Analysis: Why Do We Not Want Characters?

[shrooby]

Awhile ago @Groose created a thread detailing various reasons why people may support certain characters, so I thought it would be fun to do just the opposite. After some thinking, here are the reasons I came up with
If there's anything I've missed or if you'd like to correct me on something I've said, do feel free to say so! Input is welcome! When new reasons are presented, I will add them to this list.

Note: This is not a list of reasons of why characters are not likely. I cannot stress this enough. This is only a list of possible reasons as to why someone would be personally against the inclusion of a character, regardless of whether that character is likely or not. Some of these may seem to blur the line between likeliness and want, but in the cases where this is the case they are only being applied towards the latter context.

Another note: The examples I provide don't necessarily reflect my views or the majority of people's views. They are simply examples that I think most users would be able to understand in each particular context.

1) Personal dislike
This should be the most obvious one. Someone does not want a character included because they don't like the character and dislike seeing them appear in games. So, obviously, the character being playable would cause said character to have quite the large appearance. Reasons for disliking a character can of course vary from person to person.
Example: Tingle, Waluigi

2) The character would not be unique/add anything new.
If one does not think that the character would be fun to play as or if they probably wouldn't add a unique gimmick or playstyle of sorts, then they are against the inclusion of that character. This can also be extended to not wanting characters with a seemingly high potential to be (semi-)clones of existing ones.
Example: Lucina, Dr. Mario

3) The character is not important enough to warrant inclusion.
Note: This can apply to characters of already represented franchises or characters from franchises without existing characters. Different arguments would be made in each case.
The character, within the context of their own series, is not an impactful enough character to be included. The character is very minor in the grand scheme of things and should therefor not be included with the existing playable characters.
Example: Geno, most Pokemon
The character's franchise is not important to Nintendo overall, and, therefor, the main character(s) of the franchise should also not be included.
Example: Starfy

Note: This could dive into a whole other debate as to what exactly "importance" is in regards to already represented and unrepresented franchises. I'm being more loose here in order for the word to be used as more of an umbrella term rather than a defined one.

4) The franchise that the character falls under does not need anymore playable characters.
Note: This, obviously, only applies to characters that would fall into existing franchises.
The franchise that a particular character would belong to is already properly represented by already playable characters. The common thinking here is that certain franchises warrant a particular number of characters. A cap on the number of characters a franchise should have is usually determined by a combination of the number of games in said franchise, the popularity of the franchise in general, and the number of characters that actually warrant inclusion, among other things that can vary from franchise to franchise. Caps can also be made based how franchises compare to others. (Example: Mother should not have as many characters as Zelda.) And if these limits would be broken as a result of a character's inclusion, then the character should not be included.
Also, in the case of third party franchises, it is common to think that a second character is unneeded due to the franchise being a third party one.
Example: Krystal, Samurai Goroh, Shadow


5) The character's inclusion would decrease the chances of another character's inclusion.
I think this one is best explained through example. Though do note that the reason for decreased chances may vary from characters to characters.
Example: A K. Rool supporter could be against Dixie's inclusion. Her inclusion would seemingly decrease the chances of K. Rool since there will probably only be at most one new Donkey Kong character.

6) The character and/or the character's franchise is not associated with Nintendo enough.
This is most commonly seen in regards to characters that have never had games on Nintendo consoles. While this makes the character chances of inclusion automatically impossible, it also may make the character not wanted as well. This may also be applied to characters that, while having some games on Nintendo consoles, have most of their games on other consoles.
Example: Master Chief

7) The character is not a video game character.
Like the previous one, while almost always being mentioned in regards to a character's likeliness, this can also be applied to not wanting a character as well.
Example: While most consider Goku as not likely, many, regardless of his likelihood, are also against his inclusion overall due to him not originating from a video game.

8) The exclusion of a character would disappoint the large and/or vocal fanbase of the character.
One would simply get satisfaction out of seeing a particularly large and/or vocal group of fans be disappointed. While a rather cruel reason, it is a reason nonetheless.
Example: Ridley

9) Miis.
Miis are a unique case in that they are a character that have a reason for wanting exclusion that only applies to them. Miis, if included as playable characters, would most likely be able to be customized and, therefor, the customizations would be seen during online play. Because of this customizability, many think that Miis would oversaturate online play with players who use Miis that are references to pop-culture icons, have inappropriate names or faces, among other distasteful things that players are capable of doing with the customizability offered through Miis.

10) Other people don't want the character included
Imagine the opposite of supporting characters because you want to see other people satisfied. One does not want to see those who don't want the character be disappointed, so they don't support the character as well.

11) The character would most likely lose an important characteristic if made playable
To be made playable, the character would most likely have to have something changed about them in order to make work or fit as a fighter. One may see a certain aspect as a key trait of a character and think that this aspect could not transfer to playable status, so they do not want to see this character playable at all.
Example: Ridley (And more specifically, his size.)

12) Current characters already represent ideas, archetypes, consoles, time periods, etc. that the character would also represent.
This can be thought of as a more general and conceptual version of 2). While the character wouldn't necessarily be a (semi)clone of an existing one, something that the character would seemingly represent is already covered by an existing ones, creating unwanted redundancy.
Example: Wii Fit Trainer already represents the Wii and Villager already represents player-created avatars, so Miis are an unnecessary addition.

NO CRITICIZING OTHERS' OPINIONS.
This thread should focus on analyzing, not criticizing. Keep that in mind before posting. I know that the subject matter lends itself to being a bit controversial, and the need to say something to people not wanting a character you want for what you think is a silly reason is often very strong, but hold back.

 

[Starcutter]

The title is very misleading

 

[PillsBuryDopeBoy]

Very misleading. I came here thinking ( wth?)
The points you made were intriguing though.

 

[shrooby]

The title is very misleading

Very misleading. I came here thinking ( wth?)
The points you made were intriguing though.

In hindsight...yes...you're right. Though, at the same time, it's exactly what the thread is about!

 

[Drazile]

Maybe for the Mii case the default male and/or female mii could be playable, and not customisable.

 

[Chandeelure]

Awhile ago @Groose created a thread detailing various reasons why people may support certain characters, so I thought it would be fun to do just the opposite. After some thinking, here are the reasons I came up with
If there's anything I've missed or if you'd like to correct me on something I've said, do feel free to say so! Input is welcome!

Note: This is not a list of reasons of why characters are not likely. I cannot stress this enough. This is only a list of possible reasons as to why someone would be personally against the inclusion of a character, regardless of whether that character is likely or not. Some of these may seem to blur the line between likeliness and want, but in the cases where this is the case they are only being applied towards the latter context.

Another note: The examples I provide don't necessarily reflect my views or the majority of people's views. They are simply examples that I think most users would be able to understand in each particular context.

1) Personal dislike
This should be the most obvious one. Someone does not want a character included because they don't like the character and dislike seeing them appear in games. So, obviously, the character being playable would cause said character to have quite the large appearance.
Example: Tingle, Waluigi

2) The character would not be unique/add anything new.
If one does not think that the character would be fun to play as or if they probably wouldn't add a unique gimmick or playstyle of sorts, then they are against the inclusion of that character. This can also be extended to not wanting characters with a seemingly high potential to be (semi-)clones of existing ones.
Example: Lucina, Dr. Mario

3) The character is not important enough to warrant inclusion.
Note: This can apply to characters of already represented franchises or characters from franchises without existing characters. Different arguments would be made in each case.
The character, within the context of their own series, is not an impactful enough character to be included. The character is very minor in the grand scheme of things and should therefor not be included with the existing playable characters.
Example: Geno, most Pokemon
The character's franchise is not important to Nintendo overall, and, therefor, the main character(s) of the franchise should also not be included.
Example: Starfy

Note: This could dive into a whole other debate as to what exactly "importance" is in regards to already represented and unrepresented franchises. I'm being more loose here in order for the word to be used as more of an umbrella term rather than a defined one.

4) The franchise that the character falls under does not need anymore playable characters.
Note: This, obviously, only applies to characters that would fall into existing franchises.
The franchise that a particular character would belong to is already properly represented by already playable characters. The common thinking here is that certain franchises warrant a particular number of characters. A cap on the number of characters a franchise should have is usually determined by a combination of the number of games in said franchise, the popularity of the franchise in general, and the number of characters that actually warrant inclusion, among other things that can vary from franchise to franchise. Caps can also be made based how franchises compare to others. (Example: Mother should not have as many characters as Zelda.) And if these limits would be broken as a result of a character's inclusion, then the character should not be included.
Also, in the case of third party franchises, it is common to think that a second character is unneeded due to the franchise being a third party one.
Example: Krystal, Samurai Goroh, Shadow


5) The character's inclusion would decrease the chances of another character's inclusion.
I think this one is best explained through example. Though do note that the reason for decreased chances may vary from characters to characters.
Example: A K. Rool supporter could be against Dixie's inclusion. Her inclusion would seemingly decrease the chances of K. Rool since there will probably only be at most one new Donkey Kong character.

6) The character and/or the character's franchise is not associated with Nintendo enough.
This is most commonly seen in regards to characters that have never had games on Nintendo consoles. While this makes the character chances of inclusion automatically impossible, it also may make the character not wanted as well. This may also be applied to characters that, while having some games on Nintendo consoles, have most of their games on other consoles.
Example: Master Chief

7) The character is not a video game character.
Like the previous one, while almost always being mentioned in regards to a character's likeliness, this can also be applied to not wanting a character as well.
Example: While most consider Goku as not likely, many, regardless of his likelihood, are also against his inclusion overall due to him not originating from a video game.

8) The exclusion of a character would disappoint the large and/or vocal fanbase of the character.
One would simply get satisfaction out of seeing a particularly large and/or vocal group of fans be disappointed. While a rather cruel reason, it is a reason nonetheless.
Example: Ridley

9) Miis.
Miis are a unique case in that they are a character that have a reason for wanting exclusion that only applies to them. Miis, if included as playable characters, would most likely be able to be customized and, therefor, the customizations would be seen during online play. Because of this customizability, many think that Miis would oversaturate online play with players who use Miis that are references to pop-culture icons, have inappropriate names or faces, among other distasteful things that players are capable of doing with the customizability offered through Miis.

10) The character is too big.
Ridley is big as ****.

-Shokio.​

 

[FalKoopa]

A thread like this is very likely to get ruined by flame wars, you know.

I'll keep this open, but do add a note in the OP saying "NO CRITICIZING OTHERS' OPINIONS."

 

[shrooby]

A thread like this is very likely to get ruined by flame wars, you know.

I'll keep this open, but do add a note in the OP saying "NO CRITICIZING OTHERS' OPINIONS."

Hmm, perhaps you're right. I will put in the note as you said, and I will try to prevent any flame wars if I see them approaching. But if you think it best that this thread be closed, then please don't hesitate to do so!

 

[UltimateWario]

The only character that I actively don't want in Smash is Pac-Man, simply because he is only popular because of one really good game and has been mediocre at absolute, top-of-the-mountain best since then. He is also no more relevant to Nintendo than any other 3rd Party character with games on multiple consoles, except that Miyamoto made that dinky-ass game that one time than nobody played (excluding myself) and those Mario Kart arcade games.

Pac-Man was legendary, but now the only thing he's legendary for is having a terrible children's show and pumping out garbage and terrible character designs.

Spoiler

Pac-Man fans, I respect your decision to support your character and do not think any less of you because of it. In fact, more power to you. But I cannot agree.

 

[FalKoopa]

But if you think it best that this thread be closed, then please don't hesitate to do so!

This thread can grow just like the Unpopular Opinions thread, so decided to give it a chance. Still, if things get out of hand, I'll lock it.

 

[UltimateWario]

This thread can grow just like the Unpopular Opinions thread,

Oh, hell, I gotta get outta here.

 

[Knight Dude]

Well those were some interesting bullet points. Though I would agree with the others about the title. I would make it a little clear if I were you. But you obviously don't need to take my advice, feel free to do what you want.

 

[shrooby]

Well those were some interesting bullet points. Though I would agree with the others about the title. I would make it a little clear if I were you. But you obviously don't need to take my advice, feel free to do what you want.

Advice taken. I hope the new title makes it a little more clear as to the intentions of this thread.

 

[praline]

King K. Rool.
Nintendo doesn't give a crap about him so why does he deserve a spot?

Tingle.
He's annoying and has no potential for anything interesting.

Pacman.
Nobody cares about him anymore.

Geno.
He was in 1 game. He's only ever going to be in 1 game. We deserve better 3rd party characters.

Waluigi.
He was only created so Wario would have a partner for the Mario sports game. Him being an assist trophy was more than he deserved.

Daisy.
She'd be a complete Peach clone and wouldn't bring anything to the game.

Midna.
She's a one-off Zelda character from the worst console Zelda.

Tails, Knuckles and any other Sonic character.
We have Sonic. That's all we should get. Deal with it.

 

[shrooby]

King K. Rool.
Nintendo doesn't give a crap about him so why does he deserve a spot?

Tingle.
He's annoying and has no potential for anything interesting.

Pacman.
Nobody cares about him anymore.

Geno.
He was in 1 game. He's only ever going to be in 1 game. We deserve better 3rd party characters.

Waluigi.
He was only created so Wario would have a partner for the Mario sports game. Him being an assist trophy was more than he deserved.

Daisy.
She'd be a complete Peach clone and wouldn't bring anything to the game.

Midna.
She's a one-off Zelda character from the worst console Zelda.

Tails, Knuckles and any other Sonic character.
We have Sonic. That's all we should get. Deal with it.

Many of these seem to fall neatly into one or more of the categories I mentioned, which is good. Makes me more confident in my analysis. Except one though it looks like. If you don't mind, could you elaborate on Pac-Man a little bit? Perhaps make it more personal if you could?

 

[Morbi]

You forgot about one of the most overt notions, some people do not want certain characters as they do not find the character very likely. Essentially, they do not want/support the character because of their perceived chances (which are quite low).

I am not sure if that was entirely concise. Perhaps an example would help? Meowth, he is the main antagonist of Pokemon's anime and the spiritual rival of Pikachu (inverted Pokedex numbers alluding to the premise of cat and mouse). He obviously has a large fan-base as he is one of the most prominent characters with a plethora of appearances. However, many do not want/support him because he doesn't have a great chance of being playable.

If that makes sense.

 

[shrooby]

You forgot about one of the most overt notions, some people do not want certain characters as they do not find the character very likely. Essentially, they do not want/support the character because of their perceived chances (which are quite low).

I am not sure if that was entirely concise. Perhaps an example would help? Meowth, he is the main antagonist of Pokemon's anime and the spiritual rival of Pikachu (inverted Pokedex numbers alluding to the premise of cat and mouse). He obviously has a large fan-base as he is one of the most prominent characters with a plethora of appearances. However, many do not want/support him because he doesn't have a great chance of being playable.

If that makes sense.

If a character is not likely, then they do not support the character.
Hmm, so you mean that a person wouldn't support a character to begin with knowing it's more-or-less a lost cause? Like, if they want the character, then they'll just end up being disappointed in the end, so they don't bother supporting to begin with? Is that what you're saying? It does make some sense in that case, but if I'm wrong with what you're trying to say then please correct me.

 

[Wegenbarth]

Hohoho, so much Tingle- and Waluigi-hate makes me sad.

I should also share some of my opinions:
-Creepyness: My best friend often fears the day Waluigi gets playable, and says that he will vomit rainbows (in a bad way). Guess the same could be applied to Tingle, lol.

-"Do not want because others dont want": Krystal & Geno.
Personally I had nothing against those two, but after reading through all the argument debates, I would feel bad if either of those two make it, esp Krystal if she replaces one of the landmaster dudes.

-Too Big: Ridley
I often see my friends arguing, that if Ridley will be playable in Smash4, he will have to be sized down, thus making him less frightening to fight against, which makes him lose all his appeal.

 

[MasterOfKnees]

The only character that I actively don't want in Smash is Pac-Man, simply because he is only popular because of one really good game and has been mediocre at absolute, top-of-the-mountain best since then. He is also no more relevant to Nintendo than any other 3rd Party character with games on multiple consoles, except that Miyamoto made that dinky-*** game that one time than nobody played (excluding myself) and those Mario Kart arcade games.

Pac-Man was legendary, but now the only thing he's legendary for is having a terrible children's show and pumping out garbage and terrible character designs.

Spoiler

Pac-Man fans, I respect your decision to support your character and do not think any less of you because of it. In fact, more power to you. But I cannot agree.

Summed my opinion up perfectly on why Pac-Man is one out of two characters with an actual chance I actively don't want in the game. The other one is Mii, which the OP described for me too.

 

[Diddy Kong]

Why don´t people like Impa?

 

[YoshiandToad]

Why don´t people like Impa?

As a non-hater of Impa I'll point out one of the reasons from what I've seen;

Concerns she'd replace or be too similar to Sheik moveset wise. Obviously untrue, since Impa has additional things such as magic to use(which now I think about it seems odd why Sheik doesn't considering she's Zelda in disguise) but it does seem to be a concern of many.

Very few people like change, and a change that would affect a character so drastically will be seen with negativity.

--------

I'm not a big fan of Bowser Jr and I think it may be due to several reasons:

• Replacement character for the Koopalings who I grew up with. Eventually this was solved though, so my dislike has lessened on this point.
  
  
• Mario Sunshine was one of my least favourite Mario games. Bowser Jr. is obviously heavily associated with this game
  
  
• He's a bratty stereotype which is one I can't really stomach at the best of times.
  
  
• His design is extremely lazy. It's Baby Bowser in a bib. Yes he's Bowser's son, but the Koopalings USED to be Bowser's kids and look how varied they were.
  
  
• Continual ramming down my throat by Nintendo. They do this a lot with characters. Currently Rosalina is being shoe-horned into everything, and at one point Petey was too.
  
  
• Obviously major competition for Toad in Smash. I know Rosalina trumped both, but for the longest time it seemed like a toss up between the last playable character(Toad, who I grew up with and loved beating the crap out of Wart/Wario's minions with) and the child of the big boss(Bowser Jr).
  
  Having grown up happily with Toad on the NES and SNES, I obviously have nostalgia bias of my childhood over those who grew up with Gamecube.

Honestly it's pretty petty, and the more reasonable part of me can still see why Bowser Jr. is a worthy character. Just doesn't stop me hating him.

 

[Freduardo]

My most common reason is I want other characters from the franchise

Impa - Cause I want Vaati more
Tingle - Cause he stole my force gems.
Any Sonic Character that is not Tails or Knuckles - Cause Shadow and SIlver are dull at best.
Any Kid Icarus character that is not Medusa - Cause I want Medusa. After her, bring on everyone else, I love the game.
Any pokemon - I feel the series is more represented than any other, so unless it's another combo like pokemon trainer (either by being another trainer, gym leader, or member of team rocket) I'll pass.
Any second Metal Gear character - Just not my bag, baby.
Funky Kong - Cause Cranky, Dixie, Kiddie, Tiny, Lanky, and Chunky all should happen before him.
Bomberman - Cause I want Bonk.
Bowser Jr - Koopalings are cooler

 

[shrooby]

Hohoho, so much Tingle- and Waluigi-hate makes me sad.

I should also share some of my opinions:
-Creepyness: My best friend often fears the day Waluigi gets playable, and says that he will vomit rainbows (in a bad way). Guess the same could be applied to Tingle, lol.

-"Do not want because others dont want": Krystal & Geno.
Personally I had nothing against those two, but after reading through all the argument debates, I would feel bad if either of those two make it, esp Krystal if she replaces one of the landmaster dudes.

-Too Big: Ridley
I often see my friends arguing, that if Ridley will be playable in Smash4, he will have to be sized down, thus making him less frightening to fight against, which makes him lose all his appeal.

The first one sounds more like personal dislike.
The second and third are interesting though. And the third one, if generalized to just "the character may lose an important aspect if made playable" or something along those lines, is a reason that I'm sure isn't just seen with Ridley. Though Ridley is probably the best example for understanding it more concisely.

Why don´t people like Impa?

As YoshiandToad said, Impa potentially making Shiek's return less likely is one reason that I've seen brought up.
Among other reasons, I've seen 2) and 3) be brought up. (The former much more than the latter though.)
And I'm sure that there's some personal dislike thrown in there as well, but, well, it's not usually brought up explicitly from what I've seen.
As such an avid supporter of a character, you've probably see a lot of different reasons brought up. If you don't mind me asking, have you seen any reasons that people don't want Impa playable that aren't listed?

 

[RadRedi]

I'll try and give some insight on not-liking certain characters for certain reasons. As we all know, everything here is subjective, and I won't act like it isn't. I believe I successfully worded everything to ensure that I don't step on any toes. I don't want to do that, I just want to provide some explanation (as I believe this is the thread to do that).

The biggest reason that I'm (for a lack of a better term) against characters like Krystal, Ghirahim, Impa, and Palutena - to name a few - is because those are franchises I feel don't need to/don't warrant development. It was the same for the Mario universe, but because they made Rosalina so different, it won me over. I personally fear that none of those characters bring something so drastically unique to the table (akin to Villager's collect-a-thon mentality, Mega Man's very reference-rich Variable Weapons System, Wii Fit Trainer's yogaerobics fighting style, Rosalina's Luma puppeteering, and Little Mac's terrific slow-but-sure ground game and Power Meter) that they would warrant an inclusion. It's not that I'm against adding Newcomers to Veteran franchises, just that Brawl covered almost everything. Almost everything (*coughcough* K. ROOL RIDLEY MEWTWO *cough*)

There is also the idea that franchises that I (subjectively) think deserve a spot within the playable roster could be compromised if too many characters are willy-nilly thrown in for the sake of impressing a certain demographic. One-off characters like, again, Ghirahim, could possibly do in a character like Chibi Robo the same way the inclusion of Sonic in Brawl very well may have kept Mewtwo absent. I believe that there are characters like ROB, who barely had a series but are a token to Nintendo in the grand scheme of things, and then there are characters who just didn't offer enough to be terribly unforgettable or offer anything past a single game.

One point that I would hope a lot of people agree with that the OP mentions is the idea of characters not being close enough to Nintendo. The idea of third parties, for the most part, leaves a sour taste in my mouth. Mega Man and Sonic, I am okay with for different reasons:

Sonic, while once a historical rival to Mario, has gone on to form a franchise around competing against Mario. Understandably, this is a Nintendo-exclusive series. Also, Sega has grown increasingly closer to Nintendo over the past few years, even signing a deal for Sonic to have Wii U/3DS-exclusive games for X amount of time. Sonic's life support seems to almost be hand-delivered by the Big N itself. THAT BEING SAID, Sonic still is NOT a Nintendo franchise, and to entertain the thought of adding more than just the mascot - the political avatar running against Nintendo's Mario - is almost insulting. It goes into the territory of Ghirahim vs. Chibi Robo: Why would I want a second Sega character if I could have a Nintendo character? Isn't this a game celebrating Nintendo? Shouldn't we be grateful that a non-Nintendo character like Sonic made it in to begin with?

Mega Man is an NES icon. The series, to my knowledge, is predominantly Nintendo-exclusive, spinoff (X, Battle Network) and otherwise. I understand that not every game is for Nintendo and only Nintendo, but it was like that for quite some time.

However, there really aren't any third parties that I can think of enjoying past those two. Snake in Brawl left a really sour taste in my mouth because of how little he fit in. Snake is as Nintendo-affiliated as Sora: sure, they have a few games on Nintendo platforms here and there, but the heavy-hitters - the main titles that (Company) wants everyone to pay attention to - are carried by Sony, thus making them predominantly Sony characters. And with the announcement that Metal Gear Solid Whatever will be coming out for everything but the Wii U is less being Sony-biased and more just slapping Nintendo in the face. It would infuriate me to no end to see Nintendo advertise that, ESPECIALLY WHEN I COULD BE PLAYING AS MY CHIBI (assuming Snake made it in but not Chibi Robo).

Pac Man, while not quite on the same level as Snake, just doesn't scream "Nintendo" to me. I understand he has a lot of Nintendo-exclusive games, and that way back when, his first game was the stuff of arcade legends, but that's about it. I mean, when I hear about Pac Man, it's generally the arcade game. I never hear about anything else Pac Man-related except when people feel obligated to say he has a shot in Smash Bros because Namco is working with Sakurai. If he made it in, cool, but he better be unique as all get out, or it'll feel like Snake in Brawl (admittedly to a lesser extent, though).

 

[CrossoverMan]

I like the idea of Miis being in Smash. I don't understand why someone wouldn't want to see your nan fight Mario or Link. But in the end, Miis have fairly limited customisation options, so it shouldn't be a problem.

 

[CrossoverMan]

And I don't really want to sound like a kiss ass, but Sakurai could probably put anyone in the game and I'll be satisfied.

 

[Cobalsh]

Palutena.

One new game is not enough to justify a new character. Having three games isn't enough, either. The most popular opinions for her being playable are: her importance to the series, her being a female, that Kid Icarus "deserves" a new character, and that Sakurai made KI:U, so he'll acknowledge that with a playable character.. Time to dissect these.

1. Importance. Yes, she is important to the series, but you know who else is important to their series and obtains a supporting role in SSB4: Toad. Oftentimes, "hardcore" Palutena fans are also Toad fans, oftentimes "hardcore" Toad fans as well. To them, it's all about importance, when Sakurai has shown that important characters don't often get in, a good example being Rosalina and the WFT.
2. Female. Yes, she is a female. Here's a cookie for knowing your genatalia. We are already receiving two females, hell, we might get three with a Villager alt. Being female doesn't make you more likely, if so, we would've gotten Lip by now to be the "female retro rep".
3. Deserving. Nah, not really. In the same vein, Punch-Out!!, Pikmin, Animal Crossing, and F-Zero deserve a second rep. I don't see that happening, and I don't see why Kid Icarus deserves special treatment, even with...
4. Sakurai having made Kid Icarus Uprising. This might be the dumbest. Sakurai won't include another character after he made one game for a series. It took three game to include another to his created series, it'll be a while until he includes a KI character, especially if there are no new ones planned.

I may have misunderstood the purpose of this thread, if so, sorry.

 

[RadRedi]

Palutena.

One new game is not enough to justify a new character. Having three games isn't enough, either. The most popular opinions for her being playable are: her importance to the series, her being a female, that Kid Icarus "deserves" a new character, and that Sakurai made KI:U, so he'll acknowledge that with a playable character.. Time to dissect these.

1. Importance. Yes, she is important to the series, but you know who else is important to their series and obtains a supporting role in SSB4: Toad. Oftentimes, "hardcore" Palutena fans are also Toad fans, oftentimes "hardcore" Toad fans as well. To them, it's all about importance, when Sakurai has shown that important characters don't often get in, a good example being Rosalina and the WFT.
2. Female. Yes, she is a female. Here's a cookie for knowing your genatalia. We are already receiving two females, hell, we might get three with a Villager alt. Being female doesn't make you more likely, if so, we would've gotten Lip by now to be the "female retro rep".
3. Deserving. Nah, not really. In the same vein, Punch-Out!!, Pikmin, Animal Crossing, and F-Zero deserve a second rep. I don't see that happening, and I don't see why Kid Icarus deserves special treatment, even with...
4. Sakurai having made Kid Icarus Uprising. This might be the dumbest. Sakurai won't include another character after he made one game for a series. It took three game to include another to his created series, it'll be a while until he includes a KI character, especially if there are no new ones planned.

I may have misunderstood the purpose of this thread, if so, sorry.

I think you generally hit the nail right on the head.

The reason I really don't care for her, though, as I said in my lengthy novel above, is more about her uniqueness (or potential lack of). All I could see her being is an extension of Pit's new Uprising-based moves. It would feel like adding Alph from Pikmin just for the sake of having a character who uses Rock and Flying Pikmin.

 

[Luigi#1]

Midna: A one off character in a series that has enough reps.

Ghirahim: See Midna.

Vaati: Well, even if he is in more than 1 game, he's still not important enought to me.

Waluigi: Purely spin off material.

Mii: I don't dislike Mii as much as I used to, but I don't want it because it doesn't fit the games style. I know bad reason, but I just don't see Mii in SSB4.

Baby Mario: Ahahahaha what? Moveset? Abilities? No.

Any Sonic character: Sonic is still 3rd party. 1 3rd Party series won't get a 2nd rep if F-Zero, Kid Icuras, Metroid, etc don't.

Geno: Not important, one off character of a series with plenty of reps and is about 5 spaces back in the line for the next potential Mario reps. Not even going into the secondary Mario series.

 

[Spinosaurus]

Personally, there are only characters that I want to see.

Frankly, I don't see any reason to disregard a character for whatever reason. Yes, there's plenty of characters I dislike, and it's true that I might not want them in (but not to a large extent per say), like Chrom for example. I'm not gonna jump around and yell about it, and if he gets in, I won't get mad either. That's just silly. Worst I'd do is not use him, but hell being a fighting games fan I tend to try every single character occasionally to get to see how they actually play like. It's actually not something I care about too much, the most important thing to me roster-wise is that at least one my favorite characters get in. I got Little Mac, so I'm happy enough.

There's no such thing as "taking up a slot" for me.

 

[CrossoverMan]

Personally, there are only characters that I want to see.

Frankly, I don't see any reason to disregard a character for whatever reason. Yes, there's plenty of characters I dislike, and it's true that I might not want them in (but not to a large extent per say), like Chrom for example. I'm not gonna jump around and yell about it, and if he gets in, I won't get mad either. That's just silly. Worst I'd do is not use him, but hell being a fighting games fan I tend to try every single character occasionally to get to see how they actually play like. It's actually not something I care about too much, the most important thing to me roster-wise is that at least one my favorite characters get in. I got Little Mac, so I'm happy enough.

There's no such thing as "taking up a slot" for me.

You and me are on the same page my friend. Having a few characters we don't particularly like can help us get to know the characters more.

 

[Spinosaurus]

You and me are on the same page my friend. Having a few characters we don't particularly like can help us get to know the characters more.

Haha, actually, I mostly dislike characters when I play their games. I was indifferent to Chrom first, it wasn't until I played Awakening that I didn't like him.

If you're talking about playstyle, then yeah, I agree. There are a lot of characters in fighting game that I don't normally like design/character-wise but use anyway because I like their moveset, and the opposite is true as well. Take UMvC3 for example, I hate Dante as a character, but I'd rather use him over Phoenix Wright who was my most wanted even since the game was announced. Moveset design is key.

 

[Cobalsh]

I think you generally hit the nail right on the head.

The reason I really don't care for her, though, as I said in my lengthy novel above, is more about her uniqueness (or potential lack of). All I could see her being is an extension of Pit's new Uprising-based moves. It would feel like adding Alph from Pikmin just for the sake of having a character who uses Rock and Flying Pikmin.

I was gonna do lack of uniqueness, but I was just being dismissed from a class when I was gonna add it. But yeah, she's not unique. People just want her in because she's witty, too, which is a terrible reason.

 

[CrossoverMan]

I hate playing Doctor Strange, even though everyone knew he would eventually make it in, since Dormammu and Shuma-Gorath were already in the vanilla version. It's kind of like including Cackletta and King Boo in a Smash Bros game without including Mario or Luigi.

 

[BridgesWithTurtles]

Reason #3 as described in the OP is really the root behind any sort of dislike I have at any given character's inclusion. I simply like keeping the game about Nintendo "All-Stars". Say what you want about the term not meaning anything and provide arguments of how ROB and Ice Climbers and Wii Fit Trainer and Snake already broke that "rule" and that we're scraping the bottom of the barrel; I know that my opinion is unpopular. But to me, there's a huge difference between the reasons Sakurai added those sort of characters and the hypothetical addition of every other Fire Emblem character and one-generation wonder Pokémon posterboy. I respect the wishes of anyone who wants a character I don't, despite disagreements, and I hope that others treat me the same way. In the end, we're all just crossing our fingers in hopes that Sakurai will fulfill our desires.

That's all I'm going to say on the matter.

 

[shrooby]

Palutena.

One new game is not enough to justify a new character. Having three games isn't enough, either. The most popular opinions for her being playable are: her importance to the series, her being a female, that Kid Icarus "deserves" a new character, and that Sakurai made KI:U, so he'll acknowledge that with a playable character.. Time to dissect these.

1. Importance. Yes, she is important to the series, but you know who else is important to their series and obtains a supporting role in SSB4: Toad. Oftentimes, "hardcore" Palutena fans are also Toad fans, oftentimes "hardcore" Toad fans as well. To them, it's all about importance, when Sakurai has shown that important characters don't often get in, a good example being Rosalina and the WFT.
2. Female. Yes, she is a female. Here's a cookie for knowing your genatalia. We are already receiving two females, hell, we might get three with a Villager alt. Being female doesn't make you more likely, if so, we would've gotten Lip by now to be the "female retro rep".
3. Deserving. Nah, not really. In the same vein, Punch-Out!!, Pikmin, Animal Crossing, and F-Zero deserve a second rep. I don't see that happening, and I don't see why Kid Icarus deserves special treatment, even with...
4. Sakurai having made Kid Icarus Uprising. This might be the dumbest. Sakurai won't include another character after he made one game for a series. It took three game to include another to his created series, it'll be a while until he includes a KI character, especially if there are no new ones planned.

I may have misunderstood the purpose of this thread, if so, sorry.

You indeed misunderstood a bit, but it's all good!
Your analysis alludes to what I mentioned in the beginning of the OP. About how "Some of these may seem to blur the line between likeliness and want."
The reasons you present are both against people wanting Palutena, and also against Palutena's likeliness, with some being kind of both at the same time. It's always important to make it clear what you're proposing when you're debating about a character. Do you think the character is unlikely, or do you think that the character shouldn't be included? (IE You don't want them included, and you think others should think the same. Likeliness has nothing to do with it.) Those are two very important but different questions, and they often get meshed together without even noticing.
Again, it's a very blurry line. I suppose that's something that I wanted to come out of making this thread in the end. An attempt to make the boundary clearer, if you will. In the end it's near impossible to do such a thing absolutely, but even just clearing away some of the blur is useful. The opposite of some of points reasons in the OP, ultimately, correlate with past inclusions of characters, but some don't. And even when there is a correlation, it's important to know in which cases the correlation may be significant and when it may not be.

 

[Manny Toons]

In response to @ Wegenbarth , the hate towards Waluigi is totally understandable. When a character is designed around a personality, there's more to hate about them. See, characters like Mario are generally liked due to being so flat and generic in nature. He's a stereotypical jolly guy with no in-depth personality, so what's there to really hate? Then of course there's the unjustified notion that "because he doesn't have any important roles, he's a bad character". Now what would you say towards Luigi if he never ended up getting his own series, and just stayed a color-swapped version of Mario? It's just silly.

ANYWAYS, onto throwing out my own viewpoints.

Toad - Would literally be the equivalent of adding a Koopa Troopa as a playable character. There is no one Toad that's been labeled as the representative of the species, with Captain Toad being a characterization of them who wouldn't represent "Toad" at all. They're a species, and barely much of a character. I think being a part of Peach's moveset is a perfect fit for them.

Bowser Jr. - Much like YoshiandToad up there, I've grown sour towards this guy due to him single-handedly annihilating the Koopalings' existence for almost a decade. But I've never hated the character. I don't support him purely due to my belief that he's too similar in stature to Bowser with the only difference being his size. Sure, you can slap a paint brush on 'im, but what I'll always see is a miniature Bowser with a bib running across the screen. This is actually one of the issues I have with Rosalina, as even with her many differences in design to Peach, I can't help but see a visual clone with every screenshot she shows up in. I'd rather not see characters who look barely different from one another continue to be added to the game. I'm all about aesthetics.

King K. Rool - I'm conflicted with this guy. He definitely deserves to be in, as he could use that push to start appearing in Donkey Kong Country titles again, but with him not even appearing in the last two games, as well as not being used in any game since 2008, I don't see why Sakurai would add him. Especially considering that Dixie Kong would be far more sensible (not proposing that we can't get two DK newcomers, just referring to those who only include King K. Rool in their rosters). He's not a character I want, nor am opposed to seeing make it in. ...Though I've always hated his design, ha.

Mii - Another concept I feel conflicted towards. While including the Miis would be a great step in the direction of appealing to the (very important) casual crowd, they would diminish the concept of Nintendo characters coming together in a fighting game. They aren't characters. They're caricatures of the person playing. To incorporate that concept into the roster and label them as a character would just be plain wrong. Not to mention the online experience inevitably being tarnished by Hitler and Obama Miis.

 

[Speculator]

There are no characters that I would be actively distressed to see make it in. If there's any group of people that I trust to make the right choices about the roster and to make all the characters work, it's the SSB dev team. However, there are a few characters I don't think would benefit the roster, or would in turn be benefited by an SSB inclusion.

- Lots of one-off characters get suggested like Geno, Ghirahim, Midna, Hades, Viridi, Magnus and so on. While I have no doubt all of these have potential to be interesting fighters, I don't think they're significant enough even to their own franchises to stand alongside Nintendo giants like Mario and Pikachu. If you look at the list of all characters that have ever been playable in SSB, each character has either had multiple game appearances or been the main playable protagonist of their single game. It's true that Ness, Lucas, the Ice Climbers etc have only appeared in one game outside of SSB, but the difference between them and characters like those listed above is that they were the focal point of that game. Ghiarahim wasn't important to Skyward Sword in the same way Ness was to Earthbound. I think this is an important consideration to make when thinking about character "significance".

I realize Sheik is an exception to this "rule". However, Sheik shares her roster slot with Zelda. I don't believe Sheik has enough weight behind her to merit a slot of her own. She relies heavily on having been an integral part of Zelda in Ocarina of Time for her SSB inclusion.

- I've never wanted characters designed to replace other characters. Here's a recent quote from Sakurai that sums up my feelings pretty well:

I do believe I understand that each character has its own set of fans out there who really like that character. So we’re not going to cut characters out of the way, we’re going to put in as many characters as we can, we really want to do that, because it’s good for the fans and good for all of us. But in the event that we do have to cut some characters, I’d like to apologise in advance to those fans.

Early in the SSB4 hype cycle it was common to see "replacement" suggestions - Alph to replace Olimar, Lucina to replace Marth, Impa to replace Sheik, "Classic Link" to replace Toon Link and so on. Even now I still see ideas like a "new" Pokemon Trainer or replacing Ganondorf with Demise.

I don't think this idea of "out with the old, in with the new" is a healthy approach to Smash speculation, nor is it something Sakurai takes into consideration. Not only do characters like Toon Link and Olimar have their important place within their own series, but they now have an important place in SSB. It's unfair and unwise to expect characters to be dropped because they're "irrelevant" or because some newer equivalent has recently show up.

I believe this whole notion stems primarily from Roy's departure after Melee. To me, Ike didn't really "replace" Roy. Roy, while liked by some SSB fans, didn't bring a whole lot to the game outside of being Marth with fire. Ike is a totally different entity. It seems more to me that an extra clone character was cut from Melee (like with Dr. Mario and Pichu) and a new Fire Emblem fighter was introduced to add some diversity to the series representation. I believe, had Roy been a more unique fighter in Melee, there's a stronger possibility that he would have stayed and that Brawl would have seen three Fire Emblem characters. It's not appropriate to apply Roy's situation to every single series that introduces a new main character.

- This is the one most likely to cause some trouble. It's very difficult to talk about Ridley without it becoming an argument, but I think there's a lot he stands to lose by being adapted for SSB. This goes way beyond just his size; not much of what I would call Ridley's "core assets" are applicable to a SSB character. This is the guy that was capable of picking Samus up and carrying her through a tunnel like she was nothing. In the last SSB game we saw him drag her down a wall and keep pace with the Falcon Flyer. These are some defining "Ridley-esque" moments. Ridley is huge, fast and powerful. He smashes through walls, he chases spaceships, he flies around at breakneck speeds and so on. While it's true that some characters lose elements along these lines when they appear in SSB, I don't think anything that makes Ridley such a great character is really possible within the constraints of a playable SSB fighter.

That said, if there's anyone capable of doing it, it's Sakurai. But I also believe he recognizes when a character is not an appropriate addition.

- Finally, I should talk about Palutena. This isn't strictly related because I'm not opposed to her inclusion - I enjoyed her character in Uprising and I'd be perfectly happy to see her added to SSB. But I think her chances are vastly overstated. It would be unprecedented for such a small series to get another playable character. Even ignoring that the Japanese tend to disregard Of Myths and Monsters due to that region not recieving an original release, the only comparable series with multiple playable characters is Mother. The key difference here is that Pit alone is representative of all three Kid Icarus games, whereas Ness or Lucas (or Ninten) by themselves would represent only one Mother title. Ness and Lucas are both playable protagonists, while Palutena fills a (still important, but not quite as important) support role.

So the main reason behind such a high level of expectation for Palutena seems to be that fact that Sakurai directed Kid Icarus Uprising. I'm not so sure this is a boost to her chances. In fact, I think it might be to some extent detrimental to them. Take a look at this quote from Sakurai:

As the creator of Kirby, there may have been instances when people thought ohh I made Kirby stronger because I have a preference for him, so I definitely avoid trying to give any sort of preference, and especially even mentioning anything to anybody about—to give them the idea that I like somebody more than the others.

It's true that some aspects of SSB such as the Subspace Emissary lean a little towards the "Kirby" side of things. But I don't think that's an image Sakurai wants to perpetuate, and I think that upping the representation for a small series that he just happened to have worked on might be too overtly against this philosophy. I'm not suggesting that Palutena is at all impossible or unlikely, I'm just not sure she's as much of a shoo-in as it might seem.

 

[Dinoman96]

It would be unprecedented for such a small series to get another playable character. Even ignoring that the Japanese tend to disregard Of Myths and Monsters due to that region not recieving an original release, the only comparable series with multiple playable characters is Mother. The key difference here is that Pit alone is representative of all three Kid Icarus games, whereas Ness or Lucas (or Ninten) by themselves would represent only one Mother title. Ness and Lucas are both playable protagonists, while Palutena fills a (still important, but not quite as important) support role.

I feel Star Fox is a good comparison, in a way. It's a series with only five original games, which is just two more than than the likes of Pikmin and KI, and has gotten three characters, the same amount as a 20+ game series like Kirby. Considering Toon Link and Lucario returning after everyone said they'd be cut, I'm not too convinced that Wolf will be cut.

Basically, what I'm trying to say here is that, if a three game series like KI really doesn't warrant two characters, than SF shouldn't really warrant its three characters because of there being five games. And yet, it has just that.

 

[Trigger123]

mii- I don't see hype out of that character, sure we can customize our mii's but wouldn't you prefer just alternate costumes over a whole new character slot. I don't see uniqueness to them.