Unpopular Smash Opinions (BE CIVIL)

[Oddball]

People need to stop pretending that Mega Man means nothing to Nintendo, his inclusion in Smash isn't "mocking" anything at all

Mega Man, Simon, and Sonic mean more to Nintendo history than half the actual Nintendo characters on the roster.

 

[Lenidem]

Mega Man, Simon, and Sonic mean more to Nintendo history than half the actual Nintendo characters on the roster.

That's an inconvenient truth.

 

[fogbadge]

Mega Man, Simon, and Sonic mean more to Nintendo history than half the actual Nintendo characters on the roster.

bit harsh

 

[Tankman from Newgrounds]

Mega Man, Simon, and Sonic mean more to Nintendo history than half the actual Nintendo characters on the roster.

I mean, it's Suppoesed to be Game about Nintendo All-Stars, not Gaming Allstars.
So Sonic, Megaman, Pacman, Banjo-Kazooie and Simon Belmont can join Smash, but Kazuya, Bayonetta and Joker shouldn't. We have too much third Parties.

 

[Oddball]

I mean, it's Suppoesed to be Game about Nintendo All-Stars, not Gaming Allstars.
So Sonic, Megaman, Pacman, Banjo-Kazooie and Simon Belmont can join Smash, but Kazuya, Bayonetta and Joker shouldn't. We have too much third Parties.

Nintendo doesn't exist in a bubble. Some of the most famous "Nintendo games" weren't actually by Nintendo, yet if you want to talk about Nintendo history, you pretty much have to include them.

 

[Tankman from Newgrounds]

Nintendo doesn't exist in a bubble. Some of the most famous "Nintendo games" weren't actually by Nintendo, yet if you want to talk about Nintendo history, you pretty much have to include them.

I know, but It doesn't mean that everyone is included in Smash.
Some characters can join the Battle, but rest such as BF from FNF or other stupid picks don't deserve.
You know that Nintendo is very intelligent 300IQ company and it knows what character can join smash or can't. Nintendo always differs them from Good Inclusions like Alex Kidd or Bad Inclusions such as Boyfriend from FNF.

 

[fogbadge]

Nintendo always differs them from Good Inclusions like Alex Kidd or Bad Inclusions such as Boyfriend from FNF.

actually i think nintendo sorts them into would make more money or make less money

 

[Lenidem]

I mean, it's Suppoesed to be Game about Nintendo All-Stars, not Gaming Allstars.
So Sonic, Megaman, Pacman, Banjo-Kazooie and Simon Belmont can join Smash, but Kazuya, Bayonetta and Joker shouldn't. We have too much third Parties.

Smash is nowadays in a weird limbo between "Nintendo All-Stars" and "celebration of gaming as a whole". Trying to do both at the same time is an impossible task, but as it is right now, the roster might actually be quiete a good compromise.

 

[Tankman from Newgrounds]

Smash is nowadays in a weird limbo between "Nintendo All-Stars" and "celebration of gaming as a whole". Trying to do both at the same time is an impossible task, but as it is right now, the roster might actually be quiete a good compromise.

Yeah, but it doesn't mean that Sakurai did two.
How about Seperated Third Party All-stars game and Seperated Nintendo-Allstar Game.
They will update them like Mobile Games.

 

[Jondolio]

This is a super-post dedicated primarily to my opinions on the roster.

• I have a weird relationship with third-party characters. I am someone who somewhat prefers Nintendo characters, but I think adding more third-parties is a good thing - it expands Smash's audience beyond just Nintendo fans. As a kid, the main draw of Smash for me was having Sonic fight Mario. I really like Ultimate's DLC too as most of the new characters were welcome surprises for me that I wouldn't have considered and some of them come from games I wouldn't have considered playing otherwise. With that said, I feel ambivalent to a lot of the characters people consider "big bombshell hype characters" like Crash and Master Chief. I have no personal connection to either of them and they don't really interest me too much on a visual level - Crash looks like a cereal mascot reject to me and Master Chief looks like a generic sci-fi trooper. Maybe those feelings would change if I actually played their games, but for now star power doesn't cut it for me. I prefer more niche characters that I actually have personal connections to like Phoenix Wright and Rayman.
• Bandana Dee bores me to tears and I find just about any other Kirby dream friend not named Dark Meta Knight to be more interesting in terms of visual design, gameplay, and personality, and I don't think he has as much star power as people say he does. He's a placeholder character for the player 4 slot because there wasn't a character on the same level as Kirby's big 3 and he was an easy addition. It's like Toad in the New Super Mario Bros. games, and complained that the player 3 and 4 slots in those games should've been Wario and Waluigi because it would've made perfect sense. Bandana Dee should go the way of Toad and make room for much more interesting Kirby characters to join the roster. And Bandana Dee is emblematic of a larger problem I have with the Nintendo side of the Smash fandom - the focus on representation over character quality. I constantly hear people say "we need a new Zelda rep" and then go on to suggest Impa and try to paint her as a bigger deal than she actually is, when the reality is that she's just Zelda's retainer that rarely gets any narrative focus and doesn't particularly stand out among the crowd of Zelda characters. To me, this demand comes across as short-sighted and doesn't really improve the roster at any way. Impa is boring, and I'm tired of pretending otherwise, and so is Bandana Waddle Dee. Both of these series have way more interesting characters, and I don't think "patching up" their representation would actually shut up the people who just want more representation, because Fire Emblem still has more characters. I also don't understand the argument that a series needs to have a character number that reflects its overall impact and sales. It seems like a very cynical way to arbitrarily decide which characters get in and which don't. If you want Impa or BWD, that's perfectly fine, but I encourage you to think whether you want Impa and BWD for Impa and BWD or if you just want to arbitrarily increase your favorite series's numbers.
• None of what I said applies to Dixie Kong and I don't feel like explaining why. She's the only Nintendo character who I feel is truly missing from Smash
• I like "shill picks" because they make the roster feel fresh. For the longest time Incineroar was the newest character in the game and he was from 2016, predating the hardware the very game was on, and I feel that Byleth, Min Min, and Pythra rectified that.
• Speaking of Incineroar (and unrelated to the above opinion), I can't stand them. They're genuinely the only character inclusion in this game I take issue with. This is admittedly pure bias on my part because according to Sakurai, he was really close to including Decidueye as the Gen 7 rep but decided on Incineroar and the former was my most wanted character. If Decidueye was in the game over Incineroar, I would have no problems with the roster.
• As far as Mario characters go, I have mixed feelings on Waluigi. I find him funny but not as much as Wario and I don't see him as a necessity for the game like many others do. I feel like a good amount of his demand comes from casuals who primarily play Mario Kart and/or look at le funny maymays and wonder why one of the few Nintendo characters they know isn't in. I'm not saying this isn't valid reasoning and I don't think all of his supporters feel that way and I don't even think he's a bad choice, it's more of an observation and an explanation for I don't really care for him myself. I want Geno because he's practically the polar opposite of Waluigi - he's an obscure character from an almost 30 year old game that many casuals haven't played, but comes from the most well known video game series ever. Imagine being a casual gamer and seeing characters like Mario, Luigi, Peach, Bowser, etc., characters that everyone and their grandmother know, and then seeing this weird puppet guy under the same logo and being so confused. I want that. Also I just generally find Geno cool.

 

[Thanos6]

I don't want any character cut, even the one I hate.

 

[DBPirate]

• I'd be fine with Smash entries being iterative from here on, as Ultimate was to Smash 4. So new modes, new renders, new art style, new UI (though I love Ultimate's), new menus, etc., but I don't think the gameplay needs to be shaken up much
• I am willing to sacrifice gameplay changes or character rehauls (even if I'd like some to happen like Ganondorf, Samus, or DK) to keep as many veterans in the game as possible. I want Smash to continue prioritizing minimizing cuts. Do iterative fighting games like Mortal Kombat change as much entry-to-entry as a lot of people seem to want Smash to? I don't see why there's a great demand for the series to just be totally reimagined when other fighting games have far more games than Smash and have barely changed at all
• Ultimate has the best single-player content, quality-wise. It's just lacking in quantity
• I wasn't too keen on the absence of trophies when Ultimate launched, but I now think Spirits are much better. Not only do they provide fun event-like matchups, but I'm sure they saved a huge chunk of dev time since they didn't have to create a thousand 3D models. I would, however, like the blurbs to return
• I hope the next Smash game takes a step back from hype culture and focuses on first-party characters more than Ultimate did. That said, I recognize how important third-parties have become to Smash. I think newcomers could be split maybe 60/40 or 70/30 first to third-party
• Byleth is a great character addition
• Paper Mario would be a far better addition than Geno, a character whose following I can't even pretend to understand

 

[Idon]

Mortal Kombat change as much entry-to-entry as a lot of people seem to want Smash to

Yes, MK9 is completely different from MKX and MKX is completely different from MK11.

 

[fogbadge]

I don't want any character cut, even the one I hate.

whos the one you hate

 

[Thanos6]

whos the one you hate

Sephiroth.

 

[fogbadge]

Sephiroth.

Fair enough. And hey if there’s only one character on the roster you hate you’re doing better than most

 

[Lenidem]

Fair enough. And hey if there’s only one character on the roster you hate you’re doing better than most

I'd say he's doing very well.

 

[crazybenjamin]

So Sonic, Megaman, Pacman, Banjo-Kazooie and Simon Belmont can join Smash, but Kazuya, Bayonetta and Joker shouldn't. We have too much third Parties.

Bayonetta is more Nintendo-connected than Pacman though.
Putting that aside, I'd at least be more understanding of a hypothetical "only Nintendo-connected 3rd parties" compromise, it's the whole "no 3rd parties, ever" thing that I take issue with.

 

[fogbadge]

Bayonetta is more Nintendo-connected than Pacman though.

no she isnt

 

[Swamp Sensei]

no she isnt

Nintendo literally owns the rights to 2/3 of her franchise.

Bayonetta games are more likely to be Nintendo owned than not.

That's more than Pac-Man.

 

[fogbadge]

Nintendo literally owns the rights to 2/3 of her franchise.

Bayonetta games are more likely to be Nintendo owned than not.

That's more than Pac-Man.

They own NOTHING of any of her games. Simply helping make one doesn’t mean they have ownership

 

[Champion of Hyrule]

They own NOTHING of any of her games. Simply helping make one doesn’t mean they have ownership

They literally own the publishing rights to 2 and 3

 

[fogbadge]

They literally own the publishing rights to 2 and 3

That’s not the same thing though is it?

 

[Champion of Hyrule]

That’s not the same thing though is it?

It’s owning some part of her games. You had said that nintendo didn’t own any part of the games but that’s not true because they own the publishing rights

 

[fogbadge]

It’s owning some part of her games. You had said that nintendo didn’t own any part of the games but that’s not true because they own the publishing rights

No they don’t. They don’t own the code, the characters, the world, the story, the gameplay, the music, the program, the models, the textures. You know the bits that make the game. Publishing rights are not part of the game. They are the right to distribute the game

 

[Lenidem]

No they don’t. They don’t own the code, the characters, the world, the story, the gameplay, the music, the program, the models, the textures. You know the bits that make the game. Publishing rights are not part of the game. They are the right to distribute the game

And what Pac-Man rights do they own?

 

[Champion of Hyrule]

No they don’t. They don’t own the code, the characters, the world, the story, the gameplay, the music, the program, the models, the textures. You know the bits that make the game. Publishing rights are not part of the game. They are the right to distribute the game

They still have a part in the license of the game though.

And even if they didn’t, it still means bayonetta is more connected to nintendo than pacman. Sure pacman may be more important to nintendo but it’s not more connected to the brand than bayo

 

[fogbadge]

And what Pac-Man rights do they own?

I never once say they did

They still have a part in the license of the game though.

And even if they didn’t, it still means bayonetta is more connected to nintendo than pacman. Sure pacman may be more important to nintendo but it’s not more connected to the brand than bayo

No it isn’t. They own no more of them than any other 3rd party games on their consoles? How many other 3rd party games have Nintendo published? Do you count all of them as theirs? What make these games so special? Publishing rights are not the same as owning something, ask a publisher

 

[Champion of Hyrule]

Publishing rights are not the same as owning something, ask a publisher

Yeah, I’ve never said nintendo owned anything other than the publishing rights. Publishing is a part of a game, in my opinion at least, since it’s part of the game’s budget.

Also I could be wrong but I don’t believe nintendo published any pacman games like they did bayonetta games. Nintendo has a history with the characters and the brand of pacman by using them in crossovers, but that doesn’t mean they’re very “connected” to it the same way they are with bayonetta since they directly own a very small part of the game.

 

[fogbadge]

Yeah, I’ve never said nintendo owned anything other than the publishing rights. Publishing is a part of a game, in my opinion at least, since it’s part of the game’s budget.

Also I could be wrong but I don’t believe nintendo published any pacman games like they did bayonetta games. Nintendo has a history with the characters and the brand of pacman by using them in crossovers, but that doesn’t mean they’re very “connected” to it the same way they are with bayonetta since they directly own a very small part of the game.

but ownership of rights isnt a matter of opinion its a matter of legality. owning publishing rights is not the same as owning a game in any sense. any author will tell you this. claiming nintendo own part of it is like saying netlfix owns pokemon cause its on there. nintendo cant do a thing with them without sega's say so.

yeah the point wasnt to raise pac man up but to stop you from raising her up for no reason. if anything it just means shes on the same level as professor layton but i dont see anyone claiming they own him

 

[Champion of Hyrule]

but ownership of rights isnt a matter of opinion its a matter of legality. owning publishing rights is not the same as owning a game in any sense. any author will tell you this. claiming nintendo own part of it is like saying netlfix owns pokemon cause its on there. nintendo cant do a thing with them without sega's say so.

Again, all I’m saying is that the only part of the bayonetta games nintendo owns are the publishing rights to 2 and 3. And about your professor layton point… yeah, exactly. They are pretty much in the same situation since nintendo owns the publishing rights to some of the layton games. She is on the same level as layton, and they both have a lot of connection to nintendo without directly being nintendo characters. No one “claims they own him” in regards to layton because no one claims nintendo fully owns the character of bayonetta. If they do they’re wrong. I don’t know why you’re assuming I don’t think layton is pretty much in the same boat as bayo when it comes to publishing legality because I do.

Also Pokemon is a different situation because it wasn’t published by netflix and wasn’t originally released for netflix. And netflix is really more of a distributor than a publisher, if that makes sense. Sometimes they publish things but having things on their site isn’t the same as publishing them

 

[Perkilator]

Guys, I suggest we drop this argument.

 

[Jondolio]

To get the topic back on track:

While I love Ultimate and think it's a blast to play with friends, I wish there was some more stuff to do without friends and without paying for Nintendo's ****ty online service other than classic mode and world of light (which I don't like)

 

[fogbadge]

Again, all I’m saying is that the only part of the bayonetta games nintendo owns are the publishing rights to 2 and 3. And about your professor layton point… yeah, exactly. They are pretty much in the same situation since nintendo owns the publishing rights to some of the layton games. She is on the same level as layton, and they both have a lot of connection to nintendo without directly being nintendo characters. No one “claims they own him” in regards to layton because no one claims nintendo fully owns the character of bayonetta. If they do they’re wrong. I don’t know why you’re assuming I don’t think layton is pretty much in the same boat as bayo when it comes to publishing legality because I do.

Also Pokemon is a different situation because it wasn’t published by netflix and wasn’t originally released for netflix. And netflix is really more of a distributor than a publisher, if that makes sense. Sometimes they publish things but having things on their site isn’t the same as publishing them

Publishing isn’t even close to owning them. They can’t do a thing with out Sega agreeing to it. Sega can take it away whenever they want. You can keep telling yourself they own a tiny piece of it but they don’t. They own no more of it than any of the three people who bought the game

 

[TCT~Phantom]

I mean, it's Suppoesed to be Game about Nintendo All-Stars, not Gaming Allstars.
So Sonic, Megaman, Pacman, Banjo-Kazooie and Simon Belmont can join Smash, but Kazuya, Bayonetta and Joker shouldn't. We have too much third Parties.

That belief should have died out at E3 2006, and has been dead since November 2015. Just because the Melee Box Art in North America used the phrase Nintendo All Stars does not mean the series is still about that or ever was (Sakurai mulled third parties like Sonic, Snake, and had the Smash 2 poll even before Melee which highlighted third parties). Smash nowadays, according to it's own creator, is about Gaming All Stars and is Gaming's Greatest Crossover. I think I would trust the opinions of Sakurai over yours.

 

[Champion of Hyrule]

Publishing isn’t even close to owning them. They can’t do a thing with out Sega agreeing to it. Sega can take it away whenever they want. You can keep telling yourself they own a tiny piece of it but they don’t. They own no more of it than any of the three people who bought the game

I’m not saying they literally own the rights to any part of the content of the actual game, I’m saying they own the rights to publish the game. Publishing is a part of the games budget so if we’re being literal it’s a part of the game. Not the content of the game, but a part of the broader game.

That’s not even that related to the original point though. I’m in favor of ending this discussion because it’s not really going anywhere. I’m sure you can agree that the series has a stronger than normal connection to nintendo since it was financed and published by them and will probably be for the foreseeable future because that’s really all I’m saying here.

 

[fogbadge]

I’m not saying they literally own the rights to any part of the content of the actual game, I’m saying they own the rights to publish the game. Publishing is a part of the games budget so if we’re being literal it’s a part of the game. Not the content of the game, but a part of the broader game.

That’s not even that related to the original point though. I’m in favor of ending this discussion because it’s not really going anywhere. I’m sure you can agree that the series has a stronger than normal connection to nintendo since it was financed and published by them and will probably be for the foreseeable future because that’s really all I’m saying here.

I wouldn’t agree though. That’s how this debate got started cause I thought you were trying to make something more important to Nintendo than it is with a very arbitrary connection

 

[WeirdChillFever]

This is a super-post dedicated primarily to my opinions on the roster.

• I have a weird relationship with third-party characters. I am someone who somewhat prefers Nintendo characters, but I think adding more third-parties is a good thing - it expands Smash's audience beyond just Nintendo fans. As a kid, the main draw of Smash for me was having Sonic fight Mario. I really like Ultimate's DLC too as most of the new characters were welcome surprises for me that I wouldn't have considered and some of them come from games I wouldn't have considered playing otherwise. With that said, I feel ambivalent to a lot of the characters people consider "big bombshell hype characters" like Crash and Master Chief. I have no personal connection to either of them and they don't really interest me too much on a visual level - Crash looks like a cereal mascot reject to me and Master Chief looks like a generic sci-fi trooper. Maybe those feelings would change if I actually played their games, but for now star power doesn't cut it for me. I prefer more niche characters that I actually have personal connections to like Phoenix Wright and Rayman.
• Bandana Dee bores me to tears and I find just about any other Kirby dream friend not named Dark Meta Knight to be more interesting in terms of visual design, gameplay, and personality, and I don't think he has as much star power as people say he does. He's a placeholder character for the player 4 slot because there wasn't a character on the same level as Kirby's big 3 and he was an easy addition. It's like Toad in the New Super Mario Bros. games, and complained that the player 3 and 4 slots in those games should've been Wario and Waluigi because it would've made perfect sense. Bandana Dee should go the way of Toad and make room for much more interesting Kirby characters to join the roster. And Bandana Dee is emblematic of a larger problem I have with the Nintendo side of the Smash fandom - the focus on representation over character quality. I constantly hear people say "we need a new Zelda rep" and then go on to suggest Impa and try to paint her as a bigger deal than she actually is, when the reality is that she's just Zelda's retainer that rarely gets any narrative focus and doesn't particularly stand out among the crowd of Zelda characters. To me, this demand comes across as short-sighted and doesn't really improve the roster at any way. Impa is boring, and I'm tired of pretending otherwise, and so is Bandana Waddle Dee. Both of these series have way more interesting characters, and I don't think "patching up" their representation would actually shut up the people who just want more representation, because Fire Emblem still has more characters. I also don't understand the argument that a series needs to have a character number that reflects its overall impact and sales. It seems like a very cynical way to arbitrarily decide which characters get in and which don't. If you want Impa or BWD, that's perfectly fine, but I encourage you to think whether you want Impa and BWD for Impa and BWD or if you just want to arbitrarily increase your favorite series's numbers.
• None of what I said applies to Dixie Kong and I don't feel like explaining why. She's the only Nintendo character who I feel is truly missing from Smash
• I like "shill picks" because they make the roster feel fresh. For the longest time Incineroar was the newest character in the game and he was from 2016, predating the hardware the very game was on, and I feel that Byleth, Min Min, and Pythra rectified that.
• Speaking of Incineroar (and unrelated to the above opinion), I can't stand them. They're genuinely the only character inclusion in this game I take issue with. This is admittedly pure bias on my part because according to Sakurai, he was really close to including Decidueye as the Gen 7 rep but decided on Incineroar and the former was my most wanted character. If Decidueye was in the game over Incineroar, I would have no problems with the roster.
• As far as Mario characters go, I have mixed feelings on Waluigi. I find him funny but not as much as Wario and I don't see him as a necessity for the game like many others do. I feel like a good amount of his demand comes from casuals who primarily play Mario Kart and/or look at le funny maymays and wonder why one of the few Nintendo characters they know isn't in. I'm not saying this isn't valid reasoning and I don't think all of his supporters feel that way and I don't even think he's a bad choice, it's more of an observation and an explanation for I don't really care for him myself. I want Geno because he's practically the polar opposite of Waluigi - he's an obscure character from an almost 30 year old game that many casuals haven't played, but comes from the most well known video game series ever. Imagine being a casual gamer and seeing characters like Mario, Luigi, Peach, Bowser, etc., characters that everyone and their grandmother know, and then seeing this weird puppet guy under the same logo and being so confused. I want that. Also I just generally find Geno cool.

I’m not going to go too in-depth on the third party discussion, but here’s my take on that.

• I don’t mind third parties, and the fact that Smash is going the way of the third party is not a bad thing to me. What does bother me so far is the selection of third party characters. It feels so sterile to look at a sales list and pick out the biggest for the sake of hype. If Smash Bros. would go the way of the Ultimate DLC, I feel it would never really pick characters, just main guys from the big IP from the deserving company. I don’t think we should look at Nintendo-relatedness first and foremost when it comes to third parties, but I would hate to see Phoenix Wright or Professor Layton get outbid by big money makers. If third parties are going to be a part of Smash Bros, the roster picks for third parties should match the first party content and pick a mix of both the big money makers and the more niche or fanbase-favorite picks. Otherwise you’re just working your way down a Wikipedia table, rather than adding characters that fans enjoy.

As for Bandana Dee, I wholeheartedly agree. I’ve said it before, but Bandana Dee has had the roughest ride from Smash 4 to now, and it’s time for the fanbase to adapt. A spear is not unique anymore, the ratrace of range has been won fair and square between Min Min and Sepiroth, and Bandana Dee’s intuitive set just does not cut it when compared to the zillions of Kirby characters that don’t need to be composites of multiple small appearances to be unique. We should add a Rosalina and show that Bandana Dee is not next in line. We can have so much more if we don’t get stuck on “Bandana Dee is next”. “But Parasol” got old in Smash 4 DLC, let alone for Smash Ultimate. Kirby has so many characters with movesets in-game that can back up their potential without reaching for **** like “The whole Star Allies weapon system”

Impa is different if and only if they pick one of her “old lady” designs. Her Breath of the Wild incarnation would rock in Smash.

 

[Champion of Hyrule]

I wouldn’t agree though. That’s how this debate got started cause I thought you were trying to make something more important to Nintendo than it is with a very arbitrary connection

See, I’m just trying to say the series is connected to nintendo not that it’s important to nintendo

I wouldn’t agree though. That’s how this debate got started cause I thought you were trying to make something more important to Nintendo than it is with a very arbitrary connection

I don’t think bayonetta is important to nintendo though, and that’s not what I was trying to argue. I was saying that it’s connected to nintendo, not that it’s necessarily important to the brand

 

[Tankman from Newgrounds]

Andross' Assist Trophy should be more like Stage Hazard to SNES Corneria FX Stage.