• 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!

Your criteria for the roster

Crystanium

Smash Hero
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
5,921
Location
California
Most people who play Super Smash Bros. knows that Sakurai has a criteria for who joins the roster. I recently made a criteria of my own, so I thought about presenting mine. I'd be interested in see other criteria.

1. Protagonist
The character ideally must be the protagonist of the series. If a series lacks a specific protagonist—as is usually the case with RPGs—but has had a recurring protagonist, then the recurring protagonist shall be the preferred choice.[1] If these are not present, then the next choice shall go to a specific antagonist. If there isn't a specific antagonist, then a recurring character shall be the representative of its respective series, regardless of whether or not he, she, or it played an important role.[2]

2. Recurrence
The character must be a recurring character, i.e., the recurring character shall appear at least in two different games, excluding remakes or cameos. If it's a spin-off, it must remain within its mainstream canon source and timeline and be relevant to the series.[3]

3. Origins
The character must have his or her origins from a video game. Any character who didn't start out in a video game, even if that character ends up in a video game, shall not be included. If a character is a new IP who was debuted as both in a video game and some media, scrutiny shall be made to determine which media was first released to the public. If both were released to the public at the same time, then that character shall be a potential character, provided the creator shows interest in having his or her character added.

4. Officiality
The character must be from a series that has been officially playable on Nintendo hardware.

5. History
The character should have history with Nintendo. This isn't necessarily a requirement, but a character who has history with Nintendo has a higher probability to appear on my roster.[4] If a new IP is owned by Nintendo, then this would be an exception, especially if it's not from a second- or third-party source.

6. Limitations
In order to reduce the number of characters on the current roster, I would permit that every series has at least two characters minimum, with four characters maximum.[5] Any new character that may be introduced shall replace an already pre-existing character.[6] This would help maintain a fresh game with new, unique characters. The protagonist, however, would not be replaced, except under certain circumstances.[7] There shall be only one protagonist.

Feel free to provide your criteria. If you agree with mine, but would like to add another criterion or two, please share it.

Footnotes
1. Marth is a good example of a recurring RPG character, even though he's not present in all Fire Emblem titles.

2. Chocobos, Sid, or even mages are good examples of being representatives of Final Fantasy. Of course, since Final Fantasy X-2, it appears this particular RPG series has had recurring protagonists.

3. Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance is a spin-off of Metal Gear Solid, but it fits within the mainstream canon and timeline. This would mean Raiden would have a chance at being on my roster.

4. Mega Man and Castlevania are Nintendo classics, whereas Bayonetta is not.

5. Super Mario Bros. or The Legend of Zelda would have a complete set of characters, including Mario, Luigi, Peach, and Bowser, or Link, Zelda, Ganondorf, and Sheik.

6. Since characters like Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf are treated as important characters in The Legend of Zelda, Sheik would likely end up being replaced with another Zelda character. Ganondorf could be replaced with another antagonist, such as Agahnim or Demise if fans wanted to see other antagonists from the series.

7. If fans wanted Dr. Mario, for example, or if fans wanted Toon Link, then this could cause Mario or Link to not be present on my roster, since the roster would have a certain amount of characters from each series and could not exceed four per series.
 
Last edited:

osby

Smash Obsessed
Joined
Apr 25, 2018
Messages
23,460
Most people who play Super Smash Bros. knows that Sakurai has a criteria for who joins the roster. I recently made a criteria of my own, so I thought about presenting mine. I'd be interested in see other criteria.

1. Protagonist
The character ideally must be the protagonist of the series. If a series lacks a specific protagonist—as is usually the case with RPGs—but has had a recurring protagonist, then the recurring protagonist shall be the preferred choice.[1] If these are not present, then the next choice shall go to a specific antagonist. If there isn't a specific antagonist, then a recurring character shall be the representative of its respective series, regardless of whether or not he, she, or it played an important role.[2]

2. Recurrence
The character must be a recurring character, i.e., the recurring character shall appear at least in two different games, excluding remakes or cameos. If it's a spin-off, it must remain within its mainstream canon source and timeline and be relevant to the series.[3]

3. Origins
The character must have his or her origins from a video game. Any character who didn't start out in a video game, even if that character ends up in a video game, shall not be included. If a character is a new IP who was debuted as both in a video game and some media, scrutiny shall be made to determine which media was first released to the public. If both were released to the public at the same time, then that character shall be a potential character, provided the creator shows interest in having his or her character added.

4. Officiality
The character must be from a series that has been officially playable on Nintendo hardware.

5. History
The character should have history with Nintendo. This isn't necessarily a requirement, but a character who has history with Nintendo has a higher probability to appear on my roster.[4] If a new IP is owned by Nintendo, then this would be an exception, especially if it's not from a second- or third-party source.

6. Limitations
In order to reduce the number of characters on the current roster, I would permit that every series has at least two characters minimum, with four characters maximum.[5] Any new character that may be introduced shall replace an already pre-existing character.[6] This would help maintain a fresh game with new, unique characters. The protagonist, however, would not be replaced, except under certain circumstances.[7] There shall be only one protagonist.

Feel free to provide your criteria. If you agree with mine, but would like to add another criterion or two, please share it.

Footnotes
1. Marth is a good example of a recurring RPG character, even though he's not present in all Fire Emblem titles.

2. Chocobos, Sid, or even mages are good examples of being representatives of Final Fantasy. Of course, since Final Fantasy X-2, it appears this particular RPG series has had recurring protagonists.

3. Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance is a spin-off of Metal Gear Solid, but it fits within the mainstream canon and timeline. This would mean Raiden would have a chance at being on my roster.

4. Mega Man and Castlevania are Nintendo classics, whereas Bayonetta is not.

5. Super Mario Bros. or The Legend of Zelda would have a complete set of characters, including Mario, Luigi, Peach, and Bowser, or Link, Zelda, Ganondorf, and Sheik.

6. Since characters like Link, Zelda, and Ganondorf are treated as important characters in The Legend of Zelda, Sheik would likely end up being replaced with another Zelda character. Ganondorf could be replaced with another antagonist, such as Agahnim or Demise if fans wanted to see other antagonists from the series.

7. If fans wanted Dr. Mario, for example, or if fans wanted Toon Link, then this could cause Mario or Link to not be present on my roster, since the roster would have a certain amount of characters from each series and could not exceed four per series.
I agree with you except 6 and maybe 5. Limitations shouldn't be cause of replacing a chararacter. Personally I wouldn't think it keeps the roster fresh but it just doesn't care about veterans. Also Smash doesn't really replace characters except Toon Link taking place of Young Link.

And history... I mean if a character is old but doesn't really do much, I wouldn't miind seeing new characters over them.

(Also Lucario make his debut as an anime character and R.O.B. originated as a real world toy)
 

Crystanium

Smash Hero
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
5,921
Location
California
I agree with you except 6 and maybe 5. Limitations shouldn't be cause of replacing a chararacter. Personally I wouldn't think it keeps the roster fresh but it just doesn't care about veterans. Also Smash doesn't really replace characters except Toon Link taking place of Young Link.

And history... I mean if a character is old but doesn't really do much, I wouldn't miind seeing new characters over them.

(Also Lucario make his debut as an anime character and R.O.B. originated as a real world toy)
Well, there are a lot of characters already, so swapping out some for others to be introduced seems like the best option to keep the roster from becoming larger than it already is. As for history, those characters would really be for nostalgic purposes. My roster wouldn't even have Lucario or R.O.B.
 

DBPirate

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Mar 19, 2018
Messages
146
Location
Texas
For Nintendo characters, I don't really have any criteria, except that they should be relevant within their own series, have been a major player at some point in time, and have been in more than one game in their franchise unless the series in question has a rotating cast of main and/or side characters like Zelda and Fire Emblem.

For third-parties, they just need to have had some gaming history and have been an "icon," for lack of a better word, at some point in time.
 

Tollhouse

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
482
Location
Wii-Fit Studio
Here's my criteria

Nintendo's all stars are a must. Meaning main characters from long running franchises. Ex Mario, Luigi, Bowser, Link, Samus, Kirby, etc. And in Pokemon's case, its poster child, Pikachu.

Relevancy and popularity should'nt be what drives a character's inclusion. Even if a character is one of the names I listed above, it should be about what does this character add to the game above all else. While the concept of smash is too include Nintendo's characters, we also need to at the same time think like a game designer. What makes this character unique? Does this character fit into the game? How will they contrast with other characters? This is precisely why I'm against adding characters for the sake of representing franchises. Artistic integrity comes first. Not here to fatten up the game for the sake of fattening up the game. While we should include characters that are popular, they should only be included if they add anything to the game. We need characters that have something to say.

If a character like Nintendo Labo Robot has more to say than Daisy or Chrom whom Sakurai may think would just play like characters already in smash, who do you think he'll include? Sakurai is very innovative. That's why we have characters like Rosalina, Ice Climbers, Pokemon Trainer, Shulk, Little Mac, and Olimar who bare characteristics/abilities atypical from most of the roster and push smash to make it more interesting.

For 3rd parties, I'd consider only video game characters that ORIGINATED from video games (meaning no anime characters like Goku or cartoons like Spongebob and Shrek) The 3rd parties would also have to have a title on a Nintendo system.

And lastly, it's a great idea to make room for the unexpected. (Ex Game & Watch, Rob, Wii-Fit, Duck Hunt) I'm not for making the whole roster that way but I like the idea of having 2 or 3 newcomers no one saw coming rather than strictly catering to what's only popular among the fans. I would consider any nintendo game for source material no matter how old and see what potential lies there. I like the idea of bringing back old franchises like Kid Icarus and Ice Climbers.
 
Last edited:

Nohbl

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 20, 2017
Messages
357
Location
Chicago, Illinois
I think it's helpful to give a retrospective to tr4sh. The first thing to note is that there are characters missing: most inexcusably, Wolf and Ice Climbers. Getting rid of a few characters and not a much larger number is arbitrary in this game. Essentially, no one should be left behind. If that principle is to be followed, however, one must make sure they aren't creating a garbage, bloated roster where trimming the fat is necessary.

The second aspect is proportionality of representation. One could say that Fire Emblem was overrepresented in tr4sh. The Smash developers twisted themselves up in a new trio to mirror the Star Fox trio in Brawl by introducing Lucina, when in fact Roy was the missing link and all that was needed. I can imagine a fine enough rationale for introducing Lucina, but then you already have four characters---more than Donkey Kong. They didn't stop there. Add in Robin, and Corrin, and you have 6---more than the number of Zelda characters in that game.

Third aspect is similarity and repetition. Clone (and, lesserly, Semi-Clone) characters are part of the problem, but not the whole of it. Clone characters can be interesting when done right---see SSBM Fox and Falco. Other times, they can be so poorly thought out as to prevent them from even being considered separate characters by the players---see Pit and Dark Pit. A bigger problem I see is with a lineage like Mewtwo, Lucario, and Greninja---all the cool, edgemons of their generations (Zoroark would have 100% been included if this was a Gen 5 game). Doesn't matter that they don't play quite the same at all---thematically and aesthetically, they are duplicates of one another, and so hurt the diversity and variety the game is supposed to offer. For hipster-trash like myself who had been a huge fan of Pokemon since childhood, I was forced to play Jigglypuff or no 'mon at all, as there was no other special snowflake pick. Even Gardevoir's presence, as cliche as it is, would have been more welcome. But as it stands, the "obvious" picks will hog the Pokemon space indefinitely, from a feeling of needing to include them.

That leads to the fourth and last aspect I'll bother writing about. Going for broke---including intriguing, risky picks. I've felt for a long time now that Magmortar would be an fantastic Pokemon to include on a roster like Pokken's---but who would think of that, or endorse it? The dude is kind of ugly, and neither popular competitively nor possessing of a fanbase as dedicated as that of, say, Torterra-ists or Gardevoir-ites. Magmortar can learn Earthquake, Psychic, Thunderbolt, Confuse Ray, Taunt, and Mach Punch. Just imagine what kind of character could result from carefully assessing its potential---just look at what the Brawl Minus developers did with Charizard. I'm not saying Mag for Smash. What I'm saying is that the developers should use their imagination and look at left-field picks that can nevertheless be made into unique and engaging characters to play. One might say that they should focus on making sure the most important characters are all included first. With this, however, you run the risk of the clone problem again.

In conclusion, a way to make the roster that I would endorse is to carefully select the number of representatives desired from each series, and to seriously weigh the need to include importants and favorites against shaking up the cast both technically and aesthetically with non-obvious character choices. Once a character is in, you should only remove them with very, very good reasons---which are probably non-existent.
 
Last edited:

Crystanium

Smash Hero
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
5,921
Location
California
Keep up with the input, everyone!

I wish Smashboards would alert me that people have posted in my thread.
 

CodakTheWarrior

Smash Ace
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
548
Man, I'm one of the few who probably doesn't have strict criteria. For first parties, I think they should be included so long as they are at least either some what popular, have a somewhat major role in their games, and have interesting potential for a moveset, if not all 3. For third parties, I'm not a huge stickler, but ideally they would only include characters that any non gamer could recognize. Finally, if I were the new Smash director, I would make a bold move: absolutely NO cuts from here on out. Even though that would end up taking an absurdly long development time, I'd say it would be worth it to keep everyone's favorites in place. I would also makes sure to bring back all the previous cut characters as well (yes, this includes Pichu and Young Link, albeit with revamped movesets). I have the mentality that, once a character makes it into smash, they should definitely stay no matter what, the ONLY caveat to that being possible legal issues with third parties. Other than that, once a character is in, they will always be in.

If you have any questions, let me know and I'll be happy to address them!
 

Zapp Branniglenn

Smash Lord
Joined
Apr 13, 2014
Messages
1,707
Location
Santa Ana, CA
I used to rate characters 1 through 10 on a few fields of Smash viability. Here was my criteria.

Moveset potential - How well can you envision a moveset for this character fighting in Smash Bros.? Do they fight within their game of origin? Do they have a diverse range of abilities that can inspire many potential attacks or recovery moves, or do they rely on one repeated weapon or tactic? Have they appeared in a fighting game before, and if they did, how well did that moveset work out for them? A 1 rating is for a character that has never fought in their game of origin and has access to no abilities that could feasibly be placed on their moveset. A 10 rating is...basically Ryu. A character that already has experience in fighting games and you also can envision how they would jump, how they would recover after being knocked off stage, and what Kirby would look like after eating them.

Relevancy - if this series got a representative, is this the character you would choose among other options? Does said franchise really need another representative character? With relevancy, consider relevancy within that character's franchise, as well as within the gaming industry at large. To draw a crowd like it does, Smash Bros is always looking to put prominent faces in the game. Popular characters, and especially those characters that have become popular recently or maintained their popularity for many years. A 1 is a character so poorly known that even fans of their game/series need to google them. A 10 is a real gaming icon like Mario or Pikachu that have maintained their status across many years of gaming.

Diversity within the Smash roster - This can be many factors. Is this character unique in terms of how they look, move, or behave? Is their skillset unique among the rest of the cast? Could you see their moveset being too similar to another existing character? Is this character so similar that the best they can hope for is life as a semi-clone?

And that's really it. I suppose Diversity doesn't mean as much as the two other categories to Sakurai, but if it were up to me, it would mean as much as the other criteria given how large the roster has gotten and the possibility of post-launch character additions. Also it kind of bugs me when people consider only protagonists as the first rep for a series. Sometimes the villain totally overshadows the hero, and I don't want to think the hero needs to come in first as some kind of "necessary groundwork". For instance, a Resident Evil character would be a bummer if it were Chris, Jill, or Leon over Wesker or Nemesis.
 

Nohbl

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Jul 20, 2017
Messages
357
Location
Chicago, Illinois
Finally, if I were the new Smash director, I would make a bold move: absolutely NO cuts from here on out. Even though that would end up taking an absurdly long development time, I'd say it would be worth it to keep everyone's favorites in place. I would also makes sure to bring back all the previous cut characters as well (yes, this includes Pichu and Young Link, albeit with revamped movesets). I have the mentality that, once a character makes it into smash, they should definitely stay no matter what, the ONLY caveat to that being possible legal issues with third parties. Other than that, once a character is in, they will always be in.
Should Young Link and Toon Link be separate characters or alts in the vein of how PM includes Melee and Brawl Falco?

At what point has the roster become saturated, and you can no longer add new characters? 80 spots?

My roster wouldn't even have Lucario or R.O.B.
I think taking out R.O.B. is a tricky matter. He's somewhat of a unique character---I compare him most closely to Peach. It's hard to say what the game would lose without R.O.B. because he's pretty different across Brawl, Project M, and Brawl Minus. If I had to concatenate the best of R.O.B. across these games to make a case for why he should stay in as a playable character, it'd be due to his being a 1) bulkier, 2) faster, and 3) more zoning-focused Peach:

  1. *R.O.B. is 16 points heavier than Peach, which is a lot. He is also slightly less floaty than her by ~1.5pts. What this means is he can potentially take more hits and live longer than Peach---and we all know how good she is at surviving. So for people who like a more durable character, R.O.B. fits the bill.
  2. By faster, I mean precisely the way side-special works in Project M (granted, Nintendo may never copy mechanics from it). He gets an air dash that he can cancel into attacks, like Peach's float but quicker. And on the ground, it's quicker than Peach Bomber. Both of these moves may make him less predictable than Peach can be. His mobility is also helped by up special, which makes it easier to move around than Peach can. For players who dislike how slow Peach is, R.O.B. is a good alternative.
  3. R.O.B. has more zoning tools, and they are strictly better for zoning proper. His beam goes full screen and can be aimed in multiple directions. He has his gyro, which is like Peach's turnips, but it can go farther, and it stays out on the stage, to where it can even function as a trap. Both he and Peach have good down smashes, but that's the end of where she can compete. He has down tilt, and up smash, which both reach farther than Peach's. So for people who prefer to zone rather than engage in more close combat, R.O.B. is a better pick.
*https://smashboards.com/threads/pm-3-5-stats-list-still-wip-wavedash-ranks-added.335019/

In conclusion, R.O.B. is similar to characters already included, like Peach and Samus, but he has, in my view, sufficient changes---namely his durability, mobility, and zoning ability---to justify his continued availability as a character.

Sometimes the villain totally overshadows the hero, and I don't want to think the hero needs to come in first as some kind of "necessary groundwork". For instance, a Resident Evil character would be a bummer if it were Chris, Jill, or Leon over Wesker or Nemesis.
I agree with this.
 
Last edited:

CodakTheWarrior

Smash Ace
Joined
Jun 7, 2017
Messages
548
Should Young Link and Toon Link be separate characters or alts in the vein of how PM includes Melee and Brawl Falco?

At what point has the roster become saturated, and you can no longer add new characters? 80 spots?


I think taking out R.O.B. is a tricky matter. He's somewhat of a unique character---I compare him most closely to Peach. It's hard to say what the game would lose without R.O.B. because he's pretty different across Brawl, Project M, and Brawl Minus. If I had to concatenate the best of R.O.B. across these games to make a case for why he should stay in as a playable character, it'd be due to his being a 1) bulkier, 2) faster, and 3) more zoning-focused Peach:

  1. *R.O.B. is 16 points heavier than Peach, which is a lot. He is also slightly less floaty than her by ~1.5pts. What this means is he can potentially take more hits and live longer than Peach---and we all know how good she is at surviving. So for people who like a more durable character, R.O.B. fits the bill.
  2. By faster, I mean precisely the way side-special works in Project M (granted, Nintendo may never copy mechanics from it). He gets an air dash that he can cancel into attacks, like Peach's float but quicker. And on the ground, it's quicker than Peach Bomber. Both of these moves may make him less predictable than Peach can be. His mobility is also helped by up special, which makes it easier to move around than Peach can. For players who dislike how slow Peach is, R.O.B. is a good alternative.
  3. R.O.B. has more zoning tools, and they are strictly better for zoning proper. His beam goes full screen and can be aimed in multiple directions. He has his gyro, which is like Peach's turnips, but it can go farther, and it stays out on the stage, to where it can even function as a trap. Both he and Peach have good down smashes, but that's the end of where she can compete. He has down tilt, and up smash, which both reach farther than Peach's.
*https://smashboards.com/threads/pm-3-5-stats-list-still-wip-wavedash-ranks-added.335019/


I agree with this.
To answer your question about roster oversaturation, yes I would have both Toon and Young Link. Once the roster hits around 100 or so, that's when a limit will have probably been hit. Good question though!
 

TMNTSSB4

Smash Obsessed
Joined
Jun 15, 2014
Messages
29,285
Location
John Cena
NNID
No More
3DS FC
3368-4469-9312
Switch FC
SW-6414-0526-7609
Characters who are unique in their own way, can make a good clone, have valid reasons to be in the game, an iconic 3rd party, and idk
 

MrRoidley

Smash Ace
Joined
Mar 12, 2018
Messages
548
First and foremost is uniqueness. Being unique, whether in moveset potential, how it looks or what it represents gives huge points. Clones and semiclones should fit the looks or representation criteria as much as possible (say Dr. Mario to me is a good clone choice since he's the only representative from a puzzle game and has a nostalgia factor. Toon Link is a good (semi?)clone too because he represents a whole side of Zelda games that would go unnoticed in the roster otherwise)

Secondly, Nintendo characters should always be the center. Third-party guests are awesome don't get me wrong, but I still hold firmly that SSB64 in Japan had "Nintendo All-Stars" in the title for a reason, for example. Third-parties should preferrably have a close history to Nintendo, even more so in recent days (I've been more lenient regarding Cloud since I understand he's the most iconic character from Final Fantasy, but if we went by my criteria, I guess either Terra or Black Mage would've been picked instead). No more than two third-party newcomers per game (not counting DLC of course)

Of course, fourth-party/nongame characters are strictly forbidden... UNLESS if Nintendo ventures into movies/series and has a character exclusive for those, is a classic part of Nintendo history (Hanafuda, Ultra Hand etc) or in some kind of really specific cross promotion (say, you want Goku in Smash? Put Mario or Link in a hypothetical Switch port of DBFZ and we can talk)

Fan requests are obviously important as well, but the entire roster should not be made around them. I think what Melee explicitly did (8 newcomers sans clones, 4 of them fan favorites, 4 of them unexpected choices) was a really good idea

And lastly: being the face of a game does help, but is not a free pass. Think of Robin/Chrom and all the uniqueness debate. I'd go even further than that: for example, I would not pick Rex as the Xenoblade 2 character because I think Shulk already fits his tropes really well (male JRPG protag, loud, lots of iconic quotes, has a red shiny laser sword). So, I'd move to another playable character from Xenoblade 2, preferably Tora I guess, since he's a Nopon, almost the series's mascot

I guess that's it. If I remember anything else I'll complete here
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member

Guest
  1. Relevance. If the character has been dormant for a long time, they're not nearly as likely (unless they're a retro character). And inversely, the closer a character's latest major appearance was to when the roster was decided the more likely they are.
  2. Popularity. With the Smash Ballot in mind, characters must be decently popular. Not necessarily world beaters, but characters that people generally want to see in the game. The more popular the better.
  3. Moveset potential. The final and most important piece of criteria. If a character doesn't offer anything new, they won't make it. Just look at what happened to Chrom. And if a character can offer something fresh and exciting? They're automatically up for consideration, and probably frontrunners if they can nail the first two points.
3rd parties have to be iconic and somehow tied to Nintendo in addition to the other criteria.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

UserKev

Smash Champion
Joined
May 10, 2017
Messages
2,621
Relevancy (is) a key factor with the exception of selective retro candidates and IP's that prove to remain relevant themselves, top sellers.

Moveset potential is a helpful consideration for a candidate.

Popularity is an important but limited factor for candidates, fan requests. The character must feel unique, played an important role with a noticeable following. Multiple characters that share resemblances are not a priority but can eventually be accepted if the demand is too noticeable. Candidates outside Nintendo must have originated from a video game, must be well known.

History and legacy. While Smash is a series that progresses with newer Nintendo franchises, it is important to keep a balance of recognizable stages, call it nostalgia.

Fourth party is strictly forbidden, off topic and will not be address for any circumstances.

Eh. My criteria still probably isn't finished.
 
Last edited:

BlondeLombax

Smash Master
Joined
Apr 29, 2018
Messages
3,649
Location
The island of Svölbard
I don’t give a hoot about who gets in; relevancy to Nintendo, popularity in recent years, none of it means diddly squat to me. All that matters is that the characters turn out fun to play, and likely get me interested in getting into their respective franchise.
 

Garteam

Smash Master
Joined
Jul 17, 2014
Messages
3,100
Location
Canada, eh?
NNID
Garteam
My criteria generally tends to change depending on whether or not the character is unique, an echo, a first party, or a third party. However, here are some of the criteria I use:

For any unique character (and the most important criteria)...
1. Moveset Potential - Is there a lot that can be done with this character? How much does this character bring to the table that could be used to make an enjoyable moveset?
2. Uniqueness - Is there anyone on the roster that has a large overlap with the character's general playstyle or gimmick? Likewise, does this character bring some other theme to the table that hasn't been seen in Smash yet?
3. Popularity - While this is less important than the previous two criteria, I don't think popularity is necessarily a bad thing. If there's a large outcry for a certain character, that's a pretty good sign that there's something inherently appealing about them. That being said, I would never cut a very unique character because they weren't popular enough.


For a First Party Nintendo character...
1. Importance to the home series - Is this character a part of the series' main cast? Do they play an important role in the series in question? Does this character play a somewhat consistent role across the series? Do they appear in the series' main entries or are they subjugated to side entries? Can someone get an idea of what the series is like from playing as this character? Have they left a large impact in the series' identity?
2. The Home Series' Current Status in Smash - Are there any characters from the same series that could do what this character does while bringing additional abilities? Are there any other characters from the series that better fit the previous criteria than this character? Looking at the characters from the same series who are already in, are all the characters more important than this one accounted for? Is the character's home series important enough to justify another character from this series?
3. Have they appeared recently? - When was the character's last appearance? Did they appear in the series' most recent release? If they did not appear in the last release, was there a character playing a similar role that this character would normally play? Likewise, if this character did not appear, was there an acknowledged reason for their absence or was it unexplained? Were there any references to the character? This criteria is most important to series with "revolving door casts", but it's still important for series with more consistent casts as well.


For a Third Party character...
1. Importance of their home series - Did the character's home series begin as a video game? Is this character's home series popular, either among the general public or those into gaming? Does this series have any noteworthy accomplishments, such as popularizing a genre or being a console's landmark title? Does this series have a strong legacy, putting out many titles or holding a strong opinion among the gaming public? If this series doesn't have a strong legacy, does it appear to have a bright future? Is this series considered a flagship title of the company in question?
2. Iconography to their home series - Is character the main character of one of the series' games? Do they appear consistently as the main character? If not, is there anything special about their game relative to the rest of the games in the series? When people think of this series, is this the character that immediately comes to mind? Is there some iconography of this character that is heavily associated with the series as a whole (ex. The Belmont's Vampire Killer or Mega Man's poses and animations)?
3. Relationship with the Owner - Do the character's parent company and Nintendo have a generally amicable relationship? Does the parent company already have a character or characters in Smash? Are there any series from this company that have a greater chance of getting in Smash before this series? Is the character wholly owned by this company, or is there some sort of partnership in regards to ownership? If there is multiple owners, would all parties be interested in having the character get into Smash?


For an Echo Fighter...
1. Adaptability - Does it make sense for this character be echoing whoever they're echoing, either through playing similarly in their home series or through logical association? Does the pre-existing moveset fit the character's proportions? Is the character's general identity still intact, despite sharing a moveset with someone else? If this is not true, would this character need only slight tweeks to their original moveset to feel closer to their original identity?
2. Popularity - While I did address this in the unique fighter section, popularity is very, very important for echoes. Seeing how echoes are basically bonus characters, would this character's presence be seen as a welcome addition or something unnecessary? Is an echo fighter a good route to go about getting this character into the game, or would they be better served as a wholly original character?
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom