You know why I leave out Sakurai in this equation? Take a look:
- "If he doesn't want a character from Square Enix, we don't get one."
- "But Sakurai may want a protagonist. So, this doesn't matter. "
- "So, again, this point doesn't matter as Sakurai can ultimately reject the character, even if Nomura want's it SOOOOOOO BADLY."
And guess what? There's absolutely ZERO indication that Sakurai has any particular opinion regarding any characters owned by Square-Enix. Yes, he probably does have opinions on them, but there's absolutely nothing to go by from what we've been exposed to. Unless you wanna play the "I know Sakurai, I've read his interviews" card, all of us are working with a blank slate.
Think you missed the point here. You assume I said "Sakurai picks what he wants." Not true. What I mean is "Sakurai picks what people want to play with." This means either characters who people want to play as more those who work well in the realm of Smash, or both.
You can see I said it here:
We could discuss the characters based on what Sakurai would want, which would be discussing which character people like the most or who could work the best in Smash Bros. Want was probably a bad word choice. Sakurai is good in that he makes his games with the player in mind, a rarity in this day and age. He has gone on record and said he does not make the games he likes to play. Heck, he didn't add a Kirby character until the third game.
You psychic you! Full of surprises.
Is it really that hard to understand how Sakurai acts after his results from three games? Sakurai has not added a generic character to any of the games. The only exception may be species (like Yoshi or Pikachu) and Pokemon Trainer (even if he is the main character). All of the characters have been major characters in the games. It only makes sense that, after 40+ characters, he's following #1.
Hence the discussion that you weren't (aren't?) apart of.
Not sure I need a membership card to chime in on discussion.
I like your "guilty until proven innocent" logic.
Two guys get over a river, one by airplane and one by ferry. I wanna try canoeing. You're telling me it won't work before I've even made an attempt specifically because I'm not taking the plane nor the ferry.
Until Sakurai tells Inafune's lucky blue oar to get lost, there's no reason to believe that we definitely won't be getting any more third-parties. And don't give me that "oh but the plane and ferry could crash and sink too!" bit, because that's obvious. Of course they COULD, doesn't mean they WILL. The point is there's no way to absolutely know anything right now (aside from the "no illegal immigrants" rule). Quit thinking your assumptions are truths.
Not matter what you may say, my reasoning is logical.My assumption is based on evidence. There is method A (Sakurai knows the person with the character) or B (the character is really popular). Could there be a C. Yes. Is there evidence to say there is a C.
NO. This is what you are missing. No matter how many methods there could be, there is no evidence that there is one. Thus, my assumption is logical. Am I right? There is no evidence to say so. And I have never said my assumption was right, just that it is logical.
Your example is out of context. In all three situations, the method to cross the river is known and has been tested before. Your metaphor is about the present. Mine is about the past. But here is how you can say it.
Can the plane cross a rive. Yes.
Can a canoe cross a river. Yes.
Can a ferry cross a river. Yes.
Now lets say there is a fourth method to crossing the river (outside of how we can cross a river in real life). I'll call it Method D. I tell you about Method D. Can you say that Method D (knowing it exist) cross the river. Yes. Could you say it wont. Yes. There is no proof to whether it can cross a river or not. So both opinions are logical. Now, lets say I told you Method D was me riding a tricycle across a river. The answer would then be no, but before ever seeing Method D, both answers are logical, and are opinions on ether Method D will make it.
Again, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absents. There could be a method C, D, E, F...... to deciding these characters. We just don't know them. If you want to believe there is more way to get one it, that is OK. If you don't, that is OK too. You have to accept thought that there is insufficient evidence to claim there is one, but it is not unreasonable to say that there are other ways to add the characters.
Sakurai has to reach an agreement with these companies. Their opinions matter.
By the way, if Sonic is the only character Sakurai actively included, then all other 3rd party characters' chhinkances are entirely defined by their companies' actions. Konami made an action, Capcom did not, SE did not, Namco did not. Fan demand wasn't why Snake got in and it wasn't enough for Mega Man. Pretty safe to assume it's about the companies themselves, don't you t?
In order to understand this is to understand East Asia. It's not that they actively seek out Sakurai or not. it's that they have to have connections with Sakurai.
East Asia is molded by Confusion traditions that emphasize relationships, be it with an elder to a child or a student to a teacher. Thanks to this, who you know is very important in countries like China, Korea and even Japan. Take getting a job for instance: In the western world, you are hired based on your credentials. This may be your achievements or your work experience. You are chosen due to qualifications. In East Asia, you are hired based on who you know. Take Miyamoto
He asked his father to contact an old friend, Hiroshi Yamauchi, who ran Nintendo. The elder Miyamoto asked Yamauchi to meet with his son, a recent graduate with a degree in industrial design, who was looking for a job. “We need engineers, not painters,” Yamauchi said, but he agreed to a meeting as a favor to his friend.
Miyamoto only got a chance to work at Nintendo because of who he knew. This is a big reason why business in the west fail to make deals with the Japanese. You have to get in the in group. They will treat you very politely, but they are just being formal and not really your friend. This is also why deals can be made on whether or not one finishes a bottle of Sake.
Third party characters could only happen because of these connections. Iwata and Sakurai have a strong connections. They have worked together for a long time and on many projects. In fact, had they not had the same connection, we may not have seen Brawl. So, not matter what, Iwata trust Sakurai. Secondly, Sakurai and Kojima have a connection as well, which allowed Snake to be in the game. Sakurai could do this favor for Kopjima because he knows him well enough. Had Sakurai and Kojima had not been friends? Sakurai would have given him a polite ear and said something like "I'll consider it," but he wouldn't do it. This happens a lot in Japanese politics. Someone may say X but they never do X, or interpret it to how they want it to be.
Another story: A Prime Minister (who's name escapes me) was imprisoned due to a scandal. However, he was the head of the largest faction of the LDP, the strongest party in Japanese politics. Even while in jail, he could still decide who the nest prime minister would be. In the western world, had the same situation happened, the party would have cut him off. He would have no say in jail. But in Japan, you have connections, which allows you to get around well. This is why I don't think it matters if they ask Sakurai or not. He'll just give them politeness and just do what he's been doing.
A little off topic, but this is why the relationship matters.
Personally, I feel nothing for Zoroark just like I feel nothing for Lucario. I didn't watch the movies nor play the 4th gen games. I just had a feeling that Lucario would be in Brawl because he was popular because he was advertised by Nintendo (movie, toys, roles in games) and his furry appearance with Mewtwo-like powers.
