Skip to content

Isaac Will Be Playable In Blade Strangers

Another new character will be playable in the forthcoming Blade Strangers for the Nintendo Switch. Nicalis has announced via Twitter that Isaac from the legendary The Binding of Isaac series will be coming to the game when it launches on the platform in the summer. The tweet below announcing the news includes a video giving you a glimpse of what to expect.

Thanks to The Bacon Strip for the tip!

30 thoughts on “Isaac Will Be Playable In Blade Strangers”

  1. Pingback: Not Only VideogamesIsaac Will Be Playable In Blade Strangers

      1. Not that either is right or wrong, but a number of us just want the Smash roster to be Nintendo brand only. I didn’t like Snake, Shulk, Bayonetta etc. I don’t mind Sonic, Pac-man, or Mega Man so much, but yeah.. I’d be happier with an all Nintendo cast. I love my indie games and have a boat load of them, but I just personally don’t want them in Smash Bros. I feel that it loses a good chunk of its identity otherwise. Like, watching the commercials back in the day for the first, it was a bunch of Nintendo characters in suits beating up on each other. That’s what the game is to me.

          1. Well, that certainly wasn’t the case on the 64 or Gamecube. Brawl brought in Sonic as a sort of Nintendo “honoree” and randomly Snake. It’s only the last gen that really brought in the outside franchises and I wasn’t into it.

            1. Pokemon is 2nd party and Sonic was kinda planned for Melee. Even then, that was 17 years ago. Times have changed. Indie and 3rd party trophies and characters are joining the game. And there are some quality indie characters that deserve to be in SSB.

              1. Ownership of Pokemon is actually pretty complicated! 2nd party of course is kind of a made up term, but Pokemon goes beyond just a third party studio that makes exclusively for Nintendo: “Nintendo/Creatures Inc./GAME FREAK inc. Pokémon, Pokémon character names, Nintendo 3DS, Nintendo DS, Wii, Wii U, and Wiiware are trademarks of Nintendo.”

                And you’re right, with the last game in particular, things have changed. Some of us don’t like it. Some of us do. Not right or wrong, I was just maybe answering why the OP said what he said.

                I could point to say my in-laws. Their family enjoys Nintendo casually, will play Smash, and would be put off by a lot of characters they didn’t recognize.

                1. 2nd Party is not a made up term. Games like Pokemon and Xenoblade are 2nd Party. And there are already characters from Nintendo that some didn’t recognize well (ie: Fire Emblem or Kid Icarus characters are usually the victims) It’s not just 3rd party.

                  1. “Second-party developer is a colloquial (‘used in ordinary or familiar conversation; not formal or literary’) term often used by gaming enthusiasts and media to describe game studios who take development contracts from platform holders and produce games exclusive to that platform.” Basically, all of what we call second parties are third parties that work in part or entirely for one publisher with varying degrees of control depending on contracts.

                    As for who owns Pokemon, I’m sure you know that it’s co-owned by Nintendo, Game Freak, and the Pokemon Company in equal parts, but its more complicated than that:


                    At any rate, with likely majority ownership plus ownership of all trademarks and such, it’s essentially a first party IP developed by a third (or second) party. And it’s certainly safe to say that in the public’s perception, Pokemon is much more likely to be identified with Nintendo than say Xenoblade or Bayonetta.

                    1. So asking for no 3rd parties also means taking out all Pokemon related games since “2nd party is still 3rd party”. Perception doesn’t have to do with this. Asking to not add 3rd party is pretty much asking “get rid of Pokemon too”. Which will never happen. SSB is more about just Nintendo. And It’s better that way.

                      1. Actually, I was arguing just the opposite: Pokemon is a first party IP and belongs even though it’s developed by a third party. And really, by that logic, Xeno and Bayonetta are now owned by Nintendo as part of the buyouts so it’d be hard to deny their inclusion (I’ve got no problem arguing my way onto the other side of the argument). It’s probably just a combination of the realistic characters and their newness that rubs me the wrong way, and probably unfairly. Kirby and Earthbound were of course from HAL. Fire Emblem never bothered me. All these things are Nintendo IPs even if they’re done by independent studios. But just because I didn’t care for Pac-man, Sonic, Snake (I really didn’t like Snake) etc and would be even less excited to see Shovel Knight or some such, doesn’t mean I’m arguing that you shouldn’t enjoy the direction it’s gone in. Is it better for it? Not for me. Do more people want indies than those that don’t? No clue. But maybe you’re right.

                          1. The site I linked above breaks down the ownership well. Nintendo owns all trademarks , Pokemon names, etc (see They can make Pokemon games without Game Freak and not the other way around. That’s why Nintendo can put out spin offs without Game Freak involved. And it’s why if Game Freak ever tried to make a game on a competing system, they couldn’t use the names Pikachu or any other Pokemon.

                            It’s like how Microsoft owns Halo, even though it was made by Bungie. It’s a bit of a bummer if you’re a dev actually, because if you’re unhappy with your relationship with your publisher, you typically lose access to all your IP if you jump ship, unless your new publisher can buy out the IP.

                            1. If you ask anyone else that knows Pokemon well, they will either say they are 2nd or 3rd. They are not 100% with Nintendo just like Xenoblade. This has been known for a while.

                              1. I didn’t say they were 100%, just that Nintendo owns the trademarks, names, logos, and everything important. And they actually do own Xenoblade AND Monolith Soft in its entirety now. They bought them out years ago.

                                  1. Again. Game Freaks are not a first party studio, but Pokemon is a first party IP.

                                    Monolith IS a first party studio:
                                    “Monolith Soft is a first party Nintendo developer purchased by Nintendo in 2007. Prior to the buyout, Namco Bandai owned a majority of the company. Originally Nintendo only purchased 80% of Namco Bandai’s 96%, but in 2011 they bought out the rest. Company President Hirohide Suigara and lead designers Tetsuya Takahashi and Yasuyuki Honne each also own a limited number of shares.”

                        1. description on amazon it says:

                          “Fighter roster includes characters from previous Studio Saizensen games (like Code of Princess and Sayonara Umihara Kawase), Nicalis games (like Cave Story+) and other surprise entrants”


                          So I I think it’s a safe bet that she won’t get in.

                            1. It’s all good.

                              Looking at the description for Blade Strangers again, it does say “…and other surprise entrants” so you could be right about that.

                              It would be really neat if they were able to add characters from other games that they haven’t published as DLC like Shantae or Shovel Knight.

                  Leave a Reply

                  %d bloggers like this: