User talk:94.67.133.161: Difference between revisions

From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
No edit summary
(lol fuck mobile)
Line 57: Line 57:


I don't want to disagree with you. I know that you've been running this wiki and I'm just here to contribute but only according to what you think is right. I'm not in position to judge what's right for Smash. But am I wrong about Shadow being a good choice for introducing as a playable character in order to increase Smash's sales, but if Nintendo is losing in the long run by promoting Shadow whose games would bring bigger losses for Nintendo's other games than gains for Smash, then this is the reason that he's omitted from Smash as a playable character?
I don't want to disagree with you. I know that you've been running this wiki and I'm just here to contribute but only according to what you think is right. I'm not in position to judge what's right for Smash. But am I wrong about Shadow being a good choice for introducing as a playable character in order to increase Smash's sales, but if Nintendo is losing in the long run by promoting Shadow whose games would bring bigger losses for Nintendo's other games than gains for Smash, then this is the reason that he's omitted from Smash as a playable character?
So lemme get this straight: you are asserting that Shadow's lack of playability constitutes trivia because his exclusion doesn't make sense given this random assortment of facts....
D-Do you even ''know'' the site you're using? I'm not here to tell you to read policy: the others have already done that. What I ''will'' tell you is that you need to stop brazenly attempting to expand the wiki's scope by arguing semantics. Just because his exclusion is "trivia" in a sense does not mean it should be treated as trivia here. Use some common sense: if this site was about crossovers, why is it not "Crossover Wiki"? Or rather, why ''should'' it be outside of Smash being an intersection of franchises itself? Never mind the fact that your assertions are completely tainted in subjectivity that has no use being on a Wiki to begin with. It doesn't matter that Master Chief "deserves" to be in Smash more: what matters here is that he isn't, and until he is, it won't matter. Not a bad thing, but unless you can locate an objective discrepancy in certain character exclusions, it doesn't belong on the Wiki.
And if you instead wish only to spur discussion about who "should" and "shouldn't" be playable, that's just a conversation better had elsewhere. Believe me, I'd love to discuss it, but not on a site clearly not prepared to handle it. - [[User:EndGenuity|EndGenuity]] ([[User talk:EndGenuity|talk]]) 01:17, September 28, 2019 (EDT)

Revision as of 01:18, September 28, 2019

The Witcher and Warcraft

...has nothing to do with Smash. We are SmashWiki, not everything wiki, and thus focus on Smash. Plus, your additions dive into speculation, and we don't allow that. Please stop adding your edits, thanks! CookiesCnC Signature.pngCreme 16:29, August 25, 2019 (EDT)

Shadow

Not only do you Edit war on that page before being blocked, but the trivia point doesn't make sense. Shadow is not an echo fighter of Sonic since he isn't even a playable character, and the trivia itself is false and volatile, which does not make it a good piece to note. CookiesCnC Signature.pngCreme 22:36, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

Is Smash wiki a representative of Nintendo in a similar way to the one shown in the popular racist Mario video? Is Shadow the Hedgehog hated because of not appearing in many Nintendo games despite being one of the most popular characters in the Sonic franchise? I said that Shadow is the only counterpart of another character in the Smash series who appeared in the game but not as a playable character. I know that there are other characters who used to be assist trophies as counterparts of playable characters but many of them have already made their transition in the latest games thanks to a massive roster. Please correct me if I'm wrong because I don't want to lie but spread interesting ideas instead. Is that wrong? I couldn't think of any other reason to reject my edit other than not accepting the promotion a character that's competing against Nintendo. But can I have a specific example of another major character who is still an assist trophy as a counterpart of a playable character just like Shadow?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.133.161 (talkcontribs) 22:54, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

To put it shortly: The concept you're trying to spread isn't even a thing in the Smash Bros. series. Also, what is with the "sidekicks" part? The other two Links, Meta Knight, and Incineroar aren't considered "sidekicks" (atleast in Smash) to the characters you're trying to pair them with, and the latter two are sometimes grouped with the villains, so what were you trying to go for? SuperSmashTurtles (talk) 23:04, September 27, 2019 (EDT)
Ok let's dissect this shall we?
"Is Smash wiki a representative of Nintendo in a similar way to the one shown in the popular racist Mario video?"
First off, what are you even talking about? Second, no we are a representation of Smash Bros., not Nintendo.. Third, this really dives into speculation.
"Is Shadow the Hedgehog hated because of not appearing in many Nintendo games despite being one of the most popular characters in the Sonic franchise?"
As far as I know, and you have said, Shadow is one of the most liked characters in Sonic. The hate itself isn't even worthy enough as a trivia point, since a similar scenario has happened with a lot of characters (to name a few, Waluigi, Skull Kid, Geno, pre-Ultimate Ridley, pre-Ultimate Banjo).
"I said that Shadow is the only counterpart of another character in the Smash series who appeared in the game but not as a playable character."
So? What does that have to do with the trivia point, which is practically stating that Shadow should be in the game because x character's rival is in the game. That's really jumping to conclusions.
"I know that there are other characters who used to be assist trophies as counterparts of playable characters but many of them have already made their transition in the latest games thanks to a massive roster."
So what does that have to do with anything? As a matter of fact, their transition was due to being popular Nintendo characters and an easy moveset to make, since it could just be a copy/similar copy to another fighter. Even then, other popular/heavily requested "counterparts" like Lyn and Black Knight aren't in the roster, so that nullifies that point.
"Please correct me if I'm wrong because I don't want to lie but spread interesting ideas instead."
How is this trivia point even remotely interesting? You simply listed a bunch of characters with rivals and counterparts, which doesn't make it special at all. Noting that Shadow isn't in the game despite being a counterpart falls apart when there are many other characters (eg. the ones listed above) that fall under the same category. Trivia like that shouldn't be added for that reason.
"I couldn't think of any other reason to reject my edit other than not accepting the promotion a character that's competing against Nintendo."
...Or that it basically fits 2 qualities that makes it a bad trivia point, specifically the ones I literally mentioned at the start of the post. The wiki has it's rules, and you need to follow them. Also, SmashWiki is not a place for advertisements; we are a wiki, after all.
"But can I have a specific example of another major character who is still an assist trophy as a counterpart of a playable character just like Shadow?"
Again, I've listed those above. I'm just repeating myself at this point.

Your defense is literally based off of the fact that "Shadow should be in Smash, but isn't, despite all these characters having it." That's a terrible basis for a trivia point and is why it's being constantly removed. I suggest taking a good read at our rules first before attempting to make further edits to the wiki. CookiesCnC Signature.pngCreme 23:10, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

Sorry for not using the most appropriate word, but heroic protagonists are usually paralleled with either anti-heroes or villains. Anti-heroes are much different than villains but they are both comparable to characters of good alignment, albeit in a much different way. For example, Wario is an evil Mario, but his negative traits are way different than Bowser's. But I want a specific example of a character as popular as Shadow being an assist trophy but not playable. Isn't Sonic like much more popular, even when exclusively referring to Nintendo, than many franchises that have many more playable characters in the latest Smash games? I honestly find this fact to be very weird.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.133.161 (talkcontribs) 23:09, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

That itself is false for Smash. To list "a few" that don't: Ness, Lucas, Captain Falcon, Simon, Richter, Joker, Banjo, Shulk, every single Fire Emblem character. They don't have playable villain counterparts or anti-heroes. CookiesCnC Signature.pngCreme 23:12, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

Is this conversation turning into a Fire Emblem is better than Sonic debate? Are those characters connected to the Fire Emblem's heroic protagonists as much as Shadow is to Sonic? And seriously, no one can deny that Mario is not only by far the greatest franchise of Nintendo, but among the biggest in all video games. And Bowser indeed deserved being ranked as the biggest video game villain despite inconsistency and not so great character development. But Sonic is arguably Mario's biggest competitor. I'm not the right person to do that calculation, but how many times is Fire Emblem less popular than the Sonic the Hedgehog series?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.133.161 (talkcontribs) 23:21, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

I'm starting to think you either don't have any arguments left or you simply do not understand what we are talking about; this argument is straight-up unrelated to your argument above. In that case, let me leave you with this: your trivia point is not trivia. From your explanations it's advertisement and a complaint as to why Shadow isn't in Smash. If you really don't understand why that's not trivia, I really have nothing to say. CookiesCnC Signature.pngCreme 23:25, September 27, 2019 (EDT)
First off, please sign your comments. Second, let's elaborate on your recent response:
Is this conversation turning into a Fire Emblem is bettr than Sonic debate?
How is listing characters without antagonistic counterparts turning this into a Sonic vs FE debate?
Are those characters connected to the Fire Emblem's heroic protagonists as much as Shadow is to Sonic?
What even are you talking about?
But Sonic is arguably Mario's biggest competitor.
No, not anymore. Sega used to be Nintendo's rival but now decided to do only third-party development.
I'm not the right person to do that calculation, but how many times is Fire Emblem less popular than the Sonic the Hedgehog series?
Fire Emblem is nowhere near as iconic as Sonic but still have a lot pf recognition within Nintendo itself.

Your responses are making too many assumptions and false information, not every franchise has antagonistic "sidekicks". Adding to Cookies and Creme's list I'd also like to add in the Pokemon franchise for an exemple, it is one of the most iconic franchises ever made, yet no antagonists appear as characters (sure you have Team Rocket as Mii costumes, but those are costumes, not actual characters). Before adding anything else have a good read at SW:TRIVIA, SW:NOT and also SW:TALK. SupαToαd64, the Best Image for my signiture icon. 23:39, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

That's what I'm saying. No one can deny that Shadow is a big character but he should be small for not being as much Nintendo as other Sonic characters.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.133.161 (talkcontribs) 23:43, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

Um, no? It just means that Sakurai couldn't add him in because of other priorities. CookiesCnC Signature.pngCreme 23:50, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

Of course there are not anti-hero and villain counterparts of heroic protagonists in every franchise but they are commonly seen, especially for the franchises included in Smash.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.133.161 (talkcontribs) 23:46, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

I actually believe that Smash's decision to omit Shadow as a playable character is unfair, as do many others, but I didn't complain. You took that trivia as an accusation over Smash but it wasn't. I hope that Shadow appears in the next game firstly for deserving it and secondly for Smash to be redeemed for an injustice that has tainted an otherwise great fighter game franchise. So if Shadow is to appear in the next game, which is something I don't think anyone can know for sure, then my trivia would be an adverisement rather than defamation. Think about Hulk Hogan and Chyna in WWE 2K20 for example. But anyway, there is no better time than now to promote Shadow in both Sonic and Smash due to the movie being released with Jim Carrey not being identical to Eggman but still much more suitable for playing a crazy villain than any of his comedic roles, just like Jack Nicholson, since I believe that his movie insanity is more legit in real life than Jack's. Jack Nicholson and Joe Pesci in Goodfellas nailed it in doing comedy in films of different genres. Ever seen Jim Carrey's deepfake video as Jack Nicholson from The Shining? You can see that he's made for such roles.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.67.133.161 (talkcontribs) 23:41, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

Sigh... For the third time, SmashWiki is not a place for advertisements. We are a wiki. CookiesCnC Signature.pngCreme 23:44, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

Let me ask you this: do you have any other argument other than "Shadow is popular" or anything like that? CookiesCnC Signature.pngCreme 23:54, September 27, 2019 (EDT)

I'm done arguing with you. It seems that we don't actually disagree. I think we've reached common ground that Shadow should appear in Smash due to being an iconic Sonic character but Sonic's franchise should be punished for not making as many Nintendo games as in the past, with Shadow probably being one of the main reasons for that. If Smash is meant to advertise Nintendo, then I agree that Shadow should not be included. But I still think that Shadow would be one of the best additions for increasing Smash's popularity as a video game regardless of Nintendo. Anyway, Samus is better than Master Chief but she failed to promote Nintendo as much as he promoted Xbox. I think that Nintendo is following the same "best for business" strategy that WWE's Vince McMahon had in mind when promoting John Cena over anyone else. Restricting the audience to a bunch of fanatics. I disagree with that idea but I can't deny that it's effective to some degree and usually endorsed, especially in politics between socialists and neoliberals.

No, not a single one of us even remotely stated our agreement. If you refuse to listen to what me and Toad said, we can't do anything about it. Just so you know, this won't help you in the long run. CookiesCnC Signature.pngCreme 00:12, September 28, 2019 (EDT)

I don't want to disagree with you. I know that you've been running this wiki and I'm just here to contribute but only according to what you think is right. I'm not in position to judge what's right for Smash. But am I wrong about Shadow being a good choice for introducing as a playable character in order to increase Smash's sales, but if Nintendo is losing in the long run by promoting Shadow whose games would bring bigger losses for Nintendo's other games than gains for Smash, then this is the reason that he's omitted from Smash as a playable character?

So lemme get this straight: you are asserting that Shadow's lack of playability constitutes trivia because his exclusion doesn't make sense given this random assortment of facts.... D-Do you even know the site you're using? I'm not here to tell you to read policy: the others have already done that. What I will tell you is that you need to stop brazenly attempting to expand the wiki's scope by arguing semantics. Just because his exclusion is "trivia" in a sense does not mean it should be treated as trivia here. Use some common sense: if this site was about crossovers, why is it not "Crossover Wiki"? Or rather, why should it be outside of Smash being an intersection of franchises itself? Never mind the fact that your assertions are completely tainted in subjectivity that has no use being on a Wiki to begin with. It doesn't matter that Master Chief "deserves" to be in Smash more: what matters here is that he isn't, and until he is, it won't matter. Not a bad thing, but unless you can locate an objective discrepancy in certain character exclusions, it doesn't belong on the Wiki. And if you instead wish only to spur discussion about who "should" and "shouldn't" be playable, that's just a conversation better had elsewhere. Believe me, I'd love to discuss it, but not on a site clearly not prepared to handle it. - EndGenuity (talk) 01:17, September 28, 2019 (EDT)