So it seems like we have some actual debates going on here again rather then just discussions on the latest updates.
As for talking to Square about letting Geno in, it shouldn't be that hard...
Sakurai: Sup Random Square Dude.
RSD: essOH i hraed U leik mudkipz.
Sakurai: How's the pie?
RSD:
SO GOOD
Sakurai: Oh, bye teh wai, can we use Geno in Brawl?
RSD: Ya, lol.
Sakurai: kthxby
Anyway, I rather avoid the whole Zelda time line debate since to me, figuring that out seems more confusing then finding a cure for Cancer.
Even as pro-Sheik, I'm still aware that she can be picked up and used pretty well within like ten minutes of playing as her, unlike other powerful characters like Fox who takes a large amount of time and effort to do very good with. Plus, I hardly play as her for some reason.
First of all, you draw a distinction between Brawl Zelda and TP Zelda where none exists. The character model that Sakurai chose is based on the character in Twilight Princess - a separate individual entirely from OoT Zelda/Sheik. Having TP Zelda transform into a different person would be like Mario transforming into Wario.
I drew that because no character in Smash is alike from what their like in their own games. The difference between Mario and the many Zeldas is, it's generally been accepted that there has only be one Mario or at least hardly anything suggesting more then one. While TP Zelda and OoT Zelda are different characters, their both still Zelda in some way. Sheik may have been unique to OoT Zelda, but what's there to stop a second Sheik?
Many people assume that because Sheik is a transformation that she should be treated like an ability and not a character. But Sheik has a unique moveset that would require just as much time to program as any other unique character - and with only a minor supporting role in a decade old game under his/her/its/potatoe's belt she is not worthy of returning.
You are correct that Smash is not meant to be taken too seriously and no character is completely true to their game of game of origin - but that doesn't mean that a character's moveset can't be as remenisent of their game as possible. In cases where it is easiest to do so, Sakurai has been known to fudge continuity for the sake of fun gameplay (giving Ness Paula's Earthbound Psi powers, etc.) but I can't see Sakuraio and team doing extra work to include a gameplay mechanic that would be so obviously out of place.
Sheik's move set taking as much time to program as a totally new move set? I disagree for two reasons. One, can't they simply port animations over from Melee? My basics for that is in the second trailer, characters were shown with animations from Melee that were most likely placeholders, like Pit's standing animation being just like Young Link's. Second, reusing an old move set is easier because it's already thought up, unlike thinking up new moves (or rather, deciding which ones to use). Oh and BTW, we all know Sheik is really a shemale
.
How would it be extra work or out of place?
It's a bit of a false comparison to equate Sheik with Giga Bowser. The former is a character with a separate and unique moveset while the later is a a bigger, uglier version of Bowser with the same moveset. There is also the fact that transforming into Giga Bowser is an ability unique ti Smash, which doesn't make it out of place. For example, Captain Falcon doesn't have many abilities in his game of origin to construct a moveset from so it makes sense to give him a completely madeup attack like Falcon Punch. But giving him an ability belonging to another character, like Samus' arm cannon, would be completely out of place.
Move sets or not, Giga Bowser is still another form of Bowser that only exists in the Smash games and he never done it in any of the Mario games. As for Captain Falcon shooting a beam out of his arm, I would agree that is out of place and characters who moves are made up do fit in with them to some degree. You seem to act like the difference between TP Zelda and OoT Zelda is like the difference between Kirby and Pikachu. Sure their not quite the same, but their not like totally different people either. TP Zelda and OoT Zelda are still both a Zelda who both use magic, both are princesses, have a similar role in Hyrule, and more. Heck, in that teaser, it seems pretty clear that Zelda is using Din's Fire, which never existed in TP. What's stopping TP Zelda from transforming into a newly created TP style Sheik? You seem so focused on that transforming into OoT is the only possible option.
Well, what something like the below put your mind at ease with TP Zelda transformating into Sheik?
"Zelda can transform into her alter ego, Sheik. Now hold up I hear you say, isn't that impossible for her to do? Well, while learning how to cast spells like Din's Fire from reading through her history on one of her great grandmas, Zelda decided to learn how to transform into Sheik."
Did you catch that? "This particular Link." That wording implies that this Link based on a specific character. Meaning, one of many. So it's safe to assume that sakurai doesn't see the series as one story repeating, with the same Link depicted in different ways, but as a series of different stories with a different Link and a different Zelda.
One thing I would like to note that others also brought up with other things quoted word from word from the site. The stuff was originally in Japanese and then brought over into English and due to the nature of the Japanese language, there's quite a bit of room for how the words can be brought into English. Of course, this doesn't stop certain stuff said from being clean cut, but which stuff, another debate altogether. Anyway, if you're gonna quote word to word, you should also point out that it said "The
design of this particular Link comes from The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess." It didn't said "This Link comes from The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess." This could mean just the design, not the whole character himself. You also say based, while being based off of and actually being isn't quite the same thing. It's like how the other Links and Zeldas are based off of one, but isn't exactly one of them. It could be said that the Link in Four Swords is based off of Wind Waker Link, but isn't quite him. Food for thought.
Whoah, here I come, I guess. Though the stability of Zelda's timeline is a little questionable, I've got no doubts that it's pretty important to Aonuma and friends. It -has- been stated that there is a definitive documented timeline. Sakurai's known for his networking abilities, (I remember it said that he's in charge of Smash in the first place because he's so good with communicating and working with a large number of people,) and I think he's going to go on with Aonuma's wishes, if we're talking about continuity of character.
While I'm not sure, wouldn't Aonuma care more about what could make Brawl fun in terms of Zelda characters then worrying about story and continuity when the Smash series is non-canon to all series that show up in it?
Smash bends the rules, but so far, only to reasonable points.
Who decides what's reasonable outside the creators of the game? What if the "rules" change from game to game? If we could be Melee, how can we say that the rules bent in that game was or was not the limit. This seems like one of the things that could be debated forever with very little basics to go off of. Might just be better sticking to other things people debated and argued about for such a long time now.
Again, I have a strange gut feeling that somehow Sheik herself won't be returning, regardless of how I may defend her. I usually expect the worst when I have mixed feelings about things and the fact remains that there's pretty much nothing that actually suggests Sheik will return and that they simply won't change Zelda's down B move.
I know Sheik wasn't the only thing discussed here, including counter arguments to other characters I talked about, but I rather keep my focus on a subject as big as this for the moment.
)=odd=unexpected!
