Official Next Smash - Speculation & Discussion Thread

[Swamp Sensei]

I'm only curious as to why Dark Pit isn't with the other normal Echoes. 3rd party ones are more awkward, sure.

Rest make sense to me~

Dark Pit is with the other echoes.

What do you mean?

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Dark Pit is with the other echoes.

What do you mean?

...That would be me looking at Sora and thinking I saw Dark Pit. No wonder. XD

Never mind.

 

[SPEN18]

We talk about cuts a lot of the time here, so I thought I'd finally throw my hat in the ring.

I think people think about cuts wrong. The developers usually don't think about cuts in binary terms. They usually try to get as many characters back as they can. It's much more common for characters to get out-prioritized and left on the cutting room floor due to time and resources. Some characters that got included were originally a lower priority like Brawl Lucario or Smash 4 Bowser Jr. We also know that Brawl had some characters like Roy, Dr. Mario and Mewtwo planned, but removed due to lack of time.

As such, I based my list over what I believe each character's internal priority is. I did separate first and third party characters. I believe they are considered by different metrics, and they're a lot harder to predict. Third parties are thus, not ordered by likeliness.

This isn't the first draft of this list either. I actually asked for some critique, so while the majority of the opinions are mine, I was persuaded to make some minor changes here and there. I will say, I value Smash mainstays a lot. I also believe that very few Smash 4 and Ultimate newcomers are 100% safe, even if I'd bet money on characters like Greninja, Little Mac, Ridley or K. Rool staying from here on out.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Spoiler: The list

https://i.imgur.com/LGBACQw.png

Some of the text got messed up, but I can't really fix it.

EDIT: Okay, I guess I'll have to link it instead of uploading it directly. Fine I guess.

Some notes on some places where I'd differ:

- Ness, CFalcon to "very unlikely." To be clear, I don't want them cut nor do I think they will be cut. Cutting them probably also means their series is getting zero reps, which would be awful. But if I'm being honest with myself they're not 100% safe.

- Could argue Ike to "possible but unlikely," but maybe not worth actually having the argument.

- Sheik, Falco, G&W, R.O.B. all should be lower IMO. Could argue about how much lower if ya want.
After Wolf's ballot performance and Falco's decline in popularity, I think Wolf-but-no-Falco is possible. Plus no clones are that tier of safe, with the exception I guess that Ganondorf would obviously still be in the game in some form even if not revamped (and one other exception I mention below).
G&W, R.O.B. will probably be lower priority because of the "have no obvious future" thing and the fact that they aren't as popular or longstanding as Ness/CF, but I expect them to still make it. But the likes of Zard and Lucario are a rank above them.
Talking about Sheik is a can of worms, I know.

- Puff is on thin ice, and pretty much has been since 64.
Another ice analogy for ICs I don't think ICs would be prioritized much...this is where it becomes even more obvious that I don't value "longstanding" as much as you seem to. Could easily see an 80s retro newcomer prioritized over ICs, even.

- I'd actually move Isabelle up, despite being a clone. I mean, come on, she's been a breakout star and two reps for AC is too little if anything.
And Ridley, yeah, he needs to be moved up IMO. Only thing that ever held him back was feasibility, and, guess what, he's now proven feasible. Would've easily been justified in Melee or Brawl at the latest if he weren't believed to be too big.
And actually some others in this tier have at least an argument to be moved up: Greninja and K. Rool with their massive popularity, for ex. I'll add that it's pretty much guaranteed that at least one of the FE:Awakening characters will be in there.

- He's more safe than he's ever been at this point, but I don't think Sak values Mewtwo as much as the fanbase does, for whatever that's worth. Him being cut before makes me hesitant to put him too high, but I think he would make it, yeah.

- I don't think the possibility of ZSS being cut is talked enough. A character probably only added to (1) align with the transformation gimmick and (2) add a Metroid rep when the big guns like Ridley and MB were deemed impossible. Now she's divorced from the gimmick and we could easily have a solid Metroid roster without her, with Ridley, Dark Samus (further differentiated or not), and/or a potential newcomer like Raven Beak.

- Agree with the "fairly likely" tier for the most part, but Jr should be above them. Then again, I also have him below "possible but unlikely" tier so he's in an odd spot. I'd probably move Squirtle/Ivysaur down, also, if it was my list.

- I wouldn't put the Links in their own tier; TL to fairly likely and YL to most likely IMO.

- I don't think reception is getting Byleth cut. Especially if the FE roster is reorganized a bit to make it less enraging to those who don't care about FE.

- Third parties, yeah, who knows. Not compelled to comment too much on that rn.

 

[dream1ng]

We talk about cuts a lot of the time here, so I thought I'd finally throw my hat in the ring.

I think people think about cuts wrong. The developers usually don't think about cuts in binary terms. They usually try to get as many characters back as they can. It's much more common for characters to get out-prioritized and left on the cutting room floor due to time and resources. Some characters that got included were originally a lower priority like Brawl Lucario or Smash 4 Bowser Jr. We also know that Brawl had some characters like Roy, Dr. Mario and Mewtwo planned, but removed due to lack of time.

I think one aspect that people view incorrectly about cuts is that the character having a sound reason not to be cut doesn't mean they wouldn't still be cut. Some characters obviously won't be cut, and others are quite unlikely, but any time a specific character is raised, people will argue for that character.

And it's not like the argument is inherently unsound, it's just, people aren't taking into account what you're talking about, that priority just can't extend to everyone. People aren't looking at it in terms of a scale of expendability, they're looking individually at why a character would be cut. But that just results in a very very small pool of characters the consensus regards as in danger, mainly extending to Pichu, YL, Corrin, and maybe PP and Dark Pit.

But that's not realistic. Like, if you look at Pokemon. Pichu aside, I think the likeliest cut is Incineroar. People will defend him, but yet not be able to name a character that would be lower priority. Even fewer people would agree if you suggested Jiggs or Greninja or Trainer.

It's not about whether a character has merit, it's about how much priority they'd retain against the other fighters.

As such, I based my list over what I believe each character's internal priority is. I did separate first and third party characters. I believe they are considered by different metrics, and they're a lot harder to predict.

This isn't the first draft of this list either. I actually asked for some critique, so while the majority of the opinions are mine, I was persuaded to make some minor changes here and there. I will say, I value Smash mainstays a lot. I also believe that very few Smash 4 and Ultimate newcomers are 100% safe, even if I'd bet money on characters like Greninja, Little Mac, Ridley or K. Rool staying from here on out.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Spoiler: The list

https://i.imgur.com/LGBACQw.png

Some of the text got messed up, but I can't really fix it.

EDIT: Okay, I guess I'll have to link it instead of uploading it directly. Fine I guess.

First-party-wise, in broad strokes, there's little I disagree with. Some people have the opposite idea about clones, thinking that them being easier to make results in being likelier to be retained, when really their lower priority makes them likelier cuts.

And I agree with third-parties being tougher to gauge. I like your idea with the categories, but it's tough because I feel like some only fit one side of the priority/difficulty category. Like, I agree Kazuya wouldn't be difficult to reacquire. But I don't know if he would be high priority. I'm not sure if he's lower priority either, but putting him next to those other five, who are the five likeliest to return, he sort of sticks out. Tekken is big but... at this point Smash has a lot of big third-parties, and he's new, not necessarily a fan favorite, and just seems like he might be middle-of-the-pack priority-wise.

I agree with Cloud's placement. It's hard to gauge the priority of the other three, being new. I know they're either very big or very popular, but if those other five and Cloud have higher priority, and maybe half of the ??? section, after eight or more third-parties, would that still be high priority? And if the roster rebuilds itself, how many third-parties do you think they'll bring back? Would we even get more than eight or nine vets? That's half of them, but a rebuilt roster is going to be a lot smaller than Ultimate's, and needs to make room for an increasing amount of third-party newcomers.

Though I don't really have a better grasp of things. I think Sonic, MM, Pac-Man, Ryu and Bayo are definitely the safest. And I think Cloud will be high priority, and it's only the legal/Square stuff that keeps him from the safe group. I agree that Joker and Terry (and Sephiroth) seem like the least likely to return. But then the rest exist in just some amorphous middle-ground. Any of them could return, but any being cut wouldn't really surprise me either, given cuts will have to go deeper than normal once the roster rebuilds.

Though since third-parties require a lot more work, and the commitment is much higher once they're acquired, I think they are also an exception in that some may simply not be tried for.

 

[AlRex]

My idea is that the next Smash game isn’t a traditional Smash roster, but it’s like half Nintendo, half third parties. Semi-Reboot but kind of not, more so a sort of side thing for Smash, maybe? This is basically impossible, but I dunno about the other most common options floated around (hard reboot or just adding five more characters to Ultimate or w/e). Your mileage may vary on this idea, and I’ve also said it before…

 

[Isaac: Venus Adept]

Seeing Mortal Kombat 1's use of kameo fighters got me thinking about how an assist system like that can work in Smash. One of the biggest criticisms of assist trophies is their unfortunate nature of trapping fan favorite characters into an item where you have a 1/60 chance of even seeing them. Being able to always choose the assist character you want without relying on random chance to support you during a match is a much more appealing thing to me than the current way assist trophies are handled.

So basically I thought about calling this hypothetical mechanic "tag assists" and I was thinking of the possibility of three actions with them, being an offensive move to either rack up damage or deal knockback, a defensive move which would either do a smaller attack to help you break out of combos or they can help defend you from attacks and finally a recovery move where the tag assist can help you recover to the stage in their own unique way. Mapping it to the d-pad can work I reckon.

I think it's a cool idea to really give Smash a fun new mechanic to make a new game feel fresh and can also work as a way to represent characters who couldn't quiet make the roster a lot more prominently.

 

[StrangeKitten]

I think if the next Smash cuts the Pokemon roster down severely, the most likely post-gen 1 Pokemon to stay is Greninja. Not only did he win that popularity poll, but gen 6 is in a very nice sweet spot where it's almost the halfway point between gen 1 and now (that sweet spot is gen 5, but it lacks a rep). Additionally, gen 6 is when 3D models were first used, so it's the gen to use to rep the start of modern Pokemon. Greninja is also good to keep because it would feel very weird to have gen 1 Pokemon, then whichever is the current gen, and nothing in between. Lucario is also a good keep for that reason, but I digress.

 

[SPEN18]

Jiggs, Pichu, Incineroar, and to a lesser extent Squirtle/Ivysaur are all pretty easily expendable IMO.

At least Lucario and Greninja have happened to work out quite well; them and Pika/Zard (+Mewtwo if you like) make a pretty good core for the PKMN roster.
But there is a lot of wiggle room to do some bold things here.

 

[Idon]

Seeing Mortal Kombat 1's use of kameo fighters got me thinking about how an assist system like that can work in Smash. One of the biggest criticisms of assist trophies is their unfortunate nature of trapping fan favorite characters into an item where you have a 1/60 chance of even seeing them. Being able to always choose the assist character you want without relying on random chance to support you during a match is a much more appealing thing to me than the current way assist trophies are handled.

So basically I thought about calling this hypothetical mechanic "tag assists" and I was thinking of the possibility of three actions with them, being an offensive move to either rack up damage or deal knockback, a defensive move which would either do a smaller attack to help you break out of combos or they can help defend you from attacks and finally a recovery move where the tag assist can help you recover to the stage in their own unique way. Mapping it to the d-pad can work I reckon.

I think it's a cool idea to really give Smash a fun new mechanic to make a new game feel fresh and can also work as a way to represent characters who couldn't quiet make the roster a lot more prominently.

It would be more appealing but it would still stuck to see your favorites relegated to a part of another character's moveset. The same issue will arise from MK1 wherein fan favorite characters like Jax or Kano or whatever can and will be permanently stuck in their assist-only roles. This is why most tag fighters nowadays are actual fighters who have parts of their movesets turned into tag attacks.
I would prefer them to not be playable at all then to simply serve to bolster another character and only just barely reach the semblence of being playable.

 

[StrangeKitten]

I'd like to add that Mewtwo is a pretty important character to keep. While yes, he was cut from Brawl due to time constraints, he serves the purpose of representing legendary Pokemon, as well as being the Pokemon series' "villain". For those who don't know, Mewtwo outright kills people in the first Pokemon movie, and is the antagonist until he has a change of heart at the end. Considering adding villains was one of the goals of Melee (Bowser, Ganondorf), and this was before we had seen Mewtwo take on more heroic roles, it was probably one of the reasons for his inclusion. Also worth noting,

Spoiler

a mind-controlled Mewtwo serves as the final boss of the Detective Pikachu movie.

Plus, the Pokemon series doesn't have an overarching villain like a lot of other series do. Each game has a different evil team/villain(s). I would argue that Giovanni is the most recurring villain, and was partially responsible for Mewtwo's creation anyway. However, adding a PT-esque Giovanni to Melee would have been too complicated, and probably didn't cross the developers' minds.

 

[Simnm]

If steve gets cut i think they would replace him with someone that has a similiar gimmick to him like the tetris block or something

 

[Idon]

If steve gets cut i think they would replace him with someone that has a similiar gimmick to him like the tetris block or something

Outside of the... shape, they're not alike at all.

Yknow what no, I'm not even going to bother debating the mechanics of a tetronimo, this is a lost cause.

 

[Simnm]

Outside of the... shape, they're not alike at all.

Yknow what no, I'm not even going to bother debating the mechanics of a tetronimo, this is a lost cause.

I was thinking they could use the thing they have for steves blocks and convert it for the tetris blocks
And also the fact that their animations would require very little work
And that is the reason why their inclusion is a lock

 

[fogbadge]

This is literaly the only sentence in this entire post that I could comprehend.

i could say something even more incomprehensible if you'd like

 

[Isaac: Venus Adept]

It would be more appealing but it would still stuck to see your favorites relegated to a part of another character's moveset. The same issue will arise from MK1 wherein fan favorite characters like Jax or Kano or whatever can and will be permanently stuck in their assist-only roles. This is why most tag fighters nowadays are actual fighters who have parts of their movesets turned into tag attacks.
I would prefer them to not be playable at all then to simply serve to bolster another character and only just barely reach the semblence of being playable.

To me I see it as coming to terms with the nature of how intensive the process of including all the veterans and requested newcomer together so it's a compromise that's I personally would be a lot more okay and understanding towards. Ultimate's mission to bring every veteran back severely limited the amount of base game newcomers they were able to add and with it's even bigger total roster now, bringing back as much veterans and including as many newcomers as possible is going to be even tougher next time. Of course I'm speaking hypothetically if they want to proceed to a new game rather than choosing to create an enhanced port of Ultimate that just adds more characters to the pre-existing game.

Regardless the tag assist idea still gives those characters a chance to have some kind of active role with a mechanic that much better uses them instead of being absent completely or trapped in a snow globe.

 

[Guynamednelson]

To me I see it as coming to terms with the nature of how intensive the process of including all the veterans and requested newcomer together so it's a compromise that's I personally would be a lot more okay and understanding towards. Ultimate's mission to bring every veteran back severely limited the amount of base game newcomers they were able to add and with it's even bigger total roster now, bringing back as much veterans and including as many newcomers as possible is going to be even tougher next time. Of course I'm speaking hypothetically if they want to proceed to a new game rather than choosing to create an enhanced port of Ultimate that just adds more characters to the pre-existing game.

Regardless the tag assist idea still gives those characters a chance to have some kind of active role with a mechanic that much better uses them instead of being absent completely or trapped in a snow globe.

Hell, we already have proof that characters in MK1 can be both fighters and Kameos-Scorpion and Sub-Zero are hard locks for any MK roster, but you can see Kameo versions of them too.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Hell, we already have proof that characters in MK1 can be both fighters and Kameos-Scorpion and Sub-Zero are hard locks for any MK roster, but you can see Kameo versions of them too.

At the very least there's two Sub-Zeroes.

Joking aside, this is a great thing, as it allows for even more cool costume reusage.

 

[HyperSomari64]

If steve gets cut i think they would replace him with someone that has a similiar gimmick to him like the tetris block or something

If there was an actual Tetris rep, it would the monkey from Sega's arcade game.

 

[TCT~Phantom]

I think people tend to underestimate how much the state of Nintendo when the roster was being made affected Smash Ultimate's newcomer pool.

The Wii U era was a disaster for Nintendo. Let's not mince words. Nintendo released a system that bombed and struggled to keep a consistent quality pipeline of content. There was very little to pull from that was not already in Smash 4. I have no doubts part of the reason Everyone is Here was chosen was due to there being sparse pickings for newcomers as is.

Let's look at the lens that Brawl and Smash 4 chose their first party newcomers on. They overwhelmingly picked newcomers based on relevancy. Outside of Pit and ROB, the entire Brawl roster had a big game release during the Gamecube/GBA/DS era. In Smash 4, it was much of the same. The only first party newcomer that did not have some large, successful first party release when the roster was being made was Duck Hunt. Looking at that late Wii U/3DS era, its clear we do not have that same luxury. Sure, you could have made a roster with Captain Toad, Dixie Kong, Bandana Dee, Elma, and a Rhythm Heaven rep, but you are kind of already looking at a smaller roster when you are. There just were not great picks to pull from.

Sure, they could have chosen a character like Skull Kid for the sake of adding another Zelda character, but outside of Pokemon we do not see the dev team take on that mindset. Even if you were going to have a roster attempting to pull from this era, it would likely have still had a smaller newcomer roster anyway. There just was not that many success stories to highlight.

Did focusing on veterans probably cut down on the amount of newcomer content we got? Sure, but I think anyone who foams at the mouth that Corrin "stole" their character's spot is being wildly unrealistic. It was a highly pragmatic move to do Everyone is Here. It would be a crowd pleasing move. Snake, Ice Climbers, and Wolf were all popular requests. Adding existing characters or already designed characters takes way less work than making a new one from the ground up. It lets the development team quietly ignore the Wii U era and help push Nintendo in a new direction. Out of our 6 base game newcomers, Isabelle, Incineroar, and Inkling all were relevancy based picks. In think the reason these got in is because they are easy success stories to spin. It is easier to push the biggest new IP launch Nintendo has had in years than something like Xenoblade Chronicles X, which did not even sell 1 million units.

I think there are two main reasons that this community harbors on cuts so much. The first is just because it is one of the more concrete things to speculate on. Sure, if even Sakurai mulls cuts (though that quote is left a lot more open ended than some people would like to believe), I can see why people talk about cuts. The bigger reason is that some people believe that by cutting characters, you would get the content you "deserve". Surely if we thanos snap the roster, we would see a roster with all those "undesirables" who "stole insert most wanted character's spot". I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that is just not how rosters work. Smash does not opperate by addition by subtraction. The roster will never end up exactly how you want it, no matter how many characters they add or cut. I know my ideal roster is not happening, but I have come to terms with that.

It feels like often with cuts talk, it ends up being less about what is realistic and more people picking and choosing out of some desire to "purify" the roster. It reeks of people venting their misgivings about Ultimate onto Everyone is Here. I know some people will forever be salty that Ultimate was not their perfect Smash game. I would be lying if I thought Ultimate was a perfect game. I have beef with the online, I think Plant was an experiment gone wrong, the lack of any target test irks me, and I certainly do not like how they handled All Star. But it feels like people talk about Everyone is Here as some sort of calamity when they discuss cuts. Like EiH is personally responsible for Bandana Dee or Isaac or Shantae or what have you not getting in because those "undesirables" like Corrin or Snake stole their spot. People talk about how it "enabled" Smash to stray from "it's vision" of "Nintendo All Stars", a marketing phrase that Sakurai was thinking beyond as early as 1999.

I know there is a very realistic shot we get cuts. I could easily see us ending up with about a dozen, maybe a bit less, cuts of lower priority, less popular veterans. I would say a character like Roy or Jigglypuff due to their popularity is more likely to survive than Corrin or Incineroar for example. I would love an Ultimate Deluxe to avoid that, but I know cuts are a realistic thing to expect. The issue I have is that there is a sizeable contingent of cuts supporters who talk about it less like a sad inevitablity, but moreso as vindictive retribution to "fix" Smash. This kind of thinking just ends up poisoning the entire discourse. Part of the reason I get so exhausted of cuts talk is not just the frequency, but how often bad faith arguments show up. It just is exhausting to see these bad faith arguments rooted in a deep seeded resentment for what Ultimate is cloud discussion. It is exhausting to see perfect be the enemy of good. Part of the joy of Smash speculation is seeing what dreams people have: it is exhausting to see people talk about how other people's dreams were some sort of apocalyptic event.

 

[Sucumbio]

I think Steve's design is more like what I'd expect a LEGO character to play as (as far as block goes) but that one video I saw of a Tetris Block moveset was more what I was thinking, where the "character" is a block that takes the form of the various shapes based on input, rather than building with actual blocks.

 

[Stratos]

When the Pokémon anime series was originally with Ash and his Pikachu I loved that they faced off against Team Rocket and even more I loved that Ash's Pikachu was against Team Rocket's Meowth. Partly I would like it where a Pikachu is a main character (not necessarily the protagonist) to have a Meowth as its enemy, but on the other hand if they did that then the Pokédex would have to write that these two species are enemies, like the Zangoose with the Seviper, so they better NOT have done that.

 

[CapitaineCrash]

My idea is that the next Smash game isn’t a traditional Smash roster, but it’s like half Nintendo, half third parties. Semi-Reboot but kind of not, more so a sort of side thing for Smash, maybe? This is basically impossible, but I dunno about the other most common options floated around (hard reboot or just adding five more characters to Ultimate or w/e). Your mileage may vary on this idea, and I’ve also said it before…

I think that 50/50 first party/third party is a bit much on the third party side. I do agree that doubling down on third party characters would be a good direction. Nintendo is not making a lot of new ip anymore so with each Smash there's always less potential for new universe, with Ultimate only bringing 2 (Splatoon and Arms). The only new franchise made in the Switch era that Nintendo owns aside from Arms are 1-2 Switch, Astral chain, Ring fit, Sushi striker and Snipperclips. Realistically, the only one out of those that could get characters are Astral chain and Ring fit. In adition to that, we could get Xeno 3 rep and a Pokémon gen 9 rep, and you could maybe make a case for a Famicom detective club rep because it made a comeback on Switch but it didn't even hit 1 million sales so I doubt he would be seriously considered. In comparaison, Smash 4 had Wii fit, Mii and Xenoblade who where new franchise from the past generation, alongside Punch Out and Kid icarus who made big comeback and Animal crossing who was a bit older but was unused in past Smash.

So yeah aside from popular side characters like Bandana dee and Dixie kong for example, the pool of first party characters is getting smaller with each game. And I know some people will argue that stuff like Golden sun, Rhythm heaven, Chibi robo or retro characters like Takamaru, Excitebike or Mach rider could make cool characters. But I this point I don't see it hapening. Besides, if some third party characters get cut in the next Smash, adding Isaac and Chibi robo won't make up for Sora and Steve getting cut for example.

So yeah, I think the best way to make up for cut are third party. At this point Smash is so popular that third party are begging to be in the game instead of the other way around. And compared to first party, there's just so many huge franchise are still not represented in Smash. Even if you only limit yourself to Japanese franchise that got games in the last generation, you could get Resident evil, Tales of, Devil may cry, Monster hunter, Yakuza, Professor Layton and more, and that's not even touching Western stuff.

That being said, I think 50/50 is a bit much. I mean, if the next Smash roster is 70 characters, to hit a 50/50 ratio you would need to cut around 35 first party characters, while cutting no third party and adding 20 third party newcomers while not adding any first party newcomers... Yeah that's just super unrealistic. I could see them hitting around 1/4 third party and 3/4 first party, maybe 1/3 vs 2/3 but even that would be pushing it.

 

[NonSpecificGuy]

I think that 50/50 first party/third party is a bit much on the third party side. I do agree that doubling down on third party characters would be a good direction. Nintendo is not making a lot of new ip anymore so with each Smash there's always less potential for new universe, with Ultimate only bringing 2 (Splatoon and Arms). The only new franchise made in the Switch era that Nintendo owns aside from Arms are 1-2 Switch, Astral chain, Ring fit, Sushi striker and Snipperclips. Realistically, the only one out of those that could get characters are Astral chain and Ring fit. In adition to that, we could get Xeno 3 rep and a Pokémon gen 9 rep, and you could maybe make a case for a Famicom detective club rep because it made a comeback on Switch but it didn't even hit 1 million sales so I doubt he would be seriously considered. In comparaison, Smash 4 had Wii fit, Mii and Xenoblade who where new franchise from the past generation, alongside Punch Out and Kid icarus who made big comeback and Animal crossing who was a bit older but was unused in past Smash.

So yeah aside from popular side characters like Bandana dee and Dixie kong for example, the pool of first party characters is getting smaller with each game. And I know some people will argue that stuff like Golden sun, Rhythm heaven, Chibi robo or retro characters like Takamaru, Excitebike or Mach rider could make cool characters. But I this point I don't see it hapening. Besides, if some third party characters get cut in the next Smash, adding Isaac and Chibi robo won't make up for Sora and Steve getting cut for example.

So yeah, I think the best way to make up for cut are third party. At this point Smash is so popular that third party are begging to be in the game instead of the other way around. And compared to first party, there's just so many huge franchise are still not represented in Smash. Even if you only limit yourself to Japanese franchise that got games in the last generation, you could get Resident evil, Tales of, Devil may cry, Monster hunter, Yakuza, Professor Layton and more, and that's not even touching Western stuff.

That being said, I think 50/50 is a bit much. I mean, if the next Smash roster is 70 characters, to hit a 50/50 ratio you would need to cut around 35 first party characters, while cutting no third party and adding 20 third party newcomers while not adding any first party newcomers... Yeah that's just super unrealistic. I could see them hitting around 1/4 third party and 3/4 first party, maybe 1/3 vs 2/3 but even that would be pushing it.

The problem with this mindset is that more 3rd parties aren’t going to make up for the missing ones. There’s just no way there’s franchises out there that fill the hole left by say Cloud, Hero, and Sephiroth (because I imagine if one is out they won’t be able to get the others). You could add like Lloyd Irving, Yuri Lowell, and maybe a Dark Souls character to have that same kind of dynamic but there’s always going to be that lingering feeling that “man I wish cloud was here”

Take it from someone who’s favorite 3rd party was the only 3rd party to get cut in the game; Cloud, Ryu, Pac-Man, and Mega Man we’re all super hyped but they never filled thathole that was Snake.

The next Smash will need to make cuts but to be honest one of their highest priorities for it should be to do their best to get all the third parties back that they possibly can because if you can’t get them all there’s going to be a massive hole of hype there. Because no 3rd party character is a small character. They are all massive names on their own rights.

Edit: kinda misconstrued your post a little there but my point still stands in a greater conversation of cuts.

 

[Stratos]

The bad thing is that in order for newcomers to come to the new Super Smash Bros., they will have to remove some of the veterans. There have also been rumors that the makers of the two live-action Sonic movies, the makers of the Detective Pikachu movie and the recent The Super Mario Bros. Movie are planning to make a movie or a Nintendo Cinematic Universe or Super Smash Bros., though for those who made The Super Mario Bros. Movie it is the most realistic. The thing is, they say it, but will they do it? And I write this not to destroy the hopes of others, I just don't see them doing it, but I still have faith that it will happen eventually.

 

[Sucumbio]

The bad thing is that in order for newcomers to come to the new Super Smash Bros., they will have to remove some of the veterans. There have also been rumors that the makers of the two live-action Sonic movies, the makers of the Detective Pikachu movie and the recent The Super Mario Bros. Movie are planning to make a movie or a Nintendo Cinematic Universe or Super Smash Bros., though for those who made The Super Mario Bros. Movie it is the most realistic. The thing is, they say it, but will they do it? And I write this not to destroy the hopes of others, I just don't see them doing it, but I still have faith that it will happen eventually.

I got into smash without even caring about who was playable tbh I don't usually look at the roster more than the mechanics and gameplay

 

[fogbadge]

The bad thing is that in order for newcomers to come to the new Super Smash Bros., they will have to remove some of the veterans. There have also been rumors that the makers of the two live-action Sonic movies, the makers of the Detective Pikachu movie and the recent The Super Mario Bros. Movie are planning to make a movie or a Nintendo Cinematic Universe or Super Smash Bros., though for those who made The Super Mario Bros. Movie it is the most realistic. The thing is, they say it, but will they do it? And I write this not to destroy the hopes of others, I just don't see them doing it, but I still have faith that it will happen eventually.

well it’s unrealistic for the makers of the sonic films to do it cause it’s a Nintendo owned franchise

 

[Stratos]

well it’s unrealistic for the makers of the sonic films to do it cause it’s a Nintendo owned franchise

You're right.

 

[Nabbitfan730]

Speaking on this topic, i've been hearing that the popular contention that Smash Bros as whole especially Ultimate has no identity stuck in-between 2 extremes so i want to ask?

Should Smash Bros going forward be focused on Celebrating Nintendo's history with majority of Nintendo characters and small number of third-party guests like 4-5 as a Nintendo All-star or should go down the road of being the Celebration of Gaming where, mentioned before, it's 50/50 of 1st party:3rd party to 30/70 towards third party?

 

[fogbadge]

Speaking on this topic, i've been hearing that the popular contention that Smash Bros as whole especially Ultimate has no identity stuck in-between 2 extremes so i want to ask?

Should Smash Bros going forward be focused on Celebrating Nintendo's history with majority of Nintendo characters and small number of third-party guests like 4-5 as a Nintendo All-star or should go down the road of being the Celebration of Gaming where, mentioned before, it's 50/50 of 1st party:3rd party to 30/70 towards third party?

it should stick with nintendo as the majority. apart from anything else it’ll be easier on the licensing budget

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

Smash Ultimate is... a Nintendo All-Stars Game that is also a very strong Gaming Crossover. It's both. It's also "everyone is here"(and Everyone is Hero is its core focus anyway. That's the identity. It also does the other two things).

It doesn't need to have "one" thing as its identity. It's multiple things at once and that's a good thing. It's mostly Nintendo, not some big 50/50 split(nor should it be). Even as it gains more third parties, it's always been mostly Nintendo. That never changed since Brawl gave us 3rd parties(beyond trophies).

 

[StrangeKitten]

I don't think there's an exact amount of 3rd parties that need to be hit. Trying to go 50/50 first/third party just sounds like a recipe for getting more third parties than would be feasible for Nintendo to pay for, more third parties than most fans probably want, and for third parties to probably feel bloated. Or, to even things out we'd have to cut first party characters significantly. Like, down to 20 or 30. And that feels arbitrarily restrictive and harsh, especially considering Mario and Pokemon have a lot of characters that are very justified additions.

I think they should keep going in the direction they've been going. We've gotten a mix of gaming's biggest characters, characters with important Nintendo history, fan favorites, and series Sakurai wants to shine a light on. I like it, and I don't think there have really been any missteps. I think Bayonetta was a good choice, even. Just the way they tried to use the Ballot to justify her was confusing and is what rubs a lot of people the wrong way.

 

[dream1ng]

I think there are two main reasons that this community harbors on cuts so much. The first is just because it is one of the more concrete things to speculate on. Sure, if even Sakurai mulls cuts (though that quote is left a lot more open ended than some people would like to believe), I can see why people talk about cuts. The bigger reason is that some people believe that by cutting characters, you would get the content you "deserve". Surely if we thanos snap the roster, we would see a roster with all those "undesirables" who "stole insert most wanted character's spot". I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that is just not how rosters work. Smash does not opperate by addition by subtraction. The roster will never end up exactly how you want it, no matter how many characters they add or cut. I know my ideal roster is not happening, but I have come to terms with that.

It feels like often with cuts talk, it ends up being less about what is realistic and more people picking and choosing out of some desire to "purify" the roster. It reeks of people venting their misgivings about Ultimate onto Everyone is Here. I know some people will forever be salty that Ultimate was not their perfect Smash game. I would be lying if I thought Ultimate was a perfect game. I have beef with the online, I think Plant was an experiment gone wrong, the lack of any target test irks me, and I certainly do not like how they handled All Star. But it feels like people talk about Everyone is Here as some sort of calamity when they discuss cuts. Like EiH is personally responsible for Bandana Dee or Isaac or Shantae or what have you not getting in because those "undesirables" like Corrin or Snake stole their spot. People talk about how it "enabled" Smash to stray from "it's vision" of "Nintendo All Stars", a marketing phrase that Sakurai was thinking beyond as early as 1999.

I know there is a very realistic shot we get cuts. I could easily see us ending up with about a dozen, maybe a bit less, cuts of lower priority, less popular veterans. I would say a character like Roy or Jigglypuff due to their popularity is more likely to survive than Corrin or Incineroar for example. I would love an Ultimate Deluxe to avoid that, but I know cuts are a realistic thing to expect. The issue I have is that there is a sizeable contingent of cuts supporters who talk about it less like a sad inevitablity, but moreso as vindictive retribution to "fix" Smash. This kind of thinking just ends up poisoning the entire discourse. Part of the reason I get so exhausted of cuts talk is not just the frequency, but how often bad faith arguments show up. It just is exhausting to see these bad faith arguments rooted in a deep seeded resentment for what Ultimate is cloud discussion. It is exhausting to see perfect be the enemy of good. Part of the joy of Smash speculation is seeing what dreams people have: it is exhausting to see people talk about how other people's dreams were some sort of apocalyptic event.

This is a very elaborate way to chalk cut talk up to haters, basically saying most is predicated on spite, selfishness and a side of delusion, which is a reductive and fairly unkind view of this discussion considering how many people seem to have approached this pragmatically and with civility. I'm not saying we're free of bias, or every take makes sense, but I think most people are talking about cuts because they realize cuts are coming. If not for the next Smash game, certainly eventually. But possibly for the next Smash game. Or, it's just something to talk about.

But the bigger the roster gets, the more untenable sustaining that size becomes. Or at the very least, the more reasonable eventual cuts seem.

Do you see a lot of people saying, like, "They should cut x and add Crash Bandicoot! They should cut y and add Master Chief!" That's not what I'm seeing here. Like, a cut talk with virtually no maligning of Corrin, Byleth, or Piranha Plant can't be that covertly motivated by bitterness. Which takes do you see as people suggesting cuts so they can get their own characters? Or are you just talking about, like, 4chan and Gamefaqs? Seriously, who are you seeing act like some "other person's dream was some sort of apocalyptic event"? Where are you witnessing this antipathy and toxicity?

I think Smashboards is a lot better about cut talk than before. We didn't use to be, before people treated it like you were actively wishing harm upon someone. But I think the mix of it being a concrete thing to discuss, like you said, the general chill nature of off-season speculation, and something that seems gradually more impending has lead to, overall, pretty measured takes.

I see people raising characters that genuinely do seem on the likelier end to get cut. I see people not taking suggestions as personal attacks on the character or their fans. I see people speaking in terms of categories over specific characters, so no one even gets singled out. I see people saying "x may not return, but I hope they do". What I don't see is much malice.

I mean, it might be you who is letting their preferences cloud their judgment if you think getting a dozen cuts makes any real sense.

If they're making a dozen or so cuts, they clearly aren't rebuilding the roster. Because even before you factor in newcomers, that's a count in the high 70s; completely unrealistic if they start over. So if they're just continuing off Ultimate, which is possible, why would there be any cuts, barring third-parties they couldn't reacquire? Which would presumably number fewer than a dozen, if any. Even if all the unreliable kids bailed and we lost all of Square, Konami, Microsoft and Disney, we'd still only lose 9.

Either cuts are going to reflect rebuilding the roster and be substantial, or they're not going to happen at all barring licensing obstacles.

Tbh, it feels like projecting a lot of what old cut talk used to be like onto a conversation that was actually going pretty unproblematically, from my vantage.

 

[Perkilator]

I know challenger packs have long since stopped being a thing, but I wanted to at leat show you guys a pitch of mine from the SSBU revised thread:

Job #23: Sakura Shinguji (Sakura Wars); character from a SEGA-owned RPG franchise
View attachment 373328
Sakura Wars is a 1996 tactical RPG released in 1996 for the Sega Saturn, dubbed as a "dramatic adventure" that mimics anime, with the main story taking place across 10 episodes. Sakura is one of the members of the Imperial Combat Revue's Flower Division, a group that fights demons in steam-powered mechs, with their base also fronting as a theater. The franchise since then has had a somewhat understated but nontheless long-lasting legacy all the way into 2020, with many sequels coming out and many crossover and spin-off appearances in the years since the first game.

What separates Sakura Wars from most tactical RPG's (at the time, anyway) was how it incorporated dating-sim and visual novel elements.
In the visual novel part of the gameplay, Ogami, the character the player primarily controls, navigates the theater in between battles, during which the player is at the mercy of the Live & Interactive Picture System (LIPS). When Ogami is faced with critical choices during conversations with both members of the Flower Division and supporting characters, dialogue trees are displayed with a time limit for the player to input. Depending on the type of response, the character Ogami is conversing with may respond positively or negatively, impacting their relationship with Ogami and future interactions. Other actions within LIPS include holding the cursor over parts of a character's portrait to trigger internal monologues and varying responses from the characters. Each main heroine has different personality quirks that must be taken into consideration while talking with them, with correct responses raising their "Trust".

During the actual battles, the Flower Division fights demons using machines called Kobu. Each unit has their own turn, with each turn allowing two actions. These actions include "Attack", "Defend", "Move", "Deathblow" (a critical strike that can one-shot any normal enemy), Charge (store energy for later), and Heal (which restores the unit's HP). Different units specialize in different skills such as support actions, melee attacks, or ranged attacks. Units have varying movement abilities based on available space and unit statistics, as well as a separate attack range based on their weapon type. Actions taken during LIPS sequences with members of the Flower Division directly impact battles; raised trust during LIPS segments grant statistic increases and subsequently improve combat ability. You lose when you either fail to meet certain conditions for victory or when the HP on Ogami's Kobu reaches zero (but you can continue afterwards and there's no permadeath).

If we were to translate the LIPS system into Smash, one way to go about would be this. The stage would be the Grand Imperial Theater, which would feature various projections of the different Combat Revues and their bases. as for the music?

Spoiler: Music

1. Declaration! Imperial Floral Assault Group
2. Move Out! Imperial Floral Assault Group
3. Try Your Best! Imperial Floral Assault Group
4. Enemy Battle - Sakura Wars
5. The Heartwarming Life of the TeiGeki
6. Decisive Battle! Imperial Floral Assault Group
7. Imperial Capital
8. Final Battle - Sakura Wars 2: Thou Shalt Not Die
9. Under the Imperial Flag
10. Chattes Noires
11. Clash
12. The Musical Dance of Battle
13. Warriors of the Earth
14. Go Go NYCR!
15. Declaration! Imperial Floral Assault Group - Shinsou
16. Imperial Capital City - New Sakura Wars
17. Beyond the Rainbow
18. Round Table Knight
19. Iron Star

Spirits would also be taken from Sakura Wars history, focusing primarily on the Flower Division but with chracters from other games.

Hope you enjoyed my pitch!

 

[Dukefire]

Also, what characters will be added and removed in the assist trophy status?

 

[Perkilator]

Also, what characters will be added and removed in the assist trophy status?

Maybe hopefully Waluigi, since Ultimate proved that demand is heard with several of the newcomers.

 

[Dukefire]

I can say that Dillion the Armadillo won't be returning for AT after Vanpool shutdown.

 

[Pupp135]

We talk about cuts a lot of the time here, so I thought I'd finally throw my hat in the ring.

I think people think about cuts wrong. The developers usually don't think about cuts in binary terms. They usually try to get as many characters back as they can. It's much more common for characters to get out-prioritized and left on the cutting room floor due to time and resources. Some characters that got included were originally a lower priority like Brawl Lucario or Smash 4 Bowser Jr. We also know that Brawl had some characters like Roy, Dr. Mario and Mewtwo planned, but removed due to lack of time.

As such, I based my list over what I believe each character's internal priority is. I did separate first and third party characters. I believe they are considered by different metrics, and they're a lot harder to predict. Third parties are thus, not ordered by likeliness.

This isn't the first draft of this list either. I actually asked for some critique, so while the majority of the opinions are mine, I was persuaded to make some minor changes here and there. I will say, I value Smash mainstays a lot. I also believe that very few Smash 4 and Ultimate newcomers are 100% safe, even if I'd bet money on characters like Greninja, Little Mac, Ridley or K. Rool staying from here on out.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Spoiler: The list

https://i.imgur.com/LGBACQw.png

Some of the text got messed up, but I can't really fix it.

EDIT: Okay, I guess I'll have to link it instead of uploading it directly. Fine I guess.

I feel like this list seems pretty logical overall. The changes that I’d make are mostly pretty minor:

Ness and Captain Falcon: I feel that the SSB Staple tier is more appropriate as being an SSB64 veteran doesn’t make a fighter immune from cuts, and Mother and F-Zero have been dormant/complete for more than 15 years.
Charizard: I think I’d place it in the Immune/Top Priority tier given its prominence to The Pokemon Company.
Jigglypuff: This is a really weird case. I feel like it should be in its own weird paradoxical tier of being low priority but an unlikely cut given that it was low priority pre-Ultimate yet manages to stay each entry.
Ice Climbers: I feel like they would be in the labor intensive tier given that the double team gimmick is taxing, but they weren’t intended to be removed in For, and I don’t think being a retro fighter necessarily puts a fighter at a high risk of being cut.
Zero Suit Samus: Even though she seems like a somewhat obvious choice for low priority given the nature of her inclusion being somewhat outdated, I’d actually consider bumping her up to the SSB staple tier as she’s been around since Brawl, and I don’t think she was low priority in For.
Ridley and Isabelle: I’d probably bump them up to the Top Priority/Immune as Ridley was a huge request since Brawl, and I don’t see Animal Crossing losing a fighter given the franchise’s popularity and that Mario Kart 8 has both Villager and Isabelle.
Byleth: Despite being the eighth Fire Emblem fighter, I’d put her/him in the Prioritized/Possible Cut tier as Three Houses is an important game to the Fire Emblem series.

For third parties, I think it’s pretty reasonable overall, and the only change that I’d make is by giving Steve a separate tier for being labor intensive.

 

[SPEN18]

I think people tend to underestimate how much the state of Nintendo when the roster was being made affected Smash Ultimate's newcomer pool.

The Wii U era was a disaster for Nintendo. Let's not mince words. Nintendo released a system that bombed and struggled to keep a consistent quality pipeline of content. There was very little to pull from that was not already in Smash 4. I have no doubts part of the reason Everyone is Here was chosen was due to there being sparse pickings for newcomers as is.

Let's look at the lens that Brawl and Smash 4 chose their first party newcomers on. They overwhelmingly picked newcomers based on relevancy. Outside of Pit and ROB, the entire Brawl roster had a big game release during the Gamecube/GBA/DS era. In Smash 4, it was much of the same. The only first party newcomer that did not have some large, successful first party release when the roster was being made was Duck Hunt. Looking at that late Wii U/3DS era, its clear we do not have that same luxury. Sure, you could have made a roster with Captain Toad, Dixie Kong, Bandana Dee, Elma, and a Rhythm Heaven rep, but you are kind of already looking at a smaller roster when you are. There just were not great picks to pull from.

Sure, they could have chosen a character like Skull Kid for the sake of adding another Zelda character, but outside of Pokemon we do not see the dev team take on that mindset. Even if you were going to have a roster attempting to pull from this era, it would likely have still had a smaller newcomer roster anyway. There just was not that many success stories to highlight.

Did focusing on veterans probably cut down on the amount of newcomer content we got? Sure, but I think anyone who foams at the mouth that Corrin "stole" their character's spot is being wildly unrealistic. It was a highly pragmatic move to do Everyone is Here. It would be a crowd pleasing move. Snake, Ice Climbers, and Wolf were all popular requests. Adding existing characters or already designed characters takes way less work than making a new one from the ground up. It lets the development team quietly ignore the Wii U era and help push Nintendo in a new direction. Out of our 6 base game newcomers, Isabelle, Incineroar, and Inkling all were relevancy based picks. In think the reason these got in is because they are easy success stories to spin. It is easier to push the biggest new IP launch Nintendo has had in years than something like Xenoblade Chronicles X, which did not even sell 1 million units.

I think there are two main reasons that this community harbors on cuts so much. The first is just because it is one of the more concrete things to speculate on. Sure, if even Sakurai mulls cuts (though that quote is left a lot more open ended than some people would like to believe), I can see why people talk about cuts. The bigger reason is that some people believe that by cutting characters, you would get the content you "deserve". Surely if we thanos snap the roster, we would see a roster with all those "undesirables" who "stole insert most wanted character's spot". I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but that is just not how rosters work. Smash does not opperate by addition by subtraction. The roster will never end up exactly how you want it, no matter how many characters they add or cut. I know my ideal roster is not happening, but I have come to terms with that.

It feels like often with cuts talk, it ends up being less about what is realistic and more people picking and choosing out of some desire to "purify" the roster. It reeks of people venting their misgivings about Ultimate onto Everyone is Here. I know some people will forever be salty that Ultimate was not their perfect Smash game. I would be lying if I thought Ultimate was a perfect game. I have beef with the online, I think Plant was an experiment gone wrong, the lack of any target test irks me, and I certainly do not like how they handled All Star. But it feels like people talk about Everyone is Here as some sort of calamity when they discuss cuts. Like EiH is personally responsible for Bandana Dee or Isaac or Shantae or what have you not getting in because those "undesirables" like Corrin or Snake stole their spot. People talk about how it "enabled" Smash to stray from "it's vision" of "Nintendo All Stars", a marketing phrase that Sakurai was thinking beyond as early as 1999.

I know there is a very realistic shot we get cuts. I could easily see us ending up with about a dozen, maybe a bit less, cuts of lower priority, less popular veterans. I would say a character like Roy or Jigglypuff due to their popularity is more likely to survive than Corrin or Incineroar for example. I would love an Ultimate Deluxe to avoid that, but I know cuts are a realistic thing to expect. The issue I have is that there is a sizeable contingent of cuts supporters who talk about it less like a sad inevitablity, but moreso as vindictive retribution to "fix" Smash. This kind of thinking just ends up poisoning the entire discourse. Part of the reason I get so exhausted of cuts talk is not just the frequency, but how often bad faith arguments show up. It just is exhausting to see these bad faith arguments rooted in a deep seeded resentment for what Ultimate is cloud discussion. It is exhausting to see perfect be the enemy of good. Part of the joy of Smash speculation is seeing what dreams people have: it is exhausting to see people talk about how other people's dreams were some sort of apocalyptic event.

Saying EiH happened because there weren't enough good options for (I'm guessing particularly first party) newcomers is unsupported theory, and IMO does some disservice to all the great characters people were discussing post-4 and even now who have missed out thus far.

And clearly relevancy matters to them when selecting characters, but it's not like all the cuts vets they brought back were particularly strong in relevancy. The Wii U- and 3DS-era reps you mentioned would've been more effective for promoting games outside of Smash than most of the cut vets, even if there were fewer of them and the back end of the newcomer roster would've had to be filled with more of the less relevant types.

Furthermore, EiH was certainly not "pragmatic," and has been literally confirmed not to be that. It took an abnormal amount of commitment and effort to make it happen, and even then it still easily could have not made it to the finish line.
Some thinking along the lines of "oh, maybe we should rethink Wolf's priority level a bit because he was a top ballot pick" or "Konami is willing to cooperate so let's just see if we can get Snake back" would've been pragmatic. Not 100% committing all efforts to an all-or-nothing proposition with heavy risk of not working out.

And I personally don't think it's necessary to think very hard about why cuts discussion happens and/or is frequent. Clearly people think cuts are a reasonable possibility, they've long been a natural part of the between-games discourse, and they're also a pretty complex topic whose discussion involves both a large portion of the roster and a large number of factors to consider.

I'd go so far as to say that re-normalizing cuts discussion is a healthy thing for this community.
For one, cuts have basically always been a part of Smash sequels; even in the very first sequel, Melee, there was the possibility of Ness being cut for Lucas. So for those on here trying to predict the roster, talking about them makes sense.
And even if prediction or realism aren't in the equation, there's no reason to go up in arms and accuse someone of malice or vengefulness just because they don't particularly want or care to see a certain fictional character appear in a party-friendly video game, especially if it's mostly because there are other fun concepts they'd alternatively prefer to see prioritized.

 

[Perkilator]

I know challenger packs have long since stopped being a thing, but I wanted to at leat show you guys a pitch of mine from the SSBU revised thread:

Man, if only SEGA of America wasn't such a butthead during the Saturn era…

 

[AlRex]

I think that 50/50 first party/third party is a bit much on the third party side. I do agree that doubling down on third party characters would be a good direction. Nintendo is not making a lot of new ip anymore so with each Smash there's always less potential for new universe, with Ultimate only bringing 2 (Splatoon and Arms). The only new franchise made in the Switch era that Nintendo owns aside from Arms are 1-2 Switch, Astral chain, Ring fit, Sushi striker and Snipperclips. Realistically, the only one out of those that could get characters are Astral chain and Ring fit. In adition to that, we could get Xeno 3 rep and a Pokémon gen 9 rep, and you could maybe make a case for a Famicom detective club rep because it made a comeback on Switch but it didn't even hit 1 million sales so I doubt he would be seriously considered. In comparaison, Smash 4 had Wii fit, Mii and Xenoblade who where new franchise from the past generation, alongside Punch Out and Kid icarus who made big comeback and Animal crossing who was a bit older but was unused in past Smash.

So yeah aside from popular side characters like Bandana dee and Dixie kong for example, the pool of first party characters is getting smaller with each game. And I know some people will argue that stuff like Golden sun, Rhythm heaven, Chibi robo or retro characters like Takamaru, Excitebike or Mach rider could make cool characters. But I this point I don't see it hapening. Besides, if some third party characters get cut in the next Smash, adding Isaac and Chibi robo won't make up for Sora and Steve getting cut for example.

So yeah, I think the best way to make up for cut are third party. At this point Smash is so popular that third party are begging to be in the game instead of the other way around. And compared to first party, there's just so many huge franchise are still not represented in Smash. Even if you only limit yourself to Japanese franchise that got games in the last generation, you could get Resident evil, Tales of, Devil may cry, Monster hunter, Yakuza, Professor Layton and more, and that's not even touching Western stuff.

That being said, I think 50/50 is a bit much. I mean, if the next Smash roster is 70 characters, to hit a 50/50 ratio you would need to cut around 35 first party characters, while cutting no third party and adding 20 third party newcomers while not adding any first party newcomers... Yeah that's just super unrealistic. I could see them hitting around 1/4 third party and 3/4 first party, maybe 1/3 vs 2/3 but even that would be pushing it.

My thinking is less that it’s a traditional Smash game and more, like I said, like “Nintendo VS Everyone Else”. If you want to limit that, you very well could do Nintendo VS CAPCOM or SEGA (or Microsoft or Sony or Disney or Project Super Smash X Zone Brothers for more real pie-in-the-sky kind of ideas). I do have an old roster along the lines of the first idea I’m bringing up, I may find it again in a bit…