Official Next Smash - Speculation & Discussion Thread

[dream1ng]

Some Rare IP was already first party. Banjo and Killer Instinct were IP shared between Rare and Nintendo. The situation seems murkier for the other IP, but then again we already had Perfect Dark content in Melee.

Regardless, I suspect the successful series would've continued unstymied under Nintendo, and we'd not just have received Banjo earlier, but by now would probably also have Joanna, Fulgore, and either or both of Mumbo and Gruntilda. I don't know about Battletoads or Conker. The former wasn't in any part owned by Nintendo, and it would've become a Nintendo IP if Rare was bought by them, but whether they would've returned to it in a meaningful way is completely speculative. And Conker, given the tone and the lack of the game's commercial success, may not be something that would've continued without Rare's autonomy. Or, at least, may not be something that Nintendo would want on the roster.

That said, if Banjo got in in Brawl, and all the Rare stuff was first-party, by Ultimate I think Conker would have a lot of popularity behind him.

People look at the Rare games we got under Microsoft and assume that's just what would've happened under Nintendo as well. But other than some stuff that was just carried over during the shift, I really doubt it. MS's management style forced Rare into directions they otherwise didn't take under Nintendo, while Nintendo's style more fostered their prosperity. I think the successful series (Banjo, KI, PD, etc.) would've just continued until they weren't successful.

 

[Chuderz]

I'd just like to venture my own opinion in regards to abolishing IP owner ship. now please don't take this as attack on those of you who brought it up I just wanted to say this while we were on the subject. anyway, I feel letting people use any game franchise they want is and unbelievably bad idea. sure there'd be benefits, you can all use whatever mod you want in your tournaments but this is one double edged sword we can do without. think about it, if everyone can make mario and pokemon games that's all anyone will make, not literally but you get the idea, with a logic of by sticking the biggest gaming characters into their games people will pay it attention. and we'll just end up with a similar situation like where everyone and their uncle uses lovecraft monsters. even if anyone trys to come up with some original cosmic horror someone else will just retcon them into something lovecraftian. is that really want you want for gaming? thousands of games where everyone just uses the same characters over and over and over. just think about it every game series your sick of will suddenly explode. it would be a disaster.

Long post so ignore it if you want. It's about me fundamentally disagreeing with this assessment. I try to compartmentalize my thoughts on the matter well and do so in polite and engaging way. Oh well here it is.

Honestly I think this is a slippery slope fallacy and I don't personally think it'd come to that. Let's steelman it though and say that it absolutely comes to that exactly. So what then? Isn't that just reflective of what people would want to create? We have all these built-in justifications for current market forces enabling companies to release half-baked products like Nintendo's Mario sports offerings this generation being completed over a prolonged "free" update period or Gamefreaks unwillingness to put proper AAA development into Pokemon because they make more money by not doing it. There are countless other generalized examples of these practices like the predatory freemium model or mass layoffs coupled with executive bonuses that we make sense under this global economic order. That doesn't mean we rationalize it as morally righteous or anything like that but we still make sense of it as being logically sound nonetheless.

So why not justify people exclusively wanting to use these characters for the added attention? These characters are largely as prominent as they are because of their marketability under the current economic order anyways. Pokemon and something like Resident Evil are both mainstream but one is the highest grossing franchise ever and the other isn't for a reason and that's because one is infinitely more advertiser "friendly" under our current sensibilities.

I think should a new order be established like abolishing IP and patents we would arrive at new sensibilities with behaviors that'd compliment them. Who's to say what characters would rise under this system? You're assuming it'd always been a few heavy hitters and they might have enough legacy to always be present but I wouldn't say it's impossible for original creations to rise to prominence under this new order. Once Steve didn't even have a name and my brother was showing me this cool game he helped crowdfund and now it's Minecraft and Minecraft is in freaking Smash. I think there's a whole lot more potential to the zeitgeist's collective imagination than we even know properly because we're constantly being stifled by these stupid restrictive laws by of and for capital holders. Think of all the labor value stolen from the women that designed Pikachu because laws were written so corporations like Gamefreak, even back when they small, could take advantage of said labor claiming supposed "intellectual property" over something they didn't physically craft themselves.

For example there was a Pokemon mod recently where you actually legitimately hunt the Pokemon with guns. While there were many that enjoyed the shock humor there were also obviously many others whose sensibilities were upset by this creative endeavor's mere existence. Instead of letting this play out and letting peoples' attitudes evolve on this hyper-specific front it was obviously either reported on mass or drew a lot of attention because of the controversy which was enough to get it taken down.

What could else could people do with this IP that Nintendo never will? Maybe a Luigi's Mansion game where Mario is actually brutally murdering our loveable mushroom cast? You don't even have to get gruesome or sexual with it. Maybe just a crossover game where Mario defeats Ganondorf and Link saves Princess Peach or even flipped where the respective princesses go on their own crossover adventures similar to when Crash and Spyro did it that one time. Smash mods could also grow forever and ever and either Nintendo would have to quit making games or adapt this insane level of competition to really earn their place among all of this. Of course this kind of sweeping change would have reach beyond Nintendo's cast of characters too but that's beyond my imagination because it'd be bigger than just me.

I don't see any merit is idealizing these power structures/players that are being empowered by an incestuous proximity to concentrated capital that is inherently defined by ever-increasing inequalities whether they be social, cultural, institutional or economic, of the masses that is being maintained by ever shrinking rates of profit being generated by oftentimes a wasteful use of finite resources. I routinely fail to see what's so great and innovative about this system because I routinely see the very opposite. Companies scrambling to try to find the most profit for the cheapest costs is all you're getting whether it's Candy Crush or GTA V. One is a more extreme example of the other with being one of the most expensive video games of all time but it's nonetheless the goal. Creativity isn't dead under capitalism but the incentives built into the system has it focusing all its attention on making the cheapest/safest product and selling it for the most money and that's so stifling that I refuse to call it innovation in any respect. Sometimes a risk is glamoursly rewarded but those times are more rare than the safe route and it merits of creative expression, among many other things, shouldn't be subjected to an inherently wasteful and destructive system.

 

[Sucumbio]

Speaking of mods

Lol!

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

To address two recent points brought up, I have some thoughts.

The issue with Rare vis a vis Nuts & Bolts was that while the in vogue sentiment of the time may have soured on 3D platformers, the actual fanbase of Banjo Kazooie had not, and in this case, the company was perceiving a staleness to the formula that was not shared by the fandom. If a Banjo Threeie had come out first and then Nuts & Bolts a few years later, the audience might have been more receptive to it. But after 8 years and two consoles generations, a vehicle construction title was not what people wanted. Part of it was just sheer bad timing; the renaissance of even 2D platformers was only just starting around that time, and even Nintendo ratcheting up their output of 3D Mario games (four of them circa 2007-2013 vs only one from 2000-2006) had only just begun. At the time it was being developed, N&B likely made sense given the overall mood.

In regard to Nintendo buying Sega, it's a tricky idea because the two philosophies of the respective companies very often differ and given the former's tendency to get developers that fit their mold of game creation, it's hard to imagine they'd go for the latter, even as valuable as it is. The treatment of Mario vs Sonic is a very excellent example; the quality control of SMB games has meant there are very few lousy titles to his name, which can't quite be said for the Blue Blur. On the other hand, Sonic's been allowed to venture into very interesting territory with gameplay as well as story, and been allowed a much stronger legacy of non gaming media content as a result.

While that hardly sums up the entirety of either company, I do think it's a telling comparison of what the respective company often likes to do and why they'd make for an odd fit. Nintendo will rarely allow any IP to reach the potential lows of Sega, but Sega is willing to try certain things that Nintendo is very often too conservative and risk averse to attempt. That's without even getting into their contrasting markets and particular entertainment divisions. It's a marriage that might work on paper, but feels a lot like there'd be too many fundamental issues at its core to effectively work in practice.

 

[Quillion]

LiveStudioAudience : I don't think Nintendo is always risk averse though. I think the issue that Nintendo will only go to the drawing board trying to shake up a franchise when people complain about it, while Sega tries to sell itself on being consistently bold and creative. Problem is, Nintendo's approach is more suited to maintaining franchises while Sega's approach is better suited to promoting new/one-shot IPs.

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

LiveStudioAudience : I don't think Nintendo is always risk averse though. I think the issue that Nintendo will only go to the drawing board trying to shake up a franchise when people complain about it, while Sega tries to sell itself on being consistently bold and creative. Problem is, Nintendo's approach is more suited to maintaining franchises while Sega's approach is better suited to promoting new/one-shot IPs.

Yeah, it's very much a generalization to a degree. Nintendo's a weird contradiction at times; they'll go to town trying to figure out new ways to interact via gameplay, but will recoil at the idea of not having Bowser kidnap Peach in the next Mario title. Basically there is innovation from Nintendo quite consistently, however it will often be balanced out by a certain safety (at time excessively so) with characters, story, and presentation.

 

[fogbadge]

Long post so ignore it if you want. It's about me fundamentally disagreeing with this assessment. I try to compartmentalize my thoughts on the matter well and do so in polite and engaging way. Oh well here it is.

Honestly I think this is a slippery slope fallacy and I don't personally think it'd come to that. Let's steelman it though and say that it absolutely comes to that exactly. So what then? Isn't that just reflective of what people would want to create? We have all these built-in justifications for current market forces enabling companies to release half-baked products like Nintendo's Mario sports offerings this generation being completed over a prolonged "free" update period or Gamefreaks unwillingness to put proper AAA development into Pokemon because they make more money by not doing it. There are countless other generalized examples of these practices like the predatory freemium model or mass layoffs coupled with executive bonuses that we make sense under this global economic order. That doesn't mean we rationalize it as morally righteous or anything like that but we still make sense of it as being logically sound nonetheless.

So why not justify people exclusively wanting to use these characters for the added attention? These characters are largely as prominent as they are because of their marketability under the current economic order anyways. Pokemon and something like Resident Evil are both mainstream but one is the highest grossing franchise ever and the other isn't for a reason and that's because one is infinitely more advertiser "friendly" under our current sensibilities.

I think should a new order be established like abolishing IP and patents we would arrive at new sensibilities with behaviors that'd compliment them. Who's to say what characters would rise under this system? You're assuming it'd always been a few heavy hitters and they might have enough legacy to always be present but I wouldn't say it's impossible for original creations to rise to prominence under this new order. Once Steve didn't even have a name and my brother was showing me this cool game he helped crowdfund and now it's Minecraft and Minecraft is in freaking Smash. I think there's a whole lot more potential to the zeitgeist's collective imagination than we even know properly because we're constantly being stifled by these stupid restrictive laws by of and for capital holders. Think of all the labor value stolen from the women that designed Pikachu because laws were written so corporations like Gamefreak, even back when they small, could take advantage of said labor claiming supposed "intellectual property" over something they didn't physically craft themselves.

For example there was a Pokemon mod recently where you actually legitimately hunt the Pokemon with guns. While there were many that enjoyed the shock humor there were also obviously many others whose sensibilities were upset by this creative endeavor's mere existence. Instead of letting this play out and letting peoples' attitudes evolve on this hyper-specific front it was obviously either reported on mass or drew a lot of attention because of the controversy which was enough to get it taken down.

What could else could people do with this IP that Nintendo never will? Maybe a Luigi's Mansion game where Mario is actually brutally murdering our loveable mushroom cast? You don't even have to get gruesome or sexual with it. Maybe just a crossover game where Mario defeats Ganondorf and Link saves Princess Peach or even flipped where the respective princesses go on their own crossover adventures similar to when Crash and Spyro did it that one time. Smash mods could also grow forever and ever and either Nintendo would have to quit making games or adapt this insane level of competition to really earn their place among all of this. Of course this kind of sweeping change would have reach beyond Nintendo's cast of characters too but that's beyond my imagination because it'd be bigger than just me.

I don't see any merit is idealizing these power structures/players that are being empowered by an incestuous proximity to concentrated capital that is inherently defined by ever-increasing inequalities whether they be social, cultural, institutional or economic, of the masses that is being maintained by ever shrinking rates of profit being generated by oftentimes a wasteful use of finite resources. I routinely fail to see what's so great and innovative about this system because I routinely see the very opposite. Companies scrambling to try to find the most profit for the cheapest costs is all you're getting whether it's Candy Crush or GTA V. One is a more extreme example of the other with being one of the most expensive video games of all time but it's nonetheless the goal. Creativity isn't dead under capitalism but the incentives built into the system has it focusing all its attention on making the cheapest/safest product and selling it for the most money and that's so stifling that I refuse to call it innovation in any respect. Sometimes a risk is glamoursly rewarded but those times are more rare than the safe route and it merits of creative expression, among many other things, shouldn't be subjected to an inherently wasteful and destructive system.

see what you’re suggesting there is going from one extreme to the other. IP laws were made to protect from having their work stolen. So yeah maybe that would be a big kick to the corporates but it’ll be the same kick to the small creatives who’d be in danger of having their stuff ripped off by someone else claiming to have invented it. Don’t abolish the laws reform them, change them for the better. Cause what you’re suggesting will burn smaller creatives far more than it’ll will the triple A industry.

all of your examples are why I don’t like the public domain. Terrible gritty reboots that are just dire to watch. There comes a point where putting a new spin on something becomes so different that you’d have been as well to make something original. Putting “crazy” spins on everything isn’t automatically good, have you never seen fan fictions? This idea that it would force Nintendo to innovate is a massive presumption. Apart from anything there’s no guarantee any of these hypothetical games would be any good. These shock mods are 15 minutes of fame stuff. Look at the torrent of derivative works we already get, look at the number of games that get drowned out cause they can’t afford the advertising. If anything the triple A industry would still come out on top cause they have the money for the biggest advertising campaigns. All abolishing the laws would do would hurt the smallest parties. I don’t idolise capitalism, I want to see creatives protected.

also if you think game freak was a cooperation at the time they were creating pikachu then you need to actually look into the history

 

[dream1ng]

The thing about the Sega acquisition idea is it's really only propagated by the history of the two companies being rivals, and a few of the Sega IPs seeming like they would "fit" under Nintendo. At least better than with Microsoft or Sony. But it has no realistic backbone. Nintendo and Sega have drastically different management styles, Sega is tied up with Sammy, Nintendo isn't actually going to bring back all those old Sega IP you like (they can't even handle keeping all their own IP active), and the reason many of those IP are dormant in the first place is because their actual success was average at best.

Nintendo, who already doesn't make acquisitions this size, isn't going to go for Sega, if they did. A company like Capcom has way more utility. How many successful IP does Sega even have these days? Three? Five, counting Atlus? And most already come to the Nintendo platform.

It's a nice idea, bringing the 90s rivalry full circle. Having Sonic and Mario under the same roof. Having the back catalogues of both Sega and Nintendo under the same roof. That would be great. But it just has so little grounding that it's close to the "Nintendo buys back Rare" level of pipe dream.

 

[Ivander]

All this talk of beat-em-ups and HOW is there so LITTLE representation of such a classic genre in Smash?

Probably because Nintendo doesn't make much of them? It's the same deal with FPS games, really.

Probably part of it, since Nintendo didn't join the Beat'em-up market compared to everybody else, especially Capcom, who had a ton of them. The other reason is probably because there was a long period of time when Beat'em-Ups really fell off in releases and whatnot. Compared to fighting games which have had Ups and Downs quite consistently, Beat'em Ups that weren't Hack'n Slashers became very few and far between, with only around recently in the last 5 years have they been getting games quite consistently.

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

If they weren't going to bring back F-Zero as a proper racing series, retooling it as a beat em up where Captain Falcon and pals kick the crap out of baddies on racetracks would have been an enjoyable compromise.

 

[dream1ng]

I think the main reason there's no beat-em-up representation in Smash, in tandem with Nintendo not having much in that genre, is that there are no beat-em-up characters close to the level of third-parties we usually get.

I mean, who's it going to be? Kunio? Haggar? Bimmy and Jimmy?

FPS, alternatively, has characters who can hang with the others... it's just a very western genre, and Smash skews the other way when rummaging through its repository. Going back to the Rare talk, if they had stayed under Nintendo, and Perfect Dark had stayed the course, we probably would have Joanna.

 

[Diddy Kong]

If they weren't going to bring back F-Zero as a proper racing series, retooling it as a beat em up where Captain Falcon and pals kick the crap out of baddies on racetracks would have been an enjoyable compromise.

I could see F-Zero becoming a mix of say, GTA and No More Heroes (the first game) while keeping the racing aspect of course. Racing is the main theme, but each major race could be set in chapters and you have a big free roaming sandbox world where you take mercenary jobs on the side which results in combat. Just an idea.

Donkey Kong and Wario Land also seem good candidates for beat em up mechanics. But it would need to be done in a more quirky manner, and not take away from the platform aspects, so it also should be more quick paced to not slow the game down.

 

[Ivander]

I mean, Hack'n Slash is a sub-genre of Beat'em Ups, so not only do we have Bayonetta, but Dante is a heavily requested character. Kratos is consistently looked at in terms of Sony reps. Ryu Hayabusa is also a popular request and he has the 3D Ninja Gaiden games. And lately, Dynasty Warriors has also been looked at in terms of a rep for Smash Bros, like Lu Bu.

It's really in terms of traditional Beat'em Ups where while there is a noticeable list of known Beat'em Ups, like Double Dragon, Final Fight, River City, Streets of Rage, Dungeon Fighter Online, Battletoads, etc, there aren't any that are anywhere close to highly requested compared to the likes of Dante or Ryu Hayabusa. I think the only one that could have a noticeable chance is Yakuza with Kiryu, but as far as I know, it has Beat'em Up elements, but may not be a traditional Beat'em Up compared to the mentioned above.
In terms of traditional Beat'em Ups, you have characters who people would be okay with, but aren't highly requested. And that's really the main issue there when it's really hard to see Nintendo getting a character for these when there are a ton of other characters who are highly more requested for future games.

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

The fact that many beat'em ups were attached to famous licenses has obviously been an issue as well. For some, getting their favorite characters from the genre in Smash would amount to Homer Simpson and the Scott Pilgrim popping up in Ultimate.

 

[Gengar84]

The fact that many beat'em ups were attached to famous licenses has obviously been an issue as well. For some, getting their favorite characters from the genre in Smash would amount to Homer Simpson and the Scott Pilgrim popping up in Ultimate.

Speaking of licensed characters from of Beat’em’ups, I’d legit be through the roof to see the TMNT in Smash Bros. I know non game characters will likely never happen and maybe shouldn’t but we’ve already had a TMNT Smash style game by some of the same people that made Brawl. That said, I’m not necessarily arguing for their inclusion and I’d be more than satisfied with a sequel to TMNT Smash Up with designs based on the Playmates toy line and original comics with some other characters throughout the series’ history. I didn’t really like that the first game stuck with the designs from the ‘06 movie, which weren’t bad but weren’t my favorites either. It was also lacking a ton of classic characters.

 

[Wonder Smash]

Probably because Nintendo doesn't make much of them? It's the same deal with FPS games, really.

That's definitely not the reason. It's just a simple case of them not being heavily requested, which could very well change by the next game.

A lot of the best beat-‘em-ups are actually licensed games. TMNT, X-Men, Scott Pilgrim, Simpson, etc. Double Dragon is somewhat in a Copyright nightmare and then I guess Streets of Rage, Final Fight, and Battletoads just aren’t as big of a grab as other characters from their respective companies.

Double Dragon is owned by ASW (Arc System Works). Not sure how that's a copyright nightmare.

I think the main reason there's no beat-em-up representation in Smash, in tandem with Nintendo not having much in that genre, is that there are no beat-em-up characters close to the level of third-parties we usually get.

I mean, who's it going to be? Kunio? Haggar? Bimmy and Jimmy?

Yeah. After all, River City characters are already spirits in Smash Ultimate and then there's Double Dragon's historical influence and recognition. So that should be a no-brainer.

 

[dream1ng]

Yeah. After all, River City characters are already spirits in Smash Ultimate and then there's Double Dragon's historical influence and recognition. So that should be a no-brainer.

Actually, it would be Kiryu, who I forgot about, because his games aren't the classic beat-em-ups.

All the old school ones aren't quite up to snuff to be anything more than incredibly long shots at this juncture. A spirit, a costume, if he's lucky an AT - that seems about right for someone like Kunio. It very easily could've been nothing, like it was for Double Dragon.

That's definitely not the reason. It's just a simple case of them not being heavily requested, which could very well change by the next game.

It definitely is a reason. If Nintendo had their own beat-em-up series, and that series had been at least a little successful, that character would be in by now. The bar is much lower for first-parties than third-parties.

Another reason is that none of the third-parties have made the grade for inclusion, which includes none having any substantial popularity. But given the candidates, that's not all that surprising.

 

[Quillion]

Yeah, it's very much a generalization to a degree. Nintendo's a weird contradiction at times; they'll go to town trying to figure out new ways to interact via gameplay, but will recoil at the idea of not having Bowser kidnap Peach in the next Mario title. Basically there is innovation from Nintendo quite consistently, however it will often be balanced out by a certain safety (at time excessively so) with characters, story, and presentation.

What's wrong with that sort of balance most of the time? I don't think it's a "compensating with extremes" design like Sonic Unleashed trying to have fast and slow moments not in the same gameplay, but in two separate gameplay styles. And granted, Star Fox Zero is very much a "compensating with extremes" design with being the third iteration of the Andross War while overhauling the gameplay.

But mostly, people get what they already want out of the franchise while getting something new on top of that.

 

[HyperSomari64]

Reminder that Kung-Fu Master is a loose adaptation of Jackie Chan's Wheels on Meals.
So does the staff will pay royalties to the movie company in case Irem wants it.

 

[Wonder Smash]

Actually, it would be Kiryu, who I forgot about, because his games aren't the classic beat-em-ups.

All the old school ones aren't quite up to snuff to be anything more than incredibly long shots at this juncture. A spirit, a costume, if he's lucky an AT - that seems about right for someone like Kunio. It very easily could've been nothing, like it was for Double Dragon.

It's not really a sure thing to say. I mean, as you can see, Yakuza didn't get anything in Smash either.

There's no real obstacle for the older beat'em up series. All they need is more support. I also think you're kind of downplaying the significance of the River City series, as it was pretty much the grandfather of the beat'em up genre and is probably longest running beat'em up series in the industry right now. The fact that it even got a spirit event should tell you something. A playable character seems about right for Kunio too. He may not be my personal pick but it's crazy for anybody to act like he doesn't deserve it.

It definitely is a reason. If Nintendo had their own beat-em-up series, and that series had been at least a little successful, that character would be in by now. The bar is much lower for first-parties than third-parties.

Another reason is that none of the third-parties have made the grade for inclusion, which includes none having any substantial popularity. But given the candidates, that's not all that surprising.

It's not a reason. That's definitely a fanrule completely made up. Neither Nintendo or Sakurai has ever hinted that they have to be invovled in a genre first before it's represented in a Smash. If that was the case, no way characters like Snake and Steve would be in Smash.

Besides, out of all the video game genres, the beat'em up genre probably has more in common with Smash than the others. Seeing how those games also feature fighting, items, platforming, and life share, I wouldn't be surprised if Double Dragon and River City were influences on Smash too.

 

[dream1ng]

It's not really a sure thing to say. I mean, as you can see, Yakuza didn't get anything in Smash either.

Right, no third-party is a guarantee. Kiryu might not happen either. But at least that series is quite successful and the character popular. Those are qualities sought after in inclusions. Not thinking your Axel Stones or Mike Haggars are quite on that level.

There's no real obstacle for the older beat'em up series. All they need is more support. I also think you're kind of downplaying the significance of the River City series, as it was pretty much the grandfather of the beat'em up genre and is probably longest running beat'em up series in the industry right now. A playable character seems about right for Kunio too. He may not be my personal pick but it's crazy for anybody to act like he doesn't deserve it.

"Deserve" is a frame of mind that isn't really how things play out. There are a lot of facets that can interfere with "deservedness", like having less success, being less prolific, and/or having much less demand than the third-parties we typically get. There are three obstacles these characters face.

I'm sure you could make a laundry list of "deserving" characters who stand very little chance if you're going to invoke factors that may be noteworthy for that series, but aren't meaningful for Smash. Influence, for instance, isn't the through-line of third-party inclusions anyway. Those aforementioned categories are. Prevalence and popularity.

For inclusions, influence itself is just a correlating factor that is misdiagnosed as a causal factor. You can tell by the fact that we don't have any series that were influential but weren't big.

It's not like we got Ultima or Virtua Fighter, despite the influence of those games on their respective, already represented genres. And those games weren't even "small", just not as big as later ones.

It's not a reason. That's definitely a fanrule completely made up. Neither Nintendo or Sakurai has ever hinted that they have to be invovled in a genre first before it's represented in a Smash. If that was the case, no way characters like Snake and Steve would be in Smash.

It has nothing to do with the genre, it has to do with being a Nintendo series of some success. A Nintendo series needs far less to be included than a third-party series. The bar is much, much lower. Doesn't matter what the genre is, so long as there's a character deemed feasible.

So yes, if Nintendo had their own somewhat successful beat-em-up series, it would almost certainly have representation.

Besides, out of all the genres out there, the beat'em up genre probaby more in common with Smash the most. Seeing how those games also feature fighting, items, platforming, and life share, I wouldn't be surprised if Double Dragon and River City were influences on Smash too.

Influences on Smash don't inherently lead to attention. Still waiting on Outfoxies. Or just... sumo.

 

[DarthEnderX]

No wait Tohmas the Kanfu Master!

The inspiration for one of the best machinemas ever...

Sadly, it's not eligible for Smash, because the original Japanese version is actually an adaptation of the Jackie Chan movie Spartan X.

 

[Chuderz]

see what you’re suggesting there is going from one extreme to the other. IP laws were made to protect from having their work stolen. So yeah maybe that would be a big kick to the corporates but it’ll be the same kick to the small creatives who’d be in danger of having their stuff ripped off by someone else claiming to have invented it. Don’t abolish the laws reform them, change them for the better. Cause what you’re suggesting will burn smaller creatives far more than it’ll will the triple A industry.

No IP laws were designed around keeping revenue streams centralized for creative content. For example, Activision owns Crash Bandicoot and yet had literally no part in the work that went into his creation and still have been nonetheless legally entitled to profiting off of this legacy for over a decade now. The people that made Crash had the value of their work stolen from them and this was legally rationalized and enforced under our current economic order.

You're still operating under the impressions of our current system while mentally navigating through this hypothetical. There'd be no "stealing" creative content if everything was public domain. There wouldn't even be a public domain in this context. Whoever created or as you put it "invented" something would matter less and less as time went on and cultural attitudes shifted to reflect this change to the system.

This quit literally couldn't hurt smaller creators more just based on the objective size of their operations relative to each other and the larger more "mainstream" works would be just as available to these smaller creators.

all of your examples are why I don’t like the public domain. Terrible gritty reboots that are just dire to watch. There comes a point where putting a new spin on something becomes so different that you’d have been as well to make something original. Putting “crazy” spins on everything isn’t automatically good, have you never seen fan fictions? This idea that it would force Nintendo to innovate is a massive presumption. Apart from anything there’s no guarantee any of these hypothetical games would be any good. These shock mods are 15 minutes of fame stuff. Look at the torrent of derivative works we already get, look at the number of games that get drowned out cause they can’t afford the advertising. If anything the triple A industry would still come out on top cause they have the money for the biggest advertising campaigns. All abolishing the laws would do would hurt the smallest parties. I don’t idolise capitalism, I want to see creatives protected.

Well first and foremost that's objectively just your opinion and others might feel like these grittier takes would speak more directly to their own sensibilities. I was just using extreme examples in order to highlight things Nintendo definitely wouldn't do with their IP and thus being the sole proprietors of said IP these concepts will never have literally any small chance to materialize and I think that's objectively an unjust limitation on freedom expression and by extension creativity itself. Nintendo much less won't even allow for a Volleyball/Wrestling hybrid sports game (Mario Spikers though I hope maybe they'll reconsider that with NLG part of the official company now) or that Sheik stealth game.

My examples were the entire scope of what's possible under this kind of paradigm shift in creative commercialization but again you're still operating under the impression of how we currently understand as mods under this system to this hypothetical when this kind of change would radically shift what we understand to be a mod. A mod could literally be sold in the same place as "official" (more like traditional canon in this context) releases and could very likely hold anywhere from comparative, equal to if not greater value and even if these mods did hold less value it'd still functionally be no more different than an IP holder screwing up a series today like they borderline routinely do and if they're not doing that they're oftentimes stagnating the series into lethargy.

I don't know if I said it'd force Nintendo to "innovate" but I did claim it'd pressure them to compete which are totally different concepts at play here. Could Nintendo really stop doing Smash if somebody could just do it at any time? Would they be able to get away with the extremely gross decision to put carts in Mario Party and even if they did could they handle somebody else making new boards and getting rid of the carts and reselling them as the superior product? Could they keep having crappy online if people could simply port their games over to services with better online infrastructure? This idea I'm expressing is sooooooooo much bigger than my post or the examples I gave and that's why I made a direct mention of that fact.

Nintendo wouldn't be alone either because all big companies of any kind would be facing this. Currently, there's a social/economic movement based around the concept of right to repair with regards to your electronic devices. Companies like Microsoft and Apple are disgustingly against this to the point that they're willing to put people in prison over something so essential to both our faith in these products but in freedom of exchange itself all to maintain these profits they feel entitled to (and are legally given by what is essentially a judicial system around the world and more widely the rest of these governments said judicial systems reside alongside that functions more as a live service for capital, than any functional interpretation of human rights) or just insanely they must aggressively protect/pursue all in the service of a gross business model of planned obsolescence with all its evil negative environmental impact. All these market forces are brought to you by capitalism.

People invented money in an effort to serve themselves and ironically they ended up serving money. That's the root of this world's madness. I have no respect for any of it.

also if you think game freak was a cooperation at the time they were creating pikachu then you need to actually look into the history

They objectively were though. They utilized the same legal mechanisms to take control of creative output under their corporate umbrella that anything you'd consider a corporation at that time. Just because they're small at the time doesn't make them any less of a corporation. They're a registered LTD so they're entitled to all the same legal privileges.

Anyways I feel I responded adequately enough to your rebuttal. If you want to keep discussing it fine but I'm fairly certain we'll be running in circles here. I hope you consider this idea even more than you have now whether you retain the same opinions or not after this conversation.

 

[JustPlainDan]

With the latest game I’ve cleared off my backlog being Bayonetta, is it unrealistic to think that Jeanne could work as an echo fighter in the next game, or would it be avoided given what happened with Bayo in Sm4sh?

 

[osby]

With the latest game I’ve cleared off my backlog being Bayonetta, is it unrealistic to think that Jeanne could work as an echo fighter in the next game, or would it be avoided given what happened with Bayo in Sm4sh?

I don't think it's that unrealistic but given that it didn't happen in Ultimate doesn't give me much confidence that it will happen in the future. But if Bayo returns and they feel the need to add more echo fighters, she's somewhat likely.

Also, there's no reason for them to consider Bayonetta's tier placement in Smash 4. She's a pretty different character in Ultimate and tweaking the stats on a few of her moves won't magically result in a broken character.

 

[chocolatejr9]

I don't think it's that unrealistic but given that it didn't happen in Ultimate doesn't give me much confidence that it will happen in the future. But if Bayo returns and they feel the need to add more echo fighters, she's somewhat likely.

Also, there's no reason for them to consider Bayonetta's tier placement in Smash 4. She's a pretty different character in Ultimate and tweaking the stats on a few of her moves won't magically result in a broken character.

And FWIW, Jeanne seems to be pretty popular among Bayonetta fans. Not sure about Smash fans, but there's a market there.

 

[NonSpecificGuy]

Double Dragon is owned by ASW (Arc System Works). Not sure how that's a copyright nightmare.

The franchise has shifted hands like 5 times at this point and that comes with weird contingencies. For instance. Certain games might be still handled by the other companies if they funded it. Certain parts of certain games may not pass if say a piece of music was handled by a different studio. I’m not sure how Double Dragon is affected by this but I do know that a few of those games haven’t seen the light of day in a while.

 

[ceterisparibus]

"hypothetically" speaking, anything can happen by the next game if you so imagine. Free microsoft games like solitare/minesweeper could inexplicably get a enormous surge of demand, forcing sakurai and nintendo to add a pack of cards and literal mines as playable characters. Goku could suddenly be included for no good reason other than shusidea begging nintendo to add him in for free.
Similarly saying that beat-up-games will suddenly get that demand is, well frankly, fanfiction for a genre that already has big problems sustaining the same level of popularity as other genres like JRPGs/FPS/fighting games in general.

Also we've moved on from the nintendo connection being very important to using influence on smash as a factor for inclusion? What's next, sakurai's cat preferences is a factor for inclusion next?

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

As far as handling intellectual properties, Sega feels like it's reached a solid compromise. Anyone trying to make money off of their IP's will get legally dealt with, obviously, but a great deal of free fan games largely go unencumbered. Even Streets of Rage Remake, which did get a legal notice to get pulled off the internet shortly after release, is freely available now and has continually had mod support for the last decade. This is on top of them gradually allowing indie developers to handle old franchises for new legal releases. It's not a perfect setup, but they feel far more fair than various other companies have been.

 

[fogbadge]

No IP laws were designed around keeping revenue streams centralized for creative content. For example, Activision owns Crash Bandicoot and yet had literally no part in the work that went into his creation and still have been nonetheless legally entitled to profiting off of this legacy for over a decade now. The people that made Crash had the value of their work stolen from them and this was legally rationalized and enforced under our current economic order.

You're still operating under the impressions of our current system while mentally navigating through this hypothetical. There'd be no "stealing" creative content if everything was public domain. There wouldn't even be a public domain in this context. Whoever created or as you put it "invented" something would matter less and less as time went on and cultural attitudes shifted to reflect this change to the system.

This quit literally couldn't hurt smaller creators more just based on the objective size of their operations relative to each other and the larger more "mainstream" works would be just as available to these smaller creators.


Well first and foremost that's objectively just your opinion and others might feel like these grittier takes would speak more directly to their own sensibilities. I was just using extreme examples in order to highlight things Nintendo definitely wouldn't do with their IP and thus being the sole proprietors of said IP these concepts will never have literally any small chance to materialize and I think that's objectively an unjust limitation on freedom expression and by extension creativity itself. Nintendo much less won't even allow for a Volleyball/Wrestling hybrid sports game (Mario Spikers though I hope maybe they'll reconsider that with NLG part of the official company now) or that Sheik stealth game.

My examples were the entire scope of what's possible under this kind of paradigm shift in creative commercialization but again you're still operating under the impression of how we currently understand as mods under this system to this hypothetical when this kind of change would radically shift what we understand to be a mod. A mod could literally be sold in the same place as "official" (more like traditional canon in this context) releases and could very likely hold anywhere from comparative, equal to if not greater value and even if these mods did hold less value it'd still functionally be no more different than an IP holder screwing up a series today like they borderline routinely do and if they're not doing that they're oftentimes stagnating the series into lethargy.

I don't know if I said it'd force Nintendo to "innovate" but I did claim it'd pressure them to compete which are totally different concepts at play here. Could Nintendo really stop doing Smash if somebody could just do it at any time? Would they be able to get away with the extremely gross decision to put carts in Mario Party and even if they did could they handle somebody else making new boards and getting rid of the carts and reselling them as the superior product? Could they keep having crappy online if people could simply port their games over to services with better online infrastructure? This idea I'm expressing is sooooooooo much bigger than my post or the examples I gave and that's why I made a direct mention of that fact.

Nintendo wouldn't be alone either because all big companies of any kind would be facing this. Currently, there's a social/economic movement based around the concept of right to repair with regards to your electronic devices. Companies like Microsoft and Apple are disgustingly against this to the point that they're willing to put people in prison over something so essential to both our faith in these products but in freedom of exchange itself all to maintain these profits they feel entitled to (and are legally given by what is essentially a judicial system around the world and more widely the rest of these governments said judicial systems reside alongside that functions more as a live service for capital, than any functional interpretation of human rights) or just insanely they must aggressively protect/pursue all in the service of a gross business model of planned obsolescence with all its evil negative environmental impact. All these market forces are brought to you by capitalism.

People invented money in an effort to serve themselves and ironically they ended up serving money. That's the root of this world's madness. I have no respect for any of it.


They objectively were though. They utilized the same legal mechanisms to take control of creative output under their corporate umbrella that anything you'd consider a corporation at that time. Just because they're small at the time doesn't make them any less of a corporation. They're a registered LTD so they're entitled to all the same legal privileges.

Anyways I feel I responded adequately enough to your rebuttal. If you want to keep discussing it fine but I'm fairly certain we'll be running in circles here. I hope you consider this idea even more than you have now whether you retain the same opinions or not after this conversation.

what a horrible thought, the original creators not mattering anymore (then again if people stopped caring about shakespear that's be a positive step) but pratchett not mattering? no thank you. apart from anything you're seem to be saying that smaller creators won't be hurt cause they can just use the same ideas as everyone else? give up on originality then

you're to busy focusing on the evils of capitalism that you forget that there are individuals who own IPs who would be harmed. individuals who create stuff out of love rather than a desire for money. its also worth noting that those games that nintendo wont allow, spikers and shiekah game are from ages ago and you're forgetting that they've become a bit more relaxed in that reagrds. otherwise we wouldnt have seen pokken, hyrule warriors, FE warriors, cadence of hyrule or mario + rabbids. and we know this cause ubisoft had been floating this idea to nintendo for ages.

getting rid of ownership of characters won't end the evils of capitalism. the big companies will still have all the money in the world to drown out the others. and if anybody tries to still the ideas of small creators we wouldn't be able to do anything. i feel you have a somewhat romanticised notion here and aren't looking at the full picture. there will be negatives, there always is. letting everyone use any character would be a disaster

also i'm not claiming that GF wasn't a cooperation cause they're small but cause they were held on a crutch by nintendo. it took them 6 years to create pokemon with tajiri opting to basically crunch culture himself. if it hadn't been for nintendo they would have pretty much been an indie developer but with way less stuff. of course that's what happens when you change from a fan magazine to a games company

i get where you’re coming from but I do not want to see a world where peoples ideas can be legally stolen

I know you want to move on but I needed to say that

 

[Wonder Smash]

Right, no third-party is a guarantee. Kiryu might not happen either. But at least that series is quite successful and the character popular. Those are qualities sought after in inclusions. Not thinking your Axel Stones or Mike Haggars are quite on that level.

They're not my personal picks anyway. All I want is Billy and Jimmy.

The franchise has shifted hands like 5 times at this point and that comes with weird contingencies. For instance. Certain games might be still handled by the other companies if they funded it. Certain parts of certain games may not pass if say a piece of music was handled by a different studio. I’m not sure how Double Dragon is affected by this but I do know that a few of those games haven’t seen the light of day in a while.

Arc System Works owns all of Techno Japans properties, which includes Double Dragon. Nothing has changed in the ownership.

"Deserve" is a frame of mind that isn't really how things play out.

Well you can't be deciding that an AT or a spirit is "just right" for a character if you're going to be saying this then.

It has nothing to do with the genre, it has to do with being a Nintendo series of some success. A Nintendo series needs far less to be included than a third-party series. The bar is much, much lower. Doesn't matter what the genre is, so long as there's a character deemed feasible.

So yes, if Nintendo had their own somewhat successful beat-em-up series, it would almost certainly have representation.

Basically, that's saying that Nintendo needs to be involved in the genre and that's never been the case.

Unless you're under the impression that Double Dragon is Nintendo series, which, I'm just letting you know, it's not.

Influences on Smash don't inherently lead to attention. Still waiting on Outfoxies. Or just... sumo.

Not sure what does this have to do with what I said.

"hypothetically" speaking, anything can happen by the next game if you so imagine. Free microsoft games like solitare/minesweeper could inexplicably get a enormous surge of demand, forcing sakurai and nintendo to add a pack of cards and literal mines as playable characters. Goku could suddenly be included for no good reason other than shusidea begging nintendo to add him in for free.
Similarly saying that beat-up-games will suddenly get that demand is, well frankly, fanfiction for a genre that already has big problems sustaining the same level of popularity as other genres like JRPGs/FPS/fighting games in general.

Also we've moved on from the nintendo connection being very important to using influence on smash as a factor for inclusion? What's next, sakurai's cat preferences is a factor for inclusion next?

Seeing how Streets of Rage 4 just recently came out and there's already some hype around the recent TMNT game which is also a beat'em up, whatever problems the genre has really doesn't seem to be as "big" as you claim.

Also, a Nintendo connection has always been very important. Every character in Smash has been on a Nintendo console before they made their Smash debut and let's not act like SNK's influence on Sakurai's design didn't play any role in wanting Terry in the game. It could very well happen again for something else that was an influence.

 

[HyperSomari64]

Who else would even be both a plausible Smash candidate and fit "big gaming character that surprisingly isn't actually a gaming character?".

IDK? Xeno Goku?

 

[DarthEnderX]

is it unrealistic to think that Jeanne could work as an echo fighter in the next game

No. It'd be super easy. Jeanne is playable in Bayo 2 and she has the exact same moveset, just different stats basically.

 

[Pink Yoshi]

This third party stuff is confusing

Pink Yoshi hurt herself in her confusion

Anyway, my three most wanted characters right now are all thankfully first party. But I do want a few third parties:

• Zeena (Sonic Lost World) (SEGA)
• Gill Grunt (Skylanders) (Activision/Microsoft)
• Ratchet and Clank (Sony)

Of these three, Gill Grunt is most likely since he was in a game that defined a whole genre, and Microsoft is pretty fine with letting Sakurai add their characters to Smash. The other two though are big LOL NOT HAPPENINGs. Though in Zeena's case it's more obscurity than just being a nightmare to get a hold of

 

[Geno Boost]

i always hear about assist trophy upgrade but no pokeball upgrade is there a pokeball character you want to see it upgraded to playable?

i think would make the most sense as he is the easiest one probably as they managed to implement him in ultimate
but i actually want Deoxys to become playable we dont have a shapeshifter in smash it would be unique to have him

 

[Perkilator]

i always hear about assist trophy upgrade but no pokeball upgrade is there a pokeball character you want to see it upgraded to playable?

i think would make the most sense as he is the easiest one probably as they managed to implement him in ultimate
but i actually want Deoxys to become playable we dont have a shapeshifter in smash it would be unique to have him

I still persoanlly think Meowth and Scizor should've been fighters instead of Jigglypuff and Pichu, even if I do enjoy playing as the latter.

 

[fogbadge]

i always hear about assist trophy upgrade but no pokeball upgrade is there a pokeball character you want to see it upgraded to playable?

i think would make the most sense as he is the easiest one probably as they managed to implement him in ultimate
but i actually want Deoxys to become playable we dont have a shapeshifter in smash it would be unique to have him

theres quite a few of them I’d have loved to see playable, mimikyu, alolan vulpix, oshawott, chespin, marshadow, meloetta, eevee, meowth, staryu, victini, alolan raichu, abomasnow, arceus, keldeo, swirlix

on the subject of ditto, people always suggest them as a mimic character for smash but it is worth noting that animal crossing has a couple candidates as well

 

[Laniv]

i always hear about assist trophy upgrade but no pokeball upgrade is there a pokeball character you want to see it upgraded to playable?

i think would make the most sense as he is the easiest one probably as they managed to implement him in ultimate
but i actually want Deoxys to become playable we dont have a shapeshifter in smash it would be unique to have him

Meowth, Mimikyu (my pick for a Gen VII Pokemon before Incineroar came along), Genesect (my favorite legendary).

IIRC, people wanted Deoxys a lot in the pre-Brawl era.

 

[Chuderz]

what a horrible thought, the original creators not mattering anymore (then again if people stopped caring about shakespear that's be a positive step) but pratchett not mattering? no thank you. apart from anything you're seem to be saying that smaller creators won't be hurt cause they can just use the same ideas as everyone else? give up on originality then

you're to busy focusing on the evils of capitalism that you forget that there are individuals who own IPs who would be harmed. individuals who create stuff out of love rather than a desire for money. its also worth noting that those games that nintendo wont allow, spikers and shiekah game are from ages ago and you're forgetting that they've become a bit more relaxed in that reagrds. otherwise we wouldnt have seen pokken, hyrule warriors, FE warriors, cadence of hyrule or mario + rabbids. and we know this cause ubisoft had been floating this idea to nintendo for ages.

getting rid of ownership of characters won't end the evils of capitalism. the big companies will still have all the money in the world to drown out the others. and if anybody tries to still the ideas of small creators we wouldn't be able to do anything. i feel you have a somewhat romanticised notion here and aren't looking at the full picture. there will be negatives, there always is. letting everyone use any character would be a disaster

also i'm not claiming that GF wasn't a cooperation cause they're small but cause they were held on a crutch by nintendo. it took them 6 years to create pokemon with tajiri opting to basically crunch culture himself. if it hadn't been for nintendo they would have pretty much been an indie developer but with way less stuff. of course that's what happens when you change from a fan magazine to a games company

i get where you’re coming from but I do not want to see a world where peoples ideas can be legally stolen

I know you want to move on but I needed to say that

You have yet to demonstrate any of this in a logical manner. As I've said before you're still operating under the impressions you have under the current order when hypothetically considering what I'm proposing here. Attitudes would change over time with such a fundamental change like this. You're taking your slippery slope fallacy for granted and using it to mark my character at this point as naive when anybody that's ever talked about big changes in the past has been characterized as out of step in a major way with how things are supposedly done properly. That's the majority of your contribution to this discussion now just calling my thoughts "horrible" and talking about how bad it is that I'm focused on the evils of capitalism. It wouldn't be a "disaster" no more than today's standards are a disaster at worst and I think I've elaborated enough on why it'd be preferable to what we have today. Again there's be no such thing as "stealing" in this system since it'd all be available to everyone. Nintendo would be just as entitled to make a Metal Gear Solid game as anybody else. I've steelmaned your argument and you continue to strawman me.

We're just assuming that Nintendo is more "relaxed" these days and those games are in the pipeline now? Even if they were and we don't have any reason to suspect that they are (except maybe Spikers to some extent) it still wouldn't change that we went over a decade without these creative thoughts explored and that's just the official cancellations, we're not even addressing the countless creative avenues that'd never be explored and again it's not just Nintendo either.

When did I say that this would end of the "evils of capitalism" anywhere in my thoughts here? IP and patent law are important parts of the capitalist process but there are many other structural/cultural changes that'd be required to truly move past it whether it's a revolutionary overthrowal or simply production models naturally shifting over time through political/market pressures like all the other past economic orders did though capitalism is in a unique position to hold onto its late-stage past all relevancy with it being the latest order coupled together with today's modern technologies and bad-faith use of academic disciplines (namely psychology) to back it up and protect it.

Saying there'll be nebulous/vague/overly-generalized negatives doesn't address the core of my argument and it completely takes for granted the negatives of the current system as natural and/or acceptable. I'm not saying you're capitalism's biggest fan but I'm definitely saying that your attitudes/impressions the world have been shaped by its processes just like anybody else here in this thread. I think ironically it's you that's not looking at the bigger picture here and romanticizing the status quo of today.

Lastly I'm aware of Gamefreak's history and yeah since you didn't address the contention you had about them being a corporation I assume we both agree that they were a corporation when the stole the labor value of the Pokemon artists like they (Nintendo, Creatures and the Pokemon Company as well) have done throughout their existence and that's precisely why they were materially able to accomplish this theft.

 

[Pink Yoshi]

walks in on more capitalism and Gamefreak talk that I'm completely hopeless at keeping track of

Um, uh...

Marie for Inkling echo?