Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
It appears that you are using ad block :'(
Hey, we get it. However this website is run by and for the community... and it needs ads in order to keep running.
Please disable your adblock on Smashboards, or go premium to hide all advertisements and this notice. Alternatively, this ad may have just failed to load. Woops!
If you put a number with .5, that means the series includes an echo fighter.
To me, no series should usurp Mario in rep count.
Mario: 8-10.
Donkey Kong: 4-5.
Legend of Zelda: 7
Metroid: 4.5
Yoshi: 1
Kirby: 4 or 5.
Star Fox: 4
Pokemon: 7-9.
Earthbound: 2-3
F-Zero: 1-2
Ice Climber: 1
Fire Emblem: 5-6
Game and Watch: 1
Kid Icarus: 2.5
WarioWare: 2
Metal Gear: 1
Sonic: 1-2
Pikmin: 1-2
R.O.B.: 1
Animal Crossing: 2 for now, maybe 3 if someone comes along with more unique moveset potential and is a relevant character.
Mega Man: 1
Wii Fit: 1
Punch Out!: 1
Mii: the ones we have now are good
Pac-Man: 1
Xenoblade Chronicles: 2
Duck Hunt: 1
Street Fighter: 1.5
Final Fantasy: 1
Bayonetta: 1
Splatoon: 1.5-2
Castlevania: 1-1.5
Other third party: at most 10
Desert is irrelevant in my deliberations for characters, except when a series with zero reps has a good candidate, or when one series is dominating the cast.
Zelda is the oddest outlier for me. Half of it’s reps have clone orgins. If semi-clones are counted harsher Zelda has 4,5 while being so influental, and with great sales.
List seems largely fine/based on the actual roster. Fire emblem is tamer then it looks due to the Marth clonefest, especially since Roy’s reputation got him to be DLC. If Corrin wasn’t a DLC before, he would have gotten in on his own merits in this new game. And Chrom is a double clone to boot. They score 5,5 I think? Kirby and DK might deserve waddle dee and Dixie. I don’t see DK getting a 5th non clone soon on country’s merits though. Star fox and F-zero have a lack of remaining deserving characters. Everybody would welcome black shadow as former Ganondorf though.
Pikmin doesn’t need a rep that badly, imo. It’s mostly the pikmin gimmick, until there are enough other pikmin types to make a distinct fighter it should stay with Alph.
I havent played that guy but ive met him once.. and i mean once.. online. Despite FE being "popular" i see more Captain Falcons or King K Rools online.
I think Xenoblade should have 3 reps.
Sure I'm biased as hell, but i think the 3 main protags have enough differences between them to make 3 unique fighters. More so than Villager vs Isabelle.
Xenoblade should have at least 2 reps at this point, ideally 3 with Elma and Rex/Pyra joining for Ultimate.
FE is fine with the 7 it has, but ideally they wouldn't all be sword lords. If Azura had joined instead of Corrin and Edelgard (or even Celica) instead of Chrom, we'd have a better representation.
Zelda deserves more non Link characters and the unspoken rule against adding one offs is dumb. Midna should've been added in Brawl, Impa in 4, and a Champion in Ultimate.
I don't think that Mairo and Pokemon deserve a billion fighters or whatever. That notion makes no sense.
No retro series or third parties.
Mario: 8: (Captain Toad, Geno)
DK: 6: (Dixie, Cranky, Funky)
Zelda: 7: (Impa, Skull Kid, Vaati)
Metroid: 3: (Decloned)
Yoshi: 1:
Kirby: 7: (Bandana Waddle Dee, Marx, Adeline and Ribbon, Magolor)
Star Fox: 3:
Pokemon: 7: (2 rotating fighter spots)
Earthbound/Mother: 4: (Ninten, Porky)
F-Zero: 1:
Fire Emblem: 4: (Grima) (Rotating fighter spot)
Kid Icarus: 3: (Viridi)
Wario Ware: 2: (Ashley)
Xenoblade Chronicles: 3: (Rex and Pyra) (Elma)
Splatoon: 4.5: (Callie, Marie, Octoling [clone], DJ Octavio)
Kirby is heavily underrepresented and most certainly constitutes seven fighters. So does Zelda.
Fire Emblem doesn't deserve more than 4 fighters
There aren't really that many Metroid characters to choose from.
Star Fox is a slow moving franchise and doesn't warrant more than 3 reps
Zelda should have fighters representing games and eras instead of Triforce only.
Pokemon should have two rotating spots (at least) for variety.
Splatoon has 4.5 sicne it's really popular but there's like no way to declone the octoling.
Earthbound/Mother represents an era and is cemented as a legendary series so it definitely deserves four fighters.
Everything else seems pretty obvious.
I don't think that Mairo and Pokemon deserve a billion fighters or whatever. That notion makes no sense.
No retro series or third parties.
Mario: 8: (Captain Toad, Geno)
DK: 6: (Dixie, Cranky, Funky)
Zelda: 7: (Impa, Skull Kid, Vaati)
Metroid: 3: (Decloned)
Yoshi: 1:
Kirby: 7: (Bandana Waddle Dee, Marx, Adeline and Ribbon, Magolor)
Star Fox: 3:
Pokemon: 7: (2 rotating fighter spots)
Earthbound/Mother: 4: (Ninten, Porky)
F-Zero: 1:
Fire Emblem: 4: (Grima) (Rotating fighter spot)
Kid Icarus: 3: (Viridi)
Wario Ware: 2: (Ashley)
Xenoblade Chronicles: 3: (Rex and Pyra) (Elma)
Splatoon: 4.5: (Callie, Marie, Octoling [clone], DJ Octavio)
Kirby is heavily underrepresented and most certainly constitutes seven fighters. So does Zelda.
Fire Emblem doesn't deserve more than 4 fighters
There aren't really that many Metroid characters to choose from.
Star Fox is a slow moving franchise and doesn't warrant more than 3 reps
Zelda should have fighters representing games and eras instead of Triforce only.
Pokemon should have two rotating spots (at least) for variety.
Splatoon has 4.5 sicne it's really popular but there's like no way to declone the octoling.
Earthbound/Mother represents an era and is cemented as a legendary series so it definitely deserves four fighters.
Everything else seems pretty obvious.
I'd actually like to discuss your answers with you. What do you feel constitutes worthiness of extra representation, and further, why do you feel the notion of Mario getting the most reps makes no sense?
I feel the general misconception among many is that a franchise should have a finite number of representatives, a trait I believe was a holdoff from the older roster debate days in Brawl. Back then there was an invisible rule that unit sales of an IP=Number of viable reps, but I consider that now flawed logic.
Ultimately I view roster numbers now based on the versatility of the respective character and what they can bring to the table of unique gameplay options. Corrin for instance I felt had one of the most unique movesets among his/her series(second only to Robin) and also filled a niche of being a psuedo-lancer character, but many others just saw "Just another Fire Emblem Character" and they recieved probably the 2nd biggest amount of hate for a character in Sm4sh.
I think the confirmation of Rosalina(a character I always wanted but never imagined to be possible back when I believed in those self made rules) as well as looking at stuff like Marvel vs. Capcom's approach to rosters(MvC2 had 18/56 characters come from the X-Men franchise but with the exception of the Wolverines they were all generally unique) made me sorta stop viewing things that way.
I feel the general misconception among many is that a franchise should have a finite number of representatives, a trait I believe was a holdoff from the older roster debate days in Brawl. Back then there was an invisible rule that unit sales of an IP=Number of viable reps, but I consider that now flawed logic.
Ultimately I view roster numbers now based on the versatility of the respective character and what they can bring to the table of unique gameplay options. Corrin for instance I felt had one of the most unique movesets among his/her series(second only to Robin) and also filled a niche of being a psuedo-lancer character, but many others just saw "Just another Fire Emblem Character" and they recieved probably the 2nd biggest amount of hate for a character in Sm4sh.
I think the confirmation of Rosalina(a character I always wanted but never imagined to be possible back when I believed in those self made rules) as well as looking at stuff like Marvel vs. Capcom's approach to rosters(MvC2 had 18/56 characters come from the X-Men franchise but with the exception of the Wolverines they were all generally unique) made me sorta stop viewing things that way.
Why can't it be both? I mean, Smash is supposed to commemorate video game icons, and it seems somewhat odd to include someone that very few people have heard of. However, the game becomes redundant if lackluster movesets are continually presented, so just because someone is iconic doesn't necessarily mean they'd be a good addition. Not to mention fanservice should also play a role of some sort. To me, equilibrium among the three is a fair assessment of worthiness.
I'd actually like to discuss your answers with you. What do you feel constitutes worthiness of extra representation, and further, why do you feel the notion of Mario getting the most reps makes no sense?
I agree that Mario deserves a lot of reps but this idea that Mario deserves the most I feel like can be invalidated if another series can produce more original and interesting content. I can easily think of 30+ Mario fighters I'd enjoy in Smash, but even more Zelda fighters (for example) simply because there's more to be seen in Zelda. That doesn't mean Mario is any less important, it just means there's more potential there.
That also constitutes extra reps IMO. If a series can provide creative, unique, and interesting playstyles, I don't see a reason why they shouldn't get one or two more fighters as a result. Obviously popularity, sales, history, etc. play an important role. I have more Earthbound fighters than Star Fox because even though Star Fox is still alive (sorta) today, Earthbound is remembered by most as a legendary game that defined many RPGs, and has more creative potential: The 3 Star Fox fighters have (mostly) made up movesets that are based on Fox's original style in Smash 64.
Obviously if a fighter is popular they deserve at least a chance in the roster. Skull Kid, Ashley, etc. are good examples. People want them in. Regardless of what they represent or where/when they're from, if people want them in that's arguably the most important criteria for inclusion.
I limit the amount of fighters some series has due to redundancy. Fire Emblem has only four fighters since any more would create mostly human sword wielders (I understand the weapon triangle but most main FE lords use swords) in an anime-style art design featuring similar playstyles. It wouldn't make more sense to me than to have Marth, the face of FE, Robin, a magician tactician, Grima, the recurring villain, and a spot saved for the current most popular FE character keeps it simple and yet enjoyable. All of this logic also applies to Pokemon.
Splatoon was the only reason the Wii U survived long enough to give the Switch enough time to develop. It's Nintendo's first major shooter IP that's been a massive success. The premise of the game is as unique as it gets, and the Inkling itself has a moveset never seen before. Callie and Marie would be a great way to focus on the other weapons and items in Splatoon while each can be incredibly unique. DJ Octavio is the recurring villain of the series, and would function similarly to Bowser Jr. in the koopa clown car. While I'm not too an board with the Octoling (since it's near impossible to declone them), they're popular enough that I suppose they could do fine in the game.
I'm not a fan of retro fighters since their movesets are largely uninspired, borrow from other games or simply don't exist. I'm not a fan of third parties since I think Super Smash Bros. could be infinitely better without them.
I agree that Mario deserves a lot of reps but this idea that Mario deserves the most I feel like can be invalidated if another series can produce more original and interesting content. I can easily think of 30+ Mario fighters I'd enjoy in Smash, but even more Zelda fighters (for example) simply because there's more to be seen in Zelda. That doesn't mean Mario is any less important, it just means there's more potential there.
That also constitutes extra reps IMO. If a series can provide creative, unique, and interesting playstyles, I don't see a reason why they shouldn't get one or two more fighters as a result. Obviously popularity, sales, history, etc. play an important role. I have more Earthbound fighters than Star Fox because even though Star Fox is still alive (sorta) today, Earthbound is remembered by most as a legendary game that defined many RPGs, and has more creative potential: The 3 Star Fox fighters have (mostly) made up movesets that are based on Fox's original style in Smash 64.
Obviously if a fighter is popular they deserve at least a chance in the roster. Skull Kid, Ashley, etc. are good examples. People want them in. Regardless of what they represent or where/when they're from, if people want them in that's arguably the most important criteria for inclusion.
I limit the amount of fighters some series has due to redundancy. Fire Emblem has only four fighters since any more would create mostly human sword wielders (I understand the weapon triangle but most main FE lords use swords) in an anime-style art design featuring similar playstyles. It wouldn't make more sense to me than to have Marth, the face of FE, Robin, a magician tactician, Grima, the recurring villain, and a spot saved for the current most popular FE character keeps it simple and yet enjoyable. All of this logic also applies to Pokemon.
Splatoon was the only reason the Wii U survived long enough to give the Switch enough time to develop. It's Nintendo's first major shooter IP that's been a massive success. The premise of the game is as unique as it gets, and the Inkling itself has a moveset never seen before. Callie and Marie would be a great way to focus on the other weapons and items in Splatoon while each can be incredibly unique. DJ Octavio is the recurring villain of the series, and would function similarly to Bowser Jr. in the koopa clown car. While I'm not too an board with the Octoling (since it's near impossible to declone them), they're popular enough that I suppose they could do fine in the game.
I'm not a fan of retro fighters since their movesets are largely uninspired, borrow from other games or simply don't exist. I'm not a fan of third parties since I think Super Smash Bros. could be infinitely better without them.
While originality should (and does) play a major role in constituting worthiness, I think that the iconic factor of Mario should also be taken into account. Original fighters are lovely, but just because a character is original doesn't mean they should be in smash imo, e.g., Piranha Plant. After all, the premise of Smash is to celebrate gaming icons.
For the Fire Emblem part, wouldn't you say Hector or Edelgard would therefore deserve a spot according to your logic? They wield axes, not swords, and an axe user would not only be a first for Smash, but also axe users fight tremendously differently than sword users. I do, however, agree that redundancy should be considered, and for those reasons, I can't see how the somewhat popular Takamaru would be a viable choice.
Splatoon, while very popular, was definitely not the only reason the Wii U lasted that long. Don't forget about Nintendo Land, Sm4sh, Mario Maker, Mario Kart, and the Zelda remakes, most of which I'd argue were more popular than Splatoon. Not to mention Splatoon's popularity waned exponentially as updates came to a close. I do think that Splatoon should receive another rep, but Callie and Marie are not the way to go imo. We've never even seen them fight before, and while they could showcase some new weapons, I think it's better to wait for better options. DJ Octavio I've considered multiple times, but I think he'd be cooler as a boss. Of course, that's not based on anything, just my preference.
Your stance on retro fighters I can agree with. Excitebiker, F-Zero characters, Ayumi Tachibana, the aforementioned Takamaru, etc. just don't have any room for potential. The only exceptions I can think of would be Lip (implementing a puzzle-like moveset) and if they count, Saki/Isa, Andy, or Isaac.
On the other hand, I feel third parties add a lot of variety to Smash. Sometimes only focusing on Nintendo characters isn't the optimal way to find a moveset, and I think that Sonic, Snake, and Cloud, for instance, are refreshing and definitely worthy additions given their unique movesets and undeniable popularity. However, I do feel like overall standards for third-parties should be raised, enough so that very many casual players can recognize who it is. It deviates too much from celebrating Nintendo characters, and would likely be difficult to obtain, anyhow. There are so many newcomer requests about characters that come from series that are not only third party, but are also not really iconic series. The widely requested Crash Bandicoot doesn't have much room for potential, Ace Attorney is a little too obscure (and Phoenix isn't really brimming with originality), even Spyro is a tad bit odd. The only third parties I can say have earned their right to be in Smash is Professor Layton (exclusive to Nintendo consoles), Banjo and Kazooie (iconic and have massive fanservice), and Neku (a bit lacking in the iconic department, but compensates for its losses with excellent moveset and even soundtrack potential; apart from mobile, exclusively Nintendo). Geno also deserves a spot imo, but his classification is weird since he's a third party Mario character.
"Deserved slots" is a dumb idea. You are trying to objectify something that is entirely subjective and making some kind of science to justify why someone should be in. The only thing that counts for me is if a character is fun or not. I think in terms of representation alone Pokemon has the dumbest lineup (,,, are all pretty dumb when you think about it) but they are all fun to play so I don't care at all. Alternatively, Fire Emblem "deserves" every rep it has got, but 4/7 play extremely similar so it bothers me.
What bothers me the most though is Zelda. Here you have one of the biggest, most well known Nintendo franchises and 3/6 are the same character with slight variations, and one of the the other reps () is a semi clone of another fighter, instead of having his own dark magic based moveset.
I think people's priorities lie in the wrong place.
"Deserved slots" is a dumb idea. You are trying to objectify something that is entirely subjective and making some kind of science to justify why someone should be in. The only thing that counts for me is if a character is fun or not. I think in terms of representation alone Pokemon has the dumbest lineup (,,, are all pretty dumb when you think about it) but they are all fun to play so I don't care at all. Alternatively, Fire Emblem "deserves" every rep it has got, but 4/7 play extremely similar so it bothers me.
What bothers me the most though is Zelda. Here you have one of the biggest, most well known Nintendo franchises and 3/6 are the same character with slight variations, and one of the the other reps () is a semi clone of another fighter, instead of having his own dark magic based moveset.
I think people's priorities lie in the wrong place.
No, in fact, it's quite the opposite. "Deserve", by its very nature, is a subjective word with subjective meaning, and what's more, the thread title explicitly states "How many reps do youthink each franchise already in deserves?".
Plus, your argument isn't exactly valid. You said Pokemon has the dumbest lineup with your only defense being "when you think about it". Lucario, Incineroar, and Greninja are all immensely popular for their respective generations, and on top of that, have unique movesets. Jigglypuff I do feel should be removed, though.
No, in fact, it's quite the opposite. "Deserve", by its very nature, is a subjective word with subjective meaning, and what's more, the thread title explicitly states "How many reps do youthink each franchise already in deserves?".
Plus, your argument isn't exactly valid. You said Pokemon has the dumbest lineup with your only defense being "when you think about it". Lucario, Incineroar, and Greninja are all immensely popular for their respective generations, and on top of that, have unique movesets. Jigglypuff I do feel should be removed, though.
All of those pokemon are nice but ultimately ether flavor of the month (Lucario) or just another starter. You get a choice of three starters every game. Hell, we even have "Pokemon Starters: the Character" with. Yes, they all have unique movesets, that's why I said I was fine with them. None of them should be removed.
Alright, well each franchise deserves as many reps that can be fun and unique to play, how about that?
All of those pokemon are nice but ultimately ether flavor of the month (Lucario) or just another starter. You get a choice of three starters every game. Hell, we even have "Pokemon Starters: the Character" with. Yes, they all have unique movesets, that's why I said I was fine with them. None of them should be removed.
Nothing at all. My point was, what does Lucario, as a character, as a personality bring to the table? Nothing. In terms of "characters who deserve to be in smash" no one could really argue for him. But he is fun to play an unique, and that is why I do not have a problem with him at all.
- Splatoon: maybe add Octoling
- Yoshi: it SHOULD have a second rep by now. I'm thinking Poochy.
- Wario: if not Ashley, maybe Mona?
- F-Zero: Black Shadow. Nuff said.
- Xenoblade: MY GURLS ELMA AND FIORA. Yes I know Fiora's in Shulk's FS, but if Chrom pulled off what he did...plus, I sadly think anyone from 2's chances are kinda down the drain at this point what with Rex having a costume, and there already being 2 music.
- Kirby: Bandana Waddle Dee
- Kid Icarus: Medusa
- Zelda: I guess Impa
- Donkey Kong: Dixie Kong New Funky Mode
Smash, IMO, has represented the different series very well. There aren't many all-stars left, but here's who I would add (everyone else is still in the game obvi), and after this I don't think anyone needs to be in Smash besides more 3rd Party characters, and maybe Isaac/Chorus Kids.
: Waluigi : Impa, Skull Kid : Dixie Kong : Bandanna Waddle Dee : Porky : Medusa : Ashley : Elma, Rex & Pyra (Even though I hate them and XC2 lol)
I honestly don't care how many reps a franchise has as long as the characters are interesting. I never understood why people got a stick up their ass about Fire Emblem. All the characters have their own cool factor. The more the merrier for all franchises IMO. If I was gonna add the rest of my bucket list it would be...
Paper Mario
Bomberman
Rayman
Geno
Rex & Pyra
Sora
Banjo & Kazooie
Master Chief
Yes Master Chief. I don't see why it couldn't work and would probably make for an interesting character and Nintendo and MS seem to be pretty buddy buddy lately.
Some of this is subjective by nature.. The only everyone seems to agree on is Zelda.
Mogis seems to favor fantasy and Kirby, and arrives at 7 reps for him(while 3 is sizable for most, and 5 is very high). I don’t mind 5 reps from Kirby, but 7 puzzles me unless clones are involved.
As does the Fire Emblem collapse. Saleswise we also have Heroes doing well, there’s a lot to say for the brand now. As I stated Corrin was weird back in 2016. I don’t mind a torrent of swordies myself, but I always accepted it as a bias decision. It straightens itself out with Chrom though, who already had a model, and the Lucina model for cloning. Changing sword values is even lower effort then most clones. That’s the only thing they did for a entire new game. Sort of paying back a advance payment 4 fully unique characters is fair for the current influence FE has. It’s just a odd situation that both devs and fans tolerate a lot of clones. I think Lucina is the most futureproof of all of them, being just easier Marth. Chrom does not exite me, and Robin might get cycled out by a newer mage. Not sure about Corrin, but by the time a new game ever comes out he might be dated. As for new DLC, chances aren’t high and probably shouln’t be. Edelgart is a unknown except for a single trailer. I might add that I think Grima would be a unpopular pick. Reoccuring villain he is not, and he’s either comes as a uninspired Robin clone, or a dragon 50X the size of Ridley or Ganon.
I have very little wishes for smash slots otherwise. Pokemon will always have many deserving picks to grab from recent or older games, and is mostly uncontroversial.
Mario can do whatever is fitting, but I want the core Mario crew to get changed more often, especially the plumber himself. I’m not big on Geno, I never hear him mentioned much outside of his Smash following, and ten years ago it took me a while to even find out who he was.
Deserved spots are a flawed concept, especially with Ultimate’s long life ahead, and DLC spots seeming to have a hype factor. Something I’m interested in is some calculation that would indicate spots based on sales alone though. I’d feel that would lopside to certain games very heavily. Mario spinoffs and Pokemon Go come to mind.
"Deserved" spots are completely subjective and flawed but at the same time some series clearly should have more or less fighters depending on creative potential, popularity/sales, and redundancy. That's my issue with FE. We have seven sword wielding anime style humans, we really don't need more than three from one series alone, especially since over half of them have the same exact moveset. I hate the idea of cutting fighters though. It disgusts me. I'd rather just add more fighters to series that clearly earned more and less from series that have already received a ton of love.
IMO Sakurai should just add characters he has a good concept for, rather than limit himself to reps. A good example is Incineroar. There's like a billion Pokemon already but Incineroar is a super fun character to play, so who cares?
Pokemon can always produce something workable from all archetypes, which is it’s strength. Post melee all Pokemon are quite different in design and feel, and even Mewtwo and now Jigglypuff got balanced well. Pichu also seems to have a new lease in life as basicaly reverse Ganondorf.
Incineroar is funny in particular because it completed his character more then his own game could. Is there anybody left who dislikes him?
"Deserved" spots are completely subjective and flawed but at the same time some series clearly should have more or less fighters depending on creative potential, popularity/sales, and redundancy. That's my issue with FE. We have seven sword wielding anime style humans, we really don't need more than three from one series alone, especially since over half of them have the same exact moveset. I hate the idea of cutting fighters though. It disgusts me. I'd rather just add more fighters to series that clearly earned more and less from series that have already received a ton of love.
I guess that’s your opinion, but if someone is genuinely not a good addition to the roster *cough* Pichu *cough* Dr. Mario, then I think it’s fair to remove them.
So many people say that it’s impossible for a character to “steal” someone else’s spot, but that ideology is entirely flawed. For most smash games, there’s a deadline in which the game must be released. If the developers spend time making someone else’s model instead of working on someone already in progress (Chrom), then I feel it’s fair to say their spot has been stolen.
I guess that’s your opinion, but if someone is genuinely not a good addition to the roster *cough* Pichu *cough* Dr. Mario, then I think it’s fair to remove them.
So many people say that it’s impossible for a character to “steal” someone else’s spot, but that ideology is entirely flawed. For most smash games, there’s a deadline in which the game must be released. If the developers spend time making someone else’s model instead of working on someone already in progress (Chrom), then I feel it’s fair to say their spot has been stolen.
That's not how it works. Sakurai proposes a roster list from the very beginning. The roster is usually solid, with a few exceptions here and there ( being decided on last minute in brawl, forced to be DLC due to time constraints, etc.). I don't think there's a single occasion when the developers purposefully chose one fighter over another or intentionally diverted efforts toward one fighter for another. Chrom was considered for Smash 4 but Sakurai wasn't for it since he decided he wouldn't bring anything unique to Smash. That's the same issue here in Ultimate. They never diverted efforts from Chrom, there simply wasn't much effort to put in to him anyway.
That's not how it works. Sakurai proposes a roster list from the very beginning. The roster is usually solid, with a few exceptions here and there ( being decided on last minute in brawl, forced to be DLC due to time constraints, etc.). I don't think there's a single occasion when the developers purposefully chose one fighter over another or intentionally diverted efforts toward one fighter for another. Chrom was considered for Smash 4 but Sakurai wasn't for it since he decided he wouldn't bring anything unique to Smash. That's the same issue here in Ultimate. They never diverted efforts from Chrom, there simply wasn't much effort to put in to him anyway.
Oftentimes, the roster is subject to change at any point. If a character becomes too hard to implement, then there is a replacement, case in point, Heihachi.
But anyway, why would you cut ALL those characters? Some are generally agreed upon as useless additions, but some I think have objectively earned their spot in the roster.
Oftentimes, the roster is subject to change at any point. If a character becomes too hard to implement, then there is a replacement, case in point, Heihachi.
But anyway, why would you cut ALL those characters? Some are generally agreed upon as useless additions, but some I think have objectively earned their spot in the roster.
You think. I generally dislike most of these for either not appealing to me, being clones, having lame inclusions, not deserving to be in Smash in the first place, etc. I dislike retro fighters but I'll admit some of them represent an important era in Nintendo so they can stay. However, I don't think any of the third parties in Smash have done much good for it and I could care less if they were cut. A few of these fighters appeal to me slightly but don't really help Smash either and should also be cut.
You think. I generally dislike most of these for either not appealing to me, being clones, having lame inclusions, not deserving to be in Smash in the first place, etc. I dislike retro fighters but I'll admit some of them represent an important era in Nintendo so they can stay. However, I don't think any of the third parties in Smash have done much good for it and I could care less if they were cut. A few of these fighters appeal to me slightly but don't really help Smash either and should also be cut.
What would you consider deserving then? Or better yet, what's "helping Smash" in your eyes?
Most of the third party characters you named gained BOATLOADS of hype (and with it, money), and even some first parties you named have a rigid following (Olimar). I think specifically, I'd like to talk about Bayonetta. Not only does she provide among the most unique movesets in the game, something you explicitly said should be considered heavily, but the fact that she represents "Bayonetta 2" and not the series herself doesn't make her third party, since Nintendo had partial rights to the game and could therefore include her without Sega's permission.
On another note, Sonic is indisputably the most recognizable third party there, who boasts an equally if not more unique moveset, and is has a very strong community supporting him. I think that fanservice, iconic-ness, and moveset potential is a pretty fair assessment of worth, and Sonic fulfills every category. Third parties aren't always bad; they can bring refreshing and interesting movesets to the table. Of course, this doesn't mean flood the game with third parties from obscure franchises, but sometimes they can even be more enjoyable all around than Nintendo characters.
