Official Next Smash - Speculation & Discussion Thread

[fogbadge]

i only know who blitzcrank is

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

From a practical standpoint, the "on a Nintendo console" qualifier is one that been getting fulfilled with more and more with various ports on Nintendo Switch and the vast majority of those IP's that haven't done so are ones that realistically aren't in the biggest demand for Smash representation; Master Chief excepted.

Heck I mean as of now 2B, Carl Johnson, Chell, & various League of Legends characters are eligible under that standard; a hell of change from even three years ago.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I view Nintendo History in this case as it more or less is by now, a boon, not a necessity. The company itself is more important than the sole series alone. Cloud didn't simply get in because of a minor appearance in a quick spin-off, it's more the fact he's Cloud. Though to be fair, FF debuting and having a good history with Nintendo alone does matter, but who the character was also played a role. I honestly don't have a good reason to believe the spin-off moment was all that important, or any of that, really. He's the top dog of FF, a mega franchise, which mind you, does partially have Nintendo to thank for it. That's why it wasn't hard to see why he got in.

Edited, cause I keep forgetting Cloud didn't appear in KH by that point. XD It was the Theatrical rhythm or whatever FF game. Derp.

For a more clear example, let's look at Joker. SMT had a lot of Nintendo stuff, but its spin-off, Persona, had no real ties anyway. It just barely got a game, and it's more the fact that Atlus cooperated with Nintendo that made him an easy choice. There's a reason he's presented as from Persona 5, and that's because it was overall that game that actually mattered. Not a quick spin-off that didn't even release till just slightly before his appearance in Smash. Now, if anything, getting multiple deals may have played a role(but that goes back to Atlus doing well with Nintendo, not a game that may not have even appeared in time, meaning Joker may have debuted in Smash before his first Nintendo appearance. They weren't that far off, honestly, for it to legit matter realistically).

For the most part, they tend to have a Nintendo history anyway, but that's cause most third parties do. The one time where it's clear it mattered was BK, and that's more due to why they were both on via the ballot. While the series would've been still major regardless of platform, it just happened to be on the perfect one to get said good votes. And Sora still beat them out anyway(as did technically Bayonetta, since she was the highest in the EU regions, so. Albeit, her reasons for being in was probably more related to Nintendo keeping her franchise up, so it worked extremely well for licensing purposes).

Oh, right, something I forgot to add; the eligible characters were only confirmed as "Game characters". Nintendo appearances were not an actual requirement nor ever has been. Sakurai's statement on Cloud was more of an "unsure what I would've done", meaning he clearly didn't see it as the sole factor to add him, but moreso something to take into consideration. He would've been actually specific if it was actually a requirement. There's no "I'm not sure what I would've done", it'd be more like "I wouldn't have added him" and that's it. If he's vague, that's clear evidence it's not a hard factor. People are vague about things due to how it's not the biggest thought in the world. Let's be real; if Final Fantasy wasn't a juggernaut, Cloud would've had way lower chances. If he wasn't in that one spin-off FF game? ...It wouldn't have ultimately swayed the decision because nobody is on the same level as Cloud. He's the rpg protagonist, and his status as being the mascot of both FFVII and the series as a whole played the biggest role in who to choose, combined with mass popularity. Those are much bigger factors than a single unimportant appearance. He doesn't know "what he would do" because the exact situation didn't exist. So of course he couldn't have made a clear decision based upon an unrealistic hypothetical. Then we come to Joker, who had no appearances from Nintendo even by that point, making it a clear factor that him being from a major game was the most important part. If we had never got Persona Q, that would mean little in itself. The real factor would by why we didn't get it, because of Atlus and Nintendo not cooperating. Which also means Joker's chances would've been wayyyyyyyyy lower.

Like, it's great people want to keep think it's a focus on Nintendo All-Stars, but we know that was dropped since Brawl anyway. It's already been declared in Ultimate as a more focus on General Gaming. That doesn't mean having it back to Nintendo All-Stars is an illegitimate thought either, it's just that Ultimate was not about that anyway. It had a different view for Third Parties. Which makes it ironic, since it had some more Nintendo-Centric ones that Brawl did(nobody is more centric than BK, heh). But yeah. Overall point is that the series is not that at this time, and bar a reboot, is pretty unlikely to be that way.

----------------

Unrelated, but yeah, um, I don't mind non-game third party characters being talked about, but randomly inserting them into every single message(or just about) honestly is getting rather annoying. They're non-sequitars, and keeping in mind a lot aren't fans of it, seems to have no legitimate purpose. I could barely get the point behind the Aang joke(as it kind of fit, though the problem wasn't elemental users in general being lacking anyway...), and even then, there's actual characters who focus on Earth(or at least can focus strictly on Earth depending the work being talked about). For instance, Knuckles is generally associated with Earth in many ways, but in Sonic Battle he uses Earth elementals as various tools. Like summoning rocks and healing, and it's not even that much. It's not like Chaos Zero who besides being a literal water elemental in every way, takes it to a whole new level(even a shark-like animation).

 

[dream1ng]

I have little new to say about being on a Nintendo platform. From a theoretical perspective, at the end of the day, it's still a question mark towards which the necessity is something we can only guess. It hasn't been broken as of yet, but it also may not exist.

And that speaks to the practical perspective, which is: it limits so few candidates, it may as well be discarded as a salient factor, whether it exists or not. The only character considered plausible that it still potentially prohibits is Chief (maybe Jinx, but unlike Chief, she's not a regular part of Smash spec), and if either of them gets in, the fact that both have shown up as skins on a Nintendo platform may still cast them as inadmissible in the eyes of some people.

As it stands now, counting only characters with no appearance whatsoever (thus demonstrably breaking the claim), it hinders almost no one plausible.

My points about Jinx and LoL were all theoretical anyway, predicated on if we got a character, not whether we would. Personally, I doubt we do.

 

[TCT~Phantom]

I think its important to acknowledge that while many people here might not want a League of Legends character, it could very easily happen. Nintendo and Tencent have a close relationship. League has had projects release on the switch and has more projects planned heading that way in the future. League of Legends has more active players than the population of France, Great Britain, and Spain combined. Nintendo also has openly said for years they want to expand into more Asian markets. South Korea, China, Taiwan, and Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam are all countries that Nintendo wants to expand their market share in and League is huge there. I know during FP1 there were discussions about how the characters felt like they focused on different markets. Banjo for the west, Hero for Japan, Terry for Latin America. Is it that weird to assume that Nintendo would chose a character that is immensely popular in regions they explicitly want to expand into, owned by a company that is on great terms with them?

There are plenty of picks I think are very likely for the next game that I could care less about. Rabbids, League, Aether/Lumine from Genshin Impact, Jonesy, or Octolings for example are all characters I think are very reasonably likely to be added but I could not care less if they were. The most enjoyment I would get if we did get Genshin Impact in Smash would be the salt mine that it would produce. But it is important to separate what you want from what you expect. I would like a roster that has Crash and Spyro in the base game together for instance. Is that likely? Not at all. I am expecting that we will probably get League of Legends in Smash next time by the end of its DLC cycle. The only positive interactions I have had with League are from Arcane (please watch it it is one of the best shows out there) and I would prefer we did not get it.

TLDR: Do not let perfect be the enemy of good or likely. Separate your biases as much as you can and brace yourself with realistic expectations. If your dreams come true, awesome. If not, you are mentally prepared for that possibility. League of Legends is pretty likely to get a pick. Give me spyro plz.

 

[SPEN18]

From a practical standpoint, the "on a Nintendo console" qualifier is one that been getting fulfilled with more and more with various ports on Nintendo Switch and the vast majority of those IP's that haven't done so are ones that realistically aren't in the biggest demand for Smash representation

they tend to have a Nintendo history anyway, but that's cause most third parties do

Which is part of why I think it's too loose a condition, especially if part of the point of having it to begin with is to keep the scope of Smash manageable and intact. A more stringent qualifying condition like only considering characters' importance within Nintendo-published or (with less weight) Nintendo-exclusive games is better IMO.
Simply appearing on a Nintendo platform or having some minor association through ports, rereleases, or even multiplat games is hardly any kind of separator when it comes to evaluating merit.



To reiterate, part of the whole point of having a "must be on a Nintendo platform" qualifier to begin with was to keep the scope of the roster properly contained; but if it's not doing that job then IMO the qualifier should just be made more strict rather than simply dropped entirely.

--

it's great people want to keep think it's a focus on Nintendo All-Stars, but we know that was dropped since Brawl anyway

But this is the thing that really needs to be stamped out. The Nintendo Allstars mantra was never dropped; it simply became "allstars+guests" instead of just "allstars." Third parties have always been explicitly labelled as "guests." And even the basegame patterns of past Smash games regarding 3Ps remained completely intact in Ult with us only getting 1 unique third party newcomer. Things just seem colored right now by EiH and a particularly long DLC cycle; the rate of third party adds is increased with DLC for financial reasons and there's no reason to believe that would change the calculus for the base games (i.e. the bulks of the rosters) going forward, especially when we also saw a similarly increased rate for third party additions in 4's DLC that was not parlayed into more than 1 unique 3P newcomer for base Ult.

 

[Sucumbio]

Which is part of why I think it's too loose a condition, especially if part of the point of having it to begin with is to keep the scope of Smash manageable and intact. A more stringent qualifying condition like only considering characters' importance within Nintendo-published or (with less weight) Nintendo-exclusive games is better IMO.
Simply appearing on a Nintendo platform or having some minor association through ports, rereleases, or even multiplat games is hardly any kind of separator when it comes to evaluating merit.



To reiterate, part of the whole point of having a "must be on a Nintendo platform" qualifier to begin with was to keep the scope of the roster properly contained; but if it's not doing that job then IMO the qualifier should just be made more strict rather than simply dropped entirely.

--



But this is the thing that really needs to be stamped out. The Nintendo Allstars mantra was never dropped; it simply became "allstars+guests" instead of just "allstars." Third parties have always been explicitly labelled as "guests." And even the basegame patterns of past Smash games regarding 3Ps remained completely intact in Ult with us only getting 1 unique third party newcomer. Things just seem colored right now by EiH and a particularly long DLC cycle; the rate of third party adds is increased with DLC for financial reasons and there's no reason to believe that would change the calculus for the base games (i.e. the bulks of the rosters) going forward, especially when we also saw a similarly increased rate for third party additions in 4's DLC that was not parlayed into more than 1 unique 3P newcomer for base Ult.

I like what you're saying except the "better" aspect threw me, like what is better about qualifications and a ... I dunno boundary to keep it "plausible" or whatever.

 

[SPEN18]

I like what you're saying except the "better" aspect threw me, like what is better about qualifications and a ... I dunno boundary to keep it "plausible" or whatever.

Well, most people have some sort of boundary they like to stick to, even if it's not a hard one. Like, the vast majority of fans don't want it to be George Washington vs. Captain Falcon vs. Spongebob, for example. People just disagree on where the boundary should lie.

In my opinion, Smash has the realistic potential to be close to perfect as a Nintendo allstar crossover. For me that scope feels manageable and attainable while still wide enough to allow for endless cool dream matchups to happen. It will never actually be perfect, no, but I think it could be at a point where at each iteration I personally could say "yes, thank you, Mr. Sakurai, this is a pretty awesome representation of Nintendo history as a whole and I am, for all intents and purposes, satisfied given the constraints of the current hardware and budget."
As a general gaming crossover, though? You have to deal with all the licensing and cost issues, an untenably sheer bulk of characters who could stake a claim to being even on the most reductionist of rosters, and the clash with the origins of Smash as a Nintendo fighter that always included picks like Ness or Pit who make perfect sense for a Ninty fighter but who would be too much of a reach for a general gaming roster. Many people are fine with that, especially if they don't play primarily Nintendo games, but I'd take the more complete but smaller-scope roster personally.

If you wanna go general gaming, then either you have to (1) cut a whole bunch of Ninty picks to make room for "general gaming" representation (even the likes of Diddy, King Dedede, Fox, and Marth probably would not make it into a "general gaming" roster; you can forget about other fan faves like K. Rool or Wolf) or (2) forget about fairness (at least when it comes to the guests) and leave it as a strange sort of hybrid that has a lot of deep-draw Ninty picks like the Nesses and the Olimars, but also has a smattering of other "general gaming" characters to spice it up as guests.

I think most people vastly prefer option (2) to anything else. They get to keep their vets but then also get to dream on whatever picks they like. If that's what you want, I get the appeal, no doubt. Actually, even I like a couple guests like Sonic to be there. But my overarching personal view is that going too far with the hybridism sacrifices too much of the "chasing perfection for this given roster size" dream for an all- or close-to-all-Nintendo roster.

Maybe it's a little risky in saying all this about my personal motivations; after all, it could probably be used against me when I try to make arguments lol. But that's the best way that I can use only a few too many words to explain it rn.

 

[dream1ng]

Which is part of why I think it's too loose a condition, especially if part of the point of having it to begin with is to keep the scope of Smash manageable and intact. A more stringent qualifying condition like only considering characters' importance within Nintendo-published or (with less weight) Nintendo-exclusive games is better IMO.
Simply appearing on a Nintendo platform or having some minor association through ports, rereleases, or even multiplat games is hardly any kind of separator when it comes to evaluating merit.



To reiterate, part of the whole point of having a "must be on a Nintendo platform" qualifier to begin with was to keep the scope of the roster properly contained; but if it's not doing that job then IMO the qualifier should just be made more strict rather than simply dropped entirely.

--



But this is the thing that really needs to be stamped out. The Nintendo Allstars mantra was never dropped; it simply became "allstars+guests" instead of just "allstars." Third parties have always been explicitly labelled as "guests." And even the basegame patterns of past Smash games regarding 3Ps remained completely intact in Ult with us only getting 1 unique third party newcomer. Things just seem colored right now by EiH and a particularly long DLC cycle; the rate of third party adds is increased with DLC for financial reasons and there's no reason to believe that would change the calculus for the base games (i.e. the bulks of the rosters) going forward, especially when we also saw a similarly increased rate for third party additions in 4's DLC that was not parlayed into more than 1 unique 3P newcomer for base Ult.

I think part of the point of not just Smash, but of any entity with an increasing roster, is that the bigger it gets, or the more it continues, the wider the gates become. When there were twelve characters, there wasn't room for basically any supporting characters from major franchises, with little exception.

With a roster close to 100, not only is "All-Star" not a very apt label for some of the first-parties we get (let's be real, they're not all "all-stars"), but Smash seem unconcerned with the concept of focusing on Nintendo-oriented third-parties. With retrospect... that's never been their focus. That was the focus of the fanbase, who saw characters as Sonic and Mega Man and Simon and Banjo as those that would fit best, because the cast is primarily Nintendo. So when we get a fan favorite, it's usually Nintendo-oriented. But from the beginning, the third-parties not chosen by the fanbase were Snake and Ryu and Cloud and Joker, all the way to Steve and Kazuya, who don't really have a Nintendo bent. They have a Nintendo presence, but most third-parties do.

The sample of third-parties just used to be so small that people were picking up on the wrong signals. Back until Smash 4 DLC, most of the third-parties did have a strong association with Nintendo, but that's because half were fan-driven, and Pac-Man just coincidentally had a strong Nintendo presence. Once the count increased, it became clear that the Nintendo association scope was, actually, apocryphal.

So if the parameters now are too wide... the parameters since third-parties became a thing have been too wide. It's just that now there's a volume of characters that better illustrates its boundaries. But the first third-party was Snake. People wrote him off as an exception, but in reality, he wasn't.

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

I think as fans we generally like to have patterns and guidelines to give context to speculation, but third party selections have become so wide and with so few patterns other than the broad ones (typically more Japanese than Western) that its no wonder "appearance on a Nintendo console" is still clung to by many because it has been (coincidentally) consistent.

 

[Sucumbio]

Well, most people have some sort of boundary they like to stick to, even if it's not a hard one. Like, the vast majority of fans don't want it to be George Washington vs. Captain Falcon vs. Spongebob, for example. People just disagree on where the boundary should lie.

In my opinion, Smash has the realistic potential to be close to perfect as a Nintendo allstar crossover. For me that scope feels manageable and attainable while still wide enough to allow for endless cool dream matchups to happen. It will never actually be perfect, no, but I think it could be at a point where at each iteration I personally could say "yes, thank you, Mr. Sakurai, this is a pretty awesome representation of Nintendo history as a whole and I am, for all intents and purposes, satisfied given the constraints of the current hardware and budget."
As a general gaming crossover, though? You have to deal with all the licensing and cost issues, an untenably sheer bulk of characters who could stake a claim to being even on the most reductionist of rosters, and the clash with the origins of Smash as a Nintendo fighter that always included picks like Ness or Pit who make perfect sense for a Ninty fighter but who would be too much of a reach for a general gaming roster. Many people are fine with that, especially if they don't play primarily Nintendo games, but I'd take the more complete but smaller-scope roster personally.

If you wanna go general gaming, then either you have to (1) cut a whole bunch of Ninty picks to make room for "general gaming" representation (even the likes of Diddy, King Dedede, Fox, and Marth probably would not make it into a "general gaming" roster; you can forget about other fan faves like K. Rool or Wolf) or (2) forget about fairness (at least when it comes to the guests) and leave it as a strange sort of hybrid that has a lot of deep-draw Ninty picks like the Nesses and the Olimars, but also has a smattering of other "general gaming" characters to spice it up as guests.

I think most people vastly prefer option (2) to anything else. They get to keep their vets but then also get to dream on whatever picks they like. If that's what you want, I get the appeal, no doubt. Actually, even I like a couple guests like Sonic to be there. But my overarching personal view is that going too far with the hybridism sacrifices too much of the "chasing perfection for this given roster size" dream for an all- or close-to-all-Nintendo roster.

Maybe it's a little risky in saying all this about my personal motivations; after all, it could probably be used against me when I try to make arguments lol. But that's the best way that I can use only a few too many words to explain it rn.

I understand. I ... I guess I should admit your first analogy immediately made my brain imagine George Washington vs SpongeBob and lol and then thinking yeah actually if Sakurai did it, it'd be dope with him planting Cherry Trees and chopping them down a Villager Alt but with a canoe and a musket!

But yeah I mean for speculation I would probably stick to Nintendo Adjacent bare minimum thus allowing at least some "wait who oh they're in this game on xNitconsolex or OMG really? Yeah they had 1 game on Nintendo.

 

[SPEN18]

With a roster close to 100, not only is "All-Star" not a very apt label for some of the first-parties we get (let's be real, they're not all "all-stars"),

We can argue all day about the literal definition of "allstar." But whatever the definition, it's more like this:
In professional sports, there are lots of players who make the allstar team even though they are not really well known by most of the general public. Your average person on the street would probably not label such a player as an "allstar," but they are nominally an allstar since there were X number of spots on the allstar team and they were one of the top X players in the league.
Whatever it literally means to be an "allstar," the bar is lowered a ways below that if it's necessary to fill the number of available spots. Simply because we do the best we can to represent Nintendo history with the resources we have. But "allstar" is still the spirit of the selection process, even if not everyone who makes the roster is someone who the entire general public would typically think of as a bonafide "allstar" in the colloquial sense. The colloquial sense is the spirit and the driving force, even if in practice you end up with some lesser-known picks who make it in based on the ever-enlarging extent of the resource calculus. Though I'd argue that the majority of first party characters we get, even now, could be legitimately argued as bonafide "allstars" in some sense or another, at least within the scope of the Nintendo fandom.

--

I'll try to respond to some of the other points if I have time later, because you do raise some serious considerations.

 

[MasterCheef]

League tbh is certainly something that will probably be worth a consideration for Smash 6. League is huge. Like, it has more active players than the entire population of Great Britain, France, and Spain combined. That is huge. It also is big in other Asian markets, where we know Nintendo vocally wants to expand into. Nintendo even trusted Tencent, the company who owns league, with making Pokémon Unite. Honestly every little building block you could want to make the argument for a league character is there. I know plenty of people would loathe the idea of League in Smash: personally I’m ambivalent. Just brace yourself for the possibility that a League rep shows up in the next game.

Also yes, they would choose Jinx as the pick. She’s the face of League nowadays. She has the TV show, she has the merch, she has Wild Rift. If they went with a League rep, it would odds are be her at the end of the day for better and for worse.

you are making this assumption based on what Riot Games would want , rather than Nintendo. We have No indication that any company has actually overriden what Nintendo has asked for as a character. I expect Nintendo to ask for Ahri.

League of Legends? That's only on PC. Unless it comes to Nintendo consoles, I doubt that will be considered for Smash 6.

Wild Rift is coming to consoles at some point. Also Ruined King game came to consoles and Jinx was no where to be found in that game.

They're almost certainly not going to add two unique LoL characters at the same time. So far we've only had that with FF, and it took two games and five years between additions. I think you're just hung up on Ahri. She's not the face anymore (as much as she ever actually was).

Actually if you watch the history of the Marketing ; Lux was the face for a little while then RG transitioned into Ahri becoming the face then RG moved on to Jinx being the face. _ As far as not getting two i think it is entirely reasonable to expect we could get 2 LoL characters. LoL is based on a free to play model so i expect the licensing costs would be quite modest. Especially since Tencent has already worked with Nintendo to make "Pokemon Unite".

I think its important to acknowledge that while many people here might not want a League of Legends character, it could very easily happen. Nintendo and Tencent have a close relationship. League has had projects release on the switch and has more projects planned heading that way in the future. League of Legends has more active players than the population of France, Great Britain, and Spain combined. Nintendo also has openly said for years they want to expand into more Asian markets. South Korea, China, Taiwan, and Southeast Asian countries like Vietnam are all countries that Nintendo wants to expand their market share in and League is huge there. I know during FP1 there were discussions about how the characters felt like they focused on different markets. Banjo for the west, Hero for Japan, Terry for Latin America. Is it that weird to assume that Nintendo would chose a character that is immensely popular in regions they explicitly want to expand into, owned by a company that is on great terms with them?

Thank you.

 

[dream1ng]

We can argue all day about the literal definition of "allstar." But whatever the definition, it's more like this:
In professional sports, there are lots of players who make the allstar team even though they are not really well known by most of the general public. Your average person on the street would probably not label such a player as an "allstar," but they are nominally an allstar since there were X number of spots on the allstar team and they were one of the top X players in the league.
Whatever it literally means to be an "allstar," the bar is lowered a ways below that if it's necessary to fill the number of available spots. Simply because we do the best we can to represent Nintendo history with the resources we have. But "allstar" is still the spirit of the selection process, even if not everyone who makes the roster is someone who the entire general public would typically think of as a bonafide "allstar" in the colloquial sense. The colloquial sense is the spirit and the driving force, even if in practice you end up with some lesser-known picks who make it in based on the ever-enlarging extent of the resource calculus.

--

I'll try to respond to some of the other points if I have time later.

In professional sports they also don't add athletes to the league because they look close enough to an existing athlete or because they have an unrelated project coming up.

All-Star is a completely immaterial qualifier. There is a general, rough, top-down process of inclusion, wherein clones and promotional additions are less subject, but classifying characters as all-stars or not is basically meaningless at this point. Either every character added so far is an all-star, making the bar low enough that it doesn't really matter nor affect the usual hopefuls, or not every character is an all-star, meaning the qualifier is unnecessary.

And frankly if you're adding Sheik and Roy it's not that meaningful to begin with.

 

[SPEN18]

In professional sports they also don't add athletes to the league because they look close enough to an existing athlete or because they have an unrelated project coming up.

Well, I guess that's part of the argument against extensive cloning and shilling. I don't advocate for them. There is a realism side to the selection process which includes resource shaving and promotion for financial gain, but the overall back-of-the-box mantra/premise for Smash was always "allstars."

classifying characters as all-stars or not is basically meaningless at this point

I never said it was as strict as putting characters in one of two bins. In fact, I argued otherwise; "allstar" is the spirit of Smash, though not manifested perfectly in the roster selection process due to other real-world considerations. I argue for the emphasis on those real-world considerations like the allures of cloning and shilling to be lessened, but their existence only dampens and does not destroy the allstar premise.

And frankly if you're adding Sheik and Roy it's not that meaningful to begin with.

Those are clone and "recent game" picks that you already said are less subject to the mantra.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

This is a little difficult to reply to; So I'll summarize it.

• All-Stars only existed for the purpose of advertising the game so it'll sell. This is kept in Melee, but just because it happens to have only playable Nintendo characters. However, keep in mind Sakurai would've said yes to Sonic(before he would have a Nintendo appearance, meaning clearly it isn't a requirement) and Snake, if he had more time. This already blatantly contradicts the thoughts of this whole "Nintendo requirement" that people think, immediately showing it didn't have a legitimate merit even during Melee. All-Star Mode is still used, with third party characters. It pretty much has proven to be mostly meaningless after Melee.
• AT's have been referred to as Guests as well. This shows it's a bit more odd than what people think. It's not a third-party thing in the same way. Also keep in mind Nintendo doesn't 100% own Pokemon, nor Gamefreak, so they're not 1st party characters anyway(but are synonymous with Nintendo due to most games, bar mobile, being on a Nintendo system. There's a lot of series that can be similar, but a lot also Nintendo don't own at all. This is how it was for Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy at first, etc.) I mean, are you seriously going to call Waluigi a third party character not cause he's an AT? No, you aren't. Cause that's just silly. Third Party and Guests are not synonyms to Sakurai. Third Parties are always Guests(unless suddenly Nintendo buys out a franchise), and Guests aren't all Third Parties. That's why this argument doesn't have any merit anyway to use to prove the Nintendo All-Star thing. It forgot some facts.
• Cloud's appearance is so minor that Sakurai didn't even acknowledge this factor till way later, and noted "I'm not sure what I would have done", meaning it wasn't a true factor(see above how Sonic was rejected solely for a lack of time. Note that trying to present it as "cause no Nintendo appearance" doesn't work when there's no legitimate evidence of that. It wasn't a factor at that time. It's a neutral factor in it, if not at best showing it was an afterthought these days.
  • Keep in mind Final Fantasy itself having a major important to Nintendo(same with Dragon Quest) actually does have merit, due to it being a long runner and Nintendo being part of why it sold so well at the time. They're basically what we like to call "Killer Apps". So it's not really the character so much as the franchise in both cases that truly played a role.
• Persona is a fun one. SMT is not in any way in Smash, but the series that has no real ties to Nintendo is. I think it had a few minor games anyway? Like the first game which was a SMT/Persona game, but for the most part, the franchise wasn't really related to Nintendo. Joker is where we learn that his character having an appearance was pretty clearly not a factor in itself. His spin-off game, Persona Q, released shortly before Joker released in Smash Ultimate. As we know it's been at least more than a year when they decided the game would have DLC, that means that we have a massive window when Joker was considered. Being PQ is entirely absent in any reference to Smash, whereas Persona 5 takes hard precedence, it does go to show that it was barely a true factor. If anything, Atlus wanting to do PQ on Nintendo may be part of why they would allow Joker. In other words, more of a package deal. They get their shiny new character in, but also get a game made on a new system, further creating good will towards Nintendo and getting major sales. Would PQ have mattered at any point if it never existed? ...Honestly, no. Its existence was shown to be pretty minor when more Persona games were announced and at best it's a mere coincidence and nothing more.
• The reason this barrier exists is more of people looking for patterns. Not because it's a real barrier by Sakurai or Nintendo. In the end, licensing is about how easy it is and how important the character is(not having an appearance on Nintendo, no matter how minor or big). Coupled with Joker not really applying without trying to outright stretch how PQ mattered(it wasn't a game that was out long enough for it to be a true appearance before Joker would be considered to get into Smash, subverting that), and Cloud having the fun factor that most fans don't even know he had a minor appearance(which is why many thought he would never get in. This already shows both the good and bad side of fanbases. Both lack of research and trying to apply an illegitimate rule).
• Nintendo and Sakurai has made it clear it's a gaming crossover of game characters. Especially since 4. It's not Nintendo All-Stars anymore and we know it. Whether you like it or not, that's an official fact. It almost was in Brawl, technically, but being it's not a legitimately used phrase in any way, it doesn't apply as is. Again, All-Stars is just "previously known characters playable in this game" at its heart now. If not from the start, since that's the reason why it was possible to make the franchise sell better.
  • This is also why stuff like costumes don't mean much because it's not the appearance anyway. It's just that Nintendo cooperated with a company. But the real factor is the "company", not entirely which game. The Fortnite stuff doesn't matter to Nintendo mainly because it's not their characters, so. On the other hand, look at Minecraft. Nintendo got the full Halo-related Pack on its system, which isn't so much a boon for Master Chief but showed just how easily Microsoft and Nintendo can work together for these kind of things. Last things we got were Banjo-Kazooie and Steve/Alex. Why is that, despite what we consider a real boon? Because of requests being higher at the time. BK is one of the top requests logically due to their rich Nintendo History(and the only 3rd party character, not franchise, where the Nintendo factor was legitimately notable. None of the rest can honestly apply for that, due to way different factors). Steve/Alex are major Gaming All-Stars, pretty much with Minecraft on the same big level of Super Mario, Pac-Man, and Sonic the Hedgehog. It wasn't hard to see why they got in. More important, we knew that Nintendo teaming up with Microsoft to work with Minecraft is a big reason why it was easy to ask for BK anyway. It's cause they were way more chummy. Which is more or less the point. The company stuff in the end plays the biggest role to any kind of licensing. It doesn't matter if the character necessarily had a Nintendo appearance, or the game, or the series, specifically. If even that. As long as the company is willing to work with Nintendo, that makes licensing super easy.

 

[HyperSomari64]

I understand. I ... I guess I should admit your first analogy immediately made my brain imagine George Washington vs SpongeBob and lol and then thinking yeah actually if Sakurai did it, it'd be dope with him planting Cherry Trees and chopping them down a Villager Alt but with a canoe and a musket!

Vere's a recommendation: There's a SpongeBob episode called "The Battle of Bikini Bottom" where some fishes do some kind of LARP that reenacts the Revolutionary War. I know us from the bad seasons but there ya go.

 

[dream1ng]

Actually if you watch the history of the Marketing ; Lux was the face for a little while then RG transitioned into Ahri becoming the face then RG moved on to Jinx being the face. _

Ok great, so Ahri was the face and she's not anymore.

As far as not getting two i think it is entirely reasonable to expect we could get 2 LoL characters. LoL is based on a free to play model so i expect the licensing costs would be quite modest. Especially since Tencent has already worked with Nintendo to make "Pokemon Unite".

A game being F2P has no bearing on the cost of another entity licensing its content. Those are two completely different things.

And just because Nintendo can afford to license two characters doesn't mean they will. Look at the third-party roster so far, it's full of companies Nintendo has worked with, and series with clear opportunity for more. And if the only one with multiple originals is FF (which again, wasn't simultaneous), that kinda indicates that ease and budget aren't their biggest concerns.

I'm sure they could've acquired 10 SNK characters for the price of Sora's left shoe.

Any third-party getting two originals at the same time is a very unlikely proposition. It's rare enough with first-parties, and there are so many more of those.

 

[chocolatejr9]

Actually if you watch the history of the Marketing ; Lux was the face for a little while then RG transitioned into Ahri becoming the face then RG moved on to Jinx being the face.

You know what? Just put all three of them in. I don't care if that's overboard, the sooner we end this debate the better.

 

[dream1ng]

Well, I guess that's part of the argument against extensive cloning and shilling. I don't advocate for them. There is a realism side to the selection process which includes resource shaving and promotion for financial gain, but the overall back-of-the-box mantra/premise for Smash was always "allstars."



I never said it was as strict as putting characters in one of two bins. In fact, I argued otherwise; "allstar" is the spirit of Smash, though not manifested perfectly in the roster selection process due to other real-world considerations. I argue for the emphasis on those real-world considerations like the allures of cloning and shilling to be lessened, but their existence only dampens and does not destroy the allstar premise.



Those are clone and "recent game" picks that you already said are less subject to the mantra.

Well rather than "all-stars + others" what you said it was was "all-stars + guests" which leave no room for all those first-parties who are neither of those things. You then compared it to professional sports, which is solely comprised of professional athletes.

So if you're now pivoting to Smash actually being more along the lines of "all-stars + others + guests", that really covers all corners, and therefore, again, is a bit of a meaningless qualifier. Every candidate out there will fit one of those. It's working top-down with exceptions, which is how I described it.

So the game obviously has a lot of all-stars in it, but the fact that it no longer advertises itself as such is... well-founded. It's expanded past that.

 

[TCT~Phantom]

Well, most people have some sort of boundary they like to stick to, even if it's not a hard one. Like, the vast majority of fans don't want it to be George Washington vs. Captain Falcon vs. Spongebob, for example. People just disagree on where the boundary should lie.

In my opinion, Smash has the realistic potential to be close to perfect as a Nintendo allstar crossover. For me that scope feels manageable and attainable while still wide enough to allow for endless cool dream matchups to happen. It will never actually be perfect, no, but I think it could be at a point where at each iteration I personally could say "yes, thank you, Mr. Sakurai, this is a pretty awesome representation of Nintendo history as a whole and I am, for all intents and purposes, satisfied given the constraints of the current hardware and budget."
As a general gaming crossover, though? You have to deal with all the licensing and cost issues, an untenably sheer bulk of characters who could stake a claim to being even on the most reductionist of rosters, and the clash with the origins of Smash as a Nintendo fighter that always included picks like Ness or Pit who make perfect sense for a Ninty fighter but who would be too much of a reach for a general gaming roster. Many people are fine with that, especially if they don't play primarily Nintendo games, but I'd take the more complete but smaller-scope roster personally.

You are very much letting perfect be the enemy of good here.

First off, there really isn't much need for "fairness" when it comes to character selection. Outside of the Brawl era, where even then it is debatable, characters are not chosen just because one "needs" a new character. The character selection is done primarily out of a desire to hit several factors. Representing what Nintendo is doing now and the growth of its IPs. Representing Nintendo's history. Representing gaming history. Choosing diverse moveset ideas. Surprising people. Sakurai and his team do not sit down and argue about which characters deserve to be in Smash, first or third party. Labels such as "fairness" or "deserving" are entirely subjective. It will always vary in the eye of the beholder. What you view as "fairness" I could just as easily view as unfair.

I also doubt budget concerns will be that high for Smash 6: Smash Ultimate was the best selling fighting game of all time. I am pretty sure every company involved in Smash likes money enough to be reasonable at the negotiating table. If the next smash sold as well as Ultimate did even before DLC, it would be insanely profitable. Ultimate sold over 27 million units, not counting its high DLC sales. I am pretty sure everyone would want to be on the ground floor for that to make money and have their foot in the door to get even more of that DLC gravy train.

But even more, you as I have said over and over again let perfect be the enemy of good. Smash will never make a roster that 100% appeals to everyone. Sure, it will do its best to please as many people as possible, but it will never leave someone getting everything they want. You are acting like because Smash is in this comfortable middle ground, it is inherently flawed. You are acting like it is a zero sum game: just because someone is open to having Smash be a gaming crossover does not mean they are anti first party.

If you wanna go general gaming, then either you have to (1) cut a whole bunch of Ninty picks to make room for "general gaming" representation (even the likes of Diddy, King Dedede, Fox, and Marth probably would not make it into a "general gaming" roster; you can forget about other fan faves like K. Rool or Wolf) or (2) forget about fairness (at least when it comes to the guests) and leave it as a strange sort of hybrid that has a lot of deep-draw Ninty picks like the Nesses and the Olimars, but also has a smattering of other "general gaming" characters to spice it up as guests.

You are also hyper fear mongering in this paragraph. First off, this is a gross misunderstanding of how cuts work. The alternative is never going to be Diddy Kong, Dedede, Fox, and Marth vs some non Nintendo character. The alternative would just be not to have those. This is ignoring how ludicrous it would be to cut those as well. It also is indefinitely easier to work with pre made content than make new content from the ground up. Even if in your insane not happening the new game leaned hard into a general gaming crossover, you would not see that wide a swath of cuts. They are not going to create a roster that just ends up being an even balance of Nintendo vs the rest of gaming. They are going to keep the vast majority of the characters they put in the game that they own the full rights to.

But probably the biggest thing is that in spite of how scary you claim Smash being a general game crossover has been, it really has not shifted Nintendo away from primarily representing Nintendo in Smash. Ultimate is a bit of a unique situation. I know how much you loathe EiH, but even with it Nintendo had more unique newcomers than the third party newcomers did. Given when the roster was chosen, it also makes sense that the roster did not have as many first parties: there just were not that many to promote. 2015 Nintendo was a dark time. The Wii U was on life support, the 3DS was not exactly a spring chicken anymore, and the Nintendo NX was the only light at the end of the tunnel. Smash, even when it might have leaned into "fairness" like you claim it should in Melee and Brawl, still primarily represented what was relevant when the roster was chosen. There just was not a ton of active big Nintendo games to push at that point.

Even with that hurdle, Smash still went with primarily first parties at the end of the day for unique newcomers. We got a few relevant picks in 2015-16 when the roster was finalized, a few huge fan favorites, some cool promotional characters as DLC, and Piranha Plant. Smash did not divert course hard and just leave first parties at the wayside. Likely, the next game will not have the hurdle of EiH and a shorter development window due to the Wii U coughing up blood. We will probably get a nice healthy dose of first parties in that game with a focus on the Switch era.

I think most people vastly prefer option (2) to anything else. They get to keep their vets but then also get to dream on whatever picks they like. If that's what you want, I get the appeal, no doubt. Actually, even I like a couple guests like Sonic to be there. But my overarching personal view is that going too far with the hybridism sacrifices too much of the "chasing perfection for this given roster size" dream for an all- or close-to-all-Nintendo roster.

I think you have it confused a bit. Keeping the current course is not chasing some perfect roster that is a utopian dream: it is just not rocking the boat. Smash at the end of the day is meant to appeal to as many people as possible. Ultimate for example sold over 27 million units by rocking the boat as little as possible. I think if anything, Nintendo is going to stay the course just on the virtue of keeping things as close to what the average fan wants. Obviously, no one will be happy with every character choice in Smash 6. You won't be. I won't be. No one will be. But the goal is not to make it so that everyone is happy: the goal is to make it so people buy the game and have fun. If that means sticking the course and just taking the path of least resistance, that is what Nintendo is going to do.

I never said it was as strict as putting characters in one of two bins. In fact, I argued otherwise; "allstar" is the spirit of Smash, though not manifested perfectly in the roster selection process due to other real-world considerations. I argue for the emphasis on those real-world considerations like the allures of cloning and shilling to be lessened, but their existence only dampens and does not destroy the allstar premise.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't devoutly follow the advertising phrase that was arguably not even true in the Melee days while also highlighing how overwhelming real world circumstances and releases have affected the character choice.

There is always something new for Nintendo to represent. New games from modern eras are easy to pull from and reference. They will always choose to promote newer stuff when it comes to roster selection: they always have since even when the phrase "Nintendo All Stars" was on the back of the box still. As dream1ng said, you are also pivoting hard from the game not just being Nintendo All Stars and stretching the definition as much as you can.

It is fine that you want a roster that is likely different from what I want or what someone else wants. You have your freedom to do so. But as I have said over and over again, you are letting perfect be the enemy of good. You are acting like Smash can no longer be a Nintendo crossover just because of EiH and third parties, when that just is not the case at all. The next game's roster will likely by the end of DLC still favor first parties in terms of newcomers. You are acting like Smash is forced to choose between two choices in a zero sum game, when that is just not how things work. You want to bring Smash back to an era that arguably never existed in the first place.

And that all is fine, but you are just setting yourself up for a crushing disappointment when Nintendo releases Smash 6. Likely they will predominantly focus on Switch Era IPs, but unless it is an IP you like it is shilling. Likely they will have a nice amount of third parties while still being predominatly first party in the newcomers, but that isn't enough. You are letting your perfect, Nintendo All Star Only except for these ones they get a pass, dream roster get in the way of a good roster. Are there holes in first party representation? Sure, there are a few old school and newer picks that could easily have a strong argument to be in. But you are letting that get in the way of a good roster. A roster that does have a lot of deep cuts and a lot of love for the history of Nintendo. A roster with lots of guest characters that have a nice place in Nintendo history. Even if you are a Nintendo All Star person, this is a good roster for what it has. Not perfect, but good.

 

[SPEN18]

Well rather than "all-stars + others" what you said it was was "all-stars + guests" which leave no room for all those first-parties who are neither of those things. You then compared it to professional sports, which is solely comprised of professional athletes.

So if you're now pivoting to Smash actually being more along the lines of "all-stars + others + guests", that really covers all corners, and therefore, again, is a bit of a meaningless qualifier. Every candidate out there will fit one of those. It's working top-down with exceptions, which is how I described it.

So the game obviously has a lot of all-stars in it, but the fact that it no longer advertises itself as such is... well-founded. It's expanded past that.

I conceded that there are first parties on the roster that a given individual in the general public might not consider an "allstar." The characters who I would support being on the roster I would personally categorize as allstars, even the "smaller" first parties, but some people might disagree with that categorization (so I never pivoted or deviated in terms of my personal interpretation of the term "allstar"). I was saying that in the end, though, that disagreement doesn't really matter because the "spirit" of the selection is creating an "allstar lineup," that is, a lineup consisting as many of the most qualified candidates as we can fit in (just like they do in professional sports, though I think we both might be picking apart that analogy a bit too much as it's obviously not perfect). It's the overarching theme and, yes, marketing slogan of sorts that the series is based on.

Saying "Smash is about allstars" is never about the absolute of saying "this character is an allstar" and "this character is not an allstar"; it's about a general attitude towards what constitutes a "Smash" character. Nebulous, maybe, but not meaningless. The nebulousness is cradled into a practical selection process by determining what constitutes merit and evaluating each character based on that merit. The "allstar" mantra is a guiding force rather than a stringent criterion, and I don't think I ever said or at least meant to say otherwise. They don't follow it perfectly (in fact they're far from that), even though I personally would like them to follow it more closely, but it's still the general basis/premise for bringing Mario, Kirby, Samus, Shulk, Inkling, etc. into one game (even if the original purpose of that basis was inextricably tied to consumer appeal, capitalist business practice, etc.). The "+guests" part doesn't necessarily open the doors to everyone, either, because we can place restrictions on how many and/or what kinds of guests we invite.

--

To respond to some previous items, no, I don't think Sakurai/Nintendo ever viewed the Nintendo association as a qualifying factor when it comes to guests, and I have said as much before even though I personally think it should be a factor. I don't think it's a complete coincidence that the base game third parties have largely swung towards retro Ninty-plat picks, although I see your argument that a lot of it may have had to do with demand being driven by perceived likelihood and/or simply being a whim of small sample size. I still wouldn't be surprised if the next base game 3P was, say, a Ryu Hayabusa rather than a Master Chief. In any case, even if they were always okay with characters who have no Nintendo association being added as guests, it doesn't mean that they weren't concerned with marketing the game as a Nintendo allstar lineup, and it doesn't mean that the allstar theme wasn't used to construct the roster even if it was always congealed in a mixture with shilling, roster padding, and guest invitations.

The mere presence of any number of guests doesn't kill the allstar mantra, only dampens it; one can simply advocate for how much dampening should be allowed and I happen to take a pretty strict approach in that respect.

--

AT's have been referred to as Guests as well.

Is there a source on that? Even if true, though, it only proves that the main focus is on the playable roster and less so on forms of auxiliary representation, just as third parties being characterized as guests means that the focus is placed more on the bulk of the roster, which largely follows the "top-down" approach of prioritizing characters with more perceived merit.

 

[dream1ng]

I conceded that there are first parties on the roster that a given individual in the general public might not consider an "allstar." The characters who I would support being on the roster I would personally categorize as allstars, even the "smaller" first parties, but some people might disagree with that categorization (so I never pivoted or deviated in terms of my personal interpretation of the term "allstar"). I was saying that in the end, though, that disagreement doesn't really matter because the "spirit" of the selection is creating an "allstar lineup," that is, a lineup consisting as many of the most qualified candidates as we can fit in (just like they do in professional sports, though I think we both might be picking apart that analogy a bit too much as it's obviously not perfect). It's the overarching theme and, yes, marketing slogan of sorts that the series is based on.

Saying "Smash is about allstars" is never about the absolute of saying "this character is an allstar" and "this character is not an allstar"; it's about a general attitude towards what constitutes a "Smash" character. Nebulous, maybe, but not meaningless. The nebulousness is cradled into a practical selection process by determining what constitutes merit and evaluating each character based on that merit. The "allstar" mantra is a guiding force rather than a stringent criterion, and I don't think I ever said or at least meant to say otherwise. They don't follow it perfectly (in fact they're far from that), even though I personally would like them to follow it more closely, but it's still the general basis/premise for bringing Mario, Kirby, Samus, Shulk, Inkling, etc. into one game (even if the original purpose of that basis was inextricably tied to consumer appeal, capitalist business practice, etc.). The "+guests" part doesn't necessarily open the doors to everyone, either, because we can place restrictions on how many and/or what kinds of guests we invite.

--

To respond to some previous items, no, I don't think Sakurai/Nintendo ever viewed the Nintendo association as a qualifying factor when it comes to guests, and I have said as much before even though I personally think it should be a factor. I don't think it's a complete coincidence that the base game third parties have largely swung towards retro Ninty-plat picks, although I see your argument that a lot of it may have had to do with demand being driven by perceived likelihood and/or simply being a whim of small sample size. I still wouldn't be surprised if the next base game 3P was, say, a Ryu Hayabusa rather than a Master Chief. In any case, even if they were always okay with characters who have no Nintendo association being added as guests, it doesn't mean that they weren't concerned with marketing the game as a Nintendo allstar lineup, and it doesn't mean that the allstar theme wasn't used to construct the roster even if it was always congealed in a mixture with shilling, roster padding, and guest invitations.

The mere presence of any number of guests doesn't kill the allstar mantra completely as long as they are still designated as such, only dampens it; one can simply advocate for how much dampening should be allowed and I happen to take a pretty strict approach in that respect.

--

But if the definition becomes so dilute as to be interchangeable with "all-stars and also other characters get included" then it really doesn't mean much, because it encompasses all characters, both included and possible. People know that Smash aims for the top... but then sometimes doesn't.

If there's an all-star spirit, but that doesn't determine all the additions, then... breaking it down that way doesn't really hold significance. Yeah, some characters are all-stars, some characters aren't. Not being one doesn't keep you out. I think that's the argument everyone else has been making this whole time.

The argument has shifted so much that now the "all-star mantra" is basically that Smash has a habit of picking notable characters. I mean, no ****. But that's not saying anything meaningful, nor is it what people were contending.

 

[Mushroomguy12]

Mario Party 1 and 2 coming to N64 NSO.

Double Gold Points and N64 Icon Elements coming for NSO Expansion Pack Members as well.

Limited-time benefits are coming for #NintendoSwitchOnline + Expansion Pack members on 11/1!

✔ Earn double #MyNintendo Gold Points on the purchase of eligible digital games or DLC in Nintendo #eShop and My Nintendo Store.

✔ #Nintendo64 Icon Elements. pic.twitter.com/bBJ0cEz9Js

— Nintendo of America (@NintendoAmerica) October 22, 2022

 

[chocolatejr9]

Mario Party 1 and 2 coming to N64 NSO.

Double Gold Points and N64 Icon Elements coming for NSO Expansion Pack Members as well.

Limited-time benefits are coming for #NintendoSwitchOnline + Expansion Pack members on 11/1!

✔ Earn double #MyNintendo Gold Points on the purchase of eligible digital games or DLC in Nintendo #eShop and My Nintendo Store.

✔ #Nintendo64 Icon Elements. pic.twitter.com/bBJ0cEz9Js

— Nintendo of America (@NintendoAmerica) October 22, 2022

Fun fact: this is the first time Mario Party 1 has ever been rereleased.

 

[Mushroomguy12]

Yeah, it's weird how Mario Party 2 got rereleases on both the Wii and Wii U's virtual console, but 1 and 3 were completely ignored until NSO. Alas, great to see the first and third titles finally get rereleases alongside the second.

 

[SPEN18]

You are also hyper fear mongering in this paragraph. First off, this is a gross misunderstanding of how cuts work. The alternative is never going to be Diddy Kong, Dedede, Fox, and Marth vs some non Nintendo character. The alternative would just be not to have those. This is ignoring how ludicrous it would be to cut those as well. It also is indefinitely easier to work with pre made content than make new content from the ground up. Even if in your insane not happening the new game leaned hard into a general gaming crossover, you would not see that wide a swath of cuts. They are not going to create a roster that just ends up being an even balance of Nintendo vs the rest of gaming. They are going to keep the vast majority of the characters they put in the game that they own the full rights to.

Maybe I wasn't clear enough. Part of the point there was that (1) basically isn't happening and almost everybody would hate (1), so we are left with doing (2) if we want guests. Then I said I don't want them to go too far with the hybridism of (2) because it takes away from the Nintendo aspect, though not completely killing it. Sorry if it sounded like "fear-mongering," but I didn't mean to suggest cutting Diddy and Fox was actually gonna happen, just highlighting how different a roster with the primary focus being on "general gaming" would be relative to the types of rosters we have now and are likely to get going forward. Basically, "general gaming" alone is unattainable and can't happen; it's either all Nintendo or varying degrees of hybridism, and I argue that the more extreme hybridism makes less sense than the all-Nintendo.

--

I think you have it confused a bit. Keeping the current course is not chasing some perfect roster that is a utopian dream: it is just not rocking the boat.

I didn't say it was chasing the dream; actually, I said it was not completely abandoning but placing much less emphasis on the dream of having the most complete as possible representation of Nintendo.

--

You can't have your cake and eat it too. You can't devoutly follow the advertising phrase that was arguably not even true in the Melee days while also highlighing how overwhelming real world circumstances and releases have affected the character choice.

I can advocate that they follow the allstar catchphrase more fully and consistently even if I admit that they have other considerations besides just that. But the presence of those other considerations doesn't mean that they don't also care about the allstar mantra, either. The allstar lineup ideal was always part of it; they emphasize it to an extent and I'd like them to emphasize it even more. Liking for them to more strongly emphasize it often means pointing out specifically what they could change in order to do so, i.e. pointing out the ways in which they don't follow it fully. There's no inconsistency there, though I can see how it might be confusing to follow all of it.

--

There is always something new for Nintendo to represent. New games from modern eras are easy to pull from and reference. They will always choose to promote newer stuff when it comes to roster selection: they always have since even when the phrase "Nintendo All Stars" was on the back of the box still.

As much as I disdain the shilling, and as much as I say that it dampens the allstar mantra, even the shill picks are still tied to the allstar ideal to an extent. They pick those newer characters not just to sell the games but also because they really believe in those new characters' abilities to connect with fans and emerge as allstars (or at the very least they're trying to put those characters that they want to become icons in a position to do so). I disagree with this and prefer them to choose characters who have already proven themselves to be "allstars," but looking at it from their perspective, I think the roster deciders intend for even the shill picks to tie in with the creation of an allstar lineup. It's just that sometimes newer characters fade fast or don't catch on to begin with, and there's lots of worthy candidates who have already proven their worth, so I don't like it personally. But it's not like I intend to accuse anybody of being some flatly evil, greedy corporate.

--

As dream1ng dream1ng said, you are also pivoting hard from the game not just being Nintendo All Stars and stretching the definition as much as you can.

Again, it's a guiding force and theme, not a strict categorization.

--

You are acting like Smash can no longer be a Nintendo crossover just because of EiH and third parties, when that just is not the case at all. The next game's roster will likely by the end of DLC still favor first parties in terms of newcomers.

I've literally said that I still expect the Nintendo picks to dominate the newcomer selection. I simply think that EiH and third parties take some (but not all) of the emphasis away from the "allstar" theme and the focus on/quantity of the Nintendo picks.

--

setting yourself up for a crushing disappointment when Nintendo releases Smash 6

Oh, I know they're likely to continue the vet pandering, shilling, cloning, third party adds, etc. I just advocate and argue against them.

--

unless it is an IP you like it is shilling

That's a mischaracterization (though I would fault myself for not explaining myself properly, not you). I argue against shilling PKMN or FE picks, despite those being two of my most favorite IPs on the roster, especially FE (and yes, I still actively play the newer installments). There are also some newer IPs like Ring Fit that I think have done their time now. I was willing to consider making exceptions for Splatoon when it was vastly successful.

--

Even if you are a Nintendo All Star person, this is a good roster for what it has. Not perfect, but good.

Yeah, it is good to recognize the parts of the roster that you love and want to stay. There is a lot of good stuff on it, I won't dispute. It's healthy for me to spew praise for Smash's loyalty to characters like Ness, Marth, C. Falcon, etc., some of my favorite video game and fictional characters ever who have gotten a lot of love and appreciation from Smash and its fans (and have even benefitted from some of the shilling that I dislike). There is a lot of good stuff. It's just that I find a lot more impetus to talk about the things I would like to change, not intentionally nor at the fault of anyone but just from the nature of the discussions that are frequent here and the urges to respond to statements I disagree with, advocate for certain newcomers, etc.

 

[StrangeKitten]

I doubt Nintendo association is make-or-break. That's just the feeling I get after we got picks like Cloud and Joker where sure, they had a game on Nintendo but they were kinda obscure spinoff games. I feel like if only having a spinoff game on Nintendo isn't a deal breaker, having no game at all also wouldn't be a deal breaker. I could of course be wrong, but it's the impression I get. It remains to be seen whether Chief will get in without having a game on a Nintendo platform. With how Nintendo and Microsoft's relationship has been as of late, it wouldn't surprise me if a Halo game does come to a Nintendo console in the future.

 

[dream1ng]

I'm guessing that the reason they didn't re-release MP1 until now was they didn't want to deal with this **** again:

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

They put this in Nintendo Power and now the minigames in question come with warnings. Plus it's not great for the controllers themselves.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Smash Bros. DOJO!!

www.smashbros.com

"What’s an Assist Trophy?!

Well, these are characters who appear to aid the fighter that called them forth. Basically, they’re guest characters separate from Smash’s playable roster!"

That's the source. Worth noting that we had 3rd parties along this, so this still shows that Guests is an ambiguous term to begin with and has more than one meaning. I'm not sure where you get the idea it means actually anything towards the All-Star moniker. Again, All-Star just pretty much defaults to "playable character" now, as they're the ones to show up in All-Star Mode(hell, it's like that in Melee too. If Sonic/Snake/James Bond/B&K appeared, they definitely couldn't use Nintendo All-Star, even moreso for Sonic, who had zero Nintendo appearances). I'm not sure where else it really can apply in the context of Smash after Melee(which we knew Sakurai legitimately considered 3rd party characters, even outside of Sonic and Shadow. While he dismisses James Bond very fast, he still notes licensing issues as the only reason. And B&K have the same issue, as they were 3rd party by that time).

There's a difference between wanting it to be only Nintendo All-Stars(or entirely Nintendo-centric) and actually applying it past Melee, when we know it blatantly is not true in any way, and we have enough evidence to show it wasn't even that important to Melee. That's not to say it isn't still fairly Nintendo-centric, and I get why some prefer it that way. That's fair. What isn't is making up stuff to justify it. No, we clearly stopped applying that as soon as 4 as the characters chosen don't need to be Nintendo-related overall. Ultimate just shows that further as it's really not important. You can loosely justify Cloud's appearance in a FF spin-off, sure(despite obviously the series being hard based upon FFVII and even more notably his fighting style being based upon Dissidia. Even his design too). ...You can't apply that for Joker which is blatantly only about his Playstation-related release. That's just trying to put a triangle into a Square-based hole for the sake of it.

 

[Perkilator]

I'm guessing that the reason they didn't re-release MP1 until now was they didn't want to deal with this **** again:

Reddit - Dive into anything

www.reddit.com

They put this in Nintendo Power and now the minigames in question come with warnings. Plus it's not great for the controllers themselves.

I thought you were talking about Metroid Prime 1 for a second.

 

[Hadokeyblade]

If Joker comes back for the next Smash i hope they update his final smash and stage to include the members of the Phantom thieves that first joined the group in games that released after his smash appearance.

 

[Wonder Smash]

There's a difference between wanting it to be only Nintendo All-Stars(or entirely Nintendo-centric) and actually applying it past Melee, when we know it blatantly is not true in any way, and we have enough evidence to show it wasn't even that important to Melee. That's not to say it isn't still fairly Nintendo-centric, and I get why some prefer it that way. That's fair. What isn't is making up stuff to justify it. No, we clearly stopped applying that as soon as 4 as the characters chosen don't need to be Nintendo-related overall. Ultimate just shows that further as it's really not important. You can loosely justify Cloud's appearance in a FF spin-off, sure(despite obviously the series being hard based upon FFVII and even more notably his fighting style being based upon Dissidia. Even his design too). ...You can't apply that for Joker which is blatantly only about his Playstation-related release. That's just trying to put a triangle into a Square-based hole for the sake of it.

You actually can apply that for Joker. It's the same thing. In the end, it's still an appearance on an Nintendo console before he was revealed for Smash. That's an undeniable fact.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

You actually can apply that for Joker. It's the same thing. In the end, it's still an appearance on an Nintendo console before he was revealed for Smash. That's an undeniable fact.

Except you can't. Because it was barely a tiny bit before he appeared. The real fact is Joker was already selected in Smash way before his game appearance would exist. Remember, the game came out about a month before Joker was directly announced, even before Smash Ultimate would release. There's also no telling exactly when it would release, making it a non-factor at that point. The official reveal of PQ2 was in 2017(though that was more of a light preview, as technically the official reveal is treated as a year from then. Do you honestly think Joker was selected in August 2018, despite being noted in development for a few months before November 2018? As I'll note before, the timeline just doesn't match up in any way) as well. Beyond that, Joker was actually delayed in development due to Arsene being harder to work with. They didn't even have enough to show immediately on his own reveal in December, a bit before Smash Ultimate released. To quote; "As the first DLC fighter he should have been the first DLC fighter to be developed. He was actually developed a few months before the game went gold and we had to design him during our most difficult development period." Now remember that the game went gold in November. He started development as early as August or July(the term few is used here). This means he'd have to have been licensed before August at the earliest, before the actual proper announcement of when PQ2's date is. It doesn't necessarily mean that Sakurai was unaware of the release date, but it also means it couldn't have been a factor in why he was chosen anyway. See below about what the whole point of Nintendo appearances are. And hint; it's not about "it just happens to be a character releases in the game after a Nintendo appearance", as that's a major misreading of the actual argument. It's why it's not the actual argument used nor has any real meaning if it's not actually held up to proper details. Anybody can luckily be in a game right before they're made DLC. It's a coincidence. But actual merits of these kind of appearances are the factor that it happens before they were chosen. That's what makes them "eligible" in fan circles. Now, what really would be applicable instead in reality of development is that Joker was already intended to be in a Nintendo game by Atlus, which means adding him to Smash is even easier by then, since it lines up with both Nintendo and Atlus' interests.

Something else to note; DLC for Smash Ultimate was already greenlit(or more so, it was Nintendo's idea) in July 2017. Now, this is where it gets interesting. While Atlus actually noted Q2 was a thing that existed in August 2017, the release date wasn't shown until August 2018, and it wasn't till November 2018 it would release. The fact the date was announced extremely soon from it implies they weren't sure when it was close enough to done. While it's possible the release date was known enough by Sakurai, the other data barely matches up. Thus, the eligibility factor has pretty zero meaningful impact here in practice.

Joker, in the end, was eligible by being a video game character from a very big game. Being that Persona 5 wouldn't even be brought to the Switch at all, it's really a stretch to say a spin-off game is why he actually got in. Despite quite literally zero spin-offs are actually acknowledged in Smash, while instead, P3, 4, and 5 are. Which mind you, were not on Nintendo. Maybe it goes to show that it wasn't the Nintendo appearance in particular that mattered. But moreso, Atlus cooperating with Nintendo that made him an easy pick. They have been cooperating even earlier, with the first PQ in 2014. Which means Persona had its door into Nintendo, or in other words, the franchise itself would play a bigger role at that point than any lucky appearance before Ultimate.

To be even more clear, when people talk about "appearance before Smash", it's not about simply appearing. It's about appearing early enough to already have a Nintendo appearance in order to be eligible. And let's be real, there's no way PQ2 is actually what made him eligible. The dates don't match up remotely for that to make sense. If it was from P3 or 4, absolutely, as PQ itself was released very early, before 2015 itself. It's nothing more than a simple coincidence at best. Joker broke the trend of eligibility, basically. He proved you didn't need a Nintendo background to be eligible. What he didn't show is that your franchise having Nintendo relations is unimportant(or if that's hard to read, even for me when first typing this, is that Nintendo relations comes down to the overall franchise first and foremost, not strictly the character. And that's iffy if it matters all that much. Cause, well, company factors play a role even moreso. Licensing also is vastly important, though things like fan demand and how big a franchise is also matters. And let's be real, what made Atlus say yes is pretty easily a thing called cooperation. What made Nintendo say yes is pretty evidently how well Atlus is cooperating, with tons of games planned out, not some ill-defined eligibility by that point(which has never been stated to outright requirement a Nintendo appearance in any form).

 

[fogbadge]

personally i think you're all over thinking this

 

[Perkilator]

Sonic Frontiers has gone gold

全ハードのマスターアップ完了です！

皆さんから頂いたご意見は、全てフィードバック出来た訳ではありませんが、締め切りギリギリまで出来ることは全てやりました。
いまは、安堵感とともに、ちょっとさみしいかな？なんたって、5年の付き合いですから。
さあ！次の仕事の始まりです！！

— Morio Kishimoto (@moq_46) October 22, 2022

 

[HyperSomari64]

Sonic Frontiers has gone gold

全ハードのマスターアップ完了です！

皆さんから頂いたご意見は、全てフィードバック出来た訳ではありませんが、締め切りギリギリまで出来ることは全てやりました。
いまは、安堵感とともに、ちょっとさみしいかな？なんたって、5年の付き合いですから。
さあ！次の仕事の始まりです！！

— Morio Kishimoto (@moq_46) October 22, 2022

So when it turns silver with exclusive zones, and most important, when it turns Crystal it features everything from the two counterparts + a female protagonist.

 

[Luke Starkiller]

Very quick question, besides the Western gaming content added in Smash Bros Ultimate, what other Western companies do you see getting a rep in Smash Six?

I think 343 Industries, Ubisoft, Activision and Electronic Arts are all major contenders for getting a rep.

This is because all the companies have a good relationship with Nintendo and I think the negotiations for their companies ips would work out well.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Very quick question, besides the Western gaming content added in Smash Bros Ultimate, what other Western companies do you see getting a rep in Smash Six?

I think 343 Industries, Ubisoft, Activision and Electronic Arts are all major contenders for getting a rep.

This is because all the companies have a good relationship with Nintendo and I think the negotiations for their companies ips would work out well.

Isn't Tencent the owner of League of Legends? If so, add them too. They're pretty buddy-buddy now.

But yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if we got a Rabbid playable, and if not that, a full Rabbid costume for Mii Fighters. Rayman and one of the various Assassin's Creed characters are also big options for Ubisoft too. Though as much as Rayman does nothing for me, he really should get more stuff for his franchise. He's basically a DLC for a Rabbids game now, which is really not helping him stand out from them. Like, I get why some are annoyed that Rabbids overshadowed him, but they're just their own fun franchise and that in itself is fine. They just do so little with Rayman's own games which is the real problem. Though I guess it could be he doesn't appeal as strongly these days or something? I never played his games, so I don't know if the particular gameplay doesn't mesh that well. I know he isn't that notable in Japan(Rabbids aren't much either, mind you. The biggest thing they have is being part of a Mario crossover combo game, which is a really damn good game, but that doesn't speak strictly well of the Rabbids, just that they're good with crossovers). However, at the very least, it just shows Ubisoft is really cooperative with Nintendo~

 

[osby]

Isn't Tencent the owner of League of Legends? If so, add them too. They're pretty buddy-buddy now.

Tencent isn't exactly a "Western" company, though.