• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Unpopular Smash Opinions (BE CIVIL)

Ze Diglett

Smash Champion
Writing Team
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
2,818
Location
Rivals 2
NNID
ZeDiglett
I've said a few things on this thread alluding to this, but I don't believe I've ever said this outright: I don't get why Smash fans hate the idea of playable generic enemies, like I can't even come up with a non-valid reason to refute, let alone a valid one.
For me, I simply think generic enemies aren't as cool in the vast majority of cases as named ones. Even in, like, Mario Kart where enemies are regularly used as roster filler, I almost always forget they're even there; why should I play as a Wiggler or a Lakitu when cool boss characters like Petey Piranha and Dry Bowser are right there? Having a generic enemy on the roster for variety and/or a laugh can be fun - I actually like what Mario Party 8 did by having both of its new mooks be unlockable - but I wouldn't want a Super Mario Party situation where you have a bunch of cool and memorable characters next to a Koopa, a Dry Bones, a Boo, a Shy Guy, a Monty Mole, a Hammer Bro, and a Goomba, for instance. It's one of those things where if you can do better, you absolutely should IMO.
 
Last edited:

Verde Coeden Scalesworth

Flap and Swish~
Premium
Joined
Aug 13, 2001
Messages
34,148
Location
Cull Hazard
NNID
Irene4
3DS FC
1203-9265-8784
Switch FC
SW-7567-8572-3791
PP was a fun option in general because I like playing as general Mooks/Enemies.

Giving them a tad more personality or defining them is more than awesome too. I've roleplayed as tons of various Mooks and Enemies for fun, so it's really easy for me to get into the concept of a playable Species. Stuff like LEGO Star Wars also helps this, as it has general Soldiers too. Pokemon partially has this since none of the Species are defined outside of spin-off materials(as well as the Manga and Anime), with a tiny set of exceptions(like Mythicals and Legendaries can be). But even then, this stood out as a new option because it didn't have a defining specific member. It was a collaboration of various ones.

Also, to look back at what was said; Nostalgia is a very powerful thing. You can have nostalgia for pretty much any kind of character, generic one or otherwise. They are important to you because it's your experience. Enjoying them is perfectly fine and it's kind of silly to gatekeep that kind of stuff. So what if they aren't a fan favorite or whatever? You don't get to decide what people like nor should you. That doesn't mean such a character is some obvious one for Smash or likely to get in either way. But the point is that there's no reason to act silly about it. You don't find them interesting? That's perfectly fair. Some do. And you should respect that.
 

AlRex

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
1,130
I personally would think Goomba is worth it simply for basically being THE video game enemy, aside from the Pac-Man ghosts and Space Invaders. There’s enough permutations that they’d have good moveset potential, too, much like Plant. Plus they’d be pretty unique with their…hand-less-ness.
 

Wario Wario Wario

Smash Legend
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
11,674
Location
NASB 2 is the worse one
For me, I simply think generic enemies aren't as cool in the vast majority of cases as named ones. Even in, like, Mario Kart where enemies are regularly used as roster filler, I almost always forget they're even there; why should I play as a Wiggler or a Lakitu when cool boss characters like Petey Piranha and Dry Bowser are right there? Having a generic enemy on the roster for variety and/or a laugh can be fun - I actually like what Mario Party 8 did by having both of its new mooks be unlockable - but I wouldn't want a Super Mario Party situation where you have a bunch of cool and memorable characters next to a Koopa, a Dry Bones, a Boo, a Shy Guy, a Monty Mole, a Hammer Bro, and a Goomba, for instance. It's one of those things where if you can do better, you absolutely should IMO.
To me, boss characters aren't as cool or "better" than mooks, I think you're speaking in objective language about a situation which is VERY subjective. I don't get how hard it is to understand: I don't like cool and powerful, I like weak and feeble.
 
Last edited:

Lenidem

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
1,196
Also, to look back at what was said; Nostalgia is a very powerful thing. You can have nostalgia for pretty much any kind of character, generic one or otherwise. They are important to you because it's your experience. Enjoying them is perfectly fine and it's kind of silly to gatekeep that kind of stuff. So what if they aren't a fan favorite or whatever? You don't get to decide what people like nor should you. That doesn't mean such a character is some obvious one for Smash or likely to get in either way. But the point is that there's no reason to act silly about it. You don't find them interesting? That's perfectly fair. Some do. And you should respect that.
Who said the opposite?
 

Wario Wario Wario

Smash Legend
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
11,674
Location
NASB 2 is the worse one
Who said the opposite?
I don't know how I'm supposed to interpet these if not as "liking Goomba is invalid, you're just weird", it's pretty clearly a value judgement on mook fandom as a whole and not mooks as Smash characters:
Because most of us just want to play with the characters we associate the most with fond memories, and they tend to be main characters.

Is it really hard to understand that most people would rather play Lara Croft than a random warrior-monk, or as Waluigi rather than a Goomba?
As for the rest, when most people think of the Mario games, the first character that come to their mind is Mario. Then maybe Luigi, or Bowser or Peach. When they think about Zelda, they first think about Link and Zelda, and Ganondorf. And so on. Those are the character you spend the most time playing as, you control them, you identifiy to them. Or they are the ultimate goal, the one that justifies the whole journey, that gives the adventure it's raison d'être. The mooks? You see them a lot, yes, and they also are important in their own way. But once you jumped over a Goomba, you move on and forget instantly about it. The Goomba is just a moving part of the stage, not that different from the blocks you breaks or the moving plates-formes. Mooks are by nature ephemeral, while main characters are durable.
My specific wording was "Why do Smash fans hate generic enemies", not "Why don't Smash fans want generic enemies" - I was specifically questioning the response when the idea is brought up, not the lack of demand.
 
Last edited:

Lenidem

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
1,196
I don't know how I'm supposed to interpet these if not as "liking Goomba is invalid, you're just weird", it's pretty clearly a value judgement on mook fandom as a whole and not mooks as Smash characters:


My specific wording was "Why do Smash fans hate generic enemies", not "Why don't Smash fans want generic enemies" - I was specifically questioning the response when the idea is brought up, not the lack of demand.
Dude, even we were "hating" your favorite character, that wouldn't mean that we hate and judge you. Nobody here said that wanting mooks is "invalid". Besides, nobody here said anything hateful about Goomba. Most people just think that it shouldn't be playable in Smash. That's all.

If you feel personnaly attacked every time somebody says they don't want the thing that you want, I don't know what to tell you.
 
Last edited:

Ze Diglett

Smash Champion
Writing Team
Joined
Dec 7, 2014
Messages
2,818
Location
Rivals 2
NNID
ZeDiglett
To me, boss characters aren't as cool or "better" than mooks, I think you're speaking in objective language about a situation which is VERY subjective. I don't get how hard it is to understand: I don't like cool and powerful, I like weak and feeble.
Strength isn't even a factor to me, there's just more to get behind with Petey Piranha next to the garden variety Piranha Plant. I've seen the former in plenty of games I like and observed how the same character has evolved (or stayed the same!) in neat ways. I'm not gonna feel that same connection to the concept of a Piranha Plant; there definitionally is no character to follow. Even if you like "weak and feeble," surely there's a better way to satisfy that than a character who doesn't have a name?
 

Wario Wario Wario

Smash Legend
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
11,674
Location
NASB 2 is the worse one
Strength isn't even a factor to me, there's just more to get behind with Petey Piranha next to the garden variety Piranha Plant. I've seen the former in plenty of games I like and observed how the same character has evolved (or stayed the same!) in neat ways. I'm not gonna feel that same connection to the concept of a Piranha Plant; there definitionally is no character to follow. Even if you like "weak and feeble," surely there's a better way to satisfy that than a character who doesn't have a name?
To me, the idea of playing as something that is essentially little more (or even less) than a random, insignificant animal is appealing - it's not the only type of character I enjoy of course, but I think the prospect is quite unique and interesting no matter the game or genre. I think this is just an agree-to-disagree situation, you're less saying "putting in mooks is a bad idea", at least from how I'm reading this statement, and more "I personally don't like mooks", and that's kinda the whole point of allowing multiple-character selection in a game.
 
Last edited:

Lenidem

Smash Lord
Joined
Oct 14, 2018
Messages
1,196
To me, the idea of playing as something that is essentially little more (or even less) than a random, insignificant animal is appealing - it's not the only type of character I enjoy of course, but I think the prospect is quite unique and interesting no matter the game or genre. I think this is just an agree-to-disagree situation, you're less saying "putting in mooks is a bad idea", at least from how I'm reading this statement, and more "I personally don't like mooks", and that's kinda the whole point of allowing multiple-character selection in a game.
My opinion would be "I personally think that putting in mooks is a bad idea". I hope it's acceptable for you.
 

Laniv

Smash Champion
Joined
Apr 20, 2014
Messages
2,046
WRT Mario enemies: if it were up to me, I would have gone for Lakitu or a pair of Hammer Bros.
 

AlRex

Smash Lord
Joined
Sep 12, 2012
Messages
1,130
I like Piranha Plant. It's one of my most used characters in Ultimate.


I don't want things like Piranha Plant to ever become the norm. That would cheapen the appeal.
This is also true. Albeit, at the same time, for reasons I said before, Goomba, Koopa Troopa, Slime, Chocobo, Moogle, Space Invaders, the Pac-Man Ghosts, these would be worthwhile inclusions, IMO. But for differing reasons than the sudden Piranha Plant shock value, I suppose.
 

Wario Wario Wario

Smash Legend
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
11,674
Location
NASB 2 is the worse one
A few days ago (probably a string of days), I got responded to two seperate opinions about Smash with "that would break immersion", and I find that response really weird (even if one user who said this simply suggested it as an example of a counter-argument and not because they believed it) but in a way, I think it actually kinda helps me get the words out for what I from Smash tonally - I've always used "kiddy", but I think a more accurate word would be "campy" - lovingly dumb, completely lacking prestiege, and creative decisions based all in fun and laughter - very much how Smash 64 did it. "kiddy" doesn't align with how I want Smash's roster to be, I like M-rated characters; I want characters from older games; and I think "scrimblo first" logic is stupid, but "campy" I think does align with how I want Smash's roster. I want a game where Motobug can beat up Kratos, that's camp, right?
 
Last edited:

LiveStudioAudience

Smash Master
Joined
Dec 1, 2019
Messages
4,103
I'd love to see a mechanic of fighter specific assist characters in the next Smash. Essentially an optional alternative to the Final Smash where each fighter in the game could summon a non-fighter character they're associated with to help them in some fashion for the battle. So a Donkey Kong could have Cranky, Luigi with E Gadd, Kirby with Gooey, etc. Now I'm aware of the practical obstacles for this:

-Balancing fighters with the various assist characters would be remarkably tricky
-Certain figures don't as easily lend themselves to series specific assists (who's helping Mr. Game & Watch exactly?)
-Many fans would be disappointed with certain preferred fighters ending up as character assists
-Trying to make every single assist unique would be tough so overlap in what they do would be inevitable
-There's the question of many resources would have to be put to it to make the concept worth it
-It's something that would not be relevant in competitive play

But if it was done right and the assists were largely made up of associated characters that likely wouldn't end up as fighters anyway, I think there's real potential for some fun uses of it. Just seeing a Roll appear to help Mega Man or a Maria being the critical difference for Richter in a battle has a value all its own.
 
Last edited:

Wario Wario Wario

Smash Legend
Joined
Sep 3, 2017
Messages
11,674
Location
NASB 2 is the worse one
I'd love to see a mechanic of fighter specific assist characters in the next Smash. Essentially an optional alternative to the Final Smash where each fighter in the game could summon a non-fighter character they're associated with to help them in some fashion for the battle. So a Donkey Kong could have Cranky, Luigi with E Gadd, Kirby with Gooey, etc. Now I'm aware of the practical obstacles for this:

-Balancing fighters with the various assist characters would be remarkably tricky
-Certain figures don't as easily lend themselves to series specific assists (who's helping Mr. Game & Watch exactly?)
-Many fans would be disappointed with certain preferred fighters ending up as character assists
-Trying to make every single assist unique would be tough so overlap in what they do would be inevitable
-There's the question of many resources would have to be put to it to make the concept worth it
-It's something that would not be relevant in competitive play

But if it was done right and the assists were largely made up of associated characters that likely wouldn't end up as fighters anyway, I think there's real potential for some fun uses of it. Just seeing a Roll appear to help Mega Man or a Maria being the critical difference for Richter in a battle has a value all its own.
Fraymakers did this really well - assists are selectable rather than tied to a character, and = something I really adore - all playable characters also have assist versions.
 

Perkilator

Smash Legend
Writing Team
Joined
Apr 8, 2018
Messages
10,813
Location
The perpetual trash fire known as Planet Earth(tm)
I know I always go on about how Rayman should’ve been a DLC fighter in Sm4sh (which I truly do think he should’ve), but honestly? The Last Story and Pandora’s Tower should’ve gotten DLC fighters in Sm4sh as well. For how significant of a role Operation Rainfall played in getting those two games localized as well as Xenoblade, I think the former two games should’ve gotten the same kind of chance as the latter game.
 

UserKev

Smash Champion
Joined
May 10, 2017
Messages
2,641
I still don't like the idea of Smash having cross generational bosses. By cross generation I mean cross world myltiple bosses, Marx, Ganon, Ridley, etc. Third party should definitely not have bosses. I feel like they throw off the flow and immersion. I miss when Smash did its own thing with Master Hand.
 
Top Bottom