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

[Karapian]

I’ve only read first page worth of replies, but something I want to talk about it the argument that you’re making as a whole. What makes your picks “quality” and others “quantity,” because from what I’ve been seeing, that’s completely subjective, and, moreover, who is actually picking quantity of quality in the first place? You’re all really fighting a side of an argument that doesn’t necessarily exists, since no one in their right mind would ever fight for or defend for the notion of “quantity of quality,” at least not for the Smash roster.

 

[Quillion]

LightKnight : I don't know if you're going to read this, but I apologize for my condescension. I'm just tired of the hypocrisy, lack of awareness, and double standard-throwing inherent to "Fire Emblem is overrepresented" arguments that I overreacted. You don't have to come back if you don't want to, though.

That being said...

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.

Here we go again ignoring the fact that Fire Emblem is reliant on sticking characters into one template. You even brought up the OTHER series that is reliant (entirely reliant at that) on creating characters out of one template at that.

So it seems you feel that Star Fox and Fire Emblem are models that Kirby and Donkey Kong need to follow in representation? Do you want Kirby to have Dark Meta Knight, Galacta Knight, and Morpho Knight as echoes of Meta Knight, and do you want Donkey Kong to have Kiddy Kong, Chunky Kong, and Funky Kong as echoes of Donkey Kong, all because of your idea of "fairness"?

Because honestly, I can't stand the way Fire Emblem and Star Fox are represented in Smash. Not because there's "too much", but because they add characters for the sake of adding more because of template reusing. If given the choice between adding echoes for Kirby and DK for the sake of padding the pool of representation and keeping them where they are, I'd just go with the latter.

I’ve only read first page worth of replies, but something I want to talk about it the argument that you’re making as a whole. What makes your picks “quality” and others “quantity,” because from what I’ve been seeing, that’s completely subjective, and, moreover, who is actually picking quantity of quality in the first place? You’re all really fighting a side of an argument that doesn’t necessarily exists, since no one in their right mind would ever fight for or defend for the notion of “quantity of quality,” at least not for the Smash roster.

My answer is simple: "Quality" additions are ones that add vital facets of a series that can't be covered by another character. "Quantity" additions are ones that are simply added for the sake of adding more representation.

I don't intend it for be an objective criteria, so I agree that it's subjective. I'm just really tired of character requests that only exist to add "more" instead of adding a vital facet of representation.

 

[Captain Shades]

Here we go again ignoring the fact that Fire Emblem is reliant on sticking characters into one template. You even brought up the OTHER series that is reliant (entirely reliant at that) on creating characters out of one template at that.

So it seems you feel that Star Fox and Fire Emblem are models that Kirby and Donkey Kong need to follow in representation? Do you want Kirby to have Dark Meta Knight, Galacta Knight, and Morpho Knight as echoes of Meta Knight, and do you want Donkey Kong to have Kiddy Kong, Chunky Kong, and Funky Kong as echoes of Donkey Kong, all because of your idea of "fairness"?

Because honestly, I can't stand the way Fire Emblem and Star Fox are represented in Smash. Not because there's "too much", but because they add characters for the sake of adding more because of template reusing. If given the choice between adding echoes for Kirby and DK for the sake of padding the pool of representation and keeping them where they are, I'd just go with the latter.

Did you even read my post, I only said to bring in one character, not stick in a bunch. The difference between FE and Star Fox to say DK or Kirby is in both how they present the major players as characters and also into other facets of gameplay. Unlike Kirby, Star Fox and FE typically get stages based on newer entries if possible, even assists. DK usually gets stuck with jungle levels exclusively, while Star Fox is able to branch out a bit. Even Mother has multiple stages of varying locations and multiple assists, whereas DK didn’t even get an assist until the new game.

You seem to go along with this idea that people want a crazy amount of content when that just isn’t true. What people want is for their big franchises to at least have all the main cast members accounted for which is typically one character missing. They also just want stage variety and assists, something that most franchises in Smash get.

Honestly you are the only one arguing numbers here. No one but you talks about having a million echoes per franchise. Most fandoms just want characters that are important to their series and have potential. Shadow is big for Sonic fans because he represents the “new era.” A shift in which Sonic not only gained a new style and audience, but was put on different systems. Add in that Shadow could either be original or an echo and make sense, than of course people will back him.

Bandana Dee has become huge within Kirby and has a complete moveset pretty much worked out. Also, just like Shadow, BD is a representative of the modern era of Kirby that Smash severely lacks.

Skull Kid, Impa, and even Tingle are wanted due to their prominence in Zelda and for the move sets they could bring along with really showing how colorful and great the side characters of Zelda can be. Zelda fans literally want what you want but you act like Skull Kid is the only one that’s justifiable to back. Zelda fans want less useless clones and number boosting with Links and Zeldas and want full on characters.

I must ask, have you ever seen anyone request Kiddy Kong, or more FE echoes, or another Star Fox clone. No...No you don’t. You are literally the only one, or one of a few, to bring these up. No one on this thread or on this site is purely looking for numbers, most just see potential in fighters and want main casts unified. Most want more diversity in all aspects of Smash which is why they request the fighters you hate. None of the threads I’ve seen you on that would have prompted this thread ever told you that they need a bunch of echoes. From what I remember, the Kirby and DK fan bases only told you that they wanted like 1-2 characters to be included with their 3 character line up and wanted a few more unique stages and assists. I don’t get where your idea that fan bases are like this is coming from. To add on though, most of your points are literally going against your entire goal, you want no more F-Zero fighters without looking at what new things they can potentially bring. You hate on Bandana Dee and new Kirby content even though most of that content would add new ideas and play styles to Smash. You even hate they idea of bringing in new Pokémon even though, again, it’d bring in completely new content to Smash.

The reason people debate numbers is to show inequality. If FE gets 7 characters, why can’t DK and Kirby have 4 to complete their cast. This is literally all the argument is, it’s a comparison to show inequality. People ask, “Why is it that a small franchise like FE can get 4 characters in Smash 4, but Kirby, DK, and Metroid couldn’t get the one character they request”. You seem to go off the notion that this is the only argument, when in reality it is just a small comparison in the grand scheme of things. Many want characters based on status in their series, new ideas, the showing of untapped potential from a series, etc..

My answer is simple: "Quality" additions are ones that add vital facets of a series that can't be covered by another character. "Quantity" additions are ones that are simply added for the sake of adding more representation.

I don't intend it for be an objective criteria, so I agree that it's subjective. I'm just really tired of character requests that only exist to add "more" instead of adding a vital facet of representation.

Quillion , the problem is that you’ve come off as an authority on an argument that doesn’t really exist. You agree that quality is subjective yet put down some major characters like BD in your thread just because they don’t meet your criteria. The major push back on this thread is coming from the fact that your quality picks and quantity are little more than your opinion, yet you want us to believe that there’s a major issue within the community. It doesn’t help that you stumble on your own rules as one can easily say that new Pokémon, Impa, or new F-Zero characters could be quality. You also hate clones like Star Fox, yet list that Dixie should be a semi like the Star Fox reps.

Where is your stance and how can you back it up? At least with arguments like relevancy, I can say characters like Geno have been absent for years, thus not being well known today. I can also say that side characters should take a back seat to main characters as have/ had huge roles within the series, making a character like Captain Toad (the main character of his own game) more important and worth making a fighter of over Waluigi who is just in spin offs as one of numerous characters. Quality is purely subjective and most on this thread are big because they can argue quality. Quantity is just used to show the length at which new ideas can arise as just having say..Pikachu doesn’t show the full extent of Pokémon. Kirby and DK have run for 20+ years, so how could they possibly show all that history and changes within 3 characters and stages based on the same format whether it be game or theme?

 

[Quillion]

The reason people debate numbers is to show inequality. If FE gets 7 characters, why can’t DK and Kirby have 4 to complete their cast. This is literally all the argument is, it’s a comparison to show inequality. People ask, “Why is it that a small franchise like FE can get 4 characters in Smash 4, but Kirby, DK, and Metroid couldn’t get the one character they request”. You seem to go off the notion that this is the only argument, when in reality it is just a small comparison in the grand scheme of things. Many want characters based on status in their series, new ideas, the showing of untapped potential from a series, etc..

I know it's used to show inequality, and yes, I know people want characters based on status in series or new ideas. But have you ever thought that even Fire Emblem and Star Fox are failing at status in series, new ideas, and untapped potential in their own way? That's why I feel that it's an incredibly poor comparison, since those two series are using (semi)echoes in order to shoehorn characters in without care. Both Fire Emblem and Star Fox have ideas that Smash isn't utilizing, but because they have "more characters" (ignoring their use of (semi)echoes), people side-eye that and say that those series have enough.

I know you may have ignored this before, but I don't mind (semi)echoes in and of themselves. They can be used to create a quality portrayal, but they also have to be selected with the same amount of care as a "full" character, even if the resources used to make that character aren't as much. I don't think the semi-echoes in Fire Emblem were selected with that care (aside kinda Chrom); same with Star Fox. That's the reason I can't stand their representations, while I think having Dixie and no other echo for DK is a good decision.

 

[Karapian]

LightKnight : I don't know if you're going to read this, but I apologize for my condescension. I'm just tired of the hypocrisy, lack of awareness, and double standard-throwing inherent to "Fire Emblem is overrepresented" arguments that I overreacted. You don't have to come back if you don't want to, though.

That being said...



Here we go again ignoring the fact that Fire Emblem is reliant on sticking characters into one template. You even brought up the OTHER series that is reliant (entirely reliant at that) on creating characters out of one template at that.

So it seems you feel that Star Fox and Fire Emblem are models that Kirby and Donkey Kong need to follow in representation? Do you want Kirby to have Dark Meta Knight, Galacta Knight, and Morpho Knight as echoes of Meta Knight, and do you want Donkey Kong to have Kiddy Kong, Chunky Kong, and Funky Kong as echoes of Donkey Kong, all because of your idea of "fairness"?

Because honestly, I can't stand the way Fire Emblem and Star Fox are represented in Smash. Not because there's "too much", but because they add characters for the sake of adding more because of template reusing. If given the choice between adding echoes for Kirby and DK for the sake of padding the pool of representation and keeping them where they are, I'd just go with the latter.



My answer is simple: "Quality" additions are ones that add vital facets of a series that can't be covered by another character. "Quantity" additions are ones that are simply added for the sake of adding more representation.

I don't intend it for be an objective criteria, so I agree that it's subjective. I'm just really tired of character requests that only exist to add "more" instead of adding a vital facet of representation.

I’m sorry, but this is hardly a fair definition that still ignores my comment, “simple” is far fetched for trying to operationally define such a complex topic. Your quality of merit is of different bearing than what others believe to be represented. The supposive definition for quantity you give shoe horns just the opinions you find inferior or you see unfit to be apart of the cast. What character requests do you seriously believe only add for representation and nothing more, baffles me to believe you think people are that shallow, I’ve never seen nor heard of anything more outrageous, not to mention you then have the gull to say that Goomba is a suitable representative. If there’s something that I will fall back on, it’s the quote and belief that Sakurai puts in characters due to the ability to imagine that character fighting. If he can’t, he won’t, and if he can, he will/attempt to. There’s nothing that I think encapsulates représentation than this key aspect. However, like all opinions go, it’s debatable, however it is erroneous to presume someone’s intentions of adding a character is simply the sake of adding new characters. This is a generalization of picks you like, nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Captain Shades]

I know it's used to show inequality, and yes, I know people want characters based on status in series or new ideas. But have you ever thought that even Fire Emblem and Star Fox are failing at status in series, new ideas, and untapped potential in their own way? That's why I feel that it's an incredibly poor comparison, since those two series are using (semi)echoes in order to shoehorn characters in without care. Both Fire Emblem and Star Fox have ideas that Smash isn't utilizing, but because they have "more characters" (ignoring their use of (semi)echoes), people side-eye that and say that those series have enough.

I know you may have ignored this before, but I don't mind (semi)echoes in and of themselves. They can be used to create a quality portrayal, but they also have to be selected with the same amount of care as a "full" character, even if the resources used to make that character aren't as much. I don't think the semi-echoes in Fire Emblem were selected with that care (aside kinda Chrom); same with Star Fox. That's the reason I can't stand their representations, while I think having Dixie and no other echo for DK is a good decision.

I can see untapped potential like you mention for Fire Emblem, but Star Fox not so much. I mean, I wouldn’t mind a character like Krystal joining, but the 3 characters are perfect for having the main character, the buddy, and the villain. As for moveset, it’s also fine. Star Fox really doesn’t lend itself to movesets that frequently, and most of the Adventure and Assault content would just be weird at this point especially since all were a one time deal. Again, Krystal would be fine though for stuff like an Adventure moveset since those are pretty much the only games she’s a part of, but I think most of Star Fox is fine.

As for FE, I think it is obviously missing spear and axe weilders along with bow. I think the character roster for FE is good for about 5/7 as it has the main mascots with Marth and the Awakening trio, and it has the most popular character. If anything just replace Roy and Corrin with like a Hector or Ephriam. I can agree that FE should have better, but I believe we differ on the extent, as FE already has pretty decent representation in the grand scheme of things.

The reason me and others bring up FE though is because even if we neglect echoes, FE still has more characters than most of the more desired franchises in Smash. With 4 original characters in Smash 4, that still gave it more roster space than Metroid, Kirby, DK, and placed it sort of in the same category as Zelda. No one on SmashBoards truly hates FE, but many see it’s praise as unwarranted for being a much smaller and less character requested series. Ultimately I think most would be fine with more characters, but they want their franchises cleaned up first, which I agree with. I don’t want another anime weapon weirder from FE before Kirby gets his final main character, or DK, or even Zelda gets their more important characters. Had Sakurai just added the character that people wanted, most likely none of these groups would be within the deep hate camp. Metroid fans clearly left after Ultimate because they got Ridley and Dark Samus just like they asked for, so now they have all the Metroid content they need. If anything, people are actually looking for more diversity as we should stack up the lesser represented franchise with some wanted picks before going crazy with franchises that already have a ton.

 

[Quillion]

I can see untapped potential like you mention for Fire Emblem, but Star Fox not so much. I mean, I wouldn’t mind a character like Krystal joining, but the 3 characters are perfect for having the main character, the buddy, and the villain. As for moveset, it’s also fine. Star Fox really doesn’t lend itself to movesets that frequently, and most of the Adventure and Assault content would just be weird at this point especially since all were a one time deal. Again, Krystal would be fine though for stuff like an Adventure moveset since those are pretty much the only games she’s a part of, but I think most of Star Fox is fine.

As for FE, I think it is obviously missing spear and axe weilders along with bow. I think the character roster for FE is good for about 5/7 as it has the main mascots with Marth and the Awakening trio, and it has the most popular character. If anything just replace Roy and Corrin with like a Hector or Ephriam. I can agree that FE should have better, but I believe we differ on the extent, as FE already has pretty decent representation in the grand scheme of things.

The reason me and others bring up FE though is because even if we neglect echoes, FE still has more characters than most of the more desired franchises in Smash. With 4 original characters in Smash 4, that still gave it more roster space than Metroid, Kirby, DK, and placed it sort of in the same category as Zelda. No one on SmashBoards truly hates FE, but many see it’s praise as unwarranted for being a much smaller and less character requested series. Ultimately I think most would be fine with more characters, but they want their franchises cleaned up first, which I agree with. I don’t want another anime weapon weirder from FE before Kirby gets his final main character, or DK, or even Zelda gets their more important characters. Had Sakurai just added the character that people wanted, most likely none of these groups would be within the deep hate camp. Metroid fans clearly left after Ultimate because they got Ridley and Dark Samus just like they asked for, so now they have all the Metroid content they need. If anything, people are actually looking for more diversity as we should stack up the lesser represented franchise with some wanted picks before going crazy with franchises that already have a ton.

Okay, NOW that makes sense. I do agree that they're probably ignoring the non-EPD-developed Star Fox games since Nintendo doesn't really think highly of them nowadays.

I'd also personally replace Lucina with Lyn (since Lyn is one FE's most popular characters both then and now) and Corrin with Hector or Ephraim (the two "unique" lords). I could take or leave Robin for Micaiah, though.

I know that Metroid, Kirby, and DK are the most common "needs more" magnets, but I think there are valid reasons as to why their representation is minimal, and it has to do with how Nintendo treats the three.

• Metroid's only real main characters are Samus and Ridley, with others like Kraid and Mother Brain having taken their turns and being benched, with only Dark Samus working purely because of her absorption of Samus's abilities. Ridley himself required three attempts at designing a moveset, with the successful attempt having required overhauls to his body shape to make him recognizable while still working. As you said, though, Metroid is pretty set, at least until Sylux is established as another main character.
• DK largely fell off after DK64 after Rare's departure and the "spinoff decade", with Nintendo largely promoting Donkey and Diddy as part of the extended Mario universe with other characters only making sporadic appearances. K. Rool still hasn't returned to the DKCR series, while Dixie only came back in the second installment. Nintendo is pretty insular when it comes to fan input, so there is a reason why Sakurai was surprised at K. Rool's support.
• Kirby comes closest to having a legitimate additional main character in Bandanna Waddle Dee thanks to HAL pushing him, but I'd still say HAL has been careful enough to not overpromote him. He's never really going to be on the same level as Meta Knight or King Dedede.

 

[Captain Shades]

Okay, NOW that makes sense. I do agree that they're probably ignoring the non-EPD-developed Star Fox games since Nintendo doesn't really think highly of them nowadays.

Yeah, probably. I might also add that the fandom is pretty divided on the two titles already, so it’d be wrong to base the main 3 on titles that a good chunk of the fan base doesn’t support. Krystal would be fine as a fourth though for this representation as she was made for these titles.

I'd also personally replace Lucina with Lyn (since Lyn is one FE's most popular characters both then and now) and Corrin with Hector or Ephraim (the two "unique" lords). I could take or leave Robin for Micaiah, though.

I can’t really see that. Lucina is essentially an icon within the franchise at this point with her and Chrom being the secondary main mascots under Marth. It’d feel like taking out Luigi or Peach. If anything I’d rather have Lucina de-cloned and Chrom as an echo of her as their fighting style are a bit more “jump right into the action” than Marth’s more reserved style. She could have those spinning moves they do in cutscenes.

If anything Roy would be the one to go as the FE community seems to not like him and find him boring with his only popularity coming from Smash itself. Roy and Corrin are often looked down upon, so I’d rather have them leave and maybe bring in an FE 7 character like Lyn (though the community may have a tantrum as she’s over represented and Hector is better) than either a FE 2 or 8 character, primarily Ephriam, Alm, or Celica.

I know that Metroid, Kirby, and DK are the most common "needs more" magnets, but I think there are valid reasons as to why their representation is minimal, and it has to do with how Nintendo treats the three.

• Metroid's only real main characters are Samus and Ridley, with others like Kraid and Mother Brain having taken their turns and being benched, with only Dark Samus working purely because of her absorption of Samus's abilities. Ridley himself required three attempts at designing a moveset, with the successful attempt having required overhauls to his body shape to make him recognizable while still working. As you said, though, Metroid is pretty set, at least until Sylux is established as another main character.
• DK largely fell off after DK64 after Rare's departure and the "spinoff decade", with Nintendo largely promoting Donkey and Diddy as part of the extended Mario universe with other characters only making sporadic appearances. K. Rool still hasn't returned to the DKCR series, while Dixie only came back in the second installment. Nintendo is pretty insular when it comes to fan input, so there is a reason why Sakurai was surprised at K. Rool's support.
• Kirby comes closest to having a legitimate additional main character in Bandanna Waddle Dee thanks to HAL pushing him, but I'd still say HAL has been careful enough to not overpromote him. He's never really going to be on the same level as Meta Knight or King Dedede.

I can agree with this, though I think Metroid is done in the eyes of most Smash players, so It does show that a very minimal amount of additions can please the fan base.

DK is explainable, but I don’t think that makes it right. Even looking at DK outside of Smash, Nintendo is really bad at handling that franchise. It deserves better, which is why I feel that DK fans are a bit more rampant on this site. Just like Metroid, DK is a ground-breaking franchise that gets little in content from Nintendo and usually gets treated like garbage. DK and Metroid have been described as sister franchises by the Geek Critique and it’s honestly true being that both had a huge western influence, were taken on by Retro, and endure years of neglect. I think DK is honestly the new Metroid in that many will band together to makes sure Sakurai notices the franchise if Nintendo themselves won’t, and honestly I support the idea of people coming together to help the little guy out. The best way to describe DK at this moment is, if K Rool was the Ridley, than Dixie was the Dark Samus, a lesser requested but still prominent second option that I bet the fandoms would jump to after the first pick is gone. After that 4th character, they don’t got anybody with enough star power to bring that fan base up to its glory days again.

Kirby hurts, and by extension Zelda too. I think many are just confused when it comes to these two as they seem like the obvious priority franchises that would get new characters in each installment. They come very close to Mario and Pokémon in star power, typically have diverse casts, and were also seen as kind of the main 4 mascots of Smash. You would think some more characters would come these franchises way, but Sakurai’s rules seem to prevent them rather than give good explanations. He quite simply just doesn’t want to use Kirby and he seems to think the main 3 Zelda characters are the only characters that matter. I think this is one of those issues where the only solution is to wait for Sakurai to be done with Smash, because I’m pretty positive that a new director would likely bulk up the rosters of these two.

 

[Quillion]

DK is explainable, but I don’t think that makes it right. Even looking at DK outside of Smash, Nintendo is really bad at handling that franchise. It deserves better, which is why I feel that DK fans are a bit more rampant on this site.

I keep asking this question and no one answers me: WHAT DO YOU WANT NINTENDO TO DO FOR DK?

Do you really want Nintendo to load the series up on annualized main series installments and multiple spinoffs per year? Because again, I don't want DK to be diluted from a special small series into an overmilked cow.

 

[Goddamn_Angela]

Cordelia with Pegasus for Smash please.

 

[Ryu Myuutsu]

I keep asking this question and no one answers me: WHAT DO YOU WANT NINTENDO TO DO FOR DK?

To keep handing it over to Retro so they can keep making more gems like Tropical Freeze.

 

[Mario & Sonic Guy]

To keep handing it over to Retro so they can keep making more gems like Tropical Freeze.

Meanwhile, the Kremling Krew is still looking for its comeback. King K. Rool's presence in Ultimate is a start, but it could always go further.

 

[Captain Shades]

I keep asking this question and no one answers me: WHAT DO YOU WANT NINTENDO TO DO FOR DK?

Do you really want Nintendo to load the series up on annualized main series installments and multiple spinoffs per year? Because again, I don't want DK to be diluted from a special small series into an overmilked cow.

I just want good games that aren’t riddled with whatever Nintendo’s new idea for play of the day is. Actual acknowledgement of DK’s cast outside of DK and Diddy with the occasional Cranky, etc.. Honestly, what Retro is doing now is perfect, it has less titles than before but every one is a 10/10 loaded with original ideas and respect and acknowledgement of DK’s past. This is what DK fans want and by extension Metroid. They don’t want a game every year, but can we get less than 10 year gaps with solid entries like Prime and Tropical Freeze over a crazy influx/death period and tons of weird experiment titles like Jungle Beat or Federation Force. I think they also want more acknowledgement, like if DK is to be part of Mario can we get some more of his friends, I definitely know the MK8 community is cravin for Diddy’s return. I guess it’d be nice to have more of the Wii and DS days spin-off characters where K Rool, Funky and Dixie had a chance of appearing.

I think it’s less about the idea of having more games, but rather having better which seems hard for Nintendo, causing them to send these franchises to western studios. Western studios seem to understand the core better than them, which is why people don’t like Nintendo’s in house products as much, other than the fact that Nintendo is pretty notorious for massive change ups that hurt the franchise, like making Metroid more story heavy (Other M) or adding weird control schemes. I think also comes down to wanting more material outside of the franchise, with Metroid obviously being a heavy topic within Smash along with DK, and DK being a debated topic for more representation in Mario spin-offs.

 

[Necro'lic]

I keep asking this question and no one answers me: WHAT DO YOU WANT NINTENDO TO DO FOR DK?

Do you really want Nintendo to load the series up on annualized main series installments and multiple spinoffs per year? Because again, I don't want DK to be diluted from a special small series into an overmilked cow.

In terms of Smash only, I highly doubt DK fans would want anything more than Dixie Kong as a playable fighter. That way, we have the three original stars of the respective games of the original DKC trilogy, and the villain of the trilogy.

Other than that, MAYBE a non-jungle stage like Fear Factory stages or Rockface Rumble stages. Or a mine cart level. The point is it would be easy to appease them fully.

 

[Quillion]

I think it’s less about the idea of having more games, but rather having better which seems hard for Nintendo, causing them to send these franchises to western studios. Western studios seem to understand the core better than them, which is why people don’t like Nintendo’s in house products as much, other than the fact that Nintendo is pretty notorious for massive change ups that hurt the franchise, like making Metroid more story heavy (Other M) or adding weird control schemes. I think also comes down to wanting more material outside of the franchise, with Metroid obviously being a heavy topic within Smash along with DK, and DK being a debated topic for more representation in Mario spin-offs.

But DK hasn't been in-house since the arcade trilogy, and Metroid hasn't been in-house since Zero Mission. Maybe what you're trying to say is that Nintendo outsources these two franchises, not just to western devs. EPD has limited resources, you know?

 

[Ryu Myuutsu]

Other M was co-developed with Team Ninja so it wasn't entirely in-house. Sakamoto was leading it for sure and is responsible for the narrative and several creative decisions, but Team Ninja is also responsible for how it turned out.

 

[Captain Shades]

But DK hasn't been in-house since the arcade trilogy, and Metroid hasn't been in-house since Zero Mission. Maybe what you're trying to say is that Nintendo outsources these two franchises, not just to western devs. EPD has limited resources, you know?

My bad, I know they aren’t in house, I meant more of the Japanese developers. No hate on them, but they clearly had a hard time with DK or did some really odd stuff with him like Namco’s Bongo series. DK was very much infused with Western design once Rare took over, and it was pretty clear that it didn’t translate over well after the departure. If anything, Paon was probably the best at developing for DK during the 2000s, but in general the series was a complete mess of weird and failed ideas under Nintendo during this time. I honestly don’t mind Nintendo’s treatment now as clearly Retro is the best suited to deal with the franchise and I’m glad Nintendo put it under their care. (Same with Metroid). I guess the best way to answer your original question is that Nintendo just needs to put franchises under the right care, which is why Metroid and DK were in such disarray. Both had at least a good 10 year time-span of little content outside of spin-offs no one wanted till Nintendo found the right people, in DK’s case it was Retro and Metroid has both Retro and Mercury Steam to really back it up.

Honestly, I really hope Nintendo takes the successes of these two franchises and expands to have more Western developers going forward. Metroid’s best titles in the past decades have been made in Texas and Spain, and DK is now primarily worked on by the Texas team. Going forward, I sort of hope that Star Fox becomes the next DK or Metroid and gets taken over by western developers. I know many want Retro to do Star Fox, but honestly I’d go against the pack and say that Ubisoft should make the next entries as the Star Link content was superbly made and the best thing Star Fox has gotten in years. Ubisoft already has this great open-world galaxy that can breath a ton of new life into the series.

The frustration within DK and Metroid really comes down to Nintendo doesn’t make many of the good titles and decisions with the properties, but rather the non-Japanese studios seem to know how to handle them. People want good titles regardless if they take 5 or so years to make, its just that Nintendo typically disappoints many. The other issue comes with Smash and other big Nintendo events and how little these franchises are treated in comparison to the more Japanese oriented series like FE. Because of the culture barrier, I feel that Nintendo kind of forgets these franchises and almost intentionally leaves out key things the western studios introduced (Other M..hem....). I think things are changing going forwards, Smash just got two huge Western characters with K Rool and Dark Samus, and Nintendo is partnering up with many western studios like Ubisoft and Bethesda, even Microsoft. I just think damage has been done from the 2000s and early 2010s to show Nintendo really didn’t care.

 

[Koopaul]

This topic is silly. No character "needs" to be in Smash. No series "needs" better representation. This is all subjective. You can't argue "F-Zero doesn't need more character because of such and such" and then say "Donkey Kong needs this character because of such and such".

There's no objective standard for what series needs who or why. Sakurai adds characters because he thinks they will be fun or surprising and occationally to please the fans.

So does F-Zero need another fighter? No. But people want one. And that's good enough. Ridley didn't need to be fighter either. I remember people making the argument that Samus (and ZSS) should be the only rep for Metroid because "Metroid is about isolation". I remember people saying we don't need another Animal Crossing fighter because Villager represents the series on his own and adding someone like Isabelle would ruin that.

It's absolutely foolish to make an argument for who should or shouldn't be in Smash at this point. Anyone can be a fighter!

 

[Troykv]

This topic is silly. No character "needs" to be in Smash. No series "needs" better representation. This is all subjective. You can't argue "F-Zero doesn't need more character because of such and such" and then say "Donkey Kong needs this character because of such and such".

There's no objective standard for what series needs who or why. Sakurai adds characters because he thinks they will be fun or surprising and occationally to please the fans.

So does F-Zero need another fighter? No. But people want one. And that's good enough. Ridley didn't need to be fighter either. I remember people making the argument that Samus (and ZSS) should be the only rep for Metroid because "Metroid is about isolation". I remember people saying we don't need another Animal Crossing fighter because Villager represents the series on his own and adding someone like Isabelle would ruin that.

It's absolutely foolish to make an argument for who should or shouldn't be in Smash at this point. Anyone can be a fighter!

I personally think that any character that has the appeal and the potential is good game... But what exactly determines both? I Guess only Sakurai knows.

 

[Ryu Myuutsu]

I have to agree, I also never cared that much about filling an arbitrary quota of 'representation' that is mostly fan made. I rolled my eyes once at someone's reaction after Ridley and Dark Samus were confirmed. I'm just paraphrasing but they said "Now we need to have Sylux, Anthony and Rundas so we can get even with Fire Emblem". Like, come on man.

 

[xzx]

It baffles me that Paper Mario isn't a character yet. Has his own series, would be super unique with tons of moveset ideas with moves that could easily be taken from the main games, and is iconic enough to stand out.

Instead Rosalina was more important apparently and people now demand Waluigi. We literally got a Mario newcomer that started on the letter "P" and it wasn't Paper Mario...

At the end of the day, though, it is Sakurai's game and he and Nintendo will add whatever character they want, even if it is just another anime swordfighter or Fire Emblem character #8.

Btw, I agree that quality > quantity when adding characters. I would rather have one unique Fire Emblem character (Robin) than 3-4 clone-esque characters. Fire Emblem literally has Echo characters based off clone characters!

If talking about "representation" (goodness I hate when people demand characters for the sake of "repping"...), then for me it's all about having the all-stars, especially if they have been playable in the games they appear in (or even better, having their own games/series).

Tingle is more of an "all-star" than Impa or Skull Kid because he at least has his own game series. Impa is just an important story side-character and Skull Kid just a boss. (Not saying they can't be good characters for Smash, just that in comparison to Tingle they aren't "better" than him.)

Paper Mario is literally the perfect all-star for Smash as he has his own series going for him, has great potential and other stuff that I mentioned before. Compared to Rosalina, who isn't even playable in her own series and is just an important character to the Mario Galaxy series, shouldn't be as important as Paper Mario. But here we are, Rosalina playable and Paper Mario not. (Not saying Rosalina is a bad character, but Paper Mario would offer more.) I'm not even going to comment on Waluigi. The only two Mario characters that feel missing are Paper Mario and Toad.

Bandana Waddle Dee and Dixie Kong are also all-stars, but to a lesser extent. While not having their own series they are important (playable) characters in their series and would be good picks for Smash.

Also, its a shame Bomberman, Chibi-Robo and Isaac aren't playable either. Great all-stars too.

So yeah, quality is better than quantity imo.

 

[osby]

I would rather have one unique Fire Emblem character (Robin) than 3-4 clone-esque characters.

These aren't mutually exclusive. We did got multiple unique Fire Emblem characters along with multiple derived ones.

Clones take significantly less development time, so not adding them wouldn't result in more unique characters.

 

[PsychoJosh]

So you ask for more "quality" characters and then contradict your whole point by asking for more generic enemies to be playable. That was the point I knew there is nothing in this post to be taken seriously which is a shame because in principle I was going to agree with you. Smash has way too much chaff and not enough unique ideas and it is holding the game back - part of the reason the series hasn't seen a major evolution is because people just keep wanting the same game with more content, instead of a new game with new mechanics and interesting quirks to each of the characters. No other fighting game does this. Street Fighter 2 doesn't play anything like 3, 4, 5 or the Alpha series. Which is downright pitiful when you consider that Smash has a larger reach than SF has.

A lot of new characters don't really bring unique things to the table. Smash players just want them in for superficial reasons, not because they're going to add anything interesting. The thing that best reflects this point is that Mii Fighters have a lot of blatantly copied moves from other fighters - this takes away their uniqueness and makes them interchangeable with anyone else who happens to use a similar weapon. It reduces these characters to shallow functions who don't really bring much other than aesthetic differences. Prior to Ultimate's release everyone was speculating, in a hopeful way, that Link would have a new kit, that we'd finally see a dramatic change-up to character movelists by introducing new things from their latest games in the series. They were thinking Link would be able to make use of more weapons and Sheikah Slate mechanics. Mario would be able to take new forms with Cappy. Unfortunately it was all fantasy and all we got was Smash 4 with less single player content, worse online multiplayer and more annoying input glitches. But hey, more characters! More of the same crap! Exactly what I was describing earlier.

The closest thing we got to a new mechanic was Inkling being able to recharge their ink with shield+B. Wasn't a game-changer, just something specific to the character. No one else got any shield+B moves. The game plays exactly the same. We've been playing the same game for the past 18 years and it's never going to end because Smash players don't want evolution, they just want numbers increase. More stages, more characters, more songs. No creativity, no innovation to help prevent the game from stagnating. Honestly, it kind of makes me hate the series even though it was designed to appeal to someone like me who is a die-hard fan of video games.

Smash is cursed. It's never going to change, never going to improve. It has completely lost the magic it once had. Everything it does now is what you expect it to do. There is no Smash game you can point to and say "that's the one". The concept of a perfect Smash game is entirely imaginary, never to be realized.

 

[meleebrawler]

So you ask for more "quality" characters and then contradict your whole point by asking for more generic enemies to be playable. That was the point I knew there is nothing in this post to be taken seriously which is a shame because in principle I was going to agree with you. Smash has way too much chaff and not enough unique ideas and it is holding the game back - part of the reason the series hasn't seen a major evolution is because people just keep wanting the same game with more content, instead of a new game with new mechanics and interesting quirks to each of the characters. No other fighting game does this. Street Fighter 2 doesn't play anything like 3, 4, 5 or the Alpha series. Which is downright pitiful when you consider that Smash has a larger reach than SF has.

A lot of new characters don't really bring unique things to the table. Smash players just want them in for superficial reasons, not because they're going to add anything interesting. The thing that best reflects this point is that Mii Fighters have a lot of blatantly copied moves from other fighters - this takes away their uniqueness and makes them interchangeable with anyone else who happens to use a similar weapon. It reduces these characters to shallow functions who don't really bring much other than aesthetic differences. Prior to Ultimate's release everyone was speculating, in a hopeful way, that Link would have a new kit, that we'd finally see a dramatic change-up to character movelists by introducing new things from their latest games in the series. They were thinking Link would be able to make use of more weapons and Sheikah Slate mechanics. Mario would be able to take new forms with Cappy. Unfortunately it was all fantasy and all we got was Smash 4 with less single player content, worse online multiplayer and more annoying input glitches. But hey, more characters! More of the same crap! Exactly what I was describing earlier.

The closest thing we got to a new mechanic was Inkling being able to recharge their ink with shield+B. Wasn't a game-changer, just something specific to the character. No one else got any shield+B moves. The game plays exactly the same. We've been playing the same game for the past 18 years and it's never going to end because Smash players don't want evolution, they just want numbers increase. More stages, more characters, more songs. No creativity, no innovation to help prevent the game from stagnating. Honestly, it kind of makes me hate the series even though it was designed to appeal to someone like me who is a die-hard fan of video games.

Smash is cursed. It's never going to change, never going to improve. It has completely lost the magic it once had. Everything it does now is what you expect it to do. There is no Smash game you can point to and say "that's the one". The concept of a perfect Smash game is entirely imaginary, never to be realized.

Pretty much any fighting game with custom character creation only lets you apply pre-existing movesets to them.

And you're comparing game mechanics from one series to characters in Smash for some reason. Many characters in Street Fighter barely change from game to game, like Ryu or Man With Two Moves Guile.

Every Smash game has something that defines it, for better or worse and regardless of intention:

64: The one where every character has 0-death combos.
Melee: The Third Strike of Smash, with huge complexity in tech and competitive depth, though not great balance.
Brawl: The one with Subspace, and the most moddable Smash. And with a character that dominated everything.
4: The one where grabs were OP, and nothing ressembling an Adventure mode. Also custom moves.
Ultimate: Everyone is here, and the best character balance by far.

And that's not even getting into all the little nuances in gameplay that change from title to title, like airdodges, shields, items or even freaking tripping.

It's funny that you advocate quality yet admonish Ultimate for having less single-player modes, because honestly those modes are of better quality than most of 4's. An unbalanced as heck Classic, Smash Tour nobody likes, you only played Special Orders to get stuff instead of it being fun. Only 3DS Smash Run and Classic was somewhat fun. And going back further, stuff like Target Smash/Blast, Home-Run Contest (which is always dominated by the same characters Ganondorf and Yoshi anyway) are things most people play a handful of times at most, probably to unlock something, before forgetting about them. Ultimate on the other hand, has tailored and well-balanced Classic campaigns, and more robust Event Matches that ties into a lengthy campaign and collecting ''trophies''. Yes, it's not as varied, but it's consistently fun. And online is hugely subjective, since everyone experiences lag differently and has different wants for the modes they like to play. Arenas are a feature no other Smash game has for their online, and let you tailor your experience pretty thoroughly when quick matchmaking doesn't cut it. It could do with some polishing perhaps, but it's there.

Finally, stuff like Mario's capturing and Link's Sheikah Slate are either impossibilites competitively or don't add as much as you'd think. Controlling your opponent is obviously cheap, and Cappy is just a basic boomerang projectile otherwise. Meanwhile, most of the Sheikah Slate's basic functions are pretty useless in a fight, and Magnesis only works on metal things. At this point you're mostly arguing massive change for the sake of change, which is not really healthy.

 

[Quillion]

So you ask for more "quality" characters and then contradict your whole point by asking for more generic enemies to be playable.

How? Certain enemies are icons of their series in their own right. They have iconic designs and a whole bunch of signature abilities depending on the game.

If you're just going to reduce it to, "well, they aren't really characters with their own personality", well...

 

[Captain Shades]

So you ask for more "quality" characters and then contradict your whole point by asking for more generic enemies to be playable.

To defend Quillion , he is correct in saying generic enemies are iconic and have enough of a moveset to be included in Smash Bros. Barring Bandana Dee as he is an evolved form of the generic enemy, there are still many to choose from.

The Guardian (BOTW) would make for an excellent fighter as not only is it the most iconic thing in BOTW it also has a full moveset with lasers, swords and spears, and even has a flying form.

Bokoblins are also pretty versatile and have a unique look and moveset to pull from.

A lot of new characters don't really bring unique things to the table. Smash players just want them in for superficial reasons, not because they're going to add anything interesting. The thing that best reflects this point is that Mii Fighters have a lot of blatantly copied moves from other fighters - this takes away their uniqueness and makes them interchangeable with anyone else who happens to use a similar weapon. It reduces these characters to shallow functions who don't really bring much other than aesthetic differences. Prior to Ultimate's release everyone was speculating, in a hopeful way, that Link would have a new kit, that we'd finally see a dramatic change-up to character movelists by introducing new things from their latest games in the series. They were thinking Link would be able to make use of more weapons and Sheikah Slate mechanics. Mario would be able to take new forms with Cappy. Unfortunately it was all fantasy and all we got was Smash 4 with less single player content, worse online multiplayer and more annoying input glitches. But hey, more characters! More of the same crap! Exactly what I was describing earlier.

I can agree that I was disappointed by the lack of change up, but I view things differently. This may be the last traditional game we get and it’s a fitting ending putting together everything Sakurai worked on in one big compilation. I would have loved more new, but this is a celebration for those who have been with the series.

 

[PsychoJosh]

Pretty much any fighting game with custom character creation only lets you apply pre-existing movesets to them.

And you're comparing game mechanics from one series to characters in Smash for some reason. Many characters in Street Fighter barely change from game to game, like Ryu or Man With Two Moves Guile.

Every Smash game has something that defines it, for better or worse and regardless of intention:

64: The one where every character has 0-death combos.
Melee: The Third Strike of Smash, with huge complexity in tech and competitive depth, though not great balance.
Brawl: The one with Subspace, and the most moddable Smash. And with a character that dominated everything.
4: The one where grabs were OP, and nothing ressembling an Adventure mode. Also custom moves.
Ultimate: Everyone is here, and the best character balance by far.

And that's not even getting into all the little nuances in gameplay that change from title to title, like airdodges, shields, items or even freaking tripping.

It's funny that you advocate quality yet admonish Ultimate for having less single-player modes, because honestly those modes are of better quality than most of 4's. An unbalanced as heck Classic, Smash Tour nobody likes, you only played Special Orders to get stuff instead of it being fun. Only 3DS Smash Run and Classic was somewhat fun. And going back further, stuff like Target Smash/Blast, Home-Run Contest (which is always dominated by the same characters Ganondorf and Yoshi anyway) are things most people play a handful of times at most, probably to unlock something, before forgetting about them. Ultimate on the other hand, has tailored and well-balanced Classic campaigns, and more robust Event Matches that ties into a lengthy campaign and collecting ''trophies''. Yes, it's not as varied, but it's consistently fun. And online is hugely subjective, since everyone experiences lag differently and has different wants for the modes they like to play. Arenas are a feature no other Smash game has for their online, and let you tailor your experience pretty thoroughly when quick matchmaking doesn't cut it. It could do with some polishing perhaps, but it's there.

Finally, stuff like Mario's capturing and Link's Sheikah Slate are either impossibilites competitively or don't add as much as you'd think. Controlling your opponent is obviously cheap, and Cappy is just a basic boomerang projectile otherwise. Meanwhile, most of the Sheikah Slate's basic functions are pretty useless in a fight, and Magnesis only works on metal things. At this point you're mostly arguing massive change for the sake of change, which is not really healthy.

Yes, that's exactly how I feel about every game. Every game in the Smash series has something horribly wrong with it which makes it impossible to point to any one game as the best. Sakurai's design methodology of deliberately giving each game "character flaws" doesn't help make the game better, it's more done just for his own titillation and is one of many things holding the series back.

I didn't say "single player modes", I said "single player content". I'm referring specifically to Ultimate's lack of trophies. I don't know why they thought it was a good idea to remove them. Trophies were good, they were fun, contained lots of tidbits of trivia and fully detailed models (before they decided to phone it in and literally just rip models from other games). The absence left by them is palpable. Swapping them for collectible JPEGS that don't have any value other than stat boosts in silly event matches on a Mario Party-style game board isn't a good trade off. Ideally we'd have event matches and trophies. And no, spirit world is not "consistently fun". It's actually more of a chore, because without the game-exiting exploit it is something you need to unlock all the characters and the gameplay itself is really boring. You generally just find one spirit/character combination that breaks the game and then you just plough your way through until you meet a roadblock spirit that impedes your progress without some specific gimmick spirit designed just for the sole purpose of defeating it, after which you continue using the previous method of broken character/spirit combo. It's not fun. You have to choose between using a broken spirit combo or just getting your ass constantly handed to you by the broken opponents and hazards with no in-between.

Lastly if you think that's all that could be done with the Sheikah Slate or Cappy I don't think you've put much thought into it. Cappy controlling opponents would be obviously useless, but what if Mario could summon different things to possess as Cappy, replacing his severely outdated down+B or side+B where he just pulls out FLUDD or his super cape? He could possess a frog for escaping tight scenarios with a small hitbox and large jumping power, he could possess a Moe-Eye for infinite armor, one of those bubble-octopi things to replicate the FLUDD's abilities, or one of those tropical wigglers that can extend its body. There's a mountain of different things that could be done which would be a welcome replacement for the outdated moveset he's had since Melee. Truthfully, so many characters could do with a kit upgrade since they're still using moves that make no sense to have in Ultimate - they're mostly obsolete. Kirby, Power Suit Samus and Yoshi desperately need moveset overhauls. But as I said it's never going to happen because Smash is about quantity over quality.

How? Certain enemies are icons of their series in their own right. They have iconic designs and a whole bunch of signature abilities depending on the game.

If you're just going to reduce it to, "well, they aren't really characters with their own personality", well...

You really don't see how it cheapens the game to add generic mooks that only a tiny handful of Nintendo fanboys want, instead of characters that people actually like? Well, I guess it's true what they say, you can lead someone to knowledge but you can't make them think. I'm sorry but I'm always going to want actual named Castlevania characters instead of "Generic Skeleton" or "Generic Zombie". I'm always going to want Snake instead of "Generic Soldier". While I don't doubt your ability to contrive touching backstories for any of the generic enemy characters you want, I think it's safe to say that doesn't really add much, and anyone who's not a GameXplain-esque fanboy would be quite disappointed if they just filled the roster with nobodies. I mean sure it would appease the one or two neckbeards with a wall shelf full of amiibos that think it would be a good idea to add Goomba, but not anyone apart from that. Your cute little Big Lebowski quote doesn't really do much to invalidate the argument. They are literally not characters, and largely do not have their own personalities. I've always said that ANY character you can think of has "moveset potential" (as Piranha Plant demonstrates), so obviously characters need to have a bit more star quality than that, which is why Piranha Plant represents the point where the series has jumped the shark for a lot of people. It is reductive in a damaging way to infer that character functions are more important than characters. Both are equally important to Smash.

Smash is not supposed to be MUGEN. We don't need hundreds of generic enemies to be playable. What you're arguing for is exactly the opposite of your thread's premise. There's no way you can add an inexhaustible supply of generic no-name enemies as playable characters and still expect the game to be quality over quantity. That's a HARD self-contradiction.

 

[meleebrawler]

Yes, that's exactly how I feel about every game. Every game in the Smash series has something horribly wrong with it which makes it impossible to point to any one game as the best. Sakurai's design methodology of deliberately giving each game "character flaws" doesn't help make the game better, it's more done just for his own titillation and is one of many things holding the series back.

I didn't say "single player modes", I said "single player content". I'm referring specifically to Ultimate's lack of trophies. I don't know why they thought it was a good idea to remove them. Trophies were good, they were fun, contained lots of tidbits of trivia and fully detailed models (before they decided to phone it in and literally just rip models from other games). The absence left by them is palpable. Swapping them for collectible JPEGS that don't have any value other than stat boosts in silly event matches on a Mario Party-style game board isn't a good trade off. Ideally we'd have event matches and trophies. And no, spirit world is not "consistently fun". It's actually more of a chore, because without the game-exiting exploit it is something you need to unlock all the characters and the gameplay itself is really boring. You generally just find one spirit/character combination that breaks the game and then you just plough your way through until you meet a roadblock spirit that impedes your progress without some specific gimmick spirit designed just for the sole purpose of defeating it, after which you continue using the previous method of broken character/spirit combo. It's not fun. You have to choose between using a broken spirit combo or just getting your *** constantly handed to you by the broken opponents and hazards with no in-between.

Lastly if you think that's all that could be done with the Sheikah Slate or Cappy I don't think you've put much thought into it. Cappy controlling opponents would be obviously useless, but what if Mario could summon different things to possess as Cappy, replacing his severely outdated down+B or side+B where he just pulls out FLUDD or his super cape? He could possess a frog for escaping tight scenarios with a small hitbox and large jumping power, he could possess a Moe-Eye for infinite armor, one of those bubble-octopi things to replicate the FLUDD's abilities, or one of those tropical wigglers that can extend its body. There's a mountain of different things that could be done which would be a welcome replacement for the outdated moveset he's had since Melee. Truthfully, so many characters could do with a kit upgrade since they're still using moves that make no sense to have in Ultimate - they're mostly obsolete. Kirby, Power Suit Samus and Yoshi desperately need moveset overhauls. But as I said it's never going to happen because Smash is about quantity over quality.




You really don't see how it cheapens the game to add generic mooks that only a tiny handful of Nintendo fanboys want, instead of characters that people actually like? Well, I guess it's true what they say, you can lead someone to knowledge but you can't make them think. I'm sorry but I'm always going to want actual named Castlevania characters instead of "Generic Skeleton" or "Generic Zombie". I'm always going to want Snake instead of "Generic Soldier". While I don't doubt your ability to contrive touching backstories for any of the generic enemy characters you want, I think it's safe to say that doesn't really add much, and anyone who's not a GameXplain-esque fanboy would be quite disappointed if they just filled the roster with nobodies. I mean sure it would appease the one or two neckbeards with a wall shelf full of amiibos that think it would be a good idea to add Goomba, but not anyone apart from that.

Smash is not supposed to be MUGEN. We don't need hundreds of generic enemies to be playable. What you're arguing for is exactly the opposite of your thread's premise. There's no way you can add an inexhaustible supply of generic no-name enemies as playable characters and still expect the game to be quality over quantity. That's a HARD self-contradiction.

You never have to touch World Of Light to unlock characters for use outside of that. In fact outside the boss spirits you never have to go in World Of Light for anything. Your problem seems to be just viewing it as busywork to unlock stuff, which can be said for any prior single-player mode. Instead I took the time to smell the roses, using level-appropriate spirits and appreciating the clever ways the devs used in-game assets to represent the spirits in question. And I wasn't forced to do any of it.

Those ideas for Mario sound ridiculously complex for someone who is known in all his spin-off appearances to be an all-rounder who is easy to pick up and understand. Not to mention inaccurate for the Moe-Eye since he gets no damage resistance whatsover for being one in Odyssey. And I've yet to hear any suggestions for how to use Link's Sheikah Slate. Cryonis only works on bodies of water, Magnesis only affects metal things (and Brawl Pokemon Trainer proves character-specific interactions are bad) and Stasis only affects living things when upgraded, which would be cheap anyway.

 

[PsychoJosh]

You never have to touch World Of Light to unlock characters for use outside of that. In fact outside the boss spirits you never have to go in World Of Light for anything. Your problem seems to be just viewing it as busywork to unlock stuff, which can be said for any prior single-player mode. Instead I took the time to smell the roses, using level-appropriate spirits and appreciating the clever ways the devs used in-game assets to represent the spirits in question. And I wasn't forced to do any of it.

Okay... good for you? There's no "correct" way to play the spirits mode, just effective ways of doing it. You could arbitrarily choose to limit yourself by deliberately picking weak character/spirit combos but there's no real point since the end result is the same. It's just not enjoyable. The game needs more than some interpretive dance number of how 3 pikachus represent a trio of mice from animal crossing or whatever.

Those ideas for Mario sound ridiculously complex for someone who is known in all his spin-off appearances to be an all-rounder who is easy to pick up and understand. Not to mention inaccurate for the Moe-Eye since he gets no damage resistance whatsover for being one in Odyssey. And I've yet to hear any suggestions for how to use Link's Sheikah Slate. Cryonis only works on bodies of water, Magnesis only affects metal things (and Brawl Pokemon Trainer proves character-specific interactions are bad) and Stasis only affects living things when upgraded, which would be cheap anyway.

I was just listing by example. Obviously you don't adapt things 1:1 from their source game since Smash is a different type of game from a platformer. And armor is not damage resistance. He still takes damage, he just doesn't get knocked back by it since he's a big stone thing. You're missing the whole point - there's things they can do to evolve the gameplay of Smash and make it better, yet they don't do it out of an irrational fear of alienating people who are used to things the way they are, which is the downfall of the series. Smash is not able to fix any mistakes it has because of this ridiculous mentality that they can't "alienate the traditionalists", which is why Ganondorf is still using Falcon's moves and there are a million Fire Emblem clones despite the weapon triangle being an important aspect of that game. There's plenty of valid arguments as to why they can and should try to mix things up with Smash's gameplay at this point, but it's useless since they refuse to take any sort of player feedback and only see a gameplay evolution as a risk rather than a necessity. The series is forced to retread the same ground forever because of this mentality that tradition is inherently good even if it's encumbered with useless baggage that only weakens the game overall.

 

[Quillion]

There's no way you can add an inexhaustible supply of generic no-name enemies as playable characters and still expect the game to be quality over quantity.

Don't strawman me, sir. I don't want every single franchise to have playable mooks. Only the ones where the enemies have significant iconography. Which would be Mario and Zelda at this point.

 

[meleebrawler]

Okay... good for you? There's no "correct" way to play the spirits mode, just effective ways of doing it. You could arbitrarily choose to limit yourself by deliberately picking weak character/spirit combos but there's no real point since the end result is the same. It's just not enjoyable. The game needs more than some interpretive dance number of how 3 pikachus represent a trio of mice from animal crossing or whatever.



I was just listing by example. Obviously you don't adapt things 1:1 from their source game since Smash is a different type of game from a platformer. And armor is not damage resistance. He still takes damage, he just doesn't get knocked back by it since he's a big stone thing. You're missing the whole point - there's things they can do to evolve the gameplay of Smash and make it better, yet they don't do it out of an irrational fear of alienating people who are used to things the way they are, which is the downfall of the series. Smash is not able to fix any mistakes it has because of this ridiculous mentality that they can't "alienate the traditionalists", which is why Ganondorf is still using Falcon's moves and there are a million Fire Emblem clones despite the weapon triangle being an important aspect of that game. There's plenty of valid arguments as to why they can and should try to mix things up with Smash's gameplay at this point, but it's useless since they refuse to take any sort of player feedback and only see a gameplay evolution as a risk rather than a necessity. The series is forced to retread the same ground forever because of this mentality that tradition is inherently good even if it's encumbered with useless baggage that only weakens the game overall.

Fighting game characters change little across entries. That's just how it is. Street Fighter III replaced 90% of the previous game's cast with brand-new characters. It did not go over well, and while people did come around to them eventually, it still noticeably hurt the game's performance. What did they do before then? Mostly just played Ryu & Ken because they were familiar.

If you're so positive Odyssey changes will make Mario not only different, but better, why am I not hearing explanations or good examples about it? And since you say characters don't have to adapt 1:1 with source, then doesn't that mean it's actually OK for Ganondorf to primarily be a slugger?

You contradict yourself a lot in fact, constantly saying Smash needs to ''evolve'' (not that you've given good ideas on how to do that beyond a small handful of characters), yet bemoan the loss of features in old Smash games. Evolution sometimes takes away unnecessary things, you know.

Ultimate is now the best-selling Smash game of all time, and it achieved this by focusing on what draws people to it in the first place: a massive all-star cast distilled in a way that's easy for players of all ages to get into and fight each other. Hard to argue with those numbers. If Smash has to evolve due to being unable match the scale of this entry, so be it, but it won't be because that strategy wasn't working.

 

[PsychoJosh]

Don't strawman me, sir. I don't want every single franchise to have playable mooks. Only the ones where the enemies have significant iconography. Which would be Mario and Zelda at this point.

They're no better than adding in generic skeletons from Castlevania. Thinking anything else is a delusion. A Goomba is not any more worthy than a skeleton from Castlevania. You don't get to arbitrarily decide they are worthy of being in on the grounds of being more "iconic". Generic mooks are generic mooks.

Fighting game characters change little across entries. That's just how it is. Street Fighter III replaced 90% of the previous game's cast with brand-new characters. It did not go over well, and while people did come around to them eventually, it still noticeably hurt the game's performance. What did they do before then? Mostly just played Ryu & Ken because they were familiar.

Street Fighter 3 didn't do well because they failed to market it properly. Also, using the example of SF3 completely destroys your entire argument. SF3 was a marked evolution from SF2. It featured way more fluid animation, completely different combo mechanics, introduced parrying, EX moves and stackable supers. Smash has not had any sort of significant evolution of this magnitude since 64 to Melee. Despite being a "failure" SF3 still changed the way future Street Fighter games would be built. Building and iterating off SF3 they added Focus Attacks and EX FADC in SF4, and V-Trigger in SF5, And saying that returning characters didn't change change between SF2 to 3, 4 and 5 is ridiculous and shows how little you actually know about the SF games. SF2 Ryu does not play anything like SF5 Ryu. Even SF5 Guile, who could be argued has changed the LEAST between iterations, is vastly different than his previous iterations.

If you're so positive Odyssey changes will make Mario not only different, but better, why am I not hearing explanations or good examples about it? And since you say characters don't have to adapt 1:1 with source, then doesn't that mean it's actually OK for Ganondorf to primarily be a slugger?

You contradict yourself a lot in fact, constantly saying Smash needs to ''evolve'' (not that you've given good ideas on how to do that beyond a small handful of characters), yet bemoan the loss of features in old Smash games. Evolution sometimes takes away unnecessary things, you know.

The fact that you're incapable of understanding my point does not invalidate it. Adapting content from more recent source material is just the simplest example one can give of the way Smash has done nothing to address its stagnation. Personally that's just the tip of the iceberg, I'd much rather overhaul the gameplay from the ground up. I'd add completely new mechanics, such as:
-combo strings with a hit counter,
-enhanced special moves with meter,
-underwater combat in place of the useless surface swimming mechanic,
-tag team modes,
-assist summons ala MVC1,
-interactable stage hazards such as turrets,
-a different function for the Y button (like using it exclusively for light attacks or short hops),
and more things that aren't just off the top of my head. You can evolve the series without taking away the casual fun factor, it just takes a bit of planning, but I know they're not even going to bother, for reasons I'll outline in my next quote.

And loss of additional content like trophies that doesn't affect the gameplay is in no way related to the "evolution" of Smash, this is likewise an utterly silly argument. Trophies are merely unlockable rewards, not a gameplay element in of themselves that affects whether the series stagnates or not. You're very bad at this.

Ultimate is now the best-selling Smash game of all time, and it achieved this by focusing on what draws people to it in the first place: a massive all-star cast distilled in a way that's easy for players of all ages to get into and fight each other. Hard to argue with those numbers. If Smash has to evolve due to being unable match the scale of this entry, so be it, but it won't be because that strategy wasn't working.

And now you understand the crux of the problem. This is the reason why Smash is never going to evolve, because the justification they use for keeping it the same is that its sold well. Something can sell better despite being a worse game - sales are not indicative of quality. Ultimate is not the "ultimate" version of Smash, far from it. It plays worse in many areas and is lacking enjoyable content that was in previous games in the series. But it sold well anyways, so that's the excuse they're going to use to keep it the same. Using your earlier example of SF3, it was a much better game than SF4 and 5 ended up being, yet it sold miserably. SF5 is regarded as the worst in the series by many SF fans, yet it's selling like hotcakes. Truthfully neither you or I can say whether an "improved" version of Smash would sell better or worse, but I personally believe it's in a place where people who like Smash will buy the next game regardless of how it turns out, and I think it could benefit from extending a hand to casual players to help them learn how to get better at the game.

A perfect example of this you'll likely hate is Project M - PM was designed primarily with competitive players in mind but they still kept a lot of things that casuals would enjoy, such as new stages and single player content. A video game bar in my city that usually attracted the most casual drunk players imaginable had Project M setups all over the place and they ate it up anyways. It is possible to keep both audiences without alienating one or the other. I think lots of people outside of Smashboards would like to see the series become more than it already is. I'm far from the only person who thinks we've been playing the same game for the last 18 years. But traditionalists can't really be swayed. The fact that the game sells well is enough of an argument in favor of keeping the series the same, and tragically I understand that mentality. The game is very broke, but it sells well, so they won't fix it. It is an unfortunate reality that the pursuit of money eventually gets in the way of innovation.

Yes, there is a risk involved in evolving Smash. Yes, if they do something risky they might have worse sales with the next game. But they also might have better sales. Both of these scenarios are possible. I guess we'll never know though, because they're never going to take the risk - there's no reason for them to do so. So as I said before, Smash is cursed.

 

[Quillion]

They're no better than adding in generic skeletons from Castlevania. Thinking anything else is a delusion. A Goomba is not any more worthy than a skeleton from Castlevania. You don't get to arbitrarily decide they are worthy of being in on the grounds of being more "iconic". Generic mooks are generic mooks.

Like I said to Mushroomguy12 , your opinion.

Anyway, I definitely would like to see a few new mechanics be added. I've had the thought that they could rework the Final Smash meter into an EX special/Super Special meter and change Y or X to be the EX Special button.

But on the other hand, I'm also of the mind that the fighting game genre is stuck up its ass in having to introduce loads of mechanics to add depth. Street Fighter is on the tamer end in how they replace mechanics here and there, but it's still there.

Even something simple as an EX Special meter would overcomplicate things easily. I think aesthetic touches like a non-training combo counter would work, though.