Smash Bros. speculation that grinds your gears (BE CIVIL)

[Perkilator]

Since we're officially in between Smash games, I wanted to make a spiritual successor to an old thread from nearly six years ago. Basically, what are some bits of speculation that grind your gears because you think it sounds silly or for another reason? For me, it's the recent argument against Octoling about ink colors...

...even though there's an easy solution to be had, courtesy of Delzethin.

 

[The Stoopid Unikorn]

I would argue the shades of colors may not be enough to be distinct. And I say that as someone who wants them.

But it's also an opportunity to try and make the Octoling ink do something that doesn't require color-coding so they wouldn't need eight unique colors and it could make them unique to play regardless of moveset direction.

 

[Quillion]

Any character speculation at this point tbh, primarily because it often involves the myopic futility of trying to determine "what's popular/relevant/prominent". I will say though that the idea that Smash shouldn't care about any of those things is an equally idiotic extreme.
----
But honestly the biggest speculation that grinds my gears is moveset discourse.

Like seriously; Peach getting Showtime moves? Link getting arm/slate runes? Mario getting [insert current 3D gimmick here]? At this point in these characters' history, all these "fun potential moves" have ended up one-shot ideas that are never revisited again, meaning that the "crusty old portrayals" that these characters have had since the Smash 64/Melee days still win out in longevity.

Still, I will admit that Ganondorf and Zelda being consistently portrayed as a sword user and light arrow slinger respectively deserves some discussion on how consistent they have become for the two since Melee. And even then the Ganondorf discourse needs to be focused less on "making him canon" and more on whether his series giving him a sword was a cool idea in the first place.

 

[StrangeKitten]

Meanness and toxicity. I don't mind if people say they dislike a character or just don't want them in Smash or whatever. The problem is that it gets taken further than that.

I just want cool blue Pinocchio from Mario RPG in my Smash game. I'd hardly say that's deserving of death threats, or even all the gloating when he didn't get in.

 

[DarthEnderX]

The Smash Bros speculation that oils my gears:

 

[Oracle Link]

This grinds my gears:

Toon Link is just an unneeded ECho Fighter!
We totally dont need a link to represent the:
13 Games Minimum in which link is smol we only need Adult Champion Link!

Yes Seriously it took me until i was 11 until i played a game with adult link!
Up until then all the games i played had link as a child and 2 of them had him as toon link!

 

[Quillion]

What I said about moveset discourse earlier actually ties into a wider issue I have with Smash speculation: The idea that Smash should always reflect the source material.

Now don't get me wrong, I think that aspect is important for a crossover, but things from Bandana Waddle Dee being in to complete the modern Kirby quartet to Ganondorf getting more sword moves don't seem to be wanted out of a sense of fun, but a sense of obligation to canon.

Canon stuff are merely a flavor that needs to be balanced with others to make a compelling meal. Otherwise we get things from bad individual moves like Mario's FLUDD to awkward, incoherent moveset designs like Villager, Mega Man, Hero, and Min Min.

Reflecting the source material is just something that ends up a "be careful what you wish for" scenario at best, and an alienating factor for non-fans of said source material at worst.

 

[Gengar84]

What I said about moveset discourse earlier actually ties into a wider issue I have with Smash speculation: The idea that Smash should always reflect the source material.

Now don't get me wrong, I think that aspect is important for a crossover, but things from Bandana Waddle Dee being in to complete the modern Kirby quartet to Ganondorf getting more sword moves don't seem to be wanted out of a sense of fun, but a sense of obligation to canon.

Canon stuff are merely a flavor that needs to be balanced with others to make a compelling meal. Otherwise we get things from bad individual moves like Mario's FLUDD to awkward, incoherent moveset designs like Villager, Mega Man, Hero, and Min Min.

Reflecting the source material is just something that ends up a "be careful what you wish for" scenario at best, and an alienating factor for non-fans of said source material at worst.

I think there’s a good middle ground to aim for here. I think you ideally want to aim for the source material at least on a visual level. If the mechanics of the source game are too complex, I think it’s totally fine to simplify them so they gel with other Smash characters. I feel like different kinds of movesets appeal to different people so I wouldn’t say any approach is inherently bad unless it’s universally disliked.

 

[Oracle Link]

What I said about moveset discourse earlier actually ties into a wider issue I have with Smash speculation: The idea that Smash should always reflect the source material.

Now don't get me wrong, I think that aspect is important for a crossover, but things from Bandana Waddle Dee being in to complete the modern Kirby quartet to Ganondorf getting more sword moves don't seem to be wanted out of a sense of fun, but a sense of obligation to canon.

Canon stuff are merely a flavor that needs to be balanced with others to make a compelling meal. Otherwise we get things from bad individual moves like Mario's FLUDD to awkward, incoherent moveset designs like Villager, Mega Man, Hero, and Min Min.

Reflecting the source material is just something that ends up a "be careful what you wish for" scenario at best, and an alienating factor for non-fans of said source material at worst.

But ganondorf literally just copies captain falcon! Whatr exactly would be fun about throwing a dead mans volley!
Or In Bwds case what isnt fun about These Abilitys:

A character doesnt have to be one to one but if you can iclude a fun reffrence do it! Why not?

 

[Quillion]

I feel like different kinds of movesets appeal to different people so I wouldn’t say any approach is inherently bad unless it’s universally disliked.

It's hard to say anything's inherently bad for Smash, but I'll still say that the pivot in moveset design from up-to-Brawl to Smash 4-onward really dampens my enjoyment of characters in the latter era.
----
Oracle Link : Meh, if you consider making Ganondorf more of a sword user or bringing in BWD fun, all power to you.

But it seems that people who treat "canon" as the end-all be-all of what Smash portrayals should be have their sense of fun held hostage to the source series.
----
Another thing about speculation that annoys me is how many seem to want the lesser-known aspects of a franchise represented for the sake of "variety." This mainly applies to stages with people wanting non-grasslands for Mario and Sonic, or non-jungles for Donkey Kong.

I mean sure, that works for an intra-series crossover like Hyrule Warriors, Pokkén, or Fire Emblem Engage. But Smash is a series that's juggling so many different franchises at once. How are non-fans of one franchise supposed to care about a deep cut element of that franchise?

I definitely want to see recurring secondaries get more of a chance as fighters, plus stages like Bowser's Castle or Chemical Plant, but still.

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

Another thing about speculation that annoys me is how many seem to want the lesser-known aspects of a franchise represented for the sake of "variety." This mainly applies to stages with people wanting non-grasslands for Mario and Sonic, or non-jungles for Donkey Kong.

I mean sure, that works for an intra-series crossover like Hyrule Warriors, Pokkén, or Fire Emblem Engage. But Smash is a series that's juggling so many different franchises at once. How are non-fans of one franchise supposed to care about a deep cut element of that franchise?

This is a point I strongly disagree with. I don't think deep cuts within franchises stage wise are all that alienating to people otherwise unfamiliar with the IP's, and for non-fans they can often times leave a better first impression of the latter than the more famous first levels that so often get included. In my estimation there are too many possibilities and far too much nuance in the realm of approachability when it comes stages to simply assume level 1-1 is the safest option so consistently.

 

[Quillion]

This is a point I strongly disagree with. I don't think deep cuts within franchises stage wise are all that alienating to people otherwise unfamiliar with the IP's, and for non-fans they can often times leave a better first impression of the latter than the more famous first levels that so often get included. In my estimation there are too many possibilities and far too much nuance in the realm of approachability when it comes stages to simply assume level 1-1 is the safest option so consistently.

Maybe if there's a smattering of deep cuts alongside a majority of the "marketed" elements like grassland stages, that'll be best. It would add variety while having enough of the "marketed" stuff to build an association.

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

Maybe if there's a smattering of deep cuts alongside a majority of the "marketed" elements like grassland stages, that'll be best. It would add variety while having enough of the "marketed" stuff to build an association.

A better balance can definitely work. Even if the ratio of say DK levels shifted towards say 3 jungle levels alongside 2 other types, that would at least allow the latter category to be made of the best possible selections and one that can best fit Smash gameplay. Can likely do the same with something like Mario where the familiar can definitely hold the majority but with enough diverse choices elsewhere to really demonstrate the breath of what the series has done.

 

[ninjahmos]

I'll be honest… the whole discourse of different terminological names that Smash fans gave certain characters always bothered me.

I mean… "Scrimblo Bimblo?" What the **** does that even mean?

 

[HyperSomari64]

I mean… "Scrimblo Bimblo?" What the **** does that even mean?

Platforming cartoon character, i guess?

 

[BritishGuy54]

In a post-Ultimate world, we’ve seen a very hostile reaction to the notion of cuts. People claiming an Ultimate Deluxe is the way to go because “Mario Kart 8 did it and look how it turned out”.

Even though the conditions are very different nowadays with the Switch being much more successful than the Wii U could ever dream of.

I think it’s fair for people to be upset or disappointed that a mock-up roster omits their favourite characters, with complaints such as:

“It’s too old and dormant. We need to make way for new faces now.”
“It’s too new. It’s just a shill pick and flavour of the week. We need established faces over all.”
“Third parties? Those can be hard to license out.”
“First parties? Won’t someone please think of the hype cycle?”

I think all of these points, the old, the new, first parties, and third parties all need to be examined when heading into next game’s speculation if we do get cuts.

With the tapestry that is the history of gaming ever growing as time passes by, perhaps a snap of the roster is in the cards, and is being considered.

 

[Opossum]

I'd say the two things that annoy me the most that aren't just being repeated ad nauseum by a single person (Jesus Christ stop saying Black Knight could be an Ike echo) are these.

- The idea that getting one character back from a third party company automatically means the others will come back because it "makes no sense otherwise" and they "might as well" add the others back too. This isn't how licensing works. They don't have infinite money, and historically the base game has fewer third parties than the DLC era does. It's entirely possible, and maybe even likely, that (for example) Sonic could come back without at least one of Bayonetta or Joker, or Pac-Man without Kazuya. Budget is budget, and if the allotted budget doesn't have the room for all of them to come back, decisions will be made.

- The resistance, or even refusal, to even consider options that have been historically unlikely, especially in regards to older, miscellaneous first party characters. Newsflash: you don't need to be the wet blanket who insists "this character will never happen so let's change the subject" whenever someone brings up a character like Saki or Starfy. It does not make you the Smartest Guy in the Room. At that point you are literally stomping out any grassroots support effort because you deemed it irrelevant. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that exists solely so you can check something off a list to "solve" the roster. And in an era where older Nintendo properties are getting revived every few years, these guys need the support more than ever, and shouldn't just be sidelined entirely.

 

[UserKev]

The 'Everyone Is Here' is my biggest pet peeve lately to be honest. It's so tiring. It's also barely original. If you want some ultimate roster, just play the previous game as Ultimate will be a stand alone for a long time anyway.

 

[Guynamednelson]

The resistance, or even refusal, to even consider options that have been historically unlikely, especially in regards to older, miscellaneous first party characters. Newsflash: you don't need to be the wet blanket who insists "this character will never happen so let's change the subject" whenever someone brings up a character like Saki or Starfy. It does not make you the Smartest Guy in the Room. At that point you are literally stomping out any grassroots support effort because you deemed it irrelevant. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that exists solely so you can check something off a list to "solve" the roster. And in an era where older Nintendo properties are getting revived every few years, these guys need the support more than ever, and shouldn't just be sidelined entirely.

On that note, "this character will never happen unless you campaign for them".

Because it's coming from people who clearly have no interest in campaigning for whoever that character is, or making it easy to support any Nintendo character with the tiniest hint of irrelevancy.

 

[Sucumbio]

There's nothing about speculation that specifically annoys me but if we're narrowing it down to Smashboards yes.

 

[FazDude]

The resistance, or even refusal, to even consider options that have been historically unlikely, especially in regards to older, miscellaneous first party characters. Newsflash: you don't need to be the wet blanket who insists "this character will never happen so let's change the subject" whenever someone brings up a character like Saki or Starfy. It does not make you the Smartest Guy in the Room. At that point you are literally stomping out any grassroots support effort because you deemed it irrelevant. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy that exists solely so you can check something off a list to "solve" the roster. And in an era where older Nintendo properties are getting revived every few years, these guys need the support more than ever, and shouldn't just be sidelined entirely.

SO TRUE

Honestly, this is also a big gripe for me regarding Smash speculation. It seems like the community as a whole rallies around who is and isn't "likely", with the latter being dismissed almost entirely. Sure, you might be right, but it doesn't mean there's no merit to entertaining what other characters would be like if they got in. Many people have been introduced to franchises they now enjoy thanks to Smash, and I don't see why something like that can't come out of speculation too. You don't have to like every character suggested by someone, but at least don't instantly snuff out any discussion about them just because "they won't happen lol".

 

[Dinoman96]

SO TRUE

Honestly, this is also a big gripe for me regarding Smash speculation. It seems like the community as a whole rallies around who is and isn't "likely", with the latter being dismissed almost entirely. Sure, you might be right, but it doesn't mean there's no merit to entertaining what other characters would be like if they got in. Many people have been introduced to franchises they now enjoy thanks to Smash, and I don't see why something like that can't come out of speculation too. You don't have to like every character suggested by someone, but at least don't instantly snuff out any discussion about them just because "they won't happen lol".

I keep saying this but to be brutally honest, that's all Smash Bros. speculation is most of the time: just bandwagoning for what's considered the "most likely" lol.

Honestly that's how I've always viewed, like, Geno. People tend to forget this, but as someone who grew up during the Smash 4 period from 2012, his online fanbase really did just scatter to the wind and was generally viewed by Smash fans at the time as just some laughable outdated Brawl era relic (think of how people seem to view, say, Krystal these days). It wasn't until Sakurai actually validated their cause with that interview and the Mii outfit that his fanbase came back swinging in full force in time for Ultimate, and now we got the Mario RPG remake to solidify that for awhile longer. Hell, look at Skull Kid, remember how the hype for him completely exploded once Loz13 (who seemed like a reliable insider at the time) said he was in...and then notice how that all dissipated once it was revealed he was full of ****.

King K. Rool (and Ridley) really feels like the big exception in that regard: he didn't have any recent game appearances, nor some faulty insider saying he was in, or even some executive like Phil Spencer (i.e Banjo) or even Sakurai himself saying it'd be cool. All he literally had was just one extremely dedicated fanbase that literally voted him into the game with the Smash ballot.

 

[Perkilator]

SO TRUE

Honestly, this is also a big gripe for me regarding Smash speculation. It seems like the community as a whole rallies around who is and isn't "likely", with the latter being dismissed almost entirely. Sure, you might be right, but it doesn't mean there's no merit to entertaining what other characters would be like if they got in. Many people have been introduced to franchises they now enjoy thanks to Smash, and I don't see why something like that can't come out of speculation too. You don't have to like every character suggested by someone, but at least don't instantly snuff out any discussion about them just because "they won't happen lol".

Yeah…honestly, this is why I never follow the bandwagon when it comes to Smash speculation. And I’m glad, too, because it lets me experiment with other characters by perusing information about them.

 

[SharkLord]

I... Do not vibe with the mindset of "Just Port Ultimate!" That's just gonna get super stale very quickly. We have Ultimate already, everyone and their mom has Ultimate, we can always go back to it, especially if Nintendo's smart enough to give the Switch 2 backwards compatibility. I feel like in some cases it's an extension of "Hype Syndrome," where people get more fixated on the hot new fighter and how big we can pump up the roster instead of the actual gameplay.

Plus, there's a crapload of gripes people have with Ultimate that can't be fixed by just making the same game again but with more fighters. A simple updated port won't update criticized movesets like Ganondorf or Sonic. A port won't fix the bloat of grassy 1-1 stages, retro stages, and traveling stages. An updated port means we keep all eight Fire Emblem characters, and all the debates that come with them. If we actually got an Ult DX, I feel like a lot of people asking for the port might change their tune when they're reminded of all the little issues that would be preserved

I think there’s a good middle ground to aim for here. I think you ideally want to aim for the source material at least on a visual level. If the mechanics of the source game are too complex, I think it’s totally fine to simplify them so they gel with other Smash characters. I feel like different kinds of movesets appeal to different people so I wouldn’t say any approach is inherently bad unless it’s universally disliked.

A little late but this is how I feel. If you're a fan of a series, you'd expect things to more-or-less like it is in the source material. If it deviates too far from that, it's gonna feel weird. That said, it's also fun to see Smash freestyle with movesets a bit, give it's own spin on things. And obviously, "Two Flickies Down Smash"-type movesets feel super sterile and forced. Thankfully Smash doesn't really do that like some fan movesets do, but you get the point - References are fun, but that shouldn't be all the moveset is.

 

[Dinoman96]

A simple updated port won't update criticized movesets like Ganondorf or Sonic.

And neither will a new game LOL

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

This is more of a disappointment than an outright annoyance. but it's a shame more out there modes (especially single player) aren't speculated that much vs characters, and that the former are so often minimized with a sentiment that it's a waste of resources. Versus matches are always going to be the main appeal sure; it's just that SSB has often gone into interesting territory with their single player content, and I'd honestly love to see some of the wild concepts fans could come up with beyond just the return of things like Subspace or standard stuff like a boss rush.

 

[fogbadge]

well it's not so much speculation as post speculation but it bugs when people pretend they had the opposite attitude to a character once they get in smash. as if none of us remember anything

 

[Oddball]

Anytime anyone talks about what's realistic for Smash Bros and what characters do and don't make sense.

So far, every game that's came out has thrown in unexpected characters and characters that break the rules people keep making up.

Sure, you might not expect (insert character here) but did anyone ever expect Pit, Mr. Game and Watch, R.O.B., 2 different Belmonts, and a Piranha Plant?

 

[Quillion]

This is more of a disappointment than an outright annoyance. but it's a shame more out there modes (especially single player) aren't speculated that much vs characters, and that the former are so often minimized with a sentiment that it's a waste of resources. Versus matches are always going to be the main appeal sure; it's just that SSB has often gone into interesting territory with their single player content, and I'd honestly love to see some of the wild concepts fans could come up with beyond just the return of things like Subspace or standard stuff like a boss rush.

Even on VS Mode, there are so many cool potential ideas that Smash could take from other games, and it's frustrating that the characters really overshadow that and other aspects.

As I said here too, I'm just tired of the characters dominating the discourse of Smash (and the marketing to an extent). The characters would be nothing if there weren't the spice and sides to go with them.

...but did anyone ever expect... R.O.B..?

I did. Mainly because of R.O.B.'s years of cameos prior to Brawl, including being playable in Mario Kart DS.

That said, yeah, I do think there should be more discussion of what patterns (NOT rules) should be broken rather than trying to fit into established ones. It's part of the reason why I advocate for same-game Assist Trophy promotions.

 

[Perkilator]

I think a lot of recent speculation has become a litmus test for which fans have actually played games other than Smash.

 

[Laniv]

I'll give you two things that grind my gears:

1. Character X can't get in because they can't/don't fight
2. Character X can't get in because they have no moveset potential

We have two Animal Crossing characters (possibly a third in the next game, Wii Fit Trainer, the friggin Duck Hunt dog, and a Piranha Plant, famous for being mostly immobile. It's time to put "Character X can't fight" to rest.

 

[fogbadge]

I'll give you two things that grind my gears:

1. Character X can't get in because they can't/don't fight
2. Character X can't get in because they have no moveset potential

We have two Animal Crossing characters (possibly a third in the next game, Wii Fit Trainer, the friggin Duck Hunt dog, and a Piranha Plant, famous for being mostly immobile. It's time to put "Character X can't fight" to rest.

I’d certainly like to

 

[Oddball]

I look forward to one day seeing an announcement for Smash that includes somebody like Popeye, James Bond, Godzilla, Astroboy, or the Ninja Turtles and hearing them say "yeah, we know they're not a videogame character, but we thought we'd make this one exception" just to see everyone's head explode.

 

[ninjahmos]

I look forward to one day seeing an announcement for Smash that includes somebody like Popeye, James Bond, Godzilla, Astroboy, or the Ninja Turtles and hearing them say "yeah, we know they're not a videogame character, but we thought we'd make this one exception" just to see everyone's head explode.

As long as it's not somebody like Goku, Spongebob or Shrek.

 

[Oddball]

As long as it's not somebody like Goku, Spongebob or Shrek.

I was thinking somebody like James Bond, Godzilla, Popeye, or the Ninja Turtles.

 

[Guynamednelson]

but we thought we'd make this one exception

There's the problem right there: You can't stop people asking for a second exception. Or a third, fourth and so on.

 

[MasterCheef]

How much folks only cared about adding characters from games they have played rather than how the character would play in SSB

 

[fogbadge]

How much folks only cared about adding characters from games they have played rather than how the character would play in SSB

ok but how would they know they would play as them in smash?

 

[Oracle Link]

Its this:
"Oh Fire emblem, Pokemon and Xenoblade Chronicles need a new protagonist each game cause they are rotating cast franchises!"
Especially when combined with:
"We dont need toon link adult (champion) link is enough to rep all of zelda!"
Atleast be consistent!

 

[Louie G.]

So tired of Ultimate port talk. It’s not fun and not realistic and the sooner we can get over that hurdle the better.