Roster Prediction Discussion Thread

[jaytalks]

Isa over Saki = i dont care. both are in the same amount of games and play the same exact role.

Matthew over Isaac= While Isaac may be the deffinitive protagonist of the series, Matthew is essentially just an expy of him anyways so i really dont see the big deal. combat wise and personality wise, there's virtually no difference. but if the option would be to have grown up Isaac thats who id choose. be good to have an RPG character who looks like a man for once.

There is literally no difference in personality. They are both silent protagonists.

 

[3Bismyname]

There is literally no difference in personality. They are both silent protagonists.

my point exactly...

 

[Rebellious Treecko]

First off, gotta say, I love the irony in that Noah wants Matthew to be playable under that logic, despite that he is also really pushing for Ninten to be playable, too.

Second off, if recentness takes priority over familiarity, wouldn't that mean Marth, Ness, and Olimar should all be excluded because there are more recent characters that take their place? Despite the heavy representation of their series overall that comes from just those three characters, you're saying that we should boot those three and keep Lucina, Lucas, and Alph in their places. That's a good way to make upset a lot of people, especially over Sakurai, who hates cutting veterans.

I understand it's besides the point in that we're talking about a new franchise entirely, but I'm saying that following the same basis as the aforementioned characters, it would make much more sense to have Isaac, the recurring protagonist, over Matthew, the *current* protagonist. After all, recentness is relevant only for a while. Familiarity and iconicness should always take priority when a character is selected, unless of course there is already a character in that series that covers that, point in case with Ness/Lucas and Marth/Ike.

I agree with Noah. You can't really compare Matthew to Ganondorf.

Ganondorf/Ganon has the been the main villain of the series, (even while other villains have occasionally taken the spotlight) while Matthew has only been in one game.
Personally, I'd prefer Isaac, seeing as he's more iconic and recognizable.

FE has such a varied cast of heroes that nobody could really act as a "successor" to Marth.
Marth has also been in a sequel/prequel to his game (like Roy, Leif, and Ike), and has had his game remade two times. (for the SNES and DS). The sequel has also been remade for the DS, but only in Japan. He's more of a mascot of the series, in my opinion.

 

[jaytalks]

my point exactly...

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you.

The other thing, and I mean no offense to Golden Sun and S&P fans, is that the franchises and characters within them are by no means "iconic" yet. They are great game franchises and characters with a good number of fans. But they're not iconic. Yet. The characters from the first iteration may be more memorable, but not iconic. If they were iconic they would be in Smash already. There franchises are still small in the gaming world unfortunately. First in franchises don't necessarily mean they are iconic. Mother didn't become "iconic" until Ness and Earthbound (Mother 2).

Edit: Yeah, I definitely don't mean any offense because I'm a big fan of both series, so I have no intention of offending myself.

 

[MagnesD3]

Yeah, I'm agreeing with you.

The other thing, and I mean no offense to Golden Sun and S&P fans, is that the franchises and characters within them are by no means "iconic" yet. They are great game franchises and characters with a good number of fans. But they're not iconic. Yet. The characters from the first iteration may be more memorable, but not iconic. If they were iconic they would be in Smash already. There franchises are still small in the gaming world unfortunately. First in franchises don't necessarily mean they are iconic. Mother didn't become "iconic" until Ness and Earthbound (Mother 2).

Edit: Yeah, I definitely don't mean any offense because I'm a big fan of both series, so I have no intention of offending myself.

The are not iconic to the world but they are iconic to the franchise.

 

[God Robert's Cousin]

Way to come up with the worst and most unrelateable example possible. I see no point, nor do I see any understanding in you. I'm not even sure if what you just said has anything to do with the subject you responded to.

You take a villian who is commonly and traditionally defeated, and somehow compare that to a protagonist who will no longer be the main character of a fairly small series because a new protagonist was chosen. Talk about random. Are you sure you didn't accidentally respond to the wrong post? I fail to see you even thinking about what you posted.

I'm sorry that you couldn't understand me then. Xenigma seems to understand my point, so it looks like my point isn't plain un-understandable. Play down the dramatics of "I don't like this point" next time, okay?

I take those that and compare it in that both are canon. Your point was that Matthew being the new protagonist is canon. Ganondorf being sealed or killed each game is canon. This is an argument about canon. If you can't make that simple connection, I honestly don't get why you're trying to make a point talking about a game that makes countless connections in the first place. My main point is that what's canon in a series does not necessarily apply to Smash Bros. Ness did not have most of his PSI in Earthbound. Pikachu does not learn Skull Bash in the Pokemon series. Olimar is no taller than 2 centimeters in the Pikmin series. Smash Bros. is all about taking characters and making them work in a fighting format, even if it doesn't exactly match that with the canon of that series. Counter that point or move on, "You're making NO SENSE!" isn't winning you any arguments.

Difference: Fire Emblem is a WAY bigger franchise. Once again you have pathetically chosen another terrible example. Also you claim that what I said implies I have knowledge that Camelot is developing another Golden Sun title. A good illusion to make your "point" sound more reasonable is to take something off topic that is stupid and not even said by the person you are attacking and then point out why it is dumb, even though nobody ever said it. Please stay on topic.

DO YOU ALWAYS COME UP WITH SUCH TERRIBLE EXAMPLES!?!?!?!?!? You know what I love? You go rambling on into stuff that isn't even relatable to the point I was making?

I have faith in your speculating no longer.

I'm flattered that you had faith in anyone besides yourself in the first place!

Also, the way you claim my argument is pathetic without even elaborating first is just like #2 of the World's Saddest Internet Argument Techniques. You're really giving me a lot of use for this thing, so thank you.

Anyway, since I'm going to just be wrong in your eyes anyway, I'll make my point to the other users here. That will actually give my perspective a chance before it's dismissed as juvenile. I have nothing to gain from trying to change Noah's mind when he isn't willing convince or be convinced by others in the first place.

Isaac is a character who has much more familiarity in the form of being playable in two games, appearing in another, and being the sole Golden Sun character to appear as an Assist Trophy in Brawl. Many of you can say we are familiar with Isaac, at least to a base level, yes? Yes, we can. Immediately, this means that people both unfamiliar to the series and fans-alike will recognize Isaac in name and appearance. Matthew has only appeared in one Golden Sun game and nothing more. It shouldn't be hard to determine that between the two characters, Isaac is more well known and therefore better suited to representing the Golden Sun series as a whole. This same treatment is associated with Marth. He is the main character of only two Fire Emblem games (not counting remakes) and has appeared in Fire Emblem: Awakening as a side character. Despite not appearing in most games in the series, he is easily seen as the main Lord of the series. For that reason, where as Roy's, Ike's, and Chrom's placements in the next Smash Bros. are controversial, Marth's playable status is easily secured.

So in a lot of ways, Marth and Isaac have many similarities, being the first and most well-known protagonists of their series despite not being starring characters in their series' most recent entries. To those of you still on the Matthew-base, which I'd understand if you still are, do you at least acknowledge the legitimacy in the idea of Isaac being playable over his son? That much is all I ask until I hear more reasoning for Matthew over Isaac.

I agree with Noah. You can't really compare Matthew to Ganondorf.

Ganondorf/Ganon has the been the main villain of the series, (even while other villains have occasionally taken the spotlight) while Matthew has only been in one game.
Personally, I'd prefer Isaac, seeing as he's more iconic and recognizable.

FE has such a varied cast of heroes that nobody could really act as a "successor" to Marth.
Marth has also been in a sequel/prequel to his game (like Roy, Leif, and Ike), and has had his game remade two times. (for the SNES and DS). The sequel has also been remade for the DS, but only in Japan. He's more of a mascot of the series, in my opinion.

I think the irony in what I said is being treated more as the core of my argument than I intended it to be. I'm saying that canon does not apply to Smash Bros. as much as some of us are saying. Isaac's status as retired in Dark Dawn has no real standing on Isaac's status in Smash Bros. Whether or not a character is killed off for good/"done with it all" shouldn't impact their playability status--how notable they are to a series should. That being the case, inconsistencies can be made if it works in favor of including the character, meaning Isa and Matthew should be included under their own merit, not simply because their more well known fathers are dead or retired.

 

[jaytalks]

The are not iconic to the world but they are iconic to the franchise.

So in a lot of ways, Marth and Isaac have many similarities, being the first and most well-known protagonists of their series despite not being starring characters in their series' most recent entries. To those of you still on the Matthew-base, which I'd understand if you still are, do you at least acknowledge the legitimacy in the idea of Isaac being playable over his son? That much is all I ask until I hear more reasoning for Matthew over Isaac.

@MagnesD3: The frog in the well knows nothing of the great ocean. I hope that works, I've been waiting to use that. My point is that it doesn't seem proper to use the word iconic with the characters. That's more of personal opinion, but being an assist trophy doesn't make you iconic. It can give you more exposure, but it being icon comes from the games. If you want to say iconic because it had a larger audience, it would definitely work with GS, but S&P2 had more sales since it was a worldwide release. So Isa would have a bigger audience, unless everyone who bought S&P2 bought the translated VC game. Being an icon of a small franchise isn't hard, it's practically a game of first dibs. The characters (Isaac and Matthew) themselves in a way are so generic that I can't see them as iconic. It was the gameplay, djinn, and psyenergy for me that was iconic.

@God's Robert's Cousin: I acknowledge that Isaac has a better chance. But from a business standpoint, I can see that including Matthew would make more sense if Nintendo has a sequel planned, even if it's not currently being developed. But I think the Smash series' approach generally is to have the characters sell the game, and not the game sell another series. Roy is the exception, not the rule. I think some people think that the best chance the series has is to have another game planned, and for Nintendo to want to give the series more exposure. I however think the series best chance is if it used to somehow represent the GBA generation.

The series just lacks so much support from Nintendo as a Nintendo franchise with its last game. It's amazing to think the first two games sold over a million. I don't remember the promotion behind it. I literally got it because there were no other games for the GBA. But Isaac definitely the most likely character from the franchise, but I don't see it as impossible that we get Matthew, even if there isn't a fourth game planned. The fact that Nintendo hasn't really added many franchises of the post-N64 franchises indicates to me that anything can happen, because there really aren't any preset rules.

 

[TheLastJinjo]

I'm sorry that you couldn't understand me then. Xenigma seems to understand my point, so it looks like my point isn't plain un-understandable. Play down the dramatics of "I don't like this point" next time, okay?

I take those that and compare it in that both are canon. Your point was that Matthew being the new protagonist is canon. Ganondorf being sealed or killed each game is canon. This is an argument about canon. If you can't make that simple connection, I honestly don't get why you're trying to make a point talking about a game that makes countless connections in the first place. My main point is that what's canon in a series does not necessarily apply to Smash Bros. Ness did not have most of his PSI in Earthbound. Pikachu does not learn Skull Bash in the Pokemon series. Olimar is no taller than 2 centimeters in the Pikmin series. Smash Bros. is all about taking characters and making them work in a fighting format, even if it doesn't exactly match that with the canon of that series. Counter that point or move on, "You're making NO SENSE!" isn't winning you any arguments.


Oh my, I'm flattered that you had faith in anyone besides yourself in the first place!

Also, the way you claim my argument is pathetic without even elaborating first is just like #2 of the World's Saddest Internet Argument Techniques. You're really giving me a lot of use for this thing, so thank you!

Anyway, since I'm going to just be wrong in your eyes anyway, I'll make my point to the other users here. That will actually give my perspective a chance before it's dismissed as juvenile. I have nothing to gain from trying to change Noah's mind when he isn't willing convince or be convinced by others in the first place.

Isaac is a character who has much more familiarity in the form of being playable in two games, appearing in another, and being the sole Golden Sun character to appear as an Assist Trophy Brawl. Many of you can say we are familiar with Isaac, at least to a base level, yes? Yes, we can. Immediately, this means that people both unfamiliar to the series and fans-alike will recognize Isaac in name and appearance. Matthew has only appeared in one Golden Sun game and nothing more. It shouldn't be hard to determine that between the two characters, Isaac is more well known and therefore better suited to representing the Golden Sun series as a whole. This same treatment is associated with Marth. He is the main character of only two Fire Emblem games (not counting remakes) and has appeared in Fire Emblem: Awakening as a side character. Despite not appearing in most games in the series, he is easily seen as the main Lord of the series. For that reason, where as Roy's, Ike's, and Chrom's placements in the next Smash Bros. are controversial, Marth's playable status is easily secured.

So in a lot of ways, Marth and Isaac have many similarities, being the first and most well-known protagonists of their series despite not being starring characters in their series' most recent entries. To those of you still on the Matthew-base, which I'd understand if you still are, do you at least acknowledge the legitimacy in the idea of Isaac being playable over his son? That much is all I ask until I hear more reasoning for Matthew over Isaac.

I think the irony in what I said is being treated more as the core of my argument than I intended it to be. I'm saying that canon does not apply to Smash Bros. as much as some of us are saying. Isaac's status as retired in Dark Dawn has no real standing on Isaac's status in Smash Bros. Whether or not a character is killed off for good/"done with it all" shouldn't impact their playability status--how notable they are to a series should. That being the case, inconsistencies can be made if it works in favor of including the character, meaning Isa and Matthew should be included under their own merit, not simply because their more well known fathers are dead or retired.

Xenigma agrees with your post. Congratulations you are now officially viewed to be correct in the eyes of ALL citizens of earth, none of your posts could possibly be wrong or flawed in any respects. Also you claim simply that I don't agree with your post that I don't agree with any posts at all. Maybe you should spend more time on Smashboards or at least gather info.

Also you claim that most of my counter-argument consists of "That makes no sense" or "I don't like this post." Could this possibly be a throwback to when I proved why Skyward Zelda was a stupid choice and you opted out by saying "That's stupid." or "Who could possibly think that" Rather than giving any feasible reason why your disagreement means anything. Because I sure as heck don't remember posting anything except WHY your point wasn't a point.

But, what you are getting at is something that can't really be done justice either way. Both are disagreements that don't lead to a conclusion, but to a continuous loop of whether Matthew will get in for being the current & future protagonist of the rest of the Golden Sun franchise from now on, or whether Issac should get in because he's more iconic and appeared in more games. Both are equally good reasons for both of them to be IN ssb, but not good reasons to why the other should NOT be in ssb. and the only person who can decide which one gets in for what reasons is Sakurai.

I've come to the conclusion that my side and the post that I am replying to are both equally sufficient reasons for both Issac and Matthew or Saki & Isa (well, maybe not so much those two.)

My point being the only way I can't counter this is with the post I previously made. Meaning that you would respond the same to said post, thus going in an endless loop, because even though what you said is true, it does not cancel out what I previously said as invalid.

My complaint is that you responded to what I said coming off so sure as if what you said is so clearly a reason why Matthew DOESN'T work. NOT why Issac DOES. Which I thought was incredibly dumb of you to do as always.

Regardless I've already explained why Golden Sun is in a different situation than FE. Fire Emblem is a game that traditionally introduces new protagonists like Mother. Marth is simply one that happens to reoccur for some reason. Where as Golden Sun was a game that traditionally consists of one protagonist: Issac, but now has been replaced by a new protagonist: Matthew. Rather than just giving somebody else a turn and then coming back as the main protagonist again.

Bottom line your point only supports Issac.
It does not cancel out Matthew at all.

 

[MagnesD3]

@MagnesD3: The frog in the well knows nothing of the great ocean. I hope that works, I've been waiting to use that. My point is that it doesn't seem proper to use the word iconic with the characters. That's more of personal opinion, but being an assist trophy doesn't make you iconic. It can give you more exposure, but it being icon comes from the games. If you want to say iconic because it had a larger audience, it would definitely work with GS, but S&P2 had more sales since it was a worldwide release. So Isa would have a bigger audience, unless everyone who bought S&P2 bought the translated VC game. Being an icon of a small franchise isn't hard, it's practically a game of first dibs. The characters (Isaac and Matthew) themselves in a way are so generic that I can't see them as iconic. It was the gameplay, djinn, and psyenergy for me that was iconic.

@God's Robert's Cousin: I acknowledge that Isaac has a better chance. But from a business standpoint, I can see that including Matthew would make more sense if Nintendo has a sequel planned, even if it's not currently being developed. But I think the Smash series' approach generally is to have the characters sell the game, and not the game sell another series. Roy is the exception, not the rule. I think some people think that the best chance the series has is to have another game planned, and for Nintendo to want to give the series more exposure. I however think the series best chance is if it used to somehow represent the GBA generation.

The series just lacks so much support from Nintendo as a Nintendo franchise with its last game. It's amazing to think the first two games sold over a million. I don't remember the promotion behind it. I literally got it because there were no other games for the GBA. But Isaac definitely the most likely character from the franchise, but I don't see it as impossible that we get Matthew, even if there isn't a fourth game planned. The fact that Nintendo hasn't really added many franchises of the post-N64 franchises indicates to me that anything can happen, because there really aren't any preset rules.

In my opinion there are multiple levels of how something is iconic, the ones I used were the world, and being iconic to fans of the series, they are iconic to fans of the series.

 

[jaytalks]

In my opinion there are multiple levels of how something is iconic, the ones I used were the world, and being iconic to fans of the series, they are iconic to fans of the series.

Yeah I can see that. Iconic has multiple definitions after all. I agree that Isaac can be iconic to fans of the series. He's just not that iconic to me. But I'm still rooting for GS to get a rep.

 

[TheLastJinjo]

The are not iconic to the world but they are iconic to the franchise.

If you are a fan of Golden Sun. The thing is Issac is iconic only to fans of Golden Sun. He is not iconic in general at all. Also having Matthew is kind of like having a rebooted version of Issac. So maybe Golden Sun fans regardless of how "iconic" Issac is, will want that instead, thus heightening Matthew over Issac.

If we keep picking characters solely because of the amount of games they were in. Then I guess Chrom, King K. Rool, and Zoroark shouldn't be in it. And Lucario, Zoroark, Roy, and Sheik, were in it for no reason.

 

[Xenigma]

Geez, all this arguing because of an amusing post about what happens in other games not being relevant to Smash? Didn't see that one coming.

 

[MagnesD3]

If you are a fan of Golden Sun. The thing is Issac is iconic only to fans of Golden Sun. He is not iconic in general at all. Also having Matthew is kind of like having a rebooted version of Issac. So maybe Golden Sun fans regardless of how "iconic" Issac is, will want that instead, thus heightening Matthew over Issac.

If we keep picking characters solely because of the amount of games they were in. Then I guess Chrom, King K. Rool, and Zoroark shouldn't be in it. And Lucario, Zoroark, Roy, and Sheik, were in it for no reason.

Also saki and isaac are quite a bit more popular than isa and matthew as well.

 

[iluvnintendo1983]

Now that both Pit and Mega Man are in...let's get Simon Belmont, King Hippo, and Eggplant Wizard added to the roster. We'd have almost the entire cast of Captain N.

 

[God Robert's Cousin]

Xenigma agrees with your post. Congratulations you are now officially viewed to be correct in the eyes of ALL citizens of earth, none of your posts could possibly be wrong or flawed in any respects. Also you claim simply that I don't agree with your post that I don't agree with any posts at all. Maybe you should spend more time on Smashboards or at least gather info.

I don't know why you think everyone agrees with me now. I merely said Xenigma does, meaning it's a point that can be comprehended, contrary to what you were implying. And yes, I might be ignorant on part of knowing about you. I've just never seen you change your mind, is all. I'm honestly speaking with no malice intended when I say that I've never once seen you admit that someone else was right and you were wrong. If you can show me an instance of that, then I would see you as less arrogant than I currently find you.

Also you claim that most of my counter-argument consists of "That makes no sense" or "I don't like this post." Could this possibly be a throwback to when I proved why Skyward Zelda was a stupid choice and you opted out by saying "That's stupid." or "Who could possibly think that" Rather than giving any feasible reason why your disagreement means anything. Because I sure as heck don't remember posting anything except WHY your point wasn't a point.

I'd like to start off by saying that I'm not about to attack previous arguments I've had with you in an effort to support this one. That would make no sense in the context of what we're talking about right now.

Way to come up with the worst and most unrelateable example possible. I see no point, nor do I see any understanding in you. I'm not even sure if what you just said has anything to do with the subject you responded to.

I'm sure you don't remember this, since this bit does not explain why my point wasn't a point. All this supports is that you think this makes no sense. Ergo, "That makes NO SENSE!" seems to be the major point of your counterargument rather than any real effort to focus on the subject at hand, which is a character's relevance versus canon.

But, what you are getting at is something that can't really be done justice either way. Both are disagreements that don't lead to a conclusion, but to a continuous loop of whether Matthew will get in for being the current & future protagonist of the rest of the Golden Sun franchise from now on, or whether Issac should get in because he's more iconic and appeared in more games. Both are equally good reasons for both of them to be IN ssb, but not good reasons to why the other should NOT be in ssb. and the only person who can decide which one gets in for what reasons is Sakurai.

I've come to the conclusion that my side and the post that I am replying to are both equally sufficient reasons for both Issac and Matthew or Saki & Isa (well, maybe not so much those two.)

My point being the only way I can't counter this is with the post I previously made. Meaning that you would respond the same to said post, thus going in an endless loop, because even though what you said is true, it does not cancel out what I previously said as invalid.

Yup. That's ultimately what anything Smash Speculation comes down to. When people like you and I talk about things like this, however, we don't go in knowing that the winning argument will be Sakurai's decision. We go in hoping to convince others that our perspective of the speculation makes the most sense, as well as learn a few things that might change our minds on certain aspects of speculation. I do, at the very least. I hope you do too. If this were a perfect world, we would obviously get both as Golden Sun reps. The point of talking about whether to choose Isaac or Matthew is a matter of who will be more likely to appear in SSB4.

And if I'm coming off as "Matthew cannot be in SSB4", that is not my intention. I'm saying that through my logic and in my own perspective, I think Isaac as a character makes more sense. Simple as that. Both characters have their merits, that is why there is no unanimous adept of choice in the first place.

My complaint is that you responded to what I said coming off so sure as if what you said is so clearly a reason why Matthew DOESN'T work. NOT why Issac DOES. Which I thought was incredibly dumb of you to do as always.

Regardless I've already explained why Golden Sun is in a different situation than FE. Fire Emblem is a game that traditionally introduces new protagonists like Mother. Marth is simply one that happens to reoccur for some reason. Where as Golden Sun was a game that traditionally consists of one protagonist: Issac, but now has been replaced by a new protagonist: Matthew. Rather than just giving somebody else a turn and then coming back as the main protagonist again.

Bottom line your point only supports Issac.
It does not cancel out Matthew at all.

I thought we were getting somewhere civil until that remark about how I'm always incredibly dumb. I'll do my best to tolerate that and move on.

My intent wasn't to decredit Matthew but rather to credit Isaac. Matthew has only appeared in one game, that is a fact. Isaac has appeared in three, that is a fact. Two of those three games has Isaac as the main character. If I were to create resumes for each character, it would literally come off as this:

Isaac

• Main character of Golden Sun
• One of the main characters of Golden Sun: The Lost Age
• Makes an appearance in Golden Sun: Dark Dawn
• Has appeared as an Assist Trophy, Trophy, and Sticker in Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Matthew

• Main character of Golden Sun: Dark Dawn
• Potential main character for future Golden Sun games

Between these two, Isaac has had more roles, with main character being two of them. As such, Isaac's resume is more impressive. I am honestly trying to be fair to Matthew, but the fact is that he is simply much more minor of a character in the Golden Sun universe compared to Isaac. It shouldn't be jagged logic to say that "Isaac should have higher priority than Matthew" when Isaac is that much more significant to the series as a whole.

As for Fire Emblem, the same logic can be applied to Marth. He was replaced as the main character by Alm. Then Seliph. Then Sigurd, Eliwood, Roy, Emphraim, and so forth. He has not come back as the main protagonist again in the series on part of that Shadow Dragon is a remake of the original, meaning that chronologically, he made only two appearances before being replaced. The parallels are noticeable if you take the time to think about it. In that way, Marth and Isaac are very much alike.

Matthew is not cancelled out, but Isaac has more going for him.
That's all the point I'm trying to make.

 

[Deleted member]

I'd imagine a mix of old and new.

Isaac for Golden Sun.
Isa Jo for S&P.

Isaac because he is heavily iconic to the franchise and was a very popular request in Brawl's time.
Isa Jo because he admittedly offers more than Saki to work with (which is something Sakurai looks at).

 

[TheTuninator]

Expecting Matthew over Isaac is like expecting Will or Jake over Andy for Advance Wars. Being the more recent protagonist doesn't make your chances better; being the series "mascot" does.

 

[volbound1700]

If they always selected the newest characters, Marth would not have been selected as the FE character for Melee and Majora would have gotten in over Ganondorf in Melee.

 

[FlareHabanero]

1. This happens to be another R.O.B. / Mr Game & Watch

Those characters also murder your statements about needing popularity, relevance, and potential in order to be added into Super Smash Bros.

2. Wii Fit is very popular and not obscure at all.

When was the last time you've seen someone say "I WANT WII FIT TRAINER IN SUPER SMASH BROS.!!!"? As far as I know, nobody did. Even if Wii Fit was brought up, it was usually the Mii's in order to represent the Wii series in general.

3. She represents Nintendo WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY more than Lip ever did.

That doesn't really matter that much like you think. According to Super Smash Bros., Ice Climber and Mother are these huge franchises that have a lot of endearing fans and millions of sales.

 

[mimgrim]

If they always selected the newest characters, Marth would not have been selected as the FE character for Melee and Majora would have gotten in over Ganondorf in Melee.

You do realize Melee also had Roy? He was the new FE lord. He actually used as a way to promote the new FE game as Melee was released before Binding Blade (The game with Roy) was. Marth represents FE as a whole. Please have your FE info straight before you say something about it next time.

And sorry if this post seems belittling, it just irks me when people talk about FE like they know all about it and then prove otherwise.

 

[Deleted member]

Roy was added in later as a clone of Marth. He was not going to be in Melee initially.
He also was not added because he would be the most recent Lord. That was merely a coincidence.
Sakurai saw potential in him with his fire sword and viewed him as a character that would become popular, so he just rolled with it.

So no, Roy is not a good example. Unless Roy was in the game instead of Marth (or Leif instead of Marth).

It irks me when people are hypocritical in their criticisms.

 

[mimgrim]

Roy was added in later as a clone of Marth.

So no, Roy is not a good example. Unless Roy was in the game instead of Marth (or Leif instead of Marth).

It irks me when people are hypocritical in their criticisms.

He was still the recent FE lord. Even thoguh he was a clone, he was still the recent FE lord. Don't see how being aded later changes that. And I would also like to see proof that he was added later if you don't mind.

 

[Deleted member]

You need proof he was added later when he was a ****ing CLONE?!?

As in, among the set of characters added later in development when Sakurai wanted to expand the roster within extra development time?

.....what is it with people these days requiring PROOF for common sense?
What's next, I need to give someone proof Barack Obama is currently the President of the United States?

 

[Opossum]

What's next, I need to give someone proof Barack Obama is currently the President of the United States?

I'm going to need a source for that...

 

[mimgrim]

You need proof he was added later when he was a ****ing CLONE?!?

As in, among the set of characters added later in development when Sakurai wanted to expand the roster within extra development time?

.....what is it with people these days requiring PROOF for common sense?
What's next, I need to give someone proof Barack Obama is currently the President of the United States?

Has it ever occured to you that he was a clone due to his game not being out yet? Hmmmmm? Melee came out in 2001 while Binding Blade came out in 2002 so it was just easier to make him a clone. Makes just as much sense as him being added later, imo.

 

[FlareHabanero]

What's next, I need to give someone proof Barack Obama is currently the President of the United States?

WHAT!?!

 

[Ninka_kiwi]

I'd imagine a mix of old and new.

Isaac for Golden Sun.
Isa Jo for S&P.

Isaac because he is heavily iconic to the franchise and was a very popular request in Brawl's time.
Isa Jo because he admittedly offers more than Saki to work with (which is something Sakurai looks at).

While I agree that Isa would have the ability to charge up moves, as well as hover using his jetpack thing, Saki can turn into a Ruffian, which could add some interesting aspects, allowing him to use attacks that ruffians used against you in SaP. Besides, if Sakurai sees fit, he could always give Saki a Charge shot and a hover, just look at the Earthbound characters, who use moves from other Earthbound characters like nobodies business.

Overall I just prefer Saki over Isa, so I'm a little jaded at the idea of Isa getting in first. And dang is Isa's design not great, I mean, I know Saki's shorts and girlish figure are not much better, but I hate Isa's outfit soooooo much.
Sorry to any Isa fans, Saki is just the cooler character in my book.

 

[FalKoopa]

I'd prefer Saki over Isa as well, as I know nothing about Isa, but a little about Saki.

 

[jaytalks]

Roy was added in later as a clone of Marth. He was not going to be in Melee initially.
He also was not added because he would be the most recent Lord. That was merely a coincidence.
Sakurai saw potential in him with his fire sword and viewed him as a character that would become popular, so he just rolled with it.

So no, Roy is not a good example. Unless Roy was in the game instead of Marth (or Leif instead of Marth).

It irks me when people are hypocritical in their criticisms.

He was planned as a clone, but it's not mere coincidence. They were already thinking about Leif and then IS gave him a peak at FE6. So he included Roy, and it was designed to promote FE6. Sakurai knew when IS showed him that Roy would eventually become the most recent Lord.

It doesn't really matter if he was added later because Sakurai always planned to have the most recent Lord it seems. It was either Leif or Roy, and both can be considered the most recent lord in different ways. He didn't know Roy existed most likely when he was originally planning Leif. Sakurai seems to have planned for two lords. And the game got two lords anyway. As far as I'm concerned, Roy and Marth made it into Smash Bros at the same time: November 21, 2001.

The point is there is no comparisons because Nintendo hasn't been put in a position where it had to choose one rep between two different generations for franchises yet to be represented (other than Ness and Ninten) and no generational series has received a single rep consecutively in the Smash Series. So we will see what happens.

 

[FlareHabanero]

Roy was chosen because the Sword of Seals made him stand out more from the alternatives at the time. Being able to use fire was good enough reason to choose Roy over Leif, Sigurd, Alm, and Seliph. It didn't have to do with being the most recent, that was never stated.

 

[jaytalks]

Roy was chosen because the Sword of Seals made him stand out more from the alternatives at the time. Being able to use fire was good enough reason to choose Roy over Leif, Sigurd, Alm, and Seliph. It didn't have to do with being the most recent, that was never stated.

The choice in development was the between the two recent lords. Either can be considered from recent depending on how you look at it. It was never stated, but that doesn't change that they were picking between the two recent lords.

 

[TheLastJinjo]

Expecting Matthew over Isaac is like expecting Will or Jake over Andy for Advance Wars. Being the more recent protagonist doesn't make your chances better; being the series "mascot" does.

​

If you were paying attention, you'd notice this has NOTHING to do with Matthew being more recent at all. It's about Issac no longer being the protagonist of a not so popular or great in quantity.​

​

1. Golden Sun is not a very popular franchise and thus the protagonist who has taken Issac's place from now on, will be complained about by nobody or at least not to an extent where it makes a difference. Mostly because they are the same.​

​

2. Matthew has replaced Issac in his role. If a future GS is made, Issac will no longer be the protagonist, but instead Matthew. This would mean there are no future plans to advertise Issac as the 'mascot'.

3. To describe Issac as a "mascot" is going a little far. Again Golden Sun is not on that level popularity. It's not like the character Issac is essential to the series or is what makes people notice and buy Golden Sun games.

Take Star fox for example. If a next gen Star Fox was made and it starred Fox's son Marcus, They aren't going to replace Fox in SSB. Fox is clearly the more important character and has been in several more games in a more popular franchise that a lot of people are familiar with and there would be more people who actually have a problem with that because again they are more familiar with Star fox and Marcus happens to be very different from Fox.

To act like having Matthew over Issac is some sort of major demand for a series not many people are familiar with and only had 3 games, only 2 of which Issac played a major role is kind of digging too deep. He is not an essential character at all unless you are a hardcore GS fan.

I think you can all agree replacing someone like Link, Fox, or C. Falcon is NOT the same as Ness being replaced by Lucas in Melee/Brawl, Saki being replaced by Isa, or Issac being replaced by Matthew.

Issac and Saki can very well get in over Matthew and Isa, but to act like it's THIS important that they do is just ridiculous.

Roy was chosen because the Sword of Seals made him stand out more from the alternatives at the time. Being able to use fire was good enough reason to choose Roy over Leif, Sigurd, Alm, and Seliph. It didn't have to do with being the most recent, that was never stated.

Well, technically Leif's sword has the power of light. I've actually had him in several of my past rosters and still consider him a likely character alongside Marth, but the only reason I don't is because Roy is better.

Those characters also murder your statements about needing popularity, relevance, and potential in order to be added into Super Smash Bros.


When was the last time you've seen someone say "I WANT WII FIT TRAINER IN SUPER SMASH BROS.!!!"? As far as I know, nobody did. Even if Wii Fit was brought up, it was usually the Mii's in order to represent the Wii series in general.


That doesn't really matter that much like you think. According to Super Smash Bros., Ice Climber and Mother are these huge franchises that have a lot of endearing fans and millions of sales.

Those characters also murder your statements about needing popularity, relevance, and potential in order to be added into Super Smash Bros.

Uh, I believe their importance to Nintendo's history makes them relevant enough to be in SSB . Just like Wii Fit Trainer. Lip does not have that.


When was the last time you've seen someone say "I WANT WII FIT TRAINER IN SUPER SMASH BROS.!!!"? As far as I know, nobody did. Even if Wii Fit was brought up, it was usually the Mii's in order to represent the Wii series in general.


So how does Wii Fit Trainer not being requested make her obscure?????????????? Goomba wasn't requested, I guess he was obscure too.

That doesn't really matter that much like you think. According to Super Smash Bros., Ice Climber and Mother are these huge franchises that have a lot of endearing fans and millions of sales.

yeah....that's.......kind of why they got in SSB. What does that have to do with anything? Lip doesn't have a lot of endearing fans and millions of sales. So what was your point again?

Also saki and isaac are quite a bit more popular than isa and matthew as well.

If by quite a bit, you mean to the extent that it wouldn't matter which one got in and that they could only be slightly more popular because the only people they'd be popular to are the really hardcore fans, meaning they are not popular to many people at all then yes.

Being slightly more popular than Matthew doesn't exactly make him, well.........popular.

You guys have to be careful what choice of words you use.

 

[shinhed-echi]

I don't want to get TOO (emotionally) involved in the MatthewXisaac debate, but if it were all about advertising... Shouldn't we have gotten the 4th gen Pokemon Trainer instead of the 1st gen one?

And notice Sakurai himself said that to inclide new pokemon character he goes over to the Pokemon company to ask "what's hot". If someting as generic as the Pokemon Trainer had plenty of "icon power" left, I don't see why Isaac wouldn't. (Despite of course the fact that Isaac and Matthew are pretty much the same, except name and fashion sense).

 

[Swamp Sensei]

There is literally no difference in personality. They are both silent protagonists.

Actually Isaac spoke several times....

 

[TheTuninator]

Allow me to explain my example further. Andy was the main protagonist in AW1, shared equal screentime with two others in AW2, and did not appear in AWDS's story at all. He was replaced as the main protagonist by Jake, and then Will in DoR. And yet, Andy is far more iconic to the series than either of those characters, making it rather unreasonable to expect either of them to rep AW over Andy.

AW isn't a hugely popular franchise, but you can bet that plenty of AW fans would ***** if we got Jake or Will over Andy. The size of the fanbase is completely irrelevant, as what matters is how well a character represents his series and appeals to that series' fanbase, no matter how small.

 

[Deleted member]

Has it ever occured to you that he was a clone due to his game not being out yet? Hmmmmm? Melee came out in 2001 while Binding Blade came out in 2002 so it was just easier to make him a clone. Makes just as much sense as him being added later, imo.

Has it ever occurred to you that Roy WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN MELEE IF SAKURAI DIDN'T DECIDE TO ADD CLONES?!?

No seriously, do you even think before you make an argument?
If there weren't any clones, Marth would be the only Fire Emblem character in Melee. Rendering the "latest character" argument completely null and void.

 

[FalKoopa]

Noah's posts always seem to have hostile undertones... That's why I probably never bother replying to him.

BluePikmin is 10x better than him.

 

[TheTuninator]

Noah, you need to stop considering the size of a fanbase in absolute terms. Reps are selected in order to represent their series and that series' fans. The only popularity measure that matters is how popular that character is among fans of the series.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Noah, you need to stop considering the size of a fanbase in absolute terms. Reps are selected in order to represent their series and that series' fans. The only popularity measure that matters is how popular that character is among fans of the series.

And smash fans.

Smash fans have a say as well.

That's why Roy has a decent chance as far as the west in concerned.

 

[God Robert's Cousin]

Noah, you need to stop considering the size of a fanbase in absolute terms. Reps are selected in order to represent their series and that series' fans. The only popularity measure that matters is how popular that character is among fans of the series.

I think Noah likes to guise characters he wants as actual logical choices. That would explain why his criteria is so subjective and inconsistent between series. Bonus in that he never cites his sources, being so sure his opinion is fact.

By the way, watch him claim that you misinterpreted him wrong. After all, Noah is never wrong, amirite guis??