Quillion
Smash Hero
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2014
- Messages
- 5,565
Hero's addition got me thinking about this, since to me, his representation of abilities is way overdone. Normally, I appreciate seeing faithful translations of a character's canon abilities in Smash, but with Hero, instead of simply leaving less suitable ideas on the cutting room floor, they invented one of the most unintuitive character-specific gimmicks in Smash ever just to include even more moves. So I thought, "Was it really necessary to include all of those moves; were they even that iconic?"
After that, I started thinking in more general terms. When should a move even appear in a character's moveset? Most would agree that an iconic move or one that makes a character unique should be on a character, preferably one that's both iconic and unique. But to what level?
Even the way they change certain movesets between games makes me wonder. People seem to agree that Ganondorf's sword smashes were long overdue (even though I still feel alienated by them and prefer the old smashes), and a lot of people are in favor of giving Ganondorf an energy projectile, given that it has been used by several of Ganon's incarnations. That being said, people seem to applaud the decision for Zelda to lose her Light Arrow entirely despite that now being her signature weapon; no one wants it to be converted to a standard special despite Wario's Brawl F-smash being converted to his current dash attack, which represents his Shoulder Bash far better.
Then there are characters that I feel are "dumping grounds" for certain move concepts that characters could/should have but have no room for it. Dr. Mario has the Mario Tornado (spin jump) and most egregiously the Goomba Stomp that Mario could have, and Isabelle has the Fishing Rod and party popper that Villager could have. To be honest, I'd rather have multiple "dumping ground" semi-echoes for Hero than invent the RNG menu gimmick.
So what is the line between "include this move for faithfulness" and "exclude this move since it won't fit"? I'm probably being bothered by something that isn't a big deal, but I think this is a vital part of making representation higher quality instead of just quantity.
After that, I started thinking in more general terms. When should a move even appear in a character's moveset? Most would agree that an iconic move or one that makes a character unique should be on a character, preferably one that's both iconic and unique. But to what level?
Even the way they change certain movesets between games makes me wonder. People seem to agree that Ganondorf's sword smashes were long overdue (even though I still feel alienated by them and prefer the old smashes), and a lot of people are in favor of giving Ganondorf an energy projectile, given that it has been used by several of Ganon's incarnations. That being said, people seem to applaud the decision for Zelda to lose her Light Arrow entirely despite that now being her signature weapon; no one wants it to be converted to a standard special despite Wario's Brawl F-smash being converted to his current dash attack, which represents his Shoulder Bash far better.
Then there are characters that I feel are "dumping grounds" for certain move concepts that characters could/should have but have no room for it. Dr. Mario has the Mario Tornado (spin jump) and most egregiously the Goomba Stomp that Mario could have, and Isabelle has the Fishing Rod and party popper that Villager could have. To be honest, I'd rather have multiple "dumping ground" semi-echoes for Hero than invent the RNG menu gimmick.
So what is the line between "include this move for faithfulness" and "exclude this move since it won't fit"? I'm probably being bothered by something that isn't a big deal, but I think this is a vital part of making representation higher quality instead of just quantity.