Super Smash Bros. 3D-Specific Thread

Aye I think he'd be an interesting character to play as also.

JayMoyles wrote:

I was sad to see it was a hoax, actually. Felt Rayman would have been a good fit for the Smash Bros. universe. Now imagine it was Ridley he'd "leaked" instead...

I'd have killed the f***er.

All I can say is thank god it's fake. The only non-Nintendo characters worthy of being in Smash are those who helped make gaming what it is today. Suffice to say Rayman is not among those top class elite.

Explain the presence of Robin then? Yes, I know he's technically a Nintendo character but he's a shit one.

An interesting article on the Japanese reaction to the leak through some translated tweets.

I particularly enjoyed "self-satisfied face".

Why does everyone still hate Rayman?

Yeah, surprised me too - I thought Origins and Legends were really well received?

Good game (no comment on Origins), bad character.  I still despise the Rayman franchise's character design, although the Viking ladies were okay.

Rayman is a much better character than the eight hundred Fire Emblem fighters that make up 99.9% of the character select screen. Nowt wrong with Rayman at all.

I agree with both you and Jas when they're in isolation, but... third-party. The combination of a bad character and third-party, especially given the furore around RLegends and Ubi's current relationship with Nintendo, would have rubbed me up the wrong way more than a masseuse who's been handling chilli peppers.

Still, Rayman is a much better character than the eight hundred Fire Emblem fighters that make up 99.9% of the character select screen. Nowt wrong with Rayman at all.

Regardless of quality Rayman has less place being in Smash than the bishounen army from across Nintendos many RPG series, purely because they are by Nintendo and whether a person likes the genre or not they belong in a game whose entire purpose is allowing the figureheads of Nintendo's entire history beat each other to fainting.  That means everyone from Mario to Wii Fit Trainer to Shulk and everyone in between all get a fair shake of the sauce bottle.

The_Jaster wrote:

Explain the presence of Robin then?  

He's the protagonist of the most recent and largest selling Fire Emblem in the series history.  Done.  I don't even main Robin so I don't honestly care that much, Marth has been my main since Melee and he likely always will be and Greninja serves the role of sword user with a twist that is far more compatible with my playstyle.  

Actually I'll shoot down the retort using Greninja now and point out that he represents the latest installments of Nintendo's largest franchise next to Mario.  Just in case you were thinking of going there next.  

Athrun888 wrote:

Regardless of quality Rayman has less place being in Smash

What constitutes as deserving a place in Smash? He's the mascot of one of the world's biggest publishers. Genuinely puzzled as to why people are getting so riled up about Rayman - is it because he's not Nintendo-based enough? I'd say Pacman is about as Nintendo-centric as Rayman, yet he made it in.

JayMoyles wrote:

Athrun888 wrote:

Regardless of quality Rayman has less place being in Smash

What constitutes as deserving a place in Smash? He's the mascot of one of the world's biggest publishers. Genuinely puzzled as to why people are getting so riled up about Rayman - is it because he's not Nintendo-based enough? I'd say Pacman is about as Nintendo-centric as Rayman, yet he made it in.

I find Rayman to be tediously boring, but I agree with the argument you are placing. In the end, I think Nintendo should only support iconic characters that support Nintendo. Rayman is arguably supporting Nintendo, with all the games, except that Ubisoft have become dicks, so do Nintendo do anything for Ubisoft? So I don't an issue about any character that appears on Nintendo consoles, as long as there is tangible benefits to Nintendo. The same could be applied to Mario Kart - why not have non Nintendo DLC characters? I personally don't have an issue with that now it has been opened up to Zelda and company.

JayMoyles wrote:

Athrun888 wrote:

Regardless of quality Rayman has less place being in Smash

What constitutes as deserving a place in Smash? He's the mascot of one of the world's biggest publishers. Genuinely puzzled as to why people are getting so riled up about Rayman - is it because he's not Nintendo-based enough? I'd say Pacman is about as Nintendo-centric as Rayman, yet he made it in.

It's as I said, a large Nintendo background.  Smash started and to this day is a game about Nintendo's extremely large amount of iconic characters duking it out.  Since then that has been slightly extended to include what amounts to mario's peers and fellow original mascots of gaming as a whole.  

Rayman may be a mascot of Ubisoft, but he has absolutely nothing to do with Nintendo or the conception of the gaming industry as we know it.  Merely being a mascot is not enough, if it were then random Soccer Player 101 and Shooty Bang Soldier 2052 should also be included in Smash as mascots of EA and Activision (as they are every bit Ubi's peers if not larger) respectively.  

If a character outside Nintendo is to be included they need strong ties with Nintendo and strong ties with the history of gaming as a whole.  Sonic has that with his rival to Mario since the old ages, Megaman has that due to being one of the few faces that has endured since the beginning of the industry as we know it, and Pacman also falls under that flag as one of the original mascots of the industry (much as I dislike the form he takes being the modern one realistically it was probably the only way to really include him as a viable fighter).  


For me as far as getting riled up is concerned it isn't so much Rayman himself who I have nothing against one way or the other, but the mentality that brings about the constant issue.  It all boils down to the fact that Smash is first and foremost about Nintendo, and yet there are constantly calls for basically every gaming related mascot under the sun to be included, when Smash is not about that.  It's about Nintendo plain and simple, and while the series has come to include a few very special guests in its roster that is what it is about to this day.  

Believe me there are plenty of third party characters I personally like, but I wouldn't want them in Smash despite that because of what Smash represents.  As nice an idea as it is to throw around the fantasy of having Rayman, Final Fantasy's Black Mage, Spyro the dragon, and all of these other iconic mascots in doing so destroys the very thing that Smash is.

Smash is not about gaming, it is about Nintendo with the extremely occasional exceptionally special guest. That is exactly how the series should remain.

And it will remain about Nintendo, but as the roster inevitably swells again so will the number of third party characters. They'll always keep it proportional.

In regards to Rayman, I think, disregarding your personal bias against the character and Ubisoft, that he does fit your criteria. He's a recognisable mascot of a huge publisher (I don't think your points about Activision or EA hold ground, because they don't have recognisable mascots like Ubi, Namco, Capcom and Nintendo do), he's endured since the mid 90s, and his games have always featured on Nintendo consoles in some form. But that's neither here nor there - he's not in... for now.

Speaking of which, Ubi are making a statement about the matter today apparently. It'll probably be "Rayman is not featuring in Smash 4", but it'll be interesting to hear if it's any different.

Athrun888 wrote:

Regardless of quality Rayman has less place being in Smash than the bishounen army from across Nintendos many RPG series, purely because they are by Nintendo and whether a person likes the genre or not they belong in a game whose entire purpose is allowing the figureheads of Nintendo's entire history beat each other to fainting.  That means everyone from Mario to Wii Fit Trainer to Shulk and everyone in between all get a fair shake of the sauce bottle.

The_Jaster wrote:

Explain the presence of Robin then?  

He's the protagonist of the most recent and largest selling Fire Emblem in the series history.  Done.  I don't even main Robin so I don't honestly care that much, Marth has been my main since Melee and he likely always will be and Greninja serves the role of sword user with a twist that is far more compatible with my playstyle.  

Actually I'll shoot down the retort using Greninja now and point out that he represents the latest installments of Nintendo's largest franchise next to Mario.  Just in case you were thinking of going there next.  

My problem isn't with the genre or even fire emblem itself, also I was clearly joking about that question being properly answered.

Anyhow with all the talk of having to be iconic enough to be considered Robin is the furthest away from that than any character in smash bros history, he's basically a player created avatar albeit with certain limits not to mention the series is already well covered.

For me it's just a very odd choice even if the game he's from is extremely popular.

They wanted a Fire Emblem character who wasn't a straightforward swordsman, and Robin's magic usage fits the bill.  I too found it peculiar that Robin, a completely non-iconic character, had been included - but give that FEA sold absolute gangbusters in the West compared to the rest of the franchise, and considering that we already had two bog-standard Fire Emblem swordsmen in the cast (ruling Chrom out), it does kind of make sense.

JayMoyles wrote:

And it will remain about Nintendo, but as the roster inevitably swells again so will the number of third party characters. They'll always keep it proportional.

In regards to Rayman, I think, disregarding your personal bias against the character and Ubisoft, that he does fit your criteria. He's a recognisable mascot of a huge publisher (I don't think your points about Activision or EA hold ground, because they don't have recognisable mascots like Ubi, Namco, Capcom and Nintendo do), he's endured since the mid 90s, and his games have always featured on Nintendo consoles in some form. But that's neither here nor there - he's not in... for now.

Speaking of which, Ubi are making a statement about the matter today apparently. It'll probably be "Rayman is not featuring in Smash 4", but it'll be interesting to hear if it's any different.

Activision have Spyro & Crash , but I agree about no Rayman he's bit iconic but also thought snake was a silly choice in melee.

Balladeer wrote:

They wanted a Fire Emblem character who wasn't a straightforward swordsman, and Robin's magic usage fits the bill.  I too found it peculiar that Robin, a completely non-iconic character, had been included - but give that FEA sold absolute gangbusters in the West compared to the rest of the franchise, and considering that we already had two bog-standard Fire Emblem swordsmen in the cast (ruling Chrom out), it does kind of make sense.

and then they added Lucina  

JayMoyles wrote:

And it will remain about Nintendo, but as the roster inevitably swells again so will the number of third party characters. They'll always keep it proportional.

In regards to Rayman, I think, disregarding your personal bias against the character and Ubisoft, that he does fit your criteria. He's a recognisable mascot of a huge publisher (I don't think your points about Activision or EA hold ground, because they don't have recognisable mascots like Ubi, Namco, Capcom and Nintendo do), he's endured since the mid 90s, and his games have always featured on Nintendo consoles in some form. But that's neither here nor there - he's not in... for now.

Speaking of which, Ubi are making a statement about the matter today apparently. It'll probably be "Rayman is not featuring in Smash 4", but it'll be interesting to hear if it's any different.

We're talking two different levels of iconic when we talk Mario and Rayman, one is basically one of the originals, the other is simply a mascot.  That's the point I'm getting at, being a mascot is not enough for a third party character to earn a place in Smash.  A character must be larger than a simple mascot, it must be a face of gaming itself that has endured and shaped the industry since the mists of time (specifically when the industry was still taking its shape).  Megaman fits this.  Pacman fits this.  Sonic almost fits it and makes up for the rest with his long history as Mario's rival.  Rayman does not fit this.

Once again I have to say this is not actual bias against Rayman and ubisoft, but third party inclusions as a whole.  This could be about Adol Christin from Falcom's Ys franchise and I would be every bit against his inclusion as I am Rayman, and I would be just as vocally against it.

The_Jaster wrote:

and then they added Lucina  

She started off life as a costume change, and is (as Sakurai puts it) essentially an extra - but I agree that she's got no place in this game.

You all shaddup about Lucina

After another play yesterday all I have to say is "so much for that new level 9 ai".  My aerial game with Greninja is awful, marth on the other hand I completely destroyed them with.  Same with Shulk.  I'll give it credit that I do usually lose a life or two to it, but I wasn't expecting to win this quickly against it.  

They really need to add an adaptive ai to the series where it picks up on the players style over the course of the fight and counters it more proficiently, that would really make things more exciting.

I booted this game up twice, and never felt the compulsion to return.