Messages

For some reason, making inbetween frames with the graph editor isn't working with Marth's arms and legs at the same time. I would have the arms animated fine, but once I move the legs and redo the graph curve to make the animation smooth, the smoothness goes to the legs but is lost from the arms. Any ideas?

Edit: Huh, that's weird. I tried selecting and using the graph editor with the marker earlier in the timeline. Now the transition with the arms animated fine looking alright (it's over just two key frames), yet the rest of the arm aniamtion is still choppy. What's the pattern?

Edit 2: Also, what do I do with Captain Falcon? Supposedly his hands in T-stance aren't good enough.

Help please. Ctrl+Backspace and Ctrl+Shift+Backspace aren't working for me. 

Alright. Thanks, Blackjax.

Could you please include a text file with all the keyboard commands in the next build?

I haven't been able to test the BbS group for a while because I left my SD card at my friend's place.

I've been having trouble with the .rel characters. I'm getting freezes, though it might just be because I'm using the Project M codeset. I guess I'll try with a basic .gct.

Here's what I found so far:
Vanitas goes into t-stance from up-taunt
The game freezes when Vanitas does down-air from above on Aqua (not sure which of the two characters caused it).

I can help test too.

Scrafty coming someday? :D

http://forums.kc-mm.com/Gallery/BrawlView.php?Number=23756 - Organization  XIII Cloak

By all means, take as much time as you want. Just let us know what's going on, please! :)

Not necessarily true; a lot of Pokémon fans love gen 5. I know that Boufallant is an "expy" of Taurus, but they don't look exactly alike. Admit it, your example with Haxorus/Garchomp is total bull[censored]. I do play Pokemon Online. You'll have to give me examples on those stat similarities, though I'll be hard to convince that STATS of all things would be a problem. If you look at this page http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CompetitiveBalance, you should notice the principals of character balance. There's Lightning Bruiser, Stone Wall, et cetera. It's only natural that pokemon would fall into these few categories, so it's not fair criticism for gen 5. Gen 4 is much, much worse design-wise. Most of those pokemon are not memorable. Gen 5 has many pokemon that really stick out (mostly for better).

Your definition of "copy" isn't very clear. I don't understand the criteria you're putting on. There's nothing wrong with having more than one rock-type family and more than one fighting-type family, so what's your point? What do you expect Game Freak to do? You're glorifying gen 4 of all things, so let's dissect it. There's a fighting-type final form of the fire starter, an early-game rodent normal-type, an early-game normal bird, some baby forms of previous generation pokemon, some evolutions of previous generation pokemon, a pointless offspring of one of the legendaries that looks exactly the same as its parent... that's a lot of pokemon, right? Well gen 4 only has 107 pokemon. That's seven more than generation II, so it doesn't have the lowest count, but considering that a big chunk of them are in the same family as previous generation pokemon, that's very few. What's less original than making a new fighting-type family? Adding a freaking baby pokemon to a pre-existing line out of nowhere. In fact, there are so few "completely new" families in gen 4 that gen 5 definitely outweighs it. How could a generation have more original pokemon if it pretty much has less than half the amount of new pokemon as the other generations? Digimon isn't fair game, either. The more Pokemon Game Freak makes, the more likely they will come across similarities with other franchises. Blatant fact. There's no true evidence that Pokemon is copying Digimon, of all things. Sorry dude, I think nostalgia caught up to you. I've been a Pokémon fan since the beginning as well, and I'm completely okay with the direction it's taking, especially after the horrible experience that was generation 4 (though it did have cool legendaries and Lucario).

My final message about the topic:

I don't see the logic in your view. Just because they make another rock-type line that follows the same pattern as Geodude's (including trade evolution) doesn't mean it's a bad thing, per se. In real life, there are many kinds of fish. Are they just copies of one another? Not necessarily. Many fish look very different. So if Game Freak makes a water-type fish Pokemon in one generation, and then makes another water-type fish Pokemon in the next generation, how is that a problem? People say that Snivy is a copy of Treecko just because they're both green reptile starters, but that's a total fallacy; they look nothing alike, and they aren't even based on the same animal. It seems to me that by your logic, there should only be one Pokemon family for each type (which is stupid). I do agree that they should stop making Fire/Fighting, though. Not because the additional fire/fightings are ripoffs, but because the type combination is being overused. Sure, gen 5 follows the pattern of normal-type rodent, normal-type flying, et cetera, but it's been going on for many years now. Gen 5 shouldn't be hated if every other generation did it too.

As for gen 4... the Pokemon are (mostly) bland, the evolutions of the previous gen pokemon are hit-and-miss (Lickilicky is bad, but Yanmega is awesome), there are very few Pokemon (especially since like fifteen of them are just babies/evolutions of previous gens), the Safari Zone was horrible, but the legendaries were pretty cool.

Okay Carnage, now you're not making sense at all. Garchomp looks NOTHING like Haxorus. Zoroark looks more different than a Lucario with huge hair. Bouffalant is a buffalo, not a bull! You clearly don't know enough about the Pokémon series to judge it correctly.

I wouldn't be quick to judge gen 5 as less imaginative. It has some really cool and original pokemon like Volcarona, Scrafty, Zoroark, Hydreigon, and Haxorus, along with some more familiar closer-to-real-animal-like pokemon like Bouffalant and Braviary. Again, gen 1 had some REALLY lazy designs, like Ditto. In fact, if we were kids today, I bet we wouldn't think gen 5's pokemon are strange at all. I know gen 1 started it all, and that's fantastic, but the nostalgic fanboys should give gen 5 credit where credit is due.
As for the story aspect, gen 5 did have the best-developed story and most interesting villain, in my opinion.
I think Gen 5's real flaws are the continued existence of event pokemon (terrible idea), the too linear map (no big islands), the somewhat disappointing bonus bosses, and the lack of awesome bikes (bring gen 3's back!). 

I dislike the overly-nostalgic original 151 fans who say things like "Gen 5 sucks! They're running out of ideas!", "No originality!", "They aren't based on animals!", and "They don't even look like Pokemon! They're so ugly!" And when you look at gen 1, there are some pretty poorly-made pokemon, like Voltorb (a pokeball that evolves into a pokeball turned upside down), Diglett (a mole that never shows its feet and evolves into three of them put together), Seel (a...seal pokemon)... you get the point lol.   

Hey XXDrak, Gen 5 is awesome, isn't it?