned in the Chronicle from Brawl be listed as a Minor Universe?

In the Chronicle, Brawl mentions some games series that wasn't a Trophies, Stickers, Spirits, Music, or even a Mii Fighter outfit. Is the issue with adding those is because they aren't significant enough as game compared to the 5 types of representation for a Minor universe or would they be preferably mentioned on their own page instead? They also list non-video game series especially in the Game & Watch section. (Snoopy, Pop-eye and Mickey Mouse) --MinorEdits (talk) 01:26, 4 November 2018 (EDT)

The problem with the series only mentioned via Chronicle is that they're not really significant enough to warrant a mention and there's WAAAY too many to even list on the page, anyway. SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 12:43, 4 November 2018 (EST)

Should Megami Tensei have its own section?

Since Raving Rabbids got its own section on this page despite all of its content in Smash being listed in the Mario series, I wonder if there should be a Megami Tensei section as well, seeing how Tokyo Mirage Sessions ♯FE (A crossover between Fire Emblem and Shin Megami Tensei) is getting some Spirits in Ultimate.

However, unlike Mario + Rabbids: Kingdom Battle, the Shin Megami Tensei aspects of the game (As far as I know, correct me if I'm wrong) is purely gameplay/aesthetic only, so I don't know if that's enough to warrant a section on this page. SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 15:33, 19 November 2018 (EST)

I think it should be added but we'll wait and see if the associated spirits have the FE logo in game. Guybrush20X6 (talk) 21:23, 20 November 2018 (EST)

Welp, it's been confirmed that a character from Persona 5 is gonna be a DLC Fighter in Ultimate, so it looks like there's no need to add Megami Tensei on this page, after all. SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2018 (EST)

Yūyūki and Shin Onigashima are both listed in the same series according to Ultimate.

Yūyūki and Shin Onigashima are both listed within the "Famicom Mukashibanashi" game series and not listed as Shin Onigashima for Donbe & Hikari spirit and Yūyūki for Goku and Chao respectively in the game. The game origin is not mentioned at all for these Spirits and considers them both as the Famicom Mukashibanashi" series of games. This isn't like the Shin Megami Tensei issue where Persona is just a sub-series of that game. --MinorEdits (talk) 15:53, 16 December 2018 (EST)

While it is true that both Shin Onigashima and Yuyuki are, indeed, installments of the Famicom Mukashibanashi series, I feel like both games are distinct enough to have their own sections each on the page. If we can give Raving Rabbids its own section despite all of its representation being listed with the Super Mario stuff, then I don't see a problem with Shin Onigashima and Yuyuki being split up. SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2018 (EST)

Mii Costumes and Mii universes

1.we should be created pages of the Mii Costumes universes, obviously they're more information than some Assist Trophy's.

2. spirits divide StreetPass Mii Plaza, Nintendo Land, Wii Party, Wii Music and Pilotwings into one category in Ultimate， so should we merge them into one universe?--Capstalker (talk) 06:42, 25 December 2018 (EST)

I'm gonna say I have to disagree with both of these suggestions.

• We only give the more minor universes that have some effect on gameplay (Assist Trophies, Items, Enemies, etc.) their own pages. Mii Costumes are purely aesthetic based and nothing else.
• I think all the Mii series universes should stay separate from each other. The only thing they all have in common is that they feature Miis (Except for 2/3 of Pilotwings installments). Otherwise, they are very distinct from each other enough to warrant their own sections.SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 00:48, 26 December 2018 (EST)

• But we also give the Mii Costumes characters own pages, all other characters with pages, and their games also has pages. And some universe pages tcontent is very little, but there is more about Chibi-Robo.
• They all have the Miis as the only playable characters, can't think they are the same series? I don't think them is different from Mario Party , Mario Kart and Mario sports series.--Capstalker (talk) 04:04, 26 December 2018 (EST)

• To be honest, I don't even know why we even gave the Mii Costume-only characters their own page. My best guess is that there aren't that many of them compared to Sticker/Spirit-only characters.
• Even if the games in the Wii series or StreetPass series are technically in the same series, we can still recognize them as distinct enough sub-universes, similar to how Donkey Kong, Yoshi, Wario, and Wrecking Crew are distinct sub-universes of Mario. SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 18:21, 27 December 2018 (EST)

• Back to the topic of universe, Mii Costumes character pages may have fewer content than Assist Trophies or Items, but the universe pages not necessarily, like Chibi-Robo obviously have more content than Sin and Punishment or Steel Diver.
• So we should keep the page of sub-universes and create the page of the main-universe. The question is should Nintendo Land, Wii Party, Wii Music and StreetPass Mii Plaza except Find Mii move to the Mii universe page?--Capstalker (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2019 (EST)

The problem that I see is that not every game that features Miis are listed under the Mii logo. Nintendo Badge Arcade and Rusty's Real Deal Baseball/Darumeshi Sports Shop feature Miis, but they aren't listed under the Mii logo TheAmazingRaspberry (talk) 13:07, 3 January 2019 (EST)

The sub-universes and main-universe distinction is unclear is quite common in Smash. like Viruses trophy not be classified into Mario series in SSB4.--Capstalker (talk) 21:40, 3 January 2019 (EST)

Splitting into Nintendo owned and 3rd party universes

With the number of outside series increasing (and who knows how many SNK series will be brought along for the ride by Terry's arrival) I think we should split the page into two sub sections, one for the Nintendo series and another for the 3rd party series. Guybrush20X6 (talk) 17:41, September 16, 2019 (EDT)

I agree. SNK has six series. If now add the Namco to the page, the third-party universe is almost half of the first-party series.--Capstalker (talk) 09:28, November 6, 2019 (EST)

List of SNK universes

Since Terry brought in a lot of SNK universes with him, I'm wondering if we should make a page dedicated to them similar to how we made one for the Namco universes.

I'm kinda neutral. On one hand, there's a total of 8 SNK universes not represented with any major content; but on the other hand, I'm very unsure if 8 is enough to warrant a page, especially since Namco has brought in 24 (25 is Baten Kaitos is counted) total universes created/owned by them to Smash. SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 10:55, November 6, 2019 (EST)

Terry definitely represents the whole of SNK as Pac-Man does Bandai Namco, but there are a lot less universes to cover in the grand scheme of things. Aidan, the Rurouni 10:58, November 6, 2019 (EST)

I think should put all the third-party minor universes on one page. if need to distinguish companies, just add a secondary title.--Capstalker (talk) 11:00, November 6, 2019 (EST)

I'm on the fence with it as well. I'd say probably, sine SNk has morning verses represented right now than any of the other minor universes. However, most of those are only songs so idk. CookiesCreme 11:01, November 6, 2019 (EST)

Generally somewhat opposed. Obviously wherever the line between "belongs here" versus "belongs on its own page" is going to arbitrary wherever it's drawn, but I think the SNK stuff, while plentiful, isn't quite enough to fwarrant its own whole page. Miles (talk) 11:46, November 6, 2019 (EST)

I support since SNK is getting a major representation in SSBU. 174.55.24.64 12:18, November 6, 2019 (EST)

So, I don't understand not put all third-party minor universes on a single page. If we can divide the company like this, one page is enough. --Capstalker (talk) 22:01, November 6, 2019 (EST)

To me, it would look much more crowded than it is already, especially with a huge portion of the page being Namco universes. CookiesCreme 22:06, November 6, 2019 (EST)

I mean, the first-party and third-party minor universes are one page each, and the third-party universes add Namco are only half of the first-party universes.--Capstalker (talk) 22:31, November 6, 2019 (EST)

I support this one. Also, only KOF needs to have its own page since it's so big for having cameos & musics, while the rest, due to having pretty small contents appearing in Smash should be in their own minor section for SNK universes page. Contents originate from their debut games should be placed in different pages/sections. List of minor universe page should be for single universes created by different companies who owns the rights, not multiple universes created by a same company. As for Art of Fighting and Psycho Soldier should be on respective pages that shares same universes & timelines w/ them (eg. Art of Fighting series still count as part of Fatal Fury series because of Geese & Ryo's timeline connections; while Psycho Soldier still count as part of Athena series due to Asamiya being modern-day descendant of the OG Athena) 103.121.18.3 16:00, November 12, 2019 (EST)

Baten Kaitos (again)

There's been ongoing discussion and action regarding whether Baten Kaitos should be considered a Namco property. I disagree on this one, since it's not grouped with other Namco series in contexts like spirits and music (as their only involvement was in publishing, not developing), and its only form of representation in Smash is through the Nintendo-published installment in the series. Although it's been mentioned earlier that it's ambiguous as to who actually owns the property, I'd also like to add that its sorting in Smash 4 indicates it's meant to be taken as a Monolith Soft/Nintendo property rather than Namco. It's like, technically Namco, but not actually Namco in terms of its categorization. ~ Serena Strawberry (talk) 00:03, November 27, 2019 (EST)

And as an aside, the merge proposal mentions Tales as a similar example, but that comparison doesn't really work because the series is developed and published in-house by Namco, so there's no ambiguity whatsoever. ~ Serena Strawberry (talk) 00:07, November 27, 2019 (EST)

If can't determine who actually owns, and I think it's more reasonable to count it as the second-party. because it seems that only the Origins is involved in the Smash, there is no other game.--Capstalker (talk) 01:40, November 27, 2019 (EST)

According to trademark information and going by the original publisher, I'm pretty sure it belongs to Bandai Namco. Regardless of how it's grouped or treated in Smash Bros., it's still legally a third-party series. NuFace (talk) 03:12, November 27, 2019 (EST)

Okay, here's something interesting; the Baten Kaitos Origins trademark, which was held by Namco, expired in 2014 and wasn't renewed (as seen on the page you just linked). The original Baten Kaitos trademark, however, is still owned by Namco and was renewed in 2015. If I'm interpreting this right, it means that Nintendo itself owns specifically Baten Kaitos Origins (as they published it and gained the rights after purchasing Monolith Soft in 2007), while Namco still owns the original Baten Kaitos, and so Nintendo can't use it without their permission. That's probably more comparable to Xenosaga being owned by Namco while Xenoblade is owned by Nintendo, but it's still a complicated issue because it means the rights to these two games in the same franchise are split between their publishers. It's not purely a Namco series or purely a Nintendo series, but in terms of the Smash rep it's legally second-party. ~ Serena Strawberry (talk) 15:14, November 27, 2019 (EST)

Regardless, it might be easier to just put all the third-parties on one page. ~ Serena Strawberry (talk) 15:51, November 27, 2019 (EST)

Regarding Rabbids

The reason I put the French name there is because it's kind of an unprecedented scenario. If I'm not mistaken, Ubisoft is the only non-English non-Japanese studio to participate in Smash? So Rabbids having a different name in the original French felt notable to me, but I know there haven't really been any other examples of cases similar to this. Would it still be worth noting or no? ~ Serena Strawberry (talk) 14:11, January 16, 2020 (EST)