Official Next Smash - Speculation & Discussion Thread

[HyperSomari64]

My thinking is less that it’s a traditional Smash game and more, like I said, like “Nintendo VS Everyone Else”. If you want to limit that, you very well could do Nintendo VS CAPCOM or SEGA (or Microsoft or Sony or Disney or Project Super Smash X Zone Brothers for more real pie-in-the-sky kind of ideas). I do have an old roster along the lines of the first idea I’m bringing up, I may find it again in a bit…

And to make it even crazier, it won't have any scrimblo in the roster.

 

[AlRex]

And to make it even crazier, it won't have any scrimblo in the roster.

If it were a platform fighter, I wouldn’t see the reason to, but I get why you say this! I guess I just generally mean the idea of a Nintendo VS CAPCOM VS SEGA VS Namco-Bandai fighter.

 

[Kriven]

I guess I just generally mean the idea of a Nintendo VS CAPCOM VS SEGA VS Namco-Bandai fighter.

I would honestly be thrilled with an HD Project X Zone 3 to kind of scratch this specific itch. Include more Nintendo characters like Link and Pit and it's solid.

Similarly, I always wanted Capcom to just make a game titled "Capcom vs." and have it include Marvel / SNK / Tatsunoko fighters. The ultimate Capcom arcade crossover. Well.... there's always MUGEN.

 

[fogbadge]

I can say that Dillion the Armadillo won't be returning for AT after Vanpool shutdown.

hmm i dunno, id dillon doesn't return i don't think that'll be why. cause surely the rights just end with nintendo? so they could still use him if they wanted

 

[chocolatejr9]

Man, if only SEGA of America wasn't such a butthead during the Saturn era…

Sega as a whole made many... unwise decisions back thrn.

 

[Opossum]

I can say that Dillion the Armadillo won't be returning for AT after Vanpool shutdown.

A studio shutting down doesn't mean content from it stops appearing in Smash all together, barring cases like Doshin the Giant where there are rights issues that arise. But that's a very specific case and not something that tends to happen in the modern day.

Skip, Ltd. and Cing also went under prior to the release of Ultimate. Chibi-Robo, Captain Rainbow, Hotel Dusk, and Trace Memory all have content in the game still, because Nintendo owns the rights to those series and their characters. The same would be true for Dillon.

 

[fogbadge]

Chibi-Robo

i've been summoned

 

[chocolatejr9]

i've been summoned

Sorry, they were just using it as an example. The summoning was an accident.

 

[fogbadge]

Sorry, they were just using it as an example. The summoning was an accident.

well we might as well talk about him anyway

 

[TCT~Phantom]

This is a very elaborate way to chalk cut talk up to haters, basically saying most is predicated on spite, selfishness and a side of delusion, which is a reductive and fairly unkind view of this discussion considering how many people seem to have approached this pragmatically and with civility. I'm not saying we're free of bias, or every take makes sense, but I think most people are talking about cuts because they realize cuts are coming. If not for the next Smash game, certainly eventually. But possibly for the next Smash game. Or, it's just something to talk about.

But the bigger the roster gets, the more untenable sustaining that size becomes. Or at the very least, the more reasonable eventual cuts seem.

Do you see a lot of people saying, like, "They should cut x and add Crash Bandicoot! They should cut y and add Master Chief!" That's not what I'm seeing here. Like, a cut talk with virtually no maligning of Corrin, Byleth, or Piranha Plant can't be that covertly motivated by bitterness. Which takes do you see as people suggesting cuts so they can get their own characters? Or are you just talking about, like, 4chan and Gamefaqs? Seriously, who are you seeing act like some "other person's dream was some sort of apocalyptic event"? Where are you witnessing this antipathy and toxicity?

I think Smashboards is a lot better about cut talk than before. We didn't use to be, before people treated it like you were actively wishing harm upon someone. But I think the mix of it being a concrete thing to discuss, like you said, the general chill nature of off-season speculation, and something that seems gradually more impending has lead to, overall, pretty measured takes.

I see people raising characters that genuinely do seem on the likelier end to get cut. I see people not taking suggestions as personal attacks on the character or their fans. I see people speaking in terms of categories over specific characters, so no one even gets singled out. I see people saying "x may not return, but I hope they do". What I don't see is much malice.

I mean, it might be you who is letting their preferences cloud their judgment if you think getting a dozen cuts makes any real sense.

If they're making a dozen or so cuts, they clearly aren't rebuilding the roster. Because even before you factor in newcomers, that's a count in the high 70s; completely unrealistic if they start over. So if they're just continuing off Ultimate, which is possible, why would there be any cuts, barring third-parties they couldn't reacquire? Which would presumably number fewer than a dozen, if any. Even if all the unreliable kids bailed and we lost all of Square, Konami, Microsoft and Disney, we'd still only lose 9.

Either cuts are going to reflect rebuilding the roster and be substantial, or they're not going to happen at all barring licensing obstacles.

Tbh, it feels like projecting a lot of what old cut talk used to be like onto a conversation that was actually going pretty unproblematically, from my vantage.

All of my observations are broadly about Smashboards. Even to this day. I can't tell you the number of times people have used the word "consequences" or "mistake" when discussing EiH. I can't even list the number of times people act like if they cut Fire Emblem or Pokemon down, we would magically get the perfect roster. It is not one or two voices screaming into the void. It happens frequently enough to note.

People still act like EiH is some calamity that "stole" "their" perfect Smash game. Acting like people do not is willful ignorance. There is still plenty of discussion that acts like cuts are some sort of binary scale. That if we did not have Byleth, we would have had (insert character) instead. Or how if we cut the Fire Emblem roster and Pokemon roster in half, we would magically get every single "deserving" first or third party.

I actually think cuts discussion has gotten far worse than before. The Nintendo elitist crowd still harks on a marketing phrase on the back of Melee's box, despite Sakurai already thinking beyond that as early as 1999. When you see the most dogmatic pro cuts people, the cuts always end up being the same: characters like Corrin or Incineroar who were fotm characters, "wasted irrelevant slots", and third parties. Its just a dog whistle at this point. Not every pro cuts person is like this, but some are. This sort of mindset that a very vocal, fringe minority has is the same kind of mindset that openly stunted discussion in Smash 4. It was not fun having to sit through people say that "X character was not a Nintendo all star so you are stupid for wanting them". It was toxic for people to bottleneck discussion for anyone's wildest dreams. Was a character like Master Chief likely in Smash 4? No, but it was shunned as "trolling" because he was not a "Nintendo All Star". That toxic fringe movement in the community revels in cuts discussion. They openly use it as a trojan horse to push their dogmatic view on the roster. Any pick that does not "deserve" to be called an "all star" or is "too far removed" from Nintendo must be purged.

Not every pro cuts person is like that, but that toxic mindset should not be allowed back into the community. When that movement was at its peak, the community literally defended white supremacists because they wanted a roster without Cloud or Bayonetta. Any third party discussion that was not on the "approved" short list was met with vitriol. We should never want to go back to that era. The best thing Ultimate ever did was bury that movement. I'd rather cuts discussion return to where it was during Smash 4: when there was not this looming, ominous mindset poisoning discourse.

I don't think a dozen or so cuts is unrealistic. There is a real chance that despite making an effort to bring the roster back, some characters slip through the cracks. This is what happened to Mewtwo, Roy, and Dr Mario in Brawl. It is what happened to Lucas, Ice Climbers, Pokemon Trainer, and potentially Wolf in Smash 4. If they are not going for a nuclear reboot, they are probably going to attempt to bring back the majority of the cast. Having around a dozen cuts or so would be a reasonable estimate for unique characters that do not make the cut. Not every character is going to be the same priority. As I have stressed in the past and in the post you replied to, I would not like that to happen but I am ready for the possibility it happens. I would prefer Ultimate become the building blocks for every future game for a variety of reasons beyond just its roster. But being realistic about how the roster and cuts for past games have happened, a dozen cuts or so is not some sort of wishful thinking mindset.

I find it kind of insulting that you act like what I am saying is wishful thinking from the anti cuts perspective. Mainly because I literally said that I think cuts are a reasonable thing to happen and expect.

I know there is a very realistic shot we get cuts. I could easily see us ending up with about a dozen, maybe a bit less, cuts of lower priority, less popular veterans. I would say a character like Roy or Jigglypuff due to their popularity is more likely to survive than Corrin or Incineroar for example. I would love an Ultimate Deluxe to avoid that, but I know cuts are a realistic thing to expect.

It feels like you deliberately ingored that part because it did not fit your narrative. There is obviously some chance that cuts happen. Unless they literally do an Ultimate deluxe, cuts are on the table. I say so plain as day. Would I vastly prefer Ultimate to become the "Mario Kart 8" for the next system, acting as a strong base held up by DLC? Absolutely. I would love for Ultimate Deluxe to be that. But since that is far from a surefire thing, I know cuts are on the table. Acting like there is some binary between either no cuts or a thanos snap of the roster is far more unreasonable than what I am suggesting.

Saying EiH happened because there weren't enough good options for (I'm guessing particularly first party) newcomers is unsupported theory, and IMO does some disservice to all the great characters people were discussing post-4 and even now who have missed out thus far.

And clearly relevancy matters to them when selecting characters, but it's not like all the cuts vets they brought back were particularly strong in relevancy. The Wii U- and 3DS-era reps you mentioned would've been more effective for promoting games outside of Smash than most of the cut vets, even if there were fewer of them and the back end of the newcomer roster would've had to be filled with more of the less relevant types.

Furthermore, EiH was certainly not "pragmatic," and has been literally confirmed not to be that. It took an abnormal amount of commitment and effort to make it happen, and even then it still easily could have not made it to the finish line.
Some thinking along the lines of "oh, maybe we should rethink Wolf's priority level a bit because he was a top ballot pick" or "Konami is willing to cooperate so let's just see if we can get Snake back" would've been pragmatic. Not 100% committing all efforts to an all-or-nothing proposition with heavy risk of not working out.

And I personally don't think it's necessary to think very hard about why cuts discussion happens and/or is frequent. Clearly people think cuts are a reasonable possibility, they've long been a natural part of the between-games discourse, and they're also a pretty complex topic whose discussion involves both a large portion of the roster and a large number of factors to consider.

I'd go so far as to say that re-normalizing cuts discussion is a healthy thing for this community.
For one, cuts have basically always been a part of Smash sequels; even in the very first sequel, Melee, there was the possibility of Ness being cut for Lucas. So for those on here trying to predict the roster, talking about them makes sense.
And even if prediction or realism aren't in the equation, there's no reason to go up in arms and accuse someone of malice or vengefulness just because they don't particularly want or care to see a certain fictional character appear in a party-friendly video game, especially if it's mostly because there are other fun concepts they'd alternatively prefer to see prioritized.

Going to bullet point these.

• Yes, obviously the options were worse than they were for Brawl or Smash 4. If you think the paltry offerings in the Wii U era were as tantalizing to bring into Smash as the bastion of content in the prior two games, I do not know what to say. Fact is, Nintendo had a lot less killer app games during that era. There is a reason the Wii U went into Ultimate practically unchanged in its represetation beyond Splatoon: the system was a failure. For most people, it was a Mario/Smash/Spaltoon machine. Do you really think Nintendo would be as interested as highlighting their flop era? Nintendo has left the Wii U well in the past and salvaged all they could to move onto better things.
  
  As for the late 3DS, what else was there to represent at this point? It is not like 2015-2017 was a great time to be a 3DS owner: the writing was on the wall for that system as well.
  
  Being conservative, here is some of the titles that Nintendo could have looked at for viable representation: Kirby Planet Robobot, Catpain Toad's Treasure Tracker, Tropical Freeze, Xenoblade Chronicles X, Rhythm Heaven Megamix. Megamix and X might not have even been viable picks considering the former had a bit of a wonky release at least in the States and X did not do amazing sales wise. That is not a wide swath of relevant picks to pull from. If Smash is supposed to be this celebration of Nintendo's history and triumphs, Ultimate continues that goal by running as far as it could from this era.
  
  
• You are acting like the cut veterans took a lot of development time. For starters, I think its pretty obvious that Young Link and Pichu did not. They are full clones that were easy to make. Ice Climbers and Pokemon Trainer were originally planned for Smash 4, but were cut due to the 3DS's limitations. That just leaves Snake and Wolf, two incredibly popular characters from the Ballot era left.
  
  Furthermore, it is not like bringing back the existing characters was going to be some major burden when they were already using Smash Wii U as a base. You have an entire game that was full of new characters, one that ultimately many did not experience in full. Smash for Wii U sold the worst out of any Smash Bros game. It sold worse than Smash for the N64. The dev team clearly would not want to throw out all that work when they could reuse it to show off these new characters. Reusing those assets to many would be new content. I know that for people on here, it is easy to discount the casual side of the Nintendo fanbase. But several people skipped the Wii U era because the Wii U for obvious reason. When people think of Smash, the experience of playing with friends locally comes to mind. The Wii U era just did not have that.
  
  This also discounts how designing and bringing back a veteran is far easier than bringing in a whole new character. Think of how Sakurai goes through making a New character. He does extensive research into them. He gets figures to pose for them. He finds models to use as a base. He has to design a moveset from the ground up to ensure they are a faithful representation. This is a major oversimplification, but the point still stands. It takes a lot of work to make even one Smash character with the thoughtfulness that Sakurai puts in. Compare that to a veteran, where most of that work is already done. Bringing characters back takes a fraction of the work that it would take to add one new character.
  
  It is also not like EiH was the only "burden" on the development team. They designed an entire adventure mode with World of Light. They had to fine tune and balance over 1000 spirits. They reworked online play. They reworked classic mode to give each character a unique route. They also brought back dozens of old stages, remastering them to modern levels. Making stages is hard. It took them over a year to finish production on Orbital Gate in Smash 4. Acting like EiH was some sort of massive undertaking is just missing the forest for the trees. Was it difficult? Sure, so was every other aspect of making a AAA game like Smash. EIH was a fraction of the work that they needed to do.
  
  
• Cuts talk also loves to leave out the tiny little loophole that the fanbase did not want cuts. The single most requested character for Smash 4 was Mewtwo, the only fully unique veteran cut from Brawl. Lucas and Roy were specifically added because they were popular characters. Characters like Ice Climbers, Wolf, and Snake did great on the ballot. The biggest reason we got Everyone is Here was because it would be a crowd pleasing move.
  
  Even when discussing the quote where Sakurai discusses cuts, he mulls the fact that it would not be what fans want while stating that keeping the roster would be a huge undertaking. This is far from a cold, hard confirmation that cuts are this sweeping inevitability that some people crave them to be. It is a developer in tune with what his fanbase wants, knowing that it would be a huge undertaking to bring everyone back again.
  
  Oftentimes, when people go into cuts discourse, they arbitrarily choose
  
  
• There is a massive difference between discussing cuts and reveling in the idea of them. So long as the Nintendo elitist crowd co opts the cuts discussion, it will not be a healthy discussion. Having that dog whistle by their side will always taint any reasonable cuts discussion. When people float that Smash "lost its identity" or that "the roster is unsustainable" some of those people are coming from a place of good faith. But plenty are not. It is a convenient dog whistle to "trim the fat" of the roster. When you ask what is the fat, the answers are always the same: "undeserving" first parties, and some wide swath of third parties. These "undesirables" are usually either clones or more often picks that are not relevant anymore.
  
  The thought that a character like Jigglypuff or Roy could appear in "their" game and "steal" the spot of a "more deserving" character makes their blood boil. Nevermind the fact both are popular veterans who have been with the franchise for over two decades and are easy to make characters at the end of the day. They "stole" the spot of someone who "deserved it more". Or you have characters like Cloud or Snake who "do not fit" in Smash Bros. Because these series are not linked at the hip with Nintendo, they are not worthy of being in "their" Smash game.
  
  These types of cuts discussion do not come from a place of pure good intentions, they come from a place of malice. This is the same kind of gatekeeping that bottlenecked discussion in Smash 4. You may not have been on the boards for that time period, but it was ugly in Smash 4. If your third party character you wanted was not some sort of "honorary Nintendo All Star", you would be flamed. This was the era where Master Chief's support thread got locked for "trolling". What third party characters you wanted was treated as some sort of purity test. Heck, an open white supremacist was not openly shunned as they should be on here, because they were one of the strongest voices for the "Nintendo All Star" crowd. For obvious reasons, I think the community should not even entertain allowing such a toxic level of discourse back into the fray.
  
  A toxic element of the fan base co opts cuts discussion as a Trojan Horse, believing that somehow addition equals subtraction. The discussion will never be truly healthy so long as that element is allowed to flourish. The best part of Smash is having people have earnest discussions about their hopes, wishes, and dreams for the future of Smash. That toxic element that trojan horses its way into cuts discussion openly harms that. It just is a reactionary fringe backlash to Ultimate, wanting to return to "better days", when "those" characters/fanbases were "kept in check". So long as that toxic element uses cuts discussion like a dogwhistle, the best parts of Smash speculation will be at risk due to the malice of a very vocal, very fringe minority.

 

[Arcanir]

You are acting like the cut veterans took a lot of development time. For starters, I think its pretty obvious that Young Link and Pichu did not. They are full clones that were easy to make. Ice Climbers and Pokemon Trainer were originally planned for Smash 4, but were cut due to the 3DS's limitations. That just leaves Snake and Wolf, two incredibly popular characters from the Ballot era left.

Furthermore, it is not like bringing back the existing characters was going to be some major burden when they were already using Smash Wii U as a base. You have an entire game that was full of new characters, one that ultimately many did not experience in full. Smash for Wii U sold the worst out of any Smash Bros game. It sold worse than Smash for the N64. The dev team clearly would not want to throw out all that work when they could reuse it to show off these new characters. Reusing those assets to many would be new content. I know that for people on here, it is easy to discount the casual side of the Nintendo fanbase. But several people skipped the Wii U era because the Wii U for obvious reason. When people think of Smash, the experience of playing with friends locally comes to mind. The Wii U era just did not have that.

This also discounts how designing and bringing back a veteran is far easier than bringing in a whole new character. Think of how Sakurai goes through making a New character. He does extensive research into them. He gets figures to pose for them. He finds models to use as a base. He has to design a moveset from the ground up to ensure they are a faithful representation. This is a major oversimplification, but the point still stands. It takes a lot of work to make even one Smash character with the thoughtfulness that Sakurai puts in. Compare that to a veteran, where most of that work is already done. Bringing characters back takes a fraction of the work that it would take to add one new character.

It is also not like EiH was the only "burden" on the development team. They designed an entire adventure mode with World of Light. They had to fine tune and balance over 1000 spirits. They reworked online play. They reworked classic mode to give each character a unique route. They also brought back dozens of old stages, remastering them to modern levels. Making stages is hard. It took them over a year to finish production on Orbital Gate in Smash 4. Acting like EiH was some sort of massive undertaking is just missing the forest for the trees. Was it difficult? Sure, so was every other aspect of making a AAA game like Smash. EIH was a fraction of the work that they needed to do.

While veterans may not take the same amount of time to develop then newcomers, ironically I do feel you're in turn underestimating/downplaying how much work bringing back everyone was for the team. Sakurai himself said the task was daunting (to the point that the initial suggestion of it reportedly got gasps from his team) and whenever he brings up the topic in retrospect he's pretty clear that it was certainly not an easy task to pull off. If the man developing the game is outright saying that bringing everyone back was a tough task then his word should be given a lot of weight. EiH was not easy to do, and to fully appreciate it as a thing we have to remember how much work both him and his team put in to make it happen, not play it down.

 

[Opossum]

I'd like to challenge everybody who takes issue with people speculating over specific character cuts to do the following.

Make a numbered list of all Smash fighters. Rank them in order of highest priority to keep, to lowest priority to keep. After all, we know that internal priority is something they have used, as it's gotten characters cut in the past, so there should be nothing wrong with that for the sake of speculation.

And the caveat is there can be no ties. No broad categories such as "these are the ones who'd never be cut." Rank them anyway. Order even the Original Eight in terms of priority.

And then take a look at who you consider the bottom twenty or so.

 

[Sucumbio]

I'd like to challenge everybody who takes issue with people speculating over specific character cuts to do the following.

Make a numbered list of all Smash fighters. Rank them in order of highest priority to keep, to lowest priority to keep. After all, we know that internal priority is something they have used, as it's gotten characters cut in the past, so there should be nothing wrong with that for the sake of speculation.

And the caveat is there can be no ties. No broad categories such as "these are the ones who'd never be cut." Rank them anyway. Order even the Original Eight in terms of priority.

And then take a look at who you consider the bottom twenty or so.

I definitely don't take issue with people speculating over specific character cuts. I really expect it, but my framework may be different than others...

For instance, there's several characters requiring at least a new/continuing licensing agreement so literally every 3rd party is possible and many of them could be considered probable because they're technically a guest character if they debuted in Ultimate, or belong to an unpredictable company.

As for 1st party, NOT including Fire Emblem or Pokemon, there's no reason to cut any of the characters that have been there since Brawl.

With the mons, I honestly have no interest in that can of worms because there's so many of them now that it's a headache lol same with Fe..

 

[Kriven]

I don't have an issue with cuts but I love lists :D

Keepest to Getting-Rid-Ofist, Difficulty of Licensing Not Considered:

1. Mario
2. Link
3. Pikachu
4. Luigi
5. Yoshi
6. Kirby
7. Donkey Kong
8. Captain Falcon
9. Ness
10. Samus
11. Peach
12. Bowser
13. Marth
14. Fox
15. Sonic
16. Sora
17. Cloud
18. Sephiroth
19. Isabelle
20. Banjo-Kazooie
21. Zelda
22. Sheik
23. Pac-Man
24. Mega Man
25. K. Rool
26. Ridley
27. Wario
28. Ganondorf
29. Falco
30. Roy
31. Steve
32. Simon
33. Inkling
34. Mewtwo
35. Ike
36. Daisy
37. Zero-Suit Samus
38. Pit
39. Diddy Kong
40. Olimar
41. Lucas
42. King Dedede
43. Charizard
44. Ice Climbers
45. Mr. Game & Watch
46. Little Mac
47. Bayonetta
48. Meta Knight
49. Lucina
50. Lucario
51. Shulk
52. ROB
53. Snake
54. Ryu
55. Pyra / Mythra
56. Greninja
57. Byleth
58. Jigglypuff
59. Palutena
60. Dark Samus
61. Hero
62. Chrom
63. Squirtle
64. Ivysaur
65. Robin
66. Rosalina & Luma
67. Bowser Jr.
68. Villager
69. Toon Link
70. Wii Fit Trainer
71. Duck Hunt
72. Mii Brawler
73. Mii Swordfighter
74. Mii Gunner
75. Joker
76. Corrin
77. Dark Pit
78. Dr. Mario
79. Wolf
80. Terry
81. Ken
82. Kazuya
83. Incineroar
84. Piranha Plant
85. Min Min
86, Pichu
87. Young Link
88. Richter

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't have an issue with cuts but I love lists :D

Keepest to Getting-Rid-Ofist, Difficulty of Licensing Not Considered:

1. Mario
2. Link
3. Pikachu
4. Luigi
5. Yoshi
6. Kirby
7. Donkey Kong
8. Captain Falcon
9. Ness
10. Samus
11. Peach
12. Bowser
13. Marth
14. Fox
15. Sonic
16. Sora
17. Cloud
18. Sephiroth
19. Isabelle
20. Banjo-Kazooie
21. Zelda
22. Sheik
23. Pac-Man
24. Mega Man
25. K. Rool
26. Ridley
27. Wario
28. Ganondorf
29. Falco
30. Roy
31. Steve
32. Simon
33. Inkling
34. Mewtwo
35. Ike
36. Daisy
37. Zero-Suit Samus
38. Pit
39. Diddy Kong
40. Olimar
41. Lucas
42. King Dedede
43. Charizard
44. Ice Climbers
45. Mr. Game & Watch
46. Little Mac
47. Bayonetta
48. Meta Knight
49. Lucina
50. Lucario
51. Shulk
52. ROB
53. Snake
54. Ryu
55. Pyra / Mythra
56. Greninja
57. Byleth
58. Jigglypuff
59. Palutena
60. Dark Samus
61. Hero
62. Chrom
63. Squirtle
64. Ivysaur
65. Robin
66. Rosalina & Luma
67. Bowser Jr.
68. Villager
69. Toon Link
70. Wii Fit Trainer
71. Duck Hunt
72. Mii Brawler
73. Mii Swordfighter
74. Mii Gunner
75. Joker
76. Corrin
77. Dark Pit
78. Dr. Mario
79. Wolf
80. Terry
81. Ken
82. Kazuya
83. Incineroar
84. Piranha Plant
85. Min Min
86, Pichu
87. Young Link
88. Richter

I don't think any 3rd party gets in over Zelda...

 

[Stratos]

After Galeem and Dharkon no one knows who and how the next enemy will be in the new Super Smash Bros. game, but that doesn't stop us as we are known to imagine him. I imagine some enemy where he is organic and mechanical at the cellular level, being something between magic and science and being an entity of both light and dark.

 

[SPEN18]

All of my observations are broadly about Smashboards. Even to this day. I can't tell you the number of times people have used the word "consequences" or "mistake" when discussing EiH. I can't even list the number of times people act like if they cut Fire Emblem or Pokemon down, we would magically get the perfect roster. It is not one or two voices screaming into the void. It happens frequently enough to note.

People still act like EiH is some calamity that "stole" "their" perfect Smash game. Acting like people do not is willful ignorance. There is still plenty of discussion that acts like cuts are some sort of binary scale. That if we did not have Byleth, we would have had (insert character) instead. Or how if we cut the Fire Emblem roster and Pokemon roster in half, we would magically get every single "deserving" first or third party.

I actually think cuts discussion has gotten far worse than before. The Nintendo elitist crowd still harks on a marketing phrase on the back of Melee's box, despite Sakurai already thinking beyond that as early as 1999. When you see the most dogmatic pro cuts people, the cuts always end up being the same: characters like Corrin or Incineroar who were fotm characters, "wasted irrelevant slots", and third parties. Its just a dog whistle at this point. Not every pro cuts person is like this, but some are. This sort of mindset that a very vocal, fringe minority has is the same kind of mindset that openly stunted discussion in Smash 4. It was not fun having to sit through people say that "X character was not a Nintendo all star so you are stupid for wanting them". It was toxic for people to bottleneck discussion for anyone's wildest dreams. Was a character like Master Chief likely in Smash 4? No, but it was shunned as "trolling" because he was not a "Nintendo All Star". That toxic fringe movement in the community revels in cuts discussion. They openly use it as a trojan horse to push their dogmatic view on the roster. Any pick that does not "deserve" to be called an "all star" or is "too far removed" from Nintendo must be purged.

Not every pro cuts person is like that, but that toxic mindset should not be allowed back into the community. When that movement was at its peak, the community literally defended white supremacists because they wanted a roster without Cloud or Bayonetta. Any third party discussion that was not on the "approved" short list was met with vitriol. We should never want to go back to that era. The best thing Ultimate ever did was bury that movement. I'd rather cuts discussion return to where it was during Smash 4: when there was not this looming, ominous mindset poisoning discourse.

I don't think a dozen or so cuts is unrealistic. There is a real chance that despite making an effort to bring the roster back, some characters slip through the cracks. This is what happened to Mewtwo, Roy, and Dr Mario in Brawl. It is what happened to Lucas, Ice Climbers, Pokemon Trainer, and potentially Wolf in Smash 4. If they are not going for a nuclear reboot, they are probably going to attempt to bring back the majority of the cast. Having around a dozen cuts or so would be a reasonable estimate for unique characters that do not make the cut. Not every character is going to be the same priority. As I have stressed in the past and in the post you replied to, I would not like that to happen but I am ready for the possibility it happens. I would prefer Ultimate become the building blocks for every future game for a variety of reasons beyond just its roster. But being realistic about how the roster and cuts for past games have happened, a dozen cuts or so is not some sort of wishful thinking mindset.

I find it kind of insulting that you act like what I am saying is wishful thinking from the anti cuts perspective. Mainly because I literally said that I think cuts are a reasonable thing to happen and expect.



It feels like you deliberately ingored that part because it did not fit your narrative. There is obviously some chance that cuts happen. Unless they literally do an Ultimate deluxe, cuts are on the table. I say so plain as day. Would I vastly prefer Ultimate to become the "Mario Kart 8" for the next system, acting as a strong base held up by DLC? Absolutely. I would love for Ultimate Deluxe to be that. But since that is far from a surefire thing, I know cuts are on the table. Acting like there is some binary between either no cuts or a thanos snap of the roster is far more unreasonable than what I am suggesting.


Going to bullet point these.

• Yes, obviously the options were worse than they were for Brawl or Smash 4. If you think the paltry offerings in the Wii U era were as tantalizing to bring into Smash as the bastion of content in the prior two games, I do not know what to say. Fact is, Nintendo had a lot less killer app games during that era. There is a reason the Wii U went into Ultimate practically unchanged in its represetation beyond Splatoon: the system was a failure. For most people, it was a Mario/Smash/Spaltoon machine. Do you really think Nintendo would be as interested as highlighting their flop era? Nintendo has left the Wii U well in the past and salvaged all they could to move onto better things.
  
  As for the late 3DS, what else was there to represent at this point? It is not like 2015-2017 was a great time to be a 3DS owner: the writing was on the wall for that system as well.
  
  Being conservative, here is some of the titles that Nintendo could have looked at for viable representation: Kirby Planet Robobot, Catpain Toad's Treasure Tracker, Tropical Freeze, Xenoblade Chronicles X, Rhythm Heaven Megamix. Megamix and X might not have even been viable picks considering the former had a bit of a wonky release at least in the States and X did not do amazing sales wise. That is not a wide swath of relevant picks to pull from. If Smash is supposed to be this celebration of Nintendo's history and triumphs, Ultimate continues that goal by running as far as it could from this era.
  
  
• You are acting like the cut veterans took a lot of development time. For starters, I think its pretty obvious that Young Link and Pichu did not. They are full clones that were easy to make. Ice Climbers and Pokemon Trainer were originally planned for Smash 4, but were cut due to the 3DS's limitations. That just leaves Snake and Wolf, two incredibly popular characters from the Ballot era left.
  
  Furthermore, it is not like bringing back the existing characters was going to be some major burden when they were already using Smash Wii U as a base. You have an entire game that was full of new characters, one that ultimately many did not experience in full. Smash for Wii U sold the worst out of any Smash Bros game. It sold worse than Smash for the N64. The dev team clearly would not want to throw out all that work when they could reuse it to show off these new characters. Reusing those assets to many would be new content. I know that for people on here, it is easy to discount the casual side of the Nintendo fanbase. But several people skipped the Wii U era because the Wii U for obvious reason. When people think of Smash, the experience of playing with friends locally comes to mind. The Wii U era just did not have that.
  
  This also discounts how designing and bringing back a veteran is far easier than bringing in a whole new character. Think of how Sakurai goes through making a New character. He does extensive research into them. He gets figures to pose for them. He finds models to use as a base. He has to design a moveset from the ground up to ensure they are a faithful representation. This is a major oversimplification, but the point still stands. It takes a lot of work to make even one Smash character with the thoughtfulness that Sakurai puts in. Compare that to a veteran, where most of that work is already done. Bringing characters back takes a fraction of the work that it would take to add one new character.
  
  It is also not like EiH was the only "burden" on the development team. They designed an entire adventure mode with World of Light. They had to fine tune and balance over 1000 spirits. They reworked online play. They reworked classic mode to give each character a unique route. They also brought back dozens of old stages, remastering them to modern levels. Making stages is hard. It took them over a year to finish production on Orbital Gate in Smash 4. Acting like EiH was some sort of massive undertaking is just missing the forest for the trees. Was it difficult? Sure, so was every other aspect of making a AAA game like Smash. EIH was a fraction of the work that they needed to do.
  
  
• Cuts talk also loves to leave out the tiny little loophole that the fanbase did not want cuts. The single most requested character for Smash 4 was Mewtwo, the only fully unique veteran cut from Brawl. Lucas and Roy were specifically added because they were popular characters. Characters like Ice Climbers, Wolf, and Snake did great on the ballot. The biggest reason we got Everyone is Here was because it would be a crowd pleasing move.
  
  Even when discussing the quote where Sakurai discusses cuts, he mulls the fact that it would not be what fans want while stating that keeping the roster would be a huge undertaking. This is far from a cold, hard confirmation that cuts are this sweeping inevitability that some people crave them to be. It is a developer in tune with what his fanbase wants, knowing that it would be a huge undertaking to bring everyone back again.
  
  Oftentimes, when people go into cuts discourse, they arbitrarily choose
  
  
• There is a massive difference between discussing cuts and reveling in the idea of them. So long as the Nintendo elitist crowd co opts the cuts discussion, it will not be a healthy discussion. Having that dog whistle by their side will always taint any reasonable cuts discussion. When people float that Smash "lost its identity" or that "the roster is unsustainable" some of those people are coming from a place of good faith. But plenty are not. It is a convenient dog whistle to "trim the fat" of the roster. When you ask what is the fat, the answers are always the same: "undeserving" first parties, and some wide swath of third parties. These "undesirables" are usually either clones or more often picks that are not relevant anymore.
  
  The thought that a character like Jigglypuff or Roy could appear in "their" game and "steal" the spot of a "more deserving" character makes their blood boil. Nevermind the fact both are popular veterans who have been with the franchise for over two decades and are easy to make characters at the end of the day. They "stole" the spot of someone who "deserved it more". Or you have characters like Cloud or Snake who "do not fit" in Smash Bros. Because these series are not linked at the hip with Nintendo, they are not worthy of being in "their" Smash game.
  
  These types of cuts discussion do not come from a place of pure good intentions, they come from a place of malice. This is the same kind of gatekeeping that bottlenecked discussion in Smash 4. You may not have been on the boards for that time period, but it was ugly in Smash 4. If your third party character you wanted was not some sort of "honorary Nintendo All Star", you would be flamed. This was the era where Master Chief's support thread got locked for "trolling". What third party characters you wanted was treated as some sort of purity test. Heck, an open white supremacist was not openly shunned as they should be on here, because they were one of the strongest voices for the "Nintendo All Star" crowd. For obvious reasons, I think the community should not even entertain allowing such a toxic level of discourse back into the fray.
  
  A toxic element of the fan base co opts cuts discussion as a Trojan Horse, believing that somehow addition equals subtraction. The discussion will never be truly healthy so long as that element is allowed to flourish. The best part of Smash is having people have earnest discussions about their hopes, wishes, and dreams for the future of Smash. That toxic element that trojan horses its way into cuts discussion openly harms that. It just is a reactionary fringe backlash to Ultimate, wanting to return to "better days", when "those" characters/fanbases were "kept in check". So long as that toxic element uses cuts discussion like a dogwhistle, the best parts of Smash speculation will be at risk due to the malice of a very vocal, very fringe minority.

I don't think there's any real evidence that Ultimate is Nintendo actively "running away" from the Wii U and 3DS era.
You already listed several picks that could work. In addition to that, let's not forget the picks that did make it into base Ult: several were themselves relevant to the Wii U and 3DS (Isabelle, Splatoon, Pokemon), while the other less relevant but still demanded picks (Ridley, KRool, Castlevania) would have worked equally well in a non-EiH situation. Any of the more niche Wii U and 3DS picks would've been on top of the big-hitters like Inkling and Isabelle.
And if more characters would've been needed beyond that, they could've easily added more legacy reps and more fan picks. Maybe another third party. And EiH not happening wouldn't have meant zero cut vets returning; they could have taken a measured approach and brought back a few of the most popular.
I'm not saying we would have gotten all of this, but hopefully it illustrates the myriad options.
One more thing: Shulk got into 4 with less than 1mil sales, so while it's uncommon for lower-selling games to get a character, they are not completely averse if there is space and opportune timing.

Anyway, we shouldn't act like EiH was the only viable option. What if EiH had been deemed unfeasible? They wouldn't have simply not made Smash for the Switch.


As for the work required to bring back all the vets, I am going off of the public statements on the matter and the final product I see. When EiH was first announced, the thinking by many was exactly that being able to port from the Wii U made bringing back vets way easier, to the point that we could still see a roughly normal amount of new content. This thinking (i.e. the belief that bringing back vets was easy) is one factor that made something like the Grinch leak, which posited a last-minute blowout of newcomers, so believable to segments of the fanbase.
As for the difference in effort between a vet and a newcomer, we've debated it before but afaik there's very little in the way of clear statements on the matter. Though there is that Sakurai interview where he says he came up with the whole concept for Greninja in one night, for whatever it's worth (source: https://mynintendonews.com/2014/12/...he-inclusion-of-greninja-in-super-smash-bros/).
What we do know for sure is that vets do indeed take significant effort to bring back, to the point that they can get beaten out in priority.


I don't get the argument about all the non-roster content. All of that stuff would've been there whether EiH was done or not, so it's a net zero in effort level. If anything, not doing EiH could have potentially allowed them to pour even more effort into that non-roster content.


There is no issue with arguing in favor of something unpopular. Good decisions are not always crowd-pleasing decisions, and even people who generally dislike cuts have admitted that it might not be in the best interests of the franchise to continue EiH indefinitely.
Of course someone arguing in favor of cuts is not going to emphasize how well vets did on the ballot. It's not a loophole; it's just choosing to focus on items that actually support your argument. Though maybe it would be good to recognize it while still emphasizing factors beyond popularity that can and should influence priority.


And I still don't see any reason to conjoin cuts discussion with Nintendo purism, besides the fact that Nintendo purists would be more likely to support third party cuts (though even then it's entirely possible to support getting mostly first party newcomers going forward while still not wanting the existing characters cut).

Do not confuse opinions and preferences with malice. There is nothing wrong with not wanting a fictional character to appear in a particular video game. There is nothing wrong with thinking that a certain character doesn't fit thematically with the rest of the cast or preferring a host of other characters over them. These are harmless opinions as long as they are expressed respectfully, regardless of how much you might disagree with them or think they are niche. I cannot speak for anyone else nor everything that may have happened before; but I do know that cuts discussion can be done respectfully, responsibly, and productively.

 

[Stratos]

Some people will wonder what is the difference between the Nintendo Cinematic Universe and the Super Smash Bros. Cinematic Universe although I don't think they are wondering, but as you know in the first two Super Smash Bros. games, there were only Nintendo characters, but from Super Smash Bros. Brawl and then third party characters started to come, the conclusion for some is the following, to make a Super Smash Bros. Cinematic Universe they should add movies based on third party games, but only if they put Master Hand and the Crazy Hand as villains, will be more than enough to consider the Nintendo Cinematic Universe and the Super Smash Bros. Cinematic Universe the same.

 

[fogbadge]

I don't have an issue with cuts but I love lists :D

Keepest to Getting-Rid-Ofist, Difficulty of Licensing Not Considered:

1. Mario
2. Link
3. Pikachu
4. Luigi
5. Yoshi
6. Kirby
7. Donkey Kong
8. Captain Falcon
9. Ness
10. Samus
11. Peach
12. Bowser
13. Marth
14. Fox
15. Sonic
16. Sora
17. Cloud
18. Sephiroth
19. Isabelle
20. Banjo-Kazooie
21. Zelda
22. Sheik
23. Pac-Man
24. Mega Man
25. K. Rool
26. Ridley
27. Wario
28. Ganondorf
29. Falco
30. Roy
31. Steve
32. Simon
33. Inkling
34. Mewtwo
35. Ike
36. Daisy
37. Zero-Suit Samus
38. Pit
39. Diddy Kong
40. Olimar
41. Lucas
42. King Dedede
43. Charizard
44. Ice Climbers
45. Mr. Game & Watch
46. Little Mac
47. Bayonetta
48. Meta Knight
49. Lucina
50. Lucario
51. Shulk
52. ROB
53. Snake
54. Ryu
55. Pyra / Mythra
56. Greninja
57. Byleth
58. Jigglypuff
59. Palutena
60. Dark Samus
61. Hero
62. Chrom
63. Squirtle
64. Ivysaur
65. Robin
66. Rosalina & Luma
67. Bowser Jr.
68. Villager
69. Toon Link
70. Wii Fit Trainer
71. Duck Hunt
72. Mii Brawler
73. Mii Swordfighter
74. Mii Gunner
75. Joker
76. Corrin
77. Dark Pit
78. Dr. Mario
79. Wolf
80. Terry
81. Ken
82. Kazuya
83. Incineroar
84. Piranha Plant
85. Min Min
86, Pichu
87. Young Link
88. Richter

surely kirby has top priority with sakurai?

 

[Kriven]

I don't think any 3rd party gets in over Zelda...

I don't really know if there's a whole lot of reason to nit-pick the first 50 slots. It's the last half that start to actually affect things.

(Banjo / Sora / Sonic are also kind of a "genie that can't be put back in the bottle" situation. K. Rool and Ridley are similar, and so would be Geno if he ever made it into the game.)

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't really know if there's a whole lot of reason to nit-pick the first 50 slots.

I gotcha heh makes more sense now

 

[Perkilator]

If it were a platform fighter, I wouldn’t see the reason to, but I get why you say this! I guess I just generally mean the idea of a Nintendo VS CAPCOM VS SEGA VS Namco-Bandai fighter.

Personally, I’d like to keep a game like that to Project X Zone, maybe a PxZ3 with slightly more Nintendo involvement. Something like:

• 6 Namco pairs
• 6 Capcom pairs
• 6 SEGA pairs
• 3 Nintendo pairs
• 3 cross-company pairs
• 7 Namco solos
• 7 Capcom solos
• 7 SEGA solos
• 3 Nintendo solos

 

[Stratos]

I can't understand why they didn't make Project X Zone 3, maybe for financial reasons?

 

[CapitaineCrash]

I definitely don't take issue with people speculating over specific character cuts. I really expect it, but my framework may be different than others...

For instance, there's several characters requiring at least a new/continuing licensing agreement so literally every 3rd party is possible and many of them could be considered probable because they're technically a guest character if they debuted in Ultimate, or belong to an unpredictable company.

As for 1st party, NOT including Fire Emblem or Pokemon, there's no reason to cut any of the characters that have been there since Brawl.

With the mons, I honestly have no interest in that can of worms because there's so many of them now that it's a headache lol same with Fe..

I don't get why a character would have higher priority just becasue they where in the franchise for a long time. You can't seriously think that Young Link should be higher priority than Villager or Inkling just because Young Link was added 20 years ago, it literally makes no sense. It's because of this way of thinking that the franchise can't evolve. Besides, Ness almost fot cut as early as Melee, so them being "classic" characters changes nothing.

 

[Idon]

I can't understand why they didn't make Project X Zone 3, maybe for financial reasons?

Having a massive expensive crossover for a niche 3DS strategy RPG with a random assortment of characters probably wasn't very financially viable in the long run.

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

Its funny with all the talks of relevance, status, popularity, etc that we could very well end up with a roster in the next game entirely based on completely different factors. Nintendo and/or Sakurai shifting the paradigm of Smash and the subsequent characters' inclusion largely relating to that change is very much in the realm of of possibility.

Basically we could get whole contrasting variation in the next entry, and those that don't do that new particular dance in Sakurai's head could be cut just because of that.

 

[HyperSomari64]

I can't understand why they didn't make Project X Zone 3, maybe for financial reasons?

Possibly because Monolith Soft disliked the idea of including Scrimblo Bimblo the Loveable Scrunko-type of characters for the third game.

 

[Kriven]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the success of Xenoblade is why we haven't gotten another Project X Zone. Nintendo would probably prefer Monolith cultivate Nintendo-owned IP than work on a niche crossover with other companies, and a Xenoblade title isn't exactly the kind of game a studio can only partially focus on.

I really don't think it has anything to do with rights or licenses. Capcom loves crossovers and Namco isn't all that far behind. It's not a coincidence that Morrigan and Ryu show up in essentially every Japanese crossover game (and even Power Rangers...). Sega might be a little more difficult to work with than the other two, but on the whole all three of these companies have good relationships with Nintendo and Namco has a good history with Monolith. Ironically, Nintendo is probably the most difficult of the companies involved. I can even see Nintendo higher ups, the accountant executive types, being concerned that a large-scale crossover RPG might take some of the spotlight away from Super Smash Bros.

 

[Schnee117]

I can't understand why they didn't make Project X Zone 3, maybe for financial reasons?

The main people behind it left the company.

 

[chocolatejr9]

The main people behind it left the company.

Oh, yeah, that can do it...

 

[Kriven]

It looks like neither of them have done anything since they left. That's too bad.

 

[Geno Boost]

This was just released today I feel like this might be the best Dr. Eggman smash moveset so far due him not stuck to his egg mobile only but can switch between them and him being standalone

I kinda wish bowser jr. Was something like this

 

[StrangeKitten]

This was just released today I feel like this might be the best Dr. Eggman smash moveset so far due him not stuck to his egg mobile only but can switch between them and him being standalone

I kinda wish bowser jr. Was something like this

Oh my gosh, I love this so much! Having Eggman be nimble and kinda weak when out of the Egg Mobile, but slow and strong when in it, would give him a unique gimmick that would be tons of fun for Smash!

 

[Idon]

Oh my gosh, I love this so much! Having Eggman be nimble and kinda weak when out of the Egg Mobile, but slow and strong when in it, would give him a unique gimmick that would be tons of fun for Smash!

Finally, Pyrobotnik and Mythreggman

 

[Pupp135]

I'd like to challenge everybody who takes issue with people speculating over specific character cuts to do the following.

Make a numbered list of all Smash fighters. Rank them in order of highest priority to keep, to lowest priority to keep. After all, we know that internal priority is something they have used, as it's gotten characters cut in the past, so there should be nothing wrong with that for the sake of speculation.

And the caveat is there can be no ties. No broad categories such as "these are the ones who'd never be cut." Rank them anyway. Order even the Original Eight in terms of priority.

And then take a look at who you consider the bottom twenty or so.

I remember responding to a thread with this prompt. As it‘s pretty old now, I assume it would get closed after the next response. I might retry this as this is the best way to think about the returning fighters going forward.

 

[DarthEnderX]

I'd like to challenge everybody who takes issue with people speculating over specific character cuts to do the following.

Make a numbered list of all Smash fighters. Rank them in order of highest priority to keep, to lowest priority to keep. After all, we know that internal priority is something they have used, as it's gotten characters cut in the past, so there should be nothing wrong with that for the sake of speculation.

And the caveat is there can be no ties. No broad categories such as "these are the ones who'd never be cut." Rank them anyway. Order even the Original Eight in terms of priority.

And then take a look at who you consider the bottom twenty or so.

Stop trying to give me homework!

After Galeem and Dharkon no one knows who and how the next enemy will be in the new Super Smash Bros. game, but that doesn't stop us as we are known to imagine him. I imagine some enemy where he is organic and mechanical at the cellular level, being something between magic and science and being an entity of both light and dark.

I wish they'd stop making up new OC villains every game.

Either make the final boss a real video game character, or at least have one consistent Smash final villain.

 

[fogbadge]

Finally, Pyrobotnik and Mythreggman

well now ive got the image of him their outfits stuck in my head



he pulls them off better

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't get why a character would have higher priority just becasue they where in the franchise for a long time. You can't seriously think that Young Link should be higher priority than Villager or Inkling just because Young Link was added 20 years ago, it literally makes no sense. It's because of this way of thinking that the franchise can't evolve. Besides, Ness almost fot cut as early as Melee, so them being "classic" characters changes nothing.

I should have specified repeat characters since Brawl. So any character that's been in every game from brawl onward.

 

[Perkilator]

I got bored and decided to compile a list of playable characters in Project X Zone 1 who didn’t Return in Project X Zone 2, as well as what I’d do with some characters if they did return (denoted by bold):

• Alisa Bosconovitch
• Arthur
• Bahn
• Batsu
• BlackRose (Solo Unit)
• Bruno
• Toma & Cyrille
• Devilotte
• Frank West & Hsien-Ko (Frank, I’d pair with Chuck Greene)
• Haken & Kaguya
• Sänger Zonvolt (these three didn’t return because Moon Dwellers is a thing; if any of them did, I’d pair Sänger and Haken)
• Kurt, Riela & Imca (Selvaria Bles was a Rival Unit; if she returned, I’d make her a Rival Unit who joins you later as a Solo Unit)
• Mii & Kogoro (though they do get a passing mention in the story)
• Lady
• Soma & Lindow
• Neneko / Neito
• Rikiya
• Tron Bonne & Servbots

I know I’ve already made a post like this, but this time I wanted to do something different. If you could change anything about the roster of the first two Project X Zone games, what would you change?

Spoiler: My PxZ1 changes

Pair Units

• Ryu & Chun-Li
• Ken & Morrigan
• Lloyd Irving & Yuri Lowell
• Xiaoyu & Hwoarang

Solo Units

• Jin Kazama
• Gilius Thunderhead

Adapted out

• Alisa Bosconovitch
• Flynn Scifo

Spoiler: My PxZ2 changes

Pair Units

• Frank West & Chuck Greene
• Pit & Bayonetta

Solo Units

• Tarosuke
• Rose (Street Fighter)

Adapted out

• Chris Redfield & Jill Valentine
• Ingrid

Considering

• Shulk & Lucina

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

I should have specified repeat characters since Brawl. So any character that's been in every game from brawl onward.

Honestly, I don't think Pichu or Young Link should be some easy to throw out character either. They're both unique in different ways, now that Link is too different from the original to really hold the old playstyle. Pichu always had a different playstyle due to the "hurting itself" mechanic.

That said, obviously Toon Link is a bigger deal than Young Link, but I doubt both will stay on average. They have their own niche nowadays, so it's not a redundancy issue either.

--------------------

As for the whole "why is Isabelle in a lower position", Villager is the first character. They're also the core representative of AC. Isabelle is a unique semi-clone that branched off the old moveset. She wouldn't be able to function this way if it weren't for Villager. While both absolutely should stay, Villager is clearly the main of the two if suddenly it went down to one character. Bar a reboot with 1 per franchise(I don't even see 1 per franchise being remotely plausible. Downsized, sure), Isabelle would not get cut. She's easy to make. Mario Kart 8 having both in speaks on how both are key to the franchise too, which is another reason why Villager is safe(and technically more safe than Isabelle. Even if it's by a super slim margin).

Speaking of that, I do think exceptions would be made for a reboot(so it's still going to have a loooot of characters); Super Mario isn't going without its 4 core characters(Mario, Luigi, Peach, Bowser), AC is getting 2. Fire Emblem is in no way getting just 1. Removing any kind of Echo or Clone, you still have Ike, Robin, and maybe 1 more if they want Byleth or Corrin. Pokemon also has this factor; Charizard and Pikachu are pretty much safe. Mewtwo I wish was, but it might get a lower priority when it comes to being created, like in Brawl. So rather safe. Lucario also was something they worked super hard on and clearly want to keep, so might also be in the safe zone or really close(possibly slightly higher than Mewtwo). The rest are far more variable. Any clones are easy to return last second(Jigglypuff, Pichu), the others required way more work to recreate. As for a few others;

• Zelda would still have Link, with Zelda, Sheik, and Ganondorf all pretty much on the same level of returning, so rather damn safe.
• DKC pretty much has Donkey Kong and Diddy as a safe returning, with K. Rool lower priority.
• Final Fantasy VII is an oddball. Neither are really all that safe, but Cloud might make it back alone if licensing gets too high.
• Castlevania is on the other end; the whole point was both characters are pretty much part of each other, so Richter is as safe as Simon is.
• Likewise, Ken is dependent on Ryu, and Ryu is unlikely to leave.
• Star Fox is pretty easy to go down to one character, much like Mother/EarthBound. That said, keeping the semi-clones isn't that hard either, but Wolf is less easy to make so is understandably of lesser priority(also, Falco is more popular. That said, Ness has more worldwide popularity than Lucas due to No Expert For You coming into play).

This is only speaking of franchises with more than one character. I don't honestly have any real thoughts on single character franchises and their likeliness to return.