So? Just because some people like it doesn't mean it's justified or logical.
Logical? We're talking about a game where you fight over a floating ball that gives you the power to summon a space tank that can do barrel rolls. "It's just a game." I could get your point if this was a game based on realism or a serious one, but it's not. It was designed for fun, not developer superiority.
And here I thought you'd understand that this conversation is taking place within the context of video games. Looks like I assumed too much.
We're talking about what is logical with regards to the title of a game and its content. Having a game called "Playstation All-Stars Battle Royale" and featuring Mario or Pikachu or Link or Zelda or Ganondorf or Captain Falcon or Fox as a main character in the game is completely illogical. Do you not understand that?
Where did you get that from? Easter eggs do have a point, at least to those who appreciate them.
And that "point" is irrelevant
at best. Do you pleasure yourself when you find an Easter egg or something? Do you have aneurysms if you don't find any Easter eggs? No? Then I guess their presence isn't too terribly important, and certainly not important enough to justify showcasing a character that isn't your own in a game that markets itself as your characters fighting each other. It's great that you like Easter eggs, but you and others liking them doesn't justify their involvement in this scenario to the extent that you would have them present.
I love finding things that developers have hidden, and I love cross-franchise inclusion. The point isn't to make a ****ty game fun, it's to make a fun game have little bits of even more fun.
Is the game going to be unplayable to you if it doesn't have Easter eggs?
Unless it is some massively important aspect of a game to you, I don't see why you're so adamant that a non-company character be used by Sony in a game about Playstation characters fighting each other. Why can't they be present in a lesser role, like trophies? Why can't a stage pay homage to something subtly? You're suggesting a false dichotomy by acting like either Easter eggs are there in a big way or they aren't, and that's simply not the case. In fact, Easter eggs were originally meant as small, insignificant surprises; they weren't indicative of a prominent cameo like we're discussing.
easter eggs are the devil stop liking things i don't like
Please explain why you find them so pointless. I understand your point about snake in brawl, but what makes you think easter eggs are such a waste of time?
It's my opinion. It isn't law. I'm fine with Easter eggs, but it doesn't bother me if they aren't there. But, as you are suggesting that it would be perfectly okay for Mario to make an integral appearance in a game
advertised as a game about Playstation-specific characters, I feel like I have to comment on how completely stupid that would be. It's not that I'm against Easter eggs. They're charming, and I appreciate the respect they pay to their referenced games. That said, what you're suggesting is a completely unnecessary and, frankly, within the context of Sony's game, inappropriate addition of what you're calling an Easter egg.
Nice exaggeration, by the way. You should apply for a position at FOX.