Unpopular Smash Opinions (BE CIVIL)

[GoldenYuiitusin]

In the midst of all this, here is an unpopular (at least in the sense that it is simply "not popular" rather that "disliked") opinion that isn't disingenuous.


I really want Feraligatr for the next Smash.

I don't give a **** that it's another Water type Starter. I don't give a **** that it's another Starter period. I don't give a **** that it's another "fully evolved" or "cool" or "bipedal" (though it can go on all fours at least) or whatever Pokémon. I simply don't give a **** what anyone has to ***** about regarding any of that.

Silver was my first game in the franchise and Totodile was my essentially my first Pokémon, so Feraligatr holds a high degree of sentimental value to me even if it isn't my top favorite at this point in time.

And I'm not delusional and am fully aware it's a very long shot given it's an old Pokémon, but being one of the Starters for Z-A, I can have just enough of a sliver of hope for the possibility, the only reason I'm even entertaining the thought.


That is all.

 

[Guynamednelson]

were he to be included in Smash, it would not be "a random triangle because triangles are funny and have great moveset potential"; it would be "the spaceship in a triangle-shape from Asteroid, the famous gaming icon!"

If anything it should probably be based on the spaceship from the Atari 2600 cover art, Atari had a tendency for 2600 games to have extremely detailed cover art to make up for their games being comprised of basic shapes:

Or if you want something more triangular:

 

[AlRex]

Atari-wise, I tend to lean towards Yorgle (Adventure) as sort of a 2600/early arcade Game & Watch-ish character and Centipede as a character mostly based on/extrapolated from their games. Snake-like character who can split apart is incredibly unique, even before getting to the other traps and creatures it could put down.

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

Yorgle is a weird thing to me, where by all means I prefer Yorgle and the duck-dragon aesthetic, but unless you're making a specifically duck-dragon-hybrid-themed moveset (which is a good idea I think), the square (also from Adventure) just seems more fit to be an Atari 2600 rep, assuming the route you want to go is pixel sprites and a Mr. Game & Watch style moveset. The dragons have a very defined shape that would be disorientating to see turn into a human basketballer or spaceship, while the square is well, a square. I think that if you saw a faceless square on a fighting game roster, your first thought, or at least one of them, would be "that's the shapeshifter", you likely wouldn't get that from the dragons which are, regardless of what species they read as, clearly defined as some kind of naturalistic, expressive creature. I think in regards to the square though, it is only possible really because of the sword. All the necessary animation that can't be expressed with a reference transformation (what way is Adventurer pointing, is Adventurer jumping, is Adventurer vulnerable, is Adventurer flying, so on) would have to be expressed at least in part through the sword, even if it isn't used offensively. I tend to bring up Yorgle first just because it's an easier character for people who aren't hyper-retro-pilled to wrap their heads around, but I think really Adventrurer/square is the go-to. My only real practical concern is a potential conflict with Tetromino, which even then is not a big deal. They have different silhouettes 6 times out of 7, even if Adventurer could very well be a doomsday for my preferred route of 5 Tetromino playable slots.

 

[BonafideFella]

Come to think of it, I never considered how weird this attack is. It'd be one thing if it was a generic prop, but has Bowser Jr. ever had a Bowser Jr.-branded fork before?

i think this and the tongue are because of his bib
it sounds kinda weird but i can definitely extrapolate food theming from "little brat with a bib piloting what is effectively a mechanical high chair"

 

[Cutie Gwen]

OK, this is somehow too specific and too vague at the same time. What are you getting at here? I assume you're jabbing at the people annoyed at specific roster inclusions being "stolen", which is usually a group thought worth mocking, but I feel like there's more to this argument than that.

Basically, people who claim to be 'anti hype culture' don't actually have an issue with it fundamentally speaking, their issue is that their more niche wants or hobbies aren't getting the same treatment and would uncritically participate in hype culture the second it applies to something they like. I simply chose Kyle Hyde as an example of a niche character on account of him being pretty damn obscure to the common Nintendo fan and me liking him as if I picked a character I didn't like or care about, one might assume I'm just saying "The issue is people who don't like what I like"

I typically interact with people 1-to-1 IRL, don't have a good realtionship with my family, have no IRL friends, and live with social workers who have their own lives to do their own things in (therefore all the driving they do with me is for me specifically while I wait to start getting driving tests). I don't really "get" the idea of all agreeing on a single place to go- like I get it conceptually, but I dunno why it's significant or how it's supposed to be a good idea, especially with the alternative of just... learning to drive.

So, let me articulate all this - if Disney wasn't the ONLY reason people were mad about CAF, why does CAF as a term have to inherently evoke corporate interferrance and not just the simple concept of designing or playing a game around gameplay before or at the expense of all else? I'm being told "You don't REALLY agree with CAF, you're missing the context!" and then immediately rebuked as a CAF believer.

I think I might just have to file this under "NASB thread being incoherent" and move on. The way CAF was spoken of in the NASB thread implied it to be "Leonardo and Lincoln Loud (disjointed fighters) are replacable by Donatello or Ember (disjointed fighters)" when I guess it's more "Shredder (has a very specific buff move) is replacable by Squidward (has that same very specific buff move)", which wouldn't be true.

If you were to go have dinner with say, 5 people total, you pick a place you all go together and if 4 people say they want to go to Restaurant A and 1 person says they want to go to Restaurant B, you don't say the 1 person's vote is equal to the other 4 combined when looking at the end results as that's just incredibly dismissive. For a more extreme example, it's like making a study but starting with your conclusion and refusing to change your stance when evidence to the contrary shows and just throwing it out.

Because saying "Why does it matter who the character is, function is all that matters" is like saying "Why care about anything that you like? Buy our game because pressing a button makes you jump, you don't need fun, enthralling gameplay, you'll be just as happy jumping on command in this." I'll leave it at this as it seems you really don't understand why people like anything.

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

Basically, people who claim to be 'anti hype culture' don't actually have an issue with it fundamentally speaking, their issue is that their more niche wants or hobbies aren't getting the same treatment and would uncritically participate in hype culture the second it applies to something they like. I simply chose Kyle Hyde as an example of a niche character on account of him being pretty damn obscure to the common Nintendo fan and me liking him as if I picked a character I didn't like or care about, one might assume I'm just saying "The issue is people who don't like what I like"

I can't speak for everyone, but I see the issue of hype culture as... would intersectional be the right word? - both causes issues for consumers (selfless motive) and causes issues for the things I want (selfish motive) - at least in the context of Smash for the latter. You can kill two birds with one stone, even if, yes, one is a bird of prey and the other is just scavenging off of the first's trail.

 

[DragonRobotKing26]

Atari-wise, I tend to lean towards Yorgle (Adventure) as sort of a 2600/early arcade Game & Watch-ish character and Centipede as a character mostly based on/extrapolated from their games. Snake-like character who can split apart is incredibly unique, even before getting to the other traps and creatures it could put down.

Centipede and Yorgle can have a redesign, same from Ice Climbers, Pit, Duck Hunt and Mr. Game & Watch, Yorlge having a redesign i really can think it could be a dragon, and while centipede, could be faithful from his design from arcade cabinet, and i can argree that Centipede can have a unique moveset and Yordle having a Game & Watch esque moveset

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

I think Yorgle, Grundle, and Rhindle are kinda defined by being readable as ducks or seahorses. That is not why Adventure as a whole resonated, it would have been a massively influential game no matter what, but it's certainly why those specific characters resonated. I'd compare it to the Pac-Man ghosts, who were meant to be fuzzy monsters, but can't really be seperated from the idea of ghosts - and have stayed ghosts as Pac-Man games have moved onto technology that can define characters better - because that's how people saw them. Warren Robinett himself has stated that a HD sequel to Adventure would still have them as ducks. If Adventure got new games into the 90s and 2000s like Pac-Man and Frogger, they absolutely would've played up the "duck" thing on the same level as the high fantasy.

 

[AlRex]

Yorgle is a weird thing to me, where by all means I prefer Yorgle and the duck-dragon aesthetic, but unless you're making a specifically duck-dragon-hybrid-themed moveset (which is a good idea I think), the square (also from Adventure) just seems more fit to be an Atari 2600 rep, assuming the route you want to go is pixel sprites and a Mr. Game & Watch style moveset. The dragons have a very defined shape that would be disorientating to see turn into a human basketballer or spaceship, while the square is well, a square. I think that if you saw a faceless square on a fighting game roster, your first thought, or at least one of them, would be "that's the shapeshifter", you likely wouldn't get that from the dragons which are, regardless of what species they read as, clearly defined as some kind of naturalistic creature. I think in regards to the square though, it is only possible really because of the sword. All the necessary animation that can't be expressed with a reference transformation (what way is Adventurer pointing, is Adventurer jumping, is Adventurer vulnerable, is Adventurer flying, so on) would have to be expressed at least in part through the sword, even if it isn't used offensively. I tend to bring up Yorgle first just because it's an easier character for people who aren't hyper-retro-pilled to wrap their heads around, but I think really Adventrurer/square is the go-to. My only real practical concern is a potential conflict with Tetromino, which even then is not a big deal. They have different silhouettes 6 times out of 7, even if Adventurer could very well be a doomsday for my preferred route of 5 Tetromino playable slots.

I get this on some levels, though I always imagined either would be a sprite anyways. I have slight preference towards Yorgle than the dot Hero just because I like Yorgle’s sprite more, that’s pretty much it. I imagined either way it’d be kind of a digital being in Smash, in the diegetic sense. On the thing of them being a duck or a dragon, I feel like the loosely interpretable sprite also helps with that, and also fits the Atari vibe in its own way. I enjoy the vagueness that’d come with the sprite form rather than a full redesign, personally. Centipede, on the other hand, should look like their arcade artwork, IMO.

Also five Tetrominos is crazy work, always thought so whenever you had the idea, unfortunately. It feels like you already have to stretch and be creative for one, five of them is…a lot. Like, their “body types” are different but without shapeshifting, it kind of all amounts to bashing into foes in different ways, while the shapeshifting and summoning of other blocks feels like a more fun or at least natural flow of movement that would make this feel just slightly less awkward. Sprouting outward/changing and rotating as the input fits, rather than…a lot of tackling and headbutting. not that it doesn’t already feel a little awkward to play as a block that very deliberately places itself, admittedly.

 

[Among Waddle Dees]

Basically, people who claim to be 'anti hype culture' don't actually have an issue with it fundamentally speaking, their issue is that their more niche wants or hobbies aren't getting the same treatment and would uncritically participate in hype culture the second it applies to something they like. I simply chose Kyle Hyde as an example of a niche character on account of him being pretty damn obscure to the common Nintendo fan and me liking him as if I picked a character I didn't like or care about, one might assume I'm just saying "The issue is people who don't like what I like"

Hmm, but that seems way too harsh an assumption. Especially for what should be an unpopular opinion thread.

 

[Cutie Gwen]

Hmm, but that seems way too harsh an assumption. Especially for what should be an unpopular opinion thread.

What, the point about hype culture/anti hype culture or assuming I'd dislike the character in my example?

 

[Among Waddle Dees]

What, the point about hype culture/anti hype culture or assuming I'd dislike the character in my example?

Former, it seems like a blanket statement covering the argument of being disappointed by certain inclusions as being fueled from favoring a more personal inclusion. Even if that's a technical truth, the way it's worded strikes me as a dismissal of the argument rather than being in any way complimentary to its unpopularity.

 

[Cutie Gwen]

Former, it seems like a blanket statement covering the argument of being disappointed by certain inclusions as being fueled favoring a more personal inclusion. Even if that's a technical truth, the way it's worded strikes me as a dismissal of the argument rather than being in any way complimentary to its unpopularity.

My point with hype culture is that people participating in 'anti hype culture' don't seem to realize this isn't a phenomenon that started with Smash trailers but has been around since god knows how long in sports, music, theater, movies, books, plays, and everything in between, only really having a problem with how Smash having characters that don't appeal to them specifically. Like, you know the kind of people who say "Why do you care so much about a dumb little video game" being in to sports and getting the country flags out and loudly cheering for their team at the world cup? That. Hell, one example of someone claiming to dislike hype culture, don't really remember who, praised the creator of Fire Emblem for sticking it to Nintendo for making a Fire Emblem spiritual successor without Nintendo, claiming he's based or whatever the kids say these days. This person however didn't seem to know that Kaga deliberately chose not to clarify Tear Ring Saga wasn't a new Fire Emblem installment until preorders had closed, with it having been called Emblem Saga until then while hinting that Marth and Xane would appear in the game. Seems like a clear cut example of using hype culture to me, the courts agreed as they didn't believe Kaga was in the right unlike with his other Nintendo related lawsuit


EDIT: Another non game example would be people who stick their nose at like, Marvel movies or Disney as a whole and saying they're slop, only to find out those people only watch blockbuster movies that are only slightly less popular than the thing they're complaining about

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

Hell, one example of someone claiming to dislike hype culture, don't really remember who, praised the creator of Fire Emblem for sticking it to Nintendo for making a Fire Emblem spiritual successor without Nintendo, claiming he's based or whatever the kids say these days. This person however didn't seem to know that Kaga deliberately chose not to clarify Tear Ring Saga wasn't a new Fire Emblem installment until preorders had closed, with it having been called Emblem Saga until then while hinting that Marth and Xane would appear in the game. Seems like a clear cut example of using hype culture to me, the courts agreed as they didn't believe Kaga was in the right unlike with his other Nintendo related lawsuit

oh yeah. that was me. i uhh didn't know that part. oopsie. i always thought the concern from nintendo was just the presence of the word "emblem".

i still think kaga should've had the right to make an fe game after leaving nintendo though

 

[SharkLord]

It's really not that hard to understand.

"This character is gone."
"Why?"

The answer to that why will ABSOLUTELY matter. If people smell BS, they'll call it out. Nobody called BS on Sakurai when he publicly stated that the Ice Climbers were cut due to the 3DS not being strong enough to handle them. They were disappointed, sure, but it was understandable.

Again. Multiple intersecting reasons. Having multiple reasons doesn't make the reasons less valid.

Funny annecdote, back when Ultimate first dropped and I had a bunch of friends over to play, and one of them went "Where's Charizard? Everyone isn't here if there's no Charizard." Of course, Charizard was just hidden behind Pokemon Trainer, but it reminds me that in the end, people will get attached to characters. They like playing as them, and they're sad to see them go. Sometimes it's as simple as that.

In the midst of all this, here is an unpopular (at least in the sense that it is simply "not popular" rather that "disliked") opinion that isn't disingenuous.


I really want Feraligatr for the next Smash.

I don't give a ** that it's another Water type Starter. I don't give a ** that it's another Starter period. I don't give a ** that it's another "fully evolved" or "cool" or "bipedal" (though it can go on all fours at least) or whatever Pokémon. I simply don't give a ** what anyone has to ***** about regarding any of that.

Silver was my first game in the franchise and Totodile was my essentially my first Pokémon, so Feraligatr holds a high degree of sentimental value to me even if it isn't my top favorite at this point in time.

And I'm not delusional and am fully aware it's a very long shot given it's an old Pokémon, but being one of the Starters for Z-A, I can have just enough of a sliver of hope for the possibility, the only reason I'm even entertaining the thought.


That is all.

I never played the actual Gen II games, but I did play some tower defense fangames as a kid on flash sites. I chose Squirtle and Totodile respectively, because I had that sea life autism and I saw water. Nowadays I'm not as into Pokemon as I used to, but still have that sea life autism and I'd be 100% down for Feraligatr because he's a Big Crocodilian and sometimes that's all you need in life

 

[Among Waddle Dees]

My point with hype culture is that people participating in 'anti hype culture' don't seem to realize this isn't a phenomenon that started with Smash trailers but has been around since god knows how long in sports, music, theater, movies, books, plays, and everything in between, only really having a problem with how Smash having characters that don't appeal to them specifically. Like, you know the kind of people who say "Why do you care so much about a dumb little video game" being in to sports and getting the country flags out and loudly cheering for their team at the world cup? That. Hell, one example of someone claiming to dislike hype culture, don't really remember who, praised the creator of Fire Emblem for sticking it to Nintendo for making a Fire Emblem spiritual successor without Nintendo, claiming he's based or whatever the kids say these days. This person however didn't seem to know that Kaga deliberately chose not to clarify Tear Ring Saga wasn't a new Fire Emblem installment until preorders had closed, with it having been called Emblem Saga until then while hinting that Marth and Xane would appear in the game. Seems like a clear cut example of using hype culture to me, the courts agreed as they didn't believe Kaga was in the right unlike with his other Nintendo related lawsuit

...I see. So, you're referring to those who go against the norm of hype culture out of spite? That's probably a slippery slope situation, especially when referring to mediums outside Smash; but I'll admit, I misunderstood what you meant by that, so my apologies.

 

[Cutie Gwen]

oh yeah. that was me. i uhh didn't know that part. oopsie. i always thought the concern from nintendo was just the presence of the word "emblem".

i still think kaga should've had the right to make an fe game after leaving nintendo though

Not sure if it was you as I'm like 80% sure I saw it on twitter and I'd remember recognizing someone on a different site. As an enjoyer of Kaga's works, Vestaria Saga my beloved, I still think his case is a cut and dry exame of hype culture, imagining a world without copyright law won't change that

...I see. So, you're referring to those who go against the norm of hype culture out of spite? That's probably a slippery slope situation, especially when referring to mediums outside Smash; but I'll admit, I misunderstood what you meant by that, so my apologies.

Well, if those people doing it out of spite are guilty of doing the same thing they'de criticizing then yeah. Watching nothing but blockbusters doesn't make you bettwr than people who like stuff that sells the best, liking Queen, which always gets a song on the top 2000 songs polls here in the Netherlands, doesn't make you less of a casual music fan than people who love Taylor Swift. Same idea, just people pretending they're better despite being the same

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

Funny annecdote, back when Ultimate first dropped and I had a bunch of friends over to play, and one of them went "Where's Charizard? Everyone isn't here if there's no Charizard." Of course, Charizard was just hidden behind Pokemon Trainer, but it reminds me that in the end, people will get attached to characters. They like playing as them, and they're sad to see them go. Sometimes it's as simple as that.

I think I am getting the gravity of this whole emotional attachment thing better now, but I still just don't get why it doesn't come out when people talk about Smash? If it's all about "the characters you like vs the characters your best friend likes" and nothing else, then... isn't "you're just trying to be a weirdo contrarian" an inherently counter-intuitive statement? How can there be any reasonably argued bad picks that don't just lean into outright bad taste? or good picks for that matter? How are there meme picks? Do people think quote-unquote "meme picks" like I tend to go for (apparently) are "insincere" or something? What kind of place for that sentiment is a game about "whatever thing you like!"? Has the whole thing about moveset potential and legacy and popularity and all that been - not simply an imposible chase but - one nobody ever cared about in the first place? And again, shouldn't "I want Dingodile in Smash" take up as much Crash-adjacent Smash discussion as "Dingodile is my favourite character" takes up non-Smash-related Crash discussion?

 

[fogbadge]

I think I am getting the gravity of this whole emotional attachment thing better now, but I still just don't get why it doesn't come out when people talk about Smash? If it's all about "the characters you like vs the characters your best friend likes" and nothing else, then... isn't "you're just trying to be a weirdo contrarian" an inherently counter-intuitive statement? How can there be any reasonably argued bad picks that don't just lean into outright bad taste? or good picks for that matter? How are there meme picks? Has the whole thing about moveset potential and legacy and popularity and all that been - not simply an imposible chase but - one nobody ever cared about in the first place? do people think quote-unquote "meme picks" like I tend to go for (apparently) are "insincere" or something? What kind of place for that sentiment is a game about "whatever thing you like!"?

well it comes down to reasoning in many ways. A bad reason for wanting a character is so to spite someone else. A meme pick would be supporting a character purely because of memes you like rather than you like the character

 

[SharkLord]

I think I am getting the gravity of this whole emotional attachment thing better now, but I still just don't get why it doesn't come out when people talk about Smash? If it's all about "the characters you like vs the characters your best friend likes" and nothing else, then... isn't "you're just trying to be a weirdo contrarian" an inherently counter-intuitive statement? How can there be any reasonably argued bad picks that don't just lean into outright bad taste? or good picks for that matter? How are there meme picks? Has the whole thing about moveset potential and legacy and popularity and all that been - not simply an imposible chase but - one nobody ever cared about in the first place? do people think quote-unquote "meme picks" like I tend to go for (apparently) are "insincere" or something? What kind of place for that sentiment is a game about "whatever thing you like!"?

It's not as black-and-white as "Smash is whatever I like." Attachment to the character is important, yes - You can remove them and replace them with someone who plays similarly, but people will get attached to the old one, and the replacement won't hit the same. The exact reasons can vary - Sometimes you like how they fight, sometimes you respect their legacy, sometimes you find them funny, sometimes you just enjoy playing their game. Oftentimes the reasoning is a mix, not just one or the other. And since we're not a hive mind, there will be some disagreement on what constitutes "legacy" or "moveset potential."

But it's also worth noting that Smash was never just a "what the hell ever" game. From the very beginning, it sold itself with the faces of Nintendo's most popular games - "All-Stars," if you will. You could tell there's a sort of heirarchy in the decision-making, with the player character usually coming first, then the secondary player characters and most prominent villains afterwards. For instance, how we got Fox, then Falco, and finally Wolf for our Star Fox representation, and not a random enemy from the then-unreleased Star Fox 2.

For games with rotating casts, this usually settles as working through the main characters of the most prominent and/or recent games. When third-parties were introduced in Brawl, they followed a similar mindset, while also leaning more towards big, influential games than with first-parties - Likely because you've gotta pay the licenses for these things, so Nintendo has to get that money's worth back. And we know that Sakurai takes fan demand into account to same degree, most prominently with the ballot, so that's an additional variable that can affect the decision-making.

And that sets some guidelines for Smash - Wanting a character is one thing, but we're on a speculation forum, and it's expected that a character has a reason to be on the roster. Furthermore, it's only natural that the most iconic and well-known characters have more people rooting for them, whereas little-known characters will have only a few people batting for them. When people say that oddball characters are objectively what Smash should add or put up rosters with these oddballs over more conventional picks, not everyone will be sold on them, and many people expect some sort of reasoning for them.

A random object from a minigame over the most popular characters in a game's cast? A random mook over the game's hero? A character from a game most well-known for being really bad? I won't cast moral judgement on someone's preferences, but not everyone's going to be sold. And while to some extent I think the fanbase can get kinda tunnel-visioned, it's still undeniable there's a set of logic that Sakurai follows, and so when seriously discussing Smash, people expect these pitches to adhere to this logic. Of course, not everyone 100% agrees on what this logic constitutes, but that's a separate argument

 

[AlRex]

I feel like in the case of something like Dingodile, most people don’t expect Dingodile to get in over Crash, who already may be an uncertain prospect, and he doesn’t have the same exposure that Crash would more outwardly obviously have. Plus the obvious imagery thing of “wow, Mario VS Sonic VS Crash”. People probably wouldn’t be discussing Tails, Knuckles, Shadow, Eggman etc. if Sonic wasn’t already in or considered first. It’s simply a matter of exposure. The casual observer who doesn’t even play Crash might not even know who Dingodile is, but know enough to know of Crash at least, and be like “yeah, sure, he seems neat, seems like one of the big platformers and all that”.

Could Dingodile be cool? Sure. Could Blanka or Juri be cooler than Ryu? Vivi over Cloud, Torneko over Hero, Psycho Mantis over Snake, etc.? Maybe. One of these would even be my own personal bias, but I do kind of accept that to most people, the most obvious answer would be the one they go with, and there could still be room for creativity and expressing that character/their series’ gameplay into fighting game form.

The most likely “side over mains” that aren’t in the game would be someone who has kind of superceded the protagonist in the public consciousness. Not saying these are all likely themselves, but Sans, Scorpion, Fulgore, Morrigan (funny how a lot of these are fighting games), Malenia from Elden Ring, perhaps, are examples of that.

Probably only example I can think of so far is Pikachu being an example of that, mostly due to becoming a big mascot and Pokémon Trainer as they wanted wasn’t really mechanically right for that time, and Min-Min, most likely because Spring Man was already an Assist and they maybe did do what is sometimes thought of and go with who they thought would be mechanically interesting…albeit to mixed results.

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

It's not as black-and-white as "Smash is whatever I like." Attachment to the character is important, yes - You can remove them and replace them with someone who plays similarly, but people will get attached to the old one, and the replacement won't hit the same. The exact reasons can vary - Sometimes you like how they fight, sometimes you respect their legacy, sometimes you find them funny, sometimes you just enjoy playing their game. Oftentimes the reasoning is a mix, not just one or the other. And since we're not a hive mind, there will be some disagreement on what constitutes "legacy" or "moveset potential."

But it's also worth noting that Smash was never just a "what the hell ever" game. From the very beginning, it sold itself with the faces of Nintendo's most popular games - "All-Stars," if you will. You could tell there's a sort of heirarchy in the decision-making, with the player character usually coming first, then the secondary player characters and most prominent villains afterwards. For instance, how we got Fox, then Falco, and finally Wolf for our Star Fox representation, and not a random enemy from the then-unreleased Star Fox 2.

For games with rotating casts, this usually settles as working through the main characters of the most prominent and/or recent games. When third-parties were introduced in Brawl, they followed a similar mindset, while also leaning more towards big, influential games than with first-parties - Likely because you've gotta pay the licenses for these things, so Nintendo has to get that money's worth back.

And that sets some guidelines for Smash - Wanting a character is one thing, but we're on a speculation forum, and it's expected that a character has a reason to be on the roster. Furthermore, it's only natural that the most iconic and well-known characters have more people rooting for them, whereas little-known characters will have only a few people batting for them. When people say that oddball characters are objectively what Smash should add or put up rosters with these oddballs over more conventional picks, not everyone will be sold on them, and many people expect some sort of reasoning for them.

A random object from a minigame over the most popular characters in a game's cast? A random mook over the game's hero? A character from a game most well-known for being really bad? I won't cast moral judgement on someone's preferences, but not everyone's going to be sold. And while to some extent I think the fanbase can get kinda tunnel-visioned, it's still undeniable there's a set of logic that Sakurai follows, and so when seriously discussing Smash, people expect these pitches to adhere to this logic. Of course, not everyone 100% agrees on what this logic constitutes, but that's a separate argument

I think I do actually have a similar perspective on this, I just disagree on what the bad thing is. I've always known about Smash's heirarchy, but I think the status quo, the Sakurai heirarchy and fandom pursuit of objectivity, is wrong, and thought that before I kinda came to semi-understand emotional attachment (or at least get a head start at that) today; while it seems the fandom (not going to say you since you seem to be using value-neutral language and trying to explain general fandom mentality) percieve the outliers as needing explanation on a level beyond just a moveset. I think the status quo needs to explain itself, others likely believe that the status quo needs to be the logic behind any explanation.

 

[BackseatSakurai]

While the fork discourse is hilarious, I think the character-as-functions thing combined with the malleable attitude towards character representation basically means - anything could potentially be functionally interesting if you twist it in the right way, and therefore even discussing moveset potential becomes a moot point - it sort of flattens everything out to the point where being able to be functionally interesting is just a given. And then, we arrive back at debating who deserves to be in based on other metrics.

 

[Strong Badam]

Thread owner has requested this thread be closed, so it's now closed.