Official Smash Ultimate Discussion

[PSIguy89]

All y’all talking bout the Belmonts and no one brings up best Belmont?! Which if you’re wondering is totally Christopher

 

[Originality]

Being happy that what you wanted to happen happened isn't selfish, you are right.

But you implied that being happy that what you wanted to happen happened at the expense of others isn't selfish.

Firstly, I didn't imply anything. Secondly, Goku is someone that most people do not want in smash bros. Saying that you would be upset if he's in, and rejoicing even slightly at the fact that he is not in would not be at the expense of people who wanted him in. And thirdly, I believe the argument being made isn't in favor of people rubbing it in, but rather just don't feel guilty if you're happy someone didn't get in. You can't help what you like, and you can't help what you don't like.

 

[Delzethin]

I suppose whether it's selfish or not depends on the intent. If it's framed more as "this character I am indifferent on had something happen that ruled them out; I like this because it indirectly increases the chances of a character I like who may have been competing with them", then it's pragmatic and a bit questionable, but I'm not sure it's inherently a problem.

When it crosses the line into rubbing it in their fans' faces, though...that's where I draw the line. And it's a line that gets crossed far too often.


On a lighter note, check out who just learned Stone Edge yesterday.

That's forward or up smash material, at minimum.

 

[SuperSmashStephen]

Does anyone know of a way to make a roster on mobile? My laptop is currently on the fritz, and I wanted to get opinions on an updated roster I’m trying to mock up.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

On a lighter note, check out who just learned Stone Edge yesterday.

That's forward or up smash material, at minimum.

I think the old versions of Stone Edge were better, there are already more than enough rock moves that are just eruptions of big rocks.

 

[Pacack]

Selfish means "concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure" or "lacking consideration for others."

If you are concerned primarily with your own interests and are unconcerned with the feelings of others, you are being selfish by definition.

Whether that's wrong is a more morally-laced question, but I don't think it's reasonable to deny that happiness derived from personal satisfaction and without consideration for the feelings of others is selfish.

 

[Pazzo.]

Let's not imbue motives for Smash speculation so we can lecture someone.

All y’all talking bout the Belmonts and no one brings up best Belmont?! Which if you’re wondering is totally Christopher

>Best Belmont

>Not Julius

 

[Originality]

Selfish means "concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure" or "lacking consideration for others."

If you are concerned primarily with your own interests and are unconcerned with the feelings of others, you are being selfish by definition.

Whether that's wrong is a more morally-laced question, but I don't think it's reasonable to deny that happiness derived from personal satisfaction and without consideration for the feelings of others is selfish.

By that it is equally selfish to celebrate a characters inclusion that someone else didn't want. That's just semantics. The topic is clearly whether or not it is moral to not want a character, or at least that's what it seemed to me.

 

[Nekoo]

How about just being happy, no matter who get in, because it just mean new gameplay and new character in general?

 

[Originality]

How about just being happy, no matter who get in, because it just mean new gameplay and new character in general?

I'm in the same boat as you. As long as the game is fun I'm going to buy it no matter who is in. But some people don't feel that way and their opinion isn't any lesser because of that.

 

[Nekoo]

But some people don't feel that way and their opinion isn't any lesser because of that.

Of course, however, no one should play the party popper when people are celebrating or doing flamewars because "shoe in" characters didn't make it in.
Remember Roy's data being leaked with Ryu and Wolf fan/ Anti-FE people being way too agressive with Roy's fan?
And the whole Bayonetta ballot debacle?

That's what I want to avoid.

 

[Arcadenik]

Firstly, I didn't imply anything. Secondly, Goku is someone that most people do not want in smash bros. Saying that you would be upset if he's in, and rejoicing even slightly at the fact that he is not in would not be at the expense of people who wanted him in. And thirdly, I believe the argument being made isn't in favor of people rubbing it in, but rather just don't feel guilty if you're happy someone didn't get in. You can't help what you like, and you can't help what you don't like.

X: I want Goku in Smash.
Y: I don't want Goku in Smash.
Smash: Goku is not in.
X: Aww...
Y: Yay!

That situation is different from the example you made with Decidueye and Lyanroc.

X: I want Decidueye in Smash.
Y: I want Lyanroc in Smash instead of Decidueye.
Smash: Decidueye is not in.
X: Aww...
Y: Yay! That means Lyanroc is now more likely to get in Smash!

 

[Freduardo]

My favorite Castlevania is Portrait of Ruin.

...I don’t think it’s going to get any content

 

[Imadethistoseealeak]

Alright here's something I pulled together. It's a prediction roster of sorts, only based on info from current rumors, mostly the Ridley/Simon one and Emily's tease of an "Ultimate Smash Roster". A couple of these rumors have stated similar ideas (likely to be no cuts, several people mentioning Ridley) so I think there could be a connection. Plus it adds up to the my idea that this started as a port, and maybe got beefed up to an ultimate version or something. Anyway take a look.

10 Newcomers + 3 Returning Vets. Based most of my decisions off characters that are popular that would make it onto an "Ultimate Roster" via the ballot and such. This roster generally doesn't consider recent releases and such, hence no new Xenoblade rep, but only characters that would stir excitement. I'll throw in a few explanations.

Spoiler

Mario Rep - Several Mario characters are highly requested (Toad/Waluigi/Paper Mario/even Daisy) and we've pretty consistently gotten new Mario reps. So just a popular Mario character.
Takamaru - Kept with the retro rep and went for a popular one. Might be unnecessary.
Pokemon Rep - Alright this is the only one that really would have been influenced by recent games and that's only because Pokemon games sell, so there's no real worry with one of the new Pokemon being popular or not. Any Gen 7 Pokemon, pick whichever makes you happiest.
Chorus Men - Along with Ice Climbers getting put in due to no constraints, I think Sakurai was working on Chorus Men and faced the same issue. That's just Gematsu leak conspiracy though I'm not partial to their inclusion
Rayman - Just makes too much sense. But you can substitute for a more popular 3rd party that might be chosen because of the ballot.

I'm open to suggestions, but I want to keep it at this many characters, no more no less (it makes a perfect rectangle and I think would still fit the original CSS screen nicely...yeah I know that isn't important lol). 69 (71 with all Miis) also seems like a reasonable number of characters. Also reminder that this isn't my actual prediction but just a fun experiment based on the recent rumors so don't be mean

 

[TheLastJinjo]

What tone do you want to see the menu screen/announcer adopt for this installment of Super Smash Bros?

Last time, in the Wii U version, we got a more colorful, comic book, cartoon style which was very fitting. However, I wouldn't mind seeing a sleeker, more mature tone reminiscent of Melee this time around. I think it would compliment the grey, adult appealing design of the Nintendo Switch and Nintendo has really been trying to win back their adult audience as well as competitive Smash players that seem to gravitate towards Melee.

When Super Smash Bros for Wii U & 3DS came out, I was in High School. Now I'm 21 and a lot of my social life involves bringing my Switch to bars or friends' houses at night, and I'd love to have a tone that matches the night time life of adults as well as something that matches the color scheme of the Switch. It's really cool to see characters like Yoshi and Kirby in a game with Melee's mature tone, because it acknowledges that adults too have an affection for these characters. And the echo filter used on the Melee announcer is really cool.

Melee felt like it was designed for adults that have childhood memories of Nintendo. And I'd like to see that again. It seems to be very popular in the hardcore fanbase as you can see with the black/grey scheme of Smashboards and Project M. I'd like to hand a joy con to a fellow adult who is too cool to be a geek, but recognizes the characters in the game.

 

[Originality]

X: I want Goku in Smash.
Y: I don't want Goku in Smash.
Smash: Goku is not in.
X: Aww...
Y: Yay!

That situation is different from the example you made with Decidueye and Lyanroc.

X: I want Decidueye in Smash.
Y: I want Lyanroc in Smash instead of Decidueye.
Smash: Decidueye is not in.
X: Aww...
Y: Yay! That means Lyanroc is now more likely to get in Smash!

I did not make that example, I am a bystander who jumped in.

Of course, however, no one should play the party popper when people are celebrating or doing flamewars because "shoe in" characters didn't make it in.
Remember Roy's data being leaked with Ryu and Wolf fan/ Anti-FE people being way too agressive with Roy's fan?
And the whole Bayonetta ballot debacle?

That's what I want to avoid.

I agree that outrage is a problem, but simply being happy or unhappy at something isn't. I'm not arguing for fighting I'm arguing for difference in opinion

 

[Deleted member]

All y’all talking bout the Belmonts and no one brings up best Belmont?! Which if you’re wondering is totally Christopher

Welcome to USELESS FACT.

Christopher Belmont is one of the 3 characters in the Castlevania series to have killed Dracula canonically twice (Castlevania The Adventure and Castlevania II: Belmont's Revenge). The other 2 are Simon Belmont (Castlevania and Castlevania 2: Simon's Quest) and Alucard (Castlevania 3 and Castlevania Symphony of the Night)

This has been another, USELESS FACT.

>Best Belmont

>Not Julius

Welcome to another, USELESS FACT.

Julius Belmont is one of the 2 members from the Belmont Clan to not star his own game, the other beign Soleiyu Belmont from Castlevania II: Belmont's Revenge.

This has been another, USELESS FACT.

 

[Arcadenik]

I did not make that example, I am a bystander who jumped in.

Okay, but that doesn't change my point.

 

[Originality]

Okay, but that doesn't change my point.

Ok, I figured that was something I couldn't argue because it wasn't something I put forward, but if you want to then, how exactly is it not the same scenario with less detail? One person is happy at goku's exclusion, one is not. One is happy at decidueye's exclusion, one is not. I fail to see how their motivations are relevant to the conversation.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

Ok, I figured that was something I couldn't argue because it wasn't something I put forward, but if you want to then, how exactly is it not the same scenario with less detail? One person is happy at goku's exclusion, one is not. One is happy at decidueye's exclusion, one is not. I fail to see how their motivations are relevant to the conversation.

One is intrinsic and the other is extrinsic. The person who doesn't want Goku, in this case, specifically wants Goku to be excluded. The person who doesn't want Decidueye only has that as a means to an end of their own pick being more likely to get in.

 

[Arcadenik]

One is intrinsic and the other is extrinsic. The person who doesn't want Goku, in this case, specifically wants Goku to be excluded. The person who doesn't want Decidueye only has that as a means to an end of their own pick being more likely to get in.

Thank you!

 

[Originality]

One is intrinsic and the other is extrinsic. The person who doesn't want Goku, in this case, specifically wants Goku to be excluded. The person who doesn't want Decidueye only has that as a means to an end of their own pick being more likely to get in.

But how does that change the conversation? They both didn't want someone and were happy at their exclusion, I don't understand how wanting someone else in changes the entire equation. I'm genuinely confused as to why this part matters.

 

[Nekoo]

But how does that change the conversation? They both didn't want someone and were happy at their exclusion, I don't understand how wanting someone else in changes the entire equation. I'm genuinely confused as to why this part matters.

The part where one doesn't use the fact that X isn't in the game to rub that Y have more chance in the face of the other.

Or that Y get in meaning that X doesn't have any chance.

 

[Originality]

The part where one doesn't use the fact that X isn't in the game to rub that Y have more chance in the face of the other.

Or that Y get in meaning that X doesn't have any chance.

Rubbing it in is rude no matter which side of the conversation you are on. Having different motives for not wanting a character doesn't make it any more or less moral.

 

[Nekoo]

Rubbing it in is rude no matter which side of the conversation you are on. Having different motives for not wanting a character doesn't make it any more or less moral.

And that's what make it selfish.

 

[Arcadenik]

The part where one doesn't use the fact that X isn't in the game to rub that Y have more chance in the face of the other.

Or that Y get in meaning that X doesn't have any chance.

Ooohhh!!! I just came up with another example. You know the latest leak about Ice Climbers, Ridley, and Simon Belmont?

X: I want Snake in Smash!
Y: I want Bomberman in Smash!
Z: I want Simon Belmont in Smash!

Leak: Simon Belmont is the Konami rep for Smash.

X: Aww...
Y: Aww...
Z: Yes! Simon Belmont is more likely to get in Smash over Snake and Bomberman!

 

[Originality]

And that's what make it selfish.

So it isn't selfish to actively hope a character doesn't get in for your own happiness, like the goku example, but it is selfish to actively hope a character doesn't get in so that someone you like more can get in for your own happiness, like the decidueye example?

 

[One winged Devil]

What if Simon controlled like how he did in the NES game.

 

[92MilesPrower]

Huh, we're talking about shellfish? I do like shrimp and lobster, but Crabrawler is definitely not a candidate for Smash 5.

Dumb jokes aside,

Alright here's something I pulled together. It's a prediction roster of sorts, only based on info from current rumors, mostly the Ridley/Simon one and Emily's tease of an "Ultimate Smash Roster". A couple of these rumors have stated similar ideas (likely to be no cuts, several people mentioning Ridley) so I think there could be a connection. Plus it adds up to the my idea that this started as a port, and maybe got beefed up to an ultimate version or something. Anyway take a look.

10 Newcomers + 3 Returning Vets. Based most of my decisions off characters that are popular that would make it onto an "Ultimate Roster" via the ballot and such. This roster generally doesn't consider recent releases and such, hence no new Xenoblade rep, but only characters that would stir excitement. I'll throw in a few explanations.

Spoiler

Mario Rep - Several Mario characters are highly requested (Toad/Waluigi/Paper Mario/even Daisy) and we've pretty consistently gotten new Mario reps. So just a popular Mario character.
Takamaru - Kept with the retro rep and went for a popular one. Might be unnecessary.
Pokemon Rep - Alright this is the only one that really would have been influenced by recent games and that's only because Pokemon games sell, so there's no real worry with one of the new Pokemon being popular or not. Any Gen 7 Pokemon, pick whichever makes you happiest.
Chorus Men - Along with Ice Climbers getting put in due to no constraints, I think Sakurai was working on Chorus Men and faced the same issue. That's just Gematsu leak conspiracy though I'm not partial to their inclusion
Rayman - Just makes too much sense. But you can substitute for a more popular 3rd party that might be chosen because of the ballot.

I'm open to suggestions, but I want to keep it at this many characters, no more no less (it makes a perfect rectangle and I think would still fit the original CSS screen nicely...yeah I know that isn't important lol). 69 (71 with all Miis) also seems like a reasonable number of characters. Also reminder that this isn't my actual prediction but just a fun experiment based on the recent rumors so don't be mean

I'm surprised by the lack of a Xenoblade newcomer slot on there, regardless of whether it's an XCX or XC2 rep (maybe even original XC but I doubt it). It's a notable series at this point that's very likely to get a new rep.

 

[MopedOfJustice]

Rubbing it in is rude no matter which side of the conversation you are on. Having different motives for not wanting a character doesn't make it any more or less moral.

Spoiler: because sweeping statements about morality keep being invoked; you probably don't care

Be careful about just making moral assertions. It's a battle you won't win to even prove that morality exists, let alone that a particular system is correct. Moreover (assuming it does exist), in any humane moral system, you must judge by a person's intentions rather than the consequences of their actions, because people can't be held responsible for information they don't have access to, which can affect how they act. Judging someone poorly for doing what seemed correct by all the information they could gain access to is insane.

I don't think I agree with anyone else here, but the argument being made goes like this:
Wanting a character to be excluded is preferring the dogma of your own tastes, even when it would make others unhappy.
Wanting a character to be excluded because, in your mind, it would take a spot from someone you want more is still putting what you want before what other people want, but it's not purely a negation on account of not liking the thing they want, it's for the ultimately positive aim of having something that you think is better be added.

Edit: Also, this is mostly not about "rubbing it in." In the second case, the person is celebrating the possibility of something they like rather than the rejection of something they don't.

 

[Originality]

Ooohhh!!! I just came up with another example. You know the latest leak about Ice Climbers, Ridley, and Simon Belmont?

X: I want Snake in Smash!
Y: I want Bomberman in Smash!
Z: I want Simon Belmont in Smash!

Leak: Simon Belmont is the Konami rep for Smash.

X: Aww...
Y: Aww...
Z: Yes! Simon Belmont is more likely to get in Smash over Snake and Bomberman!

The problem there is simply how you take it. That Simon fan could simply be happy his character has a higher chance of getting in. The thing that we can agree on is that if he were to take this information and go to the Snake and Bomberman fans and say "Haha your characters aren't getting in" is a problem. But being happy his own character is getting in is not a problem

 

[True Blue Warrior]

There's some great irony when people complain about "anime" in Super Smash Bros. despite every single game being developed by a Japanese company and Japanese-developed games are heavily prioritized as a result.

Like what the hell are you expecting here?

I remember when the whole anime swordsman complaint pretty much took off when Fire Emblem got 4 characters and Shulk got in in the base roster. These complaints continued when Cloud and two more FE characters were added as DLC and to this day, even characters like Takamaru and Isaac aren't spared from these complaints.

 

[Arcadenik]

So it isn't selfish to actively hope a character doesn't get in for your own happiness, like the goku examplec but it is selfish to actively hope a character doesn't get in so that someone you like more can get in for your own happiness, like the decidueye example?

Yes. It is selfish. There is nothing wrong with being a little selfish. Everyone are selfish to varying degrees. No. The reason we are even having this discussion is because the person who wanted Decidueye deconfirmed so Lyanroc could get in was in denial about being selfish. That's why I posted that "are you kidding me" meme.

 

[Originality]

Yes. It is selfish. There is nothing wrong with being a little selfish. Everyone are selfish to varying degrees. No. The reason we are even having this discussion is because the person who wanted Decidueye deconfirmed so Lyanroc could get in was in denial about being selfish. That's why I posted that "are you kidding me" meme.

Ok then yes, we can agree. People are selfish. But I don't think personally, using MopedOfJustice's idea of personal morality, that it is any worse than being glad that goku isn't getting in

 

[Imadethistoseealeak]

Huh, we're talking about shellfish? I do like shrimp and lobster, but Crabrawler is definitely not a candidate for Smash 5.

Dumb jokes aside,

I'm surprised by the lack of a Xenoblade newcomer slot on there, regardless of whether it's an XCX or XC2 rep (maybe even original XC but I doubt it). It's a notable series at this point that's very likely to get a new rep.

As I said this is a prediction roster based on super popular and exciting characters, probably pulled from the ballot. I doubt any Xenoblade character would have been in the top 10, even top 20 or so. Elma isn't widely requested, and Rex & Pyra are too recent for that to matter. Heck wasn't Xenoblade X after the ballot?

Yea this isn't my prediction just based of the ballot and an "Ultimate Smash Roster".

Spoiler: because sweeping statements about morality keep being invoked; you probably don't care

Be careful about just making moral assertions. It's a battle you won't win to even prove that morality exists, let alone that a particular system is correct. Moreover (assuming it does exist), in any humane moral system, you must judge by a person's intentions rather than the consequences of their actions, because people can't be held responsible for information they don't have access to, which can affect how they act. Judging someone poorly for doing what seemed correct by all the information they could gain access to is insane.

I don't think I agree with anyone else here, but the argument being made goes like this:
Wanting a character to be excluded is preferring the dogma of your own tastes, even when it would make others unhappy.
Wanting a character to be excluded because, in your mind, it would take a spot from someone you want more is still putting what you want before what other people want, but it's not purely a negation on account of not liking the thing they want, it's for the ultimately positive aim of having something that you think is better be added.

Edit: Also, this is mostly not about "rubbing it in." In the second case, the person is celebrating the possibility of something they like rather than the rejection of something they don't.

Wow wasn't expecting a sound ethical argument on Smashboards today. Totally agree though lol

 

[Autumn ♫]

Speaking of the Belmonts, I don't know much about Castlevania, but Alucard Belmont seems really cool.

 

[Arcadenik]

Ok then yes, we can agree. People are selfish. But I don't think personally, using MopedOfJustice's idea of personal morality, that it is any worse than being glad that goku isn't getting in

Yeah, there's a difference between...

"I don't want Goku in Smash at all."

and

"I don't want Goku in Smash because I want Sailor Moon instead. I hope Goku is deconfirmed because then it means Sailor Moon has a better chance of getting in Smash!"

Motivation is the key difference.

 

[AwesomeAussie27]

If Simon Belmont is in Smash, PLEASE avoid using his awful Castlevania Judgement design.

Or anything from Judgement period.

 

[Originality]

Yeah, there's a difference between...

"I don't want Goku in Smash at all."

and

"I don't want Goku in Smash because I want Sailor Moon instead. I hope Goku is deconfirmed because then it means Sailor Moon has a better chance of getting in Smash!"

Motivation is the key difference.

Well that second scenario is just about the weirdest sentence I've ever read. We're going to have to disagree here because to me those two situations are the same in terms of let's say levels of selfishness, whereas they are apparently different for you. I'm not saying that motivation plays no part, just that that motivation in particular doesn't really change it.

 

[CyberHyperPhoenix]

Of course, however, no one should play the party popper when people are celebrating or doing flamewars because "shoe in" characters didn't make it in.
Remember Roy's data being leaked with Ryu and Wolf fan/ Anti-FE people being way too agressive with Roy's fan?
And the whole Bayonetta ballot debacle?

That's what I want to avoid.

Don't wanna be that guy, but there's always going to be one of those people, no matter how hard one may try to avoid it. People tend to get waaaay too emotionally invested in certain characters getting into Smash, and I'm sure there are many who can think of at least two infamous examples from this very site.

If Simon Belmont is in Smash, PLEASE avoid using his awful Castlevania Judgement design.

Or anything from Judgement period.

I do think Castlevania Judgement was fine for what it is (I did enjoy the gameplay and some of the music tracks), but keep I agree, keep those designs away from Smash please.