Fighter selection: "wait and see" and "relevant new faces"; or, fixed-cast and rotating-cast series

[Aligo]

I'm usually in favor of the old and tried, but I cannot justify Mellia or Nia over Noah / Mio. The queens got a role in XBC3 sure, but it's not that of a main character.

Really the weapon switching wouldn't even be that different from what Byleth does. So I don't see the fuss.

Well if there are any future xenoblade games, Meila and Nia are more likely to be relevant than the 3 duo because

Spoiler: le spoilers

As Noah is irrelevant and Mio is dead at the end of 3, god I hated that ending

. It really doesn't help that moveset wise, Mio is quite literally 'Nia but less interesting'. She has no water element to pair with her twin rings, she lacks the potential to use a blade system, and while she does have a transformation, so does Nia. Nia has the benefit of having her transformation personal to her and her character arc, while Mio's is shared by the rest of 3's main group.

 

[Quillion]

I'm usually in favor of the old and tried, but I cannot justify Mellia or Nia over Noah / Mio. The queens got a role in XBC3 sure, but it's not that of a main character.

Really the weapon switching wouldn't even be that different from what Byleth does. So I don't see the fuss.

Melia still has a vital role in Aionios though, and that's coupled with her own side campaign. Noah and Mio aren't proven the way she is.

And Byleth's moveset is fun functionally to be sure, but having the Lords' weapons is stretching coherence. And at least they all have the same colors, whereas the Aionian class weapons don't.

 

[Oracle Link]

The Relevant new Faces Aproach seems disingenious considering that everyone says "Smash is a Celebration of Gaming (With a Nintendo Focus)" and no even with the biggest nintendo focus Byleth and Incineroar have no buisness Being in a Gaming Celebration (Maybe Byleth has NOW but not at the time of his inclusion) While Impa is a Long standing Character, and Skullkid and Midna have a huge Following!

 

[Swamp Sensei]

and no even with the biggest nintendo focus Byleth and Incineroar have no buisness Being in a Gaming Celebration (Maybe Byleth has NOW but not at the time of his inclusion)

Why not? Both characters are major in their franchise. Neither are actually unpopular. They score well on polls and are from big successes. You don't even seem sure of your answer considering you backpedaled immediately. Why are they inherently worse then Pichu or Corrin?

And yeah sure, Impa, Skull Kid and Midna would be awesome and should get in, but you don't have to bring other characters down to build them up. Smash inclusions aren't linear. It's not like Ridley is more important than Isabelle because he got in first or was created first. It's not a crime or injustice that someone like Byleth got in before someone you want.

 

[Quillion]

Honestly, it feels like this discussion keeps going back to Zelda.

Ordinarily, Smash would operate happily by adding "fixed cast franchise" characters by waiting until after they're proven, and add "rotating cast franchise" characters ASAP because they're fairly guaranteed to be icons of the series going forward (heck, even Corrin is part of Engage, so she [and only she] is an icon via marketing).

Then we have Zelda which has the trio of Link, Zelda, and Ganon who operate with them reincarnating time after time, and at the same time there's all the one-shot characters like Skull Kid, King Daphnes, Midna, Ghirahim, Fi, and the Champions who are marketed in their time but are always dropped and NEVER become icons of the series going forward.

Thus you have one side who sees Zelda's current treatment as a "fixed cast franchise" being completely fair and ideal, and the other side who wants Zelda to be treated as a "rotating cast" like Fire Emblem or Xenoblade. Someone loses either way.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Honestly, it feels like this discussion keeps going back to Zelda.

Ordinarily, Smash would operate happily by adding "fixed cast franchise" characters by waiting until after they're proven, and add "rotating cast franchise" characters ASAP because they're fairly guaranteed to be icons of the series going forward (heck, even Corrin is part of Engage, so she [and only she] is an icon via marketing).

Then we have Zelda which has the trio of Link, Zelda, and Ganon who operate with them reincarnating time after time, and at the same time there's all the one-shot characters like Skull Kid, King Daphnes, Midna, Ghirahim, Fi, and the Champions who are marketed in their time but are always dropped and NEVER become icons of the series going forward.

Thus you have one side who sees Zelda's current treatment as a "fixed cast franchise" being completely fair and ideal, and the other side who wants Zelda to be treated as a "rotating cast" like Fire Emblem or Xenoblade. Someone loses either way.

Zelda could easily be a blend. They have most of the mainstays covered. Adding more temporary popular characters as a bonus couldn't hurt. If the roster was a lot smaller I may feel different but eh...

Gimme more Zelds characters lmao

 

[Quillion]

Zelda could easily be a blend. They have most of the mainstays covered. Adding more temporary popular characters as a bonus couldn't hurt. If the roster was a lot smaller I may feel different but eh...

Here's the thing: adding the Zelda one-shots as "temporary characters" is a waste in two ways:

1. It wastes resources that could go to characters that WILL be icons going forward.
2. It will be a waste to throw them out by next game because game development has shifted towards recycling and using pre-made assets when possible.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Here's the thing: adding the Zelda one-shots as "temporary characters" is a waste in two ways:

1. It wastes resources that could go to characters that WILL be icons going forward.
2. It will be a waste to throw them out by next game because game development has shifted towards recycling and using pre-made assets when possible.

1. We have been waiting in that approach for over 20 years.
2. We didn't get rid of Sheik. You're assuming the character would be cut.
3.When I said temporary characters, I was talking about being temporary in the Zelda franchise, not a character in Smash created just to be cut the next game.

 

[Quillion]

When I said temporary characters, I was talking about being temporary in the Zelda franchise, not a character in Smash created just to be cut the next game.

Still though, the fact that Zelda tends to drop everything about a one-shot/temporary character after their game/arc of origin makes the "fixed cast" treatment of Zelda in Smash understandable at least.

For reference, Pokémon while focusing on starters still tries to give a bit of marketing time to older faces. Fire Emblem circa Awakening has been giving a big push towards older characters. Xenoblade has been doing the same as FE circa XC2.

It's hard to justify similar treatment for Zelda's one-shots given how hard it drops them when they're done (other than the erratic and bias-prone measure of popularity). We might need a mainline Zelda game in the vein of FE Engage, Sonic Generations, and Kirby Star Allies before something changes.

 

[Opossum]

The Relevant new Faces Aproach seems disingenious considering that everyone says "Smash is a Celebration of Gaming (With a Nintendo Focus)" and no even with the biggest nintendo focus Byleth and Incineroar have no buisness Being in a Gaming Celebration (Maybe Byleth has NOW but not at the time of his inclusion) While Impa is a Long standing Character, and Skullkid and Midna have a huge Following!

By the time Byleth was announced for Smash, Three Houses was already the best selling Fire Emblem game of all time. Byleth (or at least a Three Houses character in general if you don't like Byleth Specifically) genuinely has more reason to be here than a lot of other characters on the roster that people have fewer issues with.

 

[Quillion]

Credit where credit's due: at least the Fire Emblem characters in Smash are getting more interesting as of recent thanks to them being designed around certain core mechanics of the Fire Emblem franchise.

Pokémon on the other hand is just getting boring by focusing on starters.

 

[Oracle Link]

Credit where credit's due: at least the Fire Emblem characters in Smash are getting more interesting as of recent thanks to them being designed around certain core mechanics of the Fire Emblem franchise.

Pokémon on the other hand is just getting boring by focusing on starters.

Atleast the pokemon Starters Actually Look diffrent!
A Better Comparision would be if every Starter was a dark blue Water Type!

 

[Quillion]

Atleast the pokemon Starters Actually Look diffrent!

And the newer Fire Emblem characters don't?

I smell a double standard.

 

[Oracle Link]

And the newer Fire Emblem characters don't?

I smell a double standard.

Yeah one is a dragon, one is a Quadruped,one is a turtle one is a cat and one is a tongue frig while Firemblem has:
Granted Robin and corrin are unique but Lucina, chrome and Byleth are all Blue Haired Blue Clothed Swordwielders!

 

[Opossum]

Yeah one is a dragon, one is a Quadruped,one is a turtle one is a cat and one is a tongue frig while Firemblem has:
Granted Robin and corrin are unique but Lucina, chrome and Byleth are all Blue Haired Blue Clothed Swordwielders!

Chrom and Lucina are literally father and daughter, and Byleth is incredibly distinct from them as far as appearance. The dark overcoat and color scheme, alongside not one, but four different weapons that look completely different from the Falchion help make them super distinct.

Saying Byleth has too much overlap with Chrom and Lucina is legitimately like how people used to say Lucario and Mewtwo had too much overlap with each other. It's a gross oversimplification.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Byleth are all Blue Haired Blue Clothed

Are you color blind?

...

Am I color blind?

 

[Quillion]

I know some cultures don't distinguish green and blue, if anything.
----
Still, if we absolutely need relevant new faces, it wouldn't hurt to spice that trend up. Starters have gotten boring, and so has the stream of Avatars.

And I think just mixing in some old characters will be a band-aid solution. Hopefully we can take a more Aegis-like route except out of full intention rather than just technical limitations.

 

[Oracle Link]

Are you color blind?

...

Am I color blind?

I know some cultures don't distinguish green and blue, if anything.

I guess it like Turquise or something or its just a Blueish/ Dark Green
But That Beside the Point im talking about the zelda situation now!

Here are some Zelda Characters that arent Oneoffs:
Impa even her Ninja/ sheikah Form is a 3d ZElda Mainstay Ninja Impa was in OOT, Skyward Sword, Hyrule Warriors and BOTW/ AOC
Not to mention her other appearnces: BEing in the manual aka Story for Zelda 1 and 2 being in OOA and OOS and ALBW and atleast in the english version a character in tp is called impaz (she has red sheikah eyes and lives in the abandond town which was kakariko) so yeah that a ton Of Aperences!
Than we have Gorons a race being in OOT, MM, OOS, OOA, WW, PH, MC, ST, TP, Both HW And BOTW
They could have alts based on diffrent games and members of their race and have tons of moves to pull from
Octoroks are in every Zelda Game Aside TP and have tons of variatons so you could pull a Pirahna Plant
TINGLE Just Tingle
So there we go 3,5 Characters who are 100% Not one offs and could be made Playable they are relevant and often apearing

 

[Quillion]

I guess it like Turquise or something or its just a Blueish/ Dark Green
But That Beside the Point im talking about the zelda situation now!

Here are some Zelda Characters that arent Oneoffs:
Impa even her Ninja/ sheikah Form is a 3d ZElda Mainstay Ninja Impa was in OOT, Skyward Sword, Hyrule Warriors and BOTW/ AOC
Not to mention her other appearnces: BEing in the manual aka Story for Zelda 1 and 2 being in OOA and OOS and ALBW and atleast in the english version a character in tp is called impaz (she has red sheikah eyes and lives in the abandond town which was kakariko) so yeah that a ton Of Aperences!
Than we have Gorons a race being in OOT, MM, OOS, OOA, WW, PH, MC, ST, TP, Both HW And BOTW
They could have alts based on diffrent games and members of their race and have tons of moves to pull from
Octoroks are in every Zelda Game Aside TP and have tons of variatons so you could pull a Pirahna Plant
TINGLE Just Tingle
So there we go 3,5 Characters who are 100% Not one offs and could be made Playable they are relevant and often apearing

Impa is too inconsistent, Gorons have a wide range of abilities, and Tingle has been such a hard fall-off in Zelda that Beedle is now the main recurring "Cid" of the series.

And what is your weird fascination with Octoroks? If anything, Blins have become the "mascot" enemy of Zelda, and they're still far from being as prominent as Goombas in Mario or Slimes in DQ.

 

[True Blue Warrior]

What about Skull Kid?

 

[Lenidem]

What about Skull Kid?

Yeah! What about Skull Kid?

 

[Quillion]

What about Skull Kid?

He only has a major role in one game and an extremely minor one in another. So he's effectively a one-shot.

 

[Lenidem]

He only has a major role in one game and an extremely minor one in another. So he's effectively a one-shot.

Two minor roles. And by definition, appearing in more than one game makes you not a one-shot, unless you want to impose a new meaning to the definition.

 

[Quillion]

Two minor roles. And by definition, appearing in more than one game makes you not a one-shot, unless you want to impose a new meaning to the definition.

There's no indication that the Sacred Grove's Skull Kid is the same one as in Majora's Mask.

And sure, Skull Kid isn't technically a one-shot, but no one wants him to blow darts out of a flute.

 

[Lenidem]

There's no indication that the Sacred Grove's Skull Kid is the same one as in Majora's Mask.

There is no certainty that it's the Skull Kid, true. But when I see a green Yoshi with no other Yoshis around in a Mario game, by default, I assume that it's the Yoshi. Same with Toad. Besides, it doesn't really matters: the fact that there is a "Skull Kid" in Twilight Princess, who looks and behave exactly like the one we know, is at the very least a strong callback the main character.

Or else Pikachu is in the same boat, because you can never, never again see the same Pikachu that you first encountered in the Viridian Forest, or in the Central, or the one that is given to you by Oak in the Yellow Version: all those Pikachu are totally different characters...

And sure, Skull Kid isn't technically a one-shot, but no one wants him to blow darts out of a flute.

So let's stop calling him that.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

, but no one wants him to blow darts out of a flute.

That sounds badass. I want that.

 

[Quillion]

There is no certainty that it's the Skull Kid, true. But when I see a green Yoshi with no other Yoshis around in a Mario game, by default, I assume that it's the Yoshi. Same with Toad. Besides, it doesn't really matters: the fact that there is a "Skull Kid" in Twilight Princess, who looks and behave exactly like the one we know, is at the very least a strong callback the main character.

Or else Pikachu is in the same boat, because you can never, never again see the same Pikachu that you first encountered in the Viridian Forest, or in the Central, or the one that is given to you by Oak in the Yellow Version: all those Pikachu are totally different characters...

So let's stop calling him that.

Touché, but still. Given that Zelda leans towards being a fixed-cast franchise even characters like Tetra, who was very important in WW and mildly in PH, shouldn't be treated as any different from a one-shot.

That still leaves some options, but Impa is inconsistent, Tingle's a hard fall-off, and Beedle has nothing noteworthy about him.

 

[Lenidem]

Touché, but still. Given that Zelda leans towards being a fixed-cast franchise even characters like Tetra, who was very important in WW and mildly in PH, shouldn't be treated as any different from a one-shot.

In a franchise where there are only a few recurrent characters, the one that are not one-shot should be treated as one-shot... because it's a franchise with few recurrent characters?! Where is the logic in that??

Besides, you forget about Treasure Tracker. Not a mainline game, maybe, but still part of the franchise.

That still leaves some options, but Impa is inconsistent

I'm not a fan of Impa, but since Smash features characters who appareared in only one game (like the Ice Climbers or the Duck Hunters), it could very well choose one incarnation of Impa and stick to it. Heck, Link himself is based on his incarnation of one single game now, and Ganondorf only looked like that in Ocarina of Time.

Tingle's a hard fall-off

I still would have chosen him over Piranha Plant.

 

[Quillion]

In a franchise where there are only a few recurrent characters, the one that are not one-shot should be treated as one-shot... because it's a franchise with few recurrent characters?! Where is the logic in that??

Besides, you forget about Treasure Tracker. Not a mainline game, maybe, but still part of the franchise.

The logic is that Tetra is restricted to the Hero of Winds Saga while Skull Kid is restricted to the Hero of Time Saga (by the definition not including WW and TP).

It's distinct from other characters like Impa, Tingle, and Beedle who appear across several sagas.

I'm not a fan of Impa, but since Smash features characters who appareared in only one game (like the Ice Climbers or the Duck Hunters), it could very well choose one incarnation of Impa and stick to it. Heck, Link himself is based on his incarnation of one single game now, and Ganondorf only looked like that in Ocarina of Time.

The issue is that no incarnation of Impa does a great job of representing the rest. All versions of Ganondorf are powerful physically and magically (if a bit diverged from Melee's interpretation since then) and all versions of Link use a sword along with a variety of tools. Impa's pretty much all over the place and will be even in the future.

I still would have chosen him over Piranha Plant.

At least Piranha Plant is still a regular enemy that still appears to this day.

 

[Lenidem]

The logic is that Tetra is restricted to the Hero of Winds Saga while Skull Kid is restricted to the Hero of Time Saga (by the definition not including WW and TP).

It's distinct from other characters like Impa, Tingle, and Beedle who appear across several sagas.

Sure. But what does it change? Most characters don't appear in all the games, yes, but how does it play against them?

The issue is that no incarnation of Impa does a great job of representing the rest. All versions of Ganondorf are powerful physically and magically (if a bit diverged from Melee's interpretation since then) and all versions of Link use a sword along with a variety of tools. Impa's pretty much all over the place and will be even in the future.

But why should there be a common version of Impa for her to be eligible? They could totally choose the Ocarina/SS/Hyrule Warriors version, they are close enough and no more different from each others than all the Links, or the Age of Calamity version and stick to it. It's still "Impa": the name is there, the fact that she is a sheika, the fact that she is or will become a sage...

At least Piranha Plant is still a regular enemy that still appears to this day.

Many characters on the roster do not appear anymore.

 

[Quillion]

Sure. But what does it change? Most characters don't appear in all the games, yes, but how does it play against them?

Because the characters that are restricted to one "saga" are only representing that "saga", while those who are in multiple represent the whole franchise.

Many characters on the roster do not appear anymore.

Speaking as someone who was once guilty of it, why do we need to hold a fixed-cast franchise as Zelda to the same standards as rotating-cast franchises and one-shot IPs?

But why should there be a common version of Impa for her to be eligible? They could totally choose the Ocarina/SS/Hyrule Warriors version, they are close enough and no more different from each others than all the Links, or the Age of Calamity version and stick to it. It's still "Impa": the name is there, the fact that she is a sheika, the fact that she is or will become a sage...

Because again, using one version of Impa will do a poor job of representing the franchise as a whole.

 

[Lenidem]

Because the characters that are restricted to one "saga" are only representing that "saga", while those who are in multiple represent the whole franchise.

Because again, using one version of Impa will do a poor job of representing the franchise as a whole.

If it's not representing "the franchise as a whole", then it has no place in Smash? OK, that's new. One more arbitrary fan-rule, why not.

Speaking as someone who was once guilty of it, why do we need to hold a fixed-cast franchise as Zelda to the same standards as rotating-cast franchises and one-shot IPs?

Why should we not? First, do "rotating-cast franchises" need at least one new character per Smash game all the time to be properly represented? Isn't the concept of the Pokémon and Fire Emblem franchises already more than properly represented? (On a side note, I would also argue that Pokémon would be better represented will a lot of Pokéball-Pokémon rather than with new fighters every time.) And second, if the rotating-cast is such a big part of the Zelda franchise... then it should be shown in Smash. I'm not saying that every single Zelda title should have a playable fighter, but at least one or two more (on top of Sheik) would properly show the rotating-cast aspect of the franchise.

Edit. By the way, Zelda and Ganondorf don't appaear in several games, so I guess they should be cut because "they don't represent the franchise as a whole".

 

[Quillion]

Why should we not? First, do "rotating-cast franchises" need at least one new character per Smash game all the time to be properly represented? Isn't the concept of the Pokémon and Fire Emblem franchises already more than properly represented?

To be honest, no, and I've also been vocal about Xenoblade joining their ranks to be overkill. It really would be best to not prioritize giving these rotating cast franchises an obligatory relevant spot every time.

Still though, it would be best if they slow down the process rather than eliminate it altogether. Because rotating cast franchises create icons differently from fixed cast franchises, some concession needs to be made.

And second, if the rotating-cast is such a big part of the Zelda franchise... then it should be shown in Smash. I'm not saying that every single Zelda title should have a playable fighter, but at least one or two more (on top of Sheik) would properly show the rotating-cast aspect of the franchise.

Is it really a big part of the Zelda franchise if the rotating cast members fall off hard in terms of prominence when they're done?

At least Pokémon, Xenoblade, and as of recent Fire Emblem do a good job of keeping older characters in the spotlight.

 

[Perkilator]

My fan rosters (not even just Smash) tend to go for a balance between legacy and relevancy, and I think that kind of balance is the ideal approach to fighter selection.

 

[Quillion]

My fan rosters (not even just Smash) tend to go for a balance between legacy and relevancy, and I think that kind of balance is the ideal approach to fighter selection.

Even then, the balance of legacy and relevance is quite different between fixed-cast and rotating-cast franchises.

For fixed-cast, it's pretty easy: characters who continue to regularly appear without a big fall-off.

For rotating-cast, it's not as simple, since by definition, because the cast rotates, a fall-off is practically by definition. So it often depends on looking at supplemental material and spin-offs to see who still is relevant after their one appearance.

 

[Oracle Link]

Impa is too inconsistent, Gorons have a wide range of abilities, and Tingle has been such a hard fall-off in Zelda that Beedle is now the main recurring "Cid" of the series.

And what is your weird fascination with Octoroks? If anything, Blins have become the "mascot" enemy of Zelda, and they're still far from being as prominent as Goombas in Mario or Slimes in DQ.

Octoroks are just the best designed zelda enemys blins are much more generic (and heck Bokblins sorta replaced moblins as the most used blins) Octoroks are as prominent as Goombas and slimes... In 2d which is the version of octorok i want! and heck im the first to say we need Walking/ 2d OCtoroks in the 3d Games Already

 

[Quillion]

Octoroks are just the best designed zelda enemys blins are much more generic (and heck Bokblins sorta replaced moblins as the most used blins) Octoroks are as prominent as Goombas and slimes... In 2d which is the version of octorok i want! and heck im the first to say we need Walking/ 2d OCtoroks in the 3d Games Already

I struggle to see how pig/dog-like goblins aren't as well-designed as octopodes that spit rocks.

Besides, the bullet hell that Octoroks are prone to make in the 2D games just don't really work in 3D.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Octoroks are just the best designed

This is an opinion. Please stop treating it as fact.

Octorocks are neat, but I don't think there are a lot of people who share your love of them.

 

[Oracle Link]

This is an opinion. Please stop treating it as fact.

Octorocks are neat, but I don't think there are a lot of people who share your love of them.

Of course there arent after all 90% of Zelda Fans care about 3d zelda the most and 3d zelda has awful Octoroks!
When im saying i love octoroks i exclusivly mean the 2d Ones the 3d Ones are pretty forgetable!

 

[Arcadenik]

Pokémon on the other hand is just getting boring by focusing on starters.

I wish Sakurai would add:

Team Rocket (Meowth & Ekans / Meowth & Koffing)

Eevee / Vaporeon / Jolteon / Flareon