Pretty good direct if I do say so myself.
So a bit of a correction: Monster Hunter was TECHNICALLY in the base game of MvCI as she was in the story mode even though she was DLC that cost extra cash to get as playable. One of the many problems with that horrible game.
Also, the monsters still represent the series best, as the Hunter is always a generic avatar for your character a la Steve? Clearly, no monster could be a playable character in Smash unless it was a smaller one but the big ones are the ones who are iconic. Thus, it is better to incorporate the iconic armors for Miis instead. In Teppen, the playable characters from Monster Hunter are Rathalos, Nergigante and a Felyne. No Hunter to be found there.
In Wings Of Ruin, there are named characters who are important, but it's still mostly focused on Rathalos and an egg and Stories is a spin-off RPG series that is much more narrative driven. When they introduce new content to Monster Hunter, do they show the new gear or accessories first? No, it's all about the monsters, the rest comes after.
Using the Rathalos Armor in SFV and Smash 4 as evidence to back you up falls short because the armor itself is what is iconic, not the hunter, which is why it can be easily used as skins for generic Miis and the armor is red and semi-flamboyant which fits Ken. Once again, this speaks more for Rathalos being the flagship character of Monster Hunter. Even if you consider the generic Hunter armor, once again it's iconic because it's the first armor you get and you tend to keep it for a bit before you can upgrade even if it's only bits and peaces of it, not because of the hunter.
In essence, it's highly unlikely for Smash to have a playable monster from Monster Hunter, so the best way to represent the series is not by a fighter, by with iconic armor sets for Miis and Rathalos as both an AT and boss.
This is why the odds of a Monster Hunter rep are so abysmally low. Also, can we stop being reactionary and shouting from rooftops every time a game is announced for Switch that they must be getting a character in Ultimate? How many times must this be thoroughly proven wrong before you stop barking it like a dog who thinks they saw a squirrel. Use your brain on this one, guys.
Both of these titles are for next year, one of them being the middle of next year. This would mean that to coincide with these plans, Capcom would have had to negotiate for Monster Hunter to have a character before June 2019 to have them in FP2...but Capcom already negotiated for Rathalos to be an AT and boss for the base game and no MH character got in the base game or FP1. Wouldn't that have been the time to negotiate for that, during the massive success of Monster Hunter World and the rising hype of Iceborne? Not over a year later for two games that don't come out until next year?
Come on guys, you can do better than this.
This has got to be one of the dumbest fan rule-esque arguments that I've seen in a long, long time. Rathalos Armor is super iconic because a lot of times it's seen as the go-to look for the Hunter, it's the look seen in pretty much most of the promotional work; it's literally their most iconic look, and honestly a community symbol. Sure, Rathalos itself is the main flagship of MH; but that doesn't mean that certain Hunter appearances aren't iconic either.
I don't really get what you're trying to get at with that argument that somehow the armor set is iconic, but the Hunter themselves aren't; and that means that somehow the best way to represent MH is through costumes rather than a fighter.
It's like arguing that all the Chief/Doomguy popularity originates in their outfits, and the characters themselves aren't iconic, so the best way to represent their series is through a costume (in that it literally makes 0 sense).
And even then, I don't know what you're talking about the "first armor set being more iconic than the hunter", especially because most of the time you decide the hunter's clothes "default" look, and most of the official starting armor sets differ slightly in each game anyways (though I may be wrong on this one, since it's been so long since I started a new file).
Again, MH is definitely focused on the "Monsters", but that doesn't really mean that the Hunter himself isn't an icon either. I mean they don't even start off trailers with monsters anymore, but usually with the hunter and the palico/felyne exploring first (both in World and Rise, along with a couple others).
If the complaint is that MH has no "default" look, like you yourself stated; they tend to go with rathalos armor set in most cases. Kirin armor is also pretty popular in certain crossovers, followed by some of the other flagships. If the complaint is that it's a (mostly) silent character with no defined personality, well we have gotten the Heroes from DQ, and Joker from P5 (who really isn't that silent in Smash), and much like those characters MH also displays a ton of their "personality" through animations. On top of that we have also gotten Byleth, who has much less personality literally. In terms of characters with customization appearances, we have gotten Robin and Corrin; and both of them went with their most popular default appearance; which the equivalent of that would be the Rathalos Armor set.
And the complaint of "they negotiated with the IP in some form before, and it didn't get in as a fighter then; so why would it now", doesn't really work
only for MH either. They negotiated for Geno and Mallow spirits during base game, that doesn't mean that Geno has to remain a spirit through FP 2 (hopefully). We don't know what kinds of negotiations occur in the back. For all we know, Nintendo may have wanted to wait until a new mainline MH game came out on the Switch, before it gave them playable representation. Obviously, it's all hypothetical.
And yeah, I find it pretty annoying when people consider a character a "lock" when a game is announced; but most people
don't do that. It's only natural a character see's more discussion due to game announcements, and there is nothing wrong with that. Because ultimately, there have always been characters that got into Smash due to recent games; it's a natural part of speculation, and you don't have to tell people to shut up about it.
If we discount the promotional appeal of a character, we may as well ignore other things that factor into Smash as well, so things like fan demand, shouldn't really matter either. But both those things definitely do in
some aspects.
So literally all I see you doing in this post, is trying to find
any counterarguments to the potential inclusion of Hunter, without really looking from a objective place and considering the things that Hunter does have going for him; which is massive Japanese popularity (both as a series and in terms of Smash), the biggest Capcom series currently, a potentially super unique play style with the likes of traps, felynes, and hunting styles, and multiple upcoming Switch games.
On the other hand, to be fair; let's consider the disadvantages. It's already represented in Smash in
some form, and Monster Hunter has always been more about the Monsters than the player (which while being a weak reason to potentially prevent the Hunter from joining, still is a reason), middling international popularity (in terms of Smash).
So all in all, I think MH has a pretty
fair shot, not abysmally low like you suggested and likewise not a lock either. I've always said in the Newcomer thread, that the biggest Capcom front runners are Dante and Monster Hunter, and they both have solid things that go in their favor.
