So I'm not actually the person you were responding to, but I have somewhat similar feelings so I figured I'd respond anyway.
In any case, the original post didn't actually say that only the most popular characters should be added. They said the most iconic should be added. And at least in my estimation iconicity is not the same as popularity. I don't think all that many people would say Pac-Man is their favorite gaming character. But everyone knows Pac-Man. He has reached a level of recognition and importance to the history of gaming that is hard to compare. I would guess, at least amongst contemporary gamers, that Joker is more popular. Likely by a large margin.
But when it comes to characters I want to see in Smash I'm much more interested in seeing characters I feel are iconic or at the very least historic. Especially if connected to Nintendo. Because that's just what I want Smash to be. It's what makes the most sense to me. It feels the most cohesive to me. And that's also why I wish the focus would return to Nintendo characters in general. Obviously that's not really how things have played out, but I guess that's really just to say in my perfect world the Smash roster would look very different.
As far as Terry goes, from my perspective he certainly doesn't feel iconic to me. It would be hard for him to, for me, given that I hadn't ever heard of him until Smash speculation (yes I know, a tired refrain). But I also have never paid too much attention to fighting games in general, as traditional fighting games aren't really my scene. But even despite this, I was and am still very much aware of Street Fighter, Tekken, Soul Calibur, Mortal Kombat, Dead or Alive, and the vs Capcom series. So that just leaves me wondering, how iconic a character or series can be, when it doesn't transcend the specific community built around it in the same way that many others do. I can certainly be way off base as far as how well known Terry is, but that is where I, and I assume many others, are coming from when they say that Terry doesn't feel iconic to them.
I'm not sure if Rayman is best example of an iconic character to be sure, but certainly that is why I want Bomberman to be playable so badly. He has a similar niche to Pac-Man, as a historic gaming figure, if not to the same extent. But he has also always had close ties to Nintendo, even up to the Switch's launch.
Anyway all of that was really just to say that some people want the most popular characters, some people want the most iconic characters, and some people want whichever characters they are closest to/that they grew up with. And those are all valid reasons. And certainly not everyone's perception of iconicity or popularity is going to be the same for every character.
I've said this before, but I've noticed a lot of people really just want the characters that are their favorites and then assume that everyone else uses that same criteria for deciding who they want to see in Smash. That's certainly not a bad thing, but it's also not how I operate. Maybe I'm just a weirdo here, but how much I like a character/game is only a small part of why I might want any given character. There are a bunch of games and characters I love that I don't really want in Smash. Simply because they wouldn't make sense. Monster Rancher and Suikoden are two series that come to mind. Honestly this is how I felt about Joker as well, but we all know how that turned out.
Anyway, not sure why I'm still rambling, so I'm off to bed. See you all after the direct tomorrow!
