A frequent topic on Smash Twitter is the two relatively-new characters Min Min and Steve. To put it simply, these two play extremely differently to conventional Smash characters, are hard to beat because of it, and are vocally hated because of it.
On one hand, the correct answer to this dilemma, for the sake of a competitive player’s mentality, is to shut up and enter training mode. Take a deep look at what the character can and can’t do. Research how to beat them. It’s not impossible, every character is designed with weaknesses in mind. On the other hand, both of these characters are very frustrating to fight against, even if you know the “correct” way to fight them. Some players are going so far as to stop playing the game they have put hundreds of hours into solely because of a character or two. I think that’s bad from a personal competitive standpoint, but I also think it’s bad from a game design perspective. It goes without saying, but adding content that makes people drop the game is very bad for the game and also its competitive community.
I think both Min Min and Steve’s moveset design is part of a larger issue with the game, something I have dubbed Gimmick Creep. In game development, or any project for that matter, a noteworthy struggle for everyone is Scope Creep, in which the project’s scope (the functions and features of the finished project) expands beyond what is realistic or desirable. In a similar vein, there is Feature Creep, where unwanted, unneeded or overly complicated features are added to a project. I do think Smash (Ultimate specifically) suffers from these, but I want to focus on how it suffers from Gimmick Creep for new characters.
What I mean by Gimmick Creep is, rather than implementing a relatively simple and conventional-to-Smash moveset, the developers occasionally feel the need to make new movesets increasingly different and unique. There’s nothing inherently wrong with this. Variety in movesets, character properties, and character gimmicks is the spice of life for fighting games. However, in a game with over 70 characters and counting, trying to 1-up past characters on a purely “uniqueness” basis quickly spirals out of control.
New characters being “overly gimmicky” doesn’t happen all the time. Really it’s just the relatively-recent additions of Min Min and Steve that have received this much ongoing loathing. Smash has to pull from other franchises, and the developers are limited to what a character has been shown to do or could realistically do. But at the same time, the developers feel the need to accurately represent the character and their home series, to sell DLC (which is apparently more likely with “unique” characters), and to give players something they haven’t seen before.
I like a lot of character’s inclusions on paper, and even some of these really wacky movesets on paper, or even while watching the game. But there is a very different feeling when fighting against a frustrating, gimmicky character in bracket. That said, though, I’m in this game for the competition, not necessarily for the fun of a single match. I’m not going to go to Twitter and tweet “Min Min is badly designed”. Even if I actually believed that, it’s not good for my mentality as a competitive player. I have to hit the lab and figure out how to beat them, just like any other character I might have trouble with.
Personally, I really like simple, fundamentals-based characters. They add just as much to the competitive metagame as the gimmicky characters do. And they’re fun to fight against! I want to see my opponent’s skill with the fundamentals of the game. Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be the popular opinion. For example, Banjo and Kazooie are a zoner character who is widely labelled “lame” by the community. Banjo does have a very limited gimmick (Wonderwing), but it’s not absolutely essential to the character’s gameplan, and the character more adheres to a standard projectile zoner than a gimmicky DLC character. I really don’t think calling Banjo and Kazooie “lame” is necessary or true. Banjo and Kazooie are fundamentals based. Perhaps no DLC character exemplifies this better than Byleth, who is purely fundamentals based while still having a unique moveset, and no significant gimmick, but whose moveset and entire inclusion was dismissed wholesale and hated on for simply originating from Fire Emblem and using a sword in some of their moves.
It’s kinda weird to think about. The so-called gimmicky and DLC-privileged characters are condemned, while the straightforward characters are hated just as much for their moveset. It’s contradictory. This is what the popular opinion seems to be, from what I can tell of the collective of Smash Twitter. Obviously individual opinions will vary. And that’s not to say there isn’t any nuance, plenty of characters hit the sweetspot of fundamentals and gimmick.
Fortunately, the characters added after Min Min and Steve haven’t been too wacky or gimmicky. I much prefer different takes on individual gimmicks (like comeback mechanics) and moves (like down specials which swap the character entirely) to the characters that are designed around their gimmick and as such play an entirely different game.
… I should probably stop scrolling Twitter.
Pingback: Tourney Return-y – partonetrain.info