Official Next Smash - Speculation & Discussion Thread

[Gengar84]

i'm not really a fan of the Nintendo vs.... idea because it limits reps to only two companies. I prefer many companies coming together in Smash.

The idea is to make licensing negotiations easier because they only have to deal with one company. There are some merits to a Vs. approach that we don’t have with our current system. Namely that it gives us a chance to see several more minor franchises and characters from the other companies that we never would have seen with a general gaming all-stars theme. Still, I would prefer that we just kept adding to Ultimate but if they are indeed going to cut several characters, at least this is a new direction that will feel different enough to not just seem like a downgrade.

 

[dream1ng]

i'm not really a fan of the Nintendo vs.... idea because it limits reps to only two companies. I prefer many companies coming together in Smash.

Though the more companies you include, the fewer you'll get from each. It's a trade-off.

If you look at Smash, other than the "host" company, each one has... almost no representation, if you think about it. Like, were Smash equal between a few companies, you could forget about, what, like 80% of the first-party roster?

I mean, if there was a 50-character Nintendo vs. Capcom roster, including Sega wouldn't suddenly let you add 25 more characters.

It's cool to include a bunch of different companies. But there's also value in being able to include more than a handful of characters from each.

 

[toonito]

Though the more companies you include, the fewer you'll get from each. It's a trade-off.

If you look at Smash, other than the "host" company, each one has... almost no representation, if you think about it. Like, were Smash equal between a few companies, you could forget about, what, like 80% of the first-party roster?

I mean, if there was a 50-character Nintendo vs. Capcom roster, including Sega wouldn't suddenly let you add 25 more characters.

It's cool to include a bunch of different companies. But there's also value in being able to include more than a handful of characters from each.

I understand that but ultimately I'd rather have a few characters/stages/music from many companies than many characters/stages/music from two companies.

I'd probably still play such a game but IMO it would definitely be a step down due to the limited scope.

For me, Smash including various 3rd party companies is one of the best decisions they made. Limiting themselves to 1 other company, regardless of company would be a bit disappointing.

and I'm someone who has 4 capcom characters in my top 10 most wanted.

 

[Wonder Smash]

Though the more companies you include, the fewer you'll get from each. It's a trade-off.

If you look at Smash, other than the "host" company, each one has... almost no representation, if you think about it. Like, were Smash equal between a few companies, you could forget about, what, like 80% of the first-party roster?

I mean, if there was a 50-character Nintendo vs. Capcom roster, including Sega wouldn't suddenly let you add 25 more characters.

It's cool to include a bunch of different companies. But there's also value in being able to include more than a handful of characters from each.

It really just depends on what one prefers. I can totally understand wanting characters from different companies involved instead of just two. It's something you don't see very often in video games and Smash is one of the few series to actually pull it off to this extent.

Think about it; Nintendo's Mario, SEGA's Sonic, Capcom's Ryu, Namco's Pac-Man, Square-Enix's Cloud and Erdrick, Konami's Solid Snake, SNK's Terry Bogard, Microsoft's Steve, and Disney's Sora. Along with other characters, some from the same companies. All in one game/series.

Such a thing just seemed impossible and too good to be true. Even now, I'm sure some still can't believe that it's actually happened (especially with Sora).

Sure, third party companies may have fewer characters but it doesn't take much to satisfy fans and in most cases, all people want are just a few characters anyway. Like I said, in the case of Capcom, Mega Man was enough for me. For SEGA, Sonic was enough for me. For Konami, Simon was enough but I'll gladly welcome Bill and Lance to it. For Microsoft, I have Banjo-Kazooie and now all that's left is Doom Slayer. For Koei Tecmo, all I want is Ryu Hayabusa. Finally, for Arc System Works, there's Kunio and Riki (both which are likely to come together) and Billy and Jimmy (again, likely to come together).

So in the case of Nintendo, I'd rather stick with Smash with its characters from multiple companies than a Nintendo VS game with characters from just two companies.

 

[Jave]

I've been wanting Nintendo Vs. Capcom since the pre-Brawl days. I always felt it was something both companies would be on board for, but they're both waiting for the other one to ask first. It's weird, I know.

That said if Nintendo ever had to take longer to develop the next Smash Bros. I feel Nintendo Vs. Capcom would be a great game to release in-between Smash games.

 

[Ivander]

The reason I'm not particular a fan of Nintendo vs a company is mainly because even with a decent size roster for each company, I feel Smash Bros. has such an impact that you can't expect the Nintendo side to have anybody that isn't already in Smash Bros. Despite how quite a bunch of people want to have lesser known Nintendo IPs for a Nintendo Vs Company, Nintendo's biggest advantage is also it's biggest weakness is that there are so many must-haves that you'd have hardly any space for characters that would be new.

1. Let's do a hypothetical roster for Nintendo vs Company with 25 characters each. So first off, we start with the Mario series and so easily, the must-haves are Mario, Luigi, Peach and Bowser. Already that's 4 characters.
2. Next are the series connected to Mario, so next up would be Donkey Kong, Yoshi and Wario. So already that's another 3 for 7 characters.
3. Next up is the Legend of Zelda and obviously the Triforce. Link, Zelda and Ganondorf are all important, so that's another 3. We have 10 Nintendo characters.
4. Pokemon and Animal Crossing would be next on the list, but we're going to save them for another topic for reasons I will discuss later. For now, we're skipping them. So after the big 5 of Nintendo, we can go into Nintendo's lesser, but still big series and icons. So next on the list would be Metroid, Kirby and Fire Emblem. Samus and Kirby are absolutely Nintendo icons and with Fire Emblem becoming big, the easiest option is Marth who has become a prominent character and one of the faces of Fire Emblem, so Samus, Kirby and Marth are there. We have 13 Nintendo characters.
5. After these 3, Splatoon is definitely in the running, with it being an incredibly popular series since it's first title and the Inklings themselves have become notable Nintendo characters. And the easiest answer are the Inklings and they also have the benefit of having the code names, like "Agent 3" and whatnot. That said, they'll most likely add in the female Inkling if they can't do the Smash thing where you can choose between the male or female, since Monster Hunter in MvC Infinite was exclusively female. So we'll add them to the roster for 14 characters.
6. After Splatoon would be Xenoblade. Xenoblade has become a notable Nintendo game series which got it's much needed start with Operation Rainfall encouraging Nintendo to bring it to the West and then getting a massive boost in popularity with Xenoblade 2 and 3. The real question is whether they will do Shulk or Rex with Pyra and Mythra as back-ups. But regardless of which one they add, that would be another character for a total of 15.
7. Now we start heading into the lesser franchises that still have notably popular characters. Fox and Pit are easily the biggest in terms of lesser franchises with big hits. Captain Falcon himself, despite his series being not big, is easily a big cult icon because of his popularity in Smash Bros. And Smash Bros. would have just as much impact on a Nintendo vs Company game as it does in gaming. So those 3 I have no uncertainty of them getting in, so we bring up our list to 18 characters.
8. We will now talk about Pokemon and Animal Crossing. The reason why I wanted to talk about these near the end is because they have some notable issues, but would have a big impact on the roster if handled. Isabelle would be picked since she has since become the series mascot. Now her and Animal Crossing's issues are:
   1. Whether they or not they would have a moveset in mind for her
   2. Whether they do want to add her in. If they want to add her in and do give her a moveset, we reach 19 Nintendo characters.
9. In regards to Pokemon, the big issue is whether or not they have cooperation with Gamefreak and the Pokemon Company in wanting to add in Pokemon characters. It's a non-issue with Smash Bros. at this point, but whether they want to allow Pokemon to go into another crossover fighter would be another story. And quite easily, the biggest names for Pokemon would be Pikachu, Mewtwo, Lucario and Charizard. Pikachu, Mewtwo and Lucario would be shoe-ins, no doubt in my mind. It's really Charizard who they could potentially skip with the potential Pokemon Starter of the month and to not flood the Pokemon characters with Gen 1 Pokemon. But if Pokemon were to get in, much like Mario, I would see 4 reps getting in.

That would be 23 Nintendo characters, with only enough room for 2 Nintendo characters left. I am absolutely certain the 23 characters above would get in without hesitation which really only leaves 2 Nintendo characters they need to choose. And the biggest thing to note is that aside from Mario, Zelda and Pokemon, none of the other franchises that are also in have a 2nd character.
And no matter how much people want there to be a series not in Smash to appear, why would Nintendo choose 2 lesser known games or series to get a character over an additional character for 2 franchises without a 2nd character? I can easily see another Kirby character, another Fire Emblem character, another Splatoon character, even Ridley I can see getting in over a new franchise not in Smash Bros.
We didn't even talk about the franchises in Smash that haven't entered yet, like Punch Out, Earthbound, ARMS and Pikmin, not to mention Ice Climbers, R.O.B., Wii Fit Trainer, Mr. Game & Watch and Duck Hunt. Even if we didn't get Pokemon or Animal Crossing, I can see these characters getting in and these series getting a character in alongside the additional characters for franchises with only 1 character over a new franchise/game that didn't have a playable character in Smash Bros.

This is easily my biggest issue with a Nintendo vs Company game. The amount of Must-haves that Nintendo has alongside the impact that Smash Bros has had on it's characters and it's audience. They have so many characters that are so recognisable that they can't not put them in and if they have space for characters after them, they would pick the characters that people would easily recognise from Smash Bros. rather than take some chances. I would absolutely want them to try some unique picks, but this would not be the game they would do so with.

Edit: Basically, I want Sega vs Capcom, Namco vs Capcom, etc and see them being more interesting over Nintendo vs Company.

 

[DarthEnderX]

They will make a girl boss Impa that will annoy people by being a girlboss

Good. They don't deserve to be happy.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Good. They don't deserve to be happen.

All context aside.

The typo would make for a great bumper sticker.

 

[SPEN18]

Yeah I just don't see Nintendo giving another company that big a piece of the pie. They know what they have in Smash and having their own properties dominating the biggest video game crossover there is puts them in a highly advantageous position. And as was explained above, you can't really justify only 25 or so Nintendo characters on the roster unless it's not Smash but something else entirely.
So this Nintendo VS idea certainly wouldn't be taking the place of Smash Bros. and would have to be something on the side. But if it's just going to be some kind of spinoff and not the main event, I just don't see them jumping through the necessary hoops to get all their properties in there and quality-control everything so that bad results don't hurt their brands. That's the thing, Nintendo doesn't trust their properties, let alone all of their biggest ones at once, into any dev team's hands willy-nilly. Smash is already an enormous undertaking just in its premise alone. It's fine to fantasize about it but I don't think it would ever actually happen since they have enough trouble making Smash work once per gen as it is.

 

[dream1ng]

The reason I'm not particular a fan of Nintendo vs a company is mainly because even with a decent size roster for each company, I feel Smash Bros. has such an impact that you can't expect the Nintendo side to have anybody that isn't already in Smash Bros. Despite how quite a bunch of people want to have lesser known Nintendo IPs for a Nintendo Vs Company, Nintendo's biggest advantage is also it's biggest weakness is that there are so many must-haves that you'd have hardly any space for characters that would be new.

1. Let's do a hypothetical roster for Nintendo vs Company with 25 characters each. So first off, we start with the Mario series and so easily, the must-haves are Mario, Luigi, Peach and Bowser. Already that's 4 characters.
2. Next are the series connected to Mario, so next up would be Donkey Kong, Yoshi and Wario. So already that's another 3 for 7 characters.
3. Next up is the Legend of Zelda and obviously the Triforce. Link, Zelda and Ganondorf are all important, so that's another 3. We have 10 Nintendo characters.
4. Pokemon and Animal Crossing would be next on the list, but we're going to save them for another topic for reasons I will discuss later. For now, we're skipping them. So after the big 5 of Nintendo, we can go into Nintendo's lesser, but still big series and icons. So next on the list would be Metroid, Kirby and Fire Emblem. Samus and Kirby are absolutely Nintendo icons and with Fire Emblem becoming big, the easiest option is Marth who has become a prominent character and one of the faces of Fire Emblem, so Samus, Kirby and Marth are there. We have 13 Nintendo characters.
5. After these 3, Splatoon is definitely in the running, with it being an incredibly popular series since it's first title and the Inklings themselves have become notable Nintendo characters. And the easiest answer are the Inklings and they also have the benefit of having the code names, like "Agent 3" and whatnot. That said, they'll most likely add in the female Inkling if they can't do the Smash thing where you can choose between the male or female, since Monster Hunter in MvC Infinite was exclusively female. So we'll add them to the roster for 14 characters.
6. After Splatoon would be Xenoblade. Xenoblade has become a notable Nintendo game series which got it's much needed start with Operation Rainfall encouraging Nintendo to bring it to the West and then getting a massive boost in popularity with Xenoblade 2 and 3. The real question is whether they will do Shulk or Rex with Pyra and Mythra as back-ups. But regardless of which one they add, that would be another character for a total of 15.
7. Now we start heading into the lesser franchises that still have notably popular characters. Fox and Pit are easily the biggest in terms of lesser franchises with big hits. Captain Falcon himself, despite his series being not big, is easily a big cult icon because of his popularity in Smash Bros. And Smash Bros. would have just as much impact on a Nintendo vs Company game as it does in gaming. So those 3 I have no uncertainty of them getting in, so we bring up our list to 18 characters.
8. We will now talk about Pokemon and Animal Crossing. The reason why I wanted to talk about these near the end is because they have some notable issues, but would have a big impact on the roster if handled. Isabelle would be picked since she has since become the series mascot. Now her and Animal Crossing's issues are:
   1. Whether they or not they would have a moveset in mind for her
   2. Whether they do want to add her in. If they want to add her in and do give her a moveset, we reach 19 Nintendo characters.
9. In regards to Pokemon, the big issue is whether or not they have cooperation with Gamefreak and the Pokemon Company in wanting to add in Pokemon characters. It's a non-issue with Smash Bros. at this point, but whether they want to allow Pokemon to go into another crossover fighter would be another story. And quite easily, the biggest names for Pokemon would be Pikachu, Mewtwo, Lucario and Charizard. Pikachu, Mewtwo and Lucario would be shoe-ins, no doubt in my mind. It's really Charizard who they could potentially skip with the potential Pokemon Starter of the month and to not flood the Pokemon characters with Gen 1 Pokemon. But if Pokemon were to get in, much like Mario, I would see 4 reps getting in.

That would be 23 Nintendo characters, with only enough room for 2 Nintendo characters left. I am absolutely certain the 23 characters above would get in without hesitation which really only leaves 2 Nintendo characters they need to choose. And the biggest thing to note is that aside from Mario, Zelda and Pokemon, none of the other franchises that are also in have a 2nd character.
And no matter how much people want there to be a series not in Smash to appear, why would Nintendo choose 2 lesser known games or series to get a character over an additional character for 2 franchises without a 2nd character? I can easily see another Kirby character, another Fire Emblem character, another Splatoon character, even Ridley I can see getting in over a new franchise not in Smash Bros.
We didn't even talk about the franchises in Smash that haven't entered yet, like Punch Out, Earthbound, ARMS and Pikmin, not to mention Ice Climbers, R.O.B., Wii Fit Trainer, Mr. Game & Watch and Duck Hunt. Even if we didn't get Pokemon or Animal Crossing, I can see these characters getting in and these series getting a character in alongside the additional characters for franchises with only 1 character over a new franchise/game that didn't have a playable character in Smash Bros.

This is easily my biggest issue with a Nintendo vs Company game. The amount of Must-haves that Nintendo has alongside the impact that Smash Bros has had on it's characters and it's audience. They have so many characters that are so recognisable that they can't not put them in and if they have space for characters after them, they would pick the characters that people would easily recognise from Smash Bros. rather than take some chances. I would absolutely want them to try some unique picks, but this would not be the game they would do so with.

Edit: Basically, I want Sega vs Capcom, Namco vs Capcom, etc and see them being more interesting over Nintendo vs Company.

Though you are imposing Smash-style selection on vs. Capcom game, which would presumably be developed by Capcom. The prerogative for those games has never been to strictly work from the top of the heap down, it's to choose a selection of both big names and deep cuts, and that entails omission of some notable characters. For instance, Leon Kennedy and Daredevil have never been playable in a MvC game. But we've received Hsien-ko and Shuma Gorath.

The fact that Smash exists if anything helps offset what would be not bringing over every notable character. At least they're still in Smash.

And it means we could actually get some characters probably not destined for Smash due to their lower likelihood/smaller series/regional exclusivity, as well as reset some series and offer chances to those who, for Smash, may have lost them - like Lyn, Skull Kid/Midna, no longer current Pokemon gens, etc.

Of course Nintendo will mandate some characters, but so does Marvel, and they still manage to find a range. And Marvel is nothing if not stacked in their own right. I would also argue that the number of actual truly indispensable Nintendo characters in a vs. Capcom title is not as high as people would think. Especially at a point there have been no vets.

Nintendo vs. Capcom would not aim to be what Smash is, and that's a good thing. It would be played differently, it would be developed differently, and it would be compiled differently. So I disagree with the premise that the Nintendo side would be nothing but overlap. In fact, I think that dev team would go out of their way deliberately choosing some characters not already in Smash, because it's not identical values guiding inclusion.

I'm not saying we need NvC over some other company vs. Capcom - those would also be fun, but I don't see this option as any less interesting, personally.

Though I also have a higher hit rate of interest in Nintendo IP than Sega or Namco. Though I suspect the same for much of the Smash audience.

 

[Kirbeh]

Live action Hollywood Zelda movie...I predict either an incredibly mediocre release or a complete train wreck.

As for Nintendo vs >insert company here< , I'd be super down for Nintendo vs Capcom or a full on Project X Zone Vs. but not as a replacement for Smash. A game like that would be better off as a proper versus series tag fighter like Marvel vs Capcom, Tatsunoko vs Capcom, etc.

If we were to get company specific crossovers, I would prefer those outside the realm of Smash.

Have a Nintendo exclusive Soul Calibur and throw in a dozen or so assorted Zelda and Fire Emblem characters. Maybe a handful of others like Pit and Takamaru.

Ditto for DOA, just throw in Samus and maybe Palutena or something.

Or the aforementioned Nintendo vs Capcom. Capcom are the versus guys, let them do their thing.

Or something outside the fighting genre entirely. Have a Mario Kart vs Sonic Racing game. You can still throw in other Nintendo and Sega properties of course. We already have that in MK8 and the first two Sonic & All-Stars.

Or maybe something really out there like a Kingdom Hearts style action RPG crossover with Square Enix.

As much as I'd like for Smash Bros. to add another 100 Capcom characters, I much prefer having a wider array of companies involved. Where else can I say Luigi, Ryu from Streets, and Sora McDidney Wurl teamed up to fight Kazuya and Sephiroth?

 

[RodNutTakin]

This whole topic somewhat ties back into my proposal about letting HAL work on experimental and nontraditional Smash games while Sora & Bamco focus more on traditional, larger scale sequels.
That being said, for me it's Nintendo X SEGA or bust. I know that Capcom is the poster boy for fighting game crossovers, but SEGA is the only company that has actually made video game hardware that I'd argue would just be as interesting to have a deep dive into like how Smash has done for Nintendo itself. Games like the All-Stars Racing and Tennis games are celebratory of Sega, but neither of those ever really went super deep into Sega's legacy like Smash has done with Nintendo.
The argument of Sega vs. Capcom because both have huge arcade success does make sense, but I personally think it would also make a Nintendo vs. Sega more interesting since both companies have had practically opposite stories in the industry; Sega was strongest in the arcades but only the Genesis really reached a worldwide phenomena when it came to home consoles, while Nintendo has made several highly acclaimed consoles and handhelds, but besides Donkey Kong has had a practically nonexistent track record with arcades especially after the launch of the Famicom.
I might try and draft either a 52 or 60 character lineup soon, depending on which number you guys think would work better for a first go (developed by HAL here since I wouldn't trust SEGA to handle it by themselves.)

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

While the obvious money with Nintendo vs Capcom is with a traditional fighter, I think I'd honestly love a crossover between the two with the gameplay of Power Stone even more.

 

[DarthEnderX]

Honestly, I still just want Capcom Vs. Capcom.

Just...give me a 3v3 game where Capcom doesn't have to worry about dealing with another company.

 

[Gengar84]

This whole topic somewhat ties back into my proposal about letting HAL work on experimental and nontraditional Smash games while Sora & Bamco focus more on traditional, larger scale sequels.
That being said, for me it's Nintendo X SEGA or bust. I know that Capcom is the poster boy for fighting game crossovers, but SEGA is the only company that has actually made video game hardware that I'd argue would just be as interesting to have a deep dive into like how Smash has done for Nintendo itself. Games like the All-Stars Racing and Tennis games are celebratory of Sega, but neither of those ever really went super deep into Sega's legacy like Smash has done with Nintendo.
The argument of Sega vs. Capcom because both have huge arcade success does make sense, but I personally think it would also make a Nintendo vs. Sega more interesting since both companies have had practically opposite stories in the industry; Sega was strongest in the arcades but only the Genesis really reached a worldwide phenomena when it came to home consoles, while Nintendo has made several highly acclaimed consoles and handhelds, but besides Donkey Kong has had a practically nonexistent track record with arcades especially after the launch of the Famicom.
I might try and draft either a 52 or 60 character lineup soon, depending on which number you guys think would work better for a first go (developed by HAL here since I wouldn't trust SEGA to handle it by themselves.)

Maybe it’s just my bias talking because I’ve never really been a SEGA guy but I feel like Microsoft has a lot more generally recognizable and iconic video game characters than SEGA. Beyond Sonic, Persona/SMT, Bayonetta, Phantasy Star, and old Genesis IPs like Vector Man and Comix Zone, I’m not overly familiar with SEGA’s IPs. Microsoft has Halo, DOOM, GEARS, Elder Scrolls, Wolfenstein, WarCraft, StarCraft, Diablo, Overwatch, Killer Instinct, Perfect Dark, Battletoads, Banjo, and Conker just off the top of my head. The RARE properties, while not nearly as generally recognizable as they once were have ties to Nintendo from the NES-N64 eras. Microsoft is also a rival console developer like SEGA so they have that going for them as well.

Again, I admit I’m not overly knowledgeable about SEGA and I may be forgetting something or underestimating their popularity but that’s my view. I’m not saying I’m opposed to a Nintendo/SEGA crossover platformer and I agree it would actually be pretty cool to call back to the console wars back in the day but I just don’t think it’s the only viable option.

 

[Speed Weed]

Honestly, I still just want Capcom Vs. Capcom.

Just...give me a 3v3 game where Capcom doesn't have to worry about dealing with another company.

Fair, Capcom has a more than strong enough catalogue on their own and a full roster all to themselves could make room for some potentially interesting unique deeper cuts.

Games like the All-Stars Racing and Tennis games are celebratory of Sega, but neither of those ever really went super deep into Sega's legacy like Smash has done with Nintendo.

The All-Stars games have a bit of a complicated legacy IMO. They have a really interesting history because they've more or less become the defacto SEGA Crossover Roster Bible everyone looks to for guidance when making their roster, the first stop for anyone who's unfamiliar with their IP to do any sort of research, and yet they're not.....really.....the best resource for that in my opinion?

It's weird, because, like. As games they're absolutely wonderful. They play like a dream, there was a ton of love poured into them, and I would argue that most of the character choices made are entirely deserving and warranted in a vacuum. It's moreso that the rosters and representation in these games always suffered from a lot of biases and omissions, oftentimes caused by outside circumstances, and that can make it complicated for me to really discern them when considering how much of a presence they have in these discussions. The development of these games has been surprisingly documented quite a bit (thanks mostly to the fact that the devs would actually go on SEGA/Sonic fan forums and talk about them), and there's a lot that you can extrapolate from that in relation to why these games turned out the way they did.

So, like, there are problems with these games' representation IMO, and a lot of these are why I'd like for there to be a new SEGA crossover that addresses these issues. And I'd like to talk about some of the development context that originated these issues IMO. So first up, the big thing to consider is that the game was not made by SEGA themselves. It was outsourced to a western studio, and oftentimes they're the ones that made the choices. This is not a bad thing in and of itself, mind you - it's not really the outsourcing part alone that's the issue, it's not like SEGA themselves have to make a SEGA crossover for it to be good - it just means that, being made by Westerners, naturally these games are going to have more of a bias towards properties that are more popular in the West, which makes it so that they're not the best source when talking about what SEGA themselves the company like to acknowledge - it's also just generally disappointing for fans of these more Japanese properties, and IMO led to a lot of properties that are interesting and important to include being left out. This can be seen in the era representation as well - the Dreamcast got the lion's share of the love, with some bones thrown to early Mega Drive games, but in comparison a lot of Saturn, arcade and third-party era stuff was omitted (even some MD properties that were popular in Japan were noshows), unless they had notable console outings (in the arcade games' case) or substantial Sonic ties. But there was a reason for a lot of these more Japanese properties being left out as well besides it being made by Westerners - keep in mind what I said earlier, because as it turns out, SEGA themselves were very intent on making the game cater to the West. Some context for this: these games came out in the era where SEGA wasn't localizing a lot of their current Japanese properties, so when it came the time to make these games, they outright put a block on stuff that wasn't being loc'd at the time. This means no Puyo Puyo, no Yakuza, no Phantasy Star, no Sakura Wars, no Valkyria Chronicles, and so on. So again, the issue isn't so much just that "SEGA didn't make it" because they were involved in these decisions too, it's moreso that the fact that these games were so catered to Western audiences means the rosters feel very biased in some aspects and leave out several majorly important sects of their library, and makes it so that they're not good points of reference when discussing, say, a game made in Japan. There's also the fact that besides that SEGA fan audience, they made the game with an audience of, well, kids in mind. These games had Sonic front and center, so they had to be mindful of that younger audience who, as a dev himself once put it, had these games bought for them by their grandmas who saw that funny hedgehog on the cover. In fact, a SEGA community member who was in close proximity to these games' development has gone on record stating they outright did focus tests, showing pictures of SEGA characters to kids and giving stronger consideration to characters they reacted positively to. What this means is the rosters were biased towards more cartoony/mascot-style characters, and plenty of properties that were more "realistic" were left out. Again, that means they turn out to be a biased and incomplete representation of SEGA in my opinion, since the characters were often picked with basis on what would appeal most to kids and thus preferential treatment was given to the more "scrimblo"-esque characters. There's also just general company and development politics involved - the reason Billy Hatcher showed up so much in spite of his general unimportance to SEGA history, for example, was because the director for his game requested his inclusion and because he was easier to use than older SEGA characters that didn't have readily available 3D models.

So yeah, in a lot of ways I find that these games felt really weird and were missing a lot when it comes to celebrating SEGA's history. And that makes them interesting to analyze because they were a huge gateway to other SEGA stuff for a whole generation of people - mostly Sonic and Nintendo fans - who weren't familiar with these games and thus adopted this selection of properties as being the Definitive SEGA Canon, and that's led to this weird divide, with a lot of ppl who only know SEGA stuff from these games clashing with more hardcore SEGA fans, or not realizing that SEGA has other major stuff going on that wasn't in these games, or assuming certain series' featured are more important than they actually are, or being confused whenever another SEGA thing includes stuff they're not familiar with over stuff they do know (this happens most with Project X Zone, for example), or making their own rosters that carry over the same issues from these games, like a heavy Western or mascot character bias - there's also an issue with ppl not considering the change in context when they do rosters for other types of games: for example, a fighting game wouldn't have the same roster as a scrimblo racing game. It's super interesting because in many ways these games had issues when it came to their representation and factors in their development that make them Not The Best Resource for learning about SEGA history or Not The Best Representation of what stuff would be most likely to show up in a SEGA crossover, and yet an entire generation sees them as essentially the ur-text of what to do in a SEGA crossover.

It's unfortunate in certain aspects because I think at a certain point a lot of really interesting and notable stuff ends up getting barely any attention as a result, but SEGA's history is unfortunately pretty poorly-preserved, and these games are what's most shared and readily-available to those starting out, so. Not much I can do about that. But yeah I'd want a new SEGA crossover to be more balanced in terms of eras represented, regional appeal, etc, I think there's a lot of interesting things you can do that aren't covered by All-Stars Racing.

I suppose the issue then is, a lot of this other information and resources is pretty scattered or Japan-centric. I've gotten this perspective through, at this point, years of searching through or scavenging info, and that's not exactly a super easy convenient way of going about things, so I guess if I can propose an alternative gateway point to researching SEGA stuff for anyone who's interested, I'd say to look into SEGA's 60th anniversary material. They did tons of little things to celebrate their history and IMO it's an excellent resource: it covers a huge breadth of IP, it comes straight from SEGA Japan's mouth and as such isn't filtered through any regional or developer-based barriers, and is generally just a really fun and diverse selection. I don't think they should be ppl's be-all-end-all - nothing should be, there's always something notable missing that's covered elsewhere - but in terms of having tons of important stuff covered in one intitiative, it doesn't get much better than this. A lot of the stuff that's featured in these is what I personally think would be cool to see in a new SEGA crossover:

Go Sega Icon Present Campaign - Sega Retro

segaretro.org

WM-0806~9 | GO SEGA - 60th ANNIVERSARY Album - - VGMdb

Commercial (4 CD) published by SEGA MUSIC, SOUND! SHOCK SERIES on Mar 24, 2021 containing original soundtrack, vocal, sound effect from Head On, MONACO GP (Arcade), Tranquillizer Gun, PENGO (Arcade), Super Locomotive, Congo Bongo, Flicky, TEDDYBOY BLUES (Arcade), ZOOM 909 (SG-1000), Hang-On...

vgmdb.net

https://imgur.io/gallery/7MHMkrD

These are just the more widely-encompassing examples, but yeah, in general I think more ppl should look into more direct SEGA or JP resources when it comes to SEGA research, as those present what is IMO a much more varied and interesting perspective on the company's history, and I think one learns a lot of interesting stuff that way

 

[HyperSomari64]

Can Kunio

Fair, Capcom has a more than strong enough catalogue on their own and a full roster all to themselves could make room for some potentially interesting unique deeper cuts.

The All-Stars games have a bit of a complicated legacy IMO. They have a really interesting history because they've more or less become the defacto SEGA Crossover Roster Bible everyone looks to for guidance when making their roster, the first stop for anyone who's unfamiliar with their IP to do any sort of research, and yet they're not.....really.....the best resource for that in my opinion?

It's weird, because, like. As games they're absolutely wonderful. They play like a dream, there was a ton of love poured into them, and I would argue that most of the character choices made are entirely deserving and warranted in a vacuum. It's moreso that the rosters and representation in these games always suffered from a lot of biases and omissions, oftentimes caused by outside circumstances, and that can make it complicated for me to really discern them when considering how much of a presence they have in these discussions. The development of these games has been surprisingly documented quite a bit (thanks mostly to the fact that the devs would actually go on SEGA/Sonic fan forums and talk about them), and there's a lot that you can extrapolate from that in relation to why these games turned out the way they did.

So, like, there are problems with these games' representation IMO, and a lot of these are why I'd like for there to be a new SEGA crossover that addresses these issues. And I'd like to talk about some of the development context that originated these issues IMO. So first up, the big thing to consider is that the game was not made by SEGA themselves. It was outsourced to a western studio, and oftentimes they're the ones that made the choices. This is not a bad thing in and of itself, mind you - it's not really the outsourcing part alone that's the issue, it's not like SEGA themselves have to make a SEGA crossover for it to be good - it just means that, being made by Westerners, naturally these games are going to have more of a bias towards properties that are more popular in the West, which makes it so that they're not the best source when talking about what SEGA themselves the company like to acknowledge - it's also just generally disappointing for fans of these more Japanese properties, and IMO led to a lot of properties that are interesting and important to include being left out. This can be seen in the era representation as well - the Dreamcast got the lion's share of the love, with some bones thrown to early Mega Drive games, but in comparison a lot of Saturn, arcade and third-party era stuff was omitted (even some MD properties that were popular in Japan were noshows), unless they had notable console outings (in the arcade games' case) or substantial Sonic ties. But there was a reason for a lot of these more Japanese properties being left out as well besides it being made by Westerners - keep in mind what I said earlier, because as it turns out, SEGA themselves were very intent on making the game cater to the West. Some context for this: these games came out in the era where SEGA wasn't localizing a lot of their current Japanese properties, so when it came the time to make these games, they outright put a block on stuff that wasn't being loc'd at the time. This means no Puyo Puyo, no Yakuza, no Phantasy Star, no Sakura Wars, no Valkyria Chronicles, and so on. So again, the issue isn't so much just that "SEGA didn't make it" because they were involved in these decisions too, it's moreso that the fact that these games were so catered to Western audiences means the rosters feel very biased in some aspects and leave out several majorly important sects of their library, and makes it so that they're not good points of reference when discussing, say, a game made in Japan. There's also the fact that besides that SEGA fan audience, they made the game with an audience of, well, kids in mind. These games had Sonic front and center, so they had to be mindful of that younger audience who, as a dev himself once put it, had these games bought for them by their grandmas who saw that funny hedgehog on the cover. In fact, a SEGA community member who was in close proximity to these games' development has gone on record stating they outright did focus tests, showing pictures of SEGA characters to kids and giving stronger consideration to characters they reacted positively to. What this means is the rosters were biased towards more cartoony/mascot-style characters, and plenty of properties that were more "realistic" were left out. Again, that means they turn out to be a biased and incomplete representation of SEGA in my opinion, since the characters were often picked with basis on what would appeal most to kids and thus preferential treatment was given to the more "scrimblo"-esque characters. There's also just general company and development politics involved - the reason Billy Hatcher showed up so much in spite of his general unimportance to SEGA history, for example, was because the director for his game requested his inclusion and because he was easier to use than older SEGA characters that didn't have readily available 3D models.

So yeah, in a lot of ways I find that these games felt really weird and were missing a lot when it comes to celebrating SEGA's history. And that makes them interesting to analyze because they were a huge gateway to other SEGA stuff for a whole generation of people - mostly Sonic and Nintendo fans - who weren't familiar with these games and thus adopted this selection of properties as being the Definitive SEGA Canon, and that's led to this weird divide, with a lot of ppl who only know SEGA stuff from these games clashing with more hardcore SEGA fans, or being confused whenever another SEGA thing includes stuff they're not familiar with over stuff they do know (this happens most with Project X Zone, for example), or making their own rosters that carry over the same issues from these games, like a heavy Western or mascot character bias - there's also an issue with ppl not considering the change in context when they do rosters for other types of games: for example, a fighting game wouldn't have the same roster as a scrimblo racing game. It's super interesting because in many ways these games had issues when it came to their representation and factors in their development that make them Not The Best Resource for learning about SEGA history or Not The Best Representation of what stuff would be most likely to show up in a SEGA crossover, and yet an entire generation sees them as essentially the ur-text of what to do in a SEGA crossover.

It's unfortunate in certain aspects because I think at a certain point a lot of really interesting and notable stuff ends up getting barely any attention as a result, but SEGA's history is unfortunately pretty poorly-preserved, and these games are what's most shared and readily-available to those starting out, so. Not much I can do about that. But yeah I'd want a new SEGA crossover to be more balanced in terms of eras represented, regional appeal, etc, I think there's a lot of interesting things you can do that aren't covered by All-Stars Racing.

I suppose the issue then is, a lot of this other information and resources is pretty scattered or Japan-centric. I've gotten this perspective through, at this point, years of searching through or scavenging info, and that's not exactly a super easy convenient way of going about things, so I guess if I can propose an alternative gateway point to researching SEGA stuff for anyone who's interested, I'd say to look into SEGA's 60th anniversary material. They did tons of little things to celebrate their history and IMO it's an excellent resource: it covers a huge breadth of IP, it comes straight from SEGA Japan's mouth and as such isn't filtered through any regional or developer-based barriers, and is generally just a really fun and diverse selection. I don't think they should be ppl's be-all-end-all - nothing should be, there's always something notable missing that's covered elsewhere - but in terms of having tons of important stuff covered in one intitiative, it doesn't get much better than this. A lot of the stuff that's featured in these is what I personally think would be cool to see in a new SEGA crossover:

Go Sega Icon Present Campaign - Sega Retro

segaretro.org

WM-0806~9 | GO SEGA - 60th ANNIVERSARY Album - - VGMdb

Commercial (4 CD) published by SEGA MUSIC, SOUND! SHOCK SERIES on Mar 24, 2021 containing original soundtrack, vocal, sound effect from Head On, MONACO GP (Arcade), Tranquillizer Gun, PENGO (Arcade), Super Locomotive, Congo Bongo, Flicky, TEDDYBOY BLUES (Arcade), ZOOM 909 (SG-1000), Hang-On...

vgmdb.net

https://imgur.io/gallery/7MHMkrD

These are just the more widely-encompassing examples, but yeah, in general I think more ppl should look into more direct SEGA or JP resources when it comes to SEGA research, as those present what is IMO a much more varied and interesting perspective on the company's history, and I think one learns a lot of interesting stuff that way

Does that issue also affect Pac-Man?

 

[Louie G.]

To wrap it back around a bit to the existing Smash roster, I wanted to ask something. Essentially, which characters are the most labor-intensive and time consuming additions? I imagine with these more complex characters with unique considerations, development time will have to be measured and the team would have to determine whether or not it's valuable for them to pour those extra resources into that.

The main character I was thinking about is . On paper this is a no-brainer character to bring back, one of the most impactful new additions from Ultimate hailing from the biggest game in the world. But I was thinking about how every single stage in the game needed to be reworked to accommodate him, an unprecedented effort that was probably more feasible when production time could be given toward a few specific characters and not while balancing and tweaking 70 other characters in the base game. Maybe moving forward those adjustments will simply be one of the things that every stage is built upon from the beginning, but that's definitely a lot to ask for a single character. Honestly if there's anyone worth doing this for it's probably Minecraft Steve, the sheer scale of this character and his home series justifies putting in the extra work to keep it around. But it's something to think about for sure.

Special mention to which is a bit more obvious. In a condensed roster situation Pokemon is one of the first series to be on the hot seat, and while Pokemon Trainer is a very fun and intuitive depiction of some of the series' core mechanics... it's also three separate characters. It's inevitable that cutting Pokemon down will favor Gen 1 to begin with, so Squirtle and Ivysaur feel like they may be easier losses. Charizard managing to survive on his own once before is at least a testament to the fact that he is not going anywhere. I kinda hope they can manage to keep Trainer around - both Squirtle and Ivysaur are very unique, particularly Ivy being one of Smash's few dedicated quadrupeds - but they gotta compete with Mewtwo, Lucario and Jigglypuff at minimum.

These are just the more widely-encompassing examples, but yeah, in general I think more ppl should look into more direct SEGA or JP resources when it comes to SEGA research, as those present what is IMO a much more varied and interesting perspective on the company's history, and I think one learns a lot of interesting stuff that way

Just want to say, I really appreciate your contributions to these Sega conversations. Super insightful stuff.

 

[Quillion]

To wrap it back around a bit to the existing Smash roster, I wanted to ask something. Essentially, which characters are the most labor-intensive and time consuming additions? I imagine with these more complex characters with unique considerations, development time will have to be measured and the team would have to determine whether or not it's valuable for them to pour those extra resources into that.

The main character I was thinking about is . On paper this is a no-brainer character to bring back, one of the most impactful new additions from Ultimate hailing from the biggest game in the world. But I was thinking about how every single stage in the game needed to be reworked to accommodate him, an unprecedented effort that was probably more feasible when production time could be given toward a few specific characters and not while balancing and tweaking 70 other characters in the base game. Maybe moving forward those adjustments will simply be one of the things that every stage is built upon from the beginning, but that's definitely a lot to ask for a single character. Honestly if there's anyone worth doing this for it's probably Minecraft Steve, the sheer scale of this character and his home series justifies putting in the extra work to keep it around. But it's something to think about for sure.

Special mention to which is a bit more obvious. In a condensed roster situation Pokemon is one of the first series to be on the hot seat, and while Pokemon Trainer is a very fun and intuitive depiction of some of the series' core mechanics... it's also three separate characters. It's inevitable that cutting Pokemon down will favor Gen 1 to begin with, so Squirtle and Ivysaur feel like they may be easier losses. Charizard managing to survive on his own once before is at least a testament to the fact that he is not going anywhere. I kinda hope they can manage to keep Trainer around - both Squirtle and Ivysaur are very unique, particularly Ivy being one of Smash's few dedicated quadrupeds - but they gotta compete with Mewtwo, Lucario and Jigglypuff at minimum.



Just want to say, I really appreciate your contributions to these Sega conversations. Super insightful stuff.

I can see your point on Steve, but PT is probably better off just moving switch to Shield-B and giving everyone a new down special. (Then again, I'd prefer a tag mechanic for Squads mode so we can have everyone be a team).

And I know people want less Gen 1 bias, but really, are any of the Pokémon from the generations 3-on marketed other than Lucario? As much as I don't like it myself, you can't really avoid Gen 1 bias in Smash.

 

[DarthEnderX]

Fair, Capcom has a more than strong enough catalogue on their own and a full roster all to themselves could make room for some potentially interesting unique deeper cuts.

Yeah! Trojan, baby!

Can Kunio

Yes.

 

[Louie G.]

And I know people want less Gen 1 bias, but really, are any of the Pokémon from the generations 3-on marketed other than Lucario? As much as I don't like it myself, you can't really avoid Gen 1 bias in Smash.

So Pikachu / Charizard / Mewtwo are pretty essential no matter how you cut it, and Jigglypuff gets by own her own legacy within the series and ease of development. Every Gen1 'mon in the game is pretty significant in their own right, that includes Squirtle and Ivysaur. I'm less certain about the last two but I do believe the other Gen1 Pokemon, plus Lucario, are gonna be pretty safe.

But I try to step out of myself a bit because while that doesn't bother me at all, I know some people who are bigger fans of the series may feel stronger about it and Pokemon Company themselves would probably push for a more diverse spread of what their series has to offer. I'm pretty sure Greninja is still sitting pretty tall in terms of overall popularity and Incineroar is just a really well executed archetypical grappler in Smash, and that isn't even to mention whichever new ones would be phased in. So I agree with you to an extent but I do think there's a reasonable enough scenario where Sakurai is compelled to keep say, Greninja over Squirtle at the expense of Pokemon Trainer.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

To wrap it back around a bit to the existing Smash roster, I wanted to ask something. Essentially, which characters are the most labor-intensive and time consuming additions? I imagine with these more complex characters with unique considerations, development time will have to be measured and the team would have to determine whether or not it's valuable for them to pour those extra resources into that.

The main character I was thinking about is . On paper this is a no-brainer character to bring back, one of the most impactful new additions from Ultimate hailing from the biggest game in the world. But I was thinking about how every single stage in the game needed to be reworked to accommodate him, an unprecedented effort that was probably more feasible when production time could be given toward a few specific characters and not while balancing and tweaking 70 other characters in the base game. Maybe moving forward those adjustments will simply be one of the things that every stage is built upon from the beginning, but that's definitely a lot to ask for a single character. Honestly if there's anyone worth doing this for it's probably Minecraft Steve, the sheer scale of this character and his home series justifies putting in the extra work to keep it around. But it's something to think about for sure.

Special mention to which is a bit more obvious. In a condensed roster situation Pokemon is one of the first series to be on the hot seat, and while Pokemon Trainer is a very fun and intuitive depiction of some of the series' core mechanics... it's also three separate characters. It's inevitable that cutting Pokemon down will favor Gen 1 to begin with, so Squirtle and Ivysaur feel like they may be easier losses. Charizard managing to survive on his own once before is at least a testament to the fact that he is not going anywhere. I kinda hope they can manage to keep Trainer around - both Squirtle and Ivysaur are very unique, particularly Ivy being one of Smash's few dedicated quadrupeds - but they gotta compete with Mewtwo, Lucario and Jigglypuff at minimum.

Kirby is worth bringing up as labor intensive.

He's never going anywhere, but Sakurai has gone on record saying the copy ability makes everything significantly harder.

 

[Quillion]

Pokemon Company themselves would probably push for a more diverse spread of what their series has to offer.

Nah, even they are mired in their own Gen 1 bias. Ironically, it was because people complained of Gen 5 not having enough reference to the older gens.

And even then, Gen 1 is just marketable. No one can possibly try to balance marketing for every single 1000+ Pokémon at this point.

 

[Louie G.]

Nah, even they are mired in their own Gen 1 bias.

Yeah of course, but that's kinda why I singled out because those are the ones who feel like they get the most of it. For what it's worth I'm unsure how much meddling Pokemon Company does with who returns and who doesn't in regards to Smash, but I feel like if Sakurai asked them who should take priority these three would naturally be up there.

Beyond that though, by the time we get a new Smash, and Gen4 will be pushing 20. I think it's natural for Smash to want to maintain a greater spread of old and new across not just Pokemon but the entire roster, but as a community it's easy for us to favor the ones that have dug their roots in for much longer. I'm trying to force myself to challenge that and decide what it could look like in a situation where Greninja or Incineroar come back instead. Assuming Pokemon cuts can't just start and end at Pichu.

No one can possibly try to balance marketing for every single 1000+ Pokémon at this point.

I feel like this is kind of a false flag because that's not what's being talked about here, just the opportunity to give more credibility to other Pokemon that aren't already 15+ years old. Obviously the goal isn't to represent every Pokemon equally. But they still sell plushies for Gen 6/7 Pokemon in the Nintendo Store, and so forth.

 

[Gengar84]

Yeah of course, but that's kinda why I singled out because those are the ones who feel like they get the most of it. For what it's worth I'm unsure how much meddling Pokemon Company does with who returns and who doesn't in regards to Smash, but I feel like if Sakurai asked them who should take priority these three would naturally be up there.

Beyond that though, by the time we get a new Smash, and Gen4 will be pushing 20. I think it's natural for Smash to want to maintain a greater spread of old and new across not just Pokemon but the entire roster, but as a community it's easy for us to favor the ones that have dug their roots in for much longer. I'm trying to force myself to challenge that and decide what it could look like in a situation where Greninja or Incineroar come back instead. Assuming Pokemon cuts can't just start and end at Pichu.



I feel like this is kind of a false flag because that's not what's being talked about here, just the opportunity to give more credibility to other Pokemon that aren't already 15+ years old. Obviously the goal isn't to represent every Pokemon equally. But they still sell plushies for Gen 6/7 Pokemon in the Nintendo Store, and so forth.

I’m kind of split on this one. On one hand, I agree that it would be cool to see more varied representation for Pokémon but on the other, I really like the Gen 1 reps we have and still would love to see others like . I do really like several newer Pokémon too and I’ve listed my top three from each Gen a few times. My bigger hope is we can get something besides a starter from the most recent Gen once in a while. Starters are rarely among my favorites in each Gen (though I do like Meowscarada) and it would make speculation more exciting and engaging if the selection wasn’t always so predictable. In the end, I’m happy as long as I like the Pokémon and I don’t particularly care what Gen it’s from or even whether it was a starter.

 

[Quillion]

I think it's natural for Smash to want to maintain a greater spread of old and new across not just Pokemon but the entire roster, but as a community it's easy for us to favor the ones that have dug their roots in for much longer.

On the other hand we have Zelda, which prefers to only have the main characters but the fans want some of the one-shots who Nintendo gives no chance to lay roots.

It's a franchise-per-franchise basis on what the devs and fans want.

 

[Louie G.]

On the other hand we have Zelda, which prefers to only have the main characters but the fans want some of the one-shots who Nintendo gives no chance to lay roots.

Even so, our lineup right now is...

A Link using a design from and an updated moveset inspired by BOTW, a Switch game - late 10s
A Zelda using a design influenced by her appearance in ALBW, a 3DS game (which in turn brings her pretty close to her SNES design) - mid 90s and early 10s
Ganondorf touting his most iconic design from OOT, N64 - late 90s
Toon Link, representing a GameCube game - early 00s

and then Sheik and Young Link kinda stack up on the N64 content, but Zelda keeps itself modern in a different way. It's not building on itself but its evolving its cast to span throughout the course of the series history, which I'd say is still in line with my point. It does vary from series to series (see: Kirby) but I think the BIG boys, your pillar series like Mario, Zelda and Pokemon (and let's throw Fire Emblem in there) are keeping it fresh one way or another.

 

[Gengar84]

On the subject of varied Pokémon representation, does anyone have any personal favorites that aren’t really highly speculated that you’d like to see? I’ve mentioned my top three for each Gen but my top two that I never see talked about are Cofagrigus and Golisopod. These are two of my absolute favorites and neither really gets promoted much. I feel like Golisopod would probably be easier to animate and come up with a moveset for due to Cofagrigus’ unusual frame but I’d love to see either one.

 

[fogbadge]

On the subject of varied Pokémon representation, does anyone have any personal favorites that aren’t really highly speculated that you’d like to see? I’ve mentioned my top three for each Gen but my top two that I never see talked about are Cofagrigus and Golisopod. These are two of my absolute favorites and neither really gets promoted much. I feel like Golisopod would probably be easier to come up with a moveset for due to Cofagrigus’ unusual frame but I’d love to see either one.

typhlosion, samurott, xatu, eiscue, dachsbun

 

[Quillion]

Even so, our lineup right now is...

A Link using a design from and an updated moveset inspired by BOTW, a Switch game - late 10s
A Zelda using a design influenced by her appearance in ALBW, a 3DS game (which in turn brings her pretty close to her SNES design) - mid 90s and early 10s
Ganondorf touting his most iconic design from OOT, N64 - late 90s
Toon Link, representing a GameCube game - early 00s

and then Sheik and Young Link kinda stack up on the N64 content, but Zelda keeps itself modern in a different way. It's not building on itself but its evolving its cast to span throughout the course of the series history, which I'd say is still in line with my point. It does vary from series to series (see: Kirby) but I think the BIG boys, your pillar series like Mario, Zelda and Pokemon (and let's throw Fire Emblem in there) are keeping it fresh one way or another.

Still, I don't think your point about fans wanting Gen 1 is correct. It's the owners who want it; the fans want the varied representation.

 

[Gengar84]

Still, I don't think your point about fans wanting Gen 1 is correct. It's the owners who want it; the fans want the varied representation.

I think every fan is different. I personally just want Pokémon I like and it doesn’t matter much what Gen they come from. I’m sure there are many who prefer to see more modern Pokémon but there are also older fans who have a stronger connection to the Gen 1 Pokémon and haven’t kept up much with the series.

 

[Quillion]

I think every fan is different. I personally just want Pokémon I like and it doesn’t matter much what Gen they come from. I’m sure there are many who prefer to see more modern Pokémon but there are also older fans who have a stronger connection to the Gen 1 Pokémon and haven’t kept up much with the series.

That's why I think using fan demand as a metric for getting characters into Smash is a lost cause unless it's done through an officially-sanctioned gauge like the ballot. Fans are just too fickle and diverse.

On a larger scale, that's why I use "reoccuring" or "heavily marketed" as the main gauge for the term "iconic" rather than loved by fans. Just look at how Krystal fell off with both fans and Nintendo for example.

 

[Louie G.]

Still, I don't think your point about fans wanting Gen 1 is correct. It's the owners who want it; the fans want the varied representation.

I don't remember saying that, I was moreso implying that fans come from different generations and would like their favorites from the eras they grew up with to be represented. Which part of what I said gave you that impression? Not saying this like a confrontational thing, I'm genuinely just a bit confused where you picked that up from.

If it's what I said about the community favoring old over the new, I do think this is true. You're gonna be hard pressed to find someone here who will replace like... Mewtwo with Incineroar. It doesn't mean fans don't want variety but certainly it's easier for us to default to what we've been familiar with for longer, more accustomed to, just by second nature. It's harder to imagine a Smash Bros game without the characters who have been here for 20 years vs the characters that have been here for 5, so it creates a bit of a difficult situation to judge in a roster crunch scenario.

That's what I meant, not that the fans demand Smash to pile on Gen1 content deliberately.

 

[Noipoi]

On the subject of varied Pokémon representation, does anyone have any personal favorites that aren’t really highly speculated that you’d like to see? I’ve mentioned my top three for each Gen but my top two that I never see talked about are Cofagrigus and Golisopod. These are two of my absolute favorites and neither really gets promoted much. I feel like Golisopod would probably be easier to animate and come up with a moveset for due to Cofagrigus’ unusual frame but I’d love to see either one.

Dragapult would be rad as hell and it's never gonna happen

 

[Gengar84]

Dragapult would be rad as hell and it's never gonna happen

At least it got a really sweet Ultimate mod over Rosalina with Dreepy as a Luma but yeah, that would be another cool option.

Pokemon Mods in SMASH ULTIMATE! (Part 13)

Welcome to Super Smash Bros. Ultimate: 1 Minute Mods! A shorts series where I quickly showcase 4-6 specific character mods for Ultimate with this episode sho...

m.youtube.com

That’s the main thing I love mods is they give us a chance to play as characters that never would have made it in otherwise. Still, it would be better to see them as their own characters with completely unique movesets but I’ll take what I can get.

 

[Quillion]

I don't remember saying that, I was moreso implying that fans come from different generations and would like their favorites from the eras they grew up with to be represented. Which part of what I said gave you that impression? Not saying this like a confrontational thing, I'm genuinely just a bit confused where you picked that up from.

That's the impression I got from this statement:

I think it's natural for Smash to want to maintain a greater spread of old and new across not just Pokemon but the entire roster, but as a community it's easy for us to favor the ones that have dug their roots in for much longer.

That said, you clarified it, which makes more sense.

If it's what I said about the community favoring old over the new, I do think this is true. You're gonna be hard pressed to find someone here who will replace like... Mewtwo with Incineroar. It doesn't mean fans don't want variety but certainly it's easier for us to default to what we've been familiar with for longer, more accustomed to, just by second nature. It's harder to imagine a Smash Bros game without the characters who have been here for 20 years vs the characters that have been here for 5, so it creates a bit of a difficult situation to judge in a roster crunch scenario.

Even still, I really think that's a franchise-by-franchise issue. Yes, it's second nature to want older things over newer (and I'd say that has its limits), but with series like the "big three rotating casts": Pokémon, Fire Emblem, and Xenoblade, it's far easier to default to wanting the newer characters over older ones, as much as I would prefer Melia over Noah simply because Melia has more of a role throughout the "Klaus Saga". These three series don't really stick with fixed casts, so there's far less chance for older characters to lay roots in the fandom.

Now with Mario or Kirby, wanting old characters applies because those series mainly has a fairly fixed cast while introducing one-shot characters from time to time. Even Zelda is in that boat, mixed as I am about one-shots being Assists most of the time.

 

[SPEN18]

Gen 1 has the most bona fide evergreens so it's naturally going to have more reps, and that's fine as long as we also have enough big-hitters from the other gens as well.

In terms of priority out of the veterans:
Pikachu and Charizard are the two absolute must-haves. Lucario and Greninja are the two biggest hitters from the later gens and I think they both pretty much have to be there. Mewtwo might be just a bit overestimated by the community; he was cut before of course and due to wanting more than just gen 1 represented I think Mewtwo would be ranked below Lucario and Greninja. But anyway that's five characters right there who I most expect back.

The others are definitely expendable if it comes down to it. Probably Pichu would be lowest, Jiggs second-lowest. The rest of Trainer and Incineroar would be above them I think but below the five I had in the last paragraph; possibly Incineroar is a little more likely than Squirtle/Ivy since Squirtle/Ivy is likely a package deal, so if there's only like one slot left then Incineroar might have a leg up on them.

Anyway that's how I see it as it stands right now.

 

[RileyXY1]

Gen 1 has the most bona fide evergreens so it's naturally going to have more reps, and that's fine as long as we also have enough big-hitters from the other gens as well.

In terms of priority out of the veterans:
Pikachu and Charizard are the two absolute must-haves. Lucario and Greninja are the two biggest hitters from the later gens and I think they both pretty much have to be there. Mewtwo might be just a bit overestimated by the community; he was cut before of course and due to wanting more than just gen 1 represented I think Mewtwo would be ranked below Lucario and Greninja. But anyway that's five characters right there who I most expect back.

The others are definitely expendable if it comes down to it. Probably Pichu would be lowest, Jiggs second-lowest. The rest of Trainer and Incineroar would be above them I think but below the five I had in the last paragraph; possibly Incineroar is a little more likely than Squirtle/Ivy since Squirtle/Ivy is likely a package deal, so if there's only like one slot left then Incineroar might have a leg up on them.

Anyway that's how I see it as it stands right now.

Although Mewtwo's removal from Brawl was due to time constraints. He was planned to come back after all.

 

[SPEN18]

Although Mewtwo's removal from Brawl was due to time constraints. He was planned to come back after all.

Right, I still think Mewtwo is most likely going to be retained, and in any case if he was cut it wouldn't be for any reason other than not having enough time/resources. But not being in Brawl and then not being in Smash 4 base supports my claim that he'd likely be ranked beneath Lucario and Greninja in priority. But he's probably not lower than fifth.

 

[Wonder Smash]

I just want to say there's a Super Mario Bros. channel on Roku for anybody who want to watch the classic Mario cartoon series all day...along with some Captain N.

Can Kunio

???

Mind explaining this?