Is the Smash series mechanically stagnant? (as in core gameplay, not extra modes)

Quillion

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,188
#1
This is a thought that came up somewhere, and it made me think. A lot of Smash players get cut up over things like moves getting a few more or a few less frames of lag, or a few percent or a little percent of damage, or how the air dodge works. But honestly, if other games were held to the standards of slight changes to damage and frames being world-shattering, the gaming industry would be a lot more stagnant (than some say it already is). Pokémon would never introduce the game-exclusive features or battle extras like Megas and Z-moves. Call of Duty would never experiment with different settings.

Instead, I'd argue that the series' core gameplay has gone mechanically stagnant. Like it or not, we still have the same general set of moves since Melee: Jabs, Tilts, Smashes, Aerials, walking and running, Specials for Neutral and every direction, shielding, rolling, spotdodging, air dodging, etc.

I don't know; I just think that there is a lot that Smash can still learn from fighters of the Capcom school of thought. We could get a more "traditional" super meter that throws out souped-up versions of specials a la EX moves. Shield-B could be the equivalent of SF5's V-Trigger in activating unique gimmicks. The traditional "fighting game dash" could even be adapted from the wavedash to be either the L or R button, one being shield and one being dash. Then they could even have an FADC-type deal where you can dash out of a move at the expense of meter. Just some thoughts I'm throwing out there.

I guess the biggest mechanical changes to the series since Melee come from two sources, but both had major caveats:
  • Customs in Smash 4. Even ignoring how nigh-impossible it was to unlock all of them, it was implemented in a very half-hearted way, with most of the customs changed in rather predictable and generic ways: projectiles are either slow and strong or fast and weak, charge moves are either slow charge with more power or fast charge with less power, recovery moves are either more distance with no damage or less distance with more damage.
  • A lot of the characters since Smash 4, like Villager, Little Mac, Ryu, Cloud, and Bayonetta, and Joker have all gotten unique mechanics, but they're all character-specific. For me, it makes the earlier characters feel underdone in creativity while making the newer characters really hard to get the hang of.

That said, I wouldn't want Smash to turn into an overcomplex ArcSys-tier fighter with a ton of mechanics you have to learn and master. The fact that every character has the same commands for their normals and specials alone makes every character fairly easy to get the hang of (at least until you get to the ones with "unique mechanics"). This is why I would just add one or two simple-yet-versatile changes at a time. We could probably get the "wavedash button" to get a nice movement and offensive option and an EX move meter to soup up specials at maximum in one game. After that, they can move on to giving every character a V-Trigger-esque Shield-B in the game after that.

I guess after four games whose major core gameplay changes were mainly physics and frame tweaks, I'm getting tired of the series and may want to move on. Maybe this is why some people want out of a "reboot" of Smash instead of just "the same with more". It's not going to be a popular opinion, I know it won't, but I just want to get this out there.
 

Crystanium

Smash Hero
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
5,789
Location
California
Switch FC
SW-5361-1490-2247
#2
Here are some new mechanics.

Get-up grab
You get up from the ledge while pulling your opponent off. This would make standing at the ledge risky. Tether grabs cover more range.

Smash specials
This already exists, but for a few characters. Samus' Super Missile would count as a smash special. Imagine if all specials had a smash variant, however.

Special pummel
Similar to pressing A, but you press B. It would be a different attack, obviously.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2014
Messages
1,246
#3
I mean, it's as stagnant as basically any fighting game. Fighting games are generally stagnant series because their core gameplay loops can only be so adjusted. It's much more difficult to innovate in the fighting game sphere, and was part of what made Smash initially I think so successful was its place as the "approachable fighting game." And even then, there's a section of hardcore fighting game fans that refuse to acknowledge Smash as a fighting game. The fighting game communities don't like a lot of changes, and minor ones can overhaul an entire play style, which is also way much of the Smash roster hasn't really gone through substantial evolutions. Fighting games can be hard enough to get into, and changing a playstyle even a little can destroy someone's main. Same goes for mechanics. Some characters work better with certain metas like Roy and Chrom in Ultimate benefiting from a variety of changes.

Point being, it's really hard to make changes to fighting games and Smash is no exception.

But the other issue is that it works so well for casual players. Every mechanic you add to Smash makes it less accessible to new players or casuals. I don't think Nintendo wants to change that up, and it gives a weird unity across the series in which anyone who learns how to play can pick it up and still have fun no matter the game. Just each version has new characters, items, and so on. And that amount of content with such recognizable faces means that it has the ability to almost always sell to the next generation who becomes interested in the mainline series all these characters originate from. New Mario fans can be brought into the fold with relative ease, as can Zelda fans, and so on.

I'm not opposed to some more changes in future Smash games, but they've got a such specific mechanics that have worked so well for both casual and hardcore fans that I'm doubtful that Nintendo is keen to makes those changes. And I really do think Smash is so special mechanically that you have to be really, really careful to ensure you don't sacrifice any of the identity with new mechanics.
 

Quillion

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,188
#4
I mean, it's as stagnant as basically any fighting game. Fighting games are generally stagnant series because their core gameplay loops can only be so adjusted. It's much more difficult to innovate in the fighting game sphere, and was part of what made Smash initially I think so successful was its place as the "approachable fighting game." And even then, there's a section of hardcore fighting game fans that refuse to acknowledge Smash as a fighting game. The fighting game communities don't like a lot of changes, and minor ones can overhaul an entire play style, which is also way much of the Smash roster hasn't really gone through substantial evolutions. Fighting games can be hard enough to get into, and changing a playstyle even a little can destroy someone's main. Same goes for mechanics. Some characters work better with certain metas like Roy and Chrom in Ultimate benefiting from a variety of changes.

Point being, it's really hard to make changes to fighting games and Smash is no exception.

But the other issue is that it works so well for casual players. Every mechanic you add to Smash makes it less accessible to new players or casuals. I don't think Nintendo wants to change that up, and it gives a weird unity across the series in which anyone who learns how to play can pick it up and still have fun no matter the game. Just each version has new characters, items, and so on. And that amount of content with such recognizable faces means that it has the ability to almost always sell to the next generation who becomes interested in the mainline series all these characters originate from. New Mario fans can be brought into the fold with relative ease, as can Zelda fans, and so on.

I'm not opposed to some more changes in future Smash games, but they've got a such specific mechanics that have worked so well for both casual and hardcore fans that I'm doubtful that Nintendo is keen to makes those changes. And I really do think Smash is so special mechanically that you have to be really, really careful to ensure you don't sacrifice any of the identity with new mechanics.
I know that fighting game series are among the most stagnant series out there (yet no one minds unlike "stagnant" whipping boys like Pokémon or Call of Duty). But I still think Smash has some room to grow compared to its traditional counterparts.

Melee introduced the Side-B, which alone gave the original 12 a lot more to work with. But I think there are some ideas that, if borrowed from traditional fighters or even some of the "unique" mechanics for newer fighters, could really enhance the series without pushing it into SNK/ArcSys territory. I think the key here would be to introduce a new mechanic that is both simple-yet-versatile and universalized for all characters.

I think the idea of EX Specials alone (partly borrowed from Cloud, partly borrowed from traditional fighters) would be a better way of implementing alternate specials than customs were. If not that, turning wavedashing from an emergent tech into a dedicated mechanic would be the perfect simple-yet-versatile thing to add to Smash.

Maybe in terms of reworking an existing mechanic, they can make everyone's nair an "aerial jab" instead of the general single-hit get-off move. It could make aerial combat feel a bit better a la MvC while also opening up combo opportunities.
 

Quillion

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,188
#6
Change for the sake of change is bad game design. Change should only happen if something is being explicitly and unanimously improved.
I know that's the stock argument against mechanical change, but again, that mindset is a good way to make people bored with your series.

Majora's Mask didn't need the three-day mechanic and focus on transformation, so would it be better off without it? Super Mario Galaxy didn't need the focus on weird gravity and tiny planets, so would it be better off without it? As minor as they are, Pokémon's last two gens didn't need Mega Evolution or Z-Moves, so would they be better off without it?

Honestly, if there wasn't some degree of "change for the sake of change", again, the industry would be even more stagnant. Entire genres would arguably not even be born.
 

Xelrog

Smash Ace
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
615
Location
Battle Ground, WA
Switch FC
SW 2367 4933 3404
#7
Good counterpoint. And I'm all for innovation. I suppose I just don't think Smash is the series to get too crazy with.

Brawl added swimming (which I personally detest) and tripping, which can make for an interesting addition when you exclude the random variety. It also dramatically changed air dodging. Smash 4 completely changed the way ledges worked, which you'll hear arguments both for and against. Ultimate combined the mechanics of many of these games in an attempt to bring the fanbase together, which I think it's done pretty successfully. With that being the design goal, I don't think it should be surprising that it wasn't as gamechanging as previous entries. If they got too off the wall I don't think they would have successfully reeled in so much of the Melee playerbase.

Take this how you will, but in a way I think the reluctance of this playerbase to leave Melee in the previous two entries is a testament to how resistant Smash players can be to certain mechanical changes. It's a difficult thing to get just right and please everyone.
 

Khao

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
1,396
Location
Lying about my country.
#8
Sometimes it's hard to even say this, but I think Smash reached the point where just adding more and more characters just doesn't actually do anything to make the game better. I think this was already true for WiiU/3DS. Seriously, if I boot that game right now, I don't remotely feel like I want more characters. The roster size is completely ****ing insane. Every gameplay archetype has been covered by three hundred different characters already.

Don't get me wrong, I think Ultimate is a better game than WiiU/3DS by a landslide and I'm still pretty satisfied by what we got. But I don't think the fact that we got such a bigger roster is even close to the major reason for that to be the case. Even the minor gameplay adjustments made the game so much more exciting. But I'm convinced that if they didn't focus so much on bringing everyone back, we could've gotten some even more exciting gameplay changes. (though I won't deny that if there was ever a good time for Everyone is Here!, it was now. I'm glad it happened)

So yes, I think the next game absolutely freaking needs to do something to innovate its gameplay. Leave the roster size on the sidelines for once, and offer something new and exciting. Absolutely no game in the series has improved the basic gameplay from the previous game like Melee did back in the day and I think that's kind of a waste.

I know people say that other fighting game series are just as stagnant, but honestly, games like Street Fighter change way more from game to game than Smash has changed in over a decade. If they didn't, they wouldn't always release with fewer characters than the previous game.

I like the idea of Smash having a meter for one. I think it'd add a lot to the basic gameplay depending on how it's used. I also agree that newer characters feel way more unique than the ones from the original games. Changing from Samus to Captain Falcon gives you completely different options that you have to use in different ways. Changing from Mega Man to Little Mac feels like you're playing a different game altogether. Something can be done here.
 
Last edited:

Crystanium

Smash Hero
Joined
Apr 28, 2008
Messages
5,789
Location
California
Switch FC
SW-5361-1490-2247
#9
The EX concept was mentioned as early as the announcement of SSBU. It might be an older concept, but that's the earliest I've seen it. I would think it would be a stat boost of some kind, and people don't seem bothered much, if at all, by the stat boost concept. Cloud had it in SSB4. Wii Fit Trainer has it. Lucario seems to be the earliest with its Aura mechanic. Now you have Joker and Arsene. I personally would love for my main to enter hyper mode like she has shown in Super Metroid and Metroid Prime 3: Corruption.

I agree with Khao regarding the roster size. (No surprise there.) More characters doesn't make a game great, especially a fighting game. Yes, Nintendo is good at what it does, so we'd all expect quality. I'm curious if Sakurai & Co. have thought about introducing new mechanics for all characters like the EX concept. Tournament players, I'd hope, wouldn't be opposed to this as long as it's not game-breaking. Again, Lucario, Wii Fit Trainer, Cloud, and Joker receive buffs that are temporary. No one is complaining as far as I'm aware.
 
Last edited:

Sean²

Smash Capitalist
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
1,525
Switch FC
SW-7479-8539-5283
#10
I think a massive mechanical improvement was the addition of the FS meter, at least on a hypothetical level. It's implementation sucks outside casual play though, since so many of the weakened final smashes are still far too strong or disruptive to be functional in competitive play. If there were more like Ike's, DK's, Villager's, etc. and less ones like Snake's, Olimar's, Peach's, Bowser Jr's, etc. it would be an amazingly viable option. Even the ones that use a cutaway would still work, as long as you're using it in a singles environment.

Changing those would obviously sanitize a bit of the diversity in FSes, but would add a legitimate option for a Super-type attack to finish combos with. It would bring Smash a step closer to traditional fighters, without destroying the core gameplay.
 

Quillion

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,188
#12
Good counterpoint. And I'm all for innovation. I suppose I just don't think Smash is the series to get too crazy with.

Brawl added swimming (which I personally detest) and tripping, which can make for an interesting addition when you exclude the random variety. It also dramatically changed air dodging. Smash 4 completely changed the way ledges worked, which you'll hear arguments both for and against. Ultimate combined the mechanics of many of these games in an attempt to bring the fanbase together, which I think it's done pretty successfully. With that being the design goal, I don't think it should be surprising that it wasn't as gamechanging as previous entries. If they got too off the wall I don't think they would have successfully reeled in so much of the Melee playerbase.

Take this how you will, but in a way I think the reluctance of this playerbase to leave Melee in the previous two entries is a testament to how resistant Smash players can be to certain mechanical changes. It's a difficult thing to get just right and please everyone.
The reason why people were reluctant to leave Melee is the same reason why most people have a low opinion of Zelda: Twilight Princess and Skyward Sword: Brawl and Smash 4 favor very rigid playstyles with no room for experimentation. Much of the tech in those two games were horribly situational, and most strategies boiled down to spamming good moves.

You can't just boil down change in and of itself as a bad or good thing. You have to look at the reasons behind it. Ultimate managed to win Melee fans for making the run itself more versatile in lieu of wavedashing as a movement option and for essentially having automatic L-cancelling for most characters.

I'd say it's clear that the key to changing up Smash is having simple-yet-effective ones that add options while making them easy to learn.
 

Predatoria

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Messages
193
Location
Raleigh, North Carolina
Switch FC
SW-5219-6817-7975
#13
I personally see no reason to over-complicate or build upon a game whose mechanics are already stellar. They did exactly what they should've done in Ultimate. They polished it, improved the graphics, improved the effects, added meaningful content (such as more fighters and stages), and kept the underlying core mechanics the same.

In my opinion, the changes to the core Pokemon games have actually made them worse, not better. Z moves and megas, in my opinion, were gimmicky and detracted from the original, solid battle mechanics of the Pokemon games.
 
Last edited:

Quillion

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,188
#14
I personally see no reason to over-complicate or build upon a game whose mechanics are already stellar. They did exactly what they should've done in Ultimate. They polished it, improved the graphics, improved the effects, added meaningful content (such as more fighters and stages), and kept the underlying core mechanics the same.

In my opinion, the changes to the core Pokemon games have actually made them worse, not better. Z moves and megas, in my opinion, were gimmicky and detracted from the original, solid battle mechanics of the Pokemon games.
I just don't want Smash to suffer from being largely "the same but more" the same way Pokémon, Classic Mega Man, and Dynasty Warriors all do.

If Street Fighter never introduced Supers, EX moves, Parrying, Ultras, or V-triggers, it would be every bit as stagnant as those games. If Final Fantasy never changed its battle system it would be the same deal. How would you feel if Breath of the Wild restructured the Zelda series?

I think an extreme amount of change is also bad, but that doesn't stop change from being a good thing when well thought-out.
 

Xelrog

Smash Ace
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
615
Location
Battle Ground, WA
Switch FC
SW 2367 4933 3404
#15
Let the series stagnate first. Big change isn't happening because there's not a call for it.

Breath of the Wild wouldn't have happened if Skyward Sword hadn't happened first.
 

Predatoria

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Jan 30, 2019
Messages
193
Location
Raleigh, North Carolina
Switch FC
SW-5219-6817-7975
#16
I just don't want Smash to suffer from being largely "the same but more" the same way Pokémon, Classic Mega Man, and Dynasty Warriors all do.

If Street Fighter never introduced Supers, EX moves, Parrying, Ultras, or V-triggers, it would be every bit as stagnant as those games. If Final Fantasy never changed its battle system it would be the same deal. How would you feel if Breath of the Wild restructured the Zelda series?

I think an extreme amount of change is also bad, but that doesn't stop change from being a good thing when well thought-out.
Ultimate isn't without mechanical changes though.


For example, I've come to very much appreciate the buffering system in the game now that I understand how it works and when to utilize it to close frame gaps between my moves.

If they add wild or crazy new mechanics to the game, they risk breaking an already very well-functioning and popular setup that many people enjoy.


Think about Minecraft's combat update. They took a simple, but functional and enjoyable combat system in a game many people loved, added something "new" to it to make it "better," and ended up making it a real pain.
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 31, 2018
Messages
72
#17
I do think the next game will be quite different, at least on a character level. They can't keep hooking people with "everyone is here" forever, and that would be cumbersome to develop. They can say "look at the cool new stuff Mario can do" and that would be more exciting at this point. What that new stuff is? I don't know, but if the roster is cut down, then something has to make up for it or people will be upset. Something along the lines of EX moves seems the most interesting to me and that's probably the next logical step unless certain character mechanics are made universal, like Robin's aerial smash/tilt setup.

The other thing I could see happening is major moveset retooling but minimal system changes. It would probably upset people, but it would definitely be new.
 

Quillion

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,188
#18
If they add wild or crazy new mechanics to the game, they risk breaking an already very well-functioning and popular setup that many people enjoy.
Melee added Side Bs, and that made it a lot harder to do Neutral Bs while running. Now people can't think of Smash without Side Bs.

I'm not asking to turn Smash into an FPS. I want changes akin to what Melee added with the (crappy at the time) air dodge and side B.

Hell, the changes I have in mind are essentially building off of ideas already in the series in one way or another, so the leap isn't even that big.
 

Sean²

Smash Capitalist
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
1,525
Switch FC
SW-7479-8539-5283
#19
I do think the next game will be quite different, at least on a character level. They can't keep hooking people with "everyone is here" forever, and that would be cumbersome to develop. They can say "look at the cool new stuff Mario can do" and that would be more exciting at this point. What that new stuff is? I don't know, but if the roster is cut down, then something has to make up for it or people will be upset. Something along the lines of EX moves seems the most interesting to me and that's probably the next logical step unless certain character mechanics are made universal, like Robin's aerial smash/tilt setup.

The other thing I could see happening is major moveset retooling but minimal system changes. It would probably upset people, but it would definitely be new.
I suggested this a long time ago and got slammed for it being too radical, as at the time, more characters was still better. Nintendo is a very "safe" company and would probably never take a risk like this, but...

They did the Everyone is Here thing. We have over 100 stages and just about everything we could ever want (except good online). Where can they possibly go from here? More characters and more stages, and more of everything is nearing the tipping point. They've overfilled the tank already, any more and it will burst.

I think the best way to go from here is to run with a completely clean slate. I think if they dropped the game down to sub-25 characters again, and did a super revamp on most/all of their moves and introduced a new mechanical system that doesn't still favor play with a 20-year old controller, they could make a really solid game. A lot of the main cast hasn't had their moveset changed in any way since Melee. If they could drop it down to a small roster, and just focus on making those characters extremely solid balance and gameplay wise, I don't think very many people would be as alienated as some think they would be. Something like:

Mario
DK
Link
Pikachu
Samus
Yoshi
Kirby
Fox
Luigi
Peach
Bowser
Zelda
Marth
Ganondorf
MK
Wario
Diddy
Sonic
Villager
Mega Man
Inkling
(New Pokemon)
(New Series Character)
(New 3rd Party)

Etc.

I probably missed some good additions, or put in some characters that may not be the best, but just a general idea for roster size.

I know Capcom had been (hypothetically) biting at Nintendo's heels to make a fighting game with Nintendo characters for a while. It would be interesting to see how it went, but maybe they could be the ones to bring a fresh look into the series. Then, since we are already accustomed to running 2 games at events, Ultimate could be the more 'traditional' smash - you keep the mechanics and the characters, and the 2nd game could be the revamped fighter that breathes fresh air into events.
 
Joined
Oct 31, 2018
Messages
72
#20
I know Capcom had been (hypothetically) biting at Nintendo's heels to make a fighting game with Nintendo characters for a while. It would be interesting to see how it went, but maybe they could be the ones to bring a fresh look into the series. Then, since we are already accustomed to running 2 games at events, Ultimate could be the more 'traditional' smash - you keep the mechanics and the characters, and the 2nd game could be the revamped fighter that breathes fresh air into events.
I don't think Nintendo is going to touch Smash again until the next system, but I would love a traditional Nintendo fighting game, which would be a separate thing entirely. I don't think it's too unlikely, either, since Nintendo's been really chummy with third parties lately. If Capcom had a good concept, Nintendo would probably push it forward themselves.

The question for that is mostly about the state of Capcom's fighting game division at this point. Would they even want to do something as wild as Nintendo vs. Capcom? Or do they want to play it safe and focus on making the new Street Fighter? Capcom's fighting games have been in a rough place for a while, so they might not want to do a Nintendo collaboration yet. If we do see something soon, it's probably at least a year or two out, with Smash DLC keeping Smash in the foreground.

Smash could definitely run with some control modifications, though. You can tell Nintendo doesn't like the C-stick idea much, and three buttons go unused if you're not using Gamecube controllers. I think inputs as a whole work fine, but it would be really easy to add something new without taking anything away. They could even add a separate smash button like Rivals of Aether.
 

Quillion

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,188
#21
I suggested this a long time ago and got slammed for it being too radical, as at the time, more characters was still better. Nintendo is a very "safe" company and would probably never take a risk like this, but...

They did the Everyone is Here thing. We have over 100 stages and just about everything we could ever want (except good online). Where can they possibly go from here? More characters and more stages, and more of everything is nearing the tipping point. They've overfilled the tank already, any more and it will burst.
Well, given that we got Breath of the Wild and Mario Odyssey for established IPs and Splatoon and ARMS among the newer IPs. I think it's safe to say Nintendo is trying to upend at least some of its traditions.

I think the best way to go from here is to run with a completely clean slate. I think if they dropped the game down to sub-25 characters again, and did a super revamp on most/all of their moves and introduced a new mechanical system that doesn't still favor play with a 20-year old controller, they could make a really solid game. A lot of the main cast hasn't had their moveset changed in any way since Melee. If they could drop it down to a small roster, and just focus on making those characters extremely solid balance and gameplay wise, I don't think very many people would be as alienated as some think they would be.
But as I analyzed here, the vast majority of the characters in the first two games aren't exactly hurting for more faithful representation. I don't think it's overly necessary to suddenly give the Pokémon, Ice Climbers, Mr. Game and Watch, Marth (semi-)echoes, or Kirby new moves when they represent them well enough. How would you feel if Mario wasn't the designated shoto? Honestly, if they were to change, they'd still end up feeling the same.

The only exception I'd say would be the non-Link Zelda characters (Zelda, Ganondorf, and Sheik), but 3/26 characters hardly warrants a full reboot.

I know Capcom had been (hypothetically) biting at Nintendo's heels to make a fighting game with Nintendo characters for a while. It would be interesting to see how it went, but maybe they could be the ones to bring a fresh look into the series. Then, since we are already accustomed to running 2 games at events, Ultimate could be the more 'traditional' smash - you keep the mechanics and the characters, and the 2nd game could be the revamped fighter that breathes fresh air into events.
I don't think Nintendo is going to touch Smash again until the next system, but I would love a traditional Nintendo fighting game, which would be a separate thing entirely. I don't think it's too unlikely, either, since Nintendo's been really chummy with third parties lately. If Capcom had a good concept, Nintendo would probably push it forward themselves.
I really want a Nintendo vs. Capcom in the style of the Capcom school of thought, but I think it's best done as its own thing separate from Smash. Same as what Pokkén Tournament did. It shouldn't even have the Smash Bros. name on it, IMO.

But yes, Capcom should make their own potrayals of the Nintendo characters separate from Smash. Though I can imagine that some like Captain Falcon or even Mario will probably take inspiration anyway.
 

Sean²

Smash Capitalist
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
1,525
Switch FC
SW-7479-8539-5283
#22
Okay, less of a totally clean slate. I paraphrased a bit because my other post was super long, and I don't remember when or where it was posted on here.

Like, for example, Keep Mario's fireballs and jump punch, but maybe retire the cape for Cappy, and retire the FLUDD for something more recent. Fully declone Ganondorf (considering I feel like Falcon is really pushing obsolete territory without a new F Zero anyway), update Zelda to better match her BOTW appearance, and update her moves from the OOT iterations to abilities from BOTW or create a new moveset based on her more recent appearances.
 

Quillion

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,188
#23
Okay, less of a totally clean slate. I paraphrased a bit because my other post was super long, and I don't remember when or where it was posted on here.

Like, for example, Keep Mario's fireballs and jump punch, but maybe retire the cape for Cappy, and retire the FLUDD for something more recent. Fully declone Ganondorf (considering I feel like Falcon is really pushing obsolete territory without a new F Zero anyway), update Zelda to better match her BOTW appearance, and update her moves from the OOT iterations to abilities from BOTW or create a new moveset based on her more recent appearances.
Personally, I would get rid of all of Mario's "dated" moves, and make him more "general". No Cappy, FLUDD, or Cape. Make his Down B the Ground Pound, make his Side B the Spin as in the Galaxy and NSMB series, but make it work the same as Cape. Make Down Air his Goomba Stomp.

All I would do for Zelda is rework Light Arrow as a neutral B, move Nayru's Love to Down-B, and cut Phantom Slash.

Ganondorf is honestly too fun to make canon, and I think the sword smashes worsened his portrayal, but I could see him get changed up, though preferably in reserved ways.

In general I don't really want the characters to be dated.
 
Joined
Aug 9, 2015
Messages
550
#24
Personally, I would get rid of all of Mario's "dated" moves, and make him more "general". No Cappy, FLUDD, or Cape. Make his Down B the Ground Pound, make his Side B the Spin as in the Galaxy and NSMB series, but make it work the same as Cape. Make Down Air his Goomba Stomp.

All I would do for Zelda is rework Light Arrow as a neutral B, move Nayru's Love to Down-B, and cut Phantom Slash.

Ganondorf is honestly too fun to make canon, and I think the sword smashes worsened his portrayal, but I could see him get changed up, though preferably in reserved ways.

In general I don't really want the characters to be dated.
While I agree on the stagnancy, I feel like your way of going about this where you are trying to find the most "universally applicable" moveset for these characters is, in a way, creating stagnancy, because you are only going about that path in order to never change those characters' movesets again, are you not?

I recently have been comparing MK11 from MKX and not only are there completely new characters, but the older characters have some very different movesets between these two most recent games despite their motifs being the same overall. So despite both games being released on the same systems, it allows them to be fresh for both casual and core players alike.

Why not embrace the recency of game titles for each installment? As long as they work in favor of representing the characters well, as well as their playstyles, it would more likely decrease stagnancy overall.
 

Quillion

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,188
#25
While I agree on the stagnancy, I feel like your way of going about this where you are trying to find the most "universally applicable" moveset for these characters is, in a way, creating stagnancy, because you are only going about that path in order to never change those characters' movesets again, are you not?

I recently have been comparing MK11 from MKX and not only are there completely new characters, but the older characters have some very different movesets between these two most recent games despite their motifs being the same overall. So despite both games being released on the same systems, it allows them to be fresh for both casual and core players alike.

Why not embrace the recency of game titles for each installment? As long as they work in favor of representing the characters well, as well as their playstyles, it would more likely decrease stagnancy overall.
I admit, that's not easy to argue against.

There are two options for a compromise here. One option is to only make changes that have been established in two or more games; that's enough to establish a new ability as somewhat iconic. The other option is to reserve constant moveset revamps for characters who constantly accumulate new abilities like Ganondorf, Mega Man, or any of the Pokémon.
 

LightKnight

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
Messages
85
#26
Personally, I love the ever-growing roster/content and it has the opposite effect on me where the core gameplay doesn't get stagnant because there is so much variety to choose from! Unique additions are constantly being added and introducing different mechanics! Besides, Smash Brothers has kinda always been the video game equivelant to a child's toy box where you can take the various characters and create your own scenarios. The bigger the toy box the more fun there is to be had! Regardless of whether the core gameplay itself changes or not (as its already really great in my opinion)...

That said, I know not everyone is this way and I totally agree with making the next Smash Brothers having quite a different take on the series as I don't think we'll be able to get Smash on the scale it is in Ultimate again. It opens things up to experiment more with the game and while sure there might be some major pushback I think for many like you this will be a breath of fresh air and those who truly like the Smash series as a whole will play and likely enjoy the game. It'll probably help that it would be a while after Ultimate before any Smash game has come out. Its very possible we could have another 'melee' situation but with Ultimate (its the best selling Smash even now and no doubt will be dearly remembered by many) and I wouldn't be surprised to see a dedicated modding community keeping the game alive with new additions of their own even after a new Smash is released.

Anyways, I know I'm getting off track but to sum up what I'm saying, I think having the next Smash with a completely fresh core-gameplay makes perfect sense and would be best for the franchise moving forward in the future while Smash Ultimate would represent the culmination of all its predecessors and always be a game that people could go back to if thats what they wanted.
 
Last edited:

Ice-N-Space

Smash Cadet
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
43
#27
I will never understand why Smash Ultimate designed to change moves or the speed of the game from Smash Wii U focusing only on competitive play made the game feel less creative when it comes to attacks or modes and now Ultimates online is full of repeated attacks.
 

Xelrog

Smash Ace
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
615
Location
Battle Ground, WA
Switch FC
SW 2367 4933 3404
#28
I will never understand why Smash Ultimate designed to change moves or the speed of the game from Smash Wii U focusing only on competitive play made the game feel less creative when it comes to attacks or modes and now Ultimates online is full of repeated attacks.
What do you think Smash 4 felt like? You don't think ideal moves/combos existed before Ultimate?
 

Quillion

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,188
#29
Personally, I love the ever-growing roster/content and it has the opposite effect on me where the core gameplay doesn't get stagnant because there is so much variety to choose from! Unique additions are constantly being added and introducing different mechanics! Besides, Smash Brothers has kinda always been the video game equivelant to a child's toy box where you can take the various characters and create your own scenarios. The bigger the toy box the more fun there is to be had! Regardless of whether the core gameplay itself changes or not (as its already really great in my opinion)...
I love it too, but you also gotta remember that the popular opinion towards the Pokémon series as it is now is that all it's adding is new Pokémon, some moves with new mechanics, and not much else. I think Smash isn't exactly on that magnitude since it has a strict "one per console" release schedule, but keeping on this track probably would lead to a similar conclusion.

That said, I know not everyone is this way and I totally agree with making the next Smash Brothers having quite a different take on the series as I don't think we'll be able to get Smash on the scale it is in Ultimate again. It opens things up to experiment more with the game and while sure there might be some major pushback I think for many like you this will be a breath of fresh air and those who truly like the Smash series as a whole will play and likely enjoy the game. It'll probably help that it would be a while after Ultimate before any Smash game has come out. Its very possible we could have another 'melee' situation but with Ultimate (its the best selling Smash even now and no doubt will be dearly remembered by many) and I wouldn't be surprised to see a dedicated modding community keeping the game alive with new additions of their own even after a new Smash is released.

Anyways, I know I'm getting off track but to sum up what I'm saying, I think having the next Smash with a completely fresh core-gameplay makes perfect sense and would be best for the franchise moving forward in the future while Smash Ultimate would represent the culmination of all its predecessors and always be a game that people could go back to if thats what they wanted.
I personally don't want a big upending to end the stagnation, but more some simple-yet-effective, universalized way of adding options. Either maybe give everyone a new type of move, like the EX move, itself an extension of Cloud's Limit Break system, but universalized. Or turn wavedashing into its own mechanic, where you don't have to airdodge into the ground, but instead just dash with adjustable length from the ground while making certain attacks like tilts or jabs able to be cancelled with it, like waveshining but turned into a real mechanic.
 
Last edited:

Oddball

Smash Ace
Joined
Oct 1, 2016
Messages
602
#30
It feels like so many people here are going "let's make Smash more complicated and harder to get into". I just can't help but feel that's the opposite direction Smash should be going. Smash was fun because it was EASY to get into not because of all those strange advanced tecnhiques and complicated moves other fighting games have.

Keep it simple.
 

LightKnight

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Mar 21, 2019
Messages
85
#31
It feels like so many people here are going "let's make Smash more complicated and harder to get into". I just can't help but feel that's the opposite direction Smash should be going. Smash was fun because it was EASY to get into not because of all those strange advanced tecnhiques and complicated moves other fighting games have.

Keep it simple.
I definitely relate to this. Its perhaps the reason I don't end up liking most fighting games I try and I end up leaving confused cause I thought the fighting genre would be one that I'd enjoy as a whole.
Because of the Smash franchise's simplicity yet diversity it has gone down as one of my top favorite gaming franchises.
I wonder if these health-bar fighting games could be revolutionized in such a way to get this same result.. Or if it just has more to do with Smash being a Platform Fighter..
 

Double0Groove

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
320
#32
I personally think you're looking at this the wrong way. After all, the series has always made drastic changes. It's just that they've never been competitively viable. Either that or the competitive community simply refuses to use them in order to shake things up. For example, we have Spirits. Spirits are relatively easy to obtain, several spirits have the same abilities, and we can use them in regular matches. If you, or the rest of the community really wanted to shake things up, you could look into ways to incorporate certain spirits to drastically change the meta. You'd be looking at an entirely different game all together, which could potentially make a huge difference from this mindset but for one reason or another the community won't accept it. It strays from the norm, it's too much work, there's no guarantee that all of the Spirits could be obtained, take your pick but keep in mind that the options ARE there.
 

Quillion

Smash Master
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
3,188
#33
It feels like so many people here are going "let's make Smash more complicated and harder to get into". I just can't help but feel that's the opposite direction Smash should be going. Smash was fun because it was EASY to get into not because of all those strange advanced tecnhiques and complicated moves other fighting games have.

Keep it simple.
I'd argue that they're already making things more "complicated and harder to get into", but on the scale of individual characters. Honestly, a lot of the newer characters like Villager, Mega Man, Ryu, Bayonetta, Inkling, Cloud, and Joker turn me off to coming back to them because they're so gimmicky.

Even then, I'd still argue that there are simple-yet-effective ways of adding to Smash's mechanics. Again, universalizing certain ideas already in the game would make it less of a stretch.

I personally think you're looking at this the wrong way. After all, the series has always made drastic changes. It's just that they've never been competitively viable. Either that or the competitive community simply refuses to use them in order to shake things up. For example, we have Spirits. Spirits are relatively easy to obtain, several spirits have the same abilities, and we can use them in regular matches. If you, or the rest of the community really wanted to shake things up, you could look into ways to incorporate certain spirits to drastically change the meta. You'd be looking at an entirely different game all together, which could potentially make a huge difference from this mindset but for one reason or another the community won't accept it. It strays from the norm, it's too much work, there's no guarantee that all of the Spirits could be obtained, take your pick but keep in mind that the options ARE there.
Yeah, I don't really see things like air dodge tweaking or ledge trumping as "drastic". I also think Spirits will just be another one-time gimmick like customs, and neither were early meant for competitive.

I'm using this phrase a lot, but I want simple-yet-effective additions to gameplay. Not something that's simple-yet-very-niche like footstooling, but more like Smash's version of the FADC, which arguably already was in Melee as waveshining. It's a simple concept, easy to learn (just cancel moves with dash), but opens a lot of opportunities at the high level.
 

Mushroomguy12

Smash Apprentice
Joined
Nov 23, 2018
Messages
151
#36
I don't see nothing wrong with what we got now
Remember, if Nintendo never changed from that attitude, we would never get Majora's Mask or Mario Odyssey.
Well he said he doesn't see nothing wrong with what we got now, so he probably agrees with you.
Or he used a double negative wrongly.
 
Last edited:

Double0Groove

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Apr 6, 2015
Messages
320
#37
Yeah, I don't really see things like air dodge tweaking or ledge trumping as "drastic". I also think Spirits will just be another one-time gimmick like customs, and neither were early meant for competitive.

I'm using this phrase a lot, but I want simple-yet-effective additions to gameplay. Not something that's simple-yet-very-niche like footstooling, but more like Smash's version of the FADC, which arguably already was in Melee as waveshining. It's a simple concept, easy to learn (just cancel moves with dash), but opens a lot of opportunities at the high level.
I wasn't calling things like air dodge tweaking and ledge trumping drastic though. I was specifically talking about things like customs or Spirits.

The argument has always been that customs or spirits were never really tailored for competitive play and I find that to be a very irrelevant point. Afterall, the smash series was never made to be a competitive game. It was our community that made it competitive and Spirits are same way. If you're expecting something drastic akin to an official version of wave-dashing, then Spirits are your best bet. They literally fit your criteria.
 

Sean²

Smash Capitalist
Joined
Mar 28, 2008
Messages
1,525
Switch FC
SW-7479-8539-5283
#38
I will never understand why Smash Ultimate designed to change moves or the speed of the game from Smash Wii U focusing only on competitive play made the game feel less creative when it comes to attacks or modes and now Ultimates online is full of repeated attacks.
Every Smash game has characters with pokes that allow you to deal safe damage/pressure and start bigger combos. Usually something fast with low endlag. It just so happens that the best moves usually turn out to be something like a fast aerial with ideal knockback or a tilt of some kind.
 

Ice-N-Space

Smash Cadet
Joined
Nov 2, 2018
Messages
43
#39
Ultimate just feels dry there's nothing to shake up a match like tripping, attacks having lag to them for personality or flair or any fun wacky modes you can't even use custom stage in custom smash let alone zoom in. Competitive play makes everything so "efficient" all actions need to be faster attacks, running, taking damage, falling, taunts, and victory themes sucking the fun out of the game.
 

Xelrog

Smash Ace
Joined
Feb 24, 2019
Messages
615
Location
Battle Ground, WA
Switch FC
SW 2367 4933 3404
#40
Ultimate just feels dry there's nothing to shake up a match like tripping, attacks having lag to them for personality or flair or any fun wacky modes you can't even use custom stage in custom smash let alone zoom in. Competitive play makes everything so "efficient" all actions need to be faster attacks, running, taking damage, falling, taunts, and victory themes sucking the fun out of the game.
It sounds like your problem is with competitive play, not with the game mechanics themselves.
 
Top