3rd Party "Legendaries" Thread

[Pacack]

I'm fairly certain that a lot more people would recognize Geno than Bub or Bob. Maybe not the casuals, but for those who grew up in the SNES era, and even in the prediction eras of Melee and Brawl, Geno was a pretty well-known name.

Then perhaps Bub and Bob should be removed from the list as well. I think the only characters that can be considered "legendary" are ones that are genuinely legendary. Not just iconic.

 

[APC99]

Then perhaps Bub and Bob should be removed from the list as well. I think the only characters that can be considered "legendary" are ones that are genuinely legendary. Not just iconic.

In fact, in all honesty, I think there's only one four or five "legendary" characters left besides Mario, Snake, Sonic and Mega Man. Off the top of my head, Pac-Man, Bomberman, Banjo & Kazooie and Rayman are legendary.

 

[Pacack]

In fact, in all honesty, I think there's only one four or five "legendary" characters left besides Mario, Snake, Sonic and Mega Man. Off the top of my head, Pac-Man, Bomberman, Banjo & Kazooie and Rayman are legendary.

I'd argue that Mickey and Spyro are fairly Legendary as well. Other than those, I'm not sure.

And we do need to add Rayman to the list.

 

[APC99]

I'd argue that Mickey and Spyro are fairly Legendary as well. Other than those, I'm not sure.

And we do need to add Rayman to the list.

Spyro and Crash are indeed legendary, but to Sony's consoles, not to Nintendo. Same with characters like Cloud and Sora. Mickey's in a Meta Knight tier of his own, everybody knows Mickey Mouse. But not as a video game character.

Looking back, maybe an "Iconic" section would help, separating the characters EVERY GAMER KNOWS with the ones who are legendary in many's minds, but aren't really that well-known or important to Nintendo (such as Geno, Crash Bandicoot, Maxwell from Scribblenauts, Shantae, Quote from Cave Story, etc.)

 

[Megadoomer]

The only third party companies that I'd consider "legendary" (aside from the ones already represented in Smash Bros.) would be Square-Enix, Namco, and maybe Ubisoft. Namco's got a few notable characters to choose from (Pac-Man, a Tales character (Lloyd Irving?), a Tekken character (Heihachi?), or a Soul Calibur character (Nightmare?)), and Ubisoft has a decent amount (Rayman? Ezio? The Prince, from Prince of Persia?) as well, and they've supported Nintendo quite a bit lately (releasing Assassin's Creed 3 and 4 on the Wii U, Rayman Legends being Nintendo-exclusive in Japan, Just Dance).

However, I can't think of any Square-Enix character who stands out. Cloud and Lightning are promoted a lot, but they've never been on a Nintendo system aside from cameo appearances. Terra or Cecil could work, but it's been a while since they've been in the spotlight. Anyone else who comes to mind tends to be generic - hardly the sort of character that would make people rush out to buy the game.

Then again, some notable third-parties may have slipped my mind.

 

[volbound1700]

I started a third party discussion thread over a half a year ago:
http://smashboards.com/threads/third-party-discussions-only.332832/


Also, I would love to see Epic Mickey in Smash due to iconicness and uniqueness in moveset.

Something about Mickey vs. Mario sounds awesome having two most popular characters all-time.

 

[BridgesWithTurtles]

I feel like Chocobo is a pretty underrated candidate. It's recognizable to all gamers, appears in darn near every Final Fantasy title (and then some), and out of all of the generic FF characters, it has its own subseries (which also has its own subseries). It's truly a legendary icon of video games, much like the Black Mage and Moogle, and I think the fact that it has so many games to pull from makes it a pretty decent contender, as far as Square characters go.

Also, there's a lot of very old characters that could be considered legendary, as there were a few games that monopolized people's attention during the early days of the video game industry. Frogger, Pitfall Harry, Paperboy, Q*bert, Space Invaders, etc. I was born at least a decade after their games were at the height of their popularity, and I still knew most of them from a young age. They're pretty ubiquitous in gaming culture, and for that, I'd say those "characters" are both iconic and legendary.

 

[volbound1700]

Haha, I have a list of legendary characters that will never be in Smash and probably shouldn't be:

Doomguy
Masterchief
Zergling
Diablo
Contra
Commander Keen
Kyle Katern
Duke Nukem


I would love to see a PC version of Smash, I made a thread about it one-time in the past.

 

[Fire Emblemier]

Square Enix would most likely go with Slim, Slime has been in Mario Sports Mix and of course Fortune Street. Plus most of the DQ games are on a Nintendo console, barring DQ8 and I think 7.

 

[Staarih]

However, I can't think of any Square-Enix character who stands out

Geno.

...or maybe he just stands out (Smash Bros character potential wise) to me

 

[APC99]

If Square-Enix were to choose a character, I'd say they would go with Slime, since he's fairly iconic. I can see Black Mage or Geno being choices, but not a lot of other characters go through my head at the moment...

 

[Pacack]

Spyro and Crash are indeed legendary, but to Sony's consoles, not to Nintendo. Same with characters like Cloud and Sora. Mickey's in a Meta Knight tier of his own, everybody knows Mickey Mouse. But not as a video game character.

Looking back, maybe an "Iconic" section would help, separating the characters EVERY GAMER KNOWS with the ones who are legendary in many's minds, but aren't really that well-known or important to Nintendo (such as Geno, Crash Bandicoot, Maxwell from Scribblenauts, Shantae, Quote from Cave Story, etc.)

Have you not heard of Skylanders? That thing's practically the new Pokemon TCG among kids where I live.

And Mickey is pretty well known as a video game character too due to his successful Epic Mickey series for the Wii. Not to mention Disney and Nintendo being buddy-buddy recently with Disney Infinity and whatnot.

 

[APC99]

Have you not heard of Skylanders? That thing's practically the new Pokemon TCG among kids where I live.

And Mickey is pretty well known as a video game character too due to his successful Epic Mickey series for the Wii. Not to mention Disney and Nintendo being buddy-buddy recently with Disney Infinity and whatnot.

Skylanders (and Disney Infinity, which is one of my favorite games for the Wii U solely for the fact I can be Jack Skellington riding Lightning McQueen while throwing Winnie-The-Pooh at the Guards from Aladdin) are still cross-platform (except for maybe handheld versions), though. And Spyro, although he was the poster boy of the first Skylanders, really doesn't have much to do with the series. My friend is a HUGE Spyro fan, and he's even disappointed by the lack of Spyro content.

And Epic Mickey is one of my favorite games of ALL TIME. I grew up with Disney. Walt Disney is my role model. I cried when I saw Saving Mr. Banks/ I want to work at Disney World as an engineer or cast member when I'm older. I'd spurt out random facts that the people working at Disney World didn't know. Seeing Oswald enter that game got a bigger reaction than Mega Man in Smash Bros, and Mega Man is really important to me. I met a huge amount of my friends thanks to Epic Mickey. They made Mickey more than a lobotomized Disney Junior mascot, he was adventurous, he made mistakes, he was risky. And I loved every single moment of it. BUT-Even though this put Mickey as a video game icon, he's not a legendary video game character like Mario, Sonic, Mega Man or Pac-Man. He's borderline, in my opinion.

 

[Megadoomer]

Geno.

...or maybe he just stands out (Smash Bros character potential wise) to me

Oh, sure, I'd definitely love to see him (grew up with Super Mario RPG!) - it's just that, if Square-Enix was going to put a character in, I figured that they'd go with a Final Fantasy or Dragon Quest character. (which is unfortunate - I'd like to see either a Super Mario RPG character or someone from Chrono Trigger)

 

[Pacack]

Skylanders (and Disney Infinity, which is one of my favorite games for the Wii U solely for the fact I can be Jack Skellington riding Lightning McQueen while throwing Winnie-The-Pooh at the Guards from Aladdin) are still cross-platform (except for maybe handheld versions), though. And Spyro, although he was the poster boy of the first Skylanders, really doesn't have much to do with the series. My friend is a HUGE Spyro fan, and he's even disappointed by the lack of Spyro content.

How about we have an ordering of "Legendary", "Borderline", "Iconic", and "Recognizable"? Legendary would be for literal video game legends, borderline would be characters that every video gamer knows, iconic would be characters known by most video game fans, and recognizable is recognizable by a lot of video game fans. I think the "Legendary" tier would be only for the likes of Mario Sonic and Pac-Man, "Borderline" would be for Snake and Megaman-like characters, "Iconic" would be for Spyro and Rayman-like characters, and "Recognizable" would be for Maxwell and Geno-like characters. That sound good?

And Epic Mickey is one of my favorite games of ALL TIME. I grew up with Disney. Walt Disney is my role model. I cried when I saw Saving Mr. Banks/ I want to work at Disney World as an engineer or cast member when I'm older. I'd spurt out random facts that the people working at Disney World didn't know. Seeing Oswald enter that game got a bigger reaction than Mega Man in Smash Bros, and Mega Man is really important to me. I met a huge amount of my friends thanks to Epic Mickey. They made Mickey more than a lobotomized Disney Junior mascot, he was adventurous, he made mistakes, he was risky. And I loved every single moment of it. BUT-Even though this put Mickey as a video game icon, he's not a legendary video game character like Mario, Sonic, Mega Man or Pac-Man. He's borderline, in my opinion.

Oswald in Epic Mickey was actually one of the best things ever. My brother absolutely adores him.

Honestly, I think the real question here is whether it's general legendary status that counts more, or legendary video game mascot status. If it's the former, he counts. Big time. If it's the latter, he's borderline.

 

[Wonks]

Of potential third-party characters that we haven't seen yet, I feel that the only two that could be considered legendary and fit into Smash Bros. (by my own standards, mind you) are: Pac-Man and Simon Belmont. (Not that I wouldn't mind seeing others, of course.)

Pac-Man is instantly recognizable from people five to fifty; he's arguably just as famous as Mario and Sonic. He's been around for decades and although the Pac-Man craze of the late 70s is all but a distant memory, he continues to reinvent himself.

As the main protagonist of Castlevania, Simon has been relevant to Nintendo from the NES right up to the 3DS.

Out of third-party characters, I really think those are the only two we'll see (excluding Snake).

...Then again, when I think of legendary developers who have had a good working relationship with Nintendo, I have to think of Square-Enix as well. I've thought that it's possible we could see a Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles character--Layel, for example. However, Layel and pretty much everyone else from that series aren't recognizable.

The one character from that company that would get everyone hyped would be Cloud Strife. It's true, he's never had more than a cameo on a Nintendo console, but can you imagine the level of excitement he would generate?

I mean--hey--he never appeared in Sony All-Stars Battle Royal after-all...

 

[APC99]

Of potential third-party characters that we haven't seen yet, I feel that the only two that could be considered legendary (by my own standards, mind you) are: Pac-Man and Simon Belmont.

Pac-Man is instantly recognizable from people five to fifty; he's arguably just as famous as Mario and Sonic. He's been around for decades and although the Pac-Man craze of the late 70s is all but a distant memory, he continues to reinvent himself.

As the main protagonist of Castlevania, Simon has been relevant to Nintendo from the NES right up to the 3DS.

Out of third-party characters, I really think those are the only two we'll see (excluding Snake).

...Then again, when I think of legendary developers who have had a good working relationship with Nintendo, I have to think of Square-Enix as well. I've thought that it's possible we could see a Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles character--Layel, for example. However, Layel and pretty much everyone else from that series aren't recognizable.

The one character from that company that would get everyone hyped would be Cloud Strife. It's true, he's never had more than a cameo on a Nintendo console, but can you imagine the level of excitement he would generate?

I mean--hey--he never appeared in Sony All-Stars Battle Royal after-all...

I forgot Belmont, he's rather iconic. Borderline, in my opinion.

 

[BridgesWithTurtles]

I look at Mickey Mouse in this discussion as a relative lightweight. He's highly recognizable of course, but not because of his games. Assume for a moment that in some hypothetical scenario, Mickey Mouse was a video game-original character. He wasn't created by Walt Disney, and never appeared in an animated film. Even if Epic Mickey sold a couple of million copies, do you still think he'd be an iconic, legendary video game mascot? I'm not so sure. He might be on Gex or Bubsy levels, or even somewhere close to Crash Bandicoot, but if his second game didn't take off just as it failed to do in our timeline, he'd probably be remembered as an irrelevant, failed mascot ten years down the road. Obviously, I'm not factoring Kingdom Hearts into this, since its entire existence (and success) rides upon its association with animated Disney material. Besides, Mickey's not the main protagonist, anyway.

Now, obviously, in our real-world situation, Mickey Mouse is a pretty big player in video games. I think his importance and presence are overstated, but they have some degree of weight. But people don't recognize Mickey as a video game character, but rather as a cartoon character. That's the medium he helped to pioneer and will always be associated with. If he wasn't riding off of his already established recognition from the animation medium, his games likely wouldn't have been nearly as successful as they have been. In short, his success as a video game star is largely derivative of, if not dependent on, his larger and more encompassing status as a cartoon icon. His association with cartoons supersedes his association with video games, making him an animation legend with successful games, rather than a gaming legend.

 

[ToothiestAura]

...Mickey is 4th Party. And ineligible.

 

[YoshiandToad]

For me it's...

Legendary 3rd parties not heavily associated with Microsoft or Sony:

Sonic
Megaman
Pac-Man
Bomberman
Rayman
Ryu(Street Fighter)

Legendary 3rd parties most associated with Sony:

Snake
Crash Bandicoot
Spyro
Lara Croft
Cloud

Legendary 3rd parties most associated with Microsoft:

Banjo-Kazooie
Master Chief

 

[Morbi]

It really depends on your definition of "3rd Party," but the only legendary character that isn't entirely obvious... is... Goku! This guy is one of the most requested characters in Smash, I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if Mewtwo was requested less than this behemoth.

 

[APC99]

Goku!

 

[PixelPasta]

Pacman and Black Mage are the only ones I'd consider legendary enough to be in the game. Maybe Bomberman.

I'm pretty opposed to third-party saturation, I guess. I didn't even like Snake's inclusion to be honest...

 

[Spears In Smash Bros.]

The only third party companies that I'd consider "legendary" (aside from the ones already represented in Smash Bros.) would be Square-Enix, Namco, and maybe Ubisoft. Namco's got a few notable characters to choose from (Pac-Man, a Tales character (Lloyd Irving?), a Tekken character (Heihachi?), or a Soul Calibur character (Nightmare?)), and Ubisoft has a decent amount (Rayman? Ezio? The Prince, from Prince of Persia?) as well, and they've supported Nintendo quite a bit lately (releasing Assassin's Creed 3 and 4 on the Wii U, Rayman Legends being Nintendo-exclusive in Japan, Just Dance).

However, I can't think of any Square-Enix character who stands out. Cloud and Lightning are promoted a lot, but they've never been on a Nintendo system aside from cameo appearances. Terra or Cecil could work, but it's been a while since they've been in the spotlight. Anyone else who comes to mind tends to be generic - hardly the sort of character that would make people rush out to buy the game.

Then again, some notable third-parties may have slipped my mind.

Keep in mind that there are some third parties who aren't too well known, because they produced one or two very popular titles, alongside a great deal of less important/popular/good games. Could the best-known characters from these lesser third parties be considered legendary enough for inclusion?

 

[Pacack]

...Mickey is 4th Party. And ineligible.

I have yet to see a source that proves that a character must originate from a video game. Give me that, and I'll back away. (Also, he's technically still just another third party. Fourth party really is just a fan term.)

 

[Scoliosis Jones]

Disney won't want their main mascot getting his ass whooped by Nintendo fighters. He isn't going to get in. Probably ever.

I think it's fair to say that after Sonic, Megaman, Snake, and Pac-Man, there is a pretty reasonable drop off for "legendary" video game characters. I mean...Bomberman, Rayman and other are surely iconic...but legendary? They're not even close to any of the previous 4.

Before you say, "Snake isn't legendary", I'm going to tell you right now, that yes he is. MGS revolutionized the stealth genre blah blah i've been over this 24,863 times.

The arguments against Snake coming back are irrelevant. If his affiliation with Sony was a big enough problem, that would have stopped him in Brawl. If Sakurai didn't think he would fit, he wouldn't have gotten in Brawl. Not to mention whether or not the fans think he fits or not doesn't matter, because Sakurai did, and what he says goes. So that's that in this point.

MGS V is coming out for other systems, but not a Nintendo platform. Clearly the only option is to cut Snake. It's not like MGS IV being on PS3 stopped him from getting in Brawl or even get content from a game that never appeared on a Nintendo console in their flagship crossover fighter...oh wait.

I just don't understand. Get your Nintendo purist crap outta here. Snake has Nintendo history. 3DS remake, GCN remake...games on the NES. He may not have it as good as Sonic or Megaman, but he has something.

In Smash, he was the first 3rd party, and one of the most unique characters in Smash ever. Sure, he got in because of a favor, but that doesn't discount the previous points at all.

Whatever. I'm hungry. Come at me

 

[BluePikmin11]

...Mickey is 4th Party. And ineligible.

4th party is an unofficial term you know. He still counts as a 3rd party.

It really depends on your definition of "3rd Party," but the only legendary character that isn't entirely obvious... is... Goku! This guy is one of the most requested characters in Smash, I mean, I wouldn't be surprised if Mewtwo was requested less than this behemoth.

Goku in Smash will cause even more controversy than Snake coming back.
We'll get used to it eventually if Goku is in the game.

 

[Morbi]

I have yet to see a source that proves that a character must originate from a video game. Give me that, and I'll back away. (Also, he's technically still just another third party. Fourth party really is just a fan term.)

This, I really hate it when I try to use the correct term and someone corrects me with their crazy fabricated term (hence the disclaimer in my post).

 

[Fire Emblemier]

Disney won't want their main mascot getting his *** whooped by Nintendo fighters. He isn't going to get in. Probably ever.

I think it's fair to say that after Sonic, Megaman, Snake, and Pac-Man, there is a pretty reasonable drop off for "legendary" video game characters. I mean...Bomberman, Rayman and other are surely iconic...but legendary? They're not even close to any of the previous 4.

Before you say, "Snake isn't legendary", I'm going to tell you right now, that yes he is. MGS revolutionized the stealth genre blah blah i've been over this 24,863 times.

The arguments against Snake coming back are irrelevant. If his affiliation with Sony was a big enough problem, that would have stopped him in Brawl. If Sakurai didn't think he would fit, he wouldn't have gotten in Brawl. Not to mention whether or not the fans think he fits or not doesn't matter, because Sakurai did, and what he says goes. So that's that in this point.

MGS V is coming out for other systems, but not a Nintendo platform. Clearly the only option is to cut Snake. It's not like MGS IV being on PS3 stopped him from getting in Brawl or even get content from a game that never appeared on a Nintendo console in their flagship crossover fighter...oh wait.

I just don't understand. Get your Nintendo purist crap outta here. Snake has Nintendo history. 3DS remake, GCN remake...games on the NES. He may not have it as good as Sonic or Megaman, but he has something.

In Smash, he was the first 3rd party, and one of the most unique characters in Smash ever. Sure, he got in because of a favor, but that doesn't discount the previous points at all.

Whatever. I'm hungry. Come at me

Who was this directed to? Just wondering, cause in my main post, I pointed out Snake is legendary, so I'm not sure who this is towards.

 

[Scoliosis Jones]

Who was this directed to? Just wondering, cause in my main post, I pointed out Snake is legendary, so I'm not sure who this is towards.

Eh, nobody really. I just get feisty when I'm hungry.

 

[Freduardo]

E.T. Legendary for being in such an awful video game it almost killed video games back in 83. Quite infamous, legendarily so.

Why's he important to Nintendo? Cause he pretty much kicked Atari out as competition by being in such a ****ty game.

Also back in the NES days, Popeye's game was first party Nintendo. The sailor man. Spinach final smash?

 

[Fire Emblemier]

I'm not even going to bother with a list anymore, so there's no need to suggest characters, as I feel some are just suggesting a 3rd party for the sake of suggesting it. You may still debate on whether a character would be "legendary" it's just that I'm not going to update the OP to add or remove a character for a potential list. I'm just going to keep the ones I added as an example of possible legendaries. So that concludes my notice.

 

[3Bismyname]

yeah theres a serious drop off when it comes to Legendary characters and iconic

characters like say Pac-Man or Lara Croft i would consider legendary characters. but others like Cloud, Banjo Kazooie or Bomberman i'd say fall more into the iconic category. but this can all be debated heavily.

 

[UltimateWario]

What everyone seems to forget about Smash is that it isn't just "Famous Video Game Character Fighting Game", it is about NINTENDO'S history. It doesn't matter how important a character is to gaming overall, it is about how they are important to NINTENDO'S history, a reason I don't find Snake especially deserving; and, before whoever it is says "BUT WARIO, DERE ARE LIKE THREE WHOLE GAMES ON NINTENDO CONSOLES, AND TWO OF THOSE ARE ONES THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY REMEMBER", having games does not equal importance. Snake is an icon, sure, I can get on board with that, I guess. But what does he have to do with Nintendo? Besides Brawl, two recent games. Two. One for the GameCube, and another for the 3DS. Both were remakes. Whoopee.

*Disclaimer: I like Snake and want him to stick around. I'm simply using him as an example.

But I digress. A character being legendary to video gaming in general does not make them a "fit" for Smash. Sonic is a fit because he and Mario were huge rivals back in the day, but now he's doing his best work on Nintendo consoles and moving ****ing product. Sonic sells the best on Nintendo's consoles, and Sonic Colors, despite only being on the Wii, outsold Sonic Generations, a game that was, not only hyped through the roof, but also across several consoles (not including the Wii), to drive the point home.

Megaman "fits" because pretty much the only Megaman games that anyone cares about anymore were back on the NES. That's the Megaman everyone remembers; the one that fought through Wily's Castle to that badass song back when all we had were A, B, Start, Select, and a D-Pad. Megaman's formula on the NES was so good that it basically sold the same game with different levels and abilities SIX TIMES, then allowed the Blue Bomber to branch out into other, much less successful paths.

It absolutely pains me to see people suggest garbage like Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse is an icon, but not one of video gaming, nor one even remotely relevant to Nintendo. Really, you could say the same thing about Pac-Man. He's important to video gaming as a whole, I suppose, but he has next-to-nothing to do with Nintendo. Remember; having games on a Nintendo console does not make you important to Nintendo's history. If we're using that, then we might as well have Ezio from Assassin's Creed because there was a game on the DS, or Batman because of that ****ty 3DS port.

Smash Bros., at its heart of hearts, is a Nintendo game. It celebrates Nintendo's history, not video games in general. I think we'd all do plenty well to remember that.

 

[HeroG]

When i think of old School iconic Nintendo games I think of:
Megaman (got him)
Castlevania (Would fit so well)
CONTRA (its F-ing Contra)
Final Fantasy (And other square rpgs such DQ Crono and Secret of Mana)
Bomberman (Was really bland in ssf2 imo which doesn't matter, but still)
Dig Dug (who has no chance)
Tetris (gameboy)
Street fighter (although more so an arcade thing)

Pac man is on a whole different level. Hr is even more popular than Megaman (especially with recent capcom treatment)

So out of those I can really only see
Simon Belmont, Black Mage or slime, and Pac-man. And having all of them seems like way too much.
I feel Square and Konami really do belong they were a huge part of Nintendo's History.
Now that I think of it what about Contra?

 

[Freduardo]

What everyone seems to forget about Smash is that it isn't just "Famous Video Game Character Fighting Game", it is about NINTENDO'S history. It doesn't matter how important a character is to gaming overall, it is about how they are important to NINTENDO'S history, a reason I don't find Snake especially deserving; and, before whoever it is says "BUT WARIO, DERE ARE LIKE THREE WHOLE GAMES ON NINTENDO CONSOLES, AND TWO OF THOSE ARE ONES THAT PEOPLE ACTUALLY REMEMBER", having games does not equal importance. Snake is an icon, sure, I can get on board with that, I guess. But what does he have to do with Nintendo? Besides Brawl, two recent games. Two. One for the GameCube, and another for the 3DS. Both were remakes. Whoopee.

But I digress. A character being legendary to video gaming in general does not make them a "fit" for Smash. Sonic is a fit because he and Mario were huge rivals back in the day, but now he's doing his best work on Nintendo consoles and moving ****ing product. Sonic sells the best on Nintendo's consoles, and Sonic Colors, despite only being on the Wii, outsold Sonic Generations, a game that was, not only hyped through the roof, but also across several consoles (not including the Wii), to drive the point home.

Megaman "fits" because pretty much the only Megaman games that anyone cares about anymore were back on the NES. That's the Megaman everyone remembers; the one that fought through Wily's Castle to that badass song back when all we had were A, B, Start, Select, and a D-Pad. Megaman's formula on the NES was so good that it basically sold the same game with different levels and abilities SIX TIMES, then allowed the Blue Bomber to branch out into other, much less successful paths.

It absolutely pains me to see people suggest garbage like Mickey Mouse. Mickey Mouse is an icon, but not one of video gaming, nor one even remotely relevant to Nintendo. Really, you could say the same thing about Pac-Man. He's important to video gaming as a whole, I suppose, but he has next-to-nothing to do with Nintendo.

Smash Bros., at its heart of hearts, is a Nintendo game. It celebrates Nintendo's history, not video games in general. I think we'd all do plenty well to remember that.

If people suggesting things in an idle speculation thread actually 'absolutely pains' you, don't read discussion forums. And honestly, consider losing the ability to read. You may disagree, but it causing you physical pain when other people may or may not actually be conversing seriously cause they're just on these video game boards to have fun while they talk about a game they may not take that seriously cause it's just something they do in free time to have fun is…. well, it's stupid. I don't like name calling and apologize for that and blame the late hour for me not thinking of a wittier way to chastise you for your hyperbole that insists on censoring voices in a discussion thread.

I guess I'm glad you said it though, I may not agree with a stupid word you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

We'd all do well to remember whatever the hell we want and just talk to people without telling them they can't talk.

 

[UltimateWario]

If people suggesting things in an idle speculation thread actually 'absolutely pains' you, don't read discussion forums. And honestly, consider losing the ability to read. You may disagree, but it causing you physical pain when other people may or may not actually be conversing seriously cause they're just on these video game boards to have fun while they talk about a game they may not take that seriously cause it's just something they do in free time to have fun is…. well, it's stupid. I don't like name calling and apologize for that and blame the late hour for me not thinking of a wittier way to chastise you for your hyperbole that insists on censoring voices in a discussion thread.

We'd all do well to remember whatever the hell we want and just talk to people without telling them they can't talk.

Ironic that you mention hyperboles, eh?

So you don't agree that Smash is a game about Nintendo's history? Or that Mickey Mouse has no place in it? Or that Megaman and Sonic are important to Nintendo's history? Funny.

Just because someone words something harshly doesn't mean that it's immediately offensive or incorrect. Beyond a few of my own opinions (which, as a I said, were admittedly harshly worded), what I stated was objectively true. Smash Bros, first and foremost, is a game about Nintendo's history. I'm not saying you can't suggest or believe in whatever thing enters your pretty little head, but just that maybe it's not the best choice if it has little to do with Nintendo. Obviously it's not going to physically pain me to read a sentence. You seem pretty good with the word hyperbole, so you really should've caught that.

But Mickey Mouse? Seriously? This isn't Who Framed Roger Rabbit? or Wreck-It Ralph. This is a video game about Nintendo's characters beating the tar out of each other. Mickey Mouse's massive popularity is definitely a factor when determining his inclusion in a "Best Animated Characters" list or a Disney-themed game, but it means nothing to Smash Bros. The same could be said of any iconic character that isn't readily a part of Nintendo's storied history. I certainly don't hate Snake, or even necessarily want him out of Smash, but to say that he's an important part of Nintendo history is wrong. He isn't. He's made appearances on Nintendo's consoles, and yeah, they've been quality games (regardless of Snake Eater 3D's abhorrent price), but so have a TON of video game characters.

The internet, as you so vehemently stated, is a place of opinions. Maybe if mine stirs your cockles so much as to lash out as you did, you should consider not frequenting it?

I may not agree with a stupid word you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

Yeah, haha, we've all seen Family Guy. Good joke, Seth.

 

[ToothiestAura]

I have yet to see a source that proves that a character must originate from a video game. Give me that, and I'll back away. (Also, he's technically still just another third party. Fourth party really is just a fan term.)

I've yet to see the sources that says they must be legendary. I'm taking it on face here.

 

[Rasumii]

I'd definitely put Layton on there. He is important enough to the DS to make it past the "Legendary border" I believe.

 

[Curious Villager]

Well if we consider revolutionizing a genre they came from and being very close to Nintendo, then I wouldn't really exclude the Layton franchise as Curious Village was a pretty big deal when it first came out as there was no other puzzler adventure game like it at the time, even selling out all the copies quickly which Level-5 weren't even expecting it to do so and the main games have generally been really close with Nintendo. Unwound/Lost Future was also a game that really boosted its popularity and was practically a pretty big deal due to it's strong story elements when it first came out (The series overall is pretty famous for its plot as well as the creative puzzles it offers). Overall it's a very popular franchise that did really well on the DS and 3DS consoles, especially in Europe and Japan. Miracle Mask was practically even the killer app that gave the 3DS a boost in sales during the Japanese launch. Even Nintendo themselves seem to be pretty fond of the series.

However, with that said, I'm not sure if I would call the franchise "legendary" just yet, but it's definitely one of the bigger franchises that came out in more recent years. Despite it's popularity, I don't think the Layton franchise really falls anywhere near the likes of Sonic and Megaman though. :/