Official Next Smash - Speculation & Discussion Thread

[Louie G.]

Out of curiosity though, have you actually played any of the classic or legend era TR games? They have some great settings/locations to explore, set pieces and some cool/crazy monster designs once you move into the more supernatural themed levels. It does all come down to opinion and I can understand if TR just isn't your cup of tea, but I still feel like it's not getting proper credit here.

MG and RE definitely take it a step further, but I think TR stands pretty toe to toe with stuff like AC or PoP if you want to compare it to other western titles.

I haven't brought myself to play them yet, so I'm speaking in a general sense of aesthetic or tone and I think I may just have a preference toward the more Japanese sensibilities in those other games. I don't want to say that Tomb Raider doesn't have anything worth exploring here, it just doesn't do much for what I personally consider exciting material or settings for Smash Bros. I admit I only know whatever I'm able to know without playing the games for myself but I'm not trying to speak as an authority.

As far as how crazy they can get with the move set, the simplicity is actually one of the things that makes it more appealing to me personally. I feel like if you dropped Lara in 64, Melee, or Brawl no one would bat an eye in terms of move set complexity. Compared to how crazy and flashy a lot of the newer characters are though I suppose I can understand why some might find her less interesting.

I do like unique and flashy. but at the same time, I would prefer more universal mechanics over more character specific gimmicks.

I agree with this, but I'm not looking for wild moveset complexity either. I'm checked out on that stuff, I don't need Lara to have as many attacks as Hero or Kazuya, or stance change, or have a comeback mechanic or whatever. But I also do have slightly higher expectations than what we would see in Melee or Brawl nowadays, since the roster has grown to be so massive and variety is a more valuable asset. It's easier to get excited about those who are strongly personality driven or represent something dynamically new. Not that it needs to be super gimmicky, there are dozens of pretty standard, tried and true archetypes Smash has yet to explore.

I'm sure they could implement Lara in a way that I ultimately enjoy. I can think of a few ways. But for all of those ways I can think of a dozen other characters that I'd like to see more. It doesn't have much to do with an active dislike toward Lara Croft or Tomb Raider, just an interest that is superseded by just how many options there are for third party content, and how many of those simply do it for me in ways Tomb Raider does not. At face value, at least.

 

[Diddy Kong]

I figure most people are just vaguely accounting for DLC when discussing third parties in general. I agree with you on the front that someone like Doom Guy or Master Chief is pretty damn unlikely to appear in the base game but I wouldn't be surprised to see them pop up if DLC keeps a similar format to Ultimate. Assuming that Microsoft returns to play ball which I'm under the impression that they will. The promise of a big character as DLC later would probably make it easier to secure the return of veterans like Banjo and Steve in base game if that's what they choose to do.

I'm not sure what to make of the prospect of new companies coming on board for base game. For DLC it's a no brainer, since that was largely the intention with Ultimate's DLC anyway (to improve relations with external partners). Perhaps someone closely associated like Koei Tecmo is a safe bet, or maybe something a little less AAA like a number of indie characters, but something like a new western third party partner is gonna have to wait til at least DLC.

I could easily see Banjo returning for base game honestly in the case of Microsoft.

Koei Tecmo I forgot. They seem an easy enough deal to strike. In particular I'd love them to be involved for Impa's Age of Calamity move set. They might partially own parts of that? I dunno.

I mostly expect Sega, Capcom and Namco to bring out their secondary IPs and characters however.

In the case of Square, I see them giving Hero out way more freely than Cloud and Sephiroth. I think those are probably gonna be a DLC deal to max out cash again. But Hero ? I dunno. Dragon Quest is more available on Nintendo than Final Fantasy anyway. So that's my reasoning really.

Also about the Delzethin video, I wish I had the will to watch. Since his ideas for rebooting the roster and kicking out Diddy and K.Rool but including Dixie and Funky I can hardly find myself motivated to watch his content. Even if it's creative.

 

[pitchfulprocessing]

If you go back to play the original Tomb Raider games you'll find the controls really janky, they lack a lot of the nuance of later games in the genre and their innovations. Lara doesn't stumble if she approaches a ledge, she just falls off, you can't parkour, the ledge grabbing is awkward, etc. At the same time, you'll also probably see why those games blew up the way they did and why Lara got so iconic. They have really engaging setpieces and environments that coalesce into a swashbuckling adventure which wasn't really seen in videogames at the time. The lineage from Tomb Raider to essentially every modern Western adventure game is very direct, and the games still hold up in plenty of areas.

That said I would say Tomb Raider has been surpassed by series inspired by it, I definitely think Uncharted is a better game series and certainly better than the modern Tomb Raider games. Still, the modern games did sell quite well, she's definitely still very iconic as has been said, though I don't think she's particularly likely for Smash. I would actually say that she's more of an "underrated pick" for the gaming industry in general lol, in the sense that I think the actual influence Tomb Raider had can be pretty understated a lot of the time. Regardless of how well it's aged, the Tomb Raider games influenced how the industry designs 3D action and movement in elaborate realistic third-person environments, how we incorporate realistic movement and vertical traversal in said spaces, how we handle the dichotomy between movement and combat etc. Lara Croft isn't just iconic, Tomb Raider is absolutely a game that deserves to be held on the same caliber as Mario 64, Ocarina of Time, Halo, Resident Evil 4, etc in terms of fundamentally shaping industry design trends. That and Lara still not being very likely can definitely simultaneously be true.

 

[fogbadge]

This discussion about Lara Croft actually kind of ties back to my beliefs that Smash fans either overestimate or underestimate a character’s chances depending on their mood each day.

that's what speculation is really

 

[Lionfranky]

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

I think this is the moveset idea I like most for Lara.

And, you can bet that I'm the only one here who puts Lara Croft in his top 5 most wanted lol

 

[RileyXY1]

I could easily see Banjo returning for base game honestly in the case of Microsoft.

Koei Tecmo I forgot. They seem an easy enough deal to strike. In particular I'd love them to be involved for Impa's Age of Calamity move set. They might partially own parts of that? I dunno.

I mostly expect Sega, Capcom and Namco to bring out their secondary IPs and characters however.

In the case of Square, I see them giving Hero out way more freely than Cloud and Sephiroth. I think those are probably gonna be a DLC deal to max out cash again. But Hero ? I dunno. Dragon Quest is more available on Nintendo than Final Fantasy anyway. So that's my reasoning really.

Also about the Delzethin video, I wish I had the will to watch. Since his ideas for rebooting the roster and kicking out Diddy and K.Rool but including Dixie and Funky I can hardly find myself motivated to watch his content. Even if it's creative.

I think that all the SE reps will be cut and made DLC again unless they do "Everyone is Here" a second time.

 

[DarthEnderX]

I'm neither for, nor against, Lara in Smash.

She's obviously iconic enough to be in Smash. I just personally don't have much interest in Tomb Raider.

 

[Gengar84]

I'm neither for, nor against, Lara in Smash.

She's obviously iconic enough to be in Smash. I just personally don't have much interest in Tomb Raider.

I’m kind of in the same boat. I think she’d be pretty cool since she was such a big part of 90’s gaming but I don’t really have any personal connection to her series. It would be kind of funny if we could get her and Crash while keeping Cloud and Snake so that Smash had a better Sony roster than PlayStation Allstars.

 

[Wonder Smash]

I'm neither for, nor against Lara Croft myself.

I’m kind of in the same boat. I think she’d be pretty cool since she was such a big part of 90’s gaming but I don’t really have any personal connection to her series. It would be kind of funny if we could get her and Crash while keeping Cloud and Snake so that Smash had a better Sony roster than PlayStation Allstars.

It feels so strange to think about that! lol

Though funny enough, just a couple of years ago, I would have been against Lara Croft due to her being more of a PlayStation icon.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

3rd Parties are difficult to judge because there hasn't really been a precedant set on which one's they'll keep due to "Everyone is Here". I think that the most info we can glean is that the series prefers to have more 1st parties on the roster just for cost reasons, but that's not stopping them from having a good handful, as Ultimate has shown. I also think there will be at least 1 3rd party newcomer for base, just as a hook for wider audiences, but I digress.

I think Sonic is a safe bet, as he was one of the first third parties requested (EDIT: By the dev team, I mean), and he came back with fanfare in the early days of SSB4. Mega Man and Pac-Man seem like similar picks, and are known for being easy grabs, so I'd say they're pretty safe too, though Mega Man specifically I think is a little more vulnerable, as Mega Man characters in crossover franchises like this tend to cycle through Mega Man, X, and Zero. Then again, current representation heavily skews classic, so maybe new characters will be in addition to rather than instead of. I also feel like Dragon Quest and Minecraft are massively popular enough to keep Hero and Steve on base forever if such a thing is possible.

The rest of the 3rd parties is where I start drawing big question marks. Does Disney make Sora too expensive or difficult to add to base? Is Banjo-Kazooie popular enough to justify base? Will they become be one of those "always DLC" characters? We probably can't bring them all back, so who gets priority between Fatal Fury, Persona, Castlevania Bayonetta, Final Fantasy VII, and Metal Gear? Does Snake's seniority give him an edge? Ryu seems pretty safe on paper, but I do wonder if Ryu and Ken get cut in favor of other Capcom franchises like Monster Hunter and Devil May Cry and so on.

 

[osby]

I’m kind of in the same boat. I think she’d be pretty cool since she was such a big part of 90’s gaming but I don’t really have any personal connection to her series. It would be kind of funny if we could get her and Crash while keeping Cloud and Snake so that Smash had a better Sony roster than PlayStation Allstars.

None of those characters are owned by Sony though

 

[Opossum]

It would be kind of funny if we could get her and Crash while keeping Cloud and Snake so that Smash had a better Sony roster than PlayStation Allstars.

Smash fans tend to always say this, and I'm sorry but imo it's one of the biggest examples of the Smash bubble. Missing out on a total of four or five big third parties that Smash ended up getting would not make it a "better Sony roster" when Smash doesn't have a single Sony character.

Imagine a universe where Smash had its Nintendo mainstays but lacked Sonic, Mega Man, Simon, and Pac-Man, and PSASBR got them. Would you say PSASBR had a better Nintendo roster than Smash? Of course not.

Maybe people can say this when Smash gets Kratos, Nathan Drake, Sackboy, Ratchet and Clank, PaRappa, Sly Cooper, and Sweet Tooth. But until then it really comes off as like, people being willfully ignorant toward Sony's own properties.

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

Besides, we can't have a better PlayStation All Stars: Battle Royale roster without Fat Princess. She was the best character!

 

[Sucumbio]

I could easily see Banjo returning for base game honestly in the case of Microsoft.

This is my thoughts as well. The big question on my mind is who's next for them or is it just Steve again or Steve another...

 

[Gengar84]

Smash fans tend to always say this, and I'm sorry but imo it's one of the biggest examples of the Smash bubble. Missing out on a total of four or five big third parties that Smash ended up getting would not make it a "better Sony roster" when Smash doesn't have a single Sony character.

Imagine a universe where Smash had its Nintendo mainstays but lacked Sonic, Mega Man, Simon, and Pac-Man, and PSASBR got them. Would you say PSASBR had a better Nintendo roster than Smash? Of course not.

Maybe people can say this when Smash gets Kratos, Nathan Drake, Sackboy, Ratchet and Clank, PaRappa, Sly Cooper, and Sweet Tooth. But until then it really comes off as like, people being willfully ignorant toward Sony's own properties.

While none of them are owned by Sony, they all pretty much symbolized the original PlayStation and were some of the most popular games on the platform. Commercials for the PlayStation even used a guy in a Crash suit calling out Mario. For that reason, I feel like many people my age still think of them as honorary Sony characters. While there are many popular Sony owned characters today like Kratos, I feel like none of them really reached the console mascot status the ones I mentioned did at the time. Smash also has Joker and Sora on top of that which I at least relate to PlayStation more than anything.

Maybe that’s just because I’m older and the perception is very different for younger audiences that grew up after the PS1. Kind of like how I still think of RARE characters as honorary Nintendo characters. I don’t really feel the same about Sonic, for example, since he didn’t originate on Nintendo platforms. Mega Man, Simon, and Pac-Man were never really marketed as Nintendo mascots either despite being popular characters on the console. I think CastleVania being multiplatform at the time prevented me of thinking of Simon in that way.

I guess it was a bit of an overstatement on my part saying that it would be a better Sony roster than Allstars from a general perspective. For me personally, when I think of “PlayStation characters”, I think of the PS1 icons before their first party characters that came later. I don’t feel the same about Nintendo because there was always a stronger emphasis on their a first party franchises from the beginning. Either way, that’s just my personal opinion. Hope that makes sense.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Guess what has the number 400 has to do with today!

That's right. We passed 400. I'm not sure if I'll close it when we get to 500 but I will make a detailed write up once we cross that barrier.

I'm willing to give a couple more teases but I'm just not sure what tidbits of information I should share.

 

[fogbadge]

Guess what has the number 400 has to do with today!

oo is it how old I feel when I remember Lion King is turning 30?

 

[SMAASH! Puppy]

oo is it how old I feel when I remember Lion King is turning 30?

Whaddaya mean? It's only 5 years old.

They used real lion actors. They couldn't have done that 30 years ago.

 

[Kirbeh]

I wouldn't say you should listen to him on that particular subject. It almost sounds like he's saying people who want Lara Croft in Smash must don't actually play her games or something and that she was only popular in the 90s, despite the fact that she has three hit games in recent years.

What post is this referring to? No one on the last page said she was only relevant in the 90s or that you can't want a character without playing their game(s.)

 

[BritishGuy54]

400 votes is very good.

I’d say the one series we haven’t heard much from is Metroid. I can imagine Sylux is leading the poll.

 

[Wonder Smash]

What post is this referring to? No one on the last page said she was only relevant in the 90s or that you can't want a character without playing their game(s.)

It wasn't in the last page and I don't want to mention the person who made the post but it makes no sense to act like the push for her is based mostly on how big she was in the 90s and it's from people who mostly don't care about her series. Like, is it really hard to believe that fans of Tomb Raider (which just got three new games this past decade) also play Smash too? Lara Croft is still a relevant character in video games and the series has a fanbase today, not just during the 90s. And, like many gamers, those fans play more than just one series.

 

[chinkuru]

Not sure if it's been brought up yet, but hey, Delzethin came up with a new video, this one about Takamaru:

The moveset is quite good although I prefer this one:

I would also like an attack or taunt based on his nosebleed in Captain Rainbow although it is impossible due to the age rating.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

400 votes is very good.

I’d say the one series we haven’t heard much from is Metroid. I can imagine Sylux is leading the poll.

Nope. It's Raven Beak and he's leading by quite a bit. Enough to be in the top ten.

Sylux is second but it's a distinct second. E.M.M.I is third.

Metroid also has the dishonor of having the only character from a series in Smash with zero votes. MB (Melissa Bergman) from Other M. Even Adam and Anthony have a decent amount of votes.

 

[DarthEnderX]

It would be kind of funny if we could get her and Crash while keeping Cloud and Snake so that Smash had a better Sony roster than PlayStation Allstars.

It already does. Haven't you seen that guy's sig?

 

[pitchfulprocessing]

Smash fans tend to always say this, and I'm sorry but imo it's one of the biggest examples of the Smash bubble. Missing out on a total of four or five big third parties that Smash ended up getting would not make it a "better Sony roster" when Smash doesn't have a single Sony character.

Imagine a universe where Smash had its Nintendo mainstays but lacked Sonic, Mega Man, Simon, and Pac-Man, and PSASBR got them. Would you say PSASBR had a better Nintendo roster than Smash? Of course not.

Maybe people can say this when Smash gets Kratos, Nathan Drake, Sackboy, Ratchet and Clank, PaRappa, Sly Cooper, and Sweet Tooth. But until then it really comes off as like, people being willfully ignorant toward Sony's own properties.

Yeah I feel like the whole sentiment is only close to being true if you look at specifically the PS1 because MGS and FF7 are such legendary titles. Even then, no Twisted Metal and Parappa and Ape Escape are points in PSABR's favour.

 

[Speed Weed]

It wasn't in the last page and I don't want to mention the person who made the post but it makes no sense to act like the push for her is based mostly on how big she was in the 90s and it's from people who mostly don't care about her series. Like, is it really hard to believe that fans of Tomb Raider (which just got three new games this past decade) also play Smash too? Lara Croft is still a relevant character in video games and the series has a fanbase today, not just during the 90s. And, like many gamers, those fans play more than just one series.

First of all, I don't appreciate this kind of vagueposting about me.

The thing here is, you mention that the push for her isn't just because of her fame in the 90s, and that Tomb Raider fans can be Smash fans too. That last part is theoretically true! There is nothing saying you can't be a fan of both. I also at least tried to emphasize that Tomb Raider is indeed still an active series, though it may have still been too little on my part. The problem is the following: from my personal experience, the stuff I mentioned is overwhelmingly the case. Of course my experience isn't the end-all be-all, but I don't think I ever remember meeting a Lara supporter who was also a TR fan, and most of the push for her was due to how big she was in the 90s. This last part doesn't even sound like a problem in a vacuum, but the problem is it wasn't just support, people were using that to push her as an underrated candidate in terms of likelihood. The original conversation was about how likely she was, so let's pull back to that - my issue with the push in that specific regard is I don't think that's the kind of stuff the Smash team values. For as iconic and influential as her games are, the areas in which they were most important feel very far removed from anything we've seen from Smash until now, IMO. I don't think she's the kind of choice that the team is looking at, and I don't think they particularly value the stuff people were using as arguments for her. This ties into the "how many Smash fans are also TR fans" issue, in that part of what I'm talking about is I don't feel like there's a ton of audience overlap there. I'm not saying Smash fans can't be TR fans too, but I personally don't think I've like.....ever met someone who was both. Again, my personal experience isn't the final word. But I think you can understand why I'm skeptical here, and why ultimately this just makes me feel like despite obviously being an important series, TR just feels very detached from anything we've seen so far, and like we probably wouldn't see it when there are several other Western third-parties that I think would resonate more with the audience and would be closer to the team's radar.

I will admit, a lot of this is based off of vibes. A lot of what I'm saying here is running off of my personal perception of what "feels right" in Smash to me. I don't think Lara "feels right". It's hard for me to put into words why that is, but it's what I feel. But maybe your view is different. And that's fine! But I wanted to at least explain my perspective here. I'm already kinda tired of this conversation regardless, so I'm willing to agree to disagree here. I just hope I got my point across

 

[Gengar84]

I am actually curious what the average casual gamer’s view would be as to which is a better representation of the PlayStation brand if you put Sony’s top 10 first party characters against the top 10 third party characters associated with the consoles. I could be wrong but I feel like Sony has historically put less emphasis on their first party games compared to Nintendo but had a stronger third party presence to make up for that. Of course, there are still many popular first party franchises like God of War, Horizon, Ratchet & Clank, Uncharted and others but I feel that people don’t separate those games from the popular third party games the same way they do for Nintendo. I’ll admit that it might be my age talking that I primarily think of PS1 when I think of “Sony character” and the first party focus has increased since then.

Just speaking from a personal stance, I’ve owned every PlayStation console from the first to PS4 and also had a PSP. I played a ton of games on their consoles but very few first party games. The only first party games I can think of off the top of my had that I owned were Dark Cloud 1&2, Rogue Galaxy, and Horizon 1. I know my experience doesn’t speak for everyone and I’m probably an outlier but I just figured I’d share my own history just so I could show where I’m coming from.

 

[Speed Weed]

The truest Sony icon is, of course, Intelligent Qube Guy. I expect to see him in Smash 6 as the headliner

 

[pitchfulprocessing]

I am actually curious what the average casual gamer’s view would be as to which is a better representation of the PlayStation brand if you put Sony’s top 10 first party characters against the top 10 third party characters associated with the consoles. I could be wrong but I feel like Sony has historically put less emphasis on their first party games compared to Nintendo but had a stronger third party presence to make up for that. Of course, there are still many popular first party franchises like God of War, Horizon, Ratchet & Clank, Uncharted and others but I feel that people don’t separate those games from the popular third party games the same way they do for Nintendo. I’ll admit that it might be my age talking that I primarily think of PS1 when I think of “Sony character” and the first party focus has increased since then.

Just speaking from a personal stance, I’ve owned every PlayStation console from the first to PS4 and also had a PSP. I played a ton of games on their consoles but very few first party games. The only first party games I can think of off the top of my had that I owned were Dark Cloud 1&2, Rogue Galaxy, and Horizon 1. I know my experience doesn’t speak for everyone and I’m probably an outlier but I just figured I’d share my own history just so I could show where I’m coming from.

I think Sony has absolutely never had a greater emphasis on first-party titles than today. You could argue this was the case up to maybe the PS3, but around that era was when Sony began purchasing some of its long time development studious and investing in a portfolio of strong original IP. If you look at Sony's current marketing, it's easy to see that their first-party IP are what they build their console brand around, and God of War, Spider-Man, Horizon, Last of Us, Ratchet, etc are the big tentpoles releases they build their schedule around.

 

[Gengar84]

I think Sony has absolutely never had a greater emphasis on first-party titles than today. You could argue this was the case up to maybe the PS3, but around that era was when Sony began purchasing some of its long time development studious and investing in a portfolio of strong original IP. If you look at Sony's current marketing, it's easy to see that their first-party IP are what they build their console brand around, and God of War, Spider-Man, Horizon, Last of Us, Ratchet, etc are the big tentpoles releases they build their schedule around.

Yeah, I have been noticing that. I guess I might have been too narrowly focused on the games I played and older PlayStation consoles. I bought them all up to and including PS4 but I’ve been playing PlayStation gradually less and less since PS3. I think their lack of focus on their Japanese games kind of made me lose interest. Most of their first party titles don’t really appeal to me. Horizon’s an exception because the setting and lore was so cool.

 

[Wonder Smash]

First of all, I don't appreciate this kind of vagueposting about me.

And I didn't appreciate you accusing me of using Iwata's death to push for Lucas, which you still haven't took back. So I guess you don't care about that, do you?

The thing here is, you mention that the push for her isn't just because of her fame in the 90s, and that Tomb Raider fans can be Smash fans too. That last part is theoretically true! There is nothing saying you can't be a fan of both. I also at least tried to emphasize that Tomb Raider is indeed still an active series, though it may have still been too little on my part. The problem is the following: from my personal experience, the stuff I mentioned is overwhelmingly the case. Of course my experience isn't the end-all be-all, but I don't think I ever remember meeting a Lara supporter who was also a TR fan, and most of the push for her was due to how big she was in the 90s. This last part doesn't even sound like a problem in a vacuum, but the problem is it wasn't just support, people were using that to push her as an underrated candidate in terms of likelihood. The original conversation was about how likely she was, so let's pull back to that - my issue with the push in that specific regard is I don't think that's the kind of stuff the Smash team values. For as iconic and influential as her games are, the areas in which they were most important feel very far removed from anything we've seen from Smash until now, IMO. I don't think she's the kind of choice that the team is looking at, and I don't think they particularly value the stuff people were using as arguments for her. This ties into the "how many Smash fans are also TR fans" issue, in that part of what I'm talking about is I don't feel like there's a ton of audience overlap there. I'm not saying Smash fans can't be TR fans too, but I personally don't think I've like.....ever met someone who was both. Again, my personal experience isn't the final word. But I think you can understand why I'm skeptical here, and why ultimately this just makes me feel like despite obviously being an important series, TR just feels very detached from anything we've seen so far, and like we probably wouldn't see it when there are several other Western third-parties that I think would resonate more with the audience and would be closer to the team's radar.

I will admit, a lot of this is based off of vibes. A lot of what I'm saying here is running off of my personal perception of what "feels right" in Smash to me. I don't think Lara "feels right". It's hard for me to put into words why that is, but it's what I feel. But maybe your view is different. And that's fine! But I wanted to at least explain my perspective here. I'm already kinda tired of this conversation regardless, so I'm willing to agree to disagree here. I just hope I got my point across

Your personal experiences really don't say anything. It's truly nothing to go on. You also should shorten your posts. It's not necessary to make them that long.

Why wouldn't the Smash team look at any point when the series was huge? 80s, 90s, 2000s, it shouldn't matter. A lot of series are like that. One thing we know is that some series are still memorable, highly influential, and in most cases, still active. That's what makes them the icons they are. To think the Smash team wouldn't look into that is kind of ridiculous.

 

[SPEN18]

Earlier I asked why Delzethin gets his videos promoted on this site. Maybe Perkilator knows?

 

[Perkilator]

Earlier I asked why Delzethin gets his videos promoted on this site. Maybe Perkilator knows?

Well I know he's a member of this site but that's all I remember.

 

[ninjahmos]

I'll admit, I don't really see Lara getting into Smash anytime soon either. Maybe as DLC, but…yeah, fat chance.

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

I believe one can say that the inclusion of Crash/Lara Croft/Snake/Cloud feeling like the proverbial Sony characters in Smash does make a kind of sense given just how critical those games were to the image of the PSX and how it would go on to hand Nintendo its first major defeat in the console wars. Yes, none of them were ever owned by Sony, and even some of the games in 90s had versions on other systems (Tomb Raider 1 on the Saturn, MGS and FFVII with PC ports) but they were majorly symbolic of how the PlayStation had seemingly shifted the industry in a major way. Specifically, they were gaming symbols that within that incredibly important era (1996-2000) were in many ways defined as not being on a Nintendo system and selling big on the Sony one.

I don't think it's Smash bubble that has fans seeing them that way, it's more of a time bubble in combination with a strong cultural legacy of iconic characters coming from very intense console wars context (in some ways one of the last) where such figures were advertised (even unofficially) as part of that industry rivalry. It's a bit like how there were sports games on both the Genesis and the SNES, but the former is always seen as the sports console in North America because so many got so good and so big on that system. All that in spite of them being largely third party games that Sega had no ownership of.

 

[Super Devon]

And I didn't appreciate you accusing me of using Iwata's death to push for Lucas, which you still haven't took back. So I guess you don't care about that, do you?



Your personal experiences really don't say anything. It's truly nothing to go on. You also should shorten your posts. It's not necessary to make them that long.

Why wouldn't the Smash team look at any point when the series was huge? 80s, 90s, 2000s, it shouldn't matter. A lot of series are like that. One thing we know is that some series are still memorable, highly influential, and in most cases, still active. That's what makes them the icons they are. To think the Smash team wouldn't look into that is kind of ridiculous.

Firstly,

Secondly, who are we to decide what the Smash development team would or wouldn’t do? We can speculate all we like, but we can’t say for certain what they would do.

I think what we can agree upon though is that Sakurai and his team for whatever project he’s works on tend to be very unpredictable.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

As for my thoughts on the SE characters; I do think some would be DLC, but a base game is very much possible.

Not cheap, but possible. DLC isn't really cheaper either. Having them all return? Not so likely. However, Dragon Quest has less to license now, so it may be easier to get that in particular compared to Final Fantasy(mainly 7) and Kingdom Hearts. It's hard to say in that regard. Mii Costumes are really the only item we've seen are kept as DLC for 3rd Parties, but that doesn't mean it will stay that way. We just knew it was that later on, which makes it easier to speculate on how licensing was done for base game of Ultimate. But still are guesses and all.

 

[Wonder Smash]

Firstly,
View attachment 393494

Secondly, who are we to decide what the Smash development team would or wouldn’t do? We can speculate all we like, but we can’t say for certain what they would do.

I think what we can agree upon though is that Sakurai and his team for whatever project he’s works on tend to be very unpredictable.

Firstly, no, I'm not letting it go. What he (and the other poster right above me) said about me was very offensive and you expect to just forget about that? Heck no! Not until he retracts what he said. In fact, he shouldn't even bother telling me how he feels about my posts if he himself doesn't care about how I feel about his post. It just shows what kind of person he really is.

Second, just because Sakurai can be unpredictable, doesn't mean he has no consistency. What has been consistent is the iconic status of characters, so there's no way you can convince me it's all "iconic" this and "historical" that but then not look for any of that when looking at Lara Croft. The most likely issues are the company that currently owns her and the fact that she uses real-world weapons.

 

[SharkLord]

The moveset is quite good although I prefer this one:

I would also like an attack or taunt based on his nosebleed in Captain Rainbow although it is impossible due to the age rating.

Not gonna lie, the aerials each being a different weapon feels kinda weird. I'm not an expert on Takamaru, but I've always seen him holding a sword, and the moveset here uses his sword for all his grounded moves, so using a random collection of items and attacks for his aerials without a single sword move is just... Inconsistent, y'know? Obviously not saying he needs to use his sword for all his attacks, but if his sword's his main weapon it's best to keep that consistent and not just list a random hodgepodge of attacks for his aerials.

 

[Sucumbio]

Firstly, no, I'm not getting it go. What he (and the other poster right above me) said about me was very offensive and you expect to just forget about that? Heck no! Not until he retracts what he said. In fact, he shouldn't even bother telling me how he feels about my posts if he himself doesn't care about how I feel about his post.

Second, just because Sakurai can be unpredictable, doesn't mean he has no consistency. What has been consistent is the iconic status of characters, so there's no way you can convince me it's all "iconic" this and "historical" that but then not look for any of that when looking at Lara Croft. The most likely issues are the company that currently owns her and the fact that she uses real-world weapons.

Why does it always look like you're arguing against an imaginary foe who said maybe 30% of what you're basing your replies on and doubling down on it like no one said anything about Lara Croft not being iconic (cause obv she is) or tangentially anything negative about being iconic or? I mean really what are on about yo?