User talk:94.67.133.161: Difference between revisions

I'm not arguing over why Shadow is better or worse than other Smash characters. Everyone has a share of both lovers and haters. But since Smash has such a big roster, not being playable but an assist trophy instead is more noteworthy for Shadow than any other character. It would be more understandable to exclude Shadow despite his iconic status if the roster was smaller, but that is not the case. But seriously? Having a dozen Fire Emblem characters is a better addition than making Shadow playable? I think it's obvious that it's way easier, faster, cheaper and profitable to prioritise Shadow over anyone else. But I'm not the one to decide whether Shadow will be in the next Smash game or not. Can't we just agree that his omission after so many Smash games is noteworthy no matter if the reason for that is property rights, development hell, big plans for the future or simply Nintendo's revenge against Sega? I didn't complain. I just pointed out an obvious fact. I believe that Shadow should be playable but of course I accept Smash's decision since it's developers could know better than I do. I still think that Sonic's movie will be enough of a success to convince Smash to feature Shadow in the next game. So why would I blame Smash? Other fighting games have done similar things. Tekken 7 did not include Jinpachi and True Ogre even if they both appeared in Tag Tournament 2, Soulcalibur VI did not bring back Setsuka alongside Tira and Zasalamel or the Hero King Algol and Street Fighter V omitted Haggar and Gill despite their popularity. I'm not judging Smash's decision to exclude Shadow from being playable unlike many others. I just mentioned that he's the only counterpart of a major heroic character such as Sonic that hasn't yet been included in Smash's huge roster. I don't know why and it's up to each fan to decide what reason should be considered most likely.