Jump to content
Lightchao42

Super Smash Bros. Ultimate News and Discussion: The King of Iron Smash

Now that Ultimate has been out for a while, who is your favorite newcomer?  

67 members have voted

  1. 1. Who is your favorite base game (and Piranha Plant) newcomer?

  2. 2. Who is your favorite new Echo Fighter?

  3. 3. Who is your favorite Fighters Pass 1 character?



Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Yexin said:

his flashy and potentially unconventional moveset

I dont understand why its unconventional.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Yexin said:

while Sora is undoubtedly Disney's property, nothing in this world says that adding Sora's character to a crossover game without Disney elements equals to not really adding Sora's character.
World of Final Fantasy features Sora as a DLC summon IIRC (might be wrong, but the point is that Sora appears in WoFF), but since there's no other Disney content in that game, then Sora isn't really in WoFF? is Sora the new Schrödinger's cat?

this said, IMO the main reason why Sora isn't gonna be in SSB Ultimate is money: i fear Disney would demand absurdly high prices to let Nintendo touch Sora's copyright

I'm in this world and I say that, so there. I doubt I'm the only one.

I don't know what WoFF is but it's not Smash, so it doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lord_Brand said:

Sakurai said only video game-originated characters will be in Smash. Thus no Goku, no Iron Man, no Sailor Moon, etc. Dracula and Hades are both public domain characters, and Castlavenia's Dracula and Kid Icarus' Hades are video game-originated characters based on the originals. The Dracula and Hades in question have characteristics unique to their video game portrayals. KI's Hades isn't literally the Hades of Greek Mythology, any more than the tome Excalibur in Fire Emblem is the Sword of Arthurian legend somehow transformed into a book (though I do wonder why FE's developers decided Excalibur should be a magic book rather than a sword). Castlevania's Dracula isn't literally the Dracula of Bram Stoker's novel, nor the historic Romanian noble on whom that character was based. Castlevania's Dracula is more akin to D&D's Count Strahd von Zarovich or MtG's Edgar Markov.

Disney's characters are not public domain, and while you could argue Kingdom Hearts' versions of Donald, Goofy, etc. are unique characters inspired by the originals, I think we all know that argument is basically BS as Disney's characters exist in a sort of nebulous meta-continuity where they can appear in a wide variety of times and places, yet are still considered the same characters essentially. And even if they do create a loophole for KH's Disney characters, that's just going to put them on a slippery slope where they find excuses to include other non-video game characters in Smash - before you know it, we're going to be fighting Goku, Shrek, Minions, and freaking Spongebob Squarepants. At that point, Smash will have lost its identity and become a cheap crossover slum house willing to rent a room out to anyone with money. Smash will no longer be a respectable crossover fighter that celebrates video games, it will be just another advertisement venue for the biggest money-grubbing megacorps in the world.

Sora is the absolute farthest Nintendo should be willing to stretch its boundaries since he at least is a video-game originated character, one Disney happens to co-own with Square. But if Sora gets into Smash, Nintendo would be wise to limit what gets in with him.

I know what Sakurai said. That's why I said this.

3 hours ago, Jotari said:

There's absolutely no need to change his key chains or remove any traces of Donald and Goofy. It's not like there's some immutable law saying they can't have characters originating in video games in Smash Bros. If Nintendo gets the rights to Sora they will get the rights to all that stuff as well and they will not half ass the character just to keep consistent with some non existent ruling. Time and time again it's been proven that there is no rules when it comes to selecting characters for Smash Bros. People used to think it was only Nintendo characters, then we got Snake. People used to think it was only characters who have combat experience in their own games, and then we got Villager and WiiFit Trainer. Now Nintendo says they don't really want to use characters from outside of Video Games, that's pretty understandable, but it doesn't mean if something presents itself they will ignore it to be consistent with that a rule. It's not a rule, it's a policy. The only rule for Smash Bros. is for the character to be good. Donald, Goofy, Mickey, Yen Sid and all the other characters originating from Disney are absolutely possible to put into Smash Bros. They're no less Video Game characters than Castlevannia's Dracula or Kid Icarus's Hades is.

Doctor Kawashima is in the game and he's a real person. An appearance based on his appearance in a video game, but still a character quite definitively a character who did not originate in a video game. I don't see the argument that Disney characters are any different here as being accurate. Mickey is not running around using a Keyblade in any other properties not is Donald Duck is not depicted as a court magician. These are video game interpretations of the same characters. And in the next ten years they will all be in public domain anyway. Dracula as a literary character is only about thirty years older than Mickey Mouse. And no, letting some artwork of Mickey Mouse holding a key blade in the game will not suddenly cause Shrek and Spongebob to appear as the next DLC characters. Nintendo don't need to hold off on Kingdom Hearts content to stop Shrek and Spongebob getting in, If they don't want them in then they simply don't put them in. Letting a .png of Mickey into the game obligates them to put in other characters in as much as putting Doctor Kawashima in the game obligated them to put Tony Hawk or Mike Tyson in the game (which is to say it didn't).

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, lightcosmo said:

I dont understand why its unconventional.

i said potentially unconventional
what i meant is that Sora has a lot of moves and abilities whose originality is not common in Smash, as most swordfighters generally have really basic moves such as slash.jpg and thrust.jpg
Abilities such as Ragnarok, Strike Raid, Finishing Leap, Explosion, Aerial Finish, Magnet Burst and many others (not even mentioning reaction commands, Keyblade transformations, Attractions, Flowmotion, Fusions and whatnot) IMO are things that might help Sora stand out compared to the sword characters we already have in Ultimate, and also make him not look like yet another anime swordfighter to those who hate them (which i don't)

 

17 hours ago, Florete said:

I'm in this world and I say that, so there. I doubt I'm the only one.

I don't know what WoFF is but it's not Smash, so it doesn't matter.

ok i guess...?
i mean if that's your opinion it's perfectly fine, but "I'm in this world and I say that" isn't really a counterargument (assuming counterarguing was your intention)
and no, of course you aren't the only one with that sentiment, but that doesn't necessarily make it the right one

lastly, Sora being in WoFF absolutely matters, because Disney had to say yes to a different company handling one of their copyrights, which is the same thing that they would do with Nintendo

a good argument suggesting Sora won't be in Smash is that Square Enix wanted to make a KH Dissidia game with only KH's original characters, except Disney didn't want them to appear in a fighting game, but even then one could argue that was like 10 years ago, and now things might be different

Edited by Yexin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Yexin said:

a good argument suggesting Sora won't be in Smash is that Square Enix wanted to make a KH Dissidia game with only KH's original characters, except Disney didn't want them to appear in a fighting game, but even then one could argue that was like 10 years ago, and now things might be different

I never knew that. Now I'm really disappointed that never happened. Sounds like it could have been a tonne of fun. Guess we'll just have to accept the watered down multiplayer of 358/2 Days.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Yexin said:

ok i guess...?
i mean if that's your opinion it's perfectly fine, but "I'm in this world and I say that" isn't really a counterargument (assuming counterarguing was your intention)
and no, of course you aren't the only one with that sentiment, but that doesn't necessarily make it the right one

You said, and I quote:

21 hours ago, Yexin said:

nothing in this world says that adding Sora's character to a crossover game without Disney elements equals to not really adding Sora's character.

This statement is proven false by even a single person saying such a thing. Thus, my response.

1 hour ago, Yexin said:

lastly, Sora being in WoFF absolutely matters, because Disney had to say yes to a different company handling one of their copyrights, which is the same thing that they would do with Nintendo

I never said anything about Sora not being able to get into Smash because Disney wouldn't allow it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Florete said:

You said, and I quote:

This statement is proven false by even a single person saying such a thing. Thus, my response.

ok, i got it

then let me change my previous sentence in: "no rule in this world implies that adding Sora's character to a crossover game without Disney elements equals to not really adding Sora's character."

again, if that's your opinion, it's perfectly fine, but not necessarily right, no matter how many people share the same sentiment

Edited by Yexin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All this debate about Sora might be another reason why he might not be added to Smash. It's clear the whole connection to Disney thing is highly divisive, and again, would put Nintendo in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation where they either include Disney characters and create a crack in their self-imposed rules, or they don't include the Disney characters and KH fans complain. Because KH is a crossover between a franchise that originated as a video game and a franchise that didn't, Sora's in a weird limbo between the "Crash and Shantae" party and the "Goku and Iron Man" party. Sora himself is a video game original, but a good portion of his supporting cast isn't. Sora is an iconic character from a popular and iconic franchise, but part of that is due to content that originated outside the video game industry. Sora should be in Smash, but Nintendo's perfectly reasonable restriction makes it tricky to actually include him.

Edited by Lord_Brand

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I really expect Sora to get in, but...

  1. Kingdom Hearts has more than enough original content to be properly represented without Disney content. You can say that you can't properly represent Persona without Shin Megami Tensei content, yet here we are.
  2. Sakurai wouldn't want any Disney characters in the game whatsoever. Castlevania's Dracula is a video game character inspired by Bram Stoker's Dracula. Mickey Mouse is Mickey Mouse. Non-video game characters being ineligible is the only rule he's consistently stuck to.
  3. Disney can't "force" Sakurai to include Mickey and co. If they tried, Sakurai would say no and and Sora wouldn't be included. And do you really think Disney would force another company to use their mascots? They barely let Sora interact with the plot of Frozen.
  4. Nintendo wouldn't force Sakurai to include Mickey and co. either. Aside from picking the FP characters/series they seem to be generally hands-off in letting Sakurai choose content.
1 hour ago, Lord_Brand said:

or they don't include the Disney characters and KH fans complain.

Nintendo picked Byleth, they don't care if people complain about their choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Lightchao42 said:

Nintendo picked Byleth, they don't care if people complain about their choices.

At least Byleth is Nintendo's own character and a video game original at that. So while Byleth might not have been the most popular addition, or at least was the most divisive, they were still allowed. Byleth's a special case though, as their divisiveness had more to do with the sheer number of Fire Emblem fighters in Smash rather than any issues with Byleth themselves. Though I suppose even if there weren't that many FE fighters, fans would complain that Byleth wasn't Lyn/Hector/Zelgius/Micaiah/Chrom/Lucina/Azura/Celica/Dimitri/Edelgard/Claude/Gatekeeper...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lightchao42 said:

Not that I really expect Sora to get in, but...

  1. Kingdom Hearts has more than enough original content to be properly represented without Disney content. You can say that you can't properly represent Persona without Shin Megami Tensei content, yet here we are.
  2. Sakurai wouldn't want any Disney characters in the game whatsoever. Castlevania's Dracula is a video game character inspired by Bram Stoker's Dracula. Mickey Mouse is Mickey Mouse. Non-video game characters being ineligible is the only rule he's consistently stuck to.
  3. Disney can't "force" Sakurai to include Mickey and co. If they tried, Sakurai would say no and and Sora wouldn't be included. And do you really think Disney would force another company to use their mascots? They barely let Sora interact with the plot of Frozen.
  4. Nintendo wouldn't force Sakurai to include Mickey and co. either. Aside from picking the FP characters/series they seem to be generally hands-off in letting Sakurai choose content.

Nintendo picked Byleth, they don't care if people complain about their choices.

I would say that "rule" has not been stuck to consistently. A full list of examples I can think of:

*The obvious, Castlevannia, Kid Icarus and that one Hercules game have elements that originate in folklore and mythology (and more specifically a novel that is only 30 years older than the character of Mickey Mouse who will soon also be in public domain)

*Megami Tensei (which is semi distinct from Persona, but is still the origin for several of Joker's moves) started as a series of books.

*The assist trophy Doctor Kawashima is a real, still living, person.

*R.O.B is a video game peripheral and not actually a video game character in origin.

*I'm pretty sure Togepei and Ho-Oh technically first appeared in the Poemon anime before appearing in any video games. Maybe Marill too (yes, this is incredibly technical, Pokemon is still a game series, I know, the point of this is to show there are no hard rules).

*The design for the Proximity Mines in Super Smash Bros 64 comes directly from the 1995 movie Golden Eye (which were featured in the 1997 game of the same name, but did not originate there).

*And most damning of all, James Bond was on a poll for Super Smash Bros. melee. https://www.nintendo.co.jp/n01/n64/software/nus_p_nalj/smash/PostResult2.html Yes, they literally considered adding James Bond to Super Smash Bros. (people loved Golden Eye 1997). They didn't end up doing, but he was there, he was on the poll and he got votes.

Look they're not going to make him a playable character, but there's absolutely no decent reason for them avoid having the Kingdom Hearts design for Mickey as a spirit in a hypothetical Sora DLC. They don't have to have him as Kingdom Hearts has plenty of characters, but there's no reason to actively avoid Mickey. It doesn't corrode any standard that's already set and even if it did, it in no way encourages or makes inevitable the inclusion of characters like Shrek or Iron Man.

 

And for the sake of completeness, here are some examples when they actually have avoided using real world content.

*The Proximity Mines were later altered from their James Bond appearance to a scifi appearance (though considering they kept their original design in the Japanese version of melee and only changed it when localizing overseas, I think licensing might have been more a factor than wanting to remove movie content).

*Mike Tyson is not a spirit despite appearing in Punch Out (though once again considering they had retconned Tyson out of Punch Out with a remake years earlier, this is most likely down to licensing).

*Moonriver and Fly Me To The Moon are not soundtracks in Smash Bros. despite being signature songs in Bayonetta 1 and 2.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the record, I don't think Sora is ineligible; he's a video game original character and he's the one who'd be playable. If Sakurai and Nintendo think it's worth it, they'll include the KH versions of Donald, Goofy, and Mickey (and whoever else) alongside Sora. It's still "video game character" enough in that case, I would think, considering the Disney characters aren't playable in this scenario (except maybe being in Sora's final smash or something). But Sora won't be included without any Disney elements, Sakurai isn't like that, and that's where the "If they think it's worth it" comes into play.

Remember all that when you read the following responses:

2 hours ago, Lightchao42 said:

Kingdom Hearts has more than enough original content to be properly represented without Disney content. You can say that you can't properly represent Persona without Shin Megami Tensei content, yet here we are.

I wouldn't say the latter, actually. Persona may be spun off from SMT, but that tie isn't as intrinsically linked to its identity as KH's tie to Disney.

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

*The obvious, Castlevannia, Kid Icarus and that one Hercules game have elements that originate in folklore and mythology (and more specifically a novel that is only 30 years older than the character of Mickey Mouse who will soon also be in public domain)

These are based on, they're not the same character. The version of Hades that is in Smash is Nintendo's own version. You wouldn't say the Kid Icarus' Hades is the same character as the one from Supergiant's Hades game, would you? They have the same inspiration, but they're different characters.

Mickey Mouse isn't going to be in the public domain any time soon, lol. Disney has prevented it this long, they're not about to stop now.

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

*R.O.B is a video game peripheral and not actually a video game character in origin.

*I'm pretty sure Togepei and Ho-Oh technically first appeared in the Poemon anime before appearing in any video games. Maybe Marill too (yes, this is incredibly technical, Pokemon is still a game series, I know, the point of this is to show there are no hard rules).

*The design for the Proximity Mines in Super Smash Bros 64 comes directly from the 1995 movie Golden Eye (which were featured in the 1997 game of the same name, but did not originate there).

This is all splitting hairs. None of this means anything in regards to Sora.

1 hour ago, Jotari said:

*And most damning of all, James Bond was on a poll for Super Smash Bros. melee. https://www.nintendo.co.jp/n01/n64/software/nus_p_nalj/smash/PostResult2.html Yes, they literally considered adding James Bond to Super Smash Bros. (people loved Golden Eye 1997). They didn't end up doing, but he was there, he was on the poll and he got votes.

This is more than 20 years old. It was for the second Smash game when such rules weren't set in stone. Just because they considered it way back then doesn't mean it would influence any decisions today.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that they can force Ninty to add disney elements, they simply wont give the rights to add him if they dont. That's my assumption at least, could be wrong about that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Florete said:

These are based on, they're not the same character. The version of Hades that is in Smash is Nintendo's own version. You wouldn't say the Kid Icarus' Hades is the same character as the one from Supergiant's Hades game, would you? They have the same inspiration, but they're different characters.

Well yes, but I think the same goes for the Kingdom Hearts versions of Disney characters, and judging by the first part of your comment you're in agreement on that point.

8 hours ago, Florete said:

Mickey Mouse isn't going to be in the public domain any time soon, lol. Disney has prevented it this long, they're not about to stop now.

There's not really a whole lot they can do to stop it. They've already rewritten copyright law once, there's no indication that they intend to or that they can again. People care more about copyright now. That extra twenty years made a difference. That being said, it won't stop Disney from religiously trying to prevent other people from using Mickey's image, as it'll technically only be the Steam Boat Willie incarnation that goes into public domain (to start with). And they still have a registered trade mark over the image, which is different from copyright and doesn't have any real expiry.

Quote

This is more than 20 years old. It was for the second Smash game when such rules weren't set in stone. Just because they considered it way back then doesn't mean it would influence any decisions today.

And I think that shows it was never a rule to begin with. If they want to include a character that technically did not originate in a video game, I think they can. I'm not saying Nintendo is going to throw in any random Marvel or Disney character, but say for example they continued to have close ties with Mike Tyson instead of dropping him when he stopped being world champion. In a hypothetical world with more Punch Out games featuring Mike Tyson, I don't think him being a real person would discourage them from making him a second Punch Out rep (beyond the licensing issues, but this hypothetical scenario is one where that just never stopped).

Ultimately the point of my splitting hairs is to show that this is not a limitation for Nintendo. If they want to do something, they will. And I don't think they want to put the likes of Spiderman or, I don't know, King Kong in the game because, while they have appeared in video games, they are not recognizable video game characters. But I think someone like Gearlt from the Witcher would stand a much bigger chance despite originating in a book, because the Witcher games were pretty popular, to the extent that a lot of people might not even know it started as a book series (now this isn't saying I expect or want Gearlt any time soon, just that I don't think he's the most unrealistic choice in existence).

TL:DR I think the only rule is that "If Nintendo wants it, they'll do it." And they don't want non video game characters. But if there's a character that's a non video game character on a technicality, that won't stand in their way (provided they get the license).

 

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Jotari said:

Well yes, but I think the same goes for the Kingdom Hearts versions of Disney characters, and judging by the first part of your comment you're in agreement on that point.

Almost, but not quite. KH's Donald and Goofy are still Disney's Donald and Goofy, even if as alternate universe versions. I only think their inclusion with Sora would be fine because they wouldn't be playable/on the roster, similar to Dr. Kawashima as you mentioned, which shows that non-video game characters can exist in a non-playable form so long as they have close enough ties to video games.

10 hours ago, Jotari said:

And I think that shows it was never a rule to begin with.

Maybe not to begin with, but Sakurai has stated in recent years that he only wants video game characters and that Smash is a celebration of gaming.

10 hours ago, Jotari said:

But I think someone like Gearlt from the Witcher would stand a much bigger chance despite originating in a book, because the Witcher games were pretty popular, to the extent that a lot of people might not even know it started as a book series (now this isn't saying I expect or want Gearlt any time soon, just that I don't think he's the most unrealistic choice in existence).

I don't think Geralt is eligible at all. While more popular than the books, those are still licensed games. He really shouldn't be seen as any more eligible than Goku, who also debuted in books (manga) and has much more history with video games than Geralt.

10 hours ago, Jotari said:

TL:DR I think the only rule is that "If Nintendo wants it, they'll do it." And they don't want non video game characters. But if there's a character that's a non video game character on a technicality, that won't stand in their way (provided they get the license).

On its own, I agree with this statement. But I also think it can be a case-by-case basis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do think Geralt's eligibility is a different matter from Goku. Because the Geralt of videogame fame is more popular than the Geralt of book fame and the games are non-canon - they are their own licensed universe. Meaning, video game Geralt is his own person with his own story.

 

The nature of the license is also different. The Witcher games are an exclusive license. One development studio has sole rights to establish an independent universe that has grown on its own accord. To most people, calling Geralt anything other than a videogame character is a non-sequitor. Whereas say, Dragonball Z is a property licensed to any number of developers. Goku is more akin to Batman. He has lots of games, and some of them are even good, but he isn't a videogame character. The distinction matters. You buy a Batman or DBZ game because of the license. You buy a Witcher game because of the reputation of the Witcher games.

 

The whole video game characters only thing is a rule, but it was only said because the Gokus, Spongebobs, and Shreks of the world are obviously stupid character requests. It sounds dismissive on Sakurai's part because it was meant to be.

 

 

 

The real interesting conversation is whether original characters in 4th party licenses constitute eligible videogame characters. Darth Revan from KOTOR, Cal Cestus from Jedi Fallen Order, and arguably Sora himself fit into this grey area.

Edited by Fabulously Olivier

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even disregarding the idea of whether or not Mickey is eligible to show up (which he isn't), I wonder how worthwhile it would be to negotiate with Disney to feature one of the most famous characters ever... as a PNG (or some other non-playable role) and nothing else. You might as well not even bother at that point.

But on the topic, I remembered that the Chronicle exists and that licensed Game & Watch games were mentioned there. Mickey, Popeye, and Snoopy confirmed?

Edited by Lightchao42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Florete said:

Almost, but not quite. KH's Donald and Goofy are still Disney's Donald and Goofy, even if as alternate universe versions. I only think their inclusion with Sora would be fine because they wouldn't be playable/on the roster, similar to Dr. Kawashima as you mentioned, which shows that non-video game characters can exist in a non-playable form so long as they have close enough ties to video games.

Well yes, I'm not suggesting I think it's remotely realistic that we'd ever get an actual playable Mickey. Though I actually wouldn't be all that upset if Mickey existed as a Sora Echo. Mickey can be pretty cool in Kingdom Hearts (of course Riku would be way more deserving of that Echo slot, were Echos of DLC character ever even a remote possibility anyway).

Quote

On its own, I agree with this statement. But I also think it can be a case-by-case basis.

It being a case-by-case basis is entirely my point. I don't think there's any blanket rule and every character's potential will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

12 hours ago, Fabulously Olivier said:

I do think Geralt's eligibility is a different matter from Goku. Because the Geralt of videogame fame is more popular than the Geralt of book fame and the games are non-canon - they are their own licensed universe. Meaning, video game Geralt is his own person with his own story.

 

The nature of the license is also different. The Witcher games are an exclusive license. One development studio has sole rights to establish an independent universe that has grown on its own accord. To most people, calling Geralt anything other than a videogame character is a non-sequitor. Whereas say, Dragonball Z is a property licensed to any number of developers. Goku is more akin to Batman. He has lots of games, and some of them are even good, but he isn't a videogame character. The distinction matters. You buy a Batman or DBZ game because of the license. You buy a Witcher game because of the reputation of the Witcher games.

 

The whole video game characters only thing is a rule, but it was only said because the Gokus, Spongebobs, and Shreks of the world are obviously stupid character requests. It sounds dismissive on Sakurai's part because it was meant to be.

 

 

 

The real interesting conversation is whether original characters in 4th party licenses constitute eligible videogame characters. Darth Revan from KOTOR, Cal Cestus from Jedi Fallen Order, and arguably Sora himself fit into this grey area.

I personally would consider Gearlt  more likely than any Star Wars characters that technically originated in Video Games.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember when this game came out and was hype for Sora in Smash. But in a post KH3 world, I feel like I could only care if they threw us a curveball.

Kairi for Smash. And an organization XIII swordfighter outfit with the hood down. 

Edited by Glennstavos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

And an organization XIII swordfighter outfit with the hood down. 

basically the laziest mii costume Smash's team could ever make

i'd love it though

Edited by Yexin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Yexin said:

basically the laziest mii costume Smash's team could ever make

i'd love it though

Especially if there's no head portion necessary to complete the look. So you could goof off with a mario look alike or the breath of the wild or Chrom wigs. Maybe see what Sans or Cuphead's nobody looks like

Edited by Glennstavos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Glennstavos said:

I remember when this game came out and was hype for Sora in Smash. But in a post KH3 world, I feel like I could only care if they threw us a curveball.

Kairi for Smash. And an organization XIII swordfighter outfit with the hood down. 

Curve ball, it's Chain of Memories Sora, and he actually fights using cards.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Curve ball, it's Chain of Memories Sora, and he actually fights using cards.

If you use the Cloud card, does he just spawn in and use finishing touch?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Glennstavos said:

If you use the Cloud card, does he just spawn in and use finishing touch?

Yes, among other moves. Depends on what other cards you chain him with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...