Ok, this is getting ridiculous. We have to stop moving the goalposts with this relevancy argument.
Iconic does not mean any person on the street can recognize them.
Videos like the one
@ManlySpirit linked do not represent what if means to be an iconic Nintendo character. The Mario Bros. are beyond gaming icons; they are
pop culture icons. If you can't recognize Kirby and call Link "Zelda", you don't play Nintendo games. They recognize Mario because they have been part of pop culture, not because they are gaming icons.
There's no point in requiring people who have little investment to recognize a character in order for them to be iconic.
I can't believe we're demeaning video game icons through a ****ty slippery slope fallacy to justify Banjo-Kazooie in Smash Bros.
Slippery Slope:
In
logic and
critical thinking, a
slippery slopeis a logical device in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any rational argument or demonstrable mechanism for the inevitability of the event in question. A slippery slope argument states that a relatively small first step leads to a
chain of related eventsculminating in some significant effect, much like an object given a small push over the edge of a slope sliding all the way to the bottom.
However, if an argument uses valid reasoning, it would not identify by the slippery-slope approach.
[2] The fallacious sense of "slippery slope" is often used synonymously with
continuum fallacy, in that it ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
I see no slippery slope fallacy in anything I've said. I haven't even suggested or resorted to that form of thinking in any form in this argument.
Be more careful, and don't use terms you don't understand.
Anyway, my point is simple, and before we continue, I simply want you to define one word for me, since that os the crux of this whole conundrum.
What is "relevance?"
Give me an objective, context sensitive for this word, definition for this word.
bearing upon or connected with the matter in hand;
Under this definition, all videogame characters that fit Sakurai's criteria are "relevant."
Because the problem lies in people misusing the term, and applying it subjectively to mean anything from "recent" to "I'm not fully aware of this character, and I don't like them, thus they aren't "relevant".
You said the people in the video aren't an accurate representation of gamers, yet you had a couple people who clearly stated thry played video games, yet failed to recognize the villager, among other characters.
Sure, they're casual gamers, but they are gamers nonetheless.
In addition, I can assure you that most non-Nintendo fans would be unable to recognize Marth, Ike, Shulk, etc... yet to you, they're still "relevant."
Alright, then perhaps we should narrow our scope to just Nintendo fans, but as I showed you, a large part of Nintendo's audience was unable to name the characters. And in fact, there are many Nintendo fans, who buy Smash, who don't know a large part of the cast. And that's not even accounting for generational differences, which I'll get to in a moment.
So then, should we narrow our scope to only include hard core Nintendo and Smash fans? Why? And why should tge subjective opinion of a vocal fanbase be the only one to be heard, especially when that opinion is not very representative of the broader Nintendo fanbase, let alone most gamers, both audiences that Nintendo would sure be glad to draw in if possible (hence Cloud getting in, and a lot of -younger- Smash fans getting upset that he got in over "muh Waddle Dee"). What's "relevant" the small core, isn't true in the slightest for the larger outer layers.
Likewise, the Smash fanbase itself is divided on what's "relevant" due to generational differences. For the younger kids characters like Rayman and Master Chief are more "relevant" than Banjo, Mega Man, and such simply cause they grew up with the former, and never experienced the peak of Banjo, or Mega Man, etc... and then backwards rationalize their assumptions through groupthink (aka, they bandwagon in order to fit in) once certain characters get in, and those them become "great gaming icons " [see reactions to: Mega Man, Ryu, Pac-Nan, etc..]. But the fact of the matter is, Banjo isn't "relevant" to some, in the same way Mega Man isn't, as they are merely experienced after their decline in popularity, but for all the people who were alive then, we can confirm that Banjo was AS BIG a gaming icon as Mega Man, and Rare as reputable in the industry as Capcom. These were the giants back then, and because if this, they are "relevant" to us.
So, can you see now why "relevance" is such a weak argument due to it's purely subjective nature? It means absolutely nothing. Unless you can provide me with a concrete and objective definition, it's simply not a proactive form to debate anything, and only winds up in circular arguments.
tl;dr - there is no slipperly slope in my reasoning, check your terms more carefully, and "relevance" is a weak argument due to it's purely subjective mature thanks to the constant misuse of the term. Using that to back up your POV is completely unmeritable and pointless.
![[Obnoxshush/Dasshizer]](/data/avatars/l/267/267037.jpg?1450250857){kind=avatar}
