Pretty in pink or true in blue, Krystal for Sm4sh!

[TheRandomCities4]

Miyamoto has never been required to be working directly on a game in order to influence it, and in some people's opinions, destroy it.

I mean, Miyamoto may have worked on Mario Galaxy, but he is not responsible for the story behind Rosalina or what she embodies. What makes her the character that she is had to be snuck in under his nose because of his ridiculous aversion towards stories in games.
Super Mario Galaxy 2 was supposed to explore her character even further, but he made sure to promptly stamp that out before it even got a chance.
He's also responsible for Paper Mario: Sticker Star being an absolute disgrace compared to the rest of the PM series and he didn't even work on that game. The original vision that IS was working on for that game would have been more akin to PM:TTYD, until Miyamoto came and used his sticker scissors on it and cut all personality from the game in favor of gameplay gimmicks.
His reasoning? It was too much like TTYD and "nobody would want to play the same game" so lets just make it something that's barely even Paper Mario instead!
BTW, this coming from the guy who's made how many iterations of freaking New Super Mario Bros. now? Right.

There is a reason why people have negative views about Miyamoto's input on certain games in their franchises- and it's not just because hating Miyamoto is the "cool" thing to do.
The man is stuck in the NES era and still believes that the most important part of a game is having some sore of gimmicky gameplay to try and force it to stand out, and that having a deep and well written story, always ALWAYS takes a back seat to that.
Yes, gameplay is important- and he is really good at creating fun gameplay. -but it's not the only thing that crafts a memorable gaming experience. In fact, my favorite Mario games tend to be the RPG ones, because yeah while sidescrolling platform Mario games are good for mindless fun, it's the stories of the ones like Super Mario RPG and Paper Mario that have influenced my life and will stay dearly in my memories.
It's also the reason why for me, SMG absolutely trumps SMG2.

As far as Krystal goes, well- he's also the one who's responsible for what she currently is in the first place, so I'm not going to hold out much hope that he's going to give her some kind of special treatment in SF Wii U. If he didn't do it in Adventures, he isn't going to start now.

Oh, this changes my perspective entirely!

I used to think that Miyamoto was always too focused on gameplay to imbue good stories/characters in videogames.

But to think...

He has an AVERSION to stories and intricate lore? That explains why a lot of the games he has had influence over were more about face-value entertainment. I never considered the Rosalina issue, but it really shows us a lot about who Miyamoto is.

Here's my conclusion on the matter:

SO LONG AS Miyamoto holds control OR influence over the Star Fox franchise, Krystal will NEVER branch out as a potentially interesting character (he wouldn't let any interesting ideas slide by, if the Rosalina predicament in SMG2 is any predictor). Also, as long as that's the case, people will continue to see her as "the character that ruined Star Fox" AND/OR as "a horrible character choice for Smash" simply because she hasn't done anything interesting in the Star Fox series. But as I said, that would be because Miyamoto never allowed Krystal (or the Star Fox franchise for that matter) to branch out.

See the problem? It's sort of an infinite loop. The second part of the issue in the above paragraph can't be solved unless the issue with Miyamoto is solved. As far as we know, that won't happen.

So, if you don't like where Krystal stands (both for Smash AND Star Fox), too bad. There's nothing we can really do that would help, so long as Miyamoto presides as the main influence over Star Fox.

At any rate...

If Miyamoto is more concerned about making the new Star Fox for Wii U stand out by simply giving it it's own unique "gimmicky" gameplay and control system, he can count me out. Why can't Star Fox be allowed to expand, change, and adapt within its own lore and universe for once? Why does the franchise have to be a tool for implementing new gimmicky control and hardware technology? No matter how someone shapes it, the franchise HAS suffered as a result (otherwise there wouldn't be as many people debating how lackluster the Star Fox franchise has become).

Any thoughts? It's really quite the predicament.

 

[TheDarkKnightNoivern]

You guys seem to be forgetting miyamoto isn't the only one making the game, he doesn't call all the shots. Rosalina shows this. He didn't want her in the game but he still allowed it because nintendo EAD did, whose to say this won't be the same thing here. Maybe the team working on star fox want a deeper story, whose to say they don't want to expand on the characters or dialogue, hell, for all we know the team likes krystal.

 

[TheRandomCities4]

You guys seem to be forgetting miyamoto isn't the only one making the game, he doesn't call all the shots. Rosalina shows this. He didn't want her in the game but he still allowed it because nintendo EAD did, whose to say this won't be the same thing here. Maybe the team working on star fox want a deeper story, whose to say they don't want to expand on the characters or dialogue, hell, for all we know the team likes krystal.

We're not forgetting. Miyamoto didn't make Rosalina's backstory. Someone else did WITHOUT him knowing.

Miyamoto PREVENTED any more interesting character development to happen for Rosalina in SMG2 unlike in the first game, because he learned that someone did it without him knowing beforehand. He must have been appalled that someone implemented lore without him knowing.

We're only saying that Miyamoto seems to prevent a lot of interesting story/lore elements to take place in a project he has a hand in (even if he isn't the main piece).

But since Miyamoto has a heavy hand in the new Star Fox Wii U game... *shudders*

 

[TheDarkKnightNoivern]

We're not forgetting. Miyamoto didn't make Rosalina's backstory. Someone else did WITHOUT him knowing.

Miyamoto PREVENTED any more interesting character development to happen for Rosalina in SMG2 unlike in the first game, because he learned that someone did it without him knowing beforehand. He must have been appalled that someone implemented lore without him knowing.

We're only saying that Miyamoto seems to prevent a lot of interesting story/lore elements to take place in a project he has a hand in (even if he isn't the main piece).

But since Miyamoto has a heavy hand in the new Star Fox Wii U game... *shudders*

But what I'm saying is, he could've pulled the plug on rosalina entirely in galaxy but he didn't. If he didn't want rosalina in the game like he claims, she wouldn't be in the game

 

[TheRandomCities4]

But what I'm saying is, he could've pulled the plug on rosalina entirely in galaxy but he didn't. If he didn't want rosalina in the game like he claims, she wouldn't be in the game

I agree.

Yet, it's not the character he's concerned with. Rosalina could stay, in his eyes. Like in Star Fox, Krystal could stay too.

He just doesn't want the characters to have too much depth to them. He sees no need in it, for some reason. Maybe he sees that it is too complicated for the gamer? Or maybe it has to do with his idea that "players no longer have the time to sit and play videogames for extended periods of time" and now thinks it's a waste of time for developers to implement such ideas?

I don't know.

Actually, I have an explanation for something else, though. His influence.

See, Miyamoto is easily one of the most respected members of Nintendo. Even if he isn't a main part of a project, the other developers could easily listen and implement what he has to say simply because of the level of respect they have for him. Essentially, his words carry a lot of weight for the other developers.

 

[TheDarkKnightNoivern]

I agree.

Yet, it's not the character he's concerned with. Rosalina could stay, in his eyes. Like in Star Fox, Krystal could stay too.

He just doesn't want the characters to have too much depth to them. He sees no need in it, for some reason. Maybe he sees that it is too complicated for the gamer? Or maybe it has to do with his idea that "players no longer have the time to sit and play videogames for extended periods of time" and now thinks it's a waste of time for developers to implement such ideas?

I don't know.

Actually, I have an explanation for something else, though. His influence.

See, Miyamoto is easily one of the most respected members of Nintendo. Even if he isn't a main part of a project, the other developers could easily listen and implement what he has to say simply because of the level of respect they have for him. Essentially, his words carry a lot of weight for the other developers.

Although, the way miyamoto describes the development team makes it seem like they have a lot of creative freedom. Do we even know how much influence miyamoto actually has?

http://mynintendonews.com/2014/09/01/miyamoto-is-leading-a-brand-new-team-of-developers/

 

[TheRandomCities4]

Although, the way miyamoto describes the development team makes it seem like they have a lot of creative freedom. Do we even know how much influence miyamoto actually has?

http://mynintendonews.com/2014/09/01/miyamoto-is-leading-a-brand-new-team-of-developers/

Officially, we don't know how much influence he has. We're only left to connect the dots with what little we actually do know.

I'm left to believe that they sometimes tell us certain things to cover other things up. It makes it harder to discern what really matters from what may not matter.

I just wish they could come out and tell us the full truth every waking moment. That way, we'd actually know what and who are the reason(s) behind why certain things are lacking (or at least, could be better).

Ah well. I can't afford to care about something that doesn't spark or hold my interest. That's just me though. I can't speak for everyone.

 

[Aurora Sparkle]

Miyamoto has as much influence as he wants. He's Miyamoto.

Miyamoto pretty much calls all the shots, and it's the reason why IMO- Super Mario Galaxy 2 felt like a hollow game compared to the first, despite having notably better level design and fun gameplay.

An excerpt from the Super Mario Wiki on SMG2:
"Rosalina noticeably has a much smaller role in the game, appearing only in the game's first and second endings. This is because Shigeru Miyamoto thought the Storybook in the first game covering her backstory distracted gamers from the first game's gameplay, and made the game focus too much on her instead of the Mario Bros. The game was originally going to have a new subplot involving Rosalina, including exactly how she met Lubba in the first place (which in the final version is reduced to a brief mention by Lubba in the game's ending)."

Here's a piece of concept art as well, showing Rosalina holding hands with her child self.

-and to the bolded, really? How does a very minor part of the game divided into short cutscenes involving shaping some of Rosalina's backstory distract people from SMGs gameplay?
Miyamoto's excuses are lame at best, and he's also a hypocrite. (For that, see what I said before about his influence on development during Paper Mario: Sticker Star.)

His influence also caused Starfox Adventures to happen period, and his influence shaped that game into what it was. A lot of the development team at Rare who were working on Dinosaur Planet were upset because of all the work they had done, a lot of it needing to be changed or thrown out entirely because of the strict guidelines Miyamoto had set for the way his Starfox characters were allowed to be written.
It caused Krystal to go from main character, to Damsel in Distress/Love interest of Fox and nothing more.

As I've heard someone say before: "You don't say No to Miyamoto."

Krystal doesn't have a snowballs chance in Hell at being anything other than a minor Background character (If she appears at all) in the Starfox WiiU game. Miyamoto is just too stubborn, and too set in his convictions of Gameplay over Story.
That's why I've pretty much given up any hope that she'll ever make it into a Smash game at this point or really be relevant to Starfox at all, and instead just embrace that at least my favorite character from the Mario universe made it in.

 

[Comorant]

Story has always been less of a staple of games and more akin to a topping that can be used to add additional flavor, it needs to be understood that in the world of game design you want to create a polished flowing game as best as possible and that story is not something the game should be forced to stop for, but rather that narrative in a game should exist to serve the core gameplay and in return be rewarded with investment by the player.

Cinematic storytelling in games has made games that were decent at best become memorable pieces, but at the end of the day it isn't good game design achieving it, its good cinematography and as a result it's a separate medium carrying the story rather than letting the game acheive its full potential.

Games like Mario suffer from issues with flow and pacing when cinematic storytelling is involved, and as much as I adore Rosalina's story, it could have been implemented significantly better by tying it in directly to gameplay. The lore behind the Lumas work because it all sets up these potential scenarios within the levels and introduce mechanics. They aren't just adorable star creatures, they're IMPORTANT star creatures.

With that said, Rosalina's storybook already brings in a lot of potential. This IS the Story of Rosalina starting her life in space, forming her home and her family of luma. What if the world map reflected these stories significantly more? What if the illustrations were truly a map of the universe ahead and what if certain levels included mirroring elements that opened up new paths, brought in easter eggs, secrets, goodies, or were important to continue forward? Imagine how much of a suckerpunch to your heart it'd be to come across some of those scenes more often? You could make a grown man cry.

 

[Aurora Sparkle]

Story has always been less of a staple of games and more akin to a topping that can be used to add additional flavor, it needs to be understood that in the world of game design you want to create a polished flowing game as best as possible and that story is not something the game should be forced to stop for, but rather that narrative in a game should exist to serve the core gameplay and in return be rewarded with investment by the player.

Cinematic storytelling in games has made games that were decent at best become memorable pieces, but at the end of the day it isn't good game design achieving it, its good cinematography and as a result it's a separate medium carrying the story rather than letting the game acheive its full potential.

I would agree that Story has been less of a staple of gaming in the past, but I think in this day and age, now more than ever a lot of Studios and developers are striving to have deep storytelling in their games.
Developers want to create amazing and memorable experiences, they want to tell great stories, and games as a storytelling media have become more acceptable overall than they ever have been.

That's not to say that Story in a game is the most important aspect, -but I don't think it should always take a back seat to gameplay either.
IMO, good game design is the perfect balance of Both Storytelling and Gameplay, and for me is a big factor in what's holding Starfox as a series from going from just "Good" to "Amazing".

 

[Enrel]

As I've heard someone say before: "You don't say No to Miyamoto."

But people have before! With it we got the most glorious Zelda game from it too, Majora's Mask.

Majora's Mask was made literally because the team said "No" to Miyamoto. Because of that No, they were forced to churn out a game they wanted in about a year no more than that. It was the single most amazing Zelda game ever created to this date! Not only did it feel like a living and breathing world, but it was grimdark as hell, and made the player care for the characters.

 

[Comorant]

I would agree that Story has been less of a staple of gaming in the past, but I think in this day and age, now more than ever a lot of Studios and developers are striving to have deep storytelling in their games.
Developers want to create amazing and memorable experiences, they want to tell great stories, and games as a storytelling media have become more acceptable overall than they ever have been.

That's not to say that Story in a game is the most important aspect, -but I don't think it should always take a back seat to gameplay either.
IMO, good game design is the perfect balance of Both Storytelling and Gameplay, and for me is a big factor in what's holding Starfox as a series from going from just "Good" to "Amazing".

I wouldn't say its the crucial factor Star Fox needs either, but it's an element that undeniably can help it a ton. Star Fox's iconic intercom dialogue has the potential to create an element of storytelling that's more dynamic and active with the current situation. Because much of the dialogue is adaptive it allows you to make antagonists even more despicable, make it more satisfying when you knock them out of the air, and develop a nice level of character interaction during the dogfight action.

With this said, the fact that your teammates are all active within the battles at hand who can be taken out of commission and will comment not only at the current situation but your current performance, Star Fox has the capacity to make organic action sequences happen that involve the player, and that brings up one of the unique storytelling capabilities gaming has that it NEEDS to showcase to establish itself as a distinct artistic medium. The difference between the way a game tells a story, and a film tells a story, is that where as the film has the viewer take in and interpret what they see with the creators shifting pieces to tell a story in particular, games can tell stories in a much more immersive form because the player is just as much an actor as anyone else.

With that said, I wouldn't say games are giving story the backseat, in fact I'd say its quite the opposite to the point where it astounds me that so many games rely on linear cutscenes to tell most of its story. We have exceptions to the rule of course, with games like Bastion and Hotline Miami using unique methods to tell good stories, or even Majora's Mask and Metroid which really make heavy use of their worlds in great ways, but overall it seems we're making progress rather slowly and we're still watching movies in the middle of a game to know the story of said game.

 

[Aurora Sparkle]

With that said, I wouldn't say games are giving story the backseat, in fact I'd say its quite the opposite to the point where it astounds me that so many games rely on linear cutscenes to tell most of its story. We have exceptions to the rule of course, with games like Bastion and Hotline Miami using unique methods to tell good stories, or even Majora's Mask and Metroid which really make heavy use of their worlds in great ways, but overall it seems we're making progress rather slowly and we're still watching movies in the middle of a game to know the story of said game.

Personally I don't think that linear Story cutscenes are something that's ever going to go away. While they may not be as flexible as dynamic dialogue, or story told through live events rather than a cutscene, they are still just as important IMO- and are able to craft a much more deep and emotional scene than say, just the dialogue changing during gameplay depending on what actions you take.
Both styles are effective and both styles are valid. For instance, I wouldn't trade the feels I got watching the incredibly well crafted cutscenes of the Last of Us, where developers are able to fully show the emotions and reactions of the characters in the story that's happening around them. I don't mind taking time out of my gameplay to watch a well crafted cutscene if it makes the game that much richer for me and drives me to be more emotionally invested in the characters.

Either way it seems that we agree that Starfox as a series has a lot of potential to rise to something even greater than it is now by taking advantage of some kind of storytelling depth. The question is whether or not that will ever happen.

Anyways, I haven't really been discussing Krystal anymore- so before I get too off-topic I'll end my discussion here.

 

[IanTheGamer]

It's really sad when a fan game (Event Horizon) is better than an official Nintendo made game, hopefully whoever develops Star Fox Wii U has enough cajones to say no to Miyamoto, Sony doesn't have a Miyamoto limiting their IP potential, they give their first party developers some leeway on their games

 

[TheRandomCities4]

Y'know, times like these remind me why I began to support Krystal for Smash in the first place...

My support stemmed from the thought that having Krystal playable in Smash would allow people a venue to experience the character in a way she hasn't been portrayed to be in the Star Fox series--an interesting perspective, for once. I felt that this could help other people see the potential she has, without them having to rely on what actually happens in the Star Fox universe (because she really hasn't been that innovative or engaging of a character, so far). I thought, perhaps then, more people would be open to the possibilities for Star Fox implied from their experience playing as Krystal in Smash Brothers. Also, having her playable in Smash Brothers would be a way to convey her potential without any possible intervention by other developers, such as Miyamoto (that's because there wouldn't be any story or dialogue to imply depth; the experience of playing a character with a unique moveset would be enough to convey the potential alone--people are smart enough to make such connections).

I just wish she was given the opportunity or chance to show them that potential.

Miyamoto has as much influence as he wants. He's Miyamoto.

Miyamoto pretty much calls all the shots, and it's the reason why IMO- Super Mario Galaxy 2 felt like a hollow game compared to the first, despite having notably better level design and fun gameplay.

An excerpt from the Super Mario Wiki on SMG2:
"Rosalina noticeably has a much smaller role in the game, appearing only in the game's first and second endings. This is because Shigeru Miyamoto thought the Storybook in the first game covering her backstory distracted gamers from the first game's gameplay, and made the game focus too much on her instead of the Mario Bros. The game was originally going to have a new subplot involving Rosalina, including exactly how she met Lubba in the first place (which in the final version is reduced to a brief mention by Lubba in the game's ending)."

Here's a piece of concept art as well, showing Rosalina holding hands with her child self.

-and to the bolded, really? How does a very minor part of the game divided into short cutscenes involving shaping some of Rosalina's backstory distract people from SMGs gameplay?
Miyamoto's excuses are lame at best, and he's also a hypocrite. (For that, see what I said before about his influence on development during Paper Mario: Sticker Star.)

His influence also caused Starfox Adventures to happen period, and his influence shaped that game into what it was. A lot of the development team at Rare who were working on Dinosaur Planet were upset because of all the work they had done, a lot of it needing to be changed or thrown out entirely because of the strict guidelines Miyamoto had set for the way his Starfox characters were allowed to be written.
It caused Krystal to go from main character, to Damsel in Distress/Love interest of Fox and nothing more.

As I've heard someone say before: "You don't say No to Miyamoto."

Krystal doesn't have a snowballs chance in Hell at being anything other than a minor Background character (If she appears at all) in the Starfox WiiU game. Miyamoto is just too stubborn, and too set in his convictions of Gameplay over Story.
That's why I've pretty much given up any hope that she'll ever make it into a Smash game at this point or really be relevant to Starfox at all, and instead just embrace that at least my favorite character from the Mario universe made it in.

This is all the proof we need to confirm our suspicions about Miyamoto.

That excerpt...

I just don't understand Miyamoto sometimes...

 

[IanTheGamer]

Y'know, times like these remind me why I began to support Krystal for Smash in the first place...

My support stemmed from the thought that having Krystal playable in Smash would allow people a venue to experience the character in a way she hasn't been portrayed to be in the Star Fox series--an interesting perspective, for once. I felt that this could help other people see the potential she has, without them having to rely on what actually happens in the Star Fox universe (because she really hasn't been that innovative or engaging of a character, so far). I thought, perhaps then, more people would be open to the possibilities for Star Fox implied from their experience playing as Krystal in Smash Brothers. Also, having her playable in Smash Brothers would be a way to convey her potential without any possible intervention by other developers, such as Miyamoto (that's because there wouldn't be any story or dialogue to imply depth; the experience of playing a character with a unique moveset would be enough to convey the potential alone--people are smart enough to make such connections).

I just wish she was given the opportunity or chance to show them that potential.

You and me both, bro, you and me both

 

[Jason the Yoshi]

Merry Christmas, fellow StarFox people.

So I got a Fox Amiibo for Christmas, and I'm wondering: What would Amiibo capabilities be for StarFox Wii U, and would Bill Trinen make a Krystal Amiibo for said game?

 

[ghastmine]

Merry Christmas guys sorry if ive been away but you know other fandoms need me. But next year we got a lot to look forward to

 

[TheDarkKnightNoivern]

Merry Christmas, fellow StarFox people.

So I got a Fox Amiibo for Christmas, and I'm wondering: What would Amiibo capabilities be for StarFox Wii U, and would Bill Trinen make a Krystal Amiibo for said game?

I had one idea, What if you could build you're own ship like mario kart and amiibos could unlock ships and ship parts. For example you scan a wolf amiibo, you get a wolfen. Scan a mario amiibo and you get a mario themed ship. I think it'd be a cool and interesting idea. If they add amiibo support, I'm not expecting much at all though

 

[IanTheGamer]

Do you guys think that Amiibo could be used for Smash DLC, say for instance, Krystal is an Amiibo figure, and when you scan her into Smash, you unlock her as a playable fighter?, It would actually be brilliant marketing, when you think about it

 

[Captain Hazama]

Despite that really does sounds like a great idea for Krystal being playable, by using her Amiibo figure and unlocking her that way, but I can defiantly know finding her Amiibo figure would be a ***** to ever find if you don't pre-order it. No matter how much people say they hate her, they will probably still buy the figure to get her. That is "if" she is unlocked as Smash DLC by doing that.

 

[IanTheGamer]

The reasoning behind my idea is simple, really, the Amiibo DLC will be optional, and also the people who refuse to get Amiibo, will still get all of the regular content in Smash, while the Amiibos will function as add-ons, which add the character and maybe new music to the game, it will sell Amiibo if a highly requested character, like Krystal is available as an Amiibo figurine in Smash, and who knows maybe the best selling Amiibo figures, could possibly end up as non-DLC fighters in Smash 5

 

[Princess Toady]

I hope you all had a merry Christmas everyone (sorry I forgot to check this thread). Glad to see that some of you still remain her, and the discussion that took place a few days ago was most enthralling. It really goes to show that we need new blood, or at least people who understand the consumer and know how to make fun AND interesting games.

 

[Delzethin]

Despite that really does sounds like a great idea for Krystal being playable, by using her Amiibo figure and unlocking her that way, but I can defiantly know finding her Amiibo figure would be a ***** to ever find if you don't pre-order it. No matter how much people say they hate her, they will probably still buy the figure to get her. That is "if" she is unlocked as Smash DLC by doing that.

I've tossed around the idea of Amiibos being an alternate way to unlock DLC. The idea being you could either pay for the DLC separately for cheaper, or if you bought a special version of the Amiibo, it'd come with character DLC for both the 3DS and Wii U versions.

 

[Wolfheart07]

Merry Christmas, fellow StarFox people.

So I got a Fox Amiibo for Christmas, and I'm wondering: What would Amiibo capabilities be for StarFox Wii U, and would Bill Trinen make a Krystal Amiibo for said game?

Awesome. Hopefully for Starfox Wii U, the Fox Amiibo will do some really cool wonders for it. But I would love to see some new Amiibos based off from SF Wii U like the characters who are in the game like Fox, Krystal, Peppy, Falco, Wolf, Slippy for instance and to give them certain functions for it. Speaking of that, I finally got myself a 3DS XL for Christmas along with Smash 4(3DS), Mario Kart 7, Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon and Starfox 64 3D. A friend of mine was even nice enough to give me Starfox Command. Now I have all my Starfox games at my disposal. ^^ How awesome is that?

 

[IanTheGamer]

Awesome. Hopefully for Starfox Wii U, the Fox Amiibo will do some really cool wonders for it. But I would love to see some new Amiibos based off from SF Wii U like the characters who are in the game like Fox, Krystal, Peppy, Falco, Wolf, Slippy for instance and to give them certain functions for it. Speaking of that, I finally got myself a 3DS XL for Christmas along with Smash 4(3DS), Mario Kart 7, Luigi's Mansion Dark Moon and Starfox 64 3D. A friend of mine was even nice enough to give me Starfox Command. Now I have all my Starfox games at my disposal. ^^ How awesome is that?

That's so awesome

 

[Etc_Guy]

Miyamoto has never been required to be working directly on a game in order to influence it, and in some people's opinions, destroy it.

I mean, Miyamoto may have worked on Mario Galaxy, but he is not responsible for the story behind Rosalina or what she embodies. What makes her the character that she is had to be snuck in under his nose because of his ridiculous aversion towards stories in games.
Super Mario Galaxy 2 was supposed to explore her character even further, but he made sure to promptly stamp that out before it even got a chance.
He's also responsible for Paper Mario: Sticker Star being an absolute disgrace compared to the rest of the PM series and he didn't even work on that game. The original vision that IS was working on for that game would have been more akin to PM:TTYD, until Miyamoto came and used his sticker scissors on it and cut all personality from the game in favor of gameplay gimmicks.
His reasoning? It was too much like TTYD and "nobody would want to play the same game" so lets just make it something that's barely even Paper Mario instead!
BTW, this coming from the guy who's made how many iterations of freaking New Super Mario Bros. now? Right.

There is a reason why people have negative views about Miyamoto's input on certain games in their franchises- and it's not just because hating Miyamoto is the "cool" thing to do.
The man is stuck in the NES era and still believes that the most important part of a game is having some sore of gimmicky gameplay to try and force it to stand out, and that having a deep and well written story, always ALWAYS takes a back seat to that.
Yes, gameplay is important- and he is really good at creating fun gameplay. -but it's not the only thing that crafts a memorable gaming experience. In fact, my favorite Mario games tend to be the RPG ones, because yeah while sidescrolling platform Mario games are good for mindless fun, it's the stories of the ones like Super Mario RPG and Paper Mario that have influenced my life and will stay dearly in my memories.
It's also the reason why for me, SMG absolutely trumps SMG2.

As far as Krystal goes, well- he's also the one who's responsible for what she currently is in the first place, so I'm not going to hold out much hope that he's going to give her some kind of special treatment in SF Wii U. If he didn't do it in Adventures, he isn't going to start now.

That might be the best reason to not like Miyamoto. His characters can be flatter than paper. Comparing Super Mario 64 to Donkey Kong 64 is almost unfair. Bowser in the RPGs is more interesting in every way than the normal Bowser. Captain Syrup a sub-franchise villain is better written than Rosalina SMG2 maybe even one since the director denies story elements in a time when story heavy games like Xenoblade Chronicles is possible. This might mean that Krystal or any of the Star Fox crew will develop by the slightest.

 

[IanTheGamer]

That might be the best reason to not like Miyamoto. His characters can be flatter than paper. Comparing Super Mario 64 to Donkey Kong 64 is almost unfair. Bowser in the RPGs is more interesting in every way than the normal Bowser. Captain Syrup a sub-franchise villain is better written than Rosalina SMG2 maybe even one since the director denies story elements in a time when story heavy games like Xenoblade Chronicles is possible. This might mean that Krystal or any of the Star Fox crew will develop by the slightest.

It's unfortunate that Miyamoto refuses to adapt his games, even though great stories really enhance a game with excellent gameplay, Kojima is better than Miyamoto because of that, say what you want about Kojima, all Metal Gear games that he has had involvement in any form have had fantastic stories, another thing is about how beloved a main character can be whewhwith a little bit of care thrown in, Niko from GTA IV is a perfect example, Niko was an immigrant to the US, , seeking a fresh start, Niko's story is relatable, and he's the most liked character in the GTA franchise

 

[TheRandomCities4]

Well, my thought is that well-written (and not contrived) lore/stories only serve to enhance the total experience from videogames. I've never experienced lore (even bad or uninteresting lore) to take away from my experience of the game (and I've certainly never been distracted from gameplay thanks to lore, as Miyamoto claimed it did to players in SMG 1).

In fact, it even makes remembering the game much more enjoyable because of that added lore that enhanced such experiences. That's the thing. I associate everything that made the experience of the game more enjoyable with the memories. Games that are only made for the face-value enjoyment of the gameplay alone really don't become memorable with me (except on very rare occasions--and these rare occasions are usually with indie games). This is especially so if the games are obviously made for the gameplay alone.

At any rate, I feel that if another Smash Brothers rolls around, and if some of us stay around to talk about Krystal in those hypothetical times of the future, this thread will probably be referenced multiple times. It will certainly serve as a great archive for information and past thoughts.

 

[IanTheGamer]

Well, my thought is that well-written (and not contrived) lore/stories only serve to enhance the total experience from videogames. I've never experienced lore (even bad or uninteresting lore) to take away from my experience of the game (and I've certainly never been distracted from gameplay thanks to lore, as Miyamoto claimed it did to players in SMG 1).

In fact, it even makes remembering the game much more enjoyable because of that added lore that enhanced such experiences. That's the thing. I associate everything that made the experience of the game more enjoyable with the memories. Games that are only made for the face-value enjoyment of the gameplay alone really don't become memorable with me (except on very rare occasions--and these rare occasions are usually with indie games). This is especially so if the games are obviously made for the gameplay alone.

At any rate, I feel that if another Smash Brothers rolls around, and if some of us stay around to talk about Krystal in those hypothetical times of the future, this thread will probably be referenced multiple times. It will certainly serve as a great archive for information and past thoughts.

Agreed, but as for the story remark, I believe games all should have some story, it doesn't have to be complex like the Metal Gear Solid games, but shouldn't be as shallow as the Mario games, with a plot that is simply, a princess got captured, rescue her. Nintendo has the resources for compelling stories, (Eternal Darkness, and the Metroid Prime trilogy just to name two)

 

[Enrel]

Games should try to strive for a story, but it doesn't mean they SHOULD ALWAYS have a story. It's strange, considering this thread and the discussions had therein, it's really changed some of my views on things. While I still believe Krystal is just a bad character (Because she is a non-character which is kinda worse). I can see why people do like the IDEA of her. At least in Smash. You basically take Fox which was a reskinned(refurred?) version of Krystal in SFA anyway and base her moves off of that. Fairly simple to tell which moves go where and why. Though I just disagree with liking a poorly written character because of potential they might have. It sort of reminds me of Other M in that regards. Though to be fair Samus was more of a character to begin with.

Either way, we can all agree the main reason we play games is for the entertainment value, and a lot of that is front loaded onto the gameplay because that's where we are most active. A good story rarely saves a bad/clunky game. Though it does happen, Deadly Premonition was a sign of that. As much as I love that game nothing really about it outside of the story was really.... "Good".

Though on the flip side, great gameplay can easily make up for bad stories. It's all on your definition of bad for sure as everything is just subjective in life (for the most part). It would probably behoove me to pick more recent examples, but eh, look at everything Treasure has ever made. They have the worst and most incoherent stories, but the games more than make up for it in sure awesomeness that was gameplay.

That being said, what about those games where the story really is the focus? Anyone that's played the Mass Effect series knows the ups and downs with that franchise. If the story fails in these types of games, then too doesn't the game itself fail despite how good the gameplay may be? Dragon Age II comes to mind as well, though I will admit to not playing it. Though the criticisms were how horribly the story was told despite what people felt were gameplay improvements.

Feel like this has become more than just talking about Krystal for DLC anymore, and more about the crisis of story and its value in the gaming industry. It's not a bad thing because these kinds of discussions are fun and as a writer it warms my heart, but perhaps we've lost course on the thread?

 

[IanTheGamer]

Games should try to strive for a story, but it doesn't mean they SHOULD ALWAYS have a story. It's strange, considering this thread and the discussions had therein, it's really changed some of my views on things. While I still believe Krystal is just a bad character (Because she is a non-character which is kinda worse). I can see why people do like the IDEA of her. At least in Smash. You basically take Fox which was a reskinned(refurred?) version of Krystal in SFA anyway and base her moves off of that. Fairly simple to tell which moves go where and why. Though I just disagree with liking a poorly written character because of potential they might have. It sort of reminds me of Other M in that regards. Though to be fair Samus was more of a character to begin with.

Either way, we can all agree the main reason we play games is for the entertainment value, and a lot of that is front loaded onto the gameplay because that's where we are most active. A good story rarely saves a bad/clunky game. Though it does happen, Deadly Premonition was a sign of that. As much as I love that game nothing really about it outside of the story was really.... "Good".

Though on the flip side, great gameplay can easily make up for bad stories. It's all on your definition of bad for sure as everything is just subjective in life (for the most part). It would probably behoove me to pick more recent examples, but eh, look at everything Treasure has ever made. They have the worst and most incoherent stories, but the games more than make up for it in sure awesomeness that was gameplay.

That being said, what about those games where the story really is the focus? Anyone that's played the Mass Effect series knows the ups and downs with that franchise. If the story fails in these types of games, then too doesn't the game itself fail despite how good the gameplay may be? Dragon Age II comes to mind as well, though I will admit to not playing it. Though the criticisms were how horribly the story was told despite what people felt were gameplay improvements.

Feel like this has become more than just talking about Krystal for DLC anymore, and more about the crisis of story and its value in the gaming industry. It's not a bad thing because these kinds of discussions are fun and as a writer it warms my heart, but perhaps we've lost course on the thread?

But story can also be the thing that makes a game with great gameplay even better, (Batman: Arkham Asylum is a good example)

 

[Desert Croc]

Feel like this has become more than just talking about Krystal for DLC anymore, and more about the crisis of story and its value in the gaming industry. It's not a bad thing because these kinds of discussions are fun and as a writer it warms my heart, but perhaps we've lost course on the thread?

I agree. The title of this thread may as well be changed if the discussion is to continue.

 

[Aurora Sparkle]

While I still believe Krystal is just a bad character (Because she is a non-character which is kinda worse). I can see why people do like the IDEA of her. At least in Smash. You basically take Fox which was a reskinned(refurred?) version of Krystal in SFA anyway and base her moves off of that. Fairly simple to tell which moves go where and why. Though I just disagree with liking a poorly written character because of potential they might have. It sort of reminds me of Other M in that regards. Though to be fair Samus was more of a character to begin with.

I'm sure the majority of Krystal fans aren't fans of her just because of the "Idea" that she has potential as a character.
Krystal is not a bad character, and shes not a "Non-character". The potential she has to be even more important in the SF universe than she already is, is just icing on the cake for people who are already fans of her.
Say what you want about her, but the fact remains that even with the small amount of attention she's gotten in the series as a whole, she's still had far more development than any other female in the SF universe, and even more than some of the original characters themselves, by far.

I've met people who aren't even furries who still like her as a character, so that whole idea of her only being popular because she is furry-bait is trash as well.
People like her because she has a great design, a wonderful voice actor, she's charming, strong and has great abilities, among other things that have been presented about her in the time she's been around.

Krystal isn't a bad character with the potential to become good- She's a good character with the potential to become better.

 

[Wolfheart07]

But story can also be the thing that makes a game with great gameplay even better, (Batman: Arkham Asylum is a good example)

Agreed. Even another example of games are like the Sly Cooper series, Uncharted series and The Last of Us. Those games are great not just because of the gameplay, but the stories behind it and the lore. Getting back to Miyamoto here, even though he is working on the new Starfox Wii U game, I really don't think that he's calling all the shots there in the game. Because he should give the creative liberty to the developers who are working alongside him to work on the story hands down. Only then hopefully it enriches the value of the game itself. Don't get me wrong, I like Miyamoto and respect him for the works he has done. But he should give his developers working with him a chance to do some character development.

 

[Enrel]

I'm sure the majority of Krystal fans aren't fans of her just because of the "Idea" that she has potential as a character.
Krystal is not a bad character, and shes not a "Non-character". The potential she has to be even more important in the SF universe than she already is, is just icing on the cake for people who are already fans of her.
Say what you want about her, but the fact remains that even with the small amount of attention she's gotten in the series as a whole, she's still had far more development than any other female in the SF universe, and even more than some of the original characters themselves, by far.

I've met people who aren't even furries who still like her as a character, so that whole idea of her only being popular because she is furry-bait is trash as well.
People like her because she has a great design, a wonderful voice actor, she's charming, strong and has great abilities, among other things that have been presented about her in the time she's been around.

Krystal isn't a bad character with the potential to become good- She's a good character with the potential to become better.

I get what you're saying I really do, but I still think it is kind of contradictory to talk about people don't like her for her potential and then talk about her potential. I mean yeah I like the concept of her. A mystic fox girl, which they've never really explored because Dino Planet cannon really doesn't exist. But did they ever explore the fact that she was this kind of mystic fox in any of the SF games? I'd say though the most developed characters are more Kat and Falco. I really do feel like Krystal is a wasted character, but at this point I'm convinced she's just... Always going to be wasted. I'd love to be proven wrong.

Well, no of-course she's not just furry-bait. That's such a ridiculous idea in of itself. Didn't mean to insinuate that she was. You're right people can not be furries and like the character. It's kinda strange that people can like Fox and Falco and not be furry yet you like Krystal that clearly means you're a furry. And even if you are what does it matter? Does being a furry somehow devaluate wanting another Star Fox character in Smash let alone another female.

Her voice actress is indeed really good. There is no doubt about that. Her design I can't really comment on just because I feel like well she pulls off the look of blue mystic fox. Could be my total disenfranchisement of the SF series as a kid after SFA that maybe I can't comment more about these points.

Like Krystal as the concept isn't bad, and maybe I've been using the wrong descriptor here. She is a wasted character. A Character who like you said could be so much more than what she really is. I still think non-character does fit though. Maybe I should explain what I feel a non-character is. To me it means the character is only there to really fill a role. This case being Fox's girlfriend. She really hasn't been expanded on through that which is sad. At this point it feels like she could be replaced by another female lead and it would feel the same.

Agreed. Even another example of games are like the Sly Cooper series, Uncharted series and The Last of Us. Those games are great not just because of the gameplay, but the stories behind it and the lore. Getting back to Miyamoto here, even though he is working on the new Starfox Wii U game, I really don't think that he's calling all the shots there in the game. Because he should give the creative liberty to the developers who are working alongside him to work on the story hands down. Only then hopefully it enriches the value of the game itself. Don't get me wrong, I like Miyamoto and respect him for the works he has done. But he should give his developers working with him a chance to do some character development.

Miyamoto has control issues. Seriously, he cannot have his vision challenged. What he does do and what he should do are two entirely different things.

 

[Aurora Sparkle]

I get what you're saying I really do, but I still think it is kind of contradictory to talk about people don't like her for her potential and then talk about her potential.

Not really seeing what you mean by this. I listed several reasons why people Krystal like her other than "for her potential" but also acknowledged that she has potential. Not really seeing how that's contradictory.

I mean yeah I like the concept of her. A mystic fox girl, which they've never really explored because Dino Planet cannon really doesn't exist. But did they ever explore the fact that she was this kind of mystic fox in any of the SF games? I'd say though the most developed characters are more Kat and Falco. I really do feel like Krystal is a wasted character, but at this point I'm convinced she's just... Always going to be wasted. I'd love to be proven wrong.

They have explored the potential of Krystal's powers by showcasing her telepathy and how it has helped the Starfox team on their missions.
I wouldn't say Katt is more developed than Krystal. Krystal has been in more games and has had more screen time, and while she may not have the full story that surrounded her in her original Dinosaur Planet incarnation, she still has been more involved than Katt in the series so far. Falco is not really a decent comparison since of course he's been around since Starfox on the SNES and has had a lot more time to develop than her.

Like Krystal as the concept isn't bad, and maybe I've been using the wrong descriptor here. She is a wasted character. A Character who like you said could be so much more than what she really is. I still think non-character does fit though. Maybe I should explain what I feel a non-character is. To me it means the character is only there to really fill a role. This case being Fox's girlfriend. She really hasn't been expanded on through that which is sad. At this point it feels like she could be replaced by another female lead and it would feel the same.

Yes, she has a role as Fox's Love Interest/Girlfriend- but she is also a valued member of the Starfox Team besides that, and has been since Assault. As I mentioned before she's used her Telepathy to help out, has also fought in the Arwings several times, and played an important role in the Aparoid invasion during SF Assault.
TBH, I wouldn't really say that Krystal is a wasted character either. What's really being wasted, is the potential of Starfox as a series. How could you expect Krystal to develop into anything more than what she already is, when the franchise has always been more about focusing on the gameplay over expanding on the Universe and the characters within it?

I would say that Krystal is more like the SF Universe's Rosalina. She doesn't have a huge amount going for her character depth-wise, but people still love her despite that, because she has a lot of features that draw you in aside from the fact that she doesn't have a fully fleshed out back story or a long history to draw from. All in all she's still a very appealing character besides the people who hate on her for "reasons" (Mostly involving Furry hate).

 

[Enrel]

Not really seeing what you mean by this. I listed several reasons why people Krystal like her other than "for her potential" but also acknowledged that she has potential. Not really seeing how that's contradictory.

Well, you just said that she was liked more than for her potential, and then listed that she had potential. I don't really see the full appeal for her right now with that current statement is all.

They have explored the potential of Krystal's powers by showcasing her telepathy and how it has helped the Starfox team on their missions.
I wouldn't say Katt is more developed than Krystal. Krystal has been in more games and has had more screen time, and while she may not have the full story that surrounded her in her original Dinosaur Planet incarnation, she still has been more involved than Katt in the series so far. Falco is not really a decent comparison since of course he's been around since Starfox on the SNES and has had a lot more time to develop than her.

Was the telepathy more than just "I'm sensing the bad guys"? It would be really cool if she kept her staff instead of using the space agey blasters and all that.

Okay, maybe not more developed, but what about more interesting? Their playful banter in the few missions she was in with Falco was really compelling to what their past was and let's players really speculate more. Having more of a player interaction with little snippets of detail tend to make a character more likeable. Just with Falco, you know he used to run his own merc stuff before Star Fox and we know he's had a thing with Katt, or not since he tends to deny her implications.

Falco might not be the best comparison, but at the same time he's the most verbose and that has to be said helps character development in the long run. I'd argue that he'd be as much if not more so if he kept this character archetype and was introduced later into the series. Maybe Krystal I feel is just too passive in most of her roles that it kind of stunts her growth into a more defined character.

Yes, she has a role as Fox's Love Interest/Girlfriend- but she is also a valued member of the Starfox Team besides that, and has been since Assault. As I mentioned before she's used her Telepathy to help out, has also fought in the Arwings several times, and played an important role in the Aparoid invasion during SF Assault.
TBH, I wouldn't really say that Krystal is a wasted character either. What's really being wasted, is the potential of Starfox as a series. How could you expect Krystal to develop into anything more than what she already is, when the franchise has always been more about focusing on the gameplay over expanding on the Universe and the characters within it?

I would say that Krystal is more like the SF Universe's Rosalina. She doesn't have a huge amount going for her character depth-wise, but people still love her despite that, because she has a lot of features that draw you in aside from the fact that she doesn't have a fully fleshed out back story or a long history to draw from. All in all she's still a very appealing character besides the people who hate on her for "reasons" (Mostly involving Furry hate).

You're right for sure. Starfox is a very stinted series. It's hard to really find more development front really any of the axillary characters; outside of that Fox and Falco are really the only developed characters. Even then they're at the point where the ground floor should be. Which isn't good. But when you say she's not developing more than what she already is, would that not be wasting character? At the very least it does sound like you do believe she's not living up to what could be, and in my definition it's part of wasting character.

Eh, I'd even say Rosalina is overall more compelling than Krystal. Even without Rosa's backstory unlocked, the way she is presented in SMG1 is well that of a god for one. For two she's constantly seen as a caring individual, and often seen as very motherly. It might be the idea of first impressions are the lasting impressions, but really Rosalina came off really strongly when first introduced and that really does go a long way into liking someone or something.

Appealing character I'll totally give you. Even as a kid I really liked Krystal and was kind of disappointed that she didn't really have much of a roll in SFA. I did want to know more about her, and that wasn't ever happening at least in that game. Still love the porn music that played EVERY-TIME she appeared on screen though. It was really heavy handed, but in an enjoyable fashion. I wouldn't care about the Furry hate crowd because they have nothing of value to really add then Furries are horrible because of "reasons". Though, yeah it's annoying to say the least. It's best to ignore those people as much as possible.

 

[TheRandomCities4]

I don't have much to say, other than I think that everyone in the SF fandom (or anyone interested in Star Fox, for that matter) should read and take into consideration the posts between @ Enrel and @ Aurora Sparkle above. That was a perfect display of the struggle of Star Fox as a franchise and Krystal as a character.

Now, I'll add my two cents. It isn't much though--just wanted to elaborate a little bit when I talked about Krystal's "potential".

First of all, I was struck (in a good way) when @ Enrel brought up the difference between a developed character and an appealing character. If you think about it, they are two different categories entirely, though some people may construe both of them together sometimes (I know I have before).

A developed character has strong characteristics that show throughout their appearance in the medium which they exist. They usually have backstories and indications of where they belong within the lore as well (even if they are uninteresting, the viewer/player understands where they belong and why they belong [unless the character is searching for answers], among other things).

An appealing character on the other hand usually displays traits (be it with their appearance, attitude, or whatnot) that cause the viewer/player to enjoy/like them, even if they aren't that developed overall.

(And yes, characters can be both appealing and developed, as obvious as that is)

I have a hunch that Miyamoto relies more on appealing characters than developed characters. It really makes a lot of sense when you think about the characters he has created or kept (including Mario, Link, and many others).

It's just a little frustrating to know that certain characters many of us here like (such as Krystal) won't really become that much developed so long as certain developer influences exist; to know that they won't even attempt to branch out a little with the characters/expand on their concept or potential. And when somebody does plug in something developmental for the characters, their work becomes reprimanded (as we've seen with Rosalina in SMG1).

Now, onto what I have to elaborate upon when I talked about "potential".

I see executed character potential as something that can have positive implications on the viewer/player regarding that character's franchise. In psychology, it's commonly understood that people make associations between things they experience if those things are together (or connected for that matter [even if the person makes such connections unconsciously]). This "executed character potential" could be something that's not even in the core game/medium the character even belongs in originally (I'm referring to Smash Brothers in this case). So, with that in mind, I connected Krystal to Smash Brothers in a hypothetical situation:

"What if Krystal was both added to Smash Brothers as a playable character AND given an interesting physical/magical moveset with the staff from SFA?"

The first thought that came to my mind from that hypothetical situation would be how it impacts the player/viewer on a wider scale. What would that make the player/viewer think or feel about the Star Fox franchise in Smash Brothers? Would it be any different based on the comparisons of the Star Fox franchise from past Smash Brothers? If so, would that make the player/viewer feel any different about the Star Fox franchise outside of Smash Brothers? I wonder...

If the common thought about associations are true, there should be a difference (at least within a statistical majority of the players/viewers).

In this case, one association that may be made could be as follows:

"Hey, Krystal didn't ruin the Star Fox series after all! Just look at how cool Sakurai and his team made her in Smash Brothers. She hasn't done any of that in the Star Fox series. I wonder why..."

See what I was getting at now? It's sort of a heroic thought, sure. However, I'm interested in the paradigms that could be shifted in a positive way regarding the conversations and outlooks about Krystal and Star Fox (especially after such experience with Krystal being portrayed in a light she hasn't been able to be portrayed in within Star Fox).

A lot of people might see potential as a small part of the needed equation from Krystal and Star Fox. I see it the other way around. I see it as the last part to be explored in order for the series to become something more than just "gameplay experience". And that's the thing.

In my opinion, the Star Fox franchise has dead-lined (like a stopped heart) for many years now. I feel Star Fox needs such executed potential in this day and age to become an experience that is truly memorable--one that people will cherish because the characters are more than just appealing; and one that people will cherish because the game is more than just about gameplay.

But that's just me. I see more potential in Star Fox with its cast of characters and universe than in all of Nintendo's franchises. So much so, that it could become a AAA title that could compete with some of the most highly regarded and respected videogame titles out there from other companies. And that's why I focused so much on Krystal and Star Fox than with other characters...

However...

With the recent revelations about Miyamoto, I realize that I was asking for way too much.

He prefers fun and goofy games over cool and serious ones. He also prefers the focus of a game to be on gameplay over strongly built lore and exploration. Lastly, he prefers simple appealing characters to appealing and developed characters.

Yet, I'm not saying these are the wrong choices. I'm not going to angrily blame Miyamoto anymore. It's wasting time/breath, and it does not help the situation. It only helps to frustrate people or start flame wars--both of which I don't want to incur.

I am confident that the Star Fox Wii U game will have little difference when compared to previous Star Fox titles. In turn, I'm not expecting that much for the characters or the building of the Star Fox universe/lore. It's just disappointing, because that's exactly what I want to see.

 

[Prince17]

After evaluating why I like Krystal feel somewhat ashamed because I have said in the past that if she didn't have her staff then I wouldn't want her in Smash without it. It makes me feel like I like her only for her staff/abilities. The same can be said for how I feel with Bowser Jr. and his Paintbrush. I was extremely disappointed to learn that his paintbrush is nowhere present in his moveset besides his Final Smash. But at the same time I feel that I would have liked just the Koopalings in Smash with the exact moveset they have now, just not with Bowser Jr. slapped on the face of it. Maybe it is because I look at is as wasted character potential, I see so much more potential for Jr. with his paintbrush than the Clown Car. The Clown Car seems more interesting to me than the Koopalings wands so that's why it works on them.

The most interesting part about Krystal to me is probably her staff and abilities. I really enjoyed the style of Adventures much more than any other Star Fox game. I'm a sucker for storytelling in games; Jr. in sunshine was great, it was the first time we saw Bowser speak (to my knowledge), and it let the story drive a bit further than any other Mario game before it has ever done. It was more than just Peach was kidnapped by Bowser, it had meaning behind it all. It allowed Jr. to develop his character and in the same game he débuted in! That is why he is my favourite Nintendo character. I feel like it was established from then on that his Paintbrush would be his thing (and it was, albeit only for spin-off titles) and I was extremely disappointed to see it not appear in his moveset. I do still like Jr. as a character but I cannot use him in smash without his paintbrush, I can't help but feel the same would happen for Krystal too if she appeared without her staff. It is a part of her character to me, despite only being used in 1 game, and her début game after all, you'd expect them to stay on the same path that they created for her character instead of taking a turn somewhere along that path. I believe I still like Krystal as a character without her staff, but I'd feel cheated if she appeared in Smash without it because in my mind it portrays her in the way she was always meant to be portrayed. A telepathic blue vixen carrying a badass staff with great powers, unique to her universe.