Unpopular Smash Opinions (BE CIVIL)

[Swamp Sensei]

I think it's just a natural byproduct of a group of people getting unhealthily attached to and excited for what are, for all intents and purposes, glorified commercials.

I think it's partially getting excited for the artistic element of the games. Directs are commercials but because of that personal artistic element, people care a lot.

My friend cried during the Switch 2 direct. Kirby Air Riders was his most wanted game of all time. He's waited for a sequel for 20 years. He absolutely loves Kirby Air Ride to the point where he was developing a fan game. The art inspired more art and it was very validating to see that his love of that art will be able to continue with a new game.

I consider gaming an art form, so people getting emotional to developments in games doesn't shock me. I just compare it to people getting excited for a sequel to a movie or book they love being announced.

That said, emotions are contagious. People get more excited when others are excited. Directs are exciting events for a lot of people and well, people like to be excited. So people often hype each other up.

I think there has been a switch from Smash flowing out off the Nintendosphere to the Nintendosphere flowing towards Smash. When I expressed disappointment in Hero, people told me to get out of my comfort zone; not to enjoy a new genre or discover a cool game, but seemingly for the express goal of being less disappointed in Smash reveals, or to understand why something was added to Smash. The same sentiment happens with Nintendo Directs, where Mario fans are spurred to play RPGs in order to…get more hype for the hype stream?

Personally I will always suggest people try new things. Too many Smash fans refuse to try new things. Being exposed to new things is the whole point of crossovers (Dragon Quest 8 is really good if you want a classic JRPG. )

That said, I kinda get both sides on this issue. People should be free to share disappointment and honest feelings. Criticism is important and echo chambers are obnoxious. Negativity is often how we improve.

But boy does it suck to hear people trash on things when you're excited about something. It can really suck the wind out of your sails. The typical response is to just ignore it, but as stated before, emotions are contagious. You can't ignore emotions of other people. Not entirely, so I suppose I can understand why people may try to shut the "negative nancies" up.

But it doesn't mean you should stop being honest with those feelings.

...huh. I've known and despised the severe toxicity of Smash's modern hype culture for about a decade. And yet I've... somehow never noticed how Nintendo Direct hype was also doing the same thing. Is that an aftereffect of Smash cycles? Vice versa, perhaps?

Out of curiosity and for a purpose of clarity, how would you define hype culture?

How.... I seriously don't get it. I just can't wrap my head around it. I want to have a counterargument but I can only do that if I comprehend the base concept - Smash doesn't have a plot, why does caring about the characters matter? and if caring about characters matters, why can't you just make **** up with your imagination to justify any character you don't know? Who out here would find playing as a fork boring? That's a metalic serpentine with what is basically a horn on its head, that seems like perfect moveset material... Mario and Pikachu are already things people know, and see all the time, surely them being in Smash would just blend in with everything else they're in, is it not the striking image of an unfamiliar Falco or Olimar?... Rhetorical, rhetorical.

I think part of the dissonance here is coming from the fact that, if I'm interpreting you correctly, is that you want Smash to be original with new exciting original ideas.

But as a crossover, that's not what Smash inherently is. Sure you get deliberate obscure oddballs to buck the trend, but the whole point of a crossover is to have characters the audience knows come together. Sure, a fork is a cool and funny idea for a fighter, but it's an ill fit for a game like Smash. Smash characters are already existing characters and that's the expectation for the audience. Unless the fork was already a known character, it wouldn't fit the assignment.

If you had a game where the point was to make original characters, people would probably love Forkington the Forkth (with a grappler moveset because grapplers are fun). I really do recommend trying Rivals of Aether if you haven't. I think you'd really love it. They have lots of cool original and gameplay oriented ideas like fighters who use smoke and quadrupedal fighters.

 

[Among Waddle Dees]

Out of curiosity and for a purpose of clarity, how would you define hype culture?

Mostly being forced to be excited for an inclusion, which I've found increasingly more difficult to tolerate with Smash additions over the years.

 

[Swamp Sensei]

Mostly being forced to be excited for an inclusion, which I've found increasingly more difficult to tolerate with Smash additions over the years.

Well... Yeah that sucks.

 

[Cutie Gwen]

I feel like a lot of people criticizing 'hype culture' don't actually have a problem with it if that makes sense? Most of these people in my experience don't come across as "I don't like how excited people get over objectively trivial things like video game commercials, actors being announced for certain movies or shows, local football games, etc". Instead, I often see the 'anti hype culture' say stuff like "Kyle Hyde has been my most wanted for 20 years, I asked for him in Brawl, I asked for him in Smash 4 and I even asked him on the ballot, yet I still see no Kyle Hyde, instead I see stuff I don't care about like insert third party here so Smash has truly lost it's identity" which idk about you, but comes across as entitlement to me. Hell, I've seen hype culture get criticized for downplaying more niche characters which is totally a thing, but the niche character they're standing up for is... Isaac, a character who has consistently done well on fan polls for the past 20 years. I don't know how else to explain it other than "That's not what the words you're saying mean"

 

[Opossum]

I feel like a lot of people criticizing 'hype culture' don't actually have a problem with it if that makes sense? Most of these people in my experience don't come across as "I don't like how excited people get over objectively trivial things like video game commercials, actors being announced for certain movies or shows, local football games, etc". Instead, I often see the 'anti hype culture' say stuff like "Kyle Hyde has been my most wanted for 20 years, I asked for him in Brawl, I asked for him in Smash 4 and I even asked him on the ballot, yet I still see no Kyle Hyde, instead I see stuff I don't care about like insert third party here so Smash has truly lost it's identity" which idk about you, but comes across as entitlement to me. Hell, I've seen hype culture get criticized for downplaying more niche characters which is totally a thing, but the niche character they're standing up for is... Isaac, a character who has consistently done well on fan polls for the past 20 years. I don't know how else to explain it other than "That's not what the words you're saying mean"

I get what you're saying but also

Kyle Hyde as the example

 

[Cutie Gwen]

I get what you're saying but also


View attachment 401320

It felt better to use a character I like as an example than one I feel apathetic towards at best. Hell, my decision to get the Another Code remakes was "Wow maybe if these do well we could get Hotel Dusk remade too" so I'd argue that's a bigger case of hype culture than "My favourite who tops the fan polls and had to do well on the ballot when you compare what they got in Smash 4 to Ultimate is a victim of hype culture, nobody cares about niche picks like that anymore"

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

I really don't know how to respond to these defenses of fan demand and staunch functions-are-characters mentality because they really are just going over my head. I literally can't comprehend it. You may as well be speaking Persian.

You know, the funny thing about the fork is that I've actually liked the idea of a rep for a single 7-second WarioWare microgame for a while, but never really found the right character for it, and this seems like a really neat take on it (I'm sure there was a WarioWare minigame that's the same premise as Fork Lifter from Rhythm Heaven, but Mario Wiki is giving no results aside from the CGI baby microgame - maybe it was a DIY custom game or something?)

I do like Rivals of Aether, but I'd say I moreso respect it than enjoy playing it. It's fun and I love the moveset designs, but the gameplay doesn't stick with me in the same way as Slap City (which IMO is how a crossover should be done) and the NASBs (which have a similar if... I guess I'd say compromised mentality to crossovers) do. Looking at the source materials for Slap City, that game would've been way more forgettable if they went for the main protags every time. Orka is one of my favourite gaming characters of all time and I haven't even played her source material (which is a delisted mobile game where she seems to be the "Ken" of it?). I do think the platfighter genre needs more non-crossovers. I want to play Combo Devils since I've heard it'll be somewhat like NASB1, but I dunno if my PC will run it or it's planned for Switch 1.

 

[KingofPhantoms]

I really don't know how to respond to these defenses of fan demand and staunch functions-are-characters mentality because they really are just going over my head. I literally can't comprehend it. You may as well be speaking Persian.

K. Rool's fans thought he had insanely creative and good moveset potential, but in a Nintendo and video game crossover like Smash, I guarantee you no one would've been nearly as happy (if not in most cases outright pissed off or at least baffled and disappointed) if they gave the same moveset he has in Ultimate to an OC, the Mii costume from Wii U/3DS, or a random generic Kremling.

There's also the fact that a lot of people want characters regardless of how much potential they have. Tons of people were happy that Isabelle got in and are still happy that she's in the game at all despite only having a few fully unique moves from Villager.

People don't want characters as just functions. Most people do not care about characters as just functions. They want the characters because they like the characters. For a multitude variety of reasons. If the character(s) in question have a ton of good potenital for a moveset, that's either just one of the reasons they want them or just a bonus, depending on the individual. That's really all there is to it.

There are definitely video games where the playable characters really are mostly just functions, but Super Smash Bros. absolutely isn't one of them.

 

[Cutie Gwen]

Honestly the whole functions argument is just stupid to me because as someone who actually likes video games, there's more to a game than just the 'function' it has. In Quickie Radderson Quest 2, you play as a guy who runs really fast and you get bonus points by making him do tricks and other cool things whereas his friend Smarty McBangbang is slow and gets bonus points for doing long gunner combos, their mutual friend who's pretty fast but less than Quickie, Treash O' Seeker gets bonus points for finding treasure quickly and without hints. In countless RPGs there's examples of gameolay and story segregation like Jagen having garbage level ups while being stronger than Marth and his friends in FE1, Tellah being a frail old man in FF4 and then having his stats go down on level up, Paper Mario's combat suddenly getting way harder when his partners ditch him in chapter 4 for story reasons until Vivian, who's toolkit just so happens to be perfect for the enemies in that area, is able to help him, Kiryu not being able to smack around people in Yakuza whenever he feels like it, because he himself wouldn't just start a fight on the streets, but will fight street thugs when provoked and countless other examples. Trying to boil a game down to it's functions and saying that's all that matters is a mindset the industry has abandoned since like, the 80's


Also because it reminds me of the Function vs Function bit

Nobody wants to unironically spend money on Function vs Function no matter how good the gameplay is and surprise surprise, the game that spawned this bit didn't do well despite having good gameplay but was panned for the roster, music, sound effects, visuals, etc. Almost as if fans liked the franchise for more than just 'functions'.

EDIT: In case wasn't obvious, the Quickie Radderson bit is Sonic Adventure 2

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

Genuinely I cannot argue against this. I need a solid base of understanding to rebuke anything, that I do not have and probably cannot have. I got behind K. Rool - as an entire character and not just a Smash pick, hell even the entire Rare-era DKC series if memory serves correclty - because I saw posts about his potential moveset, and in hindsight, I dunno, maybe I should've rallied behind Klump instead. I like Klump more and I don't see any reason why you couldn't just hand him a boxing glove and jetpack.

I grew up on 80s and 70s games through emulation; flash remakes; and compilations, the aesthetic malleability of Atari stuff very much formed how I play games and really interact with art as a whole. I find it hard to see where people would be turned away from playing as a triangle or square instead of creating their own story around it. I do think plots and characters in games are important... for games structured around a plotline. Super Smash Bros. is not a plot-driven game.

 

[Cutie Gwen]

Genuinely I cannot argue against this. I need a solid base of understanding to rebuke anything, that I do not have and probably cannot have. I got behind K. Rool because I saw posts about his potential moveset, and in hindsight, I dunno, maybe I should've rallied behind Klump instead. I like Klump more and I don't see any reason why you couldn't just hand him a boxing glove and jetpack.

I grew up on 80s and 70s games through emulation; flash remakes; and compilations, the aesthetic malleability of Atari stuff very much formed how I play games and really interact with art as a whole. I find it hard to see where people would be turned away from playing as a triangle or square. I do think plots and characters in games are important... for games structured around a plotline. Super Smash Bros. is not a plot-driven game.

Atari games did not go "Look you can play as a square!" They went "Look you can pilot a spaceship, be sure to blow up those asteroids or alien invaders!" or "You're a racecar! Better get first place!" And other stuff like "You're in a haunted house, can you make it out alive?". The triangles and squares were given purpose beyond function to immerse players

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

Atari games did not go "Look you can play as a square!" They went "Look you can pilot a spaceship, be sure to blow up those asteroids or alien invaders!" or "You're a racecar! Better get first place!" And other stuff like "You're in a haunted house, can you make it out alive?". The triangles and squares were given purpose beyond function to immerse players

And I played them without context in compilations. I think the compilation I had had the box arts and manuals, but those were relegated to a gallery option, most of them I didn't see - or at least didn't see at a legible aspect ratio - until I had already played them and decided that say, Haunted House is about a Disembodied Eye Man and not just an obscured human.

I think part of the dissonance here is coming from the fact that, if I'm interpreting you correctly, is that you want Smash to be original with new exciting original ideas.

But as a crossover, that's not what Smash inherently is. Sure you get deliberate obscure oddballs to buck the trend, but the whole point of a crossover is to have characters the audience knows come together. Sure, a fork is a cool and funny idea for a fighter, but it's an ill fit for a game like Smash. Smash characters are already existing characters and that's the expectation for the audience. Unless the fork was already a known character, it wouldn't fit the assignment.

Well, if Smash isn't inherently about "new exciting original ideas" then like... what's the point? On a diegetic level, I go to games - and art in general - to see someone else's very specific, typically weird vision come to life, not something a buncha other people already know and already like without any kind of remixed/derivative element. To me, a crossover - or really any game using plural established characters in playable roles - is a scavenger hunt, look for the interesting charaters in all the nooks and crannies who may not get the time to shine alone and could provide something to the aim of the work (for instance, a character that would fight interestingly in a fighting game), that is the fundamental concept of a crossover from a creative and diegetic perspective, and perhaps even a player-diegetic perspective too, find that one character you latch on to despite not knowing or even caring to know the full story. I can't help but think I'm misinterpreting you somehow?

Also because it reminds me of the Function vs Function bit

Nobody wants to unironically spend money on Function vs Function no matter how good the gameplay is and surprise surprise, the game that spawned this bit didn't do well despite having good gameplay but was panned for the roster, music, sound effects, visuals, etc. Almost as if fans liked the franchise for more than just 'functions'.

Looking at this image... my mind is going crazy with ideas. Even ignoring the obvious glitches like the dead clone - who is the white guy? who is the red guy? Why does the red guy have... a galaxy? in him? or is that some kind of translucent heart? What's with the gloves? Is he a superhero (probably given the source material), or maybe he could be a scientist? Does the white guy have a shark fin on his arm (at least percieved from this angle)? Is he half-shark? The black circle on his neck looks like it could be a giant gill... maybe they're all science experiments, the shark man and the blood man. Blood Man stirkes me as stern from his posing, while Shark Man strikes me as a little more hyperactive, perhaps childlike - who's the hero? who's the villain? A lot to work with, this would be enough for me. It wouldn't matter either way if the gameplay is good, but still, I don't think this image proves anything.

 

[Lenidem]

Super Smash Bros. is not a plot-driven game.

True. It's a game driven by its more or less famous video game characters.

If you like the idea of playing as a fork, as a triangle, or as the guy from across the street, there is nothing wrong with it. But why in the world do you want to play those in Smash specifically? It's not their place. It's like saying that there should be spaceships and wizards in The Godfather: spaceships are cool, wizards are cool, they just don't belong in this specific piece of art.

 

[Cutie Gwen]

And I played them without context in compilations. I think the compilation I had had the box arts and manuals, but those were relegated to a gallery option, most of them I didn't see - or at least didn't see at a legible aspect ratio - until I had already played them and decided that say, Haunted House is about a Disembodied Eye Man and not just an obscured human.


Well, if Smash isn't inherently about "new exciting original ideas" then like... what's the point? On a diegetic level, I go to games - and art in general - to see someone else's very specific, typically weird vision come to life, not something a buncha other people already know and already like without any kind of remixed/derivative element. To me, a crossover - or really any game using plural established characters in playable roles - is a scavenger hunt, look for the interesting charaters in all the nooks and crannies who may not get the time to shine alone and could provide something to the aim of the work (for instance, a character that would fight interestingly in a fighting game), that is the fundamental concept of a crossover from a creative and diegetic perspective, and perhaps even a player-diegetic perspective too, find that one character you latch on to despite not knowing or even caring to know the full story. I can't help but think I'm misinterpreting you somehow?


Looking at this image... my mind is going crazy with ideas. Even ignoring the obvious glitches like the dead guy - who is the white guy? who is the red guy? Why does the red guy have... a galaxy? in him? or is that some kind of translucent heart? What's with the gloves? Is he a superhero (probably given the source material), or maybe he could be a scientist? Does the white guy have a shark fin on his arm (at least percieved from this angle)? Is he half-shark? The black circle on his neck looks like it could be a giant gill... maybe they're all science experiments, the shark man and the blood man. Blood Man stirkes me as stern from his posing, while Shark Man strikes me as a little more hyperactive, perhaps childlike - who's the hero? who's the villain? A lot to work with, this would be enough for me. It wouldn't matter either way if the gameplay is good, but still, I don't think this image proves anything.

You're incorrectly calling a KOed character someone else, the colour difference is because one is using the universal mechanic while the other isn't. Ignoring how you're trying to give these models a backstory, ergo, giving them characge may have cracked the code. You see, "Characters are just functions" is not a statement you came up with. "Characters are just functions" is an infamously disastrous PR statement, word for word, that's older than your account. It was used to try and tell fans not to care about the roster which had highly controversial changes from the last game. You are literally using a statement used to poorly justify stupid corporate decisions. The guy saying it even said "Oh, just play this other character who has the function you like, who cares about the old one getting removed?" Assuming you don't know which seems to be the case as you thought the KO was a glitch, Marvel vs Capcom Infinite's roster was heavily criticized for having cut a LOT of popular characters and also having the newcomers focus more on corporate decisions rather than being fun to play. Captain Marvel and Thanos have new movies, so they got added. Guardians of the Galaxy is popular now unlike when Rocket Raccoon was added in the last game, so he got heavily reworked to put Groot in while also adding Gamora, as audiences would know who these are. No cool unexpected picks from the Marvel side, instead we get Winter Soldier and Black Widow! Also, Black Panther's here when in MVC3, he had been shot down for lack of potential despite fan demand as the movie was a smash hit. Jedah got added for the Capcom side. He was not the next most important guy after Morrigan. He was not the big fan favourite that got scrapped in the previous game. He had not been in MvC2 which has more Darkstalkers characters, but fans liked him, though not without mocking the awful "Characters are just functions" quote as it said nobody cared about the old cast like Wolverine and Magneto, as nobody but diehards would know who Jedah is. Also, "Just play Nova instead of Magneto if you want an 8 directional air dash, his function" was a very ironic statement, as Nova lost his unique mechanic between games. The PR guy who said all this was even very well liked among the community, having been a pro player. Fans just went back to UMvC3 instead, which had a rerelease with the DLC, including the fan favourite Shuma Gorath, a character nobody would have asked about or even known but like Smash fans, MvC fans are open to wackier or unexpected stuff which we get every game, just like how Smash has joke characters and surprise characters


TLDR: You are literally quoting a PR statement to justify corporate decisions made by the Marvel CEO. That game was panned for a hell of a lot of reasons, you cannot say "Characters are just functions" without being pro corporate and justifying the removal of wackier choices

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

True. It's a game driven by its more or less famous video game characters.

If you like the idea of playing as a fork, as a triangle, or as the guy from across the street, there is nothing wrong with it. But why in the world do you want to play those in Smash specifically? It's not their place. It's like saying that there should be spaceships and wizards in The Godfather: spaceships are cool, wizards are cool, they just don't belong in this specific piece of art.

Is the triangle from Asteroids not a gaming icon? Is a fork from a WarioWare microgame that far removed in fame from any Nintendo chracter not in the original 8 or named Isabelle, Duck Hunt, or Inkling? or even some IN the original 8? Nintendo's "big" IPs are generally niche.

You're incorrectly calling a KOed character someone else, the colour difference is because one is using the universal mechanic while the other isn't. Ignoring how you're trying to give these models a backstory, ergo, giving them characge may have cracked the code. You see, "Characters are just functions" is not a statement you came up with. "Characters are just functions" is an infamously disastrous PR statement, word for word, that's older than your account. It was used to try and tell fans not to care about the roster which had highly controversial changes from the last game. You are literally using a statement used to poorly justify stupid corporate decisions. The guy saying it even said "Oh, just play this other character who has the function you like, who cares about the old one getting removed?" Assuming you don't know which seems to be the case as you thought the KO was a glitch, Marvel vs Capcom Infinite's roster was heavily criticized for having cut a LOT of popular characters and also having the newcomers focus more on corporate decisions rather than being fun to play. Captain Marvel and Thanos have new movies, so they got added. Guardians of the Galaxy is popular now unlike when Rocket Raccoon was added in the last game, so he got heavily reworked to put Groot in while also adding Gamora, as audiences would know who these are. No cool unexpected picks from the Marvel side, instead we get Winter Soldier and Black Widow! Also, Black Panther's here when in MVC3, he had been shot down for lack of potential despite fan demand as the movie was a smash hit. Jedah got added for the Capcom side. He was not the next most important guy after Morrigan. He was not the big fan favourite that got scrapped in the previous game. He had not been in MvC2 which has more Darkstalkers characters, but fans liked him, though not without mocking the awful "Characters are just functions" quote as it said nobody cared about the old cast like Wolverine and Magneto, as nobody but diehards would know who Jedah is. Also, "Just play Nova instead of Magneto if you want an 8 directional air dash, his function" was a very ironic statement, as Nova lost his unique mechanic between games. The PR guy who said all this was even very well liked among the community, having been a pro player. Fans just went back to UMvC3 instead, which had a rerelease with the DLC, including the fan favourite Shuma Gorath, a character nobody would have asked about or even known but like Smash fans, MvC fans are open to wackier or unexpected stuff which we get every game, just like how Smash has joke characters and surprise characters


TLDR: You are literally quoting a PR statement to justify corporate decisions made by the Marvel CEO. That game was panned for a hell of a lot of reasons, you cannot say "Characters are just functions" without being pro corporate and justifying the removal of wackier choices

I don't play tradfighters, so yes, I am missing context, I only really know the context of "Magneto and the X-Men got cut because of the MCU, a PR guy said just to play another character instead, people didn't like that" - but I'm not sure how this context is relevant to the language of "characters are just functions" in the context of Smash. I am not using this as a loaded term, I am using it to straightforward just say "gameplay matters more than characters, characters are practically interchangable and while I am prone to thinking characters and their origins matter, that is an irrational, childish vice that I need to grow past. Just shut up and play as whatever character has the mechanics you like". I did not find the CAF quote and gravitate towards it, others imposed it on me and it resonated with me, spoke to me almost, having already known it through cultural osmosis and disagreeing with the response with the bare-minimum context given. To me, it's kinda just generic fighting game lingo, albeit a controversial type, not something that inherently evokes a specific point in history, just an etymology - again, only a platfighter player, so maybe I am wrong here. I also don't get how it being a PR disaster for the game matters, I am not a Disney or Nintendo shareholder, I do not have anything to gain from a game getting good PR except maybe the slight chance discussing it will be less annoying.


Look, if fan emotional attachment is "the point" of Smash, and therefore an inherent good... why do people get mad at me for suggesting things like Bubsy? How are there any bad picks at all? Is it an assumption of insincerity? Then, if you are capable of doubting the sincerity of fandom based on just what the fandom is for and not indivdiual actions, then what reason could you have to celebrate or even engage in any form of fandom? Where does Sora the beloved childhood staple end and Bubsy the pathetic dank meme start? Emotional attachment just seems so bizarrely deep-rooted in Smash fandom, but also like something nobody wants to be consistent with. I read "moveset potential matters!" all over as a kid and dug it deep into my brain - yet nobody ever believed that, even at the time?

 

[Cutie Gwen]

Is the triangle from Asteroids not a gaming icon? Is a fork from a WarioWare microgame that far removed in fame from any Nintendo chracter not in the original 8 or named Isabelle, Duck Hunt, or Inkling? or even some IN the original 8? Nintendo's "big" IPs are generally niche.


I don't play tradfighters, so yes, I am missing context, I only really know the context of "Magneto and the X-Men got cut because of the MCU, a PR guy said just to play another character instead, people didn't like that" - but I'm not sure how this context is relevant to the language of "characters are just functions" in the context of Smash. I am not using this as a loaded term, I am using it to straightforward just say "gameplay matters more than characters, characters are practically interchangable and while I am prone to thinking characters and their origins matter, that is an irrational, childish vice that I need to grow past. Just shut up and play as whatever character has the mechanics you like". I did not find the CAF quote and gravitate towards it, others imposed it on me and it resonated with me, spoke to me almost, having already known it through cultural osmosis and disagreeing with the response with the bare-minimum context given. To me, it's kinda just generic fighting game lingo, albeit a controversial type, not something that inherently evokes a specific point in history, just an etymology - again, only a platfighter player, so maybe I am wrong here. I also don't get how it being a PR disaster for the game matters, I am not a Disney or Nintendo shareholder, I do not have anything to gain from a game getting good PR except maybe the slight chance discussing it will be less annoying.

"Characters are just functions" is a justification to have a roster picked solely for shareholders. MvCI's bad PR from that statement turned a lot of people off from touching the game, because they didn't like being told "**** Wolverine, the X Men and any character you liked that we gave the axe, you're going to play Character From Upcoming Movie and be happy with it." You're parroting a phrase that originated from this corporate decision and are pretending it's anything but, that's why you don't understand anything else, you are misrepresenting what it meant like someone saying ""Sometimes curtains are just blue" assuming it means "Don't think about anything ever". Keep doing the "Just consume product" quote that "Characters are just functions" inherently is, we'll all pretend to be equally ignorant for you if you'd like

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

"Characters are just functions" is a justification to have a roster picked solely for shareholders.

THEN WHY DO PEOPLE USE THAT TO PROP UP ULTIMATE??? Fan demand content - like Ridley, like EIH, like K. Rool - is added to make money and please shareholders, create brand loyalty, the pro-fan demand and anti-function crowd - from my experience at least - USES the monitary gain in their arguments! These are the sort of things I see propped up as the "Anti-CAF", and It's literally the same ****ing thing apparently! Have we ALL been universally missing the context for this???? NASB is really where the phrase was attributed to me most, and that was christened on me by those with pro-fan demand opinions, who often also openly called themselves "pro-corporate".

 

[Cutie Gwen]

THEN WHY DO PEOPLE USE THAT TO PROP UP ULTIMATE??? Fan demand content is added to make money and please shareholders, the pro-fan demand and anti-function crowd - from my experience at least - USES the monitary gain in their arguments! It's literally the same ****ing thing! Have we ALL been universally missing the context for this????

A shareholder Smash game would not feature Ness. It would not feature Captain Falcon. It would not feature Ice Climber, Game and Watch, ROB, Duck Hunt, Piranha Plant, Shulk, K. Rool, Snake, Kazuya, Terry, Zero Suit Samus, Marth, Lucas and countless more. It would only have Character From Biggest Upcoming Games. Just cause you can't understand "I like this character, I bet they would be fun to play as" doesn't mean their views are as shallow and black and white as you seem to think. You're the one being a stick in the mud caring solely about one specific side, nobody else is

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

A shareholder Smash game would not feature Ness. It would not feature Captain Falcon. It would not feature Ice Climber, Game and Watch, ROB, Duck Hunt, Piranha Plant, Shulk, K. Rool, Snake, Kazuya, Terry, Zero Suit Samus, Marth, Lucas and countless more. It would only have Character From Biggest Upcoming Games. Just cause you can't understand "I like this character, I bet they would be fun to play as" doesn't mean their views are as shallow and black and white as you seem to think. You're the one being a stick in the mud caring solely about one specific side, nobody else is

Then why are they listening to fan demand? What is the point of giving hundreds of people you will never as much as interact with exactly what they want to a T if not to make money? ESPECIALLY when you ARE putting this in marketing, and got that information from an intentionally-orchestrated market research survey? Isn't this sort of reaction supposed to be happy accident? Put it out there, market it, and hope someone likes it, you know? The Smash Ballot was outright ANNOUNCED by Nintendo's CEO, you can't get more corporate than that. I can understand taking inspiration from fan outcry without monetary desire, but not following it to a T, and especially not making it part of your game's identity.

 

[Opossum]

Then why are they listening to fan demand? What is the point of giving hundreds of people you will never as much as interact with exactly what they want to a T if not to make money? ESPECIALLY when you ARE putting this in marketing, and got that information from an intentionally-orchestrated market research survey? Isn't this sort of reaction supposed to be happy accident? Put it out there, market it, and hope someone likes it, you know? The Smash Ballot was outright ANNOUNCED by Nintendo's CEO, you can't get more corporate than that.

Sometimes fan interest and corporate interest can overlap. They often do, in fact. The "characters are just functions" statement came from an example of corporate interests PUBLICLY AND EXPLICITLY going AGAINST fan interest: Disney was very publicly in the midst of devaluing the X-Men and Fantastic Four IPs and preventing them from appearing in non-comic media because Fox owned the film rights. "Characters are just functions" therefore ACTUALLY meant "We have Dr. Doom at home." It was a very flimsy facade that everyone and their mothers saw through instantly.

 

[Cutie Gwen]

Then why are they listening to fan demand? What is the point of giving hundreds of people you will never as much as interact with exactly what they want to a T if not to make money? ESPECIALLY when you ARE putting this in marketing, and got that information from an intentionally-orchestrated market research survey? Isn't this sort of reaction supposed to be happy accident? Put it out there, market it, and hope someone likes it, you know? The Smash Ballot was outright ANNOUNCED by Nintendo's CEO, you can't get more corporate than that.

You're viewing it in black and white again, believing people can't like characters and gameplay. The fact they held the ballot, with internal reports saying some characters were unexpectedly high in ballot results also just flatout proves that they would never make it in a strictly corporate roster like with how people felt about the Marvel side of MVCI. You seem to mistakenly think it's impossible to do your own thing while also throwing fans a bone. It really, really isn't some complex mindset one has to reach enlightenment like you're pretending it is

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

Sometimes fan interest and corporate interest can overlap. They often do, in fact. The "characters are just functions" statement came from an example of corporate interests PUBLICLY AND EXPLICITLY going AGAINST fan interest: Disney was very publicly in the midst of devaluing the X-Men and Fantastic Four IPs and preventing them from appearing in non-comic media because Fox owned the film rights. "Characters are just functions" therefore ACTUALLY meant "We have Dr. Doom at home." It was a very flimsy facade that everyone and their mothers saw through instantly.

I gathered that... honestly now I'm just confused on how CAF, as a statement/catchphrase, entered the cultural conciousness in the way it did. The way people have applied it to me always made it seem like the problem people had was JUST that there was no Dr. Doom (even being relatively aware of the context with the film rights), I would often get "you just think characters are functions" from people who were - as I mentioned - openly in support of fan demand and heirarchy to the point of 'reclaiming' terms like "bland", "safe", and "corporate" as positives in the same way I've attempted to reclaim CAF. Maybe it's the context of NASB at play, I don't know. Likely there isn't that much overlap between MVC fans who know the whole story and NASB fans who are just going off of cultural osmosis, or even Smash fans (I'm an example right here) so I can understand how the game of telephone came to be.

That being said, I still don't get how "character who plays like Dr. Doom" isn't an acceptable Dr. Doom substitute, or how even a major roster purge could be anything resembling a deal breaker, even if I do think I agree that the X-Men cuts are much more questionable in this context. I can understand the upset, but not the extent.

internal reports saying some characters were unexpectedly high in ballot results also just flatout proves that they would never make it in a strictly corporate roster

The ballot is a strictly corporate method of gathering data, at least considering the type of game Smash is (major release, system seller, arguably triple-A) and to a lesser extent how the ballot was implemented - as democratic. Even if there was a legitimate desire to please the fans, they are still pleasing the fans plural - as an act of legitimate goodwill, surely it'd be every vote for its own, nobody gets prioritised?

 

[Opossum]

That being said, I still don't get how "character who plays like Dr. Doom" isn't an acceptable Dr. Doom substitute, or how even a major roster purge could be anything resembling a deal breaker, even if I do think I agree that the X-Men cuts are much more questionable in this context. I can understand the upset, but not the extent.

Again...it's a crossover. The character matters most of all. "You can't have one of the most popular supervillains of all time, but look! This completely unrelated character has a foot dive!" isn't gonna cut it for anyone.

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

Again...it's a crossover. The character matters most of all. "You can't have one of the most popular supervillains of all time, but look! This completely unrelated character has a foot dive!" isn't gonna cut it for anyone.

So... were people mad at Disney over the film rights at all? If this happened without the film right drama, and was just a natural budget sacrifice or intentional creative decision, would people still be mad? Then why does CAF have to context-sensitive if Disney was not the sole reason it made people mad?

 

[Cutie Gwen]

I gathered that... honestly now I'm just confused on how CAF, as a statement/catchphrase, entered the cultural conciousness in the way it did. The way people have applied it to me always made it seem like the problem people had was JUST that there was no Dr. Doom (even being relatively aware of the context with the film rights), I would often get "you just think characters are functions" from people who were - as I mentioned - openly in support of fan demand and heirarchy to the point of 'reclaiming' terms like "bland", "safe", and "corporate" as positives in the same way I've attempted to reclaim CAF.

That being said, I still don't get how "character who plays like Dr. Doom" isn't an acceptable Dr. Doom substitute, or how even a major roster purge could be anything resembling a deal breaker, even if I do think I agree that the X-Men cuts are much more questionable in this context


The ballot is a strictly corporate method of gathering data, at least considering the type of game Smash is (major release, system seller, arguably triple-A) and to a lesser extent how the ballot was implemented - as democratic. Even if there was a legitimate desire to please the fans, they are still pleasing the fans plural - as an act of legitimtate goodwill, surely it'd be every vote for its own, nobody gets prioritised?

You seem to be deliberately obtuse, "Just play Nova" isn't an acceptable excuse because Nova doesn't play the same. You might as well say "Why bother asking for Ice Climbers back? You can play as Peach instead, she has a spinny move too!" That's what happened with the 8 directional air dash function, which I think was done with Magneto, but Opossum likely brought Doom up because he's always been a fanfavourite and like Magneto, only got cut cause of corporate politics.


I'm not sure how to take this. "If they cared for the fans they would give every vote equal attention to make sure nobody gets prioritized" is one hell of a take, cause if 1 character has 50 votes, that means 50 fans cared enough to say that character. How is this difficult to wrap your head around? Have you never tried going out with friends or family and try to decide where you wanna go? You're playing up your goofy clown persona again instead of listening

 

[WeirdChillFever]

Well, if Smash isn't inherently about "new exciting original ideas" then like... what's the point? On a diegetic level, I go to games - and art in general - to see someone else's very specific, typically weird vision come to life, not something a buncha other people already know and already like without any kind of remixed/derivative element. To me, a crossover - or really any game using plural established characters in playable roles - is a scavenger hunt, look for the interesting charaters in all the nooks and crannies who may not get the time to shine alone and could provide something to the aim of the work (for instance, a character that would fight interestingly in a fighting game), that is the fundamental concept of a crossover from a creative and diegetic perspective, and perhaps even a player-diegetic perspective too, find that one character you latch on to despite not knowing or even caring to know the full story. I can't help but think I'm misinterpreting you somehow?

I think part of the crux of your argument or gut feelings (which are very interesting to explore even if they make quote-unquote discussion difficult) is that Smash would only add something to the source material or would only be a transformative adaptation if it features characters or concepts that don’t typically get the spotlight in their home series (hence I believe your discussion of Mario and Pikachu in Smash being “more of the same”). I think the act of representing a character or a series in a 22-odd-input platformer fighter moveset already is an act of adaptation that already is a scavenger hunt in and of itself. The crossover aspect of taking that set and duking it out against other series’ main characters to me is secondary to that adaptation process. Since this adaptational process takes into account the original series and character, to me characters aren’t functions.

 

[Opossum]

So... were people mad at Disney over the film rights at all? If this happened without the film right drama, and was just a natural budget sacrifice or intentional creative decision, would people still be mad? Then why does CAF have to context-sensitive if Disney was not the sole reason it made people mad?

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.

 

[Among Waddle Dees]

I feel like a lot of people criticizing 'hype culture' don't actually have a problem with it if that makes sense? Most of these people in my experience don't come across as "I don't like how excited people get over objectively trivial things like video game commercials, actors being announced for certain movies or shows, local football games, etc". Instead, I often see the 'anti hype culture' say stuff like "Kyle Hyde has been my most wanted for 20 years, I asked for him in Brawl, I asked for him in Smash 4 and I even asked him on the ballot, yet I still see no Kyle Hyde, instead I see stuff I don't care about like insert third party here so Smash has truly lost it's identity" which idk about you, but comes across as entitlement to me. Hell, I've seen hype culture get criticized for downplaying more niche characters which is totally a thing, but the niche character they're standing up for is... Isaac, a character who has consistently done well on fan polls for the past 20 years. I don't know how else to explain it other than "That's not what the words you're saying mean"

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.

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

Have you never tried going out with friends or family and try to decide where you wanna go?

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.

 

[fogbadge]

Can we move on please? This conversation is going nowhere

 

[TheZizz]

Well I never had an issue with any character inclusion.

Isn't Jigglypuff supposed to be this mystical creature with untold hidden power? (But a permanent arsen-type evolution that you attain after a single KO or something would be interesting, balance issues aside)

Roy was fire (literally), even though I didn't know a damn thing about him. The rally cry for his return was a bit miffy to me when Ike was clearly a worthy successor, but I'm not one to complain that "everyone's back", the more the merrier in my book.

Byleth looked like purely a passion project for sakurai, who I understand is big on fire emblem. By all means let him follow his heart's desire, even if Dante would have been cooler I guess. I want a bow like that.

Of course Wii fit trainer proves that quirky oddball picks can extend beyond the realm of retro characters. Who's next, the ace attorney guy? (I guess he must be 20 years old by now but you get what I mean). Although when it comes to rolling out one DLC fighter at a time, it makes sense that they be big megastars.

Even piranha plant is a notorious mario enemy that is impervious to everything but the fire flower, unlike even the formidable hammer bros. Well played sakurai. And the implicit slight to waluigi is a nice touch. WEHH!

 

[Oracle Link]

Cutting Jigglypuff is lame for a lot of reasons, but the one that sticks out to me most is that well... Jigglypuff got in Smash at a very macho era of gaming, and is undeniably a feminine character that can't be propped up as "secretly badass" in the way Kirby can. A small part of me does think the Jigglypuff hate originates from 90s gamer-bro misogyny, even if it isn't concious or even intentionally malicious, and that may not be conciously present in modern Jigglypuff hate.

EDIT: OK, so like, I do get the idea of "people want characters in Smash because they like them" in intent, but it never feels like that attitude shows in Smash discussion. If that is all there is to it... why do we argue? Why must we defend our choices? Why were support threads always opened and twitter accounts always pinned with giant "reasons for being" lists? What's the point if it all just comes back to just "I want Geno because I like Super Mario RPG"? Why are main protags the ones people always go for? There's gotta be a large amount of Crash fans who like Cortex or Coco or Dingodile or Tiny or the Viscount or whoever better than Crash, why aren't we seeing alternate options like that often in Smash discussion if it is all about just "what character you like"? Why does fan demand matter when SOMEONE will eventually like EVERY character?

EDIT 2: To clarify on the Crash comment, because I know someone might misinterpret it: Keep in mind, I'm not asking why side-over-protags aren't the more popular options, that makes sense in origin - I'm moreso just asking why they're completely out of the overton window in discussion of Smash. If Smash is "about the characters you like", you should be as likely to see Dingodile support in a Smash circle as you would see Dingodile fandom in a Crash circle, right?

I wouldnt say its misogyny more like the same thing as lil boys not wanting to play or do Girl things!
Theres no real malice involved tbh! Like you cant point at my 15 year old self and say your sexist because i was to embarased to buy a Zelda Plzsh at that time!
Afterall boys are just expected to not do or like girl things usually theres very little malice or spite involved!
Wait you already mentioned theres no malice involved! Still i wouldnt use the term Misogyny or 90s Gamerbros tbh!

However divorced from this i think jigglypuff is a good rep for all the girly pokemon!
And my Mom loved it so to honor her ill keep putting that pink ballon pokemon (or scream tail as they fill a similar niche) into my rosters!

 

[BonafideFella]

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’m absolutely sure that the phrase would be less toxic if it wasn’t associated with the corporate interference that mired mvci , but in that context it was directly about REPLACING a character - inextricably denying their inclusion for reasons that weren’t denoted by gameplay or character function at all

however , i do think - especially in a crossover fighter - character’s designs are INFORMED by their personality and , well , character — you can definitely design a moveset w/o a basis of personality , but oftentimes their function informs it implicitly

luigi being slippery and having a higher jump gave way to a self-depreciating character who despite his capabilities shunted his own potential.
ness being the “tank” healer of earthbound made him a character who constantly engages with his friends, the emotional support to match the gameplay function
jigglypuff being regarded as a more passive or reactable character in smash bros , because she engages with aerial combat completely different

that’s what i adore abt 64/melee , it rlly emblifies what i love abt the series’ implementation of character

i wish i could play slap city , but because of the seeming moulding of niche ludosity choices around archetypes , i’m sure they follow the same principles

like with doctor doom being mentioned , the footdive being an oppressive tool that literally has him come down on you from above is reflective of his higher-than-thou personality . sure the function can be transplanted , but it loses smth without that larger context

i think saying you can’t enjoy games without taking in that broader context , just for gameplay alone , is fallacious . of course u can enjoy it on its own merit .

but in smash bros , characters’ personalities are CODIFIED by their gameplay. that’s the intersection point . bowser is portrayed the way he is gameplay-wise because of his imposition in mario bros 1985 , inklings are boastful and cocky teenagers because their home series revolves around territorial control and pressure , yk .

it’s pretty much nintendo’s whole philosophy that spread outward since donkey kong in 1981. - character personality being implicit and designed around their gameplay , being formed by gameplay or the position where they initiate the game ,

i do hope i don’t sound pretentious , and if the characters as functions alone are where they hold value to you - more power to you genuinely . it’s not an invalid take to have - especially regarding arcade/atari where the deeper nature of these characters/scenarios were found in external material primarily
however with respect , the motives that somebody would campaign for characters otherwise outside of the utilitarian aren’t ULTERIOR .
i’m at a point where no matter who they add to the next game , i’ll probably enjoy how they play n get value out of it . same as any fighting game

but wanting to see how a characters personality is represented THROUGH function , or how gameplay functions {like say, geno’s timed hits} can INFORM an expressed personality {like timed hits implies precision} - is equally valid

 

[Opossum]

I wouldnt say its misogyny more like the same thing as lil boys not wanting to play or do Girl things!
Theres no real malice involved tbh! Like you cant point at my 15 year old self and say your sexist because i was to embarased to buy a Zelda Plzsh at that time!
Afterall boys are just expected to not do or like girl things usually theres very little malice or spite involved!
Wait you already mentioned theres no malice involved! Still i wouldnt use the term Misogyny or 90s Gamerbros tbh!

You literally described like four or five different flavors of misogyny. Hope this helps!

 

[Lenidem]

A. Is the triangle from Asteroids not a gaming icon? B. Is a fork from a WarioWare microgame that far removed in fame from any Nintendo chracter not in the original 8 or named Isabelle, Duck Hunt, or Inkling? or even some IN the original 8? Nintendo's "big" IPs are generally niche.

A. I had to google "triangle asteroid video game", so I'm probably not representative of the gaming community, but personally, I would say no, he's not. However, that's not the point: 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!"

B. You're just kidding, right? Are you seriously pretending that a random ****ing fork from a micro-game, basically designed to be forgotten 10 seconds after being introduced to the player, is nowhere near as famous and recognizable as characters like Snake, Sonic, or Diddy Kong, or just Wario himself?

 

[BonafideFella]

postulating on smth else …

i dont mind wario being a grossout character in smash , even if i dont think farting is the most indicative thing abt him —
if anything i’d rather a mega man-esque down serial where he fires a booger or smth , since his nose is so prominent

but the warioware bomb is in my eyes a perfect functional and aesthetic move for that down special role — instead of it being “man i gotta let it rip” , it’s like “i’m going to blow myself up before i can finish the combo , but if i do , i’ll probably survive and you won’t. ergo, wario time”

not to mention how iconic it is as a piece of iconography , let alone wario’s connection to bombs — if wario is meant to be grossout , it should be all over his kit as passive signs of disrespect as opposed to one overcentralized tool

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

i’m absolutely sure that the phrase would be less toxic if it wasn’t associated with the corporate interference that mired mvci , but in that context it was directly about REPLACING a character - inextricably denying their inclusion for reasons that weren’t denoted by gameplay or character function at all

however , i do think - especially in a crossover fighter - character’s designs are INFORMED by their personality and , well , character — you can definitely design a moveset w/o a basis of personality , but oftentimes their function informs it implicitly

luigi being slippery and having a higher jump gave way to a self-depreciating character who despite his capabilities shunted his own potential.
ness being the “tank” healer of earthbound made him a character who constantly engages with his friends, the emotional support to match the gameplay function
jigglypuff being regarded as a more passive or reactable character in smash bros , because she engages with aerial combat completely different

that’s what i adore abt 64/melee , it rlly emblifies what i love abt the series’ implementation of character

i wish i could play slap city , but because of the seeming moulding of niche ludosity choices around archetypes , i’m sure they follow the same principles

like with doctor doom being mentioned , the footdive being an oppressive tool that literally has him come down on you from above is reflective of his higher-than-thou personality . sure the function can be transplanted , but it loses smth without that larger context

i think saying you can’t enjoy games without taking in that broader context , just for gameplay alone , is fallacious . of course u can enjoy it on its own merit .

but in smash bros , characters’ personalities are CODIFIED by their gameplay. that’s the intersection point . bowser is portrayed the way he is gameplay-wise because of his imposition in mario bros 1985 , inklings are boastful and cocky teenagers because their home series revolves around territorial control and pressure , yk .

it’s pretty much nintendo’s whole philosophy that spread outward since donkey kong in 1981. - character personality being implicit and designed around their gameplay , being formed by gameplay or the position where they initiate the game ,

i do hope i don’t sound pretentious , and if the characters as functions alone are where they hold value to you - more power to you genuinely . it’s not an invalid take to have - especially regarding arcade/atari where the deeper nature of these characters/scenarios were found in external material primarily
however with respect , the motives that somebody would campaign for characters otherwise outside of the utilitarian aren’t ULTERIOR .
i’m at a point where no matter who they add to the next game , i’ll probably enjoy how they play n get value out of it . same as any fighting game

but wanting to see how a characters personality is represented THROUGH function , or how gameplay functions {like say, geno’s timed hits} can INFORM an expressed personality {like timed hits implies precision} - is equally valid

This is a really good take IMO and probably the best way I've heard FAC communicated - While I don't see them as essential, I think character personalities can give a lot to a moveset that would be impossible otherwise, and vice versa. Duck Hunt is one of my favourite gaming characters of all time, and their Smash moveset both benefits from the original characterisation (showing DH as a dopey and clumsy character based on the walk animation's dopey demeanor, having DH be a Looney Tunes-style trickster to reflect the 'troll' laughing) and provides a new layer to it (repackaging the simple hunting scenario as appearing more akin to a friendly sport with the dog and duck being friends, the dog being portrayed as actually... dog-like in its taunts) while also ommitting some less desirable elements (the smiling in the duck grab animation is kinda out of place, so they eyelids remain drooped at all times) - I think that's the real magic of a moveset based on an established character and what makes either a crossover element or developing an original lore worthwhile. Most of Nintendo's characters as is were developed around gameplay design, not gameplay developed to support characters - Pikmin wasn't "here's a fun alien design, let's figure something out with it", it was "let's make a game with 100 people walking around" and that led to "alien ants". "Let's make a paintball shooter" led to "hip millennial squidpeople"; "let's make a game where you can fly anywhere" led to "little pink balloon man", so on so forth. It's a healthy and effective creative process that leads to wonders in both parts. I think we can all agree there's a balance to be achieved, I think just what way to skew is the big conflict, and what is the "right" vs. "wrong" way to get attached to a game - we all like the characters we like in the same way, the disagreement seems to be what kind of characters we gravitate towards and how the source material plays into that vs. just the character alone.

I dunno, I'm just spilling whatever's on my mind. It's probably all incoherent. Just know that I do see Bubsy, Goomba, e.t.c. the same way you (adressed towards whole thread) might see Link or Sora; and do find emotional attachment to be a reason to want or play as a character, just not the only or inherent biggest reason. Maybe there's a mutual understanding here. I dunno. I'll admit that a lot of the stuff I've said today might have been incoherent BS as well. I do tend to say extreme things, exaggerated versions of things I do believe the base thesis of, under pressure.

 

[Ze Diglett]

I think it's partially getting excited for the artistic element of the games. Directs are commercials but because of that personal artistic element, people care a lot.

My friend cried during the Switch 2 direct. Kirby Air Riders was his most wanted game of all time. He's waited for a sequel for 20 years. He absolutely loves Kirby Air Ride to the point where he was developing a fan game. The art inspired more art and it was very validating to see that his love of that art will be able to continue with a new game.

Look, I get excited for things I like, too. I also popped off with my roommate (who's likewise been concepting a KAR-inspired game!) over Kirby Air Ride 2 finally being real. That said, there's a pretty big difference, I feel, between being excited for news as it comes and going all "Smash WILL be in this Direct and it is GOING to be trash if it's not" or "if they show Waluigi as an Assist Trophy again, I'm boycotting."

Nobody wants to unironically spend money on Function vs Function no matter how good the gameplay is and surprise surprise, the game that spawned this bit didn't do well despite having good gameplay but was panned for the roster, music, sound effects, visuals, etc. Almost as if fans liked the franchise for more than just 'functions'.

I'll never understand people who say this about MVCI. From what I've heard from people who did play it, even the gameplay wasn't very good. The game was just a wholesale downgrade from UMVC3 before it, which is why it failed.

 

[Wario Wario Wario]

There's probably not much worth in arguing anymore about the gameplay of a game most of us haven't played, including those of us in its respective fandom.

 

[BonafideFella]

This is a really good take IMO and probably the best way I've heard FAC communicated - While I don't see them as essential, I think character personalities can give a lot to a moveset that would be impossible otherwise, and vice versa. Duck Hunt is one of my favourite gaming characters of all time, and their Smash moveset both benefits from the original characterisation (showing DH as a dopey and clumsy character based on the walk animation's dopey demeanor, having DH be a Looney Tunes-style trickster to reflect the 'troll' laughing) and provides a new layer to it (repackaging the simple hunting scenario as appearing more akin to a friendly sport with the dog and duck being friends, the dog being portrayed as actually... dog-like in its taunts) while also ommitting some less desirable elements (the smiling in the duck grab animation is kinda out of place, so they eyelids remain drooped at all times) - I think that's the real magic of a moveset based on an established character and what makes either a crossover element or developing an original lore worthwhile. Most of Nintendo's characters as is were developed around gameplay design, not gameplay developed to support characters - Pikmin wasn't "here's a fun alien design, let's figure something out with it", it was "let's make a game with 100 people walking around" and that led to "alien ants". "Let's make a paintball shooter" led to "hip millennial squidpeople"; "let's make a game where you can fly anywhere" led to "little pink balloon man", so on so forth. It's a healthy and effective creative process that leads to wonders in both parts. I think we can all agree there's a balance to be achieved, I think just what way to skew is the big conflict, and what is the "right" vs. "wrong" way to get attached to a game - we all like the characters we like in the same way, the disagreement seems to be what kind of characters we gravitate towards and how the source material plays into that vs. just the character alone.

I dunno, I'm just spilling whatever's on my mind. It's probably all incoherent. Just know that I do see Bubsy, Goomba, e.t.c. the same way you (adressed towards whole thread) might see Link or Sora; and do find emotional attachment to be a reason to want or play as a character, just not the only or inherent biggest reason. Maybe there's a mutual understanding here. I dunno.

i'd entirely agree with you, and i think part of that can be attributed to the fact its still a relatively new medium (in its current form) - in a way its generational , because the next generation of developers after the atari/magnavox generation took those principles and transfused them with direct applications of storytelling from other forms of media - its a cycle that renews with each generation, its always so curious to see

those original first-gen games obviously aren't WORSE for lacking those elements, but its an iterative medium of art