Where do you draw the line for third party support?

[Tetrin]

I know I make a lot of threads, sorry, but a lot of things come to mind.

Pretty sure this would be better off in this board than general discussion, since it's supporting and whatnot, but anyway, where do you draw the line for third party support? Which series would you deem too obscure to be included? And by support, I don't necessarily mean you actively plead for their inclusion, but rather, if they got in, you'd think they deserve it.

I think a fair assessment of worth is first seeing if they originate from a video game or not. Then, iconic-ness, fanservice, and moveset potential are equally important as determining factors. For third parties, however, I'd say that iconic-ness should be graded much stricter than it is for first parties, and additionally, connection to Nintendo as a little subcategory.

________________ <---- Cutoff mark

For me:

Spoiler

Banjo
Crash
Shantae
Bomberman
Neku
2B
Leon Kennedy
Dante
Professor Layton
Gordon Freeman (would be an unexpected and awesome addition ngl)
_______________________________________________

Phoenix Wright (barely any moveset potential imo)
Amy Rose (there are way more iconic Sonic reps out there)
Quote (series is too obscure)
Beat from Jet Set Radio (sorry that one guy who shoehorns him in on every single one of his posts)
Madeline (iconic, but very little moveset potential, and there are better indie options)
Hat Kid (not iconic enough, sorry)
Anyone from Danganropa (Master Chief would fit in better)

 

[Deleted member]

As for where I draw the line...
NO WHERE. ALL 3rd party is welcome, I'd welcome Blinx from Microsoft into open arms, I welcome Indie, I don't have a line!

 

[Flaxr XIII]

Microsoft isn't third party. They're a separate first party. That's where I draw the line.

 

[Kirbeh]

I draw the line at non-game characters I guess. It's hard to say whether I would or wouldn't be okay with a character when I don't know how they might be worked in. Every character in the OP for example, I would be fine with so long as they were made well.

Using a franchise like Danganropa for example; I have no interest in the series or desire to see it in Smash, but if someone got in and was made in such a way that I found interesting then my previous neutral disinterest wouldn't matter. Getting into Smash might be the thing to make me give it a proper look. Rather, a case of getting something you didn't know you wanted or liking something more than you expected.

I've liked every character in Smash so far. That includes characters I was unfamiliar with (every character besides the Pokemon when I first played Melee), choices I'd never have expected , and characters who the idea of, I at first wasn't very fond of/thought wouldn't interest me much.

I suppose if you were to just start naming any and all characters from every video game you could think, I'd give a hard no to a lot of them but I don't see it ever coming to a point where say we get a random unimportant NPC that hands out a minor quest or something like that.

You'd have to dig pretty deep for me to "draw the line." So long as they're actually from a game, have some level of importance in their game/series and aren't from shovelware or other games of poor quality then I think most remaining choices are fine. And that still leaves a LOT to choose from either way.

 

[Idon]

Non-game characters.
I'll bear even the most stupid of 3rd parties, but a non-game character would just add way too many stupid possibilities and it's not what I'm looking for in a crossover like this. At that point, it'd just be worse Mugen.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I don't. Because there is no such thing as a line.

The line is the company's willingness to provide the content. Whether it's from stuff like Dragon Ball(where the companies are 3rd party but not game-related), or a first party competitor like Microsoft. It makes no real difference. A character is a character. Their origins don't actually matter. Of course, the issue with many non-game characters is they're severely hard to license(too many parts of the IP is owned by many different companies), so they're very unfeasible. And that's not including voice acting, which often requires things like unions.

I'll gladly take Goku. Or Master Chief. Or Kratos. Etc. They're all iconic characters and have their own merits for being in Smash. No way I'm expecting any non-game 3rd parties, of course. Though I'd love a Captain N costume for the Mii Gunner(it helps he's Nintendo owned).

 

[Tetrin]

I don't. Because there is no such thing as a line.

The line is the company's willingness to provide the content. Whether it's from stuff like Dragon Ball(where the companies are 3rd party but not game-related), or a first party competitor like Microsoft. It makes no real difference. A character is a character. Their origins don't actually matter. Of course, the issue with many non-game characters is they're severely hard to license(too many parts of the IP is owned by many different companies), so they're very unfeasible. And that's not including voice acting, which often requires things like unions.

I'll gladly take Goku. Or Master Chief. Or Kratos. Etc. They're all iconic characters and have their own merits for being in Smash. No way I'm expecting any non-game 3rd parties, of course. Though I'd love a Captain N costume for the Mii Gunner(it helps he's Nintendo owned).

But in that case, would you believe that Smash should eventually cap the number of third parties? If so, what number?

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

But in that case, would you believe that Smash should eventually cap the number of third parties? If so, what number?

I'd say 10% of the full roster(not sure if the Echo count should factor in, though) max.

 

[Tetrin]

I'd say 10% of the full roster(not sure if the Echo count should factor in, though) max.

For the Ultimate roster (including Joker and Piranha Plant), all third party characters combined comprise 18.3% of the roster, echoes included.

For echoes not included, it's 15.5%.

This is a clear violation of the 10% rule, so would you say there should be more first party additions or fewer third party?

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

For the Ultimate roster (including Joker and Piranha Plant), all third party characters combined comprise 18.3% of the roster, echoes included.

For echoes not included, it's 15.5%.

This is a clear violation of the 10% rule, so would you say there should be more first party additions or fewer third party?

I'd say more 1st party. But I didn't really look at the current percentage. I mean, I'd like some more 3rd party for DLC too.

But I do feel like the roster could have more 1st party as base.

That said, 10% is just an ideal number. As shown above, I'm not hyper picky. I mean, I once made a majorly huge roster that was basically a super crossover of various systems. So I don't feel the whole "3rd party takes too much slots" thing as an issue. As long as they're either iconic or a fan favorite, I'm good(and I'm aware the character I want the most doesn't fit either category. But I am kind of more interested in the Quest series being revived first before it gets any Smash content, so eh).

 

[Saetanigera]

Generic Protagonists aka FE of a different series. Chrono and Ryu (Breath of Fire) get a pass / is the cutoff here
Gritty characters, though it seems odd Lara Croft sneaks into this list for me. Kerrigan is my cutoff here.
Generic Avatar: I'm looking at you Steve. The Miis already cross the line, but they're here.
Ugly characters: Steve again.

I'm all for small outlandish characters that aren't western icons: Saber, RWBY, Shantae, KOSMOS, and Lloyd. You could argue how deserving they are, but not really their play-ability or style.

 

[Ramen Tengoku]

I fine with most third party characters (Heck, I'm one of the few people who is actually campaigning for Steve), but if they don't bring either a unique playstyle, and/or notable gaming history with them, and are only in to fill quotas, then no deal...

 

[KirbyWorshipper2465]

Licensed characters. As much as I would like to see the likes of Batman, Kenshiro and the TMNT mix it up with gaming legends and hidden gems, they are a hassle to get in, licensing-wise (especially any character played by Tom Cruise, who doesn't even allow his likeness in games in the first place).

As for specific series, I mostly only draw it if the third-party in question doesn't have anyone worth using beyond the main character (e.g. Adventure Island, Bonk's Adventure). Otherwise, it's fair game, as long as the most noteworthy characters from a series are in.

 

[NintenEdgyMan]

I guess they just need a reason to be there. They need to either be iconic, highly wanted, or deserve it in some way.

 

[GoodGrief741]

If a third party isn’t iconic, even a little bit, they’re under the line.
If a gaming franchise really isn’t important and doesn’t justify its inclusion, it’s under the line.
If the character is not from videogames, it’s under the line.

 

[HYRULESHERO42]

My line was one rep per third party (did we really need Richter and Ken as echoes?)(the answer is no, no we didn’t)

The only additional 3rd party characters I’d want would be Banjo, Earthworm Jim, and Bomberman. But it looks like this DLC pack is all 3rd party....

My line was passed ages ago it seems. I’d much rather have weird, obscure, crazy 1st party fighters over any popular and relevant 3rd party fighter.

 

[fogbadge]

in a squiggle keeping in the ones i like and giving the rest the boot

 

[Luigifan18]

in a squiggle keeping in the ones i like and giving the rest the boot

At least you're honest.

 

[FunAtParties]

I drew it a long time ago

 

[TyrantLizardKing]

The only rule I have is the character MUST have a connection to Nintendo somehow. It's why I'm anti-Master Chief, he's 100% a rival character as he represents Xbox which has been a direct competitor with Nintendo for over a decade and a half.

If Chief ever were to get in I would not be upset, but this is where I draw my line for now.

 

[Deleted member]

The line has been broken ever since we got Cloud. I'm sure any 3rd party we get will look sick because there is a general agreement that the characters chosen are fairly legendary and have a reason to be there. Restrictions are unnecessary when they haven't even messed up, yet.

 

[Deleted member]

As for where I draw the line...
NO WHERE. ALL 3rd party is welcome, I'd welcome Blinx from Microsoft into open arms, I welcome Indie, I don't have a line!

Yeah, I've been thinking and after I saw RealPokeFan11 's signature and there was a Tetris block, I lost it, and thinking over it, I decided my line will be crossed if the third party is an item. got to at least be alive. so I'm drawing my line.






A person who throws and uses Tetris blocks for weapons (Good, not faithful, but it's a living thing)
Johnny Test in 4:18 minutes of Johnny Test Season 1 Episode 1 (Johnny to the Center of the Earth) (A living thing)
(Insert any 3rd party that's alive) (Ok, they are a living thing)
____________________________________________________________
A Tetris Block (Not a living thing)
Johnny Test's Bottom Right Pocket (Not a living thing)
(Insert any 3rd party object that's not alive) (Not a living thing)

 

[Aeon_Shadow]

The only line I draw is non-video game originated characters. I don't care if a third party character only has a minor cult following: If they're unique enough but more importantly were created and conceptualized for the purpose of putting them in a video game, then they're eligible for Smash.

Adding non-game characters will just open a whole new can of worms. Because if people campaigning for practically every video game icon/character is bad enough, campaigning for every fictional character out there ever will be much, much, MUCH worse.

 

[SoaPuffball]

Using your system:

Spoiler: Puff’s Third Party Line

Banjo
Crash
Shantae
Bomberman
Neku
2B
Leon Kennedy
Dante
Professor Layton
Phoenix Wright
Amy Rose
Quote
Beat from Jet Set Radio
Madeline (wishful thinking...)
Hat Kid
————————————————————
Makoto Naegi or Monokuma (Has never even been in a Nintendo console before)
Gordon Freeman (why)

All I really care about is that characters have to be in a Nintendo console really.

 

[Starlight Liger]

Personally, I draw the line if the fighter that's added doesn't promote the franchise they are from to its full capabilities. For instance, the Zelda representation is abysmal in Smash Bros, we have two variants of Zelda and three variants of Link, granted, Toon Link is a different character from regular Link but this sort of duplication of characters isn't very complimentary to The Legend of Zelda representation. The worst offender for this is Fire Emblem, we have three Awakening characters, two characters visually inspired by Marth (Chrom and Lucina) and three avatar characters (Robin, Corrin and Byleth). Say what you will about Roy and Ike, at least they were characters with a defined personality that represented the diversity of Fire Emblem with their respective games of origin.

 

[SharkLord]

Any non-video game character without a sizable loophole, like Geralt via Wild Hunt or James Bond via Goldeneye. Not that everyone is necessarily likely, per say, but I have incredibly low standards and a "never say never" mindset.

That, and I mostly just want to see every cool concept possible, and if we subscribed to likelihood that limits the candidates available.

 

[Janx_uwu]

Honestly the only places I draw the line are:
1. Are they from a video game?
2. Are they the main character of their series? If not, is the main character of their series already in Smash?
That's it. Other than that I'll welcome anyone with open arms. Moveset potential is a really dumb reason to exclude characters.
Also, I'd be okay with Goku or other 4th parties that have very deep roots in gaming culture, as long as Sakurai promises to not get too excessive.

 

[Perkilator]

Non-Game characters Assist Trophies being promoted as DLC in the same game is another story

 

[pupNapoleon]

Ultimately, I want a character that
1- I connect with based on personal history (including Crash Bandicoot, Rayman, Bomberman).
*2- The more important one, I want franchises that have either a huge history of impacting gaming, or that have made some extreme money as a series (Such as Tomb Raider, Resident Evil, Angry Birds, Doom)
3- New companies are fun, let's all come together to game. (for instance- Bethesda, Activision, Ubisoft, Sony)
4- Fighting game characters, since we have so few. (Ideally Mortal Kombat and Tekken...or at least Soul Calibur).
5- Unique, visually. I gravitate much more towards non-humans, since I grew up in the 90s/00s. (examples are Frogger, Spyro, Yokai-Watch).
6- Characters that will sell well. I want more fighters passes, damnit, and I'd sacrifice a slot in one pass to get another pass.

The more of these boxes are checked off, the closer I am to immediate acceptance.

I would have drawn the line for Bayonetta and Joker. I don't particularly like playing as either, but theyre here, and new companies, so that is exciting.

 

[fogbadge]

I would have drawn the line for Bayonetta and Joker. I don't particularly like playing as either, but theyre here, and new companies, so that is exciting.

well they are both part of sega

 

[pupNapoleon]

well they are both part of sega

Yeah, as a corporation- but Platinum and Atlus are separate divisions and brands for a reason.

 

[fogbadge]

Yeah, as a corporation- but Platinum and Atlus are separate divisions and brands for a reason.

atlus in its current form was created by sega. platinum is completely separate but atlus is not

 

[pupNapoleon]

atlus in its current form was created by sega. platinum is completely separate but atlus is not

That doesn't mean it is the same brand.
Fox created FX and FXX- but that doesn't mean they are marketed the same way. Companies create these different brands because they want to keep their marketing intact, as well as brand integrity.

 

[fogbadge]

That doesn't mean it is the same brand.
Fox created FX and FXX- but that doesn't mean they are marketed the same way. Companies create these different brands because they want to keep their marketing intact, as well as brand integrity.

the company wasnt even called atlus at first they changed their name when they started bringing back the previous atlus' IPs. that doesnt apply here

 

[Starlight Liger]

Yeah, as a corporation- but Platinum and Atlus are separate divisions and brands for a reason.

But they're both Sega owned characters. Granted, Bayonetta has shared custody with Nintendo with Bayonetta 2 and Bayonetta 3. Even if the subsidiary branding is different, the parent brand is what ultimately matters.

Monolith Soft is a seperate subsidiary for Nintendo, but despite that, Shulk is classified as a Nintendo character.

 

[pupNapoleon]

the company wasnt even called atlus at first they changed their name when they started bringing back the previous atlus' IPs. that doesnt apply here

But they're both Sega owned characters. Granted, Bayonetta has shared custody with Nintendo with Bayonetta 2 and Bayonetta 3. Even if the subsidiary branding is different, the parent brand is what ultimately matters.

Monolith Soft is a seperate subsidiary for Nintendo, but despite that, Shulk is classified as a Nintendo character.

You guys can consider it however you'd like (and honestly, fogbadge's post makes a statement that he then completely negates with the second half of his sentence), but brand management is a huge part of my job, so you really are not going to convince me. We can move on.

 

[Nazyrus]

The only line is videogame characters, everything else is fan rule and sakurai keeps btfo-ing those that make them and keep moving goalposts. It's a waste of time. Smash at this point (and for a while already) celebrates gaming beyond nintendo's IPs, and we will continue to get a mix of first and third parties simply as long as they want to and as long as they have characters that interest them to include.

 

[Starlight Liger]

You guys can consider it however you'd like (and honestly, fogbadge's post makes a statement that he then completely negates with the second half of his sentence), but brand management is a huge part of my job, so you really are not going to convince me. We can move on.

Okay, so as a brand manager, let's break Joker and Bayonetta down.

Joker is from Persona, a Megami Tensei series owned by Atlus. Atlus develops and publishes Persona. Bayonetta, a series developed by PlatinumGames with the first entry published by Sega and the second and third entry published by Nintendo. Sega and Nintendo publish Bayonetta.

If we ignore the legal technicality of modern Atlus being the company that was founded as Sega Dream Corporation, then yes, Atlus can be seen as seperate representation because Persona is published through the Atlus label and not the Sega label, however, the same cannot be said for Bayonetta. PlatinumGames has never published Bayonetta, therefore, she can be classified as a Sega representative.

 

[fogbadge]

You guys can consider it however you'd like (and honestly, fogbadge's post makes a statement that he then completely negates with the second half of his sentence), but brand management is a huge part of my job, so you really are not going to convince me. We can move on.

no it doesnt. atlus is not a separate company, the atlus that was is gone. the one that exists now is as much branch of sega as the main studio

 

[pupNapoleon]

Okay, so as a brand manager, let's break Joker and Bayonetta down.

Joker is from Persona, a Megami Tensei series owned by Atlus. Atlus develops and publishes Persona. Bayonetta, a series developed by PlatinumGames with the first entry published by Sega and the second and third entry published by Nintendo. Sega and Nintendo publish Bayonetta.

If we ignore the legal technicality of modern Atlus being the company that was founded as Sega Dream Corporation, then yes, Atlus can be seen as seperate representation because Persona is published through the Atlus label and not the Sega label, however, the same cannot be said for Bayonetta. PlatinumGames has never published Bayonetta, therefore, she can be classified as a Sega representative.

Counterpoint- if Bayonetta were owned by 'Sega' or 'Nintendo,' and not under the heading of 'Platinum,' then I don't think we would have gotten a playboy photo shoot. The branding division is the only reason that was possible.

The only line is videogame characters, everything else is fan rule and sakurai keeps btfo-ing those that make them and keep moving goalposts. It's a waste of time. Smash at this point (and for a while already) celebrates gaming beyond nintendo's IPs, and we will continue to get a mix of first and third parties simply as long as they want to and as long as they have characters that interest them to include.

The thread isn't asking how Nintendo draws the line, it is asking where your personal thoughts draw the line. It sounds like a sociological study, not a binary example of a quotable fact.