Who should handle character selection for a crossover game, the owner(s) of the characters or the developer(s) of the game?

[Neoxon]

Click to shrink...

To better illustrate what I mean, I'll use the Marvel vs. Capcom series as an example.

• In earlier MvC games, Marvel basically gave Capcom free reign to choose whoever they wanted from the Marvel side (obviously Capcom had full control over their own side). This allowed Capcom to be a bit more adventurous with their Marvel picks, but this was likely due to Marvel being in a tough spot at the time.
• With (U)MvC3 & MvCI, Marvel took up control of who got in from their side. While Capcom did have some kind of a say with MvC3, this was significantly lessened with MvCI (with Marvel's then-active Fox ban being the big elephant in the room on this front). As a result, Marvel mostly made decisions that fit whatever plans they had for their overall brand going into the near or even distant future (Rocket in UMvC3 is an example of the latter, which paid off in the long-run).

On the flip side, Masahiro Sakurai (up until the Fighters Pass, where Nintendo took control of character selection) basically has free reign to pick whatever he wants. Obviously he has to get approval from third party companies to use their characters, but he can use whatever he's aware of at the time of roster selection. Judging by the overall praise for Smash Ultimate's roster, it has generally worked out for the best. But since we don't know enough of the Fighters Pass to know if Nintendo's taste is good or not on this front, there isn't really a point of comparison for Smash as of now.

Back to the matter at hand, how do you prefer that roster selection be handled for crossover games? I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter, Era.

 

[Buzzman]

I would assume that the developer would know what would best fit in their own game.

 

[vestan]

Developers for sure, just look at Smash and the older MvC games. I'd imagine if the developers handled the picks, they'd actually pick characters they love and are familiar with instead of using the situation as a means to market a hot new game or whatever. It's very much a passion vs. profit type deal (although these aren't mutually exclusive).

 

[L Thammy]

The real answer is whoever is less boring. Gimme some weird shit.

 

[DrArchon]

Ideally both the developers and the rights holders should come to an agreement about which characters to use. I don't want a situation where the devs have final say and pick a bunch of characters that not many people care about just because they think they're "quirky" or whatever (sorry to all the fans of Shuma-Gorath out there).

But at the same time, I don't want rights holders to be so draconian that they limit the devs abilities to make the game they want to make (see: a ton of decisions regarding MvCI).

The best example of this that I can think of was with Super Skrull in MvC3. Capcom really wanted the Fantastic 4, but Marvel was smart enough to know that would either lead to 4 characters from the same super-team or the game only having a couple of the 4 (which kinda defeats the purpose of the Fantastic 4). So instead they came up with a workaround that was super interesting.

 

[Unknownlight]

Smash has always had a thoroughly bizarre and unbalanced roster due to everything basically being decided by Sakurai. I like the Smash characters, but I've always been curious what the selection would look like if Nintendo were in control instead.

If nothing else, there would probably be a lot more unique Zelda characters.

 

[Neoxon]

Developers for sure, just look at Smash and the older MvC games. I'd imagine if the developers handled the picks, they'd actually pick characters they love instead of using the situation as a means to market a hot new game or whatever. It's very much a passion vs. profit type deal (although these aren't mutually exclusive).

Click to shrink...

In the broad sense, yeah, letting the developer handle the picks usually results in characters who are a labor of love. But on the flip-side, there are instances of Capcom maybe going a bit too far with their choices (Ex: Marrow) to where I can understand why Marvel would want to have more control over their choices. But at the same time, you run the risk of the Marvel side looking the same as most other Marvel games with not much to set an MvC game apart as far as the Marvel side is concerned. It could really go either way.

 

[Orochinagis]

Developers, like the difference is clear as day and night like SNK vs CAPCOM and Capcom VS SNK

 

[Neoxon]

Smash has always had a thoroughly bizarre and unbalanced roster due to everything basically being decided by Sakurai. I like the Smash characters, but I've always been curious what the selection would look like if Nintendo were in control instead.

If nothing else, there would probably be a lot more unique Zelda characters.

Click to shrink...

We're gonna see a glimpse of what happens when Nintendo is behind the wheel of character selection with the Fighters Pass. But with regards to the roster as a whole, I'd imagine that Nintendo may be less apprehensive about including new then-unproven IPs or newer games than Sakurai (Ex: the Inklings probably would have gotten in Smash Wii U/3DS as DLC rather than waiting until Ultimate, Spring Man may have been in the base roster of Ultimate rather than likely waiting until the next game), though likely at the cost of a few Smash Ballot choices. But that's just my educated guess, one that won't be supported until we see more of what Nintendo chose for the Fighters Pass.

 

[mas8705]

Pretty sure Developers can pick and choose, but the owners have a final say in terms of a character's actual appearance. Pretty sure though that if we are referring to what happened in Infinite, we could point towards the owner making the call and the developer doing their best to work with what they got (all the while coming up with such lovely fuctions- I mean excuses along the way).

 

[PadWarrior]

Should be both.

 

[Jawmuncher]

The only thing the owners should have an input on is if the characters are being faithful (Though they need to understand some changes might need to be made). As long as say Captain America isn't pulling out a gun and swearing, there shouldn't be much poking at the developer.

 

[Flame Flamey]

I wonder if Capcom even got to pick the characters for their own side in MvCI, or was Disney even able to take control of that? It still bugs me Amaterasu didn't return for Infinite, but that's probably more that Disney made them go with the realistic style which Ammy would look weird in?

But it wouldn't surprise me with how controlling Disney apparently was for MvCI; I remember something about not allowing Marvel characters to be hit in the preview trailers? That's so incredibly silly if true.

 

[Nickgia]

GIVE ME THE DEEP CUTS.

 

[L Thammy]

masahiro sakurai personally promised me st falcon for smash ultimate 2 and i will hold him to that

 

[Neoxon]

I wonder if Capcom even got to pick the characters for their own side in MvCI, or was Disney even able to take control of that? It still bugs me Amaterasu didn't return for Infinite, but that's probably more that Disney made them go with the realistic style which Ammy would look weird in?

But it wouldn't surprise me with how controlling Disney apparently was for MvCI; I remember something about not allowing Marvel characters to be hit in the preview trailers? That's so incredibly silly if true.

Click to shrink...

Given the gender ratio between both sides, I wouldn't be surprised if Marvel told Capcom to have the same number of women on both sides.

 

[DrArchon]

I wonder if Capcom even got to pick the characters for their own side in MvCI, or was Disney even able to take control of that? It still bugs me Amaterasu didn't return for Infinite, but that's probably more that Disney made them go with the realistic style which Ammy would look weird in?

But it wouldn't surprise me with how controlling Disney apparently was for MvCI; I remember something about not allowing Marvel characters to be hit in the preview trailers? That's so incredibly silly if true.

Click to shrink...

I'm convinced that "not fitting in with the cast" was the reason we lost Viewtiful Joe. And probably Tron Bonne too.

Whether or not that was a decision from Capcom or Marvel, I wouldn't be able to say.

 

[Korigama]

A little from column A, a little from column B. An agreement should be reached by the parties involved, all while giving consideration to whom consumers would be most excited to see or otherwise likely consider to be welcome surprises.

 

[Weiss]

Whichever one gets me Geno in Smash.

 

[Neoxon]

A little from column A, a little from column B. An agreement should be reached by the parties involved, all while giving consideration to whom consumers would be most excited to see or otherwise likely consider to be welcome surprises.

Click to shrink...

That's the ideal scenario, but I could see that being a messy debate at a meeting.

 

[Crashman]

I'd say the owners of the characters. From their stand point they are entering the partnership to promote their brands, so let them do that. While MvCI was a bit screwy with its roster, the roster in UMvC3 was much more balanced than MvC2s, because Marvel actually took concern about what was being added, rather than just lettingit all be X-Men again.

Though that's really just if only one gets a say. Ideally both would get input.

 

[LonestarZues]

I voted for the owners of the characters as it's their IP first. If the developer wants to be able to pick the characters they want they should be able to negotiate with them and see if they can come to an agreement.

 

[Metallia]

Both. The developer of the game might not have as deep an understanding of the audiences wants and needs as much as the company that owns the characters. But also the developers, being the people who most intimately understand the game being made, will have the best understanding of who would fit the game they're making. Too much of the developer and you end up with a roster that appeals to fans but might be a bit too safe and uninteresting (which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but this is why I appreciate Piranha Plant in Smash - they were a legitimate surprise after everyone else new in Ultimate was, while cool, very predictable). Too much of the rights owners and you get nothing but what they want you to see and what they plan to have you like, and it can feel very sterile.

 

[Village]

Both

The business partner having ideas to push the things they want to push will basically force new characters on rosters and that's what I want.

I'm gonna be real with you the only X men related characters MVCI needs is
Wolverine
Storm
Deadpool
And Magneto

And the first one doesn't even need to be logan.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Developers is optimal in my opinion for several reasons:
- Better understanding of their own game and how characters fit.
- May have interesting ideas to implement specific characters.
- Less likely to pick characters solely for promotion purposes.
- Above all, they're the ones that are going to devote months implementing the characters. It seems only fair they get to select which ones to implement.

I see pretty much zero advantages to having the IP holder select the characters.

Whichever one gets me Geno in Smash.

Click to shrink...

Three guesses how interested Square is in promoting a character from a Mario RPG that's over 20 years old (as opposed to any of the characters in any of their flagship series). If Square gets to select the characters, better pray they have big plans for a Mario RPG remake or something...

 

[L Thammy]

The business partner having ideas to push the things they want to push will basically force new characters on rosters and that's what I want.

Click to shrink...

Unless the business partner is more interested in their cash cows, in which case they may prioritize the same characters.

 

[Village]

Unless the business partner is more interested in their cash cows, in which case they may prioritize the same characters.

Click to shrink...

True, but in the example of marvel vs capcom, which is the perspective i'm speaking from. There are a lot of characters marvel is trying to push who have not yet been in a marvel vs capcom game. And them trying to push thier stuff is inherently going to diversify the roster.

Again, I admit you have a point. But I do feel like having push on both sides on what the roster decisions are works out better for everyone.

 

[DrArchon]

I see pretty much zero advantages to having the IP holder select the characters.

Click to shrink...

They probably have a better idea of which of their characters are the most popular. Devs could learn, but in the case of something like Marvel and Capcom, there's a huge difference between which characters are popular in Japan vs America and such.

Again, total dev control can lead to inclusions like Blackheart and Shuma-Gorath, where the devs just picked them because they weren't dudes in spandex like almost everyone else, but a ton of the players were completely confused.

 

[Weltall Zero]

They probably have a better idea of which of their characters are the most popular. Devs could learn, but in the case of something like Marvel and Capcom, there's a huge difference between which characters are popular in Japan vs America and such.

Again, total dev control can lead to inclusions like Blackheart and Shuma-Gorath, where the devs just picked them because they weren't dudes in spandex like almost everyone else, but a ton of the players were completely confused.

Click to shrink...

Frankly, I see oddball characters as a point in favor of letting the dev decide, but even if I didn't, this resolves itself in like five seconds by having the dev ask the IP holder; or even better, actually making a poll, so that they get what fans actually want versus what the IP owner believes they want or wants to promote (often very different things). The dev can then decide based on that plus all other pertinent information like what they could do with the characters, which is far more balanced than simply acting as a commercial for the next big product that the IP holder wants to promote.

 

[Evilisk]

It should be both parties working together but if I had to choose, it's the developers

They have a vision for the character that the rights-owners might not necessarily see from their POV. They're making the actual game that the rights-owners are lending their character to in the first place. I also don't think "weird picks" is that bad if that's the worst that too much developer freedom leads to.

 

[Neoxon]

Frankly, I see oddball characters as a point in favor of letting the dev decide, but even if I didn't, this resolves itself in like five seconds by having the dev ask the IP holder; or even better, actually making a poll, so that they get what fans actually want versus what the IP owner believes they want or wants to promote (often very different things). The dev can then decide based on that plus all other pertinent information like what they could do with the characters, which is far more balanced than simply acting as a commercial for the next big product that the IP holder wants to promote.

Click to shrink...

While true, there is such a thing as going too crazy with the picks (see MvC2's over-abundance of X-Men).

 

[PSqueak]

The character owner.

Do note, the clusterfuck regarding MVCI is not just "Marvel being a dick with their roster" because they had control, the fuckery comes because the restrictions were put on a series that previously didn't have such restrictions.

But if it's like the first time the crossover is happening, the character owner holding to certain characters while pushing others wouldn't be seen as such a dick move, sure, there will always be people going "but where is ________" but what fucked up MVCI was more the precedent than the fact that MArvel wanted to push MCU and punish the X-Men, if there was no precedent nobody would have been THIS mad.

 

[Weltall Zero]

While true, there is such a thing as going too crazy with the picks (see MvC2's over-abundance of X-Men).

Click to shrink...

This is such a weird point to make considering:
1) The vast majority of them were lifted wholesale from the prior X-Men arcades.
2) Their presence in these games was based on the (actually rather accurate) perception that X-Men were all the rage during the 90s.

 

[Neoxon]

This is such a weird point to make considering:
1) The vast majority of them were lifted wholesale from the prior X-Men arcades.
2) Their presence in these games was based on the (actually rather accurate) perception that X-Men were all the rage during the 90s.

Click to shrink...

True, but you'd think that we'd get the likes of Beast or Jubilee over Marrow.

 

[Weltall Zero]

True, but you'd think that we'd get the likes of Beast or Jubilee over Marrow.

Click to shrink...

That is one character in a roster of 56 (and one that's quite more visually interesting than Beast could be). This is quite the goalpost moving from "Capcom went crazy with the overabundance of X-Men".

Again, "out of the box" picks aren't a bad thing. We have this conversation every time a new Smash is made and ROB or Duck Hunt or Piranha Plant gets in instead of Waluigi.

 

[Lord Azrael]

The owners would probably just rather pick recent characters for marketing's sake

 

[Platy]

Those games are great tools for marketing so like half and half should be ideal.

Like let the dev choose half of the roster for what they might think is the best and the owner can look and say "ok but I need to market this character so put her there"

This way we get a mix of famous stuff, obscure chars and chars that have great moveset potential.

IF you put a gun in my head, dev should be the one. Like AT WORST it should be like what appears to be the smash dlc:
Marvel goes like "here are 50 characters for you to choose for your 25 character roster" and Capcom goes like "ok this one, this one and this one" ... which is probably how infinite went =P

 

[Unknownlight]

We're gonna see a glimpse of what happens when Nintendo is behind the wheel of character selection with the Fighters Pass.

Click to shrink...

Not really, because I suspect all (or at least 4/5) of the Fighter Pass characters will be 3rd parties. I'm curious about what Nintendo characters Nintendo would choose for itself.

Your point about probably including then-unproven IPs like ARMS is a good one.

 

[Neoxon]

That is one character in a roster of 56 (and one that's quite more visually interesting than Beast could be). This is quite the goalpost moving from "Capcom went crazy with the overabundance of X-Men".

Again, "out of the box" picks aren't a bad thing. We have this conversation every time a new Smash is made and ROB or Duck Hunt or Piranha Plant gets in instead of Waluigi.

Click to shrink...

Sorry about that, I didn't notice until after the fact. Thanks for keeping it honest. But yeah, I understand the asset-porting from CotA.

 

[Weltall Zero]

Sorry about that, I didn't notice until after the fact. Thanks for keeping it honest. But yeah, I understand the asset-porting from CotA.

Click to shrink...

No problem. :) Yeah, MvC2 was pretty much "throw every character from CotA / MSH / XMvsSF /MvC into a blender". I think it has like two new Marvel characters total, Marrow and Cable.

 

[Neoxon]

Not really, because I suspect all (or at least 4/5) of the Fighter Pass characters will be 3rd parties. I'm curious about what Nintendo characters Nintendo would choose for itself.

Your point about probably including then-unproven IPs like ARMS is a good one.

Click to shrink...

That could be both a benefit & a flaw. In the case of the IPs mentioned, both ended up having varying degrees of success. But either game could have gone the way of Code Name: STEAM as far as they knew back then, so I can understand why Sakurai tends to wait it out regarding new IPs.