Non-nintendo Independent wikis | SONIC DOESN'T APPLY

[Gambler]

RULE OF SMASH APPLIES: If it's in a Smash Bros. game then it's part of Nintendo, unless it's a special guest character. (Sonic/Snake)

[Naesala]

RULE OF SMASH APPLIES: If it's in a Smash Bros. game then it's part of Nintendo, unless it's a special guest character. (Sonic/Snake)

um ok...

[TurtwigA]

RULE OF SMASH APPLIES: If it's in a Smash Bros. game then it's part of Nintendo, unless it's a special guest character. (Sonic/Snake)

That doesn't make much sense in ways. A special guest character isn't exactly a special guest because they're probably going to be in more games. I heard somewhere that Snake could've been in Melee because its creator tried to put him into it. That would've meant that the Metal Gear series is a Nintendo one, even though none of their games are on their consoles.

[BrandedOne]

RULE OF SMASH APPLIES: If it's in a Smash Bros. game then it's part of Nintendo, unless it's a special guest character. (Sonic/Snake)

It's a fair guideline, but it has its flaws.  The biggest one being that the last Smash Bros. Game was released almost three years ago, and Nintendo has been as active as ever since then, even with new IPs like FlingSmash.

[tacopill]

That doesn't make much sense in ways. A special guest character isn't exactly a special guest because they're probably going to be in more games. I heard somewhere that Snake could've been in Melee because its creator tried to put him into it. That would've meant that the Metal Gear series is a Nintendo one, even though none of their games are on their consoles.

It's true. Hideo Kojima, The creator of Metal Gear and the Head guy at HAL Labotory (and creator of Kirby), Masahiro Sakurai, are good friends, and when Kojima heard of smash bros. Melee, he almost begged Sakurai for Snake's inclusion.

However, they were too far along in Melee's develpoment in order to add him.

It's a fair guideline, but it has its flaws.  The biggest one being that the last Smash Bros. Game was released almost three years ago, and Nintendo has been as active as ever since then, even with new IPs like FlingSmash.

What is FlingSmash?


Also: Check out this post

[TurtwigA]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlingSmash This might help for learning about what it is.

[BrandedOne]

Also: Check out this post

I agree with most of that post. Not that my opinion means a whole lot here, but I don't know that I would have ever considered Mega Man a Nintendo franchise.  In my eyes, it's always been Capcom's franchise.

Just because a series has always been published on Nintendo systems doesn't make it a Nintendo series, from my perspective.  Most video game publishers don't make their own systems.

[Gambler]

Also: Check out this post

I agree with most of that post. Not that my opinion means a whole lot here, but I don't know that I would have ever considered Mega Man a Nintendo franchise.  In my eyes, it's always been Capcom's franchise.

Just because a series has always been published on Nintendo systems doesn't make it a Nintendo series, from my perspective.  Most video game publishers don't make their own systems.

Under that logic not even Ace Attorney should be considered to be part. It all boils down to what the goals and focus of NIWA is, will they consider only first and second party game? Third party games that only appear in Nintendo Consoles? Third party games that are part of bigger franchises in more than one console?

Either way I still like the idea of NIWA and support it, I just would like to know how to help other than editing around the Wikis.

[tacopill]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FlingSmash This might help for learning about what it is.

Thanks, but it doesn't give me much. It looks like the Smash Ball from Brawl now has it's own game.

Also: Check out this post

I agree with most of that post. Not that my opinion means a whole lot here, but I don't know that I would have ever considered Mega Man a Nintendo franchise.  In my eyes, it's always been Capcom's franchise.

Just because a series has always been published on Nintendo systems doesn't make it a Nintendo series, from my perspective.  Most video game publishers don't make their own systems.

Everyone's opinion matters, but each opinion carries different amount of wait for different people. It can vary based on

• the amount of time you have been here
• how useful your contributions have been to a person who is looking
• your contributions to the wiki's, both in terms of quality and quantity
• etc.

Anyway, i consider Mega Man both a Capcom Franchise and a Nintendo (with Capcom taking precedence, because, you know, they own the franchise). But i was steamed when i found out Mega Man left Nintendo to be a PlayStation exclusive. Just as i was overjoyed when Battle Network Came out, b/c it was a Nintendo Exclusive franchise.

Now-a-days, i think server-exclusiveness is a dated idea, but that is a topic for another thread.

Also: Check out this post

I agree with most of that post. Not that my opinion means a whole lot here, but I don't know that I would have ever considered Mega Man a Nintendo franchise.  In my eyes, it's always been Capcom's franchise.

Just because a series has always been published on Nintendo systems doesn't make it a Nintendo series, from my perspective.  Most video game publishers don't make their own systems.

Under that logic not even Ace Attorney should be considered to be part. It all boils down to what the goals and focus of NIWA is, will they consider only first and second party game? Third party games that only appear in Nintendo Consoles? Third party games that are part of bigger franchises in more than one console?

Either way I still like the idea of NIWA and support it, I just would like to know how to help other than editing around the Wikis.

Ace Attorney has heavy influence from Nintendo, and i think the general public see it as a nintendo franchise more than a capcom one.

Other than helping out wikis, what other skill do you have? for instance, are you good with web design, forum adminship or public relations?

[Axiomist]

Archaic says Ace Attorney is published by Nintendo in Australia.

[BrandedOne]

Also: Check out this post

I agree with most of that post. Not that my opinion means a whole lot here, but I don't know that I would have ever considered Mega Man a Nintendo franchise.  In my eyes, it's always been Capcom's franchise.

Just because a series has always been published on Nintendo systems doesn't make it a Nintendo series, from my perspective.  Most video game publishers don't make their own systems.

Everyone's opinion matters, but each opinion carries different amount of wait for different people. It can vary based on

• the amount of time you have been here
• how useful your contributions have been to a person who is looking
• your contributions to the wiki's, both in terms of quality and quantity
• etc.

So... Not that much, at least for now.   

Archaic says Ace Attorney is published by Nintendo in Australia.

As is Baten Kaitos, I think.  Those two franchises are in similar situations.

[KidIcarus]

Nintendo also publishes Trauma Center in some regions.

[Axiomist]

I would think we're are more open if we allow series that Nintendo has published (ie says Nintendo at the bottom right of the box) at least one game in at least one region. By being more open and still within the confines of the organization, we could bring in more development, editors, etc.

[KidIcarus]

I would think we're are more open if we allow series that Nintendo has published (ie says Nintendo at the bottom right of the box) at least one game in at least one region. By being more open and still within the confines of the organization, we could bring in more development, editors, etc.

That may be a little too loose of a policy. Under that policy, all of the following would qualify: Dragon Quest, Mana, Final Fantasy, Harvest Moon, Bionic Commando, Zack & Wiki, Viewtiful Joe, and Resident Evil.

[tacopill]

So... Not that much, at least for now.   

For now, yes. But stick around, help out the wikis, contribute to forums, and you will get there. It is something to shoot for.

[BrandedOne]

So... Not that much, at least for now.   

For now, yes. But stick around, help out the wikis, contribute to forums, and you will get there. It is something to shoot for.

True.  I'm just trying to rush things too much.  I'll get there.

I would think we're are more open if we allow series that Nintendo has published (ie says Nintendo at the bottom right of the box) at least one game in at least one region. By being more open and still within the confines of the organization, we could bring in more development, editors, etc.

That may be a little too loose of a policy. Under that policy, all of the following would qualify: Dragon Quest, Mana, Final Fantasy, Harvest Moon, Bionic Commando, Zack & Wiki, Viewtiful Joe, and Resident Evil.

If I may, being published by Nintendo in Japan is a pretty big indicator that a series belongs to Nintendo.

[BoredPikachu!]

Would the Prof. Layton series apply? It's published by Level-5 in Japan and by Nintendo outside of Japan.

[tacopill]

The way i see it, and anyone can prove me wrong if they choose, on whether or not a franchise applies, is this:

Question: a) Is the spider-man movie trilogy a "Marvel Movie" or a "Columbia/Tristar Pictures Movie"? How about the X-Men movies, "Marvel" or "20th Century Fox"?

With this question, i would go with the second option, because 1) the second company owns the movie rights to the franchises, and, more importantly, 2) Being owned by that company allows for a certain amount of brand-recognition and age-appropriate material. (For example, if the x-men movies were released by Columbia/Tristar, do you think wolverine would of been allowed to curse with his claws?)

Problem is, with a set up like that, some of the "Marvel-ness" is lost, and a movie cross-over between X-Men and Spider-man would be a legal nightmare, especially with Marvel now being owned Disney. 

On the other hand, look at DC. They are 100% owned by Warner Bros. Any Animation, Movies, TV Shows, etc. will be linked by to them. *random fan bursts*  Smallville - Dark Knight crossover!  *random fan bursts*.

B) Is a film release by "Touchstone Pictures" or even "Miramax" considered a Disney film?

I would say no, simply because of brand-recognition. the purpose of "Touchstone Pictures" is to be a separate brand then Disney, that way the company can release films without ruining its Family-Friendly image. 

Other questions you could ask:
C) Is "Bleach" (Anime), considered a "Shoen Jump" (Manga Magazine) or a "Viz Media" (External/Subbing/Dubbing rights) anime?   (They also do Graphic novels and the NA distribution of Shoen Jump, but that's besides the point)
D) Is "Halo" considered a "Bungie" or a "Microsoft" Brand?
E) is "YouTube" considered a "Google" brand? (although, they don't really sell anything, Youtube has maintained it's own identity despite no longer being an independent company).

So...that's all the examples i can think of  .

To answer your question BoredPikachu!, i think they would apply  , since Nintendo is helping spread the franchise through distribution rights, and they use Nintendo's advertising team  for their commercials in the US.   

I hope this helps people and i didn't lose anyone in my odd grammar  or bore anyone with non-applicable examples  . 

[KidIcarus]

The way i see it, and anyone can prove me wrong if they choose, on whether or not a franchise applies, is this:

Question: a) Is the spider-man movie trilogy a "Marvel Movie" or a "Columbia/Tristar Pictures Movie"? How about the X-Men movies, "Marvel" or "20th Century Fox"?

With this question, i would go with the second option, because 1) the second company owns the movie rights to the franchises, and, more importantly, 2) Being owned by that company allows for a certain amount of brand-recognition and age-appropriate material. (For example, if the x-men movies were released by Columbia/Tristar, do you think wolverine would of been allowed to curse with his claws?)

Problem is, with a set up like that, some of the "Marvel-ness" is lost, and a movie cross-over between X-Men and Spider-man would be a legal nightmare, especially with Marvel now being owned Disney. 

On the other hand, look at DC. They are 100% owned by Warner Bros. Any Animation, Movies, TV Shows, etc. will be linked by to them. *random fan bursts*  Smallville - Dark Knight crossover!  *random fan bursts*.

B) Is a film release by "Touchstone Pictures" or even "Miramax" considered a Disney film?

I would say no, simply because of brand-recognition. the purpose of "Touchstone Pictures" is to be a separate brand then Disney, that way the company can release films without ruining its Family-Friendly image. 

Other questions you could ask:
C) Is "Bleach" (Anime), considered a "Shoen Jump" (Manga Magazine) or a "Viz Media" (External/Subbing/Dubbing rights) anime?   (They also do Graphic novels and the NA distribution of Shoen Jump, but that's besides the point)
D) Is "Halo" considered a "Bungie" or a "Microsoft" Brand?
E) is "YouTube" considered a "Google" brand? (although, they don't really sell anything, Youtube has maintained it's own identity despite no longer being an independent company).

So...that's all the examples i can think of  .

To answer your question BoredPikachu!, i think they would apply  , since Nintendo is helping spread the franchise through distribution rights, and they use Nintendo's advertising team  for their commercials in the US.   

I hope this helps people and i didn't lose anyone in my odd grammar  or bore anyone with non-applicable examples  . 

So would you agree with Axiomist's suggestion of "series that Nintendo has published at least one game in at least one region"? Nintendo doesn't really have a Miramax or Touchstone Pictures equivalent as far as I know so all games would still apply.

[tacopill]

The way i see it, and anyone can prove me wrong if they choose, on whether or not a franchise applies, is this:

Question: a) Is the spider-man movie trilogy a "Marvel Movie" or a "Columbia/Tristar Pictures Movie"? How about the X-Men movies, "Marvel" or "20th Century Fox"?

With this question, i would go with the second option, because 1) the second company owns the movie rights to the franchises, and, more importantly, 2) Being owned by that company allows for a certain amount of brand-recognition and age-appropriate material. (For example, if the x-men movies were released by Columbia/Tristar, do you think wolverine would of been allowed to curse with his claws?)

Problem is, with a set up like that, some of the "Marvel-ness" is lost, and a movie cross-over between X-Men and Spider-man would be a legal nightmare, especially with Marvel now being owned Disney. 

On the other hand, look at DC. They are 100% owned by Warner Bros. Any Animation, Movies, TV Shows, etc. will be linked by to them. *random fan bursts*  Smallville - Dark Knight crossover!  *random fan bursts*.

B) Is a film release by "Touchstone Pictures" or even "Miramax" considered a Disney film?

I would say no, simply because of brand-recognition. the purpose of "Touchstone Pictures" is to be a separate brand then Disney, that way the company can release films without ruining its Family-Friendly image. 

Other questions you could ask:
C) Is "Bleach" (Anime), considered a "Shoen Jump" (Manga Magazine) or a "Viz Media" (External/Subbing/Dubbing rights) anime?   (They also do Graphic novels and the NA distribution of Shoen Jump, but that's besides the point)
D) Is "Halo" considered a "Bungie" or a "Microsoft" Brand?
E) is "YouTube" considered a "Google" brand? (although, they don't really sell anything, Youtube has maintained it's own identity despite no longer being an independent company).

So...that's all the examples i can think of  .

To answer your question BoredPikachu!, i think they would apply  , since Nintendo is helping spread the franchise through distribution rights, and they use Nintendo's advertising team  for their commercials in the US.   

I hope this helps people and i didn't lose anyone in my odd grammar  or bore anyone with non-applicable examples  . 

So would you agree with Axiomist's suggestion of "series that Nintendo has published at least one game in at least one region"? Nintendo doesn't really have a Miramax or Touchstone Pictures equivalent as far as I know so all games would still apply.

I would, so long as it is as the brand or franchise is recognized as a Nintendo brand or franchise.

O! and i thought of something else:
Donkey Kong Country - Rare Games, a Former Rare Brand, but even though rare developed it, it was still part of a Nintendo franchise because they 1) published it and 2) own the rights over it.