What are the most iconic moves for current characters that are being disregarded by Smash?

[Jotari]

Look, a lot of people say that Mario could have a really wacky moveset based on various power-ups instead of being a fairly standard shoto.

But not a lot of people say that Mario should have such a moveset. It's much better to prioritize giving characters a well-defined niche within Smash's containment instead of trying to showcase the things the things they could bring into the series.



Thing is, G&W still feels very simple, so I guess he can be a good example of a character where they overloaded him with references while fitting them very well into Melee at the time. While I wouldn't say Villager isn't too overcomplicated, I'd say they verge on it.

Oh yeah, I agree. Mr Game & Watch is used creatively and does feel natural in Smash. Though I think that is true for a portion of the more recent characters too.

 

[Quillion]

Oh yeah, I agree. Mr Game & Watch is used creatively and does feel natural in Smash. Though I think that is true for a portion of the more recent characters too.

Which Smash 4-on characters would you say handle their "reference overloads" well?

 

[Jotari]

Which Smash 4-on characters would you say handle their "reference overloads" well?

Well like I said, Game and Watch is quirky and fun, I also mentioned how I think Sephiroth is very well done earlier.I also think Bayonetta is done exceptionally well. I'm not a Bayonetta main, in fact I'm not that great with her at all, but she still feel and looks great to play as. She's in a weird case where almost all her moves are attacks from her games, but she actually is missing a tonne of iconic moves since they only went with her guns and not any of the other weapons she has (for people who haven't played Bayonetta she also uses swords, hammers, ice skates, whips, bows, a kind of fire and ice flamethrower, a light saber, a bazooka and a chain chomp, and that's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head). Robin is another good case for me. Some might say the durability aspect is an over complication, but it's really straight forward (and maybe a bit under done, Robin's specials don't really feel all that much better than other characters to justify the durability. I think I'd amp up their power a bit, but also extend their recharge time to make it a more pertinent aspect of the moveset).

My thoughts on Villlager would be similar to yours, I don't think they're quite overcomplicated, but they verge on it. Same with Megaman. But I don't think that's necessairly a bad thing. They are functional as movesets even if the focus on normal projectiles is a bit off kilter for Smash Bros., but I wouldn't really have it any other way. Megaman does feel like Megaman, it's not a moveset I personally enjoy playing as, but I don't think it's particuarly badly designed. Simon and Richter I would also put in this category. Cloud is also a character who's reference heavy in his moveset that I'm pretty neutral towards, not in the same way, the limit gimick isn't anything close to being over complicated, his moveset just doesn't do a whole lot for me, but of course there's plenty of characters that aren't reference heavy that don't do much for me either, so it's more of a case that the reference heavy aspect isn't working positively or negatively for how he functions. And if that's going to be the case with a character, I guess I would prefer if they're reference heavy and uninteresting rather than just plain uninteresting.

The ones I don't like from a design aspect are generally the characters from fighting games. Namely Ryu, Ken, Terry and Kazuya. It just feels very uninspired to port a moveset from a different game right over to Smash. Banjo and Kazooie is also a pretty maligned fighter and I tend to agree, though I haven't played any of the Banjo Kazooie games myself.

 

[Linkmain-maybe]

This, which is honestly such a cool move that it could’ve been his final smash. Gigaslash is still epic though.

 

[Quillion]

Well like I said, Game and Watch is quirky and fun, I also mentioned how I think Sephiroth is very well done earlier.I also think Bayonetta is done exceptionally well. I'm not a Bayonetta main, in fact I'm not that great with her at all, but she still feel and looks great to play as. She's in a weird case where almost all her moves are attacks from her games, but she actually is missing a tonne of iconic moves since they only went with her guns and not any of the other weapons she has (for people who haven't played Bayonetta she also uses swords, hammers, ice skates, whips, bows, a kind of fire and ice flamethrower, a light saber, a bazooka and a chain chomp, and that's just the stuff I can think of off the top of my head). Robin is another good case for me. Some might say the durability aspect is an over complication, but it's really straight forward (and maybe a bit under done, Robin's specials don't really feel all that much better than other characters to justify the durability. I think I'd amp up their power a bit, but also extend their recharge time to make it a more pertinent aspect of the moveset).

My thoughts on Villlager would be similar to yours, I don't think they're quite overcomplicated, but they verge on it. Same with Megaman. But I don't think that's necessairly a bad thing. They are functional as movesets even if the focus on normal projectiles is a bit off kilter for Smash Bros., but I wouldn't really have it any other way. Megaman does feel like Megaman, it's not a moveset I personally enjoy playing as, but I don't think it's particuarly badly designed. Simon and Richter I would also put in this category. Cloud is also a character who's reference heavy in his moveset that I'm pretty neutral towards, not in the same way, the limit gimick isn't anything close to being over complicated, his moveset just doesn't do a whole lot for me, but of course there's plenty of characters that aren't reference heavy that don't do much for me either, so it's more of a case that the reference heavy aspect isn't working positively or negatively for how he functions. And if that's going to be the case with a character, I guess I would prefer if they're reference heavy and uninteresting rather than just plain uninteresting.

The ones I don't like from a design aspect are generally the characters from fighting games. Namely Ryu, Ken, Terry and Kazuya. It just feels very uninspired to port a moveset from a different game right over to Smash. Banjo and Kazooie is also a pretty maligned fighter and I tend to agree, though I haven't played any of the Banjo Kazooie games myself.

I agree that Sephiroth is well done by virtue of his One-Winged Angel gimmick being primarily passive and not hampering him the way Robin's durability or Little Mac's "no air fighter" gimmicks do.

Bayonetta is bloated with mechanics IMO. Ultimate gutting her combo-heavy gimmick was appreciated, but I still find her overwhelming to play with her Bullet Arts, ABK/Twist recovery and unique landing lag to such, and downward ABK among other things. And honestly, I appreciate that she doesn't have any of her other weapons, and really, are any of them other than her quad guns even "iconic"? Her suddenly using those weapons would make her look even more awkward than Ganondorf's sword smashes.

 

[Lenidem]

You're right, it is both. But the key phrase was "first and foremost". Smash isn't just a Nintendo all stars get together. It is a proper fighting game with a lot of effort put into the development of it's (rather unique) mechanics. While it wouldn't be nearly as popular, Smash could exist without the Nintendo characters that make it up, in fact it was originally conceived that way.

Yes, but it wouldn't be the same game at all. My point is: the characters themselves are indissociable of Smash's appeal and identity, I think we can all agree on that. And the moveset is part of the feeling to play as the "true" character. For example, even before the release of Smash 64, I was fascinated by the fact that Link would be using his boomerang, bombs, and spin attack. So, for me, the more "canon" moves, the better. And before someone says "I prefer a good original moveset to a poor canon one", that's not the point at all : it's canon moves vs original moves, not good moves vs bad moves. And of course, I'm not saying that it's doable for everyone's every move.

 

[Linkmain-maybe]

I agree that Sephiroth is well done by virtue of his One-Winged Angel gimmick being primarily passive and not hampering him the way Robin's durability or Little Mac's "no air fighter" gimmicks do.

Bayonetta is bloated with mechanics IMO. Ultimate gutting her combo-heavy gimmick was appreciated, but I still find her overwhelming to play with her Bullet Arts, ABK/Twist recovery and unique landing lag to such, and downward ABK among other things. And honestly, I appreciate that she doesn't have any of her other weapons, and really, are any of them other than her quad guns even "iconic"? Her suddenly using those weapons would make her look even more awkward than Ganondorf's sword smashes.

Beyond playing as her, playing against her is even more annoying. It’s very much cutscene combos and trying not to get ht by the same three moves. The worst part is that if you make a mistake against her and get witch timed or bat within, it’s frustrating because you know the attack would’ve hit, but now your getting hit by another combo or a F-smash. I find that the only realistic way to fight her is to camp and bait and punish. Otherwise, you risk getting screwed by bat within or witch time. Using the gimmicks she has is hard, but getting hit by them sucks even more.

 

[Jotari]

Yes, but it wouldn't be the same game at all. My point is: the characters themselves are indissociable of Smash's appeal and identity, I think we can all agree on that. And the moveset is part of the feeling to play as the "true" character. For example, even before the release of Smash 64, I was fascinated by the fact that Link would be using his boomerang, bombs, and spin attack. So, for me, the more "canon" moves, the better. And before someone says "I prefer a good original moveset to a poor canon one", that's not the point at all : it's canon moves vs original moves, not good moves vs bad moves. And of course, I'm not saying that it's doable for everyone's every move.

I think everyone's on the same page, it's just a matter of semantics. Of course the more that's pulled from their own series the better (this thread exists after all). It's just a case where people feel that sometimes over reliance on fidelity of a moveset gets in the way of making a moveset that actually works best for Smash. It's one of those four square charts, where we have authenticity on one side and good design on the other. Ideally we want to be in the square of "good design and authentic" and completely out of the square of "bad design and unauthentic". It's the remaining two squares where the conflict arises, "good design and unauthentic" vs "bad design and authentic". The ideal of good design and authentic is obviously what should be strived for (I mean when possible, no real way you can make a character like R.O.B a whole lot more authentic when you have basically nothing to work with), but in lieu of thaht I would er on good design and unauthentic, because Smash is primarily a fighting game. Yes, the Nintendo characters are a massive appeal, it's the reason why pretty much all of us bought the games to begin with, but it still is a serious fighting game. If it didn't have high quality gameplay then it wouldn't have build up the fan base it has, one where people literally make money off of playing it. A lot of work goes into selecting which characters get into Smash, but a lot more work goes into making sure they actually fit into and play well in Smash. That's why Ganondorf's moveset has remained unchanged for almost two decades of the series history, because even though it's unauthentic (though I maintain he takes far more from his game than most people realize), the people in charge know what they've already made means something for the people who play it and that it already functions well in Smash (inb4 people say no it doesn't, shut up, yes it does).

 

[Jotari]

I made a new thread about possibly bringing in Smaus's new abilities in Metroid Dread. Didn't seem suitable to bring it up here as they're not exactly iconic or classic moves right now.

 

[Quillion]

Didn't seem suitable to bring it up here as they're not exactly iconic or classic moves right now.

It depends on by what measure you would call a move "iconic." This is actually a topic I was thinking of today.

If when you mean "iconic," you mean "recurrent in many games," then yes, Samus's abilities from both Samus Returns and Dread are too recent and tbh aren't very likely to come back imo, though I do think the Melee Counter is here to stay if two games is any indication. If we're going by the "recurrent" metric, I would say that appearing in at least three games is enough for a move to be considered iconic. By this metric Ganondorf (at least just in his Gerudo form) would have no iconic moves whatsoever, since he fights very differently in every appearance; he at least has an iconic weapon class in using swords (including him transforming into a sword-wielding Ganon in OoT), but that's like calling Sephiroth's Masamune and Shulk's Monado the same weapon.

If when you mean "iconic," you mean "made a positive and memorable impression," then I would argue that at least some people believe Samus's abilities in Samus Returns and Dread have made enough of an impression to be icons of the series in those two games. Subjective it might be, by this metric a move can certainly become iconic of a character within just one game; I assume this is why people believe Mario's brawling attacks in Super Mario 64 are iconic despite only being in that one game (though he did use something similar in the spinoff Super Mario RPG). Going back to Ganondorf, while the anti-Falcondorf crowd is willing to admit that Ganondorf does use brawling moves in boss fights and cutscenes, they often remark that said brawling moves are not memorable, saying that the sword moves and the lightning ball make more of an impression.

Which metric is better to define "iconic", "recurrent" or "memorable"? That's also subjective, but at least the "recurrent" metric is more quantifiable.

 

[fogbadge]

Which metric is better to define "iconic", "recurrent" or "memorable"? That's also subjective, but at least the "recurrent" metric is more quantifiable.

ive been using it to mean recognizable.

 

[Jotari]

I made a new thread about possibly bringing in Smaus's new abilities in Metroid Dread. Didn't seem suitable to bring it up here as they're not exactly iconic or classic moves right now.

Whoops! Meant to link that threat with the previous comment.

It depends on by what measure you would call a move "iconic." This is actually a topic I was thinking of today.

If when you mean "iconic," you mean "recurrent in many games," then yes, Samus's abilities from both Samus Returns and Dread are too recent and tbh aren't very likely to come back imo, though I do think the Melee Counter is here to stay if two games is any indication. If we're going by the "recurrent" metric, I would say that appearing in at least three games is enough for a move to be considered iconic. By this metric Ganondorf (at least just in his Gerudo form) would have no iconic moves whatsoever, since he fights very differently in every appearance; he at least has an iconic weapon class in using swords (including him transforming into a sword-wielding Ganon in OoT), but that's like calling Sephiroth's Masamune and Shulk's Monado the same weapon.

If when you mean "iconic," you mean "made a positive and memorable impression," then I would argue that at least some people believe Samus's abilities in Samus Returns and Dread have made enough of an impression to be icons of the series in those two games. Subjective it might be, by this metric a move can certainly become iconic of a character within just one game; I assume this is why people believe Mario's brawling attacks in Super Mario 64 are iconic despite only being in that one game (though he did use something similar in the spinoff Super Mario RPG). Going back to Ganondorf, while the anti-Falcondorf crowd is willing to admit that Ganondorf does use brawling moves in boss fights and cutscenes, they often remark that said brawling moves are not memorable, saying that the sword moves and the lightning ball make more of an impression.

Which metric is better to define "iconic", "recurrent" or "memorable"? That's also subjective, but at least the "recurrent" metric is more quantifiable.

One thing I mentioned in that thread that I'll repeat here, is that I'd really like for Samus to get a new down smash. Her let sweep just doesn't feel all that suitable to me. And I think the new game gives the perfect sort of item for her in the form of the Cross Bombs, a bomb that exploedes in the shape of a cross (this is far more impactful in Metroid that one might initially think). This would be an attack that hits on either side of Samus like a down Smash is meant to as well as hitting above her. It'd also just generally be a lot more visually interesting than her leg sweep.

 

[Lenidem]

By this metric Ganondorf (at least just in his Gerudo form) would have no iconic moves whatsoever, since he fights very differently in every appearance

He uses the Dead Man Volley in A Link to the Past when disguised as Aghanim, in Ocarina of Time as himself, and in Twilight Princess when possessing Zelda. All of his "fantoms" that he supposedly created with his own power, who look like him and share his name, use it too, in Ocarina of Time and in Wind Waker. Basically, when Ganondorf is his in the game in a human form, the Dead Man Volley is there too, done by himself and/or by a fantom of his (and sometimes even when he's not there, like in Phantom Hourglass). So I'd say that this technique is "recurrent in many games".

And... poop. I wrote all this and just as I'm about to click "post reply", I notice the parenthesis you wrote. Well, now that it's written, might as well post it.

 

[Quillion]

ive been using it to mean recognizable.

Yes, "iconic" means "recognizable," but things become iconic either by making recurring appearances or by making a positive and memorable impression.

I'm not saying that making recurring appearances and making a positive impression are mutually exclusive, but what I'm wondering is whether being recurrent or making a big impression plays a bigger role in making something "iconic."

It can go either way honestly. Examples: Beedle has made a lot of appearances across the Zelda series since Wind Waker, but it seems he hasn't made enough of an impression to be considered an icon. Geno has made a very positive impression on everyone who has played Super Mario RPG, but has a lot of people question his iconicity thanks to Square Enix's refusal to let Nintendo use him in anything.

He uses the Dead Man Volley in A Link to the Past when disguised as Aghanim, in Ocarina of Time as himself, and in Twilight Princess when possessing Zelda. All of his "fantoms" that he supposedly created with his own power, who look like him and share his name, use it too, in Ocarina of Time and in Wind Waker. Basically, when Ganondorf is his in the game in a human form, the Dead Man Volley is there too, done by himself and/or by a fantom of his (and sometimes even when he's not there, like in Phantom Hourglass). So I'd say that this technique is "recurrent in many games".

And... poop. I wrote all this and just as I'm about to click "post reply", I notice the parenthesis you wrote. Well, now that it's written, might as well post it.

Fair, Ganondorf/Ganon likes to use the Lightning Ball/Dead Man's Volley when he assumes some kind of humanoid form (and I'll just discount the phantoms and other unrelated users just for Jotari 's sake).

But speaking as someone who wants it, there's a reason why very few people want Zelda to get her Light Arrow back as a non-Final Smash move despite her using it in three mainline games and a few spinoffs.

I think you're just letting Ganondorf's energy ball make such a big impression on you while you ignore a signature Zelda item. Again, double standard.

 

[fogbadge]

Yes, "iconic" means "recognizable," but things become iconic either by making recurring appearances or by making a positive and memorable impression.

I'm not saying that making recurring appearances and making a positive impression are mutually exclusive, but what I'm wondering is whether being recurrent or making a big impression plays a bigger role in making something "iconic."

It can go either way honestly. Examples: Beedle has made a lot of appearances across the Zelda series since Wind Waker, but it seems he hasn't made enough of an impression to be considered an icon. Geno has made a very positive impression on everyone who has played Super Mario RPG, but has a lot of people question his iconicity thanks to Square Enix's refusal to let Nintendo use him in anything.

memorable then as surely the things we remember best are the most recognisable

 

[Jotari]

Yes, "iconic" means "recognizable," but things become iconic either by making recurring appearances or by making a positive and memorable impression.

I'm not saying that making recurring appearances and making a positive impression are mutually exclusive, but what I'm wondering is whether being recurrent or making a big impression plays a bigger role in making something "iconic."

It can go either way honestly. Examples: Beedle has made a lot of appearances across the Zelda series since Wind Waker, but it seems he hasn't made enough of an impression to be considered an icon. Geno has made a very positive impression on everyone who has played Super Mario RPG, but has a lot of people question his iconicity thanks to Square Enix's refusal to let Nintendo use him in anything.



Fair, Ganondorf/Ganon likes to use the Lightning Ball/Dead Man's Volley when he assumes some kind of humanoid form (and I'll just discount the phantoms and other unrelated users just for Jotari 's sake).

But speaking as someone who wants it, there's a reason why very few people want Zelda to get her Light Arrow back as a non-Final Smash move despite her using it in three mainline games and a few spinoffs.

I think you're just letting Ganondorf's energy ball make such a big impression on you while you ignore a signature Zelda item. Again, double standard.

Three mainline games and a few spinoffs undersells it. She directly uses light arrows in three games, but she is respsonsible for creating or giving them to Link in Ocarina of Time, A Link Between Worlds, Breath of the Wild and sort of Four Swords Adventures. The only game where light arrows appear in which they have no link to Zelda in some way are Majora's Mask and The Minish Cap, and of those two games she basically doesn't appear in Majora's Mask. Light arrows are very much tied to Zelda.

That being said I'm not sure I would change any of Zelda's normal moves to use light arrows. I think I might have said I would in previous pages of this thread, but thinking on it now, while it's all made up (even more so than Ganondorf), I do like her regular attacks. The only attacks I'd maybe consider putting light arrows into would be some of her throws, though I'd be slightly worried about how much that would change her moveset as her throw game is already really good for securing KOs and putting a gimmick like that on it might do more harm than good for her overall moveset. I guess maybe I could see it for an up smash either, but for something like that you really want it to be in more than a single attack. Hmm, maybe all her Smashes could be light arrows? Could that work? IDK, down smash wouldn't be able to be multi directional and a forward smash would need to be either super short range for an arrow )maybe angling downwards) or a very extended but weaker smash like a horizontal version of Palutena's up smash. I'd like to see Zelda get some light arrows again, but I'm not sure how they could best be implemented outside of a final smash without radically changing her moveset (well other than bringing back Custom Specials, but I can only dream of that). Moving Nayru's love to a shield special and making them her neutral b would be a more creative solution, but much like custom specials it's not something I'd actually expect to see.

 

[Quillion]

Three mainline games and a few spinoffs undersells it. She directly uses light arrows in three games, but she is respsonsible for creating or giving them to Link in Ocarina of Time, A Link Between Worlds, Breath of the Wild and sort of Four Swords Adventures. The only game where light arrows appear in which they have no link to Zelda in some way are Majora's Mask and The Minish Cap, and of those two games she basically doesn't appear in Majora's Mask. Light arrows are very much tied to Zelda.

That being said I'm not sure I would change any of Zelda's normal moves to use light arrows. I think I might have said I would in previous pages of this thread, but thinking on it now, while it's all made up (even more so than Ganondorf), I do like her regular attacks. The only attacks I'd maybe consider putting light arrows into would be some of her throws, though I'd be slightly worried about how much that would change her moveset as her throw game is already really good for securing KOs and putting a gimmick like that on it might do more harm than good for her overall moveset. I guess maybe I could see it for an up smash either, but for something like that you really want it to be in more than a single attack. Hmm, maybe all her Smashes could be light arrows? Could that work? IDK, down smash wouldn't be able to be multi directional and a forward smash would need to be either super short range for an arrow )maybe angling downwards) or a very extended but weaker smash like a horizontal version of Palutena's up smash. I'd like to see Zelda get some light arrows again, but I'm not sure how they could best be implemented outside of a final smash without radically changing her moveset (well other than bringing back Custom Specials, but I can only dream of that). Moving Nayru's love to a shield special and making them her neutral b would be a more creative solution, but much like custom specials it's not something I'd actually expect to see.

The circumstances Zelda getting her Light Arrows back all depends on where the Phantom goes. If the Phantom can go (and going by "iconicity by recurrence," the Light Arrows can certainly override it), I'd say turn Nayru's Love into a Down-B while making Light Arrow her Neutral-B. If we do need the Phantom, then I think the Light Arrow can replace her F-Smash at minimum and both that and the U-Smash at maximum. If we stretch, they can also have her shoot a Light Arrow into the ground causing an explosion for her D-Smash.

And sure, the F-Smash variant would have low range for an arrow, but Mega Man's F-Smash fizzles out instead of going across the screen as in his canon. As long as they take the newer interpretation of the Light Arrow being made of light energy, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch.

The thing with Zelda is that she feels like a zoner with only overly situational ranged tools at best. The delays in both Din's Fire and Phantom make them rather situational to use. Unlike Ganondorf and Donkey Kong getting their energy ball and barrel/coconut gun respectively and thereby unbalancing their current designs without significant (and alienating) change, I would argue that giving Zelda her Light Arrow either as a new Neutral-B or as projectile normal Smashes would help her current design by offsetting her poor mobility and light weight.

Going back to the heavies though, I think Smash could stand to change quite a bit about the "classical heavy" philosophy. I suggested earlier in the thread that "brawling" heavies like DK should have good recoveries to take advantage of the survivability their weight gives them while "zoning" heavies like K. Rool have the worse recoveries that the "classical heavies" traditionally have now so that their survivability lies mainly in stage control rather than tanking killshots.

 

[Lenidem]

I would like it if Zelda still had the Light Arrow, but it's not as important as Ganondorf 's ball because she still uses three special moves from Ocarina and one from Spirit Tracks, while Ganondorf has to settle with a generic big punch, a dark slower Falcon Quick and a dark slower Falcon Dive... So it's not double standard at all. We've been through this though.

I would also add that when she was created in Melee, the Light Arrow was not so heavily tied to her, and that the Triforce of Wisdom is at least of equal importance to the character. So she didn't had a bad deal at all.

That being said, I would gladly get rid of the Ghost. I understand his inclusion, as it still is to this day the first time Zelda was kinda playable in a canon game, but this was such a bad one...

 

[Jotari]

The circumstances Zelda getting her Light Arrows back all depends on where the Phantom goes. If the Phantom can go (and going by "iconicity by recurrence," the Light Arrows can certainly override it), I'd say turn Nayru's Love into a Down-B while making Light Arrow her Neutral-B. If we do need the Phantom, then I think the Light Arrow can replace her F-Smash at minimum and both that and the U-Smash at maximum. If we stretch, they can also have her shoot a Light Arrow into the ground causing an explosion for her D-Smash.

And sure, the F-Smash variant would have low range for an arrow, but Mega Man's F-Smash fizzles out instead of going across the screen as in his canon. As long as they take the newer interpretation of the Light Arrow being made of light energy, it wouldn't be too much of a stretch.

The thing with Zelda is that she feels like a zoner with only overly situational ranged tools at best. The delays in both Din's Fire and Phantom make them rather situational to use. Unlike Ganondorf and Donkey Kong getting their energy ball and barrel/coconut gun respectively and thereby unbalancing their current designs without significant (and alienating) change, I would argue that giving Zelda her Light Arrow either as a new Neutral-B or as projectile normal Smashes would help her current design by offsetting her poor mobility and light weight.

Going back to the heavies though, I think Smash could stand to change quite a bit about the "classical heavy" philosophy. I suggested earlier in the thread that "brawling" heavies like DK should have good recoveries to take advantage of the survivability their weight gives them while "zoning" heavies like K. Rool have the worse recoveries that the "classical heavies" traditionally have now so that their survivability lies mainly in stage control rather than tanking killshots.

I could definitely see the light arrows as a regular special, but I don't really see the Phantom going anywhere as a special now. Especially since, unlike SSB4, it's actually rather good in Ultimate. Like I said before, if we are putting it on a special (and custom specials are out the window), I see moving Nayru's love to a Shield Special to be the best option, though I don't really expect them to do something like that to an already existing character. I think, short of an entire roster redesign in some sort of gameplay reboot, Zelda will remain light arrowless in the next game too.

I would like it if Zelda still had the Light Arrow, but it's not as important as Ganondorf 's ball because she still uses three special moves from Ocarina and one from Spirit Tracks, while Ganondorf has to settle with a big punch, a dark slower Falcon Quick and a dark slower Falcon Dive. So it's not double standard at all. We've been through this though.

I would also add that when she was created in Melee, the Light Arrow was not so heavily tied to her, and that the Triforce of Wisdom is at least of equal importance to the character. So she didn't had a bad deal at all.

That being said, I would gladly get rid of the Ghost. I understand his inclusion, as it still is to this day the first time Zelda was kinda playable in a canon game, but this was such a bad one...

Three things from Ocarina of Time that she never uses and only have a passing resemblance to the actual spells in Ocarina of Time >.>

 

[Lenidem]

I could definitely see the light arrows as a regular special, but I don't really see the Phantom going anywhere as a special now. Especially since, unlike SSB4, it's actually rather good in Ultimate. Like I said before, if we are putting it on a special (and custom specials are out the window), I see moving Nayru's love to a Shield Special to be the best option, though I don't really expect them to do something like that to an already existing character. I think, short of an entire roster redesign in some sort of gameplay reboot, Zelda will remain light arrowless in the next game too.


Three things from Ocarina of Time that she never uses and only have a passing resemblance to the actual spells in Ocarina of Time >.>

What if, instead of using the Light Arrow as smash attacks, this role would go to the Phantom? This could be kinda similar to Bayonetta's. Then we move Nayru's Love to down-b, and put Light Arrow to neutral-b.

 

[Jotari]

What if, instead of using the Light Arrow as smash attacks, this role would go to the Phantom? This could be kinda similar to Bayonetta's. Then we move Nayru's Love to down-b, and put Light Arrow to neutral-b.

That's kind of keeping the Phantom around just for the sake of keeping it around rather than keeping it around based on the merits of the move as it is. It was a pretty weird choice to begin with that Zelda only got because they had to come up with something for her to do for her fourth special once she was divorced from Sheik and Spirit Tracks was still sort of newish at the time of development, if not release. The other option that it's a bit more surprising they didn't go with was the Goddess's harp from Skyward Sword.

 

[Lenidem]

That's kind of keeping the Phantom around just for the sake of keeping it around rather than keeping it around based on the merits of the move as it is.

Oh yes, totally.

 

[Quillion]

I could definitely see the light arrows as a regular special, but I don't really see the Phantom going anywhere as a special now. Especially since, unlike SSB4, it's actually rather good in Ultimate. Like I said before, if we are putting it on a special (and custom specials are out the window), I see moving Nayru's love to a Shield Special to be the best option, though I don't really expect them to do something like that to an already existing character. I think, short of an entire roster redesign in some sort of gameplay reboot, Zelda will remain light arrowless in the next game too.

Like I said, if we do need the Phantom, the Light Arrows would make good projectile normal Smash attacks. Honestly, they don't have to take the Ganondorf sword approach and turn all of the Smashes into Light Arrow shots; just turning her F-Smash into the Light Arrow at least can work. A U-Smash Light Arrow could be fun too, but I would be happy with just an F-Smash Light Arrow.

I say this as someone who has a rather negative opinion of the Phantom. Yes, it's good now, but I still don't like the move since Zelda herself is a rather uncomplicated character while the Phantom has wildly different utilities at each charge instead of being more linear in effectiveness. It's an overcomplicated move for an uncomplicated character.

Again, I think projectile normal Smash Light Arrow would help Zelda's current design instead of detract from it. Light Arrow Smashes could be balanced by being a lot stronger at point blank, and it's already inherently balanced by Light Arrows only being usable on the ground. IMO it would lead to good synergy for a zoning moveset: Farore's Wind teleport as a "get out of there" option, aerials for hard-to-use close-range kill options, and Light Arrow as easier-to-use ranged kill options. You're free to correct me or disagree with me though.

As far as a full roster redesign goes, I think the vast majority of the 64 and Melee veterans already have their most iconic abilities to the point that a so-called "full redesign" for them would either make them dated on the spot or less faithful to their respective canons. Taking a good hard look at that section of the roster, I think just changing 2-3 moves per character would be good. Even for Ganondorf, I'd rather give him a bit of sword aerials rather than give him a projectile.

 

[Jotari]

Going back to the title topic and focusing on some new characters, it's probably been mentioned already a while back (I did read all the thread but it was a while ago), but it feels really weird that Piranha Plant has like no fire attacks at all (well actually I think it might have one, but it's something weird like backair or something, fire is definitely not a memorable aspect of the moveset at any rate). They pulled from so many different games with Piranha Plant to make the moveset, yet some how missed that one of the most fundamental aspect of the enemy aside from emerging from pipes is spitting fire balls at someone.

So a bunch of Snake's guns are missing, and while I don't care for generic machine guns and assault rifles, the complete lack of a hand gun at all seems like something isn't right. If you look up a picture of Solid Snake then chances are you're going to find an image of him pointing a hand gun. And if not, then the artwork you find is probably from Super Smash Bros. For a long time people said it was because of censorship to have a realistic gun (appearantly realistic explosives are okay but not guns), but Bayonetta and Joker kind of blue that out of the water. So I think it's less about censorship and more about a hand gun just not being all that exciting a weapon for Snake to use. While his laser sight Socom is his most signature handgun, I think they could actually pull something off better with his tranq gun. In fact I think one of the Project Brawl mods does exactly that. Shooting a tranq with a delayed sleep effect would be a pretty useful and interesting move. And honestly I would ditch the grenades for that.

 

[Quillion]

Going back to the title topic and focusing on some new characters, it's probably been mentioned already a while back (I did read all the thread but it was a while ago), but it feels really weird that Piranha Plant has like no fire attacks at all (well actually I think it might have one, but it's something weird like backair or something, fire is definitely not a memorable aspect of the moveset at any rate). They pulled from so many different games with Piranha Plant to make the moveset, yet some how missed that one of the most fundamental aspect of the enemy aside from emerging from pipes is spitting fire balls at someone.

We have so many fire users in the roster that I'm kinda glad that Plant has that aspect downplayed.

So a bunch of Snake's guns are missing, and while I don't care for generic machine guns and assault rifles, the complete lack of a hand gun at all seems like something isn't right. If you look up a picture of Solid Snake then chances are you're going to find an image of him pointing a hand gun. And if not, then the artwork you find is probably from Super Smash Bros. For a long time people said it was because of censorship to have a realistic gun (appearantly realistic explosives are okay but not guns), but Bayonetta and Joker kind of blue that out of the water. So I think it's less about censorship and more about a hand gun just not being all that exciting a weapon for Snake to use. While his laser sight Socom is his most signature handgun, I think they could actually pull something off better with his tranq gun. In fact I think one of the Project Brawl mods does exactly that. Shooting a tranq with a delayed sleep effect would be a pretty useful and interesting move. And honestly I would ditch the grenades for that.

Apparently gun designs are actually copyrighted, and this has become a problem for a lot of video games. Bayonetta and Joker escape this since they have purely supernatural fictional weapons.

Other than that, I agree that a simple gun isn't a terribly interesting move, but I'm not fond of the idea of Snake getting an immobilization move, especially when he's such a hard hitter. Project M had to heavily redesign Snake because of it.

 

[Jotari]

We have so many fire users in the roster that I'm kinda glad that Plant has that aspect downplayed.



Apparently gun designs are actually copyrighted, and this has become a problem for a lot of video games. Bayonetta and Joker escape this since they have purely supernatural fictional weapons.

Other than that, I agree that a simple gun isn't a terribly interesting move, but I'm not fond of the idea of Snake getting an immobilization move, especially when he's such a hard hitter. Project M had to heavily redesign Snake because of it.

That might also explain why Snake doesn't use his Stinger Missiles either, the (real) weapon that is used in game to take down Metal Gears (so basically his version of Samus's icebeam). Unless his Up Smash or Brawl Final Smash are meant to be stinger missiles, but I don't think they are.

 

[Lenidem]

That might also explain why Snake doesn't use his Stinger Missiles either, the (real) weapon that is used in game to take down Metal Gears (so basically his version of Samus's icebeam). Unless his Up Smash or Brawl Final Smash are meant to be stinger missiles, but I don't think they are.

His side special is not the Stinger? (I just started playing Twin Snakes on my Game Cube after a very long time!)

 

[Jotari]

His side special is not the Stinger? (I just started playing Twin Snakes on my Game Cube after a very long time!)

No his Side Special is the Nikita remote controlled missiles. Stingers are homing missiles. Sounds like they'd be the same thing, and for Smash the ideas might end up being similar (though perfect material for an alternate custom if Snake had appeared in SSB4), but in Metal Gear there's a pretty noteworthy distinction in that Nikitas are typically used to solve puzzles by navatgating missiles through obtsacle courses or along dangerous corridors, a bit like Skyward Sword's Beatle, while Stingers are used in boss battles to take down Metal Gears and helicopters. The name Nikita isn't used in Smash Bros. to describe his weapon, it's just remote control missile, but I'm pretty sure the Nikita is an entirely fictional weapon as getting such precise control over such a small missile is impossible, or at least it was deemed impossible back when the older games were first made (drone technology has come a long way since then).

 

[Neosonic97]

As a lot of others are saying, MANY of Sonic's moves from his own have been left out. Amongst others that would work in a moveset...

The biggest crime to me is his neutral air not being the Insta-Shield. Like... it's a perfect fit for NAir.

Side Special would be better suited to being the Boost rather than the Spin Dash, as it's synonymous with Modern Sonic, and has been ever since the move's debut in Sonic Rush. Spin Dash and Spin Charge are based off of the same move anyway (Specifically, his current Side B, Spin Dash, is based on the Spin Dash seen in Sonic CD.

Sonic's Up Special right now is just a spring, a generic element from his games. For an actual up Special, I'd actually rather prefer a technique of his, the Blue Tornado from Sonic Heroes.

 

[Quillion]

The biggest crime to me is his neutral air not being the Insta-Shield. Like... it's a perfect fit for NAir.

It may not be the exact S3&K animation, but doesn't the move resemble it close enough? There's a little aura surrounding Sonic as he spins.

Side Special would be better suited to being the Boost rather than the Spin Dash, as it's synonymous with Modern Sonic, and has been ever since the move's debut in Sonic Rush. Spin Dash and Spin Charge are based off of the same move anyway (Specifically, his current Side B, Spin Dash, is based on the Spin Dash seen in Sonic CD.

Again, the Super Smash Bros. Crusade fangame implemented the Boost, and it really doesn't work well because it sends Sonic careening offstage before you can react.

Sonic's Up Special right now is just a spring, a generic element from his games. For an actual up Special, I'd actually rather prefer a technique of his, the Blue Tornado from Sonic Heroes.

The spring is a lot more recurrent than any other potential option.

 

[fogbadge]

Again, the Super Smash Bros. Crusade fangame implemented the Boost, and it really doesn't work well because it sends Sonic careening offstage before you can react.

just like yoshi

 

[Quillion]

just like yoshi

Yoshi's Egg Roll doesn't go that fast though. Would you implement boost so that it goes slower than Sonic's regular run?

 

[fogbadge]

Yoshi's Egg Roll doesn't go that fast though. Would you implement boost so that it goes slower than Sonic's regular run?

honestly id make the boost some kind of tackling attack that stops at the edge of a platform like ikes side special. also i dont think you should rule something out cause it doesnt work in a fan game. how things work in an actual smash game could be very different. more to the point i was just making a snarky remark about how every yoshi i seem to fight always barrels off the stage with their side special.

 

[Quillion]

honestly id make the boost some kind of tackling attack that stops at the edge of a platform like ikes side special. also i dont think you should rule something out cause it doesnt work in a fan game. how things work in an actual smash game could be very different. more to the point i was just making a snarky remark about how every yoshi i seem to fight always barrels off the stage with their side special.

If that's the case, I'd rather Sonic's Side-B be the Light Speed Dash.

 

[fogbadge]

If that's the case, I'd rather Sonic's Side-B be the Light Speed Dash.

that’s the one from adventure where he zips along the line of rings right?

 

[Quillion]

that’s the one from adventure where he zips along the line of rings right?

Yep, and it has appeared in nearly every 3D Sonic game after that.

 

[Jotari]

The spring is a lot more recurrent than any other potential option.

Sonic Wind from Sonic Adventures 2 could work as a recovery. In that game it's a sort of unavoidable remote attack, but just by its very nature as a wind attack it could be implemented in Smash in some sort of recovery fashion.

 

[fogbadge]

Yep, and it has appeared in nearly every 3D Sonic game after that.

has it? It’s been a while so I’ve forgotten. I’d certainly be up for sonic zipping through rings in smash

 

[Quillion]

Sonic Wind from Sonic Adventures 2 could work as a recovery. In that game it's a sort of unavoidable remote attack, but just by its very nature as a wind attack it could be implemented in Smash in some sort of recovery fashion.

The spring is still more recurrent than that.

 

[Jotari]

The spring is still more recurrent than that.

Correct me if I'm wrong, because I'm not a Soinc fan, but is it ever something he actively summons under his own power, or is it just a recurring stage element they implemented as his recovery because there were no other immediately obvious attacks? Because in the Sonic games I've played I can't remember him ever actually making springs himself. They're just something that are there, like Mario's pipes.