Joining the Battle - What Gets a Character Into Smash?

Room100

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Sep 25, 2018
Messages
126
Location
PA
#1
Hey all!

I'm currently working on a video for my channel exploring the idea stated in the title: what makes a character worthy of being in Super Smash Bros.? I'm covering topics such as
  • Legacy in gaming
  • Relevance
  • Ties to Nintendo
  • Moveset potential
  • Uniqueness (as character and in moveset)
So I have a couple questions for anyone interested in helping me out and joining the discussion!
  1. What are your personal most important aspects of deeming a character "worthy" of joining the roster?
  2. Who are your own most wanted (and least wanted) newcomers?
Thanks in advance!
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
5,660
Location
California
Switch FC
SW-5361-1490-2247
#2
I think popularity plays a larger role. Look at how there are so many Mario characters, followed by Pokemon, Fire Emblem, and Zelda characters. I suppose popularity would be connected with relevance. I find this unfortunate, since it reduces the reputation of other franchises.

I think legacy, or more specifically, what a series has done for video gaming should be the determining factor. I also think not every character from a franchise must be included, simply because of one character's popularity. Just because Mario is popular, for example, doesn't mean a character like Rosalina did anything to help the video gaming industry.

Currently, I prefer a smaller roster. In spite of certain professional players wanting new characters, this is absurd. They find a character or so who will do well and ignore the rest of the roster. Results matter, not character loyalty. I'm content with having Samus and Ridley, but from a professional perspective, it would be wiser to have a smaller roster and more focus on balancing characters. (SSBU is thought to be balanced, but give it time. People already complain about how "busted" certain characters are.)
 
Last edited:

Ryu Myuutsu

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
2,089
Location
Niigata, Japan
3DS FC
3668-9945-1996
NNID
BahamurShin
#3
Currently, I prefer a smaller roster. In spite of certain professional players wanting new characters, this is absurd. They find a character or so who will do well and ignore the rest of the roster. Results matter, not character loyalty. I'm content with having Samus and Ridley, but from a professional perspective, it would be wiser to have a smaller roster and more focus on balancing characters. (SSBU is thought to be balanced, but give it time. People already complain about how "busted" certain characters are.)
And that mindset you propose is a problem.

Only results matter? "Professional" perspective? What does that even mean?
You seem to speak about Smash exclusively from the viewpoint of the tournament scene. Why does matter if some people are going to pick just one character and ignore everyone else? How does that affect how others play and enjoy the game?
I'm glad that Ultimate threw a bone at the scene, but this is also the kind of thinking that makes me happy that they don't listen to the hyper competitive side of the community a 100% of the time.

I've spoken before on why balance, while not being unimportant, is meaningless by itself and SHOULDN'T be the main focus when developing a Smash game. Cutting down the roster to, say, a half of what we have now for the sake of competitive balance isn't a wise move but a silly one. By removing those fighters you are taking away options from the players. And being the crossover giant that the Smash series is, people care about the characters that are going to be in; no amount of balancing is going to sway someone when you've cut their main for selfish purposes.

Make no mistake, balance STILL shouldn't be thrown out of a window or we would have a repeat of what Brawl was. You are right and wrong about Ultimate; it is balanced but it also isn't. It is nearly impossible to have a diverse cast where everyone is equally capable of overtaking the first place at a tournament, but so far in this game, we've yet to see a character who is as extremely good as Brawl Meta Knight or Smash 4 Bayonetta or as extremely bad as Brawl Ganondorf. Yet. Thankfully, patches exist.

And people are going to complain about everything. Doesn't mean they should be taken seriously. There are always those who find excuses for themselves instead of improving. In the Melee days, some guys complained to me about Mewtwo of all people being OP and unfair.
 
Last edited:

Chinderblock

Whip It Good
Moderator
Premium
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
25,243
Location
Warp Zone
3DS FC
1203-9265-8784
NNID
Irene4
Switch FC
SW-7567-8572-3791
#6
I don't think any association with Nintendo is even a factor anymore.
It never was an important factor for a 3rd party to begin with. It's something to consider, at best.

I'd say these are the main factors:

* Popularity
* Prominence within series
* Uniqueness
* Moveset potential

They need to fulfill all of the above to be considered.
Prominence within series is not an actual factor whatsoever. We know that because Geno is a character Sakurai wants playable, and he's not a huge character to know in the Mario series. He's only important to his own game, but not the series as a whole. He was considered regardless of that, proving it's bunk.
 

Xelrog

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
296
Location
Battle Ground, WA
Switch FC
SW 2367 4933 3404
#7
It never was an important factor for a 3rd party to begin with. It's something to consider, at best.
As I recall, there was a mandate for character polls in previous games that the character have been in at least one game on a Nintendo console. I think that idea stuck with people too long, is all.

Prominence within series is not an actual factor whatsoever. We know that because Geno is a character Sakurai wants playable, and he's not a huge character to know in the Mario series. He's only important to his own game, but not the series as a whole. He was considered regardless of that, proving it's bunk.
I wouldn't consider Mario RPG as a part of "the Mario series" any more than I would Mario Kart, which even has its own separate music pool. I think it could have been argued prominence did play a role, up until Piranha Plant. But that was a character intentionally meant to subvert expectations, so.
 
Last edited:

Chinderblock

Whip It Good
Moderator
Premium
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
25,243
Location
Warp Zone
3DS FC
1203-9265-8784
NNID
Irene4
Switch FC
SW-7567-8572-3791
#9
As I recall, there was a mandate for character polls in previous games that the character have been in at least one game on a Nintendo console. I think that idea stuck with people too long, is all.
There was also a mistranslation by Source Gaming that said a Nintendo appearance was required, which didn't help the misconception.
 

Luigifan18

Smash Master
Premium
Joined
Feb 19, 2015
Messages
3,001
Switch FC
SW-5577-0969-0868
#10
I vaguely remember a thread like this being made before Ultimate's release, if not two or three of them.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
5,660
Location
California
Switch FC
SW-5361-1490-2247
#11
R Ryu
Any serious pro player will find results as only mattering. If you're not using a viable character, you're probably content either being casual, or you're interested as being the best x player, who, while may defeat others, will never win any major tournament with character x. Such event is highly improbable. A pro perspective is one in which one is serious about winning, and aside from spending maybe 8 or so hours a day, will seek out the best character(s) to achieve that goal. This renders any character as unviable to be uncommon.

Those who are casual, or strive to be the best player of x may be content with a wider variety of characters, assuming the latter will spend serious time with character y, and not simply using y for non-serious game play. There is no "hyper competitive". There's professional competitiveness, amateur competitiveness (where one doesn't attend tournaments, but is still serious and applies tournament rules), and casuals. There may be a reason why SSBM has maintained popularity for as long as it has. I suspect those who were casual found the competitveness far more interesting.

You say by removing half the roster, options for players is taken away. You find this unwise. Yet, smaller rosters were never perceived as taking away options, and if anyone is serious about being a pro, those options will be nothing more than the unpopular side dish, viz., unviable characters. The moment Sheik was nerfed in SSB4, people dropped her. Currently, Bayonetta, Marth, and Sheik are missing. Viability, not popularity, is what makes characters relevant. You also assume roster reduction to be done for selfish reasons, but not realizing it'd be for logistical and economical reasons. Besides, it was either "Everyone is Here", or roster reduction by a third. I hear that may be the case for SSB6.

It's good complaints were taken seriously, else we might not have a more balanced game. But, I'll reiterate that we should give it time. I trust the diverse cast will dwindle down.
 
Last edited:

Room100

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Sep 25, 2018
Messages
126
Location
PA
#12
R Ryu
Any serious pro player will find results as only mattering. If you're not using a viable character, you're probably content either being casual, or you're interested as being the best x player, who, while may defeat others, will never win any major tournament with character x. Such event is highly improbable. A pro perspective is one in which one is serious about winning, and aside from spending maybe 8 or so hours a day, will seek out the best character(s) to achieve that goal. This renders any character as unviable to be uncommon.

Those who are casual, or strive to be the best player of x may be content with a wider variety of characters, assuming the latter will spend serious time with character y, and not simply using y for non-serious game play. There is no "hyper competitive". There's professional competitiveness, amateur competitiveness (where one doesn't attend tournaments, but is still serious and applies tournament rules), and casuals. There may be a reason why SSBM has maintained popularity for as long as it has. I suspect those who were casual found the competitveness far more interesting.

You say by removing half the roster, options for players is taken away. You find this unwise. Yet, smaller rosters were never perceived as taking away options, and if anyone is serious about being a pro, those options will be nothing more than the unpopular side dish, viz., unviable characters. The moment Sheik was nerfed in SSB4, people dropped her. Currently, Bayonetta, Marth, and Sheik are missing. Viability, not popularity, is what makes characters relevant. You also assume roster reduction to be done for selfish reasons, but not realizing it'd be for logistical and economical reasons. Besides, it was either "Everyone is Here", or roster reduction by a third. I hear that may be the case for SSB6.

It's good complaints were taken seriously, else we might not have a more balanced game. But, I'll reiterate that we should give it time. I trust the diverse cast will dwindle down.
Not gonna take any sides on this one for the sake of neutrality, but I am curious what type of player you consider yourself and who you main?
 

Gyrom8

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 21, 2018
Messages
1,172
Location
Pilotwings
Switch FC
SW-4844-4242-3130
#14
I'm probably reiterating ideas already listed here but:

- Would the character have a unique, interesting moveset?
- If not, could they be easily mapped onto another character as an echo or a semiclone?
- Is the character's moveset realisable? By this, I mean there are some characters who would be difficult to implement. Yes, Duck Hunt is a thing, but that doesn't mean Sakurai and his team will be able to come up with a workable solution all the time.
- More specific, but are there any technical limitations which might prevent a character's inclusion? I'm talking about what caused Ridley's inclusion to be delayed and why Ice Climbers weren't in Smash 4.
- How popular is this character? Not just with the hardcore speculation scene, but with the public more widely
- How important is this character within their franchise, and how iconic are they more generally?
- Could this character help promote an upcoming game?
- Is this character particularly relevant at the moment, or do they represent an important part of gaming history?
- Is this character a Pokemon? ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- If a third party, would there be significant issues with securing rights to use them?
- Is Nintendo seeking to cultivate good relations with the third-party? I feel like this is a modified version of the 'needs Nintendo history' requirement. Yeah, a character doesn't have to originate from Nintendo or have been a notable presence on its systems, but if they're owned by a company that's pally with Nintendo, it definitely helps.

There's probably more, but that's all I can think of for the moment. It's important to note though, that a character doesn't necessarily have to fill multiple requirements - a character not fulfilling certain criteria won't matter if they fulfill another. Like Piranha Plant is not a majorly important character within Mario at all, it's just a generic enemy. But it's both recognisable and evidently had the potential for an interesting moveset.
 

Quillion

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,039
#15
I'm probably reiterating ideas already listed here but:
No problem, I think you put it better than I ever could have.

- Would the character have a unique, interesting moveset?
- If not, could they be easily mapped onto another character as an echo or a semiclone?
I think this is what people miss about the "too many Fire Emblem" characters deal. Since most of the main characters of FE are sword-wielders, they have the luxury of sticking Marth/Roy's moveset onto another character and calling it a day. Other characters like Captain Toad or any of the Zelda one-shots don't have that luxury.

That said, it also doesn't help that the characters with actually unique abilities in FE are all side characters.

- Is the character's moveset realisable? By this, I mean there are some characters who would be difficult to implement. Yes, Duck Hunt is a thing, but that doesn't mean Sakurai and his team will be able to come up with a workable solution all the time.
- More specific, but are there any technical limitations which might prevent a character's inclusion? I'm talking about what caused Ridley's inclusion to be delayed and why Ice Climbers weren't in Smash 4.
Here's another criterion: if they fail to come up with a solution at first, can they try again?

We know for a fact this happened with more characters than just Ridley; Villager, Pac-Man, and the Mii Fighters all required multiple tries until they could be put in Smash in an effective way.

- How popular is this character? Not just with the hardcore speculation scene, but with the public more widely
- How important is this character within their franchise, and how iconic are they more generally?
I think the latter criterion is what people fail to realize about Geno, Waluigi, and the Zelda one-shots alike; they're just not important in their respective franchises. They just can't get in.

- Could this character help promote an upcoming game?
Oddly enough, Fire Emblem is the only franchise that has ever benefitted from this. Otherwise, although I do support this idea, some other people brought up that having "promo characters" could easily backfire if the fandom doesn't take to them.

- Is this character particularly relevant at the moment, or do they represent an important part of gaming history?
- If a third party, would there be significant issues with securing rights to use them?
- Is Nintendo seeking to cultivate good relations with the third-party? I feel like this is a modified version of the 'needs Nintendo history' requirement. Yeah, a character doesn't have to originate from Nintendo or have been a notable presence on its systems, but if they're owned by a company that's pally with Nintendo, it definitely helps.
I think the "relevance/iconic" criterion applies more to third party characters than it does Nintendo, as Smash shows a lot of love to the more obscure sides of Nintendo.

On the "needs Nintendo history" criterion, that was always stated to be a courtesy, not a hard rule. It definitely affects choice, but not so much that it trumps iconic status in gaming as a whole.

There's probably more, but that's all I can think of for the moment. It's important to note though, that a character doesn't necessarily have to fill multiple requirements - a character not fulfilling certain criteria won't matter if they fulfill another. Like Piranha Plant is not a majorly important character within Mario at all, it's just a generic enemy. But it's both recognisable and evidently had the potential for an interesting moveset.
Nah, I'd say Piranha Plant is absolutely a majorly important character to Mario. It's one of the original SMB1 enemies, and it has been in nearly every mainline Mario game (unlike a more on-off enemy like say, Buzzy Beetle).
 

Ryu Myuutsu

Smash Champion
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
2,089
Location
Niigata, Japan
3DS FC
3668-9945-1996
NNID
BahamurShin
#16
R Ryu
Any serious pro player will find results as only mattering. If you're not using a viable character, you're probably content either being casual, or you're interested as being the best x player, who, while may defeat others, will never win any major tournament with character x. Such event is highly improbable. A pro perspective is one in which one is serious about winning, and aside from spending maybe 8 or so hours a day, will seek out the best character(s) to achieve that goal. This renders any character as unviable to be uncommon.

Those who are casual, or strive to be the best player of x may be content with a wider variety of characters, assuming the latter will spend serious time with character y, and not simply using y for non-serious game play. There is no "hyper competitive". There's professional competitiveness, amateur competitiveness (where one doesn't attend tournaments, but is still serious and applies tournament rules), and casuals. There may be a reason why SSBM has maintained popularity for as long as it has. I suspect those who were casual found the competitveness far more interesting.

You say by removing half the roster, options for players is taken away. You find this unwise. Yet, smaller rosters were never perceived as taking away options, and if anyone is serious about being a pro, those options will be nothing more than the unpopular side dish, viz., unviable characters. The moment Sheik was nerfed in SSB4, people dropped her. Currently, Bayonetta, Marth, and Sheik are missing. Viability, not popularity, is what makes characters relevant. You also assume roster reduction to be done for selfish reasons, but not realizing it'd be for logistical and economical reasons. Besides, it was either "Everyone is Here", or roster reduction by a third. I hear that may be the case for SSB6.

It's good complaints were taken seriously, else we might not have a more balanced game. But, I'll reiterate that we should give it time. I trust the diverse cast will dwindle down.
You missed the point.

I never argued against the usage of viable characters when attempting to win major tournaments. I am aware that not everyone is the same and that only a few fighters are going to be viable choices for competitive play. I'm not deluding myself into thinking that everyone can place on top with the right amount of skill.

I consider myself an amateur competitive as well, since I haven't played in tourneys for a long time, but I'm also in for the casual fun. I elaborated before on why balance shouldn't be the main focus, as it means nothing on its own and it isn't necessarily tied to the enjoyment of the game. I know people play tournaments to win. If your only goal in playing is to win money, then you have no business playing anything other than the best characters in the game so you win and get that cash. However, I personally believe that using this game purely as a means of income is pretty shallow, or at least if you don't have anything else to back you up.

Do not misunderstand me, I'm not criticizing the professional players of the community. They are strong enough to make a living out of it or at least make it a secondary source of income, but their drive for playing is not fueled by avarice but by passion. If they didn't have that passion, then they would stop playing altogether. Now, if someone came out and said that they are only in for the money, then I would think that that person is shallow.

I suspect that the only merit you see in Smash comes from the competitive scene and see its characters merely as functions. Having the creative minds behind this game be influenced merely by this "professional" perspective you speak of (Sorry, give me a moment to get ahold of myself. The pretentiousness in that term cracks me up) would be completely silly and harmful to the game.
I said by removing half of the roster, options are taken away. I found that unwise. You did well in reading that the way it was written. True, back then the smaller rosters were never perceived as options being away. Past tense.
20 years ago, 12 characters might have been the standard for roster sizes, but as time went on, games improve on many aspects including the amount of playable choices it can have. I don't think it's a good example of your part to mention rosters from very old games because of Loss Aversion. To us, losses tend to hurt 2x times as much as something we gain. When Smash 64 came out, we didn't worry about losing the likes of Ridley, Cloud, Mewtwo, etc. because they weren't there. Now that we do, imagine if the devs decided to listen exclusively to this mindset of yours and cut down the roster in size for better balance. Options, playstyles and, more importantly, the replayability factor would diminish. Do you think most people will be ok in losing their favorite character for it? Will it be worth in spite of losing, say, Ridley? I personally don't think so.

And yes, I still believe that what you propose is for selfish reasons. Many people, other than professional players, play this game in many different ways. There are those who are content on having that many options to choose from to spice up their play sessions. Is there something wrong with that?
Not even pro players are exempt of this; Nairo himself constantly plays Ganondorf on his stream. I doubt he is deluding himself into think that Ganondorf is capable of taking a major tournament, but alas could it be that he does it because he finds it... fun?
Ask yourself this: Would this focus on balance create more excitement? Would it make people more creative? Would it make players better at expressing themselves?

And you are overstating Sheik's nerfs in Smash 4. Her nerfs made bandwagoners drop her. Dedicated players continued to use her. I am well aware of the logistics and economics involved when bringing everyone back, but I think it was worth it. Sakurai and Nintendo apparently do as well. Balancing such a cast is not going to be easy by any means, but strengthening those weak characters you mentioned is definitely a good place to start rather than cutting them out.
With this many characters and mechanics, the balance may seem like a nightmare at first but you also end up with more ways to solve problems.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
5,660
Location
California
Switch FC
SW-5361-1490-2247
#20
R Ryu Myuustu
Some might disagree with you, if they are competitive. Losing isn't fun. A casual might not care, but those like me won't find enjoyment in a game, especially one where certain characters are better than others. I find the idea of a truely balanced game to be more idealistic anyway. Still, I'd prefer to have a character who will be able to deal with most characters, rather than few.

I fail to see why having a professional mindset for SSB would be harmful. Apparently, four top players from Japan had their influence in SSBU, and for whatever reason, SSBM fans are drawn to this game. Is it so they stay relevant? Is this the next best SSB since SSBM? Do they realize SSBM won't last forever? I don't have epistemic access to answer those questions. Nevertheless, that four top Japanese players had any part with working with Sakurai shows the direction in which fans want SSB to go.

I've seen some people complain about how few people want to goof off in Quickplay, or perhaps that includes Public Arena. Perhaps the direction of SSB is to cater toward a more competitive style. As for removing characters, I just don't see how logistically or economically wise it'd be to push past, say, 100 characters. We're already getting 80+, and if more characters are really what makes SSB so great, why not play other fighting games with massive rosters?

Quite honestly, I think SSBB should probably have been the last. I recall an interview where Sakurai wondered what else could be added after SSBB. Nothing, as far as I can tell. It'll be the same old content all prettied up, perhaps with some additional features that are too mundane to awe anyone. I've never been a fan of a huge roster anyway, which is why I've promoted by protagonist-antagonist concept here and there on this site. Heck, I even thought maybe a new SSB game should come out called Super Smash Bros. Dark, where there are only villains to play as.

Regarding Ridley, the history between him and Samus is too intertwined to make removing him any sense. I could see those like ZSS and Dark Samus being removed, although the latter had her own story arc. Anyway, you can perceive what I want as selfish, and that's fine. Even if it was for selfish reasons, I fail to see why my motive would in any way make my argument invalid. I see your point of view, but I don't think we'll be getting anywhere. I appreciate your time, however.
 

Xelrog

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
296
Location
Battle Ground, WA
Switch FC
SW 2367 4933 3404
#21
if more characters are really what makes SSB so great, why not play other fighting games with massive rosters?
Because they don't have Mario vs. Sonic vs. Pac-man. You really don't seem to understand why Smash Bros. is popular. This is and always has been a game that sells on fanservice, and I don't think that's ever been a secret. People buy this game because of who's in it.
 

Arthur97

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Messages
1,449
#22
Sakurai and to some degree Nintendo (kind of wish they flexed that muscle a little more). I still think he may just be using Smash partly as an excuse to work with characters he personally likes (looks at SF content in Ultimate).
 

Arthur97

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Messages
1,449
#24
Yeah, the Plant has good moveset potential, has been there since the beginning, and is in most if not all mainline Mario games. It was a solid choice to represent Mario grunts. Make the Troopa Army proud.
 

Quillion

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,039
#25
Yeah, the Plant has good moveset potential, has been there since the beginning, and is in most if not all mainline Mario games. It was a solid choice to represent Mario grunts. Make the Troopa Army proud.
Personally, I'd like to see them go further with the enemies. Bring in the Goomba and/or Koopa as the actual most iconic enemies. Let's see the Bokoblin or Moblin in lieu of the one-shots that will probably never get in. Maybe Shy Guy to give Yoshi some company?
 

Arthur97

Smash Lord
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Messages
1,449
#26
Personally, I'd like to see them go further with the enemies. Bring in the Goomba and/or Koopa as the actual most iconic enemies. Let's see the Bokoblin or Moblin in lieu of the one-shots that will probably never get in. Maybe Shy Guy to give Yoshi some company?
I don't know. Goomba's kind of lackning...well, much of anything. That's kind of the point of Goombas. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing the big dogs getting a mook a piece. Problem with Zelda, is I'm not sure those mooks have the personality. That's a great advantage of Mario. Even the enemies look fun and vibrant. Now, obviously, a Zelda enemy probably wouldn't be going for that, but a generic moblin doesn't seem as appealing as the bright and vibrant Plant.

Then there's Metroid. I suppose you could do some form of Metroid...somehow. I'm just not sure how that'd work. An Omega Metroid maybe?

With DK you have the Kremlins, but they are kind of similar to K. Rool in design but also lack a lot of variety in moveset potential which is something the Plant had in spades thanks in part to the sub-species.
 

Room100

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Sep 25, 2018
Messages
126
Location
PA
#27
I don't know. Goomba's kind of lackning...well, much of anything. That's kind of the point of Goombas. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing the big dogs getting a mook a piece. Problem with Zelda, is I'm not sure those mooks have the personality. That's a great advantage of Mario. Even the enemies look fun and vibrant. Now, obviously, a Zelda enemy probably wouldn't be going for that, but a generic moblin doesn't seem as appealing as the bright and vibrant Plant.

Then there's Metroid. I suppose you could do some form of Metroid...somehow. I'm just not sure how that'd work. An Omega Metroid maybe?

With DK you have the Kremlins, but they are kind of similar to K. Rool in design but also lack a lot of variety in moveset potential which is something the Plant had in spades thanks in part to the sub-species.
Looking for other worthwhile "generic" inclusions is definitely tricky and probably not productive since Plant feels like a one-off. But it's fun to do it anyway so why not?

It's hard to find an enemy so generic that everyone can recognize them, but that has enough moveset potential. Looking at the franchises in Smash, Mario and Zelda proooobably have the best shot? Cuz when you are going generic enemy, they NEED to be iconic and recognizable and a lot of other grunts just don't have that. I think Shy Guy, not considering moveset, would have the best shot.

I don't know. Goomba's kind of lackning...well, much of anything. That's kind of the point of Goombas. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing the big dogs getting a mook a piece. Problem with Zelda, is I'm not sure those mooks have the personality. That's a great advantage of Mario. Even the enemies look fun and vibrant. Now, obviously, a Zelda enemy probably wouldn't be going for that, but a generic moblin doesn't seem as appealing as the bright and vibrant Plant.

Then there's Metroid. I suppose you could do some form of Metroid...somehow. I'm just not sure how that'd work. An Omega Metroid maybe?

With DK you have the Kremlins, but they are kind of similar to K. Rool in design but also lack a lot of variety in moveset potential which is something the Plant had in spades thanks in part to the sub-species.
Oh, or generic allies. They're probably easier to find in most franchises.
 
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Messages
1,449
#28
Looking for other worthwhile "generic" inclusions is definitely tricky and probably not productive since Plant feels like a one-off. But it's fun to do it anyway so why not?

It's hard to find an enemy so generic that everyone can recognize them, but that has enough moveset potential. Looking at the franchises in Smash, Mario and Zelda proooobably have the best shot? Cuz when you are going generic enemy, they NEED to be iconic and recognizable and a lot of other grunts just don't have that. I think Shy Guy, not considering moveset, would have the best shot.
Problem with Zelda is that they change appearance a lot whereas Mario enemies don't change that much. Plant might be one of the ones that changed the most due to starting out green.
 

ToasterBrains

Not Pranked!
Premium
Writing Team
Joined
Jul 7, 2012
Messages
13,038
Location
some place I know
NNID
ToasterBrains
Switch FC
SW 8322 4207 9908
#29
What are your personal most important aspects of deeming a character "worthy" of joining the roster?
"Worthy" is a strong word to me, because I think it's pretty subjective, but obviously you know that or else you wouldn't be asking for opinions haha.
For me, and my personal bias, it usually falls in one of three categories: Either I liked the character/game they came from beforehand (Shantae, Geno, Phoenix Wright, Banjo Kazooie), they would conceptually be fun (chorus kids, potentially steve, doom guy), or the memes (Captain Falcon echos)

Sans falls into the first and third category. I genuinely like the character, I genuinely like Undertale, and we all know it would be a pretty memey inclusion.

Popularity, however, has a huuuuuge impact. So stepping back from my personal bias, it's pretty apparent that a lot of their decisions this time around have been popularity-centric, like Simon and K. Rool. You could probably say most characters have their position rooted in that- but not all of them.

As far as DLC characters go, I don't think anything I said would even apply. I honestly HOPE it's just a lawless wasteland freeforall and the characters are all out of left field.


Who are your own most wanted (and least wanted) newcomers?
I don't particularly dislike a character enough to be my least wanted newcomer.

Besides any kind of Rabbid.

My most wanted characters span from Banjo-Kazooie to Geno to Sans (seriously) to Skull Kid.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
5,660
Location
California
Switch FC
SW-5361-1490-2247
#30
Because they don't have Mario vs. Sonic vs. Pac-man. You really don't seem to understand why Smash Bros. is popular. This is and always has been a game that sells on fanservice, and I don't think that's ever been a secret. People buy this game because of who's in it.
I understand, but that doesn't matter to me. I could have recalled Sakurai saying something similar, except that if people want a competitive fighting game, play a non-Smash game. In any case, if the roster was going to be reduced in SSBU, but wasn't, then I truly hope it'll be the case for the next game.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,039
#31
I don't know. Goomba's kind of lackning...well, much of anything. That's kind of the point of Goombas. Still, I wouldn't mind seeing the big dogs getting a mook a piece.
I don't know. For normals, things would be difficult, but I think there's enough for specials at least. Micro Goomba projectiles which impede movement, Para Goomba wings, Headbonk similar to the Paper Mario games, and Goomba's Shoe would fill the four slots quite nicely. Raccoon Tail and Spike helmet could work as Smashes.

Problem with Zelda, is I'm not sure those mooks have the personality. That's a great advantage of Mario. Even the enemies look fun and vibrant. Now, obviously, a Zelda enemy probably wouldn't be going for that, but a generic moblin doesn't seem as appealing as the bright and vibrant Plant.
I think they're doing quite a bit to give the Bokoblins some personality at least. They have a nice hostile yet goofy vibe to them ever since Wind Waker. Maybe they can take the breakable weapon gimmick that people initially wanted for BotW Link.

Then there's Metroid. I suppose you could do some form of Metroid...somehow. I'm just not sure how that'd work. An Omega Metroid maybe?
Zeta. They're already the proper size and look sleeker than Omegas. No need for scaling down.

With DK you have the Kremlins, but they are kind of similar to K. Rool in design but also lack a lot of variety in moveset potential which is something the Plant had in spades thanks in part to the sub-species.
Really? I think Kritter can absolute draw a lot from the various Kremling types.
 
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Messages
1,449
#32
I don't know. For normals, things would be difficult, but I think there's enough for specials at least. Micro Goomba projectiles which impede movement, Para Goomba wings, Headbonk similar to the Paper Mario games, and Goomba's Shoe would fill the four slots quite nicely. Raccoon Tail and Spike helmet could work as Smashes.



I think they're doing quite a bit to give the Bokoblins some personality at least. They have a nice hostile yet goofy vibe to them ever since Wind Waker. Maybe they can take the breakable weapon gimmick that people initially wanted for BotW Link.



Zeta. They're already the proper size and look sleeker than Omegas. No need for scaling down.



Really? I think Kritter can absolute draw a lot from the various Kremling types.
I guess the main issue comes down to bokoblins and moblins.

I guess it depends on how many liberties you're willing to take with Kritters.
 
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,039
#33
I guess the main issue comes down to bokoblins and moblins.

I guess it depends on how many liberties you're willing to take with Kritters.
The Kremlings are explicitly the same race just like all the Piranha Plants. It could definitely work.

I suppose Bokoblin can come down to being a Link semi-echo since they generally use machetes and bows. But I think either Bokoblin or Moblin can nicely "composite" all of the Blin subspecies.
 
Joined
Jun 7, 2016
Messages
1,449
#34
The Kremlings are explicitly the same race just like all the Piranha Plants. It could definitely work.

I suppose Bokoblin can come down to being a Link semi-echo since they generally use machetes and bows. But I think either Bokoblin or Moblin can nicely "composite" all of the Blin subspecies.
I'm not sure the whole Kremling Krew is the same race. Even if they are, they can vary in appearance. A normal Kritter would look kind of odd trying to do something from a Krusha.
 
Joined
Mar 24, 2013
Messages
2,089
Location
Niigata, Japan
3DS FC
3668-9945-1996
NNID
BahamurShin
#36
Some might disagree with you, if they are competitive. Losing isn't fun. A casual might not care, but those like me won't find enjoyment in a game, especially one where certain characters are better than others. I find the idea of a truely balanced game to be more idealistic anyway. Still, I'd prefer to have a character who will be able to deal with most characters, rather than few.
I know some will disagree. Regardless, this makes me glad that these people aren't the main focus. There are "hyper competitive" players that will only play the game a certain way, see the characters as mere functions and wish for the series to become more like that.
And if you commit yourself to playing a fighting game, you have to accept that you are going to lose sometimes. Failure is a part of life; a lot of us will fail many times before we succeed. Losing doesn't always have to be unfun. You can still use the experience as a learning opportunity. It's about the disposition.

Also, there will always be some unbalances in a roster filled with characters, Smash isn't the only one guilty of this as it goes to every fighting game on the market. This is another thing that one has to accept if they commit themselves to playing Smash, Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, etc. The ideal of having a character being able to deal with most of the other fighters is noble, but it is extremely improbable.

Balance patches will still issued throughout Ultimate's history, and that gives it an advantage over its predecessors. Regardless, the purpose of buffing and nerfing isn't really to balance, but to make a game that is fun to play and watch. Focusing too much on balance can hurt a game in the same way that focusing too much on money can make you unhappy.

If you want to play a fighting game that is 100% balanced and fair, go play the first Street Fighter. During a match, both players have access to the exact same options, making it the ultimate balanced competitive game. But it is super boring because you can only play as two characters who fight exactly the same, but hey! At least its balanced! So, yay, I guess?

Having diversity of movesets is better than focusing on creating some 5:5 fighting game utopia.


I fail to see why having a professional mindset for SSB would be harmful. Apparently, four top players from Japan had their influence in SSBU, and for whatever reason, SSBM fans are drawn to this game. Is it so they stay relevant? Is this the next best SSB since SSBM? Do they realize SSBM won't last forever? I don't have epistemic access to answer those questions. Nevertheless, that four top Japanese players had any part with working with Sakurai shows the direction in which fans want SSB to go.
Because it would cater to a particular set of needs that can stunt the creative process of the game, its players' creativity, lower the excitement factor and overshadow its crossover appeal. Your previous posts are very indicative of this; caring exclusively about the numbers and balance focus when they don't exactly guarantee for a game to be fun. To clarify, I don't think that listening to this "professional" mindset is harmful per se, but letting it bleed unfettered over the creative process is.

And yes, 9B, AMSA, Ranai and Earth participated in the development on this game, as Test & Quality Assurance if the credits are to be believed. This means that they helped test the game but didn't exactly influence the decision making in terms of roster. It is very unlikely that they were whispering into Sakurai's ear the whole time, telling him to cut down the roster in the name of balance. Even if they had that kind of power, I doubt they would have done it. Nevertheless, I'm glad they let them help and I'm sure their input was valuable.

I've seen some people complain about how few people want to goof off in Quickplay, or perhaps that includes Public Arena. Perhaps the direction of SSB is to cater toward a more competitive style. As for removing characters, I just don't see how logistically or economically wise it'd be to push past, say, 100 characters. We're already getting 80+, and if more characters are really what makes SSB so great, why not play other fighting games with massive rosters?
There will always be people who go online to troll or grief other players. And this isn't exclusive to Smash either. You can't really use such an example of some isolated behavior like this as a measuring stick.

And to answer, your last question: Because beloved Nintendo franchises and other icons face against each other, that's why. I hope I don't have to explain the crossover appeal.

Quite honestly, I think SSBB should probably have been the last. I recall an interview where Sakurai wondered what else could be added after SSBB. Nothing, as far as I can tell. It'll be the same old content all prettied up, perhaps with some additional features that are too mundane to awe anyone. I've never been a fan of a huge roster anyway, which is why I've promoted by protagonist-antagonist concept here and there on this site. Heck, I even thought maybe a new SSB game should come out called Super Smash Bros. Dark, where there are only villains to play as.
This seems to be a personal problem rather than a flaw from the series.
If you think that the series should have ended at Brawl, then you have clearly lost your drive or passion to play it's successors. The crossover factor is also lost on you and you seem to be personally detached from Smash at this point. Why are you bothering to go through the motions of playing Ultimate then?
If I were in your place at a point where I can no longer get any enjoyment out of the game I would have dropped the series already and rethink some of my decisions.

You may have thought that there was nothing more to be done after Brawl but that is simply not true. There will always be room for improvement, that's how we progress. Aside from the obvious new characters and stage additions; refined gameplay, new mechanics, polish, quality of life features, music tracks, prettier graphics, etc. Personally, I see Ultimate as the height of the series, and if that were to be the last game then the series would end on a high note.
Imagine if Nintendo thought to themselves that they peaked at the N64 and they didn't need to anything else, or if certain series were discontinued because the devs thought they couldn't do better.

Regarding Ridley, the history between him and Samus is too intertwined to make removing him any sense. I could see those like ZSS and Dark Samus being removed, although the latter had her own story arc. Anyway, you can perceive what I want as selfish, and that's fine. Even if it was for selfish reasons, I fail to see why my motive would in any way make my argument invalid. I see your point of view, but I don't think we'll be getting anywhere. I appreciate your time, however.
I was only using Ridley as an example. Point still stands in what I meant to say. Some characters, including plenty of favorites, would be cut for the sake of a selfish, detached desire.

You said that the crossover factor doesn't matter to you, all the more reason for me to believe that your approach would be harmful for these series. Smash means a lot of things to a lot of fans, and a project like it needs to be worked on by passionate people who care for it.
This makes me feel that Smash simply isn't for you anymore, and it may be time to move on to something you can actually enjoy.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
5,660
Location
California
Switch FC
SW-5361-1490-2247
#37
R Ryu Myuustu
I do enjoy SSB. The reality is that not everyone will get to have who they want in SSB, so the better option would be to focus on the impact in video gaming history, since popularity is subjective. I'm for new characters, but that doesn't mean I'm for a larger roster or for those who didn't do anything other than have honor by association to get in to a game. That's all.
 

Room100

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Sep 25, 2018
Messages
126
Location
PA
#38
R Ryu Myuustu
I do enjoy SSB. The reality is that not everyone will get to have who they want in SSB, so the better option would be to focus on the impact in video gaming history, since popularity is subjective. I'm for new characters, but that doesn't mean I'm for a larger roster or for those who didn't do anything other than have honor by association to get in to a game. That's all.
I'd say impact in gaming history is also moderately subjective, looking outside of things like sales and awards. In a very similar way to popularity, if one person spent tons of time more on an old franchise than someone else, especially as a child, that game or series is going to feel WAY more impactful than maybe it truly was.

In my opinion impact on history and current popularity is one of the main balancing acts of someone getting into Smash; they (generally) need to have one or the other, but if a character was a big deal in the industry AND is still loved by the community in general, that's very impressive.
 
Joined
Feb 4, 2019
Messages
32
#39
To add my opinion, I kinda want to go into both sides of the equation, and maybe a little further.

I think there are a few things can get a character into Smash Bros, but also contradictions there may be too. This also could be said for certain Assist Trophies too.

1. Popularity - The more unfortunate one since it causes them to overshadow other franchises, but popular mainstream titles tend to have more representation on the roster as a whole. Fire Emblem is a good example of this, as before there were only two Fire Emblem characters on the roster, but when the series grew, more began to be added in, and some people still hope for certain others such as Hector from the same franchise. However, it could also be argued that this is starting to break, due to how DLC is planned to be handled (no characters from franchises already on the fighter roster.)

2. Influence - Similar to popularity, but those from genre defining titles and legacy titles have a bigger chance in my opinion, as Mario and Zelda have gone on for very long, and have made an impact on gaming history as well.

3. Nintendo console legacy - This is in my opinion what ultimately got Snake in, as there was a Metal Gear Solid game on the Gamecube, and pretty much all of the fighters on the roster had there games on a Nintendo console at some point or another. This feels like it's a hard requirement to get anyone onto the fighter roster.

This part is mostly my opinion, but this is where I think they'd have no chance to be playable, but can still come in in another way.

1. Assist Trophy - Most people agree with this, but an Assist trophy is an automatic deconfirmation as a playable fighter right there, as they were meant to assist players in their combos. This deconfirms Issac, Waluigi, Skull Kid, Shadow, and Shovel Knight, as they are Assist Trophies, but the next game they may become playable, like Little Mac did in the transition from Brawl to 4.

2. They are a Spirit in-game - Some people may question this, but I believe this destroys their chances to become a fighter, due to Classic Mode giving so-called "Fighter Spirits" when you complete that fighter's classic mode. While it's purely aesthetic, it pretty much signals that if a Spirit exists in World of Light, such as Shantae, then they pretty much lost their chance to become playable there, but could come into Ultimate as an assist trophy. This basically deconfirms characters like Shantae, Pyra, Jeanne, and Dixie Kong to name a few.

3. Their series is already represented on the roster - This was recently confirmed as a reason by the dev team themselves, meaning we won't be getting more Mario, Zelda, Fire Emblem, etc pas Piranha Plant. This deconfirms characters like Hector from Fire Emblem or Tifa from Final Fantasy 7, but opens the doorway to certain characters from other franchises, such as Sora from Kingdom Hearts, Erdrick from Dragon Quest, or Sans from Undertale (Please no, keep him out)

This might be controversial, but I think there are some things that just keep characters out entirely.

1. Rival first party franchise - This is pretty obvious, but characters like Kratos and Master Chief are probably never going to fight Mario since Sony and Microsoft are most certainly still rivals to Nintendo as of writing this.

2. They were featured in a fighting game meant for a rival console exclusive - I didn't know how to word this better, but for a good example of what I mean: Playstation All-stars. Anyone used in that game is probably not going to show up in any capacity in Super Smash Bros, which deconfirms Raiden right off the bat.

3. They didn't originate from a game - This deconfirms Goku to nothing more than a dead meme in my eyes. If they didn't have their origins of legacy and popularity from gaming, but rather anime, movies, or manga instead, they're pretty much not getting in. Putting them into Smash Bros. would mean losing the game's identity at that point anyways.
 

Room100

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Sep 25, 2018
Messages
126
Location
PA
#40
1. Rival first party franchise - This is pretty obvious, but characters like Kratos and Master Chief are probably never going to fight Mario since Sony and Microsoft are most certainly still rivals to Nintendo as of writing this.
I think this is the only one I'm inclined to disagree with at the moment. Sony sure, I doubt they'll be sending anything Nintendo's way anytime soon. But right now it does seem Nintendo and Microsoft have a decent relationship as they don't consider the other direct competition. Plus a Microsoft rep is a hot topic in DLC speculation right now.
 
Top