Does Sakurai actually care what we (fans) want?

[SmashChu]

Casual players won't need to care about the depth, because they'll be enjoying the game the same way they'd enjoy every other smash game. It's like whining about soccer because the kids at your local middle school don't go into deep tactics, it's because they don't care, and, so long as the current scheme remains unharmed, they will still enjoy smash. Ditto with playing against an experienced player. You aren't expecting Beckham to be dominating 7-year-olds, are you?

After all, soccer has enough depth for people to spend millions upon millions over watching it. Obviously, not accessible enough, though.

(also: oh my god do people sincerely believe melee is hard bahahahahahaha)

e: Alternatively: Kobe Bryant could probably beat a 6-year-old at basketball, and therefore basketball should be made with a shorter net, the ball should home into the net at all times, and at random the ball should just magically float out of your hands, because SHUT UP IT'S ACCESSIBILE DAMNIT

Sports are more watched than played, so the analogy wont work here. I could go more into this, but that is for another time.

The problem is you assume that this is all separate. That these so called casuals will not be effected. However, what I proposed suggest otherwise. If the game is faster, than it's hard for these "casuals". If there is more techniques, than these players will have a harder time as they simply lack knowledge that is not readily available. Both of these hurt a game.

The thing, this is not a vacuum. Things added in the game effect everyone. Is it wrong to believe that these casuals you call them would not be upset if the game was faster? Compeitive plaayers were effected when they removed techs and slowed down the game. Wouldn't it be the same in reverse?

Again, this is not a vacuum. Everyone is effected, and there are more casuals than competitive players (BTW, I hate the term "casual"). Basically, you can not have your cake and eat it too.

 

[El Duderino]

Most of what you described is not accessible.

All I described is what Smash's gameplay is. Take even part of that away and the game you're left with isn't really Smash at all, hense my recommendation to go play Cartoon Network: Punch Time Explosion instead. It's far closer to the game you're hoping Smash will become but realistically never will be.

 

[SmashChu]

All I described is what Smash's gameplay is. Take even part of that away and the game your left with isn't really Smash at all, hense my recommendation to go play Cartoon Network: Punch Time Explosion instead. It's far closer to the game your hoping Smash will become but realistically never will be.

This is Smash

The fact that you used the wrong names suggest a context problem. You have to look at it differently. Looking at it in the old context has halted everything about this discussion.

 

[El Duderino]

This is Smash

The fact that you used the wrong names suggest a context problem.

No, those are just the basic additions and changes to Brawl. They define what made Brawl different, not what makes Smash, well Smash. And you think I'm the confused one here.

 

[trash?]

I'm... actually kind of confused at you saying Melee was "too hard". I mean, when I was a kid and I played Melee, it was dead easy. I didn't know how to do fancy stuff like wavedashing, but -- and here's the important bit -- I didn't care. You keep going under the assumption that this "depth" will somehow alienate a player merely playing to have fun, when in reality, they... tend to not put too much effort into caring, because they're too busy enjoying themselves. And let me tell you: Melee was a damn enjoyable game. (I loved to play kirby and everything! I was like... the opposite of competitive with that game)

Accessibility is dead easy, because it's as simple as creating something that, on its surface, is dead simple (and of course, fun to play, but I think that's assumed from the getgo). From there, you can add depth, because by this point, the non-competitive player is satisfied by their silly, fun game to play. How you go about that is... entirely up to the creator, certainly, but it is entirely possible to please both. (I'd recommend against using constant fan opinions, because if the new Mortal Kombat and Jax has anything to show, that is the worst thing you could ever do)

It's possible to do it. It'd certainly be a difficult thing to pull off... but by all means, Nintendo, if nobody else, could very well manage it. (And, of course, Namco. I mean, they've made fighting games that had 50+ characters, and they were pretty nice.)

e: bold bit was edited in, you SHOULD listen, even just a bit, just... well, don't make monthly patches that buff a character everyone thought was terrible, only to find out he was already kind of broken to begin with.

 

[flyinfilipino]

Wait...now dodging and rolling are bad for casual players?

Also, you want to know why people continue this argument with you, SmashChu?

Because you keep saying stuff like:

There are two things that competitive players want in the game. The first is for things to be harder (like for the game to be faster) and more things (you all call these tech skillz), which I call bloat.

and

All of this is what comeptitive players want and why "depth," and accessibility can not exist. What the competitive players want is to increase the nature elements more to one extreme while adding more bloat. While you may say different, this is fundamentally what it will all come down to.

and

You see competitive Smash as the norm and how the game is. I see it as something separate. You see the core of what Smash is what you said.

and

What the competitive players want is for the game to be too hard

which just isn't true! (for the people that know what they're talking about, anyway) All the "competitive players" that you keep calling the enemy want a game that is still accessible and enjoyable to casual players (which is totally possible; don't you remember how fun and easy Melee was before you got on the Internet and started analyzing sales and Sakurai's quotes?), but has enough intuitive mechanics to keep gameplay engaging to people playing at a higher level. That's all; and while you may say different, that's all this really boils down to.

 

[El Duderino]

I think I just found the game SmashChu should be trumpeting with his whole "accessibility and depth can't coexist" kick:

Watch the Magic Here

Looks like Smash has a long way to go, the first obvious step being to remove all those bloat buttons.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Before I go on, let me remind those reading what my little points are. There are two things that competitive players want in the game. The first is for things to be harder .

What competitive players have you ever talked with that have "wanted" something like this. Show me something as evidence to support, lets say, just over 50%? That seems like a good, simple majority. Something to support that 50% of competitive players want the game to be harder to play.

You would think competitive players would like Brawl more, what with it being harder to tech, and harder to combo, and harder to punish, and harder to move your character.

 

[El Duderino]

Wait...now dodging and rolling are bad for casual players?

Either that or he is just being dismissive of anything that sounds remotely technical. The real sad thing is everything I mentioned is a huge part of Brawl's core gameplay too, with the majority dating back to 64. Just goes to show SmashChu is not bothering to fully understand what he is arguing against before calling it bloated. A few quick searches on the SmashWiki and he could have avoided getting caught with his pants down. Unless of course he really wants no rolling, no spiking, no dodging, no teching (almost no one refers to it as ukemi), no ledge-play, no attack variety, and no grabing. At that point he might as well just go play a shallow Smash clone instead.

 

[Ferio_Kun]

What I've seen saying, as always, is Sakurai is not going down that route and he shouldn't. Basically, he doesn't want to make this the norm.

While I do think we need something to balance the casual vs competitive players, I think Smashchu is saying the reality in this quote. Take out "and he shouldn't" and this is the impression I get from all of the Sakurai quotes.

I'm hoping the "customizing" the characters on the 3DS is that balance.

 

[Johnknight1]

Your brother's friend is good and true.

Last I heard, Brawl was barely second only to Monster Hunter Tri in average playtime per user (NA statistics, of course). I doubt it dropped off, considering it's still selling.

Yes, but how many hours are they playing, and how many players=??? In other words, you got links of these statistics=???

Sakurai is a brilliant designer, but when it comes to understanding the philosophies of competition he is a bit ignorant, or in brawls instance a flaming idiot. I love his games, but the man is no saint. You are capable of thinking independently so do it. Don't take his words at face value.

I still blame Brawl's "flaws" on Nintendo, HAL (for spending like 8 years making 2 Kirby games), and Game Arts. Seriously, Game Arts made a smash clone after Brawl called TMNT Smash-Up, and it was garbage. (Actually, that game seems to be "perfect" for the direction that SmashChu wants Smash to go in).

1)Competitive players (of all kinds), want some aspect of the game to be naturally harder. For Smash, it's speed.

Actually, most competitive players are okay with Brawl's speed. It's the poor use of this speed with land to air momentum shifts in Brawl (which was terribly designed), tripping, and all kinds of stuff that makes players (whether competitive, casual, or whatever label you want to put on any individual or group) fear that smash is turning out to be Super Monkey Ball. With each new Super Monkey Ball game, the series slowly took away control from the players. It literally made the player almost worthless because the game practically played itself. (that kind of coincides with what Kink-Link5 was saying)

Also, you are using over-generalizations to sum up "competitive players." And what are competitive players anyways=??? Isn't competitive described as someone who "wants to win=???" or "plays to win=???" Because if we use that true definition, that probably describes quite a lot of players.

The way the word "competitive" is used around here, it only is used to refer to players who play in tournament, and usually comes with some pre-determined opinion without even knowing the crowd (instead of having an open mind that this crowd doesn't have a clear difference of opinion amongst itself, and wants many different things, probably moreso than casuals). I would like to apply "competitive" to non-tournament going smashers who play to win, including those who don't know advanced techniques. Of course, contrary to what some people say, you can "play to win" and "have fun" at the same time. Smash Bros. doesn't deal in absolutes, other than absolute customization and fun.

I will say this category is where the happy medium comes in. If Smash is too slow, it wont be fun. Of course, competitive players will always want one extreme.

Again, you over-generalize a diverse and different demographic. Of course, I expect no less, since our world's media often over-generalizes the opinions of millions, or makes things about 2 points of views ("left vs. right") instead of as complex issues with a unique point of view held by each individual person. Stop labeling people like Fox News/MSNBC.

2)The other factor is extra goodies that adds this mystical depth. I'll take Street Fighter 4. It has not only the special moves (which are hard to pull off unless you've played these games a lot), but EX moves, supers, ultras, and focus attacks. There is even more if you play competitively.

But millions of casual Street Fighter IV players continue to play it, because there is instructions on how to use such attacks, and they are fun to use. It's not like having these advanced techniques makes the game less enjoyable for players who don't know them (unless they constantly face players who use them relentless against them, which is rare).

I very seriously ask, who wants less control of their character? I don't know any competitive or casual player who would say that is a good thing.

I have always felt an important part of smash bros is control. Even with every item on very high, you still control what your character does, where you go, and what moves you use. With Brawl, it really limits what you can do, even on the most basic casual level. It has nothing to do with game speed-it has to do with the design changes made in Brawl.

It's not that Brawl is an inaccessible game, but there are some big problems that drag it down in that regard. There's just more odd design decisions that can confuse new players. It's certainly less accessible than 64 and arguably Melee when you consider the setbacks.

Tripping, the lack of momentum shifting from land to air, stupid ledge grab invincibility, broken combos (chain grabs, too much stun for :nessbrawl: and :lucasbrawl, etc. were all stupid/poorly designed. Oh, and there are loads of imbalances, whether too weak or too strong, and quite a few things that are tournament banned because of poor programming.

 

[SmashChu]

No, those are just the basic additions and changes to Brawl. They define what made Brawl different, not what makes Smash, well Smash. And you think I'm the confused one here.

I actually misread your post, but I think it goes back to my context thing. Words mean a lot. I can tell you do not see Smash as Smash but as competitive Smash which are two different games). For instance, no one uses Spot Dodging as a term outside of this place.

But let's change directions shall we. Tell me, what would make Smash have "more depth'?

 

[Big-Cat]

Are we really discussing about a certain circle using certain terminology for the same thing? It's like comparing pronunciations of tomato.

 

[Johnknight1]

But let's change directions shall we. Tell me, what would make Smash have "more depth'?

The ability to do a lot of things/use different tools/different attacks (or even techniques) in a lot of different ways that give the users more control over the result of a match.This isn't limited to the advanced techniques. In fact, advanced techniques might not have as big of an impact on the matches of the best of the best as the simple aspects of smash.

Things as simple as being able to use Directional Influence, teching and the ability to tech off of various things (the ground, walls, and roofs!), the ability to run and running, wall jumping (and how it impacts recovery), wall clinging, tether recovery, the ability to play off the stage, the ability to kill someone by spiking them, change your speed and momentum, have multiple uses of various attacks (such as how you can use the basic A-A-A combo or A hold down combos, and use them for various combos, tech chases, kills, or positioning) shielding and various simple things involving shield, simple tech chases, grabbing and the grab system (and how it changes offense, defense, and even recovery), etc. have loads of depth, and add a ton to smash bros (competitively, casually, or whatever label you want to put on a player or match).

The list of this simple stuff that all smash bros fans know of that can be used to such a deep and competitive stuff (whether on accident or on purpose) is amazing.

 

[Eternal phoenix Fire]

All of this is what comeptitive players want and why "depth," and accessibility can not exist.

How can it not exist when it has existed throughout the entire series? Players who wanted to get better had the tools to get better, the people who didn't want to played the same. It's simple.

No one is asking for the game to be harder, the game has lways been the same difficulty for casual players for all three of the games. Th only reason why you people say the game is hard now is because Sakurai said something about it, and there is no way in hell you can convince me otherwise. I got Melee when I was 11 years old and I had no problem keeping up with it, same with smash 64. The problem is the fact that Sakurai for some reason had to deliberately make the game so that everyone could win, was it because of the man himselft or Nintendo's previous demographic? Who knows, but Brawl was a complete mockery of the franchise as it took away so much familiar content without adding much but a half ***** redundant story mode.

All games are accessible. If you want to get good than expect to put in work. If you don;t want to play smash like that then play it your way. What people in general need to do is stop complaining about something that they could ignore all together.

 

[Kink-Link5]

Smashchu is just a small sub-culture of a large demographic of casual players: Those that care enough to look at the competitive aspect, but unwilling to partake in it either due to singular bad experiences, or pure bitter observation of another small sub-culture of a different demographic. He is what we call a bigot. Or stubborn, if you prefer. He is not by any means a voice of casual players, as many can attest, and is, instead, a voice of 15- to 21-year-olds who view Smash, much like a large portion of the srk community, as a casual-exclusive party game. Any deviation from the default settings is wrong and bad, and anyone who chooses to play the game in a way that goes against his perfectly framed picture of the game is a joyless husk of a human who does not know how to have fun and hates anyone who plays the game differently. No matter what arguments one brings up to a person like Smashchu, he will always fall back on using pejoratives against people who play video games in a way he doesn't like.

 

[Aurane]

Smashchu is just a small sub-culture of a large demographic of casual players: Those that care enough to look at the competitive aspect, but unwilling to partake in it either due to singular bad experiences, or pure bitter observation of another small sub-culture of a different demographic. He is what we call a bigot. Or stubborn, if you prefer. He is not by any means a voice of casual players, as many can attest, and is, instead, a voice of 15- to 21-year-olds who view Smash, much like a large portion of the srk community, as a casual-exclusive party game. Any deviation from the default settings is wrong and bad, and anyone who chooses to play the game in a way that goes against his perfectly framed picture of the game is a joyless husk of a human who does not know how to have fun and hates anyone who plays the game differently. No matter what arguments one brings up to a person like Smashchu, he will always fall back on using pejoratives against people who play video games in a way he doesn't like.

Kick back, relax, and watch the show.

Anyways, I think the fact that Sakurai basically copies off of the Kirby series to make SSBB is showing an unimaginative mind.

 

[Kink-Link5]

There is no show to watch. Smashchu is adamantly opposed to anything that gets within a mile of serious in-depth discussion of game mechanics.

 

[Aurane]

There is no show to watch. Smashchu is adamantly opposed to anything that gets within a mile of serious in-depth discussion of game mechanics.

Oh that's too bad. Well, anyways thanks for informing us about this unknown legend about Smashchu.

I assume you want a medal for your deed, sir?

 

[Kink-Link5]

So much pretentiousness. So few words.

 

[Aurane]

So much pretentiousness. So few words.

What a pretty word.

Spoiler

Back on thread topic? No? Okay.

 

[MR. K]

i'm surprised people are still arguing with that troll/idiot....smashchu doesn't even have a clue about what he's talking about and is just going on about how he wants the smash bros games to tailor to noobs like himself entirely

 

[Big-Cat]

Oh that's too bad. Well, anyways thanks for informing us about this unknown legend about Smashchu.

I assume you want a medal for your deed, sir?

Hey, now. No need to be a jerk to him. And this is coming from me, someone's who's been arguing with Chu for years now.

 

[El Duderino]

I actually misread your post, but I think it goes back to my context thing. Words mean a lot. I can tell you do not see Smash as Smash but as competitive Smash which are two different games.

I see smash as a game lots of people enjoy playing on different levels. I'm ok with that, after all who am I to say how someone else should have their fun. No reason you should think different, unless of course you are on some utterly pointless crusade to label people into opposing camps and dismiss the idea that interests can overlap. To that I say congratulations, you are a big part of the problem.

 

[Pichu4SSB4]

This is Smash

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

Yes, but how many hours are they playing, and how many players=??? In other words, you got links of these statistics=???

Got curious and had to find recent data. And here it is! Courtesy of the Nintendo Channel, which you might've downloaded that one time.

[COLLAPSE="facts, ma'am"]

edit:
Approx. Sub. = Approximate Submissions, or the number of people who submitted play data for that title
WW LTD = Worldwide Life-to-date, aka SALES YO! Note that all other figures are only representative of North American users
Other facts: Nintendo Channel only takes data from people with it installed and have selected to "Opt In." Also has a playtime limit of 6 hours per day and 1 session per day (presumably per title)[/COLLAPSE]

I'd focus on comparisons to Mario Kart myself, but, you know, do whatever.


Seems like anytime I'm interested in discussing something here, it's devolved into "Chu just don't get it." If only you guys could pretend he doesn't exist for like 5 seconds.

 

[Johnknight1]

Got curious and had to find recent data. And here it is! Courtesy of the Nintendo Channel, which you might've downloaded that one time. [COLLAPSE="facts, ma'am"]

[/COLLAPSE]

Cool numbers bro, thanks! This information is pretty sweet... although I don't entirely get what "WW LTD" means! On a side note, I think approximate sub means the number of players, which would be 2 1/4 million users; the question is how long of a time period were these numbers based off of, and is this exclusive to people with WiFi/online play=???

I'd focus on comparisons to Mario Kart myself, but, you know, do whatever.

The thing that pops out to me is the low Skyward Sword numbers. What the heck=???

Seems like anytime I'm interested in discussing something here, it's devolved into "Chu just don't get it." If only you guys could pretend he doesn't exist for like 5 seconds.

Go ahead and discuss what you want to discuss. You can change the topic if you want to. Otherwise, the topic is this.

 

[Life]

^Skyward Sword is relatively new, might have something to do with it.

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

Cool numbers bro, thanks! This information is pretty sweet... although I don't entirely get what "WW LTD" means! On a side note, I think approximate sub means the number of players, which would be 2 1/4 million users; the question is how long of a time period were these numbers based off of, and is this exclusive to people with WiFi/online play=???

The thing that pops out to me is the low Skyward Sword numbers. What the heck=???

Edited the post to explain some details. The number of submissions counts every Wii that has submitted data for that particular title.

Skyward Sword is low because A) it's a newer title, B) fewer people are submitting info, C) it hasn't sold as much as most of the other games, and D) it's not as long or inherently replayable as any of the other titles. To be fair, it's one of two titles with a Platinum rating (the other being Metroid Prime Trilogy).

Go ahead and discuss what you want to discuss. You can change the topic if you want to. Otherwise, the topic is this.

Peh. They're butchering the classics. Could that bassoon have come in any more late?

I'd like to get a sense of what people are trying to argue without having Chu jump in to muck everything up. Kinda hoping Jeff Bridges sums it up, he seems on the ball.

 

[Johnknight1]

Edited the post to explain some details. The number of submissions counts every Wii that has submitted data for that particular title.

Yeah thanks. Those explanations help.

Skyward Sword is low because A) it's a newer title, B) fewer people are submitting info, C) it hasn't sold as much as most of the other games, and D) it's not as long or inherently replayable as any of the other titles.

Yeah, the sales didn't surprise me, but the hours Skyward Swords was played did. Still the 6 hour "limit" might have something to do with it.

I'd like to get a sense of what people are trying to argue without having Chu jump in to muck everything up. Kinda hoping Jeff Bridges sums it up, he seems on the ball.

Maybe by "denouncing" Chu the point of the thread got lost, but otherwise, I felt most of the posters (specifically by El Duderino, flyinfilipino, and KumaOso) and posts made fair points from multiple and dynamic angles. Truth be told, the simple gameplay and full control of character movement in Smash is where most of its' depth comes from. Unless you remove that (like in that video El Duderino posted where all characters could do is jump and kick), there will be competitive depth in smash bros forever.

And while Chu made some good points, I feel that often they were muddled in the his points that "Smash is anti-competitive," his repeating of the same few points from the same angles, and his over-generalization the diverse smash community (into two groups, with all people in each group having with the same static generalized opinions).

 

[El Duderino]

I'd like to get a sense of what people are trying to argue without having Chu jump in to muck everything up. Kinda hoping Jeff Bridges sums it up, he seems on the ball.

Speaking for myself, I'm just simply saying what makes Smash a lasting fun game is the successful balance of depth and accessibility. Without Smash's level of depth casual play would get boring after the first couple of hours or less. Without the accessibility, competitive play would get too convoluted and loose the quick and easy decision making. Having both makes the overall experience better for everyone and as long as it's well executed, we shouldn't dismiss or fear more of a good thing.

With that in mind, this continual push to separate the fanbase into opposing sides is completely ********. Nearly every issue we bicker over could be solved by considering the above. If the depth is compelling, what can be altered to keep it within reach for more players? If an accessible gameplay element is helpful, how do you make it positively contribute to the metagame? In both cases if there's no logical answer, it's probably a good sign it's bloat . Until we can collectively start agreeing more on this stuff, Sakuari should distance himself from conflicting fan requests and just focus in on our overlapping interests.

 

[Kink-Link5]

I think we can all agree that better and more control over your character is a good thing in every way.

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

Oh, I already knew that.

A while ago, I posted some bits about Sakurai's intent, about how he wasn't (isn't, I should say) deliberately trying to screw over any particular segment of fans. Seems unnecessary if people aren't claiming that he was, though.

 

[El Duderino]

I think we can all agree that better and more control over your character is a good thing in every way.

Think it is also fair to say we all to some degree want new gameplay additions and retooled mechanics. It's the 4th game in the series after all, there needs to be at least some incremental progress to justify the new installment.

 

[ToiseOfChoice]

Well that's a given. Sakurai always wants his games to feel different, and I'd personally argue that he's done a good job in that regard.

 

[GiantBreadbug]

Jus' saying, you don't have to "justify" a new Smash Bros., especially with "progress" in gameplay.

I just don't think you guys are getting what Smash Bros. is. That statement is not an advocation for staleness, but sheesh, you gotta be blind to see that there's more going on with Smash Bros. than fighting game mechanics.

 

[Big-Cat]

Jus' saying, you don't have to "justify" a new Smash Bros., especially with progress in gameplay.

I just don't think you guys are getting what Smash Bros. is.

Yes, you do. Smash Bros. isn't exempt from having to justify its sequels outside of a money maker. Sakurai himself, since so many cling to his words instead of thinking for themselves, even said that something like just expanding the roster wouldn't justify a sequel. You may only view Smash Bros. as a big fanservice game, and it is, but you can't have a fun game without good fighting mechanics considering that it's a FIGHTING GAME. It's like anime. You can have all the fanservice in the world, but engaging characters and plot are the meat and potatoes of any good anime.

Also, Divekick is the greatest game ever made. It's also a joke that is somehow getting a proper online release. At least it'll make for a party game when no one gives a care about what happens. If you want to see how big of a joke this is, here's the game's parody of Dr. Doom: Dr. Victoria Shoals. Her backstory says that she wears a mask because she is recovering from a foot dive injury.
[COLLAPSE="Dr. Victoria Shoals"]

[/COLLAPSE]

 

[Johnknight1]

@ Kuma
That chick from Dive Kick has the Star Fox metal legs, lmao! NEW SPACE ANIMAL CUNF1RM3D FOR SMASH WII-U AND 3DS!!!

Think it is also fair to say we all to some degree want new gameplay additions and retooled mechanics. It's the 4th game in the series after all, there needs to be at least some incremental progress to justify the new installment.

One of these games is also the 5th game, which means we'll probably get 2 different "interpretations" of how to retool and recreate the series without drastically changing the formula. That added element (of 2 games being made at once), possibly with 2 different (yet the same?) gameplay is going to make this at least twice as interesting.

 

[Big-Cat]

@ Kuma
That chick from Dive Kick has the Star Fox metal legs, lmao! NEW SPACE ANIMAL CUNF1RM3D FOR SMASH WII-U AND 3DS!!!

Then that means a space animal was confirmed for Marvel as she's a parody of Dr. Doom. Oh wait....
[COLLAPSE="Space Animal"]

[/COLLAPSE]

One of these games is also the 5th game, which means we'll probably get 2 different "interpretations" of how to retool and recreate the series without drastically changing the formula. That added element (of 2 games being made at once), possibly with 2 different (yet the same?) gameplay is going to make this at least twice as interesting.

I like the idea behind doing two interpretations, but the fact that interconnectivity is going to be a role is probably what makes it so unlikely for that to happen. Let's not forget either that they'd have to make two versions of every character for balance purposes.

 

[GiantBreadbug]

You may only view Smash Bros. as a big fanservice game, and it is, but you can't have a fun game without good fighting mechanics considering that it's a FIGHTING GAME.

Well the fighting mechanics are good. I guess they could use some tweaking so there's no more uproar a la Brawl, but at its core Smash Bros. is a solid system.

And it's not just about the roster. It's about representing periods of Nintendo history through the Smash Bros. experience. Smash Bros. is about characters, stages, music, collectables, and anything that can be used to further Smash Bros.'s role as a giant Nintendo encyclopedia. And as long as Smash Bros. games aren't coming out every year, that is something that is always going to happen. Smash Bros. isn't going to get stale if it doesn't get drastically deeper in each installment. At least, not to it's intended audience.

To throw another Sakurai-ism back at you, in this very recent interview, Sakurai basically calls the combat system "complete." To me it sounds like any major additions to the gameplay will come in the form of things like Smash Balls and Assist Trophies.

Smash Bros. is a vehicle for fanservice, first and foremost, whether anyone likes to acknowledge it or not.

But my statement might end up being interpreted as a vendetta against innovation, so I should go ahead and say that's not what I'm advocating.