Critique Super Smash Bros.

[UserKev]

You know how a politician makes promises before an election on how they will instill better policies and systems than the currents ones, but they mostly fail to convey properly on the hows and the logistics of their operation? A common theme I notice here is that when some people bring up the necessity of a reboot, they never go into how. And they try to sell you the idea as the best next course of action that Smash needs ASAP, because they obviously know better.

That proposal usually comes from the younger ones with a revolutionary and idealistic, but stupid and naive mindset. It's hard for me to respect that mindset because it's a way to cheat yourself into believing you've contributed into doing something meaningful. If you are going to talk about rebooting, provide some insight. But don't pretend that this is going to be the best direction when you don't even have your **** together, specially when the explanations of why some additions are pointless are "they just seem to be there" or "they rub me the wrong way". Discuss facts and not your pointless "feels".

Being fine with how the game plays now is completely acceptable. It may also have something to do with the fact that I'm busy with other aspects of my life and that when I sit to play Smash with my bro and cousin I was just want to have a good time rather than bring about a gaming revolution to my favorite game. People bring Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild as examples of reworking old franchises, but there are others that have tried and failed. Star Fox Zero and the Paper Mario series are good examples of this. Change by virtue of being change isn't inherently good. Reworking the wheel isn't something that should be forced upon every time. If Smash already plays good as it is, then why transform the entire concept? The most popular idea that seems to get thrown around is to make new movesets for existing characters. And while some characters like Ganon can use a rework, what about the ones whose movesets are already faithful to their source?

Yea, but no need to be so insulting about it. Honestly, you sound like a easily railed up fan after he's already got what he want. If your going to s"" talk a reboot, how about providing some insight why? Nothing wrong with discussing a potentially positive direction of a fan favorite I.P.

Take a chill pill and don't judge a reboot until after it actually happened.

 

[Ryu Myuutsu]

Yea, but no need to be so insulting about it. Honestly, you sound like a easily railed up fan after he's already got what he want. If your going to s"" talk a reboot, how about providing some insight why? Nothing wrong with discussing a potentially positive direction of a fan favorite I.P.

Take a chill pill and don't judge a reboot until after it actually happened.

I'm not the one who constantly brings up the idea of a reboot and how it would better the franchise, so it doesn't correspond to me to provide details on it. I'm one of the ignorant ones here so to speak, so if you want sell me on that idea you need to tell me HOW it would be better for the franchise. Nothing wrong with discussing potential directions for the game but the discourse goes nowhere if people don't elaborate and constantly keep lecturing others that it needs to happen. And considering your answer, you are clearly more cluesless on the idea than I am.

And I would gladly elaborate on any of my stances, but don't demand insight when you always get defensive whenever your views get challenged using the "no debate" rule as an excuse. I recall that you've failed to stand by any of your other points because having a discussion where the basis of those ideas are questioned is somehow "disrespectful".

 

[UserKev]

I'm not the one who constantly brings up the idea of a reboot and how it would better the franchise, so it doesn't correspond to me to provide details on it. I'm one of the ignorant ones here so to speak, so if you want sell me on that idea you need to tell me HOW it would be better for the franchise. Nothing wrong with discussing potential directions for the game but the discourse goes nowhere if people don't elaborate and constantly keep lecturing others that it needs to happen. And considering your answer, you are clearly more cluesless on the idea than I am.

Why is this such a problem to you? Do you want us to sit and be spoon fed without questioning if we like or dislike a specific flavor? No point in explaining to you how a reboot would better Smash when your already content with the game. Why are you here? From all of your posts regarding this topic, your the master critique. Let it go, bud and leave us alone.

And I would gladly elaborate on any of my stances, but don't demand insight when you always get defensive whenever your views get challenged using the "no debate" rule as an excuse. I recall that you've failed to stand by any of your other points because having a discussion where the basis of those ideas are questioned is somehow "disrespectful".

You just want to see this thread locked so bad, huh? Just write your own critique. Don't respond to me. Admittedly, I have to quote you tho because your seriously grasping at straws, I can't ignore it. Honestly, I wish the Unpopular opinion thread was left opened just for you.

 

[Ze Diglett]

You know how a politician makes promises before an election on how they will instill better policies and systems than the currents ones, but they mostly fail to convey properly on the hows and the logistics of their operation? A common theme I notice here is that when some people bring up the necessity of a reboot, they never go into how. And they try to sell you the idea as the best next course of action that Smash needs ASAP, because they obviously know better.

That proposal usually comes from the younger ones with a revolutionary and idealistic, but stupid and naive mindset. It's hard for me to respect that mindset because it's a way to cheat yourself into believing you've contributed into doing something meaningful. If you are going to talk about rebooting, provide some insight. But don't pretend that this is going to be the best direction when you don't even have your **** together, specially when the explanations of why some additions are pointless are "they just seem to be there" or "they rub me the wrong way". Discuss facts and not your pointless "feels".

Being fine with how the game plays now is completely acceptable. It may also have something to do with the fact that I'm busy with other aspects of my life and that when I sit to play Smash with my bro and cousin I was just want to have a good time rather than bring about a gaming revolution to my favorite game. People bring Mario Odyssey and Breath of the Wild as examples of reworking old franchises, but there are others that have tried and failed. Star Fox Zero and the Paper Mario series are good examples of this. Change by virtue of being change isn't inherently good. Reworking the wheel isn't something that should be forced upon every time. If Smash already plays good as it is, then why transform the entire concept? The most popular idea that seems to get thrown around is to make new movesets for existing characters. And while some characters like Ganon can use a rework, what about the ones whose movesets are already faithful to their source?

I mean, I've already listed what I wish for the series going forward in this thread countless times,, but if you're in a mood to make accusations of empty promises, I can certainly give you a refresher. Consider this a quick "what-I-would-do-if-I-were-in-charge" in regards to Smash:

I don't have much to say in regard to the roster since I don't care about the characters that are in Smash as much as most people seem to, but I will say that if I were in charge of picking the roster for the next game, I'd probably focus on better representing each series and trimming the fat roster-wise. Stuff like giving characters to series that have been begging for one for some time (coughkirbycough) and cutting characters whose continued inclusions don't make much sense when you think about it - folks like Jigglypuff, Corrin, and Piranha Plant come to mind. (People argue in favor of characters like Jiggs being grandfathered in every installment, but in a scenario where Sakurai's no longer calling the shots, I feel this point ceases to matter.) Not every game's going to be like Ultimate; cuts happen, and in that case, I'd say it makes sense to trim the fat and put on the chopping block fighters whose inclusions haven't aged super well, characters who people are going to look at in 10 years and think "what the hell is he doing here?" (And before you say it, I'm not just biased against these characters, as this would mean even cutting characters I do like like Plant.)

As for movesets, I'd mostly focus on better representing each character's capabilities while also designing a cohesive kit that allows each fighter to play creatively, expressively, and most importantly, effectively. You mention Ganon at the end of your post, and that's an obvious one that people have been begging for for a long time, but I could think of a lot of other fighters who could use changes, like making Mewtwo feel like Mewtwo (see my previous posts on the matter for elaboration) and designing the heavies to actually succeed and not be lumbering lugs that lose more matchups than they win. You could do this in a number of ways, not the least of which being making the heavies capable of playing at range. Rivals does a great job with this, with each of its heavies at least having some way of applying ranged pressure - for instance, Kragg has his rock, Etalus has his icicles, Sylvanos has a handful of ranged attacks and a massive threat bubble to boot, and Elliana has missiles, rocket fists, and steam clouds. Despite this, each character plays immensely differently from each other, with Kragg being the standard tanky heavyweight of the bunch, Etalus being a sort of heavy-rushdown hybrid, Sylvanos having an emphasis on stage control and trapping, and Elliana being pure heavy zoning. So, yes, you can have characters that are unique while still being well-designed. You could probably give every superheavy currently in Smash a long-ranged projectile that fits with their character all while making them distinct from each other, such as a barrel for Donkey Kong, a Dead-Mans-Volley style projectile for Ganondorf, and a fireball for Bowser. Unlike Smash, Rivals also does an excellent job at designing each of its characters (not just the heavies!) to be able to take on a variety of threats. Every character has disadvantageous matchups, of course, but nothing that feels unplayable, if that makes sense. Meanwhile Smash's heavies are designed to lose hard against zoners and rushdown characters, and win against... other heavies, I guess? The designers have been taking the lazy way of "just make them slow and hard-hitting" for ages now, but as each game has shown us, that doesn't work when it comes to making well-balanced characters. You have to actually design a cohesive kit with tools that flow into each other and compliment the character's strengths if you wanna make characters that are fun, flexible, and viable. Given how much Smash really doesn't like changing characters' movesets once they're already in, a reboot would be the perfect place to make these kinds of changes in my book.

I could probably think of similar changes that could be applied to almost every character in the roster, but in the interest of time as that last paragraph takes up over half of my post thus far, I'll just move on to the most important part of any game and what I personally think Smash could stand to improve the most: the gameplay. You've stated multiple times in this thread that Smash is "just fine" gameplay-wise, and in a sense, I'd say you're right. (Although if you really think that, I can't imagine what you're doing in a thread like this.) As a couch party game, Smash is virtually unmatched in the video game sphere, so if you just want to have some friends over and play some silly matches, go to town, I guess. However, it's when you take the game outside the party room that the issues become apparent and you see how Smash fails as a competitive game (which doesn't just affect tournament players, for the record). I've touched on the character design previously and how I think it could be improved, but to me, Smash as a series feels bogged down and stiff to play, like I'm fighting the game more than I am my opponent in any given match. In Ultimate especially, movement options are way too few and restrictive, and it feels like I can't really move even when I'm playing the fast characters. I like to contrast this with Rivals of Aether, whose movement engine is fine-tuned to be as free-flowing and crisp as possible to the point that it's fun to move around even with the slowest characters. People often say that they wish Smash had more [interesting] movement options, and I couldn't agree more. I'd start by drastically reducing the endlag and landing lag of directional airdodges; there's no reason whatsoever for them to have as much as a full second of lag when they're already restricted to one use in the air anyway. This way, directional airdodging would actually be viable as a movement tool and, god willing, maybe even make way for something akin to wavedashing. Other than that, I'd definitely make actions like dashdancing and dropping through platforms quicker and more consistent (both things that Rivals does that makes it infinitely more fun to play and to watch, in my opinion), and hell, maybe even add something similar to the backdash or airdash that many traditional fighters have. I dunno, I'm just spitballing here. I just wanna move in this game, y'know? Finally, I'd drastically reduce the input lag for the next game. Ultimate infamously has the most input lag of any Smash game to date, and it seriously gets in the way of performing precise inputs and doing anything remotely cool (especially if you're playing online, god forbid). These changes alone would make Smash feel a lot better to play and would probably be enough to get me back into the game, if I'm honest. One of my biggest gripes with Smash currently is how much aggression and interaction are discouraged and how much camping and waiting are encouraged. This is evident even in party matches, with the Pit player who sits in the corner of Hyrule Temple spamming arrows the whole match usually being the one who wins. (Which just goes to show that even if you limit yourself solely to playing "casually", you can't escape these basic trappings.) In most, if not all Smash games, non-interaction is optimal, which does not make for fun or engaging gameplay. By optimizing the movement and giving each character more tantalizing reward on hit (i.e. more [extensive] combos), interaction will be encouraged and matches will suddenly be much more exciting both to play and to watch. That is what I mean when I say Smash needs a gameplay change.

Hopefully that page-length response was to your liking. There are even more issues I have with Smash that I chose not to mention since this post was already mammoth enough as is, such as ledges, which I find to be an antiquated crutch of a mechanic that makes recovering way too safe, or the online, which I think could be largely fixed by just adding separate Casual and Ranked matchmaking modes (perhaps bringing back "For Fun" and "For Glory"?) like every other modern fighting game on Earth and getting some decent netcode, but by now, I think you get the idea. A reboot could do wonders for Smash, it's just one of those things people don't think about because most people are already happy with what they have and don't know anything else. But that doesn't mean it can't be improved. I don't even mean a hard reset of the entire series, necessarily, but I do think a change of direction of some kind would be really refreshing at this point and could bring on a ton of positive changes for Smash, casually and competitively.

 

[Perkilator]

I wrote a thread detailing why I personally think Ultimate NEARLY has the best Classic Mode.

 

[soviet prince]

I mean, I've already listed what I wish for the series going forward in this thread countless times,, but if you're in a mood to make accusations of empty promises, I can certainly give you a refresher. Consider this a quick "what-I-would-do-if-I-were-in-charge" in regards to Smash:

I don't have much to say in regard to the roster since I don't care about the characters that are in Smash as much as most people seem to, but I will say that if I were in charge of picking the roster for the next game, I'd probably focus on better representing each series and trimming the fat roster-wise. Stuff like giving characters to series that have been begging for one for some time (coughkirbycough) and cutting characters whose continued inclusions don't make much sense when you think about it - folks like Jigglypuff, Corrin, and Piranha Plant come to mind. (People argue in favor of characters like Jiggs being grandfathered in every installment, but in a scenario where Sakurai's no longer calling the shots, I feel this point ceases to matter.) Not every game's going to be like Ultimate; cuts happen, and in that case, I'd say it makes sense to trim the fat and put on the chopping block fighters whose inclusions haven't aged super well, characters who people are going to look at in 10 years and think "what the hell is he doing here?" (And before you say it, I'm not just biased against these characters, as this would mean even cutting characters I do like like Plant.)

As for movesets, I'd mostly focus on better representing each character's capabilities while also designing a cohesive kit that allows each fighter to play creatively, expressively, and most importantly, effectively. You mention Ganon at the end of your post, and that's an obvious one that people have been begging for for a long time, but I could think of a lot of other fighters who could use changes, like making Mewtwo feel like Mewtwo (see my previous posts on the matter for elaboration) and designing the heavies to actually succeed and not be lumbering lugs that lose more matchups than they win. You could do this in a number of ways, not the least of which being making the heavies capable of playing at range. Rivals does a great job with this, with each of its heavies at least having some way of applying ranged pressure - for instance, Kragg has his rock, Etalus has his icicles, Sylvanos has a handful of ranged attacks and a massive threat bubble to boot, and Elliana has missiles, rocket fists, and steam clouds. Despite this, each character plays immensely differently from each other, with Kragg being the standard tanky heavyweight of the bunch, Etalus being a sort of heavy-rushdown hybrid, Sylvanos having an emphasis on stage control and trapping, and Elliana being pure heavy zoning. So, yes, you can have characters that are unique while still being well-designed. You could probably give every superheavy currently in Smash a long-ranged projectile that fits with their character all while making them distinct from each other, such as a barrel for Donkey Kong, a Dead-Mans-Volley style projectile for Ganondorf, and a fireball for Bowser. Unlike Smash, Rivals also does an excellent job at designing each of its characters (not just the heavies!) to be able to take on a variety of threats. Every character has disadvantageous matchups, of course, but nothing that feels unplayable, if that makes sense. Meanwhile Smash's heavies are designed to lose hard against zoners and rushdown characters, and win against... other heavies, I guess? The designers have been taking the lazy way of "just make them slow and hard-hitting" for ages now, but as each game has shown us, that doesn't work when it comes to making well-balanced characters. You have to actually design a cohesive kit with tools that flow into each other and compliment the character's strengths if you wanna make characters that are fun, flexible, and viable. Given how much Smash really doesn't like changing characters' movesets once they're already in, a reboot would be the perfect place to make these kinds of changes in my book.

I could probably think of similar changes that could be applied to almost every character in the roster, but in the interest of time as that last paragraph takes up over half of my post thus far, I'll just move on to the most important part of any game and what I personally think Smash could stand to improve the most: the gameplay. You've stated multiple times in this thread that Smash is "just fine" gameplay-wise, and in a sense, I'd say you're right. (Although if you really think that, I can't imagine what you're doing in a thread like this.) As a couch party game, Smash is virtually unmatched in the video game sphere, so if you just want to have some friends over and play some silly matches, go to town, I guess. However, it's when you take the game outside the party room that the issues become apparent and you see how Smash fails as a competitive game (which doesn't just affect tournament players, for the record). I've touched on the character design previously and how I think it could be improved, but to me, Smash as a series feels bogged down and stiff to play, like I'm fighting the game more than I am my opponent in any given match. In Ultimate especially, movement options are way too few and restrictive, and it feels like I can't really move even when I'm playing the fast characters. I like to contrast this with Rivals of Aether, whose movement engine is fine-tuned to be as free-flowing and crisp as possible to the point that it's fun to move around even with the slowest characters. People often say that they wish Smash had more [interesting] movement options, and I couldn't agree more. I'd start by drastically reducing the endlag and landing lag of directional airdodges; there's no reason whatsoever for them to have as much as a full second of lag when they're already restricted to one use in the air anyway. This way, directional airdodging would actually be viable as a movement tool and, god willing, maybe even make way for something akin to wavedashing. Other than that, I'd definitely make actions like dashdancing and dropping through platforms quicker and more consistent (both things that Rivals does that makes it infinitely more fun to play and to watch, in my opinion), and hell, maybe even add something similar to the backdash or airdash that many traditional fighters have. I dunno, I'm just spitballing here. I just wanna move in this game, y'know? Finally, I'd drastically reduce the input lag for the next game. Ultimate infamously has the most input lag of any Smash game to date, and it seriously gets in the way of performing precise inputs and doing anything remotely cool (especially if you're playing online, god forbid). These changes alone would make Smash feel a lot better to play and would probably be enough to get me back into the game, if I'm honest. One of my biggest gripes with Smash currently is how much aggression and interaction are discouraged and how much camping and waiting are encouraged. This is evident even in party matches, with the Pit player who sits in the corner of Hyrule Temple spamming arrows the whole match usually being the one who wins. (Which just goes to show that even if you limit yourself solely to playing "casually", you can't escape these basic trappings.) In most, if not all Smash games (with maybe Melee being the sole exception), non-interaction is optimal, which does not make for fun or engaging gameplay. By optimizing the movement and giving each character more tantalizing reward on hit (i.e. more [extensive] combos), interaction will be encouraged and matches will suddenly be much more exciting both to play and to watch. That is what I mean when I say Smash needs a gameplay change.

Hopefully that page-length response was to your liking. There are even more issues I have with Smash that I chose not to mention since this post was already mammoth enough as is, such as ledges, which I find to be an antiquated crutch of a mechanic that makes recovering way too safe, or the online, which I think could be easily fixed by just adding separate Casual and Ranked matchmaking modes (perhaps bringing back "For Fun" and "For Glory"?) like every other modern fighting game on Earth and getting some decent netcode, but by now, I think you get the idea. A reboot could do wonders for Smash, it's just one of those things people don't think about because most people are already happy with what they have and don't know anything else. But that doesn't mean it can't be improved. I don't even mean a hard reset of the entire series, necessarily, but I do think a change of direction of some kind would be really refreshing at this point and could bring on a ton of positive changes for Smash, casually and competitively.

I don't know about you but keep long combos out of this game, it's no fun just watching your opponent getting you into those combos some I seen in other games ko without being able to do nothing. Your in the minority most just want this game for the novelty of being the characters a reboot would trim way to much of that and there not going to care much about the adjustments over being disappointed about the loss of characters. Things can still be changed he should change his stance on changing veterans moveset or have it like mortal kombat did and have it were you can select an old moveset or giving the old moveset to a echo, believe me players will be more upset losing characters then moveset's changing.

Also plant fits fine he is a unique fighter and one of the oldest enemies mario encounters. At this point in the series I think we can welcome more 2nd and 3rd tier characters which I like to have more of they add the spice to the roster, plus who said you had to pass a iq test

 

[Ze Diglett]

I don't know about you but keep long combos out of this game, it's no fun just watching your opponent getting you into those combos some I seen in other games ko without being able to do nothing.

I see this sort of criticism come up a lot when it comes to introducing combos to Smash, and besides that being an uninformed misconception to begin with (you can have combos in a game and still make it fun to get out of them), if you're that concerned about being stunlocked for extended periods of time, just make said combos DI-dependent so that there's still counterplay and player interaction within the combos. If that's not enough, maybe tack on some combo scaling like most traditional fighters have. That way, good players are rewarded handsomely for winning neutral and knowing their character, but disadvantage isn't limited to basically a cutscene of your character getting whaled upon (which, funnily enough, is exactly what most Final Smashes are these days).

Your in the minority most just want this game for the novelty of being the characters a reboot would trim way to much of that and there not going to care much about the adjustments over being disappointed about the loss of characters. Things can still be changed he should change his stance on changing veterans moveset or have it like mortal kombat did and have it were you can select an old moveset or giving the old moveset to a echo, believe me players will be more upset losing characters then moveset's changing.

Well at least someone was finally willing to say that people only like Smash for the roster.
For real though, I don't understand this logic. It's fine to like a game for the characters, but at the end of the day, wouldn't it be great to love a game for that and its gameplay instead of merely tolerating it for the sake of a cool crossover? I personally love Smash as a crossover event, but I also want to love it as, well, a game.

Also plant fits fine he is a unique fighter and one of the oldest enemies mario encounters. At this point in the series I think we can welcome more 2nd and 3rd tier characters which I like to have more of they add the spice to the roster, plus who said you had to pass a iq test

Look man, I like Plant, I really do. I actually think he's really fun as a one-time joke addition. But imagine the nuclear-tier fallout that would result if Plant got into a future Smash game, but more important and popular characters like Bowser Jr. or Rosalina didn't. Is Plant fun? Yes, but you cannot honestly tell me that he fits in this game as much as all-stars like Mario and Bowser, or even relative bit-players like R.O.B. and Wii Fit Trainer. At least those guys had a major role in gaming history and/or their home series backing up their inclusion. You can't even call Plant a "2nd or 3rd tier character" at that point. He's a Z-lister, if anything; quite literally Generic Mario Enemy #3. I get that that's the joke, but he sticks out like a sore thumb, quite frankly, which is why I think he only works as a one-time thing. He's fine now, but when it comes to cutting fighters in future installments (which is going to happen whether you want it to or not), he should be the first on the chopping block IMO.

 

[MetaWeegee]

I don't know about you but keep long combos out of this game, it's no fun just watching your opponent getting you into those combos some I seen in other games ko without being able to do nothing.

I'm not the guy you were talking to, but I personally think it's even less fun to land a hit and then only be able to follow up with the strings the game wants you too lest you be punished for trying to do something a lil different. I like the game, but the general lack of combo experimentation kinda dulls things for me sometimes (outside of the few characters who feel truly freeform, like my main Looig)

 

[Ze Diglett]

I'm not the guy you were talking to, but I personally think it's even less fun to land a hit and then only be able to follow up with the strings the game wants you too lest you be punished for trying to do something a lil different. I like the game, but the general lack of combo experimentation kinda dulls things for me sometimes.

I find it funny that a Luigi main is saying this.
But nah, I get whatcha mean. It's legitimately super lame to hit your opponent with your character's absolute best combo starter, only to get 1 or 2 hits on them before they're out of range. Actual combos could do WONDERS for Smash IMO, it's just Smash fans are so ungodly afraid of the concept that they don't even begin to entertain the idea.

 

[Oddball]

All your ideas seem to focus on turning smash into a more technical fighter with a higher learning curve and locking out the cassuals. That's the exact opposite of what Smash needs.

 

[Ze Diglett]

All your ideas seem to focus on turning smash into a more technical fighter with a higher learning curve and locking out the cassuals. That's the exact opposite of what Smash needs.

You seem to think that a game can't have a low skill floor to make it accessible for casuals while also having a high skill ceiling to keep the technical players invested. That couldn't be further from the truth; if anything, most of the changes I've suggested are in service of making the game more playable for casual AND competitive players (and everyone in between). You can appeal to both sides of the spectrum, Smash just doesn't seem terribly interested in doing that at the moment.

 

[Oddball]

I don't see how any of that helps casual players. It only seems to widen the gulf between casuals and competitives.

 

[Ze Diglett]

I don't see how any of that helps casual players. It only seems tO widen the gulf between casuals and competitiveS.

You don't see how lowering the input lag helps casual players? You don't see how making the characters more practical and versatile would help casuals? You don't see how improving the ease and range of movement would help casuals?
Alrighty, then.

 

[asia_catdog_blue]

So, how are items compared to Melee and Brawl?

 

[Alicorn]

Melee items are better, balence wise compared to Brawl items. Brawl items are a lot more hectic.

Assist trophs depending on the summoning can really ruin the pace of battle. This is reinforced with outside of Starfy was unkillable. So it was a two on one and if this was Final Destination unless your opponent is really bad a Gray Fox or Saki would cost you a stock.

Final Smashes were broken in Brawl, Super Sonic would just eat stocks like they were chilldogs it really made playing against Sonic even a bad one a real pain.

 

[Koopaul]

One thing that I really hated was how items could backfire. Items are already random with how and when they spawn. They don't need that extra layer of randomness where they just won't work or completely screw you over. And in some cases they'll screw everyone over. Does anyone even like that? Who thought that was a good idea?

 

[meleebrawler]

One thing that I really hated was how items could backfire. Items are already random with how and when they spawn. They don't need that extra layer of randomness where they just won't work or completely screw you over. And in some cases they'll screw everyone over. Does anyone even like that? Who thought that was a good idea?

The people who don't grab those dud items like it when it happens.

 

[Ryu Myuutsu]

Why is this such a problem to you? Do you want us to sit and be spoon fed without questioning if we like or dislike a specific flavor? No point in explaining to you how a reboot would better Smash when your already content with the game. Why are you here? From all of your posts regarding this topic, your the master critique. Let it go, bud and leave us alone.



You just want to see this thread locked so bad, huh? Just write your own critique. Don't respond to me. Admittedly, I have to quote you tho because your seriously grasping at straws, I can't ignore it. Honestly, I wish the Unpopular opinion thread was left opened just for you.

If I'm asking it's because I don't know. There is almost never not a point in establishing dialogue, but it looks that your understanding of it is backwards. I'm also here because this is an open forum and free speech happens to be a handy thing when you got an opinion to voice. It was also patch week, so I tend to visit this place for impressions about the new changes and such. For someone who doesn't want to engage with me, you sure keep humoring me with responses for some reason. Walk away and never look back if what I write makes you mad.

I also don't care if this thread lives or dies, so don't go playing the victim card on me. Just because someone has an opinion doesn't mean that they are infallible and other people have every right to question it (and depending of the context and gravity of the situation, people have an obligation to question potentially harmful ideas). This doesn't apply to you of course, because you are never wrong about anything.

I mean, I've already listed what I wish for the series going forward in this thread countless times,, but if you're in a mood to make accusations of empty promises, I can certainly give you a refresher. Consider this a quick "what-I-would-do-if-I-were-in-charge" in regards to Smash:

I don't have much to say in regard to the roster since I don't care about the characters that are in Smash as much as most people seem to, but I will say that if I were in charge of picking the roster for the next game, I'd probably focus on better representing each series and trimming the fat roster-wise. Stuff like giving characters to series that have been begging for one for some time (coughkirbycough) and cutting characters whose continued inclusions don't make much sense when you think about it - folks like Jigglypuff, Corrin, and Piranha Plant come to mind. (People argue in favor of characters like Jiggs being grandfathered in every installment, but in a scenario where Sakurai's no longer calling the shots, I feel this point ceases to matter.) Not every game's going to be like Ultimate; cuts happen, and in that case, I'd say it makes sense to trim the fat and put on the chopping block fighters whose inclusions haven't aged super well, characters who people are going to look at in 10 years and think "what the hell is he doing here?" (And before you say it, I'm not just biased against these characters, as this would mean even cutting characters I do like like Plant.)

As for movesets, I'd mostly focus on better representing each character's capabilities while also designing a cohesive kit that allows each fighter to play creatively, expressively, and most importantly, effectively. You mention Ganon at the end of your post, and that's an obvious one that people have been begging for for a long time, but I could think of a lot of other fighters who could use changes, like making Mewtwo feel like Mewtwo (see my previous posts on the matter for elaboration) and designing the heavies to actually succeed and not be lumbering lugs that lose more matchups than they win. You could do this in a number of ways, not the least of which being making the heavies capable of playing at range. Rivals does a great job with this, with each of its heavies at least having some way of applying ranged pressure - for instance, Kragg has his rock, Etalus has his icicles, Sylvanos has a handful of ranged attacks and a massive threat bubble to boot, and Elliana has missiles, rocket fists, and steam clouds. Despite this, each character plays immensely differently from each other, with Kragg being the standard tanky heavyweight of the bunch, Etalus being a sort of heavy-rushdown hybrid, Sylvanos having an emphasis on stage control and trapping, and Elliana being pure heavy zoning. So, yes, you can have characters that are unique while still being well-designed. You could probably give every superheavy currently in Smash a long-ranged projectile that fits with their character all while making them distinct from each other, such as a barrel for Donkey Kong, a Dead-Mans-Volley style projectile for Ganondorf, and a fireball for Bowser. Unlike Smash, Rivals also does an excellent job at designing each of its characters (not just the heavies!) to be able to take on a variety of threats. Every character has disadvantageous matchups, of course, but nothing that feels unplayable, if that makes sense. Meanwhile Smash's heavies are designed to lose hard against zoners and rushdown characters, and win against... other heavies, I guess? The designers have been taking the lazy way of "just make them slow and hard-hitting" for ages now, but as each game has shown us, that doesn't work when it comes to making well-balanced characters. You have to actually design a cohesive kit with tools that flow into each other and compliment the character's strengths if you wanna make characters that are fun, flexible, and viable. Given how much Smash really doesn't like changing characters' movesets once they're already in, a reboot would be the perfect place to make these kinds of changes in my book.

I could probably think of similar changes that could be applied to almost every character in the roster, but in the interest of time as that last paragraph takes up over half of my post thus far, I'll just move on to the most important part of any game and what I personally think Smash could stand to improve the most: the gameplay. You've stated multiple times in this thread that Smash is "just fine" gameplay-wise, and in a sense, I'd say you're right. (Although if you really think that, I can't imagine what you're doing in a thread like this.) As a couch party game, Smash is virtually unmatched in the video game sphere, so if you just want to have some friends over and play some silly matches, go to town, I guess. However, it's when you take the game outside the party room that the issues become apparent and you see how Smash fails as a competitive game (which doesn't just affect tournament players, for the record). I've touched on the character design previously and how I think it could be improved, but to me, Smash as a series feels bogged down and stiff to play, like I'm fighting the game more than I am my opponent in any given match. In Ultimate especially, movement options are way too few and restrictive, and it feels like I can't really move even when I'm playing the fast characters. I like to contrast this with Rivals of Aether, whose movement engine is fine-tuned to be as free-flowing and crisp as possible to the point that it's fun to move around even with the slowest characters. People often say that they wish Smash had more [interesting] movement options, and I couldn't agree more. I'd start by drastically reducing the endlag and landing lag of directional airdodges; there's no reason whatsoever for them to have as much as a full second of lag when they're already restricted to one use in the air anyway. This way, directional airdodging would actually be viable as a movement tool and, god willing, maybe even make way for something akin to wavedashing. Other than that, I'd definitely make actions like dashdancing and dropping through platforms quicker and more consistent (both things that Rivals does that makes it infinitely more fun to play and to watch, in my opinion), and hell, maybe even add something similar to the backdash or airdash that many traditional fighters have. I dunno, I'm just spitballing here. I just wanna move in this game, y'know? Finally, I'd drastically reduce the input lag for the next game. Ultimate infamously has the most input lag of any Smash game to date, and it seriously gets in the way of performing precise inputs and doing anything remotely cool (especially if you're playing online, god forbid). These changes alone would make Smash feel a lot better to play and would probably be enough to get me back into the game, if I'm honest. One of my biggest gripes with Smash currently is how much aggression and interaction are discouraged and how much camping and waiting are encouraged. This is evident even in party matches, with the Pit player who sits in the corner of Hyrule Temple spamming arrows the whole match usually being the one who wins. (Which just goes to show that even if you limit yourself solely to playing "casually", you can't escape these basic trappings.) In most, if not all Smash games, non-interaction is optimal, which does not make for fun or engaging gameplay. By optimizing the movement and giving each character more tantalizing reward on hit (i.e. more [extensive] combos), interaction will be encouraged and matches will suddenly be much more exciting both to play and to watch. That is what I mean when I say Smash needs a gameplay change.

Hopefully that page-length response was to your liking. There are even more issues I have with Smash that I chose not to mention since this post was already mammoth enough as is, such as ledges, which I find to be an antiquated crutch of a mechanic that makes recovering way too safe, or the online, which I think could be largely fixed by just adding separate Casual and Ranked matchmaking modes (perhaps bringing back "For Fun" and "For Glory"?) like every other modern fighting game on Earth and getting some decent netcode, but by now, I think you get the idea. A reboot could do wonders for Smash, it's just one of those things people don't think about because most people are already happy with what they have and don't know anything else. But that doesn't mean it can't be improved. I don't even mean a hard reset of the entire series, necessarily, but I do think a change of direction of some kind would be really refreshing at this point and could bring on a ton of positive changes for Smash, casually and competitively.

It's not exactly a good pitch when your first point for a reboot is to cut characters for the sake of cutting characters. Most people know and understand that when you have a long running fighting game series, cuts between iterations are going to be inevitable. Nobody expects everyone to return, but that doesn't mean that players don't campaign for their favorite veterans to come back and that developers don't often make an effort re-add these fighters alongside new ones. However, depending on the developer and publisher, the action of selling back veteran fighters can be seen as controversial because it gives the impression of cutting content prior to launch. This is not true for every case, but there have been examples of it done by Warner Bros. and Capcom.

Ultimate is an outlier in that regard because of the focus of bringing every fighter back, including those that were sold as DLC in the previous iteration. That also leaves room for the DLC to focus only on newcomers and new stages rather than veterans. And while I agree with the fact that very few people would be willing to campaign for re-adding characters like Corrin and Piranha Plant, many see the motion of bringing back the full roster as a positive one and with good reason.


The other issue at hand is that cutting characters for the sake of cutting characters does not necessarily translate into better representation for the existing ones, whatever that means. If they wanted some of these fighters changed, I'm sure they would be able to manage their resources to accomplish it. Another thing that I've spoken about before is that you can make a character's existing kit more effective rather than reinventing them, i.e. like how Smash 4/Ultimate Mario is a different beast from Brawl Mario despite having the exact same moveset; or how Smash 4 Mewtwo reached his prime after several patches. You agree with me on Ganon and raise a fair case for Kirby, but who else is hurting for change? Do we need to need to overhaul characters like Fox, Yoshi, Ness, Peach, Sheik, Marth or Pikachu when their movesets are, for the most part, fairly representative of the games they come from?

Characters also equal options. Even identical characters like the three Links play vastly different from each other. You tend to get more replay value out of a game that has 50 something characters and stages than one that has 15. The smaller roster may prove easier to balance out due to the absence of several archetypes, but the bigger one also gives you room for experimentation and playing different scenarios. I'm not fooled into believing that future games should follow into the "Everyone is Here!" motto particularly because there will always be lower priority fighters like clones and not everyone is going to be as demanded (see for instance how nobody cares about Kobra and Darrius from MK Armageddon), but it behooves players and developers to bring back who they can so long it's within their power. There will always be good reasons for cuts such as limited development time, but I don't buy your reasoning in that their absence will mean that the existing ones will be better by default. Mileena fans probably don't think that MK11 is better off thanks to her absence.


Going on to your other points about movesets, I see you are doubling down on my initial gripes that I have when people pitch the idea of a reboot: using pretty words with loose definitions like "creatively!", "expressively!" , "effectively!" or "excitingly bombastic!" to describe changes you would come up with rather than going into the logistics of it. There isn't an universally accepted way of designing a moveset for a character. It depends on the developer and the game. Just see how some of the Pokemon characters in Smash fight in Pokken. Like Smash, they also base off the source material but apply it in a different way that is no less valid than Smash's approach. There is a lot of subjectivity on how you can make a moveset, but most (read: most) characters in Smash respect their source material, and that is actually a good start to make a moveset representative and expressive of their home series. So what exactly makes your non-existing examples better and superior than the existing ones? Are you sure your is mouth isn't writing checks your ass cheeks can't cash, buddy?


Since you are also bringing up heavies, I'll go on a side note. I want to say that I understand the desire to make weaker characters better overall. With that said, I take issue with constantly classifying the heavies as a victim group in Smash. I know that those have had it rough in the beginning, but despite what you may say on the contrary progress has been done in later games and they are much better than they were initially. You called them lumbering lugs which is interesting because DK, Bowser and Charizard are quite speedy and have decent frame data as well. And when you suggest to design them to succeed, what kind of metric are you using measure this success you speak of? By success, do you mean having a higher tier placement? Winning majors?

This also implies that you seem to believe that heavies can't win at all and I think this undermines player skill. If I use a heavy in Ultimate, does that mean that I'm doomed to lose no matter what? And if I win, does this mean that I just got lucky or the player that I fought was bad? I play heavies on a regular basis offline and online, with a decent win ratio on locals and friendlies, and never once felt myself impaired. If I lose a match I tend to reflect on what I could have better, which is plenty, but I've never felt sorry for myself thinking about how bad my character has it.

This also brings to me to player accountability; if you play a heavy and lose, clearly it must be because the developer's philosophies and the game's design failings conspired against you, predestining you to fail the moment you made your choice in the character select screen in spite of your skill and efforts, right? No matter the game there will always be bad matchups for certain characters, but that doesn't mean they are impossible to overcome. Ben Gold won a major tournament in Australia using K. Rool as a solo pick, with the runner ups including Palutena, Ness, Yoshi, ZSS and G&W, which have the upper hand against K. Rool. This is not nothing. This doesn't make K. Rool one of the best characters in the game or that a slew of K. Rool will start getting good placements at majors, but this is not an insignificant accomplishment.

The designers actually have stepped back from the initial approach of "slow and hard hitting" since Smash 4 when they redesigned Bowser; while Charizard and DK are more on the faster side and Wario is quite acrofatic. It is true however that this concept still applies to Ganondorf and K. Rool, but the latter does incorporate ranged options, same with the Samuses, Snake and ROB. And while having a ranged Neutral B for DK and Bowser wouldn't be a bad thing, it's baffling that your opinion on them appears to be very low when those characters tend to be well regarded among heavies for the most part; with Bowser even having decent tourney results.

With constantly victimizing the heavies, you create the illusion that they can't win no matter what. It's actually eye-roll inducing when some people appear to think that heavies have it particularly bad in Ultimate when once upon a time there were games called Melee and Brawl. Being an heavy in those games was actually soul crushing. Even back in Smash 64, Link couldn't recover. Bowser was pretty much the indisputed worst character in Melee, and boy, did they actually took the slow but strong archetype straight. I know because I was there back in high school and college. So when I pick a heavy in Ultimate, I look back to those times and actually breathe in relief that I have a good fighting chance even against bad matchups. I actually enjoy fighting those because it pushes me to improve. Could it be better? Most likely. But there is little point in focusing on something you can't control.

I also feel that the desire of these radical changes mostly comes up due to the players' own mediocrity. Perfectly plausible; after Ultimate's launch, this board and others were flooded with kids complaining that they weren't winning enough with K. Rool, while others complained that they were losing too much against him. A lot of people don't want to overcome obstacles, they want the road ahead to be as smooth and clean as possible, which is potentially dangerous for a person's development. Fighting game have come a long way and they have been getting better, which I like a lot, but it has also spoiled some of the younger generations. So when I see you suggesting that heavies just can't succeed as if they were doomed to fail in their current state no matter what, I can't help but think that maybe this is some projection of the quality of player that you are. No judgement of course!

If I hadn't said anything about Rivals is because I don't know enough to say anything about it. So for all I know, you may be a 100% right about their design philosophies which is commendable. They also have a roster of about 16 characters which is probably easier to balance. Maybe Smash can take a page off that for a future DLC character or patch. I still don't believe that heavies in Smash are the losers you make them out to be. Except Ganon. That guy needs help.

I'll do you one better and actually suggest a simple change that will help heavies without the need to reinvent the wheel and can be realistically accomplished in the game's current form. Improve recoveries by giving them some armor or intangibility frames. They don't have that much trouble engaging enemies but it's the issue of coming back that is more glaring. But if they can't be launched out of their recoveries, then they have more survivability. Just some frames of their recoveries, because being offstage shouldn't be entirely devoid of danger. Just improve on what you have. Sometimes simple works better. In the Pokemon series, some Pokemon improve when they gain a new forme but other times they make it better by increasing one base stat, adding a new ability and/or giving them access to move they couldn't use before. Seems a better solution than the mostly abstract ones that you suggest.




Addressing another of your points, I just don't see how Smash fails as a competitive game. Do not misunderstand me though, I am well aware of what it does right and what it does wrong. Before you get excited, I've seen the video. This doesn't mean that the game is a failure as a competitive game, and it actually thrives in spite of those issues. The input delay is an unfortunate one, but it doesn't make the game unplayable. I've also don't feel restricted when moving around, and I say this as somehow who also plays a lot of Fox and Mewtwo and has no difficulty controlling them. I actually have gotten to see players on and offline not having much difficulty with this and recall the scene being quite active with mostly weekly events before the pandemic rained down on us. I've personally liked the ability to use tilts and Smashes out of a dash.

Perhaps we've adapted better at the game while you fell behind? As pretentious as I may sound by saying that, it still doesn't come off as pretentious as you telling me with absolute certainty that players can't pull off cool stuff when perhaps you mean that you can't pull cool stuff at all. That would have been at least a more accurate and humble approach. When I pull off a ladder combo with Mario across platforms, sail with my opponent offstage with DK's Bairs and Up B, or convert follow ups from Samus' projectiles, Utilt and Dair, I find that pretty satisfying to do and cool to watch in my humble opinion. If this game isn't for you that is perfectly fine, but you also appear to be completely tone-deaf into why people are into this game competitively. People even gather around patch day as if it is Christmas because everyone likes seeing not only the new character but how older ones get improved (Ike and Falco buffs, baby!).

Also, your issue with camping seems very trivial. There are always going to be players who, given the opportunity, will play lame and camp out the whole match if they can. My brother is one of those people. I've put him Dragon Ball Budokai, King of Fighters, Marvel vs, Smash and Guilty Gear and he plays like that every damn time. He doesn't succeed at it for the most part, but it goes to show. You even acknowledged that this a basic trapping of Smash games in general. Don't want that Pit player to spam arrows on Temple? Don't pick the stage. That is a camper's paradise. Go somewhere smaller. Smash offers a lot of flexibility in rulesets, but you just seem unwilling to even think outside the box for a moment. If it's a casual match, outlame them by using items and such.

And this just simply isn't true for most 1v1 matches. It's depends on the matchup and the players, but you'll get plenty of interaction in the form footsies, mixups and rushdowns. If you play against Sonic on wifi, expect campiness. But play against someone like Chrom and he would be in your face most of the time.


Finally, regarding online, what is there for me to say? It obviously needs to be better. Period. You are not saying anything we haven't heard before. I will say however that the issue with online play is mostly because of Nintendo's infrastructure rather than Smash itself. They'be been behind everyone else in this regard, so good netcode goes a long way. Mode separation would be nice though.

My thoughts: I actually wished you've dedicated yourself to touch upon specifics on how to reboot existing characters in a less abstract way. Instead, you oversell the idea of a reboot by telling me how much more "creative" certain movesets would become without giving me a proper outline. Maybe I'm asking too much, but then again you are a little man trying to fill in big shoes and perhaps you even overestimate your own competence. Or that maybe your ideas sound good on paper without much practical application. Overall, not throughly impressed by the prospect. Getting overambitious can easily back fire. I already touched on how simply improving a character's existing kit is a much more impactful and effective approach rather than throwing everything into the fire and start from zero.

You don't see how lowering the input lag helps casual players? You don't see how making the characters more practical and versatile would help casuals? You don't see how improving the ease and range of movement would help casuals?
Alrighty, then.

I don't think he is opposed to lowering the input lag. I doubt anybody is.

The problem is, as I mentioned above, that you talk about making characters more "creative" and "effective", but you fall short in conveying the idea.

The thing about longer combos is that not I'm not sure if implementing them would be a healthy thing long-term. I suppose you are thinking about increasing the hitstun between attacks thus allowing your character to juggle more easily. Thing is that there are plenty of characters who get plenty of mileage by juggling opponents already, even if you take DI into account (try telling me again that you only get one or two hits out of Mario, Samus, Joker, or Kirby's combos before they are out ot range). So it would seem to that this is more of an asymmetric change. Characters with already strong combo game will only get better, while those who don't would end up worse. I think you are too caught up thinking about the wonders without considering the potential consequences. It doesn't seem like a well-thought idea.

Smash doesn't haver corners and long hitstun like a traditional fighting game, so I'd say let it be it's own thing. Also, as cool as watching some of this combos are, you also don't want to them to go too overboard like this:

 

[---]

Ryu Myuutsu UserKev

It's been a week since your arguments started, take it down a notch or go to PMs. Critique the game, not each other.

 

[UserKev]

Ryu Myuutsu UserKev

It's been a week since your arguments started, take it down a notch or go to PMs. Critique the game, not each other.

Honestly, I don't even know what it is he wants anymore. I'll leave him be tho.

 

[StrangeKitten]

I love Ultimate, but I still have gripes:

- My biggest one: Online is atrocious. I don't have a working TV, so I can't use lan to help. Even then, I could see myself still getting frustrated enough with it to the point of not wanting to bother. It already feels like a lot of my inputs don't come out quick enough when I play offline as it is, and some of that isn't just me. I'm not alone in the "countered but it didn't come out???" department as I've seen that happen to others. And then there's stuff that can make me lose GSP for bad reasons. It's just crappy that you don't always get your preferred ruleset. Yeah, losing a lot of GSP vs that Puff that took one stock then timed me out because the rules were set to two minutes sure was fun

- CPUs being such a mixed bag. This wouldn't be an annoyance if online was passable, but I feel like playing online would just cause me to develop habits that are only effective online, which is bad if/when my partner and I host another offline tournament (which is just a handful of friends coming to my partner's house lol but still). Level 9s are ezpz dumb a lot of the time, then there are the times they just keep reading your inputs so you barely get any hits in. But the most annoying thing is the frame-perfect air dodges, and the parries. Sure love my edgeguard attempts usually failing since they always air dodge at the exact right time. Sure love how they always parry the smash attack that otherwise would have killed them far earlier than normal. I mean yeah, parries are gonna happen of course. It's just irritating that every single good read that would have ended them early is rendered moot.

- It doesn't keep your character stored between matches, so you have to keep re-selecting your character. Also, the slow alt loading for characters who come later on in the cast still hasn't been fixed.

- So, Squad Strike. I almost always play this mode when playing vs CPUs since I play a lot of characters. If you select a character, that's it and you can't back out till you select your other characters, then you have to manually move the little marker. A kinda rare annoyance but still. Same goes for alts that you have to manually change if you accidentally select the wrong one then press A in haste. Which wouldn't happen as often if later-half-of-the-cast characters loaded their alts quickly instead of the huge delay.

- In Squad Strike, you have to re-enter your name for your control scheme every. single. match. To make matters worse, there's a button below the name entry that allows you to change your character into a CPU or Amiibo. So if you accidentally click on that instead, there's no way to back out to the character you had selected. CPU saves the character you picked but Amiibo doesn't, and you have to click to Amiibo to be able to back out and re-select the character you wanted to play as. Whyyyyyy?

- I downloaded I dunno, maybe 30 or so custom stages I thought had interesting, at-least-close-to-competitive-legal layouts (I know custom stages will never be legal the way they are currently, and I agree with the reasonings, but I don't see much harm in playing on them if I'm just fighting CPUs), but, at least in Squad Strike though this might also apply to regular Smash, you can't have it randomly select an official stage or a custom stage. Like, you can go to the official stages tab and have it randomly select one, or you can go to the custom stages tab and have it randomly select one, but it can't randomly select from either or at once. Pretty big bummer to learn this.

- Onto some more general gripes, I really wish there was a "Favorites" tab for stages. Trying to find certain stages is really hard when I play in handheld and there are over 100.

- I wish there were CSS organization options. I really dislike the "by Smash debut" order they went with, which goes on to get messed up when the echoes are next to their original fighters. I don't like stacking echoes because that just makes the echo character harder to find. I want to be able to group by series, so all the Mario characters are together, all the Donkey Kong characters are together, etc.

- So, am I the only one here who cleared Classic Mode with all characters? I don't like how the hands were used as the final boss for like 90% of them. The other bosses have such interesting design and are a lot more fair to fight, and there are some routes where I've thought a different boss would be fitting but no. Hands.

- I really wish there was a boss rush mode. Like I said, the bosses are fun and interesting, and I'd love to be able to grind the hands fight so I can get better at it without having to go through the rest of Classic Mode first.

- World of Light is sadly too much of a slog to be as enjoyable as it could be. I wish they had, at the very least, done a few more cutscenes. The opening cutscene shows so much promise but then that's the only good one you get through the entire thing. Would have also liked more clarification on the "story".

 

[asia_catdog_blue]

I love the large roster that we have, but I agree with you that the sequel should be a reboot since I feel like that’s the best way to move forward without becoming stale (ie porting Ultimate over and over again), and it would take too many resources to bring over 80+ characters into a game without porting it. While I won’t like the big number of cuts, older characters can get revamped, and the devs can create more new content like new stages since we only got 4 new stages in the base game. I think the next game could only have the essentials like the original 8, (/)a few pokemon and an fe rep (and if the original 12 counts then also ) and be something new in a good way.


I like how we have smaller franchises like Mother and Ice Climber (the game isn’t great but they’re fun to play as in SSB), and having one character per franchise sounds like a good idea on paper, but we’d be losing major characters like all pokemon except and /.

I know, but that's a risk I'm willing to take!

If truly rebooted, I want the single fighter to be focused more on and get proper treatment.

I want the arena, items, & and music to be focused and show more respect the series IP the fighter comes from and represents.

I want to cut out the fat on the game. There's going to be cuts and limits regardless, so why not take out the things many deemed "unbalanced" and "unnecessary?" They could probably bring some of that stuff back for DLC.

They could try different ideas rarely(or never) seen in SSB. Like two dash attacks(run, crouch, & slide), or Mario having a true Desert stage to fight on.

Example: Marth could simply represent Fire Emblem alone. He could hold the Shield of Seals for extra defense, as well as "counter" projectiles. Make his style and physique more like his source games(or, at least, Warriors).

Pit could easily represent Kid Icarus alone. What he has in Ultimate works, but I would like more nods to Angel Land Story & Of Myths And Monsters. Dark Pit could return as a MKX-Style Variation sharing a slot with Light Pit.

Many Veteran Fighters could use a rework and many Newcoming Fighters(like Starfy) could get the same fair treatment.

It 40 years of Nintendo History! They could do something with it!

 

[Perkilator]

Man, some of the DLC Spirit Boards feel so limited. I know the DLC team and budget are smaller, but they could've added a couple to few more Spirits to each DLC Spirit Board. Here are the ones I'd add:

Persona's Spirit Board
-Hero (Persona 3) ()
-Aigis ()
-Hero (Persona 4) ()

Dragon Quest's Spirit Board
-Dragonlord () -> Dragonlord (Dragon) ()

Banjo-Kazooie's Spirit Board
-Klungo ()
-Mr. Patch ()
-Lord Woo Fak Fak ()

SNK's Spirit Board
-Mai Shiranui* ()
-Rock Howard ()
-Yuri Sakazaki ()
-Earthquake ()
-Marco Rossi ()
-Fio Germi ()

Byleth's Spirit Board
-Death Knight ()
-Flayn ()

ARMS's Spirit Board
-Lola Pop ()
-Misango ()
-Springtron ()
-Dr. Coyle ()
-Hedlok ()
-Biff ()

*There is artwork of Mai they can use to keep that E10+ rating:

 

[Pupp135]

I know, but that's a risk I'm willing to take!

If truly rebooted, I want the single fighter to be focused more on and get proper treatment.

I want the arena, items, & and music to be focused and show more respect the series IP the fighter comes from and represents.

I want to cut out the fat on the game. There's going to be cuts and limits regardless, so why not take out the things many deemed "unbalanced" and "unnecessary?" They could probably bring some of that stuff back for DLC.

They could try different ideas rarely(or never) seen in SSB. Like two dash attacks(run, crouch, & slide), or Mario having a true Desert stage to fight on.

Example: Marth could simply represent Fire Emblem alone. He could hold the Shield of Seals for extra defense, as well as "counter" projectiles. Make his style and physique more like his source games(or, at least, Warriors).

Pit could easily represent Kid Icarus alone. What he has in Ultimate works, but I would like more nods to Angel Land Story & Of Myths And Monsters. Dark Pit could return as a MKX-Style Variation sharing a slot with Light Pit.

Many Veteran Fighters could use a rework and many Newcoming Fighters(like Starfy) could get the same fair treatment.

It 40 years of Nintendo History! They could do something with it!

While I still disagree with the one fighter per franchise thing (this is primarily for bigger franchises like Mario and Pokemon, but definitely open to see smaller franchises get represented in terms of characters, stages, music, and items), I think that the developers could make a decent roster even if I would find it weird that there’s no, with the roster below possibly working.

Spoiler: Roster

Andy/Sami Starfy Isaac Karate Joe/Chorus Kids Officer Howard

I like the idea of having multiple dash attacks, and I definitely agree that there are a lot of unused areas that would make really fun stages (ALttP Dark World, locations in the Archanea/Elibe FE games, City trial...), and I admit that it would have been nice to see a couple more new stages in Ultimate’s base game.

Since I think that it is highly likely to have the sequel on a new engine with many cuts, I’m confident that the remaining fighters will be revamped (eg. Having cappy in ‘s moveset, having use more moves in his default moveset like beams or parasols), and the Shield of Seals mechanic would be interesting for . One thing that I think would help revamp fighters is the return of custom moves and doing that for final smashes too as a way for a character to portray more elements in their game.

 

[Oddball]

People keep using talking abotu a Smash reboot.

What is there to actually reboot? The series has no continuity or storyline. There's nothing to reboot.

You can change moves and change characters when you make the next game, but that's literally just what sequels do. Nobody considers Breath of the Wild a reboot of the Zelda series or Street Fighter 4, or Mario Odyssey. They're just sequels with stuff changed, because that's what sequels do.

Where does the "rebooted" part come in?

 

[Pupp135]

People keep using talking abotu a Smash reboot.

What is there to actually reboot? The series has no continuity or storyline. There's nothing to reboot.

You can change moves and change characters when you make the next game, but that's literally just what sequels do. Nobody considers Breath of the Wild a reboot of the Zelda series or Street Fighter 4, or Mario Odyssey. They're just sequels with stuff changed, because that's what sequels do.

Where does the "rebooted" part come in?

While I like Ultimate as it is now and would not like to drastically cut the roster (I’m assuming that’s what will happen next game), I feel like the “reboot” idea thrown around since it was said that Ultimate would have been on a new engine with a very small roster if the developers didn’t do “everyone’s here”, which is said to probably not happen for the next game. I guess you‘re right that the next game is not necessarily a reboot (I’ll edit recent posts about reboots and not call the sequel that), but the idea of a reboot is used more as a justification of drastically cutting the roster to 20-25 fighters.

 

[StrangeKitten]

Can we not have completely lagless Smash attacks? They're supposed to be high-risk high-reward. Meanwhile Captain Falcon can shield before the "HOWW-AHHH" of his up smash even finishes

 

[Ze Diglett]

It's not exactly a good pitch when your first point for a reboot is to cut characters for the sake of cutting characters. Most people know and understand that when you have a long running fighting game series, cuts between iterations are going to be inevitable. Nobody expects everyone to return, but that doesn't mean that players don't campaign for their favorite veterans to come back and that developers don't often make an effort re-add these fighters alongside new ones. However, depending on the developer and publisher, the action of selling back veteran fighters can be seen as controversial because it gives the impression of cutting content prior to launch. This is not true for every case, but there have been examples of it done by Warner Bros. and Capcom.

Ultimate is an outlier in that regard because of the focus of bringing every fighter back, including those that were sold as DLC in the previous iteration. That also leaves room for the DLC to focus only on newcomers and new stages rather than veterans. And while I agree with the fact that very few people would be willing to campaign for re-adding characters like Corrin and Piranha Plant, many see the motion of bringing back the full roster as a positive one and with good reason.

I mean, I'm not cutting characters purely for the sake of it. I'm simply de-prioritizing characters that it doesn't make sense to keep around anymore. If you're gonna have to drop some fighters anyway (which the next Smash game will unless it's just a straight port of Ultimate), you might as well trim the fat a little instead of cutting the fan favorites or the honest-to-god icons. Makes more sense to me than, say, keeping Jigglypuff while cutting Mewtwo, for instance.

The other issue at hand is that cutting characters for the sake of cutting characters does not necessarily translate into better representation for the existing ones, whatever that means. If they wanted some of these fighters changed, I'm sure they would be able to manage their resources to accomplish it. Another thing that I've spoken about before is that you can make a character's existing kit more effective rather than reinventing them, i.e. like how Smash 4/Ultimate Mario is a different beast from Brawl Mario despite having the exact same moveset; or how Smash 4 Mewtwo reached his prime after several patches. You agree with me on Ganon and raise a fair case for Kirby, but who else is hurting for change? Do we need to need to overhaul characters like Fox, Yoshi, Ness, Peach, Sheik, Marth or Pikachu when their movesets are, for the most part, fairly representative of the games they come from?

Characters also equal options. Even identical characters like the three Links play vastly different from each other. You tend to get more replay value out of a game that has 50 something characters and stages than one that has 15. The smaller roster may prove easier to balance out due to the absence of several archetypes, but the bigger one also gives you room for experimentation and playing different scenarios. I'm not fooled into believing that future games should follow into the "Everyone is Here!" motto particularly because there will always be lower priority fighters like clones and not everyone is going to be as demanded (see for instance how nobody cares about Kobra and Darrius from MK Armageddon), but it behooves players and developers to bring back who they can so long it's within their power. There will always be good reasons for cuts such as limited development time, but I don't buy your reasoning in that their absence will mean that the existing ones will be better by default. Mileena fans probably don't think that MK11 is better off thanks to her absence.

I don't remember ever saying that the rest of the roster would be better for the cuts I'd make? For the record, I don't think that, and I don't think removing Jigglypuff or Corrin or whoever would automatically make Smash a better game. I just think they should be considered low-priority for future entries in the series, that's all. I know the character cuts aren't necessary for better representation, and that isn't what I was saying to begin with. However, I think we can all agree that taking time out of developing one part of the game can easily transfer over to developing another part of the game - if it takes, say, 100 work hours to add a character to the roster, and we remove a character from the roster, those 100 or so man hours can be allocated to other areas, such as adding another character, working on a mode, or even tightening up the core gameplay. It's simple mathematics, really. As for your "You tend to get more replay value out of a game that has 50 something characters and stages than one that has 15" comment, I'd tend to disagree if the core gameplay isn't as sound in the 50 game vs. the 15 game, but that's delving into subjective territory, so I won't dwell on that.

Going on to your other points about movesets, I see you are doubling down on my initial gripes that I have when people pitch the idea of a reboot: using pretty words with loose definitions like "creatively!", "expressively!" , "effectively!" or "excitingly bombastic!" to describe changes you would come up with rather than going into the logistics of it. There isn't an universally accepted way of designing a moveset for a character. It depends on the developer and the game. Just see how some of the Pokemon characters in Smash fight in Pokken. Like Smash, they also base off the source material but apply it in a different way that is no less valid than Smash's approach. There is a lot of subjectivity on how you can make a moveset, but most (read: most) characters in Smash respect their source material, and that is actually a good start to make a moveset representative and expressive of their home series. So what exactly makes your non-existing examples better and superior than the existing ones? Are you sure your is mouth isn't writing checks your ass cheeks can't cash, buddy?

I mean, I have been outlining changes I'd like to see made to the characters along with those "loose" definitions. But if you need to me to, I can define those terms as well:
"creatively" = able to freeform gameplay and switch up their gameplan on the fly, rather than being forced/encouraged to stick to one mostly linear strategy
"expressively" = in a way that opens up a wide range of possibilities and depth based on a character's capabilities and enables individuals to play the same character uniquely and in a way that works for them
"effectively" = being good in the traditional sense; "viable", as we gamers would say it
Now that you know for certain what these terms mean (just because you don't know what a word means doesn't mean it's meaningless), hopefully you can see how designing character movesets this way would be better than how Smash currently does it. Essentially, I think Smash doesn't try hard enough to make its characters practical or think about what that character aims to do to win. I'll take the superheavies for instance, since I've already been talking about those. The superheavies (which, to be clear, includes anyone above and including Charizard and Incineroar on Ultimate's weight list) are designed to have a very dangerous threat bubble (i.e. the total area they can cover with their attacks), but struggle to bring it anywhere. This on its own isn't a bad start, but the issue is that most of them are slow as molasses and lack any form of ranged pressure, meaning anyone faster than them can run circles around them, while anyone with a solid ranged option can just sit back and pepper them with spam all day. Ergo, they are countered by a majority of the roster by design, ergo, they are not designed to succeed. Heavyweights being slow is a core part of their design philosophy and a big part of what makes them unique, so I went with the idea to make them better at range, either by giving them a projectile or by extending their threat bubble in some drastic way. I don't think every current superheavy necessarily needs a projectile - Bowser, maybe not, since he's arguably the only superheavy in Smash bar Brawl Snake to be genuinely good - but if they're gonna be a bunch of big slowpokes, some way of pressuring reluctant opponents into approaching (and, ideally, making punishable mistakes) would be a big help.

Since you are also bringing up heavies, I'll go on a side note. I want to say that I understand the desire to make weaker characters better overall. With that said, I take issue with constantly classifying the heavies as a victim group in Smash. I know that those have had it rough in the beginning, but despite what you may say on the contrary progress has been done in later games and they are much better than they were initially. You called them lumbering lugs which is interesting because DK, Bowser and Charizard are quite speedy and have decent frame data as well. And when you suggest to design them to succeed, what kind of metric are you using measure this success you speak of? By success, do you mean having a higher tier placement? Winning majors?

This also implies that you seem to believe that heavies can't win at all and I think this undermines player skill. If I use a heavy in Ultimate, does that mean that I'm doomed to lose no matter what? And if I win, does this mean that I just got lucky or the player that I fought was bad? I play heavies on a regular basis offline and online, with a decent win ratio on locals and friendlies, and never once felt myself impaired. If I lose a match I tend to reflect on what I could have better, which is plenty, but I've never felt sorry for myself thinking about how bad my character has it.

This also brings to me to player accountability; if you play a heavy and lose, clearly it must be because the developer's philosophies and the game's design failings conspired against you, predestining you to fail the moment you made your choice in the character select screen in spite of your skill and efforts, right? No matter the game there will always be bad matchups for certain characters, but that doesn't mean they are impossible to overcome. Ben Gold won a major tournament in Australia using K. Rool as a solo pick, with the runner ups including Palutena, Ness, Yoshi, ZSS and G&W, which have the upper hand against K. Rool. This is not nothing. This doesn't make K. Rool one of the best characters in the game or that a slew of K. Rool will start getting good placements at majors, but this is not an insignificant accomplishment.

The designers actually have stepped back from the initial approach of "slow and hard hitting" since Smash 4 when they redesigned Bowser; while Charizard and DK are more on the faster side and Wario is quite acrofatic. It is true however that this concept still applies to Ganondorf and K. Rool, but the latter does incorporate ranged options, same with the Samuses, Snake and ROB. And while having a ranged Neutral B for DK and Bowser wouldn't be a bad thing, it's baffling that your opinion on them appears to be very low when those characters tend to be well regarded among heavies for the most part; with Bowser even having decent tourney results.

With constantly victimizing the heavies, you create the illusion that they can't win no matter what. It's actually eye-roll inducing when some people appear to think that heavies have it particularly bad in Ultimate when once upon a time there were games called Melee and Brawl. Being an heavy in those games was actually soul crushing. Even back in Smash 64, Link couldn't recover. Bowser was pretty much the indisputed worst character in Melee, and boy, did they actually took the slow but strong archetype straight. I know because I was there back in high school and college. So when I pick a heavy in Ultimate, I look back to those times and actually breathe in relief that I have a good fighting chance even against bad matchups. I actually enjoy fighting those because it pushes me to improve. Could it be better? Most likely. But there is little point in focusing on something you can't control.

I never said that superheavies can't succeed at all, mate. I just said they aren't designed to succeed, i.e. they aren't designed with success in mind, which I entirely stand by mainly for the reasons stated in the previous paragraph (as well as being combo food, generally having poor recoveries, having an awful time landing leading to painful juggle scenarios and piss-poor disadvantage states, etc.). If anything, when people do succeed with superheavies like Ben Gold did with K. Rool, I mostly see that as being in spite of their character and not because of them (people can do well with bad characters if they put the time and effort in to overcome that character's weaknesses, which is great for them, but it doesn't exactly paint a pretty picture of the character themselves). Ultimate Bowser I feel is the exception to this, and that's mainly because the game designers actually thought to give him unique strengths among the superheavies like good all-around mobility and passive armor (along with being the heaviest, nigh hardest-hitting guy around to boot). If every other superheavy were designed to have their own unique strengths like Bowser, I feel they'd all be in a pretty respectable place right now - for instance, go all in on DDD's pseudo-heavy-zoner archetype and give him a projectile that's actually good for zoning. It speaks volumes to me that even other superheavies that people generally speak well of like DK still have bottom-tier results on the whole. Sure, it is better than it was in games like Melee and Brawl where superheavies had virtually no chance of success at any level other than casual (besides Snake, who was notably designed to play at range unlike most superheavies), but just because it's good for Smash standards doesn't mean it's actually good.

I also feel that the desire of these radical changes mostly comes up due to the players' own mediocrity. Perfectly plausible; after Ultimate's launch, this board and others were flooded with kids complaining that they weren't winning enough with K. Rool, while others complained that they were losing too much against him. A lot of people don't want to overcome obstacles, they want the road ahead to be as smooth and clean as possible, which is potentially dangerous for a person's development. Fighting game have come a long way and they have been getting better, which I like a lot, but it has also spoiled some of the younger generations. So when I see you suggesting that heavies just can't succeed as if they were doomed to fail in their current state no matter what, I can't help but think that maybe this is some projection of the quality of player that you are. No judgement of course!

Is it that I don't like Smash because I'm not good at it, or that I don't like Smash because I don't have fun with it? Maybe a little of both, but I think it's moreso the latter.

I'll do you one better and actually suggest a simple change that will help heavies without the need to reinvent the wheel and can be realistically accomplished in the game's current form. Improve recoveries by giving them some armor or intangibility frames. They don't have that much trouble engaging enemies but it's the issue of coming back that is more glaring. But if they can't be launched out of their recoveries, then they have more survivability. Just some frames of their recoveries, because being offstage shouldn't be entirely devoid of danger. Just improve on what you have. Sometimes simple works better. In the Pokemon series, some Pokemon improve when they gain a new forme but other times they make it better by increasing one base stat, adding a new ability and/or giving them access to move they couldn't use before. Seems a better solution than the mostly abstract ones that you suggest.

Sure, why not? That sounds like a great change that'd aid the superheavies' mostly subpar recovery game. That said, I don't like the implication that I've suggested 0 concrete solutions to the problem, considering I did in my original post in the form of the rangeplay option.

Addressing another of your points, I just don't see how Smash fails as a competitive game. Do not misunderstand me though, I am well aware of what it does right and what it does wrong. Before you get excited, I've seen the video. This doesn't mean that the game is a failure as a competitive game, and it actually thrives in spite of those issues. The input delay is an unfortunate one, but it doesn't make the game unplayable. I've also don't feel restricted when moving around, and I say this as somehow who also plays a lot of Fox and Mewtwo and has no difficulty controlling them. I actually have gotten to see players on and offline not having much difficulty with this and recall the scene being quite active with mostly weekly events before the pandemic rained down on us. I've personally liked the ability to use tilts and Smashes out of a dash.
Perhaps we've adapted better at the game while you fell behind? As pretentious as I may sound by saying that, it still doesn't come off as pretentious as you telling me with absolute certainty that players can't pull off cool stuff when perhaps you mean that you can't pull cool stuff at all. That would have been at least a more accurate and humble approach. When I pull off a ladder combo with Mario across platforms, sail with my opponent offstage with DK's Bairs and Up B, or convert follow ups from Samus' projectiles, Utilt and Dair, I find that pretty satisfying to do and cool to watch in my humble opinion. If this game isn't for you that is perfectly fine, but you also appear to be completely tone-deaf into why people are into this game competitively. People even gather around patch day as if it is Christmas because everyone likes seeing not only the new character but how older ones get improved (Ike and Falco buffs, baby!).

This seems like something we're just going to have to agree to disagree on; I find Smash to be absolutely dreadful as a competitive game and only get frustrated with it when I try and play in a non-hyper-casual setting, while most everyone else seems to think it's fine despite near-constant gripes about the handling, the online, the movement, etc. I dunno, maybe I'm just crazy. I will say, though, that I find Smash much harder to control than any other game I play, even with the optimal control setup, which is both funny and somewhat baffling considering how accessible it sets out to be. I guess you can say I don't get what people see in this game gameplay-wise, as when I ask people why they like Smash as a game, the only reason I ever seem to get is "the characters tho".

Also, your issue with camping seems very trivial. There are always going to be players who, given the opportunity, will play lame and camp out the whole match if they can. My brother is one of those people. I've put him Dragon Ball Budokai, King of Fighters, Marvel vs, Smash and Guilty Gear and he plays like that every damn time. He doesn't succeed at it for the most part, but it goes to show. You even acknowledged that this a basic trapping of Smash games in general. Don't want that Pit player to spam arrows on Temple? Don't pick the stage. That is a camper's paradise. Go somewhere smaller. Smash offers a lot of flexibility in rulesets, but you just seem unwilling to even think outside the box for a moment. If it's a casual match, outlame them by using items and such.

It is true that there will always be campy players in any game, but unlike in other games I play, in Smash, that ****'s encouraged. The lack of movement makes going on the offensive in general a complete and total slog, and even with the nerfs shields and dodges have gotten, defensive options are still stronger than offensive ones to the point that it's just a pain to play if that happens to be your preferred playstyle. And it's not totally a stage issue, either, I speak from experience when I say that people will find a way to camp on any stage if it keeps their ass safe, even tiny, tourney-legal ones like Battlefield. While I could just play their game and "outlame" them, at that point, I have to question if I'm having fun with the game anymore. Maybe it's just me, but if the game I'm playing forces me to play in a way that runs contrary to my preferred playstyle, then quite frankly, why not just play something else?

The thing about longer combos is that not I'm not sure if implementing them would be a healthy thing long-term. I suppose you are thinking about increasing the hitstun between attacks thus allowing your character to juggle more easily. Thing is that there are plenty of characters who get plenty of mileage by juggling opponents already, even if you take DI into account (try telling me again that you only get one or two hits out of Mario, Samus, Joker, or Kirby's combos before they are out ot range). So it would seem to that this is more of an asymmetric change. Characters with already strong combo game will only get better, while those who don't would end up worse. I think you are too caught up thinking about the wonders without considering the potential consequences. It doesn't seem like a well-thought idea.

Not even that, necessarily. Increasing hitstun would certainly extend combos, but I'm talking about just tweaking characters' toolkits to be more conducive to combos in the first place. Stuff like changing the knockback angles and frame data on certain attacks to make them better combo starters; I sure as hell know Mewtwo's Dtilt could use some better angles on it, for instance. If you're still worried about combos being too extensive or whatever, then make DI stronger to make DI mixups more prominent and common (y'know, like in Melee).

People keep using talking abotu a Smash reboot.

What is there to actually reboot? The series has no continuity or storyline. There's nothing to reboot.

You can change moves and change characters when you make the next game, but that's literally just what sequels do. Nobody considers Breath of the Wild a reboot of the Zelda series or Street Fighter 4, or Mario Odyssey. They're just sequels with stuff changed, because that's what sequels do.

Where does the "rebooted" part come in?

When I say "reboot" in reference to Smash, I mean it less in the sense of an all-out hard reset of the entire series and more as in a new game that isn't directed by Sakurai. A clean slate in one sense, but not in another. Sakurai's done great for the series and I respect the man a lot, but we've all seen how reluctant he can be to change stuff in his own game. (It took over a decade of campaigning for Ganondorf to get, what, a new set of Smash attacks?) So to be more precise, I wouldn't necessarily say I want a reboot specifically (though I certainly wouldn't object to the idea), I just want something new, really. Less a full-scale reboot and more of a paradigm shift, basically.

 

[stixie]

The buffer system is insanely annoying.

This x10000000

Can we not have completely lagless Smash attacks? They're supposed to be high-risk high-reward. Meanwhile Captain Falcon can shield before the "HOWW-AHHH" of his up smash even finishes

Also this!!!!!!! Smash attacks that cannot be punished on whiff are INSANELY STUPID. ALL OF THEM. From captain falcon to G&W to wolf etc. STOP DOING THIS NINTENDO IT'S DUMB!!

Salt..........

 

[Oddball]

When I say "reboot" in reference to Smash, I mean it less in the sense of an all-out hard reset of the entire series and more as in a new game that isn't directed by Sakurai. A clean slate in one sense, but not in another. Sakurai's done great for the series and I respect the man a lot, but we've all seen how reluctant he can be to change stuff in his own game. (It took over a decade of campaigning for Ganondorf to get, what, a new set of Smash attacks?) So to be more precise, I wouldn't necessarily say I want a reboot specifically (though I certainly wouldn't object to the idea), I just want something new, really. Less a full-scale reboot and more of a paradigm shift, basically.

You're telling me that when you say "reboot" what you mean is "a sequel with a different guy in charge." That's not a reboot. That has only the vaguest similarities of a reboot at best.

If you mean sequel, just say sequel.

 

[Lenidem]

You're telling me that when you say "reboot" what you mean is "a sequel with a different guy in charge." That's not a reboot. That has only the vaguest similarities of a reboot at best.

If you mean sequel, just say sequel.

He obviously means "an entry very different from what we've had so far". "Reboot" might not be the best term, but Ultimate is a "sequel" and that's the opposite of what he's been describing.

 

[Ze Diglett]

You're telling me that when you say "reboot" what you mean is "a sequel with a different guy in charge." That's not a reboot. That has only the vaguest similarities of a reboot at best.

If you mean sequel, just say sequel.

I mean, if I just wanted a sequel, I wouldn't be complaining about Ultimate, would I? In actuality, I want a sequel that takes the series in a new direction, and in a word, "reboot" is probably the closest thing to that.

 

[Deleted member]

Reminder that the stage from a Mario game is classified as a Yoshi stage, and the game attempts to justify that by putting a song from the Mario series in the music list for Yoshi series, rather then putting the stage from a Mario game, and the song from a Mario game, under the Mario series.

 

[Perkilator]

More of a Brawl thing, but man…the wasted potential with Petey Piranha is staggering. There are plenty of things he could alongside swinging the cages with the princesses in it (breathing fire, spitting goop out, etc.). But nope, jumping around and swinging cages is all he does.

He’s such a lame first boss, he was relegated to ‘s Final Smash in Ultimate. And then he actually decided to breathe fire.

 

[StrangeKitten]

More of a Brawl thing, but man…the wasted potential with Petey Piranha is staggering. There are plenty of things he could alongside swinging the cages with the princesses in it (breathing fire, spitting goop out, etc.). But nope, jumping around and swinging cages is all he does.

He’s such a lame first boss, he was relegated to ‘s Final Smash in Ultimate. And then he actually decided to breathe fire.

Wish he was still a boss too. After all, you don't get Final Smashes while fighting bosses anyway

 

[asia_catdog_blue]

Wish he was still a boss too. After all, you don't get Final Smashes while fighting bosses anyway

It makes me question if Sakurai's group put any actual form of logic in their work.

Considering that Chrom is both a playable fighter and Robin's Final Smash, guess not.

 

[Ice-N-Space]

Ultimate hardly lets you use your spirits in anything other then the story there should've been a mode for them in online play.

 

[Perkilator]

Small nitpick about Byleth: their specials are just named after the weapons he uses for said specials even though each one is used for multiple moves. I would name them like this:

: Verdant Wind
: Azure Moon
: Ruptured Sky
: Crimson Flower

 

[Perkilator]

Gotta how love how Ganon is the only boss to only fight characters from 1 series, and those characters just so happen to be three and a . Plus, those of the Zelda series who don’t fight Ganon () fight Master Hand instead.

 

[Lenidem]

The biggest flaw in Smash Ultimate is without a doubt the blue shell. Do I really need to say more? It flies! So it shouldn't be the spiky version, but the one with the wings. Talk about a disaster.