I am really not excited for this game any more - possible spoilers

[Mogisthelioma]

ZSS was added in Brawl solely because of being a Metroid rep. I said that poorly.

I want Waluigi for that too, plus the fun stuff he does beyond that. His personality is great~

Ah, poor Metroid.

Waluigi's personality is awesome. He's supposed to be "Bad Luigi" (hence Wa-), and Luigi is already designed to be some awkward, slippery, almost cowardly brother of Mario, so Waluigi gets some pretty interesting traits from that. Lanky, annoying, and headstrong.

 

[soviet prince]

I
Never
Believed
The
Grinch
Leak


I really dont think they try to get all the characters in the game that everyone wants. They do that a little, but they then pump out promotional crap as well.



Why did modes NEED to be cut in smash bros ULTIMATE? Those basic modes shoulda been shoe ins, and then there should have been even more new modes for us to enjoy. The game is celebrating all of smash, so at the very least, those staples of the game should have made it in. And the argument "go play melee" is just so hollow. Clearly people want to play a new game with new challenges. Which is the problem.. we're getting new games without new challenges. We're getting recycled challenges.

I love when people say opinions arent facts. Sure theyre not, but there is something called game design 101, and there are certain rules that when followed you achieve a much deeper, challenging, fun game. When you get too far away from those rules, the game becomes more flimsy and less technical. For arguments sake here - are we going to argue something like RE6 is better than RE4? RE4 is absolutely the superior game and there is nothing to be said about that. No opinions. Its objective. If you say otherwise you are absolutely wrong and should stop talking about games. And how about Mario kart 64 vs mario kart 8? 8 has SO much more content, but 64 had way more depth to the gameplay which made it a lot more fun. MK8 severely lacked any character and depth even with all that content. When you look at games and break down their design pros and cons, you can strip them down to bear bones and make clear points as to why the game is good or bad or so-so. Ultimate has a lot of good going for it, but there are a lot of shortcuts being made to make some parts of the game look bigger than they actually are (im talking purely game modes here not characters).

WOL does not really look that good to me, it looks very shallow. Classic mode looks a lot better from what i've seen. WOL looks impressive at the surface, but its jsut got a lot of flashy bells and whistles attached to it without a lot of substance or depth.

What customs do you mean?



I cant get mad at this post lol. You're right. It's just been disappointing since melee. Since Ganondorf was a clone, its been a disappointing journey. And smash Ultimate sounded like its really gona take it to the next level, and while it has in a few ways, it really hit the breaks HARD all of a sudden. It really seemed like all the characters that sakurai has ever considered in the past had the best chance ever to get in right now. And if they cant get in now, well theyre never gona make it. Really there are just so damn many characters in the smash roster that have me and my friends asking why? And that doesnt even include piranha plant. I would replace PP with any character, but PP is above a lot of other characters in the game. Like seriously Corrin, Robyn, Clonendorf, wii fit trainer, duck hunt, greninja, Incinaroar, Isabelle. Im less bothered by the last few honestly, but they really are just a waste of space when you take into account the following. There are so many characters bloating the roster, when there are so many other characters that would be SO MUCH MORE MEANINGFUL to add. There are so many nintendo IP's that would mean so much more to nintendo if they were added, and would mean so much more to nintendo fans. In my list above, wii fit, and duck hunt are probably the most meaningful inclusions that i dont personally enjoy, and Clonendorf is a very meaningful inclusion from the start, but its was such a disservice to the character, and a solution should have been implemented to have hi decloned in brawl. But what my point was here is that those three additions are a lot better than adding generic pokemon and generic anime sword fighters.

And it's seriously completely insane to deconfirm characters like isaak and skull kid when they could be dlc. Why would they not free up these insanely popular characters and literally use them to sell the **** outa dlc? Its nuts.

those character you listed are minor characters, issac is from a dead series that most ppl have not heard of, skull kid only been in 2 games with one just being a cameo, that to me is not one big omission. The roster is almost complete there is very few missing with most missing are from the games that did not make the deadline.

 

[lucasla]

Waluigi isn't important at all. He's a meme. It'd be cool to have a meme status fighter who literally says "WAAAH" all of the time and fights with a tennis racket. But I agree with you, would rather have more important characters than him.

With this I think the position as an Assist Trophy is more than enough for Waluigi, cause this way he is "secondary" in Smash just like he is in any game he is in. At least for me, if he was chosen to be a character instead of any other greater character, I would be pretty sad. He can do his meme thing as a trophy and go away...

 

[Sabertooth]

I'm not excited for this game because I have to write two research papers and take four finals before I can play it.

 

[TheTrueBrawler]

I'm not excited for this game because I have to write two research papers and take four finals before I can play it.

I got the same issues too. Three papers to write. High school midterms for me aren't until January, but still.

I'm still excited however for when I get it this Christmas.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

I'm not excited for this game because I have to write two research papers and take four finals before I can play it.

I got midterms and **** right after. Really sucks to release a game this close to exam time.

 

[EricTheGamerman]

I'm not excited for this game because I have to write two research papers and take four finals before I can play it.

I got midterms and **** right after. Really sucks to release a game this close to exam time.

I'm right there with you all. I've got four papers of varying length to write for my courses in the next two weeks and I'm wondering just how much I'll get to play of the game. I probably shouldn't be spending half my free time writing on SmashBoards because of that, but eh, I enjoy it.

Also, finals or not, I'm still going to the midnight release of the game. I'm going to play for a little while regardless of what's going on. Smash is just too important for me not to play on release (Plus, the benefit of writing papers is it's just up to me to manage time...)

 

[BronzeGreekGod]

THAT IS SUBJECTIVE

No its not. Good game design is not subjective, its fact.

Adding more modes with good game design makes a game better period. Maybe some people prefer single player and some prefer multiplayer... and even those who prefer multiplayer then get single player fun they can have with smash. A game normally meant only for multiplayer now becomes a fun single player game as well.

Nothing subjective here whatsoever.

And saying WOL and SSE are not as good as melee break the targets and adventure mode isnt subjective either. It goes back to good game design vs game design made just to pad the game with more modes. Maybe playing through SSE is somehow enjoyable to some people, but there is no in depth game design or thought put into SSE at all. Its just boring stages where you beat up boring generic AI's. Like i argued before - theres nothing subjective about saying a game like re4 is better than re6. its just better - thats a fact, and if you say otherwise you're wrong and shouldnt be discussing this topic at all.

When a game becomes as world renowned as shovel knight, and then other similar games are not as popular or well recieved, 90% of the time, its cause they suck, and shovel knight is amazing. That is not subjective.

Im making random game examples here to make the point that good game design is not a subjective thing. Smash bros' single player had some masterfully crafted levels with incredible game design, and that made its single player one of the best single player experiences in a fighting game ever. And those single player modes were far superior in the older smash bros games due to their game design. That isnt subjective.

 

[meleebrawler]

No its not. Good game design is not subjective, its fact.

Adding more modes with good game design makes a game better period. Maybe some people prefer single player and some prefer multiplayer... and even those who prefer multiplayer then get single player fun they can have with smash. A game normally meant only for multiplayer now becomes a fun single player game as well.

Nothing subjective here whatsoever.

And saying WOL and SSE are not as good as melee break the targets and adventure mode isnt subjective either. It goes back to good game design vs game design made just to pad the game with more modes. Maybe playing through SSE is somehow enjoyable to some people, but there is no in depth game design or thought put into SSE at all. Its just boring stages where you beat up boring generic AI's. Like i argued before - theres nothing subjective about saying a game like re4 is better than re6. its just better - thats a fact, and if you say otherwise you're wrong and shouldnt be discussing this topic at all.

When a game becomes as world renowned as shovel knight, and then other similar games are not as popular or well recieved, 90% of the time, its cause they suck, and shovel knight is amazing. That is not subjective.

Im making random game examples here to make the point that good game design is not a subjective thing. Smash bros' single player had some masterfully crafted levels with incredible game design, and that made its single player one of the best single player experiences in a fighting game ever. And those single player modes were far superior in the older smash bros games due to their game design. That isnt subjective.

Why did YOU start a discussion then, if everything you say is objective and not worth discussing?

 

[Mogisthelioma]

No its not. Good game design is not subjective, its fact.

Adding more modes with good game design makes a game better period. Maybe some people prefer single player and some prefer multiplayer... and even those who prefer multiplayer then get single player fun they can have with smash. A game normally meant only for multiplayer now becomes a fun single player game as well.

Nothing subjective here whatsoever.

And saying WOL and SSE are not as good as melee break the targets and adventure mode isnt subjective either. It goes back to good game design vs game design made just to pad the game with more modes. Maybe playing through SSE is somehow enjoyable to some people, but there is no in depth game design or thought put into SSE at all. Its just boring stages where you beat up boring generic AI's. Like i argued before - theres nothing subjective about saying a game like re4 is better than re6. its just better - thats a fact, and if you say otherwise you're wrong and shouldnt be discussing this topic at all.

When a game becomes as world renowned as shovel knight, and then other similar games are not as popular or well recieved, 90% of the time, its cause they suck, and shovel knight is amazing. That is not subjective.

Im making random game examples here to make the point that good game design is not a subjective thing. Smash bros' single player had some masterfully crafted levels with incredible game design, and that made its single player one of the best single player experiences in a fighting game ever. And those single player modes were far superior in the older smash bros games due to their game design. That isnt subjective.

He means SUBJECTIVE as in MAYBE NOT EVERYONE LIKED THOSE GAMEMODES.

I didn't like them either. I have no problem that they're gone, and i'm fine, since it probably saved a lot of time. Adding more modes doesn't make a game any better, they actually have to be good. Like I said, clearly they either didn't have an incentive to re create those gamemodes yet another time, and probably didn't receive enough positive feedback from them to warrant doing so.

Here you are saying "Melee BTT was awesome, blah blah blah," and then taking a royal **** on SSE and WOL, gamemodes they arguably spent more time designing and clearly received more positive feedback that break the targets did. WAKE UP. It's almost 2019. People aren't interested in breaking targets anymore. People are more interested in motivating gameplay that drives you to the next part, i.e., a story driven level-by-level adventure mode.

And YES, it is subjective. If someone says "Shovel Knight sucks!" that's their opinion. The turnout of a game is based on people's opinions on it, WHICH IS ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE. Even if they don't have the popular opinion, it's subjective nonetheless.

"Shovel Knight is amazing. That is not subjective." Yes it is, since you are using the adjective "amazing" to describe how YOU feel about it. Thus, it becomes subjective. For someone who doesn't like Shovel Knight, however, they can say "Shovel knight is a load of giblets" and make the same pathetic argument you are, claiming it to be a fact.

You're on this thread saying that something is good game design and it's a fact. Clearly you are wrong, otherwise we would see these gamemodes in Ultimate. Whether or not something is good game design is also subjective. For example, someone may like BotW's stamina meter for giving them satisfying rewards for scaling high mountains, or others may hate it for limiting their options when trying to get somewhere. It's subjective. So is BTT. You're complaining that ****ing Melee BTT is like the best thing ever and trumps both story modes Smash has seen and yet here you are saying none of that is subjective and that it's a fact, like you can read it in an encyclopedia somewhere.

The only time when game design is truly better is when it's strictly better, i.e., bringing a game from 720p to 1080p with no fallbacks in framerate or performance levels and not having to scale back the content of the game as a result.

Obviously single player gamemodes aren't going to be the focal point of what's supposed to be a party game. It's like throwing a party for yourself in Mario part or whatever and playing with only CPU's. They're focused more on exciting multiplayer action instead of gamemodes only one person can play. Don't like it? Suck it up, buttercup. If you want to play Melee BTT, go hang out in the dwindling "Melee is the best" community, because that's literally how you're acting right now.

As far as I'm concerned, this entire thread has been your pampered ungrateful little *** whining like a sick dog about the game not meeting 100% of your expectations. GROW UP. The development team didn't spend almost four years designing this game just so you could cry about not having Isaac or Melee BTT. I hope you didn't spend too much money printing out tickets to your pity party, since no one's going.

Now remind me, how come it's so hard for you to deal with it like everyone else? What makes you so special?

Why did YOU start a discussion then, if everything you say is objective and not worth discussing?

Good point.

 

[Khao]

No its not. Good game design is not subjective, its fact.

This statement is not necessarily wrong.

But the fact that you're implying that "adding more modes" is good game design just tells me that you're in no way an authority on the subject.

Are you familiar with the term "Feature Creep"? It refers to a mentality involving blindly adding more and more features to a project without any thought about it's overall quality, just thinking that more is good. Eventually, adding enough to a project ends up taking away from the core of its design and can indeed make a game worse as a result, especially once you consider the fact that games (even AAA projects) have a limited budget.

A game doesn't have to do everything. A game that does one thing amazingly well will almost always be better than a game that does multiple things in a mediocre manner. Adding more modes for the sake of it is quite literally the opposite of good game design. Good game design is making the most of the resources you have available and recognizing what's worth doing and what isn't. No game is truly ever complete. There's always ideas that were not realized. Always content that didn't make the cut. There's always things that sound good on paper but don't actually improve the quality of the game in a substantial manner. You always, always have to make sacrifices, and the ability to aknowledge what needs to be sacrificed for the overall quality of the whole package is what separates a great game developer from the rest of the crowd.

This game prioritized some things before others. Sm4sh was criticized for having a... "dissapointing" single player experience to say the least. For Ultimate, they decided to solve this by sacrificing arguably superficial game modes and certain elements to add a worthwhile single-player adventure, tied to a highly replayable system of borderline infinite event-style battles that are (and this is more important for the health of the project than you might realize) easy to develop. All of that without taking many resources away from the multiplayer portion of the game, which is possibly what made "Everyone is Back" happen in the first place.

If you think this is bad game design I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

A game doesn't have to do everything. A game that does one thing amazingly well will almost always be better than a game that does multiple things in a mediocre manner. Adding more modes for the sake of it is quite literally the opposite of good game design. Good game design is making the most of the resources you have available and recognizing what's worth doing and what isn't. No game is truly ever complete. There's always ideas that were not realized. Always content that didn't make the cut. There's always things that sound good on paper but don't actually improve the quality of the game in a substantial manner. You always, always have to make sacrifices, and the ability to aknowledge what needs to be sacrificed for the overall quality of the whole package is what separates a great game developer from the rest of the crowd.

This game prioritized some things before others. Sm4sh was criticized for having a... "dissapointing" single player experience to say the least. For Ultimate, they decided to solve this by sacrificing arguably superficial game modes and certain elements to add a worthwhile single-player adventure, tied to a highly replayable system of borderline infinite event-style battles that are (and this is more important for the health of the project than you might realize) easy to develop. All of that without taking many resources away from the multiplayer portion of the game, which is possibly what made "Everyone is Back" happen in the first place.

If you think this is bad game design I don't know what to tell you.

The problem is, too many people are too unwilling to accept that. If the game doesn't have everything they ever wanted and expected, they'll treat it like the dev team wronged them and didn't think about them, which is clearly what we're seeing on this thread.

 

[Luigifan18]

The problem is, too many people are too unwilling to accept that. If the game doesn't have everything they ever wanted and expected, they'll treat it like the dev team wronged them and didn't think about them, which is clearly what we're seeing on this thread.

Sounds more like it's being treated like the dev team took a huge steaming dump all over their stovetop...

 

[meleebrawler]

The problem is, too many people are too unwilling to accept that. If the game doesn't have everything they ever wanted and expected, they'll treat it like the dev team wronged them and didn't think about them, which is clearly what we're seeing on this thread.

This, I feel, is the underlying thought process behind most of those who believe spirits deconfirm. There is no actual, tangible reason they can't be made playable later, but most people believe it anyway because they think the devs believe that's all they deserve, whether the fans agree or not. It certainly makes for a nice sob story... whether or not we ever get fighters that were spirits first, not getting them won't actually be because of their status.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

This, I feel, is the underlying thought process behind most of those who believe spirits deconfirm. There is no actual, tangible reason they can't be made playable later, but most people believe it anyway because they think the devs believe that's all they deserve, whether the fans agree or not. It certainly makes for a nice sob story... whether or not we ever get fighters that were spirits first, not getting them won't actually be because of their status.

Most people who claim that Spirits deconfirm only say so because they view some Spirits as competition against their most wanted. This is also another good reason.

 

[BronzeGreekGod]

Why did YOU start a discussion then, if everything you say is objective and not worth discussing?

Not everything i say is objective. Just game design is objective. Theres nothing subjective about breaking down a game and discussing whether its game design is good or not.

He means SUBJECTIVE as in MAYBE NOT EVERYONE LIKED THOSE GAMEMODES.

I didn't like them either. I have no problem that they're gone, and i'm fine, since it probably saved a lot of time. Adding more modes doesn't make a game any better, they actually have to be good. Like I said, clearly they either didn't have an incentive to re create those gamemodes yet another time, and probably didn't receive enough positive feedback from them to warrant doing so.

Here you are saying "Melee BTT was awesome, blah blah blah," and then taking a royal **** on SSE and WOL, gamemodes they arguably spent more time designing and clearly received more positive feedback that break the targets did. WAKE UP. It's almost 2019. People aren't interested in breaking targets anymore. People are more interested in motivating gameplay that drives you to the next part, i.e., a story driven level-by-level adventure mode.

And YES, it is subjective. If someone says "Shovel Knight sucks!" that's their opinion. The turnout of a game is based on people's opinions on it, WHICH IS ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE. Even if they don't have the popular opinion, it's subjective nonetheless.

"Shovel Knight is amazing. That is not subjective." Yes it is, since you are using the adjective "amazing" to describe how YOU feel about it. Thus, it becomes subjective. For someone who doesn't like Shovel Knight, however, they can say "Shovel knight is a load of giblets" and make the same pathetic argument you are, claiming it to be a fact.

You're on this thread saying that something is good game design and it's a fact. Clearly you are wrong, otherwise we would see these gamemodes in Ultimate. Whether or not something is good game design is also subjective. For example, someone may like BotW's stamina meter for giving them satisfying rewards for scaling high mountains, or others may hate it for limiting their options when trying to get somewhere. It's subjective. So is BTT. You're complaining that ****ing Melee BTT is like the best thing ever and trumps both story modes Smash has seen and yet here you are saying none of that is subjective and that it's a fact, like you can read it in an encyclopedia somewhere.

The only time when game design is truly better is when it's strictly better, i.e., bringing a game from 720p to 1080p with no fallbacks in framerate or performance levels and not having to scale back the content of the game as a result.

Obviously single player gamemodes aren't going to be the focal point of what's supposed to be a party game. It's like throwing a party for yourself in Mario part or whatever and playing with only CPU's. They're focused more on exciting multiplayer action instead of gamemodes only one person can play. Don't like it? Suck it up, buttercup. If you want to play Melee BTT, go hang out in the dwindling "Melee is the best" community, because that's literally how you're acting right now.

As far as I'm concerned, this entire thread has been your pampered ungrateful little *** whining like a sick dog about the game not meeting 100% of your expectations. GROW UP. The development team didn't spend almost four years designing this game just so you could cry about not having Isaac or Melee BTT. I hope you didn't spend too much money printing out tickets to your pity party, since no one's going.

Now remind me, how come it's so hard for you to deal with it like everyone else? What makes you so special?



Good point.

Game modes are not a focal point in a party game? Have you actually played mario party? Lol it has plenty of game modes.
Have you played any party game? A lot of them thrive on the fact that they have many game modes - when the game modes are well designed
Think before u say things man. Party games have MORE game modes - and yes in my most recent post i was discussing the single player possibilities, but the game modes im suggesting can and should have vs mode options, not just single player.

It really sucks cause sakurai started focusing on making smash bros a party game by removing modes, and making gameplay slower paced so that it would be "inviting" for everyone. While the gameplay in melee was very fun for party settings, as well as competitive settings. And it had more modes to enjoy the game with.

SSE and WOL do not have deeper game design than adventure mode and BTT of old. Good game design is crafting levels to feel challenging. Each character had a crafted level that took advantage of every one of their abilities in smash64 and melee. Youd have to get through stages using each characters abilities to the fullest. Hence great game design. Running through and fighting enemies does not take game design. SSE felt like a kirby game, and kirby games are the most straight forward games ever made. Its kinda fun if you look at it as a passtime you can do while on the phone and doing taxes, but its not something that requires a lot of attention.

Having story is great... but SSE and WOL do not have a good story. Zelda has a good story, final fantasy has a good story, resident evil has a good story - games built for a story have good stories. Not smash bros though. Smash bros is not a game that needs a story. Its just something that gets shoehorned in cause for some reason people want story mode. Good game design has NOTHING to do with story. Nothing at all - they are separate entities. Story is an additional thing that helps the game along, but it should never be the main focus of a game - not even in games that are built for story. If there is story - with no good gameplay, then why not just watch a movie or some cutscenes? That game would SUCK. Who the hell wants to play a boring game to watch a story unfold? Thats some real millennial **** right there. Wanting a story from smash is just stupid. I dont MIND story in smash, but I dont expect a good story from smash, i expect good gameplay. u could look for story if you want, but its certainly not gona be a really interesting story. And if u think SSE's story was interesting, you must have never heard a story in your life.

If anyone doesnt think shovel knight is a fantastic platformer they either dont like platformers (which is fine), or theyre ignoramuses who need to have AAA games to enjoy anything. For the former, someone who doesnt like platformers should still be able to say shovel knight is a great platformer. It just is, period. Theres no ****ing argument there. Its a beautifully crafted platformer. Stop with this subjective bs. There are objectively GOOD games and objectively BAD games, and then there are games that some people like or dislike because thats the style of game they like or dislike.

If you dont like adventure mode or BTT, thats fine, but having it in the game only adds to the games value (if the modes are well crafted). You not being able to appreciate the intricacies of a good BTT level are your own shortcomings, and thats fine, im not judging you. But just cause you dont like that mode, doesnt make it NOT good. It IS good, you just dont prefer that gameplay. Let me give you some more examples - I dont really care for GTA, or final fantasy, but i in no way would ever say they are BAD games. I just dont like them because theyre not my kind of game - THAT is subjective - NOT whether or not the game is good.

So your like or dislike for something is subjective, but dont mix that up with something being good or bad being subjective. Gameplay and game design being good or bad is objective, and you could like or dislike it based on your taste.

I know this is very complicated for a lot of people, but really take time to think about what im saying. I'm not trying to be condescending, but just try to understand the difference.

I dont think you know what im talking about when i talk about game design. Either that or you're just misunderstanding it. "Bringing a game from 720p to 1080p with no fallbacks in framerate or performance levels and not having to scale back the content of the game as a result" is not a game design improvement. That is improving the games performance. Game design has to do with crafting abilities, stages, enemies and gameplay in an optimal way to make the game as fun and interesting as possible with the tools that are available to you (the game designer). That means on a weaker system you have to work with what you have and design something better than the system can even handle. Thats what Valve did with all of their big games (btw another game i dont like very much is Half life, but i will never say half life is not a good game, its an incredible game that changed gaming forever).

From a lot of what you're saying it sounds like maybe you're a younger fello, so maybe I shouldnt be so hard on you. Though kids are so out of it these days.

But if you're an adult, and you still cant understand what im saying, you need to get an education of sorts and get off your high horse asshole.

This statement is not necessarily wrong.

But the fact that you're implying that "adding more modes" is good game design just tells me that you're in no way an authority on the subject.

Are you familiar with the term "Feature Creep"? It refers to a mentality involving blindly adding more and more features to a project without any thought about it's overall quality, just thinking that more is good. Eventually, adding enough to a project ends up taking away from the core of its design and can indeed make a game worse as a result, especially once you consider the fact that games (even AAA projects) have a limited budget.

A game doesn't have to do everything. A game that does one thing amazingly well will almost always be better than a game that does multiple things in a mediocre manner. Adding more modes for the sake of it is quite literally the opposite of good game design. Good game design is making the most of the resources you have available and recognizing what's worth doing and what isn't. No game is truly ever complete. There's always ideas that were not realized. Always content that didn't make the cut. There's always things that sound good on paper but don't actually improve the quality of the game in a substantial manner. You always, always have to make sacrifices, and the ability to aknowledge what needs to be sacrificed for the overall quality of the whole package is what separates a great game developer from the rest of the crowd.

This game prioritized some things before others. Sm4sh was criticized for having a... "dissapointing" single player experience to say the least. For Ultimate, they decided to solve this by sacrificing arguably superficial game modes and certain elements to add a worthwhile single-player adventure, tied to a highly replayable system of borderline infinite event-style battles that are (and this is more important for the health of the project than you might realize) easy to develop. All of that without taking many resources away from the multiplayer portion of the game, which is possibly what made "Everyone is Back" happen in the first place.

If you think this is bad game design I don't know what to tell you.

Oh no, dont misunderstand me - adding more game modes willy nilly, is not good game design either. Adding too much can lead to many problems as well. But at minimum smash bros would benefit by well designed stages of the STAPLE smash bros modes. Additionally, there are a few very simple modes that could create a lot of fun in a smash bros setting.

I dont think that at any point in my discussion that i described a "feature creep" situation. In fact, I am stressing that any modes included should be well thought out and well crafted. Thats what my whole argument is about. If anything, SSE and WOL are "feature creep" situations.

I see the rest of your points, games cost money etc and resources need to be used wisely, but with dlc that shouldnt really be an issue. Games can be constantly funded and expanded on. And conversely, how about free to play games like fortnight? I personally dont like fortnight, but from what i hear, they keep adding new features for free all the time. I find it kinda hard to believe nintendo doesnt have the resources to do more, especially when the smash engine is essentially completed, they dont need to keep reinventing the wheel to add things to the game.

 

[The_New_Style]

I think a lot of people took the "Ultimate" subtitle too seriously. It's called that because every character is here.

The reason the game is named Ultimate is because ultimate means "happening at the end of a process; final." and it is Sakurai's last SSB game.

 

[Lyndis_]

Would just like to point out if your statement includes "Good" or "Bad" as a descriptor in any way it is not objective, no matter how sure you or anyone else is of it being obvious. If you want to be objective, you must be more specific and avoid things that could be just an opinion, especially when it comes to fun. 'Good game design' is not objective. 'Game design that rewards ____' is more likely to be.

 

[Terradrius]

SSE felt like a kirby game, and kirby games are the most straight forward games ever made. Its kinda fun if you look at it as a passtime you can do while on the phone and doing taxes, but its not something that requires a lot of attention.

You must never have played Intense difficulty; it definitely required attention. It was a fun challenge - and moreover, it was a challenge to complete at all, rather than break the target/board the platform's minimal challenge to complete and more focus on mastering it and completing it as quickly as possible, which I find much less interesting. The character customization in SSE was also cool, even if it was a bit repetitive to put stickers on everyone.

 

[Necro'lic]

BronzeGreekGod

I'm curious now. You say game design is objective, so you mean it's like a form of science or (even better) math? If that's the case, give us some objective tenets of game design that are relevant to this discussion. Clear, concise tenets. And try not give direct examples if you can help it, just say them in a very broad sense akin to a research scientist or mathematician.

And you know what the best part about objectivity is? No one can argue against it, because you'll be able to explain thoroughly any questions or dissent anyone has against these points.

I'll be waiting.

 

[RedrappeR]

No its not. Good game design is not subjective, its fact.

Adding more modes with good game design makes a game better period. Maybe some people prefer single player and some prefer multiplayer... and even those who prefer multiplayer then get single player fun they can have with smash. A game normally meant only for multiplayer now becomes a fun single player game as well.

Nothing subjective here whatsoever.

And saying WOL and SSE are not as good as melee break the targets and adventure mode isnt subjective either. It goes back to good game design vs game design made just to pad the game with more modes. Maybe playing through SSE is somehow enjoyable to some people, but there is no in depth game design or thought put into SSE at all. Its just boring stages where you beat up boring generic AI's. Like i argued before - theres nothing subjective about saying a game like re4 is better than re6. its just better - thats a fact, and if you say otherwise you're wrong and shouldnt be discussing this topic at all.

When a game becomes as world renowned as shovel knight, and then other similar games are not as popular or well recieved, 90% of the time, its cause they suck, and shovel knight is amazing. That is not subjective.

Im making random game examples here to make the point that good game design is not a subjective thing. Smash bros' single player had some masterfully crafted levels with incredible game design, and that made its single player one of the best single player experiences in a fighting game ever. And those single player modes were far superior in the older smash bros games due to their game design. That isnt subjective.

Hi again. I was trying not to reply to this thread because I'm not sure if you're trolling, or are sincere. But I'm going to assume the latter, but I'm not sure you're going to like this message as much as you did my last one.

Everything you wrote here shows a lack of knowledge of how game design, or even basic creation of any type of content works. The ideas you presented here are fundamentally opposed to every metric that has dictated the progression of content, art, science and nearly every field for hundreds of years(as hyperbolic as that sounds, it's wholly accurate.)

Game design(and any type of medium) must consistently change as time moves on because different variables become available through technology, culture, resources, art, business-- and all of these things influence how games work. This has been true since Greece. Any person who works professionally in one of these fields, will tell you as times change, the people who prosper and succeed the most are those who understand that no climate is static and there are always variations as time moves forward. Because society changes and evolves. Also, Everything you stated in here is quite literally a subjective opinion, which again makes me wonder if you're sincerely trolling, or if you're way too young to know any better.

If it's the latter, please take a step back and understand your opinions are coming off condescending, because people see factually incorrect statements that you are purporting and it is frustrating for us to watch someone talk down to us about things that a lot of us have seen evidence of being factually incorrect.

If you are trolling, I feel wasting your time here talking **** is an incredibly unproductive activity, and it is disheartening that you would use valuable time that could be spent building something worthwhile to instead anonymously troll a community of people who will long forget your presence by weeks end.

With all due respect. Because I sincerely don't know which one it is, and the things you are saying at this point are kind of all over the place -- and unfortunately not true. Not because of my opinion, because of literal definitions in the dictionary. Something Objective must be a static truth, almost mathematically sound. Like 1+1 = 2. There is no objective scientific study where you can monitor brainwaves to dictate what design choices yield the most positive chemical reactions. And even if there was that study would have a short shelf life because of the rapid change of culture in the modern age.

Your feelings on a whether a choice of design is a correct or incorrect choice are by definition, subjective -- because they are based on the feelings or opinions of one subject. For something to be objective it must be a universally accepted truth across all spectrum's.

Please think more carefully when you speak. Your passion could be a wonderful motivator for many a community if utilized with the right intentions.

-Z

Also

From a lot of what you're saying it sounds like maybe you're a younger fello, so maybe I shouldnt be so hard on you. Though kids are so out of it these days.

But if you're an adult, and you still cant understand what im saying, you need to get an education of sorts and get off your high horse *******.

I'm most definitely older than you, and I hate to pull rank but I'm almost positive I have more hands on experience in this industry than you do. It's rude to speak like that to people like you're doing. You've been coming off aggressive quite a bit, some of us are trying to hold back because of your tone. And similarly, if you are an adult, I'm sure you can act in a way that's a lot more mature and check your facts a bit more thoroughly.

I see the rest of your points, games cost money etc and resources need to be used wisely, but with dlc that shouldnt really be an issue. Games can be constantly funded and expanded on. And conversely, how about free to play games like fortnight? I personally dont like fortnight, but from what i hear, they keep adding new features for free all the time. I find it kinda hard to believe nintendo doesnt have the resources to do more, especially when the smash engine is essentially completed, they dont need to keep reinventing the wheel to add things to the game.

This is not how things work in any situation at all ever. Free to play games like Fortnite still cost tons of money to make. The entire reason Fortnite is doing well is they have multiple alternate revenue streams, and having attention nets you that. Many games fail with the free to play model because said model requires you to have ungodly amounts of attention on your product to monetize. Fortnite is most definitely reinvesting it's profits back into itself in order to make that content you like. Adding content means paying developers, designers, editors, marketing managers and we are not cheap. We cost tens of thousands of dollars-- and for a big company -- millions. That eats into your ROI and especially if you have a model that is non traditional and based on alternate methods of monetization-- you are in a very high risk position. Fortnite is forced to take a hit on it's profits in order to continue to produce content because if they don't, they die and a bunch of people lose their jobs. It's the nature of the business.

 

[KingOfKazoos]

Personally I really don't care much about singleplayer modes at all. I'm mostly just excited for the new mechanics and faster paced gameplay. Even though it's debatable if there's "less content" even though they have a few of the modes from Wii U, Classic mode, World of Light among other things. But honestly there could just be normal Smash and online and I'd be satisfied. But each to their own I guess.

Oh and also on the note of characters.. they literally brought back everyone. I guarantee you'd be asking for a veteran back if they didn't. So try to be a little grateful about that before complaining about character inclusions. I mean we got the Belmont's, K Rool and Ridley. Three of the most requested newcomers. So Sakurai obviously tried to make this for the fans, it's fine to be disappointed about some inclusions. But I don't think it's fair to be disappointed about the whole game because of it. Either way, each to their own.

 

[TheTrueBrawler]

I don't think a whole lot of people are coming together looking to have fun with four players on single player modes. The only modes that could function with more than two players were the main attraction, modes that fell into the same general category, Smash Run, and Smash Tour. I do believe that people more often than not will agree with the statement that those last two modes sucked.

This whole topic is subjective. People have opinions, but saying yours is fact just looks childish. You clearly don't like the game for reasons that still remain some what unclear (I still believe it is because of the Grinch Leak), and if you don't like it, then the solution is to not buy it, but if you truly think whether or not people should like a game is objective, then there's no point in having this discussion.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

I feel like this thread has gone on for too long. It's basically the OP spitting out factually incorrect information and acting ungrateful for not having a Melee BTT gamemode.

Obviously BronzeGreekGod , you have demonstrated that you have no idea what makes game design good, and you treat good game design as something you specifically enjoy, regardless if other people don't enjoy it. You treat your own opinion as a fact and treat people who don't share that opinion as "uneducated" or oblivious, and that clearly they're wrong. You have no regard to how other people might see something and you can't seem to handle it when someone presents a counterargument to the factually incorrect things you are saying. Every time someone on this thread views your statements differently you throw a tantrum and attack them.

At this point I'm beginning to think you're either having a bad day and want to blow off some steam or you're genuinely trying to start a flame war here. Either way you've proven you have no idea what you're even talking about, and you're acting like someone who can't appreciate whatever isn't perfect for their wants.

From a lot of what you're saying it sounds like maybe you're a younger fello, so maybe I shouldnt be so hard on you. Though kids are so out of it these days.

But if you're an adult, and you still cant understand what im saying, you need to get an education of sorts and get off your high horse *******.

This.......is ridiculous. My age shouldn't concern you. Whether or not I'm older or younger than you doesn't change the fact that you've been attacking people simply for not agreeing with you and you're acting like a pompous jerk and treating your own opinion as fact.

 

[Verde Coeden Scalesworth]

This thread has been spiraling out of control. More than one user flaming each other is absolutely uncalled for. Being it's a rant thread that isn't accepting other opinions as is... we're likely to close it if people don't start being more respectful to each other.

Please do not snipe at other users. Do not accuse them of trolling either.

 

[Justin Allen Goldschmidt]

This thread has been spiraling out of control. More than one user flaming each other is absolutely uncalled for. Being it's a rant thread that isn't accepting other opinions as is... we're likely to close it if people don't start being more respectful to each other.

Please do not snipe at other users. Do not accuse them of trolling either.

Just wanted to pop in and say it's been pretty one-sided as far as aggression and antagonizm goes. The OP slings a lot of shade and talks down to every other user, while others mostly seem to just be defending themselves. I'm sure y'all see it, I just want to make it cleat that even mere spectators in the thread can see the clear difference in responses from OP vs everyone else.

 

[Diem]

The reason the game is named Ultimate is because ultimate means "happening at the end of a process; final." and it is Sakurai's last SSB game.

In Japan the subtitle is just "Special." Ultimate is the North American subtitle.

Who said it was Sakurai's last game?

 

[Mogisthelioma]

Just wanted to pop in and say it's been pretty one-sided as far as aggression and antagonizm goes. The OP slings a lot of shade and talks down to every other user, while others mostly seem to just be defending themselves. I'm sure y'all see it, I just want to make it cleat that even mere spectators in the thread can see the clear difference in responses from OP vs everyone else.

Just about the entirety of this thread has been the OP sniping at whoever disagrees with them.

 

[Izanagi97]

In Japan the subtitle is just "Special." Ultimate is the North American subtitle.

Who said it was Sakurai's last game?

How many times has he said a smash game will be his last one anyways?

 

[Mogisthelioma]

How many times has he said a smash game will be his last one anyways?

After literally every title.

 

[lucasla]

After literally every title.

He has a company, people think he will close his company and go live in a temple in the mountains after deliver a product? He will keep making games as long as being paid for it. And I'm pretty sure that if a new Smash ever comes in a new console, he will be there, it not as director, as a
consultant.

 

[Nintykid]

Ehh... whatever man...

I just think it's a bit silly to throw the entire game out the window just cause SOME characters that you've been asking for didn't make the cut (and maybe some side modes too)

I mean I was dissapointed with a few thing (Bandana Dee not in, no break the targets) but I'll get over it

 

[Bendario]

Good game design is not subjective, its fact.

This is the silliest statement I have read in a while. Game design is 100% not an objective science. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to do things because game development is an art. Different people have different tastes, desires, likes, and dislikes. Some feel older Castlevania games are better than the Metroidvania games of SotN onward. Neither is wrong or right because there is no objectivity to be had. Some people would prefer Smash have ONLY multiplayer modes, and some would gladly sacrifice items, assist trophies, pokeball pokemon, and stages just to get a small handful of extra playable characters, and others still would rather get a massive new SSE mode that could last them 80+ hours over any multiplayer or online improvements. You might say "why not have all those things?" but at that point you are asking for the game to take many extra years to develop, cost vastly more money, and to risk making other sacrifices unintentionally. And even then, those people would complain that they could have had more of" the good stuff" rather than "waste development time" on tbings they don't prefer (i.e. Having more characters rather than the giant SSE sequel). A perfect game cannot be made because game design is not some factual objective formula.

 

[TheSpitefulWolf]

womp womp

didn't read the thread but babby sounds mad they didnt get their dumb wooden puppet

lol get in line behind the bombailures and the krysstal krew (me included because **** that e3 reveal for real)

but hey ridley so ~ALLS FORGIVVEN RIGHT?~

ps **** ridley and k.rool boring ****s

piranha plant is the best ****ing thing to happen to the game and folk that say otherwise or get whiny can kindly **** off with that noise thanks

 

[The_New_Style]

Read this https://www.gamerevolution.com/news...bros-ultimate-could-be-the-last-in-the-series

 

[KremlingKuthroat19]

I think you got your expectations up way too high after the Grinch “leak”. It’s okay, I did as well.

The truth is that the last Direct was incredibly underwhelming and Nintendo did a terrible job managing the hype cycle. They should’ve left a fan favorite at the end like K. Rool or Ridley as opposed to ending it off with Kencineroar. I like both characters but it wasn’t a hype way to end it.

In retrospect the Everyone is Here moment and the August Direct were so hype. This game is the best compilation of Smash content ever. The newcomers, although a smaller selection then all previous Smash games, were for the most part really cool fan favorites that each have unique movesets.

The biggest flaw the game has is that there isn’t enough new content. Four new stages is pathetic, the newcomer count is low, and classic modes like Home Run contest are missing.

I’m sure this stuff will be added as DLC separate from the Fighter Pass since Furukawa is pushing DLC for all Switch games. Unfortunately, games don’t release finished anymore for the most part nowadays. It’s a blessing and a curse but I’m positive that more content outside of the Fighter Pass will be added later down the road.

 

[meleebrawler]

I think you got your expectations up way too high after the Grinch “leak”. It’s okay, I did as well.

The truth is that the last Direct was incredibly underwhelming and Nintendo did a terrible job managing the hype cycle. They should’ve left a fan favorite at the end like K. Rool or Ridley as opposed to ending it off with Kencineroar. I like both characters but it wasn’t a hype way to end it.

In retrospect the Everyone is Here moment and the August Direct were so hype. This game is the best compilation of Smash content ever. The newcomers, although a smaller selection then all previous Smash games, were for the most part really cool fan favorites that each have unique movesets.

The biggest flaw the game has is that there isn’t enough new content. Four new stages is pathetic, the newcomer count is low, and classic modes like Home Run contest are missing.

I’m sure this stuff will be added as DLC separate from the Fighter Pass since Furukawa is pushing DLC for all Switch games. Unfortunately, games don’t release finished anymore for the most part nowadays. It’s a blessing and a curse but I’m positive that more content outside of the Fighter Pass will be added later down the road.

I'm of the mind that anyone that wasn't in Smash 4 has been gone for so long and got so many changes they may as well be new characters, at least in how they feel. Sometimes they don't even have to go that far to feel totally different, like most of the Zelda characters.

 

[Erotic&Heretic]

The biggest flaw the game has is that there isn’t enough new content. Four new stages is pathetic, the newcomer count is low, and classic modes like Home Run contest are missing.

While I agree that 4 stages is too low, the quantity of stage remade is impressive. Not only those who were in Smash 4 such as Bridge of Eldin, but many of the stages that make a comeback after so many years look so much better, instead of simply keeping a port of Melee's Temple for example. Even the 3DS stages, the kinda forgotten version, got a nice upgrade.

Not only those many stages returning is a treat for the fans, but it's also good for new players who will discover stages of the past. I really think it's the best for everyone, although again, a bit more new stages would have been welcomed as well.

 

[KremlingKuthroat19]

While I agree that 4 stages is too low, the quantity of stage remade is impressive. Not only those who were in Smash 4 such as Bridge of Eldin, but many of the stages that make a comeback after so many years look so much better, instead of simply keeping a port of Melee's Temple for example. Even the 3DS stages, the kinda forgotten version, got a nice upgrade.

Not only those many stages returning is a treat for the fans, but it's also good for new players who will discover stages of the past. I really think it's the best for everyone, although again, a bit more new stages would have been welcomed as well.

I agree. It’s cool that the stages from Melee that have water allow you to swim in them now. That adds such a cool dynamic to those stages. I’m also glad that every stage can be played with eight players now.

 

[Mogisthelioma]

Read this https://www.gamerevolution.com/news...bros-ultimate-could-be-the-last-in-the-series

Sakurai said this after every game, including the first one. This holds no meaning.