Official Smash Ultimate Discussion

[Bradli Wartooth]

Wasn't she in Hyrule Warriors if that counts?

I honestly don't think dated Zelda reps like Tetra, Vaati, Skull Kid and Midna are ever getting in. They served their purpose for the games they were in, but don't represent the Zelda series going forward. We will always have a Link, a Zelda, and some incarnate of Ganon as they represent the triforce trio. They are mainstays for Smash and the Zelda series alike. Then we have occasionally reoccurring characters like Tingle and Impa. They could either be added or not and it wouldn't make much of a difference as they are just supporting characters.

Tetra is my top pick for a new Zelda character (although I'm not expecting any). Her pirate-based moveset would be so much fun.


You're right, but I think the remake is pretty important to note so disregarding it kinda cuts out one of the biggest things she has going for her. She appeared in Hyrule Warriors too, that's worth mentioning. I do agree her best chance would have been Smash 4 but who knows, I don't expect her but I'd love her to be there. I think Hyrule Warriors is something that Sakurai could be looking toward for some potential new blood, actually. Zelda's a big series with a lot of cool characters, they could certainly handle a new one.

Also worth mentioning is "Toon Shiek" in Brawl's files which we pretty much have every reason to believe would have been Tetra. So if Sakurai revisits old character ideas maybe Tetra stands a chance too.

I wasn't counting HW because EVERY old Zelda character made an appearance in that game.

 

[God Robert's Cousin]

I wasn't counting HW because EVERY old Zelda character made an appearance in that game.

But none of the ones that matter.

 

[Lyndis_]

Tetra or Ganon would be amazing additions to me.

If Ganondorf gets a revamp to actually use his sword and magic, then I'd rather have Tetra.

If Ganondorf is the same as he's always been I'll be really disappointed if we don't have Ganon to make up for it in some form.

So I'm expecting disappointment since I'm sure that's exactly what will happen.

 

[Bradli Wartooth]

But none of the ones that matter.

Oh my my my, we are all forgetting our true champion...

 

[Jubileus57]

First, no one knows how licensing works. Most people believe Sakurai can wave a magic wand and all the characters will be there.

That's my feeling as well. I suspect the 3rd party owners would want some royalties, and probably rather important ones. And that would be even worse with anime characters. If Nintendo were to take too much 3rd parties, they would end up having to dilapidate a sizable chunk of the Smash gains to others.

Not no mention how strenuous the negociations would be.

Again, I'm certainly no expert in that field.

 

[KingBroly]

I think it was a mistake for Nintendo to have more than 1 third party character per company (Ryu and Bayonetta). It only serves to bog things down even more as time goes on. It means fans will want more from those companies like Sora (who's owned by Disney, but the concepts are owned by Square; licensing nightmare). If you limit it to 1 character per company, you ensure that you get THE BEST and not Sloppy Seconds.

 

[Superyoshiom]

I think it was a mistake for Nintendo to have more than 1 third party character per company (Ryu and Bayonetta). It only serves to bog things down even more as time goes on. It means fans will want more from those companies like Sora (who's owned by Disney, but the concepts are owned by Square; licensing nightmare). If you limit it to 1 character per company, you ensure that you get THE BEST and not Sloppy Seconds.

I agree that it shouldn't have been done either. Limiting it to only one, like you said, gets the cream of the crop:

Sega: Sonic
Capcom: Mega Man
Namco: Pac Man

And then if we really need another third party, maybe Rayman, but I don't see western third parties getting represented.

 

[Gestahl]

How about Agahnim as bad guys newcomer?

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I think it was a mistake for Nintendo to have more than 1 third party character per company (Ryu and Bayonetta). It only serves to bog things down even more as time goes on. It means fans will want more from those companies like Sora (who's owned by Disney, but the concepts are owned by Square; licensing nightmare). If you limit it to 1 character per company, you ensure that you get THE BEST and not Sloppy Seconds.

MegaMan and Ryu are actually owned by different companies, though they're subsets. Capcom Co.(their Japanese branch) and Capcom USA. This is why they aren't good examples of the "two characters per same company", since it's not really the case. Only Sega does this, and they've been very friendly with Nintendo as is, hence despite Bayonetta being DLC, she has quite a few songs and actually good costumes(only Sonic has mediocre costumes).

 

[KingBroly]

MegaMan and Ryu are actually owned by different companies, though they're subsets. Capcom Co.(their Japanese branch) and Capcom USA. This is why they aren't good examples of the "two characters per same company", since it's not really the case. Only Sega does this, and they've been very friendly with Nintendo as is, hence despite Bayonetta being DLC, she has quite a few songs and actually good costumes(only Sonic has mediocre costumes).

You can talk Capcom JP and Capcom USA all you want, but everyone knows Capcom JP calls the shots and makes the games. Hence why Capcom USA got in massive trouble for throwing out a Season 1 DLC Road Map for SFV. Capcom is Capcom. NOA is Nintendo, and so is NOE. That's how people see it, and the perception is all that matters. That's why I mentioned Sora. I doubt 10% of Kingdom Hearts fans know how big a licensing nightmare that character is, because people will keep bugging Square Enix about putting Sora into Smash Bros.

 

[Godzillathewonderdog]

I think it was a mistake for Nintendo to have more than 1 third party character per company (Ryu and Bayonetta). It only serves to bog things down even more as time goes on. It means fans will want more from those companies like Sora (who's owned by Disney, but the concepts are owned by Square; licensing nightmare). If you limit it to 1 character per company, you ensure that you get THE BEST and not Sloppy Seconds.

So they shouldn't add multiple characters from the same company, because then fans will want more characters from the same company?

...What?

This is such a nonissue.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

You can talk Capcom JP and Capcom USA all you want, but everyone knows Capcom JP calls the shots and makes the games. Hence why Capcom USA got in massive trouble for throwing out a Season 1 DLC Road Map for SFV. Capcom is Capcom. NOA is Nintendo, and so is NOE. That's how people see it, and the perception is all that matters. That's why I mentioned Sora. I doubt 10% of Kingdom Hearts fans know how big a licensing nightmare that character is, because people will keep bugging Square Enix about putting Sora into Smash Bros.

You don't get it. Capcom USA owns the Street Fighter. IP They could not get Ryu in without licensing him from Capcom USA. It's a different company when it comes to licensing in itself. That's what matters for Smash.

The one and only time the same actual company gave us two characters is Sega. Whether or not that'll change down the line is unknown.

Perception is ultimately irrelevant when it comes to licensing. What matters is which company owns which IP. And that's the most important thing for 3rd parties overall. Getting two characters from the same company itself is actually easier than getting 2 from related companies separately, since you only need to license from one. When you're licensing from two, there's a lot more to take into account, including different preferences to the content. There's a reason why the SF song selection is lacking. Yet Bayonetta's isn't. Hers was easier to get since they worked with Sega before for Sonic, which softens the amount of money absolutely needed. Then you have to deal with Capcom USA and you realize that they have their own ideas and designs.

"Calling the shots" is irrelevant to licensing, since Capcom Co. cannot license SF content as is. That's 100% Capcom USA and unless that changes at any point, is all that matters in the context of Smash characters and various content.

 

[Superyoshiom]

So they shouldn't add multiple characters from the same company, because then fans will want more characters from the same company?

...What?

This is such a nonissue.

He's just arguing that it's a bit excessive. When it comes to third parties I personally think they should have significant history and a long relationship with Nintendo, and I guess the one character thing would help it out. Some cases like Ryu make sense to have two characters for a company though.

 

[Johnknight1]

I think it was a mistake for Nintendo to have more than 1 third party character per company (Ryu and Bayonetta). It only serves to bog things down even more as time goes on. It means fans will want more from those companies like Sora (who's owned by Disney, but the concepts are owned by Square; licensing nightmare). If you limit it to 1 character per company, you ensure that you get THE BEST and not Sloppy Seconds.

So they shouldn't add multiple characters from the same company, because then fans will want more characters from the same company?

...What?

This is such a nonissue.

Welcome to Smash character speculation!

The place where everything is made up
And the points don't matter.

(I hope at least one of you gets this reference)

Edit: Also I can't believe people get mad over who owns what 3rd party character still all these years later into doing this speculation. Like... who cares?

Sakurai sure as hell doesn't, and most people are unaware of it.

Why? Because it is irrelevant information in almost every instance (except Konami, because they suck).

 

[Cosmic77]

A leak suggesting a heavy emphasis on third-party characters? This is a Smash game, not PlayStation All-Stars with a few guest Nintendo characters.

I'm sure third-parties will always be something Nintendo puts a lot of consideration into for each Smash game, but will it ever be their biggest priority? It shouldn't. Not only are Nintendo's own characters completely free to add, but they also serve as a good way to advertise their own games, particularly the more niche franchises. Focusing most of their attention into adding third-parties is going to be super expensive, extremely complicated, and benefit the other companies a lot more than Nintendo in the long run. So from the perspective of a business that probably wants to make a profit, Nintendo should stick mainly with what they own and make third-parties an afterthought.

Personally, I think it's more reasonable to assume we get all the third-parties we have right now plus a new one, or have a few third-parties get cut in favor of some new additions.

 

[True Blue Warrior]

Seeing as the short time period between Smash 4 and Smash Switch seems pretty comparable to the time between Smash 64 and Melee (~4 years for the former two vs. ~ 2 years for the latter), I decided to look at the newcomers for Melee and the game(s) (and in some cases, movies) that most influenced them in Melee (specifically in terms of presentation and/or reasoning for their inclusion) separating them into two groups - those that were always part of the initial plan, and the last minute clones. This is because the latter category of characters weren't something that was initially intended before Sakurai has finished with all the other characters (as Sakurai himself confirmed clones were considered after he felt the roster needed more characters). I'll explain later why I felt this distinction is important.

Spoiler: Long Explanation

- The one newcomer character who doesn't take the most influence from any specific games as much as he takes influence from how he's always portrayed in his home franchise.
- Takes the most inspiration from SMB2 which was released in Japan in 1992.

- Characters specifically chosen to represent the NES era and thus naturally takes inspiration from their one and only game (will they ever get a sequel?).
- Takes the most inspiration from Ocarina of Time which was released ~3 months before Smash 64 in Japan.
- Same as Zelda.
- Naturally takes the most inspiration from the second game he starred in, Mystery of the Emblem (which was released in 1994)
- Takes the most inspiration from the first Pokemon movie, which was released in 1998 in Japan.
- The other retro character, representing a hardware system that was successful in the 80's.

And then we have the clones, characters who weren't part of the the original project plan.
- Takes the most inspiration from his NES title rather than Dr. Mario 64 (which was released in 2001)
- Takes the most inspiration from Star Fox 64, which was released ~2 years before Smash 64
- Inclusion was possibly influenced by the short film Pikachu & Pichu which was included with the third Pokemon Movie, released in 2000
- Same as Zelda
-Used the SpaceWorld 2000 tech demo design

-Naturally was heavily influenced by his upcoming game, which was intended to be released before Melee. As his game went through big developments shifts (moving from 64 to the GBA) Sakurai saw him during the beta stages of his design. As Sakurai noted, his interpretation of Roy's personality was heavily different from how Roy ended up being in his game.


When looking at the Melee newcomers, one trend that can be seen is that the newcomer roster, for several reasons, comes across as more of a celebration of the 64 and pre-64 era of Nintendo, just like Smash 64. The only character that in anyway shape or form took cues or had their inclusion influenced by anything after 1999 was Ganondorf (but only his design), Roy and Probably Pichu. And as I explained with Roy, the only reason we got things influenced by something very recent in Melee was because of good timing and that Sakurai was willing to look for more additional bonus characters after the original project plan was complete.

Does this mean anything for Smash Switch? Maybe, maybe not. It could very well be possible that Pokemon X and Y being given the red carpet treatment in terms of having a slot saved is only because of just how big Pokemon is. If that is the case, then the only Switch debuts we could get are are last-minute clone additions with Smash Switch's newcomer roster being otherwise a celebration of pre-Switch era.

I'd disagree on that assessment of "feasible" 1st party characters. The three you mentioned would generate the most hype but a lack of hype never stopped anyone getting into Smash

(Almost an OC when you think about it)
(Litterally his debut)
(at least in comparison to western support [and hatred] for Krystal at the time)
(Oh, the abuse this one took...)
(nuff said)

Heck, with WFT, the hype was from how unexpected she was. (so, not exactly "nuff said" but it is now.)

I don't dispute that 3rd parties bring the hype but I think one big one will do the trick over several moderate ones: be it an indie, a former PS mascot or a current captive of Bill Gates.

Wolf is confirmed to be the highly demanded Star Fox character for Brawl, at least among a silent majority, similar to how Bayonetta scored high in the ballot despite not doing that well in the unofficial polls

 

[Senselessbreak]

So I stumbled upon something interesting in this video:

Spoiler

Last night some Activision reps were streaming Crash and they were asked about Crash in Smash Bros and they said they'd love to have him in the game.

 

[Guybrush20X6]

Wolf is confirmed to be the highly demanded Star Fox character for Brawl, at least among a silent majority, similar to how Bayonetta scored high in the ballot despite not doing that well in the unofficial polls

I know but point is he wasn't being shouted out about.

I wonder if there's such a thing as quiet hype.

 

[True Blue Warrior]

I think Smash Switch should be called Super Smash Crash. Anyone agree with me?

I know but point is he wasn't being shouted out about.

I see.

 

[Guybrush20X6]

I think Smash Switch should be called Super Smash Crash. Anyone agree with me?

Depends on what the Japanese name is.

I'm half sure it will end up being called Super Smash Cross (esp if it has more 3rd party focus) but there's already a Super Smash Bros X (Brawl) and in Japan "X" means "Cross".

I'm thinking if the Japanese name ends up being Cross, it'll carry over into the west and if it's something different then we'll get something like SSB Crash or SSB SSB for Nintendo Switch

 

[Vintage Creep]

So I stumbled upon something interesting in this video:

Spoiler

Last night some Activision reps were streaming Crash and they were asked about Crash in Smash Bros and they said they'd love to have him in the game.

Such clickbaity bull****.

 

[Jubileus57]

A leak suggesting a heavy emphasis on third-party characters? This is a Smash game, not PlayStation All-Stars with a few guest Nintendo characters.

I'm sure third-parties will always be something Nintendo puts a lot of consideration into for each Smash game, but will it ever be their biggest priority? It shouldn't. Not only are Nintendo's own characters completely free to add, but they also serve as a good way to advertise their own games, particularly the more niche franchises. Focusing most of their attention into adding third-parties is going to be super expensive, extremely complicated, and benefit the other companies a lot more than Nintendo in the long run. So from the perspective of a business that probably wants to make a profit, Nintendo should stick mainly with what they own and make third-parties an afterthought.

I definitely agree with that. They would have more to lose than to gain if they start adding 3rd parties too liberally, especially the ones with too little relevance to them. They do bring hype, but if they start going full throttle into 3rd parties they are gonna get vampirized by the other studios on the monetary side.I few 3rd parties are manageable. Too many would turn into an investment sinkhole.

On a personal side, I'd much rather have them including dormant franchises (Starfy, Advance Wars, etc) of their own à la Kid Icarus, that could maybe spark interest in lesser known francises into the fans. Maye it will resurrect them from the dead. I know it is a pipe dream, but still.

 

[Megadoomer]

So I stumbled upon something interesting in this video:

Spoiler

Last night some Activision reps were streaming Crash and they were asked about Crash in Smash Bros and they said they'd love to have him in the game.

Which video game company wouldn't want to have their character in Smash?

 

[Cosmic77]

Which video game company wouldn't want to have their character in Smash?

Apparently, Square Enix.

 

[Phaazoid]

First, no one knows how licensing works. Most people believe Sakurai can wave a magic wand and all the characters will be there.

While a agree with your general sentiment, I do want to dispute this small point - at this point smash is so big that to some companies, Sakurai requesting a character is sorta like waving a magic wand.

 

[Opelucid]

I really hope we get a Smash Direct in May it seems like E3 is so far away.

 

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

Which video game company wouldn't want to have their character in Smash?

My best guess would be any company that doesn't want its property on a Nintendo console.

 

[PsychoJosh]

A leak suggesting a heavy emphasis on third-party characters? This is a Smash game, not PlayStation All-Stars with a few guest Nintendo characters.

I'm sure third-parties will always be something Nintendo puts a lot of consideration into for each Smash game, but will it ever be their biggest priority? It shouldn't. Not only are Nintendo's own characters completely free to add, but they also serve as a good way to advertise their own games, particularly the more niche franchises. Focusing most of their attention into adding third-parties is going to be super expensive, extremely complicated, and benefit the other companies a lot more than Nintendo in the long run. So from the perspective of a business that probably wants to make a profit, Nintendo should stick mainly with what they own and make third-parties an afterthought.

Personally, I think it's more reasonable to assume we get all the third-parties we have right now plus a new one, or have a few third-parties get cut in favor of some new additions.

Firstly, even Nintendo's own properties aren't completely free. They do have to clear things with their own internal licensing and subsidiaries such as Game Freak, HAL and Shigesato Itoi.

Second, Nintendo is not able to carry the hype for future Smash games forever. Their own IPs are starting to look long in the tooth, and are gradually getting more and more obscure; too many obscure additions will make it appear as if they're running out of ideas. And sooner or later they're going to run out of IP to be represented in Smash that anybody apart from a few dedicated fans would get seriously excited for. With third parties, they could theoretically never run out of exciting new additions to the roster, so while I understand the idea of wanting to be a Nintendo purist, I firmly believe the future of Smash is in third party IP.

 

[Guybrush20X6]

I really hope we get a Smash Direct in May it seems like E3 is so far away.

74 days away according to the countdown.

I'm also hoping for a direct showcase as the have to have some more newcomers shown before the invitational.

You can't have a tournament with only 3 characters can you?

Remembers the Melee scene...

Ah.

 

[Cosmic77]

Firstly, even Nintendo's own properties aren't completely free. They do have to clear things with their own internal licensing and subsidiaries such as Game Freak, HAL and Shigesato Itoi.

Second, Nintendo is not able to carry the hype for future Smash games forever. Their own IPs are starting to look long in the tooth, and are gradually getting more and more obscure; too many obscure additions will make it appear as if they're running out of ideas. And sooner or later they're going to run out of IP to be represented in Smash that anybody apart from a few dedicated fans would get seriously excited for. With third parties, they could theoretically never run out of exciting new additions to the roster, so while I understand the idea of wanting to be a Nintendo purist, I firmly believe the future of Smash is in third party IP.

If the future of Smash is mainly just third-party, then Nintendo might as well start digging a grave for the series.

It's just not plausible for Nintendo to keep adding and adding third-parties, especially if certain third-party companies demand a portion of profit from each sale instead of a single payment for using their character. Even if Nintendo has to pay for some of their own characters (which I doubt is a huge issue since Nintendo itself owns the rights too), that only applies to a small number of characters who are incomparably cheaper than third-parties. Whatever people they do attract with third-parties may or may not be enough to compensate for what they had to give up for said characters.

While the idea may not appeal to all of us, I think Nintendo is better off using less iconic characters from their newer games instead of turning to other companies for help. Smash 4 did just fine on launch, and I doubt that's largely in part of Mega Man and Pac-Man's inclusion.

 

[Pakky]

Firstly, even Nintendo's own properties aren't completely free. They do have to clear things with their own internal licensing and subsidiaries such as Game Freak, HAL and Shigesato Itoi.

Second, Nintendo is not able to carry the hype for future Smash games forever. Their own IPs are starting to look long in the tooth, and are gradually getting more and more obscure; too many obscure additions will make it appear as if they're running out of ideas. And sooner or later they're going to run out of IP to be represented in Smash that anybody apart from a few dedicated fans would get seriously excited for. With third parties, they could theoretically never run out of exciting new additions to the roster, so while I understand the idea of wanting to be a Nintendo purist, I firmly believe the future of Smash is in third party IP.

Yeah and the well is still fit to bursting with iconic third party guys. Most villains and sidekicks are sometimes just as well recognized as the main characters.

Example Eggman and Tails

Chun Li and M. Bison

Then again too unlike how things have been in the Game cube and Wii era new IPs by the younger guys at Nintendo are starting to come out and make waves so there's always going to be new Nintendo guys to use in Smash. Some guys that have been in Smash but haven't had their own games in a while might even get new editions with new characters.

 

[BluePikmin11]

Firstly, even Nintendo's own properties aren't completely free. They do have to clear things with their own internal licensing and subsidiaries such as Game Freak, HAL and Shigesato Itoi.

Second, Nintendo is not able to carry the hype for future Smash games forever. Their own IPs are starting to look long in the tooth, and are gradually getting more and more obscure; too many obscure additions will make it appear as if they're running out of ideas. And sooner or later they're going to run out of IP to be represented in Smash that anybody apart from a few dedicated fans would get seriously excited for. With third parties, they could theoretically never run out of exciting new additions to the roster, so while I understand the idea of wanting to be a Nintendo purist, I firmly believe the future of Smash is in third party IP.

With the Switch being very successful, we will probably be getting some great new games from old IPs, some possible retro reboots, and new IPs like ARMs in the near future. Not to discredit the third-party idea, but I find a bit of a flaw in this argument.

 

[Luminario]

Firstly, even Nintendo's own properties aren't completely free. They do have to clear things with their own internal licensing and subsidiaries such as Game Freak, HAL and Shigesato Itoi.

Second, Nintendo is not able to carry the hype for future Smash games forever. Their own IPs are starting to look long in the tooth, and are gradually getting more and more obscure; too many obscure additions will make it appear as if they're running out of ideas. And sooner or later they're going to run out of IP to be represented in Smash that anybody apart from a few dedicated fans would get seriously excited for. With third parties, they could theoretically never run out of exciting new additions to the roster, so while I understand the idea of wanting to be a Nintendo purist, I firmly believe the future of Smash is in third party IP.

Why are you underestimating Smash Bros this much? It's Smash Bros, it's gonna sell like hot cakes. Unless they do something stupid like cut 70% of the roster for a "re-imagining of the series" it's gonna be fine.

 

[Pakky]

Ya'know what's weird though why do people think Springman and Ribbon Girl are the same character?

They have stretchy arms sure but Ribbion girl plays total different from Springman

They don't even have the same base equipment.

 

[Cosmic77]

Ya'know what's weird though why do people think Springman and Ribbon Girl are the same character?

They have stretchy arms sure but Ribbion girl plays total different from Springman

They don't even have the same base equipment.

Some people want Ribbon Girl in Smash, but they don't think her ability to jump multiple times is enough to warrant her being her own character.

Personally, I don't really care if Ribbon Girl is an alt or not. She's one of my mains in ARMS and I just want to see her in Smash. However, if they do go the separate character route, I hope they really emphasis her differences from Spring Man (Sparky Arms, more jumps, less damage output, possibly lighter, etc.)

 

[fogbadge]

with this smash installment due out not long before the 20th anniversary of the series, i wonder if theyll have some sort of celebration event for it

 

[dezeray112]

There was a problem fetching the tweet

New rumor circulating around. The dude claims in the replies that he'll go into more detail soon.

I do like guest characters but I think I'll be taking this rumor with a grain of salt for now.

 

[Ridel]

The emphasis on third party is so vague that it can literally mean anything.

 

[Guybrush20X6]

I hope Corrin wasn't the sole test for if 1st party newcomers would sell over 3rd parties... Of course the 6th FE character would sell worst than friggin' Cloud.

Companies do this crap where they base their future decisions on sale numbers of a flawed premise. That's why we never got Darkstalkers 4.

 

[PsychoJosh]

If the future of Smash is mainly just third-party, then Nintendo might as well start digging a grave for the series.

It's just not plausible for Nintendo to keep adding and adding third-parties, especially if certain third-party companies demand a portion of profit from each sale instead of a single payment for using their character.

I really don't think it's as implausible as you're making it out to be. Nintendo is certainly able to afford to pay royalties to these other companies and the dividends would naturally be huge because choosing the right ones means expanding their target audience. Large and ambitious crossovers have happened before that required multiple third parties to sign off on it (for example, Kingdom Hearts, Project X Zone and the Super Robot Wars series). Nintendo wouldn't seriously venture into something if they thought it was tantamount to financial suicide.