Official Smash Ultimate Discussion

[Diddy Kong]

For Sheik that would work, somehow. Yet Ganondorf? That's really pushing it honestly. It's hardly armor that Link is wearing, and just because it's Gerudo armor that doesn't mean that it's fit for Ganondorf. Just consider how different Ganondorf dressed compared to his Gerudo tribe in Ocarina of Time, and you'll know why it's just silly.

 

[ZeldaMaster]

In terms of third parties, I for one, never want more than one character from each third party franchise. Smash is, first and foremost, to honor Nintendo's own IP. If any third party franchise gets more than 1 character, then, that would be lost. Second, the third party has to have a long history with Nintendo, and needs to be recognized as an industry icon of sorts.

 

[Opossum]

As far as third party newcomers are concerned, my top five would be Crash Bandicoot, Frogger, Lara Croft, Maxwell, and Shovel Knight, in that order. Granted some of those probably won't ever happen.

 

[N3ON]

In terms of third parties, I for one, never want more than one character from each third party franchise. Smash is, first and foremost, to honor Nintendo's own IP. If any third party franchise gets more than 1 character, then, that would be lost. Second, the third party has to have a long history with Nintendo, and needs to be recognized as an industry icon of sorts.

Well, this should be something.

popcorn.gif

 

[ZeldaMaster]

I personally think that Ubisoft deserves a rep. It seems as though they are the one Western company that supports Nintedno, atleast initially, by utting all of their big name franchises on Nintendo's launch hardware (see Wii U and Switch). Rayman or Ezio would be cool.

In terms of other third party IP, Dragon Quest, Monster Hunter, Yokai Watch, Kingdom Hearts, Ace Attorney, and Tekken are the frontrunners in my opinion.

 

[WeirdChillFever]

I think Ganondorf is way more than just a "Gerudo male" so him dressing like that just because it's a outfit of Gerudo Town for males is stretching it

 

[Arcadenik]

I am here for bare chested Ganondorf, it's what we truly deserve.

Yes... Ganondorf baring his muscular hairy chest... yes! It's what we truly deserve!

 

[Luminario]

For Sheik that would work, somehow. Yet Ganondorf? That's really pushing it honestly. It's hardly armor that Link is wearing, and just because it's Gerudo armor that doesn't mean that it's fit for Ganondorf. Just consider how different Ganondorf dressed compared to his Gerudo tribe in Ocarina of Time, and you'll know why it's just silly.

Oh come on, let Ganondorf wear a silly outfit, it's a silly game. Besides, it's the official Gerudo Voe outfit, so it's canonically the most likely outfit that Ganondorf would be wearing in BotW if he was born to the Gerudos like in OoT. It could just be a funny alt anyway.

 

[WeirdChillFever]

Only if Urbosa's Fury is his new Neutral Special

 

[PsychoJosh]

I personally think that Ubisoft deserves a rep. It seems as though they are the one Western company that supports Nintedno, atleast initially, by utting all of their big name franchises on Nintendo's launch hardware (see Wii U and Switch). Rayman or Ezio would be cool.

I disagree, I don't think Ubisoft deserves a rep at all. While Rayman is a well-designed enough character to be in a game like Smash, Ubisoft represents some of the worst aspects of modern video games, and they engage in extremely shady and terrible business practices, like endlessly recycling their games, pulling some deceptive marketing stunts, overhyping mediocre games, and releasing games in a horribly unfinished state intending to cash in on them by charging people money to download the "finished" version. I think they were lucky that Nintendo was gracious enough to give Rayman a trophy in SSB4, but that should be all they get. They don't deserve more.

 

[Opossum]

I disagree, I don't think Ubisoft deserves a rep at all. While Rayman is a well-designed enough character to be in a game like Smash, Ubisoft represents some of the worst aspects of modern video games, and they engage in extremely shady and terrible business practices, like endlessly recycling their games, pulling some deceptive marketing stunts, overhyping mediocre games, and releasing games in a horribly unfinished state intending to cash in on them by charging people money to download the "finished" version. I think they were lucky that Nintendo was gracious enough to give Rayman a trophy in SSB4, but that should be all they get. They don't deserve more.

The company's business practices shouldn't have anything to do with it.

It's not like Mega Man and Ryu were passed over in light of Capcom's controversial DLC practices.

 

[Arcadenik]

The only Ubisoft characters I would support for Smash are Rayman and the Prince of Persia. That's it.

 

[Luminario]

If we're being completely honest here, the Ubisoft rep I want in Smash is Aurora from Child of Light.
That game was quality and absolutely gorgeous and she'd fit in so well, even if she doesn't have a chance in hell of getting in.
I should really make a moveset for her.

 

[PsychoJosh]

The company's business practices shouldn't have anything to do with it.

It's not like Mega Man and Ryu were passed over in light of Capcom's controversial DLC practices.

I think it absolutely should have to do with it. If a company behaves blatantly anti-consumer for most of their lifespan then they shouldn't be granted a spot with gaming's true greats. They only cheapen the image of the game.

Capcom is starting to engage in some shoddy business practices with SF5, sure, but the times they do it are rare outliers, not habitual like Ubisoft. For the most part Capcom games don't have this problem. Their franchises are still an integral part of Nintendo's history and for that they can overlook this problem. That's way more than I can say for Rayman.

 

[Double0Groove]

As far as I'm concerned, there's gonna be 4 new characters at the very least. Out of the four of them, I'm hoping Sora from Kingdom Hearts is gonna make it now that Sakurai and Nomura are all buddy-buddy. If we're talking about Nintendo characters strictly though, I feel like they'll just bring back 2 old characters (Ice Climbers and Wolf) and the other two will just be highly requested characters.

 

[Opossum]

I think it absolutely should have to do with it. If a company behaves blatantly anti-consumer for most of their lifespan then they shouldn't be granted a spot with gaming's true greats. They only cheapen the image of the game.

Capcom is starting to engage in some shoddy business practices with SF5, sure, but the times they do it are rare outliers, not habitual like Ubisoft. For the most part Capcom games don't have this problem. Their franchises are still an integral part of Nintendo's history and for that they can overlook this problem. That's way more than I can say for Rayman.

Dude, there's a reason the "Crapcom" moniker came around. They've been criticized since, at the very latest, Marvel vs Capcom 3. To say it only started with Street Fighter V is just incorrect.

If it didn't stop Capcom, it won't stop Ubisoft. Sakurai just doesn't care about that.

 

[PsychoJosh]

As far as I'm concerned, there's gonna be 4 new characters at the very least. Out of the four of them, I'm hoping Sora from Kingdom Hearts is gonna make it now that Sakurai and Nomura are all buddy-buddy. If we're talking about Nintendo characters strictly though, I feel like they'll just bring back 2 old characters (Ice Climbers and Wolf) and the other two will just be highly requested characters.

And who exactly would those highly requested characters be?

I'm thinking Bomberman, and uh... Snake?

Dude, there's a reason the "Crapcom" moniker came around. They've been criticized since, at the very latest, Marvel vs Capcom 3. To say it only started with Street Fighter V is just incorrect.

If it didn't stop Capcom, it won't stop Ubisoft. Sakurai just doesn't care about that.

That is incorrect. Marvel vs. Capcom 3 wasn't a $60 game with microtransactions locking essential content like characters. And comparing Capcom's mistakes to the constant rain of garbage that Ubisoft perpetrates every year is like night and day.

 

[Opossum]

And who exactly would those highly requested characters be?

I'm thinking Bomberman, and uh... Snake?

He was talking about Nintendo characters.

 

[Schnee117]

That is incorrect. Marvel vs. Capcom 3 wasn't a $60 game with microtransactions locking essential content like characters.

Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 was released literally months after vanilla MvC3.
If you wanted to play as Vergil, Iron Fist, Dr Strange, Nemesis, Phoenix Wright or Rocket Raccoon among others you had to pretty much buy the same game again.

 

[Opossum]

That is incorrect. Marvel vs. Capcom 3 wasn't a $60 game with microtransactions locking essential content like characters. And comparing Capcom's mistakes to the constant rain of garbage that Ubisoft perpetrates every year is like night and day.

Except that's exactly what happened.

Ultimate was originally going to be an add-on to vanilla MVC3, IIRC, but they made it a separate game so soon after the original. And Shuma and Jill were paid DLC despite already having their data on the disc.

 

[PsychoJosh]

He was talking about Nintendo characters.

I didn't see anything in his post that indicated that.

Ultimate Marvel vs Capcom 3 was released literally months after vanilla MvC3.
If you wanted to play as Vergil, Iron Fist, Dr Strange, Nemesis, Phoenix Wright or Rocket Raccoon among others you had to pretty much buy the same game again.

Not that I'm defending it, but this is not the same thing. If you were a new player who didn't pick up the first one you got a cheaper and more complete version with more characters. Anyone who buys SF5 right now still has to pay to unlock characters on top of what they pay to get the game, or spend a ridiculous amount of time grinding to get them for free. SF5 is an awful game.

 

[Opossum]

I didn't see anything in his post that indicated that.



Not that I'm defending it, but this is not the same thing. If you were a new player who didn't pick up the first one you got a cheaper and more complete version with more characters. Anyone who buys SF5 right now still has to pay to unlock characters on top of what they pay to get the game, or spend a ridiculous amount of time grinding to get them for free. SF5 is an awful game.

You missed the bolded part then.

As far as I'm concerned, there's gonna be 4 new characters at the very least. Out of the four of them, I'm hoping Sora from Kingdom Hearts is gonna make it now that Sakurai and Nomura are all buddy-buddy. If we're talking about Nintendo characters strictly though, I feel like they'll just bring back 2 old characters (Ice Climbers and Wolf) and the other two will just be highly requested characters.

It also doesn't matter if it wasn't the same. It's still a shoddy business practice. If Capcom's antics didn't stop Sakurai, neither would Ubi's.

 

[PsychoJosh]

Except that's exactly what happened.

No it wasn't. UMVC3 wasn't a $60 game.

It also doesn't matter if it wasn't the same. It's still a shoddy business practice. If Capcom's antics didn't stop Sakurai, neither would Ubi's.

If you really think Capcom is so evil then you should be treating Ubi like Satan itself because what they do is significantly worse by a factor of a million. Most of the crappy things that Capcom do can be attributed to mere incompetence and tone deafness, not outright malice like Ubisoft.

Also, where was I ever arguing that Sakurai would be stopped by it? All I ever posted was my own opinion that Ubisoft doesn't deserve recognition, whether or not Sakurai agrees with me is unknown and moot. And again, Capcom's characters are way more iconic and important to Nintendo history than Ubisoft's characters, so of course Sakurai is going to give them special consideration. Street Fighter and Megaman were vital to the success of the NES and SNES consoles. Rayman and Ezio don't even begin to compare, and most of their games are found on other systems anyways.

 

[Opossum]

No it wasn't. UMVC3 wasn't a $60 game.



If you really think Capcom is so evil then you should be treating Ubi like Satan itself because what they do is significantly worse by a factor of a million. Most of the crappy things that Capcom do can be attributed to mere incompetence and tone deafness, not outright malice like Ubisoft.

Also, where was I ever arguing that Sakurai would be stopped by it? All I ever posted was my own opinion that Ubisoft doesn't deserve recognition, whether or not Sakurai agrees with me is unknown and moot. And again, Capcom's characters are way more iconic and important to Nintendo history than Ubisoft's characters, so of course Sakurai is going to give them special consideration.

Price doesn't matter too much. The point was that Capcom was derided much worse by the gaming community in general then than Ubisoft is now.

I don't think Capcom is "evil," actually, and would prefer you didn't put words in my mouth. To call them evil is incredibly childish. They're a company making games with some anti-consumer practices. It's a **** move, but it's far from evil. And to say Ubisoft is doing it out of malice is equally unfounded. I'm not defending Ubisoft, or Capcom for that matter. I'm mostly apathetic toward both situations. I'm just saying that they often do similar things, so to say Ubisoft isn't "deserving" should, in theory, hold true for Capcom as well.

The issue is the word "deserving" in general, because people all too often make their opinion seem like fact using that word. Smash isn't some video game Valhalla where every character dreams of ending up. It's not the endgame. Smash isn't on any higher of a pedestal than any other game.

 

[Sir Gengar de Èctoplasma]

Regarding third-party newcomers, the only one I actually want is Bomberman, but I would be fine with Rayman, Ryu Hayabusa, Heihachi, Agumon and Crash Bandicoot as well.

 

[The Black mage]

What I am curious about right now is the controllers for the Switch when it could come to super smash bros. This could be huge among fighting tournaments, since you can take the controller and screen with you anywhere for off-tv play.

Really seems to be within the same boat Splatoon 2 was in when it was unveiled early on the switch reveal.

 

[PsychoJosh]

Price doesn't matter too much. The point was that Capcom was derided much worse by the gaming community in general then than Ubisoft is now.

I don't think Capcom is "evil," actually, and would prefer you didn't put words in my mouth. To call them evil is incredibly childish. They're a company making games with some anti-consumer practices. It's a **** move, but it's far from evil. And to say Ubisoft is doing it out of malice is equally unfounded. I'm not defending Ubisoft, or Capcom for that matter. I'm mostly apathetic toward both situations. I'm just saying that they often do similar things, so to say Ubisoft isn't "deserving" should, in theory, hold true for Capcom as well.

The issue is the word "deserving" in general, because people all too often make their opinion seem like fact using that word. Smash isn't some video game Valhalla where every character dreams of ending up. It's not the endgame. Smash isn't on any higher of a pedestal than any other game.

Okay, aside from the fact that I don't take anyone seriously once they start getting pedantic about terminology ("oh, Capcom's not evil, they didn't commit genocide or anything for their own benefit"), I would say that repeatedly lying to your customers about your products to get more sales really blurs the line between assholery and evilness. They have skirted around breaking the law in order to conduct their business, so they're at the very least highly immoral if not outright evil. I see flying in the face of the law for monetary gain as a form of evil.

As for your statement that Smash isn't "some video game valhalla", I disagree. Smash is a rather prestigious series that has had influence on the sales and content of the series they end up putting into the game. If it wasn't for Smash then Fire Emblem would still be largely unknown in the west. And if you aren't owned by Nintendo then you have to be a very high profile character to be a guest in Smash. None of the guest characters are small-timers, we're talking about almost legendary mascots that are timeless and enduring. do think of it as an honor to be recognized in Smash, and I honestly don't believe that any of Ubisoft's characters deserve it.

 

[Opossum]

Okay, aside from the fact that I don't take anyone seriously once they start getting pedantic about terminology ("oh, Capcom's not evil, they didn't commit genocide or anything for their own benefit"), I would say tha repeatedly lying to your customers about your products to get more sales really dances on that blurred line between mere assholery and evilness. They have skirted around breaking the law in order to conduct their business, so they're at the very least highly immoral if not outright evil. I see flying in the face of the law as a form of evil.

As for your statement that Smash isn't "some video game valhalla", I disagree. Smash is a rather prestigious series that has had influence on the sales and content of the series they end up putting into the game. If it wasn't for Smash then Fire Emblem would still be largely unknown in the west. And if you aren't owned by Nintendo then you have to be a very high profile character to be a guest in Smash. None of the guest characters are small-timers, we're talking about huge mascots whose likenesses are worth quite a lot, who have had countless media and merchandise appearances. I do think of it as an honor to be recognized in Smash, and I honestly don't believe that any of Ubisoft's characters deserve it.

It's not pedantry though, it's going by basic definition. Evil is something profoundly immoral or malicious. To say that using less-than-wholesome business practices makes a company evil is a gross exaggeration. What they did was scummy, yes. No one will deny that. But it was also within their legal right to do so. They didn't break any laws by preventing a class action lawsuit, as it isn't their fault the plaintiffs didn't read the fine print. So even by your definition of "flying in the face of the law," it's not evil...since it was completely legal. Even then, unlawful doesn't necessarily mean evil.

I'm just saying, it's not like Smash gets a pass or anything. It's not nearly as prestigious as some claim, especially when dealing with third parties, or even Game Freak/TPCI. If it were some truly prestigious thing, Pikachu, Sonic, and Pac-Man would have more varied colors instead of Smash being forced to keep them varying shades of yellow/blue for copyright reasons. Final Fantasy and Street Fighter would have more than two songs instead of their current offerings due to copyright costs. The world doesn't stop for Smash, and that's because Smash solely exists because Nintendo likes money. They're a business, and so too are businesses like Capcom and Ubisoft and Konami. They don't care about "deservingness," they care about what will bring in money.

It's for that reason why "deservingness" is one of those things that I just don't think applies to Smash.

 

[Arcadenik]

Smash is THE video game Valhalla IMO. It just is. Even characters who would have been expected to show up in PlayStation All-Stars Battle Royale showed up in Super Smash Bros. instead.

 

[PsychoJosh]

It's not pedantry though, it's going by basic definition. Evil is something profoundly immoral or malicious. To say that using less-than-wholesome business practices makes a company evil is a gross exaggeration. What they did was scummy, yes. No one will deny that. But it was also within their legal right to do so. They didn't break any laws by preventing a class action lawsuit, as it isn't their fault the plaintiffs didn't read the fine print. So even by your definition of "flying in the face of the law," it's not evil...since it was completely legal. Even then, unlawful doesn't necessarily mean evil.

I'm just saying, it's not like Smash gets a pass or anything. It's not nearly as prestigious as some claim, especially when dealing with third parties, or even Game Freak/TPCI. If it were some truly prestigious thing, Pikachu, Sonic, and Pac-Man would have more varied colors instead of Smash being forced to keep them varying shades of yellow/blue for copyright reasons. Final Fantasy and Street Fighter would have more than two songs instead of their current offerings due to copyright costs. The world doesn't stop for Smash, and that's because Smash solely exists because Nintendo likes money. They're a business, and so too are businesses like Capcom and Ubisoft and Konami. They don't care about "deservingness," they care about what will bring in money.

It's for that reason why "deservingness" is one of those things that I just don't think applies to Smash.

Well, you know, again, I wholly disagree. I think companies like this can truly be evil, as one Ross Scott outlines in this part of a youtube video he made. But I digress on that part.

Not having a few songs or colors doesn't make the game any less prestigious. I completely fail to follow your train of logic with that argument. The only reason the DLC characters don't have more music tracks is because they are DLC characters. It's not that Nintendo wasn't able to do it, it was just unncessary overkill for what they wanted to do with them. I'm willing to bet that, if Smash Switch is an updated port of 4, then it will include all these characters, and add more remixed and original tracks to their stages as well. It's easier to justify doing something like that when it isn't part of a downloadable add-on.

I think Nintendo, or at least Sakurai, does care about "deservingness" to an extent. It's particularly why he added characters like Ryu and Cloud despite them not being part of the Smash ballot. The Street Fighter fanbase is largely dismissive of Smash, so adding Ryu in was more of a personal preference than a cynical attempt to grab money from SF fans. While they do ultimately act in the interest of money (of course, they're businesses), the difference is how much care they put in. Nintendo makes Smash as a celebration of iconic games, not just a cynical cash grab. Ubisoft is the opposite.

 

[Schnee117]

Evil is an extremely gross exaggeration when it comes to Ubisoft and especially EA (they're not the worst company in America people, get a ****ing grip). But I suppose that's down to your own points of view.

Also Smash is prestigious but it's not the Holy Grail people like to think it is.
We've had characters added in for extremely shallow reasons like padding the roster out (Melee clones), promotion or because someone "practically begged" for a character.

 

[Megadoomer]

As far as third party newcomers go, I already mentioned Rayman a few pages back, so there's him.

I feel like Shovel Knight would be cool to see. Not sure if he's too new (though Bayonetta making it into Smash seems to cut down on that being as big of a factor when it comes to third parties), but there's definitely a lot of material to work with for him, and there seems to be a lot of mutual support between Nintendo and Yacht Club Games (between the amiibo, Shovel Knight expansions launching early on Nintendo consoles, and Shovel Knight being a consistent fixture for being featured on the eShop).

As far as a second Namco-Bandai character goes, I'd like to see Heihachi Mishima or Agumon; Heihachi for the unique nature of a villain being the face of a third party series (on top of having a noteworthy design and his abilities being a contrast to Ryu's), and Agumon so we can officially have Pokemon vs. Digimon.

If Snake comes back, it would be great if they could get Bomberman as well, though if I had to pick one, it would be Snake.

Part of me wants to see Doomguy, given that (much like Ryu and Cloud) he's arguably the face of an entire genre (or at least the most noteworthy one that Nintendo could actually use, given that Master Chief's obviously a Microsoft character and Call of Duty doesn't have any immediately recognizable protagonists), but between first person shooters not being big in Japan, Bethesda/Id Software only putting games on Nintendo consoles recently, and the fact that Doom is so heavy on the gore, it will never happen.

Ryu Hayabusa seems like a definite possibility, given that Koei Tecmo has been trusted with spin-offs for two major Nintendo franchises (Zelda and Fire Emblem), and Ninja Gaiden has a long history with Nintendo consoles.

I really want to see Travis Touchdown. Suda51 still wants to see Travis in Smash, and with No More Heroes 3 coming to the Switch, maybe it could happen? Sure, the No More Heroes series is certainly heavy on mature content, but a lot of it shouldn't be an issue in Smash (cursing doesn't matter because they barely talk; blood in the NMH games only really comes into play during finishing moves and cutscenes, so that seems easy enough to work around), and I thought the same about Bayonetta (would have loved to see her in Smash, but the mature themes and relative obscurity of the series made me think it was a pipe dream), and that worked out.

 

[Schnee117]

Call of Duty doesn't have any immediately recognizable protagonists.

I wouldn't say that's entirely true given that the most common character in the series is Captain Price (it'd either be him or Soap) but then again he hasn't been in the series since Modern Warfare 3.
The bigger issue is that a CoD character would just be extremely generic unless you used the Exo Suit stuff that people hate.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

As far as third party newcomers go, I already mentioned Rayman a few pages back, so there's him.

I feel like Shovel Knight would be cool to see. Not sure if he's too new (though Bayonetta making it into Smash seems to cut down on that being as big of a factor when it comes to third parties), but there's definitely a lot of material to work with for him, and there seems to be a lot of mutual support between Nintendo and Yacht Club Games (between the amiibo, Shovel Knight expansions launching early on Nintendo consoles, and Shovel Knight being a consistent fixture for being featured on the eShop).

As far as a second Namco-Bandai character goes, I'd like to see Heihachi Mishima or Agumon; Heihachi for the unique nature of a villain being the face of a third party series (on top of having a noteworthy design and his abilities being a contrast to Ryu's), and Agumon so we can officially have Pokemon vs. Digimon.

If Snake comes back, it would be great if they could get Bomberman as well, though if I had to pick one, it would be Snake.

Part of me wants to see Doomguy, given that (much like Ryu and Cloud) he's arguably the face of an entire genre (or at least the most noteworthy one that Nintendo could actually use, given that Master Chief's obviously a Microsoft character and Call of Duty doesn't have any immediately recognizable protagonists), but between first person shooters not being big in Japan, Bethesda/Id Software only putting games on Nintendo consoles recently, and the fact that Doom is so heavy on the gore, it will never happen.

Ryu Hayabusa seems like a definite possibility, given that Koei Tecmo has been trusted with spin-offs for two major Nintendo franchises (Zelda and Fire Emblem), and Ninja Gaiden has a long history with Nintendo consoles.

I really want to see Travis Touchdown. Suda51 still wants to see Travis in Smash, and with No More Heroes 3 coming to the Switch, maybe it could happen? Sure, the No More Heroes series is certainly heavy on mature content, but a lot of it shouldn't be an issue in Smash (cursing doesn't matter because they barely talk; blood in the NMH games only really comes into play during finishing moves and cutscenes, so that seems easy enough to work around), and I thought the same about Bayonetta (would have loved to see her in Smash, but the mature themes and relative obscurity of the series made me think it was a pipe dream), and that worked out.

What about Simon Belmont from Castlevania?

Rest all are interesting in their own right, respectively.

Also, I'd say Lloyd Irving and Cress should be among the Bandai-Namco contenders as well. Same with Nightmare. Five notable choices overall, even if two are from the same series.

 

[Double0Groove]

And who exactly would those highly requested characters be?

I'm thinking Bomberman, and uh... Snake?

Or K. Rool, Inklings, Isacc, Takamaru. Bringing Snake back would be awesome, but seeing as how Kojima is no longer with Konami, I can't see it happening. Not unless Kojima still wants him in the game.

You missed the bolded part then.

It also doesn't matter if it wasn't the same. It's still a shoddy business practice. If Capcom's antics didn't stop Sakurai, neither would Ubi's.

What?

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Smash is THE video game Valhalla IMO.

And this is what ruins Smash speculation.

Guys I get it. Smash gets you remembered.

But stop acting like its the end goal all true video game icons strive for.

It's ridiculous.

 

[Opossum]

Or K. Rool, Inklings, Isacc, Takamaru. Bringing Snake back would be awesome, but seeing as how Kojima is no longer with Konami, I can't see it happening. Not unless Kojima still wants him in the game.


What?

That wasn't referring to you, haha. He misunderstood your post so I bolded the relevant part. It wasn't directed to you.

 

[Godzillathewonderdog]

All your requests for iconic 3rd party characters will be for nothing once we get Geno.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

All your requests for iconic 3rd party characters will be for nothing once we get Geno.

I mean we already got Bayo so...



Fun factor is key.

 

[FunAtParties]

I mean we already got Bayo so...



Fun factor is key.

I guess if your definition of fun is bdsm...