Legend of Zelda Zelda representation: limited to series characters?

[Quillion]

I always used this argument when it came to representing Zelda in SSB, since all of the characters we have so far were the triforce holders.

Now, with the splitting of Sheik from Zelda, this alleviates this theoretical restriction, since Sheik only represents one game (OoT) while the others represent the whole series.

You could make the grandfather clause argument, but should the Zelda series have more one-game characters, or should it be limited to those who represent the whole series?

 

[greatbernard]

Sheik was added to Melee since Ocarina of Time only came out 3 years before and it was a giant title. It made sense to add her.

Sheik returning is purely tradition, especially because removing Sheik would mean altering Zelda's signature moveset.

I guess it depends how memorable the character is.

Ghirahim and Zant may have made cool characters, but they weren't super memorable outside the dedicated Zelda fan base.

 

[Firus]

Sheik returning is purely tradition, especially because removing Sheik would mean altering Zelda's signature moveset.

Well, given that Sheik is now a completely separate character from Zelda, they did that anyway.

Personally, I would like to see more individual game representation. I particularly think Ghirahim would've made for an interesting addition to the roster. However, I do understand that there are a limited number of roster slots and it makes more sense to give them to more recognizable characters rather than appealing to the dedicated fanbases in a game where so many franchises are included.

So I guess my answer is, I wouldn't complain if they were included, but it probably doesn't make sense to include them.