I was talking with a few of my friends yesterday while playing Smash 4 about character selection as far as who gets in. I am probably the most into Smash speculation, as I'm the only one who follows it on sites like this. We discussed the good and the bad of character suggestions.
When we talk about characters, we need to think about the reality of it...Super Smash Bros. is a video game that brings stars of the video game industry (mainly Nintendo) together for a party game at heart, with a competitive edge. The game works as two mediums. It's clearly a party game (I mean come on...think about how much we have to get rid of for it to be competitive) but IT CAN BE competitive at the same time. I love both aspects of it.
With character selection...I think a lot of fans forget something. It's kind of like a relationship. The beauty of the prospect is what gets us interested, but the personality or implementation can make or break it. Or in Smash terms, the idea gets us interested, but the history and "merit" (beauty) of a character means nothing if the gameplay (personality) sucks.
When we talk about characters, we should talk about what keeps us interested. The gameplay. Just, stop talking about , "Ermagherd, look at all this merit!". Those days are gone. In Brawl, Diddy, Dedede and Wario had merit to get in...mainly because they're Diddy Kong, King Dedede and Wario. Those days are gone. The biggest prospect for a newcomer in Smash 5 is essentially Inklings...who come from a game that JUST came out.
Just from looking at Smash 4 and the newcomers, the characters were picked for varying reasons. It came between well...popularity, relevance and unique gameplay.
(unique gameplay/retro)
(Unique gameplay over boring Chrom, from latest Fire Emblem)
(relevant Mario character, unique gameplay)
(I doubt she'd be included if not for Uprising, unique gameplay w/custom moves, popular choice)
(popular pick, unique gameplay, arguably relevant because of Wii release)
(relevant game, unique gameplay, decently popular)
(he's Pac-Man, unique gameplay, is essentially always relevant because he's Pac-Man)
(arguably an off the wall character, unique gameplay, relevant because of the titan that is Wii Fit)
(relevant generation of Pokemon, unique gameplay)
(popular request, unique gameplay)
(Animal crossing is a popular series, unique gameplay)
(relevant character, had good amounts of support, unique gameplay) The clones were for irrelevant reasons, so I'm not going into that.
So when we're talking about characters, we need to define certain words. To me, RELEVANCE can mean several things. When we say that "X character is relevant..." what are they relevant to? If they are relevant to contemporary Nintendo, then that is also the same argument as recency. If recency does not go hand in hand with popularity, then it hardly matters imo.
So for example, Duck Hunt is relevant to classic Nintendo, Rosalina is relevant to recent Mario, Pac-Man is relevant to gaming as a whole, Greninja is relevant to the new Pokemon, and K.Rool is relevant to classic Donkey Kong Country. What gets them into Smash is this sort of thing, paired with other positives...and time.
I personally think sales and other boring stats are dumb to talk about. As far as viability of being picked, we should talk about a few things.
1) If they are the main character of the series, and the series sells well (and is not represented) then that could raise their chances. It can basically be sales = popularity...kind of. Think Inklings. I would argue that using SMG sales to argue for Rosalina is irrelevant because the game was bought because it's a MARIO game. Rosalina is a popular character on her own though, and presented unique gameplay opportunities. Sales do not always equate to popularity.
2) Gameplay abilities can get you in depending on what your competition is, or how viable you are. For example, Chrom may have gotten in if Sakurai didn't care about unique and new things. But Robin won out because he's got what it takes to be something new and FUN TO PLAY. Adversely, Alph COULD HAVE been a character on his own, but technical issues could have certainly gotten in his way.
3) Sakurai still has his own criteria, such as series balance. His idea of series balance is not the same as ours, however. To some, having as many Mario characters/Pokemon characters as we do is an atrocity when compared to Kirby. But he may feel like things are well off as they are. For the devil's advocate response of Fire Emblem having 5 characters, it would have only had three if Lucina hadn't been added in. Roy got in mainly because of his popularity with his fans...showing that Sakurai is going to add characters for different reasons regardless of silly "ERMAGHERD THIS SERIES HAS TOO MUCH CHARACTERS!!111!" reactions. He adds things the fans want, or adds extra stuff as a present. Roy got in because fans wanted it, and Lucina (as well as Doc and Dark Pit) were extras. Instead of being whiny about it, we should appreciate that characters were added instead of tossed aside.
To continue (yes, I realize this is a long post) we fans think we have all the coolest ideas. But it's not always so much of "unique gameplay = good idea" as much as "conceivably balanced unique gameplay concept= good idea". Everybody thinks they have a great idea, but plenty of those same ideas are overpowered or not as unique as we think. The moves they perfom are only a part of that...what's more important is how they use them, and if they ARE FUN TO PLAY AS AND USE. IF IT'S NOT FUN, IT'S NOT WORTH IT. This IS a game that people buy to...have fun with, you know.
But that's my latest blurb. Have fun with it lol.
![[Obnoxshush/Dasshizer]](/data/avatars/l/267/267037.jpg?1450250857){kind=avatar}
and I guess I will explain all my character's in order.
