Since there's a bit of a lull news-wise, why don't we take some time out here to write down some common arguments for Geno and address common arguments against him? This way we'll have an FAQ with talking points we can refer to when people argue over the issue as they are so wont to do here. I'm bored so I'll start.
I saw in the "Who do you NOT want for Smash?" thread that people did not want Geno because:
- Geno has only one major appearance
- He's very obscure
- There are more deserving Mario and Square Enix characters <<< This point especially. People feel there are too many Mario characters and that other Square Enix characters are more deserving.
So here are some responses off the top of my head:
Geno has only one major appearance/Geno is very obscure
I'm lumping these two together because the response to both is the same: you can make that same argument about almost any Square Enix character.
Geno was a prominent character in SMRPG and had a cameo in Mario & Luigi: Superstar Saga. Most Square contenders have had these types of appearances or less. Chrono was the main character of Chrono Trigger and had a cameo in Chrono Cross along with Marle and Lucca. Cecil was the main character of FF4 and had a cameo in Secret of Evermore. Terra was the main character of FF6. Even Black Mage was a member of your party in the original FF game and then was playable in Mario 3 on 3 (I think he had a cameo role as a tutor in FF Dissidia). These characters with the exception of Black Mage (and the generic ones like Slime, chocobos, Moogles, etc.) are not iconic and are themselves very obscure outside of the FF and Smash community, just as people argue that Geno is.
However even having few appearances in games and being very obscure doesn't mean a character shouldn't be playable in Smash. If that were the case then we wouldn't have Ness or Lucas.
There are more deserving Mario/Square Enix characters:
This of course depends on what criterion one uses to decide who is deserving or not. But the problem with the "deserving" argument, at least under those general criterion, is that no Square Enix character has the unique connection between Square and Nintendo the way Geno or anyone from Super Mario RPG does and few have the history, cult status or the popularity to really make them deserving. Even the more iconic Square characters like Black Mage or the Moogles, chocobos, etc. haven't directly impacted Nintendo's history the way that Super Mario RPG did and represent Square's history a lot more than they do Nintendo's when the latter is what Smash is supposed to be all about.
Geno is a lot different from the other Square characters because of the history and connection his game has with Nintendo. Super Mario RPG was an RPG made by Square for Nintendo and Square owns the rights to most of the characters in the game, including Geno. This puts Geno, Mallow, and the rest of the franchise in a unique position: they're Mario characters and also Square characters. Super Mario RPG was also the precursor to both the Paper Mario and the Mario & Luigi RPG series, series which are now integral parts of the Mario universe. This makes Super Mario RPG much more important than other Square series, even Final Fantasy which has always been representative of Square and not Nintendo. This extremely important part of Nintendo's history has been poorly underrepresented because of a ten-year feud between Square and Nintendo which was caused by Square releasing FF7 for the Playstation and not the N64, point in fact. This is why Super Mario RPG, and its most popular and well-known character, Geno, are arguably more deserving than the other Square contenders -- that game is the reason why large parts of the Mario universe are the way they are and therefore needs to be brought back into the light, and putting Geno in Smash would make that happen.
Smash is more than a Mascot Rumble and should highlight key parts of Nintendo's history. Super Mario RPG, unlike the other Square games, is a key part of that history that has been poorly and unfairly underrepresented for almost 20 years now, and that needs to change. If obscure, one-off, unknown parts of Nintendo's history like Game & Watch and ROB can get in, why not Geno? (And before anyone argues that point, who here really knew who Game & Watch was before Smash? Or remembered ROB for that matter?)
As for too many Mario characters, that's a point one could make against Daisy, or Waluigi, or Toad, or Paper Mario (who exists because of Super Mario RPG) or any other Mario contender. One could argue that that fact doesn't dismiss the point, but like it or not Mario is Nintendo's flagship series so one should expect it to have more representation in a game like Smash. I also argue that Geno is very different from the other Mario contenders due not only to the fact that he was made by Square but because of the (very brief and barely-scratched-the-surface explanation of) game's history I explain in the previous two paragraphs, and because of those arguments he is therefore a higher-priority contender than the others.
Can anyone else think of some reasons why Geno shouldn't get in? If you can, post them and I'll try to come up with some kind of passable rebuttal. Also anybody here who's good at debating should pitch in and help.