Project Bokuho
[14] Master
Ryu does have an ancestor in Nioh 1 named Jin Hayabusa.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Pow--perfect: double cross-promote! (Well, if Nioh is every doing a follow-up and release is close in time to a SC game; given the development cycles involved though, who can say if that will ever happen).Ryu does have an ancestor in Nioh 1 named Jin Hayabusa.
That's not truly accurate in this case. First off, I think from reading your whole statement there, you meant "cross-promotion", not "crossplay" (crossplay is when players from different gaming networks/consoles can play together on one server, whereas cross-promotion is when characters and other content appear in different IP than that they originate from). But assuming we are talking about cross-promotion characters here (as that was the subject you were responding to and the rest of your post seems to indicate that) I think you're confusing the situation with Link with the situation here: in the case of The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo owns the actual content rights to the characters, because the game is developed by one of Nintendo's internal development teams (and then additionally published under Nintendo's publishing arm, of course). In the case of Fire Emblem, Nintendo has no content rights over the characters or other contents of the games: they merely have publication rights to the games. Intelligent Systems, the independent developer who actually produces the Fire Emblem games, is free to contract with anyone to use their characters; it's a completely different business arrangement than that which keeps most first party Nintendo characters out of non-Nintendo games.While it does sound interesting, the problem is that Nintendo does not do crossplay with the other platforms. Meaning the only way we would ever get a Fire Emblem guest is if the game was ported to Switch and they’d only be available on there and no other platform.
Well, wouldn't exactly have to release close in time. We are getting Nioh 2 after all, but more importantly, Witcher 3 and NieR: Automata were both a good bit prior to SCVI and we got both Geralt and 2B anyways. Fast forward to now and we're getting Haohmaru down the line with the new Samsho coming after. Not unreasonable to say Nioh 2 could see some sort of crossover if they had the chance. The new version of the Spirit Guardian mechanic would make for a cool but probably difficult new Soul Charge aspect too if any proper characters actually use it.Pow--perfect: double cross-promote! (Well, if Nioh is every doing a follow-up and release is close in time to a SC game; given the development cycles involved though, who can say if that will ever happen).
That's not truly accurate in this case. First off, I think from reading your whole statement there, you meant "cross-promotion", not "crossplay" (crossplay is when players from different gaming networks/consoles can play together on one server, whereas cross-promotion is when characters and other content appear in different IP than that they originate from). But assuming we are talking about cross-promotion characters here (as that was the subject you were responding to and the rest of your post seems to indicate that) I think you're confusing the situation with Link with the situation here: in the case of The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo owns the actual content rights to the characters, because the game is developed by one of Nintendo's internal development teams (and then additionally published under Nintendo's publishing arm, of course). In the case of Fire Emblem, Nintendo has no content rights over the characters or other contents of the games: they merely have publication rights to the games. Intelligent Systems, the independent developer who actually produces the Fire Emblem games, is free to contract with anyone to use their characters; it's a completely different business arrangement than that which keeps most first party Nintendo characters out of non-Nintendo games.
All of that said, it is is possible (though not super likely) that insofar as Fire Emblem characters have been featured in Smash Bro., Nintendo put conditions in their licensing agreement that requires those characters to not be licensed to other third parties for X amount of time. That is atypical in such agreements for a variety of reasons though. The much more realistic reason that Fire Emblem characters may be barred has nothing to do with licensing intricacies per se, but rather something much more pragmatic: Intelligent Systems knows which side its bread is buttered on and doesn't want to upset a cozy relationship with its primary publisher by allowing the characters it licensed to Smash to appear in a competitor. How much Nintendo would view this as a serious betrayal of the business relationship is debatable though: if they lost their shit over everything that was happening with regard to every character who was a guest in a recent Smash game, it would potentially upset a lot of working relationships.
Yes, I meant to say cross-promotion. But considering they have both been with Nintendo from the very beginning similarly to HAL Laboratory and both are technically developers for Nintendo. But just because they are the current devs for the Fire Emblem games doesn’t mean they automatically have hold towards the franchise. They would more than likely need permission from the head honchos who have tied them around their leash. So unless Nintendo decides to ever give the A-Okay on allowing Project Soul to use a character from the franchise for cross-platform purposes or for a Switch port, don’t expect a Fire Emblem guest to happen.Pow--perfect: double cross-promote! (Well, if Nioh is every doing a follow-up and release is close in time to a SC game; given the development cycles involved though, who can say if that will ever happen).
That's not truly accurate in this case. First off, I think from reading your whole statement there, you meant "cross-promotion", not "crossplay" (crossplay is when players from different gaming networks/consoles can play together on one server, whereas cross-promotion is when characters and other content appear in different IP than that they originate from). But assuming we are talking about cross-promotion characters here (as that was the subject you were responding to and the rest of your post seems to indicate that) I think you're confusing the situation with Link with the situation here: in the case of The Legend of Zelda, Nintendo owns the actual content rights to the characters, because the game is developed by one of Nintendo's internal development teams (and then additionally published under Nintendo's publishing arm, of course). In the case of Fire Emblem, Nintendo has no content rights over the characters or other contents of the games: they merely have publication rights to the games. Intelligent Systems, the independent developer who actually produces the Fire Emblem games, is free to contract with anyone to use their characters; it's a completely different business arrangement than that which keeps most first party Nintendo characters out of non-Nintendo games.
All of that said, it is is possible (though not super likely) that insofar as Fire Emblem characters have been featured in Smash Bro., Nintendo put conditions in their licensing agreement that requires those characters to not be licensed to other third parties for X amount of time. That is atypical in such agreements for a variety of reasons though. The much more realistic reason that Fire Emblem characters may be barred has nothing to do with licensing intricacies per se, but rather something much more pragmatic: Intelligent Systems knows which side its bread is buttered on and doesn't want to upset a cozy relationship with its primary publisher by allowing the characters it licensed to Smash to appear in a competitor. How much Nintendo would view this as a serious betrayal of the business relationship is debatable though: if they lost their shit over everything that was happening with regard to every character who was a guest in a recent Smash game, it would potentially upset a lot of working relationships.
Yes, when I say "close in time", I mean in a relative sense. And there is further flex time if the franchise the character is being borrowed from is particularly popular and/or the last entry has had strong ongoing sales (Geralt is a good example of this, insofar as Witcher III actually dropped some time ago, but it's one of the best-selling games of all time which received continuing support for years and decent sales up until relatively recently. The case here is a little bit more questionable: Nioh 2 was announced over a year ago, and may be arriving early enough to be among the initial cycle games for the next generation of consoles, while Soulcalibur games arrive every six years or so. Basically, a Nioh 2 character (if it were a big enough title to attract Namco's interest for a cross-licensing, a question it itself) would have to hit SCVI's continuing support window, and I think the game (Nioh 2) is likely to drop just a little too late for that, more's the pityWell, wouldn't exactly have to release close in time. We are getting Nioh 2 after all, but more importantly, Witcher 3 and NieR: Automata were both a good bit prior to SCVI and we got both Geralt and 2B anyways. Fast forward to now and we're getting Haohmaru down the line with the new Samsho coming after. Not unreasonable to say Nioh 2 could see some sort of crossover if they had the chance.
No, what you are describing there is a third type of licensing arrangement altogether, which also does not apply (as a IP/contractual matter) to the Fire Emblem scenario. With regard to the EA/DICE Star Wars games, neither developer nor publisher owns the content rights to the characters and other IP subject matter: rather those rights are owned by a third party (LucasFilms, itself owned by Disney) who licenses that content for limited purposes to publisher and developer (probably in a single contractual instrument). The "head honchos" you refer to are Disney/LucasFilms, because they own the content rights at the end of the day, which as a legal matter is what ultimately gives a party the authority to license or withhold the right to use that intellectual property.But just because they are the current devs for the Fire Emblem games doesn’t mean they automatically have hold towards the franchise. Hell, EA are currently the developers of the Star Wars games such as the new Battlefronts, but that doesn’t mean they can just immediately use a SW character in a collaboration project with another company. They would more than likely need permission from the head honchos who have tied them around their leash. So unless Nintendo decides to ever give the A-Okay on allowing Project Soul to use a character from the franchise for cross-platform purposes or for a Switch port, don’t expect a Fire Emblem guest to happen.
Would Estinien Wyrmblood from Final Fantasy XIV be a good guest character for season 3? He is a Dragoon and could introduce a spear/pole user that uses ranged attacks because they exist in the game for the Dragoon class. Since Square Enix already collaborated with Tekken with Noctis, then I feel they would be open for another collaboration. In exchange, Project Soul could help Square Enix make a unique event like the Monster Hunter and soon to release Nier raid for example in FFXIV. The Soul swords would actually fit perfectly within the universe of Final Fantasy XIV in my opinion and we could see some of our favorite Soul characters in RPG form.
This is Estinien in his normal Dragoon armor.
This is Estinien under control by Nidhogg and this form could be his Soul Charge form in Soul Calibur complete with aura and the lore of both even fits since Estinien under control of Nidhogg is more powerful like when one activates their Soul Charge.
I think Project Soul could come up with a good style that uses a Dragoon's attacks that fits in Soul Calibur such as a lot of vertical attacks, throwing the spear and more.
I already have a good stage in mind being the Final Steps of Faith
Or for a more exotic arena, could be on the scales of Sophia.
Choosing what music plays would be difficult as Final Fantasy XIV has a huge selection of top quality and awesome music for nearly every situation.
Thoughts? Much better fit than my earlier suggestion of Sephiroth and the settings seems to fit Soul Calibur's as well better than FFVII and I think Estinien's armor and weapon are cool looking.
Here are other sets of Dragoon armor that could be released as CaS parts with Estinien and most seem like a good fit within Soul Calibur.
Karma. ;)why does 2B feel like Cassandra’s worst matchup
How would yall feel about Kasumi from DOA being a guest for SC?
I agree that Ryu is the better fit for a huge number of reasons, but two points of disagreement here: 1) Kasumi has a weapon canonically, and actually has been using it in vanilla play for a bit now. 2) Generally speaking, I am all about the brawlers and I think every Soulcalibur should have one. I think Devil Jin's moveset in SCV is actually much superior to numerous of the other movesets in that game--and certainly more unique and conferring new textures to the formula. It also allows for something to couple to creations that otherwise look 'wrong' with a weapon (I know that's a minor point or non-value for many players, and even i view it as subservient to gameplay characteristics, which is why I mention it as merely an aside here, albeit one of immense interest to some players).i would rather have Ryu Hayabusa you know cus of the weapons fighting game this is. i hated the fact that SC5 had Devil Jin as a style it felt stupid.
Would Estinien Wyrmblood from Final Fantasy XIV be a good guest character for season 3? He is a Dragoon and could introduce a spear/pole user that uses ranged attacks because they exist in the game for the Dragoon class. Since Square Enix already collaborated with Tekken with Noctis, then I feel they would be open for another collaboration. In exchange, Project Soul could help Square Enix make a unique event like the Monster Hunter and soon to release Nier raid for example in FFXIV. The Soul swords would actually fit perfectly within the universe of Final Fantasy XIV in my opinion and we could see some of our favorite Soul characters in RPG form.
This is Estinien in his normal Dragoon armor.
This is Estinien under control by Nidhogg and this form could be his Soul Charge form in Soul Calibur complete with aura and the lore of both even fits since Estinien under control of Nidhogg is more powerful like when one activates their Soul Charge.
I think Project Soul could come up with a good style that uses a Dragoon's attacks that fits in Soul Calibur such as a lot of vertical attacks, throwing the spear and more.
I already have a good stage in mind being the Final Steps of Faith
Or for a more exotic arena, could be on the scales of Sophia.
Choosing what music plays would be difficult as Final Fantasy XIV has a huge selection of top quality and awesome music for nearly every situation.
Thoughts? Much better fit than my earlier suggestion of Sephiroth and the settings seems to fit Soul Calibur's as well better than FFVII and I think Estinien's armor and weapon are cool looking.
Here are other sets of Dragoon armor that could be released as CaS parts with Estinien and most seem like a good fit within Soul Calibur.
That example was cut out long before you posted your response.No, what you are describing there is a third type of licensing arrangement altogether, which also does not apply (as a IP/contractual matter) to the Fire Emblem scenario. With regard to the EA/DICE Star Wars games, neither developer nor publisher owns the content rights to the characters and other IP subject matter: rather those rights are owned by a third party (LucasFilms, itself owned by Disney) who licenses that content for limited purposes to publisher and developer (probably in a single contractual instrument). The "head honchos" you refer to are Disney/LucasFilms, because they own the content rights at the end of the day, which as a legal matter is what ultimately gives a party the authority to license or withhold the right to use that intellectual property.
But that's a very different relationship from that which exist between between Nintendo and Intelligent Systems with regard to Fire Emblem content. First off, EA is not the developer, as you put it, of Battlefront (nor any other Star Wars game): they are the publisher. DICE is the developer in that arrangement. DICE only has access to the IP through a license from a thirty party (LucasFilm), which license was almost certainly negotiated by EA. However, in the case of Fire Emblem, they have licensed the content from no one: they own the IP on the characters in question, free and clear, and nobody can tell them who license that content to. In this scenario, Nintendo is also operating as a developer (and publisher) insofar as it is licensing the Fire Emblem content for inclusion in a game which it developed through one of its own internal teams, with said game published under its label. But that gives them no default rights over the content thereafter; Intelligent Systems still owns the content in its entirety and could license it to someone else entirely: compare this the Star Wars scenario where neither EA nor DICE ever owned the content rights, but rather licensed them from a third party (which happens to be the world's largest media conglomerate by assets, and which you better believe had an army of lawyers scrutinizing every letter of the license agreement to strictly limit the uses).
Now, as I noted above, it is possible for Nintendo in that situation to 'collaterally' contract to preclude Intelligent Systems from re-licensing those characters for a period of time, but in my opinion, that is unlikely to have happened in this case. And even then, Intelligent Systems would still have the right to re-license the work to another third party and Nintendo could not prevent that contract: Intelligent Systems would merely be possibly liable for some damages to the extent that the new license breached the collateral contractual provisions against re-licensing, but only to the extent that Nintendo could prove damages. Damages in such a case would be difficult to prove, which is just one of many reason why companies don't bother to try to "lock down" content of their partners with such agreements: they are too ephemeral and difficult to litigate and only serve to spoil good working relationships.
So really the only thing likely to be stopping Intelligent Systems from licensing Fire Emblem content to Namco is that they might (in the hypothetical scenario in which Namco is interested in it and willing to pay for a license) view it as likely to complicate their relationship with their publisher (as an informal rather than legal matter). But even then, they are not "technically a Nintendo developer: "technically" they are a third party developer, in that they are not owned in part or in full by another company that also publishes or owns a publisher. Rather, it's as a practical, informal matter that we might consider them a Nintendo publisher, insofar as virtually every game they have worked on appeared exclusively on Nintendo systems and/or under the Nintendo publishing label.
Ahh, I must have been particularly slow on my response that time.That example was cut out long before you posted your response.
Well "second party" isn't really a term when it comes to these legal and organizational relationships, but I get the idea that you are getting at: they are not subsidiary to Nintendo in any sense, but their business model is so firmly enmeshed with Nintendo hardware, which they are specialized to develop for, that preserving that working relationship would almost always trump any interest in increased revenue through licensing. That assessment is probably true in virtually any realistic variation of Namco courting them for a license, if there was any reason to believe Nintendo would feel salty about it.They’re really more of a second party developer than anything for Nintendo.
Further agree here. There's no reason Namco would want those characters in particular (they aren't necessarily very ideal to SCs formula and already have a competing "feel" from another fighter franchise) and it would (at a minimum) cause hassle for Intelligent Systems in working out the license. It would just be a knot that isn't worth untying when there are so many better options for cross-licensing for both companies.But regardless, trying to get a Fire Emblem guest for Calibur would be a hassle that I don’t think either company would want to go through.
Yes--perfect. I've been saying Kazuya is due for inclusion for a while, as the missing Mishima link (Jin and Heihachi having been adapted previously). And linking his devil mode to Soul Charge makes perfect sense to me. But I doubt very much that we could ever get a free moveset with an update. The moveset (and the related software engineering for things like hit boxes) is by far the lion's share of the work that goes into a character: by comparison, the model is like 2-3% tops of the labour involved, even when they re-use some assets for the moveset. The fact that they included a style without a model in SCV is just a sign (one among too many to list, unfortunately) of how much of a disorganized cluster-f#@& the development of that game was, and how they stumbled it out as an incomplete product.I really want a return of one of the Mishima styles, or a new Soul of Kazuya that has the normal hand to hand stuff (as normal as Mishima Karate is, anyway) in base form and crazy Devil stuff in Soul Charge. It'd be neat if they threw one in as part of one of the upcoming CaS packs
That's funny--I pretend the flowers don't exist. Or that I'm playing another (much better) Soulcalibur game.Devil Jin and Viola were useful for CaS... Azwel feels a bit quirky for a mage I guess and my mage CaS suits Amy’s wand (albeit recolored to look wooden) rather well. I pretend the flowers are magic...