Too many people prioritize quantity in representation, and too little for quality.

[Quillion]

Just for example, I have a lot of trouble envisioning Dixie Kong as a playable character. Unless you pulled things from the spinoffs, or just general DKC mechanics, I can't see her being anything other than a Diddy semi-clone with hair attacks over slaps and kicks, with Spinning Kong as her up B, just using her hair instead of big monkey arms to fly. I could see her being a cool assist trophy, her popping out of a DK barrel and following you around ICs style and helping you attack. It would be a callback to their original intention for Diddy/Dixie in Brawl, and be a good callback to the original DKC games. If I've missed something else that she generally does (that isn't spinoff specific) then my mistake. I haven't played Tropical Freeze or DKCR.

Just to be clear, I'm not really against echoes or semi-echoes in themselves. I absolutely think that they can be used to create a quality addition if it makes perfect sense.

I actually said I wouldn't mind (actually, I kinda want) Dixie being a semi-echo. Some of her abilities and her body type is pretty similar to Diddy already, so it's hard to imagine them making attack animations that are particularly different from Diddy's. All they need is her own Spinning Kong, a hair grab, and hair slap instead of tail attacks, Bubblegum Popgun, and they're good. This is also coupled with how she is DK's tritagonist after Donkey and Diddy, so she represents an integral facet of the DK series.

Echoes and semi-echoes just need to be selected with the same care as "full" characters: they also need to be iconic of their series in their own right. They can't just select random similar characters just to give a series more.

 

[pupNapoleon]

Just to be clear, I'm not really against echoes or semi-echoes in themselves. I absolutely think that they can be used to create a quality addition if it makes perfect sense.

I actually said I wouldn't mind (actually, I kinda want) Dixie being a semi-echo. Some of her abilities and her body type is pretty similar to Diddy already, so it's hard to imagine them making attack animations that are particularly different from Diddy's. All they need is her own Spinning Kong, a hair grab, and hair slap instead of tail attacks, Bubblegum Popgun, and they're good. This is also coupled with how she is DK's tritagonist after Donkey and Diddy, so she represents an integral facet of the DK series.

Echoes and semi-echoes just need to be selected with the same care as "full" characters: they also need to be iconic of their series in their own right. They can't just select random similar characters just to give a series more.

I'm of a similar camp (though don't need the bubblegum gun included- I can take it or leave it). A dixie who doesnt feel anything at all like Diddy would feel of a different universe. I still want her to feel of the DKC realm. As if I am taking her and Diddy right off the course.

 

[Quillion]

Honestly, I find that some echoes have been selected with more care than the actual full characters. Chrom, Dark Pit, Dark Samus, and Ken are all enduringly popular and iconic characters of their series. Corrin and Incineroar were selected for nothing more than a recency quota. Neither of them have endured since their debuts.

 

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

Honestly, I find that some echoes have been selected with more care than the actual full characters. Chrom, Dark Pit, Dark Samus, and Ken are all enduringly popular and iconic characters of their series. Corrin and Incineroar were selected for nothing more than a recency quota. Neither of them have endured since their debuts.

So far, Incineroar has been a recurring character in the anime series, so that's saying something.

 

[Captain Shades]

Black Shadow could use explosives seeing as he rigged the Blue Falcon to blow at the end of F-Zero GX

Sorry, I should probably correct this, Lord Death was the one at the end of F-Zero GX, but my idea can still work as Black Shadow has used various means of disposing other racers. Honestly, if original, Black Shadow could sort of be a Snake and Captain Falcon mixed character. It’s strange, but it’d be cool to see a fast character that is heavily focused on dominating through his own strength and if push comes to shove, be able to use sneaky and dirty tactics to screw over an opponent.

 

[Quillion]

So far, Incineroar has been a recurring character in the anime series, so that's saying something.

That wasn't enough to push Jigglypuff into icon status. What makes you think that will do the same for Incineroar?

 

[pupNapoleon]

That wasn't enough to push Jigglypuff into icon status. What makes you think that will do the same for Incineroar?

I certainly would have agreed before May 10, 2019 (future date, I know).
But I think Detective Pikachu is going to change the scope of Pokemon.
...which is quite a statement, considering Pokemon is the top selling franchise of any medium.

Jigglypuff seems to be an extremely comical character in this movie, with what commercials lead to believe, is a lot of airtime. She may now be considered an icon.

 

[Quillion]

I certainly would have agreed before May 10, 2019 (future date, I know).
But I think Detective Pikachu is going to change the scope of Pokemon.
...which is quite a statement, considering Pokemon is the top selling franchise of any medium.

Jigglypuff seems to be an extremely comical character in this movie, with what commercials lead to believe, is a lot of airtime. She may now be considered an icon.

I'll believe it when I see it.

Even then, it seems a little too late in the game to make Jigglypuff iconic. I do agree that they need to focus on making icons for other gens. Gen 5 doesn't even have one.

 

[ZaneHitsurugi]

I said I would make a topic about how people are caring too much about quantity over quality in representation. I'm keeping my promise.

Because why do you think people care so much about "number of reps per franchise"? People expect the more popular franchises to get the lion's share of character representation. People also believe that franchises with more character variety should have more characters. But what I'm seeing is way too much wanting for characters just because "this franchise needs more", or worse: "because less popular franchise X has more, more popular franchise Y needs even more".

Really, I don't mind the idea that certain franchises need more characters. But wouldn't it be better to judge how characters add to the quality of representation? We shouldn't be judging on how much of a series is represented, but how well they add to a series' representation. How about instead of, "Does this character fill a quota needed by X series?", we can ask, "Does this character represent an integral facet of their franchise OR does this character encompass the spirit of their games?" To put it more simply, we need less "This series needs MORE reps" and more "This series needs BETTER reps".

In these terms, here are some characters we DON'T need:

• We don't need to load various series with echoes and semi-echoes just because their quota needs to be filled or because Game X needs to be represented. Just because Fire Emblem does it doesn't mean it's a good thing, nor would it work for other franchises.
• We don't need more F-Zero characters. Captain Falcon encompasses the high-speed spirit of F-Zero in himself that adding another would either stray too far from F-Zero or would be redundant.
• We don't need Bandana Waddle Dee. He is being pushed as a "fourth wheel" to the main trio of Kirby, Dedede, and Meta Knight by HAL, true. But that's the only reason people push for him so much. Not only does his spear moveset add nothing new as he would be just another small disjoint character like Meta Knight, but his moveset has always been rather bland in the whimsical environment of the Kirby series. He may be prominent, but he doesn't really represent Kirby all too well.
• We don't need every single Zelda one-shot because they are most relevant in the newest game. People keep bringing up Fire Emblem to point out that Zelda could have one-shots if Sakurai isn't biased... but people also forget that Fire Emblem's one-shots are its ONLY main characters. Zelda's one-shots are still on a lower tier than the Triforce trio, and that's what makes most of them unworthy.
• We don't need every Pokémon from the most recent generation. Sure Pokémon has gotten lucky with Greninja; sure Pokémon thrives on having such a rich and diverse cast. But it would be best for Pokémon to be held to the standard that the most iconic ones that are both popular and appear frequently in promotion. Pikachu, the Gen 1 starters, Mewtwo, and Lucario has stayed there, but we shouldn't repeat the situations of Jigglypuff, Pichu, and Incineroar, who have all fallen off in prominence or are guaranteed to fall off by next game.

On the other hand, here are some characters I feel we DO need:

• Dixie Kong, (semi-)echo of Diddy or not, would add to the pool of Donkey Kong representation well as she is the series' tritagonist. As long as her hair abilities are intact, she would fully complete the Donkey Kong cast in a way such that other mainstays like Cranky or Funky would add nothing more.
• Skull Kid, while effectively a one-shot, DOES add to Zelda's pool of representation. He would be an actual good representation of the series' storied history one-shots, even moreso than Sheik. Zelda doesn't need a load of one-shots, but on Skull Kid's enduring popularity and the fact that he represents Zelda's golden age (unlike Midna who represents the Wii-era decline), he should be the single one-shot to end them all.
• Speaking of Zelda, this is more of a character change, but Zelda's existing representation quality is honestly rather poor. Three of the characters are Link with similar movesets, and Zelda and Ganondorf's portrayals neglect their signature abilities. And Sheik was a fluke pick. It would improve Zelda's quality of representation to have them semi-revamped at least, Zelda and Ganon especially. Its good quantity of representation does not excuse this.
• In general, we need to take what Piranha Plant started and make more enemies playable. This is an interesting facet of many series that has gotten long overlooked in Smash, and Piranha Plant opens the doors for them. That being said, there should be two caveats: first that the enemies themselves are recognizable and not further joke picks, and that they can fulfill "Mascot Mook" status. So no Gogols, Topis, or Knuckle Joes, but more things like Goombas, Bokoblins, and Starmen.
• We need MORE Fire Emblem characters... that are enduringly popular. They shouldn't be shoehorning characters from the most recent installment like they did Robin, Lucina, and Corrin just because they are recent. Instead, they should shoot for the characters that have stayed popular. Lyn, Hector, Micaiah, and Celica have all remained quite popular since their debuts (or remake in Celica's case). Hell, I'd even say Chrom was a step in the right direction since he has stayed popular in the years since, unlike Robin and Corrin.

So there you have it. I understand characters being judged in relation to how the represent a series, but I just want to be how, not how much.

You lost me when you said PP was a quality character.

 

[pupNapoleon]

I'll believe it when I see it.

Even then, it seems a little too late in the game to make Jigglypuff iconic. I do agree that they need to focus on making icons for other gens. Gen 5 doesn't even have one.

Because generation is irrelevant... sure we get 'new character' or not, but otherwise, an era of birth has little to do with when a character experiences popularity, promotion, or character development. Eevee just got a huge boost of such, has been available in every generation-- you tell me it being from 1996 matters? Even Kanto as a whole is FULLY playable in gens 1, 2, 3, 4, and 7. Arguing that a Pokemon represents solely a generation is nonsense.

 

[Boredatwork]

I don't understand why Skull Kid is so often touted as the logical next Zelda character when both Tingle and Impa have a longer history with the series while also not being one-off characters.

Hell, even Vaati is more of a recurrent Zelda character than Skull Kid was.

 

[Gamer Cube]

My point was that you should hate the idea of these characters being added because they'd be a 10th Mario character. It doesn't matter whether or not you prefer them and have been convinced that Mewtwo is the only popular Pokemon in existence.

Wait, I never said Mewtwo is the only popular Pokemon in existence. I actually play Jigglypuff if I'm playing a character from that franchise.

 

[TheCJBrine]

I don't understand why Skull Kid is so often touted as the logical next Zelda character when both Tingle and Impa have a longer history with the series while also not being one-off characters.

Hell, even Vaati is more of a recurrent Zelda character than Skull Kid was.

A lot of people like Skull Kid so it's pretty much based on want I guess, though he could still work as a fighter.

He's not a one-off, though; while Majora's Mask is his only major appearance, it's confirmed that he's the same Skull Kid you play Saria's Song to in Ocarina of Time, and there's a Skull Kid in Twilight Princess that seems to be the same one based on him knowing Saria's Song but it's not confirmed. He's also in Hyrule Warriors with the TP Skull Kid being in Link's Crossbow Training but I guess those don't count.

 

[TheDuke54]

Jigglypuff is a really fun fighter to mess around with. She can also be a beast if used properly. I was in a match against heavies Cloud, Ganondorf, and Bowser and managed to beat them. It was kind of funny seeing them get super ragey and chase after a pink puffball.

Oh wow, I didn't realize the two Skull-kids were the same. Learn something new everyday.

 

[Gamer Cube]

Jigglypuff is a really fun fighter to mess around with. She can also be a beast if used properly. I was in a match against heavies Cloud, Ganondorf, and Bowser and managed to beat them. It was kind of funny seeing them get super ragey and chase after a pink puffball.

Seriously, my friend is REALLY good at DeDeDe, and every time he tried to hit me with anything up close, including tilts, I would just jump over him and sing, it was honestly so funny watching him rage at the fact he couldn't hit me, I actually 3 stocked him and I was at 20%. Jigglypuff is to easy to dodge with.

 

[Quillion]

You lost me when you said PP was a quality character.

Piranha Plant is a joke pick, yes. But my point is that they absolutely should expand his inclusion into a legitimate, non-joke criteria.

The enemies of Nintendo franchises are sometimes iconic in themselves. They shouldn't do this for all franchises, mind, but mainly for the ones where enemies play a major role in iconography.

I don't understand why Skull Kid is so often touted as the logical next Zelda character when both Tingle and Impa have a longer history with the series while also not being one-off characters.

Hell, even Vaati is more of a recurrent Zelda character than Skull Kid was.

Because Impa and Tingle have NEVER had roles exceeding that of the major one-shots. Vaati may be recurring, but he's largely been left behind.

Skull Kid, on the other hand, is THE most popular of the "one-shots", let alone any character besides the Triforce holders, and iconography associated with him constantly gets referenced in later Zelda games.

 

[Boredatwork]

Because Impa and Tingle have NEVER had roles exceeding that of the major one-shots. Vaati may be recurring, but he's largely been left behind.

Skull Kid, on the other hand, is THE most popular of the "one-shots", let alone any character besides the Triforce holders, and iconography associated with him constantly gets referenced in later Zelda games.

Seeing as Tingle has had his very own spin-off, I'm not sure I'd say that this is true.

 

[Captain Shades]

Because Impa and Tingle have NEVER had roles exceeding that of the major one-shots. Vaati may be recurring, but he's largely been left behind.

Skull Kid, on the other hand, is THE most popular of the "one-shots", let alone any character besides the Triforce holders, and iconography associated with him constantly gets referenced in later Zelda games.

Honestly, Impa and Tingle are better options. They appear in multiple titles in the main franchise and have prominent roles in spin offs with Tingle being the main character in his own sub-series, and Impa definitely being a main character in Warriors.

Plus Impa is one of the main driving forces for plot in Zelda, usually guiding Link in some way, so she really isn’t a one-off. Plus, you mentioned that generic enemies should be represented as they can be iconic. Well, being the last of the very vital Shiekah, why don’t we have Impa as the poster child of the race that is very prominent especially in BOTW.

 

[Mushroomguy12]

Piranha Plant is a joke pick, yes. But my point is that they absolutely should expand his inclusion into a legitimate, non-joke criteria.

The enemies of Nintendo franchises are sometimes iconic in themselves. They shouldn't do this for all franchises, mind, but mainly for the ones where enemies play a major role in iconography.

Well, I've already made my thoughts on this clear in previous comments, and I promised not to discuss this further, so I'll move on.

Because Impa and Tingle have NEVER had roles exceeding that of the major one-shots. Vaati may be recurring, but he's largely been left behind.

Having recurring major roles is still better than having only one major role.

Skull Kid, on the other hand, is THE most popular of the "one-shots", let alone any character besides the Triforce holders, and iconography associated with him constantly gets referenced in later Zelda games.

Is he really, though?
He's certainly ONE of the more well known ones, I'll give you that.
But I'd argue Midna, Fi, and Ghirahim rival him in popularity pretty well. He's definitely not on a tier above any of them. Even the four Champions have all pretty much rose to the top at this point.

 

[Quillion]

B Boredatwork , Captain Shades , Mushroomguy12 : Impa and Tingle are never major characters though, just secondary at best and tertiary in most cases. Hyrule Warriors is a spinoff that gives nearly everyone additional time in the sun, so it doesn't count.

But I'd argue Midna, Fi, and Ghirahim rival him in popularity pretty well. He's definitely not on a tier above any of them. Even the four Champions have all pretty much rose to the top at this point.

Have Midna, Fi, and Ghirahim's iconography recurred after their games as much as Skull Kid? No, and they haven't recurred at all. Iconography for the Champions will likely never recur either if Zelda continues its tradition of making each game mostly standalone.

 

[Captain Shades]

B Boredatwork , Captain Shades Captain Shades , Mushroomguy12 Mushroomguy12 : Impa and Tingle are never major characters though, just secondary at best and tertiary in most cases. Hyrule Warriors is a spinoff that gives nearly everyone additional time in the sun, so it doesn't count.

Hyrule Warriors may be a spin-off, but it does show that Impa is important as unlike Midna and the rest she isn’t tied to one game and is part of the group of 4 main characters alongside Zelda and Link.

Also, again, you bring up the idea of characters that are generic enemies because they can be just as iconic. Using this logic, it wouldn’t be much of a stretch to say that Impa could be the Shiekah representative. The Shiekah are definitely a huge and iconic part of Zelda lore, so much so that Sheik is included within Smash to kind of represent their role in the games. The Shiekah played a huge role in BOTW creating all the tech, and it was their techniques that Zelda has mimicked when disguised as Sheik. While having Sheik may be nice, it really is just Zelda in a new outfit, and I think me and others would have preferred Impa, a full new character who has basically been carrying the race on her back, to be the representative instead as she is an actual Shiekah. If anything, Impa is the Bandana Dee or Captain Toad of Zelda, being a bigger character that represents a species/race in their greatest form as a fully fledged character.

 

[Mushroomguy12]

B Boredatwork , Captain Shades , Mushroomguy12 : Impa and Tingle are never major characters though, just secondary at best and tertiary in most cases. Hyrule Warriors is a spinoff that gives nearly everyone additional time in the sun, so it doesn't count.

Tingle I might give to you (although he did have his own spin off as Boredatwork mentioned, so....), but Impa has been a pretty major character throughout her appearances, from being one of the Seven Sages twice, to having major roles protecting Zelda and the royal family. In OOT, she is literally the one who saves Zelda from Ganondorf after Link pulls the Master Sword, and in Skyward Sword she plays a similar role. The Hyrule Royal family could have gone extinct multiple times if it wasn't for her. I'd wager that's pretty important.
She's not a main character but she is certainly a major one. And at worst is on par with Skull Kid's role in MM.

Have Midna, Fi, and Ghirahim's iconography recurred after their games as much as Skull Kid? No, and they haven't recurred at all. Iconography for the Champions will likely never recur either if Zelda continues its tradition of making each game mostly standalone.

Really now? Fi was mentioned several times in BOTW, and Midna was important enough to be given an Amiibo (Skull Kid only got a normal figure). All three of them were considered important enough to be in the main story of Hyrule Warriors while Skull Kid was sat on until the DLC.
And Wolf Link also appears in BOTW as a costume.
Now sure, you could argue that's not actually Midna.
But I'm pretty sure most of the "recurring iconography" you refer to for Skull Kid only refers to the recurring appearances of the Mask, not Skull Kid himself.

 

[UserKev]

I don't understand why Skull Kid is so often touted as the logical next Zelda character when both Tingle and Impa have a longer history with the series while also not being one-off characters.

Hell, even Vaati is more of a recurrent Zelda character than Skull Kid was.

Skull Kid is actually extremely memorable while its something Tingle and Impa ultimately lack in comparison.

 

[Captain Shades]

Skull Kid is actually extremely memorable while its something Tingle and Impa ultimately lack in comparison.

I can’t agree with Tingle and Impa lacking especially since Warriors pretty much made Impa one of the most popular picks because she was crazy in that game, and Tingle is....well I think everyone who has had the pleasure of encountering him remembers him, VIVIDLY.

I can agree with Skull Kid being iconic though, and really Majora’s Mask as a whole. Most Zelda iconography comes from MM whether it be the Moon, The Mask, Tingle, etc.. If any one shot were to make it I’d definitely want Skull Kid, I just think that main and reoccurring characters should have a spot to, and since Impa is liked and has potential I’d probably go with her before Skull Kid.

 

[UserKev]

I can’t agree with Tingle and Impa lacking especially since Warriors pretty much made Impa one of the most popular picks because she was crazy in that game, and Tingle is....well I think everyone who has had the pleasure of encountering him remembers him, VIVIDLY.

I can agree with Skull Kid being iconic though, and really Majora’s Mask as a whole. Most Zelda iconography comes from MM whether it be the Moon, The Mask, Tingle, etc.. If any one shot were to make it I’d definitely want Skull Kid, I just think that main and reoccurring characters should have a spot to, and since Impa is liked and has potential I’d probably go with her before Skull Kid.

But if it wasn't for Hyrule Warriors tho? Impa is iconic now but Skull Kid has since been iconic. I was incorrect about Tingle but Impa has only just got it.

 

[Necro'lic]

I feel like a consistent problem with this thread is people don't understand that any character chosen can be a quality pick solely based on how well they work both in canon, in game, and in aesthetic. At the same time, I don't think quantity is the actual reason people ask for missing popular characters like Bandanna Dee, Geno, Impa, Midna, Skull Kid, etc. They ask for them because they are popular AND can be a quality pick.

Seriously, Piranha Plant is a fighter and is done masterfully in canon, in aesthetic, and in gameplay. No one should say doing a quality pick has to come at the expense of quantity or vice versa.

 

[Quillion]

Most Zelda iconography comes from MM whether it be the Moon, The Mask, Tingle, etc..

Well, I know that Tingle has recurred, but I think you're overestimating how much MM defines Zelda iconography. Nintendo clearly wants to preserve it as its own standalone weird game, so most iconography comes from ALttP and OoT if anything.

If any one shot were to make it I’d definitely want Skull Kid, I just think that main and reoccurring characters should have a spot to, and since Impa is liked and has potential I’d probably go with her before Skull Kid.

Impa is just not an icon though. You keep referring to her recurring status, but how major has she really been? Would you call Beedle an icon because he has recurred more than Tingle?

I feel like a consistent problem with this thread is people don't understand that any character chosen can be a quality pick solely based on how well they work both in canon, in game, and in aesthetic. At the same time, I don't think quantity is the actual reason people ask for missing popular characters like Bandanna Dee, Geno, Impa, Midna, Skull Kid, etc. They ask for them because they are popular AND can be a quality pick.

Seriously, Piranha Plant is a fighter and is done masterfully in canon, in aesthetic, and in gameplay. No one should say doing a quality pick has to come at the expense of quantity or vice versa.

Quality is admittedly not a concrete concept, nor do I deny that quantity and quality can coexist.

I just want to think about whether adding a character adds a vital facet of their franchise, instead of "this franchise needs more". Too many people just want "more" representation instead of better representation, that's the point.

In short, I'm just tired of people wanting more solely for the sake of more.

 

[Captain Shades]

Impa is just not an icon though. You keep referring to her recurring status, but how major has she really been? Would you call Beedle an icon because he has recurred more than Tingle?

I mean other than the fact that she is usually the one who finds Link, or leads him and teaches him new things about the Hyrule, or that she’s the one who usually protects Zelda till Link’s ready and is basically the only reason Zelda is still alive in most games, or that she was literally chosen by the Godess in Zelda to be reincarnated making her only 1 of 4 characters that get reincarnated with Zelda and Link along with Ganon being the others. It’s pretty clear that Impa has quite a bit of significance in the series as usually the one who advances the plot. She was the one who taught Link Zelda’s Lullaby in Oot along with playing a part in sealing Ganon. In BOTW she was actually given some family, and was the first person Link was told to meet.

I do think Impa is iconic, I just think it took a while for people to realize she was important to the series as she always comes off as some secret 4th party, more a background than foreground force. Hyrule Warriors, and Skyward Sword, to an extent really brought her to the front for once, which really made people realize that hey...This character, ... she’s been important this whole time yet none of you payed any attention. I feel that there’s been sort of a shift since Skyward Sword to bring her more into the forefront as one of the driving forces in the games, which I why I think a slot in Smah is more than justified, especially since she’s now had a few younger forms and been given plenty of material to work with, especially since Hyrule Warriors has taken a hold of her.

Well, I know that Tingle has recurred, but I think you're overestimating how much MM defines Zelda iconography. Nintendo clearly wants to preserve it as its own standalone weird game, so most iconography comes from ALttP and OoT if anything.

No, most merchandise is based on Majora’s Mask. Other than generic Triforce and Hylian Shields, when you search up Zeld Merchandise there are a ton of MM specific stuff that pops up with the occasional Wind Waker and Oot. Most people seem to remeber elements from Majora far greater than anything else from Zelda with the mask and moon being two of the most prominent Zelda figures. It may be a weird game in the series, but it is hard to deny the mass appeal of images that game envokes.

But if it wasn't for Hyrule Warriors tho? Impa is iconic now but Skull Kid has since been iconic. I was incorrect about Tingle but Impa has only just got it.

I don’t believe this really hurts her though. She’s just been given better treatment in more recent installments and has kind of been brought more and more to the forefront.

Also MM wasn’t always popular, it was one of the titles that went through the Zelda cycle where it had a long stretch of time where it was panned/ not talked about by the “core fan base” Going back, it seems like Skyward Sword release in 2011 was when the game got extremely popular to make Skull Kid worthy of being a character. Really not much more time between the the explosion of MM popularity and Impa as Hyrule Warriors only came out like 3 years after the Majora’s Mask fandom really got vocal for most to start taking notice. (Yes, I know it was a cult classic, but it definitely wasn’t seen as the superior game to Oot or best in the franchise till then. At that point it was just kind of that weird title, but as we move further nowadays, basically MM and Wind Waker battle it out for best title award along with BOTW, Link to The Past, and Oot.)

Honestly speaking though, I actually do support Skull Kid in Smash as the Zelda roster should really ditch Young Link and Sheik, and instead have “new” characters based on the most popular titles. Heck, I’d even say ditching Ganondorf may make the roster better as we should just have Beast Ganon. He’s been in more titles, has a bigger moveset to pull from, and seems to be the future of where the Ganon character is heading. If I picked the Zelda roster, I’d have BOTW Link, LttP Zelda, NES TLZ Ganon, WW Toon Link, MM Skull Kid, Oot Impa, and Tingle because he does have his own series and he’d be a funny joke character.

 

[Quillion]

Captain Shades :

I just think it took a while for people to realize she was important to the series as she always comes off as some secret 4th party, more a background than foreground force.

That's the thing: that's the way most people have viewed Impa like that because that's how Nintendo treats her. She's almost on Beedle's level as being a recurring minor, just with a smidge of plot relevance to put her a bit above.

No, most merchandise is based on Majora’s Mask. Other than generic Triforce and Hylian Shields, when you search up Zeld Merchandise there are a ton of MM specific stuff that pops up with the occasional Wind Waker and Oot. Most people seem to remeber elements from Majora far greater than anything else from Zelda with the mask and moon being two of the most prominent Zelda figures. It may be a weird game in the series, but it is hard to deny the mass appeal of images that game envokes.

You sure you're not talking about fanart? It's certainly dominating fanmade creations on r/zelda alongside BotW, but I don't think MM iconography is "dominating" Nintendo-licensed marketing.

 

[Captain Shades]

That's the thing: that's the way most people have viewed Impa like that because that's how Nintendo treats her. She's almost on Beedle's level as being a recurring minor, just with a smidge of plot relevance to put her a bit above.

Now Nintendo is changing this though as Impa is becoming a more prominent force as of Skyward Sword and HW. Also Nintendo never really treated her poorly, I just think her roles fell a little bit to the wayside in the midst of many other aspects of the game, plus the Hyrule Hystoria not being that big of a thing when Oot came out. Most probably cared little for plot with the exception of Shiek being Zelda, till Skyward Sword where Impa was definitely brought to the forefront and given a bunch of roles.

Plus, people now view her as a major character maybe even the 4th main one in the series. She isn’t the weird old lady anymore but a major character that should stand alongside Link and Zelda. I know everyone here likes to discredit Hyrule Warriors as a spin-off and thus cannot be used, but that game is now a major sub-series within Zelda, and if that seems to think Imps should walk alongside two of the Triforce wielders instead of being tethered to an entries timeframe, then I think she has more significance than you and others are leading on.

As for Beetle, she definitely is higher than him. Disregarding the fact that Impa has material to work with to create a moveset while Beetle is just...a shop keeper, Impa has appeared in more titles as she’s been a part of the franchise since the beginning. She is also usually depicted with the main crew in some form and will even take on the main villain of the title if needed, which should put her above a guy who stands in one place a sells you items. Also HW doesn’t even attempt to include Beetle, but Impa gets to take up a good 3rd or 4th of the spotlight in that game as a major character that even kinda has her own section with the Oot split.

I guess my thoughts are, Impa has always been important to the series and should be granted the ability to fight alongside them. I get that she isn’t the most “iconic”, but there is a growing fan base now, probably due to factors like story having a bigger effect on Zelda and Zelda being willing to have spin-offs that really show the full potential. She has a moveset to be made, wielding multiple weapons with swords and naginatas, in addition to Shiekah weaponry and ninja mastery like Shiek has. She may not be the most iconic Zelda character past the main 3, but she is the most important to the series overall.

You sure you're not talking about fanart? It's certainly dominating fanmade creations on r/zelda alongside BotW, but I don't think MM iconography is "dominating" Nintendo-licensed marketing.

It is a big part of Nintendo’s marketing, along with Wind Waker. Skull Kid is one of the few 1 offs to actually get a figure, most being from Wind Waker when given a Google Image search of World of Nintendo figures. Not to mention the special 3DS and figure MM got with its release on 3DS which was different as TP and WW only got one of those two things upon release.

Also MM is the only Zelda title with two assists in Smash. Also there have been stuff like backpacks and such sold.

Add in the fandom creations and I think it’s safe to say that Majora’s Mask has some of the most recognizable characters and set pieces of Zelda, the mask and the moon have been some of the most prominent imagery in Zelda, with the mask coming back as an Easter egg or outfit in many Zelda titles afterwards.

 

[Yuya-Noboru]

On the other hand, here are some characters I feel we DO need:

• Dixie Kong

 

[Mushroomguy12]

Care to explain why you feel this way?

 

[LightKnight]

I agree with you for the most part. At least, more than I do with the people simply saying a certain franchise should get more reps because its 'popular' or whatnot which is more likely more of an excuse than anything to get more of their characters from that franchise.
However, I see you using your argument in a little bit of a similar way to the aforementioned camp. Which is fine, I just think people should be more honest with their desire for certain characters they want included and not hide behind 'rules of why certain characters are more worthy to join'. I'm not saying everyone does it but I think most of us do to some degree or another.

All of that said, I do like the idea of adding more enemies from various franchises as playable characters like Piranha Plant.
I do somewhat disagree with your points on Pokemon and Fire Emblem though.. To me, whats most important is character-gameplay variety and we all know by now most fire emblem characters added aren't too different from each other and your proposition on what Fire Emblem characters are added in the future wouldn't help that issue I believe. Pokemon on the other hand has a huge host of potential unique fighters that can add lots of new playstyles to the game and I think Incineroar was no exception! I think sticking to adding only pokemon that were highly advertised is a mistake and has little to do with adding fresh gameplay to Smash Brothers.

 

[TheDuke54]

Care to explain why you feel this way?

If someone uses gifs to set their message, they normally don't want to bother explaining themselves. Even if it's only because they just don't like your opinion.

You know how every game has a main villain from the series? Or most of them? For Fire Emblem being one of their larger numbers in the roster, it's kind of surprising they haven't tried to add one into the game. Most Fire Emblem villains are forgettable though and the only one I can think of that would work well is already an assist. The Black Knight. Most of them border on being too generic in the villain department. Or looking like a malnourished sorcerer.

I also wondered what it'd be like if they added a generic mook from FE into Smash, but there aren't any. Unless you want some really ordinary bandit filling up the roster.

 

[Quillion]

I do somewhat disagree with your points on Pokemon and Fire Emblem though.. To me, whats most important is character-gameplay variety and we all know by now most fire emblem characters added aren't too different from each other and your proposition on what Fire Emblem characters are added in the future wouldn't help that issue I believe. Pokemon on the other hand has a huge host of potential unique fighters that can add lots of new playstyles to the game and I think Incineroar was no exception! I think sticking to adding only pokemon that were highly advertised is a mistake and has little to do with adding fresh gameplay to Smash Brothers.

So I assume you agree that the more unique Pokémon characters are the ones that are not advertised all that much. You also say that they should focus more on character gameplay variety over adding the most advertised faces.

So what if Fire Emblem gets unique characters that don't get marketed all that much? Are you still against more Fire Emblem characters solely because of its poor quality history? They could very well add non-Lord characters if they wanted. Hell, even among Lords, Hector, Ephraim, and Micaiah alone don't wield a sword.

Or are you just not aware of Fire Emblem's actual, canonical character variety?

 

[LightKnight]

So I assume you agree that the more unique Pokémon characters are the ones that are not advertised all that much. You also say that they should focus more on character gameplay variety over adding the most advertised faces.

So what if Fire Emblem gets unique characters that don't get marketed all that much? Are you still against more Fire Emblem characters solely because of its poor quality history? They could very well add non-Lord characters if they wanted. Hell, even among Lords, Hector, Ephraim, and Micaiah alone don't wield a sword.

Or are you just not aware of Fire Emblem's actual, canonical character variety?

I believe there are unique Pokemon as potential fighters that are advertised as well as not advertised.

Concerning Fire Emblem, I'm not totally opposed to more characters from the franchise as long as they are unique enough in comparison to the rest of the cast. Its a reason I was relatively pleased with Corrin's inclusion as they offered enough unique moves to stand out from even amongst the Fire Emblem characters. The popularity of FE characters among the audience doesn't matter that much to me just as I inferred with Pokemon. I don't play any of the Fire Emblem games (or the majority of franchises in Smash for that matter) so my knowledge of what it has to offer is somewhat limited. But no doubt from what I have seen there are at least a couple more character concepts that could be introduced from the games.
My main concern which I voiced in my first post was that if we just included FE characters off what you proposed we might get some more very similar characters from what we already have. Lyn for example from what I've seen would be quite similar and somewhat redundant. Regarding this, I'm not opposed to character skins when it fits but it seems in Ultimate the result of this is usually Echo Fighters which is fine I guess if development time doesn't take away from unique additions being made.

 

[Quillion]

I believe there are unique Pokemon as potential fighters that are advertised as well as not advertised.

Funny you say that, since our most recent Pokémon additions were Greninja, who was added when Sheik existed, and Incineroar, who was added when Bowser('s inferior-to-Melee/Brawl revamp) existed.

Concerning Fire Emblem, I'm not totally opposed to more characters from the franchise as long as they are unique enough in comparison to the rest of the cast. Its a reason I was relatively pleased with Corrin's inclusion as they offered enough unique moves to stand out from even amongst the Fire Emblem characters. The popularity of FE characters among the audience doesn't matter that much to me just as I inferred with Pokemon. I don't play any of the Fire Emblem games (or the majority of franchises in Smash for that matter) so my knowledge of what it has to offer is somewhat limited. But no doubt from what I have seen there are at least a couple more character concepts that could be introduced from the games.
My main concern which I voiced in my first post was that if we just included FE characters off what you proposed we might get some more very similar characters from what we already have. Lyn for example from what I've seen would be quite similar and somewhat redundant. Regarding this, I'm not opposed to character skins when it fits but it seems in Ultimate the result of this is usually Echo Fighters which is fine I guess if development time doesn't take away from unique additions being made.

I mentioned Hector and Micaiah, though. Maybe Lyn and Celica would be too similar, but that's 2/4.

Perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions of series you haven't played. Savvy?

 

[Captain Shades]

Funny you say that, since our most recent Pokémon additions were Greninja, who was added when Sheik existed, and Incineroar, who was added when Bowser('s inferior-to-Melee/Brawl revamp) existed.

And soo.... what... Both were heavily original and played nothing like the characters you mentioned. Incineroar being highly original as he is the only wrestler character in Smash. I don’t understand your notion that Greninja and Incineroar are just secondary versions of Bowser and Shiek when they don’t play anything alike outside of maybe 1 to 2 moves.

I agree with you for the most part. At least, more than I do with the people simply saying a certain franchise should get more reps because its 'popular' or whatnot which is more likely more of an excuse than anything to get more of their characters from that franchise.
However, I see you using your argument in a little bit of a similar way to the aforementioned camp. Which is fine, I just think people should be more honest with their desire for certain characters they want included and not hide behind 'rules of why certain characters are more worthy to join'. I'm not saying everyone does it but I think most of us do to some degree or another.

I can see your point, but I must respectfully disagree. I believe that most who make the argument are relatively justified in requesting more reps for the size as usually the ones requesting are really just asking for completion more so than just adding reps. Kirby and Donkey Kong are basically the reason this thread exists as the OP fought with those fans about the whole Quality over Quality narrative, so going off them I would say that fans are justified in being angered at the lack of characters and stages given how big the franchises are.

Donkey Kong is a powerhouse within Nintendo and sells within the millions and was essentially the SNES mascot. As for Kirby, the franchise is depicted as one of the four main players of Smash and now a days, many who don’t even really game know the character. (For a personal story, my Biology teacher asked me what games I play, and responded saying that she really only played Mario and Kirby, so Kirby is more of a casual powerhouse than people give it credit for.)

DK and Kirby fans really only want like 1 new character being Dixie or Bandana Dee as they feel that completes the main cast. Along with that it’s usually just a stage or two with DK fans wanting to move away from the Jungle and Kirby wanting newer titles for once. I think many bring up size because.. well ... they really are just asking for things most other franchises get and it really shows how disappointing it is when you have a massive franchise that gets treated unfairly to even something like Fire Emblem or Star Fox. Kirby and DK are big in their own right and have tons of potential but see little returns. DK fans had to wait 5 eateries to see the main villain of their franchise that’s widely acclaimed along with DK having a total of 1 assist. Kirby fans rarely get content that isn’t related solely to 3 games that came out in the 90s, and even then they haven’t gotten a new character since Brawl and have only been given 2 new stages and assists. I guess most, including me, feel that for how big these franchises are, they certainly don’t get the fair treatment that others get within Smash. Then to have threads like this tell them that they’re wrong and should be happy getting unequal treatment after mass success just because look at the time put into K Rool’s animations, it just rubs me the wrong way.

IDK, this is just my stance on this thread. It feels like an unnecessary, somewhat contrarian, thread used to demean fan base just looking for a bit of ground in Smash. Most fan bases are not as bad as OP is suggesting and do have many valid reasons as to why more Zelda/DK/Kirby/etc. should be represented. Overall, these characters would add variety as there ain’t much from said franchises in this massive crossover, so I feel it’d be more refreshing to see a Kirby character rather than another Mario or FE which have over saturated the roster at this point (justifiably so). I guess the ideal is for more new franchises, but honestly only Golden Sun seems like a popular non-3rd party franchise at this point, so why not add on to the pre-existing franchises that have gotten little material.

 

[LightKnight]

Funny you say that, since our most recent Pokémon additions were Greninja, who was added when Sheik existed, and Incineroar, who was added when Bowser('s inferior-to-Melee/Brawl revamp) existed.

I mentioned Hector and Micaiah, though. Maybe Lyn and Celica would be too similar, but that's 2/4.

Perhaps you shouldn't make assumptions of series you haven't played. Savvy?

I was wanting to have a civil discussion of opinions but seeing as you want to be sassy this will be my last reply to you.

If I'm interpreting what your saying correctly then you don't want Greninja and Incineroar to have been created. Your reasoning for this is they are too similar to Shiek and Bowser. Okay, if thats what you truly believe then fine, thats your opinion. If I were to apply that to Fire Emblem characters then I'd say Corrin, who is arguably one of the more unique FE characters, wasn't different enough to be added either. But I think all 3 of those characters offer unique enough gameplay in comparison to the others. As I'm writing this Captain Shades seems to be saying about the same thing.

I don't believe thats what this is really about though. Obviously you really like Fire Emblem and I like a lot of the Pokemon. As I stated in my first comment I think this is more a matter of arguing for certain characters to be added and masking it behind our rules of how things should go to justify it.
When the thing is we all have our differing reasons for wanting certain characters the fact of the matter is we aren't the ones in control. Its all good and fun to discuss these things but if we resort to demeaning each other that doesn't benefit anyone. If it comes down to it, its better to agree to disagree.
I admit, not being a fan of FE, I was slightly brash with my first comment so I can understand how I ruffled some feathers.

Hector and Micaiah are different enough? Cool, then if they decide to add anymore FE characters I believe they should be considered for the game!

Ultimately, I'm not really arguing for any characters to NOT be in Smash. As I've said, even eerily similar characters can become low-hassle echoes or character costumes. My point was simply that I agree with you on roster quality (and some of the points you made) but how we view 'quality' is a little different.

Peace.

 

[USAnyan]

quality of moveset does need to a factor- I actually really like semis when done right. They should feel unique and bring a fair amount to the table. Why doesn’t anyone really complain about Lucas, for example being a semi? Well he has a zair, completely different attacks in like half his his moveset, and completely different properties-not to mention being slightly floatier.

Honestly I feel just adjusting hitbox or making one have significantly more power is a pretty lazy and lame way to make a semi.Not just FE suffers from this, I think the links, pichu and even doc suffer from this quite a bit. Sure there’s a couple of different moves but not so much that they feel a huge amount difference. What if toon link used a deku leave for a recover for example? Small things like that would go a long way really.

Also I think bandee could be cool, on its own a spear is meh-but this is where I think creative liberty can come in. like what if he used star allies’ elemental system to boost attacks?