CalumG
Smash Lord
- Joined
- Feb 20, 2013
- Messages
- 1,062
It's a question that constantly plagues the Smash franchise - or at least, every time a new Smash Bros. is announced:
"Which version of Link are they using?"
"Will Samus be based off of her classic design or her Prime series design?"
"Is Sheik still relevant enough to be included?"
"Will there be a Mario Galaxy stage?"
"How come they didn't add any characters from franchises newer than Pikmin?"
With franchises that have already had 8+ different games to their name, not to mention franchises which have already made appearances in Smash Bros., these are important questions to ask - which games from a series will the developers use as a reference? Historically, Sakurai has used more recent games as inspiration, as can be seen with the inclusion of Delfino Plaza and Luigi's Mansion, Port Town, Bridge of Eldin, Mario's new FLUDD Down-B, etc. etc. As well as this, he's a big retro nut, including things such as Mushroomy Kingdom, 75M and R.O.B., to name a few things.
But then I started to think about it; Star Fox hasn't had a game in years. Nor has F-Zero. Wario seems to have effectively dropped off the radar in the last couple of years (in terms of non-downloadable releases, that is) and Yoshi hasn't appeared in anything significant for a while (and the new Yoshi U game may well be too far into development to have significantly influenced the next Smash game). Link and Zelda have new designs whereas Ganon (who hasn't even been in a game since TP) and Sheik do not. Nintendo is a very different company to who they were 6 years ago, and many of their games have either not had sequels, or have sort of "settled in" with a specific style (see: every Mario game since NSMB and Mario Galaxy were released). So now more than ever, it's interesting to consider what they might do with the representation of franchises in the next Smash game.
Personally, I like to hope that the next Smash Bros. game will represent ongoing franchises in a more "timeless" fashion, representing the best of a series rather than the most recent. In terms of franchise importance, both Peach's Castle and Bowsers Castle outrank Delfino Plaza. Mute City is much more relevant and important than Port Town but they chose Port Town, almost purely in an attempt to be "different". Lucario hardly deserved to be in Brawl, save for the fact he had a movie recently released, and I feel Mario should've had a more iconic down-B than one which only appears in 1 out of his 40+ games (and one of the less well-recieved games, at that).
That's not to say they shouldn't include references to newer titles, or titles that are incredibly old, but the team should spend more time trying to best represent the essence of a franchise itself. Would it not have been far better representation for the Zelda franchise if they had made a Death Mountain stage instead of a Bridge of Eldin one, which borrowed elements from every different incarnation of Death Mountain? Which out of the two is a better idea; Skull Kid, who's showed up in a few games, or Tingle, who is the 4th most reoccurring character in the Zelda series? This extends to the Pokemon franchise as well. In Brawl, there's three (or five depending on how you see it) 1st generation Pokemon playable and 1 4th Gen Pokemon playable. That, to me, does not strike me as fair representation - the first Gen is timeless and the 4th Gen was the most recent, but how about one Pokemon from each generation? It'd mean kicking out some fan favourites, but at this point I swear the only reason they still include Jigglypuff is because she was in the N64 version of Smash Bros.
The question pops up with other franchises too. What of the Mother franchise, which is now all but dead? Should they include another stage which represents the most recent game (Mother 3), or go a different route and include a stage which has shown up in multiple installments of the franchise (Saturn Valley for example)? If they really wanted to represent the whole franchise with a stage, they could do something a bit more tongue-in-cheek and have a Battle Scene stage, in which you stand on text prompts a la Pictochat whilst the background trips out and changes colours.
Overall, I'd say now more than ever it's important to consider how long-running or dormant franchises are going to be represented in Smash. After all, Sakurai himself has said that just adding more characters and stages to Smash won't cut it; that could mean that this time, they're going to be more considerate to representing more franchises, and representing them better. It could mean trimming the fat off the roster despite fan support (because frankly I can think of many characters better suited or more deserving than Sheik, Jigglypuff, Toon Link, Wolf) and providing stages which better represent long-running areas of franchises (Lake Hylia, Peach's Castle, the Battle Frontier, and Samus's spaceship to name a few).
tl;dr How should the team handle franchise representation in the next Smash game, considering the turns each franchise has made, the overall history of each franchise as a whole, and the fan expectations of certain characters/stages in Smash?
"Which version of Link are they using?"
"Will Samus be based off of her classic design or her Prime series design?"
"Is Sheik still relevant enough to be included?"
"Will there be a Mario Galaxy stage?"
"How come they didn't add any characters from franchises newer than Pikmin?"
With franchises that have already had 8+ different games to their name, not to mention franchises which have already made appearances in Smash Bros., these are important questions to ask - which games from a series will the developers use as a reference? Historically, Sakurai has used more recent games as inspiration, as can be seen with the inclusion of Delfino Plaza and Luigi's Mansion, Port Town, Bridge of Eldin, Mario's new FLUDD Down-B, etc. etc. As well as this, he's a big retro nut, including things such as Mushroomy Kingdom, 75M and R.O.B., to name a few things.
But then I started to think about it; Star Fox hasn't had a game in years. Nor has F-Zero. Wario seems to have effectively dropped off the radar in the last couple of years (in terms of non-downloadable releases, that is) and Yoshi hasn't appeared in anything significant for a while (and the new Yoshi U game may well be too far into development to have significantly influenced the next Smash game). Link and Zelda have new designs whereas Ganon (who hasn't even been in a game since TP) and Sheik do not. Nintendo is a very different company to who they were 6 years ago, and many of their games have either not had sequels, or have sort of "settled in" with a specific style (see: every Mario game since NSMB and Mario Galaxy were released). So now more than ever, it's interesting to consider what they might do with the representation of franchises in the next Smash game.
Personally, I like to hope that the next Smash Bros. game will represent ongoing franchises in a more "timeless" fashion, representing the best of a series rather than the most recent. In terms of franchise importance, both Peach's Castle and Bowsers Castle outrank Delfino Plaza. Mute City is much more relevant and important than Port Town but they chose Port Town, almost purely in an attempt to be "different". Lucario hardly deserved to be in Brawl, save for the fact he had a movie recently released, and I feel Mario should've had a more iconic down-B than one which only appears in 1 out of his 40+ games (and one of the less well-recieved games, at that).
That's not to say they shouldn't include references to newer titles, or titles that are incredibly old, but the team should spend more time trying to best represent the essence of a franchise itself. Would it not have been far better representation for the Zelda franchise if they had made a Death Mountain stage instead of a Bridge of Eldin one, which borrowed elements from every different incarnation of Death Mountain? Which out of the two is a better idea; Skull Kid, who's showed up in a few games, or Tingle, who is the 4th most reoccurring character in the Zelda series? This extends to the Pokemon franchise as well. In Brawl, there's three (or five depending on how you see it) 1st generation Pokemon playable and 1 4th Gen Pokemon playable. That, to me, does not strike me as fair representation - the first Gen is timeless and the 4th Gen was the most recent, but how about one Pokemon from each generation? It'd mean kicking out some fan favourites, but at this point I swear the only reason they still include Jigglypuff is because she was in the N64 version of Smash Bros.
The question pops up with other franchises too. What of the Mother franchise, which is now all but dead? Should they include another stage which represents the most recent game (Mother 3), or go a different route and include a stage which has shown up in multiple installments of the franchise (Saturn Valley for example)? If they really wanted to represent the whole franchise with a stage, they could do something a bit more tongue-in-cheek and have a Battle Scene stage, in which you stand on text prompts a la Pictochat whilst the background trips out and changes colours.
Overall, I'd say now more than ever it's important to consider how long-running or dormant franchises are going to be represented in Smash. After all, Sakurai himself has said that just adding more characters and stages to Smash won't cut it; that could mean that this time, they're going to be more considerate to representing more franchises, and representing them better. It could mean trimming the fat off the roster despite fan support (because frankly I can think of many characters better suited or more deserving than Sheik, Jigglypuff, Toon Link, Wolf) and providing stages which better represent long-running areas of franchises (Lake Hylia, Peach's Castle, the Battle Frontier, and Samus's spaceship to name a few).
tl;dr How should the team handle franchise representation in the next Smash game, considering the turns each franchise has made, the overall history of each franchise as a whole, and the fan expectations of certain characters/stages in Smash?
I tend to judge stages by their uniqueness factor (Mario Bros., for example) rather than timelessness, but that's just me.
