D
Deleted member
Guest
Ok, I gotcha.
I agree that trying to predict the roster in that way is a flawed way of looking at things, in fact, I even mentioned it last post. However, wouldn't you say that the opposite is also true? That trying to disprove cuts by saying that BECAUSE Smash is an atypical fighter, then it will deviate from the standard, is also flawed? Both are rather flawed forms of analyzing what will happen as they aren't looking at the core of the situation, but instead looking at superficial patterns. There really is no way to prove that the development for Smash and the roster selection process happens in one way or the other.
In fact, on the subject of cuts. If you think about it. Technically, the Smash series has been prone to them before any of us even played Smash 64. Because, like I said, cuts happen due to time constraints, etc... And the planned roster has been cut short in both 64 and Melee, many of those characters finally appearing in Brawl. In the case of Melee, many of the clone characters were finally added as a way of buffing the roster at the last minute to compensate for the characters that didn't make it in. So if we keep that in mind, and the design process of making the game, then logically, I don't see why this would stop happening in Smash 4. How DLC may come into play is a different monster all together ofc.
I agree that in regard to 3rd parties it's even more fallacious to think that way though. But at the same time, the argument that "Guest characters will not return because they are guests" is a very real one, one that can't really be disproven until either Sonic or Snake get confirmed for a return (or not). I mean, both were marketed as guest characters during the launch for Brawl, being the primary selling point for that game. In addition if we also take the legal and corporate issues into account, then the whole situation is even more difficult to ascertain, particularly in regard to Snake (which is funny as 6 months ago I was telling all those who were sure Sonic would come back and Snake wouldn't to **** off, ofc, the circumstances now are very different from 6 months ago, hahahaha). On the other hand, Sakurai has publically stated his sentiment about displeasing fans by cutting characters, and given how popular both Snake and Sonic were, maybe we'll be seeing them after all.
Anyway, what I'm getting at is that when you look at the 3rd party characters, ultimately what determines their return is something that falls completely out of our abilities to predict. All I can say is that Sonic seems to have a high chance of returning, and despite not wanting it so, Snake doesn't seem so certain. However, the way I see it, us getting JUST Megaman, or all 3 are both equally likely to happen.
Nope, that's what happens period. But it's kinda what makes debating worthwhile. Ultimately we can't predict what WILL happen without some bias. Removing ALL bias from this is quite difficult, and honestly, admitting that you have some in regard to character selection is better than pretending you are the ultimate objective GOD of Smash Bros and KNOW what you are talking about.
Because really... Most of us are just talking out of our asses. Hahahahaha.
Agreed, on both points actually.
Also, I don't see why people think Toad is more notable, likely, or interesting than Paper Mario or Jr.
If anything, Paper Mario "deserves" the spot more for being the RPG Mario, who has access to a different set of moves than platforming Mario. As for Jr. from a gameplay standpoint, he'd make a much better 'glass cannon' than Toad. Just my two cents, but the fact that The Toad, and generic Toad don't really stand out from each other kinda works against him imo, and the fact that the other two can offer just as interesting or even more interesting movesets puts him far behind the other two.
Well, I would have been inclined to agree here a long time ago, but I don't think Sakurai looks for balanced representation across series. I think he just picks and pulls a character based on what that character can offer independently from what they represent.
I mean, if the representation argument is flawed in regard to 'recentness' then I'd say it's also flawed in regard to roster balance.
If Sakurai adds both Dixie and K.Rool in, it's cause he felt both would make unique additions over all other options. We just justify it to ourselves as "a series deserving reps," but I don't think Sakurai is thinking in terms of what a series deserves and what a series doesn't.
At least that's the way I see it.
1) K.Rool, I'm not against his inclusion in any way, but Ridley and Little Mac seem like they would be wayyyy more fun to play as. K.Rool I think would play a lot like Bowser.
2) You mean like we would post our roster and compete to see whose is more accurate? Sounds like a recipe for lots of ****-flinging and dumb debates.... COUNT ME IN!! Hahaha.
Thanks but no thanks. I'd rather have 25, really diverse and balanced characters than 100+ skins of the same character with 'slightly' different properties. BT3 was fun, but it lacked any real depth, game got boring once you realized EVERYONE had the same combos.
