Artsy Omni
Smashified Creator
- Joined
- Aug 5, 2011
- Messages
- 1,368
- NNID
- artsyomni
Link to original post: [drupal=4521]Mind of Sakurai (Part 2 - Character Inclusion)[/drupal]
Character Relevance
Popularity
Moveset Viability/Variety
"Overrepresentation"
Heritage
Character Relevance
As I'm sure many of you have seen me post all over the SSB4 thread, I believe the thing of upmost importance to Sakurai is the Character's relevance to Nintendo. While character popularity or merits in terms of move set viability or uniqueness are important, I believe, in most cases, they play a second-hand role in Sakurai's consideration. I'll explain each case in further detail later.
So what makes a character relevant? Well, for starters, the franchise they hail from has to be relevant. A character is only as important as his franchise, right? Of course, there are some instances where a "franchise" consists of a small number of (or a singular) game. In that instance, measuring the relevance of the franchise and it's characters are nearly the same exact thing. From there, you can deduce a character's importance by a number of things. Some common examples are
Popularity
While relevance to Nintendo is most important, that doesn't mean popularity doesn't have it's own role. I believe it's incorrect to base the likelihood of a character's inclusion on popularity, simply because popularity is, in most cases, entirely subordinate on the character's importance. In almost all cases, If a character is important, that character is naturally popular. And the inverse is usually true as well: Popularity is an indicator of importance.
However, there is an instance where popularity plays an equal role to character relevance, and that is when you are looking at a franchise where each character is equally relevant. Take Pokemon, for instance. Each Pokemon, on an objective level, is equal in relevance to Nintendo, simply because of the nature of the franchise, where Pokemon are, in a way, a commodity in a world that is not plot-focused. In this case, popularity is one of the biggest deciding factors. Of course, in the specific case of Pokemon, I'm sure GAME FREAK probably has some say in which pokemon to include, but I won't get into that.
A similar instance when Popularity is important is when the characters under consideration are more or less equal in importance to a franchise. For instance, in a franchise, all the main characters are already in Smash, and an onslaught of secondary, yet important, characters are left up for grabs. Instances like this are when the fans really make a big difference.
However, fans can do nothing unless they are united. This is why Operation: Rainfall is interesting, and has sparked a movement in the gaming community that has the potential to change the way fans interact with developers. If a developer is on the fence about a decision, or needs to understand his audience, a fragmented fan base is of no aid to them. This is why I believe it is important for fans to rally together to make their collective opinions known. As long as such movements understand their role as a resource, and not as an authority, then such movements can be a very good thing.
The other big factor in instances like these is the viability of a move set:
Moveset Viability/Variety
I often see people discrediting a character because its abilities in its respective games don't reflect the nature of Smash Bros. In this instance, I must remind you that there are a number of characters whose move sets had to be entirely invented because of the nature of their game, and yet they still exist in Smash Bros. This is why I believe character relevance is more important that Moveset Viability; if a franchise (and I say franchise very deliberately) is important enough to Sakurai, and there is any possible way to make its characters fight, then a moveset can be created for the character(s) of that franchise. Some may insist that a potential character would be too similar to an existing character, to which I say that clones are never necessary: any character can be differentiated enough to be completely unique.
Does that mean I believe clones shouldn't exist? You bet. So why do they? Does Sakurai not see potential to create a unique move set? I doubt that to be the case. Time constraints are probably to blame for the existence of clones. And in the case of Brawl, pressure to remain true to their original appearance is probably the reason for characters like Ganondorf, Toon (Young) Link and Ganondorf remaining near-clones.
I believe that all characters have the potential to be a unique entrant in Smash Bros.
"Overrepresentation"
Here's another issue that gets mentioned a lot. Many people argue that franchises like Mario are "Overrepresented." However, I don't believe Sakurai views franchise representation the way we do; in fact, I don't even think he views franchises categorically like we do. If a character is relevant enough, he goes in, despite whatever franchise he belongs to. It's not about giving each franchise an equal amount of entrants, because that would be forcing less relevant characters of smaller franchise, while leaving out relevant characters from larger franchises.
So I believe "overrepresentation," if it were a term to be used at all, it should be defined not by number, but by relevance. A franchise is "over representing" itself over other franchises if it exhausts its relevant characters and begins including less relevant characters. A more subjective, but equally accurate way of defining it is that a franchise is overrepresented when it includes more characters than what is called for due to the relevance of the franchise itself. These two definitions target different slightly aspects of a franchise, but still go hand in hand.
Under that definition, it isn't overrepresentation that is the issue, but UNDERrepresentation. Every character in Brawl is relevant enough to be in Smash Bros. The issue is that for some franchises, relevant characters remain to be included, while in some (usually larger) franchises, the amount of relevant characters is beginning to diminish. This doesn't necessitate a halt for further inclusion from franchises like Mario; it simply means that other franchises still have room to grow.
In short, the amount of reps per franchise ought to reflect the relevance of that franchise in proportion to all the other franchises.
I'm sure Sakurai doesn't use the same terms we do, but I believe the values that we are exercising in our concerns about overrepresentation are values that Sakurai himself shares, and that those values are still at work in his selection of characters.
Heritage
While in most cases, characters are included for their relevance as characters in the industry today, a few inclusions are purely for the sake of Nintendo's heritage. One could say that classic or forgotten characters belong in a collective "franchise." This includes characters like Ice Climbers, Pit, R.O.B., etc. When it comes to the inclusion of these characters, I believe it is likely at the whim of Sakurai. However, I'm sure Sakurai is aware of what classic characters have "cult followings," and I believe Sakurai has a good sense of balance, and that influences his decisions of what and how many classic characters to include.
<blockquote>I believe these to be the most important things to Sakurai when it comes to choosing characters to include in Smash Bros. However, I'm just one person, and my understanding of Sakurai's mindset
There are a lot of factors that people consider when they come up with ideas for characters to include in Smash Bros. Like I said in the introduction, it's important to make an effort to consider characters under the same terms that Sakurai himself does.
While I don't claim to be sure of how Sakurai thinks, studying what decisions he has made in the past, and based off of his own words, I think I have a good general idea. But of course, it's always better if an understanding of a subject is brought upon by a group, rather than an individual, so please, if you read something in regards to Sakurai's mindset and you disagree, let me know, but also provide some reasoning (and perhaps some sources) in order to make your case. Otherwise, how can I properly adjust my perspective? =P
Contents:While I don't claim to be sure of how Sakurai thinks, studying what decisions he has made in the past, and based off of his own words, I think I have a good general idea. But of course, it's always better if an understanding of a subject is brought upon by a group, rather than an individual, so please, if you read something in regards to Sakurai's mindset and you disagree, let me know, but also provide some reasoning (and perhaps some sources) in order to make your case. Otherwise, how can I properly adjust my perspective? =P
Character Relevance
Popularity
Moveset Viability/Variety
"Overrepresentation"
Heritage
Character Relevance
As I'm sure many of you have seen me post all over the SSB4 thread, I believe the thing of upmost importance to Sakurai is the Character's relevance to Nintendo. While character popularity or merits in terms of move set viability or uniqueness are important, I believe, in most cases, they play a second-hand role in Sakurai's consideration. I'll explain each case in further detail later.
So what makes a character relevant? Well, for starters, the franchise they hail from has to be relevant. A character is only as important as his franchise, right? Of course, there are some instances where a "franchise" consists of a small number of (or a singular) game. In that instance, measuring the relevance of the franchise and it's characters are nearly the same exact thing. From there, you can deduce a character's importance by a number of things. Some common examples are
- A character's role in the canon of the franchise's universe on the whole - Series mascots obviously fall into this example.
- Frequency of appearance
- Involvement in Nintendo's heritage as a company - Retro characters could reasonably be called important simply because they are some of Nintendo's earliest characters.
Popularity
While relevance to Nintendo is most important, that doesn't mean popularity doesn't have it's own role. I believe it's incorrect to base the likelihood of a character's inclusion on popularity, simply because popularity is, in most cases, entirely subordinate on the character's importance. In almost all cases, If a character is important, that character is naturally popular. And the inverse is usually true as well: Popularity is an indicator of importance.
However, there is an instance where popularity plays an equal role to character relevance, and that is when you are looking at a franchise where each character is equally relevant. Take Pokemon, for instance. Each Pokemon, on an objective level, is equal in relevance to Nintendo, simply because of the nature of the franchise, where Pokemon are, in a way, a commodity in a world that is not plot-focused. In this case, popularity is one of the biggest deciding factors. Of course, in the specific case of Pokemon, I'm sure GAME FREAK probably has some say in which pokemon to include, but I won't get into that.
A similar instance when Popularity is important is when the characters under consideration are more or less equal in importance to a franchise. For instance, in a franchise, all the main characters are already in Smash, and an onslaught of secondary, yet important, characters are left up for grabs. Instances like this are when the fans really make a big difference.
However, fans can do nothing unless they are united. This is why Operation: Rainfall is interesting, and has sparked a movement in the gaming community that has the potential to change the way fans interact with developers. If a developer is on the fence about a decision, or needs to understand his audience, a fragmented fan base is of no aid to them. This is why I believe it is important for fans to rally together to make their collective opinions known. As long as such movements understand their role as a resource, and not as an authority, then such movements can be a very good thing.
The other big factor in instances like these is the viability of a move set:
Moveset Viability/Variety
I often see people discrediting a character because its abilities in its respective games don't reflect the nature of Smash Bros. In this instance, I must remind you that there are a number of characters whose move sets had to be entirely invented because of the nature of their game, and yet they still exist in Smash Bros. This is why I believe character relevance is more important that Moveset Viability; if a franchise (and I say franchise very deliberately) is important enough to Sakurai, and there is any possible way to make its characters fight, then a moveset can be created for the character(s) of that franchise. Some may insist that a potential character would be too similar to an existing character, to which I say that clones are never necessary: any character can be differentiated enough to be completely unique.
Does that mean I believe clones shouldn't exist? You bet. So why do they? Does Sakurai not see potential to create a unique move set? I doubt that to be the case. Time constraints are probably to blame for the existence of clones. And in the case of Brawl, pressure to remain true to their original appearance is probably the reason for characters like Ganondorf, Toon (Young) Link and Ganondorf remaining near-clones.
I believe that all characters have the potential to be a unique entrant in Smash Bros.
"Overrepresentation"
Here's another issue that gets mentioned a lot. Many people argue that franchises like Mario are "Overrepresented." However, I don't believe Sakurai views franchise representation the way we do; in fact, I don't even think he views franchises categorically like we do. If a character is relevant enough, he goes in, despite whatever franchise he belongs to. It's not about giving each franchise an equal amount of entrants, because that would be forcing less relevant characters of smaller franchise, while leaving out relevant characters from larger franchises.
So I believe "overrepresentation," if it were a term to be used at all, it should be defined not by number, but by relevance. A franchise is "over representing" itself over other franchises if it exhausts its relevant characters and begins including less relevant characters. A more subjective, but equally accurate way of defining it is that a franchise is overrepresented when it includes more characters than what is called for due to the relevance of the franchise itself. These two definitions target different slightly aspects of a franchise, but still go hand in hand.
Under that definition, it isn't overrepresentation that is the issue, but UNDERrepresentation. Every character in Brawl is relevant enough to be in Smash Bros. The issue is that for some franchises, relevant characters remain to be included, while in some (usually larger) franchises, the amount of relevant characters is beginning to diminish. This doesn't necessitate a halt for further inclusion from franchises like Mario; it simply means that other franchises still have room to grow.
In short, the amount of reps per franchise ought to reflect the relevance of that franchise in proportion to all the other franchises.
I'm sure Sakurai doesn't use the same terms we do, but I believe the values that we are exercising in our concerns about overrepresentation are values that Sakurai himself shares, and that those values are still at work in his selection of characters.
Heritage
While in most cases, characters are included for their relevance as characters in the industry today, a few inclusions are purely for the sake of Nintendo's heritage. One could say that classic or forgotten characters belong in a collective "franchise." This includes characters like Ice Climbers, Pit, R.O.B., etc. When it comes to the inclusion of these characters, I believe it is likely at the whim of Sakurai. However, I'm sure Sakurai is aware of what classic characters have "cult followings," and I believe Sakurai has a good sense of balance, and that influences his decisions of what and how many classic characters to include.
<blockquote>I believe these to be the most important things to Sakurai when it comes to choosing characters to include in Smash Bros. However, I'm just one person, and my understanding of Sakurai's mindset
