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

[The Stoopid Unikorn]

I feel like a lot of people in the Smash community try to force uniqueness in terms of character selection. Whenever I see certain character suggestions, I see it followed up with discussion about how another character should be picked instead because "oh, they can do this thing that's never been done in Smash before!"

Being fair, this is basically how Sakurai runs the ship so it’s not an unwarranted point of view.

Just to list off a few examples…

• Chrom was replaced with Robin in Smash 4 because he didn’t feel unique enough.
• Incineroar was chosen over Decidueye because a wrestler was an unexplored idea for the franchise.
• The idea of using multiple weapons for Byleth was an attempt at making them feel more distinct from other swordfighters.

It shouldn’t be the ONLY thing that matters but we have enough precedence from Sakurai himself to know that “uniqueness” isn’t just a fake criteria made up by fans.

 

[Perkilator]

Being fair, this is basically how Sakurai runs the ship so it’s not an unwarranted point of view.

Just to list off a few examples…

• Chrom was replaced with Robin in Smash 4 because he didn’t feel unique enough.
• Incineroar was chosen over Decidueye because a wrestler was an unexplored idea for the franchise.
• The idea of using multiple weapons for Byleth was an attempt at making them feel more distinct from other swordfighters.

It shouldn’t be the ONLY thing that matters but we have enough precedence from Sakurai himself to know that “uniqueness” isn’t just a fake criteria made up by fans.

Oh, I'm not denying there's precedent. I just dislike it when fans use this mindset to dismiss a character who could be unique (or at least fun) in their own right.

 

[The Stoopid Unikorn]

Oh, I'm not denying there's precedent. I just dislike it when fans use this mindset to dismiss a character who could be unique (or at least fun) in their own right.

Gatekeeping characters always sucks but those kinds of fans would use other reasons to dismiss anything outside of whatever echoes are the loudest if “uniqueness” didn’t come in play.

 

[Gengar84]

Yeah, I’m always a bit conflicted between supporting characters I like most as a character and characters I think would have the most fun and unique movesets. Another example for me is which Final Fantasy X I’d like to see. My two favorites are Lulu and Auron but I think Yuna would have the most exciting moveset despite being my least favorite playable character in the game. Lulu’s a bit of a mix between Robin and Rosalina and Auron is another Ike style heavy swordsman. Yuna focusing on her summons would bring something fresh to the roster and I love the aeon designs in X.

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

It's an assumption but I believe most people have an internal debate about which fighters they want for sentimental reasons vs the actual unique/moveset potential they have. Tails and Knuckles would mean more to me emotionally because I've played as them in so many Sonic titles, but Eggman might actually be the type that could make for the most interesting fighter among the three of them. I think it's pretty fair to cite either reason as a reason for a fighter's inclusion, even if one can tend to dominate speculation at times.

 

[Perkilator]

Another another thing I dislike is when people want to keep a second Link in the next game. I'm sorry, but to me, one Link is enough.

 

[The Stoopid Unikorn]

Another another thing I dislike is when people want to keep a second Link in the next game. I'm sorry, but to me, one Link is enough.

I'm personally in the side that doesn't mind either way, but I feel like both Toon and Young Link are very good at being similar yet distinct from Link.

I don't expect all three of them to come back, but I wouldn't be opposed to two and it wouldn't be the end of the world if we got just one.

 

[LiveStudioAudience]

Honestly I just want another Link that utilizes different tools/weapons from the games than the typical ones in Smash. Keep the Master Sword obviously, but give me the Gust Bellows from Skyward Sword, the Magnetic Gloves from Oracle of Seasons, the Ball and Chain from Twilight Princess. Another Link with a boomerang, bow, and bombs, no matter how varied they are, just isn't going to be interesting to me at this point.

 

[Guynamednelson]

Another another thing I dislike is when people want to keep a second Link in the next game. I'm sorry, but to me, one Link is enough.

Then they shouldn't have changed the regular Link as much as they did. If there's only one Link on the roster, where is someone who wants the hookshot and/or non-remote-detonated bombs supposed to go?

 

[Diddy Kong]

Another another thing I dislike is when people want to keep a second Link in the next game. I'm sorry, but to me, one Link is enough.

We had a smaller version of Link ever since Melee. This was essential to have as a representative as said by Sakurai. As he felt Young Link was more true to the original design of Link. Toon Link has been in 3 games now, and he has a move set that's most true to a classic Link with the Bow, Boomerang and Bombs seeing Link changed a lot according to Breath of the Wild, and likely will receive more changes based on Tears of the Kingdom, Toon Link or Young Link would be a preservation of a old move set.

Also, Link is a character iconic enough to deserve a second slot. Sameso with Mario I feel. Though Dr.Mario isn't as much needed as a secondary Link. Hence Brawl had Toon Link but not Dr.Mario, while Dr.Mario and Young Link both originated in Melee together.

I definitely disagree with this notion.

 

[Opossum]

Then they shouldn't have changed the regular Link as much as they did. If there's only one Link on the roster, where is someone who wants the hookshot and/or non-remote-detonated bombs supposed to go?

The same place as the people who liked Angel Ring and Wings of Icarus, I'd imagine.

 

[BritishGuy54]

I think it’s possible that the ‘hype train’ from Ultimate could crash out with a new game, especially if it focuses more on first party, and even existing third parties.

Speculation will likely take a big hit, as high expectations are shattered.

But it’s kind of necessary. This new game will be like Brawl or Smash 4, where in hindsight, we’d see many new additions as characters that should’ve always been in.

Ultimate only managed to get away with so much third party content due to how soon it came after Smash 4.

We’re already six, coming on seven, and will likely be eight years after Ultimate, with a backlog of Wii U titles that didn’t get a chance before, new Switch era icons that need a chance to be built towards the future, existing third party series that are dying for more content (cough Sonic cough), and new third party series that are eager to join the fray…

Perhaps we will see a reset of expectations with a new game. Once the first few newcomers drop, we’ll have a better idea on what to expect.

I wouldn’t rule out more third party and legacy content, but the Switch has been too successful to just call at the bare essential newcomers.

That’s not even talking about cuts. It ain’t ending with this new game. The game after will cut more veterans, including some who do return next game.

 

[Perkilator]

Then they shouldn't have changed the regular Link as much as they did. If there's only one Link on the roster, where is someone who wants the hookshot and/or non-remote-detonated bombs supposed to go?

You can just give him the Bomb Flowers and Ultrahand from TotK as a succesor to normal bombs and Hookshot, respectively.

 

[Diddy Kong]

You can just give him the Bomb Flowers and Ultrahand from TotK as a succesor to normal bombs and Hookshot, respectively.

I'd go even further and say include as a straight Echo Fighter to .

 

[ninjahmos]

I think it’s possible that the ‘hype train’ from Ultimate could crash out with a new game, especially if it focuses more on first party, and even existing third parties.

Speculation will likely take a big hit, as high expectations are shattered.

But it’s kind of necessary. This new game will be like Brawl or Smash 4, where in hindsight, we’d see many new additions as characters that should’ve always been in.

Ultimate only managed to get away with so much third party content due to how soon it came after Smash 4.

We’re already six, coming on seven, and will likely be eight years after Ultimate, with a backlog of Wii U titles that didn’t get a chance before, new Switch era icons that need a chance to be built towards the future, existing third party series that are dying for more content (cough Sonic cough), and new third party series that are eager to join the fray…

Perhaps we will see a reset of expectations with a new game. Once the first few newcomers drop, we’ll have a better idea on what to expect.

I wouldn’t rule out more third party and legacy content, but the Switch has been too successful to just call at the bare essential newcomers.

That’s not even talking about cuts. It ain’t ending with this new game. The game after will cut more veterans, including some who do return next game.

At this point, I'd take anything to not have the Ultimate Deluxe discussion again.

 

[Perkilator]

I’ve been thinking about Hayashi’s “Japanese hamburger” analogy in regards to Ninja Gaiden 3 when talking about a Japanese-born game franchise trying to appeal to the West.

And honestly…I think that sort of analogy can apply towards SmSh speculation, too. With how USA-centric most of the speculation scene is, it says to me that a lot of Smash fans only want the series to be nothing but a Japanese hamburger instead of letting Sakurai and Nintendo cook their own meals.

 

[Diddy Kong]

I’ve been thinking about Hayashi’s “Japanese hamburger” analogy in regards to Ninja Gaiden 3 when talking about a Japanese-born game franchise trying to appeal to the West.

And honestly…I think that sort of analogy can apply towards SmSh speculation, too. With how USA-centric most of the speculation scene is, it says to me that a lot of Smash fans only want the series to be nothing but a Japanese hamburger instead of letting Sakurai and Nintendo cook their own meals.

As a European, I am often annoyed by this indeed. How American fanbases love to dominate the "western outcry" and don't really seem to stand still by how the West also includes , well us. Not just us, but I noticed a big wake up call too when Terry was announced and all of a sudden, South American popularity was taken into account.

Let's just not dwelve deeper on where else this exact situation plays out exactly the same but iykyk.

 

[Megadoomer]

I don't like the idea that Smash should have the roster cut in half, or brought down to Brawl or even Melee levels, while revamping the gameplay to justify such a massive downgrade. It seems like the sort of thing that would kill the franchise. Take Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite as an example - once people actually got into it, they found that the gameplay was fun, but weird roster decisions (X-Men and Fantastic Four characters getting left out, one of the game's main villains being DLC, most of the Capcom side being copied from MvC3 and almost all of the Marvel side being picked for MCU synergy) and poor graphics caused the game to flop.

I tried cutting the roster in half (rounding it up, so 45 characters), and this is what I wound up with:

Even with trying to keep the cuts to a minimum, it feels really lacking, especially when anyone with the Switch 2 would be able to play Ultimate and get access to a much wider list of characters. (with gameplay, I feel like Smash falls into "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" territory - it has an elegant simplicity, and trying to change it too much runs the risk of making it less accessible)

I'm not sure what would strike a good balance when it comes to a roster size. I'm assuming that cuts are inevitable, but 45 or less seems like way too small of a roster.

 

[Perkilator]

I don't like the idea that Smash should have the roster cut in half, or brought down to Brawl or even Melee levels, while revamping the gameplay to justify such a massive downgrade. It seems like the sort of thing that would kill the franchise. Take Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite as an example - once people actually got into it, they found that the gameplay was fun, but weird roster decisions (X-Men and Fantastic Four characters getting left out, one of the game's main villains being DLC, most of the Capcom side being copied from MvC3 and almost all of the Marvel side being picked for MCU synergy) and poor graphics caused the game to flop.

I tried cutting the roster in half (rounding it up, so 45 characters), and this is what I wound up with:

View attachment 400002

Even with trying to keep the cuts to a minimum, it feels really lacking, especially when anyone with the Switch 2 would be able to play Ultimate and get access to a much wider list of characters. (with gameplay, I feel like Smash falls into "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" territory - it has an elegant simplicity, and trying to change it too much runs the risk of making it less accessible)

I'm not sure what would strike a good balance when it comes to a roster size. I'm assuming that cuts are inevitable, but 45 or less seems like way too small of a roster.

I think somewhere between Sm4sh with DLC and Ultimate without DLC would be a good balance. Including Echo Fighters, Sm4sh ended with 58 characters after DLC, and Ultimate launched with 76 characters before DLC. So...maybe 67 characters could work for launch?

 

[The Stoopid Unikorn]

I agree that cutting the roster in half feels very overkill and likely won't be what will happen (we're getting something in the 60s at worst if I had to guess).

But I still think it can be a fun exercise that shows what people prioritize in the game's roster. It's like a window to people's souls.

 

[UserKev]

I don't like the idea that Smash should have the roster cut in half, or brought down to Brawl or even Melee levels, while revamping the gameplay to justify such a massive downgrade. It seems like the sort of thing that would kill the franchise. Take Marvel vs. Capcom Infinite as an example - once people actually got into it, they found that the gameplay was fun, but weird roster decisions (X-Men and Fantastic Four characters getting left out, one of the game's main villains being DLC, most of the Capcom side being copied from MvC3 and almost all of the Marvel side being picked for MCU synergy) and poor graphics caused the game to flop.

I tried cutting the roster in half (rounding it up, so 45 characters), and this is what I wound up with:

View attachment 400002

Even with trying to keep the cuts to a minimum, it feels really lacking, especially when anyone with the Switch 2 would be able to play Ultimate and get access to a much wider list of characters. (with gameplay, I feel like Smash falls into "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" territory - it has an elegant simplicity, and trying to change it too much runs the risk of making it less accessible)

I'm not sure what would strike a good balance when it comes to a roster size. I'm assuming that cuts are inevitable, but 45 or less seems like way too small of a roster.

The biggest hurtle you did was leave in third party additions. Add more Nintendo characters = Quality over Quantity right there. I'm not saying "Cut all third party deliberately!" You should strictly focus on Nintendo when third party is borderline inevitable anyway.

 

[Megadoomer]

I think somewhere between Sm4sh with DLC and Ultimate without DLC would be a good balance. Including Echo Fighters, Sm4sh ended with 58 characters after DLC, and Ultimate launched with 76 characters before DLC. So...maybe 67 characters could work for launch?

Yeah, somewhere in the mid-to-late 60s seems like a good amount.

The biggest hurtle you did was leave in third party additions. Add more Nintendo characters = Quality over Quantity right there. I'm not saying "Cut all third party deliberately!" You should strictly focus on Nintendo when third party is borderline inevitable anyway.

I worked with some assumptions when making this:
-I can't think they'd cut third party characters entirely; that alone seems like it would severely limit the appeal of any new Smash game (which, bare minimum, means that Sonic is going to be back)
-Bandai-Namco will likely be back to help like they did with the past two or three Smash games (meaning that Pac-Man's probably going to be back)
-there's going to be at least one third party newcomer (I went with Sans since his Mii costume announcement got more excitement than some characters)

With Konami including Castlevania in multiple indie games, I figure they'd have no problem with bringing it back for Smash. Capcom seems almost guaranteed to get a character in Smash, Steve's inclusion broke Twitter, and with Sora winning the Smash ballot, I'd find it hard to think that he'd be a one-and-done. (even then, I wound up getting rid of nine third party series) Maybe I could have removed Steve and Sora, but I'd find it hard to think that any first party newcomers (or even many veterans) would make up for that. (it seems like a Smash Bros. game on the Switch 2 would draw from Switch games for its first party newcomers, but Smash Ultimate's DLC already focused on that by adding characters from ARMS, Xenoblade 2, and Fire Emblem Three Houses, along with content from Mario Odyssey, Breath of the Wild, and Splatoon 2)

I just figure that they won't get rid of third parties because these additions help to build bonds between Nintendo and other companies, and they create built-in audiences for third party games on Nintendo platforms. (And they've generally added some new third party characters in each Smash game since Brawl, even if the additions in Ultimate's base game were mainly clones)