Social Banjo-Kazooie Social Thread - Project Dream Come True!

[ChunkySlugger72]

I know pretty much everything imaginable has been talked about Banjo-Kazooie including movesets, But I haven't seen a discussion about "Potential Movesets" in a while and it seems like a lot newer users have come aboard since and would like to hear their opinions on the subject.

Here's mine that I have had since the Smash Ballot in 2015.


Character Profile: Banjo-Kazooie

Franchise: Banjo-Kazooie

Games:
Diddy Kong Racing (1997)
Banjo-Kazooie (1998)
Banjo-Tooie (2000)

Series/Logo/Icon: Jiggy/Jigsaw Piece.

Super Smash Bros Ultimate Moveset:

Movement:

(Left/Right) just like in their games Banjo can slowly creep, walk or run/dash with the same animations depending on the input on the control stick.

Jump:

Y/X: Same animations from like the game Banjo jumps,

YY/XX: Double jump and Kazooie pops out and flaps wings, Hold same button on the 2nd jump and Kazooie will help you slowly decent to the ground.

Basic Attacks

A: Clawswipe
AA: Clawswipe
AAA/Hold A: Infinite Kazooie Pecks

Side A: (Beak Bayonet) Banjo uses Kazooie as a bayonet and pokes opponent, great range and keeps opponents at bay.

Down A (2 ideas) While crouched, Kazooie pecks quickly at opponent or Banjo does a quick hit with his backpack.

Up A: Kazooie does an upward double wing whack that sends opponent upwards.

Dash Attack: (2 ideas) Roll Attack or Banjo can do a running Claw Swipe.

Smash Attacks:

Side Smash: (Breegull Bash) Banjo slams Kazooie on the ground with considerable force, Great range and great knockback.

Down Smash: (Pack Whack) Banjo swings backpack in a 360 degree hitting opponents left and right.

Up Smash: (3 ideas) Kazooie does a double Wing Whack followed by an upward beak peck, Quick Triple beak peck or Upward Beak Drill sending opponents upward.

Special Attacks:

B: (Egg Fire) Kazooie fires eggs.

Blue: rapidly fires 3 at a time, Low knockback.
Fire: rapidly fires burning red eggs.
Ice: rapidly fires freezing ice eggs, freezes opponents at high percentage damages.
Grenade: Fires explosive eggs one at a time, but has high knockback.

Hold B: (Change Egg's) Blue/Fire/Ice/Grenade.

Side B: (Beak Barge) Banjo and Kazooie fire themselves with a powerful beak strike, Can be charged up.

Side B: (Beak Bomb) While airborne Banjo and Kazooie perform a horizontal aerial strike, great for horizontal recovery, but not chargeable.

Down B: (Clockwork Kazooie Egg) Kazooie lays an egg that hatches into a Mini Mecha Kazooie, can be controlled and detonates after a 5-7 seconds or when the player presses B.

Up B: (Flap Flip) Banjo and Kazooie perform a backflip kick that sends the duo airborne for an upward recovery or the duo can launch themselves upward and damaging the opponent in the process.

Aerial Attacks:

A: (Pack Whack /Wing Whack 360) Banjo swings his backpack airborne in a 360 degree spin or Kazooie Slashes opponent with her wings in a 360 degree spin.

Forward A: (Rat-a-tat-Rap) Kazooie does a forward triple peck, quick and great for short hopping.

Back A: (Rat-a-tat-Rap) Backwards triple peck or Banjo can swing his backpack backwards.

Down A: (Beak Buster) The duo flips upside down and Kazooie pounds the ground with her beak spiking the opponent. Good knockback and

Hold Down A: (Bill Drill) The duo takes a second to spin and wind up and Kazooie Drills downward on opponent, stronger than the Beak Buster. High Knockback.

Grab and Throws:

Pummel: Banjo grabs a hold of opponent while Kazooie pecks them.

Forward: Banjo throws opponent over his head in an arch with both paws like in his games when he gives items to NPC's.

Back: Banjo stuffs opponent in Backpack spins him around and is thrown in the process.

Down: Banjo slams opponent to the ground and uses Kazooie like a Jackhammer in the process.

Up: Banjo Throws opponent upwards and Kazooie Pecks them Upward.

Final Smash: Daddy T-Rex /Jinjonator

Taunts:

Kazooie pecks Banjo's head like their Idle animation,

Banjo strums his instrument to the last tune in their theme song.

Banjo chokes Kazooie and laughs afterwards.


Victory Screen Pose:

Duo performs their Jiggy Dance like when they collect a Jiggy and Kazooie swallows it.

Banjo Dances and the duo takes a bow twice like when they collect all the Jiggy's in one world.

The Duo play their instruments to the last tune of their theme song like in thier video game intro.

Victory Theme: The tune that plays when they collect all the Jiggy's in a world.

 

[EricTheGamerman]

So... I've been holding off on talking about Steve. I dont want to come across as a jerk, but it's starting to get annoying. Ill probably get a lot of flak for this... but whatever.

I'm noticing that some of you are referring to "Steve" as a "character". Stop. He isnt one. Not by any stretch of the imagination. He doesnt have a SINGLE quality or trait that you could use to describe him other than his name and appearance, which even then isnt unique when you look at Minecraft as a whole.

Origin? Background? Motives? Goal? Personality? Feelings? Interactions of any kind? Nothing. He is LITERALLY just a skin and nothing more. Even higher ups in Mojang apparently agree with this.

They didn't mention him even ONCE in Minecraft story mode, and they even took out the grunting noise that he used to make when injured in Minecraft. The only thing that actually made him seem "alive".

I'm not saying he shouldn't be in Smash, or that you cant like him or anything like that. Im not bashing anyone or anything. He has plenty of potential as a Smash fighter, and Minecraft being in Smash in some form would be fantastic imo. I just think it's ridiculous when phrases like "fans of the character" or "character from the Minecraft series" are used when referring to Steve. Its not accurate.

This whole comment feels like such a flimsy push back against Steve. We refer to all playable entities as video games as characters. All of the Smash characters that were originally "just avatars" are still considered characters. Name and appearance are enough to define a character. Not a particularly deep one, but that doesn't make the usage of the term incorrect.

I'm actually writing a final on video games right now and happen to have a book that attempts to define common terms used in video games: Debugging Game History: A Critical Lexicon. They have put together a collection of essays from different authors that define such terms including character, and here's a little quote from that section on Character written by Katherine Isbister: "Digital games have also originated and refined an innovative form of oneself int other alternative terrain of the game world - the avatar, or player-character." In her same introduction, she also says that, "In this chapter, I present the first known instances of avatars and nonplayer characters in digital games and trace the evolution and variations of both types of game character." These quotes show that avatar are considered game characters and that we can absolutely define Steve as a "game character." He's not a fully defined character as one that might appear in a novel or movie, but he fits the video game definition.

I don't have a full online resource to the book unfortunately, but here's a link with a brief summary: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/debugging-game-history. It's a well done book that has a lot of scholarship performed and referenced regarding video game history.

I mean honestly, I just think the idea of using customizable avatar characters as our big guest characters is just lame. Ordinary Nintendo charcters like Villager or Robin are one thing, but I think there should be a higher standard for third parties.

I was honestly glad that Sakurai decided to represent Monster Hunter just through an assist trophy and a boss fight in the single-player modes, rather than forcing in a playable "Hunter" character.

I mean, the reason you would include Minecraft would be to represent the series, not the character. And the franchise is the second best selling game of all time, only behind Tetris. Both of which I would argue deserve a place in Smash and playable characters would likely result in creative and unique characters to add to the roster. I don't know how much higher of a standard you can apply to third parties.

On a personal note, I find it very strange to have series represented in Smash that don't have playable characters. I would prefer if games like Balloon Fight and Monster Hunter had characters to back up there other content. Especially since they have such great options for potential Smash characters. I may not always personally like avatar characters either, but it bothers me far more when I see series so underrepresented and I think big series should have playable representation.

 

[MissingGlitch]

I finally am getting around to re-playing Banjo Kazooie. I spent an embarrassing amount of time on Treasure Trove Cove trying to find the last jiggy and trying to find pebbles to put in the bucket because I forgot Kazooie can **** eggs.

 

[Lycan Rex]

Off topic, but Banjo Kazooie is a cool game, let's talk about that instead.View attachment 208291

I got one. How do you guys want the egg shooting to be represented?

I kinda want them to perform the bregull blaster:

Maybe banjo can enter a sort of "stance" where he holds kazooie like a gun. From here he can shoot different types of eggs from multiple angles. Maybe even charge foward and stab people with kazooie's beak. You can change between different egg types by holding shield and pressing B.

This would be more interesting than the standard egg shooting.

 

[ColtonS25]

Hey guys! I've sorta been lurking around this thread for awhile now, but I thought that I should maybe actually get involved in the thread, so count me as an official supporter. I do think that if we get any Microsoft representation in Smash that it'll be Banjo and Kazooie, so that's pretty cool. I'm very optimistic about the duo's chances, but personally I'm not expecting an announcement until E3. Gotta save them heavy-hitting announcements for when the company you're collaborating with is literally in the same building as you.

So, yeah. I guess I'm a supporter for now. Hope to have some good discussions with everyone!

 

[ChunkySlugger72]

I got one. How do you guys want the egg shooting to be represented?

I kinda want them to perform the bregull blaster:
View attachment 208301

Maybe banjo can enter a sort of "stance" where he holds kazooie like a gun. From here he can shoot different types of eggs from multiple angles. Maybe even charge foward and stab people with kazooie's beak. You can change between different egg types by holding shield and pressing B.

This would be more interesting than the standard egg shooting.

I wouldn't mind Kazooie just popping out of Banjo's backpack either, But I do think Breegull Blaster mode is more interesting.

I mean who wouldn't want to see a bear use a bird as a firearm ?

 

[Swop]

Down B: (Clockwork Kazooie Egg) Kazooie lays an egg that hatches into a Mini Mecha Kazooie, can be controlled and detonates after a 5-7 seconds or when the player presses B.

I dont think it should be controlled, making it controlled will heavily Endanger Banjo and Kazooie, It should just move around the screen like one of Jr's Mecha Koopas and blow up when it touches someone.

 

[TheZoologist]

I’d be down for Breegull Blaster as their way of shooting eggs! Also like the idea of Beak Bayonet being their Up Smash with Banjo slashing upwards with Kazooie like a sword!

 

[ChunkySlugger72]

Side Smash: Breegull Bash
(I think mostly everyone can agree on this)

Down Smash: Pack Whack
(I believe is the most fitting and more obvious choice)

Up Smash: Isn't as obvious and is the likeliest that doesn't have to be straight from the "source material"

Idea 1: 1-2 Wing Whack followed by an upward peck as the final hit.

Idea 2: An upward triple beak peck or Banjo uses Kazooie Beak Bayonet style upwards

Idea 3: An upward beak drill.

Idea 4: An upward Wing Whack 360 Spin similar to Bowser Jr's Up Smash.

 

[Lycan Rex]

Any word from our notible leakers?
(Verge, hitagi, panda ect.)

 

[Deleted member]

Any word from our notible leakers?
(Verge, hitagi, panda ect.)

Hitagi/xenother:ded(not big surprise)
Verge/panda:nothing new just same ol same ol

 

[MissingGlitch]

Hitagi/xenother:ded(not big surprise)
Verge/panda:nothing new just same ol same ol

Finally leakers are starting to hint towards heavy. It's about time.

 

[Nazyrus]

Any word from our notible leakers?
(Verge, hitagi, panda ect.)

As someone who is in daily contact with panda i can confirm we are just waiting at the moment, we are in silent moments.
As for the other leakers I wouldn't expect anything from them lol, I don't think they have any worth source for DLC, nor I see them being interested in Smash lately really. Plus, they really aren't as reliable as Polar anyway, lol

 

[Justin Little]

*Banjo Kazooie looks at Bayonetta*

Kazooie: I guess we know what happened to Tooty.

I have to admit something to y'all. I haven't played the Banjo games since I rented them at Blockbuster. I rented them so many times, but I haven't played them since. I could never afford it back then and I've never had Xbox Live when I owned an Xbox 360 so you can say I am as grumpy as Tooty that the series has never been available to me. Hopefully, my luck will change for the better this E3.

 

[KingMinjo91]

This whole comment feels like such a flimsy push back against Steve. We refer to all playable entities as video games as characters. All of the Smash characters that were originally "just avatars" are still considered characters. Name and appearance are enough to define a character. Not a particularly deep one, but that doesn't make the usage of the term incorrect.

I'm actually writing a final on video games right now and happen to have a book that attempts to define common terms used in video games: Debugging Game History: A Critical Lexicon. They have put together a collection of essays from different authors that define such terms including character, and here's a little quote from that section on Character written by Katherine Isbister: "Digital games have also originated and refined an innovative form of oneself int other alternative terrain of the game world - the avatar, or player-character." In her same introduction, she also says that, "In this chapter, I present the first known instances of avatars and nonplayer characters in digital games and trace the evolution and variations of both types of game character." These quotes show that avatar are considered game characters and that we can absolutely define Steve as a "game character." He's not a fully defined character as one that might appear in a novel or movie, but he fits the video game definition.

I don't have a full online resource to the book unfortunately, but here's a link with a brief summary: https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/debugging-game-history. It's a well done book that has a lot of scholarship performed and referenced regarding video game history.

I mean, the reason you would include Minecraft would be to represent the series, not the character. And the franchise is the second best selling game of all time, only behind Tetris. Both of which I would argue deserve a place in Smash and playable characters would likely result in creative and unique characters to add to the roster. I don't know how much higher of a standard you can apply to third parties.

On a personal note, I find it very strange to have series represented in Smash that don't have playable characters. I would prefer if games like Balloon Fight and Monster Hunter had characters to back up there other content. Especially since they have such great options for potential Smash characters. I may not always personally like avatar characters either, but it bothers me far more when I see series so underrepresented and I think big series should have playable representation.

Oh, please. If you interpret it as an attack, thats all you. Jeez, I dont know how this many people managed to ignore the last paragraph in my initial post. Its not a "push back" against Steve. Though I guess I cant blame you for thinking that, considering how many people use arguments like mine to try and prove why he shouldnt be a playable fighter. Very touchy subject. NONE of it has any bearing on my opinion of Steve in Smash, if I must repeat myself.

Actually, the usage of that term IS incorrect when looking at the definition given to me. Conveniently, the last part of it was left out when posted:

"the particular combination of things about a person or place, esp. things you cannot see, that make that person or place different from others:"

I dont think I have to explain why this definition really doesn't work if you're trying to argue for Steve here. None of them really work of you try to apply them in their entirety. A "character" generally should have "character". Its silly to think otherwise. A name and an appearance is all you need, huh? It really feels like you're reaching with this one.

As for the other part of your post, I'm getting major "its up to interpretation" vibes. Essays from different authors and "attempting" to define certain terms... very interesting stuff for sure, but none of it is concrete. If thats what you want to go with, then I dont have much else to say. I respect the opinions, though. I just dont see why a video game character has to be defined differently. Sorry, but when it comes to characters, I need more than a name and the fact that it exists. But thats just me, you do you.

Now Banjo and Kazooie, on the other hand... have everything you could ask for... and more. Hehe.... *twirls mustache*

 

[Lycan Rex]

As someone who is in daily contact with panda i can confirm we are just waiting at the moment, we are in silent moments.
As for the other leakers I wouldn't expect anything from them lol, I don't think they have any worth source for DLC, nor I see them being interested in Smash lately really. Plus, they really aren't as reliable as Polar anyway, lol

Oh I had no idea she was so reliable. Granted I never really kept up with leaks prior to this game. Is she really more credible than verge?

 

[EricTheGamerman]

Oh, please. If you interpret it as an attack, thats all you. Jeez, I dont know how this many people managed to ignore the last paragraph in my initial post. Its not a "push back" against Steve. Though I guess I cant blame you for thinking that, considering how many people use arguments like mine to try and prove why he shouldnt be a playable fighter. Very touchy subject. NONE of it has any bearing on my opinion of Steve in Smash, if I must repeat myself.

Actually, the usage of that term IS incorrect when looking at the definition given to me. Conveniently, the last part of it was left out when posted:

"the particular combination of things about a person or place, esp. things you cannot see, that make that person or place different from others:"

I dont think I have to explain why this definition really doesn't work if you're trying to argue for Steve here. None of them really work of you try to apply them in their entirety. A "character" generally should have "character". Its silly to think otherwise. A name and an appearance is all you need, huh? It really feels like you're reaching with this one.

As for the other part of your post, I'm getting major "its up to interpretation" vibes. Essays from different authors and "attempting" to define certain terms... very interesting stuff for sure, but none of it is concrete. If thats what you want to go with, then I dont have much else to say. I respect the opinions, though. I just dont see why a video game character has to be defined differently. Sorry, but when it comes to characters, I need more than a name and the fact that it exists. But thats just me, you do you.

Now Banjo and Kazooie, on the other hand... have everything you could ask for... and more. Hehe.... *twirls mustache*

There's a big difference between an attack and a push back. You're right that several people use the "not a *real* character" response to try and de-legitimize certain characters, and I always take this same stance. I know you're not saying it should be taken as such, but that framework in particular has a nasty connotation from a lot of what I've seen. Not that I care about Steve in the slightest really, I'm still as ambivalent as ever, but I despise that particular argument on a personal level.

And no, you're the one misconstruing the usage of character as a word here. Character has different meanings depending on what you're referring to. I can say that the city of London has a certain character and be referring to the definition you provide of being unique in certain ways. Merrian-Webster still provides the definition as such: "one of the attributes or features that make up and distinguish an individual" - or - "the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person, group, or nation." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/character). Under that usage of the word, you're correct, Steve doesn't have a ton to work with, nor does any avatar.

But there's another common usage of character that does apply to Steve and every other entity in games, which again Merrian-Webster states as: "one of the persons of a drama or a novel." This definition has been expanded upon literary contexts as, "A person in a novel, play, or film" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/character). Most definitions are still based upon older determinations and have not necessarily been updated to account for new technologies and forms of entertainment, so it's reasonable to expect the same definition to apply once going into the video game arena. That's why I specifically provided scholarship that referenced how a character was defined in the medium of video games. Video games are still a relatively new medium, and especially an area where studies and academic analysis has only been done in recent years, so while you're correct that there are potentially different interpretations (Video games fit into art after all, and most of those commonly accepted definitions are side effects of years of discourse on the subject), that doesn't mean we throw away a well researched definition provided by a reputable author. The book I provided attempts to provide a "video game dictionary" if you will, so it naturally pulls upon different sources to cover the vast amount of bases that such a task requires. This particular volume has different authors for different definitions, not multiple authors discussing one definition to be clear as well.

Steve by virtue of having a name and a distinctive look does make him a character in his own right as he is just a person in a medium of entertainment. Yes, he doesn't have character in the sense of more distinctive qualities, but he is a character. He's as defined as the player wants him to be and made unique through his actions performed under the control of the player. Until more recently, most video game characters were not explicitly defined with too many characteristics. They were basic much like Steve, vehicles for the player to experience the world and gameplay. Is Mario not a character in Super Mario Bros.? He never talks, never does anything distinctive besides act as the player's vehicle to platforming. He has a single shocked and pixelated expression when he dies and that's pretty well it.

It just seems silly to me to not refer to playable avatars as characters as that is what we've commonly come to accept, and the scholarship I've seen on the subject supports the idea that we should continue to refer to them as characters. They may not be well-defined, but again, there are different uses of character and one applies to Steve while another doesn't. It's fine to want more from these entities in games, but they still remain characters regardless of your personal assessments.

I feel like Sakurai has also done an amazing job at giving his fighters more distinguished personality traits once they come to Smash anyway. Piranha Plant has a genuine sassy attitude for example, while ROB becomes a more playful robot that can attack. They still aren't super well defined, but he does inject even more life into unlikely characters.

 

[MonkeyDLenny]

In attempt to push the conversation back into SOMETHING that isn't just railing on Steve...

A lot of people are assuming that whenever the next Direct DOES happen this month, Banjo will be the next revealed fighter at the end and be released near E3. Let's say that happens, let's say Banjo-Kazooie get announced as a last minute surprise in the next Direct and drop sometime near E3.

If that happens... what other character do you think could possibly take the coveted "E3 Reveal" spot. Last time it was Ryu, who else other than Banjo-Kazooie would be worthy of being revealed at E3?

 

[N3ON]

Referring him as a character isn't wrong, just like it's not wrong to call Mr. Game & Watch or Miis characters. They are just very flat characters.

Accidental or not,

I dont think I have to explain why this definition really doesn't work if you're trying to argue for Steve here. None of them really work of you try to apply them in their entirety. A "character" generally should have "character". Its silly to think otherwise. A name and an appearance is all you need, huh? It really feels like you're reaching with this one.

That's never been a dealbreaker for Smash. I mean the Miis are characters, and they fit under a lot of this line of criticism. You're using the definition of character that is somewhat synonymous with "personality" or "disposition", but all character really means in this context is closer to the definition of just having a role.

 

[Deleted member]

There's a big difference between an attack and a push back. You're right that several people use the "not a *real* character" response to try and de-legitimize certain characters, and I always take this same stance. I know you're not saying it should be taken as such, but that framework in particular has a nasty connotation from a lot of what I've seen. Not that I care about Steve in the slightest really, I'm still as ambivalent as ever, but I despise that particular argument on a personal level.

And no, you're the one misconstruing the usage of character as a word here. Character has different meanings depending on what you're referring to. I can say that the city of London has a certain character and be referring to the definition you provide of being unique in certain ways. Merrian-Webster still provides the definition as such: "one of the attributes or features that make up and distinguish an individual" - or - "the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person, group, or nation." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/character). Under that usage of the word, you're correct, Steve doesn't have a ton to work with, nor does any avatar.

But there's another common usage of character that does apply to Steve and every other entity in games, which again Merrian-Webster states as: "one of the persons of a drama or a novel." This definition has been expanded upon literary contexts as, "A person in a novel, play, or film" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/character). Most definitions are still based upon older determinations and have not necessarily been updated to account for new technologies and forms of entertainment, so it's reasonable to expect the same definition to apply once going into the video game arena. That's why I specifically provided scholarship that referenced how a character was defined in the medium of video games. Video games are still a relatively new medium, and especially an area where studies and academic analysis has only been done in recent years, so while you're correct that there are potentially different interpretations (Video games fit into art after all, and most of those commonly accepted definitions are side effects of years of discourse on the subject), that doesn't mean we throw away a well researched definition provided by a reputable author. The book I provided attempts to provide a "video game dictionary" if you will, so it naturally pulls upon different sources to cover the vast amount of bases that such a task requires. This particular volume has different authors for different definitions, not multiple authors discussing one definition to be clear as well.

Steve by virtue of having a name and a distinctive look does make him a character in his own right as he is just a person in a medium of entertainment. Yes, he doesn't have character in the sense of more distinctive qualities, but he is a character. He's as defined as the player wants him to be and made unique through his actions performed under the control of the player. Until more recently, most video game characters were not explicitly defined with too many characteristics. They were basic much like Steve, vehicles for the player to experience the world and gameplay. Is Mario not a character in Super Mario Bros.? He never talks, never does anything distinctive besides act as the player's vehicle to platforming. He has a single shocked and pixelated expression when he dies and that's pretty well it.

It just seems silly to me to not refer to playable avatars as characters as that is what we've commonly come to accept, and the scholarship I've seen on the subject supports the idea that we should continue to refer to them as characters. They may not be well-defined, but again, there are different uses of character and one applies to Steve while another doesn't. It's fine to want more from these entities in games, but they still remain characters regardless of your personal assessments.

I feel like Sakurai has also done an amazing job at giving his fighters more distinguished personality traits once they come to Smash anyway. Piranha Plant has a genuine sassy attitude for example, while ROB becomes a more playful robot that can attack. They still aren't super well defined, but he does inject even more life into unlikely characters.

Hey Um guys can you please stop talking about the definition of character? I’m so confused about this right now and my brain can’t take it lol

 

[KingMinjo91]

Accidental or not,

That's never been a dealbreaker for Smash. I mean the Miis are characters, and they fit under a lot of this line of criticism. You're using the definition of character that is somewhat synonymous with "personality" or "disposition", but all character really means in this context is closer to the definition of just having a role.

Oh I agree, I'm not arguing against his inclusion in Smash at all. I just don't think he has enough to be called a "character". At the very least, it looks like we really have to stretch the definition to its very limits and beyond to make it work.

 

[SuperiorYoshi87]

In attempt to push the conversation back into SOMETHING that isn't just railing on Steve...

A lot of people are assuming that whenever the next Direct DOES happen this month, Banjo will be the next revealed fighter at the end and be released near E3. Let's say that happens, let's say Banjo-Kazooie get announced as a last minute surprise in the next Direct and drop sometime near E3.

If that happens... what other character do you think could possibly take the coveted "E3 Reveal" spot. Last time it was Ryu, who else other than Banjo-Kazooie would be worthy of being revealed at E3?

Maybe a newcomer from an upcoming game.. maybe a new Pokemon for Sword and Shield...

 

[Lycan Rex]

*this thread whenever steve is brought up*

 

[N3ON]

Oh I agree, I'm not arguing against his inclusion in Smash at all. I just don't think he has enough to be called a "character". At the very least, it looks like we really have to stretch the definition to its very limits and beyond to make it work.

Well, under that one definition of character, yes. The definition most akin to "personality". But there are other definitions of character, such as those more synonymous with "role", and these are generally the kind that apply to rosters and other contexts referring to a registry of fictional participants.

And in the second, Smash-applicable paradigm, an inclusion such as Steve wouldn't really break ground as far as deliberately blank slates go. He wouldn't even be the first blank slate avatar of extremely variable design.

 

[TheZoologist]

In attempt to push the conversation back into SOMETHING that isn't just railing on Steve...

A lot of people are assuming that whenever the next Direct DOES happen this month, Banjo will be the next revealed fighter at the end and be released near E3. Let's say that happens, let's say Banjo-Kazooie get announced as a last minute surprise in the next Direct and drop sometime near E3.

If that happens... what other character do you think could possibly take the coveted "E3 Reveal" spot. Last time it was Ryu, who else other than Banjo-Kazooie would be worthy of being revealed at E3?

I personally think Banjo & Kazooie wouldn’t be revealed until at least E3 this year, if they are indeed in the game at all. I’m not sure who else could be a bigger reveal than them at E3. Even though the E3 presentation of the year Sm4sh was coming out didn’t have anyone other than the Mii Fighters and Palutena’s reveals, Pac-Man was revealed that night, which was a HUGE inclusion in my opinion, and like you said, Ryu for the following E3, which was also a humongous reveal. So whoever they reveal as DLC for E3 this year needs to be on that level of hype. And I personally think Banjo-Kazooie are the only characters, especially third party that would bring almost universal hype at E3.

 

[Lycan Rex]

In attempt to push the conversation back into SOMETHING that isn't just railing on Steve...

A lot of people are assuming that whenever the next Direct DOES happen this month, Banjo will be the next revealed fighter at the end and be released near E3. Let's say that happens, let's say Banjo-Kazooie get announced as a last minute surprise in the next Direct and drop sometime near E3.

If that happens... what other character do you think could possibly take the coveted "E3 Reveal" spot. Last time it was Ryu, who else other than Banjo-Kazooie would be worthy of being revealed at E3?

Crash maybe

Doomguy?

 

[KingMinjo91]

There's a big difference between an attack and a push back. You're right that several people use the "not a *real* character" response to try and de-legitimize certain characters, and I always take this same stance. I know you're not saying it should be taken as such, but that framework in particular has a nasty connotation from a lot of what I've seen. Not that I care about Steve in the slightest really, I'm still as ambivalent as ever, but I despise that particular argument on a personal level.

And no, you're the one misconstruing the usage of character as a word here. Character has different meanings depending on what you're referring to. I can say that the city of London has a certain character and be referring to the definition you provide of being unique in certain ways. Merrian-Webster still provides the definition as such: "one of the attributes or features that make up and distinguish an individual" - or - "the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person, group, or nation." (https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/character). Under that usage of the word, you're correct, Steve doesn't have a ton to work with, nor does any avatar.

But there's another common usage of character that does apply to Steve and every other entity in games, which again Merrian-Webster states as: "one of the persons of a drama or a novel." This definition has been expanded upon literary contexts as, "A person in a novel, play, or film" (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/character). Most definitions are still based upon older determinations and have not necessarily been updated to account for new technologies and forms of entertainment, so it's reasonable to expect the same definition to apply once going into the video game arena. That's why I specifically provided scholarship that referenced how a character was defined in the medium of video games. Video games are still a relatively new medium, and especially an area where studies and academic analysis has only been done in recent years, so while you're correct that there are potentially different interpretations (Video games fit into art after all, and most of those commonly accepted definitions are side effects of years of discourse on the subject), that doesn't mean we throw away a well researched definition provided by a reputable author. The book I provided attempts to provide a "video game dictionary" if you will, so it naturally pulls upon different sources to cover the vast amount of bases that such a task requires. This particular volume has different authors for different definitions, not multiple authors discussing one definition to be clear as well.

Steve by virtue of having a name and a distinctive look does make him a character in his own right as he is just a person in a medium of entertainment. Yes, he doesn't have character in the sense of more distinctive qualities, but he is a character. He's as defined as the player wants him to be and made unique through his actions performed under the control of the player. Until more recently, most video game characters were not explicitly defined with too many characteristics. They were basic much like Steve, vehicles for the player to experience the world and gameplay. Is Mario not a character in Super Mario Bros.? He never talks, never does anything distinctive besides act as the player's vehicle to platforming. He has a single shocked and pixelated expression when he dies and that's pretty well it.

It just seems silly to me to not refer to playable avatars as characters as that is what we've commonly come to accept, and the scholarship I've seen on the subject supports the idea that we should continue to refer to them as characters. They may not be well-defined, but again, there are different uses of character and one applies to Steve while another doesn't. It's fine to want more from these entities in games, but they still remain characters regardless of your personal assessments.

I feel like Sakurai has also done an amazing job at giving his fighters more distinguished personality traits once they come to Smash anyway. Piranha Plant has a genuine sassy attitude for example, while ROB becomes a more playful robot that can attack. They still aren't super well defined, but he does inject even more life into unlikely characters.

I should really stop after this one, haha. Not you specifically, but many people are going to mistake me for a hater if I keep this up.

I definitely agree, Sakurai can make anything work if he wants to. Like I've said before, Steve has great potential as a fighter in Smash (I'd actually prefer him to NOT be given facial expressions. Maybe just one where his eyes open up when he gets hit. And if hes in, I pray that theyll use his look in the promotional material and NOT the in-game one... ew).

Gonna have to disagree with your Mario example. In the original Mario Bros., he had a motive. There was a story. He wanted to save Peach from Bowser. Sure, it wasnt super complex and the gameplay was too simple for story to be the focus. But thats how a lot of older games are. There was always a foundation, characters did have something going for them. And if not explicitly stated or shown in game, they almost always had a manual that gave you a background story along with the characters motive or goal or whatever.

Thats still a lot more than what Steve was given, and I don't think he has enough. I even think calling him a "person" is a stretch.

But yes, they are old definitions, and they often cant fully explain the things we have today. Its why I didnt want to bring any "definitions" into this.

And thats all! Putting all my chips on Banjo at E3, and I cant wait to see what happens. Keep the discussion going here, I love this thread and the people in it.

 

[SKX31]

Hey Um guys can you please stop talking about the definition of character? I’m so confused about this right now and my brain can’t take it lol

To summarize in simpler terms:

Character can be a feeling, a 3-Dimensional character or it can also be a costume pretty much. One definition is like air, the other feels like an actual person to varying extent, and the third is like this:

"BIG BADDIES SMASH BEAR TO PAVEMENT GRR!"

I personally think Banjo & Kazooie wouldn’t be revealed until at least E3 this year, if they are indeed in the game at all. I’m not sure who else could be a bigger reveal than them at E3. Even though the E3 presentation of the year Sm4sh was coming out didn’t have anyone other than the Mii Fighters and Palutena’s reveals, Pac-Man was revealed that night, which was a HUGE inclusion in my opinion, and like you said, Ryu for the following E3, which was also a humongous reveal. So whoever they reveal as DLC for E3 this year needs to be on that level of hype. And I personally think Banjo-Kazooie are the only characters, especially third party that would bring almost universal hype at E3.

Gordon. Freeman.

You know how much of a meme Half Life 3 is? Hoo boy. I guarentee, that's the kind of character who would shatter the Net into a trillion pieces.

 

[KirbyWorshipper2465]

In attempt to push the conversation back into SOMETHING that isn't just railing on Steve...

A lot of people are assuming that whenever the next Direct DOES happen this month, Banjo will be the next revealed fighter at the end and be released near E3. Let's say that happens, let's say Banjo-Kazooie get announced as a last minute surprise in the next Direct and drop sometime near E3.

If that happens... what other character do you think could possibly take the coveted "E3 Reveal" spot. Last time it was Ryu, who else other than Banjo-Kazooie would be worthy of being revealed at E3?

One of dem Pokeymans.

Or something silly like Poochy.

 

[Voe]

Crash maybe

Doomguy?

I would be more than happy with one of these choices.

 

[Mr. Stagg]

In attempt to push the conversation back into SOMETHING that isn't just railing on Steve...

A lot of people are assuming that whenever the next Direct DOES happen this month, Banjo will be the next revealed fighter at the end and be released near E3. Let's say that happens, let's say Banjo-Kazooie get announced as a last minute surprise in the next Direct and drop sometime near E3.

If that happens... what other character do you think could possibly take the coveted "E3 Reveal" spot. Last time it was Ryu, who else other than Banjo-Kazooie would be worthy of being revealed at E3?

It's very possible that Joker is done and that Banjo was being worked on to a slightly lesser degree beforehand in prep for the Easter reveal. At least there would be enough done to show them off and the drop them at E3.

 

[BZocky]

In attempt to push the conversation back into SOMETHING that isn't just railing on Steve...

A lot of people are assuming that whenever the next Direct DOES happen this month, Banjo will be the next revealed fighter at the end and be released near E3. Let's say that happens, let's say Banjo-Kazooie get announced as a last minute surprise in the next Direct and drop sometime near E3.

If that happens... what other character do you think could possibly take the coveted "E3 Reveal" spot. Last time it was Ryu, who else other than Banjo-Kazooie would be worthy of being revealed at E3?

Captain Syrup to follow up the much-anticipated reveal of Wario Land 5

 

[LogFrog]

The E3 character doesn’t have to be a super ground breaking 3rd party or whatever. We got Palutena at E3 2014, remember. I’m just saying.

 

[Megadoomer]

Maybe a newcomer from an upcoming game.. maybe a new Pokemon for Sword and Shield...

If Rex and Pyra were too new to make it into Smash Ultimate as DLC, then the same definitely applies for a Pokemon from a game that isn't out yet which we know very little about as of now.

 

[Dinoman96]

The E3 character doesn’t have to be a super ground breaking 3rd party or whatever. We got Palutena at E3 2014, remember. I’m just saying.

She was sandwiched between Miis and Pac-Man.

 

[Llort A. Ton]

In attempt to push the conversation back into SOMETHING that isn't just railing on Steve...

A lot of people are assuming that whenever the next Direct DOES happen this month, Banjo will be the next revealed fighter at the end and be released near E3. Let's say that happens, let's say Banjo-Kazooie get announced as a last minute surprise in the next Direct and drop sometime near E3.

If that happens... what other character do you think could possibly take the coveted "E3 Reveal" spot. Last time it was Ryu, who else other than Banjo-Kazooie would be worthy of being revealed at E3?

Crash, Steve, a RE character, maybe a more western popular character like Chief or Doomguy. Its anyones guess, but we all know its gonna be Thwomp in the end.

 

[MissingGlitch]

The next direct will announce every video game character ever will appear in smash.

 

[Vycoul]

I just want to briefly share my two cents on B&K vs Steve talk:

While I'd much rather read and engage in more positive speculation, I think people are too sensitive when they see jabs at Steve.
The Grunty rhyme dissing Steve that seems to have sparked the latest trip down this type of discussion was very tame.

To be blunt, it's getting old seeing people fret about whether or not this thread becoming "toxic". Or seeming to jump at the chance to label something "hate". It seems to me as if some people want everyone to behave as if they are at a tea party with the queen of England. The 1000th person explaining why they dislike Minecraft is not hateful or toxic. It's just your everyday beating of a dead horse.

You're going to get posts having some fun at the expense of rival characters. Especially one from a series that's already as love-it-or-hate-it as Minecraft.

 

[TheCJBrine]

I don't see Banjo-Kazooie happening this month if we get them, I see them more-likely for an E3 reveal.

As for the Steve stuff, there was something that said Steve is Alex's boyfriend and that he was a miner + some other stuff while Alex was some different stuff, but it was from 2016 Lego Club Magazine so idk if it was actually official or whatever, it's just listed on the official wiki. Even if he has no personality of his own, you could still say he has one based on his surroundings/what you typically have to do in the game, either survive and build stuff or build whatever you want while you fly around with invincibility. You could also say there's an underlying story with the Wither, Ender Dragon and the strange poem during the credits. They don't need to show emotion to be a character, you wouldn't call a silent person with no background in a show or whatever an object even if they're the main entity, always being there, even if the focus is more-so on what's around them. Personally I like to give Steve a personality based on his surroundings + the silly things you can find in the game / the humorous stuff from Mojang.

 

[TheZoologist]

The E3 character doesn’t have to be a super ground breaking 3rd party or whatever. We got Palutena at E3 2014, remember. I’m just saying.

Pac-Man was revealed behind doors the night of the E3 Nintendo Direct at a special meeting of some sort, but you're technically right. Personally, I think he should've been revealed in the E3 Nintendo Direct and either the Mii Fighters or Palutena were revealed behind doors instead. I mean one of the biggest gaming icons, practically the grandfather of arcade gaming, made it into Smash alongside Mario, Sonic, and Mega Man, his reveal should've been broadcast worldwide. Probably one of my favorite Smash reveals to date, though, along with Snake, Sonic the Hedgehog, King Dedede, Mega Man, Little Mac, Shulk, Ryu, Cloud, Ridley, K. Rool, and Simon Belmont. It will probably only be topped by Banjo & Kazooie's hopeful reveal, which if only Nintendo and Microsoft are going to be presenting this year at E3 without Sony, would be the most opportune time to reveal them, even more so than their 20th anniversary in Japan which just so happened to land on the VGA show this past December literally the day before Smash Ultimate launched. (should've been the big Smash reveal instead of Joker, in my opinion. Think Joker may have snatched their invitation!)