First off, I actually want to commemorate your efforts. You're being very clear on your stance and you seem to have a really strong grasp of what you are trying to get across. I also completely understand where you are coming from, how Pacman had no competition and whatnot, it is that I simply do not agree with alot of what is being said. subjectivity needs to sit on the bench if were going to discuss character speculation. There is clearly bias in these statements, both towards Pacman and towards Sonic (Look at your avatar.)
Well, a prof. at a college or university is bound to make some spelling errors. It happens.
Not the point, the point is that a prof. is more credible than a person on a blog ranting about a character. She most likely included those characters due to their fame and relevance in the gaming industry, thus the class can relate to it, as well as their relevance in pop-culture. Yes it doesn't mean a lot, but the fact that she purposely included those characters in the presentation means that people, especially those who know little or nothing about video games, can relate. (Rather irrelevant to the conversation, but I feel it needs to be addressed.)
Recognizability is recognizability, no matter how you slice it, similar to the Pokemon argument where anime popularity doesn't factor into game popularity (which it does, they are one in the same. A charizard in a game is the same as a charizard in the anime) Sure, Pacman hasn't offered much as of late in terms of revolutionary game design, but thats not the point.
A game doesn't have to be revolutionary to be good. It has to be good to be good. The point is, Pacman back in the day, was absolutely ground breaking. Videogames were a new medium of entertainment and Pacman is associated with it as much as Donkey Kong, if not more. It is still played competitively
to this day. I think you're digging too deep into revolutionary, because by that merit, Sonic is not revolutionary at all, because SEGA attempted to do exactly what Nintendo did with Mario; create a mascot in which they could push forward their brand with, and Sonic was also a platformer, so i can barely see any revolutionary design there besides "the game moves faster," compared to Pacman, who pretty much invented the genre of action-puzzle games, as well as cutscenes in video games.
I strongly disagree with this. Pacman is still kicking around to this day, and the reason why is because he was so relevant and important back when video games were first starting off. He has a show now because of the impact he had back in the day. He has a new game coming out because of his impact back in the day. If Pacman wasn't insanely popular originally, he wouldn't have lasted this long. Sure, he may not be hype inducing, but facts are facts, and he is certainly one of the biggest icons on the planet, not just in videogames, but in pop-culture. If he does get into Smash, he probably will not be hype inducing
unless his moveset is exciting and unique. I mean, i wasn't very hyped for Rosalina or WFT, but within a minute of disappointment came shear joy, because seeing how the character plays will create hype.
Rosalina was expected to be a Peach clone, and wasn't, and has a unique moveset that most will agree looks fun to play as. Same goes for WFT, who none suspected, many were disappointed, but after seeing how she works, are much more satisfied with the results. Of course, this cannot happen in Mario Kart, I can't recall any characters being introduced that could generate "hype" because its just kart racing. everyone plays the same, as in they drive a kart and attack with items, theres nothing special. I don't really follow Tekken so i don't really know what to say about that, but wasn't he in a robot suit?
Miveset potential is not a strong merit for inclusion, because any character could have a moveset made up for them, and Sakurai is a creative genius. We can't jump to conclusions on hype, we will have to wait and see what happens with the character.
You're right that he is no guarantee; no newcomer is. The fact of the matter is, as far as 3rd parties go, is that he is the clear frontrunner. All other possibilites don't even compare. This "special treatment thing needs to be cleared up, so im going to explain it very clearly.
No special treatment =/= absolutely no characters. The special treatment he could be referring to could be as you stated, but it is more likely that there won't be a Namco character in the game
because they helped work on it. Pacman would get in on his own merits, which, clearly, there are enough of. Im not going to explain these merits because they have been explained several times over.
Consider this: In the theoretical situation that Smash 4 was being developed by Sora and Nintendo itself, with no Namco, would Pacman have a better chance to be included? That doesn't make any sense. I think the point was that Pacman's chances, along with any other Namco character, are NOT affected by Namco helping develop the game. He would not become ineligible because his father company is helping to develop the game.
Again, he is not a guarantee, but to deny his chances due to some "special treatment" saying that doesn't actually confirm or disconfirm him is pretty foolish. Even if Sakurai stated "Pacman will receive no special treatment due to Namco helping with the development" That would only mean he is no better or worse off than he was if Namco wasn't helping.
That last statement bugs me as well. The point of third parties is to include characters that are not Nintendo owned, its not brand awareness, its about iconicness, at least when it comes to third parties. Sakurai stated that a legendary status would need to be there in order for a 3rd party to qualify, and ill be damned if Pacman isnt legendary. Look at Snake, he has very little to do with Nintendo, to the point where he is considered competition to Nintendo, yet there he is in Brawl (The first Metal Gear game on the NES was the only original game to be released on a Nintendo console, the rest were ports or remakes. Also, the first one on the NES was not considered a true Metal Gear game, as stated by Kojima, the PC version was the one he considered to be the true version.) So when it comes to characters, yes they should be iconic and important to Nintendo, but when it comes to 3rd parties, they need to have a legendary status, which Pacman has. Sure, there are other merits for a character inclusion, but the bottom line for 3rd parties is that they must be well known. If there are other reasons to not include Pacman, it will not be because he is irrelevant (Ice Climbers) or because of something Sakurai said (Villager) but rather, in my mind, that Sakurai didn't want too many 3rd parties in the game
