Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
I don't think Ike or Palutena will go.
On my way to get a piano because GTA in Smash would be really funny
Bumping this because I don't really feel like talking about cuts again.
I'll admit, I only took franchises that already have characters into account and because of that, I genuinely forgot Isaac. Whoops.
I'm assuming you're referring to the degree of violence and mature themes in these games. It's tough to make this argument when we've seen titles like Bayonetta and Persona adapted for Smash with relatively little issue. You either avoid aspects of original titles that are inappropriate or, if that cannot be done, censor the elements in Smash (like Bayonetta's sexuality).
I think the biggest issue is the reliance on realistic fire arms.
i would say because people are always trying to disguise their biases as logicIn the history of the franchise, we've only ever had two franchises cut.
One was Ice Climber. We know that the Ice Climbers were supposed to appear in Smash 4 but couldn't due to technical difficulties. They weren't supposed to be cut.
The other was Metal Gear. We don't know why it was cut, but third party legal troubles are likely the reason. We have no reason to believe Snake was intended to be included in Smash 4.
An easy conclusion to take from this is that Sakurai doesn't intend to cut first party franchises. Once they're in, they're in. The far majority of first party IPs included in Smash don't have characters. So the franchises with characters can be seen as essential, either from obvious marketing merits or historical significance. They're special in some way.
So I have to ask, why do people think we're going to lose first party franchises like the retros, Punch Out!!, Wii Fit or ARMS? Sure these franchises aren't as notable as they once were and they aren't a part of Smash's identity like Earthbound or F-Zero. But we don't have precedence that entire first party franchises will be cut out.
We do have precedence for third party franchises being cut. And we do have precedence for supporting cast members of already represented franchises being cut.
But why do people consistently suggest cutting these guys?
8 hours? what were you doing? and calling it a QOL update just cause you don't like sounds really selfish
Then who exactly are those substantial cuts, exactly? Because every substantial cut possibility people bring here, other people keep repeating this.
Probably any third parties that they can't secure in time for the game's release or any characters they otherwise consider low-priority.
I would also imagine some Fire Emblem stuff might get the cut since Sakurai has expressed concerns about there being too many FE reps since Corrin.
Who exactly is considered low priority outside of Piranha Plant and the melee clones? Because even when i mention characters like Incineroar, Corrin or Bowser Jr might not be as high priority they think, people are SURE those characters are high priority, yet in the same comment are telling me Terry could be getting cut, the easiest 3rd party necomer to get back....
We're not getting a CoD or GTA rep, the themes of those games are diferent to Bayonetta and MGS, they just simply do not fit Smash Bros. thematically, i have no idea why people think Nintendo will allow those games get represented.
At least Fortnite fits Smash Bros, so there's that.
I don't even think it has to be "they can't secure in time".
What do you mean by "secret fighters"? Do you just mean fighters that need to be unlocked? Cause nobody in Ultimate was secret. They were all announced before launch.
Ah yes. The "notoriously stingy" company that has more characters in Smash than any other 3P company.
****ty at making their own games. But willing and eager to license them out.
NOW you're speaking my language!
Smash Bros has changed a LOT since 2012, specially in terms of letting thrid parties in.
Base yeah it's annoying but dlc isn't it just the SD card or you gotta have the game too? If it's a base character I don't use I don't stress it but I definitely point it out oh you don't have ___ but isnt it really easy to unlock most of the base roster? I forgot what base even came with lol been too long.
Changed "a lot" by a single game with a completely different design philosophy.
While I do think realistic firearms could be more of an issue (especially for Pryce, you could probably reduce the reliance on firearms in a GTA moveset and still have something workable), the prominence of everyone's favorite special move in Joker's moveset relative to the lack of guns in Snake's moveset shows that Sakurai is a lot more comfortable with this subject matter than he might let on.
Well, it's not always going to be the same people. Some here believe third parties will be some of the first to go, others believe there will be a strong effort made toward keeping most of them around. Some are more free with cutting first party series, others are conservative with Nintendo characters and want to keep as many in-house series around as possible. You're casting this umbrella over the community when in reality you're simply not going to find a neat and tidy community agreement over who is worth keeping around. Especially not now when the series future is such a mystery.
So your perspective is, very generously, assuming every third party character will come back. Even the most staunch supporters of conserving third party participation on the next roster acknowledge at least a couple of them are in danger of being taken away. Most people telling you the cuts won't play out this way are probably of the mindset we're going to lose a not insignificant number of third party characters, likely starting somewhere within Square Enix.
Wait... the risk reward scenario for Smash 6 being DLC Pack 3 vs A possibly inferior "new" game is ... There's always a catch with Nintendo how do they make the bigger bag if they f up with a crappy game nah smash 6 has to "out do" ultimate without out-doing Ultimate it's a lose lose x.x oh wait that's the fandoms fault phewHere's an interesting breakdown regarding which software has the highest Monthly Active Users across the various consoles + PCs:
Here're my big take-aways:
1. Fortnite, Call of Duty, and GTA V continue to be incredibly popular.
2. Ultimate is still a very relevant game, despite being 5 years old.
3. Age is just a number in the modern gaming industry. A lot of players will stick with old, highly established software over newer titles.
In terms of Smash, I think this also has two big implications:
1. We shouldn't take people moving to a new Smash from Ultimate for granted just because it's a newer game. There's a solid chance that a lot of people will stick with Ultimate if they think the next Smash is inferior. This is especially possible given all of the rumours regarding backwards compatibility with Nintendo's next piece of hardware.
2. If a third party is selected as a "WTF THEY GOT THEM IN THE GAME" pick like Sonic, Cloud, and Steve, Jonesy, Captain Pryce, and Michael/Franklin/Trevor may be worth serious consideration.
I feel like there's no reason for characters to be locked in multiplayer.
Nuh-Uh
Yuh-uhNuh-Uh
Seems I've been bested...
I think what he's trying to say is: If Smash 6 is really a new game, then characters will have to be rebuilt/converted to the new system.
He thinks there will only be 7-8 cuts so it's clearly not his argument here.
I think people's reasoning is probably just "these characters are boring to me". I mean, Little Mac, Min Min and ROB? Dead giveaways really.But why do people consistently suggest cutting these guys?
For Ultimate the base roster was the original 8, although it really doesn't take long to unlock characters in it. Most people's complaints were more that it was annoying to get specific characters quickly because of the unlocking order. That said, I remember seeing almost the entire roster unlocked when I got to play because first thing my brother did when the game came out was just grind handicap 1 stock matches lol. And that couldn't have been much longer than 2 hours.
I'm not convinced that'd be necessary. Reducing Min Min's CQC options and range would go a long way. I don't think Min Min has an inherently unworkable design. I think she just needs a lot of tweaking.
I used to be a huge advocate for this, but a bunch of people I shared the idea with pointed out that pretty much defeats the purpose and ngl they have a point, a "unlock everyone" button is kinda like having a toy but telling yourself you won't play with it until a week from now or something.
that toei animation isn’t?
