Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Mere costumes/skins in games that are not even part of the Halo series? That's not enough and certainly doesn't compare to what Snake has on Nintendo consoles prior to his appearance in Brawl.
Same as Cloud. Nobody wanted Cloud just because he made cameo on KH spin off and some obscure FF games. Sakurai said people wanted Cloud before his inclusion iirc. Chief during that time was considered joke/impossible/meme pick. Just browse this site.
The same can be said about Cloud's appearance on Nintendo platform before his inclusion.
Smash additions can be surprising, but not in the way you're outlining, where they take first from the middle of the series or from comparatively minor third-parties. Those aren't the kind of surprises Smash does. Smash chooses weirdos like G&W and WFT, or chooses sleepers like Terry and Kazuya. But they don't choose a character like Cammy or Soma or Aigis over Ryu or Simon or Joker because they might be more "interesting".
The problem with compiling a roster where a substantial section is comprised of quite unlikely characters is quickly becomes subject to criticism. That's generally the drawback to trying to coalesce a dream and prediction roster together. It's not as personally ideal as a dream roster, and it's not realistic enough as a prediction roster.
This is very very similar to the argument against Steve. Ease of implementation is not a particularly pertinent factor, look at how intricate some of the third-parties are becoming. For the longest time people were convinced we couldn't get a Tekken character due to the inability to translate them to Smash.
You can see why using this exact reasoning is why a number of your choices are getting challenged, right? Except it's not just LoL being bigger than Halo and Doom (despite the former being a different genre and Jinx not actually sharing much with the space marines apart from using firearms, which is basically the sword argument), it's that dozens of series are notably larger than series you've suggested, who themselves are significantly smaller than Halo and Doom, two of among the more notable series in all of gaming.
Right... but Crash is still at a level of popularity and success that Smash draws from, even if the ceiling extends above him. It's not a matter of an inflexible top-down system that has to take from the biggest remaining series as much as it is characters above a certain level are plausible, and characters below that level aren't. Resident Evil is bigger than Street Fighter or Mega Man, but both those series still have enough behind them to push them across the plausible side of the partition.
Well, I didn't single your list out. I spent a couple pages on a back and forth with RodNutTakin's list as well, including several of those characters you mentioned.
That's not going to serve you well though because that's just going to skew your perspective from how they are actually seen by people making decisions. Ignoring the effect of potentially being part of a company with much bigger characters is actively not using all the information at hand to form conclusions, because it obviously is a factor.
Well first of all it's because it's been like seven years since people thought a Nintendo connection was important. There used to be a time where a clearly much bigger character like Master Chief would suffer from his position as Mr. Xbox, and that's why he was a joke of a suggestion for like a decade. But we're in the age of Cloud and Joker and Steve and Banjo and Sora and many more things seem possible now.
Well you are free to expound on those ideas too, if you want.
It really can't since Cloud made actual appearances on Nintendo consoles, including games that were part of his series.
Who decides which appearance counts? You?
Didn't you just try to decide that Master Chief's "appearances" count?
Why would a minor cameo be the same as an actual Final Fantasy game that stars multiple FF characters(which Cloud directly appears in. We aren't talking Kingdom Hearts either. That was an actual cameo at best. Even Sephiroth had a bigger showing in it, being a full-out boss)?
Well it doesn't compare to Snake, but the thing is we can't definitively say it's not enough. It might not be enough, but currently it's all guesswork, and therefore, conjecture. It's not conclusive enough to take the possibility off the table.
But at the same time, we can still go by what's already shown with the characters in Smash so far and in this case, Master Chief only has costumes in other games, which is far less than all the other characters had.
Those are still appearances on Nintendo consoles, no matter what, so until there's a character that gets in Smash without those appearances, there's no reason to act like it doesn't count.
I think that, for all intents and purposes, being liberal with what counts and including skins, there aren't even any plausible additions who haven't been on a Nintendo system. The main ones I guess would be from Sony (bar Kratos) and Valve, but I think there'd be a mutual lack of cooperation with the former and I don't see Nintendo prioritizing the latter for inclusion.
It's less, which is why it's inconclusive, but it's not nothing, which is why it can't be dismissed.
The fact that no other character in Smash has that much less going for them is why it can be dismissed.
That's another thing. Yes, all the series in Smash have appearances in Nintendo games, but how much of that is a deliberate decision and how much of it is just that almost every notable character has made some sort of appearance on a Nintendo system? There are so few characters impeded by the rule it's really irrelevant to keep it up.
People are so uncomfortable leaving things in the grey area, but if the 'it hasn't happened so it won't happen' argument is your best defence, that shows how ill-founded dealing in absolutes here is.
If you want to go back you'll see I'm doing anything but opposing my previous point. In that argument I was stressing how irrelevant it was to have that proximity to Nintendo, much as I'm doing now. Close Nintendo relevance is not the factor it was once, a very long time ago, thought to be.
in fairness 7 was on the switch before we got seph
Nope but they have publishing rights to the original game and its DLC.
Smash has already gotten third party characters over more generally popular choices due to their connection with Nintendo. We did just get Banjo before Master Chief, Doom Slayer, and Crash and Banjo was never as big as any of them. Banjo was only as requested as he was due to his connection with Nintendo. You could make a similar argument with Mega Man. These days, Resident Evil and Monster Hunter are far more successful than Mega Man is but a lot of people wanted Mega Man because they closely tied him with Nintendo during the NES and SNES eras. Mega Man even got in before Ryu and Street Fighter dwarfs the Mega Man series in popularity. Simon from CastleVania is another popular character that I believe was largely requested due to his NES and SNES games. While he is fairly popular, there are many other characters with much more general popularity these days they could have chosen. I don’t see how my favorites are any different in that regard.
Yes, it's an indirect factor, but none of your suggestions of characters with close relation to Nintendo have the critical thing the association leads to, the demand. You need the second part to actually capitalize off the inciting factor.
And for the series that typically get in you don't need to raise any of this stuff. You can be like, Tekken, Minecraft, Mega Man, Kingdom Hearts, Final Fantasy, Castlevania, Persona, Dragon Quest, Banjo-Kazooie, Street Fighter, Pac-Man, etc. and people will be like, yeah, makes sense. The factors that would lead to those inclusions are self-evident. They're either big series, or very demanded characters, or both.
Sonic and Mega Man "won" the ballot before this ballot and we still haven't gotten a second character in either of those series, and they actually have other characters with notable demand. Banjo clearly did very well on the ballot too, doesn't mean we should start expecting Mumbo Jumbo or Gruntilda, nice as that'd be. It could happen, it's just, again, outclassed by other characters from existing third-parties.
Gen 5 is twelve years old and L:A is already basically out of the promotion window.
BotW was an even more successful game and we didn't get any of those one-offs either. One-offs have a tough go of it in series with static casts, and the worst-selling Zelda games sell as well as the best-selling Metroid games.
You know Jill and Chris both showed up in that series before Nemesis did, right? Nemesis was the fourth RE character added.
Yes but these examples are like skipping over Ryu for Chun-Li and your example is like skipping over Ryu for Zangief. And that's being generous to Nemesis considering Zangief actually shows up in nearly ever SF, which Nemesis most certainly does not.
There were indeed bigger characters they could've gone with, but that's poor justification for characters that are notably less prolific than them. I mean Persona 5 made a pretty big splash, and Terry came not just to represent FF and KoF but seemingly all of SNK.
Though now Cuphead is basically as multi-plat as it gets, short of Doom, Skyrim and Resident Evil 4.
The thing with Cloud and Joker is that although the content that came along with them is mostly from the specific titles they’re from, they still represent the Final Fantasy and Shin Megami Tensei franchises as a whole, both of which have their roots tied to Nintendo. They were chosen as representatives because of fan demand, alongside relevancy and popularity. Whenever Final Fantasy is brought up, most people would think of FF7, while SMT has been eclipsed in popularity by the Persona spin-off series, and P5 is the most recent title and extremely well received.
Screw it, I give up. Clearly no matter what I say, you’re just going to keep telling me that I’m wrong so it’s pointless to keep arguing with you. All I was ever trying to do was share a fun list of characters I thought would be cool to see while keeping the list somewhat realistic. If it had been a complete dream roster, I’d have included Zegram Ghart from Rogue Galaxy, Raziel from Soul Reaver, a Goomba, Gengar, Pharaoh Man, Bugzzy, and other far more obscure characters. What’s even the point in posting a prediction list if we can’t personalize it at all? Everyone’s list would end up looking exactly the same between the same 20 or so agreed upon characters and there wouldn’t be anything to talk about.
i would guess its cause so many people still put stock in things like popularity and a series influence. even though youd think terry and bayo would kinds disprove that
Not just the gimmick, up until then, Zero Suit Samus made the most sense for a Metroid newcomer. And people still try to undersell this, she made a lot of appearances in Metroid beforehand, the GBA game Zero Mission being most noticable. And don't forget she's basically the one character that Metroid resolves around.
I’m still really glad Ridley made it it, even if he did end up having to be a little awkward as a result. Ridley is such a cool and unique Smash character and Metroid is an awesome series.
For fun made some possible Kirby Forgotten Land spirit battle mock ups for Smash Ultimate… pic.twitter.com/eRSFPzJURP
— JustPitch (@just_pitch) April 22, 2022
It really doesn't, as in that case, we're at least going by what's officially shown in the game, rather than making up excuses for how a character can get in. Skins in other game series? I don't think that's supported by anything that's already in the game, where as a character that have appearances on Nintendo consoles prior to Smash has been consistent throughout the whole series.
LEGO's name being a "hugely disadvantageous quality" is a claim that's not supported by anything said by Nintendo or Sakurai. In addition to that, Chase would be representing a game based on the toy-line, not the toy-line itself. So in the end, it would still be all video game related and Chase being so heavily involved with Nintendo would make a much more reasonable choice for Smash compared to Master Chief, who has no games or real appearances on Nintendo consoles at all.
Eh, I'd definitely argue that. Ridley in Brawl had none of his iconic traits, no Fireballs, the tail was only used in a drag move (something he only does in a game years later), and his brutality was virtually only in the cutscenes. In fact, a common joke back at the time was that he basically just had Master Hand's moveset slapped onto him, that's how generic the boss moveset felt. Meta Ridley was better, but he was also hamstring by the story sequence he was attached to, his attacks had to be catered to the escape part and the size of the arena and had to make caveats to work. Smash 4 was arguably the best (though ridiculously intrusive), but also had the very strange mechanic of him rolling over for any person who beats him up enough which is starkly different from his mainline incarnation where he's violently vengeful to those who slight him (just ask Samus). It also had some odd quirks like calling powered up Ridley 'Meta Ridley', which is not accurate at all to that incarnation of the character.
I'm just trying to understand here, your overall point here is that characters need to have a history that's poorly defined and extremely flexible since it ranges from "many storied entries on nintendo consoles and a closed perceived relationship to nintendo" to "bargain spinoff"? Especially when there isn't anything absolute that has been stated by Sakurai or nintendo, and it assumes there's a committee to...analyze the number of nintendo cameos potential candidates have?
Who said anything about the "number" of cameos? The point is a character usually has an appearance on a Nintendo console before appearing in Smash. I think at this point, we all know that it's not a matter how many appearances that a character has. That's more of preference since Smash itself is still heavily Nintendo-themed and fans prefer characters that fit that theme. However, the long history that the character and their series do have just adds more to it and if Nintendo is indeed heavily involved in those series, it could help their chances even more. We've seen this happen with one character (Bayonetta), so there's no reason to think it couldn't happen again.
Appearing on a Nintendo console shouldn't even be a controversial point in the first place and if it's the number of iconic characters you're worried about, there's still plenty of them on Nintendo consoles that are not in Smash yet. Aside from my MWs (Ryu Hayabusa, Billy and Jimmy Lee, Doom Slayer), there's also Crash Bandicoot, Scorpion, Kunio and Riki, Bill and Lance, Adol Christin, Arthur, and so much more, as well as fan favorites that are popular picks among the fanbase (Travis Touchdown, Shovel Knight, Lloyd, Rayman). So it's not like Smash NEEDS iconic characters that haven't been on Nintendo consoles. There's still plenty of them left that has.
From what I recall, they were on every version of the game. (I think that also applied to other characters from those companies - bare minimum, I think Aloy from Horizon: Zero Dawn was also in Fortnite on every platform, though I could be wrong)
Yeah, apparently that's some sort of rule with their collabs: no console exclusives. It's why we never got any Nintendo collabs, despite Epic Games clearly wanting some.
they are. In fact, there were plans for Samus to be added, but they fell through in part because Nintendo was adamant she should only be on Switch.
Probably because the last time they tried something like that, we got the CD-I games. Some wounds just don't heal...
Thiiiiis.
then how do you explain mario being in a multiplatformer just dance a while back?
Pretty sure that was only on the Nintendo versions.
