Sakurai Confirms Smash Ultimate Will Only Include Gaming Content

its_not_goku_you_weeb.jpg

While giving an acceptance speech for an award received at Tokyo Game Show 2019, Super Smash Bros. creator Masahiro Sakurai made a comment about requests from Western fans for characters like Goku, Iron Man and other characters from outside of gaming to be included in Smash. In this comment, which was translated by former Source Gaming director PushDustIn, Sakurai remarks that Super Smash Bros. Ultimate will only include gaming content.


This isn't the first time that Sakurai has dismissed the idea of characters from outside of gaming in Smash. In a surprise appearance on a Nico Nico show in 2015, he talked about the roster selection process for Super Smash Bros. for 3DS and Wii U and discussed requests for Goku and Spongebob to appear in Smash, dismissing them as "impossible" according to a translation by Source Gaming. However, his acceptance speech at TGS 2019 marks the first time Sakurai has outright said in public that only video game content is eligible for Smash.

Author's note: Who do you think will be revealed as the next DLC character? Where do you think the boundaries lie for what is and isn't video game content?
 
Last edited:
Scribe

Comments

#2
I think the closest thing we will ever get to a 4th party character in Smash is Sora just due to all the Disney content that would came along with him. He is technically 3rd party, but his franchise might as well be 4th party since it has Disney characters in it.
 
#9
You mean like how he said that he did not want to include realistic guns, fighters from other fighting games, and Ridley?

Sakurai often breaks his word when it's a disconfirmation of characters for Smash so there is still hope for those characters to get into Smash some time in the future.

I am not saying it is likely, just that there is no reason to believe it cannot happen.
 
#10
What if the series originally is from a non-gaming related background but it becomes a successful, full-on game series because of a franchise reboot or adaptation (Witcher 3). Does it still not meet the standard?
 
#12
What if the series originally is from a non-gaming related background but it becomes a successful, full-on game series because of a franchise reboot or adaptation (Witcher 3). Does it still not meet the standard?
probably not.

Only way I could see that happening is if sakurai and nintendo didn't do their research, But Sakurai has always had a habit of being incredibly detailed in referencing the characters history, and I don't see them making a slip up like that.

See the problem is, is if they let it slide just one time, either accidentally, or purposefully, then it opens up a huge can of worms that I'm sure nintendo does not want to happen.




The only characters the "Video game characters only" rule might not apply to, are Nintendo Owned ones. Rob is after all, "technically" not a game character, but a toy. Sure he was a toy that was packed in, and designed to be used with a video game, but still.

Anyway, If it's a 3rd party, or as some folks like to keep referring to comic book and cartoon characters as, "4th party", It's pretty clear right here, that sakurai is putting his foot down(....again) and will not allow them.
 
#13
You mean like how he said that he did not want to include realistic guns, fighters from other fighting games, and Ridley?

Sakurai often breaks his word when it's a disconfirmation of characters for Smash so there is still hope for those characters to get into Smash some time in the future.

I am not saying it is likely, just that there is no reason to believe it cannot happen.
This is whataboutism. It's a fallacious argument.
 
#16
probably not.

Only way I could see that happening is if sakurai and nintendo didn't do their research, But Sakurai has always had a habit of being incredibly detailed in referencing the characters history, and I don't see them making a slip up like that.

See the problem is, is if they let it slide just one time, either accidentally, or purposefully, then it opens up a huge can of worms that I'm sure nintendo does not want to happen.




The only characters the "Video game characters only" rule might not apply to, are Nintendo Owned ones. Rob is after all, "technically" not a game character, but a toy. Sure he was a toy that was packed in, and designed to be used with a video game, but still.

Anyway, If it's a 3rd party, or as some folks like to keep referring to comic book and cartoon characters as, "4th party", It's pretty clear right here, that sakurai is putting his foot down(....again) and will not allow them.
I just think it’s weird because the rebooted/adapted characters are guaranteed to be extremely different from the original series. This doesn’t even mention plot changes, tone changes, and designs. And the way I describe it, the game series is practically what the franchise has mainly become or recognized as.
 
#21
Calling out Iron Man specifically has me wondering where Sakurai gets his info. Really, I’ve always been curious about his exposure to the west since he vocalized concern about not knowing whether westerners would understand the spicy curry item.
 
#22
Calling out Iron Man specifically has me wondering where Sakurai gets his info. Really, I’ve always been curious about his exposure to the west since he vocalized concern about not knowing whether westerners would understand the spicy curry item.
Emails. Doubt he actually looks at the request directly and likely has people do it for him.
 
Last edited:
#23
A little too late to be drawing a line in the sand. Goku and Iron Man would be no less ridiculous than some of the characters already in Smash.
 
#24
That's nice. I mean, we already got way too many third party characters and they're not going to stop, I believe. At least let's not spoil the game's identity by adding stuff like Shrek, Goku, SpongeBob or Iron Man.
 
#25
This is whataboutism. It's a fallacious argument.
Wrong. You are confusing arguing against Sakurai with arguing about Sakurai. Sakurai merely stated a fact and did not make an argument hence I cannot argue against Sakurai hence I cannot commit a whataboutism against him. Basically you are saying that my argument about Sakurai is wrong because it is an argument about Sakurai.

I would be commiting a whataboutism if Sakurai made an argument and I attempted to attack it by discrediting Sakurai instead of attacking the argument directly. However Sakurai did not make an argument which I could ignore in order to commit a whataboutism. He merely stated a fact and I made an argument about his future behavouir.


My argument is that by including many characters after having said that they would never make it into Smash Sakurai proved to be willing to change his mind when it comes to excluding certain characters. This is a valid reason to believe that he might change his mind when it comes to excluding certain characters.
 
Last edited:
#28
Wrong. You are confusing arguing against Sakurai with arguing about Sakurai. Sakurai merely stated a fact and did not make an argument hence I cannot argue against Sakurai hence I cannot commit a whataboutism against him. Basically you are saying that my argument about Sakurai is wrong because it is an argument about Sakurai.

I would be commiting a whataboutism if Sakurai made an argument and I attempted to attack it by discrediting Sakurai instead of attacking the argument directly. However Sakurai did not make an argument which I could ignore in order to commit a whataboutism. He merely stated a fact and I made an argument about his future behavouir.


My argument is that by including many characters after having said that they would never make it into Smash Sakurai proved to be willing to change his mind when it comes to excluding certain characters. This is a valid reason to believe that he might change his mind when it comes to excluding certain characters.
You literally argued "well, what about the time he 'deconfirmed' realistic guns, fighters from fighting games, and Ridley?"

Yes he does go back on certain things. No, he won't go back on literally anything he says.
 
D
#29
Instead of these nerds bothering Sakurai to put Goku in smash they should ask Namco/Ganberion to make a sequel to Jump Ultimate Stars. Or just play their garbage crossover they unironically hype up lol.
 
#34
So when Sakurai talked about how "Everyone is here" may never happen again, a huge factor as to why may stem from how much work it takes to get permission to use so many IPs for the project. And not just for 3rd paeties, but also for some Nintendo brands such as Pokemon or Earthbound as well. To allow use of characters outside of games would be on a level drastically above that- just look no further then how many digital games have been removed from storefronts due to expiring contracts, or when FighterZ tournaments were being stopped due to issues with Shueisha.

3rd party games have always had a part in the history of Gaming, even in the ages before consoles. Many beloved games on Nintendo devices were 3rd party such as MegaMan, Chrono Trigger or re4. So their introduction to Smash was just natural evolution. And while there are many licensed games that have history in games for good(Goldeneye) or ill(Superman 64), it is more the individual game's merits at play then the IP attached. And Smash changing from being about gaming history to being multimedia would just be an identity crisis, and begin the path of this just being Mugen under another name.

The motto for Ultimate after all is "Everyone is Here", not "Everything is Here."
 
Last edited:
#35
You literally argued "well, what about the time he 'deconfirmed' realistic guns, fighters from fighting games, and Ridley?"
My argument is that in the past he went back on deconfirmed characters and thus he can go back on deconfirmed characters. This is proof by example. I say that X can occur, and as proof I show that X occurred. Yes, you can sometimes word a proof by example as a "what about the time when X occured", but this does not make it a whataboutism.

A whataboutism is not about wording things in a "what about the time when X occured" way, it is about attacking an argument by attacking someone's credibility by using his history, instead of directly attacking his argument. Here Sakurai has no explicit argument. He makes an unbacked statement, So why do we believe him? What is his implicit argument? Would you have believed the statement if it came form me instead of Sakurai? His argument is his credibility. We believe him because we consider him credible. His credibility is the sole argument that backs up his statement. Hence by attacking his credibility I am directly attacking his argument. And that is why this is not a whataboutism.

If Sakurai gave a special reason why we should believe him and I ignored that reason and instead attacked his credibility, then you would be right. However he just says it and we are to believe him because of his credibility. So in a sense his credibility is his argument and attacking that —by showing that he can be wrong— is a direct attack on his argument i.e. on the only thing backing up his statement. So it is not a whataboutism because I am not avoiding any argument here.

Yes he does go back on certain things.
To be more precise, he sometimes goes back on deconfirmed characters.
No, he won't go back on literally anything he says.
I never contradicted this. Hence you made a strawman fallacy here by implying that I implied this.


Let's turn this around. I am arguing that Sakurai can come back on what he said here. Not that he will, but that he might. Not that it is likely, but that it is possible. You apparently disagree with me. So how do you know that Sakurai cannot come back on what he said in this interview? Why is it impossible for him to come back on it?
 
#38
My argument is that in the past he went back on deconfirmed characters and thus he can go back on deconfirmed characters. This is proof by example. I say that X can occur, and as proof I show that X occurred. Yes, you can sometimes word a proof by example as a "what about the time when X occured", but this does not make it a whataboutism.

A whataboutism is not about wording things in a "what about the time when X occured" way, it is about attacking an argument by attacking someone's credibility by using his history, instead of directly attacking his argument. Here Sakurai has no explicit argument. He makes an unbacked statement, So why do we believe him? What is his implicit argument? Would you have believed the statement if it came form me instead of Sakurai? His argument is his credibility. We believe him because we consider him credible. His credibility is the sole argument that backs up his statement. Hence by attacking his credibility I am directly attacking his argument. And that is why this is not a whataboutism.

If Sakurai gave a special reason why we should believe him and I ignored that reason and instead attacked his credibility, then you would be right. However he just says it and we are to believe him because of his credibility. So in a sense his credibility is his argument and attacking that —by showing that he can be wrong— is a direct attack on his argument i.e. on the only thing backing up his statement. So it is not a whataboutism because I am not avoiding any argument here.


To be more precise, he sometimes goes back on deconfirmed characters.

I never contradicted this. Hence you made a strawman fallacy here by implying that I implied this.


Let's turn this around. I am arguing that Sakurai can come back on what he said here. Not that he will, but that he might. Not that it is likely, but that it is possible. You apparently disagree with me. So how do you know that Sakurai cannot come back on what he said in this interview? Why is it impossible for him to come back on it?
Touché. Perhaps my logic isn't as up to snuff as I would like.

I'm just triggered by anyone who says "what about the time Sakurai contradicted this?" Even then, it's often blatantly wrong things or apples-to-oranges. Bayo and Joker's guns are fantastical in some way, Sakurai said "fighting games don't guarantee spot" not "fighting game characters not allowed", and Ridley, Villager, Pac-Man and Miis' situation was difficulty making a portrayal, not about if they fit Smash's premise or not.
 
#39
Touché. Perhaps my logic isn't as up to snuff as I would like.

I'm just triggered by anyone who says "what about the time Sakurai contradicted this?" Even then, it's often blatantly wrong things or apples-to-oranges. Bayo and Joker's guns are fantastical in some way, Sakurai said "fighting games don't guarantee spot" not "fighting game characters not allowed", and Ridley, Villager, Pac-Man and Miis' situation was difficulty making a portrayal, not about if they fit Smash's premise or not.
I looked it up, and it seems like he thought that characters from fighting games would not merge well. So I guess that was a portrayal issue as well.

I admit that I compared apples and oranges. Sakurai bringing in a deconfirmed character by solving portrayal issues is different from Sakurai bringing in a deconfirmed character by changing the premise of Smash. Sakurai can solve portrayal issues, but I see no reason to believe that he would be willing to change the premise of Smash.


Fun fact: Ash is mentioned in Smash 3DS's Pokemon Trainer trophy even though Ash originates from the anime. But it's just a trophy text and Ash is from a franchise which does originate in video gaming.
 
#40
im only surprised that people are that in for iron man of all people. not spider-man, not batman, just goddamn iron man
 
Top