D
Deleted member 189823
Guest
I'm pretty serious about my main, yeah.
-
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
So Let's Talk About the Waifu Factor
- Thread starter Essora
- Start date
D
Deleted member
Guest
D
Deleted member 189823
Guest
Just for reference, I'm not exactly the most sound of mind person here. I have a tendency to dote on certain fictional characters.
That may explain a thing or two, and I don't expect anyone to agree. Just putting it out there, as a thought of my own.
Downshift
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 325
I'll just simply quote this again since you weren't able to read just a few posts down the line for context / clarification...
I'm also sick of people saying Twilight Zelda "did not have" a personality, when like it's been said dozens of times already, her personality was quiet, calm, stoic, regal, wise, distinguished, reserved, mature, etc. Just because she wasn't a 22 year old giggling, skipping an laughing like a pre-teen doesn't mean she was devoid of any personality. You just didn't like the personality that she did have, similar to how I'd assume you don't like Lucina's personality either.
This SSBU Zelda personality also is not actually from any actual Zelda game, so the claim that it means she is not a plot device for Link is false pretext with no precedent.
You're contradicting your original criticism of Oz's point here.
If Zelda's new design is not making people take her less seriously, then how can there be a surprise factor?
Last edited:
D
Deleted member
Guest
Ok, so you're salty cause TP Zelda was your favorite, and now we got a different Zelda. Cool. Gotcha.
That's too bad, but let people enjoy whatever they enjoy. No need to get upset over it. As far as I and most people are concerned (at least to my exp) Ultimate Zelda is best girl. If people wanna praise the waifu factor of the character because that's where they find appeal, then so be it.
Also no, I don't like Lucina's "personality" because she's incredibly bland and cliche-ridden. Which can be said about pretty much every character in the Fire Emblem franchise if I'm being honest...
Downshift
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 325
No need to blindly guess, I already said why in another part of this topic you didn't read before commenting:
If you're actually going to practice what you preach, then there's no issue.
People that come in and say, "I like this new Zelda because she's A, B, C, and also has X, Y, Z", that's fine. That's what almost everyone else does when they say why they like a character. (but make no mistake, in describing the traits of SSBU Zelda, you'll just be describing another anime stereotype)
But if you come in say, "I like this new Zelda because she's not Twilight Zelda", you're not "letting people enjoy whatever they enjoy", you're actually just sh***ing on what they enjoy. Don't act surprised when people respond to unsolicited negativity with their own negativity.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member
Guest
Idk. I like Ultimate Zelda because she's Ultimate Zelda. She's cute as ****, has a very likable characterization/personality, and she's incredibly fun to play as. I decided to try the character BECAUSE of the sex appeal, and then wound up really liking the way she played after the fact. I'm willing to admit I'm a bandwagonfag when it comes to Zelda, since I'm very late to the party compared to everyone who stuck around with her since Melee. I just personally never had much interest in her in Smash prior to, she just seemed bland and boring to me. Not to knock the people who liked the older variants, I just never cared, but this new take on her really resonated with me, and I personally, really wanna see more of her, outside of Smash. Nintendo has been talking about a Zelda-focused Zelda game for a while now, and I've always been down for that given her characterization in SS and BotW were both uniquely interesting. However, if they were to do that with a Zelda that was a lot like Ultimate Zelda, I'd be more than down, as she's imo, by far the best characterization she's ever had. Does that make me a waifufag? I guess, but I don't really care. The presentation on the character is just to my tastes. You might see a giggling schoolgirl, but I see a someone with a lot of character to their presentation. The subtly in the details really add a lot more to the character than she's ever had, yes, even the mainline games. A lot more is communicated about WHO Ultimate Zelda is in her idle animations, victory poses, and just the flair and expressive details in her attacks, than in hours of boring and lengthy dialogue in the mainline Zelda games. And this is coming from someone who, as I said before, liked the more developed focus she got in SS and BotW. However, in terms of actual character, I much prefer the more cunning and brave Ultimate Zelda with a flair of Genki over the idealized love interest of SS Zelda, or the wannabe Tsundere who's actually kinda useless in BotW Zelda. Idk, to me Ultimate Zelda communicates a lot of confidence and charm in everything she does, and that to me creates a more appealing character.
A lesson to be learned for anyone interested in character design. The key lies in the details. Lengthy dialogue expositions and narration don't hold a candle to a few seconds of expressive animations that convey actualy personality.
What does this say about TP Zelda and the previous Smash Zeldas? Idk. I never really noticed the character till now. She was just there, but those extra added details really made her stand out to me, and a lot of people. That's just my take on it.
My issue is really more with people getting salty over the fact that people are fawning over her as a waifu. So be it. Why stilfe the discussion. If people wanna talk about why they wanna waifu the character, let them I say tbh.
DarkStarStorm
Smash Ace
Except she wasn't...at all. All of her animations were from the Melee iteration, she voicelines were BASED on the Melee iteration, and the ONLY thing sourced from her game was her model and Final Smash. She was a texture-pack mod of Melee Zelda, and any semblance of personality just happened to coincide with the fact that both Zeldas (Melee and Brawl/4) were princesses and acted as such. If her personality/theme WAS sourced from Twilight Princess (I'm not saying anything against the actual TP Zelda IN TP), then she wouldn't throw her body around with the same vigor as a Zelda who moonlighted as a literal ninja. She would have actual grace, poise, and some regal flourish. Oh, and she might use her sword too.
Eh, Melee Zelda was the best. Every noteworthy thing she had was sourced from her game. She was the most faithful Smash iteration to date. While I do enjoy this new Zelda, she's just a quilt of previous Zeldas. (So our real debate is whether you prefer a quilt or a texture-hack of Melee Zelda)
D
Deleted member
Guest
Personally, I like Ult Zelda cause she's NOT faithful to any of the previous Zelda's, but rather, more of an archetype of the direction Nintendo seemingly wants to take Zelda into given her previous appearances in the last two games. Like yeah, her design is an aged-up LttP/ALBW Zelda. But her personality is unlike any of them in any previous games, and that's what makes her much more appealing imo. And why I hope this take in her doesn't wind up being constrained to just Smash (it probably will be though).
DarkStarStorm
Smash Ace
I prefer Ult Zelda as well considering their refusal to give us a decent kit/design. If the kit is always going to be this archaic hodgepodge, then at least drop the pretense that it is based on anything in particular.
Would I love to have a reworked Twilight Princess Zelda with her sword, magic spells loosely based off of Puppet Zelda and her Bow of Light? Of course I would. Until that happens, however, I'll be sated with Ultimate's Zelda.
D
Deleted member
Guest
I disagree that her kit is a hodgepode of random things, on the contrary, her kit has a very clear defensive playstyle focused on set-ups, and hard reads. All of her attacks are based around getting people off of her, creating a gap, applying pressure, and then hitting hard with a kill move. Zelda's a character with a TON of kill options and is heavily focused around always keeping a certain distance from your opponent. Imo, the new Phantom was a great addition to her kit, and all she really needed to round it out.
I guess it's cause I didn't play her until this game, but I never got the idea that Zelda's kit was fundamentally flawed because it's not. It's a high risk - high reward defensive zoning kit based around big brain setups and strategy, which imo, is very suitable for a character whose core theme is Wisdom. I can very clearly see what Sakurai and Co. are going for, at least in Ultimate. I guess it might be cause a lot of Smash players aren't exactly used to more defensive playstyles, that they try to play her wrong, more aggressively, rather than being patient and getting the big set-ups, that they just don't get what she's about. I even remember watching a tier list by Leffen, where he straight up said Ultimate Zelda was trash, because she didn't have any fast aerial attacks to apply short range pressure with, but to me, all that says is that people don't understand HOW you're supposed to play the character. She's not meant to be an aggressive fighter, she's defensive and plays a more keep-away game. If you want a more aggressive variant of Zelda's playstyle, give Ult Palutena a try. She's very similar to Zelda, but with a more offensive focus, which is why she's got faster disjointed aerials, but worse defensive tools than Zelda.
Last edited by a moderator:
DarkStarStorm
Smash Ace
Also, if she is supposed to play keep/away, then what is she supposed to do while keeping away? How is she pressuring them with short-ranged, single hit, laggy attacks and telegraphed projectiles If anything, it's exactly the opposite. You corral with Phantom to force them into a space where you can use one of her combo tools (up-tilt, grab, nair).
Uhhh, people are more predisposed to playing defensively rather than offensively.
For the record I would like to state that your argument is that Leffen has a lack of understanding about how Smash works. Leffen was absolutely correct in his assessment of Zelda. His statement was not about playing aggressively at all. Even Belmonts have a plethora of short range pressure tools. His point is about the opportunity cost of that flaw. If you don't have a way to threaten at short range, then what does that mean for the characters that can take advantage of that flaw? I would also like to point out once again that you mention playing a keep away game, but Zelda has no tools to give her an advantage from adopting that playstyle. A character with short ranged combo starters and good grab combos does NOT want to be giving people space to move or camp her out.
My statement was more about how poorly her kit has aged. Dins, while new for the time, leave her wide open no matter how much you buff them. Nayru's as a reflector is outclassed by the action-canceled Shines and PSI Magnets of the world. Its only redeeming quality is the frame 4 invincibility that makes it an anti-pressure tool. Not to mention that she is LttP (hardly) Zelda with OoT Link's spells, Spirit Tracks' Phantom, and a Breath of the Wild Final Smash. Sure, I understand that they want to have a little something for everyone, but it comes across as a jumbled mess. Unfortunately this is what happens when a NPC who gets very little screen time is put into a fighting game. The devs have to take creative liberties and fill in gaps. That's why I think that Zelda should be solely based on Twilight Princess. At least in that game, the method Zelda would use to attack is suggested by her possession of a sword and the Puppet Zelda fight. It wouldn't be much of a stretch to give her some sword flourishes, a cool AoE Triforce spell (imagine a wide Isabelle trap that stuns when entered), a Project M Mewtwo float, and a ball of lightning to hurl at people.
Downshift
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 325
Nah, I'm talking about the actual Twilight Zelda from the game itself. The one with actual dialogue, who made her own decisions and had relationships and actual interactions with Link, Zant, Ganon and Midna.
Her not being from any actual Zelda game is precisely why I don't prefer her to Twilight or Ocarina Zelda.
I'll honestly never understand how people think that Smash iterations of characters have their own personalities. Either they carried over their personality from their source game, or they have no unique personalty. Do Ice Climbers have a personality? Does Wolf? Does Mega Man? All they have are grunts, yells, one-liners and brief facial expressions. Anything deeper that rounds out an actual personality is derived or carried over from their source games/material, like Bayonetta, Mewtwo, Sonic and Mario.
You're right to say that SBBU Zelda is an archetype, but she doesn't have a personality. Personalities are, by definition, unique. Stereotypes and archetypes are not.
Like I said before, you can't describe her personality without just listing off a bunch of traits of an anime stereotype. She has no backstory or plot setting, no accomplishments or failures, no unique skills or talents, no unique tendencies or patterns of behavior, no relationships with anyone else, no life driving motivations, no hobbies or pastimes, no dialogue or even recorded thoughts of her own.
There is nothing unique to her other than acute emotions, and that can't be said to the anywhere near the same degree as Ocarina, Twilight, Skyward, or especially BotW Zelda.
You say you see a subtly in the details that gives her characterization, but all you really see is enough visual cues to call your mind to a waifu anime archetype. Then your mind links that archetype to other actual characters that share that archetype from, idk where. Anime, other JPRGs, even other Zeldas from past games. It's different for everyone. But it's not a unique personality you're seeing, it's just that you're drawn to the stereotype in general.
Talk to anyone who works in Marketing and you'll see that our demographic is very very susceptible to this.
The phrase is "Sex sells", not "Personality sells".
And honestly, it's not like you're taking SSBU Zelda home to meet your parents, you're just playing her in a fighting game. So the lack of depth is a non-issue for people as long as they're satisfied with the surface aesthetics.
While I agree with this, especially the part about using Twilight Zelda for he sword, puppet Zelda battle, bow of light, etc, I just don't ever see it happening.
I can use Link as an example here.
In just about every Zelda game to date, Link uses a sword. He also has a shield. He has a bow and a boomerang for ranged attacks. He has bombs and a hookshot (except BotW). What that means for Smash is that you can design a fighter who has a sword, shield, bow and bombs and there's a very good chance that the next mainline game that character is featured in will still have the weapons from your fighting game 5 years prior. Same thing with someone like Samus, or or Fox McCloud, or especially a pokemon like Mewtwo.
Zelda however, drastically changes in each iteration of the Zelda franchise. She is often the core of the game world's backstory and setting, which is honestly the best way to keep each iteration of the series unique. You've even got games like Link's Awakening and Majora's Mask where she's not featured at all. So in this case, you're gonna have issues like Melee Zelda suddenly being drastically outdated when Brawl came out after Twilight Princess.
Contrast this to series like Fire Emblem and Xenoblade where the protagonists completely change in each new series entry, so devs can get away with having Marth, Robin and Corrin as separate characters that won't ever be "updated" with new weapons and abilities themselves. Same will be true of Shulk and Rex if Rex ever makes it in. They did this to an extent with Young Link and then Toon Link, but I really don't agree with that and consider it an exception they made due to Link's overwhelming popularity as a Nintendo mascot. (also see: Dr. Mario, Pichu)
But due to how drastically Zelda changes each game, to the point where she doesn't retain even one single weapon from game to game, but not even an identifiable outfit like Link's tunic, they'd have to be designing a new character from the ground up for each iteration of Smash, and they're not even doing that for Mario or Link. So yeah, that's why I think it'd be cool, but is too much of a Longshot (pun intended).
Last edited:
DarkStarStorm
Smash Ace
It is for exactly THIS reason that Zelda will never be what we want her to be. She will ALWAYS be Frankenstein's Monster, a careful stitchwork, a montage of everything that she has been and has done through the years. (it's still no excuse for her kit being the way it is)
You keep bringing up this point about her being an anime stereotype, but that could be said about every iteration of Zelda. It's kind of a moot point. What's more is that I prefer the "anime stereotype" of the stoic and formal princess over the happy-go-lucky giggly girl, and yet I prefer Ultimate's Zelda. I think that it fits her hodgepodge nature better than trying to pretend that the Zelda we're playing is "Twilight Princess Zelda".
Or I could just mod in Skyward Sword Zelda and forget about this discussion lol.
Actually...they SHOULD DO THAT! It would be so cool if they "Koopalinged" her.
Last edited:
Downshift
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 325
Watch this...
Ocarina Zelda:
- Relationship with King of Hyrule. Very perceptive, intuitive and shown by her early distrust of Ganondorf who was able to manipulate the King.
- Raised by Impa in the Skeikah tradition with a musical background as a child.
- Polite and formal.
- Has premonitions in the form of dreams.
- Good judge of character in her assessment of Ganondorf but also her early and strong trust in a stranger named Link.
- Skilled musician as a harp player and music teacher.
- Skilled with magic in being able to disguise herself as Sheik and hold down beast Ganon with magic.
- Elusive and cunning, being able to avoid Ganondorf's forces for 7 years and also being able to "Batman" away from Link.
- Physically hardy and not delicate, being able to take the hit from being thrown 20 feet up in the air by the Shadow Temple Spirit, land on her face, then be lucid and moving seconds later.
Twilight Zelda:
- Not prideful, knowing not to sacrifice her people in hopeless battles.
- Elusive and cunning, being able to avoid Zant's Twilii forces.
- Skilled with magic being able to retain her human appearance in the Twilight and also being able to heal Midna from near death
- Selfless, sacrificial personality, giving up her own life to help Midna and Link save Hyrule.
- Calm and calculating, encouraging Link to not foolishly fight Ganondorf's cavalry on foot in vain and instead to take the time with her to prepare with a tactic for first weakening him with light arrows from horseback.
- Skilled at horseback archery (this is no small feat).
- At least skilled at a basic level in swordsmanship or fencing, given that she draws a sword as enemies approach instead of the bow that we know she's skilled in using.
- Divine link to the gods and spirits, being able to beseech them for the Light Arrows.
Skyward Zelda:
- Knowledgeable about the stories of Hyrule's distant past as a youth.
- Skilled in music, able to play the harp before even knowing what it's called.
- Deeply cares for Link, being concerned with his habits and training and genuinely wanting him to succeed.
- A tattle-tale, who calls out Link's slacking off in front of Link and her father.
- Skilled at crafting clothing, having fashioned her own cloak herself.
- Is a skilled Loftwing bird flyer.
- Subtly flirtatious with Link.
- Was jealous of Link's bond to his Loftwing vs her bond to hers.
- Headstrong and assertive; not above shoving Link off a cliff or even raising her voice to her father.
And then...
Ultimate Zelda:
- Smiles.
- Laughs and giggles.
- Cute, young voice.
- Sassy taunts.
- Is not boring.
- Jailbait.
Honestly, I cut Skyward Zelda a bit short and didn't even want to drill down into BotW Zelda because the example was painfully clear already.
Definitely.
Rewatching cutscenes from Skyward Sword reminded me that Skyward Zelda is the closest to Ultimate Zelda's archetype than any of the others by far. If they had used her skin it would have made much more sense than this artificial HD remake of ALttP Zelda.
Last edited:
DarkStarStorm
Smash Ace
Okay, now you're being unfair. You are basing the other Zeldas off of what they originate from, but are failing to do the same for Ultimate Zelda. The official statement is that she is based on ALttP. So regardless of her visuals matching up with ALBW, we should go by the official statement.
A Link to the Past Zelda
- Telekinetic
- Fantastic judge of character (in a world where everyone and their mother is being corrupted by Ganon, she reaches out to three people who can resist)
- Extremely intelligent as evidenced by the advice she sometimes gives Link (when Somersault isn't being a Chatty Kathy)
- Brave despite her bloodline being horribly weakened (insert BotW Zelda's entitled speeches about how weak her bloodline is)
I am now going to describe Brawl Zelda with the same unfairness that you used when you described Ultimate's Zelda.
Brawl Zelda
- Yells a lot
- Waves at people
- Textbook "regal princess playing hard-to-get" Melia stereotype
- Doesn't have any facial expressions other than her "mean face" (that is the most "Twilight Princess Zelda" thing about her, funny enough)
- Boring taunts (except for the wave)
- Has the most generic voice in the world
Last edited:
Downshift
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 325
Basing Zelda off of how she appears in Smash is the entire point of this topic, so it's the one factor you can't just throw out.
Sure Brawl Zelda doesn't actually sacrifice herself for Midna as her Down Special move, but she looks like the Zelda from TP that did that. Looking at her in Brawl subconsciously reminds you of that character. This is especially evident because disliking the personality of Zelda from that actual mainline game is why almost everyone says they disliked the Zelda in Brawl. Her expressions in Melee are actually the same in Brawl, yet no one complained about her being "boring" until the TP version. The visual models are nearly identical between OoT Zelda and Melee Zelda, and TP Zelda and Brawl/4 Zelda. Instant recognition for anyone who's played the games.
There is almost no visual correlation between ALttP Zelda's 8-bit sprite and the brand new remade 3D model we have in Ultimate. You can hardly even make out the dress in game. This is apparent if you go back and look at pretty much anyone's reasoning for liking Ultimate Zelda as a waifu. None of it has anything to do with her role or personality in ALttP. They're purely basing it off of her visuals and voice, none of which are from ALttP. Official statement or not, the people have spoken. Everything they like about Ultimate Zelda has nothing to do with her official base game.
However, if you go back and look at why people prefer Twilight Zelda, all of that reasoning leads back to her iteration in her base game. From her tighter more form-fitting dress that adds to her visual appeal (which is still the same as in TP), to her "boring" stoic, calm, serious demeanor that also originates from her game.
DarkStarStorm
Smash Ace
My point is that you are listing a ton of traits Brawl Zelda has from her parent game and then talking about new Zelda using a completely different metric and expecting that we don't notice. It is blatant bias and it's really getting to the point where it's starting to seem immature. You keep basing Brawl Zelda off of her appearance in Twilight Princess, and yet you keep dismissing the legacy of ALttP/ALBW Zelda. I for one was ecstatic to see that ALBW's Zelda was in Smash, and I saw countless other comments of people glad to see her represented.
Nayru's Love is based partially off of the crystal that Zelda is sealed in during ALttP and Farore's Wind looks identical to an item from ALBW. As for her visuals, well, ALttP has infamously poor sprites (pink hair), but she does resemble the official art quite a bit. Furthermore, you act as though Zelda NEEDS to be this stoic character when we have seen more iterations of bubbly Zeldas than edgy Zeldas of late. The last and ONLY serious iteration of Zelda in the past ten years or so was in Twilight Princess HD and Ocarina of Time 3D. Meanwhile Skyward Sword, Wind Waker HD, Spirit Tracks, and Breath of the Wild have all had princesses who act exactly like this "new" one.
If anything, it was an oddity that Brawl Zelda made it into Smash 4.
StoicPhantom
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2018
- Messages
- 618
Bopping in here again, to say that ALBW is known as ALttP 2 in Japan. Meaning they are supposed to take place in the same world and the same franchise. The two Zelda's are functionally the same design wise and Ultimate Zelda is likely a mix of both. Here is a page that I've found to explain the language quirks, that lead to the confusion.
While I'm here...
There is also nothing wrong with anime nor does that disqualify something from being a character. Video games and anime are part of the same sub culture sphere in Japan, so they are going to share the same traits and themes. It's not "anime", it's Japanese. By virtue of being a Japanese video game, it's going to be "anime", the vast majority of the time.
While I'm here...
You can tell a lot, just off the appearance and demeanor of character. You can look at the background of this site and instantly tell what type of character they are. I haven't played the games of quite a lot of the cast and I still understand their character. "Personality" is a little more than just dialogue and actions.
Personalities are not unique, by definition or otherwise. Even IRL personalities fall into "stereotypes" and "cliches". Archetypes are the framework characters and personalities are built off of. If you don't have an archetype, you are likely not a character.
This is a meaningless statement. Anime is a medium and as such, is very broad and varied. That's like saying "a bunch of traits of an novel stereotype". If you were talking about a specific sub genre then sure, but talking about a medium on the whole, is silly.
There is also nothing wrong with anime nor does that disqualify something from being a character. Video games and anime are part of the same sub culture sphere in Japan, so they are going to share the same traits and themes. It's not "anime", it's Japanese. By virtue of being a Japanese video game, it's going to be "anime", the vast majority of the time.
That is also a meaningless statement and Zelda isn't a very unique or complex character. The closest you could say, is SS Zelda, but all Zelda's are very heavy on those "anime stereotypes".
This could be said for literally anything ever. The whole point of character design, is to have those visual cues that tell you about a character. Look at any Smash character and you will get that feeling. Just looking at Ryu in the background, tells you of a tough, burly man, that likely has a thing for battle. There are quite a lot of similar characters, over a variety of franchises and mediums. I'm not sure what your obsession with uniqueness is about, but you are going to be hard pressed to find a completely unique Smash character, let alone a completely unique Zelda character, with the criteria you're laying out. Nintendo isn't exactly brimming with "unique" and deep, complex characters.
I'm not sure why you are so obsessed with tying Zelda back to her base game, but I'm pretty sure there is artwork of ALttP Zelda, that the sprite was based on. That link I posted has examples. And from what I can see, it looks very much like Ultimate Zelda. And that there are not one, but two games Ultimate Zelda is based on. So I don't know why you're so hung up on that aspect.
DarkStarStorm
Smash Ace
I didn't know that! Huh, that makes a lot of sense and puts her design into perspective. Thank you for teaching me something new today!
I mentioned earlier in this thread how Lucina's story is told through her kit. She wears Marth's clothes and fights like him, donning a mask in a taunt, so she must disguise herself as Marth. She grunts and yells a lot more than he does when she attacks, and also doesn't have a tipper; she is only emulating a fighting style and it isn't completely her own. It's really cool how well she fits as an echo fighter.
THANK YOU SO MUCH for articulating my thoughts better than I have been able to. I've been trying to say this for two pages of this thread.
Downshift
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 325
Right, this is the waifu topic. That's why I'm talking about appearances and dismissing legacies. Brawl Zelda's physical model appearance is an exact match to Twilight. Melee Zelda's model is an exact match to OoT's Zelda. Ultimate's Zelda is NOT a match to ALBW/ALttP Zelda. That's my only point. If you think it doesn't apply that's fine, but it's not wrong or misleading.
Look at the beginning of this topic and why everyone was saying they liked the new Zelda.
"Her redesign will get her more attention", "buffs to her attractiveness", "touch ups to her face", "she's such an expressive cutie", "Her new design definitely plays a big part in the fact that more people are interested in trying her out. Zelda’s a lot more expressive in Ultimate and actually looks like she’s having a good time", "because of her accessories and actually having a personality", "she's meant to look "cuter" and younger", "I have never intentionally played as Zelda before in my life until Ultimate. That’s how strong the waifu factor is to me."
Appearance, not legacy. I only saw one single comment on liking the new Zelda *because* she's based on ALttP. The things people say they like about SBBU Zelda actually have nothing to do with her base game. To contrast, what people did or didn't like about Twilight Zelda are things that originate from her base game. THAT'S my point. It's an observation.
So I didn't start this waifu train and I still think it's dumb AF if I'm honest. Not gonna go out of my way to defend it. But that's just how it is.
I never said she NEEDS to be anything. I made it clear it's just my preference. I absolutely loathe Princess Peach's personality in all her 3D iterations, and prefer TP Zelda, Lucina, Samus in no small part for being the polar opposite of that. But I'm not saying Nintendo should design new characters that way. They're gonna do what they're gonna do and I'm gonna hold to my opinions. Ultimate Zelda is actually more in the middle ground with Palutena, and that's perfectly fine.
I also agreed that SS Zelda should have been the design in Ultimate because her personality in that game matches her archetype in Ultimate better than ALttP/ALBW.
Actually...
Melee - OoT Zelda
Brawl - Twilight Zelda
Smash4 - Skyward Zelda
Ultimate - BotW Zelda (just not the white dress)
That probably would have made the most sense, but we'd still have the issue of the hodgepodge moveset.
I think they just got lazy with the Zelda Universe designs in Smash4 and carried them over.
I didn't say Twilight Zelda lacks an archetype. I said Ultimate Zelda is a stereotype but lacks a personalty because she didn't derive one from her base game.
Maybe you have a different definition, but here's what I'm going by:
personality
-merriam-webster
Don't forget she has victory phrases like, "Father, I won!", and wields the Parallel Falchion which is also integral to her story. I don't disagree here at all and this ties into what I was saying before. WTF
OK, one question to see if we even disagree at all here...
If Lucina's first and only appearance was in Smash4, would her kit in Smash alone be enough to tell her story if there was never a Fire Emblem Awakening for her moves and taunts to hark back to?
(For an IRL example, see the time period between February 3rd, and February 19, 2016. The time period between when Corrin was playable in Smash4 but his base game had not yet released in North America.)
My opinion from living that two week period is that I got a general sense for the archetype that Corrin's character was going to be in Fire Emblem Fates from playing them in Smash, from the poses, stances, attacks and general appearance. But it wasn't until I played Fates, learned who Corrin actually was that I was able to play Smash again and see that character's personality on display through their Smash iteration (in the same way you described Lucina). Had Fates never released in my country, I would never have had a concept of Corrin's personality, just their archetype.
Same thing with Marth and Ike. Never played either of their games, and they both appear to be of the same stereotype to me. You could swap their voices and entire movesets and it wouldn't feel out of place to me at all. Does Ike really fight for his friends? I don't know, maybe? I have no idea if that phrase is specific or important to Ike's personality or not.
However, when I hear Lucina say, "The future is not written", I know EXACTLY what that means, why she said it, and how central that is to her personality, whereas someone who hasn't played Awakening will not.
This is why I'm saying it's important that a Smash design aesthetically ties a fighter back to their base game in order to portray more of their personality. I don't know if you disagree with this or not, but it doesn't sound like it. And this is where I really start to agree with you on Zelda's Frankenstein moveset.
Last edited:
StoicPhantom
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2018
- Messages
- 618
You're welcome. And agreed, one of my favorite things about Smash, is the attention to detail regarding characters. You can really see the care that went into the representation.
You keep saying this, but there is a lot of evidence to the contrary. What is your reasoning for why Ultimate Zelda doesn't match her game, when all artwork shows otherwise?
She has a base game and is based off of it. I posted a link about it, in the same post you are quoting. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it isn't a personality. The whole reason why everyone likes her, is because she is full of personality and charm. A personality isn't a random list of facts about a person. like you keep posting. I'm blind in one eye and have moderate hearing loss, which impacts my life, but they aren't a part of who I am. Nor will anyone even know, unless I tell them or they have a keen awareness of detail.
Your personality affects your demeanor, actions, decisions, and perception of the world. Having a specific hobby or occupation, isn't indicative of a personality. Nor does having a title or a specific skill. Past experiences, trauma, and upbringing can affect personality and change you as person, but at the same time there are people who have different takes on those things or aren't as affected, which is also affected by personality type.
Ctrl+f unique: Phrase not found.
Since you like the dictionary so much, I would suggest looking up the bold words. Distinctive and unique are not synonyms and the others aren't even in the same word category.
A green apple in a basket of red apples, has a complex of characteristics and distinctive traits that distinguishes it from red apples. If you observed a freak mutation that created a blue apple, that would be unique, but green apples aren't unique. Nothing in that page, said anything about personalities being unique.
They may be main characters, but their personalities are different. Ike is rough, Marth is passive. They both no doubt fight for their friends, but it is pretty clear they are different personalities. It would look pretty bizarre to have Marth have a tough, aggressive demeanor and fighting style, and Ike to have a passive demeanor and elegant fighting style. I'm not sure how you find them similar, unless you are going by them both being main characters, they are pretty different.
Downshift
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 325
I said why in my quote you're replying to here:
By "physical model appearance" I meant "in-game digitally rendered model" that appears on screen as you play the game... just like the in-game model of Zelda appears on screen as you play Smash.
Melee Zelda has the same 3D model that has the same N64-era graphics as the in-game model that Zelda had in Ocarina.
Same with Brawl Zelda, who also has the same 3D model that has the same Wii-era graphics as the in-game model that Zelda had in Twilight Princess.
But Ultimate Zelda's model is nothing like the 2D "8-bit"-era sprite that followed you around the castle in the opening level of ALttP. I also posted numerous photo examples in this very topic, including one showing how ALBW Zelda's model has far less graphical detail than Ultimate Zelda (Switch/WiiU graphics vs 3DS graphics), as well as having vastly different body proportions, such as her Wind Waker-esque oversized head.
Disagree if you must, just be clear on what I meant.
Sorry, I was talking about their main games here. Guess I never made that clear.
I don't know if Marth really is passive in Shadow Dragon, or if Ike is really rough in Path of Radiance.
So if SSBU Marth has the personality Ike had in Path of Radiance, or if SSBU Ike has the personality Marth had in Shadow Dragon, I would never know without having played their games.
This point was a tangent about the difference in perception it makes if you actually can link a fighter to their source game. It's fine in a vacuum; for people who only know the Smash version or for people who only know the Fire Emblem version... but for people who are familiar with both versions, they're gonna notice that the Smash version doesn't match up with the source version, and that can be jarring depending on how drastic the difference is.
Oh, was I supposed to define "unique" instead of "personality"?
OK...
Huh, and there are those bolded words you said weren't related.
So if I copy/paste just the definitions of unique and personality back to back...
Uncanny. Hard to tell which is which.
Also, your apple example only works if you omit the singular "individual" from the definition of personality and replace it with a plural "red apples" like you did. Just wanna be sure everyone else also saw that.
However, if you're seriously going to stick to your assertion that:
...then now this has become a very deep psychological and social disagreement, far beyond a BS waifu argument over a stereotypical anime character in a video game.
StoicPhantom
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2018
- Messages
- 618
My confusion, is why you are hung up on the models specifically. From what I understand from your posts, it seems like if they don't rip the model straight out of the game, they aren't proper representations to you. That's what I'm having difficulty wrapping my head around.
Melee Zelda has obviously been enhanced, go back and play 64 OoT, if you don't believe that. Brawl Zelda is on the same console her base game is. You conveniently left out 4, and Ultimate Zelda's base games are handhelds from several generations ago. Of course they are not going to be able to put an 8-bit sprite in a 3D game. They would have to completely revamp Zelda's hitboxs and moves, instead of pasting from the previous Zelda models. The other Zeldas, were at least on consoles or made in the last 20 years.
What about Cloud? FF7 is being remade, but as it stands, his base game is the Playstation one. Since his Smash model isn't a blocky scarecrow, does that mean he isn't properly being represented? How about the Belmonts? Aren't their games, old 2D sprite games? How about Ness and Earthbound? Your criticisms could apply to a fair amount of the cast. And HD remakes.
I don't think there is any point in getting hung up, on in game models. All video game models, are derived from concept art. They draw a character's design and then the modelers go about translating that to video game models. Pretty much every game character, goes through that process. How well that design translates, depends on the hardware and game engine. Ultimate Zelda matches the concept art of ALttP, pretty well. The original game doesn't, because of hardware limitations. Having the hardware capabilities to match the original vision should be celebrated, not demonized.
That's what I'm confused about what I think you're saying.
No? I Ctrl+f searched the personality definition page you linked and did not find the word unique anywhere on there. Not in the main definition, not in the synonyms, nowhere.
And? Those are adjectives and adverbs, aka modifiers, they aren't synonyms to unique, which is what I originally said. You can even look in the synonyms section on the page you linked and still won't see them.
It's pretty easy to tell, when you know their actual definitions.
Your asian friend is distinguishable from your black friend, by their distinct physical characteristics.
Laying eggs, is what makes Monotremes, distinguished from all others of its class or type. As the only mammals to do so, they are unique.
I would once again suggest looking up the definitions of the bold words. It's almost like you need the rest of the sentence, to give them context or something. Like they can feature on the definition pages of two different words and still not imply those words are similar. Because they are descriptors and modifiers, not words that give context unto themselves.
I also noticed, you conveniently left out the first definition of unique:
which completely kills your line of argument.
Um no. Individual implies a specific thing, as opposed to a group. The definition I was drawing from was:
My apple example can work with both singular and plural or individual and group. Merely omit the "s" and then you have a comparison between two individual apple types. So:
would work just fine. Maybe it's time to look up the definition of individual as well.
It really hasn't. Basic psychology and even the reality you can observe around you, can show you that personalities are not unique. "Unique" is a descriptor, "personality" is a state of being. Personalities can be unique, but aren't inherently unique. That would mean every personality would have to be completely distinct from one another and that just isn't true.
And again, "stereotypical anime character" doesn't mean anything. There is no "stereotypical anime character" no matter how much you try to push that meme.
Downshift
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 325
The first thing you need to realize here is that this is an opinion thread. We're not arguing hitbox placements or whether something is possible within the game engine.
So stop asking for "evidence" and don't expect to be objectively correct.
Now, it isn't only about Zelda's 3D in-game model. It's all the elements that create her on-screen presence in Smash. Just like with any character when you watch them fighting in Smash you think, "Oh hey, I remember that character doing that in [blah blah blah] video game!".
1. Ultimate Zelda's HD design does not match her in-game 8-bit design from ALttP. Her proportions are also drastically off from ALBW, as someone in this topic put it, she "looks like an infant playing dress up".
2. Whatever personality type you think Ultimate Zelda has, that also has nothing to do with ALttP where she lacks any of the waifu traits that I quoted people raving about above.
3. As DarkStarStorm said, her moveset and special moves don't match ALttP (or any Zelda game) either.
4. Her animations, taunts and idle pose also don't originate from her stated base game.
Ness's moves are at least recognizable from his game. He's not an NPC only pulling moves that he never used in game.
Final Fantasy VII had over 30 minutes of included movie footage with high-detailed 3D renders of Cloud and others that was used for his model in Smash4. His taunt animations are also ripped from from the game battles.
Belmonts, again, are playable characters that have their moves pulled from their games, and even their strange standing stance is reminiscent of their in-game models.
Even the Ice Climbers have their jump animation pulled from their NES game, making them instantly recognizable to the Smash player.
Palutena has her 3D game model and also has moves from her battle with Pit while possessed in Uprising. She also has that anime short.
The only thing we can point to in order to trace Ultimate Zelda back to her officially stated base game is her dress design matching the concept art photo.
Just about every other character in the game satisfies one of those four conditions to be loyal to their base game. However if you find an example, such as Wolf for example that also doesn't satisfy these conditions, that only means that they also scarcely represent their base game iteration. There is no tu quoque fallacy here.
....and all this definition stuff is just you arguing semantics... with a dictionary no less. Trying to play dumb and pretend that not even one of the quoted definitions of personality could refer to a single individual entity.
So let's cut to the chase so we can be done with this crap.
If I pluck two different humans from opposite sides of the globe, plop them next to each other so you could do all the observations and ask them all the questions to discover literally anything about them that you wanted... and then I asked you if they have the same personality, what would you say?
What if I then brought two genetically identical twins, the same in every conceivable "category" down to to spiritual views, political affiliation and temperament?
So stop asking for "evidence" and don't expect to be objectively correct.
Now, it isn't only about Zelda's 3D in-game model. It's all the elements that create her on-screen presence in Smash. Just like with any character when you watch them fighting in Smash you think, "Oh hey, I remember that character doing that in [blah blah blah] video game!".
1. Ultimate Zelda's HD design does not match her in-game 8-bit design from ALttP. Her proportions are also drastically off from ALBW, as someone in this topic put it, she "looks like an infant playing dress up".
2. Whatever personality type you think Ultimate Zelda has, that also has nothing to do with ALttP where she lacks any of the waifu traits that I quoted people raving about above.
3. As DarkStarStorm said, her moveset and special moves don't match ALttP (or any Zelda game) either.
4. Her animations, taunts and idle pose also don't originate from her stated base game.
Ness's moves are at least recognizable from his game. He's not an NPC only pulling moves that he never used in game.
Final Fantasy VII had over 30 minutes of included movie footage with high-detailed 3D renders of Cloud and others that was used for his model in Smash4. His taunt animations are also ripped from from the game battles.
Belmonts, again, are playable characters that have their moves pulled from their games, and even their strange standing stance is reminiscent of their in-game models.
Even the Ice Climbers have their jump animation pulled from their NES game, making them instantly recognizable to the Smash player.
Palutena has her 3D game model and also has moves from her battle with Pit while possessed in Uprising. She also has that anime short.
The only thing we can point to in order to trace Ultimate Zelda back to her officially stated base game is her dress design matching the concept art photo.
Just about every other character in the game satisfies one of those four conditions to be loyal to their base game. However if you find an example, such as Wolf for example that also doesn't satisfy these conditions, that only means that they also scarcely represent their base game iteration. There is no tu quoque fallacy here.
....and all this definition stuff is just you arguing semantics... with a dictionary no less. Trying to play dumb and pretend that not even one of the quoted definitions of personality could refer to a single individual entity.
So let's cut to the chase so we can be done with this crap.
If I pluck two different humans from opposite sides of the globe, plop them next to each other so you could do all the observations and ask them all the questions to discover literally anything about them that you wanted... and then I asked you if they have the same personality, what would you say?
What if I then brought two genetically identical twins, the same in every conceivable "category" down to to spiritual views, political affiliation and temperament?
StoicPhantom
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2018
- Messages
- 618
I originally responded to you misusing and misunderstanding literary concepts. Go back and read it and you will see I wasn't addressing your dislike of Ultimate Zelda specifically, but you misusing those concepts to justify it. You are entitled to your opinion on liking Ultimate Zelda, but you are not entitled to your own facts regarding objective measurements and concepts. This ceased to be opinion based when you brought those into the discussion.
I don't. I've played less than half the cast's original games and their personalities still shone through. Those that I have played, are a match to their original personalities. You don't need to have played their original game to understand what they are about.
1. Again those are handheld games, of course their not going to have a detailed 3D model. That's why I mentioned concept art, Ultimate is going with the original vision. If you're going to give other games a free pass, then you shouldn't be so hung up on this one.
2. I don't think either Zelda barely even showed up and from what I can see of ALBW, her demeanor is similar.
3.and 4. Plenty of cross over fighting games, feature characters that don't fight in their original games. Their moves are derived from various things from their games. Peach and Daisy's are entirely pretty princess and rich girl stuff. Everything is twirls and sparkles and rich people hobbies, that are also derived from spinoff games like Mario Tennis. Zelda generally doesn't fight in her games, so had to take some creative liberties. The point is to be creative, while keeping with their overall appearance and image.
Those "conditions" are completely arbitrary. They can influence, but aren't explicitly needed to portray a character. My original reply was about appearances and models specifically and you responded with animations and moves. And you said:
so Cloud still violates that. Even ignoring that, those "high-detailed 3D renders of Cloud" look suspiciously like the ALBW models. Not anything even close to how he looks in Smash.
And the rest barely skirt over your criteria. You again avoided mentioning models and those are all only one thing that ties them to their base game, like you are claiming Zelda only does. Wolf nothing, that applies to much of the cast. You don't need to be a 1-to-1 translation, you need to have the spirit of the character.
You're the one who invoked the dictionary in the first place. I just actually read and understood it. And I have no idea what you're trying to say in the second sentence.
No one said anything about not referring to a single individual entity. I said my apple example could apply to both single and group and quoted the exact definition where it did just that. Go back and actually read that post. And I'm supposedly the one arguing semantics.
I don't even know where to begin with this. What relevance does this have with anything? How on earth am I supposed to answer a broad hypothetical, that doesn't give me the relevant details? What would I say to whether or not two people have the same personality, based on hypothetical answers and observations I haven't gotten or done? Yes or no depending on if they do or not, I guess.
Are you asking in the second one, if you bring me two completely identical people in every way, whether or not they are identical in every way? Yes? I feel like this is supposed to setup a "gotcha", but I legit have no idea where you're going with this.
Downshift
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 325
If you're referring to your Feb 20th post, then no. You just disagreed with my observational opinions. I said, "I see Zelda on screen and think X", and you said, "I can look at it and tell not only X, but also Y and Z."
Those aren't literary concepts. That's an anecdotal observation that is not consistent for literally every person who sees Zelda on screen in Smash.
And if you really go back and read those posts, you'll still find me pressing the difference between an archetype and a personality. That was when I first suspected you didn't understand the hierarchy of the two and thought that a character could have a personality but not an archetype, but not the other way around. I disagreed immediately.
You can have an archetype but not a personality... but you cannot have a personality but not an archetype. That's pretty much what all generic NPCs in video games are. The subsequent definitions support this.
I didn't omit anything. #1 *was* about appearances, and #2-#4 were additive. Still, with all these walls of text, I still can't seem to be detailed enough for you.
A character does not need to have ALL FOUR properties, just at least one. You could even add a 5th or 6th if you can point it out on screen in Smash. Like I said, SSBU Zelda has none. You could argue that her 1991 concept drawing from ALttP is the one thin singular thread that barely ties that version of her to her new on-scsreen SSBU iteration, but like you claimed before, you specifically don't need to have played the original game to draw the correlation to it right?
So then tell me, without knowing about her base game, how could you tell she was ALttP or ALBW Zelda? The same way you can also somehow tell that Samus was once a whiny, insecure 20-something with crippling PTSD?
...or are you asserting that you can perceive her actual personality, beyond just the "anime schoolgirl" stereotype that I already granted her, just from her appearance in Smash? If so, then actually describe SSBU Zelda's personality, without using cues that are only from ALttP/ALBW.
I defy you.
This is where it started:
I said:
You tried to refute with:
So I quoted a Webster's definition of personality that explicitly states that personality is specific to an individual.
Then you started playing semantics with the word "unique", ad nauseam. Doubling down on your statement that no two people can ever have unique personalities.
It was also interesting that you didn't provide your own official published definition of personality, such as Oxford's: "The combination of characteristics or qualities that form an individual's distinctive character."
...or Cambridge's: "the special combination of qualities in a person that makes that person different from others, as shown by the way the person behaves, feels, and thinks".
...or even Dictionary.com: "the sum total of the physical, mental, emotional, and social characteristics of an individual. /// the organized pattern of behavioral characteristics of the individual. "
Anyone who can read and comprehend simple dictionary definitions can understand my incredulous reaction to you continuing to stick to your assertion that "Personalities are not unique."
So I asked two questions to see if you'd actually commit to saying that no two people from anywhere on the globe could ever possibly, conceivably ever have two completely distinctly unique personalities from each other.
It wasn't a "gotcha" question, but it was conceptual psychology question designed to reach a conclusion instantly. The only reason you would need details would be because you DO believe that there exists at least one scenario where two people will have exactly the same personality.
If you still need context, I'll answer those questions myself as an example. Because this is all just an exercise to see if we even disagree, or at least that you understand what you're disagreeing with.
Yes, these two people will likely have different cultures, values, social statuses, interests and life experiences from the other. However, even if they do have similar cultures (Canada vs South Africa), they still will not have the same personality.
Even if they are identical down to the last neuron and DNA strand, each twin will have their own unique personality, with measurable differences down to at least some degree, even if you have to observe them for hours on end to uncover it. They could both have the same personalty types, like being meek, or alphas, extroverts or introverts, or followers or leaders... but each of these is still only one characteristic of someone's entire personality that on the whole makes them different from every single other person on the planet.
Even as identical twins, it is impossible for two different people to have the exact same personality.
So again, if you disagree with that, then we disagree on a fundamental physiological and sociological level and thus is why our entire discussion has been undermined from the start.
Last edited:
StoicPhantom
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2018
- Messages
- 618
If you ignore 75% and only focus on the first paragraph, sure. If you actually read the rest, I was doing what I said I was.
Your suspicions are completely unfounded and I didn't say anything like that. What I actually said was:
Nothing there or in any of my posts, implied you could have a personality but not an archetype or vice versa. You were the one that separated the two. And NPCs still have personalities and archetypes, you're confusing depth with personality. These are what I mean by literary concepts you don't understand.
How about you go back and actually read those posts and stop putting words in my mouth.
About Zelda, not about the other characters I was referring to. Hence the "about the rest" in that post you clearly didn't read. #1 only referred to Zelda, not the characters I was talking about when I said that. It is quite literally all in the exact same paragraph that you quoted.
"Properties" you completely made up. The only criteria is whether you represented the spirit of the character. The "feeling" that characters have about. Everything else in there is completely arbitrary nonsense, based on your own made up rulebook. And again, you gave Cloud a free pass, while holding Zelda strict to her "in-game model". Her model is based on the original vision, so if other characters can get a free pass from your criteria, so should Zelda.
By her design and overall feel and demeanor.
That has nothing to do with anything.
"Anime schoolgirl stereotype" doesn't mean anything. Schoolgirls aren't a personality nor are they a stereotype, anime or otherwise nor is Zelda a schoolgirl.
How are you even going to be able to tell, whether I'm using cues or not? This has no purpose or relevance.
It feels more like you're trolling me.
So yes, you did invoke the dictionary first. No one said personalities weren't specific to an individual, just that not all personalities are unique. A personality not being specific, would mean it would be shared collectively and that's not true. You're using specific wrong here.
You can't be semantic about a word that is very explicit in its definition. And again, stop putting words in my mouth, I never said unique personalities didn't exist, I said personalities aren't inherently unique.
For someone whining about semantics, we have strayed so far from my original point, solely due to you trying to play semantics.
I didn't need to, you've been more than happy to throw every definition you didn't read at me. And they still don't even feature the word unique, let alone imply that personalities are inherently unique.
I said personalities aren't inherently unique. If only we had someone who can comprehend simple dictionary definitions and tell the difference between distinct/different and unique.
Luckily I am one such person and will now go about trying to explain this for the umpteenth time.
My personality distinguishes me from everyone else on this board, but that doesn't mean somewhere out there in the world there isn't a personality similar to mine. You can differentiate me from everyone in this topic, by how I post, but that doesn't mean you won't find a similar person on the internet.
We even have sayings like "Opposites attract" and "Birds of a feather flock together". That means the concept of personalities not being inherently unique, has been around so long, it's been turned into metaphors.
I. Did. Not. Say. That. At all. I said personalities can be unique, but aren't inherently unique. I'll even quote my post again:
So as I suspected, it was something meaningless that you completely made up.
Yes, that is what I've been saying. Personalities aren't inherently unique, so that is possible. Read my posts.
As someone that is actually studying another culture and the language that goes with it, I can say for sure that people are still the same. Nor does most of what you said have anything to do with personality. Culture and values, are shared by groups of people, social status doesn't have anything to do with personality, and interests and life experiences aren't totally unique from person to person.
Those are characteristics and traits, not personality types. Alpha is a meme, born from a misunderstanding of an animal hierarchy. It's a position, not a personality. And the traits normally associated with it, are the exact opposite of what it actually is. Similarly with followers and leaders. There is no leader personality, same with follower. That's dumb masculine bull****, that is also a misunderstanding of how humans work. No one is a "leader" in everything. Nor is there personality traits, that allow you to become a leader. How good you are at whatever you're leading, determines whether people trust you enough to be an authority.
Once again, you are not entitled to your own facts. And don't invoke sociology like there haven't been extensive studies, on how things like social pressure and conditioning as well as other people, have an effect on shaping people and their personalities and ideas. People emulate their peers, out of fear of rejection. There are very few, who can break the mold and become someone unique. That is the very basics of human psychology. You will find plenty of people that share similar traits, behaviors, ideas, and psychology that we generally refer to as personality.
The law of averages still apply even to personalities. Otherwise, people wouldn't wish they could be or pretend they are unique and praise people who are. Most people are still gonna be memes and regurgitate memes. That's pretty easily observed by paying attention to the world around you.
Downshift
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 325
Thanks. Your continued inability to answer this only proves my original assertion correct:
Last thing before I give you your final psych eval. Let's give you the benefit of the doubt again and assume that the concept I'm describing by using the word "personality" is a concept you do know and acknowledge, albeit by another term/word/phrase.
What word would you replace "personality" with so that the above statement is true?
Depth?
Character?
Soul?
Psyche?
Identity?
Last edited:
StoicPhantom
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2018
- Messages
- 618
Let's take a stroll back through the topic, shall we?
Dumb Meme.jpg
Thanks. Your continued inability to answer this only proves my original assertion correct:
Hmm, it seems like I answered that question in my very first post. For all your question dodging accusations, you just ignored 90% of my post, to focus on this one thing that still has no relevance. You've been completely misconstruing my posts and putting words in my mouth, or making up dumb "psychology" questions that have no relevance or meaning, so you can pretend you "got me". When you can no longer spin something, you outright ignore it completely, so you can move onto the next inane argument. Of course I'm going to be wary of answering one of your "questions".
I'm not proving your "original assertion" in any way, shape, or form. I never said their personalities weren't carried over from their original game, I've been saying they have the entire time. You're the one who's been saying they weren't properly represented from their base game, based on your own made up criteria. My original assertion was that you weren't using literary concepts properly. You tried to quiz me on Zelda's personality, as if that had anything to do with what I said. My post you quoted, was about how you gave other characters a free pass from your made up criteria. Nothing to do with the question I supposedly dodged. If you're not going to pay attention to other people's posts, at least pay attention to your own.
And speaking of dodged questions, in your hurry to post memes, it seems you didn't read the question you quoted. So I'll say it again, how are you going to be able to tell, whether I'm using cues or not? You just asked me to describe her without mentioning anything that can be tied back to her original game. How are you going to be able to tell whether I gleaned that from Ultimate or her base games? Is it from describing things that tie her back to her base game? You do realize it is completely impossible to avoid that right?
Sure I could have described from how I see her, but I know you're going to be all like "You used cues from her base game!" or "Nuh-uh that's not what her personality is" probably based on more made up criteria. You've already showed you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what you are talking about in these matters and have long since been completely in over your head in every topic you've drug us in, why should I trust you to evaluate this properly?
You really are completely full of yourself, aren't you? Trying to role play as a psychologist, does not make you an actual psychologist nor does it qualify you to do any evaluations.
No dude, you don't have the required linguistic knowledge to play with synonyms. And no doubt this is going to come in the form of another meaningless "conceptual psychology question" that you made up.
Did you just try to turn my post into a "fill in the blank" question? Really? That doesn't work at all. Those words do not fit where personality is. This has no relevance or bearing on anything nor it will prove anything. Stop trying to play psychological word games, you are completely out of your depth.
Since we've gone completely off the rails and I'm not sure you even know what you are saying anymore, let me explain this one more time. PAY ATTENTION this time.
I was originally replying to:
with:
You are confusing lack of uniqueness and depth, with not having a personality. Nor does it being stereotypical and cliche, mean she lacks personality. And you're still using stereotypical wrong. That is what I was trying to get at and what I mean by you not understanding these concepts. Zelda doesn't lack a personality, otherwise you and others wouldn't be whining that it's not the one you like. You've been using these literary terms without understanding what they mean or how they are properly used. You also don't seem to understand how art works or what it tries to achieve. That's what that original post was doing, correcting all of your mistaken ideas. Ideas you, ironically given the discussion around uniqueness, have regurgitated from other places that are regurgitating memes from meme posters.
When you start saying things like "anime stereotypes" or "Anime schoolgirl stereotype" I'm reminded of a large amount of deluded western fans of Japanese media, desperately trying to pretend their Japanese media isn't Japanese. The type of beings too insecure about their like of foreign media, that they are constantly afraid that someone will judge them or make fun of them for it. That leads them to paradoxically shun the things they like and demand they be more like western media.
Not only are these types annoying and a plague on the community, they also try to use half-baked knowledge of art and writing to criticize the "embarrassing" and "cliche" or "anime"(lol) parts of their Japanese media and whine about how we need to "legitimize" them as art. When someone starts talking about "legitimacy" of "art" that's usually a good sign they don't have a clue.
It also doesn't help there are a million and one exceptions and hypocrisies, where it's okay in things they like, but not in things they don't like. I find these types really lol, but the thing that annoys me the most, is how they spread all these memes and misinformation about art and writing and further perpetuate the ignorance that plagues these discussions. You can not like things all you want, but you may not improperly use these terms and concepts to try to objectify your subjective feelings.
There are also limits to originality and uniqueness. The vast majority of works are influenced by other works and people. Even famous writers and books are often influenced by other famous writers and books. It is very rare to come across something completely original and something being original, doesn't make it inherently good. Likewise, something not being original doesn't make it inherently bad. Just as something not being deep, doesn't mean it can't be well written and something that is deep, doesn't mean it's well written.
That is what initially made me respond to your post. I'm tired of seeing this everywhere I go and it's completely wrong as usual.
Downshift
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 325
I wasn’t expecting you to actually take cues from ALttP, because, like I already made perfectly clear, there aren’t any. Nothing about SSBU Zelda’s supposed personality links back to the her base games in any way, shape or form. Anything you could use to describe her would have to come ONLY from Smash Ultimate and nowhere else. I even quoted you and multiple people in this very topic saying this same thing as an illustration of this. You’re easy to trigger and manipulate so I told you not to use cues as extra insurance that you wouldn’t try to create some BS link that’s not there.
And as it turns out you didn’t disappoint:
This whole time, THIS is what you think a personality is? A list of your opinions about her animations?
I mean, I’m not you so I’m not going to try and argue that this is absolutely false based on subjective observation… but just keep in mind that anyone can take that exact same description and sub in TP Zelda to argue that she actually has more of this type of personality instead. Then all you can do is say, “nuh-uh!”, and then try to argue it back with more of your subjective opinions. How conclusive did you really think this was? This was the whole point of the poll at the top, and the fact that it's not a 100% / 0% split proves this is purely basead in subjective opinion, both of which are valid but not gospel.
This is why it was ignored.
You can have your opinion though, but like I’m going to illustrate in a bit here, you’re a special case where you can’t distinguish facts from theories from your own opinions.
No, this was your last chance to demonstrate that you have the ability to listen to and comprehend another person and understand the concept they’re describing to you.
The point of the question to determine which was true out of the only two remaining possibilities:
1. You can't understand the concept I'm talking about.
-or-
2. You disagree with the concept I'm talking about.
I was going to get the answer either way, and I did.
As I said before, literally every single one of the 7+ Billion humans on Earth is completely and infinitely distinct from one another, not only genetically, but mentally. There are no two people on this entire planet that you could theoretically swap minds with and have them still be the EXACT SAME people.
This is not a “solved” science. I am not objectively correct in making this claim, and you are not objectively correct in taking an opposing stance. This is what science is at its core, and it’s telling that you can’t understand that.
So finally…
You’ve laid your soul bare in here thanks to your overzealous passion on a throw-away topic, and it’s given me more insight into your psyche than many people I know at my company. Especially these last two posts of yours. You're most likely a high school or college age kid who has recently delved into a new scientific field or study, and are still at the stage where you think you already know absolutely everything there is to know on the subject, because you're so inexperienced that you’ve been overwhelmed by the initial exposure and don't yet know just how much you don't know and will never know. This is called the Dunning–Kruger effect. It’s the Achilles heel of anyone claiming to know about psychology, sociology, or any other branch of science that employs the scientific method. It’s used by these people as a crutch for their opinions because they try to use current theories (that they claim are facts) to portray said opinions as facts that no one could ever disagree with. Probably the biggest indicator of this is when someone responds to someone disagreeing with them, with “you’re not worthy of arguing with me, because there is no arguing with my FACTS.”, or “if you disagree, it means you don’t understand the science.”, or any other form of meeting critique with thoughtless dismissal or in your case, personal and credibility insults. The other telling thing here is that actual experts are not hostile or condescending to those they believe are beneath them. They take a teaching or mentoring approach, first trying to understand where that person is coming from in the first place. That’s how you can sniff out faux confidence. It’s also apparent when someone is confronted with an official source or definition with multiple contextual meanings, seeing only the one that backs your particular stance, and dismisses the others as irrelevant or misinterpreted. When you do actually come across someone who is truly wise in a certain field of expertise, you’ll notice that they are open to the idea of criticism and being wrong, consider all alternative stances and avenues to their own and try to learn as much as they can from their opponents. They often do this in form of “made up questions”, lol.
I’m not sure if this is a result of your aforementioned misplaced confidence issues, but you’re also a social cynic. You think that you can put all people into a finite number of categorical boxes, and that every person within each box is absolutely identical to every other person in that same box. That you can go to a metropolitan city, randomly pull 10 people from the population and think you have the full gamut of humans; and that if you found a 11th person, they’d be a redundant clone of one you already found, absolutely indistinguishable from any of the first 10. That is something that marketers and advertisers do, not psychologists. I’m not saying you can’t think this, but as you gain more experience in this field you will eventually realize this is far from the consensus, and that these theories are shifting all the time.
On top of that (or maybe as a result), you’re also an avid anime fan. “Giggling anime schoolgirl” *is* a stereotype. There is no denying that. I don’t even have to describe what it is, I can simply say “anime schoolgirl” to practically anyone in your demographic and they’ll immediately know what I’m referring to. The issue here is that you’re so into this genre, are so exposed to it that the nuances and differences between every single anime girl in a seifuku are more apparent to you than to the vast majority of the population, even your own age group. So you don’t like this concept being “dumbed down” to a stereotype because you think it’s disrespectful and dismissive of the depth and complexity that you perceive between the various anime characters like that. You even showed a fragile raw sensitivity to someone just using the word "anime". Just because you don’t like a stereotype, or because it’s not perfectly accurate, doesn’t mean it’s *not* a stereotype. You can tell a lot about a person by which stereotypes they get offended by and try to dismiss outright.
Both of these things speak to your temperament, with how you become hostile and lash out at people who disagree with your opinions and the things you’re passionate about. It’s predictable and exploitable. Most often in the case of getting on a high horse and employing condescension, again because of your status of being firmly mired in the throes of the Dunning–Kruger effect.
Anyway, the only way to refute this is to demonstrate maturity in a response counter to the Dunning–Kruger effect, which I'm fairly certain you will not be able to do in your next posts. So until then, there is no point conversing with you further on this particular issue. I’ve received various Likes and PMs in support of my arguments in here, so there are plenty of people who can understand what I’m saying whereas you simply can’t or won’t. Maybe I just can’t explain it in a way you can comprehend, but that still leads to the same conclusion. Your style of posting (and how I respond to it) is more suited to topics on hit boxes and programmed game engine mechanics rather than op-ed style opinion topics such as this.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member
Guest
lol I changed my mind. this thread should be deleted and not be used by anyone.
Luminario
Smash Lord
Not to get in between... whatever it is you lot are arguing about, but Ultimate really did give Zelda some much needed personality. Someone uploaded a comparison between Ult and Smash 4 Zelda and you can really see how much they spruced her up. Her taunts, win anims, and even her throws were made much more vibrant and swishy. I have a feeling that Twilight Zelda would have been missed more if they didn't make her so static, like in her victory screens she could have thrown around some Din's Fires or teleported in before floating gently to the ground.
That being said, I would have liked to have seen Skyward Sword Zelda too, though they probably went with LBW cause she's less established as a character and could be seen as more of a 'Smash Bros' Zelda so her mix'n'match moveset fits in better.
Also this should have been up smash since Melee
It's a clear reference, it'll have more vertical range, and it just looks cooler.
That being said, I would have liked to have seen Skyward Sword Zelda too, though they probably went with LBW cause she's less established as a character and could be seen as more of a 'Smash Bros' Zelda so her mix'n'match moveset fits in better.
Also this should have been up smash since Melee
It's a clear reference, it'll have more vertical range, and it just looks cooler.
StoicPhantom
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2018
- Messages
- 618
I don't remember saying that at all, why do you put words in my mouth?
Once again, you didn't read my post and focused on some specific thing to take out of context, so you can misrepresent my point. I had more than that in there. I would clarify more, but it's clear you aren't being honest about all of this in the slightest, so I'm going to just let you reread until you understand/start being honest.
No dude, you are completely making things up and constructing "questions" that are based on your own internal logic and views. Those aren't objective questions in the slightest and they don't make any sense nor do they have any merit or purpose. They don't do anything that contributes to the topic at hand at all.
And honestly, the only reason why I followed you on your personality tangent, was because I thought we were discussing fiction and literary personalities and wasn't wanting a discussion on psychology and sociology. Bringing in actual people, is opening up an entire other can of worms, that's taken us far from the original point. I personally don't think the few memories and experiences that can be unique to a person, really define them and that those rare life changing events, are rare enough to put them as the exception to the rule. I think characteristic traits are what ultimately define a personality and that is what influences behaviors and what we normally see as a personality.
I don't really see anything that contradicts that and I think the population has become large enough, we absolutely can have the same repeating experiences and situations that shape a person and that there will be people who aren't completely unique. At most you could draw from a pool of traits and some people will have certain combinations and others will not, but that's a pretty loose definition of unique, given plenty of people share the same traits.
As such, I'm going to stick to my original point and make sure you stick to the original point. No more entertaining wild tangents, that aren't directly related to the topic at hand.
How rude to the OP.
Sorry but no, I'm well past all that, and my "field or study" has been going on for quite a while. You haven't gotten anything right on this front and it's telling you think you know more about me than people you interact with on a daily basis, from a few posts on a specific topic. If psychologists could tell this much about a person, we wouldn't need appointments and sessions, they could just read our forum posts. Because these things are a little more complex than that, we have face to face meetings where they can take it all in and have actual questions, specifically related to our lives and mental health. That being the case, rather than having insight, I think you've watched too many shows and movies featuring fake geniuses that glean these insights from random inane things, that wouldn't work that way in real life.
So no Sigmund Fraud, you aren't a psychologist, you don't know what you are doing, and it's richly ironic you're going to be invoking Dunning-Kruger. My psychology has nothing to do with anything and I suggest getting back on topic.
No, it's not. Dunning-Kruger is where people can't judge their own competence due to their lack of ability and where people with high ability can't judge other abilities in relation. Dumb people think they're smarter than everyone else, smart people don't realize other people are dumb. It's referring to relative misperception, not arrogance due to inexperience. You can be as experienced as you want, the other half of Dunning-Kruger is smart people also can't accurately judge their own abilities.
The point is everyone is bad at judging their relative ability. Actually read the Wikipedia definitions, instead of skimming them. Or the actual hypothesis itself.
Since you seem to be bringing science into this, "theory" means something a little different. Theories in science, are containers for facts and observations relating to it, not things you pull out of your ass. They are a collective of all that's gone into that particular subject. Gravity is a theory, but I'm going to guess you're not going to be jumping off any skyscrapers anytime soon.
Boy, you really have no idea. Frank Sinatra was an expert singer and absolutely oozed arrogance. If anything, having expertise or high ability, makes you more prone to being arrogant and thinking people are beneath you. Things aren't like they are in the movies.
In the movies, maybe. In reality, if you continuously misrepresent them, repeatedly ignore them, and try to challenge them from a position of ignorance, they will reveal they are in fact human and you'll be getting some stern words at best. Experts have probably the lowest tolerance of bull****. A few might be like that, but most will only be that superficially and have a pretty strict demand of you paying attention, and some are just complete jerks.
There are very few that will allow repeated instances of not paying attention or ignoring what they say, and if you think I'm being hostile, I've seen things that will leave you in tears. Some more traditional music teachers will hit you with a switch for making a mistake. And heaven help you if you delve into the fields that are traditionally considered masculine.
When you're not doing it from grounds they've already tread. You have an overly idyllic view on experts.
Their "made up questions" not yours. There is a difference.
Ignorance has no relevance or bearing on this. People in real life say "pokeymans" or "cartoon porn". Most of the time they just say "asian cartoons" or "Japanese cartoons". The only place I have ever heard "anime schoolgirl" was on the internet, from specific people, from specific places. They definitely don't say it in my "demographic".
Finally, were getting somewhat back on topic. People in my "demographic" hate that nonsense and would ridicule you.
So you don’t like this concept being “dumbed down” to a stereotype because you think it’s disrespectful and dismissive of the depth and complexity that you perceive between the various anime characters like that.[/QUOTE]
I could not care less, whether people are dismissive or disrespectful towards anime characters or anime. I don't like it, because it's wrong and meaningless. 80s action hero is a stereotype. It means a chiseled, very masculine, one liner spouting meathead, that is never far from guns and explosions. When you hear that stereotype, you think of the Terminator or Rambo type movies and Arnold and Stallone type actors. That has meaning in a way that simply saying action hero, does not. Action heros span from suave, intelligent, charismatic Bond types, to wacky, goofy, Jackie Chan types. You can't boil that down to a stereotype like you can with a specific decade. That shows genres are deep and varied.
Mediums on the other hand, are containers and a format for those genres. If genres are varied like I demonstrated above, mediums are on another level. It is patently silly to attribute stereotypes to a medium. That's like saying novel stereotypes. So when you call a specific character a medium stereotype, you are doing something unbelievably ridiculous. A character can't contain everything in a genre, let alone a medium. Mediums aren't things unto themselves they're formats and containers for other concepts. "Anime stereotype" has no meaning or makes any sense.
Schoolgirl, anime or otherwise, also has no meaning as a stereotype. That's like saying "businessman". Those are occupations, not stereotypes. Schoolgirls, anime or otherwise, have their own character and personality. If you referred to a person or a character I've never heard of as an 'anime schoolgirl stereotype" I wouldn't know what that would mean. There's a wide variety of "anime schoolgirls" and I wouldn't know which you were talking about specifically. The only way you would have any clue, would be if you already had a warped notion of what schoolgirl means and one that is specifically derived from casual hugboxs like Reddit and MAL. Which is the problem, it's not a stereotype if you need to have prerequisite knowledge from specific places. Stereotypes are common misconceptions or general traits of a specific thing, deserved or not, not memes from le Reddits.
Using the word is fine, misusing it is not. You are characterizing Japanese traits and themes as anime. Every Japanese medium will have them. I clarified this in my initial post on this matter, please read.
So long as you win the like war, lol. Since you like fancy terms so much, I'll leave an interesting link that's relevant to this quote. You can pass it on to the posters too cowardly to challenge my views and have to talk behind my back.
I'm sure you already know what's coming, but opinion editorial style opinion topics, doesn't mean anything. Please stop forcing big words and fancy terms to make yourself sound smarter. Just say opinion topic.
Downshift
Smash Journeyman
- Joined
- May 16, 2008
- Messages
- 325
You've added nothing of substance in these last four or five posts, so I've gotten everything I need out of you, kid.
This would have been awesome. I'd even have been OK if it was as slow and large as Lucas' UpSmash, as long as it meant people didn't fall out of the multi-hits like they did in every game until they tried to patch it in Sm4sh.
Last edited:
StoicPhantom
Smash Ace
- Joined
- Dec 11, 2018
- Messages
- 618
GGs.